Improving Consumer Voices and Accountability in the Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) Findings from the benchmarking Citizen Report Cards in Odisha and Tamil Nadu CRC-2
Conducted By For
Project Supported by
June 2017
Public Affairs Foundation (PAF)
Implementation of Citizen Report Card (CRC-2) as a part of
Improving Consumer Voices and Accountability
in Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) [SBM(G)]
Report of Findings
Submitted to
Public Affairs Centre (PAC)
[For Feedback please contact Meena Nair at [email protected]]
June 2017
[page left blank]
i Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | June 2017
Table of Contents List of Abbreviations ...... viii Acknowledgments ...... ix Executive Summary ...... 1 Introduction ...... 6 Report Outline ...... 10 Section 2: Methodology ...... 11 Section 3: Key Findings – Thematic Analysis ...... 14 Theme 1: Current Status of IHHL Coverage in the two States – Toilets Built ...... 16 Theme 2: Role played by Panchayati Raj Institutions in SBM (G): ...... 25 Theme 3: Is Lack of Water an Impediment to Improving Toilet Usage? ...... 36 Theme 4: Vulnerability of Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Groups – Do different groups experience SBM (G) differently? ...... 46 Section 4a: Salient Findings from Household Survey of SBM (G) Beneficiaries in Tamil Nadu ...... 62 1. Socio Economic Profile of Households ...... 64 2. Awareness on Sanitation: ...... 73 3. Application process under SBM (G) ...... 76 4. Construction of toilet ...... 78 5.Materials and design ...... 81 6.Incentive under SBM (G) ...... 82 7.Usage of toilets ...... 85 8. Problems and Grievance Redressal ...... 88 9.Extra payments ...... 89 10.Satisfaction and suggestions ...... 90 11.Household attitudes toward toilet construction and usage ...... 91 12. Observation of toilets ...... 91 Section 4b: Salient Findings from Household Survey of SBM (G) Beneficiaries in Odisha ...... 94 1. Socio Economic Profile of Households ...... 96 2.Awareness on Sanitation: ...... 106 3.Application process under SBM(G) ...... 108 4.Construction of toilet ...... 110 5. Materials and design ...... 113 6.Incentive under SBM(G) ...... 114 8.Problems and grievance redressal ...... 120
ii Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | June 2017
9.Extra payments ...... 121 10.Satisfaction and Suggestions ...... 122 11.Household attitudes toward toilet construction and usage ...... 123 12.Observation of toilets ...... 123 Section 5a: Findings from Officials’ Interviews in Tamil Nadu ...... 126 1. Beneficiary Selection Process ...... 129 2. Process of application: ...... 130 3. Designation, work and training of officials under SBM (G)...... 130 4. Jurisdiction of areas and dissemination of information on SBM (G) ...... 131 5. Problems faced by beneficiaries: ...... 131 6. SBM (G) Implementation: ...... 133 7. Knowledge of specifications of a toilet under SBM (G): ...... 133 8. IEC activities for SBM (G): ...... 134 9. Official level dissemination of information on SBM (G) ...... 136 10. Official task force under SBM (G) ...... 137 11. Record maintenance under SBM (G) ...... 137 12. Job description of officials under SBM (G) ...... 137 13. Problems faced during discharging duties for SBM (G) ...... 138 14. Corruption ...... 139 16. Satisfaction Levels on Services of SBM (G) ...... 139 17. Reasons for dissatisfaction: ...... 140 18. Suggestions: ...... 140 Section 5b: Findings from Officials’ Interviews in Odisha ...... 141 1. Beneficiary Selection Process ...... 142 2. Process of application ...... 143 3. Designation, work and training of officials under SBM (G)...... 144 4. Jurisdiction of areas and dissemination of information for SBM (G) ...... 144 5. Problems faced by beneficiaries ...... 145 6. SBM (G) Implementation: ...... 146 7. Knowledge of specifications of a toilet under SBM (G): ...... 146 8. IEC activities for SBM (G) ...... 147 9. Official level dissemination of information on SBM (G) ...... 149 10. Official task force under SBM (G) ...... 149 11. Record maintenance under SBM (G) ...... 150
iii Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | June 2017
12. Job description of officials under SBM (G) ...... 150 13. Problems faced while discharging duties for SBM (G) ...... 151 14. Corruption ...... 151 16. Satisfaction Levels on Services of SBM (G) ...... 152 17. Reasons for dissatisfaction: ...... 153 18. Suggestions: ...... 153
List of Tables
Table 1: IHHL Coverage in Rural Tamil Nadu and Odisha under SBM (G) ...... 16 Table 2: Sample Sizes for the Validation Exercise ...... 22 Table 3: Source of information on Toilet Construction in Odisha and Tamil Nadu (Multiple Answer) 27 Table 4: Action taken after receiving information on Toilet Construction ...... 29 Table 5: Sources of Information on Usage of Toilets (CRC-2) ...... 31 Table 6: Level of satisfaction with the quality of the toilet in Tamil Nadu ...... 32 Table 7 : Overall Satisfaction with toilet construction vs. who built the toilet in Tamil Nadu ...... 32 Table 8: Reasons for dissatisfaction with the overall toilet construction process under SBM (G) ...... 32 Table 10: Respondents that reported a problem during the construction process ...... 34 Table 11: Who did they report the problem to? (Multiple Answer) ...... 34 Table 12: Satisfaction Indicators on GP involvement ...... 34 Table 13: Toilet Usage by State and Completion Status ...... 37 Table 14: Total Water Usage per Day by District – Odisha [CRC2] ...... 39 Table 15: Total Water Usage per Day by District – Tamil Nadu [CRC-2] ...... 40 Table 16: Use of Water for Sanitation ...... 41 Table 18: Number of Trips and Time Taken to Fetch Water ...... 42 Table 20: Water storage facilities observed in or near the toilet vs. who built the toilet ...... 44 Table 21: Awareness of the SBM Incentive - Odisha ...... 53 Table 22: Awareness of the SBM Incentive – Tamil Nadu ...... 54 Table 23: Condition of NBA Toilet by Socio-Economic Groups - Odisha ...... 55 Table 24: Condition of NBA Toilet by Socio-Economic Groups – Tamil Nadu...... 56 Table 25: Who Built the Toilet by Socio-Economic Groups - Odisha ...... 57 Table 26: Who Built the Toilet by Socio-Economic Groups – Tamil Nadu ...... 58 Table 27: Percent Overall Satisfied with the Toilet Construction under NBA - Odisha ...... 59 Table 28: Percent Overall Satisfied with the Toilet Construction under NBA – Tamil Nadu ...... 60 Table 29: Sample Size District and by Block ...... 63 Table 30: Information received on toilet construction and action taken ...... 74 Table 31: Construction Vs Condition of the Toilet ...... 81 Table 32: Extra costs and total money spent on toilet construction ...... 84 Table 33: Who built the toilet Vs Usage ...... 87 Table 34: Satisfaction Levels by District ...... 91 Table 35: Sample Size District and by Block ...... 95
iv Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | June 2017
Table 36: Information received on toilet construction and action taken ...... 107 Table 37: Construction vs Condition of the Toilet ...... 113 Table 38: Extra money and total money spent on toilet construction ...... 116 Table 39: Who Built the Toilet Vs Usage ...... 119 Table 40: Satisfaction levels by District ...... 122 Table 41: Officials interviewed at various levels ...... 130 Table 42: Reasons for increase in applications for toilet construction under SBM (G) in Tamil Nadu ...... 135 Table 43: Position held by the officials interviewed ...... 137 Table 44: Main Officials in-charge of contacting beneficiaries ...... 143 Table 45: Officials interviewed at various levels ...... 144 Table 46: Reasons for increase in applications for SBM (G) ...... 148 Table 47: Reasons for no increase in applications for SBM (G) ...... 148 Table 48: Position held by the officials interviewed ...... 150
List of Figures
Figure 1: Condition of Toilets Built under SBM (G) ...... 17 Figure 2: Condition of Toilets Built Between 2010 and 2016 (Across Two CRCs) [Odisha] ...... 18 Figure 3: Status of Toilets across CRCs based on Who Built the Toilet (Tamil Nadu) ...... 20 Figure 4: Status of Toilets across CRCs based on Who Built the Toilet (Odisha) ...... 21 Figure 5: Households with a Toilet (Validation Exercise) ...... 23 Figure 6: Toilets Built Under the SBM (G) Scheme [Self Reported] ...... 24 Figure 7: Awareness of TSC/NBA and SBM (G) Incentive Scheme ...... 28 Figure 8: Respondents Reporting Information on Usage of Toilets...... 30 Figure 9: Status of the Toilet based on who built it ...... 33 Figure 10: Beneficiaries citing lack of water as reason for non use of toilet ...... 38 Figure 11: Whether water piped into dwelling or yard ...... 41 Figure 12: Water Storage in or near the toilet ...... 43 Figure 13: Gender of Head of Household ...... 47 Figure 14: Social Group affiliation of the respondents in the sample ...... 48 Figure 15: Type of House of the respondents in the sample ...... 48 Figure 16: Income categories of the respondents in the sample ...... 49 Figure 17: Comparison of Experiences by Social Group* - Odisha ...... 51 Figure 18: Comparison of Experiences by Social Group* – Tamil Nadu ...... 52 Figure 19: Enumerator conducting an interview with a respondent...... 64 Figure 20: Age wise distribution of Head of the household ...... 65 Figure 21: Distribution of Respondents by Caste Category ...... 65 Figure 22: Education level of HoH ...... 66 Figure 23: Type of House ...... 67 Figure 24: Ration Card (N=2377)...... 68 Figure 25: Annual Income of Households (N=2415) ...... 68 Figure 26: Agricultural Land owned by Respondents ...... 69 Figure 27: Household Assets ...... 69
v Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | June 2017
Figure 28: Livestock present with households ...... 70 Figure 29: Primary fuel used for cooking ...... 70 Figure 30: Top sources of Drinking Water ...... 71 Figure 31: Top sources of Domestic Water ...... 71 Figure 32: Distance to water source (Normal Time) ...... 72 Figure 33: Distance to water source (Scarcity Time) ...... 72 Figure 34: Water Usage (Pots/Buckets) ...... 73 Figure 35: Source of Information on Toilet Construction ...... 74 Figure 36: Information Received on Toilet Usage in the Village ...... 75 Figure 37: SBM (G) IEC Measures ...... 76 Figure 38: Time taken to complete the toilet construction after submission of Application/Letter/Documents ...... 77 Figure 39: Reasons for Toilet Construction ...... 78 Figure 40: Condition of Toilets ...... 79 Figure 41: Receiving the incentive ...... 82 Figure 42: Extra additions to SBM (G) toilet ...... 84 Figure 43: Toilet Usage by Household Members ...... 86 Figure 44: Reasons for Open Defecation ...... 88 Figure 45: Problems faced during toilet construction ...... 89 Figure 46: Extra Payments ...... 90 Figure 47: Observation of the toilet by an enumerator...... 92 Figure 48: Enumerator conducting an interview with a respondent...... 96 Figure 49: Age wise distribution of the Head of the household ...... 97 Figure 50: Distribution respondents by Caste Category ...... 97 Figure 51: Education level of the HoH ...... 98 Figure 52: Type of House ...... 99 Figure 53: Ration Card (N=2179)...... 99 Figure 54: Annual Income of Households (N=2660) ...... 100 Figure 55: Agricultural Land Owned by Respondents ...... 101 Figure 56: Household Assets ...... 101 Figure 57: Livestock present with households ...... 102 Figure 58: Primary fuel used for cooking ...... 102 Figure 59: Top Sources of Drinking water ...... 103 Figure 60: Top Sources of Domestic Water ...... 103 Figure 61: Distance to Water Source (Normal Time) ...... 104 Figure 62: Distance to Water Source (Scarcity Time) ...... 104 Figure 63: Water Usage (Pots/Buckets) ...... 105 Figure 64: Source of information on Toilet Construction ...... 106 Figure 65: Information received on Toilet Usage in the Village ...... 107 Figure 66: Time taken to complete toilet construction after submission of forms/relevant documents ...... 109 Figure 67: Reasons for Toilet Construction ...... 110 Figure 68: Condition of Toilets ...... 111 Figure 69: Receiving the incentive ...... 114 Figure 70: Extra Additions to SBM (G) Toilet ...... 116
vi Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | June 2017
Figure 71: Toilet Usage by household members ...... 117 Figure 72: Reasons for open defecation ...... 120 Figure 73: Problems faced by Respondents ...... 121 Figure 74: Damaged toilet due to faulty construction materials ...... 123 Figure 75: Observation of a toilet by an enumerator ...... 124 Figure 76: Organogram for Krishnagiri ...... 128 Figure 77: Officials contacted to apply for SBM (G) ...... 129 Figure 78: Information on key contact person for SBM (G) ...... 130 Figure 79: Officials handling grievance redressal* ...... 132 Figure 80: Medium Used for IEC activities ...... 134 Figure 81: Individuals conducting IEC activities ...... 135 Figure 82: Satisfaction with the services under SBM (G) ...... 139 Figure 83: Officials contacted to apply for SBM (G) ...... 143 Figure 84: Officials handling grievance redressal ...... 145 Figure 85: Media for IEC activities ...... 147 Figure 86: Overall Satisfaction with features of /SBM (G) ...... 152 Figure 87: Levels of satisfaction with the various services of SBM (G) ...... 152
Maps
Map 1: Districts with Sample Sizes in CRC-2 - Tamil Nadu ...... 13 Map 2: Districts with Sample Sizes in CRC-2 - Odisha ...... 13 Map 3: Districts under Study in Tamil Nadu and Sampled HHs ...... 63 Map 4: Condition of Toilets across Districts in Tamil Nadu ...... 80 Map 5: Toilet Usage by Districts ...... 86 Map 6: Districts under Study in Odisha and Sampled HHs ...... 95 Map 7: Condition of Toilets across Districts in Odisha ...... 112 Map 8: Toilet usage by household members by district ...... 118 Map 9: Officials’ Interviewed by District - Tamil Nadu ...... 127 Map 10: Officials interviewed by District - Odisha ...... 142
vii Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | June 2017
List of Abbreviations ANM Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery APD Assistant Project Director APL Above Poverty Line BDO Block Development Officer BMGF Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation BRCC Block Resources Centre Coordinator BPL Below Poverty Line CAPI Computer Aided Personal Interview CRCC Cluster Resources Centre Coordinator CSC Community Score Card CSO Civil Society Organizations CRC Citizen Report Card GP Gram Panchayat HH Household HoH Head of the Household IEC Information, Education Communication IHHL Individual Household Latrine JE Junior Engineer LPG Liquid Petroleum Gas MIS Management Information Systems NBA Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan NGO Non-Governmental Organization NREGA National Rural Employment Generation Scheme (Also known as MGNREGA) OBC Other Backward Caste OD Open Defecation PAC Public Affairs Centre PAF Public Affairs Foundation PAPI Paper and Pencil (Pen) Interviews PLF Panchayat Level Federation RSM Rural Sanitary Mart SBM(G) Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) SC Scheduled Caste SEBC Socially and Educationally Backward Castes ST Scheduled Tribe SHG Self Help Group TN Tamil Nadu TSC Total Sanitation Campaign VPRC Village Poverty Reduction Committee
viii Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | June 2017
Acknowledgments
Public Affairs Foundation (PAF) would like to thank Public Affairs Centre (PAC), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and WaterAid for their cooperation, support and guidance throughout this project. PAF especially thanks Dr Meena Nair for her guidance and support during the course of CRC-2 Validation exercises and implementation.
PAF would like to thank Nielsen India Private Limited for conducting the survey. The PAF team gratefully acknowledges the data collection enumerators and supervisors in both the states for their hard work in the field and for their motivation and ability to overcome challenges in the course of the field work.
ix Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | June 2017
Executive Summary
As a part of Public Affairs Centre’s (PAC) 4-year study on the Government of India’s flagship sanitation program – the erstwhile Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (NBA), and now the Swachh Bharat Mission (G) – Public Affairs Foundation conducted a second Citizen Report Card (CRC) in six districts each of Tamil Nadu and Odisha. The BMGF funded study titled Improving Consumer Voices and Accountability in the Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan [now Swachh Bharat Mission] used multiple Social Accountability Tools to assess whether the stated demand driven initiative to improve sanitation, especially in the rural areas, was engaging the intended beneficiaries of the program sufficiently and efficiently enough to show significant improvements in Individual Household Latrine (IHHL) coverage.
After the CRC-1 studied the NBA, its processes, outcomes and beneficiary engagement in 2014, the program changed to SBM (G) under the Government of India’s announcement on October 2, 2014. As a result, CRC-2 in 2016 covered beneficiaries who had built an IHHL under the “new” SBM (G) scheme. The geographic spread of CRC-2 was similar to CRC-1: six districts each in Tamil Nadu and Odisha were chosen. The same six districts and the Blocks within each district as covered in CRC-1 were chosen. This was to enable a comparison of performance within the same districts nearly two years after the first CRC was completed. In all, 2660 households in Odisha and 2415 households in Tamil Nadu formed the beneficiary sample; 361 officials at various levels ranging from GP to district offices were interviewed in each state using a separate questionnaire.
In the interim, between the two CRCs, PAC had deployed several other tools – such as CRC+ to study the supply side funds and function flow; Community Score Cards (CSCs) to engage with the providers and beneficiaries on ground level advocacy and reforms required to improve on earlier performance of the scheme; case studies to document best practices at the Gram Panchayat Level; and, National Policy Reviews to incorporate the findings and outcomes of the study through all these tools in the context of the National Policy on sanitation under the SBM (G).
CRC-2 therefore happened at a critical juncture – two years into the implementation of the new SBM (G) program which aims to achieve complete IHHL coverage in the country and therefore declare the country ‘ODF’ [Open Defecation-Free] by October 2, 2019. This CRC therefore is in a good position to (a) compare the performance of the districts currently under SBM (G) compared two years ago (under NBA); (b) assess whether any of the issues and bottlenecks flagged in CRC-1 have shown a positive movement towards improvement;
1 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | Final Report
(c) measure citizen engagement and satisfaction of the beneficiaries with the process of building an IHHL under the SBM (G).
Beneficiary responses to questions on key CRC themes allow a glimpse into the implementation status of the Government’s flagship sanitation scheme. This report organizes the vast amount of information in the following major sections:
Key themes that provide pointers to the health of the program are analyzed in four discrete thematic pieces. Detailed findings for each state are discussed for each of the CRC modules (access, usage, quality, reliability, problems and resolution, extra payments and satisfaction with the program). Officials’ responses are then discussed in the last section of the report.
CRC‐2 Findings – Improvements in Some Key Areas Seen
1. Across the two CRCs, completion rates as well as usable condition of toilets have increased substantially. While Tamil Nadu already had higher completion rates in CRC‐1, and has now shown marginal improvement in its numbers, Odisha demonstrated a substantial improvement (from 52% to 83%) in reporting toilets in complete and usable condition. Of course, this is not to discount the issue of longevity – whether the toilets constructed in 2015 and 2016 will survive into 2019 is something a later survey may reveal; the concern about longevity stems from the CRC‐1 results where nearly half the respondents in Odisha whose toilets were built in 2012 reported them to be unusable in 2014.
Although completion rates are higher in both the states, the reasons for discontinuing construction (reported by 11%) remained the same in Odisha: contractor leaving the toilet unfinished, money problems and, the rainy season.
The most heartening result in CRC‐2 is that completion rates of toilets built by contractors/NGOs have shown vast improvement. This is a come from behind story – where the lag in completion rates of contractor‐built toilets is substantially smaller in CRC‐2 (although it still exists) in both the states.
Usage Numbers are a Mixed Bag
2. The CRCs as well as other studies on the NBA and SBM have now established that merely building toilets is not sufficient. Whether beneficiary buy‐in is sufficiently strong to nudge the usage numbers up will be the true test of the success of the program (and indeed, a mirror to whether the ODF status can be achieved as targeted).
2 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC‐2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | Final Report
On the surface of it, usage numbers in the two states seem to have improved. In Tamil Nadu for example, where usage numbers were already high in CRC-1, respondents reporting “all members use the toilet all the time” increased from 83% in CRC-1 to 87% in CRC-2. Reports of “nobody uses the toilet” went down from 15% to 9%. In Odisha, the numbers are even more impressive, with reports of all members using the toilet all the time increasing from only 48% in CRC-1 to 66% in CRC-2.
Despite the positive numbers reported above, a closer look presents a more mixed bag of results. When we look at only the subset of respondents who report a complete and usable toilet in the household (built under SBM-G), usage numbers seem to have fallen! In the subset that have a usable toilet, usage in Tamil Nadu fell from 95% to 93%, and in Odisha, fell from 88% to 78%.
Since the absolute numbers of those who have a completed toilet have increased in both the states, analyzing the whole sample seems to indicate an increase in usage; however, when only those with a usable toilet are seen across the two CRCs, usage has actually decreased. This is a worrying statistic – if those with complete and usable toilets are dropping off the usage bandwagon, then ODF maybe an unachievable goal.
Source of Water is Still a Key Driver
3. While there may be many reasons for the non usage of toilets, one of the reasons given by beneficiaries is the lack of water. Similar to CRC-1, we examined whether lack of water is an impediment to toilet usage. A positive finding in CRC-2 is that fewer households in Odisha (7% in CRC-2 compared to 23% in CRC-1) cited lack of water as a reason for not using the toilet. Tamil Nadu remained the same with 3% citing lack of water in both the CRCs.
Use of water for sanitation purposes has shown an increase in Odisha, but a decline in Tamil Nadu when compared to CRC-1. Different indicators point to the possibility of water shortage/ disruptions in water supply in the summer of 2016.
Tamil Nadu reported higher instances of piped water (into the dwelling or yard) compared to Odisha. As reported in CRC-1, CRC-2 too demonstrated that fetching water from outside for domestic use is likely to motivate households to prioritize water use, so that the time and effort required to fetch water are maximized through judicious use of water.
Tamil Nadu has done a better job of providing water storage facilities in or near the toilets compared to Odisha. Self built toilets (as opposed to contractor-built toilets) are more likely to have such storage facilities. Going forward, SBM implementers must focus on ensuring that water storage in or near the toilet is provided as per the SBM guidelines.
3 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | Final Report
Vulnerable Groups and Targeting of Benefits
4. Although both the NBA and SBM (G) IHHL schemes specifically target the poor, vulnerable and marginalized sections of the population, findings from both CRCs show mixed results on the success of such targeting. Based on type of house, income, social group (to some extent) and observations from the field, some signs of elite capture of the benefits of the scheme are seen in Odisha in CRC-2; the same is not as evident in Tamil Nadu.
There is greater awareness of the SBM (G) scheme in both the states, but more pronounced change is seen in Odisha, witnessed across all sub groups.
Statistically significant differences are found in the opportunity / ability of sub groups to build the toilet on their own (and / or with the help of a mason). In both states, OBCs and General category respondents are more likely to build the toilet on their own. As mentioned elsewhere, this is an important indicator because the quality and usability of the toilet, as well as beneficiary satisfaction with the toilet are all highly dependent on who builds the toilet.
SBM (G) implementers need to pay added attention to the issue of targeting to ensure that the poor, marginalized and vulnerable are targeted first for the benefits of the scheme. It is acknowledged however, that lack of land or suitable space (a prerequisite for building an IHHL under the scheme) maybe the hindering factor for the marginalized to benefit from the scheme. In some districts, common land has been utilized to build row toilets (one IHHL dedicated to each household) to overcome the issue of land/space availability.
In Summary
While SBM (G) seems to have made substantial progress in moving towards achieving 100% coverage of IHHLs in rural areas, CRC-2 findings continue to flag some of the issues that may impede the progress towards the 2019 goal of full coverage. Although contractor-built toilets have shown vast improvement in completion rates, quality and usability is still a concern leading to lower beneficiary satisfaction. Whether the contractor-built toilets will exhibit longevity in the long run is something that remains to be seen. Tamil Nadu, for example, has shown lower satisfaction rates compared to CRC-1, especially in districts where contractors are building the toilets. Clearly, both CRCs have shown that citizen voice and ownership is severely impacted when they do not have a say in the procurement of materials, design of the toilet, and importantly, quality of the toilet built.
4 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | Final Report
On the positive side, Odisha has made considerable progress in increasing awareness of the scheme (and sanitation in general) among the beneficiaries; and, in providing greater oversight to ensure that contractors complete the toilets. However, there are also signs of elite capture – where households from a higher socio-economic background seem to derive more of the benefit of the scheme compared to other vulnerable households.
Finally, if SBM (G) has to succeed in meeting the goal of ODF throughout the country, CRC-2 results point to the need for focusing on improving usage numbers. Just meeting the target of building toilets is not going to move the country to the ODF goal, since falling usage numbers (among those who have a complete and usage toilet) are a concern. Additionally, based on longevity concerns raised during CRC-1, it remains to be seen whether the SBM (G) toilets constructed (and included in the CRC-2 sample) survive long enough – longevity of toilets due to the quality of materials and construction, as well as design – is still a major indicator that will determine how quickly and whether the ODF goal is an achievable one. The concern is that as the target numbers (number of toilets built) keep creeping up, there might also be toilets falling off the list if they are rendered unusable after a short period of time.
5 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | Final Report
Improving Consumer Voices and Accountability in the Swachh Bharat Mission – Gramin (SBM-G): Citizen Report Card (CRC-2) in Tamil Nadu and Odisha
Final Report
Introduction
After several decades of efforts through various flagship programs such as the Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC), and the Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (NBA), Government of India’s Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) announced by the Prime Minister on October 2, 2014 is now midway through an ambitious 5-year agenda of achieving open defecation free (ODF) status in the entire country by October 2, 2019. The two components of the program - SBM- Gramin and SBM-Urban - aim to accelerate the building of Individual Households Latrines (IHHL), along with the general goals of improving hygiene and promoting cleanliness in the country. The target of 2019 is especially ambitious in the rural areas, where the slow and incremental gains in coverage over the years makes it particularly challenging to achieve the stated goal by 2019. SBM (G) estimated that as of October 2014 (start of SBM-G), 42% of rural India was covered by IHHLs, and that 64% coverage was achieved by May 20171. One will have to wait and see whether the remaining 1/3rd will be covered successfully by 2019.
Whether coverage in terms of increase in number of toilets is sufficient to achieve ODF status in the country is a much debated and discussed question. The need to nudge beneficiaries of the program to use the toilets is increasingly felt. Various reasons, ranging from poor quality of toilets built, to cultural, social and ‘religious’ compulsions for not using the toilets make the ODF goal more challenging than just achieving the target numbers for toilets built. Unless beneficiaries buy in to the idea of toilets, their importance and utility, it is increasingly becoming clear that ODF is not an achievable goal.
What are the impediments to the achievement of ODF? Is it the shortage in the number of toilets built? Is it the condition and quality of toilets, or their longevity? Is it the lack of water that hinders the usage of toilets? Or, is it that in the process of building the toilets, the beneficiaries have no voice and ownership, leading to underwhelming experience of accessing and benefiting from the IHHL program? What are the factors that can explain whether the government is able to engage the beneficiaries sufficiently enough, so that they contribute to (and are a part of) achieving the ODF goal?
1 http://sbm.gov.in/sbmdashboard/Default.aspx Accessed on May 18, 2017 6 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | June 2017
PAC’s 4-year study of the NBA/SBM (2013-2017)
Public Affairs Centre (PAC) has spearheaded a 4-year study of the erstwhile NBA and now the SBM (G) using Social Accountability Tools (SATs) to answer some of the questions listed above. Covering two states (Tamil Nadu and Odisha), the comprehensive study used multiple tools to assess the performance of the sanitation program. The SATs deployed in the study include2:
1. National Policy Review (NPR) at the National and State (for Odisha and Tamil Nadu in particular) level to understand the implementation process of the SBM, funds allocated and spent, secondary data used therein
2. Citizen Report Cards (CRCs) in selected districts in Odisha and Tamil Nadu to assess the current construction and usage patterns through feedback from users and implementers
3. Case Study Research in selected Gram Panchayats in each of the selected districts for an in-depth understanding of the demand-side issues and supply-side constraints.
4. CRC+ exercises in selected Gram Panchayats in each district to assess fund flow (SET or Selected Expenditure Tracking) and functional responsibilities (FMA or Function Marker Analysis) handled by implementers
5. Community Score Cards (CSCs) in selected Gram Panchayats in each district to try and improve forums for communities to place their voices and demand accountability.
The reports of the above SAT exercises are available on the PAC website.
Citizen Report Cards
Public Affairs Foundation conducted the two CRCs (2014 and 2016) in Tamil Nadu and Odisha. Report of the first CRC can be accessed here.
In brief, key findings of CRC-1 include:
1) While coverage of IHHLs in the rural areas of the districts studied in the two states itself was a problem (with Odisha being worse off than Tamil Nadu), an even more concerning issue was that of functional toilets. A substantial number of toilets built under the then NBA scheme were found to be incomplete and / or unusable due to various reasons.
2 http://pacindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/National-Policy-Review-of-SBM-G_2015-16.pdf (p. 4)
7 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | Final Report
2) Although some beneficiaries cited lack of water as a reason for not using the toilets built under NBA, it was found that domestic water usage among the rest of the sample and the subset who cited lack of water was almost the same. The key driver seemed to be that those who fetch water from outside (as opposed to having access to piped water) are more likely to prioritize water use for other needs.
3) Beneficiaries in both states have clearly indicated higher satisfaction levels with the quality, design and spaciousness of the toilet, and their overall NBA experience, when they have a voice and ownership in planning for the toilet in their home, procuring materials, and constructing it themselves. Conversely, contractor driven mass building of sub-standard toilets, with limited or no avenues for beneficiary engagement have elicited much lower satisfaction levels among the beneficiaries. Completion and usage of toilets are also strongly related to who built the toilet for the beneficiary. Those who built the toilet themselves (and / or with the help of a mason) showed higher completion and usage of toilets compared to households with NGO/Contractor-built toilets.
4) Vulnerability of marginalized groups was seen in the following ways: toilets in completed and usable condition were significantly lower in SC households and those living in kutcha houses. Lower socio-economic groups were more likely to have toilets built by contractors/NGOs compared to higher socio economic groups.
CRC-2
As per the study design, CRC-2 was conducted in the same six districts each of Tamil Nadu and Odisha where CRC-1 was conducted. The announcement of SBM by the Government of India coincided with the ending of CRC-1 field work in the both the states. As a result, the CRC-2 study and sample resumed from where CRC-1 left off: beneficiaries that had their toilets built under the SBM (G) scheme from October 2014 onwards were included in the sample for CRC-2. Details of sampling in each state can be found in the respective state reports in Section 4 of this report.
PAC’s National Policy Review (2015-2016)3 summarizes the state guidelines that list the objectives of SBM in their respective states:
Tamil Nadu:
Main objectives of the Swachh Tamil Nadu Mission:
3 Ibid. p. 12 and 18
8 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | Final Report
To accelerate sanitation coverage in rural areas in order to achieve the goal of open defecation free Tamil Nadu in a time bound manner. To actively involve various stakeholders such as representatives of Panchayat Raj Institutions, Self Help Groups, Village Poverty Reduction Committee (VPRC), Panchayat Level Federation (PLF), field functionaries of various government departments, etc., in the eradication of open defecation. To sustain the practice of safe sanitation through continuous Behavioural Change activities. [p12] Odisha:
The Swachh Odisha Mission (SOM) has identified six major stages to support Gram Panchayats in becoming Open Defecation Free. The stages include:
Identification of Gram Panchayats – Each district will prepare a detailed plan highlighting various activities undertaken as per the guidelines of SBM (G). Preparation – Capacity Building through training/orientation, IEC, Human resource (NGO, Swachhata Doots). Community Mobilisation – Triggering behaviour change, mass awareness and hygiene promotion, OD Elimination plan. Supply Chain Management to support toilet construction – skilled labour, construction material, establishment of RSM. Financing – Release funds to GPs. Sustaining the ODF Achievements – hygiene promotion in schools, Anganwadi, SHGs, community monitoring, third party evaluations. [p19]
While CRC-2 focused on the same issues covered in CRC-1, there is greater emphasis on assessing whether the respective states have achieved the goals laid out in their state SBM guidelines. For example, Odisha had dismally low awareness levels of the NBA as reported in CRC-1. In Tamil Nadu, while awareness was higher, and GPs were more involved in some districts than others, quality of toilets built by contractors was still an issue. CRC-2 now has the opportunity to report on whether Tamil Nadu’s goal of involving GP level representatives has been achieved, and whether this has made a difference in the SBM experience among beneficiaries. Similarly in Odisha, whether IEC and capacity building training at the grassroots in Odisha have succeeded in increasing awareness levels of the SBM (G) program among the beneficiaries.
9 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | Final Report
Report Outline
This report presents key findings from CRC-2 conducted in Tamil Nadu and Odisha in 2016.
Section 2 describes the methodology adopted in the implementation, including selection of districts, sampling of households and officials. Since data collection and monitoring procedures were similar to CRC-1, and have been documented extensively in the CRC-1 report (pages 28-30), these sections are not repeated here.
Section 3 presents findings in the two states on key themes that will help situate the discussion the performance of SBM (G) when compared to NBA (as reported in CRC-1). The themes were first explored in CRC-1, and this report provides an opportunity to assess whether the issues and concerns raised in CRC-1 have been alleviated or improved upon in the implementation of SBM (G). Each theme can be read as a stand-alone piece.
Section 4 presents detailed findings of the CRC from the household survey, separately for each state. Each state report covers all modules of the CRC including access and usage, quality and reliability, problems encountered and grievance redress, extra payments and, satisfaction across various indicators as well as overall satisfaction with the toilet construction process under SBM (G).
Section 5 describes the responses of the officials collected through a separate questionnaire in each state. Officials’ responses provide the supply side context to the implementation of the SBM (G) program, and complement the household survey findings in providing a birds’ eye view of the SBM (G) program in their respective states.
Detailed frequency counts for all questions in the Household and Officials/Providers' questionnaires are provided in separate Annexures.
10 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | Final Report
Section 2: Methodology
Beneficiaries who have a completed/incomplete toilet built under SBM (G) formed the sample for the survey. PAF acquired a list of such beneficiaries from all districts, either from the officials who had been assigned to undertake SBM (G) related activities or from the web portal for SBM (G).
Based on the experience in CRC-1, where finding beneficiaries on the ground was difficult, and many cases of ‘missing toilets’ were recorded, it was crucial that the beneficiary list acquired translated to actual toilets on the ground. PAF carried out a validation exercise to verify the actual number of toilets present on the ground from the lists provided by the officials or the SBM (G) portal. Nielsen India Private Ltd conducted the exercise. Data collection was carried out using CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interviews) on Android Tablets using a template created by PAF and PAC for the purpose.
CAPI was also deployed for the household survey. For official interviews PAPI (Pen and Paper Interview) was used due to the smaller sample sizes.
Validation Exercise:
The following steps were undertaken for the physical verification / validation exercise:
Step 1 – Confirmation of list of GPs to be visited
1. The list of GPs and beneficiaries was shared with the field team. In case the list was collected from District / Block officials, the field team directly visited the GP. 2. If the list was generated from the data available on the SBM (G) website, the team visited the block office and confirmed the list of the GPs and beneficiaries to be selected for the validation exercise. 3. The compiled list was validated by officials. If officials agreed with the list, the teams proceeded to the GPs. In case the officials disputed/ disagreed with the list, a fresh list of GPs and beneficiaries was collected from the block officials for the validation exercise and the same was shared with the field teams for validation.
Step 2 – Confirmation of the number of toilets constructed in the GP under SBM (G) scheme post October 2, 2014
1. The team members discussed with Panchayat members and others in the GP to assess how many toilets had been constructed in the GP under SBM (G) scheme after the announcement of the SBM (G) scheme by the Government of India on October 2, 2014. 2. The team collected the basic profile of the GP, number of villages and hamlets.
11 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | Final Report
3. A rough map of the GP was prepared which showed the villages and hamlets, and village / hamlet wise IHHL details were noted. 4. GP level checklist with name and contact details of Key Informants was maintained along with the map. 5. The team collected / validated the list of SBM (G) beneficiaries for each GP / village / hamlets with Key Informants from the GP.
Step 3 – Physical verification of toilet construction
1. The team selected three villages / hamlets randomly from the list of villages / hamlets where IHHLs were constructed under SBM (G) (the cut-off point – at least 10 toilets constructed in the village / hamlet) 2. In case the standard list was not available, identification of the village / hamlets and beneficiaries was done through a “snow ball” method. 3. At least 20 beneficiaries were verified for each selected GP. In case the GP had more than 200 toilets constructed across the villages / hamlets, any three villages were selected randomly and 10% of the beneficiaries in those villages were verified. 4. The teams then located the beneficiary household and conducted physical verification of the toilet. 5. In case the house was locked / household members not available, the team collected recorded a “Door lock” and replaced the household with another beneficiary household.
Selection of Blocks and GPs in each district for the Household Survey The same Districts and Blocks which were selected during CRC 1 were also selected in CRC 2. However, there was a slight change when it came to the selection of GPs. The reason for this was that the GPs which were selected in CRC 1 had exhausted toilet construction under NBA and this would translate into fewer toilets under SBM(G).
Block and GP level sampling information is provided in the respective state reports in Section 4.
Respondents for the household survey were randomly selected from the verified list of beneficiaries compiled as a result of the Validation exercise described above. A pre-tested questionnaire was administered by trained enumerators to an adult member of the selected household. Other details of sampling are given in the respective state chapters in Section 4.
12 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | Final Report
Map 1: Districts with Sample Sizes in CRC-2 - Tamil Nadu
Map 2: Districts with Sample Sizes in CRC-2 - Odisha
13 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | Final Report
Section 3: Key Findings – Thematic Analysis
Detailed findings of CRC-2 for each State are presented separately in Section 4. In this section, we discuss key findings from CRC-2 on specific issues that shed light on the performance of SBM (G), especially in comparison to the findings from CRC-1 in both the states. The CRC-1 report discussed in detail some of the critical issues hindering the performance of the Government of India’s flagship sanitation program for decades. Some of these findings discussed then, and revisited now as a part of thematic analyses are:
Toilets built versus functional toilets: While there was only incremental progress over decades in the number of toilets built in rural Odisha and Tamil Nadu (the two states included in the two CRCs), there was no reliable official information on the number of functional toilets. CRC-1 gave us a glimpse of the magnitude of the problem, where it was found that the longevity of the toilets built under TSC/NBA (2010-2014) was dismally low (especially in Odisha).
The sample selected for CRC-2 has households that constructed toilets in 2015 and 2016 (with a few in late 2014 – after the SBM[G] was announced on October 2, 2014). Longevity therefore cannot be immediately ascertained, since the toilets are still relatively new. However, we use the data from CRC-1 and CRC-2 (ie: from 2010 to 2016) to report completion and functional status of the toilets built across these years.
Role of Gram Panchayats: A new theme we explore in CRC-2 is the role of Gram Panchayats (GPs) in accomplishing the objectives and targets set under SBM (G). As reported in CRC-1, GP officials and members were the main source of information about the NBA program; however, they did not have much agency when it came to the actual implementation (building of toilets). The opposite was true in some districts of Tamil Nadu (Such as Kanyakumari) where the GP presidents actively worked towards implementation of NBA in their Gram Panchayats.
This theme explores whether the role of Gram Panchayats has expanded in SBM (G) when compared to NBA, and the nature of their involvement in the SBM (G) implementation. Using respondent feedback on their interactions with the GP, we examine whether the GP’s involvement might lead to more efficient implementation of the SBM (G) at the village level.
Who built the toilet: Who actually built the toilet was an important indicator of the completion and usage status of the toilets. In both states, but more pronounced in Odisha, toilets built by
14 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | Final Report
the respondents themselves (and / or with the help of a mason hired by them) had greater likelihood of completion and usage than those built by contractors. Satisfaction levels with quality of the toilet and the process of construction were also higher if the toilets were built by the households themselves.
Interwoven into the two themes outlined above, CRC-2 seeks to explore whether this indicator of who built the toilet saw any changes under SBM (G); and, whether completion and usage indicators saw any movement. We examine whether there is any difference in user experience where the GP supervised the toilet construction, as opposed to contractors. Or, whether the GP is only one more middle layer, with the contractor still being in charge of the construction (and therefore, whether the quality and satisfaction indicators are the same as for contractor-built toilets).
Availability of water: Lack of water is often cited as a reason for non use of toilets. In CRC-1, we found that the mean water usage for households in the overall sample, and the mean usage for the sub-sample that cited lack of water as a reason for non use, were both quite similar. The key driver seemed to be the water source – those who fetched water from outside were more likely to prioritize water use, compared to those who had water piped into their dwelling or yard. Although volume of water use was similar, the time and effort required to fetch water from outside meant that households tended to see water for toilet flushing as a low priority (especially when Open Defecation practices were considered an acceptable alternative).
CRC-2 examines whether lack of water continues to be cited as a reason for non use. This is especially important because the SBM (G) guidelines call for an additional incentive amount of INR 2000 (in addition to the original NBA incentive of INR 10,000) to provide for water storage near the toilet. This provision may still not mitigate the time and effort required to fetch water for those with a water source away from their dwelling.
Vulnerability of sub-groups: Finally, CRC-2 once again examines the vulnerability of certain sub-group of citizens based on their socio-economic characteristics in relation to their access and experience of the SBM (G) program. CRC-1 found that toilets in completed and usable condition were significantly lower in number in SC households and those living in kutcha houses. Lower socio-economic groups were more likely to have their toilets built by contractors compared to higher socio economic groups. While, these factors did not impact the overall satisfaction levels of the respondents in these sub- groups, the reality of incomplete and unusable (or unused) toilets means that the objective of eliminating Open Defection is unlikely to be met.
15 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | Final Report
Theme 1: Current Status of IHHL Coverage in the two States – Toilets Built
Government of India’s SBM (G), the successor to the NBA program (and the TSC before that) was launched on October 2, 2014 with an ambitious agenda to end Open Defecation by 2019. In addition to other sanitation and hygiene components, the flagship program aims to increase Individual Household Latrines (IHHL) coverage in the country to 100% as a means of ending Open Defecation.
Tracing the progress of such sanitation programs over the decades, the 2019 target is indeed ambitious. As reported in CRC-1, the progress of such sanitation schemes has been patchy at best. Especially in rural areas, only a third of the households had toilet coverage as per the 2011 census. In Tamil Nadu and Odisha, rural coverage was even lower: 23% in Tamil Nadu and 14% in Odisha. Significantly, the progress over the decade between the two censuses (2001 and 2011) was less than ten percentage points in both the states.
Has the SBM (G) made progress on its goals? How much have the numbers improved between 2011 and 2017? One note of caution is that the earlier quoted figures of rural coverage are from the Census. The figures below are from the Government of India’s SBM website/dashboard. The comparison of census numbers to measure decadal progress and the impact of SBM (G) on rural coverage can only be made after the next census in 2021.
Table 1: IHHL Coverage in Rural Tamil Nadu and Odisha under SBM (G)4
As on: October 2, May 18, 2014 2017 Tamil Nadu 49% 74% Odisha 12% 42% India 42% 64%
Undoubtedly, the figures in Table 1 are impressive. Going by the SBM (G) figures given above, there has been a 200% increase in toilet coverage in rural Odisha over 2011 census numbers (from 14% to 42%), and a 222% leap in Tamil Nadu (from 23% to 74%).
The Bigger Challenge – Building Toilets that Last and are Used
While the increase in toilet coverage is impressive, especially in the hard to improve rural areas, and in traditionally lagging states like Odisha, the real challenge is two-fold:
- Are the toilets built to last? - Are the toilets being used?
4 http://sbm.gov.in/sbmdashboard/Default.aspx Accessed on May 18, 2017
16 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | Final Report
CRC-1 highlighted the findings that:
In Tamil Nadu, a high percentage of toilets (83%) were in usable condition. Still, considering that the survey for CRC-1 happened in the third quarter of 2014, the 17% incomplete and unusable toilets (or discontinued construction) are still a problem. In Odisha, nearly 50% of the toilets built between 2012 and 2014 were reported as “not in usable condition” by the respondents! Even among those built in 2013- 2014, only 63% (2013) and 70% (2014) were functional at the time of the survey. Toilet usage among the respondent households was reported at 83% in Tamil Nadu, and only at 48% in Odisha. Various reasons were given for the non-use, including lack of water, and preference for Open Defecation.
Problems with discontinued construction, poor construction and un-usable toilets (mainly due to debris and dirt covering the pit, pit being blocked) also meant that the toilets were not being used despite the beneficiary household appearing on the coverage list of the NBA website. As emphasized in CRC-1, the program has to find a methodology to track functioning toilets and not just mere numbers of constructed toilets (in whatever condition and stage of completion). Tracking usage is further fraught with methodological and ethical difficulties.
Given the above high numbers of unusable toilets as recorded in 2014, has the SBM (G) done any better in the two years of its existence?
Figure 1: Condition of Toilets Built under SBM (G)
Figure 1 clearly demonstrates the improved completion rates, as well as toilets in usable condition after completion. Tamil Nadu has improved marginally from its already high
17 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | Final Report completion and usable condition toilets (from 83% in CRC-1 to 91%). In Odisha’s case, the magnitude of improvement is greater: an increase from 52% in CRC-1 to 84% in CRC-2 (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Condition of Toilets Built Between 2010 and 2016 (Across Two CRCs) [Odisha]
Across the two CRCs, completion rates as well as usable condition of toilets have increased substantially in Odisha. Instead of considering the entire sample of CRC-1 however, we look at the two years immediately before the survey (2013-2014 for CRC-1 and 2015-2016 in CRC-2) to ensure comparability of the two survey results. This is because in CRC-1, the toilets from earlier years (TSC/NBA) had more issues with completion and usability and bring the numbers down for overall completion and usability rates. This is not to discount the issue of longevity – nearly half the respondents who had toilets built in 2012 reported in late 2014 that they were not usable although complete. The concern with longevity of toilets therefore remains – a survey two years later (say, in 2019) may measure accurately the longevity of the toilets built in 2015 (i.e., whether the toilets are lasting at least 3-4 years in terms of usability).
18 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | Final Report
Completion Rates Are Better in CRC-2
Completion in later years (2013-2014) prior to CRC-1 shows improvement. Similarly, in CRC- 2, the toilets built in the approximately two years prior to the survey (2015-2016) show improvement in completion and usability rates. Percent households reporting discontinued construction also went down in CRC-2, although still reported by more than 10% of the Households which should remain a cause for concern. In 2016, for example, 13% reported discontinued construction, fairly close to the 16% reported in CRC-1. The shift in numbers seems to be in the “completed and not in usable condition” category: fewer households in CRC-2 reported that the completed toilets are unusable. This implies that where toilets have been completed, they are mostly in usable condition, with less than 10% reporting un- usability.
Reasons for Discontinuing Construction
In CRC-2, 280 respondents (11% of the sample) in Odisha reported discontinued construction. The main reasons given were:
Contractor left the toilet unfinished (46%) Money problem (28%) Rainy season (11%)
In CRC-1, those who discontinued construction, or had partially constructed toilets mentioned the exact same reasons: lack of funds, rainy season and negligence of the contractor. It is worth exploring over time whether these reasons for incomplete toilets are persistent and, find ways of mitigating the risk of these factors in the toilet construction process.
Who Built The Toilet
A major finding in CRC-1 was that the builder of the toilet is an important variable that explained the completion and usability status of the household toilets. Contractor-built toilets were more likely to be incomplete, or unusable even if complete. This was true in both states, although the magnitude of the difference was greater in Odisha. We examined whether this relationship between the builder of the toilet and its condition/usability held strong in CRC-2. Figures 3 and 4 compare the status and condition of toilets across the two CRCs in both the states.
19 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | Final Report
Tamil Nadu - Improved
Figure 3: Status of Toilets across CRCs based on Who Built the Toilet (Tamil Nadu)
Clearly, completion rates have improved across CRCs for all categories – among those who built the toilet themselves (and / or with the help of a hired mason), and more importantly, among toilets built by Contractors. The improvement in toilets built by contractors is indeed heartening, and in CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu, they seem to lag behind the self-built only by 5 percentage points (from the 28 percentage points difference in CRC-1). The number of incomplete or half built toilets is down to single digits, a statistic that bodes well for the districts concerned.
Panchayats building toilets is a new development in CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu. This will be discussed in a separate theme.
Odisha – Similar Improvement
Considering the poor performance by Odisha in CRC-1 when compared to Tamil Nadu, it is heartening to note the impressive improvement in the completion rates of contractor-built toilets in CRC-2. It is beyond the scope of this report to dwell on the reasons that suddenly led to a shift in the completion rates by contractors – whether any incentives (or disincentives?) were applied by the state to ensure the dramatic improvement in numbers. Certainly, a separate analysis based on field visits and observations (as conducted by PAC through other methods) may provide an explanation to these rather welcome findings.
20 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | Final Report
Figure 4: Status of Toilets across CRCs based on Who Built the Toilet (Odisha)
As seen in the case of Tamil Nadu, the difference in completion/usable toilets rates between self-built and contractor-toilets in Odisha is also much smaller in CRC-2 (5 percentage points) when compared to CRC-1 (37 percentage point difference). Completed but unusable toilets have come down drastically (from 45% to 9%), the reasons for which will be interesting to explore (separately). Discontinued construction is still in double digits for both categories of builders – a worrying statistic, but probably explained by the onset of monsoons.
"Missing" Toilets
CRC-1 had commented on the difficulty faced in finding beneficiaries of the NBA program. Households listed as beneficiaries often did not have toilets. The survey team had undergone a multitude of difficulties in finding beneficiaries in villages who had "built" NBA toilets. This was especially the case in Odisha where an entire village listed as having beneficiary households did not throw up even one household with an NBA toilet when the PAF team visited the village. It was difficult then to determine how widespread this phenomenon of "missing" toilets was. Any evidence gathered seemed anecdotal in nature. Estimating the number of "missing" toilets at the district level was not possible at that time.
In preparation for CRC-2 therefore, PAC recommended a validation exercise whereby official beneficiary lists would be randomly sampled in the districts under study – six districts in Tamil Nadu and six in Odisha that were selected for the CRCs were included in the validation
21 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | Final Report exercise. An enumerator would visit the sampled households and physically verify the existence of a toilet and record some basic information (eg: year built, whether built under SBM (G) scheme, condition of the toilet).
Table 2: Sample Sizes for the Validation Exercise
22 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | Final Report
The results of this validation exercise, completed on randomly sampled households, are a good indicator of the existence, on the ground, of SBM (G) toilets that form the official statistics of targets met. The tables and figures below discuss the findings of the validation exercise. As seen in the figures, the sample was distributed across main villages and hamlets in each block selected, to ensure that the smaller and outlying hamlets / habitations were included in the exercise.
Figure 5: Households with a Toilet (Validation Exercise)
Tamil Nadu fared better, with 99% of the households on the list reporting a toilet (and, verified by the enumerator). Odisha did somewhat worse, with only 88% of toilets on the ground accounted for from the list of beneficiaries. We further explored whether all the toilets found were indeed built under SBM (G).
23 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Figure 6: Toilets Built Under the SBM (G) Scheme [Self Reported]
Figure 6 provides some interesting insights: Not all toilets found were built under the SBM (G) scheme. Especially in Tamil Nadu, 88% of the toilets found in the Main villages were built under SBM (G). Of these, 91% appear to be under the scheme. In Odisha, of the 88% that reported a toilet, 96% were built under the SBM (G). The following scenarios may perhaps explain the discrepancy:
(a) The sampled respondent household built the toilet under a different scheme, or used their own funds; thus reporting that the toilet was not built under SBM (G). This is the most problematic, since SBM (G) statistics claim these as toilets built under the scheme. (b) The sampled respondent household does not know the name of the scheme under which it was built. This scenario is possible – that the respondent did not know. However, considering the high awareness levels of the scheme, it is unlikely.
The validation exercise was extremely useful in exploring the issue of "missing" toilets, and in estimating the possible spread of such "missing" toilets across districts and states. To put it in perspective, if six districts in one state show 12% of the toilets "missing" on the ground, extrapolating these numbers to all 707 districts in 29 States and 7 Union Territories in the country would mean "millions" of missing toilets on the ground, even if actual numbers and magnitude differ across states.
24 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Theme 2: Role played by Panchayati Raj Institutions in SBM (G):
Guidelines to Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) in SBM (G)
Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) play a vital role in socio-economic development of rural areas in India, and were given constitutional recognition under the 73rd Constitution Amendment Act (1992). The 11th Schedule of the Act lists their role in 29 areas, including sanitation. Hence PRIs have an important role to play in the implementation of SBM(G) whose guidelines state:
The Gram Panchayats (GPs) will participate in the social mobilization for triggering demand, construction of toilets and also maintenance of a clean environment by way of safe disposal of waste […] GPs can play a key role in promoting regular use, maintenance and up gradation of toilets […] Both Block-level and District-level PRIs must regularly monitor the implementation of the Programme. GPs must also play a role in monitoring of the SBM (G) programme. The GP will organize and assist in organizing Social Audits of the programme.5
Sanitation as a subject is often shared between different ministries; for example, Ministry of Water and Sanitation, Ministry of Rural Development (“RD”), Ministry of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj (“RDPR”) and, sometimes with agencies such as the Water & Sanitation Mission (such as DWSMs). Who or which combination of the above is responsible for implementing the SBM (G) [and the previous iterations of the program such as the NBA and TSC] not only differs by state, it is also often a contested issue between departments and ministries. Indeed, this need for coordination between different players is one of the bottlenecks to instituting accountability for program outcomes.
The role of PRIs can be assessed in the above context: while the guidelines are quite definitive in their expectations of PRIs in implementing the SBM (G) program and meeting the targets set, the actual picture on the ground differs widely from state to state, and indeed, between districts within a state.
In Tamil Nadu for example, CRC-1 reported that some Panchayat Presidents, especially in the southern well-performing districts like Kanyakumari, were active and instrumental in achieving 100% coverage of IHHLs in their Panchayats. The Presidents worked well with the Block level and District level machinery in charge of NBA and achieved the required targets. The same was not true even in other districts of the same state in the study.
In Odisha, Panchayats had minimal avenues to achieve the same level of progress, or indeed to be involved in the implementation. As a Sarpanch mentioned to the PAF team, ““It would be better if the GP was given the funds to implement the project and get the toilets built”6.
5 Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Guidelines for Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) 2014, Page 24 6 Sahada GP, Baleshwar, Odisha 25 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
CRC-1 had commented on the “trust deficit” between various levels of Government: for example, GPs do not trust the District Officials; districts do not trust GPs and Block Officers.
The SBM (G) guidelines are yet another attempt by the Government to advance the concept of decentralization wherein, the last levels of local Government – the PRIs - are given a significant role in the program at multiple levels. The intent of such decentralization is to ensure that the strengths of local government – the closest link between the citizens and higher levels of government such as the district, state and central administrations – contribute to bringing the program more efficiently and effectively to the citizens in an equitable manner. The various tasks assigned in the guidelines to the PRIs are7:
For Gram Panchayats (Village Level): - Triggering demand - Construction of Toilets - Waste Disposal - Promoting Regular Use - Maintenance and Upgrades
For Block and District Level PRIs: - Monitoring - Social Audits
Given the above mandate for PRIs in the guidelines, this theme examines the role of Gram Panchayats in the sanitation program – both by looking at the GP involvement in CRC-1, as well as the current scenario with insights from CRC-2. Are the Gram Panchayats more involved under SBM than they were under NBA/TSC? If so, what is the nature of their involvement? The analysis will show that there is still a long road to be traversed in the decentralization agenda and, in truly empowering PRIs to be a part of the process from beginning to end.
7 Ibid1 26 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Level of GP Involvement – Foot Soldiers or Decision Makers?
To analyze the level of GP involvement, we look at respondent engagement with the GPs in various aspects of SBM implementation: • IEC (Information, Education & Communication) • Construction of the toilets under SBM(G) • Usage of the Toilets • Problem and Grievance Redress • Overall Satisfaction
IEC
CRC-1 had reported that the role of GPs was mainly dissemination of information to the citizens residing in their Panchayats. Respondents reported the GPs (both elected members such as Ward members and Presidents/Sarpanches) and officials (i.e., paid positions such as Panchayat Secretaries and / or Clerks/Accountants) as the primary source of information on toilet construction and the NBA incentive scheme. The table below lists the sources of information on toilet construction across CRC-1 and CRC-2 for both the states. It is evident that under both NBA and SBM, GP members and officials were the main sources of information on toilet construction.
Table 3: Source of information on Toilet Construction in Odisha and Tamil Nadu (Multiple Answer)
Odisha (N=2660) Tamil Nadu (N=2415) Source of Information CRC-1 CRC-2 CRC-1 CRC-2 % % % % Gram Panchayat officials 33 43 44 82 Gram Panchayat members 21 71 55 64 Contractor -- 12 -- 0 NREGA Workers ------3 Village Poverty Reduction Committee NA NA -- 20 (VPRC)* [Pudhu Vaazhu Thittam] Health worker (ANM/Nurse/ Doctor) 0.1 0 6 1 Panchayat Level Federation(PLF)* NA NA 5
Anganwadi staff 8 9 0.3 1 ASHA worker 3 3 0 0 Self Help Group(SHG) 0.5 1 2 7 NGOs/CSOs 34 3 0.4 1 Swachhata Doot 0.5 7 23 1 BCCC 0.2 1 NA NA No one 3 3
*Only present in Tamil Nadu during CRC-2
27 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
In Tamil Nadu, the VPRC8 which was cited by 20% of the respondents as a source of information on toilet construction is also a quasi-GP mechanism ensuring representation to various vulnerable groups residing in the GP. The role of GP in disseminating information on toilet construction is therefore quite prominent. Between the Panchayat Level Federation (PLF – a coalition of Self Help Groups) cited by 5%, and SHGs themselves (7%), these organizations round off the main providers of information to citizens regarding toilet construction. Interestingly, Swachchata Doots who were more visible in CRC-1 (23%) are not mentioned by the respondents as frequently (1%).
In Odisha, GP members (such as elected ward members) are mentioned by 71% of the respondents as the source of information on toilet construction. This is remarkable improvement over CRC-1 where, first of all, the awareness of the incentive was quite low (at 17%) compared to CRC-2 where 88% said they were aware of the SBM incentive. Of these 88%, the above mentioned 71% got their information from GP members.
Figure 7: Awareness of TSC/NBA and SBM (G) Incentive Scheme9
100% 91% 88% 90% 85% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 17% 20% 10% 0% Tamil Nadu Odisha CRC-1 CRC-2
Awareness of the scheme is marginally better across CRCs in Tamil Nadu; nevertheless, considering the level of GP (and associated mechanisms like VPRC, PLF and SHGs) involvement, it is curious that a good 9% of the respondents who had availed of the SBM scheme are unaware of the incentive.
8 The Village Poverty Reduction Committee is a community organization formed under the project (World Bank-Aided Pudu Vazhvu Project, http://tnrd.gov.in/schemes/ext_worldbank.html) pre-dominantly with representatives of the target population. Each hamlet of the Panchayat is represented by a woman SHG member from the target population in the VPRC. The PLF Secretary, a representative of the disabled, 2 members representing from youth, 2 members representing other Village level committees are also nominated to the VPRC by the Grama Sabha. The Village Panchayat President is Ex-officio Chairperson of the VPRC. 9Awareness of TSC/NBA was measured in CRC-1 and awareness of SBM (G) was measured in CRC-2 28 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
In Odisha, GP members and officials’ efforts at dissemination of information are supplemented by Contractors (12%) and Swachchata Doots / Motivators (7%) who also conveyed information on the scheme to the residents in their GP. NGOs who were cited by a considerable number (34%) are down to 3%; however, this is explained by the fact that Contractors and NGOs are interchangeable entities in Odisha. If we add the two groups together, the 15% is still low compared to CRC-1. One explanation seems to be that GP members have taken up the onus of disseminating information on the SBM incentive for toilet construction under SBM. It is worthwhile exploring separately the reasons for the sudden shift in GP member activity in communicating with its constituency about the SBM scheme.
Now that the GP role in spreading information about the scheme is established across both CRCs, we asked the respondents whether the information on toilet construction was useful to them. In Tamil Nadu, only 18% said it was useful (n=488), whereas in Odisha, 40% of the respondents (n=960) reported that the information received was useful to them.
Further, the respondents who reported that it was useful information were asked if they had taken any action based on the information received (from any source). The table below demonstrates that nearly half of this sub sample in Tamil Nadu (of those who found it useful), and just over a third in Odisha approached the GP to apply for toilet construction. Encouragingly, only 15% in Tamil Nadu and 10% in Odisha said they did not take any action.
Table 4: Action taken after receiving information on Toilet Construction
Promoting Regular Use
That the SBM program needs to do more than meet targets for physical construction of IHHLs is evident. The guidelines clearly outline the need for promoting the use of toilets
29 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
built under the scheme. CRC-1 demonstrated the low usage rates, especially in Odisha. Given that citizens needed nudging on the use of toilets in addition to just applying for the incentive and building a toilet; CRC-2 asked separately whether they were given information on toilet usage.
The responses to this question on usage related information in the two states are telling. Only a third in Tamil Nadu and 42% in Odisha received information on toilet usage. It can be argued that usage of existing toilets by all members of the household is already high in Tamil Nadu (83% reported in CRC-1), and therefore there is less need to impart such information at this stage. Information on usage however is an important component of GP IEC activities that is not being adequately fulfilled. District wise data can be studied separately if found useful.
Figure 8: Respondents Reporting Information on Usage of Toilets
100%
80%
60% 42% 40% 31%
20%
0% Tamil Nadu (n=835) Odisha (n=1023)
As seen in the Table below, In Tamil Nadu, there is not much of difference between sources of information for construction of toilets vs usage. However, in Odisha, Anganwadi staff (23%) and ASHA workers (9%) have also taken up the task of educating the villagers on usage of toilets, in addition to GP officials and members. The table below presents various sources only for those who reported receiving information about toilet usage.
30 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Table 5: Sources of Information on Usage of Toilets (CRC-2)
Odisha Tamil Nadu Sources (n=835) (n=1023) % % Gram Panchayat officials 41 85 Gram Panchayat members 68 65 Panchayat Level Federation(PLF) NA 6 Village Poverty Reduction Committee (VPRC) NA 25 Pudhu Vaazhu Thittam Health worker (ANM/Nurse/ Doctor) 0 2 Anganwadi staff 23 1 ASHA worker 9 0 Self Help Group(SHG) 4 12 NGOs/CSOs 3 3 Swachhata Doot/Motivator 11 2 Contractor 3 0 Bharat Nirman Volunteers 1 0 School Teachers 1 1
These data only point to the efforts made by the GP (and other sources) in disseminating information on usage of toilets in their GPs, as reported by respondents that received the information. The actual usage of toilets reported by respondents will be discussed in other parts of the report.
Construction of Toilets
Across both CRCs and states, respondents reported two main ways of getting the toilets built: either the households built the toilet themselves (or with the help of a mason) or, a contractor built the toilet for them. In CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu however, a third response given by 18% of the households was that the Panchayat built the toilet for them. This was mostly in the southern districts of the state, and not as prevalent in Krishnagiri and Dharmapuri. Odisha did not have any reports of the GP building the toilets for the beneficiaries.
Although nearly a fifth reported the GP as the builder in Tamil Nadu, there is a possibility that the GP was the supervisory or middleman layer between the contractor and the beneficiary household, thus replacing the district coordinator or the BDO. Therefore, one line of inquiry was to examine whether beneficiary experience is any different for GP-built households vs households with contractor-built toilets. For example, are the completion rates any different? Are beneficiaries reporting higher satisfaction with the quality of the toilet and the overall experience of building a toilet in their household? Table 4 below
31 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
demonstrates the difference in satisfaction levels between respondents based on who built the toilet.
Table 6: Level of satisfaction with the quality of the toilet in Tamil Nadu
Self / Mason NGO / Quality of GP Total hired by Contractor the toilet self N % N % N % N % Satisfied 840 80% 463 50% 249 56% 1553 64% Dissatisfied 65 6% 216 23% 77 17% 358 15% Note: Table has been truncated for brevity: the respondents not depicted here were “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied”.
Table 7 : Overall Satisfaction with toilet construction vs. who built the toilet in Tamil Nadu
Self / Mason NGO / Overall GP Total hired by Contractor satisfaction self N % N % N % N % Satisfied 863 83% 511 55% 272 62% 1647 68% Dissatisfied 46 4% 186 20% 60 14% 292 12% Note: Table has been truncated for brevity: the respondents not depicted here were “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied”.
The difference in levels of satisfaction (whether satisfied or not) between the three categories of respondents in Tables 4 and 5 based on who built their toilet are statistically significant at the p<0.05 level (chi square test). With the GP as the intermediary / supervisory level between the contractor and the beneficiary, satisfaction levels are a little higher than respondents with contractor-built toilets, but not remarkably so. On the other hand, respondents in the self-built category report substantially higher levels of satisfaction on both quality and overall satisfaction with the toilet construction process.
Table 8: Reasons for dissatisfaction with the overall toilet construction process under SBM (G)
Self/Mason hired Reasons for Dissatisfaction (main NGO/Contractor Panchayat by self answers) Frequenc Frequenc Frequency % % % y y Poor material/construction 11 21 91 44 31 46 Corruption 8 15 11 5 1 1 Don't like the scheme 12 23 13 6 1 1
32 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Self/Mason hired Reasons for Dissatisfaction (main NGO/Contractor Panchayat by self answers) Frequenc Frequenc Frequency % % % y y Incentive not sufficient 5 10 12 6 8 12 Incentive amount not received 1 2 25 12 18 27 Forced to build toilet 4 8 0 0 0 0 Lack of space in toilet 1 2 31 15 2 3 Total respondents (multiple 52 208 67 answer)
When probed for reasons for their dissatisfaction, households where Panchayats built the toilet had similar concerns with reports of poor materials and construction as households with contractor-built toilets. However, fewer households with Panchayat built toilets reported corruption as a concern (1%) compared to households with self-built toilets (15%) and contractor-built (5%). Numbers reporting dissatisfaction (and specific reasons) are small and therefore should be interpreted with caution.
Completion of Toilets
Figure 9: Status of the Toilet based on who built it
Complete and usable condition toilets were the same for contractor and GP built toilets; and, complete and unusable toilets were nearly similar (7% and 9% respectively). This leads us to believe that the “GP built” toilets reported by respondents are also contractor-built and there is no marked difference in the quality or satisfaction levels.
Respondents who did not receive the incentive amount, and who had toilets built by the GP (n=57) reported that “the contractor gets the amount” thus validating our premise that the contractor built the toilets for this sub group, and that the GP was only an intermediary between the two parties.
33 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Grievance Redress
For the various problems that the respondents faced during the construction process (either with the application forms, receiving the incentive, or the construction itself), only a few reported the problem:
Table 9: Respondents that reported a problem during the construction process
Table 10: Who did they report the problem to? (Multiple Answer)
In both the states, GP members, President and the Secretary make up the top three go-to entities for reporting problems with the construction process. The Ns are very small in Tamil Nadu (for those having reported a problem), and should therefore be read with caution.
Overall Satisfaction Indicators – Mixed Results
Table 11: Satisfaction Indicators on GP involvement
Tamil Nadu Odisha Satisfie Dissatisfie Satisfie Dissatisfie Satisfaction Indicator d d d d Information provided on construction / incentive 69% 10% 62% 21%
34 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Tamil Nadu Odisha Satisfie Dissatisfie Satisfie Dissatisfie Satisfaction Indicator d d d d Behaviour of GP officials 69% 11% 79% 11% Helpfulness of GP officials 66% 12% 72% 16% Overall satisfaction 68% 12% 57% 28%
Although overall satisfaction with the toilet building process is lower in Odisha by 11 percentage points over Tamil Nadu, the respondents reported higher satisfaction with behavior of the GP officials and their helpfulness. However, they are also more dissatisfied with the information provided on the construction under SBM and the incentive. In Tamil Nadu, the satisfaction levels across all the indicators listed are near equal.
Summary
Gram Panchayats continue to be the main source of information on toilet construction and the SBM scheme for the villagers residing in the GPs. This holds true for CRC-1 as well as CRC-2. GPs focus more on disseminating information on the construction and incentive, rather than on usage. Levels of awareness of the SBM incentive are substantially higher in Odisha in CRC-2 (88%) compared to CRC-1 (17%). Ward members (71%) seem to have taken up the responsibility of spreading information on SBM. Other than disseminating information, if GPs have contributed to building toilets (in Tamil Nadu), it is only as an intermediary between the contractor and the beneficiary. Significantly, the GP (whether members, president or secretary) are the main go-to entities for reporting problems and seeking grievance redress. Satisfaction with GP officials’ behavior and helpfulness is higher in Odisha, despite overall satisfaction with the SBM being lower than in Tamil Nadu.
35 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Theme 3: Is Lack of Water an Impediment to Improving Toilet Usage?
Background
Lack of water is often cited as a reason for non use of toilets. However, in CRC-1, we found that the mean water usage for households in the overall sample, and the mean usage for the sub-sample that cited lack of water as a reason for non use, were both quite similar. The key driver seemed to be the water source – those who fetched water from outside were more likely to prioritize water use, compared to those who had water piped into their dwelling or yard. Although volume of water use was similar, the time and effort required to fetch water from outside meant that households tended to see water for toilet flushing as a low priority (especially when Open Defecation practices were considered an acceptable alternative).
CRC-2 examines whether lack of water continues to be cited as a reason for non use. This is especially important because the SBM (G) guidelines call for an additional incentive amount of INR 2000 (in addition to the original NBA incentive of INR 10,000) to provide for water storage near the toilet.
5.4.3 The Incentive amount provided under SBM(G) to Below Poverty Line (BPL) /identified APLs households shall be up to Rs.12,000 for construction of one unit of IHHL and provide for water availability, including for storing for hand-washing and cleaning of the toilet. [emphasis added].
It is unclear what the guidelines envisage as ‘water availability’ provision under the SBM (G). This provision may still not mitigate the time and effort required to fetch water for those with a water source away from their dwelling. It is important therefore to determine whether it is lack of water that is an impediment to toilet use or, whether it is the source of water supply that continues to be a barrier. If the act of fetching and the time required is an added burden, the only possible solution would be to provide piped water supply!
This theme examines the above indicators related to water supply and storage to assess the association between supply and availability of water and, toilet usage in the two states. Situation in the sample households will also give a glimpse into whether the added provision of water availability is being paid attention to during the construction of the toilet – do beneficiaries report the storage of water either inside or immediately outside the toilet?
36 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Water availability and usage for domestic needs
In order to assess whether water is an impediment to toilet usage (as reported by a section of the sample in both states), we:
Compute the average number of buckets/pots of water that a household uses per day. Analyze whether the sample average for total water used differs from the average for those reporting lack of water as a reason for not using the toilet Examine whether the source of water – whether piped in or fetched from outside – is a determinant of toilet usage (as detected in CRC-1).
Toilet Usage
The CRCs as well as other studies on the NBA and SBM have now established that merely building the toilets is not sufficient. If the beneficiaries of the scheme fail to use the toilet for any of the myriad reasons offered by them, achieving ODF status will remain an unfulfilled goal. The table below demonstrates the usage patterns across the two CRCs. It compares: (A) usage across the entire sample for the two CRCs, and (B) usage only for beneficiaries in the sample who reported a complete and usable toilet.
Table 12: Toilet Usage by State and Completion Status
Tamil Nadu Odisha
A. Entire Sample: CRC 1 CRC 2 CRC 1 CRC 2
Yes, all members use all the time 83% 87% 48% 66%
Nobody uses the toilet 15% 9% 47% 22%
Total N (Entire Sample) 2669 2415 2680 2660
B. ONLY those who had a complete and usable toilet:
Yes, all members use all the time 95% 93% 88% 78%
Nobody uses the toilet 4% 3% 6% 8%
Total N (Those who had a complete and 2218 2225 1392 2198 usable toilet)
The table above shows mixed results in terms of toilet usage. In (A), the data gives the impression that toilet usage has increased in CRC-2 when compared to CRC-1. While the increase in Tamil Nadu is modest, Odisha shows nearly 20 percentage points increase in the
37 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
number of beneficiaries reporting that all the members in their family use the toilet all the time. Similarly, reports that “nobody uses the toilet” have also gone down in both the states.
However, (B) in the table gives contrary results: toilet usage has in fact decreased in CRC-2 when compared to CRC-1. This is true if only the sub-sample – of those who had a complete and usable toilet – is considered. Since the absolute numbers of those who have a completed toilet have increased in both the states, (A) gives the impression that usage too has increased. However, if we consider only those who report a complete and usable toilet under the NBA/SBM scheme, then toilet usage has actually decreased. In Odisha especially, the decrease is by 10 percentage points. Reports that “nobody uses the toilet” have increased modestly from 6% to 8%. These statistics for Odisha are surely worrying, since the beneficiaries are not using the toilet despite it being complete and in a usable condition. Or, fewer household members are using the toilet all the time.
In CRC-1, one of the themes we had explored was whether water shortage was a reason for beneficiaries not using the toilets. Here too, we continue with the theme, to examine any differences under the SBM which in fact has a provision for water storage in or near the toilet.
Number of beneficiaries citing lack of water has reduced substantially in Odisha, and has stayed the same in Tamil Nadu across the two CRCs.
Figure 10: Beneficiaries citing lack of water as reason for non use of toilet
Domestic Water Usage
38 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Similar to the methodology in CRC-1, we first created a composite water usage indicator that adds up the volume of water reported by the beneficiaries for each type of use. Beneficiaries reported number of pots/buckets used daily for:
Washing clothes Washing vessels Drinking Toilet use Open Defecation use Bathing Cooking Washing and feeding cattle Watering the kitchen garden
Using the composite variable, the tables below compare water usage in both the states, for the entire sample, and then for those who cited lack of water as a reason for not using the toilet.
Table 13: Total Water Usage per Day by District – Odisha [CRC2]
Total Water Usage Per Day (Pots/Buckets)* Sub-Sample B: Those who said lack of water is reason N of Sub- Whole Sample for non-use of toilet / Sample B as toilet not in usable % of Total condition District Mean Median N Mean Median N Angul 17 15 438 17 13 23 5% Balasore 22 20 437 17 14 21 5% Cuttack 36 31 481 33 31 12 2% Dhenkanal 24 19 424 26 26 45 11% Ganjam 22 20 431 18 15 37 9% Sambalpur 13 12 449 11 8 51 11% Total 23 18 2660 19 15 189 7%
In Odisha, the sub sample that cited water as a reason used four pots fewer per day on an average. The difference in the mean number of pots/buckets of water used per day between the two groups (whole sample vs. those who cited lack of water as a reason for non use) is statistically significant (t test for equality of means: Independent samples).
Cuttack has the least number of respondents citing water as a reason for non use, as well as the highest number of pots/buckets reported per day (same as in CRC-1 where only 5% of
39 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Cuttack respondents mentioned water as a reason, compared to a high of 61% in Sambalpur).
Table 14: Total Water Usage per Day by District – Tamil Nadu [CRC-2]
Total Water Usage Per Day (Pots/Buckets)* Sub-Sample B: Those who N of Sub- said lack of water is Sample B Whole Sample reason for non-use of as % of toilet / toilet not in usable Total condition DISTRICT Mean Median N Mean Median N Dharmapuri 22 20 483 19 16 6 1% Kanyakumari 28 28 61 - - - - Krishnagiri 29 26 480 35 34 13 3% Perambalur 19 18 459 24 23 15 3% Tirunelveli 24 23 463 35 33 7 2% Tiruchirappalli 26 25 469 26 25 31 7% Total 24 23 2415 27 25 72 3%
Similar to the picture in CRC-1, the sub sample that cite lack of water in Tamil Nadu in fact reported higher number of pots/buckets of water used daily compared to the whole sample. However, the numbers are small (n=72 for the sub sample). Nevertheless, the difference between the two groups (whole sample vs. those who cited lack of water as a reason for non use) is statistically significant (t test for equality of means: Independent samples).
Comparing water usage across the two states, we note that water usage per day is almost similar for the whole sample (23 pots/buckets in Odisha and 24 pots/buckets in Tamil Nadu). However, for those who cite water as a reason for non use, Tamil Nadu had substantially higher number of buckets/pots reported (27) compared to Odisha (19). This seems counter intuitive – that those using more water are citing lack of water as the reason for not using the toilet. However, since the numbers are small for Tamil Nadu (of those citing water as a reason), some caution is required for drawing definitive conclusions from this data.
In summary, although water could be a reason for non use of toilets, the water usage patterns do not point to the volume of water used as an indicator of toilet use/non use. While Odisha shows a statistically significant difference in means between the two groups, the mean itself is different by 4 pots/buckets per day.
The table below depicts water usage specifically for sanitation purposes. As explained in CRC-1, water use for sanitation (bathing, toilet use) was lower in Odisha mainly due to the respondents using surface water (ponds, rivers, open wells) and reporting zero volume for such purposes.
40 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Table 15: Use of Water for Sanitation
Number of Buckets/Pots per day (CRC2) (CRC1) Purpose Odisha Tamil Nadu Odisha Tamil Nadu Mean Median Mean Median Mean Mean Toilet Flushing 4.25 4.00 3.56 3.00 2.61 4.65 Open Defecation .66 .00 .55 .00 0.93 2 Bathing 4.57 2.00 5.46 5.00 3.55 7.42
Reported use of water for sanitation by respondents in CRC2 is lower in Tamil Nadu compared to CRC1. Water for bathing is down by nearly two buckets/pots per day, and for toilet flushing is down by more than one bucket/pot. In contrast, water usage reported in Odisha is higher in CRC2 than in CRC1, especially for toilet flushing and bathing. Compared to CRC1, substantially higher percent of respondents in Odisha have reported completed toilets and usage; this could be one of the reasons for seeing higher mean water usage for sanitation. Yet, 7% have cited lack of water as a reason for not using the toilet. Admittedly, this is a much improved position compared to the 23% that cited lack of water in CRC1.
Water Source
Figure 11: Whether water piped into dwelling or yard
Whole Sample Those who cited water 98% 100% as reason 89% 90% 80% 70% 58% 61% 60% 50% 42% 39% 40% 30% 20% 11% 10% 2% 0% Odisha Tamil Nadu Odisha (n=185) Tamil Nadu (N=2660) (N=2415) (n=72)
Piped Water Into Dwelling or Yard No Piped Water
There is marked difference in the availability of piped water: while more than half the sample in Tamil Nadu reported piped water (either into the dwelling or the yard), only 11% in Odisha report having such access. Among those who cited water as a reason for non use
41 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
of the toilet in Odisha, even fewer (only 2%) had piped water. This pattern was not seen in Tamil Nadu – 61% of the respondents in the sub sample report piped water access.
Noting the lowered water usage in Tamil Nadu, and the piped water access for the sub sample, one possibility is that there was limited water supply over summer in 2016 (just before the survey took place in September-October). Despite having piped water facility, respondent households may have experienced stoppages or disruptions in water supply, leading them to cite lack of water as a reason for not using the toilet.
Fetching Water
With a considerable number of respondents having to fetch water, it is possible (as reported in CRC1) that the time and effort taken to fetch water is the deterrent in the use of the toilet; we had surmised that households that fetch water maybe using the same amount of water as those with access to piped water; but, maybe prioritizing the use of water (with toilet use being low priority). Given below is the table summarizing the mean number of trips made per day to fetch water and the mean number of minutes spent per trip.
Table 16: Number of Trips and Time Taken to Fetch Water
CRC2 Odisha Tamil Nadu Whole Sub Whole Sub Number of Trips Sample Sample* Sample Sample* Normal Time 8 7 8 6 Scarcity Time 8 6 7 8 Time spent per trip (Minutes) Normal Time 7 9 12 20 Scarcity Time 14 18 25 30 Ns for each group: Normal Time 1533 102 908 26 Scarcity Time 1255 75 558 22 *Those who cited lack of water as reason for not using the toilet
For Odisha, the difference in number of trips or the time taken per trip does not seem to be much; however, for both indicators the difference is statistically significant (t test for equality of means: Independent samples). Although the sub sample reporting water shortage had fewer trips, they spent marginally more time per trip to fetch water. For Tamil Nadu, the sub-sample is too small, and therefore the statistical t test was not performed.
Finally, it is noteworthy that compared to CRC1, the Odisha (total) sample of respondents has reported the same number of trips in both the CRCs (8), whereas in Tamil Nadu (total sample), the number of trips has fallen from 11 to 8. For respondents with piped water, and
42 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
for those who fetched water, there seems to be reduced access to water in the summer of 2016.
Storage of Water
The SBM guidelines recognize that providing water storage facility inside or near the toilet is important to nudge higher use of toilets than previously seen. Towards this, the IHHL incentive was increased from the original Rs 10,000 to Rs 12,000.
The CRC2 survey had an observation component where the enumerator was required to observe and note the status of the toilet and the facilities in and around the toilet (such as ceiling, walls, door, light, ventilator, water tap, water storage, path to the toilet, and whether the toilet showed signs that it was in use). This section presents two such indicators: whether there was a water storage tank or container outside and / or inside the toilet.
Figure 12: Water Storage in or near the toilet
100% 90% 80% 76% 68% 70% 57% 57% 60% 56% 50% 43% 45% 35% 40% 30% 32% 30% 21% 20% 15% 10% % With Piped No Piped Cited Water With Piped No Piped Cited Water Water Water as a reason Water Water as a reason (N=277) (N=2328) (n=189) (N=1409) (N=1005) (n=72) Odisha Tamil Nadu Water stored outside the toilet Water stored inside the toilet
Water storage either inside and/or near the toilet was observed in over half the respondents with piped water in Odisha and an even higher percentage in Tamil Nadu. In Tamil Nadu, households without piped water had storage facilities for water in or near the toilet – in fact the highest percent (78%) of households without piped water were observed to have water stored inside the toilet. Considering that water has to be fetched to replenish the water container inside the toilet, this is an impressive statistic.
43 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Predictably, observations of water stored near or in the toilet were the lowest in households that cited lack of water as a reason for not using the toilet. This was more prominently seen in Odisha than in Tamil Nadu. Obviously, not having a facility to store water close to the toilet would be a deterrent to the motivation and practicality to use the toilet.
Who built the toilet
A continuing theme between CRC1 and CRC2 that has determined quality as well as satisfaction with the NBA/SBM among beneficiaries has been the question of “who built the toilet”. Across multiple indicators, both CRCs have shown that toilets built by the households themselves (and / or with the help of a mason hired by them) have greater chances of completion, better quality, chances of usage and, greater satisfaction for the beneficiaries. This has been discussed in detail elsewhere in the report.
Within the context of water availability in or near the toilet, we examined whether self-built toilets (and/or with the help of a mason) were more likely to have water storage facilities compared to toilets built by contractors. The latter category is depicted as NGO/Contractor because in Odisha, many NGOs register as contractors (and vice versa) and build toilets for the beneficiaries.
Table 17: Water storage facilities observed in or near the toilet vs. who built the toilet
B. Who built the toilet A. Water storage in or Odisha Tamil Nadu near the toilet Self/Mason NGO/Contract Self / Mason NGO/Contract (N=997) or (N=1624) (N= 1045 ) or (N= 928) A1. Water stored outside 37% 28% 64% 55% the toilet A2. Water stored inside 64% 36% 83% 69% the toilet Associations between A. (both A1 and A2) and B. statistically significant for both the states at p<0.05.
Water storage facility inside the toilet was less likely if the toilet was built by a contractor. The magnitude of difference is higher in Odisha than in Tamil Nadu. The same association was true for storage outside the toilet, but to a modest degree. In both cases, the association between who built the toilet and whether there was a water storage facility (container, tank) was statistically significant at p<0.05.
44 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Conclusions
Although toilet usage numbers seem to have increased for both the states, a deeper look at only households with complete and usable toilets shows a decline in usage in CRC2 when compared to CRC1. While there may be a myriad of reasons for such decline, one of the reasons given by the respondents for non usage of toilets is the lack of water. This theme examined whether water usage is different between the two groups: group comprising the whole sample, and a sub sample with only those who cited water as a reason for non use. A positive finding in CRC2 is that fewer households in Odisha cited water as a reason for non use of toilets: 23% in CRC1 to 7% in CRC2. Tamil Nadu remained the same with 3% reporting this reason in both the two CRCs. In Odisha, mean water usage per day is higher for the whole sample (23 pots/buckets) than the sub-sample who cited lack of water (19 pots/buckets). The reverse is true in Tamil Nadu (24 vs. 27 pots/buckets respectively). However, the Ns are small in Tamil Nadu for the sub group (72). Use of water for sanitation purposes has shown an increase in Odisha, but a decline in Tamil Nadu when compared to CRC1. Different indicators point to the possibility of water shortage/disruptions to water supply in Tamil Nadu in the summer of 2016. Tamil Nadu reported higher instances of piped water (into the dwelling or yard) compared to Odisha. As reported in CRC1, CRC2 too showed signs that fetching water from outside for domestic use is likely to motivate the households to prioritize water use, so that the time and effort required to fetch water are maximized through judicious use of water. The mean number of trips and time taken to fetch water were not vastly different for the sub group when compared to the whole sample. This also leads to the conclusion listed immediately above. Since SBM focuses on providing water storage facility (either a small tank or a container) in or near the toilet, we examined whether the new toilets built under SBM have this facility. Tamil Nadu has done a better job of providing such a facility when compared to Odisha. Even in households without piped water (or maybe, especially in households without piped water), there was a higher prevalence of storage facilities for water in or near the toilet. Self-built toilets are more likely to have such storage than contractor built toilets. Going forward, SBM implementers must focus on ensuring that water storage in or near the toilet is provided. This will motivate the households to fill the storage and use the toilet. As the guidelines specify, providing such water storage will also ensure better hygiene practices such as cleaning of the toilet and hand washing. It is recommended that such storage facilities also provide a lid or cover so that water contamination and resultant water borne illnesses (due to mosquito breeding for example) can be avoided.
45 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Theme 4: Vulnerability of Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Groups – Do different groups experience SBM (G) differently?
Who is eligible?
The IHHL component under SBM (G) specifies eligibility criteria for beneficiaries under the scheme. Section 5.4.2 of the guidelines is clear that:
Incentive as provided under the Mission for the construction of Individual Household Latrines (IHHL) shall be available for all Below Poverty Line (BPL) Households and Above Poverty Line (APL) households restricted to SCs/STs, small and marginal farmers, landless labourers with homestead, physically handicapped and women headed households. [p.12] [emphasis added]
Further, in section 5.4.5:
APL families not covered by the above incentives will be motivated and triggered to take up construction of the household latrines on their own.
It may be recalled from CRC-1 that the NBA also had similar guidelines outlining primacy to BPL households and specific “Identified Above Poverty Line” (IAPL) households that met similar criteria as above (handicapped, women headed households, small farmers).
This theme briefly dwells on the beneficiary profiles, to discuss whether the targeted beneficiaries are from the vulnerable sections of the population as intended by the scheme; the theme then goes on to analyze the experience of beneficiaries from such vulnerable sections to determine whether their experience of the scheme is any different from the General social group and respondents belonging to higher socio-economic groups (as identified by the type of house and income).
Profile of Beneficiaries
Four key socio-economic indicators are the focus of this Theme. They are:
- Gender of Head of the Household - Social Group affiliation - Income - Type of house (as a proxy for socio-economic status)
46 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Gender of Head of Household
The SBM guidelines recognize that female heads of households are a particularly vulnerable socio-economic group traditionally and, allow for citizens in this group to benefit from the IHHL scheme regardless of their economic status (whether APL or BPL). The figure below compares the share of female headed households in the two CRC samples. It is noticeable that the percent of female headed households has improved across the CRCs in both the states. The census 2011 data on female headed households in the two states is given in Figure 1 for easy reference. We note that in both the states, the representation of such households in the IHHL scheme is inching closer to the state average of female headed households.
Figure 13: Gender of Head of Household
100% 90% 85% 90% 80% 82% Male 80% 70% Female 60% 50% 40% 26% 30% 20% 22% 15% 18% 20% 10% 10% 0% CRC-1 CRC-2 Female CRC-1 CRC-2 Female (N=2669) (N=2415) HoH* (N=2680) (N=2660) HoH* Tamil Nadu Odisha
*Statewide percent of Female Headed Households as per 2011 census
Ensuring inclusion of female headed households in the scheme on a priority basis is especially important because, as per the 2011 census, 80% of the female headed households in Odisha and 60% in Tamil Nadu do not have IHHLs10.
Social Group
Figure 2 gives the sample breakdown by social group affiliation in the two CRCs. No specific quota for social groups was accorded in the sample. Instead, random sampling methods were employed to select the beneficiaries from the list of respondents provided by the district officials. The spread of respondent households by social group is therefore considered a representative sample of the household characteristics of SBM (G) beneficiaries at the state level.
10 https://www.slideshare.net/ruralcampus/census-of-india Accessed on May 24, 2017 47 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
In Tamil Nadu, SC/ST households show marginally higher representation in the sample in CRC-2 when compared to CRC-1. Conversely, in Odisha, the number of SC households availing of the scheme has come down substantially; and, ST households are also down marginally. It follows then, that OBC and General Households are up (although only marginally for the latter).
Figure 14: Social Group affiliation of the respondents in the sample
Type of House
That the SC/ST share is higher in Tamil Nadu is also validated by the type of house of respondents observed – in CRC-2, substantially higher numbers of respondents lived in semi-pucca and kutcha houses when compared to CRC-1. Keeping rural socio-economic disparities in mind, SC/ST households are more likely to have non pucca dwellings.
Similarly in Odisha, the opposite scenario is visible in CRC-2: higher number of households (53% as opposed to 28% in CRC-1) has been observed living in pucca houses, in keeping with the predominance of OBC and General social groups compared to SC/ST.
Figure 15: Type of House of the respondents in the sample
48 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
An often-quoted constraint to accessing the benefits of the scheme is the lack of land for building the IHHL. This constraint may be the key bottleneck to covering all the targeted households in these vulnerable categories; therefore, the beneficiary profile maybe a reflection of this constraint, and not necessarily (or wholly) of poor or wrong targeting of the scheme.
Income
Income is often underreported in survey of households. As a result, it is not the most robust variable to examine in this analysis. However, income is used here in conjunction with a proxy variable (type of house presented in the figure below).
Figure 16: Income categories of the respondents in the sample
The distribution of respondents by income also bears out our earlier analysis – in Tamil Nadu, the very poor (Less than 12,000 per year) have increased from 4% to 14% in the sample. The middle categories show a slight decrease. Odisha clearly shows a marked increase in respondents reporting annual incomes of Rs 50,000 and above (nearly three-fold increase up to Rs 1 Lakh and ten-fold increase between Rs 1 Lakh and Rs 5 Lakhs).
Elite Capture in Odisha?
The profile of beneficiaries discussed in the previous sections seems to validate some of the anecdotal information from the field – the PAF team noticed during field visits in Odisha that the beneficiaries seem to be of a higher socio-economic status in many cases. Landed, affluent households (with cars, motorbikes, pucca multi-room and multi-storey houses) sought and received the SBM incentive amount to add an IHHL to their dwelling. Given below are examples of two such households that used the SBM (G) scheme for this purpose.
49 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
The examples below of two toilets built under IHHL show (a) the superior quality toilet built by the household, with tiles, water supply and, a flush tank; (b) the size of the building (multi-storeyed), new construction, with a motorcycle parked near the toilet.
Together with the profiles discussed above, there seems to be evidence of elite capture to a fair degree on economic indicators, and to a smaller degree on social group indicators.
50 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Experience of NBA and SBM (G) by Socio-Economic Groups
In light of the socio-economic disparities in both the states, and the inequitable access to targeted government schemes such as the SBM (G) incentive to build IHHLs (to a greater degree in Odisha than in Tamil Nadu, as evidenced in the previous section), it follows that the experience of beneficiaries will differ based on their socio-economic status. This section examines the data across the two CRCs to determine whether there is significant difference in how beneficiaries of vulnerable social and / or economic groups experience and benefit from the sanitation scheme under NBA and now SBM (G). CRC-1 had already reported on the NBA; however, the data are reproduced here to facilitate easy comparison with CRC-2 findings.
Figures 17 and 18 provide a summary of comparisons by Social Group as an example. To simplify the example, Social Group has been reduced to a dichotomous variable and, various indicators of beneficiary experience are presented for the two CRCs. Figure below shows, for instance, that any gains made by the General social group across CRCs is also experienced by the SC sub group, except on the indicator of who built the toilet. Fewer SC households built the toilet themselves (and/or with the help of a mason) compared to CRC- 1. We know from elsewhere in the report that who built the toilet is an important variable in determining longevity, usability, quality and satisfaction with the toilet built.
Figure 17: Comparison of Experiences by Social Group* - Odisha
51 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
*reduced to dichotomous variable for illustration purposes. Full tables are given below.
Figure 18: Comparison of Experiences by Social Group* – Tamil Nadu
*reduced to dichotomous variable for illustration purposes. Full tables are given below.
Tamil Nadu’s findings (Figure 18) on the indicators are remarkably different from Odisha: on most indicators, the SC sub group shows much better experience reported by the beneficiaries: higher numbers are aware of the incentive, have complete and usable toilets and a marginally higher number are overall satisfied with the scheme. For both the SC and General categories however, fewer respondents report building the toilet themselves (or with the help of a Mason) than in CRC-1, indicating that a higher number of IHHLs were built by Contractors in CRC-2 when compared to CRC-1. This could also be the reason for lower satisfaction levels among both the sub groups.
A series of tables in the next section present data on the same indicators for all sub groups by: Gender of head of household, Sub Group, Type of house and, Income.
In each of the tables, associations / differences in experience found to be statistically significant are indicated in the footnotes.
52 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Table 18: Awareness of the SBM Incentive - Odisha
Percent Aware of incentive under TSC/NBA (for CRC-1) and SBM (for CRC-2) ODISHA CRC-1 (N=2680) CRC-2 (n=2660) % n % n
Gender of Head of Household Male 17% 419 89% 1947 Female 14% 39 85% 397 Total 17% 458 88% 2344 Social Group* SC 17% 136 87% 439 ST 11% 53 82% 329 OBC/SEBC 15% 143 89% 1097
General 26% 126 93% 462 Total 17% 458 88% 2344 Annual Income of the Household* Less than Rs.12000 10% 15 83% 104 Rs.12001 to Rs.20000 22% 93 78% 271 Rs.20001 to Rs.50000 16% 284 88% 987 Rs.50001 to Rs.1 Lakh 21% 64 92% 720 Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs.5 11% 2 97% 247 Lakhs Above Rs 5 Lakhs 100% 3
Total 17% 458 88% 2344*** Type of House* Kutcha 10% 104 78% 425
Semi-Pucca 16% 146 88% 624 Pucca 28% 208 92% 1295 Total 17% 458 88% 2344 *Difference in awareness statistically significant at p<.05 (Pearson’s Chi-Square) *** “Refused to say” and “Don’t know” not included in this table, so rows will not add up to the total presented in this row
53 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Table 19: Awareness of the SBM Incentive – Tamil Nadu
Percent Aware of incentive under TSC/NBA (for CRC-1) and SBM (for CRC-2) Tamil Nadu CRC-1 (N=2669) CRC-2 (n=2415) % n % n Gender of Head of Household Male 85% 1945 91% 1765 Female 82% 318 91% 437 Total 85% 2263 91% 2202 Social Group* SC 77% 331 89% 447
ST 92% 23 80% 102
OBC/SEBC 88% 1789 95% 1554
General 70% 120 73% 77
Total 85% 2263 91% 2202***
Annual Income of the Household*
Less than Rs.12000 88% 87 94% 311 Rs.12001 to Rs.20000 82% 490 95% 536 Rs.20001 to Rs.50000 83% 1080 87% 725 Rs.50001 to Rs.1 Lakh 92% 539 89% 345 Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs.5 92% 67 96% 276 Lakhs Total 85% 2263 91% 2202*** Type of House Kutcha 84% 78 87% 147 Semi-Pucca 83% 275 89% 1047 Pucca 85% 1910 95% 1008 Total 85% 2263 91% 2202
* Difference in awareness statistically significant at p<.05 (Pearson’s Chi-Square) *** “Refused to say” and “Don’t know” not included in this table, so rows will not add up to the total presented in this row
54 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Table 20: Condition of NBA Toilet by Socio-Economic Groups - Odisha
ODISHA Toilet Complete and in Usable Condition CRC-1 (N=2680) CRC-2 (N=2660) % n % n Gender of Head of Household Male 52% 1258 83% 1823 Female 50% 134 81% 375 Total 52% 1392 83% 2198 Social Group* SC 49% 385 77% 389 ST 36% 170 78% 315 OBC/SEBC 57% 532 86% 1052 General 62% 305 84% 418 Total 52% 1392 83% 2198*** Annual Income of the Household& Less than Rs.12000 44% 68 79% 100 Rs.12001 to Rs.20000 39% 164 84% 292 Rs.20001 to Rs.50000 53% 949 80% 903 Rs.50001 to Rs.1 Lakh 64% 201 84% 660 Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs.5 Lakhs 56% 10 88% 226 Above Rs 5 Lakhs 100% 3 Total 52% 1392 88% 2198*** Type of House* Kutcha 38% 386 80% 438 semi-Pucca 55% 498 80% 567 Pucca 67% 508 85% 1193 Total 52% 1392 83% 2198 * Difference in condition of toilet statistically significant at p<.05 (Pearson's Chi- Square) & Difference in condition of toilet by annual income statistically significant at p<0.05 only for CRC-1 and not for CRC-2 *** “Refused to say” and “Don’t know” not included in this table, so rows will not add up to the total presented
55 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Table 21: Condition of NBA Toilet by Socio-Economic Groups – Tamil Nadu
Toilet Complete and in Usable Condition TAMIL NADU CRC-1 (N=2669) CRC-2 (N=2415) % n % n Gender of Head of Household Male 84% 1907 92% 1781 Female 80% 311 92% 444 Total 83% 2218 92% 2225 Social Group* SC 63% 269 90% 455 ST 76% 19 88% 112 OBC/SEBC 87% 1778 94% 1539 General 88% 152 85% 90 Total 83% 2218 92% 2225*** Annual Income of the Household* Less than Rs.12000 94% 93 91% 300 Rs.12001 to Rs.20000 86% 518 94% 529 Rs.20001 to Rs.50000 78% 1025 91% 756 Rs.50001 to Rs.1 Lakh 87% 514 92% 357 Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs.5 Lakh 93% 68 95% 275 Total 83% 2218 92% 2225*** Type of House Kutcha 77% 72 92% 156 semi-Pucca 85% 284 92% 1091 Pucca 83% 1862 92% 978 Total 83% 2218 92% 2225 * Difference in condition of toilet statistically significant at p<.05 (Pearson's Chi- Square) *** “Refused to say” and “Don’t know” not included in this table, so rows will not add up to the total presented
56 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Table 22: Who Built the Toilet by Socio-Economic Groups - Odisha
Respondents Who Built the Toilet Themselves/With the Help of a Mason ODISHA CRC-1 (N=2680) CRC-2 (N=2660) % n % n Gender of Head of Household Male 34% 807 37% 813 Female 33% 88 40% 184 Total 34% 895 38% 997 Social Group* SC 31% 238 21% 108 ST 13% 62 8% 31 OBC/SEBC 38% 349 47% 578 General 50% 246 56% 276 Total 34% 895 38% 997*** Annual Income of the Household* Less than Rs.12000 24% 37 34% 43 Rs.12001 to Rs.20000 25% 101 28% 98 Rs.20001 to Rs.50000 37% 654 32% 365 Rs.50001 to Rs.1 Lakh 32% 99 44% 346 Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs.5 Lakhs 22% 4 53% 136 Above Rs. 5 Lakhs 100% 3 Total 34% 895 38% 997*** Type of House* Kutcha 19% 191 12% 67 semi-Pucca 35% 313 23% 161 Pucca 52% 391 55% 769 Total 34% 895 38% 997 * Difference in condition of toilet statistically significant at p<.05 (Pearson's Chi- Square) *** “Refused to say” and “Don’t know” not included in this table, so rows will not add up to the total presented
57 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Table 23: Who Built the Toilet by Socio-Economic Groups – Tamil Nadu
Respondents Who Built the Toilet Themselves/With the Help of a Mason Tamil Nadu CRC-1 (N=2669) CRC-2 (N=2415) % n % n Gender of Head of Household* Male 80% 1813 45% 874 Female 79% 306 36% 171 Total 80% 2119 43% 1045 Social Group* SC 68% 290 30% 149 ST 100% 25 11% 14 OBC/SEBC 84% 1694 51% 834 General 65% 110 40% 42 Total 80% 2119 43% 1045*** Annual Income of the Household* Less than Rs.12000 89% 88 31% 101 Rs.12001 to Rs.20000 83% 493 31% 174 Rs.20001 to Rs.50000 77% 998 37% 307 Rs.50001 to Rs.1 Lakh 82% 478 58% 224 Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs.5 86% 62 82% 236 Lakhs Total 80% 2119 43% 1045*** Type of House* Kutcha 63% 57 21% 35 semi-Pucca 66% 218 39% 458 Pucca 83% 1844 52% 552 Total 80% 2119 43% 1045 * Difference in condition of toilet statistically significant at p<.05 (Pearson's Chi- Square) *** “Refused to say” and “Don’t know” not included in this table, so rows will not add up to the total presented in this row
58 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Table 24: Percent Overall Satisfied with the Toilet Construction under NBA - Odisha
Percent Overall Satisfied with the NBA Toilet Construction Odisha CRC - 1 (N=2680) CRC-2 (n=2660) % n % n Gender of Head of Household Male 39% 939 57% 1259 Female 40% 108 55% 256 Total 39% 1047 57% 1515 Social Group* SC 38% 299 49% 247 ST 25% 117 54% 218 OBC/SEBC 42% 392 61% 744 General 48% 239 58% 287 Total 39% 1047 57% 1515*** Annual Income of the Household* Less than Rs.12000 46% 72 51% 64 Rs.12001 to Rs.20000 27% 114 57% 197 Rs.20001 to Rs.50000 39% 697 59% 658 Rs.50001 to Rs.1 Lakh 50% 155 58% 455 Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs.5 Lakhs 50% 9 50% 129 Above 5 Lakhs 67% 2 Total 39% 1047 57% 1515*** Type of House* Kutcha 25% 251 54% 295 semi-Pucca 41% 369 52% 372 Pucca 56% 427 61% 848 Total 39% 1047 57% 1515 * Difference in condition of toilet statistically significant at p<.05 (Pearson's Chi- Square) *** “Refused to say” and “Don’t know” not included in this table, so rows will not add up to the total presented in this row
59 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Table 25: Percent Overall Satisfied with the Toilet Construction under NBA – Tamil Nadu
Percent Overall Satisfied with the NBA Toilet Construction CRC 1 Tamil Nadu (N=2669) CRC 2 (N=2415) % n % n Gender of Head of Household Male 98% 1936 68% 1323 Female 99% 342 67% 324 Total 98% 2278 68% 1647 Social Group SC 98% 326 67% 340 ST 100% 23 70% 89 OBC/SEBC 98% 1788 69% 1133 General 97% 141 64% 68 Total 98% 2278 68% 1647*** Annual Income of the Household Less than Rs.12000 99% 90 71% 233 Rs.12001 to Rs.20000 99% 532 58% 324 Rs.20001 to Rs.50000 98% 1101 65% 541 Rs.50001 to Rs.1 Lakh 97% 492 75% 290 Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs.5 Lakh 98% 63 88% 254 Total 98% 2278 68% 1647*** Type of House Kutcha 100% 73 76% 128 semi-Pucca 99% 249 67% 790 Pucca 98% 1956 69% 729 Total 98% 2278 68% 1647 * Difference in condition of toilet statistically significant at p<.05 (Pearson's Chi- Square) *** “Refused to say” and “Don’t know” not included in this table, so rows will not add up to the total presented
60 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Summary
Although both the NBA and SBM (G) IHHL schemes specifically target the poor, vulnerable and marginalized sections of the population, findings from both CRCs show mixed results on the success of such targeting: o OBC category in Tamil Nadu is more successful in seeking and utilizing the benefits of the scheme; o Whereas, in Odisha, the SC/ST categories are also reasonably represented in CRC-1 (nearly 50%), significantly, however, CRC-2 shows poorer targeting and greater capture of the scheme by the OBC category. o Female headed households are better represented in CRC-2 when compared to CRC-1 for both states. o Based on type of house, income, social group (to some extent) and observations from the field, some signs of elite capture of the benefits of the scheme in CRC-2 are seen in Odisha; not as evident in Tamil Nadu. There is greater awareness of the scheme in both states, but more pronounced in Odisha, witnessed across all sub groups. Statistically significant differences are found in the opportunity / ability of sub groups to build the toilet on their own (or with the help of a mason). In both states, OBCs and the General category are more likely to build the toilet on their own (or with the help of a mason). As mentioned elsewhere, this is an important indicator because the quality and usability of the toilet, as well as respondent satisfaction with the toilet is highly dependent on who builds the toilet.
Experiences of beneficiaries on the indicators examined are not statistically different when assessed by the Gender of the Head of the Household [except on one indicator in Tamil Nadu where female headed households are less likely to build the toilet on their own (or with the help of a mason)].
SBM (G) implementing units can pay added attention to the issue of targeting – to ensure that the poor, marginalized and vulnerable are targeted for the benefits first before moving to other higher socio-economic groups. It is acknowledged however, that lack of land or suitable space (a prerequisite for building an IHHL under the scheme) may be the hindering factor for the marginalized to benefit from the scheme.
61 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF | June 2017
Section 4a: Salient Findings from Household Survey of SBM (G) Beneficiaries in Tamil Nadu
Highlights
Gram Panchayat emerges as the epicenter for all processes related to toilet construction Number of complete and usable toilets is over 90% in all six districts Toilet usage among all members of the households is 93%; 3% respondents report open defecation
Areas of Improvement
Only 42% respondents reported that they had seen information on toilet usage in their village 48% respondents said that they were not provided any information on managing the pit Respondents expressed dissatisfaction with amount of subsidy provided, space availability inside the toilet, and material used for toilet construction
The following sections analyze the experience of 2415 randomly sampled beneficiaries of Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) [SBM(G)] across six districts in Tamil Nadu – Dharmapuri, Kanyakumari, Krishnagiri, Perambalur, Tiruchirappalli, Tirunelveli - using Citizen Report Cards (CRCs). The various aspects covered include the socio-economic profile of beneficiaries, information received on SBM (G), experience of applying for a toilet, the construction process, incentive received, toilet usage, problems faced, grievance redressal, corruption, household (HH) attitude towards sanitation, and level of satisfaction with the programme.
62 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Map 3: Districts under Study in Tamil Nadu and Sampled HHs
According to the SBM (G) website, toilet coverage in Tamil Nadu stands at 66% with 16,06,457 toilets built so far11; this puts the state in the league of better performing states in India.
Table 26: Sample Size District and by Block
Total District Block HHs Harur 143 Dharmapuri Morappur 183 (483) Pappireddipatty 157 Kanyakumari Thiruvattar 46 (61) Rajakkamangalam 15 Kaveripattinam 190 Krishnagiri Shoolagiri 97 (480) Veppanapalli 193 Perambalur Alathur 257 (459) Perambalur 122
11 http://sbm.gov.in/sbmdashboard/IHHL.aspx accessed on 6th January 2017 63 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Total District Block HHs Veppanthattai 80 Tiruchirappalli Maruganpuri 206 (469) Andanallur 163 Manapparai 100 Alangulam 173 Tirunelveli Keelapavoor 150 (463) Meelaneelithanalur 140 Tamil Nadu 2415
1. Socio Economic Profile of Households
Household Composition/Age/Gender/Head of the Household (HoH)
On an average, a household consists of three members. 2% (N=57) respondents report that they have a differently abled family member; among these, 39% (N=20) state that this member is the head of the household (HoH).
Figure 19: Enumerator conducting an interview with a respondent
Respondents were asked if they are the HoH or if it was someone else. 59% (n=1428) said they are HoH; 41% (n=987) report it to be another family member. In terms of age wise distribution of HoH, less than half of the respondents are in the age group of 36-49 years (refer figure below). 80% of the HoHs are men and 20% are women.
64 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Figure 20: Age wise distribution of Head of the household
0%
18% 18% 18-35 years 36-49 years 23% 50-59 years 41% 60-79 years 80-99 years
Religion/Caste
96% respondents are Hindus, 1% Muslims, and 3% are Christians. Most respondents (99%, N=2381) are aware of their caste.
Figure 21: Distribution of Respondents by Caste Category
1% 1%
4% 21% SC ST
5% OBC/SEBC General Don't know
68% Refused to say
Social Group
69% respondents stated that they are not part of any social group; 27% reported to be a part of their village Self Help Group (SHG); and 6% said that they are part of their Village Poverty Reduction Committee (VPRC) or locally known as Pudhu Vaazhu Thittam.
65 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Education of HoH 42% (N=1018) heads of households said that they are illiterate.
Figure 22: Education level of HoH
Illiterate 42%
Literate (without formal schooling) 2%
Primary School (1rd std - 5th std) 16%
Middle School (6th std - 8th std) 18%
High School (9th std - 10th std) 13%
Senior Secondary School/Intermediate /Pre 5% university (11th std - 12th std)
Diploma/Certificate 1%
Graduate 2%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
When it came to educational levels of other members of the households it was found that adults (both male and female) fared poorly. As for household members who were less than 18 years of age respondents stated to have at least one or two members who attend school/college.
Main Occupation of HoH
There is wide variation in terms of occupation of the head of the household with most respondents being agricultural laborers (32%) or general laborers (25%). Dharmapuri (39%) and Tiruchirappalli (48%) reported more number of agricultural laborers. Dharmapuri also had more (34%) people engaged in general labour.
66 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Type of House and Ownership
The number of people reporting that they live in a Kutcha house is lower when compared to semi-pucca and pucca houses (refer figure below). Almost all respondents (99%) owned their house.
Figure 23: Type of House
Ration Card
98% (N=2377) of respondents possess ration cards. 81% are BPL card holders , 16% APL cardholders, 3% have Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) and less than one percent have Anna Poorna Cards.
67 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Figure 24: Ration Card (N=2377)
3%
16% APL
BPL
81% Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY)
Annual Income and Expenditure Figure below shows the various income levels of the respondents. 35% HHs reported an annual income between Rs.20,001 and Rs.50,000. On an average monthly expenditure per household is Rs.4,645 with Krishnagiri (Rs.5,647) and Tiruchirappalli (Rs.4,942) reporting higher expenditure levels.
Figure 25: Annual Income of Households (N=2415)
Bank/Post Office Savings Account
82% respondents reported having a bank account. People reported saving money, withdrawing money, and receiving money under NREGA, and receiving government scheme
68 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
benefits to be the main uses for their bank account. Only 5% of the respondents have a post office account which they mainly used for keep their savings and withdraw money.
Ownership of Land/Household Assets/Livestock
Possession of land, household assets and livestock are means of analyzing their socio- economic status. 30% (n=724) respondents own agricultural land, and 70% (n=1691) do not. Possession of land is highest in Tiruchirappalli (48%, n=225) and lowest in Tirunelveli (12%, n=55).
Figure 26: Agricultural Land owned by Respondents
1% 1% N=724
12% 39% Less than 1 Acre 1-2 Acres 2.1-5 Acres 47% 5.1-10 Acres More than 10 Acres
Over 90% respondents have electricity, television and mobile phones (Figure below).
Figure 27: Household Assets
69 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Cows/bulls/buffaloes and goats are the kind of livestock generally owned by HHs (refer Figure below).
Figure 28: Livestock present with households
Type of fuel used for cooking:
In four out of six districts, the primary fuel used by households for cooking is LPG/Natural Gas (70%, N=1684). However, 70% respondents (n=43) in Kanyakumari and more than half (54%, n=253) in Tiruchirappalli reported wood as the primary fuel.
Figure 29: Primary fuel used for cooking
100
80 70%
60
40 25% 20 2% 2% 0 LPG/Natural gas Wood Charcoal Kerosene
70 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Water Source, Collection and Usage:
93% (n=2245) of households get water for drinking and domestic purposes from the same source and 7% (n=170) get it from different sources. The following sections examine, (1) the main sources of water, for drinking and domestic use; (2) number of trips, distance and time taken to fetch water during normal and scarcity times.
Main Water Source
58% of respondents they got drinking and domestic water piped inside their dwelling or yard. Rest of the respondents (42%) had their source of water outside the house.
Figure 30: Top sources of Drinking Water
Public Tap/Stand post 38%
Household piped water piped into dwelling 38%
Household piped water piped into yard 20%
0 10 20 30 40 50
Figure 31: Top sources of Domestic Water
Household piped water piped into 38% dwelling
Public Tap/Stand post 38%
Household piped water piped into yard 20%
Tubewell or borewell 2%
Uncovered well 1%
0 10 20 30 40 50
71 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Number of Trips, distance and time taken to fetch water during Normal Time
Respondents (mostly women) who had their main source of water outside their house/yard, 81% of them had to travel anywhere between zero to 40 meters to fetch water which took them an average of 8 trips during normal time. 12 minutes was the average amount of time women had to spend to fetch water including waiting time at the water source.
Figure 32: Distance to water source (Normal Time)
During scarcity respondents had to spend on an average almost half an hour to fetch water. Distance to the water source varied for respondents during scarcity time with only 42% of respondents stating that they had to walk between zero to 40 meters to fetch water. The number of trips made to fetch water on an average reduced to 7. The possible reason for this could be that households adjusted with the amount of water which was available from nearby sources or because 39% of respondents did not face any water scarcity in their village.
Figure 33: Distance to water source (Scarcity Time)
Disruption in Water Supply
92% (n=2220) of respondents said that they had not faced any disruption in the most frequently used source of domestic water. Of the respondents (8%, N=195) who reported disruption, non-availability of water, broken pump set and unclean water are some of the main reasons cited for the same. Respondents mainly relied on a common well or got water from a neighbors house when water supply was disrupted.
72 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Figure 34: Water Usage (Pots/Buckets)
2. Awareness on Sanitation:
Main sources of information on SBM(G)
Information Education and Communication (IEC) activities form an integral part of the SBM (G) programme and are used to spread awareness about the incentive provided, the application process and, general information on the various benefits of toilet construction and usage.
73 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Toilet construction
Gram Panchayat (GP) officials and members, and members of VPRC are the main creators of awareness of toilet construction through door-to-door visits and during Gram Sabha meetings.
Figure 35: Source of Information on Toilet Construction
Gram Panchayat officials 82% Gram Panchayat members 64% Village Poverty Reduction Committee (VPRC) 20% Self Help Group(SHG) 7% Panchayat Level Federation(PLF) 5% No one 3% NGOs/CSOs 1% Health worker (ANM/Nurse/ Doctor) 1% Swachhata Doot/Motivator 1% Anganwadi staff 1% School Teachers 1% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Respondents cited television, newspapers and wall paintings as other media via which they received information regarding toilet construction. With regard to the frequency at which they received information on toilet construction, 27% respondents said that they saw the information once or twice and for others it was daily.
96% respondents said the information they received on toilet construction was useful. Bad health effects of not having a toilet/open defection (84%), benefits of having a toilet (55%), knowledge of their eligibility under SBM (G)(23%) and the incentive being provided (21%) are some of the useful information they got from IEC activities related to SBM(G).
After receiving information about toilet construction in their village less than half of the respondents either approached the GP to apply for a toilet and more than half started toilet construction while the others completed construction.
Table 27: Information received on toilet construction and action taken
N=488 Approached the Gram Panchayat to apply for toilet 47% construction Started toilet construction 52% Completed constructing a toilet 33% Did not take any action based of the information received 15% Encouraged family members to use the toilet in the house 21%
74 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Toilet Usage
Besides receiving information on toilet construction under SBM (G), respondents were asked if they had received any information in their village with regard to toilet usage. Only 42% respondents reported that they had seen information on toilet usage in their village.
Figure 36: Information Received on Toilet Usage in the Village
100 90 80 70% 70 62% 58% 60 56% 57% 56% 57%
50 44% 44% 44% 43% 42% 38% 40 30% 30 20 10 0 Dharmapuri Kanyakumari Krishnagiri Perambalur Tirunelveli Tiruchirappalli Total
Yes No
GP Members and Officials are the main sources of information on toilet usage. Respondents received information on how to use a toilet (61%), bad health effects of not having a toilet/open defection (78%), and how to keep the toilet clean (53%). 19% respondents said that they were informed on what steps to take if the pit becomes full. 87% respondents said that they had not seen information on toilet usage from any sources other than the GP Officials and Members. 93% respondents stated that they found the information received on toilet usage to be useful.
Information on SBM (G) Incentive
22% respondents stated that they or their family members had attended a Gram Sabha meeting where the SBM (G) scheme was discussed; 63% said they had not and 15% said they do not know. 91% were aware about the incentive provided under SBM(G). This goes to show that spreading information on the SBM (G) incentive by way of door-to-door visits was more effective when compared to Gram Sabha meetings.
75 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Figure 37: SBM (G) IEC Measures
3. Application process under SBM (G)
Information on eligibility and incentive under SBM(G)
Gram Panchayat Members and Officials are the main points of contact for all activities related to toilet construction under SBM (G). Respondents said that it was GP Officials (78%) and Gram Sabha members (60%) informed them about the incentive by door-to-door visits. The pattern is similar with sources of information about eligibility; here the role of the Panchayat Secretary was also highlighted.
Submission of the application
5% (n=120) respondents submitted a letter on plain paper, 39% (n=940) submitted an application form and 3% (n=61) gave an authorization letter/form to receive the SBM (G) incentive. However more than half (54%, n=1294) did not submit anything. Of the 41% (n=1001) respondents who submitted an application form/authorization letter or form, 63% (n=635) got it from the GP office.
45% respondents took the help of GP officials to fill the application form; 18% took the help of family members and contractors; 14% (n=143) stated that they filled the application form on their own and found no difficulty in doing so.
76 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Documents submitted
The following documents were submitted by respondents while applying for a toilet under SBM(G):
Ration Card (92%) Aadhaar Card (80%) Bank Passbook (61%) Voter ID (47%) Bank Account Number (20%)
After submission of the application form/documents 38% respondents said that toilet construction was completed within a month (refer figure below).
Figure 38: Time taken to complete the toilet construction after submission of Application/Letter/Documents
1% Within a month 6% 4% 2%
38% Within a week 25%
25% 1 to 3 months
More than 3 months
41% respondents said that after the submission of relevant documents; the work order was issued within a week. 34% said it took more than a week; 17% stated that they did not know when the work order was issued, and 7% could not recall when it was issued.
26% beneficiaries were provided with a copy of the work order; 45% were not given a copy; 22% were not aware if they were given one; and 6% could not recall. For those beneficiaries who stated that they were given a copy of the work order, it took an average of 28 days for the construction to be completed.
65% respondents stated that the GP office existed in their village; 35% said it did not. According to 57% of respondents, they had to travel less than 1 kilometer to reach their GP office; 35% stated that it was between one and three kilometers.
77 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
4. Construction of toilet
Year and month of construction and completion of the toilets
47% of respondents said that their toilet construction started in 2015 and 52% reported 2016. 46% completed construction in 2015, and 52% in 2016. 2% (n=50) stated that toilet construction was not complete.
Reasons for construction of toilets
The various reasons that prompted respondents to construct a toilet in the house are in the figure below. The key reasons are safety of women and incentives from the government.
Figure 39: Reasons for Toilet Construction
For safety of women 48% Incentives from the govt 46% Free Toilet 40% Safety of household members 33% Lack of open spaces for open defecation 33% Can be used at all times 30% For children 30% Cleanliness of the village 25% To save time 17% Pressure from the GP 12% 0 10 20 30 40 50
Status of toilets
92% (n=2225) respondents said that the toilet in their household is complete and in a usable condition; 2% (n=50) reported that construction was discontinued, and 6% (n=140) said that the toilet is present but not in a usable condition.
78 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Figure 40: Condition of Toilets
The main reasons cited by respondents for toilets which are complete but not in usable condition are as follows:
No pit/not connected to pit Absence of light in the toilet No door Toilet is broken/damaged Pit is blocked
During Public Affairs Centre’s (PAC)12 scoping visits it was observed that roads connecting villages to main roads facilitated easier transportation of toilet construction materials, and thereby completion of toilet construction. Hence, respondents were asked if their village is connected to a main road, and if it was its condition. 87% respondents said their village is connected. 69% (n=1454) stated that the road is in good condition. Rest of the respondents stated that the connecting road is uneven, has many potholes, muddy and very narrow.
Reasons given by respondents for discontinued toilets are financial problems, contractors leaving the toilet half constructed and faulty construction methods such as a missing pit, door or tank.
Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri and Tirunelveli report high number of toilets which are complete and in a usable condition. Whereas Tiruchirappalli and Kanyakumari report high number of toilets which are complete but not in usable condition. The number of toilets which are incomplete/discontinued is generally low across the six districts.
12 Scoping Visit 79 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Map 4: Condition of Toilets across Districts in Tamil Nadu
Who built the toilet
38% respondents reported that their toilet was constructed by a contractor, 18% reported it to be the Panchayat and 17% had hired a mason for construction. 26% said that they themselves built it.
Who built the toilet vs condition of the toilet
Interesting results emerge when we relate the condition of the toilet with “who built the toilet”. For this analysis we categorize “who built” as follows:
1. By households themselves and/or with mason hired by them 2. By NGO and contractor 3. By Panchayat
80 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
The probability of a toilet being in a complete and usable condition is higher when it is built by the HH on its own or by a mason hired by them when compared to toilets built by an NGO/Contractor or Panchayat without involving HHs.
Table 28: Construction Vs Condition of the Toilet
Who Built the Toilet Self/Mason Condition of the Toilet Hired By NGO/Contractor Panchayat Self Completed and in usable 95% 90% 90% condition Completed and not in 3% 9% 7% usable condition Discontinued Construction/Half 2% 2% 3% constructed toilet Total (n=1045) (n=928) (n=441)
5.Materials and design
39% respondents said that materials required to build their toilet were arranged by the contractor; 41% stated that they themselves made the arrangements.
Rural Sanitary Mart (RSM)
Rural Sanitary Mart (RSM) is meant to stock materials required to construct and maintain toilets and sell these at subsidized rates. 98% (n=2376) respondents said that they are not aware of RSM. The few (2%, n=39) respondents who are aware reported that the average distance of the RSM is 8 kilometers from their house. 33% (n=13) respondents said that they had purchased their construction materials from the RSM; 67% (n=26) said they had not.
Design and Ease of Use
37% respondents said that the design of their toilet was suggested by the contractor; 34% stated that they themselves had selected the design. 23% respondents said their toilets had one pit; 63% reported the presence of two pits. The respondents with one pit reported that on an average their toilet had 3 rings.
81 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
68% respondents said they were not told about the advantages of having a Y junction in their toilet. 48% respondents said that they were not provided any information on managing the pit.
90% respondents said that the toilet was easy to use. The main reasons provided by respondents who said the toilets were not easily usable are: the toilet is too small, pan is too small, and that there is no ventilation. 92% respondents stated that the design of the toilet was easy to maintain.
6.Incentive under SBM (G)
According to the guidelines issued by Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department (RDPR) of Tamil Nadu, the incentive amount provided under SBM (G) to BPL/identified APL households is Rs.12,000 for construction of one unit of IHHL consisting of central share Rs.9,000/- and State share Rs.3,000/- without beneficiary contribution.13
Receipt of incentive
99% respondents are aware of the incentive amount provided to a eligible household for building a toilet in the house under SBM(G). Half (50%, n=1209) received the incentive in full.
Figure 41: Receiving the incentive
Of the respondents (6%, n=145) who received the incentive amount partially, 89% (n=129) reported that they did not follow up with the GP for the rest of the amount.
32% (n=776) respondents, who did not receive the incentive amount, gave various reasons for this. 70% stated that the contractor receives the incentive and not them, and the rest said that the incentive was just in name. 22% of respondents were not aware why they did not receive the incentive.
13 http://www.tnrd.gov.in/schemes/cen_nba_15.html 82 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Further analysis of respondents who stated that they did not receive the incentive, shows that they are predominantly among those that had their toilets built by a contractor; this is highest in Dhramapuri (81%) compared to the other five districts.
Respondents who stated that they had received the incentive fully or partially (n=1354), said that they had received Rs.12,000.
Stages of receipt of incentive Installments
Of the respondents who said that they had received the incentive fully/partially (n=1354), 30% (n=406) reported that they received the incentive in one installment and 65% (n=878) received it in two installments.
Stages
72% respondents said they received their incentive on an average just 30 days after construction of the toilet was complete; 83% said they got it on an average 18 days after the basement was complete.
Total Incentive received
On an average respondents received Rs.11,309 in total as incentive. To receive their incentive respondents submitted photographs – 83% after their toilet was constructed, 55% before start of construction and 57% after the basement/foundation was ready.
Mode of receipt of incentive
67% (n=906) respondents received their incentive via bank transfer; 16% (n=218) received cash; 16% (n=221) by cheque; and 1% (n=9) did not know how they received it. Of the respondents who received cheque or cash, 61% got it from the GP, 20% from the Panchayat Secretary, and 16% from the District SBM(G) coordinator.
Total cost and extra expenses incurred by beneficiaries for toilet construction
54% (n=1298) respondents stated that they did not spend anything extra on the construction of their toilet; 46% (n=1117) reported that they had done so. On average respondents had spent Rs.13,738 extra on toilet construction than the incentive they were eligible for. The following are the chief reasons for extra expenditure:
83 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Build a bigger toilet (59%) Extend the toilet to a bath area (53%) Fix a better door (26%) Install a better roof (23%) Lay tiles in the toilet (22%) Build a western commode (6%)
Figure 42: Extra additions to SBM (G) toilet
On an average respondents incurred Rs.19,687 as total cost of the toilet. It was found that on average respondents in Tirunelveli reported high expenditure levels to have extra additions fitted in their toilet over and above the amount which SBM (G) provides for toilet construction (Table 4).
Table 29: Extra costs and total money spent on toilet construction
How much extra did you What was the total cost of District spend (Rs.) the toilet? (Rs.) N Mean Median N Mean Median Dharmapuri 202 5716 2000 170 17457 14000
84 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
How much extra did you What was the total cost of District spend (Rs.) the toilet? (Rs.) N Mean Median N Mean Median Kanyakumari 3 36667 30000 3 48667 42000 Krishnagiri 265 13215 10000 249 25586 22000 Perambalur 99 9287 2000 93 19050 14000 Tirunelveli 275 21465 20000 270 33337 32000 Tiruchirappalli 250 13760 9500 233 24588 20000
Borrowing money for toilet construction
82% (n=1988) respondents stated that they did not borrow money for toilet construction. Out of the 18% (n=427) who had borrowed, 38% (n= 160) did so from money lenders. 34% (n=145) of those who had borrowed said they were able to partially repay their loan.
7.Usage of toilets
Studies14 have shown that despite having a usable toilet in the house people still prefer to go outside to relieve themselves. Thus, toilet construction by itself may not be sufficient to achieve India’s goal of total sanitation by 2019. One of the key objectives of the CRC is to determine usage patterns among households and the reasons for open defecation despite having a usable toilet in the house.
92% (n=2225) respondents who reported that the toilet in their house is complete and in a usable condition were asked about toilet usage.
93% (n=2072) respondents reported that the toilet is being used by all members in their house. Non-usage stands at 3% (n=60).
14 http://riceinstitute.org/news_post/why-indias-sanitation-crisis-needs-more-than-toilets/ 85 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Figure 43: Toilet Usage by Household Members
3% 1% 3% Yes, all members use all the time Only some members use all the time Some members use during 93% certain seasons Nobody uses the toilet
Toilet usage (by all members of the HH at all times) is above 90% in all districts except for Dharmapuri. 86% (n=388) respondents in Dharmapuri report that all household members used the toilet at all times. At 7% (n=66) the district had the highest number of non-users of toilets followed by Krishnagiri (refer Map 3).
Map 5: Toilet Usage by Districts
Respondents said that adult male and female members between 20-60 years use the toilet in the house.
86 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Toilet cleaning is the prime responsibility of adult female members of the household. More than half (54%, N=1205) of the respondents said that the toilet is cleaned everyday. Cleaning materials used are Harpic (62%), Phenyl (44%), only water (39%), detergent (19%) and other materials like bleaching powder etc. (1%).
Even though 93% respondents reported that all members of their household use the toilet at all times, they were still asked if there were instances when they or their household members had to resort to open defecation. 94% (n= 1955) respondents said that there were no instances. Those respondents or their family members (6%,n=117) who had to resort to open defecation did so when they were working in the fields.
Who built Vs Usage of the toilet
Analysis of toilet usage with who constructed the toilet shows that the number of members who use the toilet is higher when a household constructed the toilets themselves is also high.
Table 30: Who built the toilet Vs Usage
Self/Mason Usage hired by NGO/Contractor Panchayat self Yes, all members use all the time 92% 90% 94% Only some members use all the time 2% 4% 4% Some members use during certain 1% 2% 1% seasons Nobody uses the toilet 5% 5% 2% Total 997 832 395
Non-Users of toilets
A small number of respondents (3%, n=60) do not use the toilet built under SBM (G). Most of these respondents go to the fields (public/private) to relieve themselves located half to one kilometer from their house. Respondents said they do not face any problems while resorting to open defecation; 86% (n=47) of respondents said women could reach these places easily and are safe. The main reasons put forward by respondents for not using the toilet are in the figure below.
87 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Figure 44: Reasons for Open Defecation
Prefer to go outside 60% Do not like closed and small space 37% No water 13% Open areas available nearby 10% n=60 Smells bad 8% Slab is broken 8% Super structure is broken 7% Used as storage 3% Toilet is blocked 3% Toilet is dark 3%
0 20 40 60 80 100
Respondents were also asked the reasons for building a toilet using the SBM (G) incentive even though no one in their house uses the toilet. The main reasons given by them are:
Program was provides subsidy (41%) Was forced to build a toilet (22%) For sick/aged relative (20%) Event at home (wedding, childbirth) (18%) Neighbor has one (9%) For visitors from outside the village (8%)
6% (n=129) respondents reported that they/their family members had spent more than 10 days (in the last one month) away from their house for work or personal reasons. During such occasions 67% (n=100) respondents used a toilet; 33% (n=49) resorted to open defecation.
Hygienic practices such as washing hands with water and soap after toilet use is followed by 94% (n=2083) of respondents.
8. Problems and Grievance Redressal
One of the objectives of the survey was to understand the various hurdles beneficiaries face with the toilet construction process and the grievance redress mechanisms available. All (100%) respondents reported that they faced no problems during the application and toilet construction processes. 7% (n=174) respondents stated that they faced the following problems while receiving the incentive amount:
88 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Did not receive the incentive; Received the amount partially; Delay in receiving the incentive
Figure 45: Problems faced during toilet construction
39% (n=68) respondents reported their problems orally to the Panchayat Secretary, Panchayat President or Panchayat Member. 16% (n=11) respondents reported problem resolution. 84% respondents stated that they did not notice whether the names, helpline or telephone numbers of officers for grievance redressal were displayed at the GP office.
9.Extra payments
In order to assess if corruption is prevalent in the SBM (G) scheme, respondents were asked if they had to make extra payments to anyone at any stage of construction to get their work done or speed up the process. Only a few respondents said that they had to pay extra money during construction for digging the pit, arranging masons, thereafter to get the incentive released; and for some unspecified reasons. Respondents who had made extra payments stated that it has been demanded and not voluntarily given.
89 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Figure 46: Extra Payments
10.Satisfaction and suggestions
Information provided about toilet construction/incentive: 81% (n=1349) of respondents are completely satisfied with the IEC received; however respondents in Dharmapuri reported low satisfaction levels with IEC activities related to toilet construction. Application Process: 84% are satisfied with the application process to get a toilet constructed under SBM(G); satisfaction levels are lower in Dhramapuri Behaviour and helpfulness of the GP Officials: Satisfaction levels are high among respondents with this aspect except in Dharmapuri Amount of Subsidy: The incentive amount and the time taken to disburse it are aspects with which satisfaction levels are low across all districts Structural Aspects of the toilets: Respondents are dissatisfied was with the quality of the toilet and the material used for construction.
90 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Table 31: Satisfaction Levels by District
11.Household attitudes toward toilet construction and usage
The CRC also tried to understand the attitude and behavior of respondents towards toilet construction, usage, and awareness about the link between sanitation and health.
According to all respondents, having a toilet in the house is an absolute necessity for all households and the prime responsibility to construct one lies with the household. Respondents disagreed with the following statements:
“toilet construction occupies least attention when it comes to planning a family budget” “having a toilet and health are not related issues”
Respondents agreed with the following statements:
“it was not ok for small children to defecate in and around the house” “a toilet is necessary for all members of the family be it women, men or elderly”
12. Observation of toilets
To assess the condition of toilets reported as complete by respondents, enumerators visually checked them in the sample households and recorded the following observations.
Structural aspects of toilets:
92% toilets had a clear path from the household to the toilet
91 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
48% toilets are not in the same building as the house 77% toilets were not locked; in the 23% that were, the key was readily available 92% toilets did not have anything stored in them 72% toilets had a visible pit 83% toilets had proper ventilation and 75% were not dark during the daytime visit by the enumerator 42% toilets had electric bulbs 71% toilets had a wet floor; 87% looked used 97% had doors, generally made of iron or hard plastic sheets 89% toilets had cement floors 34% toilets had roofs generally made of asbestos sheets The dimensions of the toilets did meet the NBA specifications 39% toilets had cleaning materials present
Figure 47: Observation of the toilet by an enumerator
Water availability:
57% toilets had water stored outside 71% had water stored inside the toilet Taps were absent both inside(79%) and outside the toilets (74%)
92 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Salient Findings from Odisha Household Survey
93 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Section 4b: Salient Findings from Household Survey of SBM (G) Beneficiaries in Odisha
Highlights
Gram Panchayat emerges as the epicenter for all processes related to toilet construction Number of complete and usable toilets is 83% in Odisha Toilet usage among all members of the households is 78% ; 8% of respondents report open defecation
Areas of Improvement
Respondents expressed dissatisfaction with amount of subsidy provided, space availability inside the toilet, and material used for toilet construction 22% (n=477) respondents stated that they or their family members did not use the toilet at all times or did not use the toilet at all Maximum problems are faced by respondents while receiving the incentive (19%) with the chief issue being delay in receiving the incentive.
The following sections analyze the experience of 2660 randomly sampled beneficiaries of Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) [SBM(G)] across six districts in Odisha – Angul, Baleshwar, Cuttack, Dhenkanal, Ganjam and Sambalpur- using Citizen Report Cards (CRCs).The various aspects covered include the socio-economic profile of beneficiaries, information received on SBM(G), experience of applying for a toilet, the construction process, incentive received, toilet usage, problems faced, grievance redressal, corruption, household (HH) attitude towards sanitation, and level of satisfaction with the programme.
94 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Map 6: Districts under Study in Odisha and Sampled HHs
According to the SBM (G) website, Odisha ranks fourth among the five least performing states when it comes to toilet coverage at 36%, which is lower than the national average of 58%. 15
Table 32: Sample Size District and by Block
District Block Total HHs Kishorenagar 367 Angul Talcher 24 (483) Chhendipada 47 Bhograi 150 Baleshwar Baliapal 153 (437) Basta 134
Cuttack Baranga 284 (481) Kantapada 197 Dhenkanal Hindol 21
15 SBM (Gramin) web portal http://sbm.gov.in/sbmdashboard/IHHL.aspx accessed on 6th January 2017 95 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
District Block Total HHs (424) Dhenkanal Sadar 298 Odapada 105 Purushottampur 166 Ganjam Jagannathprasad 136 (431) Patrapur 38 Chatrapur 91 Bamra 184 Sambalpur Kuchinda 171 (449) Maneswar 94 Odisha 2660
1. Socio Economic Profile of Households
Household composition/Age/Gender/Head of the Household (HoH)
On an average, a household consists of two adult family members (18+ years old) and one child between the ages of zero and 17 years. 6% (n=166) respondents report that they have a differently abled family member; among these, 38% (n=56) state that this member is the head of the household (HoH).
Figure 48: Enumerator conducting an interview with a respondent
64% (n=1693) respondents said they are the HoH; 36% (n=967) report it to be another family member. In terms of age wise distribution of the HoH, 36% are in the age group of 36-49 years . 83% of HoHs are men and 18% are women.
96 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Figure 49: Age wise distribution of the Head of the household
1%
24% 16% 18-35 years 36-49 years 50-59 years 23% 36% 60-79 years 80-99 years
Religion/Caste
98% respondents are Hindus and 1% each are Muslims and Christians. 46% respondents belong to OBC/SEBC (Ganjam reports the highest numbers at 70%).
Figure 50: Distribution respondents by Caste Category
1%
15% OBC/SEBC 46% 19% SC General 19% ST Don't know
Social Group
62% respondents report that neither they nor their family members are part of any social group; 34% are part of a Self Help Group (SHG).
Education of HoH
29% HoHs said that they have completed primary education (1st Standard to 5th Standard); 25% have completed high school (8th Standard to 10th Standard).
97 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Figure 51: Education level of the HoH
Illiterate 19%
Literate (without formal schooling) 8%
Primary School (1rd std - 5th std) 29%
Middle School (6th std - 7th std) 11%
High School (8th std - 10th std) 25%
Senior Secondary School/Intermediate /Pre 5% university (11th std - 12th std)
Diploma/Certificate 1%
Graduate 2%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
A similar trend is also found for other members of the household when most respondents said that other members in their households have completed schooling till 8th or 10th standard. However when compared to males female respondents reported higher levels of illiteracy.
Main Occupation of HoH
24% respondents stated that they are cultivators. Angul (24%), Cuttack (26%) and Sambalpur (36%) reported the highest number of cultivators whereas Ganjam (33%) reported the maximum number respondents engaged in labour (non- agriculture).
Type of House and Ownership More than half of the respondents (53%) said that that they live in a pucca house. Almost all respondents (99%) owned their house.
98 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Figure 52: Type of House
Ration Card
82% (N=2179) respondents possess ration cards. 75% are BPL card holders and 6% APL cardholders (refer figure below).
Figure 53: Ration Card (N=2179)
APL 5% 6% 14% BPL
75% Other
Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY)
99 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Annual Income and Expenditure
The figure below shows the various income levels of the respondents. 42% HHs reported an annual income between Rs.20,001 and Rs.50,000. On an average a household incurs an expenditure of Rs.3,796 per month with Cuttack (Rs.4,871) and Ganjam (Rs.4,105) reporting higher expenditure levels.
Figure 54: Annual Income of Households (N=2660)
Bank/Post Office Savings Account
88% respondents reported having a bank account. People reported saving money, withdrawing money, and and receiving government scheme benefits to be the main uses for their bank account. Post office accounts did not exist with most respondents (90%).
Ownership of Land/Household Assets/Livestock
Possession of land, household assets and livestock are means of analyzing their socio- economic status. 63%(n=1675) respondents own agricultural land, and 37% (n=985) do not. Out of the respondents who own land, 68% stated that they own less than 1 acre of land and 20% have between 1 to 2 acres of land .
100 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Figure 55: Agricultural Land Owned by Respondents
1% 1% N= 1675 10%
Less than 1 Acre 1-2 Acre 20% 2.1-5 Acre 5.1-10 Acre 68% More than 10 Acres
Most respondents had electricity, mobile phones, bicycles and television (figure below).
Figure 56: Household Assets
101 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Cows/bulls/buffaloes and goats are the kind of livestock generally owned by HHs (refer figure below).
Figure 57: Livestock present with households
Type of fuel used for cooking:
The primary fuel used by HHs for cooking is wood (70%, N=1870) in all districts. However, 37%-38% of respondents in Cuttack also report the use of LPG/Natural gas for cooking.
Figure 58: Primary fuel used for cooking
80 70% 70 60 50 40 30 21% 20
10 3% 3% 0 Wood LPG/Natural gas Straw/shrubs/grass Dung cakes
102 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Water Source, Collection and Usage:
67% (n=1733) of households get water for drinking and domestic purposes from the same source and 33% (n=887) get it from different sources. The following sections examine (1) the main sources of water for drinking and domestic use; (2) number of trips, distance and time taken to fetch water during normal and scarcity times.
Main Water Source
The main source of water for both domestic and drinking purposes for respondents lay outside their dwelling and yard.
Figure 59: Top Sources of Drinking water
50 47% 45 40 35 30 25 20% 20 17% 15 10 8% 5 3% 0 Tubewell or Public Uncovered well Household Household borewell Tap/Stand post piped water piped water piped into piped into yard dwelling
Figure 60: Top Sources of Domestic Water
Tubewell or borewell 37%
Uncovered well 18%
Surface water (river, dam, lake, pond, … 15%
Public Tap/Stand post 15%
Household piped water piped into dwelling 8%
Household piped water piped into yard 2%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
103 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Number of Trips, distance and time taken to fetch water during Normal Time
Only 13% (n=240) respondents stated that water is piped into their house or yard whereas 87% (n=1533) respondents stated it to be outside. Of the respondents who stated the source of water to be outside, 97% reported that the sole responsibility of fetching water is with adult women in the household.
Figure 61: Distance to Water Source (Normal Time)
Respondents were also asked about amount of time and distance that women have to cover to fetch water both during normal and scarcity times. It is found that 69% respondents report that they have to walk between 0-40 meters during normal times to fetch water and on an average had to make 8 trips to do so. Seven minutes was the average amount of time respondents have to spend to fetch water (including waiting time at the water source).
Figure 62: Distance to Water Source (Scarcity Time)
When asked about scarcity times, 18% respondents state that there was no scarcity like situation in their village. For respondents who reported scarcity, 35% report that that they had to walk between 0-40 meters and 33% stated that they had to walk between 41 to 100 meters to fetch water and on an average had to make 8 trips to do so. Respondents have to spend on an average 15 minutes to fetch water during scarcity time which is almost double the amount of time spent by them during normal times.
104 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Disruption in Water Supply
73% (n=1940) respondents did not face any disruption in the most frequently used source of domestic water. Of the respondents (27%, N=720) who report disruption in domestic water supply, non-availability of water, broken pump set and no power are some of the main reasons cited . Respondents mainly relied on a common well or get water from a neighbors house when water supply was disrupted.
Figure 63: Water Usage (Pots/Buckets)
105 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
2.Awareness on Sanitation:
Main sources of information on SBM(G)
Toilet construction Under the guidelines of SBM(G) the Gram Panchayat (GP) is to play a greater role and act as the main point for all activities related to toilet construction. This was reflected in the field as well when 66% respondents said that Gram Panchayat (GP) Members are their main source of information on toilet construction, followed by GP Officials (43%). House to house visits (74%) and Gram Sabha meetings (24%) are used to provide information to respondents on toilet construction. Swachata Doot and Anganwadi workers are other sources but with little reach compared to the GP.
Figure 64: Source of information on Toilet Construction
Respondents cited television, newspapers and wall paintings as other media via which they received information regarding toilet construction. With regard to the frequency of information on toilet construction, 51% said that they saw the information once or twice and for 40% it is daily.
90% respondents said that the information they received on toilet construction is useful. Bad health effects of not having a toilet/open defection (69%), benefits of having a toilet (65%), knowledge of the incentive being provided (26%), how to request for a toilet (21%) and eligibility under SBM(G) are some of the useful information they got from IEC activities related to SBM(G).
After receiving information, on toilet construction more than half of the respondents completed construction. Rest of the respondents either approached the GP to apply for toilet construction or started to build the toilet.
106 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Table 33: Information received on toilet construction and action taken
N=960 Approached the Gram Panchayat to apply for toilet construction 36% Started toilet construction 28% Completed constructing a toilet 55% Did not take any action based of the information received 10% Encouraged family members to use the toilet in the house 10%
Toilet Usage
Besides receiving information on toilet construction under SBM(G), respondents were asked if they had received any information in their village with regard to toilet usage. Only 31% (n=835) respondents reported that they had seen information on toilet usage in their village.
Figure 65: Information received on Toilet Usage in the Village
90 82% 79% 80 68% 68% 70 58% 60 57%
50 43% 42% 40 32% 32% 30 21% 18% 20 10 0 Angul Balasore Cuttack Dhenkanal Ganjam Sambalpur
Yes No
GP Members and Officials are the main sources of information on toilet usage. Respondents received information on how to use a toilet (61%), bad health effects of not having a toilet/open defection (69%), and how to keep the toilet clean (60%). 4% respondents said that they were informed on what steps to take if the pit becomes full. 70% respondents said that they had not seen information on toilet usage from any sources other than GP Officials and Members. 95% respondents stated that they found the information received on toilet usage to be useful.
107 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Information on SBM (G) Incentive
47% respondents stated that they or their family members had attended a Gram Sabha meeting where the SBM(G) scheme was discussed; 47% said that they had not; 11% said that they do not know. 88% were aware about the incentive provided under SBM (G). This goes to show that spreading information on the SBM (G) incentive by way of door-to-door visits was more effective when compared to Gram Sabha meetings.
3.Application process under SBM(G)
Information on eligibility and incentive under SBM (G)
The important role played by GP was once again reflected during the application procedures related to SBM(G) when respondents stated that GP Members (69%) and Officials (43%) informed them about the incentive for toilet construction. Other sources of information are, neighbors (26%) and friends (20%).
The pattern is similar with sources of information about eligibility. More than half of the respondents reported that GP officials came to their house and told them personally about their eligibility to receive the incentive under SBM(G). 39% respondents also said that they were informed during Gram Sabha meetings.
Submission of the application
51% (n=1347) respondents did not submit an application form or authorization letter to receive the incentive under SBM(G). 37% respondents reported submitting an application form ; 10% wrote a letter on plain paper; 8% gave an authorization letter. Of the respondents who submitted an application form/authorization letter, maximum (65%) got it from the GP office.
31% (n=376) respondents said that they took the help of family members to fill out the application form; 24% (n=286) said they themselves filled out the application form. The role of Gram Panchayat members in filling out the application form is minimal. Of the respondents who filled out the application form on their own only 2% respondents faced difficulty in doing so.
Documents Submitted
The following documents were submitted by respondents while applying for a toilet under SBM(G):
108 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Voter ID (75%) Aadhaar Card (54%) Bank Passbook (32%) Ration Card (17%) Bank Account Number (14%)
37% respondents said that after submission of the application form/documents toilet construction was completed within a month (refer figure below).
Figure 66: Time taken to complete toilet construction after submission of forms/relevant documents
Within a month 5% 2% 1 to 3 months 6% 9% 37% Don't know 19% More than 3 months 22% Within a week
NA(Construction not completed)
Once the beneficiary submits relevant documents a work order is issued and toilet construction starts. 50% respondents said the work order was issued after more than a week; 33% did not know when the work order was issued and 14% reported that it was issued within a week.
After the work order is issued according to the SBM(G) guidelines the beneficiary is to be provided with a copy of the work order. 50% respondents were not provided with one; 30% got a copy. For those beneficiaries who got a copy of the work order it took an average of 32 days for the construction to be completed.
Since the GP is seen as the main point of contact for beneficiaries to receive the benefits under SBM(G) it is imperative to find out the accessibility of the GP office. 54% respondents said that the GP office existed in their village. According to 42% respondents, they had to travel between 1 and 3 kilometers to reach their GP office; 39% stated that it was less than one kilometer.
109 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
4.Construction of toilet
Year and month of construction and completion of the toilets
44% respondents said that their toilet construction started in 2015 and 56% reported 2016. 39% completed toilet construction in 2015 and 50% in 2016. 11% (n=290) stated that toilet construction was not complete.
Reasons for construction of toilets
The various reasons that prompted respondents to construct a toilet in the house are in the figure below. The key reasons are cleanliness of the village and safety of women.
Figure 67: Reasons for Toilet Construction
Cleanliness of the village 46% For safety of women 46% Free Toilet 45% Incentives from the govt 41% Safety of household members 39% Lack of open spaces for open defecation 39% Can be used at all times 25% For children 22% To save time 6% Pressure from the GP 2%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Status of toilets
83% (n=2198) respondents said that the toilet present in their household is complete and in a usable condition; 7% (n=182) reported that the toilet is complete but is not in a usable condition; 11% (n=280) said that the construction was discontinued.
The main reasons cited by respondents for toilet which are in complete but not in usable condition are as follows:
110 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Water is not available Broken/Damaged toilet Pit is blocked No pit/not connected to pit Debris and dirt in the pit
Reasons given for discontinued toilets are the contractors leaving the toilet half constructed, and financial problems forcing the family to discontinue construction.
Figure 68: Condition of Toilets
During Public Affairs Centre’s (PAC)16 scoping visits it was observed that roads connecting villages to main roads facilitated easier transportation of toilet construction materials, and thereby completion of toilet construction. Hence, respondents were asked if their village is connected to a main road, and if it was its condition. 94% (N=2500) respondents said their village is connected. 65% stated that the road is in good condition. Rest of the respondents stated that the connecting road is uneven, has many potholes, is muddy and very narrow.
Angul, Baleshwar and Cuttack report high number of toilets that are complete and in a usable condition. Whereas Sambalpur and Dhenkanal, report high number of complete but unsuable toilets. Ganjam, Dhenkanal and Sambalpur have the highest number of toilets that are incomplete/discontinued.
16 Scoping Visit by PAC 111 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Map 7: Condition of Toilets across Districts in Odisha
Who built the toilet
60% respondents stated that their toilet was constructed by a contractor, 25% said that it was built by a mason hired by them and 13% reported themselves built it and 1% reported it to be an NGO.
Who built the toilet Vs Condition of the toilet
Interesting results emerge when we relate the condition of the toilet with “who built the toilet”. For this analysis we categorize “who built” as follows:
4. By HHs themselves and/or with mason hired by them 5. By NGO and contractor 6. By Panchayat
The probability of a toilet being in a complete and usable condition is higher when it is built by the HH on its own or by a mason hired by them when compared to toilets built by an NGO/Contractor or Panchayat without involving HHs.
112 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Table 34: Construction vs Condition of the Toilet
Who Built the Toilet
Self/Mason Condition of the Toilet NGO/Contractor Panchayat Others Hired By Self
Completed and in 86% 81% 0% 85% usable condition
Completed and not in 4% 9% 50%* 0% usable condition
Discontinued Construction/Half 10% 11% 50%* 15% constructed toilet Total (n=997) (n=1624) (n=2) (n=20) *The (n) for Panchayat is 2 hence the percentages do not reflect the correct picture
5. Materials and design
61% respondents said that materials required to build the toilet were arranged by the contractor; 32% stated that they themselves arranged it. Of the respondents who arranged the materials for toilet construction on their own (32%, n=841) 93% stated that no one helped them to arrange the materials.
Rural Sanitary Mart (RSM)
Rural Sanitary Mart (RSM) is meant to stock materials required to construct and maintain toilets and sell these at subsidized rates. 77% (n=2040) respondents said that they are not aware about RSM. 23% (N=619) respondents who are aware of RSM said that the average distance to a RSM is 1 kilometers from their house. 58% respondents (n=361) said that they had purchased their construction materials from the RSM, 42% (n=258) said they had not.
Design and Ease of Use
58% respondents stated that the design of their toilet was suggested by the contractor; 31% stated that they themselves had selected the design. 88% (n=2347) respondents said their toilet had one pit; 8%(n=223) reported the presence of two pits. The respondents with one pit reported that on an average their toilet had four rings.
113 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
87% respondents said they were not told about the advantages of having a Y junction in their toilet. 70% respondents said that they were not provided any information on managing the pit.
75% respondents said that their toilet was easy to use; 25% stated that it was not. The main reasons provided by respondents who said the toilet was not easily usable are: the toilet is too small, pan is too small, and that there is no water. 78% respondents stated that the design of the toilet was easy to maintain; 22% stated that it was not so.
6.Incentive under SBM(G)
Under SBM(G) the unit cost of a Individual Household Latrine (IHHL) has been enhanced from Rs.10,000 to Rs.12,000 so as to provide water availability, including storing, hand washing and cleaning of toilets. The entire funding for construction of the IHHL would be met from the Swachh Bharat Mission with share of both Government of India and Government of Odisha. However, no fixed amount has been kept for beneficiary contribution but it is suggested that it should be encouraged to ensure ownership of the HH.17
Receipt of incentive
Almost all respondents are aware of the incentive amount eligible to a household for building a toilet in the house under SBM(G) that is Rs.12,000. 60% (n=1600) respondents said they had not received the incentive (refer figure below).
Figure 69: Receiving the incentive
Of the respondents (2%, n=42) who had received the incentive amount partially, 93% (n=39) reported that they did not follow up with the GP for the rest of the amount.
60% (n=1600) respondents, who did not receive the incentive amount, gave various reasons for this. 61% said the contractor receives the incentive and not them. 4% respondents
17 http://www.rdodisha.gov.in/rural/0/0/30/1 114 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
stated that since they were not able to submit the photograph they did not receive the incentive.
Further analysis of respondents who stated that they did not receive the incentive, shows that they are predominantly among those who had their toilets built by a contractor; except for Cuttack and Ganjam it is high for all other districts.
Respondents (n=620) who stated that they had received the incentive fully or partially , 93% reported that they had received Rs.12,000.
Stages of receipt of incentive
Installments
Of the respondents who said that they had received the incentive fully/partially (n=620), 93% reported that they received the incentive in one installment and 5% received it in two installments.
Stages
94% respondents received their incentive after the construction of the toilet was complete within an average of two months.
6% respondents said that they received their incentive once the basement was complete. The time period within which the respondents received the incentive varied. 32% reported that they received it 15 days after the basement was ready ;30% got it after 30 days of construction; 11% received it after 60 days and 16% received it after 3 months.
Total Incentive received
On an average respondents (n=609) received Rs.11,837 in total as incentive. To receive the incentive 86% had to submit a photograph after the toilet was constructed; 29% submitted a Utilization Certificate (UC) and 20% submitted a photograph before the toilet construction started. Only 8% respondents reported that they did not have to submit any document.
Mode of receipt of the incentive
81% (n=503) respondents received their incentive via bank transfer; 13% (n=81) received cash; 4% (n=25)cheque; 2% (n=10) did not know how they received it. Of the respondents
115 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
who received cheque or cash, 46% got it from the GP, 10% from the BDO, 8% from the Panchayat Secretary and 1% from the District SBM(G) coordinator.
Total cost and extra expenses incurred by beneficiaries for toilet construction
51% (n=1362) respondents stated that they did not spend anything extra on the construction of their toilet; 49% reported that they had done so. On an average respondents had spent Rs.8698 extra on toilet construction than the incentive they were eligible for. The following are chief reasons for extra expenditure:
Build a bigger toilet (27%) Put extra rings (25%) Extend the toilet to a bath area (21%) Install a better roof (16%) Lay tiles in the toilet (8%)
Figure 70: Extra Additions to SBM (G) Toilet
On an average respondents incurred Rs.19,769 as total cost of the toilet. It was found that on an average Ganjam reported high expenditure levels (Rs.23,713) on toilet construction when compared to the other districts.
Table 35: Extra money and total money spent on toilet construction
How much extra did you What was the total cost of
spend (Rupees)? the toilet? (Rupees) District N Mean Median N Mean Median Angul 65 5450 4000 337 13526 12000 Baleshwar 208 3056 1000 208 15225 12875
116 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
How much extra did you What was the total cost of
spend (Rupees)? the toilet? (Rupees) District N Mean Median N Mean Median Cuttack 411 10722 8000 447 19596 18000 Dhenkanal 121 3966 1000 92 15153 12300 Ganjam 346 12248 10000 347 23713 20000 Sambalpur 80 7411 5500 68 19501 19000
Borrowing money for toilet construction
79% (n=2097) respondents stated that they did not borrow money for toilet construction. Out of the 21% (n=563) who had borrowed, 54% (n= 304) did so from relatives and friends. 38% of those who had borrowed said they were able to partially repay their loan.
7.Usage of toilets
As discussed earlier 83% (n=2198) respondents reported the toilet in their house is complete and in a usable condition. These households were then asked further questions on usage of the toilet in their house.
78% (n=1721) respondents reported that all household members use the toilet at all times. Non- usage stands at 8% (n=166).
Figure 71: Toilet Usage by household members
4% Yes, all members use 8% all the time 10% Only some members use all the time 78% Some members use during certain seasons Nobody uses the toilet
117 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Map 8: Toilet usage by household members by district
Toilet usage is highest in Cuttack (89%) and lowest in Dhenkanal (67%). Adult male and female members aged between 20 – 60 years are using the toilet in their house.
36% respondents said that the toilet was cleaned everyday, 33% reported it to be twice a week, and 22% said It was cleaned weekly using toilet cleaners, phenyl, detergent, acid or just water. The sole responsibility of cleaning the toilet is with adult female members of the household.
Even though 78% (n=1721) respondents said that they and their family members use the toilet at all times, they were asked if there were instances when they or their household members had to resort to open defecation. 68% (n=1412) respondents said that there were no instances. Of the respondents who stated that they or their family members resorted to open defecation (32%, n=667) more than half of them said they did so while they were working in the fields.
118 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Who Built Vs Usage of the toilet
Analysis of toilet usage with who constructed the toilet shows that the number of members who use the toilet is higher when a household constructed the toilets themselves is also high despite the contractors playing a dominant role in toilet construction in Odisha.
Table 36: Who Built the Toilet Vs Usage
Self/Mason Usage hired by NGO/Contractor Other self Yes, all members use all the time 87% 72% 88% (n=15) Only some members use all the time 8% 12% 6%(n=1) Some members use during certain 2% 5% 0% seasons Nobody uses the toilet 3% 11% 6%(n=1) Total 860 1312 17
Non-Users of toilets
22% (n=477) respondents stated that they or their family members did not use the toilet at all times or did not use the toilet at all. Most of these respondents went to the fields (public/private) to relieve themselves located half or one kilometer from their house. 69% respondents did not face any problems when they went out for open defecation. Respondents who did face problems are related to the open spaces being too far away from the house, the area being deserted, path not being well lit and dog menace.
It is to be noted that 17% respondents reported that they faced harassment when they went out to relieve themselves. Even though respondents stated that women could reach these open spaces easily, opinions are tied when it came to safety issues as half felt itis safe and other half felt it is not so.
119 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Figure 72: Reasons for open defecation
Prefer to go out side 41% No water 19% Do not like closed and small space 17% Open areas available near by 13% Toilet is blocked 11% Super structure broken 6% Toilet is dark 4% Smells bad 4% Slab broken 4% Used as storage 3%
0 10 20 30 40 50
Respondents were also asked the reasons for building the toilet using SBM (G) incentive even though no one in their house uses the toilet. The main reasons given by them are:
Program provides subsidy (57%) Was forced to build a toilet (20%) For sick/aged relative (18%) Neighbor has one (16%) Event at home (wedding, childbirth) (9%) For visitors from outside the village (9%)
The study also tries to determine toilet usage when respondents or their family members are outside their village. According to 12% respondents (n=253), they/their family members had spent more than 10 days at a different location for work in the past one month. During such occasions 81% (n=206) respondents had resorted to open defecation.
Hygienic practices such as washing hands with soap and water after toilet use is followed by almost all (99%) respondents.
8.Problems and grievance redressal
Although respondents did not face much hurdles during the construction of the toilet under SBM(G), maximum problems are faced by respondents while receiving the incentive (19%) with the chief issue being delay in receiving the incentive.
120 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Figure 73: Problems faced by Respondents
Half the respondents did not contact an official to find a solution to their problem and respondents who have a problem contact someone from the Panchayat office. However, respondents stated that when their problem is not resolved and they do not take any further course of action. 75% respondents stated that they have not noticed whether the names, helpline or telephone numbers of officers for grievance redressal were displayed at the GP office.
9.Extra payments
In order to assess if corruption is prevalent in the toilet construction process, respondents were asked if they had to make extra payments to anyone at any stage of construction to get their work done or speed up the process. Only a few respondents said that they had to pay extra money during toilet construction - for digging the pit; arranging masons; to get the incentive released and also for some unspecified reasons. Respondents who had made extra payments stated that it had been demanded and not voluntarily given.
121 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
10. Satisfaction and Suggestions
Respondents are also questioned on how satisfied they are with regard to the various aspects of toilet construction under SBM(G):
Information provided about toilet construction/incentive: 86% (n=1430) respondents in all 6 districts are completely satisfied with the IEC received. Application Process: 8% are satisfied with the application process to get a toilet constructed under SBM(G) Behaviour and helpfulness of the GP Officials: Satisfaction levels are high among respondents with this aspect. Amount of Subsidy: The incentive amount and the time taken to disburse it are aspects with which satisfaction levels are low across all six districts. Structural Aspects of the toilets: Respondents are dissatisfied with the quality of the toilet and the material used for construction.
Table 37: Satisfaction levels by District
122 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Figure 74: Damaged toilet due to faulty construction materials
11.Household attitudes toward toilet construction and usage
The CRC also tried to understand the attitude and behavior of respondents towards toilet construction, usage, and awareness about the link between sanitation and health.
According to all respondents, having a toilet in the house is an absolute necessity for all households and the prime responsibility to construct one lies with the household. Respondents disagreed with the statements:
“toilet construction occupies least attention in planning the family budget” “having a toilet and health are not related issues”
Respondents agreed with the following statements:
“it is not ok for small children to defecate in and around the house” “a toilet is necessary for all members of the family be it women, men or elderly”
12.Observation of toilets
To assess the condition of toilets reported as complete by respondents, enumerators visually checked them in the sample households and recorded the following observations.
123 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Figure 75: Observation of a toilet by an enumerator
Structural aspects of toilets: 77% toilets had a clear path from the household to the toilet 66% toilets are not in the same building as the house 95% toilets are not locked; the 5% that were, the key was readily available 90% toilets did not have anything stored in them 72% toilets had a visible pit 64% toilets had proper ventilation and 77% were not dark during the daytime visit by the enumerator 17% toilets had electric light bulbs 63% toilets had a wet floor; 63% looked used 94% had doors , generally made of iron or asbestos sheets 84% toilets had cement floors 98% of toilets had roofs generally made of asbestos sheet The dimensions of the toilets did meet the NBA specifications 71% toilets had cleaning materials
Water availability: 68% toilets did not have water stored outside, 31% did 47% had water stored inside the toilet Taps are absent both inside (80% )and outside the toilets (n=85%)
124 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Findings from Officials’ Interviews
Tamil Nadu and Odisha
125 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Section 5a: Findings from Officials’ Interviews in Tamil Nadu
Highlights
The GP President , GP Secretary/Clerk and the BDO form the main point of contact for both beneficiaries and officials regarding all processes related to toilet construction under SBM (G) 80% of officials report that the response from the community was very good for IEC activities conducted on toilet construction As a result of IEC activities the number of applications for toilet construction
increased according to 82% of officials 83% of officials report receiving support from their higher officers towards their work for SBM (G)
Areas of Improvement
The problems faced by beneficiaries in the HH survey such as lack of space, not enough incentive being provided for construction delay in payment and poor quality of construction materials was reported by officials as well No provision under SBM (G) guidelines for repair and maintenance of toilets built 34% of officials state that the task force assigned for SBM (G) was not adequate
to carry out various activities of the program Allocation of separate staff for SBM (G) is not present 48% officials state absence of an internal audit system to track funds for SBM (G)
The Citizen Report Card (CRC) exercise was not only aimed at determining the experience of beneficiaries with regard to SBM (G) across Tamil Nadu and Odisha but it also tries to assess the experience of Officials working at various levels (GP, Block, and District) in the implementation of SBM(G). A separate questionnaire was designed and administered to 361 officials in Tamil Nadu to understand their experience of the programme, its bottlenecks, their concerns, resolution of the problems and their suggestions.
126 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Map 9: Officials’ Interviewed by District - Tamil Nadu
During scoping visit to Krishnagiri the team collected the organograms of SBM(G) implementation bodies in the district. The figure which follows shows the organization chart in Krishnagiri involving various offices:
127 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Figure 76: Organogram for Krishnagiri
128 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
1. Beneficiary Selection Process
57% (n=206) officials state that beneficiaries are selected using the 2012 baseline survey and 55% officials said they are chosen by house-to-house visits. According to 65% of officials, those eligible households, which were omitted during the baseline survey are added in the Master Register18.
85% of officials report that the Gram Panchayat (GP) President is in-charge of contacting the potential beneficiary, whereas 67% said it is the GP Secretary/Clerk. GP members and the Village Poverty Reduction Committee (VPRC) also share this responsibility according to 23% and 21% of officials respectively.
If a citizen is interested in availing the scheme under SBM (G) he/she first contacts the GP President followed by the GP Secretary/Clerk (refer figure below).
Figure 77: Officials contacted to apply for SBM (G)
Gram Panchayat Members 1% 2% 1% 6% Gram Panchayat President 30%
Gram Panchayat Secretary/Clerk 60%
Village Poverty Reduction Committee(VPRC)/ Puthu Vaazhu Thittam Block coordinator
This information on who to contact is given during the Gram Sabha meetings according to 78% of officials. House to house visits by officials is another way by which citizens are informed about the key people to contact according to 62% of officials.
18 A Master Register has a record of all the households without a toilet 129 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Figure 78: Information on key contact person for SBM (G)
From Gram Sabha 78% House to house visit of GP officials 62% Staff at GP Office/Gram Sachiv 22% From Friends/Relatives 12% From wall paintings/posters 11% TV 2% Radio 1% SMS 1% Other 1%
0 20 40 60 80 100
2. Process of application:
98% of officials report that beneficiaries got application forms from the GP office. 77% of officials said that beneficiaries seek their help in filling out the application. On being further asked if they help in filling the application form, 96% of officials said that they do. 92% of officials said that potential beneficiaries submit a copy of their Aadhaar Card and Bank Passbook. 80% said that they submit a copy of ration card, 72% said that they gave application and 51% said applicants provide a copy of their NREGA job card.
3. Designation, work and training of officials under SBM (G)
Officers interviewed at various levels are classified in Table below. The main purpose of such grouping is to determine the role played by officials at each level in terms of designation, work performed and training received to perform SBM (G) related activities.
Table 38: Officials interviewed at various levels
Levels Number GP Level 284 (GP member,GP president,GP secretary,GP Clerk, VPRC,PLF) District Level (District coordinator SBM (G), Project Director, APD, SBM 15 Coordinator) Block Level (Block coordinator SBM (G),BDO,DEPUTY BDO, MNREGA 57 Supervisor, Field In-charge, Superintendent) Voluntary 5 (Swachhata Doot )
130 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
For the efficient implementation of any scheme the officials who are involved in the process are required to undergo minimal training to execute their responsibilities therefore SBM (G) officials are asked if they underwent any training under the scheme. 81% (N=293) of officials went through SBM (G) training for their position whereas 19% had no training at all. The training is seen as being useful by almost all officials.
The main targets/paperwork/plans given to officials were as follows:
Motivate people to construct toilets Organise Gram Sabha meetings and inform people about the scheme Create awareness about toilet construction Construct toilets for all HHs
4. Jurisdiction of areas and dissemination of information on SBM (G)
94% officials report field visits as a part of their duties under SBM (G). Officials are also asked about the number of blocks/GPs/villages under their jurisdiction for SBM (G) related work.
On an average officials report that 9129 HHs, 105 villages, 15 GPs and 1 Blocks are under their charge for SBM (G) related work. In order to motivate HHs to build a toilet under SBM (G) officials reported covering on an average 2605 HHs and 34 villages in the last six months. For intimating HHs about their selection under SBM (G) officials on an average reported covering an average of 2533 HHs and 36 villages in the last six months. For processing of paperwork related to SBM (G) on an average 2248 HHs and 34 villages had been covered by officials
5. Problems faced by beneficiaries:
The common problems that officials came across which plagued beneficiaries were, lack of space (51%) lack of awareness on the toilet construction process (30%), incentives not being received (19%) , lack of water (18%), name not present in list/master register and lack of funds (11%).
Officials were further asked if a beneficiary was to face a problem whom do they complain, 85% of officials said that the complaint was made to GP President, followed by GP Secretary/Clerk (59%) and BDO (41%).
131 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Figure 79: Officials handling grievance redressal*
Gram Panchayat President 85% Gram Panchayat Secretary/Clerk 59% BDO 41% Block coordinator 15% Village Poverty Reduction … 7% Assistant BDO 5% Panchayat Level Federation (PLF) … 4% District Coordinator 3% Swachhata Doot/Motivator 3% Gram Panchayat Members 3%
0 20 40 60 80 100
*Please note that the total would not add to 100% as it’s a multiple choice question
The responsibility of solving problems that beneficiaries faced according to officials rests mainly between the GP President (88%), GP Secretary/Clerk (50%) and BDO (47%). According to 63% of officials they would only get to know that a beneficiary has a problem when the beneficiary would approach them directly.
64% of officials said that they report problems they come across during the implementation of SBM (G), to the BDO whereas 34% said they report this to the GP President. 77% of officials state that they did not report problems that they came across during implementation. Of the 23% officials who had reported a problem, the main issues reported were “creating awareness among people (44%)”, “names not in the list/master register (32%)” and “problems in disbursing the SBM (G) incentive (31%).”
69% claim that all issues are resolved. When asked about the most recent problem they had come across during implementation, 32% of officials report creating awareness among people. The issue is rectified according to 68% officials and 81% said that the BDO resolved it.
Satisfaction levels with problem resolution are high with 86% of officials reporting that they are completely satisfied and 14% said they are partially satisfied. According to 45% of officials creating awareness among the people about SBM (G) is a major hurdle they face.
132 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
6. SBM (G) Implementation:
In order to assess efficiency with which SBM (G) is implemented and the reach of the scheme officials were asked to provide details on time taken to disburse the funds, time taken to complete the construction, number of HHs who have built a toilet, toilet usage, processing the application, submission of photographs, issue of work orders and provision for repair and maintenance of the toilet built.
Most officials (96%) said that the beneficiary receives the incentive after the toilet construction is complete and that it takes a minimum of 16 days and maximum 28 days for the same. Bank transfer is the usual mode of payment according to 89% of officials.
Submission of photographs during different stages of toilet construction is necessary according to 98% of officials. Opinions were divided when questioned about who makes the payment for photographs with 51% of officials saying that it is done by the Panchayat and 49% stating that it is to be borne by the beneficiary.
According to officials once the work order is issued toilet construction should commence on an average within 9 to 20 days and toilet construction should be completed within 20 to 47 days. On an average 1112 toilets have been built under SBM (G) in their area since January 1st 2016 and around 78% of HHs are using these toilets.
7. Knowledge of specifications of a toilet under SBM (G):
The questionnaire also examined the knowledge officials had on a toilet built under SBM (G). 52% of officials state that the roof should be made of tin sheets and 98% thought that the toilet needed a window. Average length and breadth of an SBM (G) toilet wall should be 4 feet x 4 feet and the height should be 6 feet . 42% thought toilets should be made of cement blocks which are to be plastered and painted whereas 35% thought it should just be made of cement blocks.
80% of officials said that the SBM (G) toilets in their block/GP/Village should have double pits with an average number of 3 rings for single pit toilet and 5 rings for a double pit one. 98% of officials said pit toilets were usually constructed in their district under SBM (G). 20% also state that toilets with septic tanks were also constructed in their area. 82% of officials said that beneficiaries are consulted on the design of the toilet
133 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Rural Sanitary Mart
The presence of a Rural Sanitary Mart was almost absent with 92% of officials stating that none were present in the areas under their jurisdiction, the prime reason being that materials were easily available nearby. Of the officials (8%), who stated that a RSM was present, reported that it was located less than 5 kms from their area.
8. IEC activities for SBM (G):
Officials were also interviewed to ascertain the level of IEC activities which were conducted in their respective village/Block/GPs to generate awareness amongst people on the various provisions under SBM (G). It is found that most all (98%) officials replied in the affirmative when asked whether everybody in their block/GP/village is aware of the incentives given under SBM (G) for building household toilets.
About the specific IEC activities officials had seen or implemented in their Block/GP/Village in the previous six months to create awareness among the people under the SBM (G), responses are varied. The various mediums that were utilized according to officials were house-to-house visits (85%), distribution of handbills (72%), rallies (58%), display of SBM (G) posters (50%) and street plays (48%) (refer figure below).
Figure 80: Medium Used for IEC activities
House to house visits 85%
Distributed handbills 72%
Rallies 58%
Display of SBM(G)posters 50%
Drama/ Street plays 48%
No activity 3%
Dont know/Cant say 1%
0 20 40 60 80 100
IEC activities were especially targeted at the following typed of households according to officials:
Female headed households
134 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
SC households ST households Households with disabled members Households with pregnant/lactating women Households with senior citizens Households with girl child
According to 78% of officials these activities are carried out by the Block coordinator and 70% said it was GP officials (refer figure below).
Figure 81: Individuals conducting IEC activities
Block coordinator 77%
GP officials 70%
GP members 30%
District coordinator 11%
0 20 40 60 80 100
*Please note that the total would not add to 100% as it is a multiple-choice question
In terms of impact of IEC activities conducted under SBM (G), 80% of officials report that the response from the community was very good. The number of applications for toilet construction increased according to 82% of officials. The main reasons for increase in applications for toilet construction are as follows (refer table below):
Table 39: Reasons for increase in applications for toilet construction under SBM (G) in Tamil Nadu
Reason N % Increase in awareness about importance of toilet 211 72 Increase in awareness about health hazards of open defecation 206 70 Increase in awareness about incentives for constructing toilet 70 24
135 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
However, 18% of officials also report that there is no increase in the number of applications for building a toilet due a general preference of people to defecate in the open and imbalance between the cost of construction of a toilet and incentives being provided.
Various suggestions are given by officials for motivating people to build a toilet. 90% suggest increasing the incentive amount, 52% propose doing more effective IEC activities whereas 40% want an increase in the involvement of Panchayat workers for better interaction with the community.
Questions were also posed on the role of women, Self Help Groups (SHGs) and Swachhata Doots in promoting toilet construction and usage. 89% of officials state that women helped in creating demand and awareness for a toilet in the community. 77% of officials report the involvement of self help groups in the SBM (G) program by creating awareness/demand among the community for toilets and also guiding beneficiaries through the application process. Only 27% of officials said that Swachata Doots were present in their Block/GP/Village.
9. Official level dissemination of information on SBM (G)
79% of officials are aware of the most recent government order circulated with regard to SBM (G) and 77% had seen the same. 49% of officials report that the circular was about updation of beneficiary database and 53% said it provided instructions for a new baseline survey and 54% said it provided details for the selection of new beneficiaries.
The circular was received between the months of June to August in 2016. According to 36% of officials, they received the order from the central government whereas 31% received it from the block office SBM (G), 18% from the district office and 12% from the state government. 30% of officials forwarded the circular to the level below them whereas 54% did not do so. On being asked the specific level to which they forwarded the circular 78% replied that they had done so to the GP level.
90% of officials are able to comprehend the contents of the circular. Almost all officials are of the opinion that the circular provided clear information when it came to eligibility criteria set out for the intended beneficiaries, amount entitled, expenditure, submission process, details on claiming the amount and rules of NREGA convergence. Only 93% of officials state that the circular provided relevant information on time line of submission and receipt of claimed amounts,. Similarly, when it came to information on IEC, 96% of officials claim that it is detailed whereas 4% are of the opinion that it failed to do so. Almost all (99%) officials report that the circular does not miss out any required information.
136 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
10. Official task force under SBM (G)
61% officials report that the number of officers who were assigned the task of implementing SBM (G) program in their office is between one and two. 63% of officials report that the task force assigned under SBM (G) was adequate to carry out the work under the scheme however, 34% of officials had an opposite opinion.
11. Record maintenance under SBM (G)
67% of officials said that they maintain records on SBM (G), and 33% replied in the negative. According to 50% of officials there was no specific interval within which the information so collected or the records on SBM (G) were passed on to the next upper level whereas 12% said it was done on a monthly basis. 48% of officials report absence of an internal audit system to track funds on SBM (G) whereas 40% said they had such a system in place. On further questioning, 57% officials maintained that there was no external audit system in place.
12. Job description of officials under SBM (G)
Table below presents a summary of the various officials interviewed and the position they hold:
Table 40: Position held by the officials interviewed
Position Held N Percentage GP member 17 5 GP president 104 29 GP secretary 112 31 Block coordinator SBM(G) 17 5 BDO 18 5 District coordinator SBM(G) 5 1 Swachhata Doot / Motivator 5 1 Deputy BDO 16 4 APD (Assistant Project Director) 3 1 VPRC 48 13 MGNREGA Supervisor 3 1 Project Director 3 1 SBM Coordinator 4 1 PLF 3 1 Field incharge 2 1 Superintendent 1 0
137 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
19% of officials conducting SBM (G) work but not belonging to GP level , state that their position is voluntary in nature and 65% said it was permanent. The chief roles and responsibilities assigned to the officials were as follows:
Report issues faced by beneficiaries to the concerned authorities Implementation of SBM (G) Scheme Create awareness among the people about toilet usage Monitor supply of water Help HHs construct toilets and help them to get subsidy on time
As for the duties which were assigned as an SBM (G) officer/ staff they are as follows:
Conduct motivation classes for people to build toilet Spread awareness about toilet construction Monitor village cleanliness Motivate people to use toilets Take and submit photographs of toilet construction
13. Problems faced during discharging duties for SBM (G)
95% of officials said that they did not face any problems while discharging their duties under SBM (G) whereas 5% faced issues. The main problems officials encounter is lack of space to build toilets, pressure from higher authorities to complete tasks, inability to identify all beneficiaries and lack of awareness among people about the health hazards associated with open defecation.
45% of officials report that they are able to comfortably discharge their duties with the staff that was currently available to them whereas 46% said they could do so but with difficulty. The changes suggested so that officials could perform their tasks more efficiently is need for more NGO involvement, appointment of a separate team for SBM (G) activities and better implementation of the scheme by higher officers. It is to be noted here that 24% of officials did not know what changes were to be brought about.
43% officials felt their SBM (G) work is appreciated and 57% state its absence. 75% did not know what kind of formal appreciation they had received. However, when it came to informal appreciation, 83% of officials report that they got support from their higher officers towards their work.
138 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
14. Corruption
According to 97% of officials, they have not faced/come across any kind of influence while discharging their duties. Of the officials (3%) who had faced such issues, 42% said it came from local politicians and caste/community leaders (17%). 96% deny seeing their higher officers being affected by outside interference in their work. 96% of officials report that any practice of taking money or eliciting personal favors from beneficiaries was absent and almost all say that neither had they been involved in such practices. 35% of officials felt that corrupt practices can be reduced in the implementation of SBM (G) but did not know how it could be done. However, it is to be noted here that 65% of officials did not know how to curb corruption.
16. Satisfaction Levels on Services of SBM (G)
Officials were also questioned on the level of satisfaction they had with regard to the various features associated with /SBM (G). The following graph summarizes the findings:
Figure 82: Satisfaction with the services under SBM (G)
4% Application process 96% 8% Support from higher officials 92% 11% Staff training 89% 15% Response by the residents 85% 25% Involvement of NGOs 75% 30% Adequacy of staff f 70% Partially 31% Release of funds 69% Completely 32% Funds for IEC activities 68% 35% Quality of the toilets built 65% 36% Remuneration/salary 64% 41% 59% 54% Amount of subsidy 46%
0 20 40 60 80 100
139 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
17. Reasons for dissatisfaction:
3% of officials were dissatisfied with the overall services of SBM (G) in their area. The various reasons given for being dissatisfied are as follows:
Toilet size not adequate No appointment of separate staff for SBM (G) Quality of toilet construction needs to be improved No increase in salary
18. Suggestions:
44% of officials did not know how to improve the application process, construction of toilets, release of the incentive, changes in the design/construction of a toilet under /SBM (G) or what features would make the user experience better. The only area where there was suggestion was when 18% of officials stated that there needs to be separate staff allotted for implementation of the scheme and measures to make the application procedure online.
140 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Section 5b: Findings from Officials’ Interviews in Odisha
Highlights
GP President and Members are the main point of contact for beneficiaries with all processes related to toilet construction
IEC activities have garnered a positive response from beneficiaries 69% of officials report increase in the number of applications for toilet construction as a result of IEC activities 93% of officials report that they receive support for the work done by them from their higher officers
Areas of Improvement
62% of officials reported that the task force assigned under SBM (G) is not adequate to carry out the work under the scheme
79% of officials report that they did not maintain records on SBM (G) There is an absence of internal and external audit system 26% of officials want availability of more trained staff , more salary and timely release of benefits
The Citizen Report Card (CRC) exercise was not only aimed at determining the experience of beneficiaries with regard to SBM (G) across Tamil Nadu and Odisha but it also tries to assess the experience of Officials working at various levels (GP, Block, and District) in the implementation of SBM(G). A separate questionnaire was designed and administered to 361 officials in Odisha to understand their experience of the programme, its bottlenecks, their concerns, resolutions of these concerns and their suggestions.
141 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Map 10: Officials interviewed by District - Odisha
1. Beneficiary Selection Process
59% (N=214) officials state that beneficiaries are selected using the 2012 baseline survey and 58% said it is during Gram Sabha meetings . 37% of officials also say that selection was made based on APL/BPL status of the family. Only 14% of officials state making house-to- house visits to select beneficiaries. According to 70% of officials, those eligible households which were omitted during the baseline survey are added in the Master Register19.
The distribution of responsibilities for contacting potential beneficiaries is presented in a table below:
19 A Master Register has a record of all the households without a toilet 142 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Table 41: Main Officials in-charge of contacting beneficiaries
Official in-charge of % contacting beneficiary GP president 73 GP member 39 Junior Engineer-2 35 GP Secretary/Clerk 25
Responses show that beneficiaries interested in SBM (G) first contact the GP President (45%) followed by the GP member (39%) (refer figure below).
Figure 83: Officials contacted to apply for SBM (G)
Gram Panchayat President 45%
Gram Panchayat Members 39%
JE-2 5%
Swachhata Doot/Motivator 3%
Block coordinator 3%
Gram Panchayat Secretary/Clerk 2%
Anganwadi staff/ASHA workers 1%
Other 1%
0 20 40 60 80 100
According to 70% of officials friends/relatives are the main sources wherein citizens get to know whom to contact in applying for the SBM (G) scheme. 40% of officials also cite TV as another main source.
2. Process of application
Beneficiaries get application forms from the Block office according to 62% of officials and 57% said forms are available in the GP office. In order to fill forms, beneficiaries sought the assistance of officials according to 55% of respondents and 45% said that they did not. 98% of officials stated that they do help the beneficiaries to fill out the application form. 95% officials said that beneficiaries submitted voter ID cards, 63% said that they submitted their Aadhaar Card, 44% said they gave their bank passbook and 49% said that applicants submitted the application form.
143 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
3. Designation, work and training of officials under SBM (G)
Officers at various levels were interviewed and the same is presented in the table below. The main purpose of such grouping is to determine the role played by officials at each level in terms of designation, work performed and training received to perform SBM (G) related activities.
Table 42: Officials interviewed at various levels
Levels Number GP Level 250 (GP member,GP president,GP secretary/GP Clerk) District Level (District Project Coordinator, District Level Consultant, Assistant Project 13 Coordinator, ME cum MIS consultant, ICE & HRD) Block Level [Block coordinator,JE-1, JE-2, Additional Block Development Officer, , Cluster 52 Coordinator, SBM (Committee Member), Cluster Coordinator] Voluntary (Swachhata Doot, Gram Rojgar Sevak, Samiti Sabhya, Village Level Worker, SHG 46 President )
For the efficient implementation of any scheme the officials who are involved in the process are required to undergo minimal training to execute their responsibilities therefore SBM (G) officials were asked if they underwent any training under the scheme.54% (N=194) of officials went through SBM (G) training for their position whereas 46% had no training at all. The training is seen as being useful by more than 90% of officials.
34% of officials had not been given any target /plans regarding SBM (G). 20% say that they have been instructed to construct a toilet in every HH under their jurisdiction by 2017.
4. Jurisdiction of areas and dissemination of information for SBM (G)
76% officials report making field visits. Officials are also asked about the number of blocks/GPs/villages that are under their jurisdiction for SBM (G) related work.
On an average officials report that 10,616 HHs, 54 villages, 10 GPs and 8 Blocks are under their charge for SBM (G) related work. In order to motivate HHs to build a toilet under SBM (G) officials report covering on an average 2246 HHs and 55 villages in the last six months. For intimating HHs about their selection under SBM (G) officials on an average report covering an average of 2387 HHs and 36 villages in the last six months. For processing of
144 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
paperwork related to SBM (G) on an average 1835 HHs and 30 villages are covered by officials.
5. Problems faced by beneficiaries
The common problems that officials come across which plagued beneficiaries are, names not being present in list/master register, lack of funds (26%), lack of space (24%) and lack of water (22%). However, 28% of officials also say that beneficiaries did not face any problems.
When faced with a problem, officials (73%) report that beneficiaries mainly complained to the GP President and Members (42%) (refer figure below).
Figure 84: Officials handling grievance redressal
Gram Panchayat President 73% Gram Panchayat Members 42% JE-2 35% Gram Panchayat Secretary/Clerk 29% BDO 16% JE-1 15% Block coordinator 10% Swachhata Doot/Motivator 10% Anganwadi staff/ASHA workers 4% CRCC 2% District Coordinator 2% BCCC 1%
0 20 40 60 80 100
The responsibility of solving problems according to 66% of officials rests with JE-2 followed by the GP President (48%), BDO (36%) and JE-1 (25%). 85% of officials report that they get to know about a problem only when the beneficiary approaches them directly.
39% of officials say that they report a problem that they come across during the implementation of SBM (G) to the BDO and 26% said that they report this to the GP President. 68% state that they have never reported a problem faced during implementation. Of the 32% officials who had reported a problem, the main issues reported were “beneficiary names not being in the master register (48%)”, “problems in getting money released from the higher authorities (39%), “difficulty in choosing a beneficiary (22%)”, “problems in disbursing the SBM (G) incentive (17%)”, and “not getting enough remuneration” (10%).
Problem resolution showed a mixed response. 22% of officials report that none of the problems they had reported were resolved, 28% said all of the problems were taken care of
145 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
and a further 50% say that only some of the problems were resolved. According to 30% of officials, the problem is resolved by the BDO while 25% report it to be the GP President. 66% of officials report that they are completely satisfied with the manner in which the problem was resolved and 27% said that they were only partially satisfied. 34% of officials report that there were no problems in implementation whereas 38% faced problems in getting money released from higher authorities and 37% face difficulty in listing eligible beneficiaries.
6. SBM (G) Implementation:
In order to assess the speed by which SBM (G) was implemented and the reach of the scheme, officials were asked to provide details of the time taken to disburse funds, time taken to complete toilet construction, number of HHs who have built a toilet, toilet usage and processing the application.
77% of officials state that the beneficiary receives the incentive amount after the toilet construction is complete and 22% said that the beneficiary does not directly receive the incentive amount. According to officials it takes anywhere from 17 days to a month for the incentive to be released to the beneficiary. Bank transfer is the usual mode of payment according to 67% of officials.
Submission of photographs during different stages of toilet construction is necessary according to 55% of officials and is not required according to 45% of officials. When asked about who makes the payment for photographs 73% of officials said that it is done by the beneficiary.
According to officials once the work order is issued toilet construction should commence on an average within 7 to 15 days and toilet construction should be completed within 12 to 22 days. On an average 4111 toilets have been built under SBM (G) in their area since January 1st 2016 and around 69% of HHs were using these toilets.
There is no provision under SBM (G) guidelines for repair and maintenance of toilets. If a beneficiary wants to repair the toilet, he/she has to contact the Gram Panchayat.
7. Knowledge of specifications of a toilet under SBM (G):
In order to assess the level of information officials had on toilet construction questions were posed on the specifications of a toilet built under SBM (G). 72% of officials report that the toilet roof should be made of asbestos. A window is to be present in the toilet according to 66% of officials. Average length and breadth of an SBM (G) toilet wall should be 4 feet x 4
146 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
feet and the height should be 6 feet according to officials .88% thought toilets should have brick walls that are plastered and painted.
94% of officials say that the SBM (G) toilets in their block/GP/Village have double pits with an average number of 3 rings for a single pit toilet and 6 rings for a double pit one. Pit toilets are usually constructed in their district according to 93% officials. 11% also claim that toilets with septic tanks are also constructed in their area. The beneficiary is consulted on the design of the toilet according to 63% of officials.
Rural Sanitary Mart
The presence of a Rural Sanitary Mart was low with 70% of officials saying that none are present in the areas under their jurisdiction. The prime reason for low presence of RSMs is that construction materials are easily available in local markets. Of the officials (8%), who report the presence of a RSM say that it is located less than 5 kms from their area.
8. IEC activities for SBM (G)
Officials were also interviewed to ascertain the level of IEC activities conducted in their respective village/Block/GPs to generate awareness among people on the various provisions under SBM (G). Awareness on the incentive available under SBM (G) was high with 93% of officials reporting so. About the specific activities, officials have seen or implemented in their Block/GP/Village in the previous six months to create awareness among the people under SBM (G), responses are varied. 55% officials have seen street plays, 19% say there are rallies and 26% report the absence of such activities (refer figure below).
Figure 85: Media for IEC activities
Drama/ Street plays 55%
No activity 26%
Rallies 19%
Display of SBM(G)posters 18%
House to house visits 16%
Distributed handbills 11%
No response 2%
0 20 40 60 80 100
IEC activities are especially targeted at the following type of households:
Female headed households SC households
147 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
ST households Households with disabled members Households with pregnant/lactating women Households with senior citizens Households with girl child
63% of officials claim that the Block Coordinator in their region conducts IEC activities. In terms of impact of IEC activities conducted under SBM (G), 91% of officials said that the response from the community is good. One of the positive developments of IEC activities is that applications for toilet construction increased according 69% of officials. However, 27% also report that there is no increase in the number of applications.
The main reasons for increase or lack of applications for toilet construction according to officials are as follows:
Table 43: Reasons for increase in applications for SBM (G)
Reason % of officials Increase in awareness about importance of toilet 72% Increase in awareness about health hazards of open 79% defecation Increase in awareness about incentives for constructing toilet 40%
Table 44: Reasons for no increase in applications for SBM (G)
Reason % of officials Cost of constructing toilet is high and the incentives provided are not 42% sufficient Others who constructed earlier did not get the subsidy amount 29%
Delays in subsidy amount being disbursed 27%
People prefer open defecation only 7%
In order to motivate people to build a toilet various suggestions were provided by officials. 69% suggest having more effective IEC activities, whereas 40% want an increase in subsidy amount and 46% propose an increase in the involvement of Panchayat workers for better interaction with the community.
148 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Role of women, Self Help Groups (SHGs) and Swachhata Doots in promoting toilet construction and usage is under study during the survey. It is seen that 62% officials report that women help in creating demand and awareness for a toilet in the community. 48% of officials also report the involvement of self help groups in the SBM (G) program by creating awareness/demand among the community for toilets and also guiding beneficiaries through the application process. Only 34% of officials said that Swachata Doots were present in their Block/GP/Village. The reason given by officials for Swachata Doots being absent is lack of motivation to join the SBM (G) process.
9. Official level dissemination of information on SBM (G)
Questions were also asked to gauge the level of information available for dissemination through official channels involved in implementing the scheme.
66% (N=239) of officials are not aware of the most recent governmental order circulated with regard to SBM (G). Of the respondents who are aware of the order (34%, N=122) 90% (N=110) claim to have seen the same. According to 31% officials, the circular talked about motivating people to construct a toilet and toilet usage.
The circular is received between the months of June to August in 2015-2016. According to 28% of officials, they received the order from the state government whereas 41% received it from the block office, 14% from the district office and 7% from the central government. The circular was forwarded to the level below them by 43% of officials whereas an equal number did not do so. On being asked the specific level to which they forwarded the circular 60% replied that they had done so to the GP level.
91% of officials were able to comprehend the contents of the circular. More than 70% of officials were of the opinion that the circular provided clear information when it came to eligibility criteria set out for the intended beneficiaries, amount entitled, submission process and details on claiming the amount. With regard to time line of submission, IEC activities and expenditure officials state that the circular did not provide complete information. 96% officials report that the circular does not miss out any required information.
10. Official task force under SBM (G)
On average officials report that the number of officers assigned the task of implementing SBM (G) program in their office is four. 62% of officials report that the task force assigned under SBM (G) is not adequate to carry out the work under the scheme.
149 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
11. Record maintenance under SBM (G)
79% of officials said that they did not maintain records on SBM (G). More than half of the officials report that information collected or the SBM (G) records were passed on to the next upper level on a monthly basis, whereas 29% and 14% said it is done on weekly or immediate basis respectively. 68% of officials report absence of an internal audit system to track funds on SBM (G) whereas 13% say that such a system exists in their department. 68% officials maintain that there is no external audit system in place.
12. Job description of officials under SBM (G)
Table below presents a summary of the various officials interviewed and the positions they hold:
Table 45: Position held by the officials interviewed
Position Held N GP member 117 GP president 103 GP secretary 30 Gram Rojgar Sevak 20 JE-2 16 Swachhata Doot / Motivator 16 Block coordinator SBM(G) 15 CRCC 7 Cluster coordinator 7 Village Level Worker 6 District Project Coordinator 5 District Level Consultant (DLC) 5 BDO 4 Samiti Sabhya 3 SBM (Committee member) 2 SHG President 1 Assistant Project Coordinator 1 ICE & HRD Consultant 1 ME cum MIS Consultant 1 Additional Block Development Officer 1
33% of officials conducting SBM (G) work but not belonging to GP level stated that their position was permanent while 58% said it was contractual. The chief roles and responsibilities assigned to the officials are as follows:
Create awareness among people about toilet usage
150 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
Resolve errors made in name of beneficiaries Monitor and edit monthly progress report Verify construction/quality of toilets built Make field visits Issue work orders Submit photographs of toilet construction
SBM (G) officers/staff stated that duties assigned to them were:
Create awareness among people about toilet usage Monitor and edit monthly progress report Issue work orders
13. Problems faced while discharging duties for SBM (G)
73% of officials claim that they did not face any problems while discharging their duties under SBM (G), and 27% have faced some issues, the main problems being delay in payment of the incentive and beneficiaries not being listed.
88% of officials report that they are able to comfortably discharge their duties with the staff that is currently available to them whereas 9% said they could do so but with difficulty. 24% officers did not know what changes could be brought about so that they could perform their tasks more efficiently and 26% wanted availability of more trained staff, more salary and timely release of benefits for them.
78% felt their SBM (G) work is not appreciated. 36% did not know what kind of formal appreciation they had received and 53% did not know what kind of informal appreciation they had received. 93% of officials report that they receive support for the work being done by them from their higher officers.
14. Corruption
84% officials did not face/come across any kind of influence while discharging their duties. Of the officials (16%) who face such issues, 72% said it came from local politicians, and 24 % say it is from government officers of other departments. 83% of respondents were not aware of any higher officers who faced interference. Almost all officials report they are not aware of any practice of taking money or eliciting personal favours from beneficiaries nor had they been involved in such practices. 65% of officials felt that corrupt practices can be reduced in the SBM (G) implementation by creating awareness among people so that they can monitor any corrupt practices.
151 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
16. Satisfaction Levels on Services of SBM (G)
Officials were also questioned on the level of satisfaction they had with regard to the various features associated with SBM (G). The following figures summarize the findings:
Figure 86: Overall Satisfaction with features of /SBM (G)
100 90 80 71% 70 60 50 40 30 23% 20 5% 10 1% 0 Satisfied Dissatisfied Neither satisfied Not Applicable nor dissatisfied
Figure 87: Levels of satisfaction with the various services of SBM (G)
50% Release of funds 50% 35% Quality of toilets built 65% 46% Rennumeration 54% 32% Staff training 68% 50% Involvement of NGOs 50% 40% Adequency of staff 60% Partially 45% Funds for IEC activities 55% Completely 47% Time taken to disburse subsidy 53% 64% Amount of subsidy 36% 23% Support from senior officials 78% 25% Response by residents 75% 28% Application Process 72%
0 20 40 60 80 100
152 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017
17. Reasons for dissatisfaction:
23% of officials were dissatisfied with the overall services of SBM (G) in their area. The various reasons given for being dissatisfied are as follows:
Full payment not being made Late payment of the incentive Low quality work Inadequate staff to carry our activities related to SBM (G)
18. Suggestions:
Many officials (41%)did not know how to improve the application process, construction of the toilet, release of the incentive, changes in the design/construction of a toilet under /SBM (G) or what features would make the user experience better. Some of the suggestions, which were put forward are as follows:
The construction of toilets should be done ward-wise SBM (G) system should work more efficiently
153 Public Affairs Foundation | CRC-2 in Tamil Nadu and Odisha | PAC/BMGF| June 2017