Promoting improved coverage of WASH in Schools through global monitoring Christie Chatterley amp Robert Bain 27 October 2015 UNC Water amp Health Conference Introduction Global progress on household water ID: 701215
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Advancing W i n S Monitoring" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Advancing WinS Monitoring
Promoting improved coverage of WASH in Schools through global monitoring
Christie Chatterley & Robert Bain
27 October, 2015
UNC Water & Health ConferenceSlide2
IntroductionGlobal progress on household water & sanitation has been tracked by JMP for 25 years, but…
Monitoring is included in the 6 points of action in the Global Call “Raising Even More Clean Hands”:
BACKGROUND
2
There
is no global monitoring and
reporting mechanism
for
WASH in Schools
“Advocate
for the inclusion of WASH in Schools indicators in EMIS….”
“Support the
compilation
of
data on coverage…at the global level…” Slide3
IntroductionIn response to the points of actions outlined in the Global Call to Action, this study:Presents the best reported WinS
coverage data availableGlobal, regional and national estimates based on 149 countriesCoverage trends
Review of data qualityExamines current national WinS monitoringWhat WinS indicators countries include in EMIS
Strengths and gaps of current WinS
monitoring
PURPOSE
3
Caveat: we present
WinS
coverage based on available data, but estimates are far from perfect due to data quality issues and varying indicators
→ similar to challenges faced by JMP 25yrs agoSlide4
Part 1: WinS coverageGlobally, both water & sanitation coverage in schools increased by 6% from 2008 to 2013Reported coverage is increasing more rapidly in LDCs: 9% over 5
yrs for both water and sanitationReported data on handwashing facility coverage are scarce: readily available from 11 countries (21%)
FINDINGS
4
Reported sanitation coverage in schools
Reported water coverage in schoolsSlide5
Where did these averages come from?Costa Rica
SANITATION
NATIONAL
URBAN
RURAL
Source
Year
Existence of Toilets
Improved
Adequate Quantity
Single-sex
Functional
Unknown/Other
Existence of Toilets
Improved
Adequate Quantity
Single-sex
Functional
Unknown/Other
Existence of Toilets
Improved
Adequate Quantity
Single-sex
Functional
Unknown/Other
SERCE 2008
2008
61
UNICEF COAR 2009200997 UNICEF COAR 2010201094 UNICEF COAR 2011201199 UNICEF COAR 2012201299 EMIS 20132003 57 EMIS 20132004 55 EMIS 20132005 56 EMIS 20132006 55 EMIS 20132007 54 EMIS 20132008 52 EMIS 20132009 52 EMIS 20132010 54 Slope-0.23333Y-intercept522.9667functionalEMIS 20132011 57 Slope1.1Y-intercept-2114.3existenceNotes: We report the functional data since it's the most stringent indicator with data available. NATIONAL WATEREstimated 2008 and 2013 coverageYearExistence of ToiletsImprovedAdequate QuantitySingle-sexFunctionalUnknown/Other200895% 54% 2013100% 53%61%
5
Data were collected from multiple sources & analyzed using linear regression (JMP method)
Data sources: UNICEF COARs, UNESCO Education, WHO GLAAS, EMIS (small %, but unclear) Slide6
Part 1: WinS coverageThere are a number of data quality concerns
Unexplainable variation in data from different sourcesInconsistent, varying & often unknown indicators used
Same out-of-date data reported annually (skews trends)Decreasing trends may actually be better monitoring
DISCUSSION
6
Water indicators
Sanitation indicatorsSlide7
Part 1: WinS coverageAs a step toward addressing data quality concerns, the 2011 WinS
Monitoring Package provides guidance on how to improve WinS monitoring through EMIS
DISCUSSION
7
What is EMIS?
Education
Management Information System
:
A
national system to monitor school information, usually managed by the Ministry of
Education. Many countries already have an EMIS.Slide8
Part 2: Improving EMISWe assessed EMIS questionnaires from 54 countries for inclusion of the 13 parameters recommended in the WASH in Schools Monitoring Package
for EMIS 1 point was assigned for each parameter included
BACKGROUND
Component
Indicator
Parameters
Water
A
functional
water point is available
at or near
the school that provides a
sufficient quantity
of water for the needs of [the] school, is
safe
for drinking, and is
accessible
to
children
with
disabilities
Functionality
Proximity
Quantity
Quality
Accessibility
Sanitation
The
number
of
functional
toilets and urinals for
girls
,
boys
and teachers meet national standards, and are accessible to children with disabilitiesQuantity Functionality Gender Quality AccessibilityHygieneFunctional handwashing facilities and soap (or ash) are available for girls and boys in the school and hygiene is taughtFunctionality Soap Hygiene taught 8Slide9
Part 2: Improving EMISMany countries capture WinS in the
EMIS: 48 of 54 include water & sanitation; 17 include hygiene
Sanitation is the most comprehensively included; Hygiene is the leastFINDINGS
9
(47% of total score possible)
(36% of total score possible)
(33% of total score possible)
Sanitation is the most comprehensively monitored component in EMISSlide10
Part 2: Improving EMISFINDINGS
10
Quantity
is the most commonly monitored
sanitation parameter
Quality is the most commonly monitored water
parameter
Handwashing facility functionality is the most commonly monitored hygiene parameter; soap provision is the leastSlide11
ConclusionPart 1More countries are reporting WinS coverage data each year; about 50% more from 2008 to 2013There is an increasing trend for reported WinS coverage: 6% over 5
yearsHandwashing facility coverage is rarely reportedThe quality of WinS coverage data is questionable, including poorly defined and varying
indicatorsPart 2Many countries (48 of 54) solicit WinS information through their EMIS questionnaires
Sanitation is the most comprehensively monitored; hygiene is the leastWinS data captured in EMIS questionnaires are often underutilized (not
always
reported or accessible)
KEY POINTS
11Slide12
ConclusionRECOMMENDATIONS
Donors,
governments, and g
lobal monitoring mechanisms should
report and strengthen monitoring of
WinS
coverage
Utilize existing national EMIS data, where possible
Link to SDGs -
JMP proposes to report on
WinS
12Slide13
ConclusionRECOMMENDATIONS
Donors,
governments, and g
lobal monitoring mechanisms should
report and strengthen monitoring of
WinS
coverage
Utilize
existing national EMIS data, where possible
Link to SDGs -
JMP proposes to report on
WinS
Improve
the
quality & consistency
of national
WinS
monitoring and reporting
Agree
on clear definitions
and standards/guidelines for
WinS
, including hygiene
Expand or modify
indicators to include aspects
beyond existence of facilities, such
as
functionality
Simplify
or
reduce
the number of indicators if quantity or complexity is at the cost of quality
Build
capacity to improve data collection &
analysis
13
→
National adoption of the WinS Monitoring Package can supportAlign WinS guidelines & monitoring package to the extent possibleSlide14
AcknowledgementsThis study would not have been possible without the following contributors & peer reviewers: Christie Chatterley, Murat Sahin, Greg Keast, Robert Bain, Hiroyuki Hattori, Rolf Luyendijk, Lizette Burgers, Therese Dooley, Mac Glovinsky, Peter Harvey, Mathieu Brossard, and Louise Maule (UNICEF); and Fiona Gore (WHO).And the UNICEF country office staff who reviewed the data: Hendrik van Norden (Regional Office for South Asia), Jeremie Toubkiss (
Mali), Fiona Ward (Bangladesh), Suranga De Silva (Sri Lanka), Santepheap Heng
(Cambodia), Ian David Jones (Guyana and Suriname), Kiran Qazi (Pakistan), Zhenbo Yang (China), Mamita Bora Thakkar (India), Koenraad Vancraeynest
(Bolivia), Diego Fernando Lopez (Colombia), Jon Michael Villasenor (Philippines), Nana Pruidze (Georgia), Anu Paudyal
Gautam
(Nepal),
Shahula
Ahmed (Maldives),
Elnur
Aliyev (Azerbaijan), Douglas Abuuru (Zambia), Bishnu Timilsina (Lao PDR), Aidan Cronin (Indonesia), John-Bosco Kimuli-Sempala (Uganda), Agnes Makanyi (Kenya), Kencho Namgyal (Bhutan), Brigitte Matchinda (Cameroon), and David Simon (Mauritania).Also the WHO GLAAS contributors, UNESCO education dataset contributors, UNICEF country offices, many national ministries of education, and the JMP for providing the data that serve as the basis of the estimates published in this report.This study
is a compilation of the efforts of many working to advance WinS around the globe.Thank you
Contact: Murat
Sahin (msahin@unicef.org)Slide15
Extra slidesSlide16
Overview Introduction: objective & rationalePart 1: Global WinS coveragePart 2: Monitoring WinS through national EMISConclusion: key points & recommendations
16Slide17
Where did these averages come from?Costa Rica
SANITATION
NATIONAL
URBAN
RURAL
Source
Year
Existence of Toilets
Improved
Adequate Quantity
Single-sex
Functional
Unknown/Other
Existence of Toilets
Improved
Adequate Quantity
Single-sex
Functional
Unknown/Other
Existence of Toilets
Improved
Adequate Quantity
Single-sex
Functional
Unknown/Other
SERCE 2008
2008
61
UNICEF COAR 2009200997 UNICEF COAR 2010201094 UNICEF COAR 2011201199 UNICEF COAR 2012201299 EMIS 20132003 57 EMIS 20132004 55 EMIS 20132005 56 EMIS 20132006 55 EMIS 20132007 54 EMIS 20132008 52 EMIS 20132009 52 EMIS 20132010 54 Slope-0.23333Y-intercept522.9667functionalEMIS 20132011 57 Slope1.1Y-intercept-2114.3existenceNotes: We report the functional data since it's the most stringent indicator with data available. NATIONAL WATEREstimated 2008 and 2013 coverageYearExistence of ToiletsImprovedAdequate QuantitySingle-sexFunctionalUnknown/Other200895% 54% 2013100% 53%61%
17
Data were collected from multiple sources & analyzed using linear regression (JMP method)Slide18
Part 1: WinS coverageReporting of coverage data for water & sanitation in schools has increased by 49% and 64%, respectively, from 2008 to 2013
FINDINGS
More countries are reporting WinS coverage data each year
18Slide19
Part 1: WinS coverage2013 national estimates for water coverage in schoolsNote: use of different indicators limits cross-country comparison
Kiribati: 3% (min quantity from improved source per
student) Sierra Leone: 23% (improved source in working condition) Namibia: 81% (any water source exists)
FINDINGS
91-100%
76-90%
50-75%
< 50%
Not in study
Water coverage in schools is
less than 50% in 29 countries and over 90% in 51 countries (of 149 countries)
19Slide20
Part 1: WinS coverageRegionally, water coverage in schools is increasing in all but Southern Asia(note: data limitations are associated with these estimates)
FINDINGS
Water coverage in schools
is highest in Western Asia and lowest in Sub-Saharan Africa
20Slide21
Part 1: WinS coverage2013 national estimates for reported sanitation coverage in schoolsNote: use of different indicators limits cross-country comparison
Albania: 30% (gender-segregated functional toilets) Tanzania: 11% (at least one toilet per 20 girls & one per 25 boys)
Cambodia: 81% (existence of toilets) FINDINGS
Reported sanitation coverage in schools
is less than 50% in 36 countries and over 90% in 46 countries (of 147 countries)
91-100%
76-90%
50-75%
< 50%
Not in study
21Slide22
Part 1: WinS coverageRegionally, reported water coverage in schools is increasing in all but Northern Africa(note: data limitations are associated with these estimates)
FINDINGS
Reported sanitation coverage in schools is
highest in Western Asia and lowest in Sub-Saharan Africa
22Slide23
Part 2: Improving EMISOn average, 31% of the total recommended parameters are included in EMIS questionnaires
Average score of 4 out of 13 parametersNOTE: WinS
in EMIS questionnaires doesn’t necessarily mean data are analyzed and reportedFINDINGS
23Slide24
Part 2: Improving EMISFINDINGS
Parameter
Recommended questions
Examples of national EMIS questions
Quality
1:
What is the school’s main water source? (distinguishes improved vs unimproved)
4:
Do you treat water from the source you use at school in any way to make it safer to drink?
Bangladesh:
Potable water supply (select): public supply or tap/ tube well/ pond/ river; Is the water free from Arsenic?
Burundi:
Access to potable water: yes/no
Zimbabwe:
Water source, type of water treatment, type of water system/device
Proximity
1:
What is the school’s main water source? (
option:
“no
water available in or near school”)
Uganda:
Distance to nearest main water source (select one): <1km/ 1-2km/ 2.1-3km/ 3.1-4km/ 4.1-5km/ >5km)
Niger:
Does the school have a water point on premises?
Functionality
2:
How often is the water source functional?
Lao PDR:
Is
water
supply functional
throughout
year?
Guinea:
water source:
#
in good condition (in use__, not__);
# in poor condition (in use__, not__)Cote d’Ivoire: Does the school have a water point on premises? (select): running water tap/ well/ functional borehole/ no waterQuantity3: When the water source is functional does is provide enough water for the needs of the school, including water for drinking, handwashing, food preparation?Bhutan: sufficient water supply all year (yes/no); reason for insufficient water supply:____Belize: when the water source is functional, does it provide enough water for the needs of the school? (yes/no/not functional)Accessibility6: Are drinking water facilities accessible to children with physical disabilities?Myanmar: is there a functional water point accessible to children with disabilities?24Slide25
Part 2: Improving EMISFINDINGS
Parameter
Recommended questions
Examples of national EMIS questions
Quantity
2:
How many toilet compartments are there in the school for children?
3:
Does the school
have
urinals?
Cote d’Ivoire:
Number of holes: boys__, girls__, mixed__
Malawi:
Number of flush toilets in use, number of pit latrine drop holes in use (improved__, basic__), number of urinal blocks
Functionality
2:
(the request for number of toilets is separated by functional / not functional)
India:
Number of functional toilet seats (minimal odor, unbroken seat, regularly cleaned dry, working drainage system, accessible to users, closable door): boys only__, girls only__
Burundi:
State of latrines (functional/non-functional)
Gender
2:
(the request for number of toilets is separated by exclusively for girls / exclusively for boys / communal)
Burkina Faso:
Are the girls’ latrines separated from boys?
Chad:
#
of latrines/WCs: boys__, girls__, mixed__, all__
Gambia:
Number of girls’ toilets: __; distance (m) between boys’ and girls’ toilets
Accessibility
5:
Are toilets accessible to children with physical disabilities?
Iraq:
Seats and facilities for pupils with special needs are available
Bangladesh:
Number of usable latrines for disabledQuality1: Does the school have any toilet facilities? (the only options provided to check yes are “improved” facilities)Malawi: Number of pit latrine drop holes in use: improved__, basic__Lao PDR: What type of toilets are at the school?25Slide26
Part 2: Improving EMISFINDINGS
Parameter
Recommended
questions
Examples of national EMIS questions
Functionality
2:
(the request for number of handwashing stations is separated by functional / not)
Timor-Leste:
Number and condition of handwashing facilities: good__, bad__, urgent__
Togo:
Does the school have functional handwashing stations?
Hygiene taught
4:
Is hygiene taught in the school?
Swaziland:
Are you teaching health and hygiene as (select): a separate subject/ part of another subject/ no
Iraq:
Does the school arrange periodic awareness symposia about general and personal hygiene practices
Soap
3:
Is sufficient soap (or ash) available?
Myanmar:
Is there soap (or ash) available for students in the school?
Belize:
Is sufficient soap available? (always/ sometimes/ never)
26Slide27
Part 2: Improving EMISMore examples from the review of 3 education annual reports
FINDINGS
Report
WinS data reported
WinS data collected
Ethiopia
(2012/13)
Proportion of schools with access to water
Proportion of schools with a
tap
Proportion of schools with a well
Does the school have water supply? (y/n)
if yes (select): tap / well, drill / river, spring / other____
Uganda
(2011)
National and Regional ratios of number of students per toilet
(
averaged for the nation and regions)
Number of latrine blocks: In use:__; Not in use: __
Number of latrine stances (for all blocks in use)
with doors: teachers__, girls__, boys__, mixed__, total__;
with shutters: teachers_, girls_, boys__, mixed__, total__;
without doors/shutters: teachers_, g_, b_, mixed_, total__
Bhutan
(2013)
Number of permanent and semi-permanent (separately):
Flush-toilets (cubicles)___, ___ How many used___
Pit-toilets (holes)___, ___ How many used___
Aqua-privy toilets (cubicles)___, ___ How many used___
27Slide28
IntroductionWhy Monitor Globally?
RATIONALE
28
*Source:
http://www.wssinfo.org/about-the-jmp/monitoring/
Measure
global trends and identify major
challenges
Inform global processes for the allocation of aid
flows
Support awareness-raising and
advocacy
Help to identify countries without monitoring
frameworks
Provide a framework to determine how national monitoring can be
supportedSlide29
Part 1: WinS coverageReported WinS coverage data is currently scattered between multiple sources:
UNICEF: COARs and Regional Snapshots
UNESCO: Education dataset (Africa only) and SERCE data (Latin America only)WHO: GLAAS datasetOther sources (e.g. National education reports (EMIS),
the WinS mapping website, UNICEF WASH program officers, and surveys not captured
by
other
sources
)
Gap:
a study that compiles WinS coverage data from all available data sets to provide comprehensive global estimates and trends
BACKGROUND29Slide30
Part 1: WinS coverageNational data were gathered from available (accessible) sources; 149
countries in totalData were
reviewed for major inconsistenciesSecondary estimates were verified against primary data sources (e.g. EMIS) when possible Data were analyzed using linear
regression (method used by JMP)Similar indicators were grouped & analyzed separately
e.g. coverage of
functional
water source
in schools vs
. only the existence of a water source
Final estimates were shared with UNICEF Country Offices for their consent
METHODS30
* For more details on the data review process, see the spreadsheet at http://www.unicef.org/wash/schools/Slide31
Part 1: WinS coverageReported data on handwashing facility coverage in schools is scarce
FINDINGS
31
Country
Most
recent reported data (%)
Afghanistan
12
Angola
0
Botswana
13
Burundi
10
Ethiopia
7
Malawi
4
Rwanda
37
Tanzania
1
Uganda
37
India
42
Costa Rica
64
Average
21
Data on school handwashing facilities were available
(easily
accessible) for
11
countries
On average, reported coverage of handwashing facilities in schools is 21
%
some countries also consider soap availability
Of course, facilities are only one component of school hygieneSlide32
Part 1: WinS coverageOn average, reported water coverage in schools is lower than household coverage reported in the JMP, while reported
sanitation coverage in schools is higher than household coverage
FINDINGS
Region
Water
Sanitation
School coverage (%)
Household coverage
(%)
School coverage (%)
Household coverage
(%)
World
69
89
66
64
Developing countries
68
87
64
57
Least developed countries
51
65
47
36
Developed countries
89
99
90
96
*Household data from JMP
2013 update
32Slide33
Part 2: Improving EMISEMIS questionnaires were gathered from as many countries as possible
54 countries were included in the analysisQuestionnaires were compared to guidelines, assigning 1 point for each parameter included
The frequencies of each parameter were examined to identify gaps
METHODS
Note: Only questionnaires that included WASH were scored
N
o score =
WASH was not included in any way
Score of 0 =
WASH was included but none of the recommended parameters
(e.g. Does the school have water?)
33Slide34
Part 2: Improving EMISQuantity refers to the number of toilets
Functionality refers to functional/usable toilets24 countries ask the number of functional toilets
Gender refers to girls-only toilets24 countries ask the number of girls-only toiletsAccessibility refers to toilets for students with disabilities
2 countries ask the number of “accessible” toilets
Quality
refers to “improved” toilets (based on type)
surprisingly few countries capture considering JMP
FINDINGS
34
Quantity
is the most commonly monitored
sanitation parameterSlide35
Part 2: Improving EMISQuality refers to “improved, potable”
4 countries’ EMIS ask about treatment or actual qualityProximity refers to “at, near, within” the school
2 countries ask about actual distance to the water sourceFunctionality refers to “usable, good condition, functional”
Includes functionality throughout the year and/or current state Quantity refers to
“sufficient, adequate, satisfactory”
Doesn’t include number of water points only
Accessibility
is only captured by Myanmar and Yemen
FINDINGS
35
Quality is the most commonly monitored water
parameterSlide36
Part 2: Improving EMISFunctionality refers to functional handwashing facilities
5 countries ask the number of functional facilitiesHygiene taught questions range from if hygiene is taught as a separate subject to if the school arranges periodic hygiene symposia
Soap refers to if soap is available at the school2 of the countries also include ash as alternative
FINDINGS
36
Handwashing facility functionality is the most commonly monitored hygiene parameter; soap provision is the leastSlide37
Part 2: Improving EMISWinS in EMIS questionnaires doesn’t necessarily mean data are analyzed and reported
Information requested is not always reportedUnit of analysis is not always school-level
FINDINGS
Report
WinS data reported
WinS data collected
Uganda
(2011)
National and Regional ratios of number of students per toilet
(
averaged for the nation and regions)
Number of latrine blocks: In use:__; Not in use: __
Number of latrine stances (for all blocks in use)
with doors: teachers__, girls__, boys__, mixed__, total__;
with shutters: teachers_, girls_, boys__, mixed__, total__;
without doors/shutters: teachers_, g_, b_, mixed_, total__
37