snapshot of wash in schools in eastern & … › wash › schools › files ›...
TRANSCRIPT
Snapshot of WASH in Schools in Eastern & Southern Africa: A review of data, evidence and inequities in the region
Snapshot of WASH in Schools in Eastern & Southern Africa: A review of data, evidence and inequities in the region
April 2013
UNICEF Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office
Nairobi, Kenya
Authors: Christie Chatterley and Ann Thomas
Many thanks to the following colleagues who provided time to review this document prior to publication: Chander Badloe,
Peter Harvey, Daniel Kelly and Murat Sahin.
The following UNICEF staff contributed both content and their knowledge and insights to the final publication:
Angola Debora Bonucci
Botswana Joshua Emmanuel and Mercy Puso
Burundi Amah Klutse
Eritrea Patrick Sijenyi
Ethiopia Daniel Gelan, Muchie Kidanu, and Mahider Tesfu
Kenya Fred Donde and Thowai Zai
Madagascar Naina Rakotoniaina
Malawi Chimwemwe Nyimba
Namibia Charles Avelino
Rwanda Guy Mbayo Kakumbi
South Africa Gerrit Maritz
Swaziland Boniswa Dladla, Nonhlanhla Shongwe, and Mildred Wisile
Tanzania Astrid Van Agthoven
Uganda Deirdre Naugton and J.B. Kimuli Sempala
Zambia Silvia Gaya and Charity Sikamo
Zimbabwe Nathaniel Tembo
Cover Photo: UNICEF/NYHQ2011-2014/Grarup
Inside front cover
i
Contents1. Introduction 1
2. WASH in Schools Coverage in the Region 3
2.1. Access to water in schools 4
2.2. Access to sanitation in schools 6
2.3. Handwashing in schools 8
3. Monitoring WASH in Schools through the EMIS 11
4. Tracking Progress to Bring WinS to Scale 15
4.1. Clearly defined lead agency for WinS 16
4.2. Public sector budget lines for WinS 16
4.3. WinS in national policies & guidelines 17
4.4. Monitoring WinS at the national level 19
4.5. National standards for WinS 20
4.6. Addressing gender and menstrual hygiene management 21
4.7. Accessibility for students with special needs 22
5. A Closer Look at the Delivery of WASH in School Services 23
5.1. Systemic analysis and planning for WASH in schools in Zambia 24
5.2. Systemic analysis and planning for WASH in schools in Tanzania 27
6. Moving Forward 29
References 31
Annex A - Suggested core WinS indicators for EMIS in the ESAR 33
Annex B - Enabling Environment Indicators, Definitions and Scoring 34
Annex C - Information on Enabling Environments by Country 35
Annex D - WASH in Schools Analysis and Planning Framework 43
Annex E - Bottleneck Analysis Indicators and Scoring 45
ii
Acronyms and AbbreviationsCFS child friendly schools
COARs UNICEF country office annual reports
EMIS education management information system
ESAR Eastern and Southern Africa Region
ESARO Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office
FGD focus group discussion
GHD Global Handwashing Day
JMP Joint Monitoring Programme
M&E monitoring & evaluation
MDG Millenium Development Goal
MHM menstrual hygiene management
MoE Ministry of Education
MoF Ministry of Finance
MoH Ministry of Health
MoW Ministry of Water
O&M operations & maintenance
PTA parent teachers association
SMC school management committee
SHN school health and nutrition
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
WASH water, sanitation and hygiene
WHO World Health Organization
WinS WASH in schools
iii
ForwardIt is estimated that 272 million school days globally can be gained if the Millenium Development Goal (MDG) for sanitation is achieved. That is, children who are burdened by diarrheal illness caused by poor water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) are more susceptible to malnutrition resulting in diminished concentration, attendance, focus and physical development. Apart from impacts on educational performance, health and social development, access to WASH in schools is about dignity and respect for the child in enabling a safe and healthy learning environment. Since the global Joint Call to Action for WASH in Schools, “Raising Clean Hands,” was published in 2010, the focus on school-based water, sanitation and hygiene has increased, but still lags behind targets for global and regional coverage, which is improving, but much too slowly.
Through the work of UNICEF and partner organizations, we have seen the impact that improved WASH in schools can have on children’s lives. Bringing these positive experiences to scale will require a concerted and multi-sectoral effort, partnering with governmental and civil agencies. Unfortunately, poor coverage data for monitoring progress and the actions of partnerships, investment and attention to bringing WASH in Schools to scale is constraining effective progress.
This snapshot report provides an overview of the data available in the region to guide the WASH in schools sub-sector back on track in Eastern and Southern Africa. The report outlines the current coverage of WASH in Schools for each country in the region, as well as provides a baseline for tracking national policy environments to encourage working at scale.
The data presented are the result of contributions from country offices across the region. I commend the dedication of country office staff and government offices for their contributions to the preparation of this snapshot. We hope the resulting document will serve to guide improved efforts to bring us closer to 100% coverage of WASH in Schools in Eastern and Southern Africa.
Elke WischDeputy Regional DirectorUnited Nations Children’s FundEastern and Southern Africa Regional office
iv
Map of the 21 countries in the Eastern and Southern Africa Region
Botswana
Ethiopia
Comoros
Madagascar
Tanzania Burundi
Rwanda Uganda
Kenya
S. Sudan Somalia
Zambia
Swaziland
Lesotho S. Africa
Namibia
Eritrea
Angola Malawi
Mozambique Zimbabwe
Map of the 21 countries in the Eastern and Southern Africa Region
1
1. Introduction
Access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in schools (WinS) is integral to the well-being of children and their right to quality education. The impact of WinS is multi-faceted as it makes a crosscutting contribution to achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) through impacting universal primary education, gender equality and environmental sustainability. As a result, there has been increased interest in WinS as exemplified by the joint Call to Action (UNICEF et al., 2010, 2012) and UNICEF’s global target to ensure that all schools have adequate child-friendly water and sanitation facilities and hygiene education programmes by 2015 (UNICEF, 2006). Despite the increased attention and commitment to improve WinS, however, access to quality WASH services in schools remains a challenge: globally, it is estimated that 49% of schools lack access to adequate water source and 55% lack adequate sanitation facilities (UNICEF, 2012a), comparable to coverage in the Eastern and Southern Africa Region (ESAR).
1. Though progress has been made regarding increased interest in and commitment to WinS by governments and civil agencies, the dearth of available data in the region indicates a dearth of knowledge about the impact of efforts on WinS coverage. Information regarding coverage against national standards essential for sector planning, financing and programming, is infrequently collected in either regular education management information system (EMIS) activities or as part of water-sector monitoring. Furthermore coverage values alone are insufficient to inform action; sustainability data considering the enabling environment at the national level as well as maintenance and hygiene practices at the school level are needed.
At the national level, several issues may restrict progress. These include institutional leadership that in many cases is not clearly defined accompanied by a frequent lack of guiding policies, which limit the attention, resources and funding WinS receives. Even
2
among countries that have identified a key line ministry or developed a WinS policy, many do not allocate funding to support those policies or monitor schools for adherence to WinS standards. Many interventions follow a project rather than programme approach, constructing a small number of facilities each year, while neglecting the supporting structures required to bring WinS to scale. To meet targets such as the ambitious goal of 100% WinS access by 2015, a change in approach to working at scale through a supportive enabling environment is needed.
Despite these challenges, this is an exciting time for the many countries that are beginning to prioritize and engage with WinS, as was exemplified by the high participation in the WinS ESAR workshop in June 2012 (UNICEF, CARE, et al. 2012). This snapshot provides a baseline of regional WinS data to support country efforts to track progress and improve WinS at scale.
This document seeks primarily to:
1. Provide a snapshot of the current status of WinS in the ESAR based on available regional data from EMIS, national mapping and research studies;
2. Present a current situational analyses, evidence and lessons learned that may inform future action and planning in the region;
3. Support raising the profile of WinS by providing the current available data; and
4. Provide a baseline from which progress in the sector may be tracked.
The document is comprised of four major components, which respectively present the data on WinS for countries in the ESAR, explore WinS monitoring through the EMIS, provide a baseline for tracking progress in national-level enabling environments and finally include a section that provides in-depth case studies from systemic sub-sector analysis in two countries as well as some of the guiding actions and challenges identified.
© U
NIC
EF/
NY
HQ
2007
-139
3/P
irozz
i
3
2. WASH in Schools Coverage in the RegionThis document presents the most recent and reliable WinS coverage data for each of the countries in the region based on UNICEF country office annual reports (COARs), national education statistics reports, mapping and baseline documents, and communication with UNICEF country offices. Data are presented in three areas: (1) access to water in schools, (2) access to sanitation in schools, and (3) handwashing in schools.
18 countries provided information on access to water and sanitation in schools. Because the data are based on varying definitions of “adequate” access and the use of different data collection methods, caution should be used in considering cross-country comparisons. Additionally, the data should be viewed in light of the fact that these figures
KEY POINTS• Onaverage,intheESAR: 53% of schools have access to adequate
water supply; 45% of schools have access to adequate
sanitation; 13% of schools have access to
handwashing facilities. • 1 in 3 countries in the region can
provide a complete data set including all three elements of WASH: access to water, sanitation and handwashing facilities at schools;
• Currentdataareofteninconsistentandunreliable, questions used and data collection methods need improving in many countries, including a clear definition of what “adequate” means;
• Studenthandwashingisrestrictedbyunreliable provision of soap.
rarely take into account the availability and quality of services. Table 2.1 describes what is considered “adequate” access for the countries where this information was readily available.
Only eight countries were able to provide data on handwashing facilities at schools. Similar to the water and sanitation data, cross-country comparisons may be misleading as some values consider soap while others do not (Table 2.1); moreover, sample sizes and data collection methods vary. These data are supplemented by information on access to soap and student handwashing practices from small studies in order to provide a general picture of the state of handwashing in schools in the ESAR.
PU
LL O
UT
ATTA
CH
ED
ON
TH
IS E
DG
EP
ULL
OU
T AT
TAC
HE
D O
N T
HIS
ED
GE
PU
LL O
UT
ATTA
CH
ED
ON
TH
IS E
DG
E
4
2.1. Access to water in schools
Figure 2.1. What percent of primary schools have access to adequate water supply?
Source: 2011 COARs and 2012 country office surveys
≥75%
50-74%
<50%
Data not available
Not in the ESAR
Based on available data, on average, 53% of schools in the ESAR have access to adequate water supply, with nine of the 18
countries reporting coverage figures below 50% (Figure 2.1).
5
Water access has a positive impact on a child’s school day
“We wake up early in the morning, around 4am to collect water. This takes some time and leads us to be late for class. Sometimes we may miss class or be tired in the morning when we reach here. Even sometimes, it becomes very late and we directly go home.” - Student at baseline
“We can get water whenever we want and use the toilet during break time. Now we don’t have to bother about carrying water all the way from home... We don’t feel thirsty. We also do not defecate outside and aren’t scared of boys teasing us.” - Student post-intervention (WaterAid Ethiopia, 2012)
In reality, average coverage is likely to be even less than 53% based on the unreliability of current data, the small sample sizes, limited definition of “adequate” and the variable data collection methods. Additionally, these figures rarely take into account dependability, quality or functionality of water sources.
Based on current estimates, the region is a long way from meeting the goal of 100%
coverage by 2015. Students in the ESAR often have no option but to walk long distances to collect water before or during school hours or face the negative effects of dehydration known to hinder cognitive skills and learning (Bar-David, Urkin, & Kozminsky, 2005). Resources to improve water supply in schools across the region are needed to promote quality education in the region.
6
2.2. Access to sanitation in schools
Figure 2.2. What percent of primary schools have access to adequate sanitation?
Source: 2011 COARs and 2012 country office surveys
≥75%
50-74%
<50%
Data not available
Not in the ESAR
On average, data suggest that 45% of schools in the ESAR have access to adequate sanitation, with less than 50% coverage in
nine of the 18 countries with data available (Figure 2.2).
7
Students’ perspectives on toilet conditions In Zambia, reasons given by students for not using the toilet included that they were dirty, full, about to collapse, or congested. When latrines are engaged, 44% said they wait until it is free, while others use the bush, go behind the latrine, behind a tree, or wait until they are home. (Village Water Zambia, 2012).
In Ethiopia, 45% of girls surveyed said they felt uncomfortable using the latrine reporting foul smell, lack of privacy, crowding, dirtiness, darkness and flies. (Fehr, 2010).
In Zimbabwe, toilet use at school was not considered a common practice by focus group participants; they reported that some children defecate just outside or behind the toilet. Reasons for non-use included no water, full pit, in use, dirty, fear of falling in, and fear of darkness. (Sisimayi & Masuku, 2010).
In many cases, reported data do not include the quantity or quality of the sanitation services provided in schools and, similar to water supply coverage, data are not considered widely reliable. A few countries do consider adequacy criteria such as quantities, gender segregation, and access to “improved” facilities (based on the UNICEF/WHO Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) definition), while others do not include aspects beyond the presence of a toilet, regardless of quantity or condition (Table 2.1).
Despite the questionable reliability of data currently available, it is clear that school sanitation in the region is in a poor state. Furthermore the sustainability of constructed facilities warrants further investigation as new construction will not improve coverage rates if existing services are breaking down or abandoned. Dramatically increased efforts are needed to meet targets, including consideration of the quality and long-term functionality of services, as well as the needs of girls and students with physical disabilities. ©
UN
ICE
F/N
YH
Q20
07-1
727/
Nes
bitt
8
2.3. Handwashing in schools
Figure 2.3. What percent of primary schools have access to adequate handwashing facilities?
Source: 2012 country office surveys
≥75%
50-74%
<50%
Data not available
Not in the ESAR
coverage, with an average of 13% of schools providing students with hand-washing facilities (Figure 2.3).
Access to handwashing facilities in schools is low across the region. Of the countries with available data, all report less than 50%
9
Global Handwashing Day (GHD) raises the profile of handwashing in the ESAR GHD was created in 2008 to raise the profile of handwashing with soap and rally policy-makers to prioritize hygiene and sanitation. Each year more countries in the ESAR are approaching GHD beyond a single-day event, and evolving partnerships highlight the importance of establishing linkages between handwashing and other programmes such as nutrition and school sanitation.
Kenya: Authorities encourage linkages between handwashing, deworming and school-feeding programmes.
South Sudan: 200,000 children and 500,000 community members took part in handwashing demonstrations and poetry recitals.
Tanzania: Handwashing stations and 1,000 tippy taps were installed across the country. First Lady, Mama Salma Kikwete, led a mass handwashing demonstration that included 1,000 school children.
Zambia: 13 television programs were broadcast involving discussions on sanitation and hygiene issues, with a national launch held in the capital.
Only eight countries in the ESAR were able to provide data on school handwashing facilities, with only three including the provision of soap. Increased monitoring of soap and water for handwashing in schools may increase accountability as well as improve data to support tracking of this important component of a healthy environment.
Data on student handwashing are scarce in the region, as well as globally. They are also challenging to measure as most data are collected directly from students through self-reporting, which may provide questionable accuracy. However, the figures along with proxy indicators, provide a general idea of student handwashing at schools in the ESAR.
A general theme in school studies suggests that unreliable availability of soap and water for handwashing limits the potential for long-term behaviour change. Though social norms and attitudes play an important role in determining behaviour, until students have reliable access to the appropriate services, it is unlikely that they will develop positive hygiene habits (Cairncross, 1990; Cairncross & Shordt, 2004). ©
UN
ICE
F/N
YH
Q20
07-1
726/
Nes
bitt
10
Handwashing studies from schools in the ESAR
Kenya: A survey of 666 school children found that only 22% could demonstrate proper handwashing at programme baseline. This figure increased to 53% at the first follow-up and was 47% at second follow-up (Blanton, 2010). Another study of 100 schools found that only 5% had soap available, with 2% of students observed to wash their hands with soap (Njuguna et al., 2008).
Uganda: In a study of 332 schools, 41% had handwashing facilities and only 8% had soap (MoES Uganda, 2006). In a survey of two districts, 33% of students reported washing their hands with soap after using the toilet at school. However, handwashing facilities were observed at only 22% and pupils reported irregular supply of water/soap. (UPHOLD, 2005).
Malawi: In the Mangochi district, no schools had handwashing facilities at the 1998 baseline. In 2007, at post-intervention follow-up, 33% of handwashing facilities were functional but no schools were providing soap (Save the Children, 2008).
Zimbabwe: Only 57% of student focus group participants felt that handwashing after defecating at school was common. Students who did wash their hands said they were likely to use soap after defecation, but much less likely after urination or before eating, especially when very hungry. (Sisimayi & Masuku, 2010).
Madagascar: Of 61 intervention schools, 36% had handwashing facilities with soap available near the toilets (USAID, 2009).
Ethiopia: At a rural primary school, 36% and 14% of students said they washed their hands with soap before eating and after defecation, respectively (Vivasa et al., 2010).
Zambia: In a study of 20 schools, only 18% of students reported that soap was consistently available and many students admitted not washing their hands after using the latrines. (UNICEF Zambia, 2011). In another study, based on student pocket voting in 50 schools, 22% and 30% wash their hands with soap after using the toilet at control and program me schools, respectively. (Kambole, 2006). Of 140 schools in seven districts, 58% had handwashing facilities (Village Water Zambia, 2012).
11
3. Monitoring WASH in Schools through the EMIS
Figure 3.1. Is WinS included in the EMIS?
Source: UNICEF Country Office correspondence and EMIS reports where available
Yes, including conditions
Yes, but not including conditions
No, WinS is not included
Not in the ESAR
16 countries include WinS in the EMIS
2 countries consider facility conditions
In order to reduce the data gaps for WinS coverage, cost-effective, simple and reliable monitoring is needed. The EMIS is often a prudent monitoring option. Many countries have a functioning EMIS, including some countries that collect data on WinS.
Unfortunately, even in those countries, indicators are often not relevant, the data are not analyzed or reported, or data are unreliable due to confusing or inadequately defined questions.
12
Currently, 16 countries in the region (76%) monitor WinS through the EMIS (Figure 3.1). However, most WinS indicators lack clarity, do not consider the condition of WASH services such as functionality or quality, and rarely include handwashing. The most common WinS indicators included in the EMIS in the region are: (1) access to an improved water source, and (2) pupils per latrine ratio. Unfortunately, these questions do not typically include definitions of “improved” water sources if the water source
What is EMIS? EMIS is a system for collecting, managing and disseminating education statistics at the national level for educational development. It is typically owned and managed by the Ministry of Education (MoE), and most often data are captured annually through questionnaires completed by head teachers and collected and validated by district-level education officials. Data typically include enrollment and repeater information; teaching material and training of teachers; and school inventory such as classrooms, equipment and facilities.
is functioning or reliable, or if the latrines are clean, accessible and in use. The absence of these considerations often results in unreliable and skewed data that present a more optimistic picture than reality. For example, a school may appear on paper to have a sufficient number of toilets and access to an improved water source, but in reality, the toilet pits are full and unusable and the water source is frequently broken down. Bearing this in mind, EMIS questions should clarify the condition of the WASH services available.
13
WinS indicators used in the EMIS in Zimbabwe and Burundi provide examples of incorporating the condition of facilities. The EMIS in Burundi includes a question on the state of latrines, asking respondents if they are functional or non-functional, providing insight into the sustainability of
Burundi1. Access to potable
water (yes/no)
2. State of latrines (functional/non-functional)
Zimbabwe1. Water source
2. Type of water treatment
3. Type of water system/device
4. Distance to water source
5. Availability (frequency) of water
6. Number of completed VIP latrines
7. Number of completed handwashing facilitiesSwaziland
1. Toilet type: flush or pit
2. Safe water supply
3. Water tank for RWH
Angola1. Toilets present
2. Access to water
What WinS indicators do ESAR countries include in the EMIS?
Malawi1. Type of main drinking
water source
2. Number of handwashing facilities in use & under construction
3. Availability and type of sanitation facilities
‐ Number of flush toilets in use and under construction
‐ Number of pit latrine drop holes (both improved & basic) in use & under construction
‐ Number of urinal blocks (both improved and basic) in use and under construction
school sanitation services. In Zimbabwe, the frequency of water availability is questioned, capturing water reliability, along with the presence of a water source at the school, reported by type. Examples of WinS indicators that ESAR countries currently include in the EMIS are found below.
14
Limitations of monitoring WinS through the EMIS
Guidelines for WinS in the EMIS ● Focus on “need to
know” indicators relevant to current challenges, rather than “nice to know;”
● Make sure questions are clear and well-defined for non-WASH professionals;
● Include indicators that monitor beyond access, such as quality and maintenance.
Despite the advantages of utilizing the EMIS to monitor WinS, there are limitations that should be taken into consideration. Specifically, (1) WASH is only a small part of a typically lengthy survey, leaving little space for WASH indicators and increasing the likelihood for questions to be answered hastily; (2) head teachers usually complete the questionnaire and may be motivated to provide answers based on pressure from government and parents; and (3) data undergo only very simple data analysis. Questions included in the EMIS should be based on the most relevant and current data needs, written clearly for non-WASH professionals to be able to answer quickly and easily, and provide relevant results from simple data analysis. Five core indicators are
suggested in Annex A, but the final decision of what to include should be based on current goals for WinS in each country.
Other, smaller-scale monitoring efforts can serve to validate EMIS results and, in combination, provide a more reliable picture of WinS coverage. Smaller sample size surveys that focus on WinS are also more appropriate for measuring student hygiene behaviours than nation-wide education surveys. In many countries, WinS is already monitored at the district or programme level and sharing of coordinated results can provide a more reliable and complete data set. There is also the potential to work with the MoE and school inspectors to consider WinS facilities during routine school inspections.
© U
NIC
EF/
MLW
B20
12-0
1629
/Nes
bitt
15
4. Tracking progress to bring WinS to scale
An enabling environment is necessary to sustain and scale up WinS, including policies at the national, district, and local levels. Supportive policies at the national level should stimulate and support effective district and local management including planning, funding, implementing, and maintaining adequate and equitable WinS facilities and hygiene promotion. ESAR countries’ enabling environments are assessed below to understand barriers to effective WinS at the national level.
UNICEF country offices in the ESAR were solicited for information regarding seven indicators of enabling environments: the presence of a clear lead agency; a specific public-sector WinS budget line; policies and guidelines; monitoring at the national
KEY POINTS ● 7 of 13 countries have a clear, single lead agency responsible for WinS;
● 2 of 14 countries have a specific national budget line for WinS;
● 5 of 18 countries comprehensively include WinS in national policy; 3 of 21 countries monitor the condition of WinS facilities’
● 12 of 14 countries have national standards for WinS but most are limited in scope;
● 7 of 16 countries address gender equity and menstrual hygiene management in WinS;
● 9 of 16 countries address accessibility for students with disabilities in WinS.
level; national WinS standards; equitable environments that consider gender; and accessibility for students with special needs. Based on country office questionnaires, regional workshop submissions and information available online, scores of 0 (low), 0.5 (moderate), or 1 (high) were assigned for each indicator and averaged to provide an overview of the region (Table 4.1). Information provided by each country was compared to specific scoring criteria defined in Annex B. Further information on the status of the indicators in each country is available in Annex C. Based on average scores across the region, budget and monitoring appear to be the aspects of enabling environments most in need of improvement. More information on the results of each indicator is provided in the subsequent sections.
16
4.1. Clearly defined lead agency for WinS
Seven of 13 ESAR countries have a clearly defined lead government agency for WinS. In most cases this is the Ministry of Education, however, in Namibia, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry is responsible. In the remaining ESAR countries, responsibilities are unclear or multiple ministries share the lead role, which can limit accountability for WinS activities. Even where there is a clear lead agency, roles and responsibilities of supporting ministries and local bodies, such as parent teachers associations (PTAs) are often unclear.
Public sector WinS budget lines Though none of the ESAR countries have adequate funds to meet all WinS needs, some countries do mark funds specifically for WinS.
Rwanda: The unit cost of additional classrooms in every school includes a line for construction of toilets and water facilities.
Tanzania: As part of the National Sanitation Campaign (funded by the African Development Bank (AfDB) under the Water Sector Development Programme) a WinS program will roll out in 2012 with a $7 million budget expected to reach about 700 schools. There will also be a costed action plan in the National Strategic Plan to bring WinS to scale.
4.2. Public sector budget lines for WinS
A number of countries have no public sector budget for WinS; in others that do, it is usually combined with other line items (e.g. school facility grants) and easily absorbed by other expenses such as classroom construction, teachers’ housing, desks, chairs and other school needs. This leaves schools without adequate WASH facilities despite the spending of WinS funding. Most countries need a detailed budget line for WinS to ensure that funding is spent on WinS activities.
© U
NIC
EF/
NY
HQ
2006
-226
2/P
irozz
i
17
4.3. WinS in national policies & guidelines
In most countries in the ESAR, WinS is included to some extent in national policies. Typically, WinS is called out in education or water policy documents as a general reference to a healthy or quality school environment, which includes water and sanitation infrastructure. For example, in Zimbabwe, WinS is included in the Education Act (1976, ED46), which states that no school
can be registered by the MoE without toilets and access to water. Unfortunately, even when policies are present, enforcement may be inadequate or missing. A number of countries report that policies are unclear or unpublicized and sometimes schools are constructed without WASH facilities due to budget constraints.
WinS national policies & guidelines Burundi: The Education Action Plan 2012-20, the National Water Policy 2009, and the National Hygiene and Basic Sanitation Policy (under review) include access to potable water, sufficient gender separated improved latrines, handwashing facilities, access for children with disabilities, and hygiene promotion in schools.
Kenya: A national school health policy was jointly developed by the MoE, Ministry of Health (MoH) and partners, which includes WinS access.
Tanzania: The MoE along with other key ministries have agreed upon a national WinS strategic plan and guideline (with associated toolkits). They are also in the process of formulating a national WinS programme with a costed action plan.
18
WASH in Schools mapping informs and advocates for guidelines in Tanzania WinS got very little attention up to 2009 when SNV Netherlands Development Organisation, WaterAid and UNICEF, in close coordination with the MoE, joined hands and started the mapping of WinS in 16 districts. Results from the mapping revealed that only 11% of the schools met government standards for the number of latrines, 9% of latrines were clean, 54% of schools had a functioning water supply and only 1% had soap for hand washing. These data have proven to be an effective tool for advocacy and mobilizing resources: WinS has become a more prominent agenda point at the national level; national school WASH guidelines to provide schools with guidance and improve capacity have been developed and adopted; the National Sanitation and Hygiene Campaign included a major WinS component; and the MoE has developed a strategic plan for WinS.
(Source: case study submission to 2012 WinS regional workshop from UNICEF Tanzania)
© U
NIC
EF/
NY
HQ
2006
-226
0/P
irroz
i
19
4.4. Monitoring WinS at the national level
WinS monitoring results South Sudan: EMIS 2011 report: 37.9% of primary schools have access to drinking water (pg. 62). 39.9% of primary schools have latrines, and “resources should be secured across all states to ensure that schools have greater access to latrines to provide an environment more conducive to learning, especially for female students.” (pg. 63).
Ethiopia: EMIS 2011 report (p. 38): 34.4% of primary schools have water facilities; more than 90% of all schools have latrines. More detailed WinS indicators are included in a separate monitoring system.
WinS is monitored in 16 of 21 ESAR countries, usually through the EMIS. However, only three countries include indicators that address the condition of facilities. As discussed in Section 3, most indicators used are limited, unclear or irrelevant to the most critical concerns for WinS in the country (see page 13 for examples of indicators used). In Ethiopia, access to water and toilets are included in the EMIS, but more detailed WinS indicators are monitored through a separate system, which considers access to sanitation and improved water source on site throughout the year, as well as the provision of soap for
handwashing on a daily basis. One of the greatest challenges for WinS monitoring is information dissemination post-collection and analysis. In many countries, it is challenging to locate up-to-date EMIS results. Even where WinS indicators are incorporated in the EMIS, results are not always included in the final data reporting or are unclear and buried within spreadsheets. A number of EMIS results report the number of total toilets/latrines in a region, rather than per school, thereby limiting the ability to assess whether schools meet government standards.
20
National WinS standards in the ESAR Eritrea: Eritrea: 30 girls/toilet, 40 boys/toilet
Ethiopia: 50 pupils/toilet
Kenya: 25 girls/toilet, 30 boys/toilet
Madagascar: 50 pupils/toilet
Mozambique: 30 pupils/toilet; 10L day/pupil
Tanzania: 20 girls/toilet, 25 boys/toilet
Uganda: 40 pupils/toilet; gender separate toilets; safe water within 500m; handwashing facilities; washroom for girls
Zambia: 8 handwashing basins for the first 100 pupils and 3 for the next 50; different pupil/toilet ratios in different documents
4.5. National standards for WinS
The majority of WinS standards in ESAR countries focus on acceptable ratios for the number of students per toilet. These range from 20 to 50 students per toilet. Standards for water and handwashing are less common and none of the current standards found in the ESAR consider the condition of facilities. Although a school may meet standards for toilet ratios on paper, the majority of them appear to be broken down or filthy. Similarly,
they may meet the official standards for handwashing basins even if water and soap and rarely provided. Unfortunately, funding for WinS, including both government and civil contributions, are typically insufficient to support the realization of many government standards and are accordingly challenging to enforce. Enforceable guidelines for schools to progress toward national standards may translate standards from paper to practice more effectively.
© U
NIC
EF/
NY
HQ
2007
-139
6/P
irozz
i
21
4.6. Addressing gender and menstrual hygiene management
Examples of gender and MHM considerations for WinS in ESAR countries Tanzania: All four key ministries (led by MoE), UNICEF, SNV, WaterAid and partners published a book for girls called “growth & changes” about puberty and MHM. Additionally, consideration for disposal of MHM materials is in Toolkit No. 2: technical options for school WASH (Oct 2010), developed and supported by the four key ministries and partners.
Lesotho: Child-friendly school (CFS) indicator 17, “Facilities for Girls,” includes the ratio of usable segregated toilets for students and sanitary towel disposables for girls. It is the responsibility of education inspectors to use the CFS inspection indicators and of health inspectors to enforce maintenance. Facilities for girls are also considered in the Education Act 2010 (NEQI, 2006).
According to UNICEF country offices, gender is addressed in WinS policies, programming and/or monitoring in seven of 16 ESAR countries. Usually, gender issues are addressed through policies or guidelines that promote gender-segregated toilet facilities and/or washrooms for girls. Programming in a number of countries includes sanitary-pad promotion/distribution and disposal facilities, but these tend to be localized based on intervention programmes
with limited evidence of scale-up. Gender and menstrual hygiene management (MHM) considerations do appear to be of increased interest however, and many countries report that new policies, guidelines and standards will include these issues. Positive examples of this increased focus are described in below although data are scarce and more information is needed regarding the outcomes of current MHM policies and programs.
© U
NIC
EF/
NY
HQ
2006
-042
8/P
irozz
i
22
Examples of special needs considerations for WinS in ESAR countries Lesotho: CFS indicator 18 is Facilities for Learners with Disabilities, which includes the accessibility of physical facilities for learners with disabilities. It is the responsibility of education inspectors to use the CFS indicators and of health inspectors to enforce maintenance. Infrastructure that is accessible for learners with disabilities is also in the Education Act 2010 (NEQI, 2006).
Eritrea: Education Policy: Ensure that the physical structures of schools and other educational institutions are accessible to girls and other disadvantaged children.
4.7. Accessibility for students with special needs
According to UNICEF country offices, nine ESAR countries address accessibility in WinS for students with physical disabilities, including policies and design standards that consider wheelchair access for toilets, including ramps and larger cubicles. Sadly, consideration for physical disabilities in WinS facilities is often only on paper. Even though data are insufficient to report hard
evidence, most WinS-sector professionals in the ESAR attest to the lack of accessible facilities for students with physical disabilities. An example of improving this situation can be found in Lesotho where a monitoring structure is in place with education inspectors to monitor child-friendly school indicators, including accessibility of toilets for students with physical disabilities.
© U
NIC
EF/
NY
HQ
2006
-226
5/P
irozz
i
23
5. A closer look at the delivery of WASH in school services
As noted in Section 4, the presence of an enabling environment does not by itself guarantee high coverage of quality WinS and associated hygiene behaviours. Systemic analysis of the whole WinS service delivery pathway (Figure 5.1) to identify crucial gaps or “bottlenecks” can support planning and prioritization of actions to more effectively improve services. Two case studies, Zambia and Tanzania, are presented below to provide a closer look at the key issues surrounding effective WinS service delivery in the region.
The WinS analysis and planning tool1 used in Zambia and Tanzania draws from the country status overviews (CSOs) (WSP et al., 2011), and WASH-Bottleneck Analysis Tool (WASH-BAT) (UNICEF, 2012b), and will contribute to the roster of tools available for the Monitoring Results for Equity System (MoRES) (UNICEF, 2012a). The adapted framework aims to guide stakeholders
1 Tool guidance note forthcoming.
Enabling Developing Sustaining
The supporting environment that
fosters progress in WinS: Supporting national policies, standards and
monitoring, and budget allocation
Progress in equitable access & capacity building: Coverage of WinS
that considers menstrual hygiene and child-friendly
attrubutes
Maintaining facilities
and hygiene behaviours:
Financial access and supply chain at schools, continued
maintenance of facilities and use
Pol
icy
Acc
ess
O&
M
Inpu
ts
Pla
nnin
g
Equ
ity
Mai
nte-
nanc
e
Bud
get
Cap
acity
Use
Effective WASH in Schools
Figure 5.1. Service delivery pathway to effective WASH in Schools
through systemic discussions to identify gaps and priority actions for improving WinS under three pillars of effective programming:
• the enabling environment that providesthe foundation for at-scale programming;
• the development and implementationof equitable and accessible WinS programming; and
• the sustainability of infrastructure andbehaviours that contribute to lasting outcomes for child health and education.
Nine success factors and 27 guiding questions are suggested to analyse the service delivery pathway, from policies and budget (enabling environment), to programming and implementation (developing), to operations, maintenance and use (sustaining). More information on the guiding questions and scoring criteria can be found in Annex D and Annex E.
24
Enabling Developing Sustaining
0.55 0.17 0.270.50
0.43
0.34
0.29
0.20
0.21
0.23 0.35 0.15
Pol
icy
Acc
ess
O&
M
Inpu
ts
Pla
nnin
g
Equ
ity
Mai
nten
ance
Bud
get
Cap
acity
Use
5.1. Systemic analysis and planning for WASH in schools in Zambia
Figure 5.2. Status of the WinS service delivery pathway in Zambia
Scores for the 27 suggested indicators were assigned by WinS stakeholders in a workshop held in Lusaka on 29-30 August 2012. Over 30 representatives from government and civil agencies including national and district level, as well as teachers and a parent representative, participated.
During the course of the workshop, key challenges within each of the three pillars were identified, including budget, access, equity and operations and maintenance (O&M) (Figure 5.2). The biggest challenge relating to use and hygiene practices was improving the availability of child-friendly facilities and soap, which are known to encourage healthy practices.
25
Based on the results of the discussion, participants identified key issues within each pillar that impeded progress in WinS:
Enabling
1. Inadequate resources: budget and human resources;
2. WASH in general is not prioritized in Zambia;
3. Current policies are unclear, not agreed upon, contradictory and not WinS specific.
Developing
1. Inadequate WinS infrastructure;
2. Marginalized remote schools and students with special needs;
3. Insufficient data on WinS coverage and sustainability.
1.0
Lack of data
Marginalized: remote & special needs
Weak planning & coordination
Inadequate resources
Greater Impact Easier to Fix
WASH not prioritized
Inadequate infrastructure
Centralization of resources/decisions
Spare parts supply
No clear agreed policies
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
2.77
2.59
2.95
2.82
2.86
2.59
2.68
2.73
2.50
2.00
2.14
1.27
1.41
1.41
1.86
1.77
1.82
2.18
Figure 5.3. Prioritized barriers to WASH in Schools in Zambia based on impact and “fixability”
Sustaining
1. Centralization of resources & decisions for O&M;
2. Unavailability of spare parts and supplies;
3. Weak planning and coordination for O&M.
Participants prioritized the identified barriers based on perceived impact and “fixability” through a voting process where higher scores indicated barriers with a high-perceived impact on the service delivery pathway that may be easier to overcome than other barriers (Figure 5.3).
26
Actions to overcoming these barriers were proposed during the workshop based on short, medium and long-term activities. These actions require further discussion and commitment at the country level, but serve as a starting point to overcome the barriers identified. Responsibilities will likely be spread between the MoE, Ministry of Local Government and Housing, MoH, NGOs, PTAs and community groups with a clear responsible party and timeline for each action, so that each responsible party has only a handful of actions to complete. MoE and UNICEF representatives agreed to push the identified actions forward and monitor progress toward their realization.
Short-term activities1. Advocate to the Ministry of Finance (MoF)
to increase investment in a WinS-specific budget line, including data collection;
2. Develop sub-committee for WinS under the National Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme to coordinate efforts between ministries;
3. Sensitize ministries on existing policies; 4. Allocate 2014 school funding according to
need-based criteria (not enrollment); 5. Advocate to head teachers for a portion of
school grants to be labeled for O&M.
Medium-term activities1. Develop a harmonize database for WinS
(review current system, identify gaps, consolidate);
2. Develop & disseminate guidelines for WASH facilities accessible to students with special needs;
3. Develop framework for monitoring/enforcing guidelines;
4. Decentralize resources and decision-making ;
5. Develop strategy to mobilize private-sector support based on corporate social responsibility.
Long-term activities
1. Develop harmonized WASH guidelines & disseminate to implementers. Experiences in Tanzania may provide guidance.
© U
NIC
EF/
NY
HQ
2007
-137
3/P
irozz
i
27
5.2. Systemic analysis and planning for WASH in schools in Tanzania
Enabling Developing Sustaining
0.701 0.10 0.170.33
0.44
0.07
0.17
0.00
0.09
0.30 0.33 0.10
Pol
icy
Acc
ess
O&
M In
puts
Pla
nnin
g
Equ
ity
Mai
nten
ance
Bud
get
Cap
acity
Use
Following the analysis and planning workshop in Zambia, a similar workshop was held in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania on 5-6 September 2012. Echoing results from Zambia, key challenges within each of the three pillars included budget, access, equity
Based on results of the discussion, key issues identified within each pillar are:
Enabling
1. Limited monitoring of WinS, which may hinder accountability and effective decision-making;
2. Disagreement between central and district-level strategies, which impedes scale-up;
3. Inadequate budget allocated for WinS improvements.
Developing
1. Low coverage of WinS services – few schools have adequate numbers of improved facilities;
2. Equity is not prioritized in programming and the majority of WinS facilities do not cater to students with physical disabilities or girls’ needs during menstruation;
3. Marginalized remote rural schools in WinS programming.
Sustaining
1. Insufficient funding and local organization for WinS O&M;
2. Poorly maintained school WASH facilities (i.e. non-functional, unclean, unavailable);
3. Current conditions of school WASH facilities limit use and positive student behaviours.
Barriers to addressing these key issues were identified and prioritized based on perceived impact and “fixability” (Figure 5.5) and actions were proposed during the workshop based on short, medium and long-term activities.
Figure 5.4. Status of the WinS service delivery pathway in Tanzania
and operations and maintenance (Figure 5.4). As seen in the Zambia results, the biggest challenge relating to sustaining use and handwashing behaviours was improving the availability of well-maintained facilities and soap.
28
Figure 5.5. Prioritized barriers to WASH in Schools in Tanzania based on impact and “fixability.”
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Not holistic approach for SWASH
Unrealistic standards
Policies not put in practice
Inadequate enforcement
Inadequate local organization for O&M
Greater Impact Easier to Fix
2.79 2.85
1.74
1.95
2.10
2.50
1.57
1.89
1.74
2.16
Due to the limited time available at the workshop, the actions presented here require further discussion and formalization, as well as clearly allocated responsibilities and agreements. Responsibilities will likely fall under the MoE, MoH, Ministry of Water, the Prime Minister’s Office of Regional Administration and Local Government, NGOs, PTAs, and school management committees (SMCs) with a clear responsible party and timeline for each action.
Short-term activities
1. Develop and promote phased standards or intermediate goals for WinS to encourage local motivation to reach more achievable goals;
2. Develop a WinS database;3. NGOs design integrated programs based
on community level planning (reflecting national guidelines).
Medium-term activities
1. Conduct trainings for SMCs and village governments on O&M, including raising resources;
2. Provide incentives to schools to maintain WinS facilities (e.g. competitions amongst schools);
3. Develop training and secure resources to collect, analyse and disseminate WinS data;
4. Train inspectors at all levels in WinS monitoring and evaluation (M&E);
5. Schedule learning and sharing fora between ministries and between government and civil organizations to strengthen partnerships through the existing Memorandum of Understanding;
6. Organize orientation/ sensitization for district councillors.
Long-term activities
1. Produce user-friendly policy documents (similar to the constitution adaptation);
2. Advocate for WinS among politicians;3. Conduct marketing campaign linking
WinS to local priorities;4. Coordinate community feedback structure
to motivate communities to contribute to WinS O&M by showing how contributions were spent.
29
6. Moving forward
WASH in Schools coverage in the ESAR lags well behind the UNICEF global WASH strategy target of 100% coverage by 2015. On average, less than half of schools have adequate access to water and sanitation and only 13% have access to handwashing facilities. This document serves as a call to action to raise the profile of this issue with governments, civil society organizations, and the private sector. As part of their right to a quality education, children in the ESAR require access to safe water, an acceptable toilet and soap and water for handwashing in learning environments.
This publication presents common challenges in the region to increasing access to WASH in Schools, thereby enabling a learning environment in which all children can thrive, learning hygiene behaviours that will be sustained into adulthood and be provided an environment in which they are not exposed to illness and indignity. Specifically, these challenges include the following:
• WinS is not prioritized at the national
level, translating to low funding, low access rates, and lack of specific policy, regulation and guidance;
• Where WASH infrastructure existsin schools, services are often poorly maintained, prematurely falling into disrepair and ultimately disuse;
• Soapandwaterforhandwashingareoftenunavailable, limiting potential behaviour change resulting from handwashing campaigns and hygiene education; and
• Most schools do not provide equitablefacilities that cater to children with physical disabilities and support menstrual hygiene management.
A first step toward progress in the sector is improving the quality of data. As covered in this document, data in the region are still incomplete and where they exist, the quality could be improved so that advocacy and action can be based on a clear picture of the status of WinS. Furthermore, quality data can increase accountability for WASH in Schools, support evaluation of intervention strategies and ensure that policies are put into practice.
30
This data review and the WinS picture across the region suggest the following priorities:
1. Increase investment in WASH in Schools: Working at scale for WinS is a clear priority in the ESAR that will only happen with sustained national-level funding and commitment. Current experience suggests that WinS is still largely externally funded leading to limitations in government ownership, mandate and investment. Advocacy is needed to increase the profile of WinS and to allocate specific government budget lines. Ultimately national-level funding will underlie efforts to improve access and meet coverage targets across the region. Growing WinS from a small-scale implementation to sustained national at-scale programming, funded by government, is a key priority for the ESAR.
2. Engage those who set policies: Engaging decision-makers and policy-makers in ongoing programming is a priority to move WinS from a project-level focus to national-level attention and scale. Regional tracking data may also become an important tool in engaging the interest of national decision-makers, leveraging the existing interest in regional
level developments, comparisons and competition. Regional-level dialogue and discussion may leverage required action and commitments.
3. Demonstrate quality WASH in Schools and provide evidence. Further guidance on what works and on appropriate standards is necessary to support the scaling up of WinS. Evidence is still needed to guide decision-making and to effectively advocate for WinS. Documenting lessons, sharing experiences and demonstrating quality programming is a key role for UNICEF and other sector stakeholders in the region.
4. Monitor WASH in Schools programmes. Improving monitoring and reporting of WinS coverage is a key priority. Integrating WASH questions into existing EMIS systems is a clear target for countries that do not yet include WASH in the EMIS as well as for those that do. Improving the quality of data may be required in order to provide a clear picture of coverage of quality WASH services. Improving the quantity and quality of national-level data on WASH in Schools is an immediate priority to guide further action and advocacy.
31
ReferencesBar-David, Y., Urkin, J., & Kozminsky, E. (2005). The effect of voluntary dehydration on cognitive functions of elementary school children. Acta Pædiatrica, 94(11), 1667-1673.
Blanton, E., Ombeki, S., Oluoch, G. O., Mwaki, A., Wannemuehler, K., & Quick, R. . (2010). Evaluation of the Role of School Children in the Promotion of Point-of-Use Water Treatment and Handwashing in Schools and Households - Nyanza Province, Western Kenya, 2007 American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 82(4), 664-671.
Cairncross, S. (1990). Health Impacts in Developing Countries - New Evidence and New Prospects. Journal of the Institution of Water and Environmental Management, 4(6), 571-577.
Cairncross, S., & Shordt, K. (2004). It does last! Some findings from a multi-country study of hygiene sustainability. Waterlines, 22, 4-7.
Fehr, A. E. (2010). Stress, menstruation and school attendance: effects of water access among adolescent girls in South Gondar, Ethiopia. Summary report for CARE Ethiopia.
Kambole, S. M. (2006). Assessment of the School Sanitation and Hygiene Education Programme in Katete and Petauke Districts of Eastern Province and Monze, Sinazongwe and Mazabuka Districts of Southern Province.
MoES Uganda. (2006). Sanitation and Hygiene in Primary Schools in Uganda. Kampala: Ministry of Education and Sports.
NEQI. (2006). Final Report: development of child-friendly schools (CFS) indicators: National Education Quality Initiative of the Human Sciences Research Council and UNICEF.
http://www.washinschoolsmapping.com/projects/pdf/Lesotho%20Child-Friendly%20Schools%20Indicators.pdf
Njuguna, V., Karanja, B., Thuranira, M., Shordt, K., Snel, M., & Cairncross, S. (2008). The Sustainability and Impact of School Sanitation, Water and Hygiene Education in Kenya. New York and Delft: United Nations Children’s Fund and IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre.
Save the Children. (2008). Improving water, sanitation, and hygiene behaviors in schools: successes and lessons learned from Mangochi District, Malawi, September 2008. Washington, DC: Save the Children.
Sisimayi, C., & Masuku, T. (2010). School Sanitation and Hygiene: Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP) Study. A Baseline Survey in Mashonaland Central and Manicaland Provinces of Zimbabwe (Mt. Darwin, Shamva and Chipinge Districts. Harare: UNICEF Zimbabwe.
UNICEF. (2006). UNICEF water, sanitation and hygiene strategies for 2006-2015. E/ICEF/2006/6: United Nations Economic and Social Council.
32
UNICEF. (2011). WASH in Schools Monitoring Package: United Nations Children’s Fund. http://www.unicef.org/wash/schools/files/wash_in_schools_monitoringpackage_.pdf
UNICEF. (2012a). Monitoring Results for Equity System (MoRES) and Country Programming Draft 3. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.
UNICEF. (2012b). The water, sanitation and hygiene bottleneck analysis tool (WASH-BAT) Draft Manual. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.
UNICEF, CARE, SWASH+, & Ministry of Education Kenya. (2012). WASH in Schools - Improving the Learning Environment: The Eastern and Southern Africa Regional WASH in Schools Learning Workshop. Nairobi, Kenya.
UNICEF et al. (2010). Raising Clean Hands: Advancing Learning, Health and Participation through WASH in Schools. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund in partnership with CARE, Dubai Cares, Emory University, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, Save the Children, Water Advocates, WaterAid, Water For People and WHO.
UNICEF et al. (2012). Raising even more clean hands: advancing health, learning and equity through WASH in schools. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.
UNICEF Zambia. (2011). Child Friendly Schools and Sanitation: Snapshot of school children’s perceptions and utilisation of water and sanitation facilities in some selected schools in rural Zambia. Lusaka: United Nations Children’s Fund.
UPHOLD. (2005). Baseline Survey. School Health and Nutrition project Luwero and Nakaseke Districts. Kampala: Uganda Program for Human and Holistic Development (UPHOLD) and USAID.
USAID. (2009). Assessment of Hygiene Promotion in Madagascar: 2007-2008 Comparisons for Households, Schools, and Health Facilities. Washington, DC: USAID Hygiene Improvement Project.
Village Water Zambia. (2012). Hygiene promotion in 140 schools in 7 rural districts of north-western and copperbelt provinces. Draft baseline report. Lusaka: Village Water Zambia.
Vivasa, A., Gelayea, B., Aboset, N., Kumiec, A., Berhane, Y., & Williamsa, M. A. (2010). Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP) of hygiene among school children in Angolela, Ethiopia. J Prev Med Hyg., 51(2), 73-79.
WaterAid Ethiopia. (2012). Growing up without WASH. Paper presented at the WASH in Schools Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Workshop Nairobi.
WSP et al. (2011). Pathways to Progress: Transitioning to Country-Led Service Delivery Pathways to Meet Africa’s Water Supply and Sanitation Targets: World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, Africa Ministers’ Council on Water, African Development Bank, United Nations Children’s Fund and the World Health Organization.
33
ANNEX A Suggested core WinS indicators for EMIS in the ESAR
1. Does the school have access to an “improved” water source within 50 meters?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Mark “yes” if the main water source is:- piped water - tubewell / borehole- protected well or spring (water protected
from runoff water, bird droppings, and animals)
- rainwater collection- bottled water (if another source for
hygiene)
Mark “no” if the main water source is:- unprotected well or spring- surface water (river, lake, stream, canal)- tanker-truck or cart that delivers water- bottled water (if only water source)
2. On average, how often is the water source functional and providing enough water for school needs?
[ ] Always [ ] Most days [ ] Some days [ ] Rarely/Never
3. Does the school have “improved” toilets/latrines? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Mark “yes” if the school toilets are:- pit latrines with slab/barrier between
user & pit- water seal toilets to sewer or septic tank- composting toilets
Mark “no” if the school toilets are:- pit latrines without a slab or barrier
(open pit)- bucket or similar temporary option- no toilets
4. How many toilets and urinals are there in the school? (insert number)Count the number of individual seats/squat-plates/drop-holes where a single child can defecate in private. Functional means the toilets are not broken and are available for use by children. Not Functional means that the toilet is broken or often locked and not available for use by children.
Functional Not FunctionalToilets/Latrines exclusively for girls
Toilets/Latrines exclusively for boys
Communal toilets/latrines (for use by boys or girls)
Urinals (50 cm of urinal wall = 1 urinal) 5. Is sufficient soap (or ash) and water available within 10 meters of the toilets? [ ] Always [ ] Most days [ ] Some days [ ] Never
*More information and indicator ideas can be found in the WinS Monitoring Package (UNICEF, 2011).
34
ANNEX B Enabling Environment Indicators, Definitions and Scoring
Indicator Criteria for Green Criteria for Yellow Criteria for Red
Score 1 0.5 0
Is WinS included in national policy?
WinS is comprehensively included (guidance and strategic direction, institutional coordination, implementation framework, financing mechanisms and technical guidance) in national policy and endorsed by parliament.
WinS is included in national policy but limited in scope or not endorsed by parliament.
WinS is not in-cluded in national policy or guide-lines.
Is there a public sector budget line for WinS?
There is a public sector budget line at national, regional or district level that is specifically earmarked for WinS.
There is a public sector budget, but it is incorporated into other areas.
There is no public budget for WinS.
Are there national standards for WinS?
There are national minimum standards that include multiple aspects of WinS and are endorsed by the government.
There are national standards, but they are limited or not endorsed by the government.
There are no national standards for WinS.
Is there a national WinS monitoring system?
There is a national WinS monitoring system that is publicly managed &includes indicators of service quality such as functionality and accessibility.
There is a national WinS monitoring system, but it is not government run or does not capture service quality.
There is no national WinS monitoring system.
Is there a clearly defined lead agency for WinS?
There is one designated agency to provide leadership for WinS programming with a clear national mandate for WinS development, implementation and M&E.
There are multiple designated “lead” agencies limiting accountability and ownership for WinS.
There is no clear responsibility for WinS.
Is gender addressed for WinS?
Gender equity, including MHM and gender-segregated toilets, is addressed in WinS policy, guidelines and/or monitoring, and programming.
Gender equity is addressed at the national level but is limited.
Gender equity is not addressed for WinS at the national level.
Is accessibility addressed for WinS?
Child-friendly WinS including accessibility of WinS services for children with physical disabilities is addressed in WinS policy, guidelines and/or monitoring, and programming.
Accessibility is addressed at the national level but is limited.
Accessibility is not addressed for WinS at national level.
35
ANNEX CInformation on Enabling Environments by CountryThe following data for each ESAR country is based on communication with UNICEF country offices including a survey administered for this snapshot document, www.washinschoolsmapping.com, WinS regional workshop submissions, and documents available online. Unfortunately, poor data availability limits the accuracy of scores assigned, but the information available provides a general idea of issues in the region.
1. Is WinS included in national policy?Angola Somewhat. In terms of legal and policy framework, the MoE started only recently
to focus on the importance of legislation and policy for schools including WASH. Educational reform legislation requires adequate school conditions, including WASH infrastructure. (source: WinS regional workshop submission and Case Study: Application of Bottleneck analysis for WinS in Angola))
Botswana No.
Burundi Yes. Access to water, sanitation and hygiene in schools has been recently covered in three different policies: education (Education Action Plan 2012-20); water (National Water Policy 2009); and basic sanitation (National Hygiene and basic sanitation policy, currently in the process of adoption by the Government). These policies include access to potable water, sufficient gender-separated improved latrines, handwashing facilities, access for children with disabilities and hygiene promotion in schools.
Comoros No national policy exists
Eritrea Somewhat. The MoE in collaboration with the MoH is planning to develop a school health policy in which WinS will be included. However, the School Organization Regulation of the MoE clearly stipulates that all schools have a) water and toilets, b) sanitation clubs, c) environmental clubs.
Ethiopia Yes.
Kenya Yes. A national school health policy was jointly developed between MoE, MoH and partners that includes improving access to WASH services in schools.
Lesotho The Education Act of 2010 recognizes the child-friendliness of schools, of which WASH in important, but there is limited information on WASH specifically.
Madagascar No. Development of the policy is ongoing; we have guidelines for CFS that includes WASH.
Malawi Yes. The water, sanitation and education policies do address WASH in Schools.
Mozambique Somewhat. There is no clear policy regulating WinS. However, it is partially included in the regulation of primary education: ministerial legislative number 2286/25 from September, 1962, recently rectified to number 108/94 as of August 31, 1994. Several individual programmes from government bodies (mainly education, public works and housing and health ministries) and from NGOs also use UNESCO blueprint policies. For example, a sector standard for school construction; under governmental assistance assures the inclusion of WASH facilities; however, there are cases in which funding constraints result in schools, being built without sanitation and hygiene facilities.
36
Namibia Not in education policy, but the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry is responsible for WinS and has a national policy from 2008. It is found at: www.mawf.gov.na/Documents/wsaspolicy.pdf
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry: Water Supply and Sanitation Policy. File Number: 7/3/78/P, July 2008. From the document: “Payment for operation, maintenance and replacement of sanitation at border posts, hospitals, schools, clinics and other institutions, lies with the responsible line ministry. For independent government centres including rural schools, clinics and border posts, the relevant ministries must provide water supply and sanitation facilities and take full responsibility, including budgetary provision, for these facilities. The Department of Works may be contracted by the relevant ministry to oversee implementation of development. The Directorate of Water Supply and Sanitation Coordination should provide overall coordination, general and regional advisory functions and exercise control, inspection and monitoring functions.”
Rwanda Yes. In the Education Sector Strategic Plan, issues related to hygiene, sanitation and availability of water supply have been underlined as key challenges to access, retention and equity at basic education.
Somalia No data available.
S. Africa No data available.
S. Sudan No data available.
Swaziland The education policy does articulate WASH, but there is currently no specific WASH policy.
Tanzania The 1995 education policy does not make explicit reference, but a new policy is awaiting approval that provides scope under broader headings such as improving the school environment and quality of education. The MoE along with other key ministries have agreed upon a national WinS strategic plan and guideline (with associated toolkits). They are also in the process of formulating a national WinS programme with a costed action plan.
Uganda Somewhat. The school health policy comprehensively covers WASH, but this is still in draft and yet to be approved by Cabinet.
Zambia The MoE has been pursuing collective action to improve infrastructure. The MoE policy on Educating Our Future recognizes that good health and nutrition are essential pre-requisites for effective learning. The School Health and Nutrition (SHN) policy is an elaboration of the chapter on educational areas of special concern contained in the ministry’s policy on school health. The general objective of SHN policy is to improve and provide equitable services in learning institutions, through integrated health and nutrition interventions in collaboration with the community and other partners. The Ministry of Local Government and Housing in 2007 launched the National Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme (2006-2015) and Vision 2030 (GRZ, 2009). These documents have sections that specifically address school sanitation and hygiene promotion. The government declared July as school -health month to enhance sensitization on SHN. The districts country-wide have formed multi-sectoral teams that implement school -health month activities.
Zimbabwe WinS is included in policy in the Education Act, 1976, ED46 (being revised), which states that no school can be registered by the MoE without toilets and access to water.
37
2. Is there a public sector budget line for WinS?
Angola No. Considering budget allocation for WASH in School for both supplies and resources, it can be said that the Government does not allocate appropriate budget. (Source: Case Study: Application of Bottleneck analysis for WASH in Schools in Angola).
Botswana No.
Burundi No. WinS is partially covered by different ministries (Education, Public Health, Water and Energy), none of which have a detailed budget line for specific WinS activities. UNICEF is advocating for this.
Comoros According to the Ministry of Education, no public budget is available for WinS.
Eritrea Somewhat. Whenever a school is built, construction of latrines and provision of water are always included in the budget.
Ethiopia Somewhat. There is national budget allocation for WinS programming, but it is insufficient.
Kenya Somewhat. All schools in Kenya receive a water and electricity conservancy vote from the MoE, which has also funded WASH in Schools activities from time to time.
Lesotho No data available.
Madagascar No. Not included in government country budget.
Malawi No. Most of the funding comes from donors.
Mozambique No. There is not a clear budget for WinS, however the MoE provides a budget for construction, rehabilitation and maintenance of school infrastructure that includes sanitation facilities, called ADE (Direct Support to Schools).
Namibia No data available.
Rwanda Yes. Unit cost for construction of additional classrooms in every school also includes construction of additional toilets and water facilities.
Somalia No data available.
S. Africa No data available.
S. Sudan No data available.
Swaziland No data available.
Tanzania As part of the National Sanitation Campaign (funded by the African Development Bank under the Water Sector Development Programme) a specific budget will be included in 2012 with$7 million for school WASH, expected to reach about 700 schools. There will also be a costed action plan in the National Strategic Plan to bring WinS to scale.
Uganda Somewhat. There is no distinct budget, but the MoE has allocated resources for WASH facility construction under its school facility grant.
Zambia Somewhat. There is no distinct budget, but there are allocated resources for WASH facility construction under the school facility grant in the MoE. These funds, however, often get absorbed by other aspects of school construction. The MoE has shown commitment to improving the situation in schools and allocated K4 billion in the 2009 infrastructure plan for sanitation facilities in new schools constructed under the 2008 plan. It is crucial to note that this does not address the school-water needs and still leaves the backlog of old schools without adequate sanitation facilities. In addition, considering population growth, the gap between the facilities and school population will continue to widen. Note: The estimated cost to meet the shortfall in sanitation and water facilities is K 205.6 billion ($42,833,333.33) and K40.4 billion respectively. However, this does not take into account the cost of water and sanitation facilities required to match the ongoing 2009 classroom construction.
Zimbabwe No data available.
38
3. Are there national standards for WinS?
Angola Somewhat. The first draft of the school construction standards was started for child friendly schools and WASH is one component of the document. Nevertheless this is a long process to reach the establishment of consolidated national legislation on WinS. (Source: Case Study: Application of Bottleneck analysis for WASH in Schools in Angola).
Botswana No.
Burundi Somewhat. No national standards exist for the hardware aspects of WASH (construction of water and sanitation facilities), however for the soft aspects, a training module has recently been created (early 2012) by the Ministry of Public Health in partnership with UNICEF for hygiene promotion in schools by teachers. This module has now to be used by all actors working in this field. For hardware construction, UNICEF uses international standards for the CFS approach that are promoted through all its partners’ projects.
Comoros No regulation exists.
Eritrea The current standards for pupil latrine ratios are 30:1 for girls and 40:1 for boys. In addition, whenever a school is built, provision of water in any form possible is included.
Ethiopia Yes. For students/toilet ratios – 50 students per latrine/toilet.
Kenya Somewhat. There are guidelines for sanitary facilities in all schools as a school cannot be opened without providing for sanitary facilities. The guidelines used are1 toilet to 25 girls and 1 toilet to 30 boys. However, this is not strictly enforced.
Lesotho No data available.
Madagascar Yes. Guidelines for child-friendly WASH in schools exist.
Malawi Somewhat. The Education Act and the water and sanitation policies attempt to address issues of standards. Initiatives are also underway to develop comprehensive national standards for Wins, especially school sanitation standards.
Mozambique Yes. Defined by law for construction of any school unit, they are based on the relative number of students per facility. For example, there has to be one toilet per 30 students and at least 10 litres of water per day per student. There are standard executive project designs for school infrastructure approved by the MoE that allow a standardization of construction typology.
Namibia No data available.
Rwanda Yes. The CFS standards for school construction also take into account construction of separate hygiene facilities for boys and girls.
Somalia No data available.
S. Africa No data available.
S. Sudan No data available.
Swaziland No data available.
Tanzania MoE: 20 girls/toilet and 25 boys/toilet. MoE does not set a standard for water supply.
Uganda Yes. The Basic Requirements and Minimum Standards recommend the following: 1) pupil stance ratio of 40:1- and separate latrine/ toilet for boys and girls; 2) safe water available within 500 meters of school premises; 3) access to handwashing facility; 4) access to wash room for girl child.
39
Zambia Yes. The public health (drainage and latrine) regulations make it mandatory for any owner or occupier of a school to provide proper and sufficient latrine accommodation for girls and boys. The MoE standards, assessment and evaluation guidelines from 2001 state that eight hand basins should be provided for the first 100 pupils and three hand basins for the next 50 pupils (GRZ, 2009). These guidelines are formulated to help implementers understand and use the SHN strategies in line with SHN policy. Many actors involved in school WASH currently do not adhere to MoE standards, and regulations and standards across ministries are contradictory.
Zimbabwe No data available.
4. Is there a national WinS monitoring system?
Angola Somewhat. WinS is monitored for seven of the 18 provinces and EMIS is in progress to be mainstreamed with funding from the EU and UNESCO/ISU (source: WinS regional workshop submission)
Botswana No.
Burundi No. No system exists at the moment, but WinS is included in the EMIS, including functional/non-functional.
Comoros No system.
Eritrea The Monitoring and Quality Assurance Division monitors WinS through its supervisors at national, regional and sub-regional levels. Besides this, the EMIS questionnaires capture the availability of water and latrines in schools.
Ethiopia Somewhat through the EMIS, but there is also a national system that regularly collects and analyzes WinS data including access to sanitation facilities, access to an improved water source on site throughout the year and provision of soap for handwashing on a daily basis.
Kenya Somewhat. The quality assurance section of the MoE is responsible for monitoring availability and state of sanitary facilities in schools from time to time.
Lesotho No data available.
Madagascar Yes. Data are collected with the MoE for each regional direction.
Malawi Yes/Somewhat. Since 2008, several WASH indicators have been included in the EMIS (Source: http://www.washinschoolsmapping.com/projects/pdf/MalawiWinsCountryProfile.pdf)
Mozambique No. There is no specific monitoring system for WinS, although it is intended that a monitoring system be included in the strategy of school maintenance. The MoE is striving to establish this in the public infrastructure maintenance strategy which the Ministry of Public Works and Housing designed with input from other ministries, including the MoE.
Namibia Included in the EMIS.
Rwanda Yes. A variable concerning WinS is integrated into the EMIS and data is collected yearly.
Somalia Not included in EMIS.
S. Africa Not included in EMIS.
S. Sudan Included in EMIS.
Swaziland Included in EMIS.
Tanzania Included in EMIS.
Uganda Somewhat. Under the Ministry of Education- school health desk.
Zambia Included in the EMIS.
Zimbabwe Included in the EMIS, including reliability of water.
40
5. Is there a clearly defined lead agency for WinS?
Angola Somewhat. The Ministry of Education. Inter-sectoral coordination needs to be strengthened with the National Directorate for Water that is the department in charge of water supply. (Source: http://www.washinschoolsmapping.com/projects/Angola.html)
Botswana No.
Burundi Yes. UNICEF (no information on government agency lead given)
Comoros No clearly defined lead agency.
Eritrea The MoE (Department of General Education) in collaboration with the MoH is the lead agency for WinS.
Ethiopia Yes. The MoE.
Kenya Yes. The quality assurance school health section of the MoE is responsible for WinS intervention in schools.
Lesotho No data available.
Madagascar Yes. MoE, Ministry of Water, and MoH.
Malawi Yes. UNICEF for the development partners side and the MoE from the government side.
Mozambique No. Mainly two ministries have been leading WinS: the MoE as coordinator; and the Ministry of Public Works and Housing which, in partnership with the MoE, is responsible for the tendering process, monitoring, and supervision of the implementation phase. The Ministry of Public Works and Housing in coordination with the MoE and MoH is responsible for sustainability.
Namibia The Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry is responsible for WinS.
Rwanda Yes. UNICEF leads and coordinates the WASH sector in providing necessary technical expertise required at policy and standards development. (no information on government agency lead given)
Somalia No data available.
S. Africa No data available.
S. Sudan No data available.
Swaziland No data available.
Tanzania Yes. The MoE.
Uganda Yes. Ministry of Education and Sports.
Zambia Yes. The MoE.
Zimbabwe No data available.
6. Is gender addressed in WinS policy, programming, monitoring, etc.? (e.g. MHM, segregated toilets)
Angola No. Gender-related issues were presented among the WinS partners during the first national workshop on WinS held in September 2012.
Botswana No.
Burundi Somewhat. The aspect of gender-segregated toilets is included in the education and basic sanitation (yet to be adopted) policies.
Comoros Gender-segregated latrines exist according to culture and religion, but there are no guidelines.
Eritrea Whenever a school is constructed, separate toilets for boys, girls and teachers are included.
Ethiopia Yes (no details provided).
41
Kenya Yes. WinS addresses separation of facilities for boys/girls and also strives to situate them on different sides of the school for gender sensitivity. WinS also addresses sanitary hygiene requirements of adolescent girls through supply of sanitary pads and provision of bathrooms in the school for MHM.
Lesotho The child-friendly school indicators include facilities for girls (clean and segregated toilets and the number of handwashing facilities and sanitary towel disposables for girls.
Madagascar Yes (no details provided).
Malawi Somewhat. All policies include gender elements that will be concretized in the new school sanitation standards.
Mozambique Somewhat. This Is included in the planning and implementation through the construction of school infrastructure: Toilets in schools are divided by gender, both for teachers and students.
Namibia No data available.
Rwanda Yes. Separate hygiene facilities for boys and girls are underlined in the CFS standards. Menstruation hygiene management is also being addressed in relation to education outcomes, such as attendance and performance of adolescent girls.
Somalia No data available.
S. Africa No data available.
S. Sudan No data available.
Swaziland No data available.
Tanzania Key ministries, UNICEF and other partners created a publication called “growth and changes” for girls about puberty and MHM. Including a place for disposing of MHM materials is included in the Toolkit No. 2: technical options for school WASH (Oct 2010).
Uganda Yes. Latrine design must cater to access for children with disabilities, separate latrines for boys and girls and washrooms for girl children.
Zambia There is insufficient focus on MHM in schools. Strong cultural issues around MHM coupled with limited capacities of teachers to deal with menstrual issues and inadequate information, education and communication materials on menstruation hygiene present- a challenge to girl-child retention in school.
Zimbabwe While an estimated 100% of schools have access to sanitary facilities, the majority are not sensitive to the needs of special groups, including female adolescents (the girl child at puberty)and do not provide appropriate facilities for self cleansing/washing, disposal of sanitary ware, or incinerators, etc.
7. Is accessibility for children with physical disabilities addressed in WinS policy, programming, etc.?
Angola Somewhat. Accessibility for children with physical disabilities is addressed in the first draft of the school construction standards.
Botswana No.
Burundi Somewhat. Accessibility to latrines and water points by children with disabilities is included in the Basic Sanitation Policy (yet to be adopted).
Comoros The needs of physically disabled children are not taken into account in the design of WASH facilities.
Eritrea The new design of school construction includes concrete ramps in every classroom and all WASH facilities to ensure accessibility for children with physical disabilities.
Ethiopia Yes (no details provided).
42
Kenya Yes. Schools make provisions for children with physical disabilities. More recently, UNICEF is promoting adaption of toilets used by children without disabilities for those with physical challenges so that they do not feel different from the rest.
Lesotho The child-friendly school indicators include accessibility to toilets for learners with disabilities.
Madagascar Yes (no details provided).
Malawi Somewhat. Attempts are being made to address this in various programmes and will be concretized in the new school sanitation standards.
Mozambique The law decrees the existence of ramps in schools to facilitate access of children with physical disabilities. It also establishes the existence of appropriate sanitation facilities for children with physical disabilities. In our schools construction programmes, the law is fulfilled.
Namibia No data available.
Rwanda Yes. The CFS construction standards have made provision for an inclusive set of hygiene facilities including separate toilets for boys and girls as well as a toilet for children with disabilities.
Somalia No data available.
S. Africa No data available.
S. Sudan No data available.
Swaziland No data available.
Tanzania Accessibility to water supply and toilets are included in the Toolkit No 2 document (Oct 2010).
Uganda Yes. The latrine design must cater to access for children with disabilities.Zambia No.Zimbabwe While an estimated 100% of schools have access to sanitary facilities, the
majority are not sensitive to the needs of special groups.
43
ANNEX DWASH in Schools Analysis and Planning FrameworkGuiding questions capture important aspects of WinS including the national-level enabling environment, equity considerations for menstrual hygiene management and children with disabilities, continued facility maintenance and student hygiene behaviours. They are presented under three pillars: Enabling, Developing and Sustaining which are similar to the CSO framework. Each pillar contains three success factors described by three guiding questions. The 27 guiding questions are meant to provide broad guidance, allowing countries or districts to identify the most appropriate indicators for the local context, following the strategy used in the Level 3 Monitoring framework.
Enabling
The Enabling pillar seeks to respond to the overarching question: “what is restricting scale-up of WASH in schools?” through the factors of policy, planning and budget. The nine guiding questions focus on the enabling environment at the national level that promotes WinS improvements, including policies, planning and budgetary considerations.
1. Is WinS included in the national policy documents or strategies?2. Are there clear roles and responsibilities for WinS?3. Are there agreed upon minimum national standards for WinS?
4. Are there clear and agreed upon national WinS targets?5. Is WinS monitored through a national system?6. Is hygiene education/promotion included in the national curriculum?
7. Is there a public sector budget line for WinS?8. Is there adequate budget to support WinS improvement?9. Is funding spent at schools most in need of WASH support?
Plan
ning
Polic
y
Bud
get
Enabling
Developing
The Developing pillar addresses the question: “what are the gaps in current programming?” through the factors of access, equity and capacity. The nine guiding questions focus on current access to WinS services with equity considerations for girls, students with physical disabilities and remote schools, as well as examining local capacity and engagement.
44
Sustaining
The Sustaining pillar seeks to respond to the overarching question: “what are the key issues around maintenance and use of WASH facilities in schools?,” The nine guiding questions focus on maintenance inputs including resource access and management capacities, actual maintenance practices for school WASH facilities, and if students are using improved facilities and practicing positive hygiene behaviours at school.
10. Do schools have access to adequate water supply?11. Do schools have access to adequate sanitation?12. Do schools have access to adequate handwashing facilities?
13. Is gender equity and MHM addressed for WinS?14. Is accessibility for children with physical disabilities addressed?15. Is geographical or socio-economic disparity addressed for WinS?
16. Is there community capacity or social norms for WASH?17. Is hygiene education a priority in the country?18. Are students engaged in WinS?
Acce
ssEq
uity
Cap
acity
Developing
19. Are essential commodities for O&M readily available locally?20. Is there a local body that support O&M for WinS services?21. Is there adequate and reliable funding for WinS O&M costs?
22. Are school latrines regularly maintained?23. Do schools regularly provide soap and water for handwashing?24. Is safe water consistently available?
25. Are students using improved toilets at school?26. Are students washing their hands with soap/ash at critical times?27. Are safe water practices being followed by students at school?
O&M
in
puts
Mai
nten
ance
Use
sustaining
45
ANNEX EBottleneck Analysis Indicators and Scoring Indicator Scoring
ENABLING 1.0 0.5 0.0
Policy Is WinS included in national policy documents or strategies?
Yes, sufficiently Yes, but insufficiently No
Are there clear roles and responsibilities for WinS? (lead government agency, working group, etc.)
Yes, there is a lead agency that has shown responsibility, a coordinating mechanism, and clear roles at national, regional, district and local levels.
Yes, but responsibilities and actions are unclear and/or there is no coordinating mechanism.
No
Are there agreed upon minimum national standards for WinS?
Yes, including mechanisms for enforcement.
Yes, but they are not enforced and/or limited in scope and/or not finalized.
No
Planning Are there clear national WinS targets?
Yes They are not clear. No
Is there a national WinS monitoring system?
Yes, it captures and reports quality of services in addition to access at least yearly.
Yes, but data is irregularly collected or reported, and/or it doesn’t capture service quality.
No
Is hygiene education/promotion included in the national curriculum?
Yes, including handwashing with soap, safe drinking water practices and safe sanitation.
Yes, but the information and topics are limited.
No
Budget Is there a public sector budget line for WinS?
Yes Yes, but grouped with other expenses and/or it doesn’t cover all aspects.
No
Is there adequate budget to support WinS improvement?
Yes, adequate to cover at least 75% of needs.
Somewhat, adequate to cover at least 40% of needs.
No budget
Is funding spent at schools most in need of WASH suport?
Yes, funding is spent and the schools most in need are prioritized.
Somewhat, not all the available funding is spent and/or schools are not properly prioritized.
No, schools are not properly prioritized or little of the funds are spent.
46
Indicator Scoring
DEVELOPING 1.0 0.5 0.0
Access % of schools with improved water source (within 50 m)
≥90% 60% <30%
% of schools with access to adequate sanitation (define adequate, e.g. improved toilets with ≤40 girls/drophole and ≤50 boys/drophole)
≥90% 60% <30%
% of schools with access to adequate handwashing facilities (define adequate, e.g. ≤50 students per facility)
≥90% 60% <30%
Equity Is gender equity and MHM addressed for WinS? (proxy idea: % of schools with private separate facilities for girls)
≥90% 60% <30%
Is accessibility for children with physical disabilities addressed for WinS? (proxy idea: % of schools that have at least one toilet that is accessible to students with physical disabilities)
≥90% 60% <30%
Is geographic or socio-economic disparity addressed for WinS? (proxy idea: water access is similar between urban & rural areas)
≥90% 60% <30%
Capacity Is there evidence of community capacity and social norms that promote WinS? (proxy idea: % of households with a latrine OR % of households who report handwashing at critical times)
Yes, strong evidence (≥90%)
Yes, some evidence (60%)
Limited or no evidence (<30%)
Is hygiene education a priority in the country? (proxy idea: are teachers trained in hygiene education?)
Yes, yearly including handwashing with soap, safe drinking water practices and safe sanitation
Yes, but not all teachers, or training is infrequent and/or limited in scope
No formal training
Are students engaged in WinS? (e.g. through health clubs)
Yes, most schools have regular participation (e.g. through WASH/health clubs)
Yes, but only some schools and/or limited activities
No, there is little student engagement in WinS
47
Indicator Scoring
SUSTAINING 1.0 0.5 0.0
Inputs Are essential commodities readily available? (e.g. spare parts, repair service)
Yes, there is an effective supply chain for parts and services that includes rural schools
Yes, but the supply chain is insufficient or does not reach rural schools
No, parts and services are difficult for many schools to obtain
Is there a local body that supports O&M for WinS services?(e.g. are there school committees that regularly address WinS O&M?)
Yes, at least 80% of schools have committees that regularly address school WASH
Yes, some. 45% of schools have committees that regularly address school WASH
No, less than 10% of schools
Is there adequate and reliable funding available for WinS O&M costs?
Yes, adequate funding for most schools
Some schools or limited funding for most
No, very limited or unreliable funding for most schools
Maintenance Are school latrines regularly maintained? (e.g. pit emptying, cleanliness, functionality) (proxy idea: % with clean toilets)
≥80% 45% <15%
Do schools consistently provide soap/ash for handwashing?
≥80% 45% <15%
Do schools have safe drinking water storage? (proxy idea: % of schools with functional water supply)
≥80% 45% <15%
Use Are students using improved toilets at school?
≥80% 45% <15%
Are students washing their hands with soap/ash at critical times at school?
≥80% 45% <15%
Do students drink safe water during school hours? (e.g. proper storage and handling, accessing from safe source)
≥80% 45% <15%
Inside back cover
UNICEF Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office
Nairobi, Kenya