Capacity Building for Urban Sanitation Development Main Report


NOTES FOR THE FACILITATOR



Download 0.87 Mb.
Page13/17
Date conversion03.05.2018
Size0.87 Mb.
1   ...   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17




NOTES FOR THE FACILITATOR


  1. Before beginning this activity, it will be useful to have information on:

  • The design principles of the different sanitation options

  • The effectiveness of different options

  • The maintenance and on-going servicing requirements of each type of option including costs on operation and maintenance

  • The costs of different sanitation options and subsidies available

  • The durability of the structure and the sustainability of each system

  1. When selecting sanitation options, it is important to consider the amount of water the option will require. The risk of contaminating the environment and existing water sources must also be considered. Make sure the participants discuss these issues.


OTHER TYPES OF LADDERS

This activity can also be used to deal with other questions and problems e.g. a water ladder. This activity would be conducted in the same way as the sanitation ladder, only that the drawings would show different water supply options for improving quality, quantity and access of the water supply. However water supply options tend to have fewer steps, some time even two viz. a traditional source and an improved source.



ANNEX 2F Self-rating of Household Latrines
I. Purpose

  1. To assess, in a stratified random sample, the construction, validation, maintenance, use and hygiene of latrines installed under the project(s) and by households themselves

  2. To enable male and female householders, and communities, to assess where they are in sanitation improvements
  3. To practice a tool with which communities and households can monitor their latrines and plan improvements


  4. In planning and monitoring: to establish a baseline of the sanitation conditions (if implemented as a self-survey, e.g. with schoolchildren and/or the local water/health committee, youth club, etc. for planning and monitoring/evaluating improvements


II. Materials needed

  1. Community Map to choose the households

  2. Photocopies of the Self-rating sheets (2 copies per household, one for the household and one for the facilitator)

  3. A larger sheet with the sanitation scale

  4. Ten paired pictures, each pair on an A4 sheet with a bad and a good situation

  5. The aggregation sheet for summarizing the scores for presentation in the community assembly


III. Implementation with community

  1. Go to the first household sampled from the map. Before going note unobtrusively on the facilitator sheet if it is a lower, intermediate or upper class household.

  2. Introduce yourself and explain the purpose of the visit. Ask if an adult woman and man from the family will do the assessment together.

  3. Unroll the ladder. Help the householders to trace the history of their latrine practice with the help of the large latrine ladder (They may also score in-between options):

  • What did they use earlier? How many years ago was that?

  • What do they use now? Since how long?

  1. Now ask the history of the installation of improved latrines: Which one(s) did they install themselves? Which one under a project (probe if they know which project).

Encircle latrines installed through a project with an unbroken line and note name of project(s) involved near the circle. Encircle self-installed latrines using a dashed line.


  1. Now give the household the score list ask if you can all go see the latrine. At the latrine, guide the householders through the scoring sheet, where needed with the help of the larger paired pictures. Give full marks (one per box) if the situation is fully satisfactory and half marks when it is intermediate (e.g. a latrine is used, but not by all, or not all the time). Unsatisfactory situations get a blank (more sensitive than a zero). The householders score their own sheet and the facilitator copies the scores on her/his copy. S/he also notes any observations, explanation received, etc. An extra scoring column is provided in case the facilitator has a different viewpoint. The householders may for example be fully satisfied with the technical quality, while the facilitator may have some critique. Discuss the point and try to reach a consensus, but if this is difficult, leave the matter for further reflection and mark the difference in the extra column, plus reason.

  2. Calculate the end score and discuss it with the householders. Note the scores on the aggregation sheet.

  3. Thank the family and go to the next on your list. The household keeps its own scoring sheet.


ANNEX 2G Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion
Sorting & Ranking for Priority Selection and Action Planning by Gender

I. Materials

  1. Simple (locally made) felt-pen drawings depicting key processes and contents (locally prevailing S&H practices and conditions);

  2. Cards and felt pens for making headings;

  3. Paper and felt pen for action planning;

  4. Floor space;

  5. Camera to record process and outcomes;
  6. Table 1 gives the list used to develop the materials for the Denpasar workshop;


  7. Table 2 gives the list of materials developed for the Banjarmasin community groups.


II. Method Sorting and ranking
III. Expected outcomes

  1. Shared knowledge on good/bad local hygiene and sanitation

  2. Identified good and bad practices acc. to women and men

  3. Action priorities for women and men  agreed joint priorities

  4. Actions planned with balanced division of work/roles women & men


IV. Procedure

  1. Ask the group(s) to lay the drawings out on the floor. Explain that there are two types of drawings: on participation processes and on behaviour. Some show good practices and others less good ones. Ask them to make two rows: good and bad. If there are pictures that they do not understand they can ask, but stimulate that other group members explain these drawings, not you. You only explain them when nobody understands them (correctly). Note these pictures, as they will need to be changed

  2. After making the rows, review the pictures. Does everyone agree on where they have been placed and why? Ask someone to make and place the heading cards.

  3. Now ask the group(s) to split each row in two again:

  • The ‘good’ practices into ‘already by all’ and ‘not yet by all’

  • The ‘bad’ practices into ‘no more done’ and ‘still done’

    Ask the group(s) to also make and place the heading cards.

  1. Review the cards with the groups. Why were these choices made?
  2. Ask the groups to prioritize the cards for action, or alternatively choose three cards that need action most urgently. Why did they pick these cards?


  3. Invite the other group(s) if there are more to come over. A member of the group explains the cards.

  4. Go with your group to the other group(s) who will do the same.

  5. Look at which priority cards have been selected. Discuss which are the final priority cards that should be acted on.

  6. Now discuss what can be done to make these actions come true:

  • Who can do what where and when? Do men and women have equal tasks/influence?

  • How can the starting situation and progress be measured?

  1. Assist the group to write down their decisions into a planning and monitoring matrix:

    action – method(s) - person(s) involved – peron(s) responsible – action period - intended output/outcome/results – means of verification

  1. Agree on next steps

  2. Evaluate the session with the participants

  3. Thanks and closure. Materials stay with the agreed person(s) in the group for ongoing use & monitoring.

    Table 1. Material used in Denpasar Institutional Workshop on G&P Mainstreaming

Process related materials

1

Decision-making S&H in household, husband and wife

8

Decision-making S&H in household, husband

2

Decision-making S&H in Community local planning, males and females

9

Decision-making S&H in Community local planning, males only


3

Hygiene education to children by mother

10

Hygiene education to children by father

4

Child trained to use toilet by mother

11

Child trained to use toilet by father

5

Woman pays water/sewage bill

12

Man pays water/sewage bill

6

Woman pays for hygiene implements

13

Man pays for hygiene implements

7

MCKs close, small & not queuing

14

MCK far, few & queuing

Content related material

1

Well-kept toilet with hand washing

14

Toilet pan with stool

2

Toilet plan clean with water in pan

15

Toilet pan blocked by solid waste

3

Adolescent girl visits MCK

16

Adolescent boy defecates at river

4


Child visits MCK

17

Child defecates in road

5

Child on potty

18

Child open defecation in yard

6

Potty contents in toilet

19

Potty contents in drain

7

Septic tank emptied regularly by contractor

20

Septic tank close to shallow well

8

Hand washing both with soap

21

Hand washing one with water only

9

Solar disinfection of drinking water

22

Well water drunk straight from well

10

Solid waste segregated and composted/sold

23

Solid waste thrown in street

11

Sludge water in drain

24

Sludge water in street

12

Drain cleaned

25

Drain blocked by solid waste

13

Poorly kept toilet










Table 2. Hygiene & sanitation promotion: outcomes male sorting & ranking in Keluranhan Kelayan Dalam community - Banjarmasin

Bad

Good

Not done

Still done

Already done

Not yet done

Solid waste in road

Waste blocks drains

Drains along roads

Segregate & recycle solid waste

Hand wash river & soap

Helicopter toilets

Solid waste bins

Hand wash PDAM+soap

Hand wash PDAM no soap

Hand wash river no soap

Wash utensils PDAM no soap

Hygiene education children by father

Wash utensils river no soap

Wash clothes in river

Wash utensils PDAM + soap



Bath child in river


Adults bath in river

Child bath PDAM




Father pays only for PDAM

Child faeces thrown in river

Father pays for PDAM & hygiene







Teeth brush river water

Teeth brush PDAM



The men’s group in Kel. Kelayan Dalam chooses three local priorities:



  • Segregation and recycling solid waste

  • Abandon helicopter toilets

  • Fathers get role in hygiene education of children

The women’s group choose:



  • Abandon helicopter toilets

  • Recycling solid waste

  • Participate in Musrembang to get sanitation in community action plan

There was no time for planning left so no action plan was made. The experience was very much appreciated as an alternative model for extension and action planning/monitoring

(Monitoring data need triangulation).


Figure 1 Sorting outcomes male FG


ANNEX 2H Community Participation:
Gender and Poverty in Community Decision Making

I. Materials Set of pictures on local decision making models; voting slips in four colours

(2 sets of 2 colours: current and ideal according to women and men),

Floor space

II. Method Matrix voting

III. Expected outcomes (1) Shared knowledge on current and ideal decision making proces

(2) Proposed steps to move from the current to the ideal

(3) Actions planned to implement the steps


IV. Procedure

  1. Explain that these drawings represent ways of decision making. Ask the group(s) to lay the drawings in a row along the top of the floor space. Ask the participants to state what the drawings show. Clarify if needed;

  2. Ask some participants to write three cards related to the type of decisions: (1) technology choice; (2) local design/plan; (3) local management committee (4) local financing. Ask them to place the cards on the left hand side of the floor space;

  3. Now place two piles of voting slips on the floor and ask each woman participant to take 4 slips of one colour and each male participant 4 slips of the other colour. Ask each participant to place their cards under the person(s)/group(s) that make the decisions on each of these subjects. Review and discuss the outcomes: is this the best? If not, who should ideally make each type of decision and why? Ask them to place the slips in these cells;

  4. Now ask the group(s) how a project can move from the usual to the ideal situation;

  5. Summarise the conclusions and recommendations and thank the group.



ANNEX 2I Community Participation/Management
Gender Equitable and Poor-inclusive Jobs and Training

I. Materials Two sheets of brown paper, felt tipped black pens, cards or slips of white paper

(A4 cut in 4 width-wise); handout on gender in SWM


II. Method Matrix voting

III. Expected outcomes (1) Insights into training and jobs in community participation/management


(2) Understanding and analysis of gender equity and poor-inclusive focus

(3) Agreement on monitoring and corrective actions


IV. Procedure

  1. Ask the group(s) to list write a card on ll types of work done in sanitation (excreta disposal, solid waste management, wastewater disposal, drainage). One type of job on one card. Options are: waste segregator in home, collectors and recyclers of different types of solid wastes, recycling factory worker/manager, plumber, fee collector etc.;

  2. Ask them to lay each card on the left hand side of the paper and to draw a matrix with a row for each training and two columns. Label one ‘men’ and one ‘women;

  3. Now ask them to fill in the number of women and men involved in each job;

  4. Facilitate a discussion on the division of job opportunities and the need for income earning work for poor women and men, difference in mobility and job opportunities for the two sexes, and what new opportunities a sanitation programme can give. Discuss which jobs give income in payments or in kind (e.g. vegetables grown with compost). Discuss the lack of (sex-disaggregated) data and what this means for our insights and strategies;

  5. Help the group draw conclusions and recommendations;

  6. Now repeat the activity for training. Ask participants to write each type of training given or planned on the slips, e.g. technical skills, management, financial, leadership, hygiene, composting etc. (One training per card);

  7. Ask them to lay out the trainings on the left hand side of the second brown sheet and to draw the two columns: one for men, one for women. Now ask them to indicate for whom which training is or may be planned;

  8. Facilitate a discussion on equity in gender access to training: why train men on hygiene, women on financing/management/technology;
  9. Help the group draw conclusions and formulate a strategy for gender equitable and poor-inclusive training;


  10. Evaluate the session with the participants;

  11. Thanks and closure. Share the handout on equity to work and income in SWM.



Work

Men

Women

Home segregation & composting

Collection, segregation, recycling

Organic waste

Glass


Paper

Metal


Plastic: Cups

Bottles (etc.)



Paper & Cardboard









Annex 3
School, MCK and SWM Assessment Forms



ANNEX 3B Community Self-Assessment of School Sanitation and Hygiene

1. Presence and quality of students’ toilets

Options

Scores

Score

Toilet(s) for students exist but are not functional or not being used

0



Toilet(s) for students exists and is in use but they are dark, smelly and soiled with excreta


10




Toilet(s) for students exists and is in use, with adequate daylight, but soiled with excreta. No water soap or ash for hand washing with easy reach.

25




Benchmark: Toilets are clean (no excreta in pans, walls or floor) and protected against misuse (e.g., locked after school hours)

50




In addition, there is water, soap or ash for hand washing within easy reach of the children

75




Ideal: In addition, Toilets are child friendly (e.g., pans are smaller, colourful walls, etc.)

100





1   ...   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page