|Title||WASH I Report on QIS data analysis: Findings from the second round 2014|
|Publication Type||Progress Report|
|Year of Publication||2015|
|Authors||Ahmed, M, Gazi, AFAhammed, Islam, M|
|Publisher||IRC and BRAC|
|Place Published||The Hague, The Netherlands and Dhaka, Bangladesh|
The BRAC WASH programme was launched in May 2006 in 152 upazilas (WASH I area) of Bangladesh to contribute to the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by providing integrated water services, sanitation and hygiene promotion in collaboration with government and other stakeholders. Today BRAC WASH works with whole communities in 250 upazilas with a special emphasis on poor and ultra-poor households that do not have access to safe water supply and sanitary latrines.
From its conception monitoring played a crucial role and new additions and adaptations were made several times for the improvement of the programme. Programme inputs and outputs were measured routinely from the beginning, but there was a need to measure the performance of the programme as well as changes in the behaviour of the individuals and households. That’s why the Qualitative Information System (QIS) was introduced in the programme which measures the programme’s performance using progressive scales. The data was collected from representative sample upazilas.
The first performance monitoring round for 177 upazilas took place in 2012-13 and the 2nd round took place in 2014-15.This report contains the results of two outcome monitoring rounds in the WASH I areas of the BRAC WASH programme where the programme has been working for the past eight years.
The results from the Village WASH Committee (VWC) indicators show that a large number of the drinking water sources supported by BRAC are functional (87%). As in the previous round almost all the VWCs are active and women are actively participating in the meetings.
Household indicator results are mixed. 95% of households drink water that is arsenic free and only 29% of the households properly managed water from source to cup.78% of the households have access to a hygienic latrine and almost all the members of the households that have a latrine are regularly using it. Not much has changed for these two indicators compared with the previous round though the provision of hand washing in and around the latrine reduced substantially in this round (78% vs. 62%). Rigorous hygiene promotion activities are needed to improve this situation.
Sludge management after latrines were filled up shows a trend for burying the contents (78%) and a small percentage (3%) across all wealth categories have begun to use the compost productively. Non-poor households scored less at and above benchmark than households from other wealth categories indicating this group needs more attention in hygiene promotion activities on sludge management. Scores above benchmark were higher in the previous round. It seems that respondents stated the ideal rather than the reality in the first round and that scores are more realistic in the second round.
Almost twice as many girls’ latrines provided jointly by BRAC WASH and the school authority scored higher in cleanliness in comparison to boys’ latrines (70% vs. 34%). 91% of the latrines provided by BRAC and the school authority are regularly being used by the girls. However, 3% of latrines provided by BRAC and the school authority were found not in use due to new construction or renovation at the school premises and 6% of school latrines were found not to be separate. 71% of schools have disposal facilities and water available in the latrines while 60% of schools have adequate funds for operation and maintenance. The percentages were 82% and 66% for the previous round.
The findings on the Rural Sanitation Centres show that centres which received loan and training from BRAC are doing better than those which received only training (52% vs. 38% at benchmark). The percentages were 80% and 52% in the previous round. However, 26% of the BRAC supported centres (receiving loan and orientation) are not in business anymore. A reason may be that due to the increase in sanitation coverage demand for their work has dropped.