Are we really doing this CLTS the right way?

This approach leaves a lot to ponder about on the minds of professionals who really want the best for communities they are working in. It is a common knowledge that organisations like DFID will fund WASH projects and all they are concerned about is the number of ODF communities within a specified period of time. My thinking is that CLTS is about behavior change of which a definite time frame cannot be attached to, so it rather looks ridiculous the donor organisations are setting time within which those communities to which they are funding should become ODF instead of allowing time, a necessary ingredient for change to take its course and alter the lives of beneficiaries. Are we really doing the CLTS thing very well? Going by this, is there any evidence to show that communities intervened in this manner will sustain this new acquired habit of not defecating in the open to conform with the desired usage of latrines?

1 Answer

1. I think your point is very well taken! Perhaps the issue is that we're still using traditional WASH models to assess CLTS projects rather than using public health models for behavioural change? If we were to shift project modelling to something like the transtheoretical model, which allocates a range of time for each phase of behavioural change and allows for cycles of relapses, that may change the way that CLTS is perceived and administrated. I don't think that the transtheoretical model for behavioural change is necessarily the most effective way to activate WASH behaviours, but I do think that the way it describes the process of behavioural change can be instructive for CLTS.