FINDING THE BENEFICIARY

Some few questions to ask:

 Who is responsible for finding the beneficiaries?
 What process was followed for demand creation?
 What were some challenges posed by the process?
 Did the process used for demand creation achieve a good outcome?
 How can we improve upon the process of demand creation?

On the HHT project, the Assemblies and the sub-project implementers were responsible for
demand creation as specified on the terms of reference (TOR). The process of demand
creation includes the sharing of flyers, door to door sensitization, stakeholder meetings,
public announcement system, radio, and sometimes through punitive measures where
households who do not have toilet units in their homes are sent to court and forcibly made
to build the toilet facilities. As part of the verification work, one challenge that came with
this process was:
 Issue of lacking understanding on some aspect of the processes as some SPIs did not
comprehend that they were also responsible to create demands for the facilities.

The process used for the demand creation was very effective to an extent based on the
demands for the facilities, and even during the independent verification process, more
households were still demanding that the projects should continue because it had impacted
their lives positively. The whole process can still be improved upon so that the challenge
above could be dealt with. To improve the process of demand creation, the MMA household
toilet team should be solely responsible for finding beneficiaries to register for the facilities.
And there will not be conflicts where a certain SPI get beneficiaries and the assembly will
assign them to a different contractor.

 There should be close monitoring and close supervision of the work of the
assemblies and the SPIs by an independent person appointed by the P.C.U to ensure
the two parties’ function within their respective roles.

 Education: There must be thorough education on the various roles of the

stakeholders to prevent confusion and delays.

REGISTERING THE BENEFICIARY

Some questions that will lead us to critically review this phase are:

 What processes do beneficiaries go through to register for a toilet facility?

 Who registers the beneficiaries?
 How are beneficiaries’ registration data collected?
 How are the beneficiary records saved or stored?
 What are the means of payment for a toilet facility?
 Who takes the monies during registration?
 Where are the monies kept after registration?
  Were there beneficiaries who got the toilet facilities without making any payments?
 How is the preliminary assessment for a household done?
 Who does the preliminary assessment?
 Were there situations where beneficiaries pay monies before the preliminary
assessments are conducted?
 What happens when a beneficiary has already made payments but fails to meet the
conditions of the preliminary assessments?
 What information are requested from the beneficiary during the preliminary
assessments?
 What are the conditions for passing the household preliminary assessments?
 Under what conditions or situation can a household be denied a toilet facility during
the preliminary assessment?
 Are there situations where households get toilet facilities even though they did not
meet the conditions of the preliminary assessments?
 In that case, what went wrong under the preliminary assessments?
 How are refunds made to the beneficiary?
 How does the MMA exchange the beneficiary details with the SPI after registration?
 How can the preliminary assessment and the whole registration process be improved
for future projects?

The questions above can help as answer some core challenges that were encountered
during the independent verification processes. Similarly, these questions can also help us to
measure the successes of the whole institutional processes of the HHT project. On this
phase, some shortcomings were realized on the field verification:

 Some SPIs took beneficiaries contributions in households and made payments for
them at their assemblies.
 Most assemblies did not have proper means of storing beneficiary data and as such,
it was difficult for most assemblies to give an up-to-date records of beneficiary
payments.
 It was also found out during the independent verification process that some
beneficiaries did not pay a dime for the facilities because it was donated to them on
political grounds.
 Some beneficiaries made payments before the preliminary assessments was done,
and in cases where they fail to meet the conditions of the assessment, refunds are
made. This goes against the due process.
 Failure to do proper preliminary assessments which led to toilet facilities been built
on clayey lands and waterlogged areas and even in the worst-case scenarios, some
toilet facilities were connected to poor drainage systems posing health and
environmental risks.
 There was a failure to reconcile some beneficiaries list given by the assembly to the
records of some SPIs.
 There were issues where some staffs in certain assemblies and certain SPIs used
their names to register on behalf of beneficiaries on the Kobo platform.

According to the terms of reference (TOR), beneficiaries register with their respective MMAs
by first undertaking a preliminary assessment at the beneficiaries’ households. This is where
a field engineer checks the field site where the facility will be built. Some of the checks
include:
 Whether the siting or location of the facility does not pose an environmental or
health risks
 Whether the land will be good to absorb the effluent from the soak pit. If the land is
a clayey or waterlogged, that might disqualify a household from getting a toilet
facility.
 If a community or a household needs a toilet facility but does not meet the two
conditions above, then a possible solution is to connect the toilet to a major
drainage that flows and will not pose a health and environmental risks.

After the preliminary assessments are completed, the beneficiary who fulfilled the
conditions makes payment to the assembly via mobile money. The assembly then forwards
his details to the assigned SPI.

Recommendations
Provision of Technology for data collection, storage, management and protection
 All the major stakeholders including the assemblies must leverage on and adopt
modernized way of storing information and data of beneficiaries using Cloud
storage, google forms database with authentication. The assemblies should be
furnished with good technology and systems for taking beneficiary details and
payment records. When these resources are made available to the assemblies by the
P.C.U, there should be systems of maintenance and checks to ensure the technology
are in good use and repaired when they develop faults. The use of google forms,
surveys could be utilized to collect beneficiaries’ details during registration.

Introduction of performance-based rating system in the assemblies

 There should be a performance-based rating system where assemblies who do not
follow the required processes will not receive certain recognitions or appraisals on
the GAMA project. Some of these failures by not following the right processes
include; taking monies from beneficiaries before conducting the preliminary
assessments, building the toilet facilities on a clay land or waterlogged areas where
there is no proper drainage system.

Registration, Data collection and security

 Beneficiary details should be verified again by an independent person to eliminate
issues of duplication, wrong beneficiary details, incomplete data capture. etc.

 The registration method should be simple and fast and tailored for all beneficiaries
whether literate or illiterate. There should be a data collection personnel who will
assist with the registration processes.

 All data collected should be stored on a central source or platform: the data is stored
and secured by passwords and authentications.
  The timing for the beneficiary registrations should be on a rolling basis throughout
the year.

Beneficiary Payments
 The central data platform should integrate the interpay system. Payments should be
made either at the assigned SPI’s office or at the assembly to cater for proximity.
After payment, a special reference codes are generated for beneficiaries which can
be monitored and recorded at the central data point.
 There should be penalties on refunds if it is done willfully to waste and delay
processes. Full refunds should be considered when the problem involved is failure of
preliminary assessments.
 Payments details should specify whether one is making payments on behalf of a
household besides the other details like name, contact number, location, type of
facility to be built, photo, copy of I.D.

Existing Data and payment system

 Kobo can still be adopted as the central data platform and used to preserve past
data on the HHT project.
 Interpay has been a useful payment system in IDA-AF and should be utilized going
forward.

Data management
 All data on beneficiaries and payments should be stored, encrypted and backed up
on Dropbox or Google cloud with passwords.
 All data should be monitored from a central point or Admin.
 Creation of secured emails for the project exclusively for data sharing by the
stakeholders.

BENEFICIARY ALLOCATION TO SPIs

 Who is responsible for allocating beneficiaries to SPIs?
 What criteria is used to allocate beneficiaries to SPIs?
 What are some challenges in the allocation of beneficiaries to the SPIs?
 How does allocation of beneficiaries affect the entire process?
 On what basis, do we classify an SPI as small or large?
 How can the whole institutional process of allocating beneficiaries be improved to
ensure a fair process?

Potential Challenges
 Overallocation of beneficiaries to SPIs.
 Issues of conflict of interests, favoritism in allocation.
 Issue of SPIs’ capability or capacity in meeting demands of toilet facilities.
 Issues of crisscrossing between SPIs.

Recommendations
  There should be a transparent and a proactive policy that clearly defines a conflict of
interest and how the stakeholders especially the SPIs can disclose potential conflicts.
 P.C.U must provide guidance and training on perceived conflicts of interests.
 For a fair allocation, SPIs must be assessed based on their capacity to see how many
facilities can be built and prefinanced.

Method
 Allocation can be automated where the central data source can randomly assign SPIs
based on proximity and demands for the toilet facilities. This will ensure objectivity
and fair allocation. Secondly, the automation will determine whether a small or large
SPI should be assigned based on demands and location.

Timing
 The timing of allocation should be instantaneous, where SPIs will have the data to
prepare for construction.

CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Questions:
 Which SPI is responsible for constructing a facility within a particular area?
 What processes do the SPIs follow during the construction phase?
 How do SPIs prefinance facilities?
 Who assesses whether an SPI can prefinance a project?
 What are some challenges or problems that present itself during this phase?
 How can the whole processes be improved to ensure beneficiaries’ satisfaction and
faster work completion?

Challenges
 Issues of delays in the construction of the facilities.
 Uncompleted facilities.
 Wrong beneficiary details and inaccurate GPS address uploaded after construction.
 Technical and structural issues during and after construction.

Recommendations
 More SPIs should be onboarded to accommodate the growing demands of facilities.
 SPIs should be monitored regularly and made to send progress report-detailing
challenges and resolutions.
 Field engineer should verify details of beneficiaries twice including GPS address:
during preliminary assessments phase and during the certifying of SPIs work.
 Beneficiaries’ satisfaction and rating system in the form of surveys should be
introduced.
 Technical and structural support system should be made readily available for
beneficiaries after construction.