|WASH II Report on QIS data analysis: Findings from the first round 2012-2013
|Year of Publication
|Jacimovic, R, Ahmed, M, Bostoen, K
|IRC and BRAC
|The Hague, The Netherlands and Dhaka, Bangladesh
This report contains the results of the new 25 sub-districts of the BRAC WASH II programme areas at the beginning of the intervention. The data presented in this report was collected with the Qualitative Information System (QIS) from representative sample upazilas from 25 new upazilas of the WASH II programme which started in April 2012. BRAC WASH II, funded by the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (EKN) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), is operating in 25 exceptionally challenging new areas (such as wetlands, areas with high water tables, coastal areas with saline intrusion in water supply) with the objective to provide integrated and sustainable water, sanitation and hygiene services to underserved populations and in hard to reach areas. In addition to that, WASH II is continuing activities in 152 upazilas of the WASH I phase to ensure sustainability. The results from the old upazilas are in a separate report. 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). In total 14 parameters were measured: household sanitation, hygiene and water safety (7 parameters), management of village WASH committees (VWCs) (2 parameters), school sanitation (4 parameters) and rural sanitation centres (RSCs) (1 parameter).
The representative study consisted of 3722 households in a three-stage cluster sample survey, and 19 schools, 149 VWCs and 73 (RSCs) in a three-stage cluster survey. Households have been classified as ultra-poor (UP), poor (P) and non-poor (NP). All selected households visited were willing to participate in the survey so there were no non-response errors. The sample frame “errors” was higher although not significant. These were due to households moving to other areas and a “lack” of ultra-poor households in some VWC clusters. 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 described in the survey design.
The baseline shows that the best results are for hygiene of girls’ toilets in schools as well as household toilet use at all times. Teams observed that almost three-quarter of the sample (73% and 72%) scored above benchmark for these two parameters respectively. Use by all able to use latrines came third with 70%, but needs to be corrected for those cases where excreta needs to be brought to the latrine, e.g. for babies, infants and sometimes old people and people with a disability. Boys’ toilets scored much lower (at position six out of 14). Menstrual hygiene provisions at school took a middle position (five out of 15). Observed quality and hygiene of household toilets was in the lower group (at position ten) for three reasons: observed faecal soiling, broken water seals and presence of single pits.
As expected in a programme that has recently been set up the institutional scores were at the lower end. Gender equity in VWCs came 12th and administrative performance (including cooperation with local government) came 11th. The 9th and 8th position respectively were for the presence and performance of student brigades, and the performance of school WASH committees.