Download A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign

Volume 1: Main Report
A Decade of the
Total Sanitation
Campaign
Rapid Assessment of
Processes and Outcomes
Water and Sanitation Program
The World Bank
55 Lodi Estate,
New Delhi 110 003, India
Phone: (91-11) 24690488, 24690489
Fax: (91-11) 24628250
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: www.wsp.org
Ministry of Rural Development
Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation
9th Floor, Paryavaran Bhawan
CGO Complex, Lodi Road,
New Delhi 110 003, India
Phone: (91-11) 24362705
Fax: (91-11) 24361062
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: www.ddws.nic.in/
National Workshop
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Lessons Learnt and Way Forward
A National Workshop on ‘A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Lessons Learnt and Way Forward’
was organised in New Delhi on 22 and 23 April 2010 by the Department of Drinking Water Supply
(DDWS) in partnership with WSP. The objective of the workshop was to review the status of the TSC,
identify the lessons learnt in the implementation of the campaign, and plan for the way forward to
realise the goal of making the rural areas Nirmal a reality by 2012.
The workshop was inaugurated by the Hon’ble Minister of State for Rural Development, Ms. Agatha
Sangma. From the national level, the Union Secretary Mrs. Rajwant Sandhu, Joint Secretary Mr. J.S.
Mathur, Joint Secretary Mr. T.M. Vijay Bhaskar and Director Mr. Vijay Mittal, of the DDWS participated.
In addition, representatives from 21 states and three sector partners (UNICEF, WaterAid and Arghyam)
joined the event to share their insights and map the way forward. The total number of participants
was around 85.
Disclaimer
Raw data for graphs and figures in this report have been taken from the Total Sanitation Campaign
online monitoring system in early 2010, but during different months (www.ddws.nic.in and
www.nirmalgrampuraskar.nic.in). Therefore,there may be some differences in graphs on related
indicators due to the time lag between different points when information was accessed and subsequent
updates to TSC/NGP websites.
The workshop provided an opportunity to discuss the emerging trends in TSC implementation over
the last decade. On the first day, a presentation was made to highlight the performance on different
components of the TSC and the fact that we have to assess our progress towards the Millennium
Development Goal or Nirmal Bharat not just in terms of physical coverage but usage of the sanitation
facilities created. There was also an opportunity to discuss the findings of two rapid assessments
undertaken by WSP. The first was on the patterns of usage and quality of toilets in Nirmal Gram
Puraskar winning Panchayats which put the focus on how we can address sustainability of progress
under TSC. The second assessment shared the findings of the impact of access to sanitation and
hygiene on health and focused on the fact that it was not singular interventions but an integrated
package of sanitation and hygiene that is most effective in reaching health outcomes.
On the second day, the focus was on the results of a national level assessment of the TSC undertaken
by WSP to understand the processes that underpin scaling up and sustainability of TSC. Based on
findings from 22 districts across 21 states, the study underscored that districts/states that follow the TSC
guidelines in the right spirit and implement the processes in the right way tend to reach the TSC goal
faster. It was also agreed that enhancing subsidy was not a solution for increasing coverage and usage
among the households. The workshop ended with concluding remarks from the Secretary, DDWS.
Volume 1: Main Report
A Decade of the
Total Sanitation
Campaign
Rapid Assessment of
Processes and Outcomes
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
Acknowledgements
The study feeding into this report, the analysis and report writing was undertaken in the first quarter
of 2010 by a team from the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP), which included Ajith Kumar, Upneet
Singh, Suseel Samuel, Mariappa Kullappa, Rajiv Raman, Manu Prakash, Kakumanu Arokiam, Aravinda
Satyavada and Prapti Mittal. Their contribution to the development of this report is acknowledged.
Acknowledgement is also due to the participants of the various workshops, where this study was
presented, and whose feedback and questions enabled the contents of the report to be enriched.
Thanks are also due to Christopher Juan Costain, Regional Team Leader (WSP) for support and
feedback, Vandana Mehra for support in production and dissemination of this study, and Lira Suri for
coordinating logistics backup support during the study period.
The Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation (DDWS), Government of India, is also acknowledged
for the data which formed a major source for this report, as also the Joint Secretary and Director for
the comments and Foreword for this report.
While all efforts have been made to ensure that the data presented are correct, any inadvertent errors
remain the responsibility of the author team.
2
Foreword
The Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) is a flagship programme of the Government of India, and has
achieved significant success over the last one decade. The coverage has increased significantly from
21 percent in 2001 (Census, 2001) to more than 65 percent, according to the TSC online monitoring
system. The number of Gram Panchayats which have won the Nirmal Gram Puraskar for achieving
total sanitation has also increased to more than 22,000. The TSC can be considered one of the
most effective programmes in rural sanitation across the world for its focus on a community-led,
demand-driven approach in reaching total sanitation to villages across the country, resulting in rural
populations living in a clean, healthy environment.
A decade after the implementation of the campaign is an opportune time for the country to assess
and ascertain its status, the successes achieved, and the challenges faced, so that the remaining task
of ensuring that the entire country becomes Nirmal can be adequately addressed. Despite overall
progress, there still remain challenging states and districts where the programme is yet to show
satisfactory results.
This analysis of the TSC online monitoring data and the assessment of processes adopted by districts
correlated with outcomes achieved by these districts will go a long way in understanding the successes
and challenges of the programme. The benchmarking of the districts and states, based on the TSC
monitoring indicators, helps understand the relative position of states and districts, which enables
more focused attention on the lagging areas as well as more encouragement to the leaders.
J. S. Mathur
Joint Secretary to the Government of India
Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation
Ministry of Rural Development
New Delhi
3
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
4
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / 11
1. INTRODUCTION / 13
1.1 Context / 13
1.2 Purpose / 13
1.3 Methodology / 14
1.4 Organisation of this Report / 21
2. TOWARDS NIRMAL BHARAT: THE TOTAL SANITATION CAMPAIGN / 23
2.1 Background / 23
2.2 Evolution of the Policy Framework for Rural Sanitation / 23
2.3 A Decade of TSC: Shifts in Programme Guidelines / 24
2.4 TSC Delivery Structure / 25
2.5 TSC Progress at National and State Levels / 26
3.
A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status / 33
3.1Introduction / 33
3.2Context: The Scale of the Sanitation Challenge / 33
3.3Inputs / 34
3.4Outputs / 40
3.5Process / 45
3.6Outcomes / 49
3.7Goal / 51
4. TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level:
Findings of the rapid assessment / 52
4.1Correlation between District Performance on Benchmarking and
Rating Scale (Cumulative) / 53
4.2Component 1: Strategy for TSC Implementation / 54
4.3Component 2: Institutional Structure and Capacity / 57
4.4Component 3: Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up / 60
4.5Component 4: Technology Promotion and Supply Chain / 64
4.6 Component 5: Financing and Incentives / 67
4.7Component 6: Monitoring / 70
5.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 73
5.1Summary / 73
5.2Recommendations / 73
REFERENCES / 75
National Workshop on Rural Sanitation: List of Participants / 76
5
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Table 1.2: Table 1.3: Table 1.4: Table 1.5: Table 2.1: Table 3.1: Indicators Analysed to Track Progress under TSC / 15
Rural Sanitation Performance Monitoring and Benchmarking Model – Indicators
and Weighted Score / 17
Assigning States/Districts to Colour-coded Performance Bands / 17
List of Sample Districts Selected for Primary Assessment / 18
Rating Scale to Measure District Performance on TSC Processes and Outcomes / 20
Population-linked Incentives / 25
Indicators Analysed to Track Progress under TSC / 34
List of Figures
1. INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.1: Study Methodology / 14
2. TOWARDS NIRMAL BHARAT: THE TOTAL SANITATION CAMPAIGN
Figure 2.1: TSC Delivery Structure / 26
Figure 2.2: Rural Sanitation Coverage in India / 27
Figure 2.3: NGP Winners (2005-09) / 27
Figure 2.4: How are States Performing on the Total Sanitation Campaign? / 28
Figure 2.5: How much have States Spent out of TSC Funds? / 29
Figure 2.6: How many Individual Household Latrines have been Constructed against the
TSC Target? / 29
Figure 2.7: How many School Toilets have been Constructed against the TSC Target? / 30
Figure 2.8: What is the Success Rate of NGP Applications at State Level? / 30
Figure 2.9: What is the Average Population of a Gram Panchayat in Different States? / 31
Figure 2.10: How much is Spent to make a Gram Panchayat Nirmal? / 31
Figure 2.11: How many Panchayats have Won the NGP across Different States? / 32
Figure 2.12: What is the Percentage of Panchayats that have become NGP across
Different States? / 32
3. A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status
Figure 3.1: TSC Objectives, 1999 / 34
Figure 3.2: State-wise Percentage of BPL Households (as per TSC Baseline Survey) / 35
Figure 3.3: Financial Allocation and Expenditure for TSC (INR, Crore) / 35
Figure 3.4: Average Project Allocation per District (INR, Crore) / 36
Figure 3.5: Average Hardware Allocation and Expenditure per District, by State (INR, Crore) / 36
Figure 3.6: Average Software Allocation and Expenditure per District, by State (INR, Crore) / 37
Figure 3.7: Average Software Allocation and Expenditure per Household (INR) / 37
6
Contents
Figure 3.8: Average Hardware Expenditure Incurred on BPL Households (INR) / 38
Figure 3.9: Average Hardware Expenditure Incurred per School Toilet (INR) / 38
Figure 3.10: Average Expenditure Incurred per Pre-school Toilet (INR) / 39
Figure 3.11: Average District Expenditure Incurred per RSM/PC (INR) / 39
Figure 3.12: Average District Expenditure Incurred on SLWM (INR) / 40
Figure 3.13: Progress of Toilets in Households and Institutions (Cumulative) / 40
Figure 3.14: Household Toilet Construction Pace - Current and Required / 41
Figure 3.15: Total Household Toilet Coverage under TSC, by State / 41
Figure 3.16: APL Household Toilet Coverage under TSC / 42
Figure 3.17: BPL Household Toilets Constructed under TSC / 42
Figure 3.18: School Toilet Coverage under TSC / 43
Figure 3.19: Comparative Status of Household Sanitation and School Sanitation under TSC / 43
Figure 3.20: Pre-school Toilet Coverage under TSC / 44
Figure 3.21: RSM/PC Progress against Target / 44
Figure 3.22: Number of Villages in which SWLM Work Taken Up / 45
Figure 3.23: Performance of the Country and States on Acceleration Scale (0-10) in
Scaling Up Household Coverage / 46
Figure 3.24: Comparative Status of APL and BPL Household Toilet Achievement / 46
Figure 3.25: Ratio of APL and BPL Household Toilet Achievement / 47
Figure 3.26: Sanitation Coverage (Household) in BRGF Districts and Non-BRGF Districts / 47
Figure 3.27: NGP Coverage in BRGF Districts and Non-BRGF Districts / 48
Figure 3.28: Sanitation Coverage (Household) in DPAP Districts and Non-DPAP Districts / 48
Figure 3.29: NGP Coverage in DPAP Districts and Non-DPAP Districts / 48
Figure 3.30: Application versus Award: NGP Success Rate of States / 49
Figure 3.31: NGP GPs, by State / 49
Figure 3.32: NGP State-wise Status (%) / 50
Figure 3.33: NGP GPs as Percentage of Total Number of Gram Panchayats / 50
Figure 3.34: Country and States Achieving Universal Sanitation (Household)
Coverage (Year Wise) / 51
4. TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the rapid assessment
Figure 4.1: Components of Rating Scale and Benchmarking / 52
Figure 4.2: Study Districts Average Performance on Strategy for
TSC Implementation (n=22) / 55
Figure 4.3: Study Districts Average Performance on Institutional Structure and
Capacity (n=22) / 58
Figure 4.4: Study Districts’ Average Performance on Programme Approach to Creating
Demand and Scaling Up (n=22) / 61
Figure 4.5: Study Districts’ Average Performance on Technology Promotion and
Supply Chain (n=22) / 65
Figure 4.6: Efforts to Promote Multiple Technology Options in Sample Districts (n=22) / 66
Figure 4.7: Study Districts’ Average Performance on Financing and Incentives (n=22) / 68
Figure 4.8: Study Districts’ Average Performance on Monitoring (n=22) / 71
Figure 4.9: Finding on Existence of Monitoring for Toilet Usage in Sample Districts (n=22) / 72
7
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
List of Boxes
Box 1: Box 2: Box 3: Box 4: Box 5: Box 6: Box 7: Box 8: Box 9: Box 10: Model to Monitor and Benchmark Rural Sanitation Performance of
States/Districts / 17
Nirmal Gram Puraskar / 25
Strategy for Achieving Nirmal Status at District Level: Experience of East Sikkim / 56
Creating a Dedicated Unit for TSC Implementation: Example from Kolhapur / 59
Inter-departmental Coordination: A Pressing Need / 60
Scaling Up in Phases: Experience of Shimoga District / 62
Community Mobilisation for Behaviour Change to End Open Defecation:
A Case Study of Sirsa District / 63
An Effective Rural Sanitary Mart Operation: The Bardhaman Experience / 67
Community-led Monitoring in Sirsa District / 71
Monitoring and Incentivising Sustainability of NGP Status: Swachch Puraskar / 72
Numbers
1 lakh 1 million 1 crore 1 billion
100,000
1,000,000
10,000,000
1,000,000,000
Currency
US$ 1 = INR 45.95 (April 2010 exchange rate)
8
Abbreviations
APL AWC
BDO
BP BPL
BRGF
CEO
CLTS
CRSP
DDWS
DEE
DLM DPAP
DWSC
DWSM
GDP
GP
HDI
HH
ICDS IEC
IHHL
IPC MDG
MIS
M&E
MPR
Above Poverty Line
Anganwadi Centre
Block Development Officer
Block Panchayat
Below Poverty Line
Backward Regions Grant Fund
Chief Executive Officer
Community Led Total Sanitation
Central Rural Sanitation Programme
Department of Drinking Water Supply
Department of Elementary Education
District Level Monitoring
Drought Prone Areas Programme
District Water and Sanitation Committee
District Water and Sanitation Mission
Gross Domestic Product
Gram Panchayat (village local self
government)
Human Development Index
Household
Integrated Child Development Scheme
Information, Education and
Communication
individual household latrine
Interpersonal Communication
Millennium Development Goal
Management Information System
Monitoring and Evaluation
Monthly Progress Report
NFHS NGP
National Family Health Survey
Nirmal Gram Puraskar
(Clean Village Prize)
NGO
non-government organisation
NRHM National Rural Health Mission
NSS
National Sample Survey
ODF
open defecation free
O&M
Operation and Maintenance
PC
Production Centre
PRA
Participatory Rural Appraisal
PRI
Panchayati Raj Institution
(Local Government system)
RGDWM Rajiv Gandhi Drinking Water Mission
RSM
Rural Sanitary Mart
SHG Self Help Group
SLWM Solid and Liquid Waste Management
SSA
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
(Universal Education Campaign)
SSHE
School Sanitation and Hygiene
Education
SWSM State Water and Sanitation Mission
TSC
Total Sanitation Campaign
UNICEF United Nations International
Children’s Education Fund
UT
Union Territory
WHO
World Health Organization
WSP
Water and Sanitation Program
ZP
Zila Panchayat/Parishad
(district local government)
9
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
Glossary
(Above/Below) Poverty Line: To measure poverty, it is usual to look at the level of personal
expenditure or income required to satisfy a minimum consumption level. The Planning Commission
of the Government of India uses a food adequacy norm of 2,400 to 2,100 kilo calories per capita
per day to define state-specific poverty lines separately for rural and urban areas. These poverty lines
are then applied on India’s National Sample Survey Organisation’s household consumer expenditure
distributions to estimate the proportion and number of poor at the state level.
Anganwadi: Pre-school or crèche, an initiative promoted under the Integrated Child Development
Scheme (ICDS) of the Government of India.
Nirmal Gram Puraskar (Clean Village Prize): NGP is an incentive programme introduced by the
Government of India that gives a cash prize to any local government that achieves community-wide
total sanitation. More than a fiscal incentive, the award carries tremendous prestige as it is given by
the Hon’ble President of India to block- and district-level winners and by high ranking state dignitaries
to village-level winners.
Panchayati Raj Institutions: The term ‘Panchayat’ literally means ‘council of five (wise and respected
leaders’) and ‘Raj’ means governance. Traditionally, these councils settled disputes between individuals
and villages. Modern Indian government has adopted this traditional term as a name for its initiative
to decentralise certain administrative functions to elected local bodies at village, block and district
levels. It is called Gram Panchayat at the village level, Panchayat Samiti at the block level and Zila
Parishad at the district level.
Information, Education, Communication: IEC is the term used to describe software activities
that support and promote the provision of programme services and facilities, for example, media
campaigns, capacity-building activities, community hygiene promotion sessions, and so on.
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): The MDGs are eight goals to be achieved by 2015 that
respond to the world’s main development challenges. These include:
Goal 1:
Goal 2:
Goal 3:
Goal 4:
Goal 5:
Goal 6:
Goal 7:
Goal 8:
Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
Achieve universal primary education
Promote gender equality and empower women
Reduce child mortality
Improve maternal health
Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
Ensure environmental sustainability
Develop a global partnership for development
Total Sanitation: A community-wide approach based on participatory principles which seeks to achieve
not only 100 percent open defecation free (ODF) communities but also broader environmental sanitation
objectives such as promotion of improved hygiene behaviours and solid/liquid waste management.
10
Executive Summary
The Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) of the Government of India has been in operation for over a
decade (1999 to date), and the Nirmal Gram Puraskar, a fiscal incentive programme that rewards
local governments (Green Panchayats) that achieve total sanitation, has completed five years
(2005 to date). The country has made significant progress in terms of coverage and outcomes.
However, these achievements have been concentrated in a few states while others continue to lag
significantly behind.
This report analyses primary and secondary data on the TSC to arrive at an understanding of the
processes, outputs and outcomes at a national level and across the states; this is compared with the
inputs which have gone into the programme. These indicators are then compared individually and
in combination to benchmark the states, to understand the relative performance of the states. This
benchmarking, based on a combination of eight indicators, is undertaken for both states and districts
across the country.
The analysis is also useful in tracking the efficiency of the states in terms of time taken to achieve
total sanitation (rate of acceleration of the programme) and the financial expenditure on achieving
outcomes. It, then, extrapolates, based on current achievements, to understand when the various
states would achieve the ultimate objective of full coverage.
Recognising that the success of a sanitation campaign is dependent on how sustainable the outcomes
are, and that its sustainability depends on the quality of the processes adopted in mobilising
communities, the study also undertakes a primary analysis of 22 sample districts (across 21 states) to
understand the correlation between processes and outcomes. It identifies six qualitative indicators of
the process of implementation at the district level, converts these into quantitative scores, and scores
each of these districts on a process rating scale.
Comparing the process with the benchmarking outcomes clearly shows that there is a strong and
positive correlation between the processes and the outcomes – wherever the combination of process
indicators has been good, so are the outcomes. This has been found to be true even for each of the
individual process indicators – they too have a strong and positive correlation with outcomes (except
on technology).
On the basis of the secondary data analysis and primary study on processes, the report concludes and
recommends that the districts that have performed well have done so under the same TSC guidelines
and conditions – they have effectively used the processes in the true spirit of the TSC guidelines and
managed to achieve the outcomes. All that the districts that are lagging behind have to do is adopt
these processes to achieve better outcomes as well. In addition, the higher levels of government
(state and national governments) can facilitate this process through strong monitoring which tracks
these processes and sustainability of outcomes, to support the lagging districts/states in effectively
implementing the TSC in the true spirit.
11
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
12
1. Introduction
1.1 Context
Open defecation is a traditional behaviour in rural India. This, along with the relative neglect of
sanitation in terms of development priorities, was reflected in the country’s low sanitation coverage
at the close of the 1990s when it was found that only one in five rural households had access to a
toilet (Census 2001). This fact, combined with low awareness of improved hygiene behaviour, made
the achievement of the goal of total sanitation a pressing challenge in rural India.
In response to this challenge, the Government of India launched the Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC)
in 1999 with the goal of achieving universal rural sanitation coverage by 2012. The responsibility for
delivering on programme goals rests with local governments (Panchayati Raj Institutions — PRIs) with
significant involvement of communities. The state and central governments have a facilitating role that
takes the form of framing enabling policies, providing financial and capacity-building support, and
monitoring progress. To give a fillip to the TSC, the government introduced an innovative incentive
programme known as Nirmal Gram Puraskar (NGP) in 2003. The NGP offers a cash prize to motivate
Gram Panchayats (GPs) to achieve total sanitation. In addition, the NGP is an attractive incentive as
winners are felicitated by the President of India at the national level and by high-ranking dignitaries
at the state level.
The TSC has recently completed a decade of implementation (1999-2009) and the NGP has completed
five years of operation (2005-10). Since its launch, the programme framework of the TSC and NGP
has been based on a common national guideline whereas implementation has been decentralised
to the state and district levels. Although there is an undeniable upwards trend in scaling up rural
sanitation coverage, national performance aggregates conceal significant disparities among states
and districts when it comes to the achievement of TSC goals. Therefore, this is an opportune time to
assess the processes that contribute to differential achievement of performance outcomes at state
and district levels.
1.2 Purpose
To achieve the vision of a Nirmal Bharat (Clean India) within the TSC timeframe, there is need for a
clear understanding of the processes that underpin scaling up, replication and sustainability of best
practices implemented by districts. The purpose of this report is to synthesise the wealth of information
available through secondary sources such as the TSC and NGP online monitoring systems and primary
surveys of select districts at different points on the performance curve, to understand the processes
by which the national TSC guidelines are implemented at state and district levels and how these
contribute to the outcomes achieved. The analysis will focus on the successes and challenges faced
in implementing the TSC and NGP, identify gaps and lessons learnt, and recommend programmatic
approaches through which these can be addressed.
The audience for this report includes policy-makers and implementers at national, state and district
levels, and the broader sanitation and hygiene community.
13
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
1.3 Methodology
A three-step methodology was followed for this study, as can be seen from Figure 1.1, comprising
literature review, and collection and analysis of secondary and primary data. Each of these steps of the
methodology followed for this study is described in detail below.
1.3.1 Literature Review
The study team reviewed key documents related to the TSC and NGP implementation as well as
previous studies on the rural sanitation sector in India. Previously, studies on these programmes
have been mainly conducted by the government and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such
as WaterAid, TARU and Arghyam. These studies have involved different objectives and followed a
variety of approaches for sampling and analysis, to develop the methodology and objectives for this
assessment. A complete list of documents reviewed is given in the References at the end of this Report.
1.3.2 Secondary Data
The TSC and NGP have dedicated online monitoring systems1 which provide quantitative information
on progress towards the overall programme goal of universal rural sanitation coverage. This includes
information on programme components such as inputs (for example, resources invested in the
programme), outputs (for example, the number of toilets built at household, school and pre-school
levels), and outcomes (for example, the number of PRIs that have won the NGP). Although the
programme component of process is not explicitly covered by the online monitoring system, this can
be derived from the data available on the other components, for example, efficiency can be derived
from the rate of increase in outputs over time.
Figure 1.1: Study Methodology
Literature
review
Secondary
data
Quantitative analysis of
TSC monitoring data
Primary
data
Study of sample
districts
Methodology
TSC status and trends
over a decade
Benchmarking of state and district
performance based on current
performance
Rating scale
Correlating implementation
process with outcomes
The TSC online monitoring system can be accessed at www.ddws.nic.in and the NGP online monitoring system at
http://nirmalgrampuraskar.nic.in
1
14
Introduction
For this study, data from each of these programme components have been taken from the online
monitoring systems and two types of quantitative analyses have been undertaken based on this: a)
analysis of the TSC status and trends in progress over the decade; and b) benchmarking of performance
based on current status. Each of these quantitative analyses is explained in detail below.
a. Quantitative Analysis of TSC Status and Trends
Secondary data have been collected on each programme component – input, output, process and
outcome – and the progress towards the overall goal of achieving universal sanitation coverage has
been analysed. The results of these findings are presented in Chapter 3 of this report; a snapshot of
the data indicators analysed under each programme component is shown in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1: Indicators Analysed to Track Progress under TSC
Context
Input
Output
Process
Outcome
• No. of
HH, and
institutions
without
access to
sanitation
• Rural
poverty (BPL
distribution)
• TSC financial
allocation and
expenditure
• Average
TSC project
allocation per
district
• TSC allocation
and
expenditure on
software and
hardware per
district
• Average TSC
software
allocation and
expenditure
per HH
• Average TSC
expenditure per
BPL HH toilet,
school and
pre-school
toilet
• Average
expenditure per
RSM/PC and
SLWM
• Sanitation
target achieved
at national and
state level
• % school
sanitation
target achieved
• % RSM/PC
target achieved
• % SLWM target
achieved
• Acceleration
rate of HH
sanitation
coverage
• Reaching the
poorest – ratio
of BPL and APL
HH coverage
• Reaching the
backward and
drought-prone
areas
• Success
rate of NGP
applications
• Number of NGP • Progress
winners
made towards
• State-wise % of
universal rural
NGP winners
sanitation
• Number of NGP
coverage
vs total number
of GPs
GOAL
HH: Household; BPL: Below Poverty Line; SLWM: Solid and Liquid Waste Management; RSM: Rural Sanitary Mart; PC: Production Centre; APL: Above
Poverty Line
15
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
b. Benchmarking State and District Performance on TSC
A quantitative model to benchmark state and district performance on the TSC has been developed
which consists of a simple four-step process, explained in Box 1. This model comprises eight key
performance indicators, each of which is assigned a weighted score. The maximum cumulative
performance score that a state or district can achieve is 100 and the minimum is zero. On this basis,
all states and districts have been divided into four colour-coded performance bands depending on the
cumulative performance score achieved.
1.3.3 Primary Data
An analysis of the processes adopted by the districts was undertaken to understand the correlation
between these and the final outcomes achieved by the districts. Districts, for this study, were selected
across the performance spectrum, based on which an assessment of their processes was undertaken.
These were then compared with their overall performance outcomes to understand how the processes
influence outcomes.
a. Sampling
Purposive sampling was used for the selection of districts and stakeholders for key person interviews
as detailed below.
Selection of Districts
A total of 22 districts across 21 states were selected for this study. The criteria for selection of districts
included:
• Geographical spread: Districts were selected from the north, east, west, south and north-east
regions of the country; and
• Differential performance on the TSC: Results of the quantitative benchmarking of district performance
on the TSC were used to select districts at different points on the TSC performance curve.
The list of sample districts and states selected for this study is given in Table 1.4.
Selection of Stakeholders for Key Person Interviews
In the sample districts, criteria for stakeholder selection for interviews included:
• Should have participated in the TSC programme for at least six months; and
• Should represent a key decision-maker or implementer at the district or block level.
b. Research Protocol
To ensure consistency in the assessment findings, a research protocol was used as the basis for
conducting key stakeholder interviews in the sample districts selected for this study. This protocol
16
Introduction
Box 1: Model to Monitor and Benchmark Rural Sanitation Performance of States/Districts
Step 1: Select indicators and collect data from TSC/NGP: For a balanced measurement
across inputs, outputs, processes and outcomes, eight indicators have been selected from the
TSC online monitoring system. This information is reported by the districts and states to the
Department of Drinking Water Supply (DDWS) and is available in the public domain on the
DDWS website (http://ddws.nic.in).
Step 2: Assign scores to each indicator: Each indicator was assigned a weighted score which
specified the maximum and minimum range of marks. Two principles underlying the strategy for
assigning weighted scores were:
• Higher priority was given to outcomes and processes relative to inputs and outputs. Therefore,
the number of NGP Panchayats is given more marks than the percentage TSC budget spent on
toilets constructed; and
• The maximum score was capped at 100.
Table1.2: Rural Sanitation Performance Monitoring and Benchmarking Model –
Indicators and Weighted Score
#
Performance Indicator Type 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
% TSC budget spent
% household toilets target achieved
% school sanitation target achieved
Financial efficiency (cost per NGP community)
Average population per GP
Success rate of NGP applications
No. of NGP Panchayats
% NGP Panchayats
Input
Output
Output
Process
Process
Process
Outcome
Outcome
CUMULATIVE PERFORMANCE SCORE
Weighted Score
Max. Min.
5
15
10
10
10
10
30
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
Step 3: Sum up scores: This entails adding up individual scores on each indicator to arrive at
a cumulative performance score out of a maximum of 100.
Step 4: Benchmark districts based on scores achieved: States and districts are ranked in
descending order on the basis of the cumulative performance score achieved. The scores are
divided into four colour-coded performance bands, as shown in Table 1.3.
Table 1.3: Assigning States/Districts to Colour-coded Performance Bands
Below Average
<25 Below Average
Average
Above Average
26-49 Average
Superior
50-74 Above Average
>75 Superior
17
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
Table 1.4: List of Sample Districts Selected for Primary Assessment
Geographical
District
State
Region Performance Band
(based on cumulative
performance score on the
benchmarking model)
North
SirsaHaryanaSuperior
Rewa
BikanerRajasthan Average
Mainpuri
Uttar Pradesh
Below Average
Hamirpur
Himachal Pradesh
Below Average
Amritsar
Punjab
Below Average
Madhya Pradesh
Above Average
SouthShimoga Karnataka
Superior
Virudhunagar
Above Average
KottayamKerala
Average
Srikakulam
Andhra Pradesh
Below Average
East
Bardhaman
West Bengal
Superior
Surguja
Chhattisgarh
Above Average
GumlaJharkhandAverage
BegusaraiBihar
Average
Dhenkanal
Below Average
Tamil Nadu
Orissa
West Kolhapur MaharashtraSuperior
Valsad
JunagadhGujarat
Akola
MaharashtraAverage
North East
East Sikkim
Sikkim
Above Average
West Tripura
Tripura
Average
Jorhat
Assam
Below Average
Key:
<25 Below Average
Gujarat
26-49 Average
50-74 Above Average
Above Average
Average
>75 Superior
comprised questions on six components that are considered essential for scaling up and sustaining
the TSC, namely:
1. Strategy for TSC Implementation
2. Institutional Structure and Capacity
3. Programme Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up
4. Technology Promotion and Supply Chain
5. Financing and Incentives
6.Monitoring
18
Introduction
Each component is described in detail below.
Component 1: Strategy for TSC Implementation
The TSC guidelines provide a broad framework within which states and districts have the flexibility to
devise their own strategies for programme implementation depending on the socio-economic and
institutional context, terrain and capacity existing in that state/district. A strategy can signal priorities,
assign roles and responsibilities, and often allocate human and financial resources for execution. Ensuring
the administrative will to implement a shared strategy uniformly is the starting point for scaling up.
Component 2: Institutional Structure and Capacity
Institutions set the rules of the game and define the framework for service delivery. To effectively
scale up and sustain TSC outcomes, institutional arrangements must have clearly defined roles and
responsibilities, and the resources to fulfil these effectively. Institutional frameworks should also
include mechanisms for coordination between linked activities. Capacity refers to the availability
of skilled human resources for TSC implementation, budgetary allocations to effectively implement
programme activities, an organisational home within the institution that is accountable for the TSC,
ability to monitor programme progress, and make revisions as needed.
Component 3: Programme Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up
A programme approach consists of specific activities, their timing and sequence. The TSC guidelines
advocate a demand-driven approach to rural sanitation backed by post-achievement incentives.
Districts have the flexibility to implement this principle based on their context and capacity.
Component 4: Technology Promotion and Supply Chain
The TSC guidelines advocate informed technology choices and setting up of alternate supply channels
such as Rural Sanitary Marts (RSMs). At the implementation level, technology promotion includes
not only separate toilet components (for example, sanitary pans, pipes, traps, etc.) but also existing
latrine technology options (for example, septic tank, ventilated double pit toilet, eco-sanitation, etc.).
It also includes provision of masonry services for installation, and sanitary services for operation,
maintenance and final disposal.
Component 5: Financing and Incentives
Financing refers to the budgetary allocations to finance programme activities. This includes costs
for activities under different programme components (for example, school sanitation and hygiene
education, administration, etc.) as well as the process by which funds are allocated, released and
spent. Incentives can be financial or non-financial, given upfront or post achievement.
Component 6: Monitoring
Large-scale sanitation programmes such as the TSC require an efficient monitoring system and ability
to ensure that the results of monitoring are used to improve programme implementation. Monitoring
should be carried out by the level above the one being monitored but information for monitoring
should be collected from all levels, starting with the lowest.
19
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
c. Rating Scale
The rating scale was devised to provide a quantitative score card to analyse the findings of the
research protocol. In this scale, each component of the research protocol is further sub-divided into
five dimensions which describe different field scenarios and carry one mark each. Therefore, each
component carries five marks and the maximum score on the rating scale is 30 marks. The cumulative
score on the rating scale is converted into a percentage. The scale is depicted in Table 1.5.
Table 1.5: Rating Scale to Measure District Performance on TSC Processes and Outcomes
Topic
Max. Score
1 Strategy for TSC Implementation i. TSC guidelines are understood and implemented by the 1
core group
ii. A well-defined strategy with goal, phasing, budgetary allocation 1
and monitoring plan exists
iii. TSC implementation is being undertaken by related departments 1
iv. Strong political and administrative will exists to implement at 1
different levels v. TSC principles are being adopted in the right spirit — community 1
level engagement, post-construction incentive, appropriate
technology
Sub-total 5
2
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v. Institutional Structure and Capacity The nodal agency is functional and effective
A dedicated unit for TSC with adequate staff exists at district level and is effective
Adequate staff and capacity exists at block and sub-block levels (e.g., cluster, GP, habitation) for implementing the
programme effectively The nodal agency coordinates effectively with other departments
Village-level institutions are set up and are effective
Sub-total 3
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v. Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up Implementation does not depend on upfront subsidy
1
Implementation is phased
1
Demand creation depends on community mobilisation
1
Motivators are used to the optimal level and are incentivised
1
Strategy is implemented at scale
1
Sub-total 5
20
1
1
1
1
1
5
Score
Given
Introduction
Topic
4
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v. Max. Score
Technology Promotion and Supply Chain
Multiple technology options are promoted
1
Technology choices respond to community preferences and 1
are affordable
Technology choices promoted and adopted are safe
1
Products and services sourced are easily available 1
Well-qualified trained masons are available for construction 1
Sub-total 5
5Financing and Incentives i. Additional instalments are asked for on time
ii. There are no funding bottlenecks
iii. Funding is used efficiently (focus on both short-term achievement and long-term sustainability)
iv. Funding is used to maximum capacity (funds available under all heads namely SLWM, IEC, etc., are being used)
v. Incentives are available for various stakeholders to perform optimally
Sub-total 5
6Monitoring
i. Monitoring systems are available at the village level
ii. Monitoring system exist for block and district levels
iii. Monitoring system track both BPL and APL coverage accurately iv. Monitoring for usage exists
v. Monitoring of NGP/ODF villages is undertaken regularly Sub-total 1
1
1
1
1
5
Score
Given
TOTAL TOTAL (%)
1
1
1
1
1
30
100
SLWM: Solid and Liquid Waste Management; IEC: Information, Education and Communication; BPL: Below Poverty
Line; APL: Above Poverty Line; ODF: Open Defecation Free
1.4 Organisation of this Report
This report is divided into five chapters.
Chapter 1 is this introduction which provides the context and purpose of this study and details the
methodology adopted for the study, including the research protocol and linked rating scale. It also
introduces the TSC performance benchmarking model which was used as the basis for selecting the
sample districts for this study.
21
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
Chapter 2 provides an in-depth overview of the TSC and NGP incentive programme, including key
implementation principles, shifts in the programme guidelines over the past decade, and institutional
arrangements. Following this overview, it details national and state-level trends in the performance
on TSC and NGP, based on the performance monitoring and benchmarking model introduced in
the methodology.
Chapter 3 presents the findings of an analysis of secondary data from the online monitoring systems
of the TSC and NGP. This is mainly quantitative data and analysis focuses on the linkages between
inputs, outputs, processes and outcomes in terms of how they contribute towards the programme
goal of universal rural sanitation coverage by 2012.
Chapter 4 presents the findings of the primary study which tracks processes with outcomes. Each
dimension of the assessment framework is used to analyse the linkage between the dimensions
(individual and cumulative) and outcomes achieved.
Chapter 5 provides overall conclusions and summarises the recommendations of this study.
22
2. Towards Nirmal Bharat:
The Total Sanitation Campaign
2.1 Background
A broad definition of sanitation includes interventions for the safe management and disposal/re-use
of excreta and solid and liquid waste. It includes both infrastructure (for example, latrines, compost
pits) and behaviour (for example, improved hygiene practices, habit formation to switch from open
to fixed point defecation).
Lack of adequate sanitation and the linked burden of disease take an immense toll on life in India.
Children are particularly vulnerable (Murray and Lopez 1997); each day, an estimated 1,000 children
under five die in the country because of diarrhoea alone, a preventable disease (WaterAid 2006).
Prevalence of child under-nutrition in India (47 percent according to National Family Health Survey
III, 2005-06) is among the highest in the world and nearly double that of Sub-Saharan Africa. Child
under-nutrition, aggravated by diarrheal disease, is estimated to be responsible for 22 percent of the
country’s burden of disease (World Bank 2004). Sanitation related illnesses in both children and adults
deplete productivity and resources, ultimately contributing to deprivation. Disaggregating the impacts
of sanitation by gender reveals that the privacy afforded by access to adequate sanitation facilities
imparts a sense of dignity, especially to women and young girls. Access to safe sanitation in schools
is also linked to continued education enrolment by young girls and teenage women, particularly at
puberty (Bruijne et al 2007). Sanitation is, therefore, appropriately considered a policy priority in India
and the next section describes the evolution of the policy response to this issue.
2.2 Evolution of the Policy Framework for Rural Sanitation
The responsibility for provision of sanitation facilities in India is decentralised and primarily rests with
local government bodies – GPs in rural areas and municipalities or corporations in urban areas. The
state and central governments have a facilitating role that takes the form of framing enabling policies/
guidelines, providing financial and capacity-building support and monitoring progress. In the central
government, the Planning Commission, through Five Year Plans, guides investment in the sector by
allocating funding for strategic priorities.
2.2.1 Pre-1986: Ad hoc Investments through Five Year Plans
Rural sanitation did not feature on the investment horizon during the first five plan periods as reflected
in its negligible funding share. However, it received prominence from the Sixth Plan (1980-85)
onwards amid the launch of the International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade in 1980.
In addition, responsibility for rural sanitation at the central level was also shifted from the Central
Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation to the Rural Development Department.
23
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
2.2.2 Conventional Approach: Central Rural Sanitation Programme (1986-98)
In 1986, the Rural Development Department initiated India’s first national programme on rural
sanitation, the Central Rural Sanitation Programme (CRSP). The CRSP interpreted sanitation as
construction of household toilets, and focused on the promotion of a single technology model (double
pit pour-flush toilets) through hardware subsidies to generate demand. The key issue of motivating
behaviour change to end open defecation and use toilets was not addressed, contributing to the
programme’s failure. Although more than Rs. 660 crore2 was invested and over 90 lakh3 latrines
constructed, rural sanitation grew at just 1 percent annually throughout the 1990s and the Census of
2001 found that only 22 percent of rural households had access to toilets.
2.2.3 Sector Reforms: Total Sanitation Campaign (1999-2012)
In light of the relatively poor performance of the CRSP, the Government of India restructured the
programme, leading to the launch of the TSC in 1999. A key learning that informed TSC design
was that toilet construction does not automatically translate into toilet usage, and people must be
motivated to end open defecation if rural sanitation outcomes are to be achieved. A second key
learning was the recognition of the ‘public good’ dimensions of safe sanitation and the realisation
that health outcomes will not be achieved unless the entire community adopts safe sanitation.
Accordingly, the TSC introduced the concept of a “demand-driven, community-led approach to total
sanitation” (DDWS 1999). This was further strengthened with the introduction of the NGP in 2003,
which incentivised the achievement of collective outcomes in terms of 100 percent achievement of
total sanitation by a GP. Key features of the TSC include:
• A community-led approach with focus on collective achievement of total sanitation;
• Focus on Information, Education and Communication (IEC) to mobilise and motivate communities
towards safe sanitation;
• Minimum capital incentives only for Below Poverty Line (BPL) households, post construction
and usage;
• Flexible menu of technology options;
• Development of a supply chain to meet the demand stimulated at the community level; and
• Fiscal incentive in the form of a cash prize – NGP (Box 2).
2.3 A Decade of TSC: Shifts in Programme Guidelines
Since the launch of the TSC, the programme guidelines have been modified twice, once in 2004 and
again in December 2007. In 2004, the revision in TSC guidelines followed a mid-term review of the
programme. The revision led to a focus on sanitary arrangements, not merely on the construction
of household toilets. The School Sanitation and Hygiene Education (SSHE) component was
strengthened; and the provision of toilets was extended to Anganwadi Centres (AWCs), all levels
of schools (primary, middle, secondary, etc.) and all establishments of the GP. The Government of
India sought to re-orient the focus of the sanitation programme to achieving the outcome of an
open defecation free (ODF) environment. Thus, not only individual households but also communities,
villages, and Panchayat governments started to be targeted.
2
3
For explanation of ‘crore’, refer to numbers on page 8.
Ibid.
24
Towards Nirmal Bharat: The Total Sanitation Campaign
Box 2: Nirmal Gram Puraskar
The Nirmal Gram Puraskar of the Government of India, introduced in 2003, is an innovative
programme that offers fiscal incentives in the form of a cash prize to local governments that
achieve 100 percent sanitation, that is, they are 100 percent ODF and have tackled issues of
solid and liquid waste management (SLWM). The amount of incentive is based on population as
shown in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Population-linked Incentives
(All figures in Rs. 100,000)
Particulars
Gram Panchayat
Block
District
Population Less 10002000500010000
Up 50001
Up Above
Criteria than tototoand
toand
to 10
1000199949999999above
50000
above
10 lakh
lakh
PRIs
0.501.002.004.005.0010.00
20.00
30.0050.00
Individuals0.10
0.20
0.30
Organisations
other than
PRI0.20
0.35
0.50
Providing post-achievement incentives is a significant shift from the upfront subsidy promoted
by conventional rural sanitation programmes. The NGP has elicited a tremendous response with
the number of GPs winning this award going up from a mere 40 in 2005 to over 22,000 to date.
The NGP helps to raise the status of the winning Panchayat, and create peer pressure among
neighbouring Pancahyats as well as tough competition at all tiers of the administration.
Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply <http://nirmalgrampuraskar.nic.in>
In 2007, the TSC guidelines were modified again to include an emphasis on developing community
managed and ecologically safe environmental sanitation systems focusing on SLWM. Up to 10
percent of the project costs could now be used for meeting upfront capital costs incurred under the
SLWM component. The IEC component was strengthened and the provision of a revolving fund was
extended to community-based organisations, Above Poverty Line (APL) households and Integrated
Child Development Scheme (ICDS) centres. On account of rising input costs, the incentive provision
for BPL families, to be given post construction and verification of toilet usage, was increased from
Rs. 625 to a maximum of Rs. 2,500.
2.4 TSC Delivery Structure
The TSC operates through district projects of three to five years’ duration, jointly financed by central
and state governments with contribution from beneficiary households (generally in the ratio of
65:25:15). At the district level, Zila Panchayats lead the implementation of the project – a District
Water and Sanitation Mission (DWSM), headed by the Zila Panchayat, with Deputy Commissioners/
25
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
Collectors/Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and other heads of departments as members, is set up.
Similarly, at the block and the Panchayat levels, Panchayat Samitis and respective GPs are involved in
the implementation of the TSC. The TSC delivery structure is shown in Figure 2.1.
Centre
Government of India
(Ministry of Rural Development,
Department of Drinking Water Supply)
Funding, technical support, M&E, training
and inter-sectoral coordination
State
State Government
(Nodal Department)
Funding, technical support, development
of state action plan, inter-sectoral
coordination, training, M&E
District
Zila Panchayat – DWSM
(and other government and
non-government institutions)
Facilitate and support overall
implementation, development of action plan,
inter-sectoral coordination, training, M&E
Block
Panchayat Samiti
(Extension workers of government and
non-government organisations)
Institution building (e.g., GPs, Watsan
committee), facilitate supply chains,
hygiene education, monitoring
Village
Figure 2.1: TSC Delivery Structure
Gram Panchayat
(Motivators)
Community
Institution building, mobilisation, facilitate
construction of hardware, hygiene
education, monitoring, O&M
M&E: Monitoring and Evaluation; O&M: Operation and Maintenance
2.5 TSC Progress at National and State Levels
2.5.1 TSC Performance at National Level
The TSC is currently being implemented at scale in 606 districts of 30 states/Union Territories (UTs).
As can be seen from Figure 2.2, after sluggish progress throughout the 1980s and 1990s, rural
sanitation coverage (individual household latrines) has nearly tripled from approximately 22 percent
in 2001 to 61 percent in 2009 and 65 percent in 2010, post-TSC and -NGP.
26
Towards Nirmal Bharat: The Total Sanitation Campaign
Figure 2.2: Rural Sanitation Coverage in India
70
65%
14%
21.9% 22.4% 23%
27%
31%
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
1993
1991
2005
onwards:
Nirmal Gram
Puraskar
6%
3%
1990
1980
0
4%
1989
1%
1988
10
17% 18%
2002
10% 11%
11%
45%
2001
20
57%
38%
1997
30
1996
40
1994
50
Percent
1999 onwards: Total Sanitation
Campaign
1980-90: International
Drinking
Water
Supply &
1986-99: Central Rural
Sanitation
Sanitation Programme
Decade
2000
60
61%
Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in. Accessed in March 2010.
Since its launch, the NGP has been very successful as a fiscal incentive for achievement of sanitation
outcomes. The number of winners has gone up from approximately 40 in 2005 to 22,569 in 2009,
as can be seen from Figure 2.3.
The number of NGPs in each state across the years is provided in Volume 2, Annex 34.
Figure 2.3: NGP Winners (2005-09)
25,000
22,569
18,013
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,743
5,000
38
798
2005
2006
NGPs – annual
NGPs – cumulative
0
2007
2008
2009
Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in. Accessed in March 2010.
27
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
2.5.2 TSC Performance at State Level
Despite the undeniable upward trend at the national level, these aggregates disguise state-level
disparities in performance on the TSC.
This section presents the performance of states on the TSC based on the performance monitoring
and benchmarking model, which tracks performance based on a mix of outcome, output, processes
and input indicators, and, thereafter, ranks districts and states based on performance (as against
alphabetically) (for more details of this model, see Box 1 on page 17). The performance of different
states in terms of cumulative score is presented in Figure 2.4 and the scores achieved on constituent
indicators are presented in the remainder of this section.
79
76
70
70
65
64
63
62
60
60
59
48
47
46
45
44
41
41
39
39
35
29
25
23
22
21
19
15
15
DN
Pu Ha
du vel
ch i
M err
an y
ip
ur
Go
a
Ar
un J&
ac K
M ha
eg l
ha P
la
As ya
sa
Pu m
nj
a
Bih b
M
izo ar
ra
Or m
Ra iss
ja a
Na stha
Ut ga n
ta lan
ra
d
Jh kha
ar nd
kh
an
Ch Tri d
p
U hat ur
An ttar tisg a
d P ar
M hra rad h
ad Pr es
hy ad h
a
Pr esh
Ka ade
rn sh
at
ak
Sik a
k
G im
Hi uja
m ra
ac t
h
Ha al P
Ta rya
m
n
W il N a
es ad
M t Be u
ah n
ar ga
as l
ht
r
Ke a
ra
la
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
88
Figure 2.4: How are States Performing on the Total Sanitation Campaign?
Key: Performance Band
<25 Below Average
26-49 Average
50-74 Above Average
>75 Superior
The detailed score for each indicator, along with the aggregate score for each state, and overall rank
and score for each district is given in Volume 2, Annex 1. The rank of every district where TSC is being
implemented is given in Volume 2, Annex 2 (rank wise) and Volume 2, Annex 3 (alphabetically).
a. Indicator 1 (Input): Percent TSC Funds Spent
This indicator measures the financial investment in the TSC project, calculating the percentage of
spend against total allocation (Figure 2.5).
b. Indicator 2 (Output): Percent Individual Household Latrine Target Achieved
This indicator measures an output – the percentage of individual household toilets constructed against
the target (Figure 2.6).
28
Towards Nirmal Bharat: The Total Sanitation Campaign
150
136
Figure 2.5: How much have States Spent out of TSC Funds?
76
75
70
66
58
54
49
44
42
41
40
29
29
28
26
26
25
25
24
23
20
16
19
15
14
4
2
50
20
Percent
100
71
% TSC Budget Spent
Da
dr
a
&
Na
ga
rH
av
Pu eli
M nja
Ja
a b
m Pu nip
m du ur
u
& che
Ka r r y
sh
m
i
Bih r
a
M Assa r
eg m
h
Ra alay
Ut j a a
ta sth
ra an
kh
an
Hi
Or d
m
iss
Ar ach
a
un al G
ac Pr oa
ha ad
l P es
r h
Jh ade
ar sh
k
Ka han
rn d
An N atak
a
M dhra gala a
ad P n
hy ra d
a d
M Pra esh
ah d
Ch aras esh
h
h
W attis tra
es ga
t B rh
en
ga
Ta Guja l
m ra
il N t
a
Ut Ha du
ta rya
rP n
ra a
de
s
Ke h
M rala
i zo
ra
Tri m
pu
r
Si k a
ki m
0
Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in.
109
97
96
87
74
73
72
61
60
59
53
48
45
45
42
36
32
31
28
25
23
15
Da
dr
a
&
Na
ga
rH
av
M
el
Ja
m Pud anip i
m
u uch ur
&
Ka erry
sh
m
i
Ar
Bih r
un
a
ac
ha Ass r
l P am
ra
Na des
ga h
M la
eg nd
Jh hala
ar ya
kh
an
d
Ra Oris
jas sa
K th
Ch arna an
ha ta
tti ka
sg
a
Ut Pu rh
M ta nj
ad ra ab
hy kh
a
a
Ut Pra nd
ta d
M r P es
An ah rad h
dh ara esh
ra sh
P tr
Ta rade a
m
W il N sh
es a
t B du
en
ga
l
Hi
Go
m
ac G a
ha uja
l P ra
ra t
d
Ha esh
rya
Tri na
M pura
izo
ra
Ke m
ra
Sik la
kim
0
1
20
12
40
19
60
38
80
9
Percent
100
90
% Household Latrines Achieved
101
120
98
Figure 2.6: How many Individual Household Latrines have been Constructed against the
TSC Target?
Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in.
c. Indicator 3 (Output): Percent School Sanitation Target Achieved
This indicator measures an output – the percentage of school toilets constructed against the target
(Figure 2.7).
d. Indicator 4 (Process): Success Rate of NGP Applications
The number of NGP applications has been increasingly geometrically, from 464 in 2005 to 13,956 in
2009. Simultaneously, the number of winners trails the number of applicants in any year. States (and
districts) may put in as many applications, but the true test of outcome achievement is the number of NGP
winners (Figure 2.8). By recognising and giving a higher weight to high success rate, the benchmarking
model rewards process and a good internal monitoring system to evaluate ODF applications.
29
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
100
100
98
99
95
94
94
94
93
91
91
90
90
87
80
77
66
61
55
55
51
25
40
51
44
60
47
Percent
80
59
100
97
% School Sanitation Achieved
120
108
Figure 2.7: How many School Toilets have been Constructed against the TSC Target?
0
Da
dr
a
&
Na
ga
r
Pu Ha
du vel
M ch i
eg err
h y
Na alay
ga a
M lan
Hi We an d
m st ipu
ac
ha Ben r
l P ga
ra l
Ja
de
m
sh
m
u
& Bih
Ut Kas ar
ta hm
ra
kh i r
an
d
Go
A a
Ra ssam
jas
An Jha tha
dh rk n
ra han
Pr d
Ar
ad
un
es
ac
ha Ori h
Ut l Pra ssa
ta d
r P es
ra h
d
Tri esh
p
M Pu ura
ah nj
a a
Ta rash b
m tr
C i
M hh l Na a
ad at du
hy tisg
a
Pr arh
ad
es
Ke h
Ha rala
Ka ryan
rn a
at
ak
Si k a
M ki m
i zo
ra
Gu m
jar
at
0
0
20
Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in.
Figure 2.8: What is the Success Rate of NGP Applications at State Level?
Success Rate in NGP Till Date
98
120
68
65
64
63
51
46
45
44
44
40
39
36
32
32
28
27
25
22
21
21
20
0
0
0
20
12
40
20
60
39
Percent
80
60
85
100
Da
dr
a
&
Na
ga Go
Pu r Ha a
du ve
ch li
M err
izo y
r
Gu am
j
a
Ut Raja rat
ta sth
rP a
ra n
Ar
de
un
sh
ac
M ha Trip
ad l P ur
hy ra a
a d
Ch Pra esh
ha de
tti sh
sg
An
ar
dh
h
ra Bih
Pr ar
ad
e
Ut Pu sh
ta nja
ra
kh b
Ha and
rya
n
Or a
i
s
M
Ja W a sa
m e n
m st ipu
u Be r
& n
Ka ga
sh l
m
A ir
Hi
m Jha ssa
ac rk m
ha ha
l P nd
ra
Na des
g h
M ala
e
M gh nd
ah ala
ar ya
Ta ash
m tr
a
il
Ka Nad
rn u
at
ak
Ke a
ra
Sik la
kim
0
Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in.
e. Indicator 5 (Process): Average Population per Gram Panchayat
The benchmarking model is not merely based on the number of NGP Gram Panchayats, but also
factors such as the size of each GP and the corresponding level of effort required to make a GP
Nirmal (Figure 2.9). Bonus points are given to the states with the most populous GPs – 10 points for
those states where the average GP population is greater than 15,000; five points to states where the
average GP population is above 5,000 but less than 15,000; and the balance states where the average
GP population is below 5,000 receive a zero.
30
Towards Nirmal Bharat: The Total Sanitation Campaign
f. Indicator 6 (Process): Financial Efficiency
This indicator measures return on investment by calculating the amount of TSC budget spent to
make a Panchayat Nirmal. Therefore, it takes the figure for TSC spend to date and divides it by
the number of NGPs winners by a state to date. To incentivise financial efficiency, the benchmarking
model only awards bonus points to the top five most financially efficient states, while giving zero
points to the remaining states (Figure 2.10).
Figure 2.9: What is the Average Population of a Gram Panchayat in Different States?
Average GP Population
Average Pop b/w
5,001 and 15,000
Average Pop <5,000
Average Pop
>15,000
Ar
un Me
ac gh
ha al
l P aya
ra
M de
Ut izo sh
ta ra
ra m
kh
M and
an
Hi
ip
m
u
ac
ha Pun r
l P ja
C
r b
M hha ade
ad tt sh
hy isg
a
M Pra arh
ah d
ar esh
as
h
Gu tra
jar
a
Ta Trip t
m ur
il N a
An
a
dh Har du
y
ra
an
Ja Utta Prad a
m
m r Pr esh
u
& ade
Ka sh
sh
m
Sik ir
kim
Ra G
jas oa
th
an
O
Jh ri
ar ssa
k
Ka han
r
na d
Da
ta
dr
a
As ka
an
sa
d
m
Na
B
ga ih
W r H ar
es av
t B eli
e
Na ng
ga al
lan
d
K
Pu era
du la
ch
er
ry
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in
212
183
149
114
97
89
80
58
51
50
44
35
34
33
28
25
19
17
17
12
8
8
7
6
370
654
Financial Efficiency (Rs. in lakhs)
Hi Ma
m ha
ac ra
ha sh
l
Ut Pra tra
ta de
ra sh
kh
an
Pu d
n
Ha jab
rya
n
Ke a
ra
Sik la
k
G im
Ta uja
m ra
i
t
Ka l Na
rn du
M M ata
ad eg k
hy ha a
a la
Pr ya
a
Na des
W ga h
es la
t B nd
en
g
Ch Tr al
An ha ipu
dh ttis ra
ra ga
Pr rh
a
M desh
izo
Ra ra
Ar
j
m
un Jh asth
ac ark an
ha h
Ut l Pr and
ta ad
r P es
ra h
de
sh
Ja
Bih
m
m
ar
u
& Oris
Ka sa
sh
M mi
an r
Da
ip
dr
a
As ur
an
sa
d
m
Na
ga Go
r
a
Pu Hav
du eli
ch
er
ry
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
675
Figure 2.10: How much is Spent to make a Gram Panchayat Nirmal?
Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in.
31
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
g. Indicator 7 (Outcome): Number of NGP Winners
This indicator measures the absolute number of NGP Panchayats out of the total number of GPs in a
state. This is equal to the cumulative number of NGPs won by a state (Figure 2.11).
h. Indicator 8 (Outcome): Percentage of NGP Winners
The performance benchmarking model is designed to reward both absolute and percentage
achievement in terms of NGP (Figure 2.12). Recognising and giving points to percentage NGP
achievement helps to neutralise the ‘low base effect’. (Other things being equal, let us say State A has
50 GPs and State B has 500. Both states have been able to achieve 20 NGP Panchayats. Therefore,
while the absolute number of NGP achievement is the same, State A is 40 percent NGP while State B
is only 8 percent NGP. Therefore, the benchmarking model recognises this and is designed to reward
both absolute and percentage achievement.).
The percentage of NGP winners of every district where TSC is being implemented is given in Volume
2, Annex 36.
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
8,389
Figure 2.11: How many Panchayats have Won the NGP across Different States?
2,096
1,670
1,512
1,263
1,061
1,087
989
876
845
522
418
520
225
207
200
164
113
155
96
63
50
31
24
14
12
2
0
0
Da
dr
a
&
Na
ga Go
Pu r Ha a
du ve
Ja
ch li
m
e
Ar mu Man rry
un &
i
ac Ka pur
ha sh
l P mi
ra r
de
As sh
M sam
iz
Na oram
M gal
eg an
ha d
la
Pu ya
n
Tri jab
pu
r
Or a
iss
Sik a
kim
Ra Bih
ja ar
Jh stha
Hi Ut arkh n
m ta a
ac ra nd
ha kh
Ch l Pra and
ha de
tti sh
Ka sga
rn rh
at
a
Ke ka
r
a
W Ha la
An est ryan
dh Be a
r
n
Ut a Pr gal
a
t
M ar de
ad Pr sh
hy ad
a
Pr esh
ad
e
G s
Ta uja h
m r
M il N at
ah ad
ar
as u
ht
ra
0
National Average = 753
Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in.
96
120
79
100
Percent
80
17
16
16
15
12
11
7
6
6
6
5
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
Da
Ja
m
m
u
&
Ka
sh
m
dr
ir
a
G
&
M o
Na an a
ga ipu
r
Pu Ha r
du ve
ch li
e
Pu rry
nj
A ab
Ar
un Me ssa
ac gh m
h
a
Ut al Pr laya
ta ad
rP e
ra sh
Ra des
jas h
th
a
Bih n
ar
An M Oris
s
dh izo a
ra ra
Ch Pra m
ha de
tti sh
Jh sga
a
rh
M Utt rkha
ad ar
n
hy akh d
a
Pr and
ad
Tri esh
pu
Gu ra
Ka ja
rn rat
Hi
at
m
ac Ha aka
ha ry
l P an
Ta rade a
m
M il N sh
ah a
d
W aras u
es ht
t B ra
e
Na ng
ga al
lan
Ke d
ra
Sik la
kim
0
2
30
40
33
60
20
Source: Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply http://ddws.nic.in.
32
99
Figure 2.12: What is the Percentage of Panchayats that have become NGP across
Different States?
3. A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status
3.1 Introduction
This chapter analyses data from the online monitoring system of the TSC and NGP, a wealth of
information at the national, state and district levels. The data have been accessed in March 2010
from the TSC and NGP Management Information System (MIS). This information is presented across
six sections:
• Context in terms of the scale of the sanitation challenge. It provides information on the number
of households and schools that lacked access to sanitation when the TSC was launched along with
information on the socio-economic conditions of programme implementation;
• Programme inputs begin with the overall TSC budget and then focus on the average project
expenditure per district. It also provides information on the allocation to project hardware and
software components within the overall financial envelope;
• Outputs such as construction of toilets in households and schools;
• Programme processes in terms of acceleration of scale-up, inclusion, success rate of NGP
applications, and rate of return;
• Outcomes such as the number of NGP winners; and
• Projections on when India will reach the TSC goal of universal sanitation coverage.
The specific indicators analysed under each component are detailed in Table 3.1.
3.2 Context: The Scale of the Sanitation Challenge
3.2.1 Number of Households and Institutions that Lack Access to Rural Sanitation
The TSC was launched with the objective of achieving universal rural sanitation coverage by 2012.
This meant the construction of about 12 crore4 toilets at the beginning of the campaign (1999)
(Figure 3.1).
3.2.2 Rural Poverty
TSC envisaged financial support to the poorer households, defined by the BPL survey of the Government
of India. In 1999, according to the TSC baseline survey, 47 percent of all households in India were
classified as BPL (Figure 3.2).
4
120 million.
33
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
Table 3.1: Indicators Analysed to Track Progress under TSC
Context
Input
Output
Process
Outcome
• No of HHs and
institutions
without
access to
sanitation
• Rural
poverty (BPL
distribution)
• TSC financial
allocation and
expenditure
• Average
TSC project
allocation per
district
• TSC allocation
and expenditure
on software
and hardware
per district
• Average TSC
software
allocation and
expenditure per
household
• Average TSC
expenditure per
BPL household
toilet, school
and pre-school
toilet
• Average
expenditure per
RSM/PC and
SLWM
• Sanitation
target achieved
at national and
state level
• % school
sanitation
target achieved
• % RSM/PC
target achieved
• % SLWM target
achieved
• Acceleration
rate of HH
sanitation
coverage
• Reaching the
poorest – ratio
of BPL and APL
HHs coverage
• Reaching the
backward and
drought-prone
areas
• Success
rate of NGP
applications
• Number of NGP • Progress
winners
made towards
• State-wise % of
universal rural
NGP winners
sanitation
• Number of
coverage
NGPs vs total
number of GPs
GOAL
1,400
1,200
1,202
Figure 3.1: TSC Objectives, 1999
600
591
800
611
x100000
1,000
400
IHHL
Total
IHHL
APL
IHHL
BPL
4
0
12
200
School
Toilets
Pre-school
Toilet
IHHL
3.3 Inputs
The TSC uses the resources of central and state governments and contributions from beneficiaries to
promote access to sanitation facilities. This section looks at financial allocation and expenditure on
the project till date.
34
A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status
86
84
76
72
70
66
64
64
60
59
55
54
54
50
49
48
47
45
45
44
44
42
36
24
24
23
21
6
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Hi
m
G
Pu oa
R n
ac aja jab
ha sth
l P an
ra
de
H
M ar sh
ah ya
U ar na
M ttar ash
ad Pr tra
hy ad
a
Pr esh
ad
e
Gu sh
Ka j a
Ut rna rat
ta ta
r a ka
kh
an
d
W
es Ind
t B ia
en
g
Ch K al
ha era
l
t
Ta tisg a
m ar
il N h
ad
u
Bih
M ar
an
ip
Sik ur
An
dh A kim
ra ssa
m
P
Jh rade
ar sh
kh
an
Or d
i
T ssa
M ripu
eg ra
h
Na alay
ga a
Ar
la
un
ac Miz nd
ha or
l P am
ra
de
sh
Percent
Figure 3.2: State-wise Percentage of BPL Households (as per TSC Baseline Survey)
See Volume 2, Annex 4 for calculations leading to this graph.
3.3.1 TSC Financial Allocation and Expenditure
TSC allocation and expenditure – national
Under the TSC, the total commitment to date is approximately Rs. 17,866 crore (US$ 3,888 million),
of which BPL households have committed Rs. 2,016 crore (US$ 438 million or 11.4 percent) (Figure
3.3). The allocation and expenditure is divided between the national government, state government
and beneficiaries (BPL families). This is in addition to the additional expenditure by the BPL families5
and expenditure by the APL families, both of which are not captured by the online monitoring system
of the TSC.
20,000
18,000
17,886
Figure 3.3: Financial Allocation and Expenditure for TSC (INR, Crore)
16,000
11,094
12,000
-
Total
Centre
State
See Volume 2, Annex 5 for calculations leading to this graph.
1,011
2,000
2,016
4,000
2,203
6,000
4,776
8,000
4,155
10,000
7,369
INR/Crores
14,000
Allocation
Expenditure
Beneficiary
BPL families have to contribute about Rs. 300 (US$ 6.5) to avail of the government’s support to construct a toilet;
however, in practice, they may contribute a higher amount to construct a better quality of toilet.
5
35
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
TSC allocation and expenditure – per district, state wise
The unit for implementation of the TSC is the district. On an average, the allocation for
implementing the TSC is Rs. 30 crore (US$ 6.6 million) per district, ranging from Rs. 4 crore in
Arunachal Pradesh to Rs. 73 crore in Andhra Pradesh (Figure 3.4).
Figure 3.4: Average Project Allocation per District (INR, Crore)
73
80 –
50
38
38
37
32
31
31
30
26
23
19
18
15
15
12
11
11
9
7
5
5
4
10 –
4
20 –
11
30 –
25
40 –
30
50 –
44
INR/Crores
60 –
52
70 –
Ar
un
ac
ha
lP
ra
M desh
izo
ra
Sik m
kim
Na G
ga oa
lan
Ha d
ry
M ana
an
ip
Hi Ut Pu ur
m tar nja
ac ak b
ha h
l P an
d
M rade
eg sh
ha
lay
Ja
Ke a
m
ra
m
u Trip la
&
Ka ura
sh
Gu mir
j
M
ad Raja arat
hy st
h
a
Pr an
Ka ade
rn sh
at
ak
a
In
di
Ta Ass a
m am
il N
Jh ad
M ark u
ah h
Ch ara and
h sh
Ut atti tra
ta sg
r P ar
ra h
de
W O sh
es ris
t B sa
en
An
ga
dh
ra Bih l
Pr ar
ad
es
h
0–
See Volume 2, Annex 6 for calculations leading to this graph.
The TSC budget for each district is given in Volume 2, Annex 7.
TSC hardware allocation and expenditure – per district, state wise
Splitting the average allocation by hardware and software at the district level shows that the average
hardware allocation per district is Rs. 26 crore (US$ 5.7 million) while the expenditure is just over
Rs. 11 crore (US$ 2.4 million) which is 42 percent (Figure 3.5). Only two or three states have been able
to show consistency in using hardware funds; most others exhibit low absorption capacity.
Figure 3.5: Average Hardware Allocation and Expenditure per District, by State (INR, Crore)
65
70 –
Ar
un
ac
ha
lP
23
27
37
35
26
9
6
10
13
16
28
27
17
11
8
31
44
Hardware allocation per district
Hardware expenditure per district
See Volume 2, Annex 8 for calculations leading to this graph.
36
27
26
26
10
8
21
5
3
11
20
16
13
17
13
9
3
10
2
1
0
2
10
9
9
7
2
5
7
6
4
1
ra
d
es
h
Go
S a
Na ikkim
ga
l
Ha and
rya
Pu na
M nja
Hi U an b
m ttr ip
ac ak ur
ha h
l P an
d
M rade
eg sh
ha
lay
Ja
Ke a
m
ra
m
u Trip la
&
Ka ura
sh
Gu mir
M
ad Raj jara
hy ast t
a
Pr han
Ka ade
rn sh
at
ak
a
Jh Ind
ar ia
Ta kha
m n
il N d
a
M A du
ah ssa
Ch ara m
h sh
Ut atti tra
ta sg
r P ar
ra h
de
W O sh
es ris
t B sa
en
An
ga
dh
ra Bih l
Pr ar
ad
es
h
0–
1
3
10 –
4
20 –
12
30 –
22
40 –
31
INR/CRORES
50 –
46
60 –
A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status
TSC software allocation and expenditure – per district, state wise
The average software allocation is Rs. 4 crore (US$ 0.7 million) with corresponding expenditure
being recorded as just Rs. 1.1 crore (US$ 0.24 million) which translates into 32 percent against the
average allocation (Figure 3.6).
Figure 3.6: Average Software Allocation and Expenditure per District, by State (INR, Crore)
Ar
un
ac
5.3
7.0
6.6
1.9
1.9
ha
lP
ra
M desh
iz
Na oram
ga
lan
d
Ut
ta Go
ra
kh a
an
Sik d
M kim
an
Ha ipur
Hi
rya
m
n
ac
P
ha un a
l P jab
M rade
eg sh
ha
Ja
m
lay
m
a
T
u
r
i
& pu
Ka ra
sh
m
Ke ir
ra
As la
s
Gu am
Ta
j
m ara
il
t
Ka Nad
rn u
Ra atak
jas a
th
an
Ut
t
I
M ar nd
ad P
hy rad ia
a
Pr esh
Jh ade
ar sh
kh
an
d
M
ah Bih
Ch ara ar
ha sht
W ttis ra
es ga
t B rh
en
An
dh O gal
ra ris
Pr sa
ad
es
h
0.0 –
.9
1.0 –
1.7
2.0 –
2.5
3.0 –
.9
4.0 –
.5
.2
.8
.7
.8
.4
.9
.3
1.0
.3
1.1
.5
1.4
.6
1.6
1.0
1.7
.4
1.9
1.0
2.2
.4
2.3
1.2
2.4
.2
2.4
1.5
2.7
.6
2.8
1.4
3.2
1.5
3.5
.9
3.6
1.1
3.7
1.1
3.7
1.2
4.1
1.2
4.4
.7
INR/CRORES
5.0 –
5.3
6.0 –
5.6
7.0 –
5.9
8.0 –
Average software allocation per district
Average software expenditure per district
See Volume 2, Annex 9 for calculations leading to this graph.
TSC software allocation and expenditure – per household, state wise
The average software allocation per household is Rs. 181 (US$ 4) per household while average
software expenditure is Rs. 102 (US$ 2.5) (Figure 3.7).
2439
Figure 3.7: Average Software Allocation and Expenditure per Household (INR)
2500 –
2000 –
950
816
718
588
193
313
509
578
19
398
Ta
m
W il N
es ad
Ut t B u
An tar eng
dh Pra al
ra de
Ut Prad sh
ta
ra esh
k
Ra han
jas d
th
Tri an
pu
Gu ra
j
Ha arat
r
y
Ka a
M rna na
ah ta
ar ka
as
ht
ra
Bih
a
In r
M
di
ad
Ja hy As a
m a sa
m Pr m
u
& ade
K s
C
Hi hh ash h
m
a
ac tti mir
ha sg
l P arh
ra
de
sh
O
Jh ris
ar sa
kh
a
Pu nd
nj
a
K b
Na era
ga la
lan
d
M Goa
an
ip
Ar
S ur
un Me ikk
ac gh im
ha al
l P ay
ra a
M desh
izo
ra
m
0–
114
74
123
54
125
70
152
68
153
78
163
130
165
92
170
98
171
117
172
102
178
142
179
159
181
102
211
183
241
132
257
142
267
181
276
155
282
106
286
144
295
16
314
194
363
500 –
680
1000 –
472
INR
1500 –
Software allocation per household
Average expenditure household
See Volume 2, Annex 10 for calculations leading to this graph.
37
jab
G
M oa
a
Ka nip
rn ur
at
a
Tri ka
p
Ra u
jas ra
th
an
Ut
O
t
a
An r ris
dh Pra sa
ra de
Pr sh
Hi
ad
m
es
ac
h
M hal In
ad P dia
r
hy ad
a
e
Ja Ma Prad sh
m
h
m ar esh
u
& asht
Ka ra
sh
Gu mir
Ar
un
jar
ac
a
ha B t
l P iha
Ch ra r
ha de
tti sh
s
M garh
izo
Jh ra
W arkh m
es an
tB d
en
g
Ke al
ra
l
Ta Ass a
m am
Ut il N
ta ad
ra
kh u
Ha and
rya
n
Sik a
Na kim
M gala
eg nd
ha
lay
a
Pu
n
10,000 –
5,000 –
38
20,000 –
15,000 –
25,000 –
See Volume 2, Annex 12 for calculations leading to this graph.
30,000 –
2,301
3,338
4,000 –
25,888
23,949
2,299
1,889
1,779
1,590
1,563
3,000 –
20,979
20,529
20,202
20,148
20,098
20,078
1,491
1,472
1,425
1,389
1,307
1,274
1,190
1,171
1,155
1,146
1,123
1,091
1,085
1,081
1,019
2,500 –
19,856
19,520
19,498
19,407
19,314
19,277
19,020
18,756
18,443
17,473
17,452
17,320
16,221
15,981
1,012
947
912
INR
2,000 –
15,721
15,492
15,437
907
610
1,500 –
12,991
12,603
341
156
1,000 –
6,020
ha Pun
l
j
W Pra ab
es de
t B sh
e
Ra nga
jas l
th
Tri an
pu
M
r
An ah Oris a
a
s
dh ra a
ra sh
Pr tra
Ja
ad
m
m Ha esh
u
& rya
K n
Ta ash a
m m
il
ir
Ka Nad
r
Ut na u
ta ta
ra ka
kh
a
Gu nd
Jh jar
ar at
kh
an
Ke d
ra
la
In
di
a
M
ad Mi Goa
hy zo
a ra
Pr m
Ar
ad
un
es
h
ac
ha Bih
lP
ar
ra
d
As esh
N sa
Ch aga m
ha lan
tti d
sg
Ut Ma arh
ta ni
r P pu
M rade r
eg sh
ha
la
Sik ya
kim
ac
m
Hi
500 –
5,884
INR
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
TSC hardware expenditure – per BPL household, state wise
The TSC provides financial support (post-construction incentives) for BPL households (APL households
are mobilised to invest on their own to construct toilets). In this context, the average expenditure per
BPL household toilets is Rs. 1,274 (US$ 28) (Figure 3.8).
Figure 3.8: Average Hardware Expenditure Incurred on BPL Households (INR)
3,500 –
0–
See Volume 2, Annex 11 for calculations leading to this graph.
TSC hardware expenditure – per school sanitation facility, state wise
The average school toilet expenditure is Rs. 17,320 (US$ 384) (Figure 3.9).
Figure 3.9: Average Hardware Expenditure Incurred per School Toilet (INR)
0–
M Go
izo a
ra
Pu m
nj
a
Sik b
kim
Or
is
Tri sa
pu
An
ra
dh
ra Bih
W Pra ar
es de
Ut t Be sh
ta ng
M rakh al
ah a
ar nd
as
h
Gu tra
jar
at
Ka Ind
rn ia
at
a
As ka
Jh sa
ar m
kh
M
ad Raj and
hy ast
a
Pr han
ad
es
K
Ta er h
m al
il N a
Ha adu
ry
M a
Ja Utt an na
m ar ip
Ar mu Pra ur
un & de
s
Hi acha Kash h
m
ac l Pr mir
ha ad
Ch l Pr esh
ha ad
tti esh
sh
Na gar
h
M gala
eg nd
ha
lay
a
0–
1,00,000 –
50,000 –
1,50,000 –
2,00,000 –
2,50,000 –
3,00,000 –
3,50,000 –
Figure 3.11: Average District Expenditure Incurred per RSM/PC (INR)
5,00,000 –
4,68,750
9,615
6,447
5,979
5,682
5,600
5,489
5,342
5,230
4,921
4,829
4,815
4,811
4,791
4,776
4,736
4,684
4,682
4,662
4,523
4,340
4,293
4,209
3,678
3,398
INR
15,000 –
4,00,000 –
2,84,000
2,70,273
2,62,000
2,19,600
2,19,167
2,13,931
1,62,700
1,56,029
1,54,946
1,51,291
1,18,003
1,13,673
77,346
76,700
76,401
64,854
54,599
54,192
41,480
41,162
3,030
3,217
10,000 –
39,122
30,087
20,135
13,590
0
0
2,869
483
5,000 –
0
Pu
An
n
dh O jab
M ra ri
s
a
Ar dh Prad sa
un ya
e
ac Pra sh
ha d
e
l
Ut Pra sh
ta de
ra sh
kh
an
Ke d
ra
la
Hi
m Ra Go
ac ja a
ha st
l P ha
ra n
de
Ch Gu sh
ha jar
tti at
sg
ar
h
Ka Ind
rn ia
at
Ut Ha aka
ta rya
r
M Pra na
ah de
ar sh
as
Ja
m Miz htra
m
u ora
Ka m
Na shm
g ir
Jh alan
ar
kh d
a
Tri nd
pu
W A ra
es ssa
tB m
en
ga
Ta Bi l
m ha
i
M l Na r
eg du
ha
la
Sik ya
M kim
an
ip
ur
0–
0
INR
30,000 –
25,226
A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status
TSC hardware expenditure – per Anganwadi (pre-school) sanitation facility, state wise
The expenditure on pre-school toilet (Aganwadi) is Rs. 4,684 (US$ 104) (Figure 3.10).
Figure 3.10: Average Expenditure Incurred per Pre-school Toilet (INR)
25,000 –
20,000 –
See Volume 2, Annex 13 for calculations leading to this graph.
TSC hardware expenditure – per RSM/Production Centre (PC), state wise
The average district expenditure on setting up RSMs/PCs is Rs. 64,854 (US$ 1,141) (Figure 3.11).
4,50,000 –
See Volume 2, Annex 14 for calculations leading to this graph.
39
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
TSC expenditure on SLWM, state wise
The average district expenditure on SLWM initiatives is Rs. 40,089 (US$ 890) (Figure 3.12).
1,494,333
Figure 3.12: Average District Expenditure Incurred on SLWM (INR)
16,00,000 –
14,00,000 –
8,00,000 –
Ar
un
ac
148,750
81,207
46,458
40,089
39,359
36,591
34,784
35,091
32,588
33,756
27,301
27,098
20,841
7,003
8,739
6,644
6,032
4,921
3,236
0
0
0
0
M
ha
lP
ra
de
sh
eg Go
h a
Na alay
ga a
la
Pu nd
nj
W Tri ab
es pu
M t Be ra
ah ng
ar al
Hi
a
m Ka sht
ac rn ra
ha at
l P ak
ra a
Ra des
jas h
M
th
ad
a
hy O n
a riss
P
Ut rad a
tra es
kh h
an
Ch
ha Ass d
tti am
sh
ga
rh
Ja
B
m
m Ha ihar
u
& rya
Ka na
sh
M mi
an r
ip
Gu ur
jar
at
Jh Ind
Ut ark ia
ta ha
rP n
ra d
de
s
Ke h
ra
S la
An Tam ikki
dh il m
ra Na
Pr du
a
M desh
izo
ra
m
0 –
0
2,00,000 –
745
4,00,000 –
126,367
6,00,000 –
535,429
10,00,000 –
280,948
INR
12,00,000 –
See Volume 2, Annex 15 for calculations leading to this graph.
3.4 Outputs
The outputs of the TSC in terms of toilets constructed in households, schools and pre-schools, and
progress in terms of the number of RSMs set up and SLWM works undertaken is presented here.
3.4.1 Toilets Constructed in Households, Schools and Pre-schools
Under TSC, more than 6.43 crore toilets have been constructed – 3.48 crore BPL toilets, and 2.95
crore APL toilets (Figure 3.13).
Target
40
IHHL
Total
Progress
IHHL
BPL
IHHL
APL
School
Toilets
Pre-school
Toilets
0.18
0.3
3.16
0–
4.4
200 –
9.73
11.97
400 –
295.1
600 –
610.7
800 –
348.2
1,000 –
591.0
x100000
1,200 –
643.3
1,400 –
1,201.7
Figure 3.13: Progress of Toilets in Households and Institutions (Cumulative)
Community
Toilets
A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status
More than 5.5 crore household toilets still need to be constructed – 3.1 crore APL and 2.4 crore BPL.
Currently, India, on an average, constructs 29,247 toilets per day. However, India needs to construct
more than 76,498 household toilets per day in the next two years to achieve 100 percent coverage
which means doubling its efforts (Figure 3.14).
Construction of IHHL under TSC – current and required pace
103
757
87
80% –
742
25
90% –
738
0
5
2
0
193
12,306
76,498
1,826
29,247
11,470
6,155
6,125
1,099
5,459
5,914
1,989
2,324
5,089
1,199 5,342
3,106
4,085
3,551
789
1,300
3,479
888
3,329
1,518
3,109
949
80
2,138
266
253
330
32
80
135
186
25
115
0% –
26
10% –
23
20% –
24
30% –
627
40% –
2,520
659
50% –
1,429
60% –
1,288
16
70% –
450
100% –
Ke
ra
Sik la
M kim
izo
ra
m
Go
Tri a
Hi
pu
m
Ar ach Har ra
un al ya
ac Pr na
ha ad
l P es
ra h
Na des
h
M gala
eg nd
ha
la
Ut Man ya
ta ip
ra ur
kh
a
Pu nd
Ja
m
n
ja
m
u Gu b
& jar
Ch Kas at
ha hm
t
Ta tisg ir
m ar
W il N h
es ad
tB u
Jh eng
ar al
kh
an
d
A
M K ssa
ad ar
m
n
h
An ya ata
dh Pra ka
ra de
M Pra sh
ah de
ar sh
a
Ra sht
jas ra
th
a
Ut
ta Or n
r P iss
ra a
de
sh
Bih
a
In r
di
a
Rate of Construction per day
Figure 3.14: Household Toilet Construction Pace - Current and Required
Current construction capacity per day
Construction capacity needed per day to reach 100% coverage by 2012
See Volume 2, Annex16 for calculations leading to this graph.
Coverage of IHHL under TSC
There has been 54 percent progress against the target for household sanitation – 59 percent among
BPL households and 48 percent among APL households (Figure 3.15).
87
98
97
97
109
74
73
62
60
59
59
54
54
48
46
38
36
32
31
31
26
20
20 –
15
40 –
23
60 –
45
72
80 –
9
Percent
100 –
91
120 –
102
Figure 3.15: Total Household Toilet Coverage under TSC, by State
Ja
m
m
u
&
M
an
Ka ipur
sh
m
i
Ar
Bih r
un
ac
a
ha Ass r
l P am
M rade
eg sh
h
Na alay
g a
Jh alan
ar
kh d
an
Or d
R
is
Ch ajas sa
ha tha
tti n
Ka sga
Ut rna rh
ta ta
ra ka
kh
M
an
ad
d
hy
I
n
a
Pr dia
ad
Ut P esh
ta un
r
j
M Pra ab
An ah de
dh ara sh
ra sh
P tr
Ta rad a
m es
W il N h
es ad
tB u
en
ga
Hi
l
Go
m
ac G a
ha uja
l P ra
ra t
d
Ha esh
rya
Tri na
M pur
izo a
ra
Ke m
ra
Sik la
kim
0–
See Volume 2, Annex 17 for calculations leading to this graph.
41
M
M anip
m eg ur
u ha
&
Ka laya
Ar
sh
un
m
ac
P
ha un ir
l P ja
ra b
de
sh
Bih
A ar
Ra ssa
ja m
Na stha
g n
Jh alan
ar
kh d
an
Or d
Ka is
Ut rna sa
ta ta
C ra ka
M hh kha
ad att nd
hy isg
a
Pr arh
ad
es
h
M
An ah Ind
dh ara ia
ra sh
Ut Pr tra
ta ad
r P es
Ta rad h
m es
il N h
Hi
m
ac G adu
ha uj
l P ara
ra t
de
sh
W
es G
t B oa
en
Ha ga
rya l
Tri na
M pur
izo a
ra
Ke m
ra
Sik la
kim
m
Ja
7
20 –
42
40 –
36
60 –
See Volume 2, Annex 20 for calculations leading to this graph.
80 –
100 –
120 –
113
102
99
98
97
97
93
90
120 –
99
97
97
96
92
90
65
100 –
86
83
64
60
58
54
52
51
50
48
46
80 –
80
71
64
60
59
57
53
51
49
44
41
39
Percent
60 –
46
45
29
20
14
14
10
9
7
6
40 –
31
28
27
26
24
m Nag
u
& alan
Ka d
Jh shm
ar
kh ir
an
d
Bih
M a
an r
ip
Ar
As ur
un
sa
ac
m
ha Or
l P iss
Ch ra a
ha de
tti sh
Ra sgar
ja h
Ka stha
r
Ut na n
ta ta
ra ka
kh
an
d
W
es Ind
t
U
ia
M ttar Ben
ad P ga
hy rad l
a
Pr esh
An Me ade
dh gh sh
ra ala
M Pra ya
ah de
ar sh
as
ht
ra
Ta
G
m
o
il N a
Hi
m
ac G adu
ha uja
l P ra
ra t
d
Ha esh
rya
Tri na
pu
Pu ra
M njab
izo
ra
Sik m
ki
Ke m
ra
la
m
Ja
20 –
24
24
Percent
140 –
128
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
The IHHL coverage for each district is given in Volume 2, Annex 18.
Coverage of APL IHHL under TSC
Figure 3.16: APL Household Toilet Coverage under TSC
0–
See Volume 2, Annex 19 for calculations leading to this graph.
Coverage of BPL IHHL under TSC
Figure 3.17: BPL Household Toilets Constructed under TSC
0–
eg
h
Na alay
ga a
M lan
Hi W an d
m es ip
Ja ach t Be ur
m al ng
m Pr a
u
l
& ade
Ka sh
sh
m
ir
Ut
ta Bih
ra ar
kh
an
d
Go
A a
Ra ssam
jas
Jh th
ar an
kh
An
an
dh
d
ra Ind
P
i
Ar
ra a
de
un
s
ac
ha Or h
i
l
s
P
Ut ra sa
ta de
rP s
ra h
de
Tri sh
p
M P ura
ah un
a ja
M Ta rash b
ad m tr
hy il N a
a
Pr adu
ad
e
Ch Har sh
ha ya
tti na
sg
ar
Ke h
Ka ra
rn la
a
M taka
izo
ra
Sik m
k
Gu im
jar
at
M
40
20
School toilet progress
26
54
60
59
59
100
98
100
109
108
87
99
102
99
98
97
98
95
94
94
91
97
93
91
90
90
87
120
46
72
62
54
81
108
100
100
99
99
98
98
95
94
94
93
91
91
90
90
87
81
80
78
120
45
36
32
80
66
61
59
55
55
53
51
49
46
100
38
78
59
48
61
74
66
55
91
26
80
23
20
55
73
80
53
51
49
100
15
31
60
46
Percent
40
26
31
eg
h
Na alay
ga a
M lan
Hi W an d
m es ip
Ja ach t Be ur
m al ng
m Pr a
u
l
& ade
Ka sh
sh
m
ir
Ut
ta Bih
ra ar
kh
an
d
Go
A a
Ra ssam
jas
Jh th
ar an
kh
An
an
dh
d
ra Ind
P
Ar
ra ia
de
un
s
ac
ha Or h
i
l
s
P
Ut ra sa
ta de
rP s
ra h
de
Tri sh
p
M P ura
ah un
a ja
M Ta rash b
ad m tr
hy il N a
a
Pr adu
ad
e
Ch Har sh
ha ya
tti na
sg
ar
Ke h
Ka ra
rn la
a
M taka
i zo
ra
Si k m
k
Gu im
jar
at
M
60
9
Percent
A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status
Coverage of school sanitation under TSC
Figure 3.18: School Toilet Coverage under TSC
20
0
See Volume 2, Annex 21 for calculations leading to this graph.
Comparison of coverage of IHHL and school sanitation under TSC
Figure 3.19 shows the coverage of school sanitation vis-à-vis household sanitation coverage.
Figure 3.19: Comparative Status of Household Sanitation and School Sanitation under TSC
0
IHHL progress
See Volume 2, Annex 22 for calculations leading to this graph.
43
M Goa
izo
ra
Sik m
k
Ar
P im
un Me unj
Ja ach gha ab
m al la
m Pr ya
u
& ade
K s
Hi Utt ash h
m ar m
ac ak ir
ha ha
l P nd
r
Na ade
ga sh
l
M and
an
Ra ip
ja ur
Ka stha
Ch rna n
h t
Ut atti aka
ta sg
r P ar
ra h
de
sh
K
M Tam era
ad
l
hy il N a
ad
a
W Pra u
es de
t B sh
en
As gal
An
sa
m
dh
ra In
Pr dia
Jh ade
ar sh
kh
an
d
Bih
ar
Or
is
M Gu sa
ah jar
ar at
as
h
Ha tra
rya
Tri na
pu
ra
44
See Volume 2, Annex 24 for calculations leading to this graph.
493
371
346
302
294
200
191
157
152
122
106
88
77
76
72
68
57
44
36
31
14
13
11
9
0
936
1,842
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
Ka
sh
m
ir
Go
M Bih a
eg a
ha r
M laya
Ut an
ta ip
ra ur
kh
a
Pu nd
Jh nja
Hi W arkh b
m es a
ac t B nd
ha e
l P ng
ra al
d
An
dh A esh
ra ss
Pr am
a
Ra des
jas h
Na tha
ga n
Ar
un
lan
ac
ha In d
l P di
ra a
de
sh
Ut
O
ta
r P riss
ra a
d
Tri esh
Ha pur
rya a
Ch K na
ha er
t al
Ta tisg a
m arh
il N
a
Gu du
j
K
ar
M arna at
ah ta
ar ka
as
M
ad Mi htra
hy zo
a ram
Pr
ad
Gu esh
jar
at
&
Percent
18
16
15
15
11
8
46
37
35
35
34
33
32
100
100
99
95
94
92
86
86
85
79
76
73
72
61
122
122
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
u
m
m
Ja
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
Coverage of Anganwadi (pre-school) sanitation under TSC
Figure 3.20: Pre-school Toilet Coverage under TSC
See Volume 2, Annex 23 for calculations leading to this graph.
Establishment of RSMs/PCs under TSC
The TSC has sanctioned 4,191 RSMs and 139 PCs; overall, 5,214 RSMs and 3,046 PCs have been set
up across the country (Figure 3.21).
Figure 3.21: RSM/PC Progress against Target
A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status
3.4.2 Progress in Undertaking SLWM Works
The SLWM component has been initiated in only in 17,063 villages so far (Figure 3.22).
17,063
3,223
2,763
2,101
1,688
1,645
1,245
842
699
652
548
385
312
212
208
105
143
51
98
45
15
44
15
11
9
4
0
0
sh
Na Go
ga a
lan
Ja
Sik d
m
m Mi kim
u zo
&
r
K am
M ash
eg mi
ha r
la
Pu ya
nj
M ab
an
ip
ur
Ut
ta Bih
ra ar
kh
An
a
dh K nd
ra era
Pr la
ad
e
W As sh
es sa
t
m
Ta Ben
m ga
il
l
Jh Nad
ar
u
kh
an
Tri d
pu
r
Hi
m Ka Oris a
ac rn sa
ha at
a
Ch l Pra ka
ha de
tti sh
s
Ra gar
jas h
th
M Gu an
ah jar
ar at
as
M
ad Ha htra
hy ry
a
a
Ut Pra na
ta d
r P es
ra h
de
sh
In
di
a
0
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Ar
un
ac
ha
lP
ra
de
work/Rs taken up
Figure 3.22: Number of Villages in which SWLM Work Taken Up
See Volume 2, Annex 25 for calculations leading to this graph.
3.5 Process
Process analysis explores the performance of the states’ efficiency and priority which is measured
against acceleration rate, inclusiveness and effectiveness of the scaling up coverage.
3.5.1 Acceleration Rate of Household Sanitation
An acceleration rate scale has been developed to measure the extent of coverage achieved in a
specified period of time. In this regard, the states have been ranked on a scale of 1 to 10 based on
the IHHL coverage and the time taken to achieve that coverage. The following formula has been used
to calculate this coverage:
Acceleration Rate Scale (0-10) =
Household Sanitation Coverage Achieved under TSC X 10
Average time taken*
* The time taken by each district from the sanction date is averaged at state and country levels
On the acceleration rate scale, India scores 5.1 in reaching the TSC target (Figure 3.23) while Himachal
Pradesh stands out as the most efficient state in achieving the maximum acceleration.
45
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
8.3
7.1
7.0
6.6
6.2
5.7
5.6
5.2
5.1
5.1
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.7
3.3
3.3
3.0
2.5
2.3
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.4
Pr
ad
M esh
an
ip
Ke ur
ra
Tri la
pu
ra
Ja
m
Go
m
a
u
& Bih
Ka ar
sh
m
Pu i r
nj
a
A b
Na ssa
ga m
la
M
Ut iz nd
o
ta ra
ra m
kh
an
d
S
i
Jh kk
ar im
kh
an
O d
An Ra ris
dh jas sa
ra th
a
M Pra n
ah de
s
a
M rash h
eg tr
Ka hala a
rn ya
at
ak
Ut
ta In a
rP d
i
M Wes rade a
ad t
s
hy Be h
a ng
Ch Pra al
ha de
t sh
Ta tisg
m ar
il N h
Ha adu
Hi
ry
m
ac G ana
ha uj
l P ara
ra t
de
sh
1.0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Ar
un
ac
ha
l
Acceleration Rate Scale
Figure 3.23: Performance of the Country and States on Acceleration Scale (0-10) in
Scaling Up Household Coverage
See Volume 2, Annex 26 for calculations leading to this graph.
3.5.2 Reaching the Poorest
128
99
102
113
10
24
29
26
27
14
28
41
31
6
36
9
45
20
46
44
49
46
51
39
53
52
57
48
59
60
60
58
64
51
71
65
80
90
83
93
86
64
90
50
92
97
96
97
97
99
97
98
7
24
54
24
14
7
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Ja
m
M
M anip
m eg u
u ha r
&
Ka laya
Ar
sh
un
m
ac
P
ha un ir
l P ja
ra b
de
sh
Bih
A ar
Ra ssam
jas
Na tha
n
Jh gala
ar nd
kh
an
d
Ka Oris
r
s
n
a
Ut
ta ata
Ch rak ka
M ha ha
ad tt nd
hy isg
a
Pr arh
ad
es
h
M
I
a
n
An ha d
dh ra ia
s
r
Ut a P htra
ta rad
r
e
Ta Prad sh
m es
il N h
Hi
m
ac G adu
ha uj
l P ara
ra t
de
sh
W
es G
t B oa
en
Ha gal
rya
Tri na
M pura
izo
ra
m
Ke
ra
Sik la
kim
Percent
Figure 3.24: Comparative Status of APL and BPL Household Toilet Achievement
APL IHHL progress
BPL IHHL progress
See Volume 2, Annex 27 for calculations leading to this graph.
In most states, the ratio of the BPL and APL is about 1, indicating equal importance to both groups in
mobilising their commitment for adoption of toilet facilities. However, some states have given more
importance to BPL. States showing a ratio more than 1 have placed higher priority on BPL families.
Overall, India has accorded higher priority to BPL household sanitation (Figure 3.25).
46
A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status
2.6
2.3
1.9
1.8
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.4
3.6
4.8
6.2
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
M
Pu
eg njab
ha
M lay
an a
Ra ipu
jas r
Ar
un
th
a
ac
ha Ker n
l P ala
ra
Hi
d
m
ac G esh
ha uja
l P ra
ra t
M desh
i zo
Ha ram
rya
M Tr na
M ah ip
ad ar ur
a a
An hya sht
P
dh ra ra
ra de
Pr sh
ad
es
Si k h
Ka ki
Ut rna m
ta tak
ra
kh a
an
Ta In d
Ch mil dia
h N
Ut atti adu
ta sg
r P ar
ra h
de
sh
W
es Go
tB a
en
g
As al
sa
m
Ja
Or
m
iss
m
a
u
& Bih
Ka ar
Jh shm
ar
k ir
Na han
ga d
lan
d
Ratio
Figure 3.25: Ratio of APL and BPL Household Toilet Achievement
See Volume 2, Annex 28 for calculations leading to this graph.
3.5.3 Reaching Backward and Drought Prone Regions
A comparative analysis of household sanitation coverage and NGP coverage (against the number of
total GPs) in backward and drought-prone regions has been carried out. The districts covered under
the Backward Regions Grant Fund (BRGF) and Drought Prone Areas Programme (DPAP) were analysed
in comparison with non-BRGF and -DPAP districts (Figures 3.26, 3.27, 3.28 and 3.29).
Figure 3.26: Sanitation Coverage (Household) in BRGF Districts and Non-BRGF Districts
20
67
57
68
72
68
59
71
66
72
71
74
84
80
75
83
71
85
76
86
66
89
100
89
70
94
88
95
97
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
59
33
40
38
60
58
82
54
46
36
52
80
33
22
Percent
100
62
69
62
72
63
71
65
47
66
100
120
Ar
Ch
ha Bih
tti ar
sg
un
ar
ac
h
O
ha
l P rissa
ra
Ra des
jas h
An Jh tha
dh ark n
ra ha
Pr nd
ad
es
h
A
M ssa
eg m
Ka hala
rn ya
Ja
at
m
a
m
u Pu ka
& n
K ja
M Utta ashmb
ad ra
hy kh ir
a
a
M Pra nd
ah de
ar sh
as
ht
ra
In
d
Ut Gu ia
ta
r P jara
t
r
Na ade
s
g
h
Ta al
m an
il N d
M adu
an
Ha ipu
W
r
Hi
m es ryan
ac t B a
ha en
l P ga
ra l
de
s
Ke h
M ral
izo a
ra
Sik m
k
Tri im
pu
ra
0
IHHL coverage in BRGF districts
IHHL coverage in non-BRGF districts
See Volume 2, Annex 29 for calculations leading to this graph.
In the context of NGP coverage, the non-BRGF districts show better coverage but the BRGF districts in
states like Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, and Gujarat have better access comparatively.
47
48
&
As
s
Ka am
sh
M m
an ir
ip
Ar
Pu ur
un
nj
a
ac
ha Bi b
l P ha
ra r
de
s
Or h
Ra iss
Ut ja a
ta sth
Ch r Pra an
ha de
tti sh
s
M
ad M garh
hy izo
An a ra
dh Pra m
ra de
Ut Pra sh
ta de
ra sh
k
Jh han
ar
kh d
a
T nd
M ripu
eg ra
Hi
ha
m
ac H laya
a
ha ry
l P an
ra a
de
s
In h
d
i
Ta Guj a
m ara
i
W lN t
es ad
tB u
Ka eng
rn al
Na atak
M ga a
ah la
ar nd
as
ht
r
Ke a
ra
Sik la
kim
u
m
m
Ja
Percent
40
20
0
NGP coverage in DPAP districts See Volume 2, Annex 32 for calculations leading to this graph.
NGP coverage in non-DPAP districts
120
100
0
0
100
100
16
12
16
22
21
34
38
14
7
51
42
94
85
100
100
73
100
0
100
86
100
99
94
87
96
90
84
15
18
16
120
0
62
64
81
86
82
120
0
0
0
0
80
73
80
74
65
75
83
79
100
0
36
11
4
8
6
1
6
9
6
7
6
8
8
20
15
20
60
57
Average IHHL coverage in DPAP districts 69
71
70
68
63
68
1
5
2
0
2
3
3
80
20
60
54
0
67
58
67
NGP coverage in BRGF districts 0
20
60
65
65
Percent
40
0
40
0
60
0
80
0
3
0
1
0
7
0
1
0
3
1
1
1
1
1
0
22
33
35
39
35
45
54
52
36
59
Pr
ad
M esh
an
M ipu
i zo r
ra
Pu m
n
Ra ja
jas b
Ja
th
m
a
m
u As n
& sa
Ka m
Ka shm
rn ir
at
ak
Or a
iss
Ut
ta Bi a
r P ha
ra r
d
An
dh Tr esh
i
ra pu
Ch Pra ra
ha de
tt sh
M Jh isga
ad ar rh
hy kh
a
P an
Hi Utt rad d
m ar es
ac ak h
ha ha
W l Pra nd
es de
t B sh
en
ga
M In l
eg dia
h
Na ala
y
g
Ta ala a
m nd
M il N
ah a
ar du
as
h
Gu tra
j
Ha arat
rya
n
Ke a
ra
Si k l a
ki m
ha
l
Ar
un
ac
20
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
2
0
3
1
3
0
3
2
3
6
5
0
5
7
6
4
7
6
8
5
9
0
9
0
11
0
16
24
16
5
19
17
21
20
21
25
27
6
29
0
B
ar ihar
kh
a
Ch O nd
ha ris
tt sa
Ar
un R isga
a
a
ja rh
M cha sth
ad l P an
hy rad
a
Pr esh
ad
e
A sh
Ka ssa
rn m
An Me ata
dh gh ka
ra ala
Pr ya
Ja
ad
m
e
m
u Pun sh
&
Ka jab
sh
m
ir
Ut
ta Ind
ra ia
kh
a
Gu nd
j
N a
Ut ag rat
ta ala
rP n
ra d
M des
Ta an h
m ip
W il N ur
es ad
tB u
e
H ng
Hi Ma ary al
m h an
ac ar
ha ash a
l P tr
ra a
de
s
Ke h
r
M al
izo a
ra
Sik m
k
Tri im
pu
ra
Jh
Percent
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
Figure 3.27: NGP Coverage in BRGF Districts and Non-BRGF Districts
NGP coverage in non-BRGF districts
See Volume 2, Annex 30 for calculations leading to this graph.
Figure 3.28: Sanitation Coverage (Household) in DPAP Districts and Non-DPAP Districts
Average IHHL coverage in non-DPAP districts
See Volume 2, Annex 31 for calculations leading to this graph.
Figure 3.29: NGP Coverage in DPAP Districts and Non-DPAP Districts
80
A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status
3.5.4 Success Rate in NGP Applications
A comparison of the number of awards and the number of applications year wise provides the success
rate of the applications (Figure 3.30). In total, only 40 percent of the applicants won the award. This
may be due to a weak monitoring system at district and state levels.
Figure 3.30: Application versus Award: NGP Success Rate of States
100
120
85
68
65
64
63
60
51
46
45
44
43
40
40
39
36
32
32
28
27
25
22
21
20
20
20
40
19
60
39
80
12
Percent
100
U Mi
tta zo
r P ram
R rade
aja sh
st
G han
A
u
ru
ja
na
ra
M cha Trip t
ad l P ura
hy rad
a
C Pra esh
hh d
at esh
tis
ga
rh
A
Bih
nd P a
hr un r
a
ja
U Pra b
ttr de
ak sh
ha
n
O d
Ha rissa
r
M yan
an a
ip
ur
Ja W
m es Ind
m t B ia
u
& eng
Ka al
sh
H
m
im Jh Ass ir
ac ark am
ha ha
l P nd
N rade
a
s
M gala h
M egh nd
ah ala
a
y
Ta rash a
m tr
a
i
K l Na
ar du
na
ta
K ka
er
S ala
ikk
im
0
See Volume 2, Annex 33 for calculations leading to this graph.
3.6 Outcomes
The NGP provides a context for capturing the elimination of open defecation at the household level
but also for assessing related sanitation issues at the community level. The receipt of NGP at the
national level is a good indicator for measuring the achievement of total sanitation status.
3.6.1 Number of NGP Winners
At the national level, 22,618 NGPs had been awarded by 2009. More than 22,443 GPs (Figure 3.31),
165 blocks, 10 districts, and one state have won the award so far. Sikkim is the first state to have
achieved Nirmal status with 100 percent access to sanitation facilities in homes and institutions.
22,443
Figure 3.31: NGP GPs, by State
20,000
8,387
15,000
2,097
1,670
1,512
1,132
1,087
1,041
989
870
845
521
520
418
225
207
198
164
155
96
63
50
31
24
14
Ja
m
Ar mu Ma
un & nip
ac Ka ur
ha sh
lP m
ra ir
de
A sh
M ssa
iz m
N ora
ag m
M al
eg and
ha
la
Pu ya
n
Tr jab
ip
O ura
ris
S sa
ikk
im
R Bih
aj
a
Jh asth r
a
a
H Ut rkh n
im ta an
ac rak d
ha h
a
l
Ch Pra nd
ha des
tt
h
K isga
ar
r
na h
t
K aka
er
H
a
A We arya la
nd st
n
hr Be a
U a Pr nga
M tta ad l
ad r P esh
hy rad
a
Pr esh
ad
G esh
Ta uj
m a
M il rat
ah Na
ar du
as
ht
ra
In
di
a
0
12
5,000
113
10,000
2
No. of NGPs
25,000
See Volume 2, Annex 34 for calculations leading to this graph.
49
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
States such as Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal have
received the maximum number of awards.
The district-wise distribution of NGP awards is given in Volume 2, Annex 35.
Figure 3.32: NGP State-wise Status (%)
3.6.2 NGP Winners versus Total Number of GPs
At the national level, the percent achievement of NGP is less than 10 percent against the total number
of GPs.
&
u
m
m
Ja
See Volume 2, Annex 36 for calculations leading to this graph.
50
31.9
16.6
16.1
16.0
15.0
12.1
9.2
6.6
6.2
5.8
5.7
5.0
4.3
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.1
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
an
i
Ka pur
sh
m
Ar
Pu ir
un
nj
a
ac
ha Ass b
l P am
M rad
Ut egh esh
ta al
r P ay
ra a
Ra des
jas h
th
an
Bih
a
An M Oris r
s
dh iz a
ra or
Ch Pra am
ha de
Ut ttis sh
ta ga
ra rh
M Jh kha
ad ar nd
hy kh
a
Pr and
ad
es
h
In
di
Tri a
p
Gu ura
Ka ja
rn rat
Hi
at
m
ac Ha aka
ha ry
l P an
Ta rade a
m
M il N sh
ah a
d
W aras u
es ht
t B ra
Na eng
ga al
lan
Ke d
ra
Sik la
kim
0
0.4
20
0.1
40
10.9
60
30.0
80
100.0
79.4
100
M
NGP COVERAGE (%)
120
95.1
Figure 3.33: NGP GPs as Percentage of Total Number of Gram Panchayats
A Decade of TSC: Progress and Status
3.7 Goal
The TSC’s goal is to eradicate the practice of open defecation in the rural areas of the country,
which it plans to achieve in 2012. In addition, India is also committed to achieving the Millennium
Development Goal (MDG) target.
This section looks at the performance of the states on achieving universal sanitation coverage
(households) which would help in understanding the current status as well as the extent of progress
expected in the future towards reaching the goal.
To assess and project universal sanitation coverage, the analysis takes into account current cumulative
coverage (based on projected household growth) and average growth rate of access to toilets for the
last seven years across India and within states.
3.7.1 Progress towards Universal Sanitation Coverage
Given the current and annual growth rate in coverage, India will attain complete coverage in individual
household toilets by 2018 (Figure 3.34).
2064
2056
2046
2038
2037
2029
2028
2027
2024
2024
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2018
2017
2017
2016
2016
2014
2013
2013
2012
2012
2012
2011
2011
2008
2070
2060
2050
2040
2030
2020
2010
2000
1990
1980
Si
M kkim
izo
r
Tri am
Hi
pu
m
ac Ha ra
ha ry
l P an
ra a
de
sh
Ta Ker
m al
W il N a
es ad
tB u
en
M Gu gal
ah j
Ut ara arat
t
An ar sht
ra
d P
M hra rade
ad Pr sh
hy ad
a
Pr esh
ad
es
h
Ch
ha Ind
i
Ut ttis a
ta ga
ra rh
k
Ka han
rn d
at
ak
M Or a
eg iss
h a
Na ala
ga ya
Ra lan
jas d
th
As an
Jh sa
ar m
Ja
kh
m
an
m
d
P
u
& unja
Ka b
sh
m
ir
Go
a
Ar
B
un
ac Ma ihar
ha n
l P ipu
ra r
de
sh
Year of Achievement
Figure 3.34: Country and States Achieving Universal Sanitation (Household)
Coverage (Year Wise)
Already Achieved
By 2012
Beyond 2012
See Volume 2, Annex 37 for calculations leading to this graph.
51
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
4. TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level:
Findings of the Rapid Assessment
This chapter presents the findings of this study under each component of the rating scale developed
to assess district-level processes and outcomes on the TSC (cumulative and stand-alone) and analyses
the linkages between this and the sample districts benchmarking score. To recap, the components of
the rating scale and benchmarking indicators are presented in Figure 4.1. This chapter is structured
as follows:
• First, it presents the results of an analysis between district cumulative score on the rating scale and
the benchmarking score to understand if these two factors are correlated and to what extent; and
• Next, it analyses district performance on each of the six individual dimensions of the rating scale in
terms of their individual score and if this correlates with the overall performance as represented by
the benchmarking score and the extent of correlation. Study findings from the sample districts on
individual dimensions are also presented here.
Figure 4.1: Components of Rating Scale and Benchmarking
Rating
Scale
Measures Programme
Processes & Outcomes
1. Strategy for TSC
Implementation
2.Institutional
structure and
Capacity
3.Programme
Approach to
Creating
Demand and
Scaling Up
4.Technology
Promotion and
Supply Chain
5. Financing and
Incentives
6. Monitoring System
52
Benchmarking Measures
Programme Results
1. % TSC Budget
Spent
2. % Individual
Household Latrine
Target Achieved
3. % School
Sanitation Target
Achieved
4. Financial Efficiency
5. Average Population
Covered by a GP
6. Success Rate of
NGP Applications
7. No. of NGPs won
8. % of NGP
Panchayats to
Total No. of PRIs
TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment
4.1 Correlation between District Performance on Benchmarking and
Rating Scale (Cumulative)
58
58
55
95
90
89
85
85
Am
rit
sa
Va r
Ju lsa
na d
ga
dh
J
o
Dh rh
en at
ka
n
Gu al
Sr
m
ika la
ku
Be lum
gu
sa
Vi B rai
ru ika
dh n
an er
a
M gar
W ain
es p
t T ur
rip i
ur
a
Ak
Su ola
rg
Sh uja
im
og
a
Ba Si
rd rsa
ha
m
an
Ha Rew
m a
Ko irpu
l
r
Ea hap
st
u
Sik r
Ko kim
tta
ya
m
0
o Kolhapur
o Sirisa
Shimoga o o Bardhaman
Benchmarking score percent
80 –
Bi-variate Correlation
83
73
40
33
28
27
18
10
20
15
40
27
60
78
Mean = 59%
80
83
100
81
Strategy for TSC Implementation
Institutional Structure and Capacity
Programme Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up
Technology Promotion and Supply Chain
Financing and Incentives
Monitoring System
67
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Percent
Sample Districts’ Score
on the Rating Scale
Component
CUMULATIVE PERFORMANCE ON RATING SCALE
o Virudhanagar
o Valsad
o East Sikkim
o Rewa
o Surguja
60 –
Average benchmarking score =52%
o Gumla
o Junagadh
40 –
o West Tripura
o
Bikaner
o Akola
o Begusarai
o Hamirpur
o Kottayam
o Jorhat
o Dhenkanal
o Srikakulum
20 –
o Mainpuri
R Sq Linear = 0.436
Average rating
scale =59%
o Amritsar
0–
0
20
40
60
80
100
Total rating scale percent
Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (Pearson Correlation .661**)
In the sample districts, a strong positive correlation was found between district performance
on the benchmarking model and rating scale. This means that districts that do well on six
components required for scaling up and sustaining sanitation, also perform well in terms of TSC
results which are captured by the benchmarking model, and vice versa.
53
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
4.2 Component 1: Strategy for TSC Implementation
4.2.1 Correlation between District Strategy Score and Benchmarking Score
50
40
30
20
20
100
100
100
o Kolhapur
o Sirisa
Shimoga o o Bardhaman
Benchmarking score percent
80 –
Bi-variate Correlation
95
90
80
80
70
na
ga
Am dh
rit
s
Va ar
Be lsad
g
Sr usa
ika ra
ku i
lu
m
Dh Jorh
en at
ka
na
l
Vi
G
ru um
dh
an la
a
Bik gar
an
Su er
rg
M uj
ain a
pu
r
Ak i
Ha ol
W mir a
es
t T pur
rip
ur
a
Ea Rew
st
Sik a
Ko kim
lh
Sh apu
im r
Ko og
tta a
ya
m
Ba S
rd irs
ha a
m
an
0
0
0
20
20
40
20
60
15
Percent
80
60
Mean = 57%
100
95
120
90
TSC guidelines are understood and implemented by core group
A well-defined strategy with goal, phasing, budgetary allocation and monitoring plan exists
TSC implementation is being undertaken by related departments
Strong political and administrative will exists to implement at different levels
TSC principles are being adopted in the right spirit – community-level engagement,
post-construction incentive, appropriate technology
60
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Ju
Sample Districts’ Score
on the Rating Scale
Component
STRATEGY FOR TSC IMPLEMENTATION
o Virudhanagar
o Valsad
o Surguja
60 –
East Sikkim o
o Rewa
Average benchmarking score =52%
o Gumla
o Junagadh
o Begusarai
40 –
o Hamirpur
o West Tripura
o
Bikaner
o Akola
o Kottayam
o Jorhat
o Dhenkanal
o Srikakulum
20 –
o Mainpuri
R Sq Linear = 0.436
Average strategy
scale =57%
o Amritsar
0–
0
20
40
60
80
100
Strategy score (percent)
Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (Pearson Correlation .660**).
As can be seen from the graph above, in sample districts, there is a strong positive correlation
between the performance on strategy for TSC implementation and TSC results as indicated by the
benchmarking score. Therefore, districts that have a well-defined strategy for TSC implementation
perform better in terms of programme results, and vice versa.
54
TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment
4.2.2 Study Findings on Strategy for TSC Implementation
Component 1: Strategy for TSC Implementation
The TSC guidelines provide a broad framework within which states and districts have the flexibility
to devise their own strategies for programme implementation depending on the socio-economic
context, terrain and capacity existing in that state/district. A strategy can signal priorities, assign
roles and responsibilities, and often allocate human and financial resources for execution. Ensuring
the administrative will to implement a shared strategy uniformly is the starting point for scaling up.
Figure 4.2: Study Districts Average Performance on Strategy for TSC Implementation (n=22)
TSC guidelines are understood and
implemented by core group
TSC principles are
being adopted in the
right spirit
Strong political and administrative
will to implement at different levels
Well defined strategy with goal,
phasing, budgetary allocation
and monitoring plan exists
TSC implementation is being
undertaken by related departments
4.2.2.1 TSC guidelines are understood and implemented by the core group
The TSC represents a departure from the way that conventional rural sanitation programmes are
implemented. According to programme guidelines, the TSC seeks to be community-led and demanddriven rather than target-led and supply-driven. As can be seen from Figure 4.2, in 89 percent of
the sample districts, senior district-level officials share this understanding of the TSC framework and
principles. The core team is also aware of the participatory campaign mode in which the TSC is
supposed to be implemented with significant involvement of GPs. In terms of the goal, the NGP
features prominently with many districts aspiring to Nirmal status as a result of the TSC.
4.2.2.2 Well-defined strategy with goal, phasing, budgetary allocation and monitoring
plan exists
A strategy is required to implement the TSC as a people’s campaign, prioritise implementation in
terms of geographical areas, populations and resources, and design solutions for problems such as
behaviour change to end open defecation and scarcity of water/space. However, in only half of the
sample districts, despite the progress in developing a shared understanding of the TSC guidelines
within the core team, there is a lack of needed strategy and planning to move from paper to the
ground. In these districts, it is observed that the implementation tends to be target-driven and goals
set by implementation agencies are not realistic, given the time and resources available. On the other
55
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
hands, in districts that have developed a well-defined strategy for implementation suited to their
context, we find that this is highly correlated with positive results on the ground (Box 3).
Box 3: Strategy for Achieving Nirmal Status at District Level: Experience of East Sikkim
Traditionally, toilet usage has been a part of Sikkim’s culture but many toilets used were unsafe or
unimproved sanitation. Between 2002-07, the TSC project in East Sikkim focused on promoting safe
sanitation facilities. As a result, the district achieved nearly 90 percent household toilet coverage. A
visit by the Secretary, DDWS, proved instrumental in galvanising the state to achieve Nirmal status
and this goal was also adopted at the district level. It was decided to focus the TSC programme to
achieve Nirmal status in a mission mode. The key features of the district strategy included:
• Common goal of becoming Nirmal and thereby contributing to the state’s vision of becoming
the first Nirmal Rajya in the country;
• Creating an enabling environment for achievement of this goal through sensitisation and
orientation of all stakeholders involved in the programme;
• Securing political and administrative will to achieve this goal at all administrative levels;
• Flexibility in mobilisation and demand creation, with GPs taking the lead in implementation;
• Facilitating linkages with the open market for supply of sanitary products and services; and
• Regular monitoring and review.
As far as results are concerned, all 45 GPs, based on information of district officials, have been
awarded the NGP including the district. Sikkim became the first state in the Indian Union to
win the NGP at the state level in 2008.
4.2.2.3 TSC implementation is being undertaken by related departments
In more than half of the sample districts, study findings show that there is scope to improve interdepartmental coordination. At the district level, the DWSM is the coordinating body for sanitation.
Therefore, although the structures are largely in place, the use of this arrangement for coordinating
implementation remains a challenge. This could be because the frequency of meetings varies across
the sample districts, and even if meetings are held regularly, sanitation in some cases is the last
agenda point as the DWSM is mainly focused on water supply.
4.2.2.4 Strong political and administrative will exists to implement at different levels
In 43 percent of the study districts, although the core team understands the TSC principles and
programme framework, this vision is not uniformly shared at sub-district implementation levels. This
factor may be responsible for the ‘patchwork’ results visible in some districts in which certain blocks or
GPs are able to achieve excellent results but the district is unable to scale up these pockets of excellence.
4.2.2.5 TSC principles are being adopted in the right spirit – community level engagement,
post-construction incentive, appropriate technology
The study findings show that TSC principles are being adopted in the right spirit in less than half of
the sample districts visited. Based on interaction with stakeholders during the district visits, we find
that there is a good understanding of TSC principles among the core team members at the district
level. However, in some districts, these are not being transmitted through the different levels of
implementation up to the village level. One factor underlying this could be the pressure to achieve
short-term targets for monthly reporting which leads to a short-circuiting of the TSC principles.
56
TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment
4.3 Component 2: Institutional Structure and Capacity
4.3.1 Correlation between District Institutional Structure and Capacity Score and Benchmarking Score
20
20
100
95
95
90
80
90
Am
r
Ju itsa
na r
ga
d
J h
Dh orh
en at
Sr ka
ika na
ku l
lu
m
Va
lsa
Gu d
Be ml
gu a
sa
Vi Ma rai
ru in
dh pu
an ri
ag
Bik ar
an
e
Ak r
Ko ola
lh
a
Sh pu
r
Ea imo
g
s
W t Sik a
es
t T kim
rip
u
Su ra
rg
uj
a
Ha Rew
m a
Ko irpu
tta r
ya
m
Ba S
rd irs
ha a
m
an
0
o Kolhapur
Sirisa o
Shimoga o
o
Benchmarking score percent
80 –
Bi-variate Correlation
80
70
60
40
30
0
0
20
15
40
20
60
20
50
80
60
Mean = 62%
100
100
120
100
1. The nodal agency is functional and effective
2. A dedicated unit for TSC with adequate staff exists at the district level and is effective
3. Adequate staff and capacity exists at block and sub-block levels (e.g., cluster, GP,
habitation) for implementing the programme effectively
4. The nodal agency coordinates effectively with other departments
5. Village-level institutions are set up and are effective
Percent
Sample Districts’ Score
on the Rating Scale
Component
II. INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND CAPACITY
Bardhaman
o Virudhanagar
o Valsad
East Sikkim o
Surguja o
o Rewa
60 –
Average benchmarking score =52%
o Gumla
o Junagadh
40 –
o Begusarai
o Hamirpur
o
Bikaner o West Tripura
Kottayam o
o Akola
o Jorhat
o Dhenkanal
o Srikakulum o Mainpuri
20 –
R Sq Linear = 0.474
o Amritsar
Average infrastructure scale =62%
0–
0
20
40
60
80
100
Institutions score (percent)
Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (Pearson Correlation .688**)
As can be seen from the graph above, there is a strong positive correlation between the
performance on institutional structure and capacity and performance on the TSC as indicated by
the benchmarking score. Therefore, the sample results show that districts that have an effective
nodal agency, dedicated and well-staffed units for TSC at different implementation level and
capacitated village-level institutions perform better in terms of programme results, and vice versa.
57
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
4.3.2 Study Findings on Institutional Structure and Capacity
Component 2: Institutional Structure and Capacity
Institutions set the rules of the game and define the framework for service delivery. To effectively
scale up and sustain TSC outcomes, institutional arrangements must have clearly defined
roles and responsibilities and the resources to fulfil these effectively. Institutional frameworks
should also include mechanisms for coordination between linked activities. Capacity refers
to the availability of skilled human resources for TSC implementation, budgetary allocations
to effectively implement programme activities, an organisational home within the institution
that is accountable for the TSC, ability to monitor programme progress and make revisions
as needed.
Figure 4.3: Study Districts Average Performance on Institutional Structure and Capacity (n=22)
Nodal agency is functional
and effective
Village level institutions
are set up and effective
Nodal agency coordinates
effectively with other departments
A dedicated unit for TSC with
adequate staff exists at district
level and is effective
Adequate staff and capacity exists at block and
sub-block level (ex. cluster, GP, habitation) for
implementing the program effectively
4.3.2.1 Nodal agency is functional and effective
In over two-thirds of study districts, a nodal agency for TSC implementation was found to be functional
and effective. This was the norm except in cases where there was a recent shift in terms of the nodal
agency at the state level. As a result of having recently taken over charge, district-level officials were
not very well-informed regarding TSC implementation and progress.
4.3.2.2 A dedicated unit for TSC with adequate staff exists at district level and is effective
In over two-thirds of the study districts, it was found that a dedicated unit for the TSC was set up at
the district level. Typically, the DWSM is the overarching policy-making body. Day-to-day operations are
undertaken by a nodal officer supported by a TSC cell, as outlined in the Kolhapur example in Box 4.
58
TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment
Box 4: Creating a Dedicated Unit for TSC Implementation: Example from Kolhapur
At the district level, a DWSM has been set up as a policy-making body, with the Zila Parishad
President as Chairperson, the CEO as Vice-Chairperson and line department heads as members. The
District Water and Sanitation Committee (DWSC) is an executive body which reviews and provides
implementation support. The CEO of the Zila Parishad is the Chairperson with the Deputy CEO as
member secretary. Effectively, the work is coordinated from the CEO’s office and committees or
Missions are activated when there is a specific need to discuss issues across stakeholder segments.
The Deputy CEO, Village Panchayat, coordinates day-to-day operations. A dedicated sanitation unit
for TSC implementation has been set up at the district level. This consists of three consultants (for
communications, social mobilisation and capacity building) and one retired officer (former Block
Development Officer – BDO) on contract in addition to one supporting staff (data entry operator).
At the block, the TSC is coordinated by the Taluka Panchayat Officer, assisted by an engineer. The
BDO regularly reviews the programme and further undertakes regular monitoring visits.
The TSC cell has the following responsibilities:
• Prepare action plans and monitor project progress;
• Coordinate IEC campaign – on its own, or through blocks and GPs;
• Undertake training of trainers and coordinate cascade events at sub-district levels; and
• Prepare reports on project progress for the state/central level.
4.3.2.3 Adequate staff and capacity exists at block and sub-block level (for example,
cluster, GP, habitation) for implementing the programme effectively
In nearly half of the study districts, it was reported that adequate staff and capacity was not available
at the block and sub-block level to implement the programme effectively. In some cases, this could
be because of the remote location of these areas which makes these less attractive postings within
the government system and also for professionals recruited from the open market. However, better
performing districts have been able to address this issue by providing incentives to motivators based
on outcome achievement such as ODF status. In some cases, it was also observed that motivators
are provided with a monthly stipend, boarding and lodging during field visits and arrangement of a
vehicle to enable them to travel to the field.
4.3.2.4 Nodal agency coordinates effectively with other departments
Effective inter-departmental coordination is observed in only half of the study sample districts. As
mentioned earlier under the Strategy component, this seems to be the case despite the fact that
structures for inter-departmental coordination are largely in place at the district level and it is their
effective functioning at the field level that needs to be addressed (Box 5).
4.3.2.5 Village level institutions are set up and are effective
The TSC envisages a significant role for village-level government in programme implementation and
monitoring. Effective village-level institutions are reported to be found in 57 percent of the sample
districts. Generally, GP members and the Village Water and Sanitation Committee take up activities
59
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
Box 5: Inter-departmental Coordination: A Pressing Need
In one of the districts visited for the study, it was found that, at the district level, line department
representatives are included in the DWSC and, therefore, there is a structure in place for interdepartmental coordination. However, this coordination does not percolate down to the village
level. A case in point is that the government is assisting in the construction of a house for BPL
families under its housing programme. Although a toilet is part of the overall design of the
house to be constructed under this programme, it was reported that concerned officials are not
insisting on completion of toilet construction at the time of releasing the last instalment of funds
to beneficiaries. This is the situation in spite of the fact that TSC programme activities are being
implemented on a parallel track in the district with an emphasis on supporting toilet construction
by BPL families.
related to motivation and monitoring. Depending on the context, community-based organisations
have also been involved in TSC programme implementation, for example, in villages where women’s
microcredit groups are functioning well, Self Help Group (SHG) members have been utilised by the GP
for mobilising women, messaging, financing (in some cases) and monitoring.
4.4 Component 3: Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up
60
APPROACH TO CREATING DEMAND AND SCALING UP
60
100
100
100
100
100
40
30
0
0
0
0
0
Ju
ru
dh
an
ag
na ar
ga
Am dh
rit
sa
r
J
o
Dh rh
en at
ka
n
Gu al
Sr
m
ika la
ku
lu
m
Va
l
Be sad
gu
sa
r
W Bika ai
es
t T ner
Ba rip
rd ur
ha a
m
M an
ain
p
Su uri
rg
uj
a
Ak
Sh ola
im
Ha oga
m
Ko irpu
tta r
Ko yam
lh
ap
ur
Sir
sa
Ea Re
st wa
Sik
kim
0
10
20
25
40
20
60
40
Percent
80
90
Mean = 52%
80
100
80
120
90
Implementation does not depend on upfront subsidy
Implementation is phased
Demand creation depends on community mobilisation
Motivators are used to the optimal level and are incentivised
Strategy is implemented at scale
70
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Vi
Sample Districts’ Score on
the Rating Scale
Component
4.4.1 Correlation between District Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up
Score and Benchmarking Score
TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment
Benchmarking score percent
Bi-variate Correlation
80 –
o Kolhapur
o Sirisa
o Shimoga
Bardhaman o
o Virudhanagar
o Valsad
60 –
Surguja o
o Rewa
o East Sikkim
Average benchmarking score =52%
o Gumla
40 –
o Bikaner
o West Tripura
o Junagadh
o Begusarai
Hamirpur o
Kottayam o
o Akola
o Jorhat
o Dhenkanal
20 –
o Mainpuri
o Srikakulum
R Sq Linear = 0.28
o Amritsar
Average demand scale =52%
0–
0
20
40
60
80
100
Demand score (percent)
Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (Pearson Correlation .529**)
There is a positive correlation between the performance on approach to creating demand and scaling
up and performance on the TSC as indicated by the benchmarking score. Therefore, the sample
results show that districts where implementation is phased and the approach is based on community
mobilisation rather than upfront subsidy, perform better in terms of programme results, and vice versa.
4.4.2 Study Findings on Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up
Component 3: Programme Approach to Creating Demand and Scaling Up
A programme approach consists of specific activities, their timing and sequence. The TSC guidelines
advocate a demand-driven approach to rural sanitation backed by post-achievement incentives.
Districts have the flexibility to implement this principle based on their context and capacity.
Figure 4.4: Study Districts Average Performance on Programme Approach to Creating
Demand and Scaling Up (n = 22)
Implementation does not depend on upfront subsidy
Strategy is
implemented at scale
Motivators are used to the
optimal level and have incentives
Implementation is
phased
Demand creation depends on
community mobilisation
61
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
4.4.2.1 Implementation does not depend on upfront subsidy
Traditionally, sanitation programmes in India have relied on subsidy to create ‘demand’ for sanitation.
By contrast, the TSC seeks to be based on social mobilisation and behaviour change to end open
defecation. Instead of subsidy, the programme guidelines use the term incentive and this is only
available for the poorest of the poor, namely BPL families. In addition, the incentive is supposed to be
released post construction of a toilet and verification of its usage by the BPL family.
Despite this, in half of the study districts, it is found that implementation does depend on upfront
subsidy for toilet construction. This could be a reflection of several factors such as limited capacity to
implement a more time-consuming approach based on social mobilisation and pressure to achieve
short-term targets based on toilet construction or expenditure.
4.4.2.2 Implementation is phased
Sanitation coverage in rural areas of India has been historically low as open defecation is a traditional
behaviour. In this context, the TSC seeks to achieve universal rural sanitation coverage and district
projects of three to five years’ duration are sanctioned to this effect. Despite the scale of the sanitation
challenge, phasing or prioritisation of implementation activities is reported in less than half of the
sample districts visited. This emphasises the need to strengthen the capacity to plan and manage the
TSC district projects. The example of Shimoga district in Box 6 demonstrates how some of the better
performing districts tackle TSC implementation.
Box 6: Scaling Up in Phases: Experience of Shimoga District
The TSC programme was launched in Shimoga district of Karnataka in October 2005 but actual
operations started the following year in October 2006. The district’s prior experience with a
literacy campaign indicated that sustaining a campaign or mission mode is possible for a short
period only (one or two years), so after piloting the TSC in 2006, the programme was scaled up
in phases as follows:
• Year 1 – Progressive and interested GPs taken up (about 30);
• Year 2 – Focus on the four Malnadu Talukas (hilly regions) where hygiene habits were
believed to be more progressive and outcomes could be achieved faster; and
• Year 3 – Cover the balance GPs.
At the time of undertaking the visit, 88 percent of the 260 GPs in the district had been awarded
the NGP. The district is also on track to become completely ODF in 2010, two years ahead of
the state goal of 2012.
4.4.2.3 Demand creation depends on community mobilisation
In just over half of the districts visited, it was found that demand creation is underpinned by efforts to
mobilise the community to switch from open defecation to using safe and hygienic toilets. Different
districts have followed different approaches to community mobilisation. For instance, in some cases,
districts have partnered with NGOs to facilitate this process at the village level; in others, the programme
is implemented by PRI/block representatives and facilitated through motivators. Across the sample
districts, various behaviour change communication techniques include folk theatre, public meetings,
documentary films, television spots, radio jingles and house-to-house visits. In some districts, social
mobilisation has been undertaken using Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods based on the
62
TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment
Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) approach through trained facilitators. Different messages have
been used – health, dignity, convenience, privacy, pride, etc.
Box 7 describes the programme approach to scaling up TSC adoption in Sirsa district.
Box 7: Community Mobilisation for Behaviour Change to End Open Defecation:
A Case Study of Sirsa District
In October 2007, Sirsa district, Haryana, drew up a strategy to implement the TSC as a time-bound
mission, with the government facilitating the community to change its sanitation status. To this
end, dedicated teams of motivators were created. Each team comprised eight to 10 members and
was made responsible for five to six villages. The motivators were trained as swachhata sainiks
through training programmes at the district level. The training included participatory tools and
motivational songs to inspire the participants to spearhead the sanitation movement in the district.
At the village level, the following steps were taken:
• Step 1: Village visit by the motivators, reaching out to people from all walks and all ages, working
with the community members to undertake a self-analysis of their present sanitation status;
• Step 2: Motivating students and women to come forward and participate in the sanitation
movement. Appeals to issues of shame, dignity, convenience and health costs to induce behaviour
change were made. The major trigger seems to have been the realisation that open defecation
was tantamount to community members consuming each other’s faecal matter; and
• Step 3: Formation of the Sanitation Committee (Swachhata Samiti) comprising natural leaders
who were motivated to change the sanitation status of their village.
In addition, innovative IEC techniques were used such as catchy slogans instead of traditional
greetings (Jai Swachhata), rallies and processions, torch light processions, recognition and
rewards, and inviting village leaders who had achieved ODF status to share their experiences
with those who were in the process. Triggering was matched by dedicated follow-up. Motivators
report visiting villages at 4 am and going along with the village Swachhata Samiti members to
ensure that no one would defecate in the open.
At the time of undertaking the visit, 277 out of 333 GPs in Sirsa had won the NGP and the
remaining GPs are applying for the NGP. The district has declared itself completely ODF, making it
one of the first to achieve this feat in India.
4.4.2.4 Motivators are used to the optimal level and are incentivised
In just over half the districts visited, it was found that motivators are being used efficiently. As social
mobilisation is a time-consuming process, in many cases, it was reported that motivators were
compensated on the basis of performance-linked incentives. These included payment of a small fee
upon achievement of outputs such as toilet construction, followed by a lump sum upon achievement
of community-wide ODF status.
4.4.2.5 Strategy is implemented at scale
In 60 percent of the districts visited, it was found that the strategy was implemented at scale. Through
the effective use of a demand-driven strategy that the motivators created, these districts have scaled
up the programme across districts. The scaling up included the use of various mass media and
interpersonal communication methods. Reaching the message to every village in the district through
capacitated motivators was one of the keys to this scaling up.
63
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
4.5 Component 4: Technology Promotion and Supply Chain
TECHNOLOGY PROMOTION AND SUPPLY CHAIN
40
60
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
70
70
60
60
60
60
100
95
20
40
60
80
60
Mean = 70%
100
90
120
90
Multiple technology options are promoted
Technology choices respond to community preferences and are affordable
Technology choices promoted and adopted are safe
Products and services sourced are easily available
Well-qualified trained masons are available for construction
50
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Percent
20
m
la
Sir
sa
R
Ju ew
na a
ga
d
Va h
l
Am sad
rit
sa
W Bika r
es
n
t T er
r
Dh ipu
en ra
k
Sh ana
i
Sr mo l
ika ga
k
Be ulum
gu
sa
Su rai
rg
uj
A a
M kola
ain
Ha pu
m ri
irp
ur
Ba Jorh
rd
h at
Ko ama
Ea ttay n
st am
Sik
k
K
Vi ol im
ru ha
dh pu
an r
ag
ar
0
Gu
Sample Districts’ Score
on the Rating Scale
Component
4.5.1 Correlation between District Technology Promotion and Supply Chain Score
and Benchmarking Score
o Kolhapur
o Sirsa
Benchmarking score percent
Bi-variate Correlation
80 –
o Shimoga o Bardhaman
Virudhanagar o
o Rewa
60 –
o Valsad
o East Sikkim
o Surguja
Average benchmarking score =52%
o Gumla
West Tripura o Bikaner
Junagadh o
40 –
Dhenkanal o
20 –
o Hamirpur
o Kottayam
o Akola
o Begusarai
o Jorhat
o Mainpuri
o Srikakulum
R Sq Linear = 0.009
Amritsar o
0–
0
20
40
60
Average technology
scale =70%
80
100
Technology score (percent)
Although the sample districts have largely performed well on this component as indicated by
the mean rating scale score of 70 percent, it is not correlated with the performance on the
TSC as captured by the benchmarking score. This is not to say that technology promotion and
supply chain do not have a bearing on TSC progress. In fact, choice in technology promotion
is integral to scaling up the TSC and safe technologies are essential if programme results are to
be sustained. The lack of correlation may be due to the supply-driven approach for BPL toilets
adopted by most districts in which the district decides the technology.
64
TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment
4.5.2 Study Findings on Technology Promotion and Supply Chain
Component 4: Technology Promotion and Supply Chain
The TSC guidelines advocate informed technology choice and setting up of alternate supply
channels such as RSMs. At the implementation level, technology promotion includes not just
separate toilet components (for example, sanitary pans, pipes, traps, etc.) but also existing
latrine technology options (for example, septic tank, ventilated double pit toilet, eco-sanitation).
It also includes provision of masonry services for installation, and sanitary services for operation,
maintenance and final disposal.
Figure 4.5: Study Districts’ Average Performance on Technology Promotion and Supply
Chain (n=22)
Multiple technology options are promoted
Well qualified trained
masons are available
for construction
Products and services
sourced are easily available
Technology choices respond to
community preferences and
are affordable
Technology choices promoted
and adopted are safe
4.5.2.1 Multiple technology options are promoted
Selection of sanitation technology options must take into account technical and demand factors.
Technical factors relate to physical parameters, for example, terrain, soil permeability, ground water
table level, availability of space and risk of flooding. By contrast, demand factors relate to customs
and socio-economic conditions and are crucial to the acceptance of, and willingness to invest in, a
sanitation option. Examples of demand factors include affordability, hygiene behaviours (for example,
material used for cleansing), and preparedness for maintenance and emptying.
Despite the importance of informed technology choice, assessment findings show that efforts to
promote multiple technology options are a reality in less than one-third of the sample districts (Figure
4.6). This may be because a single model of technology is promoted which need to be adapted to fit
within the TSC cost norms for construction of toilets for BPL families. Study findings show that where
users have not been sufficiently involved in choosing the technology, they are reluctant to break the
habit of open defecation and use toilets. This has led to poor quality and/or incomplete construction
(for example, missing doors, reduced height of walls, no lining in pits). In some cases, the constructed
toilets are being used for storage or after covering the pan, the toilet is used for bathing and washing.
In contrast, there are no such cost norms for construction of toilets for APL families and, in this case,
users are free to adopt any technology that they choose.
65
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
70
64
Figure 4.6: Efforts to Promote Multiple Technology Options in Sample Districts (n=22)
60
40
30
27
Percent
50
20
0
9
10
Single model of
technology is
promoted
Informed
technology
choice is promoted
Limited choice
in technology
options is promoted
4.5.2.2 Technology choices promoted are affordable and respond to community preferences
In a majority of districts, the focus is on affordable technology, particularly for BPL families. The model
promoted is adapted to fit within the cost norms for construction of toilets for BPL families rather
than user preference. For example, in one district, it was found that most of the toilets constructed
were single pit model with a pour-flush pan. However, due to scarcity of water, users are removing
the water seal trap to convert the toilet into a pit toilet, which constitutes unimproved sanitation.
However, in the case of APL families, it is found that they are free to construct toilets of their choice
and there is generally no effort made by the district to influence their preference.
4.5.2.3 Technology choices promoted and adopted are safe
Study findings show that, in all the sample districts, technology choices promoted are safe. However,
due to a lack of awareness about technology aspects and their implications for safe sanitation, in very
few cases, users have made modifications to the promoted design. One finding emerging from this
study is the prevalence of a popular myth concerning the depth of a pit or dimensions of a tank to
be dug for a durable toilet. It was found that people generally believe that a pit or tank should be as
wide or deep as possible so that it does not get filled up quickly. As a result, in some areas, toilet pits
are known as kuiya or small well because they can be as deep as 25-40 feet. In others, septic tanks
are constructed such that they would not get filled over a life time of use by a family of five members.
4.5.2.4 Sanitary products and services are easily available
In nearly all the sample districts, there were no reported bottlenecks in the availability of sanitary
products and services. In terms of the supply chain, three different models are found to be in
operation: direct purchase from the private market, government sponsored procurement from the
private market, and RSMs. These models are not mutually exclusive and are generally found to coexist, although the first, private supply, is the most prevalent and clearly has the largest market share.
Government sponsored procurement from the private market adopts a piece-meal approach and is
focused on a particular product such as the ‘rural pan’ (a pan with a steep slope to minimise water
use) in districts that report water scarcity, or the pre-fabricated superstructure (for example, metal
shed) and sub-structure (for example, concrete rings). In the case of government-led procurement,
the cost of the products procured is deducted from the BPL incentive amount. With respect to RSMs,
66
TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment
the experience has been mixed. In most cases, RSMs were reported to cater to a very small segment as
buyers were free to purchase from the private market. As a result, many RSMs became ineffective, and
issues such as unrealised payment and unsold stock were reported. In a few districts, however, RSMs
have evolved into a sustainable alternative delivery system for sanitary products and services (Box 8).
Box 8: An Effective Rural Sanitary Mart Operation: The Bardhaman Experience
In Bardhaman district of West Bengal, RSMs are the cornerstone of the district strategy to promote
rural sanitation. The operation of RSMs is undertaken by NGOs and the RSM network combines
supply of sanitation products with extensive social marketing. Fundamental to the success of the
RSM is the support network of motivators. They campaign door to door to create awareness about
sanitation and generate demand, manifest in the beneficiary contribution for construction of a
toilet as per the TSC cost norms. Once a household has agreed to have a toilet, all the hardware
items are delivered to the household and a trained mason installs the toilet including digging
of the pit. In terms of performance, Bardhaman district report 100 percent household latrine
coverage and 137 out of 277 GPs have won the NGP to date.
4.5.2.5 Well-qualified and trained masons are available for toilet construction
In nearly all the sample districts, there were no problems reported in terms of availability of masons
for toilet construction. In some districts, there were training programmes being conducted for the
local masons while, in other districts, there was no specific training. In the districts where training
was conducted, there has been no issue with the quality of the toilets constructed. However, in other
districts, where there has been no training, the masons, who are civil workers with no proper training,
have constructed less than perfect toilets, which can contaminate the environment.
4.6 Component 5: Financing and Incentives
FINANCING AND INCENTIVES
1.
2.
3.
4.
Additional instalments are asked for on time
There are no funding bottlenecks
Funding is used efficiently (focus on both short-term achievement and long-term sustainability)
Funding is used to maximum capacity (funds available under all heads namely SLWM, IEC,
etc., are being used)
5. Incentives are available for various stakeholders to perform optimally
150
40
40
30
100
90
90
80
80
80
80
80
80
70
70
60
70
Am
rit
sa
r
J
o
Dh rh
en at
k
Be ana
gu l
Sr sa
ika ra
ku i
Ju lum
na
g
M adh
ain
pu
Gu ri
m
Va la
lsa
Bik d
an
e
A r
Ha ko
m la
K irp
Vi ott ur
ru ay
dh am
an
a
Ko gar
lh
ap
Sh ur
im
og
a
W
es Sirs
tT a
rip
S ur
Ea urg a
st uj
Sik a
kim
Ba Re
rd w
ha a
m
an
0
0
25
20
20
50
30
75
50
100
100
Mean = 62%
125
Percent
Sample Districts’ Score
on the Rating Scale
Component
4.6.1 Correlation between District Financing and Incentives Score and
Benchmarking Score
67
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
o Kolhapur
o Sirisa
Shimoga o
Benchmarking score percent
Bi-variate Correlation
80 –
o Bardhaman
o Virudhanagar
o Valsad
60 –
Average benchmarking score =52%
Gumla o
o Hamirpur
Bikaner o
o West Tripura
o Kottayam
o Akola
Junagadh o
o Begusarai
40 –
o East Sikkim
o Rewa
Surguja o
o Jorhat
Dhenkanal o
20 –
Srikakulum o
o Mainpuri
R Sq Linear = 0.649
Average finance
scale =62%
o Amritsar
0–
0
20
40
60
80
100
Finance score (percent)
Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (Pearson Correlation .806**)
There is a very strong positive correlation between the performance on financing and incentives
and sample districts’ benchmarking score. Therefore, the sample results show that districts
where the fund flow is smooth and funding is used efficiently along with incentives for optimal
performance, perform better in terms of programme results, and vice versa.
4.6.2 Study Findings on Financing and Incentives
Component 5: Financing and Incentives
Financing refers to the budgetary allocations to finance programme activities. This includes costs
of activities under different programme components (for example, school sanitation and hygiene
education, administration, etc.) as well as the process by which funds are allocated, released and
spent. Incentives can be financial or non-financial, given upfront or post achievement.
Figure 4.7: Study Districts’ Average Performance on Financing and Incentives (n=22)
Additional installments are asked on time
Incentives are available
for various stakeholders
to perform optimally
Funding is used to maximum
capacity (funds available under all
heads, namely, SLWM, IEC, etc.
are being used)
68
There are no funding
bottlenecks
Funding is used efficiently (focus on
both short-term achievement and
long-term sustainability)
TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment
4.6.2.1 Additional instalments are asked for on time
Over four-fifths of districts studied reported that additional instalments of TSC funds were requested
on time. This indicates that, on average, the project financial flows are smooth.
4.6.2.2 There are no funding bottlenecks
The TSC and NGP provide ample resources for rural sanitation. Of this, a percentage of funding is earmarked
for software expenditure, and the rest for hardware and cash incentives to BPL families. A majority of the
districts indicated that there was no shortage of funding for implementing programme activities.
4.6.2.3 Funding is used efficiently (focus on both short-term achievement and long-term
sustainability
In a majority of districts, 57 percent of the funding is being used for both short-term achievement and
long-term sustainability of outcomes achieved after the programme is completed. Funds are used for
software activities, for motivating the people and in the construction of toilets as well as for SLWM
activities and sustainability of the initiatives.
4.6.2.4 Funding is used to maximum capacity (funds available under all heads, namely,
SLWM, IEC, etc., are being used)
In less than half of the study districts, there is a mismatch between the TSC allocation and capacity to
absorb and spend the funds. Many districts reported having unused balances under the programme.
This can partially be attributed to the fact that certain programme components, such as SLWM, are
relatively new and there is limited capacity to undertake interventions in this area as yet.
4.6.2.5 Incentives are available for various stakeholders to perform optimally
The national-level TSC guidelines provide incentives for BPL families to construct and use toilets. In
addition, the NGP is an incentive for PRIs to achieve TSC goals. Over and above these national-level
mandates, in just over half of the districts visited, it was found that incentives have been made
available for stakeholders at different levels of the implementation chain as well. Incentives take
the form of a cash amount, for example, in Jorhat district in Assam, the motivator gets 10 percent
of the household contribution towards toilet construction as a reward for effective motivation.
Several districts also reported public recognition and felicitation being instituted as an incentive for
exemplary performance.
69
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
4.7 Component 6: Monitoring
MONITORING
120
Benchmarking score percent
80 –
Bi-variate Correlation
100
90
85
80
70
80
70
70
60
50
40
30
30
0
Ju
na
ga
Am dh
rit
s
Va ar
lsa
Gu d
m
Jo la
r
Be ha
t
g
Sr usa
ika ra
ku i
lu
Bik m
a
Dh n
en er
k
M ana
Vi
a
ru inp l
d
u
W han ri
es ag
t T ar
Ba ripu
rd
ha ra
Sh man
im
o
Su ga
rg
uj
Ak a
ol
a
Sir
sa
R
Ko ew
Ea lha a
st pu
Si r
Ko kkim
tta
Ha yam
m
irp
ur
0
0
20
20
20
40
20
60
40
80
60
Mean = 53%
100
100
Monitoring systems are available at the village level
Monitoring systems exists for block and district levels
Monitoring systems track both BPL and APL coverage accurately
Monitoring for toilet usage exists
Monitoring of NGP/ODF villages is undertaken regularly
60
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Percent
Sample Districts’ Score
on the Rating Scale
Component
4.7.1 Correlation between District Monitoring Score and Benchmarking Score
o Kolhapur
o Sirisa
o Shimoga
Bardhaman o
o Virudhanagar
o Valsad
60 –
o Rewa
Surguja o
o East Sikkim
Average benchmarking score =52%
o Bikaner
Gumla o
o Junagadh
40 –
o Akola
o Begusarai
o Jorhat
20 –
o Hamirpur
o West Tripura
o Kottayam
o Dhenkanal
o Mainpuri
Srikakulum o
R Sq Linear = 0.295
Average monitoring
scale =53%
o Amritsar
0–
0
20
40
60
80
100
Monitoring score (percent)
Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (Pearson Correlation .543**
There is a positive correlation between the performance on monitoring and sample districts’
benchmarking score. Therefore, the sample results show that districts with an effective monitoring
system are more likely to perform well on the TSC
70
TSC Process and Outcomes at District Level: Findings of the Rapid Assessment
4.7.2 Study Findings on Monitoring
Component 6: Monitoring
Large-scale sanitation programmes such as the TSC require an efficient monitoring system and
ability to ensure that the results of monitoring are used to improve programme implementation.
Monitoring should be done by the level above the one being monitored but information for
monitoring should be collected from all levels, starting with the lowest.
Figure 4.8: Study Districts’ Average Performance on Monitoring (n=22)
Monitoring systems are
available at village level
Monitoring of
NGP/ODF villages is
undertaken regularly
Monitoring for usage exists
Monitoring systems
exist for block and
district level
Monitoring systems tracks both BPL
and APL coverage accurately
4.7.2.1 Monitoring systems are available at the village level
In a majority of the sample districts, a monitoring system to track progress on sanitation exists at the
village level. The responsibility for monitoring at this level rests with the GP-level functionaries, for
example, Gram Sewak, Panchayat Secretary or motivators. Monitoring is done on indicators prescribed
by the Government of India such as construction of toilets by different categories of households,
construction of school and Anganwadi toilets, etc. (Box 9).
Box 9: Community-led Monitoring in Sirsa District
Meticulous monitoring has played a key role in the successful scaling up of the TSC in Sirsa district,
Haryana. Over and above meeting the TSC monitoring system requirements, a community-led
monitoring system consisting of Nigrani (monitoring) Committees was developed at the village
level to track the progress towards total sanitation and check slippages. Members of the Nigrani
Committee were natural leaders of the community who came forward and volunteered for the
cause of sanitation. As proof of their commitment, the members of the Nigrani Committee would
wake up at 4 am and undertake visits to areas traditionally used for open defecation, armed with
whistles and torches. These checks by the Nigrani Committee helped to facilitate the process of
habit formation to end open defecation and switch to using toilets.
71
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
4.7.2.2 Monitoring systems exist at block and district levels
In a majority of sample districts, the data on sanitation progress are collected by village-level
functionaries and transmitted to the block level for review. From the block level, it is sent to the district
level and consolidated at the monthly review in the district and entered into the district Monthly
Progress Report (MPR) with a copy to the state-level nodal department. The reporting covers the
achievement of the current reporting period as well as the cumulative achievement to date.
4.7.2.3 Monitoring systems track both BPL and APL coverage accurately
In nearly half of the sample districts, it was found that the monitoring system for TSC tracks and
reports both APL and BPL toilet coverage accurately.
4.7.2.4 Monitoring for toilet usage exists
Tracking usage of toilets constructed emerges as one of the weakest links of the TSC monitoring
system in the sample districts studied. Toilet usage is monitored by only one-third of the sample
districts, of which around half reported undertaking this activity on an ad hoc basis, for example,
during a village visit by a block-level official, rather than routinely.
70
60
59
Figure 4.9: Finding on Existence of Monitoring for Toilet Usage in Sample Districts (n=22)
30
20
19
40
22
Percent
50
10
0
No
Yes, on a
routine basis
Yes, on an
ad hoc basis
4.7.2.5 Monitoring of NGP/ODF villages is undertaken regularly
Monitoring of NGP winners is reported by even less than one-third of the sample districts. This could
be because the NGP is a one-time award and therefore repeat checks on whether the NGP status is
being sustained are not undertaken. However, Rewa district in Madhya Pradesh has introduced an
innovative incentive/monitoring programme which provides an example of one of the ways in which
NGP status can be sustained (Box 10).
Box 10: Monitoring and Incentivising Sustainability of NGP Status: Swachh Puraskar
Rewa district, Madhya Pradesh, initiated Swachh Gram Puruskar in 2009 at the district level to
award one GP from each block which follows demand-driven principles and sustains ODF status.
The award (Rs. 50,000) is presented based on scores given in the peer review process led by
sub-division-level officers. The scope of the award is limited to those GPs that have applied for NGP.
72
5. Summary and Recommendations
5.1 Summary
As mentioned at the outset, to achieve the vision of a Nirmal Bharat within the TSC timeframe, there
is need for a clear understanding of the present achievements, the processes that underpin scaling
up, replication and sustainability of best practices implemented by districts. Although there has been
an undeniable upward trend in scaling up rural sanitation coverage over the last decade of the TSC,
national performance aggregates conceal significant disparities among states and districts when it
comes to the achievement of TSC goals. Therefore, it is an opportune time to assess the present status,
the progress towards full coverage and the processes that contribute to differential achievement of
performance outcomes at state and district levels.
1. National coverage has significantly scaled up to about 60 percent till March 2010. However, there
have been significant differences in the coverage between the states. While one state, Sikkim, has
declared itself ODF, some others have a coverage of less than 30 percent.
2.In absolute terms, approximately five crore toilets need to be constructed. At the present rate,
significant acceleration is required in some states to meet the goal of ODF India by 2012.
3. At the present rate of coverage, it is expected that ODF India will be reached only by 2018 at the
national level, but will take another half a century in states that are lagging behind.
4.The processes adopted by the district have a direct bearing on the outcomes achieved. In the
study undertaken as part of this documentation, 22 districts across 21 states were selected. The
processes by which TSC is implemented were divided into six components – strategy, institutional
structure, approach to demand creation and scaling up, technology promotion and supply chain,
financing and incentives, and monitoring. These processes were analysed qualitatively using a
research protocol. These qualitative findings were converted into quantitative scores using the
rating scale. Study findings show that good performance in terms of programme outcomes,
as measured by the benchmarking score, are positively correlated with processes adopted to
implement the programme as measured by the rating scale. This means that districts that adopt
the right processes are more likely to perform better on the programme.
5. Study findings show that better performing districts are not doing different things but are doing
things differently within the TSC framework. As detailed, better performing districts use the
opportunities for flexibility available within the guidelines to adapt implementation to their field
realities and learn from successes and mistakes to scale up the programme.
5.2 Recommendations
The key outcome expected of the TSC and the NGP is that GPs that have achieved total sanitation
status should sustain it over the long term. On the basis of analysis of the secondary data (TSC MIS)
and rapid assessment in the 22 districts, the following recommendations are made for improvement:
Focus on Processes
A scaling up of the achievement of total sanitation in the villages requires the adoption of sound
processes. In addition, sustainability of the change in behaviour is only assured if the corresponding
73
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
processes are sound. This is especially true in a behaviour change approach as in sanitation where
participatory processes are essential for communities to understand and adopt change. As the study
has shown, there is a direct correlation between the processes and outcomes.
To achieve scale and sustainability, it is therefore essential for districts to understand and adopt the
processes in the true spirit. The six components on the basis of which processes have been analysed
represent an agenda for action. The districts could look at their processes vis-à-vis this template, and
identify gaps which need addressing and weaknesses which require strengthening. This focus on
processes, rather than short-term physical target achievement, can drive scaling up and sustainability
of the TSC programme, now and post 2012.
Monitoring Sustainability
The achievement of any output and outcome is often driven by what is being monitored. The present
monitoring system of the TSC focuses on inputs and outputs achieved in the short term rather than the
processes by which these are achieved. The NGP monitoring system focuses exclusively and separately
on outcomes, making the linkage with inputs and outputs difficult. Even in the NGP, the focus is on
current outcomes rather than sustainability. It is, therefore, important to include in the monitoring
system:
• Process indicators for tracking on a regular basis to ensure that the processes are being followed
by the districts; and
• Indicators which track long-term sustainability of the outcomes. This may include, for example,
sustainability of the NGP-winning GPs, to ensure that there are no slippages.
74
References
Bruijne, G. et. al., 2007. Sanitation for All? Thematic Overview Paper 20. Netherlands: International
Water and Sanitation Centre.
Government of India, 2004. Guidelines on Central Rural Sanitation Programme: Total Sanitation
Campaign. New Delhi: Department of Drinking Water Supply, Ministry of Rural Development.
Government of India, 2007. Guidelines on Central Rural Sanitation Programme: Total Sanitation
Campaign. New Delhi: Department of Drinking Water Supply, Ministry of Rural Development
Government of India, 2008. Sustaining the Sanitation Revolution. New Delhi: Department of Drinking
Water Supply, Ministry of Rural Development.
Guerrant, R.L., Schorling, J.B., McAuliffe, J.F., and de Souza, M.A., 1992. Diarrhoea as a cause and
an effect of malnutrition: diarrhoea prevents catch-up growth and malnutrition increases diarrhoea
frequency and duration. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 47: pp 28–35.
Hutton, G., Haller, L. and Bartram, J., 2007. Global cost-benefit analysis of water supply and sanitation
interventions. Journal of Water and Health, 5 (4): pp 481–502.
Murray, C.J. and Lopez, A.D., 1997. Global mortality, disability, and the contribution of risk factors:
Global burden of disease study. Lancet, 349 (9063): pp 1436-42.
Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, 2001. Census of India. New Delhi: Ministry
of Home Affairs, Government of India.
TARU, 2008. Impact Assessment of Nirmal Gram Puraskar Awarded Panchayats. New Delhi: The
Action Research Unit.
WaterAid, 2005. Drinking Water and Sanitation Status in India: Coverage, Financing and Emerging
Concerns. New Delhi: WaterAid.
WaterAid, 2006. Dying for the Toilet. United Kingdom: WaterAid.
WaterAid, 2008. Tackling the Silent Killer: the Case for Sanitation. New Delhi: WaterAid.
RGNDWM, 2005. Nirmal Gram Puraskar: a National Award under Total Sanitation Campaign. New
Delhi: Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission. WaterAid, 2006. Total Sanitation in South Asia: the Challenges Ahead. London: WaterAid, Discussion Paper.
WSP, 2007. An Approach that Works: Community Led Total Sanitation in Rural Areas. New Delhi:
Water and Sanitation Program, The World Bank.
WSP , 2006. Study of Best Practices in Rural Sanitation in India: Working towards an Open Defecation Free
Rural India. Draft Report prepared for WSP. New Delhi: Water and Sanitation Program, The World Bank.
World Bank, 2004. India Burden of Disease Statistics. Available at http://genderstats.worldbank.org/
hnpstats/files/BOD4.xls. Accessed in March 2010.
75
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
National Workshop on Rural Sanitation:
List of Participants
Government of India
Ms. Agatha Sangma, Minister of State
Ministry of Rural Development,
195 Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi 110 001
Tel: 011-23383614
Mr. Anjani Kumar, DEO
Department of Drinking Water Supply,
Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex,
New Delhi 110 003
Mrs. Rajwant Sandhu, Secretary
Department of Drinking Water Supply,
Ministry of Rural Development,
Government of India,
Room No. 247, A Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi 110011
Tel: 011-23061245
Mrs. Urvashi Prasad, Consultant
Department of Drinking Water Supply.
Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex,
New Delhi 110 003
Mr. J.S. Mathur, Joint Secretary
Department of Drinking Water Supply,
Ministry of Rural Development,
Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex,
New Delhi 110 003
Tel: 011-24362705
Mr. Vijay Mittal, Director
Department of Drinking Water Supply,
Ministry of Rural Development,
Paryavaran Bhavan, B-1 Block, 8-9th Floor
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi 110003
Tel: 011-24364427
Mr. Bharat Lal, Director
RGNDWM, Department of Drinking Water Supply,
8th Floor, Paryavaran Bhawan,
CGO Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi 110 003
Tel: 011-24360102
Mr. Rish Kumar Kaushik
Under Secretary, Department of
Drinking Water Supply,
Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex,
New Delhi -110 003
Tel: 011-24362106
76
Mr. J. A. Usmani, Consultant
Department of Drinking Water Supply,
Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex,
New Delhi 110 003
Ms. Jasmin Shah, Consultant
Department of Drinking Water Supply,
Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex,
New Delhi 110 003
Mobile: 9868358024
Mr. Kamal Mazumdar, Asstt. Advisor
Department of Drinking Water Supply,
Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex,
New Delhi 110 003
Tel: 011-24362106
Mr. Raja Sekharan, Asstt. Advisor
Department of Drinking Water Supply,
Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex,
New Delhi 110 003
Tel: 011-24362106
Andhra Pradesh
Mr. S.S.R. Anjaneyulu, Project Director, SWSW
SWSMHRD building, SRTGN Bhawan,
PR Engg, Building Complex,
Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad
Tel: 040-23310669
National Workshop on Rural Sanitation: List of Participants
Arunachal Pradesh
Mr. A.N. Singh, Executive Director
Communication and Capacity Development Unit,
Public Health Engineering Department,
Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh
Tel: 0360-2214057
Mr. Geyum Padu, Chief Engineer
Communication and Capacity Development Unit,
Public Health Engineering Department,
Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh
Tel: 0360-2214057
Assam
Mr. Annada Prasad Sarmah, Executive Engineer
Public Health Engineering Department,
Mangoldoi Phed,
Distt. Darrang, Assam
Tel: 03713-222199
Mr. Bidhan Chandra Dey, Executive Engineer
Public Health Engineering Department,
Golaghat Division
Distt. Golaghat, Innaki Nagar,
Assam 785 621
Tel: 03774-284763
Bihar
Mohd M. Sadullah Jawaid, Director-PMU
BSWSM, PHED,
Vishweshwaraiya,
Patna, Bihar
Tel: 0612-2545705, 2545031
Mr. Daya Shankar Mishra, Executive Engineer
PHED, PH Division, Hajipur,
Vaishali, Bihar
Tel: 06224-260320
Chhattisgarh
Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Special Secretary
PHED, Mantralaya, DKS Bhavan,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Tel: 0771-2331368, 2425354
Mr. M.A. Khan, Engineer-in-Chief
Public Health Engineering Department,
Neer Bhawan, Civil Lines,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Tel: 0771-2331368, 2425354
Mr. H.K. Hingorani
Chief Engineer,
Public Health Engineering Department,
Bilaspur Zone,
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
Tel: 094250-22311
Mr. J.K. Sharma, Superintending Engineer
Public Health Engineering Department,
Durg, Circle, in front of Science College,
Durg, Chhattisgarh 491001
Tel: 0788-2331060
Mr. A.K. Sahu, Executive Engineer
Public Health Engineering Project,
Division Bhilai, Distt. Durg,
Chhattisgarh
Tel: 0788-2293560
Mr. Sudhir K Agrawal, Special Secretary
Public Health Engineer Department,
145 DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
Tel: 0777-2583126
Gujarat
Mr. S. R. Desai, District Project Coordinator
Department of Rural Development Agency,
Multi Storey Bldg. 5th Floor,
C-Block, Nandura, Surat,
Gujarat 395 001
Tel: 0261-2465723
Haryana
Ms. Sumedha Kataria, Additional Deputy
Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer
Department of Rural Development Agency,
Mini Secretariat, Kurukshetra,
Haryana 138 116
Tel: 01744-220756
77
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
Mr. Puran Singh Yadav, State Project
Coordinator, TSC
Panchayati Raj & Rural Development Department,
Government of Haryana, Civil Secretariat
Chandigarh, Haryana
Tel: 0172-2711758
Himachal Pradesh
Mr. Robin George, TSC Coordinator
Rural Development Department,
Block No. 27 Kusumpti, Shimla
Tel: 0177-2622302
Mr. S. M. Saini, Project Officer
Department of Rural Development Agency,
Solan, Himachal Pradesh
Tel: 01792-223915
Jharkhand
Dr. Niraj Kumar, Director
SATHEE,
Chitragupta Colony,
Distt. Goldda, Jharkhand 814 133
Tel: 09431735586
Mr. M. Thanvir Akhtar, Superintending Engineer
DW&S, Ranchi Circle,
Road No.8, Risaldar Nagar,
Dhurwa Ranchi Circle, Jharkhand
Tel: 9431422165
Karnataka
Dr. P. Boregowda, Director & Addl. Secreatry
Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department,
KHB Complex, E Block,
Caveri Bhawan, K G Road,
Bangalore 560 009
Tel: 080-22240508
Dr. Manjula, Chief Executive Officer
Zila Panchayat,
Next District Court, Boulevard Road.
Mysore, Karnataka
Tel: 0821-2330316
78
Mr. H. Chittaranjan,
Chief Executive Officer
Bangalore Zila Parishad (Rural),
Opp Sagar Theatre, K G Road
Bangalore 560 009
Kerala
Mr. A. Stanly, Director (Operations)
Suchitwa Mission, Local Self Government
Department,
Panavila Junction, Thycand,
P.O. Trivandrum, Kerala
Tel: 0471-2325730
Madhya Pradesh
Mr. Sudharshan Kumar Soni, Deputy
Commissioner
Rural Development,
2nd Floor, Vindyachal Bhawan,
Bhopal 462 016
Tel: 0755-2572993
Mr. Ashish Kumar, Chief Executive Officer
Zila Panchayat,
Civil Lines, Satna 485 001
Tel: 07672-225449
Maharashtra
Mr. Nipun Vinayak, Deputy Secretary &
Project Director
WSSD, 149A, FF, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032
Tel: 022-22023338
Mr. Sudhakar Shinde, State Coordinator
CCDU, Sidco Bhavan, Belapur,
Navi Mumbai
Tel: 022-27565087
Mr. M. S. Kalshetti, Deputy Secretary
RDO, Maharashtra,
161 FF Main Building,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
Tel: 022-22846893, 22831017
National Workshop on Rural Sanitation: List of Participants
Manipur
Uttarakhand
Mr. L. Swamikant Singh, Director
Communication & Capacity Development Unit,
Public Health Engineering Department,
Lmphelpat, Imphal, Manipur 795 004
Mobile: 0943689025
Mr. D.R. Joshi, State Coordinator, TSC
Swajal, Project Management Unit,
Mussoorie Diversion Road,
Dehra Dun 248 001
Tel: 0135-2733455
Mr. L. Ibomcha Singh, Superintending Engineer
Public Health Engineering Department,
Kwakeiphel Moirang Purel Leikh,
Imphal, Manipur 795001
Tel: 0385-2457536
Mr. R.S. Bhandari, Community
Development Specialist
P.M.V. Swajal, Mussoorie Diversion Road,
Dehra Dun 248 001
Tel: 0135-2733455
Punjab
West Bengal
Mr. D. S. Cheema, Superintendent Engineer
Water Supply and Sanitation Department,
Sangruru Circle, Punjab,
Tel: 01672-234339
Mr. Chandan Sengupta, Chairman
Task Force on Total Sanitation Campaign
Panchayat & Rural Development Department,
Government of West Bengal,
KB-18, Sector-3, Salt Lake,
Kolkata, West Bengal
Mobile: 09830303122
Tel: 033-23582533
Md. Ishpak, Executive Engineer
Water Supply and Sanitation Department,
HIG Flat NO.3, Rajguru Nagar,
Ludhiana 141 001
Tel: 0161-2462735
Sikkim
Ms. Yishey D. Yongda, Deputy Secretary
Rural Management & Development Department,
Gram Vikas Bhawan, Tashiling Secretariat,
Gangtok, Sikkim
Mobile: 9434164582
Ms. Urvashi Poudyal
Block Development Officer,
Rural Management & Development Department,
BAC, Gangtok, Sikkim
Tel: 03599-2141400
Uttar Pradesh
Mr. Girishchandra, Deputy Director
Panchayati Raj Uttar Pradesh,
Jawahar Bhavan, 6th Floor, Lucknow
Tel: 0522-228646
Mr. Abhijit Lahiri, District Coordinator
(Sanitation)
Murshidabad Zila Parishad,
Panchanantala, Burhampur,
Murshidabad, West Bengal 742 401
Tel: 03482-274863
Agencies
Mr. Manish Kumar
WES Specialist
UNICEF
73 Lodi Estate,
New Delhi 110 003
Tel: 011-24690401
Mr. S. N. Dave
WES Specialist
UNICEF
73 Lodi Estate,
New Delhi 110 003
Tel: 011-24690401
79
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Rapid Assessment of Processes and Outcomes
Mr. Rahul Bakare, Director
Rural Grants
ARGHYAM
12 Main Indira Nagar,
Bangalore
Tel : 09902848844
Mr. Arumugam Kalimuthu
Senior Program Support Manager
PLAN
E-12, Kailash Colony,
New Delhi
Tel: 011-46558484
Mobile: 9868888820
Water And Sanitation Program
55 Lodi Estate,
New Delhi 110 003
Tel: 011 24690488/89
Fax: 011-24628250
E-mail: [email protected]
Mr. Christopher Juan Costain
Regional Team Leader
Mr. Ajith C. Kumar
Water & Sanitation Specialist
80
Ms. Upneet Singh
Research Analyst
Ms. Vandana Mehra
Regional Communication Officer
Ms .Geeta Sharma
Regional Communication Officer
Mr. Mariappa Kullappa
Water & Sanitation Specialist
Dr. Suseel Kumar
Water & Sanitation Specialist
Mr. Kakumanu Arokiam
Consultant
Mr. Manu Prakash
Consultant
Ms. Aravinda Satyavada
Consultant
Ms. Prapti Mittal
Consultant
Ms. Lira Suri
Team Assistant
National Workshop
A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Lessons Learnt and Way Forward
A National Workshop on ‘A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign: Lessons Learnt and Way Forward’
was organised in New Delhi on 22 and 23 April 2010 by the Department of Drinking Water Supply
(DDWS) in partnership with WSP. The objective of the workshop was to review the status of the TSC,
identify the lessons learnt in the implementation of the campaign, and plan for the way forward to
realise the goal of making the rural areas Nirmal a reality by 2012.
The workshop was inaugurated by the Hon’ble Minister of State for Rural Development, Ms. Agatha
Sangma. From the national level, the Union Secretary Mrs. Rajwant Sandhu, Joint Secretary Mr. J.S.
Mathur, Joint Secretary Mr. T.M. Vijay Bhaskar and Director Mr. Vijay Mittal, of the DDWS participated.
In addition, representatives from 21 states and three sector partners (UNICEF, WaterAid and Arghyam)
joined the event to share their insights and map the way forward. The total number of participants
was around 85.
Disclaimer
Raw data for graphs and figures in this report have been taken from the Total Sanitation Campaign
online monitoring system in early 2010, but during different months (www.ddws.nic.in and
www.nirmalgrampuraskar.nic.in). Therefore,there may be some differences in graphs on related
indicators due to the time lag between different points when information was accessed and subsequent
updates to TSC/NGP websites.
The workshop provided an opportunity to discuss the emerging trends in TSC implementation over
the last decade. On the first day, a presentation was made to highlight the performance on different
components of the TSC and the fact that we have to assess our progress towards the Millennium
Development Goal or Nirmal Bharat not just in terms of physical coverage but usage of the sanitation
facilities created. There was also an opportunity to discuss the findings of two rapid assessments
undertaken by WSP. The first was on the patterns of usage and quality of toilets in Nirmal Gram
Puraskar winning Panchayats which put the focus on how we can address sustainability of progress
under TSC. The second assessment shared the findings of the impact of access to sanitation and
hygiene on health and focused on the fact that it was not singular interventions but an integrated
package of sanitation and hygiene that is most effective in reaching health outcomes.
On the second day, the focus was on the results of a national level assessment of the TSC undertaken
by WSP to understand the processes that underpin scaling up and sustainability of TSC. Based on
findings from 22 districts across 21 states, the study underscored that districts/states that follow the TSC
guidelines in the right spirit and implement the processes in the right way tend to reach the TSC goal
faster. It was also agreed that enhancing subsidy was not a solution for increasing coverage and usage
among the households. The workshop ended with concluding remarks from the Secretary, DDWS.
Volume 1: Main Report
A Decade of the
Total Sanitation
Campaign
Rapid Assessment of
Processes and Outcomes
Water and Sanitation Program
The World Bank
55 Lodi Estate,
New Delhi 110 003, India
Phone: (91-11) 24690488, 24690489
Fax: (91-11) 24628250
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: www.wsp.org
Ministry of Rural Development
Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation
9th Floor, Paryavaran Bhawan
CGO Complex, Lodi Road,
New Delhi 110 003, India
Phone: (91-11) 24362705
Fax: (91-11) 24361062
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: www.ddws.nic.in/