Securing Local Government Commitment

From the beginning, the TSSM team recognized that program success depended on high levels of local stakeholder commitment within districts. Because TSSM was designed to be implemented using primarily local government resources, generating early buy-in was necessary to mobilize both the monetary and human resources necessary for implementing the TSSM program.

TSSM’s key strategy was to adopt a demand-responsive approach to targeting. TSSM’s assumption was that securing voluntary and informed participation in the program would engender high levels of commitment to implementation. The TSSM manual described the process for generating demand-responsive approaches through road shows at various levels. These road shows consisted of workshops or socialization events to which relevant stakeholders were invited to learn about the key features of the TSSM program and express their interest. To that end, the TSSM team held a provincial workshop to which it invited districts’ political and administrative authorities, such as the heads of the district and health offices, to explain the TSSM approach and solicit participation. This workshop sought to inform districts of the advantages of the TSSM approach and to defuse any expectations of subsidies. TSSM also provided technical assistance to districts to conduct similar road shows or socialization events at subdistrict and village levels to inform them about the program (WSP n.d.). Ideally, these road shows would result in spontaneous expressions of demand by subdistricts and hamlets for participation in TSSM.

A demand-responsive approach did not materialize. In the districts we visited, district officials reported holding road shows for subdistricts to inform them of the program. In a few districts, all subdistricts were invited to these road shows, whereas in others fewer subdistricts were invited, based on district officials’ assessment of locations with adequate resources or their perception of a greater likelihood of success. For example, Gresik limited road shows to the three subdistricts in which district officials thought there was the greatest likelihood of program success.

Road shows were less likely to be held at village levels and district or subdistrict officials usually selected hamlets. The road shows were sometimes replaced with socialization events at which village and hamlets officials learned of the broad parameters of the TSSM approach that would be implemented in their area.

Our field visits indicate that a demand-responsive approach, particularly at the village or hamlet level, was challenging to implement for a number of reasons. Multiple factors constrained the initial demand for TSSM at the lower levels. Primarily, this was a nonsubsidy program that included only technical assistance. In the sanitation sector, households and local governments were habituated to subsidy- and material-intensive interventions. Thus, there was little reason for subdistricts or villages to volunteer, as the program entailed substantial additional work for subdistricts’ Puskesmas staff with little financial support. For elected village officials, again, there was little incentive to participate in the program because it did not bring any subsidy or hardware investments that could be used to leverage votes for reelection. Thus, implementing a demand-responsive approach from the outset was challenging; after some gains had been achieved and publicized, securing buy-in was easier.

TSSM shifted to using alternate strategies, such as fostering competition and generating district competition and pride, to generate buy-in. Over time, TSSM began to explore ways to spur competition among districts and experimented with additional methods of generating sustained buy-in. One particularly innovative example was TSSM’s collaboration with a respected regional newspaper, JawaPos, which gave prestigious annual ―autonomy awards‖ for district performance. At TSSM’s request, JawaPos included sanitation indicators as one of the metrics of district performance. In most of the districts we visited, stakeholders mentioned the JawaPos award’s inclusion of sanitation indicators as having helped raise the profile of sanitation. In Gresik, stakeholders even used it to lobby successfully for more funds for the sanitation sector. Other mechanisms included showcasing particularly successful performances of districts, subdistricts, or villages. Additional, more sporadically adopted methods included securing buy-in from prominent stakeholders by inviting them to high-profile sanitation events in Jakarta or abroad to raise the profile of sanitation.

These attempts should be supplemented with sustained efforts to engage political leadership and greater outreach to key agencies. In most places in which we observed success, there was excellent coordination and support across departments and high levels of political buy-in from political authorities, such as the district head (bupati). Engaging the bupati on an ongoing basis might be a particularly effective lever for more widespread engagement, akin to a domino effect.

When the bupati makes a program a key priority, all the administrative departments at the district and lower levels typically follow suit. The planning office allocates funding to the program and the various divisions of the district health office focus on using these funds for effective implementation. In addition, political and administrative stakeholders at lower levels—including the heads of subdistricts, villages, and hamlets—become more motivated to find and devote resources to making the program a success when they know it is a priority of the bupati. In Trenggalek, the strategic engagement of the bupati had remarkable dividends (see Box III.2). Further, in many of the districts we visited, stakeholders—particularly in the health office—noted that issuance of a sanitation-related decree by the bupati would have been instrumental in giving them the political and administrative authority to push for progress on sanitation outcomes. The subdistrict head can use a bupati-issued decree as a basis for issuing a similar decree, in turn empowering village heads to issue village regulations.

Box III.2. Strategically Engaging District Heads (Bupatis) In Trenggalek, the TSSM team

collaborated closely with the health office to convert the bupati into a strong advocate. Key members of the TSSM team devoted considerable effort to convincing the district head of the value of adopting TSSM and the health benefits and savings that could be realized from preventative approaches to sanitation. An invitation to the bupati to participate in sanitation workshops in Jakarta and Washington, D.C., proved especially critical for transforming the sanitation sector into a priority for him. On his return, he expanded the budget substantially and became engaged in monitoring the program’s progress and participating in ODF award ceremonies.

As a result of the district head’s keen attainment and TSSM implementation. It appears to have been extraordinarily effective at raising awareness about TSSM and the need to become ODF at lower levels of government. In order to sustain the district head’s commitment to the program, the health office presented him with statistics related to the decline in diarrhea and computations of the cost-effectiveness of this approach. In Trenggalek, as a result in part of high capacity among the district health office and high bupati commitment, village triggering rates and ODF attainments rates are very high and a concerted strategy seems to be in place for attaining district-wide open defecation elimination.

2. Establishing Tiered Coordination Mechanisms for TSSM Implementation in Districts TSSM desired cross-sectoral coordination to be a key element of program implementation. It envisaged the creation of coordination committees as a key mechanism for joint execution of the program. According to the TSSM manual, coordination committees would be created for program implementation at the district, subdistrict, and village levels, with TSSM providing technical assistance to these committees. The committee would secure the engagement of all relevant stakeholders (including political, administrative, and civil society sectors). The committees would serve two critical purposes: (1) ensuring multisectoral coordination and ownership and (2) implementing key program execution tasks. For committees at the higher levels, these tasks might include conducting a situational analysis, identifying existing resources and creating budgets, developing implementation strategies, and monitoring and oversight. At lower levels, for example at the village level, the committees would focus more on frontline activities, such as triggering, follow-up, and ODF verification and monitoring. (Box III.3 provides a description of the intended composition and responsibilities of the coordinating committees at each level.)

The coordination committees existed and worked well at the national level, but they were less effective at the provincial level and often did not materialize at district levels and below. In general, multisectoral coordination through committees was high at the national level but weaker at lower levels of government. The program had great success establishing coordination committees at the national level, which led to the adoption of a sanitation strategy, convergence on a nonsubsidy demand-stimulation approach, and a focus on supply enhancement interventions. At the provincial level, the sanitation coordination committee existed but the level of multisectoral convergence appeared somewhat lower. The provincial health office was the primary implementer

Receiving an ODF cer t if icat e dur ing t he Ram adhan Saf ar i Source: Trenggalek District Healt h Office.

of TSSM and perhaps did not adequately engage other departments. At the district, subdistrict, village, and hamlet levels, we rarely saw the creation of TSSM-specific coordination committees or more general sanitation coordination committees. There were some exceptions. Bondowoso had a formal district coordination team (or tim koordinasi kabupaten, TKK), which included officials from several departments including Health, Education, Public Utility, and Planning departments. Malang was another district that had a sanitation coordination group at the district level, but stakeholders reported limited cross-sectoral collaboration. In Perak subdistrict of Jombang, strong coordination across various health officers at the Puskesmas, as well as with the subdistrict head (camat) and related officials, led to effective implementation of the program and to high rates of ODF achievement in the subdistrict.

Taking steps to ensure the creation and effective functioning of desired institutional relationships, such as program coordination committees, is important. TSSM will have to provide districts with technical assistance on how to set up these committees, define the roles and responsibilities of the various partners, and operate the committees effectively. The TSSM manual contained a fairly extensive discussion of the nature of the committees and their functions and roles

Box III.3. Intended Structure and Responsibilities of Coordinating Committees

At the national level, a steering committee was supposed to be established that consisted of high-level (Echelon I) officials from relevant ministries, including the National Development Planning Agency, Health, Public Works, Home Affairs, Education and Culture, and Finance, for devising appropriate policies. A technical team consisting of implementing (Echelon II) officials from these ministries was to be created. This technical team would elaborate on the operational activities established by the steering committee, allocate funds, and monitor performance. A TSSM program secretariat was also going to be developed to support decision making by the steering committee and technical team.

At the provincial level, a coordinating team was supposed to be created under the leadership of the provincial planning office (Bappeda). The team would encompass the following provincial offices: Planning, Health, Public Works, Village Community Empowerment Office, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and mass women’s associations such as Women and Family Welfare Association (Tim Penggerak PKK and Fatayat). This coordinating team was to be responsible for oversight of program implementation, monitoring and evaluation at the district level; advocacy; and allocation of budgets and provision of regional budget funds to support interdistrict TSSM activities.

At the district level the coordinating team would be composed of the following institutions: Planning, Health, Public Works, NGOs, and women’s organizations. Its responsibility was to devise TSSM program implementation policies, prepare and propose funding to implement the TSSM program, organize responsibilities among the different stakeholders, track progress toward ODF attainment, oversee ODF certification of villages, devise competitions among areas to motivate ODF attainment, carry out periodic monitoring and evaluation, share information and lessons learned regarding effective strategies, and integrate TSSM with other social programs to maximize impact.

At the subdistrict level, a coordinating team was supposed to be created that consisted of the subdistrict and health center (Puskesmas) heads, the sanitarian, community development officers, public works, NGOs, and women and mass organizations. The coordinating team was to be led by the subdistrict head and its secretary was to be the Puskesmas head.

Its responsibilities included providing training for volunteers, preparing a budget for TSSM and proposing it to the district government, collaborating with the district coordinating team to certify ODF areas, conducting periodic monitoring and evaluation of TSSM progress, integrating the TSSM with other programs, providing technical guidance for TSSM program development, and sharing information on lessons learned.

At the village level, a committee representative of the community as a whole was to be democratically elected. The committee was to strive for gender balance, include both poor and rich members of the community, and involve community leaders. (The committee could also be established before triggering). The committee would undergo triggering training in order to develop self-managed sanitation programs, carry out participatory monitoring of TSSM progress, trigger and motivate the community about the importance of access to latrines and hygienic sanitation facilities, develop TSSM promotion activities and integrate them with other village-level activities, work with the community to equip schools with sanitation facilities, and, together with the community, determine when the area was ODF.

Source: Based on inform ation from the TSSM Im plem entation Manual (WSP n.d.).

at each level; it also indicated that TSSM would provide training to these committees (WSP n.d.).

However, it did not explain the responsibilities of the TSSM program relative to district responsibilities in the creation of these committees, nor TSSM’s role in ensuring that these committees performed the critical implementation tasks to which they had been assigned. This lacuna in specification of responsibilities might have resulted in districts often not forming the committees, or the committees not maximizing their potential even when created. Some of the risks from not forming such committees were lower multisectoral coordination; fewer opportunities to gain the support of political authorities; and less clarity regarding who had responsibility for strategy formation, budgeting, oversight of implementation, and planning. To avoid these risks in the future, TSSM might have to provide assistance to district-level officials to help them understand the importance of establishing these institutional relationships. It should also help districts devise strategies regarding the alternative implementing relationships and distribution of responsibilities that should be pursued in the event that these structures cannot be created.