Monitoring, verification and certification are essential for ensuring the success and sustainability of Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) efforts. Monitoring assesses and documents progress towards and the sustainability of Open Defecation Free (ODF) status. Verification and certification provide a goal for communities and
help implementing agencies and governments to ensure consistency and reliability of desired outcomes.

This Learning Brief considers the issues and challenges that are emerging around monitoring, verification and certification as CLTS is being used at scale. Whilst there has been progress, significant gaps in practice still remain. These would benefit from further innovation and lesson learning. This document complements a longer report, Keeping Track: CLTS Monitoring, Certification and Verification, accessible at http://www.communityledtotalsanitation.org/resource/keepingtrack-clts-monitoring-certification-and-verification .Sid

Pasteur, Katherine

English

IDS OpenDocs

    
    
C
LT
S 
K
no
w
le
dg
e 
H
ub
 L
ea
rn
in
g 
B
ri
ef
CLTS Knowledge Hub Learning Brief           January 2017               www.communityledtotalsanitation.org 
Tracking Progress and 
Sustainability: Monitoring, 
Verification and Certification 
of CLTS
Overview of CLTS monitoring, 
verification and certification
Monitoring is a key element of post-
triggering and post-ODF follow-up. It is 
carried out by different stakeholders for a 
range of purposes: 
• Process monitoring assesses the 
quality and effectiveness of the CLTS 
intervention, e.g. the facilitation style, 
engagement of Natural Leaders, and 
emergence of community sanctions.
• Progress monitoring assesses 
movement towards ODF communities, 
districts, regions and countries. 
Communities monitor their own 
progress towards ODF declaration. 
Monitoring, verification and certification are essential for ensuring the success 
and sustainability of Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) efforts. Monitoring 
assesses and documents progress towards and the sustainability of Open Defecation 
Free (ODF) status. Verification and certification provide a goal for communities and 
help implementing agencies and governments to ensure consistency and reliability 
of desired outcomes.
This Learning Brief considers the issues and challenges that are emerging around 
monitoring, verification and certification as CLTS is being used at scale. Whilst 
there has been progress, significant gaps in practice still remain. These would 
benefit from further innovation and lesson learning. This document complements 
a longer report, Keeping Track: CLTS Monitoring, Certification and Verification, 
accessible at http://www.communityledtotalsanitation.org/resource/keeping-
track-clts-monitoring-certification-and-verification.
Local government or Non-
Government Organisations (NGOs) 
assess performance across a locality. 
National agencies monitor the 
attainments of programmes and 
national targets, including the 
Sustainable Development Goals 
(SDGs). 
• Post-ODF monitoring is key in order 
to sustain ODF status over the long 
term, improve the range of positive 
hygiene behaviours, ensure inclusion 
and promote sanitation upgrading. 
Once a community has reached ODF 
they can request verification: the process 
of assessing behaviour change for the 
purposes of certification. Verification aids 
Katherine Pasteur (Independent Consultant)
the achievement of high standards and prevents 
variability in performance. Certification is the 
official recognition resulting from the achievement 
of ODF and other related conditions. 
Key issues and challenges
What to monitor, verify and certify? 
A clear definition of the expected outcome of 
the CLTS process will aid effective monitoring, 
verification and certification. The simple 
existence of a toilet is no longer considered an 
adequate outcome, and collective behaviour 
change reflected in a community’s ODF status is 
being adopted as the key indicator for sanitation 
programmes. A range of proxy indicators of ODF 
are applied relating to the standard of toilet 
required, its location (away from water sources), 
evidence of use, the availability of handwashing 
facilities, safe water practices, solid waste 
management and maintenance of communal 
spaces. Different ‘stages’ of improved behaviour 
have also emerged relating to movement towards 
a more sanitary community, e.g. Total Sanitation 
(Nepal, Nigeria), Model Clean Community (Ghana), 
ODF ++ (Malawi) and ODF Stages 1, 2 and 3 (Kenya). 
There are still gaps in what is being monitored and 
verified, e.g. partial usage, handwashing, equity of 
access and participation, including by age, gender, 
poverty level, disability, cultural or ethnic groups. 
Increasing attention is being paid to the issue of 
post-ODF sustainability monitoring which could 
help to identify slippage problems early, and allow 
local staff to respond appropriately. A limited 
amount of CLTS related health impact monitoring 
(e.g. diarrhoea, stunting, nutrition etc.) is currently 
taking place though this is far from routine 
(Robinson, 2016; UNICEF EAPRO 2015). 
Who is doing the monitoring, verifying and 
certifying? 
Who carries out monitoring, verification and 
certification is key to its acceptance, credibility 
and use of data. Ideally, all stakeholders, from 
community level to national level should play 
a part. Monitoring of progress to ODF and of 
maintenance of ODF status should be done both 
internally within the community and externally. 
Verification and certification are typically carried 
out by a team designated by government, involving 
government stakeholders, community members 
and external agencies.
CLTS Knowledge Hub Learning Brief                 January 2017                www.communityledtotalsanitation.org
Methods 
Various qualitative and quantitative methods 
are used for monitoring, verification and 
certification. 
Methods include:
• Reporting formats or checklists
• Visual methods, such as community maps, 
stickers on houses, 
• House to house, exchange visits and community 
meetings
• Mobile phone and social media 
Reporting formats are usually easily understood 
and managed by external staff and aid transfer 
of data into government or NGO management 
systems. However, they do not necessarily facilitate 
community participation or ownership unless 
combined with more engaging methods. With 
participatory visual methods the community tend 
to take an active role thus increasing ownership 
of the process. The visibility of households’ ODF 
status adds to the pressure for behaviour change. 
There are a growing number of examples of the use 
of mobile phone technologies for monitoring. Data 
and photos can be entered into mobile phones and 
automatically uploaded to a computer database, 
reducing paperwork and increasing speed of data 
transfer and potentially reducing misreporting. 
For example, in Zambia a national Mobile-to-Web 
real-time monitoring system piloted by UNICEF 
has resulted in better accountability, higher quality 
data and better cost efficiency per community 
targeted (UNICEF ESARO, 2015).
  
Figure 1: ODF verification exercise, Chibombo District, 
Zambia. Credit: Petra Bongartz
Reliability and accuracy
Reliability and accuracy of data are prominent 
challenges when working at scale and innovative 
solutions are needed.  Third party verification can 
help ensure that local vested interests do not lead 
to misreporting, and also to maintain transparency 
and replicability. A third party verifier should 
come from another district or region or should 
represent an organisation with no links to CLTS 
implementation in the communities in question, 
and therefore have no vested interest in the 
outcome of the process. There are a number of 
pros and cons to third party verification (Table 1). 
Attitudes for Monitoring, Verification and 
Certification
A critical issue in monitoring, verification and 
certification is the attitude of those carrying 
out the activity towards the community. These 
processes should be participatory, positive 
experiences, encouraging pride and self-respect, 
ensuring acceptance of findings, and reinforcing 
sustainability of positive achievements. 
The verification methodology used by Plan 
International Kenya encourages the community 
to suggest their own result based on observations 
from the verification team in a community meeting 
(S. Musyoki, pers comm, July 2016).
Phased Verification 
Regular monitoring of toilet usage is required up 
to and beyond ODF to ensure behaviour change 
is sustained. There may be one or a number of 
external verification stages depending on the 
country protocol. Having several levels or stages to 
the verification can aid objectivity and credibility 
of the process, and sustainability of ODF. In 
Tanzania there is a single verification; in Uganda, 
there are 3 verifications over three months by 
parish, sub-county and district; and in Nigeria, 
3 different teams make up to 9 verification visits 
over 6 months. 
Incentives 
ODF monitoring, verification and certification 
roles may require incentives. Integrating these 
activities into posts within an NGO or government 
department is key to sustainability. Natural Leaders 
or WASH committee members may also be involved 
in a voluntary capacity. Incentives are relevant to 
ensure that the job is done effectively and that 
volunteer roles are sustained long term. Forming 
networks or associations of Natural Leaders, or 
developing their role as sanitation entrepreneurs, 
has been trialled. Paid staff and volunteers alike 
need training, capacity building, mentoring and 
encouragement in order to be motivated to do 
their work effectively and sustainably.
Management Information Systems
Data collected under monitoring and verification 
systems requires effective management. A review 
of 12 Asian countries found that basic government 
CLTS monitoring data was not readily available 
at either national or programme levels (UNICEF 
EAPRO, 2015). International donors have been 
supporting several countries in developing health 
Management Information System (MIS) systems 
and integrating CLTS progress data within them. 
Ensuring that an MIS is owned by relevant sector 
institutions and policy makers is key, as well as 
capacity building in utilisation of the information. 
Structures  and processes for  coordination, 
learning and sharing
Stakeholder fora, networks and platforms 
are needed to ensure ongoing training, 
documentation, lesson learning and effective 
communication between all players. They 
can help to ensure uniformity of standards, 
availability of trained verifiers, coordination 
between stakeholders and the sharing of good 
and bad practice, and thus improve all aspects 
of monitoring, verification and certification 
processes. However, finding budget and time for, 
as well as cultivating a culture of reflection and 
learning are a challenge in many contexts.
CLTS Knowledge Hub Learning Brief                January 2017                www.communityledtotalsanitation.org
Table 1: Pros and Cons of Third Party Verification
Pros Cons
• Aids credibility and objectivity 
• Helps ensures standardization and replicability across 
the country
• Should be more impartial
• Is time consuming and can lead to delays
• There are cost implications
• There is still a possibility of personal bias
• May not be as participatory or supportive
Correct citation: Pasteur, K. (2017) 
‘Tracking Progress and Sustainability: 
Monitoring, Verification and Certification 
of CLTS’, CLTS Knowledge Hub 
Learning Brief 2, Brighton: IDS
First published in 2017
© Institute of Development Studies 2016
Some rights reserved – see copyright 
license for details. 
ISBN 978-1-78118-348-9
For further information please contact: 
CLTS Knowledge Hub, Institute of 
Development Studies, University of 
Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9RE
Tel: +44 (0)1273 606261
Email: CLTS@ids.ac.uk
Web: http://www.
communityledtotalsanitation.org
This series is licensed under the Creative 
Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-
NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/3.0/).
 
Attribution: You must attribute the work 
in the manner specified by the author or 
licensor. 
Non-commercial: You may not use this 
work for commercial purposes 
No Derivative Works: You may not alter, 
transfer, or build on this work. 
Users are welcome to copy, distribute, 
display, translate or perform this work 
without written permission. For any 
reuse or distribution, you must make 
clear to others the licence terms of this 
work. If you use the work, we ask that 
you reference the CLTS website (www.
communityledtotalsanitation.org) and 
send a copy of the work or a link to its 
use online to the following address: CLTS 
Knowledge Hub, Institute of Development 
Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, 
BN1 9RE, UK (CLTS@ids.ac.uk). 
This document has been financed by 
the Swedish International Development 
Cooperation Agency, Sida. Sida does not 
necessarily share the views expressed 
in this material. Responsibility for its 
contents rests entirely with the authors.
References
Mukherjee, N. (2012) Experiential learning from Total Sanitation and Sanitation 
Marketing (TSSM) Project, 2007-10 on Monitoring Progress and Program 
performance, and Sequencing of CLTS  and Sanitation Marketing. Powerpoint 
presented at IDS Workshop on Monitoring CLTS. Malawi. August 2012, WSP 
World Bank
Robinson, A. (2016) Final Evaluation: Pan African CLTS program 2010-2015. Plan 
Netherlands
UNICEF ESARO (2015) Real-Time Monitoring of Rural Sanitation at Scale in Zambia 
using Mobile to Web Technologies. UNICEF Eastern and Southern Africa 
Regional Office. WASH Field Note, April 2015
UNICEF EAPRO (2015) Second Review of Community-Led Total Sanitation in the 
East Asia and Pacific  Region Regional Report. UNICEF East Asia and Pacific 
Regional Office
Recommendations
Reflecting on these issues the following are recommendations to 
be considered when designing or altering monitoring, verification 
and certification systems:
• Produce clear national definitions and protocols for 
monitoring, verification and certification. This will aid clarity 
and consistency of practice for all implementing agencies. 
Nevertheless, these should allow for variations in context. 
• Conduct monitoring activities both within the community 
and using external actors. Think about different roles and 
purposes of monitoring, verification and certification. 
Appropriate methods should be selected to suit the purpose, 
ensuring that the community are engaged.
• Develop methods and set aside time and resources for more 
systematic monitoring and verification around issues such 
as sanitation marketing and upgrading; sustainability; 
handwashing; inclusion; equity; and impact. 
• Consider different strategies for improving reliability, accuracy 
and timeliness of monitoring and verification. These could 
include involving third party agents, ensuring multiple stages 
of monitoring and verification, and looking at different data 
collection technologies. 
• Ensure data are being effectively collated, shared, and utilised, 
i.e. feeding into improved policy and practice. CLTS data 
collection may be integrated into wider health MIS systems. 
It is important to note that data are only useful if used to 
demonstrate progress or contribute to programming. 
• Consider ways to establish or strengthen appropriate 
attitudes, incentives, structures and processes that facilitate 
learning and change around CLTS. These are needed at local, 
national and international level. 
CLTS Knowledge Hub Learning Brief                    January 2017  


Tracking Progress and Sustainability: Monitoring, Verification and Certification of CLTS

https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/20.500.12413/12752/3/LB2_Tracking_Progress_final.pdf

Tracking Progress and Sustainability: Monitoring, Verification and Certification of CLTS

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

IDS OpenDocs