WASH Programme Monitoring and Evaluation Training Course

Participants can turn WASH assessment findings into measurable programme problems and assumptions.

• Problem trees separating immediate causes, underlying causes and structural barriers
• Seasonal calendars identifying rainfall, disease, access and water-source variations
• Service mapping for water points, sanitation facilities and hygiene infrastructure
• Risk analysis covering contamination, flooding, drought, conflict and displacement
• Stakeholder analysis identifies duty bearers, service providers and user groups
• Assessment findings converted into prioritised WASH needs statements

Participants can construct a testable WASH theory of change with explicit causal assumptions.

• Theory of change links activities, behaviours, services and intended outcomes
• Causal pathways for emergency water supply and household water treatment
• Sanitation pathways connecting access, use, containment and safe disposal
• Hygiene behaviour pathways using behavioural determinants and enabling conditions
• Assumptions documented for markets, institutions, community acceptance and maintenance
• Negative effects considered, including protection, affordability and environmental pressure

Participants can build a results framework and logframe for a defined WASH programme.

• Results chains distinguish activities, outputs, outcomes and longer-term impacts
• Logframe columns connect objectives, indicators, verification sources and assumptions
• Outcome statements specify populations, expected change and service conditions
• Output statements describe deliverables within management control and implementation scope
• Vertical logic checked through if-then reasoning and assumption testing
• Donor logframe requirements reconciled with programme management information needs

Participants can select service-level measures consistent with recognised WASH standards.

• Sphere water-supply indicators applied to quantity, access, quality and continuity
• JMP service ladders distinguish basic, limited, safely managed and unimproved services
• Sanitation service chains tracked from containment through emptying and treatment
• Handwashing indicators measure facilities, water availability and cleansing materials
• WASH in institutions measured for schools, health facilities and communal settings
• Standards adapted transparently when emergency constraints limit full compliance

Participants can select valid WASH indicators and document them in reference sheets.

• SMART indicator tests applied to proposed water, sanitation and hygiene measures
• Indicator reference sheets define numerator, denominator, unit and interpretation
• Output indicators count completed services without overstating behaviour or outcomes
• Outcome indicators measure access, use, quality, functionality and sustained practice
• Proxy indicators selected where direct health-outcome measurement remains impractical
• Disaggregation requirements cover sex, age, disability, location and displacement status

Participants can establish credible baselines and targets for WASH programme indicators.

• Baseline options compare secondary data, rapid assessments and primary surveys
• Target-setting uses coverage gaps, technical norms, resources and implementation capacity
• Performance trajectories show expected progress by month, quarter or season
• Denominators updated when population movements change programme coverage estimates
• Targets differentiated for emergency response, recovery and development phases
• Baseline limitations documented before comparing later monitoring or endline results

Participants can produce a monitoring plan with clear collection, review and escalation arrangements.

• Monitoring plans assign indicators, methods, frequency, responsibility and data use
• Information flows map collection points, partner submission and management review
• Data calendars align routine monitoring with implementation milestones and donor deadlines
• Escalation thresholds trigger action for contamination, breakdowns or low usage
• Partner reporting formats standardise indicator definitions and supporting evidence
• Version control maintains traceable revisions to tools, targets and datasets

Participants can design routine monitoring for water-service delivery, quality and functionality.

• Water-point functionality checks record yield, downtime, repairs and management arrangements
• Service continuity monitored through hours, queues, source reliability and seasonal variation
• Residual chlorine testing recorded with location, timing and corrective action
• Water-quality sampling plans specify parameters, sites, frequency and chain-of-custody
• Household water treatment monitoring distinguishes provision, correct use and safe storage
• Complaint data analysed for access barriers, tariffs and service-provider performance

Participants can monitor sanitation and hygiene outcomes using suitable observation and self-report methods.

• Sanitation monitoring distinguishes access, use, cleanliness, privacy and safety
• Structured observation verifies handwashing facilities, water and cleansing materials
• Faecal sludge indicators track emptying, transport, treatment and final disposal
• Hygiene promotion monitoring measures reach, recall, practice and enabling conditions
• Community-led sanitation follow-up records open-defecation risks and verification findings
• Sensitive questions designed to reduce social desirability and respondent discomfort

Participants can embed equity, protection and community-accountability measures within WASH monitoring.

• Equity analysis compares service access across population groups and locations
• Washington Group Questions support disability-inclusive monitoring and disaggregation decisions
• Safety audits assess risks around water points, latrines and bathing spaces
• Feedback mechanisms track complaints, response times, resolution and satisfaction
• Gender and age analysis identifies unequal burdens of water collection
• Do-no-harm checks examine tensions created by site selection and targeting

Participants can select and document an appropriate sampling approach for WASH surveys.

• Sampling frames define eligible households, facilities or water-service users
• Probability and non-probability sampling compared for common WASH monitoring questions
• Sample-size calculations account for precision, design effect and expected non-response
• Cluster sampling procedures select sites, households and replacement rules
• Stratification improves estimates for camps, villages, districts and population groups
• Sampling limitations reported honestly when access, security or time constrain design

Participants can draft WASH data-collection tools that generate usable and ethical data.

• Questionnaire flow moves from consent through screening, core measures and closure
• Questions use defined recall periods, neutral wording and mutually exclusive responses
• Observation checklists distinguish directly verifiable conditions from respondent claims
• Translation and back-translation protect meaning across local language versions
• Skip logic reduces interview burden and prevents inapplicable responses
• Pretesting identifies ambiguous questions, timing problems and enumerator misunderstandings

Participants can manage ethical, safe and controlled WASH data collection processes.

• Enumerator training covers protocols, probing, consent and accurate recording
• Field supervision plans include spot checks, back-checks and daily debriefs
• Informed consent procedures explain purpose, voluntary participation and data handling
• Safeguarding referral pathways prepared before collecting sensitive protection information
• Data protection applies minimisation, access controls, retention and secure transfer
• Fieldwork logistics account for travel, permissions, security and respondent availability

Participants can assess and improve the quality of routine WASH monitoring data.

• Data Quality Assessment dimensions examine validity, reliability, precision, integrity and timeliness
• Verification compares reported outputs with registers, observations and physical evidence
• Range checks identify impossible values, duplicates and inconsistent denominators
• Missing-data analysis distinguishes non-response, recording gaps and unavailable services
• Partner data audits test source documents, calculation steps and approval trails
• Corrective action logs assign owners, deadlines and verification of resolved issues

Participants can analyse WASH data and draw appropriately qualified findings.

• Descriptive statistics summarise coverage, functionality, quality and reported practices
• Cross-tabulations reveal differences by sex, disability, location and displacement status
• Trend charts compare indicator performance against baselines, targets and seasonal patterns
• Confidence intervals interpreted when survey estimates guide programme decisions
• Triangulation compares survey findings, routine data, water tests and feedback records
• Interpretation distinguishes plausible contribution from unsupported claims of attribution

Participants can convert monitoring findings into documented management decisions and follow-up actions.

• Performance review meetings focus on exceptions, causes, decisions and owners
• Traffic-light dashboards flag indicators requiring investigation or immediate corrective action
• Root-cause analysis separates implementation failures from context and design failures
• Plan-do-study-act cycles test practical improvements to WASH service delivery
• Decision logs record evidence, agreed changes, timelines and responsible staff
• Learning questions capture transferable lessons from implementation successes and failures

Participants can frame an ethical WASH evaluation using appropriate questions, criteria and methods.

• OECD DAC criteria applied to relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability
• Evaluation questions prioritised using intended users, decisions and evidence gaps
• Mixed-methods designs combine quantitative estimates with qualitative explanation
• Comparison strategies consider before-after, contribution analysis and plausible alternatives
• Ethical protocols address consent, confidentiality, power and respondent burden
• Evaluation matrices connect questions, indicators, sources, methods and analysis plans

Participants can prepare an evaluation terms of reference and manage use of findings.

• Terms of reference specify purpose, scope, questions, methods and deliverables
• Evaluator selection criteria assess WASH expertise, independence and methodological capability
• Inception reports reviewed for sampling, tools, risks and feasible workplans
• Evidence review meetings challenge unsupported findings before report finalisation
• Management responses assign actions, owners, deadlines and resource commitments
• Dissemination plans tailor findings for communities, staff, donors and government

Participants can communicate WASH results clearly without overstating evidence or hiding limitations.

• Results narratives connect indicator changes, implementation evidence and contextual explanations
• Dashboards present priority indicators, trends, disaggregation and action status
• Data visualisation selects appropriate charts for proportions, trends and geographic comparisons
• Indicator limitations stated alongside findings, uncertainty and missing-data implications
• Donor reports reconcile cumulative results, period achievements and revised targets
• Community feedback closes the loop on findings, decisions and unresolved concerns

Participants can build, review and present a complete monitoring and evaluation package for a WASH programme.

• Programme scenario defines target groups, delivery model, risks and intended results
• Theory of change tested against technical assumptions and contextual constraints
• Results framework and logframe populated with measurable WASH outcome indicators
• Indicator reference sheets specify calculations, sources, disaggregation and verification procedures
• Monitoring plan integrates routine data, surveys, feedback and quality assurance
• Evaluation terms of reference address priority questions, methods and ethical requirements
• Peer review identifies gaps, infeasible methods and unsupported performance claims
• Management presentation defends design choices and proposed evidence-use arrangements