“While rural populations generally have lower levels of access, the sanitation associated risk may be greater for the urban poor” (2012)average under 5 mortality rate quoted above comes from water aid report 2008According to the World Health Organization, every US$1 spent on improving water supply and sanitation produces economic gains of at least US$5 and perhaps as much as US$28, depending on local circumstances. Investment in hygiene promotion, sanitation and water services is the most cost-effective ways of reducing child mortality.(2011)Can double impact of sanitation facilities alone by adding hygiene promotion (3ie, 2009)
We protect our families from diarrhea. We wash our hands with soap every time.Wash your hands with soap every time, especially at these important times.
In this case we are talking about social entrepreneurship not just entrepreneurship because these businesses also help to push hygiene education in addition to making money for the women entrepreneurs
1. Impact of Hygiene Training andPromotion on Health Outcomes and Facility Usage in an Urban Slum By Dr. Renée A Botta and Dr. Karen C. Loeb University of Denver
2. Kenya & Kibera• About 34% of Kenyans live in urban areas, with approximately 2.5 million living in Nairobi.• The urban poor make up 55% of Nairobi’s total population and occupy 5% of the total residential land area.• Kibera is an informal settlement situated on the southwestern part of the city of Nairobi.• The square mile of Kibera comprises 11 villages and is home to over half a million people living in slum conditions of single rooms mostly made of mud and corrugated iron sheets.
3. Poor Sanitation, water quality and hygiene increase child mortality• About 4 billion cases of diarrhea per year cause about 1.8 million deaths, mostly among children.• Diarrhea is the second largest killer of children, accounting for approximately 21% of deaths of children under 5.
4. Kibera Informal Settlement (Nairobi, Kenya) • Unsafe water, inadequate sanitation and poor hygiene cause 88% of diarrheal cases according to The World Health Organization (WHO). • In Kibera, the mortality rate for children under 5 is 19%.The average under-five child mortality rateacross eight informal settlements ofNairobi, Kenya, is 35% higher than thenational figure. In some of the slums, childmortality rates are more than twice therural figure.
5. Our solutionResearch indicates investment in hygiene promotion,sanitation and water services is the most cost-effectiveway to reduce child mortality.Every US$1 spent on improving water supply and sanitationproduces economic gains of at least US$5 and perhaps asmuch as US$28, depending on local circumstances.Adding hygiene promotion can double the impact ofsanitation facilities aloneWe believe the high failure rate for adequate wat/san is adirect result of settling merely for the construction offacilities as the desired outcome, which is why we use amulti-faceted approach that links entrepreneurship,business processes and planning, governance and hygienepromotion to improved access to water and sanitation.
6. Project BackgroundGlobal WASHES is a community-based research collaboration of University of Denver (DU) faculty and graduate students, Nairobi-based water and sanitation organization Maji na Ufanisi, the Rotary Club of Denver Southeast, and faculty and students from universities in Nairobi.Our first goal is to develop and test a model of sustainable and scalable water and sanitation (wat/san) facilities through research and capacity building in Kibera, an informal settlement in Nairobi, Kenya.Our second goal is to maximally empower Kiberans as wat/san advocates, colleagues, entrepreneurs, and facility managers.We have 8 facilities in the Silanga Village of Kibera, originally funded by a substantial 3-H Grant from Rotary International.We also have new facilities funded by the Hungarian Embassy and the Swedish Embassy in another village in Kibera as well as an informal settlement in Mombasa.We work with Community Health Workers (CHWs), which have been established by the Kenyan Ministry for Public Health & Sanitation, and with women’s groups and other community based organizations (CBOs).
7. Areas of Research• Health and Hygiene Training • Hygiene KAP (Knowledge, Attitudes, Practices) • Behavior Change with Theory • Hygiene Messaging • Health Communication • Income Generation as Hygiene Motivator• Business Planning • Standard Operating Procedures • Project Management Oversight • Usage and Financial (E & R) Records • Break-Even Analysis for Enterprises • Positive Net Margin Drivers • Social Entrepreneurship and Social Franchising • Sustainability Assessment (3 P’s)• Local Governance • Organizational Structure and Dynamics • Cooperation with Utilities • Geographical Mapping • Communication • Social Capital
8. Hygiene Education & Promotion  Proper hand washing and water purification is imperative in reducing diarrhea and ultimately saving lives  Research has shown proper hand washing can reduce the incidence of diarrhea by 40%  We sought to develop a campaign to promote the adoption of hygiene behaviors known to reduce the incidence of diarrhea  One major problem with using social marketing behavior change campaigns in developing countries is that after the intervention is completed and researchers leave, the falloff rate for behaviors is very high.  Some researchers have suggested that sustaining healthy behaviors requires continuous monitoring and promotion, as well as ongoing community mobilization.  We suggest that linking entrepreneurial hygiene endeavors is another way to sustain behaviors
9. Our Hygiene PromotionParticipatory, community influenced, train-the-trainer approachThe facilities provide a platform for community-run hygiene trainings.Hygiene practices tend to fade once promotion ends; however, our modelincentivizes ongoing hygiene promotion and trainingTrainers motivated to continue training because can make money sellingliquid soap, water purification, and other hygiene-promotion relateditems.Another key incentive for continuing hygiene practices is the reduction indiarrhea within the community and the associated socio-economic gainrelated to increased attendance at school and work.Training includes: hygiene and health connections, hygiene practices inthe community, hand washing songs, role playing for peer education andbehavior modeling, making soap, making safe water storage containers,making hand washing stations, and making hygiene promotion messages.
10. Linking hygiene promotion to social entrepreneurship• Formative research conducted to design the hygiene training to be tailored to the community indicated cost and control over the environment were the major barriers to practicing good hygiene• Thus, we sought to reduce those barriers in sustainable ways• Further, the research revealed liquid soap to be cost- effective to produce and a chlorine water pruification treatment to be cost effective to sell in individual doses• Community health workers (CHWs) and community members were interested in exploring soap making and water purification sales as small business/microenterprise ventures.
11. Methods in Brief• Household surveys conducted to establish baseline and to learn more about the community for tailoring the hygiene training• Baseline health data also collected from AMREF• Facilities (and thus neighborhoods around facilities) randomly assigned• Training conducted• Messages printed, placed in facilities and given to CHWs• Post-test household surveys conducted as well as community observations• 3 months after post-test household surveys conducted, post, post-test household surveys conducted, as well as community observations• Facility data collected monthly• Monitoring and evaluation continues• Health data from AMREF collected quarterly
12. Outcomes: Usage Total Usage 2500 2000Number of Uses 1500 Nyando 41 1000 Jola MSF Kisinga 500 Okere Wamunyu 0
14. Outcomes: hygiene practicesSelf reported hand washing with soap at key timessignificantly increased pre to post testMore importantly, demonstrated proper hand washing alsoincreased from pre to post testWhen take into consideration treatment versus controlfacilities (because we randomly assigned training and soapsales by facility) Treatment facilities saw average 1 point improvement, whereas the other five combined saw average 0.3 improvement – we expected some spillover given the size of the communityWater treatment went from 51% doing nothing and 21%using chlorine treatment to 32% using chlorine treatment(post) 18% doing nothing and 36% using chlorine(post, post)with 26% doing nothing. (change post to postpost in doing nothing is mostly due to those who wereboiling no longer doing anything) These are statisticallysignificant changes.
15. Outcomes: hygiene practicesHealth outcomes also improved pre to post Diarrhea rates dropped Self reported and AMREF data AMREF data not able to tease out by facility so overall for community compared to control villages Self reported diarrheal rates dropped more near treatment facilities than other facilities Missed work rates dropped Highest gains near treatment facilities Falloff? Looking at post versus post post Small falloff but maintained signif increase from baseline
16. ConclusionsIncreased access to: Improvements in:• water purification • Diarrhea rates• soap • Perceived health• hand washing stations • Missed work • Proper hand washing• hygiene training • Water purification• hygiene messaging • Improved toilet• water usage• toilets