Effectiveness of community and school-based sanitation interventions in improving latrine coverage: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled interventions

What works in sanitation promotion?

Promotion appears to be the least effective but is nevertheless often the only available, means to achieve increased access to sanitation services, especially at scale, in lower-income countries. A cursory examination of the history of past and present approaches to sanitation promotion, including sanitation marketing, community development, community-led total sanitation and public health, shows that they have a variety of features and characteristics which make them distinctive. Unfortunately, rigorous evaluation has not kept pace with this proliferation of approaches, so it is difficult to recommend any one approach over the others, based on empirical performance in a range of circumstances. However, I argue that a 'hybrid' approach which exhibits a number of salient features from all of the previous approaches is likely to be a good bet. I present a recent example of such a hybrid programme which proved to significantly increase the rate of improved sanitation coverage through promotion (without subsidy of any kind) at scale in Tanzania. I suggest other sanitation promotion programs may want to think about adopting similar practices in their own programming going forward.

The Impact of Pro-Poor Sanitation Subsidies in Open Defecation-Free Communities: A Randomized, Controlled Trial in Rural Ghana

BACKGROUND

According to the World Health Organization/United Nations International Children's Fund Joint Monitoring Program, 494 million people practice open defecation globally. After achieving open defecation-free (ODF) status through efforts such as Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS), communities (particularly vulnerable households) may revert to open defecation, especially when toilet collapse is common and durable toilets are unaffordable. Accordingly, there is increasing interest in pro-poor sanitation subsidies.

OBJECTIVES

This study determined the impacts of a pro-poor sanitation subsidy program on sanitation conditions among the most vulnerable households and others in the community.

METHODS

In 109 post-ODF communities in Northern Ghana, we conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate a pro-poor subsidy program that identified the most vulnerable households through community consultation to receive vouchers for durable toilet substructures. We surveyed households to assess toilet coverage, quality, and use before and after the intervention and tracked program costs.

RESULTS

Overall, sanitation conditions deteriorated substantially from baseline to endline (average of 21 months). In control communities (not receiving the pro-poor subsidy), open defecation increased from 25% (baseline) to 69% (endline). The subsidy intervention attenuated this deterioration (open defecation increased from 25% to only 54% in subsidy communities), with the greatest impacts among voucher-eligible households. Noneligible households in compounds with subsidized toilets also exhibited lower open defecation levels owing to in-compound sharing (common in this context). CLTS followed by the subsidy program would benefit more households than CLTS alone but would cost 21-37% more per household that no longer practiced open defecation or upgraded to a durable toilet.

DISCUSSION

Sanitation declines, often due to toilet collapse, suggest a need for approaches beyond CLTS alone. This subsidy program attenuated declines, but durable toilets likely remained unaffordable for noneligible households. Targeting criteria more closely aligned with sanitation inequities, such as household heads who are female or did not complete primary education, may help to generate greater and more sustainable impacts in Northern Ghana and, potentially, other contexts facing toilet collapse and limited market access. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP10443.