This is a SWASH+ photo essay on access to clean water.

2. Rivers, lakes and creeks are
widely used by students and
the community as their main
source of water.
Before God Aburo Primary
School received a borehole as
part of the SWASH+ Project, this
muddy and stagnant creek was
used for drinking and
handwashing water.

3. SWASH+ baseline data
revealed that the average
distance to primary water
source in the rainy season was
232 meters (.14 miles) for all
schools, but during the dry
season the average distance
students would travel was
1,223 meters (.78 miles) for
water.
The distance and time
students must travel for water
can impact their attendance
and performance at school.

4. In some schools without water access, pupils
must bring water from home in order to drink
and wash their hands throughout the day.
Teachers are concerned that this system makes
it difficult to ensure water quality.

5. Schools need on-site access
for when rivers, lakes and
wells run dry or prove to be
too far away.
Rainwater harvesting
provides one option.

6. Boreholes on school grounds
can also provide easy access
to safe water. SWASH+
provided improved water
sources, such as rainwater
harvesting systems and
boreholes to assess the
impact of improved school
water, sanitation and
hygiene.
A SWASH+ study found a
66% reduction in
diarrheal prevalence and
a similar reduction in days
of illness among pupils in
“water scarce” schools that
received water
supply, hygiene
promotion, water treatment
and sanitation, compared to
pupils in water scarce control
schools (Freeman, 2012).

7. Access to a water source is not
enough to improve students’
health and attendance—water
must be consistently treated in
order to be safe for drinking, and
it must be provided every day.
Schools received water storage
containers and WaterGuard, a
water chlorination solution, as
part of an intervention package to
improve school WASH.
However, an evaluation two years
later found that only 36% of
school provided drinking water on
the day of the visit. Twenty
percent of schools reported
treating drinking water, but only
9% had measurable levels of
chlorine.
The top reasons for not treating
the school drinking water were
related to cost or low priority
(Saboori, 2010).

8. Water vessel taps frequently break, making water storage difficult.
Funding to repair the taps is very limited and prioritization of these
repairs over other school needs is low.

9. Keeping the school water containers clean can also be a
struggle, especially without soap or necessary supplies.

10. Water access, consistent provision, and daily
treatment are all crucial. Schools need the
resources for initial infrastructure
investments for boreholes and water storage
containers, but also recurrent funds for
infrastructure maintenance and purchase of
consumables like WaterGuard and soap.

11. References
Freeman, MC., Clasen, T., Dreibelbis, R., Saboori, S., Greene, L., & Rheingans, R.
(2012).‘The impact of a school-based water supply and
treatment, hygiene, and sanitation program on pupil diarrhea: A cluster-
randomized trial’
Saboori, S., Mwaki, A., & Rheingans, R. ‘Is soapy water a viable solution for
handwashing in schools?’ Waterlines 29:4.
Photography by CARE/Brendan Bannon. Photo essay by Julie Straw; edited by
Malaika Cheney-Coker.
SWASH+ is a five-year applied research project to identify, develop, and test
innovative approaches to school-based water, sanitation and hygiene in
Nyanza Province, Kenya. The partners that form the SWASH+ consortium
are CARE, Emory University, the Great Lakes University of Kisumu, the
government of Kenya, and the former Kenya Water for Health Organisation
(KWAHO), and Water.org. SWASH+ is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation and the Global Water Challenge. For more information, visit
www.swashplus.org.