|Title||WASH I report on QIS data analysis : findings from the first round 2012 - 2013|
|Publication Type||Progress Report|
|Year of Publication||2014|
|Authors||Jacimovic, R, Ahmed, M, Bostoen, K|
|Pagination||35 p. : 14 fig., 24 tab.|
|Publisher||IRC and BRAC|
|Place Published||The Hague, The Netherlands and Dhaka, Bangladesh|
This report contains the results of the WASH I areas of the WASH II programme after five years of intervention. The data was collected with the Qualitative Information System (QIS) in representative sample studies, in the old WASH I areas.
QIS makes it possible to collect quantitative data on qualitative aspects, such as participation, gender and behavioural change. QIS uses descriptive scales ranging from level 0 (condition/practice not present) to level 4 (four key programme defined criteria present). 15 parameters were measured: household sanitation, hygiene and water safety (7), management by Village WASH Committees (VWCs) (3) school sanitation (4) and Rural Sanitation Centres (1).
The representative study consisted of 3,767 WASH I households in a three-stage cluster sample survey, and 380 schools, 150 VWCs and 230 Rural Sanitation Centres (RSCs) in a two-stage cluster survey. Households have been classified as ultra-poor (UP), poor (P) and non-poor (NP). There were no non-response errors as predicted by the BRAC WASH survey staff. The sample frame “errors” proved higher than expected. These were due to a lack of households in some clusters for certain wealth categories. For example, instead of expecting nine or more ultra-poor households in a village WASH cluster only five could be found. These errors were corrected by weighting the data as intended in the survey design.
After five years the best results are for toilet use. Teams observed that 98% of the sample households has access to a latrine with at least one concrete ring and slab, which 93% reported to use at all times including during heavy rain or floods (answers probed for reliability). Use by all able to use latrines came second with 90%, but needs to be corrected for those cases where excreta need to be brought to the latrine, e.g. for babies, infants and sometimes old people and people with a disability. Observed hygiene of the girls’ toilets in schools was the third best result. Boys’ toilets scored much lower at position 12 out of 15. Menstrual hygiene provisions took a middle position (sixth out of 15). 2% of surveyed schools have no toilets and only 3% of schools have no separate toilets for girls. Observed quality and hygiene of private toilets was in the lower group at position nine for three reasons: observed faecal soiling, broken water seals and presence of single pits. (The programme promotes double pit toilets to reduce sludge problems and to enhance safe soil productivity). Broken water seals occur amongst others in drought-prone locations where women must walk much farther to collect water for hygiene and flushing (ref. demand and supply study and QIS quality control).
Institutional scores were also at the higher end. Gender equity in VWCs came third and administrative performance (including cooperation with local government) came fifth. The seventh and eighth positions respectively were for the establishment and functioning of student brigades, which promote hygiene behaviour, and the performance of school WASH committees.