. .

 

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 31

IR2a: Increased adoption of positive nutrition behaviors among target households

(31) INDICATOR TITLE: 1.2.1.4: Number of women who received breastfeeding education through USG-supported programs

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator?  No ___    Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s)

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework: --Primary Program Element-- Health, Maternal and Child Health

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S):  Exclusive breastfeeding is defined as an infant feeding practice where the infant receives breast milk (including expressed breast milk or breast milk from a wet nurse) but nothing else during the first six months of life, with the exception of vitamin or mineral supplements, medicine or ORS (under recommendation of a medical professional). An infant receiving plain boiled water, soups, porridge, semi-solid foods before six months of age cannot be counted as exclusively breast fed.

Immediate initiation of breastfeeding is defined as putting the infant to breast within one hour of delivery.

Individual session: is defined as an intervention that is provided to one individual at a time

UNIT OF MEASURE: Number

DISAGGREGATED BY: None  

TYPE: Output

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: High is  better

RATIONALE: Exclusive breastfeeding is the single most effective intervention to improve the survival of children and directly affects the nutritional status of children. An estimated 1 million child deaths could be averted every year if all children were optimally breastfed.

  • The individual must have attended a training on how to implement an improved sanitation method
  • The training must have been provided by the USG or an implementing partner in an individual or small group setting. Research shows ideal group size is 25 individuals or less, although in some instances group size can be significantly

 

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: GHS documented registration logs/program document./DHIMS

 

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION: 

  • LEVEL OF COLLECTIONActivity-level, direct beneficiaries; only those women reached by USG intervention
  • HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Activity records/program data, service statistics
  • FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Annual
  • WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: District health facilities staff will report on number of women receiving education or benefits. RING M&E Staff must validate to avoid potential errors when figures are aggregated by district staff.

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments  and name of reviewer: 

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): 

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):  

Rationale for Targets (optional): 

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: 

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 

 

 

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 32

IR2a: Increased adoption of positive nutrition behaviors among target households

(32) INDICATOR TITLE:  HL.9.2: Number of children under two (0-23 months) reached with community-level nutrition interventions through USG-supported programs

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator?  No ___    Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:-- Primary SPS Linkage-- HL.9 (Secondary: HL.9.1, HL.9.2, HL.9.3)

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S):  The 1,000 days between pregnancy and a child’s second birthday are the most critical period to ensure optimum physical and cognitive development.

Children under two: This indicator captures the children reached from birth to 23 months, and a separate standard indicator will count the number of pregnant women reached by USG-supported programs (insert indicator # here --currently # 3). Children are counted as reached if their mother/caregiver participated in the community-level nutrition program.

Community-level nutrition interventions: Community-level nutrition activities are implemented on an on-going basis at the community-level and involve multiple, repeated contacts with pregnant women and mothers/caregivers of children. At a minimum ‘multiple contacts’ means two or more community-level interactions during the reporting year. However, an IP does not need to track the number of contacts and can estimate this based on the nature of the intervention. For example, a Care Group approach by its very nature includes multiple repeated contacts. Community-level nutrition activities should always include social and behavior change communication interventions focused on key maternal and infant and young child nutrition practices. Common strategies to deliver community-level interventions include The Care Group Model, Mothers’ Support Groups, Husbands’ Groups (École des Maris), and PD Hearth for malnourished children. 

Community-level nutrition activities should coordinate with public health and nutrition campaigns such as child health days and similar population-level outreach activities conducted at a national (usually) or sub-national level at different points in the year. Population-level campaigns may focus on delivering a single intervention, but most commonly deliver a package of interventions that usually includes vitamin A supplements, de-worming tablets, and routine immunization, and may include screening for acute malnutrition, growth monitoring, and distribution of insecticide-treated mosquito nets. However, children under two reached only by population-level campaigns should not be counted under this indicator.

Children reached solely through community drama, comedy, or video shows should not be included. However, projects should still use mass communication interventions like dramas to reinforce SBCC messages.

 

Facility-level Interventions that are brought to the community-level may be counted as community-level interventions if these involve multiple, repeated contacts with the target population (e.g. services provided by community-based health extension agents, mobile health posts).

Children are counted as reached if their mother/caregiver participated in the community-level nutrition program. If, after birth, the child benefits from the intervention, then the child should be counted-- regardless of the primary recipient of the information, counseling, or intervention. For example, if a project provides counseling on complementary feeding to a mother, then the child should be counted as reached.

Children reached by community-level nutrition programs should be counted only once per reporting year, regardless of the number of contacts with the child.

To avoid double counting across all USAID funded activities, the Mission should estimate the overlap between the different activities before reporting the aggregate number in the PPR. Please refer to the forthcoming FAQs and supplemental guidance for more information on how to limit double counting.

UNIT OF MEASURE:  Number

DISAGGREGATED BY:  Disaggregated by sex: number of males and number of females

TYPE: Output

DIRECTION OF CHANGE:  High is better

Use of Indicator: This indicator measures the progress of USAID’s Multi-Sectoral Nutrition Strategy (2014-2025). It also supports reporting and measurement of achievements for the followings: Acting on the Call Annual Reports; Feed the Future Progress Reports; International Food Assistance Report; Feed the Future and Global Health annual Portfolio Reviews.

Bureau Owner(s): Agency: USAID Bureau and Office: Global Health/HIDN/NUT

POC: Kellie Stewart, 571-551-7439, kestewart@usaid.gov

(Linkage to Long-term Outcome or Impact ) RATIONALE: Good coverage of nutrition projects among children under 2 years of age is essential to prevent and treat malnutrition and to improve child survival. Under-nutrition is an underlying cause in 45 percent of childhood deaths.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: DHIMS

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION: 

  • LEVEL OF COLLECTIONActivity-level, direct beneficiaries; only those children reached by USG intervention
  • HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Activity records/program data, service statistics
  • FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Annual
  • WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: District health facilities will report on number of children under 5 receiving benefits. RING M&E Staff must validate to avoid potential errors when figures are aggregated by district staff.

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments  and name of reviewer: 

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): 

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):  

Rationale for Targets (optional): 

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: 

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 

 

 

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 33

IR2a: Increased adoption of positive nutrition behaviors among target households

(33) INDICATOR TITLE: HL.9.3: Number of pregnant women reached with nutrition-specific interventions through USG-supported programs

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator?  No ___    Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:-- Primary SPS Linkage--HL.9 (Secondary: HL 9.1, HL.9.2, HL.9.3)

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S):  The 1,000 days between pregnancy and a child’s second birthday are the most critical period to ensure optimum physical and cognitive development.

 

Pregnant women: This indicator captures the reach of activities that are targeted towards women during pregnancy, intended to contribute to the health of both the mother and the child, and to positive birth outcomes. A separate standard indicator will count the number of children under 2 reached by USG-supported programs (insert indicator # here --currently # 2).

 

Nutrition-specific interventions: A pregnant woman can be counted as reached if she receives one or more of the following interventions:

1. Iron and folic acid supplementation

2. Counseling on maternal and/or child nutrition

3. Calcium supplementation

4. Multiple micronutrient supplementation

5. Direct food assistance of fortified/specialized food products (i.e. CSB+, Super cereal Plus, RUTF, RUSF, etc)

 

If possible, the Mission and IPs should also disaggregate this indicator by age (number of women < 19, number of women >+ 19) to determine whether projects are reaching this particularly vulnerable adolescent population.

 

Missions and IPs who have a strong justification may opt out of the requirement to disaggregate this indicator into the five nutrition interventions and the age disaggregate. For example, OUs may opt out if IPs rely on the government health system to collect this data and these disaggregates are not included in that system. The reason should be noted in the online PPR reporting database. In this case, Missions may report just the total number of pregnant women reached. If only some disaggregates are available then Missions should report both the total number and the number for each available disaggregate.

 

Iron and folic acid (IFA) supplementation is a commonly implemented intervention for pregnant women, often with broad coverage. Ideally, however, pregnant women should receive nutrition interventions beyond IFA, within a comprehensive ANC program informed by the local epidemiology of nutrient deficiencies. Nutrition interventions for women are often delivered at the facility level, included in the package of antenatal care, but they may also be delivered through community-level platforms, such as care groups or community health extension activities.

 

A woman is reached with IFA if she receives the IFA according to national guidelines regardless of the number of days she adheres. If a woman only receives Iron or only Folic Acid, she would not be counted as reached.

UNIT OF MEASURE:  Number

DISAGGREGATED BY:  Type of intervention

• Number of women receiving iron and folic acid supplementation

• Number of women receiving counseling on maternal and/or child nutrition

• Number of women receiving calcium supplementation

• Number of women receiving multiple micronutrient supplementation

• Number of women receiving direct food assistance of fortified/specialized food products

Age

• Number of women < 19 years of age

• Number of women > or = 19 years of age

TYPE: Output

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: High is better

Use of Indicator: This indicator measures the progress of USAID’s Multi-Sectoral Nutrition Strategy (2014-2025). It also supports reporting and measurement of achievements for the followings: Acting on the Call Annual Reports; Feed the Future Progress Reports; International Food Assistance Report; Feed the Future and Global Health annual Portfolio Reviews.

Bureau Owner(s): Agency: USAID Bureau and Office: Global Health/HIDN/NUT

POC: Kellie Stewart, 571-551-7439, kestewart@usaid.gov

(Linkage to Long-term Outcome or Impact) RATIONALE: Good coverage of nutrition-specific interventions among pregnant women is essential to prevent both child and maternal under-nutrition and to improve survival. Under-nutrition is an underlying cause in 45 percent of childhood deaths. Part of this burden can be alleviated through maternal nutrition interventions. Moreover, maternal anemia is estimated to contribute to 20 percent of maternal deaths.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: DHIMS

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION: 

  • LEVEL OF COLLECTIONActivity-level, direct beneficiaries; only those children reached by USG intervention
  • HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Activity records/program data, service statistics
  • FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Annual
  • WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: District health facilities will report on number of children under 5 receiving benefits. RING M&E Staff must validate to avoid potential errors when figures are aggregated by district staff.

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments  and name of reviewer: 

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): 

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):  

Rationale for Targets (optional): 

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: 

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 

 

 

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 34

 

IR2b: Increased adoption of positive hygiene and sanitation behaviors in households

(34) INDICATOR TITLE:  HL.8.1-1: Number of people gaining access to basic drinking water services as a result of USG assistance

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator?  No ___    Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:---- Primary SPS Linkage- HL.8.1

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S):  Basic drinking water services, according to the Joint Monitoring Programmed (JMP), are defined as improved sources or delivery points that by nature of their construction or through active intervention are protected from outside contamination, in particular from outside contamination with fecal matter, and where collection time is no more than 30 minutes for a roundtrip including queuing.

 

Drinking water sources meeting this criteria include:

   - piped drinking water supply on premises;

   - public tap/stand post; tube well/borehole;

   - protected dug well; protected spring;

   - rainwater; and/or

   - bottled water (when another basic service is used for hand washing, cooking or other basic personal hygiene purposes).

 

All other services are considered to be “unimproved”, including: unprotected dug well, unprotected spring, cart with small tank/drum, tanker truck, surface water (river, dam, lake, pond, stream, canal, irrigation channel), and bottled water (unless basic services are being used for hand washing, cooking and other basic personal hygiene purposes).

 

The following criteria must be met for persons counted as gaining access to basic drinking water services as a result of USG assistance:

 

1. The total collection time must be 30 minutes or less for a round trip (including wait time). Given this definition, the number of people considered to have “gained access” to a basic service will be limited by the physical distance to the service from beneficiaries’ dwellings, the amount of time typically spent queuing at the service, and the production capacity of the service.       

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

UNIT OF MEASURE:  Number

DISAGGREGATED BY:  Sex(Female, Male) Residence (Rural, Urban) Wealth Quintile

TYPE: Output

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: High is better

Use of Indicator: Useful for program management, funding allocations and tracking, and reporting towards USAID’s Water and Development Strategy objectives.

Bureau Owner(s): Agency: USAID Bureau and Office: E3/Water and GH/MCH/EH POC: waterteam@usaid.gov

(Linkage to Long-Term Outcome or Impact) RATIONALE: Use of a “basic” drinking water service, as defined, is strongly linked to decreases in the incidence of waterborne disease especially among children under age five. Diarrhea remains the second leading cause of child deaths worldwide. While not guaranteeing “use” of the drinking water service, this indicator measures progress in making basic drinking water available in a manner that typically leads to use of the service.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: MMDAs activity report

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION: 

  • LEVEL OF COLLECTION:  Activity Level; those affected by scope of USG activity (People)
  • HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Upon completion of construction or rehabilitation of a basic water service, data must be collected by MMDAs staff, implementing partners?
  • FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Annual, depending on the specifications in the contract or grant.
  • WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: MMDAs staff reviewed RING by team

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments  and name of reviewer: 

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): 

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):  

Rationale for Targets (optional): 

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: 

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 

 

 

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 35

IR2b: Increased adoption of positive hygiene and sanitation behaviors in households

(35) INDICATOR TITLE:  HL.8.1-3: Number of people receiving improved service quality from an existing basic or safely managed drinking water service as a result of USG assistance

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator?  No ___    Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:-- Primary SPS Linkage-- HL.8.1

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S):  A person is counted for this indicator when their current primary drinking water service qualifies as a “basic ,” or “safely managed” (see indicators HL.8.1-1 and HL.8.1-2)  but, the quality of “service” they receive  is further “improved” as a result of USG assistance in terms of its ease of accessibility, reliability, and/or affordability.

 

Specifically, “improved service quality” is defined as being achieved if:

 

   - The accessibility measure, time taken to collect water from a basic or safely managed  service, is further reduced to less than the minimum requirements for a basic water service (see indicator HL.8.1-1) or safely managed water service (see indicator HL.8.1-2); and/or

 

   - Reliability of supply improves such that the person’s main service  is available regularly or more frequently, i.e. there is no regular rationing of supply or regular seasonal failure of their improved service; and/or,

 

   - Affordability of their basic or safely managed drinking water services improves such that the average price they pay for water is no higher than two times the average water tariff for piped water into the dwelling in their country (where applicable).

 

UNIT OF MEASURE:  Number

DISAGGREGATED BY:  Sex (Female, Male)Residence (Rural, Urban) Wealth Quintile

TYPE: Output

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: High is better

Use of Indicator: Useful for program management; funding allocations; and reporting towards USAID’s Water and Development Strategy objectives.

Bureau Owner(s): Agency: USAID Bureau and Office: E3/Water and GH/MCH/EH

POC: waterteam@usaid.gov

(Linkage to Long-Term Outcome or Impact) RATIONALE: Poor quality service (i.e., difficult to access, unreliable, or expensive) from basic or safely managed drinking water services discourage people from consuming the minimum amount of water required for drinking, sanitation and hygiene and thus contributes to elevated waterborne disease.

 

Unreliable supplies can also force individuals to switch to unsafe services during times of shortage. Finally, being forced to rely on expensive drinking water services creates adverse economic burdens on many of the poor; this diversion of household resources away from other important expenditures on food and other household staples also has implications for health.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: MMDAs activity report

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION: 

  • LEVEL OF COLLECTION:  Activity Level; those affected by scope of USG activity (People)
  • HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Upon completion of construction or rehabilitation of a basic water service, data must be collected by MMDAs staff, implementing partners?
  • FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Annual, depending on the specifications in the contract or grant.
  • WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: MMDAs staff reviewed RING by team

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments  and name of reviewer: 

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): 

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):  

Rationale for Targets (optional): 

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: 

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 

 

 

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 36

IR2b: Increased adoption of positive hygiene and sanitation behaviors in households

(36) INDICATOR TITLE:  HL.8.1-4: Number of institutional settings gaining access to basic drinking water services as a result of USG assistance

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator?  No ___    Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:-- Primary SPS Linkage-- HL.8.1

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S):  Institutional settings are defined as schools and health facilities.  Schools in the context of this indicator are day schools for children 6 to 18 years of age who return home after school.  Schools may be public or private.  Health facilities may provide different levels of service, but it is anticipated that water services will be installed in health facilities at the lower echelons of the service hierarchy.  Health facilities may be public or private.

 

An institution is considered to have gained access to a basic drinking water service if:

   - The service is either newly established or rehabilitated from a non-functional state within the reporting fiscal year as a result of USG assistance, and this institution did not previously have similar “access.”

   - The service is on the premises of the institution. 

   - The service meets the definition of a basic drinking water service as defined in indicator HL.8.1-1.

 

Limitations:

The definition of this indicator does not consider reliability, seasonality or water quality. It only measures the most basic level of service at an institution.

UNIT OF MEASURE:  Number

DISAGGREGATED BY:  Institution Type (School/Health Facility)

TYPE: Output

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: High is better

Use of Indicator: Useful for program management, funding allocations and tracking, and reporting towards the Water and Development Strategy.

Bureau Owner(s): Agency: USAID Bureau and Office: E3/Water and GH/MCH/EH

POC: waterteam@usaid.gov

(Linkage to Long-Term Outcome or Impact) RATIONALE: Per WHO guidelines, “Schools with poor water, sanitation and hygiene conditions, and intense levels of person-to-person contact, are high-risk environments for children and staff, and exacerbate children's particular susceptibility to environmental health hazards.”  Health facilities, like any other public space, must have water service to reduce the possibility of spreading disease.  

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: MMDAs Program reports on WASH activities (FFP awardees see “Measurement Notes”).

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION: 

  • LEVEL OF COLLECTIONProject-level, targeted institutional setting sites.
  • HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: MMDAs observations of all institutional setting sites targeted by FFP assistance conducted on an annual basis
  • FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Annual, depending on the specifications in the contract or grant
  • WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: MMDAs staff reviewed RING by team

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments  and name of reviewer: 

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): 

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):  

Rationale for Targets (optional): 

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: 

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 

 

 

 

RING  Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 37

IR 2b: Increased adoption of hygiene and sanitation behaviors in target households and their communities

(37) INDICATOR TITLE:  HL.8.2-1 Number of communities verified as open defecation free (ODF) as a result of USG assistance

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator?  No ___    Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S):  Open defecation free status in a community requires that everyone in the community has a designated location for sanitation (regardless of whether it meets the definition of a "basic sanitation facility", is a shared facility or otherwise unimproved) and that there is no evidence of open defecation in the community.

However, where higher national standards exist, ODF status should be defined in accordance with national regulations and/or an established national system.  If a national policy does not exist, implementing partners shall agree upon a definition with USAID during development of the project Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (MEP).  Open defecation free status must be verified through an established certification process, reviewed by a third party, or a review by the implementing partner.

UNIT OF MEASURE:  Number

DISAGGREGATED BY:  Location: MMDAs

TYPE: Outcome

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: Higher is Better

RATIONALE: Poor access to adequate sanitation will result in the practice of open defecation. The harmful impacts that result from open defecation include the spread of diarrheal disease, loss of privacy and human dignity, and environmental pollution. Even if a few households continue to practice open defecation, the overall risk of bacteriological contamination and incidence of disease may continue to be high.

 

For sanitation coverage purposes, the WASH sector divides households into five service level categories: open defecation (no service), unimproved sanitation, shared sanitation, basic sanitation (improved facility not shared), and safely managed. These categories are used to define a sanitation ladder. The WASH sector seeks to have households move up the sanitation ladder and eventually arrive at safely managed sanitation in order to meet sanitation-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). An increase in the percentage of households that abandon open defecation is an indication that there is movement toward reaching the sanitation-related SDGs in the expected direction.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: Upon declaration of ODF status for a community, the status may be certified by an official entity in accordance with national systems.

 

Where use of a national certification system is not possible, the implementing partner may conduct verification through collection of data or via a third party review. Methods for verifying ODF status may include:

   - transect walks of open defecation sites at dawn and dusk,

   - determining whether open/hanging latrines are being used through observations

   - observing existing community sanctions for infringements to ODF rules 

   - household surveys to assess latrine ownership/access

   - community mapping exercises

 

To facilitate inspection and safeguard against fraud when rewards to communities are used as incentives, it is suggested that ODF verification involve a committee made up of government officials, NGO staff, other civil society representatives, community residents, and/or residents from neighboring towns that have achieved ODF status. Kamal Kar and Robert Chambers, co-authours of the Handbook on Community-Led Total Sanitation even suggest withholding certification of ODF status for a six-month period to ensure that sanitation coverage has been sustained.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

 

USAID staff, implementing partners, or a third party evaluator must reasonably demonstrate the linkage between USG assistance and it's contribution to ODF status in order to attribute results to this indicator.

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION: 

  • LEVEL OF COLLECTION:  Activity level; those affected by scope of USG activity (households)
  • HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Review of district reports and crosschecked by site visit
  • FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: ongoing reported quarterly
  • WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR:  RING staff collects reports from regional offices responsible for confirming ODF status

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments  and name of reviewer: 

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): 

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):   

Rationale for Targets (optional): 

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: 

Other Notes (optional):

Agency: USAID

Bureau and Office: E3/Water and GH/MCH/EH

POC: waterteam@usaid.gov

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:  28-09-2016

 

 

RING  Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 38

IR2b: Increased adoption of positive hygiene and sanitation behaviors in households

(38) INDICATOR TITLE:  HL.8.2-2: Number of people gaining access to a basic sanitation service as a result of USG assistance

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator?  No ___    Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:-- Primary SPS Linkage-- HL.8.2

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S):  A basic sanitation service, defined according to the Joint Monitoring Programmed (JMP), is a sanitation facility that hygienically separates human excreta from human contact, and that is not shared with other households. Sanitation facilities meeting this criteria include:

   - flush or pour/flush facility connected to a piped sewer system;

   - a septic system or a pit latrine with slab;

   - composting toilets;

   - or ventilated improved pit latrines (with slab).

 

All other sanitation facilities do not meet this definition and are considered “unimproved.” Unimproved sanitation includes: flush or pour/flush toilets without a sewer connection; pit latrines without slab/open pit; bucket latrines; or hanging toilets/latrines. Households that use a facility shared with other households are not counted as using a basic sanitation facility. A household is defined as a person or group of persons that usually live and eat together.

 

Persons are counted as “gaining access” to an improved sanitation facility, either newly established or rehabilitated from a non-functional or unimproved state, as a result of USG assistance if their household did not have similar “access”, i.e., an improved sanitation facility was not available for household use, prior to completion of an improved sanitation facility associated with USG assistance.

 

This assistance may come in the form of hygiene promotion to generate demand. It may also come as programs to facilitate access to supplies and services needed to install improved facilities or improvements in the supply chain(s). 

 

Limitations:

It is important to note that providing “access” does not necessarily guarantee beneficiary “use” of a basic sanitation facility and thus potential health benefits are not certain to be realized from simply providing “access.” Not all household members may regularly use the noted basic sanitation facility. In particular, in many cultures young children are often left to defecate in the open and create health risks for all household members including themselves. The measurement of this indicator does not capture such detrimental, uneven sanitation behavior within a household.

UNIT OF MEASURE:  Number

DISAGGREGATED BY:  ex (Female, Male) Residence (Rural, Urban) Wealth Quintile

TYPE: Output

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: High is better

Use of Indicator: Useful for program management, funding allocations and tracking, and reporting towards USAID’s Water and Development Strategy objectives.

Bureau Owner(s): Agency: USAID Bureau and Office: E3/Water and GH/MCH/EH

POC: waterteam@usaid.gov

(Linkage to Long-Term Outcome or Impact) RATIONALE: Use of an improved sanitation facility by households is strongly linked to decreases in the incidence of waterborne disease among household members, especially among those under age five. Diarrhea remains the second leading cause of child deaths worldwide.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: MMDAs Program reports on WASH activities (FFP awardees see “Measurement Notes”).

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION: 

  • LEVEL OF COLLECTIONProject-level, direct beneficiaries.
  • HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Direct count of beneficiary households and estimates (from sample survey) of the number of people living in those households by FFP awardee and summarized on a quarterly or annual basis. This method would be most appropriate when the technical approach being pursued involves some direct household engagement by the FFP awardee, e.g., when a household is provided a subsidy for the construction of an improved sanitation facility. If a sample survey is used to estimate the number of those “gaining access,” then a baseline must be established before the start of project implementation through an initial household survey.
  • FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Annual, depending on the specifications in the contract or grant.
  • WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: MMDAs staff reviewed RING by team

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments  and name of reviewer: 

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): 

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):  

Rationale for Targets (optional): 

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: 

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 

 

 

RING Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 39

IR2b: Increased adoption of positive hygiene and sanitation behaviors in households

(39) INDICATOR TITLE: HL.8.2-3: Number of people gaining access to safely managed sanitation services as a result of USG assistance

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator?  No ___    Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:-- Primary SPS Linkage-- HL.8.2

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S):  A safely managed sanitation service is defined as a basic sanitation facility service (see indicator 8.2-2) that is not shared with other households and where excreta is safely disposed in situ or removed to be treated off-site.

 

Safely managed sanitation services are those that effectively separate excreta from human contact, and ensure that excreta do not re-enter the immediate environment. This means that household excreta are contained, extracted, and transported to designated disposal or treatment site, or, as locally appropriate, are safely re-used at the household or community level.

 

Persons are counted as “gaining access” to a safely managed sanitation service if their household did not previously have similar “access”. This may include households who previously had a basic sanitation facility, but did not have safe removal or disposal of excreta. 

 

Limitations:

It is important to note that providing “access” does not necessarily guarantee beneficiary “use” of a basic sanitation facility and thus potential health benefits are not certain to be realized from simply providing “access.” Not all household members may regularly use the noted basic sanitation facility.

UNIT OF MEASURE:  Number

DISAGGREGATED BY:  Sex (Female, Male) Residence (Rural, Urban) Wealth Quintile

TYPE: Output

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: High is better

Use of Indicator: Useful for program management, funding allocations and tracking, and reporting towards USAID’s Water and Development Strategy objectives.

Bureau Owner(s): Agency: USAID Bureau and Office: E3/Water and GH/MCH/EH

POC: water team@usaid.gov

(Linkage to Long-Term Outcome or Impact ) RATIONALE: Use of a safely managed sanitation facility by households is strongly linked to decreases in the incidence of waterborne disease among household members, especially among those under age five.  Diarrhea remains the second leading cause of child deaths worldwide.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: MMDAs Program reports on WASH activities (FFP awardees see “Measurement Notes”).

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION: 

  • LEVEL OF COLLECTIONProject-level, direct beneficiaries.
  • HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Direct count of beneficiary households and estimates (from sample survey) of the number of people living in those households by FFP awardee and summarized on a quarterly or annual basis. This method would be most appropriate when the technical approach being pursued involves some direct household engagement by the FFP awardee, e.g., when a household is provided a subsidy for the construction of an improved sanitation facility. If a sample survey is used to estimate the number of those “gaining access,” then a baseline must be established before the start of project implementation through an initial household survey.
  • FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Annual basis, depending on the specifications in the contract or grant agreement.
  • WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: MMDAs staff reviewed RING by team

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments  and name of reviewer: 

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): 

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):  

Rationale for Targets (optional): 

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: 

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 

 

 

RING  Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 40

IR2b: Increased adoption of positive hygiene and sanitation behaviors in households

(40) INDICATOR TITLE: HL.8.2-4: Number of basic sanitation facilities provided in institutional settings as a result of USG assistance

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator?  No ___    Yes ____, for Reporting Year(s) _________

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:-- Primary SPS Linkage-- HL.8.2

DESCRIPTION

PRECISE DEFINITION(S):  Institutional settings are defined as schools and health facilities. Schools in the context of this indicator are day schools for children 6 to 18 years of age who return home after school. Schools may be public or private. Health facilities may provide different levels of service, but it is anticipated that sanitation facilities will be installed in health facilities at the lower echelons of the service hierarchy. Health facilities may be public or private.

 

A basic sanitation facility (see indicator HL.8.2-2) is one that provides privacy and hygienically separates human excreta from human contact and includes:

   - flush or pour/flush facility connected to a piped sewer system;

   - a septic system or a pit latrine with slab;

   - composting toilets;

   - or ventilated improved pit latrines (with slab).

 

 All other sanitation facilities do not meet the definition of “basic” and are considered “unimproved.” Unimproved sanitation includes: flush or pour/flush toilets without a sewer connection; pit latrines without slab/open pit; bucket latrines; or hanging toilets/latrines.

 

For latrine blocks with several squat holes, the “sanitation facility” count is the number of squat holes in the block. Sanitation facilities that are repaired in order to meet set local government standards will also be counted. Sanitation facilities counted are only those that have hand washing facilities within or near the toilets and are located on premises of the institution. In school settings, there must be gender-specific sanitation facilities and host country standards regarding the ratio of students per squat hole must be met.

 

Limitations

Access to sanitation facilities does not guarantee use. Additionally, the cleanliness of the sanitation facility will not be reflected either.

UNIT OF MEASURE:  Number

DISAGGREGATED BY:  Institution Type (School/Health Facility)

TYPE: Output

DIRECTION OF CHANGE: High is better

Use of Indicator: Useful for program management, funding allocations and tracking.

Bureau Owner(s): Agency: USAID Bureau and Office: E3/Water and GH/MCH/EH

POC: waterteam@usaid.gov

(Linkage to Long-Term Outcome or Impact ) RATIONALE: Per WHO guidelines, “Schools with poor water, sanitation and hygiene conditions, and intense levels of person-to-person contact, are high-risk environments for children and staff, and exacerbate children's particular susceptibility to environmental health hazards.” Health facilities, like any other public space, must have sanitation facilities to reduce the possibility of spreading disease. Per-WHO guidelines, “hospitals and health centers have special requirements for sanitation as they may have to deal with patients who are infected with diseases such as cholera, typhoid and

Hepatitis.”

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY RING

DATA SOURCE: MMDAs Program reports on WASH activities (FFP awardees see “Measurement Notes”).

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCTION: 

  • LEVEL OF COLLECTIONProject-level, targeted institutional setting sites.
  • HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: MMDAs observations of all institutional setting sites targeted by FFP assistance conducted on an annual basis
  • FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION: Annual, depending on the specifications in the contract or grant.
  • WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: FFP awardees, MMDAs staff, reviews by RING staff

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments  and name of reviewer: 

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): 

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):  

Rationale for Targets (optional): 

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: 

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: