Advancing WinS Monitoring Promoting improved coverage of WASH in Schools through global monitoring Christie Chatterley & Robert Bain 27 October, 2015 UNC

Advancing WinS MonitoringPromoting improved coverage of WASH in Schools through global monitoring

Christie Chatterley & Robert Bain 27 October, 2015

UNC Water & Health Conference

2

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

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…”

Introduction In response to the points of actions outlined in the Global Call to Action, this study:

1. Presents the best reported WinS coverage data available• Global, regional and national estimates based on

149 countries• Coverage trends• Review of data quality

2. Examines current national WinS monitoring• What 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 ago

Part 1: WinS coverage

Globally, both water & sanitation coverage in schools increased by 6% from 2008 to 2013

Reported coverage is increasing more rapidly in LDCs: 9% over 5 yrs for both water and sanitation

Reported data on handwashing facility coverage are scarce: readily available from 11 countries (21%)

FINDINGS

Global Least-developed countries

0

20

40

60

80

100

65

43

71

52

2008 2013

Aver

age

cove

rage

(%)

4

Global Least-developed countries

0

20

40

60

80

100

63

42

6951

2008 2013

Aver

age

cove

rage

(%)

Reported sanitation coverage in schoolsReported water coverage in schools

Where did these averages come from?

Source YearWater source

Improved/ Potable

FunctionalUnknown/

OtherGLAAS 2012 2011DISE (EMIS) 2007 84DISE (EMIS) 2008 85DISE (EMIS) 2009 92DISE (EMIS) 2010 91DISE (EMIS) 2011 93DISE (EMIS) 2012 94ASER 2005 79 67ASER 2007 84 75ASER 2009 84 75ASER 2010 83 73ASER 2011 83 74ASER 2012 83 73 Improved Slope 0.8726415 Y-intercept -1667.4528ASER 2013 85 74 Functional Slope 0.5449102 Y-intercept -1022.0359

YearWater source

Improved/ Potable

FunctionalUnknown/

Other2008 85% 72%2013 89% 75%

NATIONAL WATEREstimated 2008 and 2013 coverage

IndiaWATER

NATIONAL

Notes: COAR data are from DISE (EMIS), so we used the data directly from the DISE Flash Statistics reports 2009-2014. The indicator is schools that have "a drinking water facility." We categorize these under improved/potable since "drinking" water is asked about specifically. The ASER report indicator is schools that have "a drinking water facility" and schools where drinking water is available, which we've categorized under functional. We use functional since it is the most stringent indicator. This should indicate functional & improved based on the above discussion.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Improved/potable FunctionalLinear (Improved/potable) Linear (Functional)

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)


There are a number of data quality concerns

Unexplainable variation in data from different sources

Inconsistent, varying & often unknown indicators used

Same out-of-date data reported annually (skews trends)

Decreasing trends may actually be better monitoring

DISCUSSION

6

59%9%

28%

4% 1%

UnknownExistenceImproved/PotableFunctionalOther

Water indicators

53%20%

7%3%

10%6% Unknown

ExistenceImprovedAdequate QuantitySingle-sexFunctionalOther

Sanitation indicators


As 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.

Part 2: Improving EMIS

We 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 includedBACKGROUND

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

1.Functionality 2.Proximity 3.Quantity 4.Quality 5.Accessibility

SanitationThe number of functional toilets and urinals for girls, boys and teachers meet national standards, and are accessible to children with disabilities

1.Quantity 2.Functionality 3.Gender 4.Quality 5.Accessibility

HygieneFunctional handwashing facilities and soap (or ash) are available for girls and boys in the school and hygiene is taught

1.Functionality 2.Soap 3.Hygiene taught

8


Many 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

Sanitation

Water

Hygiene

0 1 2 3 4 5

2.3

1.8

1.0

Average score

Win

S co

mpo

nent

(47% of total score possible)



Sanitation is the most comprehensively monitored component in EMIS


FINDINGS

10

QuantityFunctionality

GenderAccessibility

Quality0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

3932

306

5

Number of countries that include parameter (of 48)

Para

met

er

Quantity is the most commonly monitored sanitation parameter

QualityProximity

FunctionalityQuantity

Accessibility0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

3422

218

2


Para

met

er

Quality is the most commonly monitored water parameter

FunctionalityHygiene taught

Soap0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

104

3


Para

met

er

Handwashing facility functionality is the most commonly monitored hygiene parameter; soap provision is the least

ConclusionPart 1

• More countries are reporting WinS coverage data each year; about 50% more from 2008 to 2013

• There is an increasing trend for reported WinS coverage: 6% over 5 years

• Handwashing facility coverage is rarely reported

• The quality of WinS coverage data is questionable, including poorly defined and varying indicators

Part 2

• Many countries (48 of 54) solicit WinS information through their EMIS questionnaires

• Sanitation is the most comprehensively monitored; hygiene is the least

• WinS data captured in EMIS questionnaires are often underutilized (not always reported or accessible)

KEY POINTS

11

Conclusion

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Donors, governments, and global 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

12

Conclusion

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Donors, governments, and global 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

2. 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 support

Align WinS guidelines & monitoring package to the extent possible

Acknowledgements

This 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 youContact: Murat Sahin ([email protected])

Extra slides

Overview

• Introduction: objective & rationale

• Part 1: Global WinS coverage

• Part 2: Monitoring WinS through national EMIS

• Conclusion: key points & recommendations

16

Where did these averages come from?

Source YearExistence of Toilets

ImprovedAdequate Quantity

Single-sex FunctionalUnknown/

Other

SERCE 2008 2008 61UNICEF COAR 2009 2009 97UNICEF COAR 2010 2010 94UNICEF COAR 2011 2011 99UNICEF COAR 2012 2012 99EMIS 2013 2003 57EMIS 2013 2004 55EMIS 2013 2005 56EMIS 2013 2006 55EMIS 2013 2007 54EMIS 2013 2008 52EMIS 2013 2009 52EMIS 2013 2010 54 functional Slope -0.23333 Y-intercept 522.9667EMIS 2013 2011 57 existence Slope 1.1 Y-intercept -2114.3

YearExistence of Toilets

ImprovedAdequate Quantity

Single-sex FunctionalUnknown/

Other2008 95% 54%2013 100% 53% 61%

NATIONAL WATEREstimated 2008 and 2013 coverage

Costa Rica SANITATIONNATIONAL

Notes: We report the functional data since it's the most stringent indicator with data available.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Existence Functional Unknown

Linear (Existence) Linear (Functional)

17

Data were collected from multiple sources & analyzed using linear regression (JMP method)


Reporting of coverage data for water & sanitation in schools has increased by 49% and 64%, respectively, from 2008 to 2013

FINDINGS

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

8998

110

130 130 133

7684

100

124 126 125

WaterSanitation

Year

Num

ber o

f UN

ICEF

cou

ntrie

s who

repo

rt

Win

S co

vera

ge

More countries are reporting WinS coverage data each year

18


2013 national estimates for water coverage in schools

Note: 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)

19

Part 1: WinS coverage Regionally, water coverage in schools is increasing

in all but Southern Asia

(note: data limitations are associated with these estimates)FINDINGS

0

20

40

60

80

100

45

61 6472

59 56 59

8288

5463

6879

74 70 7485

922008 2013

Region

Aver

age

wat

er c

over

age

(%)

Water coverage in schools is highest in Western Asia and lowest in Sub-Saharan Africa

20


2013 national estimates for reported sanitation coverage in schools

Note: 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

21

Part 1: WinS coverage Regionally, reported water coverage in schools is

increasing in all but Northern Africa

(note: data limitations are associated with these estimates)FINDINGS

0

20

40

60

80

100

45 4859 62

48

6876

87 84

53 57 60 6369 70

7987 882008 2013

Region

Aver

age

sani

tatio

n co

vera

ge (%

)

Reported sanitation coverage in schools is highest in Western Asia and lowest in Sub-Saharan Africa

22


On average, 31% of the total recommended parameters are included in EMIS questionnaires

Average score of 4 out of 13 parameters

NOTE: WinS in EMIS questionnaires doesn’t necessarily mean data are analyzed and reported

FINDINGS

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 130

2

4

6

8

10

12

9

1

5

10

7 76 6

0 01

0

2

0

Total Score

Num

ber o

f cou

ntrie

s

23


FINDINGS

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/noZimbabwe: Water source, type of water treatment, type of water system/device

Proximity1: 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 water

Quantity

3: 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?

24


FINDINGS


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

Functionality2: (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

Accessibility5: Are toilets accessible to children with physical disabilities?

Iraq: Seats and facilities for pupils with special needs are availableBangladesh: Number of usable latrines for disabled

Quality

1: 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?

25


FINDINGS


Functionality2: (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/ noIraq: 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)

26

Part 2: Improving EMIS More 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 tapProportion 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___

27

Introduction

Why 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 supported


Reported 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 dataset

Other 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

BACKGROUND

29


National data were gathered from available (accessible) sources; 149 countries in total

Data were reviewed for major inconsistencies

Secondary 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

METHODS

30* For more details on the data review process, see the spreadsheet at http://www.unicef.org/wash/schools/

http://www.unicef.org/wash/schools/


Reported data on handwashing facility coverage in schools is scarceFINDINGS

31

Country Most recent reported data (%)

Afghanistan 12Angola 0Botswana 13Burundi 10Ethiopia 7Malawi 4Rwanda 37Tanzania 1Uganda 37India 42Costa Rica 64Average 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 hygiene


On 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

RegionWater 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 32

Part 2: Improving EMIS EMIS questionnaires were gathered from as many

countries as possible→ 54 countries were included in the analysis

Questionnaires 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 scoredNo score = WASH was not included in any wayScore of 0 = WASH was included but none of the recommended parameters

(e.g. Does the school have water?)

33


Quantity refers to the number of toilets

Functionality refers to functional/usable toilets 24 countries ask the number of functional toilets

Gender refers to girls-only toilets 24 countries ask the number of girls-only toilets

Accessibility 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

Functionality

Gender

Accessibility

Quality0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

39

32

30

6

5


Para

met

er

Quantity is the most commonly monitored sanitation parameter


Quality refers to “improved, potable” 4 countries’ EMIS ask about treatment or actual quality

Proximity refers to “at, near, within” the school 2 countries ask about actual distance to the water source

Functionality 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

ProximityFunctionality

Quantity

Accessibility0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

34

2221

8

2


Para

met

er

Quality is the most commonly monitored water parameter


Functionality refers to functional handwashing facilities 5 countries ask the number of functional facilities

Hygiene 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 school 2 of the countries also include ash as alternative

FINDINGS

36

Functionality

Hygiene taught

Soap

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

10

4

3

Number of countries that include parameter (of 17)Pa

ram

eter

Handwashing facility functionality is the most commonly monitored hygiene parameter; soap provision is the least


WinS in EMIS questionnaires doesn’t necessarily mean data are analyzed and reported

Information requested is not always reported Unit 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

Documents

Advancing WinS Monitoring Promoting improved coverage of WASH in Schools through global monitoring Christie Chatterley & Robert Bain 27 October, 2015 UNC