EVALUATION OF WASHPLUS: 
SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENTS 
FOR HEALTHY COMMUNITIES PROJECT
FINAL REPORT
This report was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development 
(USAID). It was prepared by Optimal Solutions Group, LLC, for USAID’s Learning, Evaluation, 
and Analysis Project (LEAP), Contract Number: AID-OAA-C-11-00169. 
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
LEARNING, EVALUATION, AND ANALYSIS PROJECT
(AID-OAA-C-11-00169) 
EVALUATION OF THE 
WASHPLUS: SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENTS FOR 
HEALTHY COMMUNITIES PROJECT
FINAL REPORT 
Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development
Prepared by Optimal Solutions Group, LLC
University of Maryland
Research Park, M Square
5825 University Research Court, Suite 2800 
College Park, MD 20740 
www.optimalsolutionsgroup.com
Prepared by
Mark Turner, LEAP Chief of Party
Clarissa Brocklehurst, WASH Expert/ Team Leader
Simon Mead, WASH Expert 
Christabel Dadzie, LEAP Program Manager/Evaluation Specialist
Joanne Pérodin, Project Coordinator/Analyst
November 25, 2014
Disclaimer
The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States 
Agency for International Development or the United States government.
CONTENTS 
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... iv
ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................. v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... vii
Background ............................................................................................................................... vii
Evaluation Methodology ........................................................................................................... vii
Findings ..................................................................................................................................... vii
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ ix
Lessons Learned for the Future .................................................................................................. xi
Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... xii
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Background and Context................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation.............................................................................. 2
1.3. Key Evaluation Questions............................................................................................... 3
2. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 4
2.1. Data Collection Approaches ........................................................................................... 4
2.2. Study Limitations ............................................................................................................ 7
3. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................... 8
3.1. USAID Context ............................................................................................................... 8
3.2. Benefits of WASHplus as a Core Mechanism for Missions ......................................... 11
Review of Financial Data ...................................................................................................... 13
WASHplus in the context of USAID investments in WASH ............................................... 14
3.3. Impact at Country Level ............................................................................................... 19
Quality of service delivery and impact on national policy and capacity ............................... 19
Engagement with the private sector ....................................................................................... 21
3.4. Integrated Programming ............................................................................................... 22
3.5. Project Management ..................................................................................................... 25
3.6. Global Leadership and Knowledge Management ......................................................... 27
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project — Final Report ii
Global leadership ................................................................................................................... 27
Knowledge management ....................................................................................................... 28
4. LESSONS LEARNED FOR THE FUTURE ................................................................... 33
5. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 34
Annex 1: Evaluation of the WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities 
Project Cooperative Agreement No. AID-OAA-A10-00040 - Statement of Work .................. 35
Annex 2. Country Profiles ......................................................................................................... 45
Bangladesh ................................................................................................................................ 45
Bangladesh ................................................................................................................................ 47
Benin ......................................................................................................................................... 49
Kenya ........................................................................................................................................ 50
Madagascar................................................................................................................................ 51
Mali ........................................................................................................................................... 52
Uganda ...................................................................................................................................... 53
Zambia ....................................................................................................................................... 54
Annex 3: Summary of Accomplishments by Country ............................................................. 55
Annex 4. List of Documents Reviewed .................................................................................... 57
Annex 5. Interview Protocols .................................................................................................... 62
Annex 6. WASHplus Budget by Country (obligated funds vs. actual expenses to date) ......... 75
Annex 7. WASHplus Engagement in Global Activities ........................................................... 76
Annex 8. WASHplus Global Leadership contributions as identified in Annual Reports ......... 81
Addendum – WASHplus Response to Evaluation Report ........................................................ 82
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project — Final Report 
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Obligated funds spent as of May 2014 .......................................................................... 15
Figure 2. Expenditures by country as percent of annual total....................................................... 16
Figure 3. Expenditures by partner ................................................................................................. 16
Figure 4. Expenditures by country (to May 31 2014) ................................................................... 17
Figure 5. Webinars and estimated participants ............................................................................. 31
 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project — Final Report 
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: WASHplus evaluation interviews by country and respondent category .......................... 5
Table 2: Summary of WASHplus activities by country ............................................................... 13
Table 3: USAID budget allocations for the water sector by thematic area (USAID Water and 
Development Strategy, 2013–2018) ............................................................................................. 14
Table 4. WASHplus webinars ....................................................................................................... 29
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project — Final Report v
ACRONYMS 
AOR Agreement Officer's Representative
APHIA AIDS, Population and Health Integrated Assistance 
AVAS Association of Voluntary Actions for Society 
CCT Controlled Cooking Test 
CHEWs Community Health Extension Workers 
CHWs Community Health Workers 
CLTS Community-Led Total Sanitation
COP Chief of Party
CQI Continuous Quality Improvement 
DAM Dhaka Ahsania Mission 
DANIDA Danish International Development Agency 
DHS Demographic and Health Surveys 
DPHE Department of Health and Engineering
DORP Development Organization of the Rural Poor 
FABRI Further Advancing the Blue Revolution Initiative
FHI360 Family Health International360; WASHplus prime partner 
FJKM Fiangonan'i Jesoa Kristy eto Madagascar (faith-based NGO in Madagascar) 
FTF Feed the Future
BMGF Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation 
GACC Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves 
GH/HIDN Global Health, Office of Health, Infectious Diseases and Nutrition 
GIZ German Agency for International Cooperation 
GoB Government of Bangladesh 
HIP Hygiene Improvement Project
HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
IAP Indoor Air Pollution
ICS Improved Cook Stoves 
IDIQ Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (contract)
ICDDR,B International Centre for Diarrheal Disease Research, Bangladesh
IRC International Research Centre
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency 
JMP Joint Monitoring Program 
KM Knowledge Management
KR Knowledge Resources
LEAP Learning, Evaluation, and Analysis Project 
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MCH Maternal and Child Health
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project — Final Report 
vi
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MICS Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys 
MOEd Ministry of Education 
MOH Ministry of Health
MOPHS Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation 
MPI Multidimensional Poverty Index 
NGO Non-Governmental Organization 
NTD Neglected Tropical Diseases
PLAN Plan International USA 
PPP Public and Private Partnerships 
PPPHW Public Private Partnership for Handwashing 
SAF Sampan'Asa momba Fampandrosoana (faith-based NGO in Madagascar) 
SAP South Asia Partnership 
SNV Stichting Nederlandse Vrijwilligers (Foundation of Netherlands Volunteers) 
SN2 Santénet2
SOW Statement of Work
SPLASH School Promoting Learning Achievement through Sanitation and Hygiene 
SPRING Strengthening Partnerships, Results, and Innovations in Nutrition Globally 
STAR SW Strengthening TB and HIV/AIDS Response in the South-Western Region of 
Uganda 
SUWASA Sustainable Water and Sanitation in Africa
SWA Sanitation and Water for All 
UNC University of North Carolina 
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund 
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
USAID United States Agency for International Development 
VERC Village Education Resource Center
WADI Water and Development IDIQ 
WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WEDC Water, Engineering and Development Centre
WHO World Health Organization
WSP Water and Sanitation Program
WSUP Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project — Final Report 
vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
The WASHplus Cooperative Agreement is housed in the United States Agency for International 
Development (USAID) Bureau for Global Health’s Office of Health, Infectious Diseases, and 
Nutrition (GH/HIDN), Maternal and Child Health Division. It is a 5-year activity focused on the 
implementation and scale-up of environmental health interventions to prevent morbidity and 
mortality from infectious diseases, primarily in young children, as well as among vulnerable 
adult populations. The WASHplus Cooperative Agreement began in October 2010 and ends in 
September 2015. The strategic objectives of the WASHplus activity are:
1. Increase the availability and use of water supply, sanitation, hygiene (WASH), and 
indoor air pollution (IAP) interventions. 
2. Develop and implement WASH/IAP integration strategies. 
3. Support USAID’s participation in strategic partnerships. 
4. Develop and test new and innovative approaches and tools. 
Evaluation Methodology
The evaluation methodology included a document review, budget analysis, and stakeholder 
interviews. A total of 55 out of 81 interviews (67 percent response rate) were completed with 
WASHplus staff in Washington, DC, WASHplus staff in-country, global partners, government 
representatives, USAID Missions staff, USAID staff in Washington, DC, and local implementing 
partners. Stakeholders were interviewed in all seven of the WASHplus country programs (i.e., 
Bangladesh, Benin, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Uganda, and Zambia). The team also evaluated 
the content and functionality of the WASHplus website.
As per the statement of work (SOW), visits to field programs were not part of the evaluation 
methodology. 
Findings
USAID Context 
• WASHplus has operated within a dynamic and evolving institutional context at USAID 
that puts emphasis on increased engagement with local partners, particularly in building 
the capacity of and working through national and local governments. 
Benefits of WASHplus as a Core Mechanism for Missions 
• WASHplus is designed to offer a variety of benefits, including that it is easier and faster 
than using the other mechanisms available to USAID Missions to implement WASH 
programming, and it provides Missions with access to trusted partners.
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project — Final Report 
viii
• Obligated funds are currently just over a third of the $100 million WASHplus ceiling, 
which, though high, constitutes a small fraction of USAID funding to WASH. Some 
WASHplus country programs are not close to using their obligated budget. Countries 
with large service delivery account for a great portion of expenditures. 
• There was limited demand for the WASHplus mechanism from USAID Missions. 
Impact at Country Level 
• WASHplus has undertaken service delivery in its country programs with programming 
designed to positively impact the lives of the poor. 
• The WASHplus mechanism did not have a strong emphasis on government capacity and 
leadership.
• WASHplus was not designed, and has not been used, to help Missions to build skills to 
conduct a government-to-government approach of implementing WASH activities in the 
future. 
• Despite some attempts, public-private partnerships (PPP) and other forms of private￾sector involvement have not evolved into a prominent feature of the WASHplus program 
to date. 
Integrated Programming 
• WASHplus has incorporated integrated programming, has made related resources 
available, and has undertaken innovative country-level integrated programming. 
• The IAP component of WASHplus has had a reach in IAP globally, and in applying 
lessons from behavior change programming in the WASH sector. However, WASHplus 
was unable to achieve notable country reach with IAP. 
Project Management 
• Respondents suggested that WASHplus is well managed and the staff is highly 
responsive. 
• WASHplus has faced constraints due to its complicated contractual structure involving 
multiple partners and multiple bureaucracies. 
• WASHplus is perceived to have not demonstrated flexibility with regard to staff 
assignments and its use of experts. 
Global Leadership and Knowledge Management 
• Interview results suggest that WASHplus has not developed an evident global leadership 
role and is largely absent from the current global policy debates. Opportunities exist to 
bring the learning from WASHplus country programming to global attention. 
• Certain aspects of WASHplus knowledge management are highly valued by users, in 
particular the “WASHplus Weekly.”
• The reach of WASHplus knowledge management has been uneven. 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project — Final Report 
ix
• Webinars for which attendance data are available show that they attracted more than 500 
participants and that between 14 and 28 percent of attendees have been from developing 
countries. 
• There is a considerable volume of English content on the WASHplus website and 
Twitter, but limited content in French, which is needed considering that three of the 
country programs are francophone. 
Conclusions 
The following conclusions were documented as a result of the evaluation’s findings and analysis: 
USAID Context: WASHplus has operated within a dynamic and evolving institutional context at 
USAID that puts great emphasis on increased engagement with local partners, particularly in 
building the capacity of and working through national and local governments. 
Benefits of WASHplus as a Core Mechanism for Missions: 
The benefits and challenges of the WASHplus central mechanism, combined with the evolving 
strategy within USAID and the ongoing commitment of the agency to WASH, suggest that as 
Missions are looking at larger WASH projects, they will be less likely to use a centrally managed 
mechanism for projects that include service delivery, and will work directly with local NGOs 
and national and local governments. Moreover, it is also evident that the need for advice, 
training, and technical assistance will be greater, particularly for projects that aim to work 
through national governments, local governments, and local implementing agencies. 
Financial: 
Most WASHplus country programs had insufficient demand for their programs which led to an 
under-utilization of their budgets. Countries with significant service delivery represent a large
portion of WASHplus expenditures compared with other small-scale programs. WASHplus 
accounts for a small portion of USAID expenditures on WASH, but its strategic objectives were 
ambitious. However, it appears that the demand-driven model used has not been consistent with 
these objectives, particularly with the objective of “moving beyond basic service delivery 
through non-governmental organization (NGO) projects. 
Impact at Country Level: 
WASHplus is seen as a program that has had a significant impact and has implemented effective 
service delivery in the countries where it was in operation. Although the WASHplus country 
activities in Zambia and Bangladesh aimed to build government capacity at the national and the 
district levels, WASHplus has not been used to build government capacity and leadership
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project — Final Report x
systematically across all countries in which WASHplus operated. Interviewees suggested that 
more could be achieved in terms of building the capacity of the local private sector for provision 
of WASH products and services and to develop new PPPs, as called for in the strategic 
objectives.
Integrated Programming: 
Based on interview findings and documents reviewed, WASHplus has energetically embraced 
integrated programming, has made many related resources available, and has undertaken 
innovative country-level integrated programming. Integrated programming is becoming an 
accepted approach, both within USAID and other agencies. Nonetheless, understanding the 
institutional obstacles to making integrated programs work is not yet well understood.
Project Management: 
According to interview respondents (approximately 90 percent), WASHplus staff have been 
highly responsive to country offices, with good communication quality and promptness as 
indicated in the interview responses. Because of its contractual structure, WASHplus has also 
faced some constraints. These constraints have led to a delay in the start-up of some activities. 
Interview responses also suggest that the structure and responsibilities of this centrally funded 
mechanism were often not clear. 
Global Leadership and Knowledge Management: 
Based on a review of WASHplus activities and interview responses, the program has been 
somewhat active at the global level, it could have a higher profile. Opportunities exist to bring 
the learning from WASHplus country programming to global attention. USAID seeks to take a 
leadership role in the sectors in which it engages. There is considerable opportunity to be the 
voice of the United States on specific policy issues relating to WASH, in particular those around 
sanitation and hygiene and the role of governments (especially the leadership of Ministries of 
Health). 
The attendance rate at webinars suggests there is a strong interest in presentations organized by 
WASHplus; some respondents recommended that webinars could be both more frequent and 
more consistently scheduled. The availability of recorded webinars online seems to be an 
effective way to attract a greater audience from developing countries. The WASHplus website 
and presence on Twitter have been used effectively to communicate information. However, 
considering that three of the seven countries participating in WASHplus are Francophone, the 
evaluation team found that limited material was available in French on their website. 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project — Final Report 
xi
Lessons Learned for the Future
The following lessons learned for future programming were gathered:
• In order to be relevant, a centrally funded mechanism needs to have some influence on other 
USAID WASH investments, not just the funding that flows through the mechanism itself. 
This could be achieved through knowledge management, capacity building, and the 
development of innovations. 
• The demand-driven model used has not been consistent with the ambitious strategic 
objectives set for this centrally managed mechanism. In the future, if a demand-driven 
approach is used, USAID should ensure it benefits from more widespread promotion to 
Missions, and for country-level project requests to be in line with the intended scale, goals, 
and strategy of the program. It is important to develop approaches that allow the learning and 
innovations from country-level activities to be widely adopted among a large number of 
USAID Missions.
• Future investments and programming should reflect that USAID support to WASH will 
continue in the future. USAID will expect these interventions to be consistent with the 
strategies that it has recently developed, and closely coordinated with the other WASH 
activities of USAID. Given USAID’s new strategies and the evolution of development 
thinking (e.g. leveraging the whole of government approach), there is a need to develop 
approaches that foster government leadership, build government capacity, work with the 
private sector at scale, and increase the ability of U.S. Missions to work directly with the host 
government. 
• In the future, it will be important to provide Missions with advice and support necessary to 
work more effectively with national governments and local partners to respond to the 
imperative articulated in the USAID Forward strategy. 
• There is considerable opportunity to be the voice of the United States on specific policy 
issues relating to WASH, in particular those around sanitation and hygiene and the role of 
government, especially the leadership of Ministries of Health. 
• Future knowledge management could focus on resources relating to working with and 
through governments on water, sanitation, and hygiene, which would address the specific 
needs of the Ministries of Health to deliver on their mandate with respect to sanitation and 
hygiene.
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project — Final Report 
xii
Recommendations
The evaluation team recommends the following activities, which can be implemented during the 
final year of the program:
• The last year should have a strong focus on building country-level capacity and mechanisms 
to ensure sustainability of the interventions in the program countries. When possible, 
emphasis should be given to supporting existing entities—especially national and local 
governments—to build upon WASHplus’ effective activities once WASHplus support comes 
to an end. 
• USAID should consider extending WASHplus for a period of 6 to 12 months, which would 
provide additional time for countries where there were start-up delays or under-utilization of 
budgets to meet their goals. This additional time period may also allow for further country￾level capacity development and support to government agencies where necessary.
• Knowledge management activities, especially webinars, should be ramped up to disseminate 
the learning from WASHplus, and to make a wider group of stakeholders aware of recent 
evidence and best practices in WASH. Knowledge management products and webinars 
should be available in both English and French, and should be targeted to a variety of 
audiences, including a larger proportion of in-country stakeholders. 
• The final knowledge management activities and products should focus not only on perceived 
successes, but on the constraints and challenges faced by the WASH sector and experienced 
through WASHplus activities. A thorough examination of the challenging aspects of 
activities such as achieving integration within development agencies, communicating the 
need for behavior change, and engaging with the private sector would and identifying 
mitigation strategies to these challenges, would be an excellent way of identifying additional 
available resources to other programs both within USAID and externally.
• WASHplus should develop a proposed future research agenda for USAID based on the needs 
identified and lessons learned through its activities.
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 1 
1. INTRODUCTION 
1.1.Background and Context
The WASHplus Cooperative Agreement is housed in the United States Agency for International 
Development (USAID) Bureau for Global Health’s Office of Health, Infectious Diseases, and 
Nutrition (GH/HIDN), Maternal and Child Health Division. This 5-year activity is focused on 
the implementation and scale-up of proven environmental health interventions to prevent 
morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases, primarily in young children, as well as among 
vulnerable adult populations. The WASHplus Cooperative Agreement commenced in October 
2010 and ends in September 2015. 
The strategic objectives of the WASHplus activity are:
1. Increase the availability and use of water supply, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), and 
indoor air pollution (IAP) interventions. 
2. Develop and implement WASH/IAP integration strategies. 
3. Support USAID’s participation in strategic partnerships. 
4. Develop and test new and innovative approaches and tools. 
Strategic Objective 1: Increase the availability and use of proven, high-impact WASH and IAP
interventions. The project aims to achieve measurable improvement in the prevention of diarrhea 
through increased access to a water supply and sanitation, and improved hygiene practices, 
including hand washing with soap, the treatment and safe storage of water, the safe disposal of 
feces, and food hygiene. The project also aims to prevent the health impacts from IAP by 
improving indoor air quality in rural and urban households still reliant on biomass fuels and 
basic stoves to meet their energy needs for cooking and heating. Moving beyond basic service 
delivery through non-governmental organization (NGO) projects, WASHplus uses innovative 
approaches to expand access and use of WASH services, such as the development of innovative 
approaches for WASH financing; building the capacity of the local private sector for provision of 
WASH products and services; and institutional strengthening, especially at lowest levels of 
governance. 
Strategic Objective 2: Develop and implement WASH integration strategies. The project aims to 
achieve improved health outcomes by integrating WASH programs with other health and non￾health activities. Primary focal areas are the integration of WASH in education, HIV/AIDS, 
nutrition, food security, and neglected tropical diseases. 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 2
Strategic Objective 3: Support USAID’s participation in strategic partnerships. WASHplus 
supports USAID’s participation in strategic partnerships with other donors and cooperating
agencies as a vehicle for increasing both the quality and scale of program activities. At the global 
level, a key factor in enhancing USAID’s leadership role and maximizing its contribution to the 
sector is identifying and pursuing the most effective platforms and partnerships (e.g., for scaling 
up sanitation). WASHplus will support USAID’s existing partnerships and explore the 
development of new public-private partnerships (PPPs).
Strategic Objective 4: Develop and test new and innovative approaches and tools. Problems that 
remain in the WASH/IAP sectors include technical efficacy, affordability and financing, 
behavior change strategies for continued use, and sustainable models to reach scale. These 
challenges call for innovations in technology, tools, and approaches. WASHplus will focus on 
developing or adapting promising technologies and approaches developed elsewhere for WASH 
and IAP implementation. 
Cross-cutting initiatives that are developed across all of the strategic objectives include 
knowledge management and monitoring and evaluation (M&E). The knowledge management
program will build knowledge platforms for information exchange, capacity building, and 
networking. These issues should be considered in all aspects of the strategic objectives. 
The activities described above were designed to ultimately achieve a large-scale public health 
impact. Approximately 80 percent of WASHplus efforts were to be focused on increased 
availability and the use of WASH interventions, while 20 percent were to be dedicated to IAP.
1.2.Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation
The primary objectives of this evaluation are to: 
1. Assess whether WASHplus is achieving its objectives and planned outputs as stated in 
the WASHplus agreement, project description, and in approved implementation plans. 
The performance review should evaluate successes, shortcomings, impact, and lessons 
learned from project interventions to date. 
2. Make recommendations to improve the implementation of the current project and to 
inform future environmental health investments. 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 3
1.3.Key Evaluation Questions 
The statement of work provided five principal questions to guide the evaluation, using the 
broader categories as a framework for inquiry. 
Country impact:
1) To what extent, in what ways, and with what challenges has WASHplus acted to increase 
the coverage of high-impact WASH interventions at local, national, and global levels? 
2) What is the efficacy of the methods used to increase coverage? 
3) Specifically, what approaches to achieving increased coverage were chosen by the project 
to guide improved programming, contribute to post-Millennium Development Goals
(MDG) process, and facilitate access to financing and technical assistance, etc.?
Integrated programming: 
1) Has the WASHplus activity been effective at integrating WASH with other activities, 
including IAP, health, and non-health initiatives such as nutrition? 
2) What new approaches have been tested, documented, and disseminated? 
3) Does this integrated programming provide added benefits that are not observed for 
independent programming? 
4) If WASHplus integrated programs, is there any carryover effect for other organizations to 
integrate programming?
Benefits of the WASHplus core mechanism for Missions:
1) What is the impression and efficiency of a Washington-based core mechanism within 
USAID Missions? 
2) Did the project meet the missions’ needs? If so, which needs? 
3) In what areas were needs unmet? 
4) How is a Washington-based core mechanism for WASH effective? 
Project management: 
1) Why were many of the WASHplus projects delayed? 
Global leadership (including public private partnerships and knowledge management): 
1) Have the WASHplus activities demonstrated “thought leadership” in the sector and how? 
2) Specifically, what forums have WASHplus led or participated in, what written and oral 
(e.g., recordings of webinars) resources have they developed, and what is the impact of 
the knowledge management activities?
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 4 
2. METHODOLOGY
The evaluation team used a mixed-method approach for data collection and analysis to gather
comprehensive feedback on improving the implementation of the current WASHplus and for 
future environmental health investments. The primary sources of information for this evaluation 
were stakeholder interviews and document review. As per the statement of work, visits to field 
programs were not part of the evaluation methodology. 
2.1.Data Collection Approaches
The following activities were conducted as part of data collection: 
Document review: USAID provided the evaluation team with various WASHplus program￾related documents, including annual work plans, annual and quarterly reports, and other relevant 
documents for the seven program countries participating in WASHplus (Annex 4). The team 
conducted a thorough review of the quarterly and annual reports and work plans. The WASH 
sector specialists on the evaluation team read key documents in detail to gain an understanding 
of the program and to be informed during the interview process. The team also created profiles 
for each country program, which included the deliverable status, duration of program, funding 
levels, and other general information based on the program documentation received (refer to 
Annex 2). 
The WASHplus team provided financial information (Annex 6) about the project to the 
evaluation team. This information provided an overview on obligated funds and expenditures of 
WASHplus. 
Stakeholder interviews: WASHplus DC-based staff and a representative from the USAID 
Environmental Health team provided the evaluation team with a list of 81 potential stakeholders 
for interviews. With their assistance, the stakeholders were assigned to one of seven categories: 
• WASHplus staff in Washington, DC 
• WASHplus staff in-country 
• Global partners
• Government representatives 
• USAID staff in Missions 
• USAID in Washington, DC 
• Local implementing partners 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 5 
The evaluation team developed interview protocols (Annex 5) for the aforementioned 
stakeholder categories. These interview protocols provided a short list of questions to guide a 
structured interview. The list of interviewees was prioritized to ensure that a suitable number of 
respondents were interviewed in each country and category, and to reflect the extent to which 
each respondent could contribute to an understanding of the WASHplus project. As interviews 
progressed, respondents proposed additional people for the evaluation team to contact; these 
were added where possible. The team also requested that the WASHplus team suggest additional 
respondents to fill gaps. 
A total of 55 interviews were completed (67 percent response rate). Each interview was led by 
one (or in some cases, both) of the WASH sector experts, with another member of the team 
taking notes. Five of the interviews were conducted in French by two members of the evaluation 
team, using French translations of the relevant interview protocols, and three of the interviews 
were with individuals working on IAP and clean-cook stoves. 
The interview respondents were evenly distributed between the seven categories and across the 
seven country programs (see table 1 below). With the exception of government representatives, 
interviewees from almost all respondent categories were contacted in each country. It was 
difficult to identify government representatives with suitable knowledge of the WASHplus 
project in three of the country programs (i.e., Bangladesh, Madagascar, and Uganda). The 
evaluation team requested, when possible, to interview government representatives at both 
district and central level, a request that brought in three respondents in Kenya. 
Table 1: WASHplus Evaluation Interviews by Country and Respondent Category
CATEGORY/
COUNTRY
WASHplus 
staff in DCi
WASHplus 
staff in 
country
Global 
partnersii
Govt 
reps.iii
USAID 
staff in 
missions
USAID 
staff in DC
Local imp. 
partners TOTAL
Bangladesh 1 0 1 2 4 
Benin 1 1 1 1 4 
Kenya 1 3 1 1 6 
Madagascar 1 0 1 1 3 
Mali 1 1 1 0iv 3 
Uganda 1 0 1 2 4 
Zambia 1 1 1 1 4 
Global/Other 
Countries 8 1 9 
DC 10 8 18
TOTAL 10 7 8 6 8 8 8 55 i
Included interview with one individual involved in indoor air pollution and clean-cook stoves. ii Included interviews with two individuals involved in indoor air pollution and clean-cook stoves. iii Suitable government interviewees could not be identified for Bangladesh, Madagascar, and Uganda. 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 6
iv Interviewees from local implementing partners were not provided for Mali.
Each interviewee signed a formal consent form agreeing to the interview and, if respondents 
agreed, the interview was recorded. Interview transcripts were typed and collated for data 
analysis. 
The evaluation statement of work (SOW) required focus group discussions, but after consultation 
with the USAID, it was agreed that these were not practical given the dispersed nature of the 
stakeholders. 
Information from the interviews was analysed quantitatively in which respondents were asked a 
“yes” or “no” question. When appropriate, the results of these questions are reported. Upon 
completion of the interviews, WASH sector specialists reviewed the transcripts to determine 
trends and themes arising from the responses. Illustrative quotes were extracted to provide 
firsthand insight into the opinions of the respondents, some of which are provided in this report, 
as applicable. 
Review of WASHplus Website and Webinars
Website: Both the functionality (such as functional links) and the content of the WASHplus 
website were reviewed to assess whether or not the site was appropriate, useful, and contained 
current material that would be beneficial to a wide range of potential users. The evaluation team
also reviewed all the characteristics above from the perspective of francophone users, given that 
of the seven WASHplus country programs, three of them are francophone: Benin, Mali, and
Madagascar (where Malagasy is the second official language). The evaluation team evaluated the 
availability of French materials throughout the website through two levels of searches. The first￾level search included browsing through the landing pages of the main sections of the website. 
The second-level search included opening 50 percent of the hyperlinks provided in the text of 
each section’s landing page. 
Webinars: The WASHplus team provided data on the subject, timing, and attendance of
webinars. The evaluation team analyzed these data, which are graphically presented later in this 
report.
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 7 
2.2. Study Limitations
Limitations of interviews: Given the global distribution of the interviewees, the SOW required 
that interviews were conducted via teleconferencing (refer to Annex 1 for data gathering 
activities). This accommodation sometimes led to difficulties in sound quality that could limit 
understanding. To mitigate this challenge, two members of the evaluation team participated in 
each call. Team members cross-referenced interview transcriptions after the calls. In cases in 
which the interviewees gave permission, the evaluation team recorded the calls. 
It was anticipated that there would be reluctance among some respondents to be frank. To 
mitigate this reluctance, the evaluation team clearly stated to each interviewee that his or her 
responses would remain anonymous and identifying comments would not be used. In addition, 
each interviewee signed a consent form that also explained the confidentiality of the interviews.
Given the time differences and the time commitments of stakeholders, it was difficult to schedule 
interviews with some key interviewees. This difficulty was mitigated by having two lead 
interviewers on the team, so that, for example, two early-morning interviews could be conducted 
in parallel. Additionally, a small minority of people had less formal, shorter interviews, and a 
small number were asked specific questions via e-mail.
Limitations of document review:
• Gaps in reporting: Some of the countries did not provide reports for every quarter. For 
example, there were only two quarterly reports for Uganda over a 1-year period. 
• Number of beneficiaries: Quantitative data on beneficiaries were not systematically
available for all countries. The exception was Zambia, which had thorough 
documentation of the targeted number of beneficiaries and the actual numbers achieved. 
• Quality of descriptions of project outcomes: Descriptions of some of the project 
objectives and results were vague, making it difficult to set coherent criteria to evaluate 
project outcomes. 
Because of the limited beneficiary data available, the evaluation team obtained approval from the 
USAID to not conduct an analysis of beneficiaries. The scarcity of information on project results 
led the team to probe for more details from the interviewees (refer to Annex 5 for interview 
questions). 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 8 
3. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
3.1.USAID Context
In the last few years, USAID has embarked upon specific organization-wide initiatives that 
determine how mechanisms such as WASHplus are to be implemented. These strategies and 
initiatives essentially define how the agency intends to carry out its activities both in general, and 
specifically in the WASH sector. The evaluation team reviewed six initiatives of USAID; many 
stress an emphasis on increased engagement with local partners and building the capacity of and 
working through national and local governments
USAID Forward 
Introduced in 2010, a ground-breaking new strategy titled “USAID Forward” proposes a major 
shift in the way USAID works based on principles that “reflect the global discourse on 
development that has evolved over the last decade.”1 The strategy aims to create “a critical shift 
in the way we administer assistance, placing a greater emphasis on public-private partnerships 
and working with local governments and civil society organizations,”2 directing USAID staff to 
work more closely with partners in-country to ensure sustainable results. The stated objective of 
the strategy is far reaching: “working ourselves out of business and replacing our efforts with 
those of responsible institutions, vibrant private sectors, and thriving civil societies . . . our goal 
is to use assistance and development to help nations realize their own potential, [develop] their 
own ability to govern, and become our economic partners.”3
 
1 USAID Forward Progress Report, 2013. 2 ibid.
3 ibid. 
Eradicating Poverty by 2030 
USAID has also committed to support the eradication of extreme poverty by 2030. In early 
2013, President Obama stated, “The United States will join with our allies to eradicate extreme 
poverty in the next two decades by connecting more people to the global economy; by 
empowering women; by giving our young and brightest minds new opportunities to serve and 
helping communities to feed, and power, and educate themselves; by saving the world’s children 
from preventable deaths; and by realizing the promise of an AIDS-free generation, which is 
within our reach.” USAID responded that “. . . building on a wealth of expertise, strategic 
thinking, more targeted resource allocation, and global partnership platforms, we are well￾positioned to seek smart, sustainable solutions to extreme poverty.” The discussion paper 
“Getting to Zero” points out that poverty has many dimensions, which income alone does not 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 9
capture, and refers to the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) developed by UNDP. The MPI 
includes access to water and sanitation as two of the 10 indicators used to calculate the index. 
Water and Development Strategy, and 2014–2025 Multi-Sectorial Nutrition Strategy
At the same time, the agency has developed two new strategies that directly relate to water 
sanitation and hygiene. The Water and Development Strategy covers the period 2013 to 2018 
and outlines the approach of the agency in both water for health and water for food, and states 
that it draws on USAID Forward “by supporting host country systems and emphasizing an 
integrated approach to development.”4 The strategy includes a target of reaching 10 million 
people with an improved water supply and six million with improved sanitation. USAID’s 2014–
2025 Multi-Sectorial Nutrition Strategy is described as the first of its kind at USAID. The 
strategy’s multi-sectorial approach addresses both direct and underlying causes of malnutrition, 
and focuses on high-impact actions across health, nutrition, agriculture, water and sanitation, and 
humanitarian assistance programs. It includes WASH as a “nutrition-sensitive intervention” and 
contains a well-referenced subsection on WASH outlining “essential WASH actions.” These 
include hand washing with soap, the treatment and safe storage of drinking water, and the 
sanitary disposal of human feces. The strategy singles out sanitation in particular and cites its 
strong correlation with stunting: “even in the absence of diarrhea, a fecal-contaminated 
environment is linked to environmental enteropathy.”5
 
Sanitation and Water for All (SWA) 
USAID has also been an active participant in the Sanitation and Water for All (SWA) 
partnership. This alliance of 90 partners, including governments, donors, civil society 
organizations, and other development partners, started in 2010 and aims to create a cycle of 
robust planning, institutional strengthening, better use of resources, and higher investment to 
achieve universal access to water, sanitation, and hygiene. Partners agree to adhere to the SWA 
Guiding Principles, which are largely based on the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and 
the Accra Agenda for Action. The principles include country ownership, alignment, 
harmonization, managing for results, mutual accountability, and predictability. The principles 
aim to facilitate improved domestic investment, increased donor flows through country systems, 
and more effective use of all resources in the sector to ultimately achieve sustainable access to 
services for everyone. USAID has been a member of the partnership since its first biennial High￾Level Meeting in 2010. 
 
4 USAID Water and Development Strategy, 2013–2018.
5 A subclinical condition of the small intestine caused by constant fecal-oral contamination and resulting in blunting 
of intestinal villi and intestinal inflammation, and consequent decreased nutrient absorption and infiltration of 
microbes. 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
10
Further, at the most recent High-Level Meeting of the SWA partnership in April 2014, USAID 
Administrator Rajiv Shah announced numerous new commitments on behalf of USAID. Many of 
commitments reflected the direction described in the USAID Forward strategy. For example, the 
administrator stated that the agency wanted to “identify a partnership framework that recognized 
that the majority of resources going towards [WASH] efforts come from countries themselves, 
and we play a modest but sometimes catalytic role.” 
Water and Development IDIQ (WADI)
More recently, the Water Office within USAID issued a water and development indefinite
delivery indefinite quantity (WADI) contract to “carry out task orders that reflect the [agency’s]
strategic direction and focus in water programming.” Under the contract, USAID wishes to
“acquire innovative and effective practices in the water sector supporting USAID’s work in 
sustainable water, sanitation, and hygiene, and in enhancing food security through productive use 
of water in agriculture . . . [and] provide technical services and support to USAID Missions, 
Bureaus and Offices worldwide in implementing priority water sector activities.” The total 
ceiling under the IDIQ is $1 billion dollars. WASH is a significant part of the IDIQ, and 
awardees will provide services that include various WASH related activities, technical assistance 
services, capacity building and institutional strengthening (specifically capacity building for 
USAID staff), and training of technical personnel within host-country institutions on topics 
including WASH. 
The indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract is designed to support the vision and 
strategic objectives as presented in the USAID Forward policy framework and the water and 
development strategy, which includes “building local capacity, nurturing lasting institution 
systems, and capacities in developing countries that enable them to confront development 
challenges effectively.” The IDIQ states that the proposed contract “will enable USAID Missions 
to implement and manage water and sanitation programs that embrace a broad range of policy, 
legal, regulatory, and institutional reform efforts. These reforms will anchor the long-term 
transformation of the water and sanitation sector, leading to sustainable service provision on an 
equitable basis.” The services to be provided by awardees also include supporting innovation, 
organizing seminars and workshops, and conducting sustainability analyses of USAID water and 
sanitation sector programs. This IDIQ and the other strategic plans demonstrate that USAID 
plans to continue its support of the WASH sector. 
Conclusion: The WASHplus mechanism has operated within a context of evolution at USAID. 
USAID will expect these interventions to be consistent with the strategies that it has recently 
developed, and closely coordinated with the other WASH activities of USAID. The evaluation 
team concludes that future investments and programming should reflect this evolution. 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
11
3.2.Benefits of WASHplus as a Core Mechanism for Missions
USAID Missions decide whether or not to use the services of a central mechanism such as 
WASHplus, and the mechanism is expected to respond to requests from Missions without the 
mandate to approach them directly. Interviewees have voiced their opinions on the benefits and 
challenges of using a centrally managed mechanism in general, and WASHplus specifically. 
Findings from the interviews and financial data provided by WASHplus helped to determine the 
involvement of USAID Missions and their financial contributions (refer to Annex 6 for obligated 
fund and expenditures). 
Finding 1: The WASHplus mechanism offers some significant benefits 
• The WASHplus mechanism is perceived to be easy and fast: Many respondents believed 
that the WASHplus mechanism was both easier and faster than using other mechanisms 
available to USAID Missions undertaking WASH programming. Missions variously 
referred to WASHplus as “a quick way to access program funds,” a “learning project 
while designing something larger,” and a way to put “less burden on the mission.” It was 
also used by at least one Mission (in Kenya) to make very strategic use of a small amount 
of funding. 
• WASHplus offers other opportunities to Missions: In some cases, Missions were attracted 
to the WASHplus mechanism because of the particular partners involved. Many 
respondents acknowledged that the WASHplus mechanism is expensive, but as one 
respondent said, it was “worth it to work with partners we felt were qualified.” Some 
respondents referred to the fact that WASHplus could help Missions that do not have 
WASH experience. One interviewee said, “For people who [do not] have a WASH 
background who need to do a WASH activity, WASHplus is great.” 
Finding 2: There are numerous challenges related to the current WASHplus mechanism
• Despite the benefits that are available to Mission staff through advice and technical 
assistance provided by WASHplus, it was evident from numerous interviews that there is 
a growing interest within Missions in undertaking WASH programming directly. One 
respondent described the WASHplus centrally managed mechanism as a “middleman.” 
Several USAID respondents referred to the new USAID Forward strategy, which they 
felt meant that, in the future, they would “work directly with NGOs and [the]
government” and not with WASHplus. As stated by another respondent, the introduction 
of new strategies such as USAID Forward could mean that “as Missions give funds 
directly to NGOs, the role of WASHplus will be smaller.”
• Mission staff members need access to WASH expertise, particularly around working with 
governments (Ministries of Health, Water, and Education). This expertise is important as 
Missions will be implementing larger WASH projects in the future. The capacity of 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
12
mission-level staff to design and support WASH programming is uneven. There are very 
few Missions with dedicated WASH staff, and Missions were acknowledged by a 
respondent within the USAID itself to be “weak” when it comes to WASH. Capacity in 
Africa, in particular, is lacking, which is a systematic problem. As one respondent said, 
“One week of WASH training won’t fix this.” Cross-country learning was also 
acknowledged to be difficult because being absent from their posts is difficult for people. 
USAID staff expressed frustration that they would “never be a global player without 
stronger WASH people.” 
• Short time frame: Several respondents commented on the short time frame (5 years), and 
the problems it posed for Missions. This short time frame is particularly problematic as 
the current WASHplus project lost an entire year at the beginning due to the suspension 
of the original lead contractor just after start-up. Several respondents pointed out that to 
start something with WASHplus when it only had 1 or 2 years left to run was not 
practical, or that it had been hard to have an impact in the short time frame. The 
evaluation team was also told that, in some cases, valuable time was lost in extended 
negotiation with the Missions about approaches and work plans. 
• Loss of control using WASHplus mechanism: Several Missions commented that 
WASHplus was “too far away,” and that they did not like the indirect communication 
with implementing partners. Several respondents commented on the fact that they “lost 
control” when they used the WASHplus mechanism. 
• Limited sharing of WASHplus materials with colleagues: As noted in the knowledge 
management section (see Section 3.6), USAID mission staff often appreciated the 
material made available to them by WASHplus, but they seem to rarely pass it on to local 
colleagues. This observation was noted in particular in francophone countries as limited
WASHplus material is available in French. 
• Misunderstanding of the role of WASHplus mechanism: Among some respondents in 
Missions, there seemed to be a misunderstanding of the role of a Washington-based 
mechanism. Some appeared to be under the impression that working with WASHplus 
would keep them “on the radar of USAID in Washington,” with one respondent saying 
that it “allows them to have interaction with Washington.” Another respondent said they 
wanted a mechanism that could “lobby for funding for [their country] within the USAID 
system.” 
• Lack of demand from USAID Missions: An important indicator of the perceived benefits 
to Missions of the WASHplus project is the small number of Missions that have actually 
used the mechanism (eight to date) Out of a total of 109 Missions globally, 30 were 
targeted as MCH priority countries by the Global Health Bureau and as the focus for 
WASHplus. While all of these Missions could not have been expected to buy into the 
mechanism, the original ambition of the program suggests that more than eight were 
expected to use it. WASHplus is expected to reach about 44 percent of its (admittedly 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
13
high) budget ceiling due to low Mission buy-in. Of concern is the fact that there seems to 
be reluctance on the part of some USAID staff in Washington to recommend WASHplus 
as a mechanism to Missions. Lack of confidence in WASHplus seems to have resulted in 
a type of vicious cycle, whereby WASHplus is not recommended to Missions, so few 
Missions use WASHplus, resulting in a narrow scope of experience that further 
undermines the credibility of the program. There was an acknowledgment of this in some 
of the interviews; one USAID interviewee said that “we never really bought in ourselves” 
to WASHplus. 
Review of Financial Data 
WASHplus has worked at the global level and in eight country programs to date: Bangladesh, 
Benin, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Uganda, and Zambia (refer to Annex 2 for country 
profiles). These country programs have included activities in a range of geographic areas (e.g., 
rural, urban and peri-urban) and subsectors (see Annex 3 for detailed profiles of each country 
program). Table 2 summarizes the main WASHplus activities by country.
Table 2: Summary of WASHplus activities by country
Country and 
start and end 
dates
Main partners Expenditures to 
May 31, 2014
Obligated 
budget Main activities
Zambia
9/2011–
9/2015
FHI360
CARE $10,001,968 $13,690,448
WASH in schools
Hygiene education
Behavior change
Menstrual hygiene management
Liberia
9/2012–
10/2012
FHI360 $110,739 $127,260 Assessment of IWASH program
Bangladesh
9/2012–
5/2014
FHI360
Winrock
Water Aid
$1,277,589 $4,863,058
Water supply, including techno 
innovations
Improved sanitation in challenging 
terrain
Improved local and community 
governance
WASH-Nutrition Integration
IAP-including consumer 
segmentation and WTP study
Mali
4/2013–
4/2015
CARE
FHI360 $515,810 $2,500,000 WASH-Nutrition
Kenya
9/2011–
9/2014
FHI360 $1,822,032 $2,160,522
WASH-HIV
Community-led total sanitation
IAP
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
14
Country and 
start and end 
dates
Main partners Expenditures to 
May 31, 2014
Obligated 
budget Main activities
Madagascar
8/2011–
11/2013
FHI360
CARE
Winrock
Water Aid
$1,148,665 $1,158,000 Sanitation
Fecal sludge management
Benin
10/2012–
10/2015
FHI360 $286,905 $750,000 Urban Hygiene Improvement 
Program
Uganda
12/2012–
11/2014
FHI360 $269,364 $500,000
Strengthening district competencies 
to budget, manage, and implement 
WASH (CLTS, school/ MHM, 
rainwater harvesting) WASH-HIV
WASH-Nutrition
WASHplus in the context of USAID investments in WASH 
Finding 3: Obligated funds are currently just over a third of the $100 million WASHplus 
ceiling, which, though high, constitutes a small fraction of USAID funding to WASH. Some 
WASHplus country programs are not close to using their obligated budget. 
USAID is investing in WASH with an average budget allocation of $318 million a year between 
2003 and 2011 (see table 3). WASHplus has channeled expenditures of approximately $23 
million in the first 3 and a half years of its operation, an average of $6.5 million a year, which is 
equivalent to 2 percent of average annual USAID investment in the WASH sector over the last 9 
years. Even at its highest expenditure year so far, with slightly over $10.7 million channeled 
through WASHplus in Year 3 of the project, the program only accounted for 3.4 percent of the 
average annual USAID expenditures on WASH (see Annex 6 for WASHplus obligated funds 
and expenditure). 
Table 3: USAID budget allocations for the water sector by thematic area (USAID Water 
and Development Strategy, 2013–2018) 
The WASHplus program has a budget ceiling of $100 million over the 5 years of its duration. 
The total funds obligated to date have been $36,547,543, just over one third of the $100 million 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
15
ceiling for the program. As of May 31, 2014, 44 months through the 60-month duration, 
$23,848,704, (about 65 percent) of these obligated funds had been spent (see Annex 6 for 
detailed budget figures). Partners with the largest expenditures are FHI360 (64 percent), CARE 
(24 percent), and WaterAid (5 percent). CARE primarily operates in Zambia and Mali, and 
WaterAid in Bangladesh. The expenditure figure for FHI360 includes field-based operations and
core program costs (figure 3).
While many countries are on track or close to completion, several are behind in their budget 
utilization, including Bangladesh, Benin, and Mali, (figure 1). This is most likely due to later 
start-up in many countries, with funding and activities not starting until the second or third year. 
This delay was in part due to the suspension of the original lead contractor just after start-up, and 
the transfer of the assets of this contractor to FHI360, who took over leadership of the program.
As can be seen in figure 2, in Year 1, other than WASHplus core spending, only Madagascar 
utilized any of its budget, and in Year 2, only slightly more than half of the expenditures were in 
the field. 
Figure 1: Obligated funds spent as of May 2014 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
16
Figure 2. Expenditures by country as percent of annual total 
Figure 3. Expenditures by partner
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
17
Finding 4: Countries with a significant service delivery component account for a large 
portion of expenditures.
Zambia and Bangladesh, the two countries with large service delivery components, account for 
49 percent of total expenditures to date. Other countries and global expenditures account for 19 
percent of the total, and core costs account for 32 percent of the total (figure 4). The relatively 
low expenditure at country level has resulted in the core program budget (which includes global 
leadership, integration, and innovation activities, as well as partnership contributions) costs 
constituting a significant proportion of project costs; 32 percent to date and a projected 30 
percent once all obligated funds are spent. 
Figure 4. Expenditures by country (to May 31 2014) 
USAID Missions decide whether or not to use the services of a central mechanism such as 
WASHplus, and the mechanism is expected to respond to requests from Missions without the 
mandate to approach them directly. The evaluation team’s analysis reveals that as a result of the 
requests it received, WASHplus became a combination of two different approaches: service 
delivery at scale, largely by NGOs in two countries (i.e., Zambia, Bangladesh), and a variety of 
smaller-scale interventions in others. This analysis raises questions as to whether or not such a 
combination is consistent with the original ambition of the program as expressed in the strategic 
objectives: “moving beyond basic service delivery through NGO projects, WASHplus uses 
innovative approaches to expand the access and use of WASH services, such as the development 
of innovative approaches for WASH financing; building the capacity of the local private sector 
for the provision of WASH products and services; and institutional strengthening, especially at 
the lowest levels of governance.”
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
18
Conclusion: Some WASHplus country programs are behind in utilizing their budget. Countries 
with large service delivery use a great portion of the WASHplus expenditures compared with
other small-scale programs. WASHplus accounts for a small portion of USAID expenditures on 
WASH, but its strategic objectives, set by USAID, were ambitious. It appears that the demand￾driven model used has not been consistent with these objectives, particularly with the objective 
of “moving beyond basic service delivery through non-governmental organization (NGO) 
projects.” 
The benefits and challenges of the WASHplus central mechanism, combined with the evolving 
strategies within USAID and the ongoing commitment of the agency to WASH, suggest that as 
Missions are looking at larger WASH projects, they will be less likely to use a centrally managed 
mechanism for projects that include service delivery, and will work directly with local NGOs 
and national and local governments. Moreover, it is also evident that the need for advice, 
training, and technical assistance will be greater, particularly for projects that aim to work 
through national governments, local governments, and local implementing agencies. 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
19
3.3.Impact at Country Level 
To have an understanding of the approaches used by WASHplus to achieve increased coverage
of high-impact WASH interventions, including leveraging resources, engaging other partners
such as the private sector, and developing evidence to guide improved programming, the 
evaluation team investigated:
• Quality of service delivery and impact on national policy and capacity, and 
• Engagement with the private sector.
Quality of service delivery and impact on national policy and capacity 
Finding 5: WASHplus has successfully undertaken service delivery in its country programs 
with programming designed to positively impact the lives of the poor. 
The evaluation team focused primarily on two types of impact6 at the country level: quality of 
service delivery and impact on policy and capacity. From the interviews, the evaluation team 
gathered many positive responses about the quality and impact of WASHplus in the countries 
where the mechanism was utilized. For example, the Community Connector program in Uganda 
to integrate WASH and nutrition was positively reviewed by all interviewees in the country and 
described by all as “very successful.” In Kenya, one respondent said, “Small, doable actions have 
been well taken by the sector” and that the work on HIV/AIDs has been “critical.” Another 
respondent stated that the Kenya “HIV/AIDS handbook and guidelines developed by this project 
belong to the government of Kenya and are integrated in its policies.” In another country, 
respondents shared with the evaluation team that the WASHplus project had made a state 
governor “change his way of thinking.” A respondent in Madagascar spoke of having the “ability 
to innovate” through WASHplus. Another spoke of Madagascar as being the “ideal scenario,” 
saying that “the sector was dynamic, the Mission was dynamic, and there was strong support.” 
Respondents also told the team that the cook stove program has been effective in Bangladesh. 
One respondent said, “The consumer segmentation study has impacted manufacturers and 
distributors to offer options that are more desired by consumers.” Many respondents singled out 
specific members of the WASHplus team and spoke enthusiastically of the excellent support and 
advice they had received. 
In terms of the effectiveness of service delivery provided through WASHplus, interviewees 
generally stated that programming approaches are of high quality. Most of the service delivery 
 
6 Despite the use of the team “impact” in the SOW, the evaluation team clarified with USAID that the assignment 
was not a conventional impact evaluation.
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
20
under WASHplus was provided in the two countries with major implementation components: 
Zambia and Bangladesh. Competent implementing partners were used in both countries. 
Finding 6: The WASHplus mechanism could have been used to place a stronger emphasis 
on government capacity and leadership. 
The influence of WASHplus on government policy and capacity does not appear to have been 
significant in all program countries. In some countries, interventions were small or at pilot scale, 
and respondents commented that they felt it would take some time before the policy implications 
became apparent. 
In the case of Zambia, the evaluation team learned that the Schools Promoting Learning 
Achievement through Sanitation and Hygiene (SPLASH) program had an influence on 
government, particularly in terms of including WASH in schools as an indicator in government 
monitoring. However, there were still calls for government leadership in the sector to be further 
fostered, and for capacity for the future to be built. As one respondent explained, “existing 
government structures should be used” and “the ministry should give direction.” The USAID 
Mission in Zambia ending the project 1 year early certainly limited the potential influence of 
WASHplus in institutionalizing WASH in schools within the Ministry of Education, as the final 
year was designed to be a year of consolidation and building of district government capacity. 
The feedback from respondents indicated that, in general, the quality of the implementation in 
Zambia was good, however, there was an apparent difference of opinion over approach between 
the implementing agencies and the Mission in Zambia. The initial design of the project in 
Zambia called for strengthening and sub-granting of funds to the District Education Boards to 
allow them to lead on school WASH facility construction. However, the priority of the Mission 
was to achieve progress in terms of beneficiary numbers. In response to the Mission’s request, 
FHI360 and CARE contracted directly with local artisans in the initial stages and only later 
developed a “hybrid” approach that included direct service delivery and the sub-granting of 
funds to the District Education Boards to facilitate the planned capacity building, leadership role, 
service delivery, and strengthening of operation and maintenance systems. 
The evaluation team interviewed district-level government staff in several countries, and the 
findings suggested that WASHplus had effectively provided implementation support, but had not 
necessarily been able to significantly increase government capacity. One respondent within a 
district government stated that “there has been no planning for long-term sustainability—too 
short and no real exit strategy.” 
The emphasis on beneficiary numbers, which emanated from the USAID Mission, seems to have 
undermined the building of government capacity. One respondent explained that “beneficiary 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
21
numbers are the primary numbers that USAID count and report rather than, for example, the 
number of district school WASH systems functioning in a sustainable way.” 
Finding 7: WASHplus was not designed, and has not been used, to help Missions to build 
skills for taking a government-to-government approach in the future.
WASHplus has not been used to help Missions acquire skills to build government capacity. 
Engagement with the private sector 
Finding 8: Despite some attempts, PPPs and other forms of private-sector involvement 
have not evolved into a significant feature of the WASHplus program to date. 
Changes in program implementation or misalignment between services provided by selected 
companies from the private sector and the WASHplus project requirements did not lead to major 
accomplishments in terms of establishing PPPs. For example, an initiative with Unilever on 
WASH and newborn health in Kenya was initially to be implemented through WASHplus, but 
USAID decided instead to make it part of its flagship child health project. Likewise, potential
opportunities to partner with Procter & Gamble and Medentech were initially promising, but fell 
through mainly because of a lack of compatibility between what technical inputs the company 
had to offer and what WASHplus projects required. In Zambia, Medentech’s Flogenic 
technology was designed to work with piped water systems rather than the borehole systems 
used by WASHplus. In Benin, it was found that chlorine levels in water were not the issue as 
they were originally thought to be, so technical assistance from the private sector was no longer 
required. 
There has been some success with small-scale private sector engagement. WASHplus has had 
successful engagement with the private sector in the IAP program in Bangladesh, particularly 
with regard to using the private sector to build latrine slabs in the country. Other successes 
include the development of public-private ventures to develop community WASH blocks in 
Madagascar, the training of local artisans such as masons in some countries, and working with a 
local company in Zambia to produce menstrual hygiene management kits for distribution to 
schools. 
WASHplus continues its programmatic partnership with the global Public Private Partnership for 
Handwashing (PPPHW) by participating on the steering committee and providing technical 
assistance.
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
22
Conclusion: 
WASHplus is seen as a program that has had a significant impact and implemented effective 
service delivery in the countries where it works. However, the WASHplus mechanism has not 
been used to place significant emphasis on building government capacity and leadership. More 
could be achieved in terms of building the capacity of the local private sector for provision of 
WASH products and services and to develop new PPPs, as called for in the strategic objectives.
3.4.Integrated Programming
The evaluation team looked into the effectiveness of WASHplus activity integration in WASH 
with other activities, including nutrition, HIV/AIDS and education. The team also evaluated the 
effectiveness of WASHplus activities in IAP.
Finding 9: WASHplus has successfully incorporated integrated programming, has made 
many related resources available, and has undertaken innovative country-level integrated 
programming. 
The evaluation team found that WASHplus has successfully been a leader in developing 
integrated programming, for example, WASH in Schools, WASH and nutrition, and WASH and 
HIV-AIDS. WASHplus and its predecessor, the Hygiene Improvement Project (HIP), took an 
early lead in the area of integration, while other entities such as the World Bank, UNICEF, and 
groups within USAID are also engaged in such initiatives. As of the time of this evaluation, 
integration initiatives have become of interest sector-wide. This observation is particularly 
relevant in the case of WASH and nutrition. During the 2 years that it has taken to develop a 
joint document with UNICEF, USAID, and WHO on WASH and nutrition, other actors, 
including within USAID, have embraced and developed many of the ideas. As one respondent 
said, “The problem is that now [the WASHplus supported document] is no longer as new and 
interesting as when they started . . . the challenge is to make sure they contribute something 
new.” 
The WASHplus website provides a range of resources related to the integration of WASH with 
sectors such as HIV/AIDs and nutrition. These include reports, toolkits, recorded webinars, and 
training manuals developed over the past 4 years. These resources offer the opportunity to learn 
about activities in WASHplus country programs, and to use materials for learning and/or 
teaching, etc.
The work of WASHplus in WASH and HIV/AIDS integration was particularly appreciated. One 
respondent said, “WASHplus has been a leader and has influenced the country at national level.” 
However, the same respondent also said that WASHplus “could have done better at knowledge 
management and dissemination” on the subject of HIV/AIDS and WASH integration. Another 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
23
respondent commented on the fact that a focus on HIV/AIDS and WASH integration is 
particularly important, as it “targets people who have been marginalized,” but the respondent 
also commented that scaling up is needed. In this interviewee’s opinion, much more training of 
local-level staff is required, particularly government staff.
Respondents shared that structural problems (outside of the control of WASHplus) within 
development agencies (including USAID) have also contributed to difficulties in developing
integrated programming at the country level. For example, respondents told the evaluation team 
that integration was sometimes seen as a “new cost” often added after programming had already 
started and work plans were developed. As one respondent said of other USAID staff, “They are 
convinced, but their annual plan has been approved.” Another mentioned, “It is hard to integrate 
with other sectors unless it was initially planned and budgeted.” Clearly, the existence of silos 
within development agencies is still an obstacle to integrated programming. 
As mentioned in the SOW, the evaluation team had to determine where integrated programming 
provided added benefits that are not observed in independent programming. Because the team
was not performing an impact evaluation, they and USAID agreed that this question could not be 
addressed empirically. However, several of the interview protocols posed the question to 
interviewees, all of whom confirmed that, in their opinion, integrated programming yields 
greater benefits for beneficiaries, but these responses did not seem to be directly related to the 
specific experience of WASHplus.
Conclusion: 
WASHplus has energetically embraced integrated programming, has made many related 
resources available, and has undertaken innovative country-level integrated programming. 
Integrated programming is becoming an accepted approach, both within USAID and within other 
agencies. Nonetheless, understanding the institutional obstacles to making integrated programs 
work are not yet well understood. 
Finding 10: The IAP component of WASHplus has had a significant reach in IAP globally, 
and success in applying lessons from behavior change programming in the WASH sector. 
However, WASHplus was unable to achieve significant country reach with IAP. 
The IAP project in Bangladesh has had some significant successes. Globally, the IAP component 
has had significant reach in IAP promotion and thought leadership activities, including the 
facilitation of working groups, technical committees, and workshops. However, because of a 
number of challenges related to IAP being linked to USAID’s energy rather than health 
programming, the IAP component has not been able to achieve the country reach foreseen at the 
outset of WASHplus. 
 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
24
Although it was envisioned that IAP would be less than 20 percent of WASHplus efforts, the 
integration of both WASH and IAP with other sectors was originally a significant component of 
the WASHplus program, and was reflected in two of the four goals of the program: 
• Reduce diarrheal diseases and acute respiratory infections.
• Integrate WASH and IAP interventions into education, HIV/AIDS, maternal and child 
health, and nutrition programs. 
However, there were a number of challenges in realizing these goals. WASHplus staff indicated 
that:
• USAID informed WASHplus that they could not ask Missions to provide health funds 
for IAP programming. “IAP funds had to come from the energy/climate offices; 
accordingly, the project in collaboration with USAID readjusted expectations.” 
• WASHplus has to rely on USAID to make overtures to Missions and the staff stated, 
“Our USAID Environmental Health partners did not often have the necessary contacts 
with or access to mission energy offices.” 
Consequently, in the Year 3 Workplan, WASHplus informed USAID that activities related to 
IAP integration would no longer be a significant focus of the program. The Workplan states: “In 
Year Three, IAP integration will not be a major WASHplus effort; rather we will be open to 
opportunities and respond as feasible. WASHplus remains attentive to opportunities to promote 
IAP improvements alongside WASH program activities when appropriate, including identifying 
practices that outreach workers (agriculture, community health, WASH) can promote alongside 
WASH practices during household visits to limit exposure to IAP. We will look for additional 
opportunities to leverage resources in countries, such as the development and training of small￾scale entrepreneurs who will market products (e.g., point-of-use water treatment, soap, stoves, 
and sanitation products) and the development of credit and financing strategies that would be 
relevant for both areas.”
Despite these issues, some important activities were undertaken. WASHplus staff informed the 
evaluation team that “The activities that have been funded have been primarily research. This 
was not the way the project was originally envisioned, but the way it has played out based on 
available funding and accompanying scopes.” Out of the $1.5 million target for IAP core funds, 
the total expenditure, as of June 2014, was $1,161,500. WASHplus staff, however, shared that 
the full $1.5 million will be utilized by the end of the program. IAP programming also includes 
$386,200 from the Asia Regional Bureau and $476,858 from the Bangladesh Mission for IAP 
activities in that country (refer to Annex 2 for Bangladesh IAP activity profile). 
The work in Bangladesh was the primary IAP country activity (aside from a study of cook stoves 
in Kenya). FHI360 and Winrock, funded by WASHplus, worked in partnership with the Global 
Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC) on IAP in Bangladesh.
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
25
The main activity in the Bangladesh IAP program was a consumer study of needs, preferences, 
and willingness to pay, along with a controlled cooking test stove testing study resulting in a 
detailed report and a technical brief. A market strategy and consumer segmentation study are 
currently ongoing. 
Interviewees spoke positively of the program in Bangladesh, noting that the study along with 
other interactions and advocacy work has led to the engagement of the Government of 
Bangladesh (GoB) in promotion of improved cook stoves (ICS) and developing a country action 
plan (CAP) for ICS. WASHplus provided in-line edits to and comments on the CAP draft, at the 
GoB’s request. 
The mechanism has also resulted in businesses offering a wider range of ICS to consumers. One 
respondent said, “Now there [is] a wider variety of improved stoves available, including designs 
from other countries. . . . Some manufacturers have modified their stoves and the government is 
promoting better stoves.” Interviewees shared that the World Bank has also been influenced by 
the study and now promotes a wider choice and range of cook stoves. 
While country-level activities have been limited, WASHplus IAP activities on a global scale 
have been successful. For example, WASHplus was engaged in a number of global activities to 
support the IAP sector, including support to the GACC in advocacy; creating a working group 
and community of practice; and supporting numerous other knowledge sharing activities such as 
working groups, technical committees, workshops, and webinars. 
Although the interviewees did not consider the links with WASH essential, they did note that 
there were some significant benefits, particularly related to the behavioral change 
communication experience in the WASH sector. A presentation by a WASHplus specialist on 
behavioral change was noted by one respondent as being particularly useful: “[The specialist]
gave an excellent presentation that helped to integrate [behavioral] change lessons from the 
WASH sector [into the IAP context].” WASHplus co-presented a webinar with TRAction in 
May 2014 titled “Behavior Change Approaches to Enable Uptake and Use of Clean Stoves and 
Fuels: Lessons From the Field on What Works, What Doesn’t and What’s Next?” This webinar
focussed particularly on lessons from TRAction projects, but there are plans to have an IAP 
webinar focussed on WASHplus closer to the end of the program.
3.5.Project Management
As stated in their annual work plans, the WASHplus management strategy cuts across all 
strategic objectives. This strategy aims to strengthen in-country activities and increase 
sustainability over the long term as activity plans are agreed upon with the USAID and funding 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
26
becomes available. The evaluation team assessed the management successes and challenges in 
implementing WASHplus.
Finding 11: WASHplus is well managed and the staff is highly responsive. 
Of the respondents in country offices who were asked about the timeliness of fund transfer, 80 
percent said that it had been acceptable. Many respondents commented on the quality of 
communication with the WASHplus team and their prompt responses to e-mails at all times. 
Despite this, some respondents commented on the challenges with communication given that 
Missions are not expected to communicate with implementing partners directly, but must do it 
through WASHplus, which seemed to be particularly challenging for countries with a significant 
time zone difference. Of the 14 respondents who answered the question about whether technical 
assistance has been available when needed, 13 replied that it had, as one respondent confirmed, 
“There has never been a time when I needed support that was not there.” 
Finding 12: WASHplus has faced constraints due to the complicated contractual structure, 
involving multiple partners and multiple bureaucracies. 
Several respondents commented on the problem of multiple layers of bureaucracy. The 
combination of bureaucracy within the USAID, FHI360, and the implementing partners has 
slowed down processes and led to complications in some cases. For example, in one project 
country, procurement of motorcycles took 6 months. Also, delays in approval of the work plan 
by the USAID Mission in Uganda led to a delay in start-up of 1 year. Even though 75 percent of 
respondents stated that aspects of the partnership structure had supported success, more than 85 
percent of respondents commented that the contractual structure had contributed to the 
challenges. 
While 88 percent of respondents (15 out of 17) stated that the reporting requirements were 
appropriate, there was some confusion about reporting structures given the complex structure 
and multiple actors in some countries. One respondent in a Mission simply said, “I do not really 
know what the reporting structure is.” The responsibilities of different actors were not always 
well defined, and at least one respondent referred to WASHplus engagement as “micro￾managing” and said that “it was confusing to help colleagues in the field navigate.” 
Finding 13: WASHplus is perceived to have not demonstrated flexibility with regard to
staff assignments and the use of experts, and to lack the innovation required to optimize 
usefulness to the USAID. 
Some respondents commented on what one termed a lack of “nimbleness” on the part of the 
WASHplus team. The evaluation team heard similar quotes, such as “They were never agile.” 
There were also comments about their “conservative response” to requests to take on tasks, and 
another respondents said they do not have the “fluidity of staff that is needed,” and “good staff 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
27
are over committed, and they don’t bring in experts when they need them.” With respect to 
requests to take on tasks, there were comments on FHI360’s preference to work using its existing 
staff and its reluctance to take on consultants when specific skills or more capacity was needed. 
Respondents commented on the need for a better relationship, much more tightly integrated with 
USAID, in the future. 
Conclusion: WASHplus staff has been highly responsive to country offices, with good 
communication quality and promptness as indicated in the interview responses. Because of its 
contractual structure, WASHplus has also faced some constraints. These constraints have led the 
delay in start-ups of some activities. Interview responses also suggest that the structure and 
responsibilities through this centrally funded mechanism are often not clear. 
3.6.Global Leadership and Knowledge Management
The evaluation team was requested to assess whether WASHplus activities to date have 
demonstrated or contributed to thought leadership in the sector. 
Global leadership 
Finding 14: Interview responses suggest that WASHplus has not had a high enough profile 
to have significant influence at the global level. 
There are indications that WASHplus is leading in terms of innovation in certain areas, such as 
HIV/AIDS integration and the development of new latrine designs for difficult terrain. The 
accomplishments listed in the Years 1–3 Annual Reports are indicative of WASHplus’s efforts to 
have an influence at the global level. For example, at the end of its first year, WASHplus had 
engaged in meetings, planned and led discussions, and conducted webinars, including presenting
at the Water, Engineering and Development Centre (WEDC) conference in the United Kingdom
on “Combining Sanitation and Hand Washing Promotion: An Example from Amhara, Ethiopia” 
(refer to Annex 7 for more details of WASHplus engagement in global activities). Global 
partners interviewed during this evaluation were aware of what WASHplus was doing and were 
appreciative of some of the global work. The PPP for Hand Washing (PPPHW) was particularly 
well regarded. A summary of achievements in the global leadership arena are listed in Annex 8. 
However, findings from interviews suggest that WASHplus has neither a high enough profile, 
nor an adequately strategic approach to have a significant influence at the global level. One 
interviewee stated: “[WASHplus] missed opportunities to engage, for instance, with Africa 
Water Week or AfricaSan. They could have had a higher profile.” WASHplus seems to have 
struggled to get the right balance between implementation and global policy advocacy. One 
respondent said they have had little policy influence and were “mostly disappointingly absent” as 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
28
they worked in so few countries. In general, there were calls for USAID to do more in the 
WASH sector. One respondent said, “In terms of the ability to influence, there is a huge missed 
opportunity in terms of how the U.S. could use its political capital and convening power.” 
WASHplus helped support the inclusion of a hand-washing indicator in both the Multi-Indicator 
Cluster Surveys (MICS) and the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS). WASHplus 
contributed at the global level when the USAID asked WASHplus to assist them in engaging in 
the global discussions around Post-2015 targets for hygiene. One respondent stated that 
“[WASHplus] pulled together top experts into the Hygiene Working Group and commissioned a 
background report. . . . They were pragmatic but also visionary, for instance, getting menstrual 
hygiene management onto the agenda.” Another respondent suggested that there are indications 
that the WASHplus inputs to the Post-2015 debate were not entirely strategic, saying that they 
“have a good understanding of the practical challenges associated with improving hygiene on the 
ground,” but that they were “less effective in translating this into concrete proposals for 
monitoring progress at national and global levels.” 
Knowledge management 
Finding 15: Certain aspects of WASHplus knowledge management are highly valued by 
users, in particular the “WASHplus Weekly.” 
In general, anglophone respondents, in particular those based in the offices of global agencies or 
expatriate staff in U.S. Missions, were highly appreciative of the work WASHplus does to 
disseminate the latest research on WASH. In particular, the “WASHplus Weekly” briefings were 
found to be valuable and were mentioned by many of the respondents who answered the question 
about use of knowledge management resources. However, respondents who were program￾country government staff, local staff in U.S. Missions in-country, or the staff of local 
implementing agencies, were less likely to say that they had used WASHplus knowledge 
management resources. Only half of respondents in these categories said they had. Francophone 
respondents almost universally said they did not use them. The reason given by one respondent 
was that there are very few French resource materials available through washplus.org, an issue 
that is discussed in the next section.
Finding 16: The reach of WASHplus knowledge management has been uneven. 
Although some resources are highly regarded, such as the “WASHplus Weekly,” the utility of 
others, especially at the field-level, has been limited. Several respondents commented on the 
mismatch between the knowledge management resources WASHplus offered and the needs of 
the broad WASH sector. One respondent stated there is an “uptake gap” in the sector that is due 
to a “westernized understanding of how knowledge is transferred.” Other respondents observed 
that although materials made available by WASHplus on recent research are useful and highly 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
29
accessible to a certain audience, they do not serve the needs of others. For example, district-level 
government staff are unlikely to want to read full journal articles, and also unlikely to have 
internet access that would allow them to download the resources. Respondents also mentioned 
not transferring WASHplus knowledge resources to their local partners because they were not 
suitable for this audience. 
The evaluation team found a lack of evidence of systematic cross-country learning. WASHplus 
has arranged for some country-level project stakeholders to attend regional or global 
conferences, including AfricaSan, WEDC, and the UNC Water and Health Conference. Of the 
13 respondents who were questioned about this aspect, only four said that they had been able to 
share experiences and information with other countries through WASHplus (seven said no and 
two gave ambivalent answers).
Webinars
Finding 17: Webinars for which attendance data are available show they attracted more 
than 500 participants, and that between 14 and 28 percent of attendees have been from 
developing countries.
WASHplus developed seven webinars with an average of two webinars per year. These seven 
webinars attracted more than 500 attendees and more than 2,500 later online viewers. All but one 
of these webinars was hosted in partnership with other programs. The number of participants per 
webinar ranged from 43 to 132, and the number viewing after the event has been significant 
(table 4). 
Table 4. WASHplus webinars
Webinar name Date Presenters Number of 
participants
Number of 
developing 
country 
participants
Number of 
YouTube or 
Slideshare 
views as of 
7/7/2014
Lessons Learned from 
Working at Scale; 
WASHplus only event
June 23, 
2011
Julia 
Rosenbaum, 
WASHplus; 
Sarah Fry, 
WASHplus
43 12 (28%) 1,165
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
30
Webinar name Date Presenters Number of 
participants
Number of 
developing 
country 
participants
Number of 
YouTube or 
Slideshare 
views as of 
7/7/2014
Leading with 
Sustainability—Laying 
the Groundwork for 
Sustainable Services; 
joint WASHplus/WASH 
Advocates/Global Water 
Challenge event
Dec. 15, 
2011
Braimah
Apambire, 
Conrad N.
Hilton
Foundation; 
Andy
Narracott, 
WSUP; Harold
Lockwood, 
Aguaconsult
92 N/A 1,073
Inclusive WASH: WASH 
and HIV Integration; 
hosted by WaterAid 
Australia, with 
participation by 
WASHplus 
January 16–
17, 2012
Presenters and 
facilitators: 
Julia 
Rosenbaum, 
WASHplus; 
Lucina
Schmich, 
Burnet Institute
N/A N/A N/A
Environmental 
Enteropathy and WASH; 
joint 
WASHplus/TOPS/USAID 
WASH and Nutrition 
community event
Sept. 11, 
2013
Laura Smith, 
Cornell 
University; 
Helen Petach, 
USAID
102 N/A N/A
WASH Sustainability 
Index Tool; 
joint USAID/Rotary 
International H20 
Alliance/ WASHplus 
event
Nov. 21, 
2013
Harold 
Lockwood, 
Ryan 
Schweitzer, 
Aquaconsult; 
Helen Petach, 
USAID
86 N/A 157
Behavior Change 
Approaches to Enable 
Uptake and Use of Clean 
Stoves and Fuels: Lessons 
From the Field on What 
Works, What Doesn’t and 
What’s Next?; joint 
WASHplus/ TRAction 
event
May 7, 2014
Marc Jeuland, 
Duke 
University; 
Theresa 
Beltramo, 
Impact Carbon; 
Allen 
Namagembe, 
PATH
51 7 (14%) 111
WASH, Nutrition and 
Early Childhood 
Development: New 
Evidence in ECD and 
Findings from the Field; 
joint WASHplus/USAID 
WASH and Nutrition 
Community event
June 25, 
2014
Helen Petach, 
USAID; 
Jennifer Orgle, 
CARE; 
Maureen 
Black, 
University of 
Maryland
132 34 (26%) 109
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
31
WASHplus team members commented that they were “quite thrilled” with the levels of 
participation from developing countries given the challenges that connectivity and time 
differences pose. 
The webinars started relatively early in the program, during the third quarter (figure 5). No 
webinars were conducted for a full year from the second quarter of 2012 to the first quarter of 
2013. Since then, they have become more frequent. WASHplus staff informed the evaluation 
team that this gap was due to the complexity of finding and working with partners. The 
WASHplus team expects an increased number of webinars as projects come to an end and more 
lessons learned become available for sharing. 
Figure 5. Webinars and estimated participants
Social media
Finding 18: There is a considerable volume of English content on the WASHplus website 
and Twitter, but limited content in French even though three of the seven country 
programs are francophone.
The WASHplus project website–washplus.org–is a key part of the knowledge management 
function of the project. The website is well populated with current content and appropriate and 
useful resources, related directly to the program and external information. The “What’s New” 
and “Latest Updates” sections are current and give information about the latest research, reports, 
and conferences in a number of appropriate areas, including IAP, sanitation, WASH, and 
nutrition. 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
32
WASHplus has a strong presence on Twitter; the account has 1,504 followers and achieved 
76,700 retweets in 1 week in January 2014. This suggests that WASHplus is using Twitter as an 
excellent way to promote and disseminate information. Some of the WASHplus materials 
disseminated that month via Twitter included a review of hand washing literature, policy 
implications for improved cook stove programs, and a focus on WASH and nutrition. It is 
unclear how much of the Twitter activity is by users in developing countries. WASHplus also 
has a Facebook account, but it does not seem to be used well, having just 46 “likes.” 
Data on total hits on the website are unavailable. The visits to the WASHplus blogs or news sites 
for the program in Year 3 were: Sanitation Updates, 180,000; IAP Updates, 87,700; Urban 
Health Updates, 67,100; Household Drinking Water Quality, 81,000.7
 
None of the WASHplus website pages are offered in French by WASHplus. However, the 
website provides users with the option to have web content translated into 70 languages by 
Google Translate, a free online language translation service that instantly translates text and web 
pages. Aside from country pages for Madagascar and Benin in which reports originally drafted in 
French are available, the quality of the French translation through Google Translate is 
questionable due to the limitations of a machine translation. Other language materials are 
produced by WASHplus, but are not currently posted on the website. 
Conclusion: The number of attendees at the webinars suggests there is a strong interest in 
presentations organized by WASHplus, and webinars could be both more frequent and scheduled 
more systematically, without gaps. The availability of recorded webinars online seems to be an 
effective way to attract a greater audience from developing countries. The WASHplus website 
and Twitter are used effectively to communicate information. However, although three of the 
seven countries participating in WASHplus are francophone, the evaluation team found limited 
material available through the website in French. 
USAID seeks to take a leadership role in the sectors in which it engages. There is considerable 
opportunity to be the voice of the United States on specific policy issues relating to WASH, in 
particular those around sanitation and hygiene and the role of governments (especially the 
leadership of Ministries of Health). Opportunities exist to bring the learning from WASHplus 
country programming to global attention. Although WASHplus has been somewhat active at the 
global level, it could have higher profile.
 
 
7
 “WASHplus Year 3 Annual Report,” October 2013
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
33
4. LESSONS LEARNED FOR THE FUTURE
As defined in the SOW, the evaluation gathered successes, shortcomings, and lessons learned 
from project interventions to date to inform future WASH investments and activities of USAID. 
The lessons learned are as follows: 
• To be relevant, a centrally funded mechanism needs to have some influence on other USAID 
WASH investments—not just the funding that flows through the mechanism itself. This 
could be achieved through knowledge management, capacity building, and the development 
of innovations. 
• In the future, if a demand-driven approach is used, it would benefit from more widespread 
promotion to Missions, and for country-level project requests to be in line with the intended 
scale, goal, and strategy of the program. It is important to develop approaches that allow the 
learning and innovations from country-level activities to be widely adopted among a large 
number of USAID Missions. 
• Future investments and programming should reflect that USAID support to WASH will 
continue in the future. USAID will expect these interventions to be consistent with the 
strategies that USAID has recently developed, and closely coordinated with the other WASH 
activities of USAID. Given USAID’s new strategies and the evolution of development 
thinking, there is a need to develop approaches that foster government leadership, build 
government capacity, work with the private sector at scale, and increase the ability of U.S. 
Missions to work directly with the host government. 
• In the future, it will be important to provide Missions with advice and support necessary to 
work more effectively with national governments and local partners to respond to the 
imperative articulated in the USAID Forward strategy. 
• There is considerable opportunity to be the voice of the United States on specific policy 
issues relating to WASH, in particular those around sanitation and hygiene and the role of 
government, especially the leadership of Ministries of Health. 
• Future knowledge management could focus on resources relating to working with and 
through governments on water, sanitation, and hygiene, which would address the specific 
needs of the Ministries of Health to deliver on their mandate with respect to sanitation and 
hygiene.
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
34
5. RECOMMENDATIONS 
The WASHplus program is scheduled to come to an end by September 2015, approximately 1 
year from the time of this evaluation. This short time remaining on the current project makes it 
unrealistic to recommend dramatic changes, and the team’s understanding has been that the main 
purpose of this evaluation is to make recommendations to inform future environmental health 
investments by USAID (contained in a separate document). However, there are some changes 
and interventions that the evaluation team believes would be practical and achievable during the 
final year of the program:
• The last year should have a strong focus on building country-level capacity and
mechanisms to ensure sustainability of the interventions in the country programs. When 
possible, emphasis should be given to supporting existing institutions, especially national 
and local governments, to build upon WASHplus success once WASHplus support 
comes to an end. 
• Should USAID allow for an extension of six to 12 months (which the evaluation team 
deems advisable), the additional time period should be used to allow for further country￾level capacity development and support to government agencies where necessary. This 
extension would also give some additional time for countries where there were start-up 
delays or low budget utilization to meet their goals. 
• Knowledge management activities, especially webinars, should be ramped-up to 
disseminate the learning from WASHplus, and make a wider group of stakeholders aware 
of recent evidence and best practices in WASH. Knowledge management products and 
webinars should be available in both English and French, and should be targeted to a 
variety of audiences, including a larger proportion of in-country stakeholders. 
• The final knowledge management activities and products should focus not only on the 
successes, but on the constraints and challenges faced by the WASH sector and 
experienced through WASHplus activities. A thorough examination of the challenging 
aspects of activities such as achieving integration within development agencies, 
communicating the need for behavior change, and engaging with the private sector would 
and identifying mitigation strategies to these challenges, would be an excellent way of 
identifying additional available resources to other programs both within USAID and 
externally.
• WASHplus should develop a proposed future research agenda for USAID, based on the 
needs identified and lessons learned through its activities. 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
35
Annex 1: Evaluation of the WASHplus: Supportive Environments 
for Healthy Communities Project Cooperative Agreement No. AID￾OAA-A-10-00040 - Statement of Work
I. USAID WASHplus Evaluation
Activity: Conduct an evaluation of the WASHplus project to determine the effectiveness of the 
project, recommend revisions or adjustments to the work plan and program design, as necessary, 
and inform the design of future Environmental Health activities. 
II. Performance Period: May 1–August 31, 2014
III. Funding Source: USAID/GH/MCH
IV. Objectives and Purpose of the Assignment
The USAID Global Health Bureau’s Office of Health, Infectious Disease, and Nutrition (HIDN), 
Maternal and Child Health Division, requests technical assistance to carry out an evaluation of 
the WASHplus Project, HIDN’s flagship environmental health activity. The evaluation findings 
will be used to inform implementation of the project in Year 5, to inform design of future 
environmental health activities, and to ensure alignment with the new USAID Water and 
Development Strategy. 
The primary objectives of this evaluation are to: 
1. Assess whether WASHplus is achieving its objectives and planned outputs as stated in the
WASHplus agreement and project description, and in approved implementation plans. The
performance review should evaluate successes, shortcomings, impact, and lessons learned
from project interventions to date.
2. Make recommendations to improve implementation of the current project and to inform
future environmental health investments. Include recommendations for strategic
interventions post-2015 to both enhance the Agency’s Water and Development Strategy and
to work toward ending preventable child and maternal deaths.
Project Title: WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities
Cooperative Agreement No. OAA-A-10-00040 
Start and End Dates: October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2015 
This evaluation will assess the portfolio of projects funded through the WASHplus activity. The 
primary audiences for this evaluation include the USAID AOR, the Environmental Health team, 
USAID MCH and Water Office staff, and WASHplus.
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
36
V. Background 
The WASHplus Cooperative Agreement is housed in the Bureau for Global Health’s Office of 
Health, Infectious Diseases and Nutrition (GH/HIDN), Maternal and Child Health Division. This 
is an evaluation of a 5-year activity focused on the implementation and scale-up of proven 
environmental health interventions to prevent morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases, 
primarily in young children, but also among vulnerable adult populations. The WASHplus 
Cooperative Agreement commenced in October 2010 and ends in September 2015. 
The strategic objectives of the WASHplus activity are:
• SO1: Increase the availability and use of water supply, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) 
and indoor air pollution (IAP) interventions 
• SO2: Develop and implement WASH/IAP integration strategies
• SO3: Support USAID’s participation in strategic partnerships
• SO4: Develop and test new and innovative approaches and tools 
1. Increase the availability and use of proven, high impact WASH and IAP interventions
The project aims to achieve measurable improvement in the prevention of diarrhea through 
increased access to a water supply and sanitation, and improved hygiene practices, including 
hand-washing with soap, treatment and safe storage of water, safe disposal of feces, and food 
hygiene. The project also aims to prevent negative health impacts from IAP by improving indoor 
air quality in rural and urban households still reliant on biomass fuels and basic stoves to meet 
their energy needs for cooking and heating. Moving beyond basic service delivery through NGO 
projects, WASHplus uses innovative approaches to expand access and use of WASH services, 
such as development of innovative approaches for WASH financing; building the capacity of the 
local private sector for provision of WASH products and services; and institutional 
strengthening, especially at lowest levels of governance. 
 
2. Develop and implement WASH integration strategies 
The project aims to achieve improved health outcomes by integrating WASH programs with 
other health and non-health activities. Primary focal areas are integration of WASH in 
education, HIV/AIDS, nutrition, food security, and neglected tropical diseases. 
3. Support USAID’s participation in strategic partnerships
WASHplus supports USAID’s participation in strategic partnerships with other donors and 
cooperating agencies as a vehicle for increasing the quality and the scale of program activities. 
At the global level, a key factor in enhancing USAID’s leadership role and maximizing its 
contribution to the sector is identifying and pursuing the most effective platforms and 
partnerships, e.g., for scaling up sanitation. WASHplus will support USAID’s existing 
partnerships and explore the development of new public private partnerships (PPPs).
4. Develop and test new and innovative approaches and tools 
Problems that remain in the WASH/IAP sectors include technical efficacy, affordability and 
financing, behavior change strategies for continued use, and sustainable models to reach scale. 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
37
These challenges call for innovations in technology, tools, and approaches. WASHplus will 
focus on developing or adapting promising technologies and approaches developed elsewhere for 
WASH and IAP implementation. 
Cross-cutting initiatives that are developed across all the strategic objectives include 
knowledge management (KM) and monitoring and evaluation (M&E). The KM program will 
build knowledge platforms for information exchange, capacity building, and networking. These 
issues should be considered in all aspects of the strategic objectives.
The activities described above are designed to ultimately achieve significant public health 
impact. By design, approximately 80 percent of WASHplus efforts have focused on increased 
availability and use of WASH interventions, with no more than 20 percent dedicated to IAP. As 
a secondary focal area, IAP interventions have a limit of $1.5 million of core investment. 
VI. Evaluation Questions 
The evaluation team is expected to perform an evaluation of the USAID WASHplus A 
activity reviewing performance from October 1, 2010 to May 1, 2014. The evaluation should 
pose and answer the following questions using the broader categories as a framework for inquiry. 
A subset of countries may be specified for some categories of evaluation. 
Country impact: 
1. To what extent, in what ways, and with what challenges has WASHplus acted to provide 
increased WASH access using high-impact interventions at local, national, and global 
levels? What do we know about how well the methods used to increase coverage 
worked? What can we expect to know by end of the project? Are there additional or 
alternative actions that can be undertaken to better inform this question during the time 
remaining?
Specifically, what approaches to achieving increased coverage were used by the project, 
such as leveraging resources, engaging other partners—including the private sector—
targeting the underserved, collaborating with USAID bilateral programs, developing 
evidence to guide improved programming, contributing to post-MDG process, facilitating 
access to financing and technical assistance, etc.?
Integrated programming:
2. Has the WASHplus activity been effective at integrating WASH with other activities, 
including health and non-health initiatives such as nutrition and IAP? What new 
approaches have been developed, tested, documented, or disseminated? Does this 
integrated programming provide added benefits that are not observed for independent 
programming? 
Use knowledge from stand-alone WASH programs as a comparison for the integrated 
WASH programs. Consider the specific ways that these programs have been 
accomplished that could inform future USAID programming. Consider the extent to 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
38
which WASHplus is effectively documenting successes and challenges in these 
approaches. Is there any carryover effect to other organizations to integrate programming 
that could be a result of WASHplus integrated programming?
Benefits of the WASHplus as a core mechanism for Missions:
3. What is the usefulness of a Washington-based core mechanism for USAID Missions? Did 
the project meet their needs and provide useful technical support through the core 
mechanism? If so, which needs? In what areas were needs not met? How has 
WASHplus been used to support USAID/W’s role as a technical advisor to the Missions? 
Determine the involvement and financial contribution (data provided by WASHplus) of 
USAID field Missions to the core mechanism, and the reasons for presence or absence of 
field support and participation in core-funded projects. Include interviews for two 
Missions that did not decide to use the core WASHplus mechanism. 
Project management:
4. What have been management successes and challenges in implementing WASHplus? 
What factors [within USAID, within AED/FHI360 and partners, and within the 
Agreement] have supported or inhibited success? What changes should be implemented 
for the remainder of WASHplus and what lessons are there for the future? 
Global leadership (including public private partnerships and knowledge management):
5. Have the WASHplus activities demonstrated or contributed to “thought leadership” in the 
sector, and how? Specifically, what forums has WASHplus led or participated in 
(conferences, workshops, meetings, processes), what written and oral (e.g. webinars, 
website, social media) resources have they developed or planned, or are in progress? 
What is the influence of the knowledge management activities?
Use quantitative measures as appropriate, such as the number of visits to the Web pages, 
reach of social media efforts, and qualitative measures (including the results from the 
annual WASHplus KM surveys) to determine the quality and uptake of these resources. 
VII. Methodology 
The evaluators should consider a range of possible methods and approaches for collecting and 
analyzing the information that is required to assess the evaluation objectives. Data collection 
methodologies will be discussed with, and approved by, the USAID Environmental Health Team 
prior to the start of the assessment.
Document review
• USAID/W will provide the team with background documents such as work plans, 
strategies, reports, and technical products. The evaluation team will review these 
documents in preparation for the initial team planning meeting.
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
39
Initial planning meeting
• A 1-day team planning meeting will be held in Washington, DC. before the evaluation 
begins. This meeting will allow USAID to present the team with the background, 
purpose, expectations, and agenda of the assignment. In addition, the team will: 
o review and finalize the timeline and work plan, 
o develop data collection methods, instruments, tools and guidelines; consolidate 
into an evaluation framework 
o review and clarify any logistical and administrative procedures for the 
assignment, and 
o develop a preliminary draft outline of the team’s report. 
Data gathering activities: interviews and focus groups 
• The evaluation team will conduct a thorough review of the WASHplus activity projects, 
which will include conducting in-person and phone interviews. From this information, 
the team will analyze their findings. 
• The evaluation team will make appointments and conduct phone interviews of persons 
named in Section XIII. 
Data analysis and report preparation 
The evaluation team will: 
• Use thorough data analysis techniques, such as thematic qualitative analysis. 
• Use additional tools, as necessary, to determine how the WASHplus activity has 
contributed to thought and other leadership in the sector. 
• Analyze the raw qualitative and quantitative data collected. Ensure the data validity and 
reliability. Determine whether the WASHplus project was useful to the Missions. 
• Discuss key findings and recommendations with WASHplus and USAID staff. 
• Prepare a draft report, obtain comments from USAID, and create a final report and 
presentation. 
The final report will include an executive summary, purpose, background, main evaluation 
questions, methodology, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and lessons learned. 
VIII. Team Composition, Skills and Level of Effort 
The team should be comprised of two members with the following characteristics: 
• Expertise in program evaluation 
• Master’s degree or higher level of education in a relevant technical area (e.g., environmental 
health, engineering, public health) 
• Knowledge, skills, and experience with USAID contracting and reporting requirements; 
policies and initiatives; tools; and results frameworks
• Advanced written and oral communication skills
• Experience working in developing countries 
• Experience working in the international donor environment, especially with other 
development agencies (e.g. UN agencies, WHO, or other USG agency)
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
40
• Strong quantitative and qualitative analytical skills
Team organization 
A team leader will be designated with responsibility for the overall organization of the work 
as well as the overarching management and administration aspects of the SOW. The team leader 
will: (i) facilitate preparation of the executive summary and the full report; (ii) ensure that the 
draft and final products are prepared in accordance with the scope of work; and (iii) ensure that 
the required revisions for the final report are incorporated. 
Both members of the team will work together on all aspects of the evaluation, including 
preparation, interviews, and drafting the final report. 
Level of Effort for each team member: 
Task Team members Estimated LOE 
(days) 
Background reading Team Leader
Specialist
3 
3 
Planning meeting Team Leader
Specialist
1 
1 
Interviews/meetings (D.C.) Team Leader
Specialist
11 
11 
Analysis/drafting report Team Leader
Specialist
11 
11 
Debriefings with USAID
and presentation 
Team Leader
Specialist
1 
1 
Report finalization Team Leader 4 
TOTAL LOEs Team Leader
Specialist
31 days est. 
27 days est. 
IX. Logistics 
No work should begin on the Evaluation until the work plan is approved by the WASHplus 
AOR. The USAID/GH/MCH Team point of contact will be responsible for the following 
technical and logistical support: 
• Provide background documents 
• Provide contact information for list of interviewees in Section XII
The Evaluation Team will be responsible for the following technical and logistical support: 
• Arrange the schedule of interviews with grantees and partners 
• Provide support and editing services for the preparation of the final versions of the 
deliverables
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
41
X. Deliverables and Products 
1. Planning Meeting and Evaluation Framework: 
The consultant team will prepare an evaluation framework that includes methodology for 
evaluation activities, timeframe of those activities, roles and responsibilities of team 
members, and data analysis plan. The initial framework will be delivered and discussed 
during the planning meeting. 
Evaluators will participate in a 1-day team planning meeting in Washington at the 
beginning of the project as stated in Section VII. 
2. Data Collection Tools (including interviews): 
Team will prepare and deliver questionnaires for key interviews and templates for data 
collection. These data collection tools will be reviewed and approved by the USAID 
AOR for WASHplus prior to the team’s interviews. Team members will conduct 
interviews in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Section VII, and the tools and 
methods established during the planning meeting. 
3. USAID/W Debriefing and Presentation
The team will present the major findings to two different groups through a presentation at 
the conclusion of the interviews and analysis: (i) to USAID/W; and (ii) to both USAID/W 
and WASHplus audiences. This debriefing will include a discussion of past achievements 
and issues, as well as any recommendations the team has for future programming.
4. Draft Report: 
A complete draft report, not to exceed 30 pages (not including annexes) that will include 
a clear executive summary, will be submitted to USAID/W no later than 2 weeks after 
the end of interviews. This report will include a summary of findings, including feedback 
on performance and implementation, recommendations, analysis of all work plans and 
sub-awards, and recommendations for improved implementation. USAID/W will have 2 
weeks to provide comments and suggestions to the evaluator that will be addressed in the 
final report. 
5. Final Report:
After comments have been provided to the team, the final executive summary and full 
report will be prepared by incorporating the comments received from the review of the 
draft. The team will submit the final but unedited report for USAID approval no later 
than 1 week after USAID has provided comments on the draft. 
The contractors will submit the final edited report to the Development Evaluation 
Clearinghouse (DEC) within 90 days after USAID has approved the evaluation.
The final report will be no more than 30 pages, not including annexes. A suggested 
outline would include: 
• Executive Summary (3–4 pages)
• Evaluation Purpose and Questions 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
42
• Project Background 
• Methods and Limitations 
• Findings, Conclusions, Recommendations (main body of the report; findings are 
empirical facts and should not rely only on opinion; conclusions synthesize and 
interpret findings; recommendations are based on findings and conclusions) – 
present graphical formats to demonstrate the evidence that supports conclusions 
and recommendations. 
• Annexes (including Statement of Work, Evaluation Instruments and data, 
“Statements of differences” regarding significant unresolved difference of 
opinion, disclosure of conflicts of interest forms, etc.) 
All data sets collected by USAID or one of the Agency’s contractors or grantees for the purposes 
of an evaluation must be uploaded and stored in a central database. The data should be organized 
and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the project or the evaluation. Until 
this database is established, data can be submitted to DevelopmentData@usaid.gov 
XI. Relationships and Responsibilities 
USAID Point of Contact: 
Merri Weinger, Environmental Health Team Leader
USAID/GH/HIDN/MCH
Ronald Reagan Building 3.7.26 
1300 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, DC 20523-3700 
Telephone: 202-712-5102 
Email: mweinger@usaid.gov
Other technical contact: 
Helen Petach, Ph.D. 
USAID/GH/HIDN/MCH
Ronald Reagan Building 3.7.63 
Telephone: 202-712-1414 
Email: hpetach@usaid.gov 
XII. Cost and Time Estimate 
Our current estimate is $100,000 and 2 months of effort. These costs include the full LOE as 
described earlier in the document. 
XIII. USAID and Grant or Contract Contact Persons for Interviews
The expectation is that an appropriate subset of these interviews will take place. To be approved 
prior to the completion of interviews. 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
43
Organization 
WASHplus
WASHplus Country-level staff
Zambia partners
Kenya partners
Mali partners
Uganda partners 
Winrock 
PLAN
CARE
USAID/Madagascar
USAID/Bangladesh
USAID/Zambia
USAID/Uganda
USAID/Kenya
USAID/W MCH
USAID/W Water Office
WSP
UNICEF
WHO
UNC
Columbia University 
Emory University
GACC
WASH Advocates
JMP Hygiene Task Force
XIV. List of Documents and References 
WASHplus: Years 1, 2, 3, and 4 Work Plans and Budget 
WASHplus: Years 1, 2, and 3 Annual Reports 
WASHplus: Project Quarterly Reports for Year 4 (1st quarter)
Country-specific quarterly reports 
WASHplus communication products (e.g., Quarterly Partner Updates, WASHplus News, 
WASHplus Weeklies, WASHplus customer survey results) 
www.washplus.org 
WASHplus products: 
MHM Toolkit 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
44
WASH Friendly Schools Training (revised) 
WASH and Nutrition Trainings 
Bangladesh Sanitation Options job aids 
IAP/HAP article in PLOS (not found) 
Inclusive San Job Aids 
Country NACS input 
USAID Water and Development Strategy
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
45
Annex 2. Country Profiles
Bangladesh
Program Name(s) WASHplus Bangladesh
WASH activity
Core Partner FHI360 
Start Date: February, 2013 
End Date: May 31, 2015 
Budget 
(Obligated 
funds):
Approved work plan $6,000,000
Obligated $4,000,000 
Collaborating 
Partners:
WaterAid, DPHE (Department of Health and Engineering), USAID FTF partners 
SPRING and Shikha, ICDDR,B, iDE 
Description of 
Key Activities:
 
In work plan
• WASHplus will implement or 
rehabilitate appropriate and 
reliable water technologies.
• Implement the CLTS approach; 
explore the feasibility of 
launching a hand-washing 
device.
• Design a comprehensive 
behavior change strategy.
• Strengthen the capacity of 
community members (leaders, 
youth club members, WASH 
volunteers). 
• Training of local government 
institutions, strengthen 
programs within FTF, stove 
trial study.
• Promote innovation and engage 
local institutions. 
Delivered in reports
• Deep tube wells installed w/ some additional 
rehabilitation
• One new water supply technology adapted 
(this language follows indicators)
• Community ignition in process (1,206 
communities thru May 2014). 
• Comprehensive BC strategy designed, 
translated in Bangla and disseminated.
• Local implementing NGOs and government 
trained in BC approaches for WASH, 
refresher trainings provided
• Schoolteachers trained in WASH including 
MHM to accompany hardware inputs (348). 
• Local government capacity strengthened, 
focus on O&M, planning, budgeting, 
representation 
• New, upgraded, and renovated household 
latrines. (new = 3939, renovated/upgraded = 
2775, provided to poorest of the poor - 283) 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
46
• WASHplus will explore the 
feasibility of launching a hand￾washing device.
(reported in May 2014). 
• Technical support and training to USAID 
implementing partners to integrate WASH 
into nutrition (SPRING Project assessment 
showed statistically significant differences in 
presence of at least 2 HW stations and 
observed HW practices)
Integrated 
Programming:
In work plan
WASH-Sanitation (including 
inclusive sanitation), WASH￾Schools (including MHM), 
WASH-Nutrition, WASH￾Hygiene.
Delivered in reports
CLTSplus (plus focuses on high coverage, low 
quality latrines)
SDAs for upgrading leaky latrines, HW) 
Sanitation Marketing linkages w CLTS
WASH-School (including MHM) 
Other: Total Beneficiary Target: 272,530 (Work plan)
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
47
Bangladesh
Program Name(s) WASHplus Bangladesh
IAP activity
Core Partner FHI360 and Winrock 
Start Date: September 2012 
End Date: Officially extended through May 2014, again extended through Dec 14 
Budget 
(Obligated 
funds):
$476,823 * 
Originally budgeted at $863,182 through a combination of field support ($476,823) 
and Asia Bureau ($386,359) funds. 
*The IN COUNTRY work was completed using just field support funds plus a 
supplemental $72,604 grant from the United States Office of the Secretary of State, 
Global Partnership Initiative (S/GPI) for local capacity building and testing of the 
performance of improved stoves in the field. 
*Regional funds were then approved in Nov 2013 for reprogramming to disseminate 
the Bangladesh Consumer Preference methodology and findings (originally budgeted 
in the $863,182) and carry out a revised/ improved version of the Consumer 
Preference Study in Nepal, with development and extensive dissemination of a 
Consumer Preference Toolkit.
Collaborating 
Partners:
International Development Enterprises, Berkeley Air, Aprovecho, in coordination 
with key stakeholders including USAID Implementing partner CCEB; Global 
Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (funding iDE contract), SNV
Description of 
Key Activities:
 
In work plan
• Consumer Preference and 
Willingness to Pay study
• Kitchen Performance Tests 
(KPTs)
• Marketing and behavior change 
strategy developed and 
disseminated
• Local institutions trained in 
research methods and stove 
testing
Delivered in reports
• Consumer Preference and Willingness to 
Pay study 
• Kitchen Performance Tests (KPTs)
• Local implementing NGOs and other 
institutions trained in qualitative and 
quantitative consumer research and stove 
testing.
• Marketing and Behavior Change Strategy 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
48
• Dissemination of findings 
through Asia region 
• Dissemination at US and global fora 
Integrated 
Programming:
In work plan
WASH-Sanitation (including 
inclusive sanitation), WASH￾Schools (including MHM), WASH￾Nutrition, WASH-Hygiene.
Delivered in reports
CLTSplus (plus focuses on high coverage, low 
quality latrines)
SDAs (for upgrading leaky latrines, HW)
Sanitation Marketing linkages with CLTS
WASH-School (including MHM). 
Other: Total Beneficiary Target: 272,530 (Work plan) 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
49
Benin
Program Name(s) WASHplus Benin 
Core Partner FHI360 
Start Date: October 2012 
End Date: October 2015 
Budget: 750,000 
Collaborating 
Partners:
UNICEF, Government of Benin, MOH, ABMS 
Description of 
Key Activities
In work plan
• Design, carryout, and analyze 
baseline survey.
• Design and conduct innovative 
multi-media BC program in 
target neighborhood.
• Design and carry out social 
marketing of WASH products 
and services
• Partner with UNICEF and others 
for advocacy and increased 
investment in urban WASH
• Support MOH in developing 
Urban WASH Strategy 
Delivered in reports
• Conducted baseline survey. 
• Contracted ABMS/PSI to carry out 
neighborhood pilot program: 
• Carried out a situational analysis of 2 pilot 
neighborhoods 
• Hired 1 advocacy and 1 social 
mobilization specialist, hired and trained 
community health workers 
• Conducted 4 day inclusive Strategic 
Workshop to develop details of pilot 
BC/SocMar program
• Supported MOH is development of TORs 
for urban strategy development consultant 
• Elaborated MOU with the municipality of 
Cotonou in support of program activities 
• Recruited expert facilitator to design and 
conduct multi-stakeholder urban WASH 
planning workshop (FY15) 
• Established partnership with UNICEF to 
conduct joint Call to Action event once 
national urban WASH strategy is done 
(FY15) 
Integrated 
Programming
In work plan
N/A
Delivered in reports
Other:
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
50
Kenya
Program Name(s) WASHplus Kenya
Core Partner FHI 360 
Start Date: January, 2010 (WASHplus efforts started July 2012) 
End Date: September, 2014 
Budget: $2,160,522 
Collaborating 
Partners:
MOH, APHIAplus projects and their partners, CDC partners 
Other collaborating partners include: 
WSP, World Vision, PSI
Description of 
Key Activities:
In work plan
• Conduct baseline survey.
• Train community health 
extension workers in districts 
where the baseline was 
conducted. 
• Provide technical assistance to 
partner organizations to 
implement WASH-HIV in other 
parts of the country
• Assist MOH with CLTS activities 
in 1 district
Delivered in reports
• Completed WASH baseline survey.
• Built capacity of CHEWs and CHWs on 
WASH and HIV integration to support 
outreach and WASH improvement. 
• Trained over 650 NGO and government 
trainers. 
• Supported USAID and CDC implementing 
partners to train CHEWs and CHWs across 
the country. 
• Finalized and disseminated WASH-HIV 
Integration materials. Provided technical 
support to MOH to develop a National 
WASH training module for community 
health workers.
• Innovated CLTSplus to include inclusive 
sanitation; now part of government policy; 
trained over 600 government CHWs and 
natural leaders; developed supporting job 
aids.
• Assisted MOH with CLTS+ activities in 
Naivasha subcounty
• Trained third-party verifiers
• Supported government to identify most 
effective sanitation marketing 
options/promising practices.
Integrated 
Programming
In work plan
WASH-HIV
Delivered in reports
WASH-HIV
Other: Introduced inclusive sanitation that was adopted by the GOK CLTS program. 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
51
Madagascar
Program 
Name(s)
WASHplus Madagascar
Core Partner FHI 360 
Start Date: 2010 
End Date: November 2013 
Budget: $1,158,000 
Collaborating 
Partners:
Practica, WSUP
Description of 
Key Activities:
In work plans
• Conduct assessment implementation, 
governance, and basic financial 
management training in WASH sector for 
future selected NGOs.
• Conduct capacity building in project 
implementation of the WASH￾Everywhere community approach to 
increase the effectiveness and efficiency 
of the selected NGOs in the project’s 
SOW. 
• Urban project in collaboration with WSUP 
Delivered in reports
• Monitoring of documentation 
activities.
• Capturing lessons learned, best 
practices, and success stories from 
other USAID funded WASH 
programs. 
Other: PRACTICA fecal sludge management pilot 
in Ambositra was funded with innovation 
funds from SO4. 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
52
Mali
Program Name(s) WASHplus Mali
Core Partner CARE, FHI360 
Start Date: April 2013 (six month delay due to civil unrest in the north of the country) 
End Date: April 2015 (25 months) 
Budget: 3,000,000 (Promised by USAID/Mali) 
2,500,000 (Actually obligated by USAID/Mali) 
Implementing 
Partners:
CARE Mali
Description of Key 
Activities:
In work plans
• Understand private sector 
engagement and identify priority 
opportunities to increase their 
engagement.
• Train CLTS animators.
• Implement and follow up CLTS in 
18 communes. 
• Implement the behavior change 
component with CLTS mobilization. 
• Promote Improved WASH and 
nutrition practices. 
• Use multi-media and national 
awareness raising opportunities.
• Lead coordination in 
WASH/nutrition at district levels 
Delivered in reports
• WASHplus-developed intervention 
strategies and project management 
tools. 
• Drafted baseline protocol.
• Established or revitalized WASH 
committees in villages.
• Continue CLTS triggering in 
remaining villages.
• Nutrition demonstrations 
• Support community volunteers to 
screen infants for malnutrition 
• Developed Small doable actins for 
WASH/nutrition. 
Other: Beneficiary (Work plan): 187,000 women and 60,000 children 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
53
Uganda
Program Name(s) WASHplus Uganda 
Core Partner FHI360 
Start Date: December 1, 2012 
End Date: Approx. August 31, 2014 (extended to Oct/Nov 2012 
Budget: $500,000 
Implementing 
Partners:
USAID Implementing Partners STAR SW, SPRING, Community Connector and District 
Governments of Kabale, Kisoro and Kanungu (SW Uganda)
Description of 
Key Activities:
In work plan
• Support USAID Implementing 
Partners to integrate WASH into 
HIV and nutrition activities
• Determine available small doable 
actions and feasible local solutions.
• Support implementation of USAID 
WASH Grants (up to $1.5 million 
for districts) by providing technical 
support to SDS Project (tasked with 
disbursing grants) and 3 districts to 
plan, budget and implement WASH 
‘menu’ of options. 
Delivered in reports
• Supported implementation of USAID 
WASH Grants (up to $1.5 million for 
districts) by providing technical support 
to SDS Project (tasked with disbursing 
grants) and 3 districts to plan, budget and 
implement WASH ‘menu’ of options. 
• Developed budgeting tool for district 
planning of WASH. 
• District and IP capacity building on 
WASH integration. Workshops on 
budgeting, monitoring and indicators, 
O&M, local governance, WASH into 
nutrition, WASH into HIV, WASH 
Friendly Schools including MHM. 
• Led collaborative process to plan 
integration of HIV, Nutrition 
• Small doable actions and job aids 
including innovations for water supply 
(DIY rainwater catchment), 
nutrition/food hygiene. 
Integrated 
Programming 
In work plan
WASH-HIV, WASH-Nutrition
Delivered in reports
WASH-HIV, WASH-Nutrition
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
54
Zambia
Program 
Name(s)
SPLASH
Core Partner FHI360, CARE 
Start Date: 2011 
End Date: 2015 
Budget: 13,690,448 
Collaborating 
Partners:
(Listed in order of importance) Ministry of Education Science, Vocational Training and 
Early Education, UNICEF, Ministry of Local Government and Housing, Emory 
University. WaterAid made a contribution early in the project. 
Description of 
Key Activities:
In work plan
• Improve drinking water and sanitation 
facilities rehabilitated and installed in 
schools using a service-delivery 
framework (Boreholes, latrines, trainings). 
• Rehabilitated or new latrines with 
washrooms for senior girls and urinals for 
boys. 
• Rehabilitated or new water supplies.
• Permanent hand-washing stations.
• Develop or adapt a national school 
hygiene education program that includes: 
o School-program guidance documents 
for school leaders
o Educational materials for classrooms, 
offices (e.g. posters)
o Lesson inserts for teachers on folding 
WASH themes into curriculum
o Student materials (booklets, etc.) that 
reinforce the USAID’s reading 
outcomes 
Delivered in reports
Corrected Achievements as of March 
2014 
• 334/443 water points rehabilitated or 
constructed 
• 1,318/3,995 new latrines constructed 
• 173,122/250,000 people gaining 
access to improved drinking water 
• 62,089/144,000 people gaining access 
to improved sanitation facilities 
• 44/270 schools with MHM facilities 
• 61/370 schools with handwashing 
facilities 
• 379/1,014 teachers trained in WASH 
• 172/370 schools with established 
WASH clubs and trained peer 
educators 
• 45/30 school administrators/officials 
trained in WASH 
Integrated 
Programming:
In initial 5-year proposal 
WASH-Schools
Delivered in reports
WASH in Schools 
Other: Beneficiary (Work Plan): 741 schools
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
55
Annex 3: Summary of Accomplishments by Country
(Information provided by WASHplus) 
Countries Characteristics of 
geographic area where 
project operates
Accomplishments to date
(depending on the status of program activities and 
planning as of August 2014)
Bangladesh Program operates in an 
area of 266,000 
households and targets 
some sub-districts and 
villages in that geography
• # of people gaining access to improved drinking 
water source = 13,900
• # of people gaining access to improved sanitation 
facilities = 5,400 (number of people getting off open 
defecation still to be accounted for)
• # of communities certified as ODF as a result of 
USG assistance = 282
• # of households with installed hand washing 
device/station = 13,900 
Benin Targeting population of 
two peri-urban districts in 
Cotonou with about 25000 
households
# of households heads/main child caretakers reached = 
10,000 
Kenya Mainly a TA and training 
program, with some 
specific pilot activities in 
two community units
Kenya was funded incrementally and therefore did not 
have targets
• 650 public health officials/NGO workers in 26/47 
counties trained in WASH-HIV integration
• 8,029 volunteer community health workers trained in 
WASH-HIV integration and inclusive sanitation
• Around 1.6 million Kenyans reached with inclusive 
sanitation messages
• WASHplus staff triggered 100 villages in pilot sites
• 25 villages ODF certified 
(# of people stopping open defecation still to be 
accounted for)
Madagascar Program operated in 
secondary cities
• # of people gaining access to improved drinking 
water source =19,420
• # of people gaining access to improved sanitation 
facilities = 11,225
• Two WASH blocks improved/rehabilitated in high￾transient areas with an average of 12,000 users per 
month 
Zambia
(to date as of 
Sept. 2015)
Operates in Eastern 
Province targeting 60% of 
elementary schools in the 
area, with water points 
• # of people gaining access to improved drinking 
water source = 173,122
• # of people gaining access to improved sanitation 
facilities = 62,089 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
56
used by surrounding 
villages
• Interventions in 375 schools in four districts 
• Constructed 110 boreholes
• Rehabilitated 265 water points
• Constructed 1,243 latrine compartments for male and 
females students and school staff
• Constructed 88 wash rooms for senior girls
• Constructed 285 permanent handwashing facilities
• Installed/constructed 203 drinking water facilities
• trained 622 teachers in hygiene, 100 teachers 
in borehole drilling supervision, 78 artisans and 46 
pump menders
• formed 291 WASH committees (at the community 
level) and 106 (school) WASH clubs
• supported 291 existing PTAs and
• ignited 250 schools in SLTS- School led total 
sanitation
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
57
Annex 4. List of Documents Reviewed
Document type Title of documentation Status Date 
received
USAID Forward Report – 2013 Received 6/3/2014 
USAID Water Strategy Report Received 6/3/2014 
WASHplus M&E Plan Received 6/13/2014 
Annual work plans
Core Work Plans
Revised WASHplus Year 1 Work Plan (2/11/2011) Received 5/30/14 
Revised WASHplus Year 2 Work Plan – Activity 
Table (11/14/2011)
Received 5/30/14 
Revised WASHplus Year 2 Work Plan – Narrative 
(11/14/2011) 
Received 5/30/14 
Revised WASHplus Year 3 Work Plan – Activity 
Table (December 2012)
Received 5/30/14 
Revised WASHplus Year 3 Work Plan – Narrative 
(December 2012) 
Received 5/30/14 
Revised WASHplus Year 4 Work Plan – Narrative 
(January 2014) 
Received 5/30/14 
Revised WASHplus Year 4 Work Plan – Activity 
Table (01/14/2014)
Received 5/30/14 
List of Products for WASHplus Year 4 Work Plan 
Draft (01/14/2014) 
Received 5/30/14 
Country Work Plans 
Kenya: WASHplus Final Work Plan FY14 Received 5/30/14 
Kenya: WASHplus Final Work Plan FY13 Received 6/13/14 
Bangladesh: WASHplus Work Plan (12/07/2012) Received 5/30/14 
Bangladesh: WASHplus IAP Final Work Plan 
(10/24/2012) 
Received 5/30/14 
Bangladesh: Year 1 Implementation Plan (7/29/2013) Received 5/30/14 
Bangladesh: Year 2, 3 Implementation Plan 
(9/16/2013) 
Received 5/30/14 
Benin: WASHplus Final Work Plan (11/20/2012) Received 5/30/14 
Benin: WASHplus Year 2 Final Work Plan FY14 Received 5/30/14 
Madagascar: WASHplus Work Plan 2013 Received 5/30/14 
Madagascar: WASHplus Revised Work Plan 
(11/18/2011) 
Received 5/30/14 
Mali: WASHplus Work Plan – Final (9/27/2012) Received 6/13/14 
Uganda: WASHplus District Work Plan – Kabale Received 5/30/14 
Uganda: WASHplus District Work Plan – Kanungu Received 5/30/14 
Uganda: WASHplus District Work Plan – Kisoro Received 5/30/14 
Uganda: Final District Menu of Options Received 5/30/14 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
58
Uganda: Bullet Points for Discussion with USAID 
(8/14/2013) 
Received 5/30/14 
Uganda: Procedures and TA Required for WASH 
Grant Items (2/12/2014) 
Received 5/30/14 
Uganda: WASHplus Revised Work Plan (2/15/2013) Received 5/30/14 
Uganda: Summary of WASHplus Trainings and 
Meetings (June 2013 – May 2014) 
Received 5/30/14 
Uganda: WASHplus – Brief Summary Received 5/30/14 
Uganda: Revised Work Plan Received 5/30/14 
Zambia: SPLASH Revised Program Plan (4/10/2012) Received 5/30/14 
Zambia: SPLASH Year 2 Final Work Plan (1/4/2013) Received 5/30/14 
Zambia: SPLASH Year 3 Work Plan Received 5/30/14 
Kenya: WASHplus Final Work Plan (September 2013) Received 5/30/14 
Quarterly reports
Core WASHplus 
Quarterly
WASHplus Project Y1Q1 Quarterly Report Received 5/30/14 
WASHplus Project Y1Q2 Quarterly Report – Final Received 5/30/14 
WASHplus Project Y1Q3 Quarterly Report Received 5/30/14 
WASHplus Project Y2Q1 Quarterly Report Received 5/30/14 
WASHplus Project Y2Q2 Quarterly Report – Final Received 5/30/14 
WASHplus Project Y2Q3 Quarterly Report Received 5/30/14 
WASHplus Project Y3Q1 Report Received 5/30/14 
WASHplus Project Y3Q2 Received 5/30/14 
WASHplus Project Y3Q3 Quarterly Report Received 5/30/14 
WASHplus Y3Q4 Report – Supplement Received 5/30/14 
WASHplus Project Y4Q1 Report Received 5/30/14 
WASHplus Project Y4Q2 Received 5/30/14 
Country Quarterly 
Reports 
Bangladesh: WASHplus IAP Q1 Jan–Mar 2013 Final Received 5/30/14 
Bangladesh: WASHplus Quarterly Report April–June 
8/22/2013 
Received 5/30/14 
Bangladesh: WASHplus Quarterly Report Y1 July–
Sept 2013 
Received 5/30/14 
Bangladesh: WASHplus Y2 Q2 Narrative Report – 
Finale
Received 5/30/14 
Bangladesh WASHplus Quarterly Report – Oct–Dec 
2013 Q1 
Received 6/13/2014 
Benin: Q1 FY14 Report 1/28/2014 Received 5/30/14 
Benin: Q1 Y1 Final Report Received 5/30/14 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
59
Benin: Q2 FY14 Final Report Received 5/30/14 
Benin: Q2 Yr1 Final Report Received 5/30/14 
Benin: Q3 Y1 Final Report 7/19/2013 Received 5/30/14 
Benin: Q4 FY13 Final Report 10/30/2013 Received 5/30/14 
Kenya: FS 1.4 WASH FY12 Q1 Final Received 5/30/14 
Kenya: HIP Milestones April 2010 – Final Received 5/30/14 
Kenya: WASH 2nd Quarterly Report FY2011 Received 5/30/14 
Kenya:WASH-HIV Integration Update Nov–Dec 2012 Received 5/30/14 
Kenya: WASH-HIV Integration Update Sept–Oct 
2012 
Received 5/30/14 
Kenya: WASH-HIV Integration Update Jan–Feb 2012 Received 5/30/14 
Kenya: WASH-HIV Integration Update July–August 
2012 
Received 5/30/14 
Kenya: WASH-HIV Integration Update March–April 
2012 
Received 5/30/14 
Kenya: WASH-HIV Integration Update Nov–Dec 
2011 
Received 5/30/14 
Kenya: WASH-HIV Integration Update Sept–Oct 
2011 
Received 5/30/14 
Kenya: WASHplus 3rd Quarterly Final 2013 Received 5/30/14 
Kenya: Program Update July–August 2013 – Final Received 5/30/14 
Kenya: WASHplus Update March–April 2013 – Final Received 5/30/14 
Kenya: WASHplus Update May–June 2013 – Final Received 5/30/14 
Kenya: WASHplus Update Nov–Dec 2013 – Final Received 5/30/14 
Madagascar: Quarter 1 Report FY2012 Received 5/30/14 
Madagascar: Quarter 2 FY2012 Final Received 5/30/14 
Madagascar: Quarter 3 FY2012 Received 5/30/14 
Madagascar: WASHplus FY2013 Q1 Report Received 5/30/14 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
60
Madagascar: WASHplus Quarter 4 Progress Report 
FY12
Received 5/30/14 
Madagascar: WASHplus FY13 Q3 Report – Edited Received 5/30/14 
Madagascar: WASHplus FY14 Q1 Report Received 5/30/14 
Madagascar: WASHplus Q2 Report – Final Received 5/30/14 
Madagascar: WASHplus Q4 Report – Final SC 
Approved 
Received 5/30/14 
Mali: ENG Quarterly Activity Report (April–June 
2013) 
Received 5/30/14 
Mali: Quarterly Report Jan–March 2014 – 4.30.2014 Received 5/30/14 
Mali: Quarterly Report Oct–Dec 2013 Received 5/30/14 
Mali: WASHplus Annual Activity Report Oct 2013 Received 5/30/14 
Uganda: Quarterly Report – Jul–Sept 2013 Received 6/13/14 
Uganda: WASHplus Y3 Q4 – Oct–Dec 2013 Received 6/13/14 
Zambia: SPLASH FY12 Report July–Sep 2012 – Final Received 5/30/14 
Zambia: SPLASH FY13 Q3 Report 7/29/13 – Final Received 5/30/14 
Zambia: SPLASH FY13 Q4 Report – Final Received 5/30/14 
Zambia: SPLASH FY13 Q2 Report Jan–Mar 2013 – 
Final
Received 5/30/14 
Zambia: SPLASH FY14 Q2 Report – Final Received 5/30/14 
Zambia: SPLASH FY14 Q1 Report Received 5/30/14 
Zambia: SPLASH Q1 Report Oct–Dec 2012 – Final Received 5/30/14 
USAID annual work plan budgets
Core Budgets 
WASHplus Year 2 Budget 11/16/11 Received 5/30/14 
WASHplus Year 3 Core Budget Proposal 10/25/12 Received 5/30/14 
Year 1 Work Plan Budget Version 3 Revised 
05/12/2011 
Received 5/30/14 
Year 4 Work Plan Budget Revised Final 01/15/2014 Received 5/30/14 
Country Budgets 
Bangladesh: WASH Year 4 Work Plan Budget 
9/17/2013 
Received 5/30/14 
Bangladesh: WASHplus Budget 12/07/2012 Received 5/30/14 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
61
Benin: Budget Proposal (revised) 11/10/2012 Received 5/30/14 
Benin: Y2 FY14 Budget – Final Received 5/30/14 
Uganda: Budgeting for District WASH – Tool Received 5/30/14 
Uganda: Final FY14 Uganda Integration Budget 
02/19/2014 
Received 5/30/14 
Uganda: Kabale WASH Budget (revised) Received 5/30/14 
Uganda: Kanungu WASH Budget (revised) Received 5/30/14 
Uganda: Kisoro WASH Work Plan 2013 Received 5/30/14 
Zambia: SPLASH 5 Year Budget – External Received 5/30/14 
Zambia: SPLASH Budget Year 2 – External Received 5/30/14 
Zambia: SPLASH Year3 Budget 2/24/2014 Received 5/30/14 
Madagascar: WASHplus Year 2 Final Budget 
11/18/2011 
Received 5/30/14 
USAID WASHplus annual reports
USAID: WASHplus Project Annual Report Yr 3 Received 5/30/14 
USAID: WASHplus Project Annual Report Yr 2 Received 5/30/14 
USAID: WASHplus Project Annual Report Yr 1 Received 5/30/14 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
62
Annex 5. Interview Protocols
Category WASHplus staff in DC 
Interviewer(s)
Form Number
Interview Date 
Time begins
Time ends
Name of Interviewee
Title/Position
Country
1. Can you tell us about your role within the WASHplus mechanism? 
2. From your perspective, who is WASHplus designed to serve? 
3. In your opinion, has WASHplus met the expectations of the people it was designed to serve? Can 
you explain your responses? 
4. In your opinion, does a Washington-based mechanism yield benefits that would not be realized if 
such a mechanism did not exist? 
5. In your opinion, do you think the benefits provided by the WASHplus mechanism have been in 
line with the costs? 
6. In your opinion, what factors have contributed to management success and management 
challenges in terms of:
a. Partnership structure? 
b. Contractual structure? 
c. USAID context? 
7. In your opinion, to support WASH programming, should USAID continue using a centralized 
Washington-based mechanism?
8. Are there any improvements you would propose for future mechanisms to support USAID 
WASH programming? 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
63
Category WASHplus staff in country
Form Number
Interview Date 
Time begins
Time ends
Name
Phone number
Email
Country
Interviewed by
1. Can you tell us a little about your role in the WASHplus mechanism? 
2. In what ways has WASHplus supported the WASH projects you have worked on? 
a. Which of these has had the greatest impact?
b. Are there other components of WASHplus support you would like to have?
c. Are there components of WASHplus support you think were not worthwhile? 
d. If WASHplus were not there, how would you access the kind of support you have 
mentioned? 
3. Please tell us about your interaction with other local implementing partners and resource partners. 
4. Have you had experience with the work of WASHplus to develop programming that is integrated 
with or coordinated with programming in other sectors, such as HIV AIDS, nutrition, or 
education? If yes, please tell us about your experience.
a. In your experience on the WASHplus supported project you worked on, did this kind of 
programming provide benefits? Drawbacks? Please explain.
b. In your experience, has this WASHplus-supported programming influenced other 
organizations (not associated with WASHplus) to carry out similar integrated or 
coordinated programming?
c. If yes, can you give examples?
5. What has your experience been of the WASHplus:
a. Partnership structure?
b. Contractual structure?
c. USAID context? 
6. In your opinion, have you had adequate management support from the WASHplus in 
Washington? 
a. Have funds been transferred in a timely manner?
b. Have the reporting requirements been appropriate? 
c. Has technical assistance been available when needed?
d. Have communications been smooth and effective?
e. Have you been able to share experiences and information with other countries through 
WASHplus?
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
64
f. What other issues related to management have you encountered?
g. Would you recommend any improvements for the future? 
7. Have you used WASHplus knowledge resources? (documents, the website, newsletters, weekly 
briefings, presentations at conferences etc.)? If yes, please provide specific examples.
a. How did you use these knowledge resources? 
b. In your opinion, do the WASHplus knowledge resources meet your needs? 
c. Do they meet the needs of colleagues outside WASHplus in the country where you work?
8. In your opinion, has WASHplus in general had an influence on thinking in the WASH sector in 
the country where you work? 
a. Please explain your responses:____________ 
b. Please give an example of something WASHplus has done that has, in your opinion, been 
influential in sector thinking in the country where you work. 
9. In your opinion, what would be the best way for USAID to support WASH programming in the 
future?
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
65
Category Global Partners
Form Number
Interview Date 
Time begins
Time ends
Name
Phone number
Email
Country
Interviewed by
1. Please tell us a little about your interactions with the WASHplus mechanism.
2. Have you been exposed to WASHplus knowledge resources? (documents, the website, 
newsletters, weekly briefings, presentations at conferences etc.)? If yes, please provide specific 
examples.
a. How did you use these knowledge resources? 
b. Do the WASHplus knowledge resources meet your needs? 
c. In your opinion, have WASHplus knowledge resources had an influence on the WASH 
sector in the countries where you work or globally? 
d. If yes, please give an example
3. Do you have any experience with the work of WASHplus to develop programming that is 
integrated with or coordinated with programming in other sectors, such as HIV/AIDS, nutrition, 
or education? If yes, please tell us about your experience.
a. In your opinion, does this kind of programming contribute to improved outcomes for 
beneficiaries?
b. Please explain:____________ 
c. In your experience, has this kind of WASHplus-supported programming influenced other 
organizations (not associated with WASHplus) to carry out similar integrated or 
coordinated programming?
d. If yes, can you give examples?
4. In your opinion, has WASHplus had an influence on thinking in the WASH sector globally or in 
the country where you work? 
Please give an example of something WASHplus has done that has, in your opinion, been 
influential in sector thinking in the country where you work. 
5. In your opinion, what benefits has USAID provided to the sector via WASHplus? 
a. What things would you like to have seen USAID do to support the WASH sector? 
b. What other interventions do you think WASHplus could have undertaken? 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
66
Category Government Representatives
Form Number
Interview Date 
Time begins
Time ends
Name
Phone number
Email
Country
Interviewed by
1. Please tell us a little about your interactions with the WASHplus mechanism. (if necessary, 
prompt with reminders about the nature of the WASHplus programming in the country) 
2. Thinking about the WASHplus project(s) in your country, in what ways has WASHplus 
supported the projects? 
a. Which of these has had the greatest impact?
b. Are there other components of WASHplus support you would like to have?
c. Are there components of WASHplus support you think were not worthwhile? 
3. In terms of the support you received through WASHplus in your country: 
a. Have funds been transferred in a timely manner?
b. Have the reporting requirements been appropriate? 
c. Has technical assistance been available when needed?
d. Have communications been smooth and effective?
e. Have you been able to share experiences and information with other countries through 
WASHplus?
4. Have you been exposed to WASHplus knowledge resources? (documents, the website, 
newsletters, weekly briefings, presentations at conferences etc.)? If yes, please provide specific 
examples.
a. How did you use these knowledge resources? 
b. In your opinion, do the WASHplus knowledge resources meet your needs? 
5. In your opinion, has WASHplus had an influence on thinking in the WASH sector in the country 
where you work? 
a. Please explain. 
b. Please give an example of something WASHplus has done that has, in your opinion, been 
influential in sector thinking in the country where you work. 
6. Do you have any experience with the work of WASHplus to develop programming that is 
integrated with or coordinated with programming in other sectors, such as HIV/AIDS, nutrition, 
or education? If yes, please tell us about your experience.
a. In your opinion, does this kind of programming contribute to improved outcomes for 
beneficiaries?
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
67
b. Please explain:____________ 
c. In your experience, has this kind of programming supported by the WASHplus 
mechanism influenced other organizations to carry out similar integrated or coordinated 
programming? 
d. If yes, can you give examples?
7. What, in your opinion, what are the benefits of having WASHplus support? 
a. What could be improved? 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
68
Category USAID in Missions (where WASHplus mechanism was not used)
Form Number
Interview Date 
Time begins
Time ends
Name
Phone number
Email
Country
Interviewed by
1. Please tell us a little about your experience with the WASHplus mechanism.
2. How did you hear about WASHplus? 
a. What made you decide not to use this mechanism?
3. I’d like to ask you about costs. (clarify: approximate, relative costs, exact costs)
a. How do you think the costs of support interventions (such as technical advice, training) 
provided through the WASHplus mechanism would compare to other projects carried out 
by your Mission? 
b. How would the cost per beneficiary for WASH projects undertaken through the 
WASHplus mechanism compare to other WASH projects carried out by your Mission? 
4. Have you used WASHplus knowledge resources? (documents, the website, newsletters, weekly 
briefings, presentations at conferences etc.)? If yes, please provide specific examples.
a. How did you use these knowledge resources?
b. Do the WASHplus knowledge resources meet your needs? 
c. In your opinion, have WASHplus knowledge resources had an influence on the WASH 
sector in the countries where USAID works?
d. If yes, please give an example
5. In your opinion, has WASHplus had an influence on thinking in the WASH sector? 
a. Please explain your responses: 
b. Please give an example of something WASHplus has done that has, in your opinion, been 
influential in sector thinking.
6. In your opinion, what are the advantages and disadvantages of a Washington-based mechanism to 
support USAID’s work in WASH?
a. Advantages:____________ 
b. Disadvantages:__________ 
7. Do you think USAID should continue to use a Washington-based mechanism?
a. Why? 
b. Are there any improvements you would propose for a future mechanism? 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
69
Category USAID in Missions (where WASHplus mechanism has been used)
Form Number
Interview Date 
Time begins
Time ends
Name
Phone number
Email
Country
Interviewed by
1. Please tell us a little about your experience of the projects you have worked on which were 
carried out through the WASHplus mechanism. 
2. How did you hear about WASHplus? 
a. What made you decide to use this mechanism?
3. In your opinion, did the organizations working with WASHplus in the country where you work 
have adequate access to resources such as:
a. Timely finance?
b. Knowledge? 
c. Exchange of information with other WASHplus countries? 
d. In your opinion, did they receive adequate management support? 
4. In your experience, has this kind of programming supported by the WASHplus mechanism 
influenced other organizations (not associated with WASHplus) to carry out similar integrated or 
coordinated programming?
a. If yes, can you give examples?
5. In your opinion, are there management changes that should be made for future mechanisms used 
by USAID to support WASH programming? 
6. I’d like to ask you about costs. (clarify: approximate, relative costs, exact costs)
a. How do the costs of support interventions (such as technical advice, training) provided 
through the WASHplus mechanism compare to other projects carried out by your 
Mission?
b. How does the cost per beneficiary for WASH projects undertaken through the 
WASHplus mechanism compare to other WASH projects carried out by your Mission? 
7. Have you used WASHplus knowledge resources? (documents, the website, newsletters, weekly 
briefings, presentations at conferences etc.)? If yes, please provide specific examples.
a. How did you use these knowledge resources? 
b. Do the WASHplus knowledge resources meet your needs? 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
70
c. In your opinion, have WASHplus knowledge resources had an influence on the WASH 
sector in the country where you work? 
d. If yes, please give an example
8. In your opinion, has WASHplus had an influence on thinking in the WASH sector in the country 
where you work? 
a. Please explain your responses: ____________ 
b. Please give an example of something WASHplus has done that has, in your opinion, been 
influential in sector thinking in the country where you work. 
9. In your opinion, what have been the advantages and disadvantages of a Washington-based 
mechanism to support USAID’s work in WASH?
a. Advantages:_________________ 
b. Disadvantages:_______________ 
c. Are there other components of WASHplus support you would like to have? 
d. Are there components of WASHplus support you think were not worthwhile? 
10. Did WASHplus meet your expectations?
11. Do you think USAID should continue to use a Washington-based mechanism?
a. Why? 
b. Are there any improvements you would propose for a future mechanism? 
12. Do you have any experience with the work of WASHplus to develop programming that is 
integrated with or coordinated with programming in other sectors, such as HIV/AIDS, nutrition, 
or education? If yes, please tell us about your experience.
13. In your opinion, does this kind of programming contribute to improved outcomes for 
beneficiaries?
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
71
Category USAID in DC
Form Number
Interview Date 
Time begins
Time ends
Name
Phone number
Email
Country
Interviewed by
1. Please tell us a little about your interactions with the WASHplus mechanism.
2. How does WASHplus fit into the context of the other work you do at USAID? 
3. In your opinion, how well aligned is WASHplus with USAID’s other policies and strategies 
(Water Strategy, Nutrition Strategy etc.)?
4. Have you been exposed to WASHplus knowledge resources? (documents, the website, 
newsletters, weekly briefings, presentations at conferences etc.)? If yes, please provide specific 
examples.
a. How did you use these knowledge resources? 
b. Do the WASHplus knowledge resources meet your needs? 
c. In your opinion, have WASHplus knowledge resources had an influence on the WASH 
sector in the countries where you work or globally? 
d. If yes, please give an example
5. Do you have any experience with the work of WASHplus to develop programming that is 
integrated with or coordinated with programming in other sectors, such as HIV/AIDS, nutrition, 
or education? If yes, please tell us about your experience.
a. In your opinion, does this kind of programming contribute to improved outcomes for 
beneficiaries?
b. Please explain:_________________ 
c. In your experience, has this kind of WASHplus-supported programming influenced other 
organizations (not associated with WASHplus) to carry out similar integrated or 
coordinated programming?
d. If yes, can you give examples?
6. In your opinion, has WASHplus had an influence on thinking in the WASH sector globally or in 
the countries where you work? 
a. Please give an example of something WASHplus has done that has, in your opinion, been 
influential in sector thinking in the country where you work. 
7. In your opinion, what have been the advantages and disadvantages of a Washington-based 
mechanism to support USAID’s work in WASH?
a. Advantages: ____________ 
b. Disadvantages: __________ 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
72
c. Are there other components of WASHplus support you think should be included? 
d. Are there components of WASHplus support you think were not worthwhile? 
8. Has WASHplus met your expectations?
9. Do you think USAID should continue to use a Washington-based mechanism to support WASH 
programming? 
a. Why? 
b. Are there any improvements you would propose for a future mechanism?
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
73
Category Local implementing partners
Form Number
Interview Date 
Time begins
Time ends
Name
Phone number
Email
Country
Interviewed by
1. Please tell us a little about your interactions with the WASHplus mechanism.
2. In what ways has WASHplus supported the WASH projects you have worked on? 
a. Which of these has had the greatest impact?
b. Are there other components of WASHplus support you would like to have? 
c. Are there components of WASHplus support you think were not worthwhile? 
d. If WASHplus were not there, how would you access the kind of support you have 
mentioned? 
3. Has being an implementing partner in WASHplus met your expectations? 
a. Why?
If the local implementing partner has a financial relationship with WASHplus ask the following questions. 
4. In your opinion, have you had adequate management support from the WASHplus staff in￾country? 
a. Have funds been transferred in a timely manner?
b. Have the reporting requirements been appropriate? 
c. Has technical assistance been available when needed?
d. Have communications been smooth and effective?
e. Have you been able to share experiences and information with other countries through 
WASHplus?
f. What other issues related to management have you encountered?
g. Would you recommend any improvements for the future? 
5. Have you been exposed to WASHplus knowledge resources? (documents, the website, 
newsletters, weekly briefings, presentations at conferences etc)? If yes, please provide specific 
examples.
a. If yes, how did you use these knowledge resources? 
b. Do the WASHplus knowledge resources meet your needs? 
c. In your opinion, have WASHplus knowledge resources had an influence on the WASH 
sector in the country where you work? 
d. If yes, please give an example
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
74
6. Have you had any experience with the work of WASHplus to develop programming that is 
integrated with or coordinated with programming in other sectors, such as HIV/AIDS, nutrition, 
or education? If yes, please tell us about your experience.
a. In your opinion, does this kind of programming contribute to improved outcomes for 
beneficiaries?
Core 
Obligated 
Funds
Global Health 
NTD / Core 
Obligated 
Funds
Madagascar / 
Field Obligated 
Funds
Zambia / Field 
Obligated Funds
Kenya / Field 
Obligated Funds
Bangladesh / 
Regional 
Obligated Funds
Bangladesh / 
Field IAP 
Obligated Funds
Bangladesh / 
Wash Obligated 
Funds
Benin/ Field 
Obligated Funds
Mali / Field 
Obligated Funds
Uganda / Field 
Obligated Funds
Liberia / Field 
Obligated Funds Totals
Description 9,797,955.00 1,000,000.00 1,158,000.00 13,690,448.00 2,160,522.00 386,200.00 476,858.00 4,000,000.00 750,000.00 2,500,000.00 500,000.00 127,260.00 36,547,243.00
WASHplus FHI360 1,578,274 63,202 1,641,476
CARE 175,464 175,464
Winrock International 250,039 250,039
Rotary International 22,077 22,077
Other Partners 87,393 87,393
Subtotal Year 1 - 10/01/10 - 09/30/11 2,113,248 0 63,202 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,176,449
WASHplus FHI360 1,593,373 284,102 1,270,898 115,648 693 41,333 15,757 95,644 3,417,449
CARE 157,767 620,183 777,950
Winrock International 162,793 67,394 49 19,172 249,408
Rotary International 201,624 201,624
Other Partners 118,261 144,179 26,586 289,026
Subtotal Year 2 - 10/01/11 - 09/30/12 2,233,819 0 495,676 1,917,667 115,648 742 60,505 0 15,757 0 0 95,644 4,935,457
WASHplus FHI360 1,634,290 109,268 359,460 2,543,010 1,152,507 95,940 131,078 115,698 152,900 5,966 103,700 8,249 6,412,066
CARE 217,266 8,593 2,951,795 584 116,634 3,294,872
Winrock International 91,901 137,575 131,607 361,082
Rotary International 76,651 76,651
WaterAid 46,445 408,954 68,681 524,080
Other Partners 54,055 (35,972) 49,026 67,109
Subtotal Year 3 - 10/01/12 - 09/30/13 2,074,163 117,860 461,063 5,590,277 1,152,507 95,940 671,639 184,964 152,900 122,600 103,700 8,249 10,735,861
WASHplus FHI360 1,193,946 23,935 90,396 1,365,997 553,877 1,017 29,564 114,739 110,704 54,132 165,664 6,846 3,710,818
CARE 72,327 10,403 1,099,965 6,948 339,078 1,528,721
Winrock International 72,770 38,328 90,228 7,544 208,870
Rotary International (40,506) (40,506)
WaterAid 33,068 (419,373) 970,937 584,633
Other Partners 13,407 (5,006) 8,401
Subtotal Year 4 - 10/01/13 - 09/30/14 1,311,944 34,338 128,725 2,494,025 553,877 1,017 (299,581) 1,092,625 118,248 393,210 165,664 6,846 6,000,937
Total Cummulative Costs Thru 05.31.14 7,733,173 152,199 1,148,665 10,001,968 1,822,032 97,699 432,562 1,277,589 286,905 515,810 269,364 110,739 23,848,704
Total Obligations Remaining Balances 2,064,782 847,801 9,335 3,688,480 338,490 288,501 44,296 2,722,411 463,095 1,984,190 230,636 16,521 12,698,539
% of obligated budget spent as of 05/31/14 79% 15% 99% 73% 84% 25% 91% 32% 38% 21% 54% 87% 65%
Total Obligations Vs Total Expenditures by Source Funds
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 75
Annex 6. WASHplus Budget by Country (obligated funds vs. actual expenses to date)
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
76
Annex 7. WASHplus Engagement in Global Activities
Document 
searched
Collaboration summary Collaboration type
Year One 
Annual report
WASHplus team, USAID, resource partners, and 
other organizations gathered to develop a vision for 
the implementation of the project.
Meeting
WASHplus held its first webinar on June 23 on 
“Lessons Learned from Working at Scale for 
Better Hygiene and Sanitation Practices” (presented 
by Julia Rosenbaum) 
Webinar
KM activities for year one included developing a 
communication strategy with input from the 
WASHplus team, USAID, and resource partner 
SecondMuse and IRC
Communication strategy 
input 
WASHplus participated in the January meeting of 
the Sanitation Working Group and presented lessons 
learned on HIP’s Ethiopia experience of jointly 
promoting sanitation and hand washing. 
Meeting
Meetings and discussions were held (at various 
times) with staff from USAID/Washington, 
USAID/Ethiopia, and the World Bank’s Water and 
Sanitation Program (WSP) headquarters, as well as 
with regional and Ethiopia staff to explore the 
potential for collaborative activities within the new 
Total Sanitation/Sanitation Marketing (TSSM) 
program in Ethiopia—a follow-up to HIP/WSP 
collaboration in Amhara, Ethiopia. 
Meeting
Other outreach efforts included preliminary 
planning discussions with USAID/Global Health 
Bureau staff regarding the possibility of technical 
assistance or training for USAID Missions in 
WASH programming (possibilities might include 
non-Global Water for Sustainability [GLOWS] 
countries 
Planning discussion 
WASHplus held a series of discussions with USAID 
staff on incorporating IAP within
Healthy Households programming, including how to 
best promote IAP in an integrated context and 
simultaneous promotion of IAP along with point-of￾use treatment, sanitation, and hand washing 
Discussions
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
77
Document 
searched
Collaboration summary Collaboration type
Additional activities included meeting with 
USAID’s Office of HIV/AIDS to explore 
opportunities to integrate WASH into various fora
Meeting
Over the course of the year WASHplus collaborated 
with the USAID-funded FANTA 2 (Food and 
Nutrition Technical Assistance) project on a number 
of activities to integrate WASH and nutrition
Collaboration 
WASHplus continued its active participation in 
conferences and workshops that provided 
opportunities for involvement in integration 
discussions and planning, such as World Bank’s 
Water Week, World Water Week held in 
Stockholm, and the Handwashing for Newborn 
Survival Workshop, held in June as part of a 
USAID/Maternal and Child Health Integrated 
Program and Unilever-Lifebuoy public-private 
alliance to reduce neonatal mortality through 
improved hand washing practices of birth attendants 
and mothers. 
Conferences and workshops 
WASHplus also participates in the WASH and 
health integration meetings led by Defeating 
Diarrhea. Finally, PATH used a WASH-HIV case 
study from Uganda (conducted under HIP) in the 
recently released publication, “Join Up. Scale Up,” 
http://www.defeatdd.org/join-up-scale-up. 
Meeting
WASH in Schools Call to Action. Ms. Fry attended 
the second annual WASH in Schools Call to Action 
partners meeting in New York in December. The 
purpose of the meeting was for the working groups 
to provide updates on their 2010 work and to 
develop a work plan for 2011 
Meeting
Public-Private Partnership for Handwashing. 
WASHplus continued to represent USAID within 
the PPPHW and provided technical support on 
behalf of USAID, specifically reactivating the 
Behavior Change and M&E working groups, 
helping to plan and participating in Steering 
Committee and Behavior Change working group 
meetings held in June, and planning the PPPHW-led 
session at AfricaSan
Meeting
Participated in the Engineers in Technical and 
Humanitarian Opportunities of Service conference 
held in Kirkland, Washington in January
Conference 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
78
Document 
searched
Collaboration summary Collaboration type
Co-presented household water treatment and safe 
storage indicators for a webinar with the 
International Network on Household Water 
Treatment and Safe Storage in April 
Webinar
Represented WASHplus at the National Institutes of 
Health Indoor Air Pollution conference in 
Washington, DC, in May. During the conference, 
Ms. Derby participated in the Women’s 
Empowerment Working Group, and provided inputs 
to NIH on research questions central to women’s 
empowerment along with suggestions on how other 
health research or implementation activities can 
impact women’s empowerment. WASHplus also 
provided support to NIH in the form of direct 
conference costs.
Conference 
Attended the annual Global Health Council 
Conference in June and presented a paper, 
“Community-Led WASH Innovations Improve 
Behaviors, Reduce Diarrheal Disease, and 
Strengthen Health Systems in Amhara, Ethiopia.”
Conference 
Presented a peer-reviewed paper at the 35th WEDC 
conference in the United Kingdom in July on 
“Combining Sanitation and Hand Washing 
Promotion: An Example from Amhara, Ethiopia.”
Conference 
WASHplus collaborated with resource partner 
Practica to perform a feasibility study of various 
technical options for hygienic sludge removal at two 
sites in Madagascar.
Collaboration 
Year Two Annual 
Report
This year WASHplus participated in several 
webinars to disseminate research/lessons learned 
and collaborate with its partners. Senior Behavior 
Change Specialist Julia Rosenbaum worked with 
WaterAid/Australia to jointly facilitate a webinar on 
“HIV, AIDS and AIDS” in January 2012. The 
webinar was part of a broader series on inclusive 
WASH. Resources and recordings are available at: 
http://www.inclusivewash.org.au/hiv-aids-chronic￾illness.
Webinars
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
79
Document 
searched
Collaboration summary Collaboration type
In addition, the project cosponsored a webinar with 
WASH Advocacy Initiative and Global Water 
Challenge on December 15, 2011, on “Leading with 
Sustainability—Laying the Groundwork for 
Sustainable Services,”
Webinars
Finally, on July 17, Global Public-Private 
Partnership for Handwashing (PPPHW) with 
support from WASHplus, hosted a webinar onto 
share highlights from the Handwashing Think Tank 
held with UNICEF in June in New York City 
Webinars
In addition to providing M&E support to the country 
program in Zambia, WASHplus coordinated 
activities and meetings of a the Hygiene Working 
Group for Post-2105 Global Monitoring working 
under the Joint Monitoring Programme to propose 
goals, targets, and indicators for the post 2015 
Sustainable Development Goals agenda.
Meeting
WASHplus also participated in the WASH 
Monitoring Exchange meetings for the WASH 
sector and in the M&E Technical Workshop of the 
Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC)
Meeting
WASHplus engaged in numerous meetings 
throughout the year with current and potential 
partners such as: microfinance and VSLAs, the 
Support Fund for Sanitation/FAA as well as with 
RAN’Eau, JICA, UNICEF, NGO Brother Saint 
Gabriel, USAID, and the World Wildlife Fund. 
Meetings
Ms. Rosenbaum prepared and delivered a webinar 
presentation and 2-week online dialogue on WASH￾HIV integration for WaterAid/Australia’s Inclusive 
Sanitation web series.
Webinar
WASHplus shared its technical expertise and 
programming experience in a wide variety of global 
venues focusing on WASH and IAP topics. Ms. 
Derby and Ms. Rosenbaum represented WASHplus 
at the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves 
partners’ meeting in Washington, DC 
Meeting
Providing behavior change input to the National 
Institutes of Health’s Indoor Air Quality Writing 
Workshop in October 2011 
Workshop 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
80
Document 
searched
Collaboration summary Collaboration type
Participating in a TRAction Technical Advisory 
Group Meeting to review research of three grantees 
on the acquisition and correct use of improved 
cookstoves to reduce indoor air pollution, and also a 
TRAction Project Launch
Meeting
Year Three 
Annual Report
Organizing a panel session on environmental 
enteropathy at the CORE annual meeting, which 
included a presentation on WASH. WASHplus also 
presented on WASH, nutrition, and ECD integration 
in a different session at the same meeting.
Meeting
WASHplus continued planning activities for a 
Household Air Pollution workshop/meeting 
exploring data and evidence gaps on ICS adoption 
and correct and consistent use.
Workshop/Meeting 
WASHplus staff participated in panel discussions 
and made presentations at the following fora this 
year: University of North Carolina’s Policy, Science 
and Innovation conference, Water and Sanitation 
Rotarian Action Group World Water Summit V, 
Latinosan 2013, IRC Symposium on Monitoring 
Sustainability of WASH Services, Colorado WASH 
symposium, WASH Sustainability Forum, 36th 
WEDC International Conference, and Integrating 
WASH and Freshwater Conservation.
Conference/Symposiums 
Evaluation of WASHplus: Supportive Environments for Healthy Communities Project – Final Report 
81
Annex 8. WASHplus Global Leadership contributions as identified in Annual 
Reports
Leadership arena Verifiable activities
Integration WASH-nutrition 
WASH & NACS
Clean Fed & Nurtured Initiative
WASH in schools 
WASH-HIV
Inclusive sanitation
MHM
Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) Support of the inclusion of a hand washing 
indicator in both the MICS and demographic and 
health surveys (DHS) 
(http://wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/files/publications/Post￾2015-WASH-Targets-Factsheet.pdf
Sanitation Inclusive sanitation 
(http://www.inclusivewash.org.au/hiv-aids-chronic￾illness)
Role at international fora
Addendum: WASHplus Response to
Evaluation Report
November 24, 2014
WASHplus appreciates the evaluation team’s effort. However, the WASHplus team finds that the 
evaluation report does not accurately reflect its work in several key domains. We submit this document as 
an official response of record and have limited comments only to the most serious concerns.
Methodological limitations
 The lack of time and resources available to travel to any country where WASHplus works limited 
understanding and accurate conclusions as to how the project functions within countries. For 
example, the comment that WASHplus’ approach is “service delivery at scale, largely by NGOs,” does 
not capture the project’s systematic focus on working within existing systems to build capacity and 
enhance sustainability, especially within district and local government entities.
 The report makes generalizations based on a single informant’s view without further substantiation.
For example, the comment “There has been no real planning for long term sustainability—too short
and no real exit strategy” is left unanalyzed and does not reference existing sustainability plans and exit 
strategies captured within country program plans or recognize that funding may have changed. 
Comments were taken at face value, without the confirmation necessary to avoid subjective bias and to 
assure sound findings.
Inaccurate characterizations
 The stated limitation “descriptions of some of the project objectives and results were vague, making it 
difficult to set coherent criteria to evaluate project outcomes,” does not recognize that country 
programs in Bangladesh, Benin, Mali and Zambia have Mission approved M & E plans/logical 
frameworks or results frameworks, all of which specify indicators and targets for approved 
indicators. WASHplus reports accomplishments annually against these targets.
 Certain findings and conclusions lacked appropriate contextualization as to how global USAID
projects function, notably, field support and Missions’ role in establishing specific scopes of work.
For example, the evaluation team selectively focused on “impact on national policy” and “engaging the 
private sector” as criteria to assess country level work, without referencing whether Missions 
requested, prioritized or specified these outcomes within approved work scopes and plans.
 Global leadership findings confound the roles of USAID and a global project. WASHplus only engages 
in global policy work with and on behalf of USAID. For example, USAID requested WASHplus to play a 
global policy advocacy role to promote including hygiene within the post 2015 agenda. The report cites 
a single respondent saying inputs “were not entirely strategic…[and were] less effective at translating 
[their understanding of hygiene improvement] into concrete proposals for monitoring progress at the 
national and global level.” The evaluators failed to note that WASHplus recommendations for 
indicators are included in the post-2015 WASH document prepared and circulated globally by the 
Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council.
 The review of Knowledge Management was limited to selected global level products and activities.
Critiques did not benchmark WASHplus against similar global USAID projects and did not encompass
the breadth of KM work being done within WASHplus countries at multiple stakeholder levels.