23 Tuesday Apr 2013
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
You say it’s 101 [basic] but I say it’s still not being implemented.
My friend Bekele Abaire from CRS Ethiopia said this to another colleague who complained that a conference presentation on sanitation & hygiene monitoring was too basic.
29 Friday Mar 2013
Posted in Results, Impact, Sharing
Tags
#health, #international, #WASH, Bolivia, education, gender equity, girls, menses, menstrual hygiene management, Philippines, Rwanda, sanitation, schools
As I sat in a seminar about Menstrual Hygiene Management in Schools at Emory University earlier this week, I kept thinking about my trip to Vietnam to visit CARE’s projects. As we drove all over the beautiful country, my fellow travelers and I marveled at the flocks of school girls walking or biking along the side of the road in their pristine white school uniforms (called ao dai, see photos here). We thought it would be hard to keep the uniforms clean because of the dirt on the side of the road, but we didn’t think about problems they might have managing their periods.
Most women know the fear and embarrassment of visible blood stains on their clothes. For many girls in developing countries, the implications of not being able to deal with “the curse” are much worse. As a fellow female, I’m ashamed that I haven’t focused on how important it is for girls to be able to better manage their periods so that they can stay in school and pay attention while there.
Fortunately, other people are bringing more clarity and the power of evidence to this issue. Bethany Caruso and her team at the Center for Global Safe Water at Emory University collaborated with UNICEF to look at the challenges girls face in menstrual hygiene management in three countries (see an overview of the program here) In the Philippines, Bolivia, and Rwanda girls face similar challenges:
All of these can lead to girls skipping school or being distracted while in class, unplanned pregnancies, and infections.
There are a variety of unrelated factors that lead to these challenges, but the water, sanitation, and hygiene sector could help by making sure that girls’ toilet facilities are private and girl-friendly (which might mean they are far from boys’ toilets, have locking doors, more space, mirrors and sinks inside, and contain covered trash cans for bloody toilet paper or incinerators for used pads). Training of teachers and girls on how to use the facilities is also important.
“Gender equity” has been a buzz-phrase in recent years, but as Bethany said, “instead of equity of inputs, we need to think about equity of outcomes.” To achieve better health and educational outcomes for girls, the water, sanitation and hygiene sector must consider its role in addressing these important findings.
Celebrating Womanhood: Menstrual Hygiene Management report
TED Talk. Arunachalam Muruganantham: “How I started a sanitary napkin revolution!”
23 Saturday Mar 2013
Posted in Results, Impact, Sharing
Tags
#international, #monitoring, #sustainability, #WASH, effectiveness, failure, learning, magical thinking, maintenance, responsibility
Each year the United Nations highlights a theme for the year in water. Last year it was “Water & Food Security;” this year it’s “Water Cooperation.” But I think we should acknowledge the “Years of Magical Thinking.”
I recently read Joan Didion’s memoir “The Year of Magical Thinking” about her struggles to deal with the death of her husband. It was striking and sad. One example of magical thinking is that if a person doesn’t let the messenger into her house, he cannot deliver the horrible news. This made me think of decades of magical thinking we have collectively endured in the water and sanitation sector. As long as we don’t let the bad news about failures get personal, we don’t have to acknowledge our roles in solving the problems.
At conference after conference, speakers lament the “sustainability problem.” They quote failure statistics and talk about the need for research and best practices. And yet, the way we do business hasn’t changed much. This is either magical thinking or, according to Einstein, insanity (Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.)
In program after program, development organizations think:
“If we build this water system, it will last.”
“If we build this latrine, people will use it and replace it when the pit is full.”
If we put handwashing stations at a school, the teachers will make sure there is soap.”
“If we set up water committees, they will make sure that people pay and that the system is maintained.”
“If we build this system, the government will replace it when the time comes.”
“If we give families a water filter, they will know how to clean it/replace it.”
And yet, evidence shows this is often not the case (see Sad Stats). On a site visit last year, I saw a new water system that was replacing (or intended to supplement) a system built by the government. According to the community, the government system lasted for 20 years but it wasn’t maintained by the government or the community. When it finally broke down completely, nobody had funds or felt responsible to replace the system. This is not the first time I’ve heard a similar story.
Here are some ideas for practical thinking:
And let’s save the magical thinking for the things we really can’t do anything about.
12 Tuesday Feb 2013
Posted in Results, Impact, Sharing
Tags
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. You can do an evaluation but you cannot make us think.
Almost a horse
The good news is there is a proliferation of evaluation databases. Donors like the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) and implementing organizations like CARE and Catholic Relief Services (CRS) are publishing evaluation reports online. This gets them off people’s desks and into the world. (Update: another handy link to multilateral development bank evaluation groups and their reports is here.)
But is anyone learning from them? Evaluations and other reports from many years ago show, for example:
Yet, decades later, there are still many organizations that tell their donors that $25 or so can save a life (usually referring simply to the costs of building a water system). And many current budgets and implementation plans still focus on short-term programs for access to water with no plans for long-term monitoring or support when things break (whether by government or local institutions or the organization). And current evaluations show the same problems.
So what will it take to get the horse to drink? Donors typically like to fund tangible things, so time for learning often isn’t considered “paid work.” Furthermore, we are dealing with a big issue – millions or billions still without access. Who has time to slog through one or more 30-page documents? Even those who do might not have the power to change the way their organizations do business or raise funds.
It seems that in addition to empowering practitioners to learn, educating donors, fundraisers, and the executives at implementing organizations must be part of the solution. One way is to make the evaluations more accessible and digestible. Washfunders.org is beginning to assemble one-page summaries of key WASH reports and evaluations in its Knowledge Center. Improve International is investigating ways to digest the information even further: at the organization level and by theme.
Another method to encourage learning is to get donors together. For example, the SustainableWASH folks are planning a March 12 donor gathering in DC where donors can share challenges and solutions. WASHfunders.org also has a Funders’ Forum and a Funder Toolkit.
Or perhaps we should think more of “horses for courses,” as the Brits say. Maybe formal, expensive evaluations by outsiders are not useful. What if we engaged the customer communities (participatory or empowerment evaluation), practitioners peers and donors in evaluation? Imagine the learning! This is actually what the Accountability Forum is attempting to do. After the pilot in Honduras, COCEPRADIL (the local organization that was evaluated) is addressing the recommendations and asking for new types of funding. At least one horse is drinking!
07 Monday Jan 2013
Posted in Improvements
This might sound obvious, but when you build a water system for a poor community, the point of it is to provide safe water to those families, reliably, for a long time – if not forever. That’s what charitable organizations are telling their donors, at least: “$25 will save a life!” Well, that water system is not saving lives if it breaks, is it?
So how does the charitable organization, or the donor, know if the water system is still working? The customers in the community know right away when it breaks, of course, but they often don’t know who to call. Governments in developing countries focus more on providing new water systems to communities than looking back to see whether old systems are still working. The organization that built it could send staff to visit the communities, but many say they don’t have enough funds or staff time to check all of the water systems regularly, or ever.
That’s why many people are looking to cell phones to help fill in the information gaps. If we armed community members with cell phones to report on their water system functionality, maybe we could get more real-time information. But what if we could get the handpump to directly report when it’s not working to the government, the handpump mechanic, the charitable organization, and/or the donor? Below I’ve described some new efforts that are interesting. However, as the lead Oxford researcher caveats: “There are a lot of gadgets and gizmos and devices out there, but those alone don’t really resolve the enduring problem of rural water supply sustainability,” says Rob Hope. “It’s really the institutional reforms that emerge from using the information in a more effective manner. That’s where our research is really focused.”
Remote monitoring alone won’t create sustainability, but if it these pilots show that it works over time, and the costs come down, these devices/tools can be built into program costs. Governments can require them, and use the data for decision-making. Donors can expect them, and use the data to decide where to give. Customers will finally have a connection to the people trying to help them. Then there will be no more excuses for not knowing whether water is flowing.
21 Friday Dec 2012
Posted in Improvements
I have always grown from my problems and challenges, from the things that don’t work out, that’s when I’ve really learned. - Carole Burnett
Students in Guatemala: learning is fun!
I founded Improve International to help address the underlying causes that lead to the high failure rates for water systems and toilets in developing countries. A big part of this should be charitable organizations and donors learning from past work, and evaluations of programs are one tool for this. However, people need to be able to find the evaluation reports for them to be useful. I’ve assembled a list of organizations with independent evaluations as a start, but I’m more excited about the growing Knowledge Center on WASHFunders.org. The Foundation Center built and manages WASHFunders.org; their expertise in knowledge management makes this a good home for evaluation reports and others related to water and sanitation programs. You can search by key word or focus area. Improve International has been working with them to identify and summarize reports and there are many more to come.
Go forth and learn!
06 Tuesday Nov 2012
Posted in Results, Impact, Sharing
Tags
#evaluation, #health, #monitoring, #sustainability, #uncwaterhealth, #WASH, #water, accountability, learning, rating
Last week’s Water & Health conference at the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill was a great one. It’s always great to see old friends from the water sector and make new ones. Here are brief descriptions of the various things I was helping to promote:
The WASH Monitoring Exchange (WASHME) is a simple online platform for organizations that implement rural water systems to share their functionality data (and see data from other organizations). We got commitments from several organizations to share their data and currently there are about 3000 water points uploaded. Join the movement and share your data!
WASH Advocates, Global Water Challenge, and IRC presented a self-assessment tool for Sustainable WASH that is the next step after endorsing the Charter. While it is still under development, you can test it here.
The Millennium Water Alliance (MWA) Collective Impact Report will soon be ready for external distribution. Susan Dundon of MWA and I presented a poster about the findings.
Poster for UNC Water & Health Conference on MWA & Collective Impact
Marla Smith-Nilson of Water 1st and I presented this poster about the need for a WASH Sustainability Rating & plans for the future.
Poster for UNC Water & Health Conference about WASH Sustainability Rating
Emma Bones, Lily Ponitz, and Allie George (left to right), my summer interns from Georgia Tech, also presented a poster with the results of their research in Nicaragua. They have developed a useful rubric for comparing mobile monitoring and mapping tools and they had lots of people interested.
Georgia Tech smarties with their poster at the UNC Water & Health Conference
Poster for UNC Water & Health Conference: Mapping the Way
22 Monday Oct 2012
Posted in Results, Impact, Sharing
Young boy shows the school handpump is functional. Kanat Kebele, Ethiopia (photo: Susan Davis)
One of the main themes at the upcoming 2012 Water and Health Conference at the University of North Carolina is Monitoring and Evaluation for Sustainability. This reflects the growing interest in water supply, sanitation and hygiene monitoring. We all know that significant challenges continue to plague the WASH sector, with system failure rates of 30-50%. For this reason, more and more implementing organizations want better data to understand the results of their work over time, and philanthropists hope to understand the long-term impact of their investments. While many nifty tools for monitoring have been introduced recently, barriers remain that prevent organizations from conducting ongoing post-construction monitoring. Organizations say costs, time, skills, and knowing what to monitor make it difficult. And underlying all of this may be a fear that making the nameless statistics on failure specific to our organizations will affect our fundraising efforts.The WASHME initiative was developed by several leading WASH organizations to remove barriers to post-construction monitoring because we believe that monitoring is critical for the ongoing improvement of implementing organization practice and understanding. Furthermore, sharing this information publicly creates a safe space for us all – including funders – to learn from each other.
Join representatives of Blue Planet Network, Global Water Challenge, Improve International, IRC, Splash, Water 1st International, Water For People, and others at the WASHME side event Monday, October 29 at 10:45 a.m. to learn more about the plans to launch WASHME to a larger audience. This is a unique opportunity for WASH organizations to monitor and share their data in a simple yet powerful way. As more of us join together, we’ll get past the statistics to specifics, leading to learning, and more effective performance.
The WASHME website has been updated, click here.
See a list of other monitoring and evaluation related events at the UNC Water & Health Conference here.
01 Monday Oct 2012
Posted in Coffee talk
Tags
#access, #appreciative inquiry, #international, #living water international, #private sector, #strategy, #sustainability, #WASH, #water, accountability
[Full transparency: this conversation was over the telephone and the resulting blog was finished over email, but I was drinking coffee the whole time.] Jonathan Wiles is Vice President for Program Excellence at Living Water International. By training, he is an organizational strategist, communicator, and program developer. Jonathan has been involved in the WASH sector for more than a decade, during which he has been a researcher/practitioner in programs across three continents. Find him on Twitter @thirstforchange
Susan: You launched your new strategic plan in February 2011 – what were the key reasons for that plan, and how did it come together?
A group exercise underway at Living Water’s planning summit for the Americas Region, in Guatemala (Jonathan Wiles, LWI, 2010)
Jonathan: Living Water International was born in the early 90’s, when water development—this was before anyone was talking about “WASH”—was all about installing hardware. We all thought that a little village-level maintenance training was enough to ensure sustainability, and that some basic instruction in hygiene was enough to improve community health. Over 20 years, we had learned that these are really just the first steps toward lasting impact. We were starting to go deeper in a lot of our programs, but in 2010, we decided to hit the “reset” switch on our whole organizational strategy.
So during 2010, we launched into a year-long process of conducting participatory summits in all the regions where we work—Central America, Africa, India, and Haiti—along with the US. I got to lead the team that facilitated these events and it was an inspiring thing to see. At each summit, we brought together the players—community members, partners, national and international staff—and carried out an “appreciative inquiry” into the most lasting, transformative projects those people had seen with their own eyes. We pulled together some common themes and added in a healthy dash of vision for the future, based on things we were learning through sector research and other disciplines. 300+ participants at five summits drafted 43 statements, which we integrated at the end of the year into the first draft of our global strategic plan for 2011-2015.
Susan: What were the big changes from your previous strategy?
Jonathan: The big changes weren’t really a surprise, but they were exciting because they emerged out of our own experience of what we knew was possible. We determined to shift from ad hoc project work toward long-term geographically focused “WASH Program Areas” that would emphasize access, not just systems. Our approach to hygiene and sanitation would not just communicate knowledge, but would help communities identify, plan, and implement lasting behavior change. We now define sustainability in terms of accounting for demand and long-term financial models, with community management that has ongoing support from government, the private sector, and—for a while—us. As a Christian organization, we also believe that many of the systemic issues like injustice and inequality are rooted in broken relationships, and we’re committed to working through local churches and others to heal and restore relationships that could otherwise undermine the lasting change we want to see.
Susan: How have you begun to implement the new strategy?
Jonathan: Well, there have been significant structural shifts—we’ve turned our organization on its head, in a way, and are building some real capacity at national and regional levels so that our strategy in each program is led from the “bottom up.”
We’ve also created new organizational standards that establish some basic minimum commitments to quality across all our programs, and we have launched “pilot” programs in a few places to test new approaches before rolling them out across our global operations. Uganda, for instance, is the first place we launched a WASH Program Area, focusing a “full access” approach in one particular county and a minimum of three years of engagement in each community. In Rwanda, we’re trying some new approaches to sustainable operation and maintenance, and in Nicaragua, we’re testing an approach that involves cultivating a private-sector service provider to supply long-term support.
Susan: How is your staff responding to the new strategy?
Jonathan: There’s a lot of excitement across the organization. Last year was a bit overwhelming [laughs]. Even with everyone on board, introducing new standards and launching several new pilots cause some stress. The training and capacity building we did really stretched us. This year, we’re emerging from that process, and beginning to move faster and with more confidence. At last year’s regional meetings, there were a lot of “deer in the headlights” looks. This year, people are leaning into the conversations. It’s inspiring to watch.
Susan: Have you had to bring in staff with different skills?
Living Water facilitates financial management training with a Community-Based Organization in Uganda (Mark Retzloff, LWI, 2012)
Jonathan: Absolutely. At our national and regional offices, we’re bringing on the technical and management leaders we’re going to need to give the strategy hands and feet. One of the organizational developments that came about at the global level because of the strategic plan was the creation of my team—the Program Excellence Group. We pull together disciplines like engineering, public health, and economics to hammer out program strategies, assemble the tools to make them possible, and make sure we’re continuing to learn organizationally so that our future programs are even more effective.
…we want to define a desired ‘end state’ in which community management is in place, and external support is available in the form of technical support, management support, a supply chain for spare parts, and ongoing cost-sharing.
Susan: What will you do about those communities you’ve served in the past?
Jonathan: Frankly, we’re still figuring that out. In some cases, we’ll be continuing to work in the same areas as our past program activity, extending our commitment to those communities through a “full access” approach and engagement over a longer period of time. As we go forward, rather than defining a specific period of time that we will work with each community, we want to define a desired “end state” in which community management is in place, and external support is available in the form of technical support, management support, a supply chain for spare parts, and ongoing cost-sharing. As those elements come online, our involvement will scale back. We’re still trying to figure out exactly what this looks like in most of our programs, and how many previously served communities have sufficient demand for this kind of engagement. Ask me for more on that next year.
Susan: How are your donors responding to the new strategy?
Jonathan: For the most part, the response has been enthusiastic. Some of our donors have been champions for this kind of direction from early on. Others are learning about components of the strategy for the first time, and have quickly latched on with a “Wow, this is great!” At the very least, those who don’t understand it all are intrigued and watching for more to unfold.
We’re really making a concerted effort to talk about our strategic priorities in our communications and marketing materials—this spring we spend a lot of energy telling the story of our pilot program in Uganda. We want to bring our donors along with us as we learn and grow, which means we have to build funding models the focus on programs rather than just “projects” in a way that’s still interesting, compelling, and reportable.
Susan: What ways are you finding to encourage learning?
Jonathan: We’re consolidating the things we’re learning from our pilots into program guidelines so that they’re visible and useful across the whole organization. My team in particular is leaning heavily on some of the big sector research projects because we want to be in sync with our friends and peers in the sector; we’re having a lot of conversations about WASHCost, WASHTech, and Triple-S, and how they apply to our programs. We’re also really focused on telling stories about what is working. When people see concrete examples of success, it becomes achievable for them:“If they can do it, we can do it.”
Susan: What’s the next big thing on the radar?
Jonathan: This year we’ve put an incredible amount of time into developing multi-year national strategies in each country we work in—defining needs, gaps, opportunities, geographic priorities, and timelines. These are going to be our roadmap for what’s next—the “roll out” phase of our strategy that will involve new WASH Program Areas in places like Liberia, El Salvador, Haiti, and Kenya. We’re just getting started.
To learn more about Living Water International’s evolving approach, click here.
25 Tuesday Sep 2012
Posted in Results, Impact, Sharing
One of the themes of this year’s Water and Health Conference is monitoring and evaluation. Below I’ve listed side events and presentations that are related to monitoring, evaluation, indicators, and learning (at least what I can tell from the titles). Improve International is proud to be collaborating with several organizations at this conference (see events in blue). I look forward to seeing you there!
For the overall conference program click here.
8:30 am – 10:15 am – Planning & Monitoring for Greater Sustainability: Rural and Urban Perspectives on Sustainable Solutions for Improved WASH Services. Convened by Rotary International, Aguaconsult, Building Partnerships for Development, Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor, USAID WASHplus Project, and Ideo.org
10:45 am – 12:15 pm – Establishing Common Indicators for WASH. Convened by Improve International, Water For People, A Child’s Right, Blue Planet Network, Water 1st and IRC
1:15 pm – 5:00 pm – Building Blocks for WASH: How Well are We Addressing Sustainability? Convened by WASH Advocates, GWC, Aguaconsult, IRC, and Improve International
1:15 pm – 3:00 pm – Monitoring Equity and Pro-Poor Performance – Inputs, Outputs, and Outcomes. Convened by SHARE, UNICEF, WHO, WSSCC and UNC Water Institute
3:30 pm – 5:00 pm – Indicators for the Human Right to Water. Convened by UNC Water Institute
8:30 am – 10:15 am – Evidence Based Decision Making for WASH Investments. Convened by Clarissa Brocklehurst
10:45 am – 12:15 pm – After the MDGs: Post-2015 Indicators and Monitoring for Urban WASH. Convened by UNC Water Institute and UNICEF
2:30 pm – 3:30 pm [WASH in Schools track] Impact of a School-Base Water Supply and Treatment, Hygiene, and Sanitation Program on Pupil Diarrhea: A Cluster Randomized Trial. Matthew Freeman, Emory University ; Impact of a School-Base Hygiene Promotion and Sanitation Intervention on Pupil Hand Contamination in Western Kenya: A Cluster Randomized Trial. Leslie Green, Emory University
2:30 pm – 3:30 pm [Ecosystem Protection & Drinking Water Safety] Examples of Cross-Program Approaches for Sharing Drinking Water Indicators, Danette Boezio, RTI International
4:00 pm – 5:00 pm [WASH and Child Health] Impact of a Combined Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Intervention on Environmental Fecal Contamination and Child Parasite Infections in Western Kenya, Amy Pickering, Stanford University
5:00 pm – 6:00 pm [Poster presentation] Collective Impact: Do WASH partnerships create more impact than organizations working independently? And how do you measure that? Susan Dundon, Millennium Water Alliance and Susan Davis, Improve International
9:45 am – 10:45 am [WASH and Child Health] Randomized, Controlled Intervention Trial of a Village Level Intervention to Promote Handwashing with Soap in Rural Indian Households, Adam Biran, LSHTM ; Assessing Water Filtration and Safe Storage in Households with Young Children of HIV-Positive Mothers: a Randomized, Controlled Trial in Zambia, Rachel Peletz, LSHTM
11:15 am – 12:15 pm [Beyond 2015: Realizing Universal Access and Human Rights] – Best Practice in Hygiene Promotion Programmes: an Evaluation Template to Determine the Cost-Effectiveness of Different Strategies, Dr. Juliet Waterkeyn, Africa AHEAD; A Global Review of Capacity Building Organizations in Water and Sanitation for Developing Countries, Melinda Foran, CAWST
11:15 am – 12:15 pm [Sanitation Achievable and Sustainable to All] Special Challenges in Designing a Health Impact Evaluation of Rural Sanitation: A Cluster-Randomized Trial in Orissa, India, Thomas Clasen, JD, PhD, LSHTM; Sustainability of a School Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Intervention Two Years Following Implementation in Nyanza Province, Kenya, Richard Rheinghans, Emory University
1:15 pm – 2:15 pm [Southeastern US Water Challenges] Assessing Contaminant Intrusion in the City of Atlanta Distribution System Using and Automated Monitoring and Sampling Device, Dr. Ethell Vereen, Jr., Emory University
1:15 pm – 2:15 pm [M&E for Sustainability] Lessons Learned Using a Mobile Data Application for Monitoring in a Household Water Program Employing Biosand Filters, Ray Cantwell, Samaritans Purse; Sustainability Check: A Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme Monitoring Tool, Kristen Downs, UNC Chapel Hill
2:45 pm – 3:45 pm [Governance] Governance as a Predictive Indicator for Water Point Sustainability: Results from Ethiopia and Mozambique, Peter Lochery, CARE
2:45 pm – 3:45 pm [Household Centered WASH] Sustainability and Scalability of Ceramic Water Filters in Households with Inadequate Piped Water: Evidence from Honduras, Dr. Georgia Kayser, UNC Chapel Hill
2:45 pm – 3:45 pm [Water Supply & Water Quality] Development and Evaluation of Behavior Change Campaigns to Increase Fluoride-free Water Consumption: 3 Field Studies in Rural Ethiopia, Alexandra Huber, EAWAG; Resilient Infrastructure for Water Treatment: A Comparative Evaluation of AguaClara Plants and Package Plants in Honduras, Victoria King, Cornell University
5:00 pm – 6:00 pm [Poster presentation] A novel way to promote accountability in WASH: the first Water & Sanitation Accountability Forum and plans for the future, Marla Smith-Nilson, Water 1st and Susan Davis, Improve International
5:00 pm – 6:00 pm [Poster presentation] Mapping the way: testing methods to map water points in developing countries, Lily Ponitz, Allie George, Emma Bones, Georgia Institute of Technology [my summer interns]
9:45 am – 10:45 am [Making Sanitation Benefits Achievable and Sustainable for All] An ME& System for Measuring Compliance of Rural Water and Sanitation Projects in South Africa with National Policy, Design Standards, and Norms, L.C. Duncker, CSIR; Evaluation of Strengthening the Enabling Environment for Large Scale Sustainable Rural Sanitation Programs, Eduardo Perez, WSP
9:45 am – 10:45 am [M&E for Sustainability] Monitoring & Evaluation for Sustainable Scale-up: the Case of Dispensers for Safe Water, Jeremy Hand, Innovations for Poverty Action; Sustainability of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Interventions in Communities in Central America, Rick Gelting, CDC
11:15 am – 12:15 pm [Making Sanitation Benefits Achievable and Sustainable for All] Community Led Total Sanitation: A Comprehensive Review of the Approach, Its Effectiveness and the Role of Key Internal Actors, Marissa Streyle, UNC-Chapel Hill; Factors Associated with Achieving and Sustaining Open Defecation Free Communities: Learning from East Java, Nilanjana Mukherjee, WSP
11:15 am – 12:15 pm [[M&E for Sustainability] Remotely Accessible In-Situ Instrumentation to Improve Accountability in Public Health Interventions, Evan Thomas, Portland State University
8:30 am -12:15 pm – Measuring Hygiene Behavior Change – A Decade of Community Health Club Case Studies. Convened by Africa AHEAD
8:30 am – 10:15 am – Water Quality and Emerging Contaminants: How to Assess, Improve, and Inform through Measurements. Convened by National Institute of Standards and Technology
10:45 am – 12:15 pm – Networking Session and Forum for mWASH Implementers. Convened by Pacific Institute
