IBU Foundation Final Project Report 2011

Final Project Report-IBU Foundation 2011
IBU Foundation
Final Project Report
July – November 2011

Page | 2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................3
Overview.............................................................................................................................................................3
Two Phases of Project Implementation..............................................................................................................3
Lessons Learned..................................................................................................................................................4
I. Background.....................................................................................................................................................6
II. Project Description .........................................................................................................................................8
2.1. Project Objectives and Modification ......................................................................................................8
2.2. Key Strategy and Intervention..............................................................................................................11
2.3. Scope of Working Area .........................................................................................................................12
2.4. Key Stakeholders and Target Groups....................................................................................................13
III. Project Implementation and Achievement...............................................................................................14
3.1. Community-Led Total Sanitation Training for Local Facilitators ..........................................................14
3.2. Community Action Plan ........................................................................................................................15
3.3. Promoting Hygiene through Children Activities and Community Event ..............................................17
IV. Program Monitoring & Evaluation............................................................................................................20
4.1. Baseline Survey.....................................................................................................................................20
4.2. End-line Survey .....................................................................................................................................21
V. Budget Expenditure ......................................................................................................................................23
5.1. Budget Modification.............................................................................................................................23
5.2. Narrative Analysis of Project Cost ........................................................................................................23
VI. Project Reflection and Learning................................................................................................................26
6.1. Facilitating and Hindering Factors ........................................................................................................26
6.2. Significant Best Practices......................................................................................................................28
6.3. Lessons Learned....................................................................................................................................28
6.4. Potential of Sustainability.....................................................................................................................30
ANNEX 1 - Baseline Survey................................................................................................................................31
ANNEX 2 - End-line Survey................................................................................................................................40
ANNEX 3 – Logical Framework..........................................................................................................................47
ANNEX 4 – Project Budget (Amendment October 21, 2011) ...........................................................................48
ANNEX 5 – Project Detail Cost..........................................................................................................................49

Page | 3
Executive Summary
Overview
Within the framework of the partnership
cooperation between IBU Foundation and
SurfAid International, which aims at facilitating
the community to gain better understanding
and behavior towards appropriate hygienic
practices – the Empowering Community
through Basic Hygiene Promotion Program – is
being implemented in 3 hamlets in Sinaka
village, in South Pagai Island of District
Mentawai, West Sumatra Province. The project
was implemented from July 1st
, 2011 until
November 30th
, 2011 and targeted to reach 127
households.
Two Phases of Project Implementation
The initial activity (July to August 2011)
consisted of baseline survey for 11 hamlets to
analyze the appropriateness of the project
objectives in terms of the current needs of the
population as determined in the proposal and
to identify the factual issues underlie the
assumption of problem. The second phase
(September to November 2011) provided 2 days
intensive training in CLTS for about 12 local
facilitators from the 3 targeted hamlets, plus 5
personnel from IBU Foundation.
Phase One: The Baseline Survey
Based on our finding in the field with
measurement aspects are knowledge in hand
washing, open defecation and correlation with
diarrhea, bath and tooth brushing we gain
information that mostly respondents are on
moderate level of knowledge (68%). The
absence of sufficient access to clean water
supply facilities in the program area is alarming.
It is 8% of household currently have latrine
facilities with lack of access for water supply
and 4 out of 11 hamlets have public latrines
with also lack of access for water supply. When
only considering to facilitate the community to
construct simple latrines without any support
for providing sufficient water supply, this
objective would no longer seen as reasonable
purpose and the facilitation would hardly bring
about the expected results. By taking into
consideration the baseline result which have
shown that the major concern on lack of
hygienic practices among the communities are
mostly lay in the aspect of insufficient water
supply, modification on approach strategy and
indicator of the expected output took place on
August 18. As addition to project modification,
by considering the limited project duration and
budget, the numbers of targeted hamlet also
reduced from 11 to 3 hamlets.
Phase Two: The Initiative for Hygiene
Behavior Change
In general, all activities planned could be
accomplished by the project team that
consisted of 5 personnel. The first two months

Page | 4
was the critical entry point in the project
implementation when baseline survey was
conducted for 11 hamlets. The hygiene
promotion program itself effectively started on
the 3rd week of September and only two weeks
needed by the field team to successfully catch
up with the three weeks delay.
By the 2nd week of October, two out of three
hamlets have significantly showed behavior
change towards appropriate hygienic practices;
specifically in regards of open defecation free
(ODF). However, starting the 3rd of October, the
team had to deal with other issue caused by
cancellation of provisioning clean water facility
which previously had been agreed to be part of
the project implementation and had been
disseminated to the communities after they
managed to show significant changes towards
better hygienic practices. The team had to redo
the dissemination regarding the change and had
caused some sort of delay because the team
needed to be cautiously approached the
communities considering their previous
expectation and acceptance towards the new
plan.
However, at the end of the project, IBU
Foundation’s field team had successfully
managed the conflict and in general, the delays
had not significantly affected the project
achievement and the use of budget. Budget
allocated for the project could be spent well
with 15.59% variance from total approved
budget with 100% achievement in 1 hamlet and
as overall result compares to the baseline data,
changes in 3 targeted hamlets has significantly
altered from mostly at moderate level to very
high level.
Lessons Learned
A number of lessons were drawn from this
project, among them:
 A small numbers of household in one
targeted community are proven more
favorable in conducting CLTS program
considering that in this type of community,
people tend to be more socially and
culturally homogeneous. Two out of three
targeted hamlets are considered as small
communities (15 and 27 households) and
these two hamlets have achieved ODF status
in less than three months intervention.
 De-worming for children had also proven
effectively triggered the community by
adding extra sense of disgust and worries
when parents witnessed their children
excreted worms through their feces.
 Facilitating local stakeholders’ engagement
as earlier as it could have also given more
benefit to the effectiveness of the program
delivery. It is necessary to take their
involvement into consideration since the
beginning of program dissemination in order

Page | 5
to have the program well-integrated with
other community’s plan which previously
existed.
 Reward over achievement made by the
successful ODF community is necessary in
order to maintain the behavior change more
sustainable. In two successful ODF hamlets,
the communities are more enthusiastic and
motivated to scale-up their self-made
household latrines when their hard work
attaining their ODF status succeeded and
resulted water facilities support from IBU
Foundation as appreciation towards their
willingness to change.
 Participatory monitoring proved to be highly
successful in keeping stakeholders engaged
and increasing their vested interest in the
progress of the hygiene behavior change
activities.

Page | 6
I. Background
On October 25th 2010, at 21.42, when a 7.2 RS
earthquake hit South of Mentawai Islands and
had resulted a Tsunami wave; devastated
inhabitants of villages at North and South Pagai
Islands. Four most affected sub districts are
North Pagai, South Pagai, South Sipora and
Sikakap.
Update of losses on the 29th
of October 2010
accumulated a total of 413 people found died,
298 missing, and 12,935 evacuated, 270 people
severely injured, 162 lightly injured. At least 497
houses severely damaged; schools were washed
in Pagai, in both North and South; also worship
places in both North and South Pagai and
Sipora; 7 units of bridges and roads in North
Pagai and Sipora were cut off and had made the
access to reach affected villages even more
difficult.
Despite of its popularity having the world class
wave, South Pagai that will always becomes
favorite destination for world surfers, had not
been develop by decades, giving the facts that
those islands are remotes, preserves only to
yield as much timber as possible and many
other commodities which are more benefited
for outside investors rather than for the local
people of Mentawai as returns for their local
development and well-being. The West
Sumatera government may not yet put priority
for Mentawai specifically South Pagai as the
province still struggling to establish its good
governance and addressing many basic needs
for the people in the main island (Sumatera).
IBU FOUNDATION, after the last earthquake in
October 2010, has been in the South Pagai for
more than 6 months now. Starting with the
relief operation continues with early recovery
operation, staffs are being in three IDP camps in
South Pagai promoting Basic Hygiene and Child
Friendly Space. The project had achieved the
targeted outputs and giving some good lesson
learnt to IBU in term of South Pagai people,
territory and its general challenges. IBU is still
operating in Mentawai helping community
access to clean water; three staffs are still
finishing their project until June this year.
Giving the facts that IBU Foundation is quite
familiar with the territory, its challenges and
people needs through 6 months experience
successfully delivered relief operation and small
recovery project with the communities, on June
2011, SurfAid International offered an
opportunity to IBU Foundation to work on
Hygiene Promotion Program in Sinaka village at
South Pagai. Profile of this village in South Pagai
is taken by SurfAid staff and it’s been resuming
into general finding as follows:
1. A total of 590 HH or total 2653 people living
in Sinaka village, spreads in 11 hamlets;

Page | 7
2. Only small long boat able to transport
people from one hamlet to another or to the
village centre (about 2-15km distance), land
access is not mentioned. From Sinaka to
Sikakap is about 5-6 hrs with a boat,
chartered boat take cost for about IDR 1.5
million one way;
3. Only 3 villages far from the coastline, the
rest of 8 are in the coastline;
4. Most HH are farmers (Patchouli, Cacao and
Copra);
5. Most of inhabitants never finish their
elementary school only 15% pass it, and
then continue to secondary and high school;
6. Only one Puskesdes (Village Community
Health Centre) and one Pustu (Secondary
Community Health Centre) available yet
there is most likely no paramedic available.
Posyandu (Mother and Children Health
Centre) is also not running;
7. 5 units of government elementary school
and 2 unit private elementary school. No
secondary school available. Therefore, in
order to pursue secondary or high school,
children have to pursue their education at
least by going to school in Sikakap;
8. In Mangka Baga, community uses spring
water. While for the rest of 10 hamlets,
communities use river and well. Only 5% of
the total HH own latrine facility, 95% rest
are still practicing open defecation (OD).
Common diseases reported include
diarrhea, fever and malaria.

Page | 8
II. Project Description
2.1. Project Objectives and Modification
In the beginning of project plan, there was
enough rationale to start a basic hygiene
promotion in this village based on the
secondary data received from SurfAid
International as donor partner, though it may
not immediately changes behavior of the entire
community within the given time.
Hygiene promotion following government policy
should focus on 5 essential aspects; [1] OD free
is the priority while [2] promotion of hand
washing, [3] waste management, [4] clean
water for consumption and [5] kitchen waste
management are the additional aspect.
Therefore, the Empowering Community through
Basic Hygiene Promotion Program has clearly
specified its overall goal which was stated in its
proposal, that is
“…To increase community awareness
about the importance of practicing
better hygiene and at the same time
enhance capacities of local community
representatives at the village level in
promoting appropriate hygienic
practices.”
To reach this overall goal, four objectives to
bring about in each of the 3 hamlets have been
defined specifically described as follows:
Objective 1 :
Ten selected community representatives, with
equal proportion between male and female,
from 3 hamlets in Sinaka village acquiring basic
knowledge of Community Led Total Sanitation
facilitating skills as a result of the program’s
CLTS Training for local facilitators.
Objective 2 :
Three hamlet communities experiencing an
increase in their awareness on OD hazard and
the importance of hygiene practices by
establishing their action plan related to hygiene
practices’ needs as a result of hygiene education
and CLTS facilitation.
Objective 3 :
50% of children beneficiaries consuming worm
tablets.
Objective 4 :
50% of children beneficiaries knowing how to
wash their hands properly.
The objectives described above resulted after
being modified from previously stated in
proposal based on baseline survey findings in
August, 2011. Detail explanation regarding
which survey findings relies upon these changes
can be found in Project Baseline Activity section.
By taking these findings into consideration and
through further discussion between IBU
Foundation and SurfAid International on August

Page | 9
18, 2011, in Sikakap – Mentawai, necessary
major modifications were agreed to be taken.
(See Annex ). Factual
problem-based identification and the
effectiveness in delivering the activities to bring
more benefit to the community and to ensure
its sustainability in short term period has
become reasonable grounds for the
modification of activities. Table 1-4 shows
modification in output based on the sequence
of activities agreed to be conducted between
September to November 2011.
3 for Logical Framework
These modifications of output have also
affected the total project budget approved in
the amendment for 3 selected hamlets. (See
Annex ).4 for Project Budget
Proposal & Agreement Amendment
(July 1, 2011) (September 15, 2011)
3 hamlets only after considering
the risk/assumption analysis
based on baseline findings and
limitation on project duration as
well as capacity of field team to
cover all hamlets in Sinaka
village.
3 out of 11 hamlets being
selected are Bungo Rayo (94
HH), Kosai Baru (15 HH), Mangka
Baga (27 HH).
10 participants recruited from 3
hamlets (6 participants from
Bungo Rayo; 2 participants from
Kosai Baru; and 2 participants
from Mangka Baga). The number
sets to be proportional with the
number of total household
resides in each hamlet, with
ratio 1:15 and minimum 2
participants for one hamlet.
The content of CLTS training will
also provides overall materials
related to hygienic and healthy
life behavior pattern in
accordance with Health Ministry
PHBS Program.
11 hamlets in Sinaka village.
1.2 CLTS Training 22 local community
representatives.
Output 1
1.1 Community Socialization, Local
Facilitators Selection & Basic
Hygiene Education
Table 1. Modification on Output 1

Page | 10
(July 1, 2011) (September 15, 2011)
2.1 Facilitating Community-Led Total
Sanitation in 3 hamlets
CLTS facilitation without any
additional activities as entry
point strategy.
However, to ensure the Hygiene
Promotion program delivers
effectively, clean water supply
facility is highly necessary to be
provided as preliminary action in
preference to accompany CLTS
approach. It takes role as an
entry point as well as a catalyst
in speeding up the shaping of
positive attitude towards
appropriate hygiene practice,
especially towards open
defecate behavior which likely
could not be reduced
significantly during the time of
project duration.
Simple individual household
latrine as indicator Output 2
For the indicator of Output 2, it
has been agreed by both parties
that simple individual household
latrine would not be suitable
indicator for measuring the
result of intervention related to
the hygiene practice. By taking
into account which in all three
targeted hamlets, insufficient
clean water supply is still
considered as a significant factor
contributes to inappropriate
practice shown by the
communities. While in terms of
limitation of project duration, it
would be more reasonable if the
indicators emphasize more on
measuring the perceived
behavior attitude instead of
appeared practices as expected
behavior resulted from CLTS
approach.
Output 2

Page | 11
2.2. Key Strategy and Intervention
The first phase of the project implementation
was to put baseline survey as the main activity
to identify the appropriateness of the project
objective and activity plan. The result obtained
from the baseline survey had also determined
the key strategy and intervention for the
following phase. During the second phase, the
project was implemented to initiate the hygiene
behavior change among the targeted
communities by using CLTS approach as
strategic instrument. By focusing on facilitating
CLTS in the communities, further strategies of
implementation were put into operation as key
interventions over the project course, as
followed:
• Improved the capacity of local facilitators as
an agent of change through CLTS training
• Initiated hygiene behavior change in the
community (CLTS approach, Environmental
Health Promotion, Establishing Community
Action Plan)
(July 1, 2011) (September 15, 2011)
3.1 Promoting Hygiene through
Children Activities & Community
Event
The main ideas of these activities
are remain the same as
previously planned, the change
only made on the total of
targeted hamlets which also
affect the number of children
and households as direct
beneficiaries.
The total numbers of children
age 6-12 years approx. 100
children for 3 hamlets. No
records available for the
numbers of children under 5,
therefore this group of children
is not counted as direct
beneficiaries.
Output 3
(July 1, 2011) (September 15, 2011)
4.1 Program Monitoring &
Evaluation
Monitoring from local health
agencies was included as one of
the regular activities.
Due to limitation of time and
budget for monitoring, this line
of activity has been removed but
coordination with local health
agencies would still be
maintained through regular
reporting from field team.
Output 4

Page | 12
• Improved the quality of children’s health
through de-worming activity and at the
same time acted as triggering activity for
CLTS approach
• Introduced hygiene knowledge to children
through play and learn activities (any
activities which include brushing teeth, hand
washing, pick-up garbage walking, watching
hygiene promotion movie, etc.)
• Improved the quality of local people and
stakeholders’ engagement and responsibility
through participatory monitoring (include
verification and ODF certification by local
village government)
In general, the project had put the best use of
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) technique to
work with the community members to identify
the existing strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and challenges within the
community and also to develop an action plan
related to health and hygiene quality
improvement which integrated with the overall
village development plan. At all stages, the
community actively participated in decision
making and action facilitated by the IBU
Foundation Hygiene Promotion team.
2.3. Scope of Working Area
As previously mentioned in above section, the
Hygiene Promotion project was focused on 3
targeted hamlet’s communities located in
Sinaka village within South Pagai sub-districts of
Mentawai. Table 5 shows that there are total of
129 households reside in these targeted
hamlets.
Table 5. Number of Households in 3 Targeted Hamlets
No Hamlet # Household
1 Mangka Baga 27 HH
2 Kosai Baru 15 HH
3 Bungo Rayo 87 HH
129 HHTotal Beneficiaries

Page | 13
2.4. Key Stakeholders and Target Groups
This Hygiene Promotion project aimed to work
closely with all stakeholders, such as local
government at village level, Community Health
Center, religious leaders, local leaders (incl.
local youth leaders) at sub-village level,
community members (parents, children), and
teachers. In the early phase, IBU Foundation
had communicated and coordinated the project
plan with local government at village level in
order to receive authorization to implement the
project in their area of authority. Local
facilitators were the key actors throughout the
project and their active participation in
promoting as well as mobilizing their hamlet’s
community members were mainly the key
factor of success in this project. In addition,
local leaders and other stakeholders’
engagement to the project as support to their
communities were also imperative to ensure
the effectiveness of change process towards
appropriate hygienic practices and its
sustainability.
During the implementation as included in the
project design, three groups of beneficiaries
were the main target of this project, those were
as follows:
1. Local facilitators
2. Community members
3. Children

Page | 14
III. Project Implementation and
Achievement
3.1. Community-Led Total Sanitation
Training for Local Facilitators
The training was conducted in two days (26 - 27
September 2011) in Bungo Rayo hamlet for 12
local facilitators from 3 hamlets (6 participants
from Bungo Rayo, 3 from Kosai Baru and 3 from
Mangka Baga) and 5 personnel from IBU
Foundation. De-worming for Children was held
as preliminary activity in all three hamlets
before the training being conducted. During the
de-worming activity, the trainer had the
opportunity to observe the health status among
the communities and to their open defecation
behavior together with the local facilitators
from each hamlet which then the result of
observation being brought into the context of
training and discussed among the training
participants as case studies.
The content of training covered from the
introduction of CLTS to theory and practice of
how to conduct triggering, what post-triggering
activities need to follow and sanitation ladders.
First draft of follow up action plan was
developed by each local facilitator team at the
end of training session, to be disseminated to
and participatively conducted by the community
in their respective hamlet after CLTS training.
Table 6 shows the achieved numbers of CLTS
training participants.
Table 6. Numbers of CLTS Training Participant
Trainee Targeted Achieved Remarks
Local Facilitator 10 12 120%
IBU Personnel 5 5 100%
TOTAL 15 17 113%
Picture 1. CLTS Training for Local Facilitators

Page | 15
3.2. Community Action Plan
The Community Action Plan concept was firstly
drafted during the CLTS Training session by local
facilitator team from each respective hamlet. It
was done during the training with aim to give
clear explanation to the local facilitator team on
how to facilitate their community in establishing
Community Action Plan which related to
Community-Led Total Sanitation and other
hygienic practices. Table 7 shows the result of
Community Action Plan in regards to
Community-Led Total Sanitation in each
respective hamlet.
In Bungo Rayo, the local facilitators have
difficulties in addressing the issue of OD and the
triggering phase has not worked effectively in
stimulating a collective sense of disgust and
shame. Only small numbers influenced by it and
showed some progress toward expected
behavior change. These people along with local
facilitators then decided to give their best effort
to influence the rest which have not yet aware
about the danger of OD behavior for their
health status by making 2 public latrines for
Bungo Rayo’s people and continue to spread
the OD issues to the community through as
many occasions they can have. If in the
beginning the baseline survey only found 4 HHs
with ODF status, at the end of project the end
line showed 14 HHs have gained their ODF
status.
Different progress achieved in Kosai Baru
hamlet. 100% change in behavior towards
appropriate hygienic practice including ODF
status achieved in only less than a month
intervention. This achievement may resulted
from the fact that Kosai Baru has only consists
of 15 HHs which likely more homogeneous in
the characteristic of group and other variables
such as good leadership of Head of Hamlet as
Public HH Public HH
Bungo Rayo 87 0 4 2 4 5% 16%
2 public latrines established based on decision
made by community members to promote
behavior change towards ODF
Kosai Baru 15 0 1 0 12 0% 100%
Numbers of household latrine different from
numbers of household due to 2 HHs live in the
same house with other HHs and 1 HH stays
more often in Sikakap but in practice these 3
HHs have used other HH's latrines
Mangka Baga 27 0 9 0 12 33% 70%
8 out of 25 HHs (27 minus 2 HHs who stay more
often in Sikakap) decided to wait for relocation
before they build their own HH latrines.
19 HHs have gained an ODF status (5 among
them have used other HH's latrines
# of HH Remarks
Baseline Endline
Hamlets
Latrine
Baseline Endline
ODF Status
Table 7. Result of Community Action Plan in 3 Targeted Hamlets

Page | 16
well as the socio-cultural condition which
accommodates the emergence of natural
leader; have also boosted the community’s
behavior change. Even though the numbers of
household latrine built in this hamlet were less
than the numbers of household resides in it,
those who has not yet have their own have
using other household facilities for their needs.
In Mangka Baga, 70% of the total numbers of
household resides in this hamlet have gained
their ODF status. Only 8 HHs remains
unchanged and they decided to wait until the
relocation of their houses finished before they
started to work on their own latrines. However,
the Head of Hamlet has decided to add a set of
rules in their hamlet regulation which can
control community members’ behavior related
to OD and this process is still taken place when
the project has to end at the end of November.
Even though only 3 new household latrines built
after the triggering phase, the total numbers of
households gained their ODF status increased
from 9 to 19 HHs. The 7 HHs who have not yet
built their own latrines, 5 of them are waiting
for their house relocation and 2 HHs are more
often stay in Sikakap then in Mangka Baga
hamlet. However, they can be categorized as
ODF since they have made an agreement with
other community members who have possess
latrine before them to share the utilization of
these private latrine facilities.
Picture 2. Household Latrine in Kosai Baru Hamlet

Page | 17
3.3. Promoting Hygiene through Children
Activities and Community Event
1. Program Dissemination & Local Facilitator
Recruitment
Disseminating the aim of program
implementation to three targeted hamlet
completed in the third week of September
by involving all stakeholders in the
community meeting. One community
meeting held in each hamlet and to ensure
all program work plan works effectively with
good participation from the community
members, IBU Foundation had also involved
the Head of Sinaka Village since the
beginning of the work plan preparation.
Through program dissemination, local
facilitators were also recruited
participatively by the community. 12 local
facilitators recruited as a result instead of 10
local facilitators previously targeted in early
plan.
2. Facilitating Community-Led Total Sanitation
(Triggering Phase)
Followed CLTS Training for local facilitators,
IBU Foundation held three basic hygiene
educations to the communities in three
hamlets. This activity had been inserted in
triggering phase to enhance the
communities’ basic knowledge about the
chain of causation related to poor
sanitation. At the same time, the activity
steps in triggering phase conducted and
since the knowledge given still fresh in the
communities’ mind, less effort taken to
facilitate the community members to
linkage the cause and effect of open
defecation during the ignition moment.
Triggering had also accelerated community
members’ immediate desire to stop open
defecation. Community members were
likely to awaken to the problem when
forced by outsiders or others beside
individual self to look at and analyze the
situation in detail. Thus, positive attitude
towards open defecation free and intention
to establish social contract among the
community members through community
action plan have urged themselves to
Picture 3. Facilitating CLTS in Bungo Rayo

Page | 18
commit better hygienic practice. As a result,
community action plan had been
established in three hamlets which shown
each hamlet planning made by their
community members in order to assure
their commitment in achieving OD free
status. Result of the implementation CAP by
the communities can be seen in previous
section of Community Action Plan.
3. De-worming Activities for Children
The de-worming programs were conducted
to reach children of age between 2-15 years
old. The medicines being used was
Combantrine capsule, which contain Pirantel
Pamoat 250 mg.
Before the de-worming conducted, side
effects of the medicines were explained to
the children and parents. Most of the
children in the targeted areas were reached
by IBU Foundation team with support from
several community members in order to
have the information regarding the de-
worming activities for children spread out.
The parents who came with their children
participated voluntarily.
The estimation of more than 90% coverage
was reached. There were no children who
received the tablets being reported with
side effects during 24 hours after the de-
worming activities. Some children reported
seen the worm excreted along with their
feces 24 hours after receiving the tablets.
Table 8 shows the numbers of children as
beneficiary of the de-worming activities.
Table 8. Numbers of Children Received De-worming Tablet
Hamlet Date Beneficiaries
Mangka Baga 23-Sep-11 35 Children
Kosai Baru 24-Sep-11 13 Children
Bungo Rayo 25-Sep-11 76 Children
124 ChildrenTotal Beneficiaries
Picture 4.
De-worming Activity for Children in Bungo Rayo

Page | 19
4. Children Hand Washing Education
The intervention was given gradually,
starting from basic education regarding
hand washing practice where children
received basic hygiene kit, i.e. soap, tooth
brush, toothpaste, towel and water dipper;
learning through visual media where
children watched education movie about
basic hygiene and hand washing practice; to
the third one which delivered through hand
washing practices where IBU will also
observe the result of intervention. Early
findings have showed that most of the
children have not yet had sufficient
knowledge about proper hand washing
practice. Lot of these children still confused
on how to wash their hand properly.
Intensive interaction with children, not only
during the formal or scheduled intervention,
had shown improvement at the end of
program activity in their proper hand
washing practice. Table 9 shows the
numbers of held activities with children
related to hand washing education in three
hamlets.
Table 9. Numbers of Children Activities Held in 3 Hamlets
Hamlet Planned Conducted
Kosai Baru 3 5
Mangka Baga 3 3
Bungo Rayo 3 3
TOTAL 9 11
Picture 5.
Hand Washing Activity for Children in Kosai Baru

Page | 20
IV. Program Monitoring & Evaluation
4.1. Baseline Survey
1. Results of the Baseline Survey
Baseline Survey had been conducted by the
team on 15 days field activity for data
collection in 11 hamlets. Structured
interview along with questionnaire had
been used to collect necessary data based
on project indicators. Total subjects are 69
(12% of population) from 11 hamlets with
proportion of 56.5% male and 43.5%
female respondents.
In overall result shows that the
communities have acquired basic
knowledge on hand washing, open
defecation, bath and tooth brushing, and
its correlation with diarrhea cases based on
findings that 68% of respondents are on
moderate level of knowledge, 3% on low
level, 19% on high level and 10% of
respondents on very high level. However, it
was found that only 22% from total
respondents know the importance of hand
washing but not yet know the importance
of using soap in hand washing. 70% of
respondents think that defecate can do
everywhere, strengthened by practices
measurement which shown that only 18%
of respondents like to defecate on latrine,
while the rest of 82% respondents like to
defecate on river/near of river and or in the
beach/sea. More details on baseline survey
result can be seen in Annex I.
All of hamlets surveyed have the same
common problem in hygiene practices with
most common problems in open defecation
and clean water supply. Mostly, the
communities already had basic knowledge
on how to keep their environment clean
and healthy in terms of controlling open
defecation (latrine) and the important of
clean water. But in contrary for practices,
the communities have not performed the
appropriate hygiene practices due to lack
of facilities in relocation places and no access
for clean water supply.
2. Recommendation Based on Baseline Survey
Results
The appropriateness of the objectives of
this program can be analyzed in terms
of the current needs of the population
surveyed as determined during the
baseline survey and some critical issues
need to be address in advance
considering to the project duration will
only take place in 5 months. These issues
had been discussed together between IBU
Foundation and SurfAid International
during coordination meeting in Sikakap on
August 18, 2011, and it had been agreed
by both parties to modify the program as

Page | 21
described in detail on Project Objectives
and Modification.
4.2. End-line Survey
Results of the Comparative Analysis on
Baseline - End-line Indicators
The end-line survey was conducted at the
latest stage of program implementation by IBU
Foundation team. However, one indicator
could not be included in the measurement
during end-line survey since there was no
reliable source of data can be used or
collected, that is for morbidity rate of diarrhea
cases in children. The local Community Health
Center (PUSKESMAS) has no updated data
related to this case. The latest data they have
was the one IBU Foundation used during
baseline data collection. Therefore, the
indicators used in end-line survey were limited
only to Knowledge and Practice related to
appropriate hygienic behavior (personal
hygiene which includes hand washing, bathe
and tooth brushing; proper sanitation; and its
correlation with diarrhea disease).
After the end-line data completed for three
hamlets, the objective of this survey was to
carry out a comparative analysis of the
baseline-end-line indicators. The results of
comparative analysis have been summarized as
follows:
1. In the baseline survey only 10.85% of
households in 3 hamlets had access to a
permanent latrine constructed with local
materials but only 28.57% from them (4 out
of 14 households) have their latrines used
and managed properly, the rest were not
due to insufficient water supplies.
The end line survey data shows that 21.7%
of households in 3 hamlets have had access
to individual household latrines and 15.5%
have had access to public latrines (at Bungo
Rayo hamlet only by considering 1 public
latrine is aimed to be used for 10
households).
2. In the baseline survey, the majority
(89.92%) of households in 3 hamlets chose
to defecate anywhere and they liked to
defecate on river/near of river and or in the
beach/sea. Only 10% chose to defecate on
latrine and had had their individual
household latrines.
The end line survey data shows that 37.2%
of households in 3 hamlets have gained
their Open Defecation Free status and
aware of the importance to secure excreta
in latrine.
3. In the baseline survey, 61% of the
respondents from 3 hamlets have moderate
level of knowledge related to appropriate
hygienic practices; 33% at high level and
only 3% were in very high level.

Page | 22
The end line survey shows an increase in
the knowledge. The results only shows two
level of knowledge among the respondents,
those were high level (11%) and very high
level (89%).

Page | 23
V. Budget Expenditure
5.1. Budget Modification
Table 10 below shows the summary of budget
expenditure for this project. The total budget
had been reduced twice from the first budget
agreed. First in September 16, 2011 when the
targeted hamlets reduced from 11 (603,205,750
IDR) to 3 hamlets (421,538,250 IDR). The second
time took place on October 2011, when the
provisioning of water facilities for the
communities as part of the planned activity for
community facilitation, took out from the plan.
The budget reduced to 358,191,750 IDR.
With the total actual expenses of 302,351,916
IDR, the variance of under spending budget
reached 15.59%. Further explanation regarding
the act of under spending can be found in the
following section of Financial Analysis of Project
Cost.
Table 10. Summary of Budget Expenditure
5.2. Narrative Analysis of Project Cost
By referring to Annex for Detail Cost, the
analysis of underspent in project cost describes
as follows:
5
Budget for activity A.3 – Hygiene Promotion
Training (CLTS Training for local facilitators) was
utilized for only 75.16% of the allocated
amount. Allocation for meals and
accommodation was over calculated at the
beginning but it was then considered as back up
if any extra allocation needed by other line of
costs under the same budget activity.
Budget for activity A.4 – Facilitating Hygiene
Promotion in 3 Hamlets was significantly
underspent (45.21%). It was affected by the
second amendment for cancellation on activity
of provisioning water facilities. Allocation for
working tools was previously set not only for
facilitating the communities in constructing
Narrative Amount (Rp) Remarks
Total budget 358,191,750
Total budget approved on October 2011 after
the budget for provisioning water facilities
had been taken out
Total actual expenses 302,351,916
Remaining balance 55,839,834
Variance (%): 15.59% Underspent

Page | 24
their latrine but also to provide them with tools
which can be used for constructing their water
facilities. Since the provisioning of water
facilities had been taken out, this line of cost
had not been utilized optimally. In addition, the
budget allocation for activity 4.1 – Community
Facilitation which previously budgeted at
75,000,000 IDR to fund Community Action Plan,
including the provision of water facilities and
community meeting; had been reduced to
15,000,000 IDR and the utilization was limited
only for facilitating the community in regards of
CLTS whereas this activity had almost
completed with minimum cost when the
decision made. The cost for facilitating CLTS was
successfully managed to reduce with
contribution from the community members as
form of their participation to the program and
the underspent was aimed to be allocated for
the provisioning water facilities. The budget
activity 4.4 – Live in Accommodation for 3 IBU’s
facilitators also utilized only two-thirds of the
budget provided due to calculation which based
on live in schedule between October 22 to
November 2, 2011, plus 6 days of live in prior to
this schedule for 1 facilitator which cannot be
charged to line A.2.2.3.
Budget for activity A.5 – Promoting Hygiene
through Children Activities & Community Event
was also significantly underspent (65.67%). This
due to underspent on activity 5.2 – Live in
Accommodation for 3 IBU’s facilitators which
utilized less than three-fourth of the budget
provided due to calculation which based on live
in schedule between November 8 to November
27, 2011; and activity 5.3 - Promoting Hygiene
(event, communication board, children t-shirt,
visibility, etc.). Underspent in activity 5.3
happened due to limited time to encourage the
communities to come up with new event after
the activity of provisioning water facilities being
cancelled. IBU Foundation team had previously
prepared to use some allocation from this
budget line for event of inauguration water
facilities. This event was also previously set to
promote hygiene through hand washing and
tooth brushing activity for children using water
which flow from the new established water
facilities.
Budget for activity C – Operational & Support,
in overall, seen as underspent (85.95%).
However, considering the Mentawai Site Office
(base camp) was not effectively operated
before September 2011, for some line of costs
(C.9, C.10) were only utilized for the needs of
operational cost in three months effective work.
C.3 and C.4 were aimed to provide one time
purchase of personal and base camp
equipments, which explain why the
expenditures happened between July (first
deployment) and early of September (after
settled with the first amendment). C.8 was only

Page | 25
utilized for one time purchase of 1 unit printer
which had no necessary needs for maintenance
during the project time. C.11 was spent
efficiently according to the needs for 5 months
project operation and the team could managed
to save some allocation as back up budget in
case it needed.

Page | 26
VI. Project Reflection and Learning
6.1. Facilitating and Hindering Factors
1. Facilitating Factor
• Cooperative Government; the
government showed good response
to IBU Foundation’s program since
early as baseline survey started.
Coordination with Head of Hamlets
went very well with Head of Village
assistance. This cooperative
assistance provided until the end of
project. The Head of Hamlet also
involved in the process of monitoring,
verification and certification of the
Community Action Plan related to
CLTS. To follow up IBU Foundation’s
program, at inauguration event of
water facility in Kosai Baru hamlet,
the Head of Village had made an
official statement that to all hamlets
which have demonstrated behavior
change in appropriate hygienic
practices, especially in terms of ODF,
the government at village level will
provide support funding to the
community members to improve the
quality of water and sanitation
facilities in their hamlet.
• Cooperative Community Members;
good motivation and willingness to
support or to participate in the
project activities were also reflected
by the community members in
general. Challenges did exist during
the project implementation.
Sometimes IBU Foundation team had
to deal with people who refused to
participate in the activities due to
their regular livelihood activities
which they need to prioritize first in
order to feed their family.
2. Hindering factor
• Time Constraint; the first time line
agreed to implement the program
had considered as short (5 months)
and it had become shorter than
previously planned due to the needs
to have the program modified
considering the baseline findings.
Consequently, the program only had
3 effective months to run their
activities. However, the team
successfully managed dealing with
the delay by increasing the intensity
of the IBU’s facilitator engagement in
the remaining given time.
• Cancellation of Activity; IBU
Foundation’s team had to deal with
another delay when the activity of
provisioning water facilities being
cancelled by SurfAid International.

Page | 27
The delay was due to the needs of re-
disseminating to the communities
regarding to the change in activity
plan. This had to be considered
handled carefully since the
communities had been informed that
the provisioning of water facilities
will take place on mid of October and
they had been expecting it.
• Groups’ Conflict Interest; in Bungo
Rayo, where the number of
households is considered as large (87
HHs), have potential conflict between
groups in the community. It
demanded extra effort and time from
IBU’s facilitators to apply appropriate
strategy in implementing the
program activities in order to
facilitate the community in Bungo
Rayo to work together towards
program objectives.
• Cancellation of Provisioning Water
Facilities; this activity was aimed to
ensure the sustainability of behavior
change after the CLTS activities
resulted the expected outputs (post-
triggering). Triggering without follow-
up is bad practice and should be
avoided through forward planning.
Provisioning Water Facilities was set
in the beginning as an act for
immediate follow-up and
reinforcement of behavior change. As
it had been identified in baseline
survey that one major factor
hindered the communities from ODF
is due to insufficient clean water
facilities in their hamlets, by
providing water facility to each
hamlet which had managed to free
their community members from open
defecation, it will reinforce their
behavior change and it is highly
expected those change to become
more sustainable after the program.
However, the main problem occurred
was the fact that the cancellation
took place after the activity being
disseminated to the communities.
Two communities from Kosai Baru
and Mangka Baga had even had
contributed time and materials to
support the construction of these
water facilities. The reason why this
activity being cancelled which IBU
Foundation received the
confirmation from SurfAid
International was only came from the
doubt that IBU Foundation could
managed to finish the construction
work in timely manner. This issues
had caused IBU Foundation team ran
the project behind schedule for at

Page | 28
least two weeks due to an additional
time needed for re-disseminating the
change on activity plan to the
communities.
• Insufficient Budget for
Transportation Cost; in the early
discussion between IBU Foundation
and SurfAid International, budget for
transportation cost had been
proposed based on actual calculation.
However, the proposed budget had
been reduced for almost 50%. When
the project implementation started,
IBU Foundation had to deal with the
fact that the budget would not be
able to cover the needs until the end
of project. The option was to reduce
the frequency of sea trip or reduce
the capacity of boat machine from
40pk (1 hour trip = ± 22 liter fuel) to
15pk (1 hour trip = ± 15 liter fuel).
The shortest distance of target
hamlet (Bungo Rayo) from Sikakap
took 3 hours one way trip for IBU
Foundation team to travel through
sea and 5 hours for the farthest
hamlet (Mangka Baga) using 15pk
boat machine. IBU Foundation team
had made a difficult decision,
considering the only option to run
this project was to use the 15pk boat
machine, which caused them time
wasted only for travel through sea
with greater risk to their safety
during the sea trip.
6.2. Significant Best Practices
During the project implementation, IBU’s
staffs found potencies in community that
could contribute well to the goal
achievement and to the project
sustainability. Some efforts to support
people to maintain and strengthen those
good aspects were taken and afterward
could be considered as best practices
occurred during project course. From the
evaluation activity, it is found at least 2 best
practices from the process of
implementation:
• Strengthening the culture of mutual work
(Gotong Royong)
• Encouraging community learning
motivation
6.3. Lessons Learned
From the experience in implementing CLTS
and Hygiene Promotion project in 3 targeted
hamlets in Sinaka village, there are several
reflective aspects found, those are:
 Survey data needs to include information
regarding soil structure and layer in
targeted areas. This information needed

Page | 29
in case technical information regarding
how to build household latrine in specific
geographical condition being asked by
the community during facilitation.
 A small numbers of household in one
targeted community are proven more
favorable in conducting CLTS program
considering that in this type of
community, people tend to be more
socially and culturally homogeneous.
Two out of three targeted hamlets are
considered as small communities (15 and
27 households) and these two hamlets
have achieved ODF status in less than
three months intervention. The other
hamlet which is consists of 87
households (previously counted as 94
households during the baseline survey)
has shown only less than 10% increase in
numbers of households which
demonstrated behavior change related
to ODF status.
 De-worming for children had also proven
effectively triggered the community by
adding extra sense of disgust and worries
when parents witnessed their children
excreted worms through their feces. This
kind of activity can be very useful during
the pre-triggering and triggering phase.
 Facilitating local stakeholders’
engagement as earlier as it could have
also given more benefit to the
effectiveness of the program delivery. It
is necessary to take their involvement
into consideration since the beginning of
program dissemination in order to have
the program well-integrated with other
community’s plan which previously
existed.
 Reward over achievement made by the
successful ODF community is necessary
in order to maintain the behavior change
more sustainable. In two successful ODF
hamlets, the communities are more
enthusiastic and motivated to scale-up
their self-made household latrines when
their hard work attaining their ODF
status succeeded and resulted water
facilities support from IBU Foundation as
appreciation towards their willingness to
change. The idea of giving the reward
was never mentioned earlier to the
communities to avoid temporarily
change over expectation. This reward as
reinforcement towards expected
behavior has even resulted more than
IBU Foundation expectation. Local
facilitators from one of the targeted
hamlets, Kosai Baru, were inspired to
share their hamlet successful
achievement to other hamlets nearby by

Page | 30
becoming voluntarily trainer for other
hamlet’s facilitators.
 Participatory monitoring proved to be
highly successful in keeping stakeholders
engaged and increasing their vested
interest in the progress of the hygiene
behavior change activities.
6.4. Potential of Sustainability
1. Inclusion of hygiene related aspects into
Hamlet’s Regulation and Development
Plan
This has been found in 2 targeted
hamlets. Although the form and level of
inclusion may vary among these hamlets,
the following efforts are identified as
have been taken by them:
a. Mangka Baga Head of Hamlet enforced
all of his community members to avoid
open defecation through the inclusion of
this hygiene related aspect into hamlet’s
regulation.
b. Kosai Baru had received acknow-
ledgement from the Head of Sinaka
Village as “Healthy Hamlet” and will
receive mutual work support fund from
the Village Government for their hygiene
and sanitation facilities improvement as
a reward for their achievement. Local
facilitators in this hamlet have also
worked together with their Head of
Hamlet and their community members to
integrate their action plan related to
hygiene and sanitation facilities into their
hamlet’s development plan.
2. The existence of local facilitators for
hygiene promotion
As discussed previously, local facilitators
were recruited in each hamlet. At the
end of the intervention, local facilitators
from Kosai Baru hamlet have been able
to identify themselves as advocate for
behavior change and some time before
the program ends, these facilitators had
initiated their follow up activities after 2
Head of Hamlet from other hamlets
nearby asked and invited them to share
their knowledge to their hamlets’
communities.

Page | 31
ANNEX 1 - Baseline Survey
1. Objectives of the Baseline Survey
The objective of the baseline survey was to collect primary data on a number of
indicators related to the Empowering Community through Basic Hygiene Promotion Program
which previously proposed to be conducted in 11 hamlets in Sinaka Village. There was no
updated information available for the 11 hamlets in which the Program planned to be
implemented, on what people know, do and would like to do in relation to water,
sanitation and hygiene. However, the information was considered as extremely important
for adapting the program approaches and demand creation, in particular for the access to
adequate sanitation in the targeted hamlets. Moreover, the information was also highly
necessary to monitor the progress as a result of the Program. Therefore, the baseline survey
was sought to establish the baseline information and indicators to be used for measuring
the preexisted access of water supply and sanitation, as well as the progress of hygiene
practices which may be attributed to the implementation of the current Program in the
targeted hamlets.
The information collected through this baseline survey had helped the Program to adapt
its approaches with the current situation on the field and make necessary changes to
the previous planned activities. More or less the result from the baseline survey had not
only to identify the level of Knowledge and Practice at the beginning of the project but to
determine as well the appropriate inputs to achieve the program aims.
2. Results of the Baseline Survey
Baseline Survey had been conducted by the team on 15 days field activity for data collection
in 11 hamlets. Structured interview along with questionnaire had been used to collect
necessary data based on project indicators. The result shows that the communities have
acquired basic knowledge and practices on hand washing, open defecation, bath and tooth
brushing, and its correlation with diarrhea cases. The field team also collected information
about the availability of water sources in these 11 targeted hamlets to see any possibility
for IBU Foundation to run hygiene promotion program.
In average, all hamlets surveyed has the same kind of diseases pattern such as
diarrhea, malaria, cough, runny nose and respiratory infection (ISPA). Information

Page | 32
received from PUSKESMAS Sikakap shows that Sinaka village has higher number of diarrhea
cases between January to May 2011 compare with other villages in North and South Pagai
(Figure 1) and mostly diarrhea cases happened during fruit seasons.
Figure 1. Number of Diarrhea Cases from PUSKESMAS in Sikakap
Most of villagers in Sinaka are farmers and fishermen with total of 576 households and
around 600 children (6 to 12 years old) reside in this area. Source for clean water in each
surveyed hamlet are vary from spring, river to rain water or combination from either of these
sources for some hamlets. Table 1 shows the numbers of households in Sinaka village:
Table 1. Baseline Data of Households in 11 Hamlets of Sinaka Village
No Hamlets House Hold
1 Aban Baga 87 HH
2 Boriai 42 HH
3 Bubuget 44 HH
4 Bungo Rayo 94 HH
5 Kosai Bagatsagai 56 HH
6 Kosai Baru 15 HH
7 Mabolak 67 HH
8 Mangka Baga 27 HH
9 Mangka Ulu 53 HH
10 Matotonan 21 HH
11 Sinaka 70 HH
576 HHTOTAL

Page | 33
Hygiene practices in each surveyed hamlet had shown a relative equal pattern. All surveyed
hamlets had no public toilet facilities which can be functioned properly. 8% of household (46
HH) lives in Sinaka village have owned individual household latrine and public latrine but none
of them being used properly. Survey found Boriai hamlet has two units of public latrine,
completed with septic tank but it was not utilized properly due to lack of water supply. People
in Boriai must lift the water as far as 200 – 400 meters in order to use the latrine.
Consequently, they were likely to defecate around river rather than lift the water to use
latrine facilities. Sinaka and Kosai Baru also have a public latrine, but unlike the one in Boriai,
their facilities were more appropriate to be defined as open latrine with no septic tank
available. People lives in these two hamlets prefer to call it “WC Terbang” (“Flying Latrine”).
While in Mangka Baga, 74% (20 HH) of household had built their own latrine, while 26% (7 HH)
of household were still on process in constructing their latrine by the time the data taken.
Based on interview with the Head of Hamlet, the community had bought their latrine parts
when financial subsidies from the government for Tsunami victim given in 2010. In Mangka
Baga, most of households who had built their own latrines also have easy access to water
source, such as wells and water pipes built by the Pastoral. Table 2 gives distance information
of the nearest water source location and established latrine facilities in each surveyed hamlet.
Table 2. Distance to the Nearest Water Source and Number of Established Latrine Facilities
Public HH
1 Aban Baga 2 10 River 100 m
2 Boriai 2 0 River 400 m
3 Bubuget 0 0 River 200 m
4 Bungo Rayo 0 4 Well and River 929 m or simple water
5
Kosai
Bagatsagai
0 - River
Batsagai lama (100 m), Batsagai
Baru (482 m)
6 Kosai Baru 2 1 River 100 m
7 Mabolak 0 0 River 200 m
8 Mangka Baga 0 20 Well and River 37 m
9 Mangka Ulu 0 10 River 200 m
10 Matotonan 0 0 River 200 m
11 Sinaka 2 1 River 300 m
No Hamlets
Latrine
Water Source
Distance to Clean Water
(drinking water)

Page | 34
Clean water supply has become major concern for each hamlet. Bubuget, their last hamlet
location before Tsunami 2010 had been completely equipped with water installation and
latrine facilities. After the catastrophe, they decided to move to another safer place, around
2 km from their previous location and as they have to reside and living in a new place,
clean water supply and sanitation have become their major problems. The same condition
also happening at Kosai Bagatsagai, the community decided to move to higher location
around 1.1 km away from their previous location. The distance of this new location to the
nearest river for source of water is approximately 482 meters and the community would like
to build their public hygiene facilities.
Bungo Rayo, has a large river that being used by the community to wash their cloth and
household wares, take a bath and defecates. The community has been utilizing stilling basin
to take a bath and washing household wares. Meanwhile, some people in Bungo Rayo have
already had wells with depth around 3 – 5 meters but the quality of water would need
further examination considered to its color and distinctive smell. They consume the water
from these wells after simple filtration process. Other than utilizing river and wells as source
of water, people in Bungo Rayo occasionally consume spring water, which they usually take
it from spring water source 929 meters away from their hamlet and to go there they have
to use small boat and travel for 15 to 20 minutes. For some people who use rain water
source, they are likely to go to this spring water source during dry season.
All of hamlets surveyed have the same common problem in hygiene practices with most
common problems in open defecation and clean water supply. Mostly, the communities
already had basic knowledge on how to keep their environment clean and healthy in terms
of controlling open defecation (latrine) and the important of clean water. But in contrary
for practices, the communities have not performed the appropriate hygiene practices due
to lack of facilities in relocation places and no access for clean water supply.
3. Knowledge and Practice
Our survey had been held on 11 hamlets with structure interview (questionnaire) to gain
information about community knowledge and practices with random - purposive sampling
method. Total subjects are 69 (12% of population) from 11 hamlets with proportion 56.5%
male and 43.5% female respondents. Details are:

Page | 35
Table 3. Number of Respondents by Hamlet
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Aban Baga 8 11.6 11.6 11.6
Boriai 4 5.8 5.8 17.4
Bubuget 4 5.8 5.8 23.2
Bungo Rayo 4 5.8 5.8 29
Kosai Bagatsagai 8 11.6 11.6 40.6
Kosai Baru 9 13 13 53.6
Mabolak 5 7.2 7.2 60.9
Mangka Baga 5 7.2 7.2 68.1
Mangka Ulu 6 8.7 8.7 76.8
Matotonan 6 8.7 8.7 85.5
Sinaka 10 14.5 14.5 100
Total 69 100 100
Valid
Table 4. Number of Respondents by Gender
Cumulative
Percent
Male 39 56.5 56.5 56.5
Female 30 43.5 43.5 100
Total 69 100 100
Valid
Based on our finding in the field with measurement aspects are knowledge in hand washing,
open defecation and correlation with diarrhea, bath and tooth brushing we gain
information that mostly respondents are on moderate level of knowledge (68%). 3% on
low level, 19% on high level and 10% of respondents on very high level (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Knowledge Level of Respondents

Page | 36
It shown that mostly respondents, had moderate knowledge about how to wash their hand,
good defecate, bath and tooth brushing. Figure 3 shows detail response that measured.
Figure 3. Respondents’ Detail Response per Item Measurement
By seeing responses given by respondents pictured in Figure 3, in several measured item had
indicated respondents’ lack of knowledge. Item number 2, 3, 4 and 5, specifically questioned
knowledge of proper hand washing. 15 out of 69 respondents (22%) had shown good
knowledge. However, the respondents liked to wash their hand, but only with clean water.
They were not yet have knowledge that to do hand washing properly, they should use soap.
From practices measurement, we can see correlation between knowledge and practices on
hand wash. Mostly, respondents (74%) washed their hand and ordered their child to wash
their hand. However, respondents only washed their hand without using soap and only used
clean water. 26% respondents had never order their children to wash their hand considered
that their children usually refused to obey their parents’ order (figure 4).
Figure 4. Respondents’ Practice on Hand Washing

Page | 37
Other measured knowledge considered as insufficient among the respondents is regarding to
location where respondents chose to defecate. These results of measurement have been
shown by item 10 and 11 (Figure 3). 70% of respondents thought that defecation can be done
anywhere and only 30% of respondents thought that defecation should be done in latrine. As
results of practices measurement, only 18% (11 respondents) liked to defecate on latrine and
had had personal latrine. The remaining 82% liked to defecate on river/near of river and or in
the beach/sea (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Respondents’ Defecation Practices
Results on respondents’ bathe and tooth brushing practices have shown 45% of parents liked
to order their children to take a bath twice a day and brushing their teeth. The remaining 55%
respondents did not order their children or indulgently let their children to do it without any
directions or control from their parents (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Respondents’ Bathe and Tooth Brushing Practices

Page | 38
4. Discussion and Conclusions Related to Baseline Survey Findings
Some critical issues need to be address in advance by taking into consideration that the
project duration will only take place in 5 months. The appropriateness of the objectives of
this program can be analyzed in terms of the current needs of the population surveyed as
determined during the baseline survey. These needs are described for the related objective,
as follows:
“Objective 2 - 110 households constructing simple adequate latrines in each of their
houses as a result of the program’s Facilitating Community-Led Total Sanitation in 11
hamlets.”
The absence of sufficient access to clean water supply facilities in the program areas is
alarming. It is 8% of household currently have latrine facilities with lack of access for water
supply and 4 out of 11 hamlets have public latrines with also lack of access for water
supply. When only considering to facilitate the community to construct simple latrines
without any support for providing sufficient water supply, this objective would no longer
seen as reasonable purpose and the facilitation would hardly bring about the expected
results. Meanwhile, Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) itself focuses more on igniting a
change in sanitation behavior rather than constructing latrines. Therefore, in order to have
the objectives appropriately set relevant to the needs, it is highly necessary to consider
modification on indicator of outputs and implementation strategy.
In other hand, several communities have planned to mobilize their houses to another safer
area. Based on our interview with Head of Sinaka village, 4 out of 11 hamlets like to move to
another area. Those are Mabolak, Mangka Baga, Sinaka and Bubuget. These hamlets have
stated legally their plan to the Head of Sinaka Village. Two other hamlets which also have
stated their relocation plan but have no legal statement to the government yet, are Boriai
and Kosai Bagatsagai. However, in Boriai, half of their community members had moved to
higher area since catastrophe in 2007. While in Mangka Baga, an ongoing construction
activity assisted by CARITAS has been taken place. The remaining five hamlets have no plan to
relocate their houses. Therefore, 6 out of 11 hamlets will eventually relocate their hamlets to
another safer area. This would certainly indicate the needs to have a support for basic
infrastructures which one of them is water supply. On the other hand, the government has

Page | 39
no plan for their relocation at this moment since they still need to put their priority and focus
more on west side area which affected directly by Tsunami on 2010.
By using this baseline information, hamlets which have fix location are Bungo Rayo, Aban
Baga, Bubuget, Mangka Ulu, Matotonan, Mangka Baga, Boriai and Kosai Baru. Sinaka is
planning to move to another location on January 2012. Kosai Bagatsagai is still separated in
two location and they have not decided their new location. Mabolak is still resides on their
temporary area, waiting for further confirmation from the government to be relocated to
Siganjo, near Mangka Baga.
By taking above baseline information into our consideration in implementing hygiene
promotion in five months for some areas in Sinaka Village, the availability of water and
community mobilization in each hamlet would likely become our major obstacles.
Consequently, the previous planned activities need to be discussed over between SurfAid
International and IBU Foundation in order to ensure the overall goal of this program
yield to the desired outcomes at the given time.

Page | 40
ANNEX 2 - End-line Survey
1. Objectives of the End-line Survey
The major objective of the End-line survey is to collect information focusing Hygiene
Promotion Program indicators and carry out a comparative analysis of the baseline-end-line
indicators. Such analysis will help in assessing project performance over the project
implementing periods in the program target areas and assess the project success in meeting
program objectives and goals.
More specifically, the End-Line evaluation assesses and documents project performance
according to the indicators set in the logical framework and provides a basis to examine
project outcomes and impact.
The specific objective of the end-line survey is to collect relevant information that are
comparable with the baseline data and can be used to examine the magnitude of changes in
the following key areas:
• Proportion of households who have access to latrine (individual household or public
latrine).
• Proportion of households who have gained ODF status.
• Proportion of community members with hygiene level of knowledge.
2. Comparative Results of the Baseline – End-line Survey
All villagers in three hamlets of Sinaka Village (Mangka Baga, Kosai Baru, and Bungo Rayo)
are mostly farmer and fisher with 129 households and around 124 childrens.
Table 1. Number of Households in 3 Target Hamlets
No Hamlet # Household
1 Mangka Baga 27 HH
2 Kosai Baru 15 HH
3 Bungo Rayo 87 HH
129 HHTotal Beneficiaries

Page | 41
The end-line survey conducted with structured interview (questionnaire) to gain
information about community knowledge and practices with random - purposive sampling
method. Totally subjects are 37 (29% of population) from 3 hamlets with proportion of
respondents 45.9% male and 54.1% female.
Table 2. Number of Respondents by Hamlet
Cumulative
Percent
Bungo Rayo 5 13.5 13.5 13.5
Kosai Baru 17 45.9 45.9 59.5
Mangka Baga 15 40.5 40.5 100
Total 37 100 100
Valid
Table 3. Number of Respondents by Gender
Cumulative
Percent
Male 17 45.9 45.9 45.9
Female 20 54.1 54.1 100
Total 37 100 100
Valid
a. Knowledge;
The proportion of community members with hygiene level of knowledge in three target
hamlets has significantly gone up by 14.83 times for knowledge at very high level during
the project period. The comparative analysis shows that the community members with
very high level of knowledge have increased to 89% from the baseline figure of 6%. No
predetermined target of the project set at the beginning.
Significant change in the level of knowledge gained by the community members after the
intervention would have been likely to strengthen their positive attitude towards
appropriate hygienic practices. Other description that can be drawn from this significant
change is about the improvement in community awareness towards the importance of
disease prevention.
Figure 1 shows the comparative results of baseline – end-line survey for aspects of
knowledge in hand washing, open defecation and its correlation with diarrhea, bathe and
tooth brushing. Respondents at moderate level of knowledge decreased from 61% during
baseline (3 hamlets) to 0% at end-line; at high level of knowledge decreased from 33% to
11%; and at very high level increased from 6% to 89% of total respondents.

Page | 42
Figure 1. Comparative Results of Respondents’ Knowledge Level
The significant improvement on respondents’ level of knowledge is specifically on items
related to open defecation behavior and hand washing practices. The respondents have
well-perceived that the open defecation behavior could risk their health and they have
understood the practices of securing the excreta. Knowledge in hand washing practices
have also increased even though for some respondents washing their hands without using
soap were being perceived as enough. Following Figure shows the comparative results per
measured items.
Figure 2. Comparative Respondents’ Detail Response per Item Measurement

Page | 43
By seeing responses given by respondents pictured in Figure 2, several baseline measured
item had indicated respondents’ lack of knowledge. Item number 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 which
measured the aspects of proper hand washing have increased after the intervention.
Other measured knowledge considered as insufficient among the respondents during the
baseline survey measured by item 10 and 11 (location where respondents chose to
defecate). The results from end-line survey show that after the intervention, the
knowledge has increased significantly.
b. Practices;
After the intervention took place between September to November 2011, the number of
households who have private latrine increased. In Kosai Baru, initially there was one
household latrine only but not being used due to the owner chose to OD. By the time end-
line survey took place, the number has increased to 12 household latrines.
In Bungo Rayo, if initially there were 2 units of public latrine with inappropriate disposal
(disposal of human excreta into rivers), 2 units of latrines constructed by considering the
principle of securing human excreta to replace the old latrines. The decision to make
public latrines taken by some community members in order to provide good modeling
and proper latrines to others who have not yet aware, as well as to accommodate the
needs of community members who have realized the importance of hygienic practices but
not yet ready or able to establish their own household latrine.
In Mangka Baga, according to baseline survey findings, most of the community members
had already had their own household latrine. However, during the project
implementation IBU Foundation team found that most of these community members had
all the materials for constructing the toilet but the latrine construction itself has not yet
done, since they still think that it is not important. After the intervention, the number of
household latrines built increased from 9 units at baseline to 12 units during end-line
survey. Due to relocation plan, some community members preferred to wait until their
new house relocated before they build their household latrine.

Page | 44
Table 4. Comparative Results of Latrines in 3 Hamlets
Public HH Public HH
1 Bungo Rayo 0 4 2 4
2 Kosai Baru 0 1 0 12
3 Mangka Baga 0 9 0 12
No Hamlets
Latrine
Baseline Endline
The increase of household latrines built correlates positively with the community members’
behavior change related to defecation practices. However, the increase of numbers in
household latrine is not the only indicator to measure changes in ODF behavior. The
primary indicator to determine the behavior change would be more on how the community
put their best effort in securing the human excreta; this could be either the usage of public
latrine or sharing the usage of individual household latrine.
Table 5. Comparative Results of ODF Households in 3 Hamlets
No Hamlets # of HH
Baseline Endline Baseline Endline
1 Bungo Rayo 85 4 HH 14 HH 5% 16%
2 Kosai Baru 14 0 HH 14 HH 0% 100%
3 Mangka Baga 27 9 HH 19 HH 33% 70%
ODF Percentages
The most significant change seen happened in Kosai Baru hamlet where overall households
reside had achieved their ODF status. The behavioral changes occurred after the local
facilitator training and community triggering. Two households did not build their own
household latrines due to they live in the same house with other households (sharing usage
of household latrine).
In Mangka Baga, 7 households did not build their household latrines but they have shown

Page | 45
behavioral change by using other household latrines (2 HHs have a house in Mangka Baga
but they live in Sikakap, but when they came back to their hamlet, they have been using
other household latrines).
In Bungo Rayo, the effort being chosen by the community to secure human waste was
through provisioning 2 units of public latrine and during the end-line data collection, 10
households have been actively using the public latrine. The other households have not
demonstrated any expected behavior changes.
3. Qualitative Analysis of Project Achievement
Focused Group Discussion (FGD) was conducted to gather qualitative data and insights that
could describe lesson learned related to community experience during the project
implementation and its achievement. Overall, the results obtained are as follows:
a. Lesson Learned;
• The most effective process happened during the intervention was when the
community being triggered with the consequences resulted from OD. In this project,
de-worming for children has significantly affected the community perspective about
the health risk which may resulted from their OD behavior through their experience
seeing worms excreted together with their children feces. Concrete examples and
simple analogy related to their experience and daily life are the effective way to ignite
the target community.
• Learning from historical experience related to disease, such as a diarrhea outbreak can
also stimulate the collective realization among the community.
• The roles of local leaders could encourage the shift of paradigm in the community.
• Engagement with an outside facilitator can make people easier to receive and
exchange information and knowledge. Issues related with OD behavior are very
privacy. Thus, trust which underlying the close relationship between the facilitator and
the community is one critical matter in ensuring the exchange of information can be
successfully managed.
• Assessment and analysis on soil structure and characteristic of geographical area
needs to be considered as necessary. The construction of household latrines in this

Page | 46
project had to deal with many obstacles in the process of excavating the soil for
reservoirs.

Page | 47
ANNEX 3 – Logical Framework
Objective Indicator Means of Verification Risk/Assumption
Output 1
10 selected community
representatives, with equal
proportion between male
and female, from 3 hamlets
in Sinaka and 5 project staff
trained in CLTS
15 people are trained in 2
days training in CLTS –
80% of participants able to
fulfill the standard of
achievement after the
training
 List of participants
The facilitating method
applied to the 10 training
participants is effective
 Post-test result
Output 2
3 hamlet communities
received hygiene education
and facilitated in
establishing action plan
related to hygiene practices’
needs
 Increase community
awareness on OD hazard
and the importance of
hygiene practices
 Report on the process
 Community facilitation is
effective
 3 action plans made by
the communities from
Bungo Rayo, Kosai Baru
and Mangka Baga hamlet
related to hygiene
practices’ needs
 Community Action Plan in
hygiene practices
Output 3
# of worm tablets and
hygiene kits are distributed
to children and communities
in 3 hamlets
A minimum of 50% of
children beneficiaries
consume the worm tablet
and able to wash their hand
properly.
 Observation Check List
Approach methods are
acceptable and represent a
local content
 List of children’s name
consume the worm tablet
 Report and
documentation of process
Output 4
# of monitoring and
evaluation report of project
implementation
 Bi-weekly monitoring per
hamlets
 Monitoring reports
Monitoring and evaluation
designs are well prepared
for the project
 1 Baseline survey  Survey reports
 1 Endline survey

Page | 48
ANNEX 4 – Project Budget (Amendment October 21, 2011)
Project Name Community Empowerment Through Basic Hygiene Promotion
Location Sinaka Village, South Pagai - Mentawai, West Sumatra Province
Periode 5 months (July - November 2011)
Donor/Partner Surfaid International
Submitted by IBU FOUNDATION
8,520.00IDR
No Description No of Unit Unit(s) Unit Price (IDR)
Unit Price
(USD)
Frequency
Frequency
Unit
Total Amount
(IDR)
Total Amount
(USD)
% of Budget
A PROGRAM COST
A.1
1.1 Recruitment cost 1 lumpsum 500,000 58.69 1 time 500,000 58.69
1.2 National staff mobilization (home-site base-
home)
4 person 3,800,000 446.01 1 time 15,200,000 1,784.04
A.2
2.1 Transportation to and between hamlets 3 hamlets 2,000,000 234.74 1 month 6,000,000 704.23
2.2 Meals & accommodation for community
meeting
3 hamlets 500,000 58.69 1 month 1,500,000 176.06
2.3 Live in accommodation (3 Facilitators) 3 hamlets 2,000,000 234.74 1 month 6,000,000 704.23
A.3
3.1 Trainer Fee 1 person 1,500,000 176.06 5 days 7,500,000 880.28
3.2 Transport & accommodation for trainers 1 person 3,800,000 446.01 1 time 3,800,000 446.01
3.3 Training materials (handouts, etc) 15 person 100,000 11.74 1 set 1,500,000 176.06
3.4 Training meals & accommodation 16 person 150,000 17.61 2 days 4,800,000 563.38
3.5 Training venue & logistic 1 lumpsum 1,000,000 117.37 1 time 1,000,000 117.37
3.6 Transportation to and from training venue 1 trip 2,000,000 234.74 1 time 2,000,000 234.74
A.4
4.1 Community Facilitation (Action Plan incl.
provisioning clean water supply facilities,
community meeting)
3 hamlets 5,000,000 586.85 1 month 15,000,000 1,760.56
4.2 Working Tools (shovel, etc.) 3 hamlets 1,000,000 117.37 1 time 3,000,000 352.11
A.5
5.3 Promoting Hygiene (event, communication
board, children t-shirt, visibility, etc.)
3 hamlets 10,000,000 1,173.71 1 time 30,000,000 3,521.13
5.4 Anti-worm tablets + liquid (for 100 children) 100 children 0 - 1 time 0 -
5.5 Hygiene Kit 3 hamlets 0 - 1 time 0 -
A.6
6.1 Baseline survey 1 lumpsum 8,100,000 950.70 1 time 8,100,000 950.70
6.2 Endline survey 1 lumpsum 2,000,000 234.74 1 time 2,000,000 234.74
131,900,000 15,481.22 38.67%
B Personnel
B.1 Senior Community Facilitator 1 person 6,080,000 713.62 5 months 30,400,000 3,568.08
B.2 Community Facilitator 2 person 4,480,000 525.82 5 months 44,800,000 5,258.22
Admin & Finance Officer 1 person 3,520,000 413.15 2 months 7,040,000 826.29
Admin & Finance Officer 1 person 3,998,333 469.29 3 months 11,995,000 1,407.86
Logistic Assistant 1 person 2,450,000 287.56 4 months 9,800,000 1,150.23
Logistic Assistant 1 person 1,100,000 129.11 1 months 1,100,000 129.11
Staff Benefits (Hazard & Living Allowances) 4 person 1,550,000 181.92 5 months 31,000,000 3,638.50
Staff Benefits (Hazard & Living Allowances) 1 person 1,550,000 181.92 4 months 6,200,000 727.70
B.6 Staff Insurance 4 person 100,000 11.74 5 months 2,000,000 234.74
B.7 R&R Allowance 4 person 750,000 88.03 1 times 3,000,000 352.11
147,335,000 17,292.84 41.13%
C Operational and Support
C.1 Basecamp Rent (Sikakap) 1 month 1,000,000 117.37 5 months 5,000,000 586.85
C.2 Basecamp Rent (Sinaka) 1 month 500,000 58.69 1 months 500,000 58.69
C.3 Base camp equipment (fying camp/office kit :
carpet, whiteboard, stove, gas tube, velbed,
blanket, pillows etc.)
1 set 5,300,000 622.07 1 time 5,300,000 622.07
C.4 Personnel Safety equipment (rain coat, torch,
life vest, emergency lamp, boot,hat, sleeping
bag)
5 set 720,000 84.51 1 time 3,600,000 422.54
C.5 Local Trip & Transportation 1 month 1,500,000 176.06 5 months 7,500,000 880.28
C.6 Working Support Facilities (one time purchase
of IT equipments, & digital camera)
1 lumpsum 3,900,000 457.75 1 time 3,900,000 457.75
C.7 Motorcycle Rental 1 month 500,000 58.69 5 months 2,500,000 293.43
C.8 Printer incl. maintenance 1 unit 1,050,000 123.24 2 time 2,100,000 246.48
C.9 Vehicle & Genset Fuel incl. maintenance 1 unit 700,000 82.16 5 months 3,500,000 410.80
C.10 Communication (include Sat-Phone Rental) 1 month 2,500,000 293.43 5 months 12,500,000 1,467.14
C.11 Office Supplies & Consumables 1 month 1,100,000 129.11 5 months 5,500,000 645.54
C.12 Staff Trip and Travel (HQ monitoring and
evaluation)
1 person 5,000,000 586.85 2 times 10,000,000 1,173.71
61,900,000 7,265.26 17.28%
341,135,000 40,039.32
17,056,750 2,001.97
358,191,750 42,041.29
2,508,346 67.86
623,647 15.09
Staff Mobilization
Community Socialization, Local Facilitators Selection & Basic Hygiene Education
Hygiene Promotion Training
Facilitating Hygiene Promotion in 3 hamlets
Promoting Hygiene through Children Activities & Community Event
TOTAL PROPOSED BUDGET
B.5
B.3
Estimation cost for each household
Estimation cost for each direct beneficiary
Program Monitoring & Evaluation
Sub Total Program Cost
Sub Total Personnel
Sub Total Operational and Support
TOTAL PROJECT COST
5% Indirect Cost
B.4

Page | 49
ANNEX 5 – Project Detail Cost
CoA Account Title Budget Realization Balance R/B
INCOMING:
SI SurfAid International 358,191,750 353,041,667 5,150,083 98.56%
BI Bank Interest 936,442 (936,442)
TOTAL INCOMING 358,191,750 353,978,109 4,213,641
OUTGOING:
Direct Cost
A PROGRAM COST
A.1 Staff Mobilization 15,700,000 14,391,300 1,308,700 91.66%
A.2 Community Socialization, Local Facilitators Selection & Basic 13,500,000 13,065,000 435,000 96.78%
A.3 Hygiene Promotion Training 20,600,000 15,482,250 5,117,750 75.16%
A.4 Facilitating Hygiene Promotion in 3 hamlets 30,000,000 13,563,500 16,436,500 45.21%
A.5
Promoting Hygiene through Children Activities &
Community Event
42,000,000 27,581,500 14,418,500 65.67%
A.6 Program Monitoring & Evaluation 10,100,000 9,999,400 100,600 99.00%
Sub Total Program Cost 131,900,000 94,082,950 37,817,050 71.33%
B PERSONNEL
B.1 Senior Community Facilitator 30,400,000 29,550,000 850,000 97.20%
B.2 Community Facilitator 44,800,000 41,850,000 2,950,000 93.42%
B.3 Admin & Finance Officer 19,035,000 18,230,952 804,048 95.78%
B.4 Logistic Assistant 10,900,000 10,875,000 25,000 99.77%
B.5 Staff Benefits (Hazard & Living Allowances) 37,200,000 37,200,000 - 100.00%
B.6 Staff Insurance 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 0.00%
B.7 R&R Allowance 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 100.00%
Sub Total Personnel Cost 147,335,000 140,705,952 6,629,048 95.50%
C OPERATIONAL & SUPPORT
C.1 Basecamp Rent (Sikakap) 5,000,000 4,700,000 300,000 94.00%
C.2 Basecamp Rent (Sinaka) 500,000 500,000 - 100.00%
C.3 Base camp equipment (fying camp/office kit : carpet, 5,300,000 4,266,500 1,033,500 80.50%
C.4 Personnel Safety equipment (rain coat, torch, life vest, 3,600,000 3,092,000 508,000 85.89%
C.5 Local Trip & Transportation 7,500,000 7,301,000 199,000 97.35%
C.6 Working Support Facilities (one time purchase of IT 3,900,000 3,734,400 165,600 95.75%
C.7 Motorcycle Rental 2,500,000 2,500,000 - 100.00%
C.8 Printer incl. maintenance 2,100,000 910,000 1,190,000 43.33%
C.9 Vehicle & Genset Fuel incl. maintenance 3,500,000 2,435,000 1,065,000 69.57%
C.10 Communication (include Sat-Phone Rental) 12,500,000 9,119,000 3,381,000 72.95%
C.11 Office Supplies & Consumables 5,500,000 4,710,858 789,142 85.65%
C.12 Staff Trip and Travel (HQ monitoring and evaluation) 10,000,000 9,934,800 65,200 99.35%
Sub Total Operational & Support Cost 61,900,000 53,203,558 8,696,442 85.95%
4 Indirect Cost
4.1 Indirect Cost 17,056,750 14,359,456 2,697,294 84.19%
TOTAL OUTGOING 358,191,750 302,351,917 55,839,833 84.41%
ENDING BALANCE - 51,626,192 (51,626,192)
Detail Cost
IBU Foundation
Community Empowerment Through Basic Hygiene Promotion
Sinaka Village - South Pagai Sub District, Mentawai
For Five Months Period, November 30, 2011

IBU Foundation Final Project Report 2011

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to IBU Foundation Final Project Report 2011

Similar to IBU Foundation Final Project Report 2011 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

IBU Foundation Final Project Report 2011