MDGs 2.0 : what goals, targets and timeframe?

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are widely cited as the primary yardstick against which advances in international development efforts are to be judged. At the same time, the Goals will be met or missed by 2015. It is not too early to start asking what's next? This paper builds on a discussion that has already begun to address potential approaches, goals, and target indicators to help inform the process of developing a second generation of MDGs or ‘MDGs 2.0.’ The paper outlines potential goal areas based on the original Millennium Declaration, the timeframe for any MDGs 2.0 and attempts to calculate some reasonable targets associated with those goal areas

Millennium Development Goals Data Set

This study include input data and Stata files to replicate the results in CGD Working Paper 278, "More Money or More Development: What Have the MDGs Achieved?" and CGD Working Paper 297 "MDGs 2.0: What Goals, Targets, and Timeframe?" Each zip file contains the input data and code needed to replicate the results for each paper, as well as an output folder to mirror file directories in the code. The papers rely on multiple sources of data, though the majority comes from the World Bank's World Development Indicators (WDI) database. At the time analysis was performed, the WDI data used corresponded to the September 2011 version of the downloaded WDI database. However, since the analysis was carried out, the researcher responsible for data management became aware of a real time WDI database accessible through STATA known as wbopendata (see http://data.worldbank.org/developers/apps/wbopendata). Results from the paper correspond to the data available in the September 2011 version of the downloadable WDI, so running the analysis using the wbopendata module will yield slightly different results. Additional details about data use and methodology are available in the main do files corresponding to the analysis for the papers, "CGD MDG accomplishments.do" and "CGD MDG targets.do." This information is also summarized in a .txt file included in the zip files

User perceptions of shared sanitation among rural households in Indonesia and Bangladesh.

BackgroundThe practice of sharing sanitation facilities does not meet the current World Health Organization/UNICEF definition for what is considered improved sanitation. Recommendations have been made to categorize shared sanitation as improved sanitation if security, user access, and other conditions can be assured, yet limited data exist on user preferences with respect to shared facilities.ObjectiveThis study analyzed user perceptions of shared sanitation facilities in rural households in East Java, Indonesia, and Bangladesh.MethodsCross-sectional studies of 2,087 households in East Java and 3,000 households in Bangladesh were conducted using questionnaires and observational methods. Relative risks were calculated to analyze associations between sanitation access and user perceptions of satisfaction, cleanliness, and safety.ResultsIn East Java, 82.4% of households with private improved sanitation facilities reported feeling satisfied with their place of defecation compared to 68.3% of households with shared improved facilities [RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09, 1.31]. In Bangladesh, 87.7% of households with private improved facilities reported feeling satisfied compared to 74.5% of households with shared improved facilities [RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.10, 1.20]. In East Java, 79.5% of households who reported a clean latrine also reported feeling satisfied with their place of defecation; only 38.9% of households who reported a dirty latrine also reported feeling satisfied [RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.45, 2.08].ConclusionSimple distinctions between improved and unimproved sanitation facilities tend to misrepresent the variability observed among households sharing sanitation facilities. Our results suggest that private improved sanitation is consistently preferred over any other sanitation option. An increased number of users appeared to negatively affect toilet cleanliness, and lower levels of cleanliness were associated with lower levels of satisfaction. However, when sanitation facilities were clean and shared by a limited number of households, users of shared facilities often reported feeling both satisfied and safe

User Perceptions of Shared Sanitation among Rural Households in Indonesia and Bangladesh

<div><p>Background</p><p>The practice of sharing sanitation facilities does not meet the current World Health Organization/UNICEF definition for what is considered improved sanitation. Recommendations have been made to categorize shared sanitation as improved sanitation if security, user access, and other conditions can be assured, yet limited data exist on user preferences with respect to shared facilities.</p><p>Objective</p><p>This study analyzed user perceptions of shared sanitation facilities in rural households in East Java, Indonesia, and Bangladesh.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Cross-sectional studies of 2,087 households in East Java and 3,000 households in Bangladesh were conducted using questionnaires and observational methods. Relative risks were calculated to analyze associations between sanitation access and user perceptions of satisfaction, cleanliness, and safety.</p><p>Results</p><p>In East Java, 82.4% of households with private improved sanitation facilities reported feeling satisfied with their place of defecation compared to 68.3% of households with shared improved facilities [RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09, 1.31]. In Bangladesh, 87.7% of households with private improved facilities reported feeling satisfied compared to 74.5% of households with shared improved facilities [RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.10, 1.20]. In East Java, 79.5% of households who reported a clean latrine also reported feeling satisfied with their place of defecation; only 38.9% of households who reported a dirty latrine also reported feeling satisfied [RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.45, 2.08].</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>Simple distinctions between improved and unimproved sanitation facilities tend to misrepresent the variability observed among households sharing sanitation facilities. Our results suggest that private improved sanitation is consistently preferred over any other sanitation option. An increased number of users appeared to negatively affect toilet cleanliness, and lower levels of cleanliness were associated with lower levels of satisfaction. However, when sanitation facilities were clean and shared by a limited number of households, users of shared facilities often reported feeling both satisfied and safe.</p></div

Relative Risk for Households Reporting Clean Sanitation Facilities (East Java).

<p>*All adjusted analyses were controlled for gender, age, ethnicity, religion, education level, and occupation of head of household, as well as household's income quartile and JMP status of drinking water source.</p>Ω<p>RRs and 95% CIs were calculated using Poisson regression with robust error variance.</p

Relative Risk for Women Reporting Feeling Safe at Night at Defecation Facility (East Java).

<p>*All adjusted analyses were controlled for gender, age, ethnicity, religion, education level, and occupation of head of household, as well as household's income quartile and JMP status of drinking water source.</p

Relative Risk for Households Reporting Plans to Improve Sanitation Facility or Build New Sanitation Facility (Bangladesh).

<p>* Controlling for head of household's gender, age, religion, education level, and occupation, household income quintile, approach to ODF, and JMP status of drinking water source.</p