Management and monitoring of SSHE in Tamil Nadu, India P. Amudha, UNICEF-India Photo: UNICEF India UNICEF and the Government of Tamil Nadu collaborated on scaling up the SSHE program in Tamil Nadu, a state in southern India with a population of 62 million. In expanding, the program faced challenges which are common to SSHE around the world: need to plan, fund and manage the scaling up of SSHE; lack of reliable data on school coverage including status of functional facilities; several departments involved and a multiplicity of schemes; target-oriented construction which needs to be supported with relevant and timely software; need for greater attention to capacity development and monitoring including checking the quality of school facilities; and strengthening life-skills based hygiene education. The strategy was to use monitoring and the collection of data as a tool for planning and managing the scaling up of SSHE, involving personnel from the key departments (education, rural development, health) at the block level (a block contains roughly 200,000 people). It was decided to collect only a STATE of TAMIL NADU Number of primary schools: 32,900 Water Supply in schools: 90% Toilet facilities in schools: 84% Hand-washing facilities: 55% Percentage of girls reaching grade 5: 99.3% Source: School Sanitation Data Monitoring System (SSDMS) Feb. 2006 Government of Tamil Nadu limited amount of data on the most important components so that data could be easily manageable. For this, an initial survey was made of each school in four districts investigating only five basic indicators: (1) drinking water supply, (2)toilet availability, (3)water supply to toilets, (4)hand-washing facilities and (5) training on SSHE. UNICEF developed the monitoring formats in consultation with teachers and extension workers of the rural development agency. The data was collected during the monitoring visits to Case study developed by IRC under the SSHE Global Sharing project financed by UNICEF, December 2006. 1
the schools by members of the Block Resource Team composed of about 15 teachers and extension workers. Each member was responsible for monitoring about 10 schools in a block with about 150 schools. These forms were used to develop the baseline: Format used to collect baseline data Sr Name No. of students Teacher Drinking No. of toilets blocks No of the water school Facility Water Supply to Toilets Toilets are used regularly by Hand washing facilities Training on SSHE Boys Girls Total M F A* NA* Boys Girls Teacher Total A NA B G Only All A NA Y N Tea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 2 3 4 * A: Available NA: Not available The data from these forms was entered into a computerised management system for analysis and was then displayed on maps using a Geographic Information System (GIS). One map was made for each indicator. Two examples are below: the first (right) is a district map, which shows the proportion of schools without toilet facilities in a district and its blocks in 2003. The red dots on this map depict the location of schools without toilets. The state map (left) ranks districts according to availability of toilet facilities. In both maps, the areas where 80% or more of the schools have toilet facilities are shown in green. Data from survey and GIS (March 2005) Tamil Nadu state (India) Dharmapuri district in Tamil Nadu state Case study developed by IRC under the SSHE Global Sharing project financed by UNICEF, December 2006. 2
Showing the data on GIS maps was useful for understanding and promoting the need to deal with differences within and between blocks and districts. It helped managers to see the status at any point of time and to work in areas that had fewer working facilities. The comparisons helped the district and block teams to understand where they stood in comparison with other areas and how to allocate their resources. District staff worked to allocate resources to the needy areas and speed up activities where these were lagging behind. Using the maps in district and regional workshops helped improve interdepartmental coordination. The maps were used in joint planning involving local government, education, rural development and water supply. At the State level the mapping was used for advocacy and sensitizing leaders on SSHE, its critical role in children s health and education and what more needed to be done. The Block Resource Teams collected information every six months; and maps were updated once a year. Maps were displayed at review meetings so that progress and continuing problems, if any could be easily seen through before-and-after maps. In addition, for planning, construction and management, data was made available in tabular format, for a block or school so that each school could have the complete set of functioning hardware and software to make the SSHE fully operational and effective. The cost for installing this system was approximately US$ 30,000 for about 30,000 schools. The cost of maintenance is estimated to be US$ 5000 per year. Case study developed by IRC under the SSHE Global Sharing project financed by UNICEF, December 2006. 3
Lessons Learned The usefulness of this tool is striking. The districts update the information every six months. Strong and supportive supervision is needed to ensure that the teams remain motivated. The general tendency is to become slack after the first spurt of data collection and display on maps. Wherever the district leadership has committed itself to converting all the pink patches (deficit) to green (good achievement), the progress remains on track. Nonetheless, it is estimated that about 80 percent districts have been updating and using the maps through to this year (2006). Slippage is a constant reminder that any system will work well only when the highest leadership accords it priority. This UNICEF-assisted initiative has now been piloted for three years. Plans are underway now for its systemic adoption in the elementary education monitoring system in the state. The GIS system was used to implement and manage the project. In addition, the results and outputs needed to be assessed. Therefore UNICEF and the education department commissioned an assessment of SSHE in Tamilnadu in 2005 based on data from 4233 schools drawn from 4 districts. Fifteen percent of these schools were visited. The assessment rated each schools on a 10-point or 10 star scale. It showed that a third of the schools achieved the gold -10 star status or came close with 9 stars. Another 30 percent fell in the 7 and 8 star categories and about 30 cent fell below the 7 star mark. Of the latter 18 percent schools fell in the category 5-star or below requiring major inputs for improvement. The study found that more successful schools programs tended to have: an effective NGO partnership, trained teachers, active Parent Teachers Association (PTA) and Village Education Committees (VEC), active student hygiene clubs and a system of mobilization of financial contribution from communities. For more information about this interesting program, contact : Ms. Amudha Periasamy, Project Officer (SSHE) UNICEF, India Country Office, New Delhi. E-mail: Pamudha@unicef.org Case study developed by IRC under the SSHE Global Sharing project financed by UNICEF, December 2006. 4
Annex About the WASH in schools case studies Developed by IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre under the SSHE Global Sharing project financed by UNICEF. Over the decade a rich poor of experience and programming has evolved in school programs for water, sanitation and hygiene education, which we call WASH in schools or SSHE. Hundreds of millions of children are currently attending schools that have, in one way or another, become part of this ambitious effort to enhance the lives and life opportunities of young people around the world. In the 1980s and early 1990s, these programs focused largely on construction. This usually meant building water points and toilets in schools. Current experience, however, has provided a strong evidence base on the crucial need to combine hardware (facilities) with software, that is, management, organization, capacity development, educational methodologies and promotion of hygiene behaviors. Participation of key stakeholders teachers and educational staff, local government and community groups, parents and children is seen as key to the success of these new WASH in school programs. This collection of case studies examines both hardware and software aspects of WASH in schools and in different settings. The case studies focus in one way or another on four general themes: planning and management; actions in the school and teaching-learning; technology and design; and, scaling up or expanding WASH in schools while retaining its quality. The case studies are drawn from experience in Africa (Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Senegal, Somalia, Zambia), Asia (Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Vietnam) and South America (Bolivia, Colombia, Nicaragua). The case studies provide insights into programs supported by UNICEF and also by other institutions such as the Aga Khan University, Caritas, Plan International and NETWAS International. Despite the breadth of institutional and national experience upon which the case studies draw, it must be noted that these 14 papers only provide a glimpse of the rich and often exciting experience in WASH in schools from around the world. Nonetheless, this is a glimpse which will hopefully provide the reader with worthwhile insights into the current state of the art in school programming. At the end of each case study there is contact information for the reader seeking further information. The case studies were prepared by the staff of the IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre in collaboration with Annemarieke Mooiman and Sumita Ganguly. The preparation of the case studies was overseen by Therese Dooley and Henk van Norden of UNICEF (New York) whose support is greatly appreciated. All case studies are available at the WASH in Schools web site: http://www.schools.watsan.net December, 2006 Case study developed by IRC under the SSHE Global Sharing project financed by UNICEF, December 2006. 5