03015nas a2200373 4500000000100000008004100001260001600042653001200058653001800070653001200088653001600100653003300116100001700149700001400166700001500180700001200195700001100207700001200218700001400230700001500244700001100259700001300270700001300283700001200296700001400308700001100322700001400333700001200347700001600359700001200375245007600387856008500463520209300548 2024 d bElsevier BV10aFailure10aParticipation10aFunding10aDevelopment10aCritical development studies1 aBarrington D1 aSindall R1 aChinyama A1 aMorse T1 aSule M1 aBeale J1 aKativhu T1 aKrishnan S1 aLuwe K1 aMalolo R1 aMcharo O1 aOdili A1 aRavndal K1 aRose J1 aShaylor E1 aWozei E1 aChikwezga F1 aEvans B00aThe Persistence of Failure in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Programming uhttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/4852743.pdf?abstractid=4852743&mirid=13 a
Introduction: unsafe water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) causes millions of deaths and disability-adjusted life years annually, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Despite the vast sums of money invested, WASH programming continues to fail to improve health outcomes or be sustainable in the longer term, consistently falling short of internal key performance indicators and sometimes negatively impacting the wellbeing of local stakeholders. Although sector experts in high income countries have often provided explanations for such failures, rarely have those implementing WASH programming at the ground level been heard.
Methods: We conducted 96 in-depth interviews with 108 frontline WASH professionals in Malawi, South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe on why they believe WASH failure persists. Through participatory analysis, including framework analysis with additional axial coding, and member-checking of our findings, we determined nine core reasons for WASH failure.
Results: Interviewees reported issues throughout implementation, from the engagement and commitment of intended users to unrealistic and idealistic expectations of funders and implementers, to a general lack of workforce and financial capacity. These reasons coalesce into an overarching problem: the projectization of WASH programming, particularly how it confuses issues of accountability and overly focuses on measurement, places high expectations on intended users, and assumes project ‘handover’ will lead to ongoing maintenance and behavior change.
Conclusion: To achieve sustainable WASH programming that can in turn improve health outcomes, there must be a shift away from projectization led by ‘experts’ in high income countries, to longer term processes driven by local actors. Such programming will require genuine participation of all stakeholders in all aspects of its design, embedding accountability to intended users, and allowing for flexibility and experimentation.