Browse by sub-sector
Open all 321 in the libraryWater Supply & Infrastructure
Pumps, wells, piped systems, water-point functionality, and committee-led operation and maintenance.
Output
Immediate Outcome
Sanitation Systems
Household and communal latrines, fecal sludge management, and community-led total sanitation.
Output
Immediate Outcome
Hygiene Promotion & Behavior Change
Handwashing promotion, hygiene education, menstrual hygiene, and behavior change campaigns.
Output
Goal
Institutional WASH
Water, sanitation, and hygiene in schools, health facilities, and public institutions.
Output
Immediate Outcome
Emergency WASH
Temporary water supply, rapid sanitation, and emergency hygiene promotion in acute response settings.
Output
Goal
Other WASH sub-sectors
Smaller measurement areas in WASH, with a sample indicator from each.
Methods by outcome type
Match the method to the outcome, not to what is easiest to collect.
| Outcome type | Primary method | Observation | Key instruments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Water access & coverage | Structured household survey | Not required (proxied via source-type questions) | DHS, MICS, JMP Core Questions |
| Water point functionality | Technical assessment + water quality testing | Direct observation required | WPDx fields, field test kits |
| Sanitation use | Observation + structured interview | Latrine condition observable; use triangulated | MICS sanitation module, CLTS verification |
| Hygiene behavior | Structured observation (ideal) or proxy | Observation strongly preferred over self-report | MICS hygiene module, SaniFOAM |
| Knowledge | Structured questionnaire | Not required | MICS WASH modules, DHS knowledge batteries |
Common evaluation questions
The questions that anchor design and data-collection decisions, grouped by cluster.
Water Supply & Infrastructure
Did the program result in sustained household water access?
Evidence: Baseline-to-endline household survey plus post-completion verification at 12 months. Design: Outcome evaluation, before-and-after.
Are installed water points still functional after project end?
Evidence: Technical reassessment at 12 and 24 months. Design: Sustainability / ex-post evaluation.
Are water user fees covering maintenance costs?
Evidence: Water committee financial records vs maintenance need. Design: Implementation evaluation.
Sanitation Systems
Are households actually using the latrines that were built?
Evidence: Observation of latrine condition and use evidence plus structured interview. Design: Outcome evaluation.
Did CLTS triggering result in verified ODF status?
Evidence: Community-led verification at 3, 6, and 12 months after triggering. Design: Outcome evaluation.
Was sanitation marketing effective at stimulating self-funded construction?
Evidence: Construction rates in subsidized vs marketed-only communities. Design: Implementation evaluation.
Hygiene Promotion & Behavior Change
Did hygiene sessions result in observable handwashing behavior change?
Evidence: Structured observation at baseline and endline plus proxy indicators (soap, water). Design: Outcome evaluation.
Do households retain hygiene knowledge over time?
Evidence: Knowledge assessment at endline plus follow-up 6 to 12 months later. Design: Sustainability study.
Institutional WASH
Do schools or facilities maintain functional WASH services beyond program end?
Evidence: Institutional WASH audits at 12 and 24 months. Design: Ex-post sustainability study.
Did menstrual hygiene support affect school attendance among adolescent girls?
Evidence: School attendance records paired with a household or school survey. Design: Outcome evaluation.
Emergency WASH
Did the response meet Sphere minimum standards throughout the intervention?
Evidence: Service-level monitoring data plus affected-population satisfaction surveys. Design: Implementation evaluation.
Was the transition from emergency to recovery WASH successfully managed?
Evidence: Transition planning documents, service continuity data, handover agreements. Design: Real-time evaluation or after-action review.
The standards that matter
WASH has one of the best-aligned standards ecosystems in development and humanitarian M&E. Start with JMP ladders for outcomes, layer in Sphere for humanitarian contexts, and use DHS or MICS wording for household surveys to keep comparability with national datasets.
JMP (WHO/UNICEF) ↗
Global standard for WASH service levels; SDG 6 and donor reporting aggregate to its service ladders.
Sphere Standards ↗
Minimum humanitarian standards for WASH in emergency contexts.
SDG 6 ↗
Global goal definitions used for impact-level reporting.
DHS Program ↗
Validated household-survey WASH modules and question wording.
UNICEF MICS ↗
Household surveys with WASH modules comparable to national datasets.
Water Point Data Exchange ↗
Open platform and standard format for water-point functionality data.
WASH Cluster Core Indicators ↗
Standardized indicator set for humanitarian WASH responses.
SuSanA ↗
Working-group standards for sanitation sustainability and fecal sludge management.
Common mistakes to avoid
Reporting water access without a JMP service level
"Access to improved water" without naming the JMP level breaks donor reporting alignment and invites reviewer questions.
Using self-report alone for hygiene behavior
Departs from Sphere, WHO, and DHS and MICS guidance, which use observation or proxy measurement for hygiene outcomes.
Counting constructed latrines as an outcome
Conflates output and outcome. Outcome measurement requires observation or interview, not ownership alone.
No post-completion sustainability check
Sustainability claims require measurement after the implementation period ends, not an endline at program closure.
Not disaggregating water-collection time by gender
Collection is heavily gendered; JMP analysis and many donors expect this disaggregation.
Claiming CLTS impact without community ODF verification
CLTS outcomes require community-level verification, not household-level latrine counts.
Frequently asked questions
What water-access indicator should I use for a donor proposal?
Use JMP service-level categories (Surface Water, Unimproved, Limited, Basic, Safely Managed) rather than generic "access" language. SDG 6 reporting, DHS, and MICS all use JMP definitions. If your program claims "access to improved water," specify which JMP level you are measuring against.
How do I measure handwashing behavior if direct observation is not feasible?
Use proxy indicators. Observed presence of soap and water at a designated handwashing station is the most common proxy, often combined with structured observation where feasible. Self-report alone is not recommended for handwashing outcomes; Sphere, WHO, and most donor frameworks expect observation-based or proxy measurement.
Can I use latrine ownership as an outcome indicator?
No. Latrine ownership is an output. Outcome-level sanitation measurement requires evidence of use and, where relevant, community-level verification (ODF status). Measure use via observation of latrine condition and structured interview. For ODF claims, follow the community-led verification protocol from CLTS guidance.
What standards should a WASH M&E plan reference?
At minimum: JMP service-level definitions for water, sanitation, and hygiene outcomes; Sphere minimum standards for emergency contexts; and SDG 6 indicator definitions for impact-level reporting. Sector-specific additions depend on the program (GLAAS for governance, WASHCost for cost questions, WPDx for pump functionality benchmarks).
How should I measure water quality in a WASH program?
Water quality at point of use requires field test kits (chlorine residual, turbidity, E. coli indicator tests) or lab analysis for more rigorous studies. Programs claiming "Safely Managed" service per JMP need to measure contamination. Define which parameters, sampling protocol, and reference standards you are using up-front in the MEL plan.