KisumuSan Bseline Survey Final Report 2016

KISUMUSAN BASELINE
SURVEY REPORT
Report Submitted to Practical Action, East Africa Regional Office
DECEMBER 1, 2016
COUNTY RESEACH AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
P.O.Box 19472 Kisumu

1
Acknowledgement
County Research and Development Consultants wishes to thank Practical Action, East Africa Regional
Office for this opportunity to contribute to the creation of new knowledge in the WASH sector in Kenya.
This study comes at a crucial time in Kenya. A time when Kenya has declared her strategic intention to
embark on long term development. We believe that findings of this study contribute to other studies to
provide the basis for measuring progress in the WASH sector.
County Research and Development Consultants sees this as a great landmark to celebrate. County
Research and Development Consultants thanks all those whose efforts contributed to the production of
this survey.
We thank Practical Action for the opportunity and the financial support to carry this out.
We thank the Government of Kenya through its various units who made contributions to the survey
notably the Kisumu County Government and sub-county teams and contact who provided the support
we wanted to carry this out.
We thank all interviewees and communities who facilitated our work.
Finally, we thank the baseline survey team for their commitment and dedication in getting this done in
good time. County Research and Development Consultants will like to single out Mathew Okello,
Practical Action’s Project manager-Urban WASH and waste management, for taking up this challenge
and preparing the ground with the partners and the community in Obunga and Nyalenda.
Through your collective efforts we have a baseline report and we thank you for this.
County Research and Development Consultants
December 2016

2
THE REPORT
The information in this report provides a summary of the key required data for the Kisumu sanitation
program. This data set provides a baseline for the KisumuSan project being implemented by Practical
Action in partnership with Kisumu Urban Program (KUAP) and Umande Trust.
The survey report is presented in five broad sections.
Section 1: Gives a summary of the findings from the data that was collected and analyzed
Section 2: Introduces and provides a detailed description of the study area where data was collected.
This section also describes the water and sanitation in the county based on extensive literature review
that was undertaken for this study.
Section3: This section describes the methodology that was used in executing this study leading to the
numerous conclusions that have been arrived at.
Section 4: This section focusses on the findings of the study. Both quantitative and qualitative has been
analyzed in response to the survey objectives. The section gives a rapid run through of respondents,
percentages, and measurable quantities of indictors as they related to WASH.
Section 5: This section provides an analysis of policy and institutional framework for the WASH sector
within the project implementation environment.

3
Abbreviations and acronyms
BCC Behavior Change Campaign
CLTS Community Led Total Sanitation
CHW Community Health Worker
OD Open Defecation
ODF Open Defection Free
DHSF District Health Stakeholder Committee
ESH Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GHD Global Hand washing Day
GIC Global Initiative Committee
GLAAS Global Analysis & Assessment of Sanitation & Drinking Water
GSF Global Sanitation Fund
HWTSS Household Water Treatment and Safe Storage
ICC Inter-agency Coordinating Committee
IPC Interpersonal Communication Tools
JICC Joint Inter-agency Coordinating Committee
JMP Joint Monitoring Programme
KeBS Kenya Bureau of Standards
KES Kenya Shilling
KMTC Kenya Medical Training College
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
NACOSTI National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation
NPRI National Planning for Results Initiative
PHO Public Health Officer
PHT Public Health Technician
PoU Point of Use
PSI Population Services International
SSHIT Shared Sanitation, Hygiene, Information and Tales
SWA HLM Sanitation and Water for All High Level Meeting
ToR Terms of Reference
TWG Technical Working Group
USD United States Dollar
WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene
WTD World Toilet Day

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT......................................................................................................................................1
THE REPORT.....................................................................................................................................................2
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS...................................................................................................................3
LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................................5
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS...........................................................................................................................7
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................13
1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................................................................13
1.2 Status of Urban Water and Sanitation in Kenya ..........................................................................14
1.3 BACKGROUND TO KISUMU COUNTY AND CITY ........................................................................................15
1.3.1 Sanitation Services in Kisumu County..............................................................................................16
1.3.3Growth and development of slums in Kisumu City............................................................................17
1. 5.1 Status of water supply and Sanitation services in Kisumu City.......................................................21
1.6Slum upgrading initiatives in Kisumu...................................................................................................23
1.6.1 Cities Development Strategy ..............................................................................................................23
1.6.2 Millennium Cities Initiatives .............................................................................................................23
1.6.3Cities without Slums............................................................................................................................23
1.6. 4 Kisumu City Partnership for Improved Sanitation in Informal Settlements (KisumuSan)...............24
1.7 Climate Change and related issues in Kisumu City.............................................................................25
1.7.2 Impact of Climate Change on City Management and Residents......................................................26
CHAPTER TWO: THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY...................................................................................................27
2.1 OVERALL STUDY DESIGN ..................................................................................................................................27
2.2. SAMPLING ....................................................................................................................................................27
2.2.1 Sampling procedures for the household survey ................................................................................27
2.3 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES...............................................................................................................28
2.4 RESOURCE MAPS............................................................................................................................................28
2.5 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS (FGD)...................................................................................................................28
2.6 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS............................................................................................................................28
2.7 DESK REVIEW .................................................................................................................................................28
2.8 EXECUTION OF THE STUDY .........................................................................................................................29
2.9 DATA ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................................................................29
3.0 CHAPTER THREE: STUDY FINDINGS ..........................................................................................................30
3.1 BENEFICIARY ANALYSIS IN RELATION TO ACCESS TO AND QUALITY OF WASH SERVICES ..............................................30
3.1.1 Profile of landlords/ladies..................................................................................................................32
3.1.2 Membership to plot owners association in Obunga and Nyalenda Areas .......................................33
3.1.3 Challenges faced in terms of providing better sanitation facilities for tenants:..............................34
3.1.4 Investment in Water and sanitation improvement by plot owners in Obunga and Nyalenda Areas
.....................................................................................................................................................................34
3.2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND SOCIAL INCLUSION.............................................................................................36
3.2.1 Membership to social groups/networks and what they do (social capital).....................................36
3.3 WASH SERVICE COVERAGE..............................................................................................................................38
3.3.1 Water and Sanitation Services in Nyalenda and Obunga Settlements ............................................38
a) Water sources.......................................................................................................................................................38
b) Water treatment ..................................................................................................................................................40
c) Water Storage.......................................................................................................................................................41
3.3.2 Methods of Solid waste Disposal in Obunga and Nyalenda Areas...................................................41
3.3.4 Disposal of human excreta in Obunga and Nyalenda Settlements ..................................................43
3.3.5, Available institutions/Facilities ........................................................................................................49

5
3.4 WATER AND SANITATION ISSUES IN SCHOOLS.......................................................................................................49
3.5 ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE COMMUNITY ON SANITATION AND HYGIENE.......................................................................50
3.6 FINDINGS FROM THE DISCUSSION WITH- RESIDENT ASSOCIATION/NEIGHBOURHOOD ASSOCIATION................................51
3.7 MAPPING OF PARTNERS/STAKEHOLDERS............................................................................................................53
4.0 CHAPTER FOUR: POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR SANITATION....................................55
4.1 International and regional Policy Context............................................................................................55
4.2 National and County Policy Context .....................................................................................................55
4.2.1 The Contrition of Kenya (2010) .......................................................................................................................55
4.2.3 National Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy (2007)......................................................................57
4.2.4 National Health Policy Framework- (2012-2030)............................................................................................57
4.2.5 Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy (2016-2030) ...........................................................................57
4.2.6 Water Act, 2012...............................................................................................................................................58
4.2.7 Water Act, 2014...............................................................................................................................................59
4.2.8 The National Water Services Strategy (2007-2015)........................................................................................59
4.2.9 Kisumu County Water Policy...........................................................................................................................60
4.2.10 Pro Poor Implementation Plan for Water and Sanitation .............................................................61
4.2.11 Strategic Guidelines for Improving Provision of Water and Sanitation Services to LIAs in Kisumu
.....................................................................................................................................................................61
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................................63
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE FOCUSED GROUP DISCUSSIONS FGDS..............................................................................63
KISUMUSAN BASELINE SURVEY HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE......................................................................................65
LAND LORDS/LADIES’ QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................................................................................................75
PRIMARY SCHOOLS’ QUESTIONNAIRE........................................................................................................................78
GUIDE TO WOMEN ONLY FGD ................................................................................................................................81
BUSINESS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR WASH SME............................................................................................................83
FGD GUIDE FOR NEIGHBOURHOOD/RESIDENTS PLANNING ASSOCIATIONS ....................................................................85
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW CHECKLIST....................................................................................................................86
List of tables
Table 1: Population size and distribution in Nyalenda A .....................................................................18
Table 2: Population assize and distribution in Nyalenda ‘B’...............................................................19
Table 3: Population size and distribution in Obunga ...........................................................................20
Table 4: Household’s head in Obunga and Nyalenda...........................................................................30
Table 5: Education levels of the respondents.......................................................................................30
Table 6: Sources of income...................................................................................................................31
Table 7: Average Household Income per month..................................................................................31
Table 8: Ownership of occupied house.................................................................................................32
Table 9: Challenges faced in providing better sanitation facilities.......................................................34
Table 10: Future preferred mode of disposal of human excreta..........................................................34
Table 11: willingness to take a loan to improve sanitation facilities....................................................35
Table 12: Interest participants willing to pay to improve sanitation facilities .....................................35
Table 13: Assistance to construct toilets/latrines.................................................................................36
Table 14: Committees/associations that exist......................................................................................36
Table 15: Recognized leaders in the community..................................................................................36
Table 16: Participation in various committees .....................................................................................37
Table 17: Membership to various committees.....................................................................................37
Table 18: Ways of participating in the various committees .................................................................37
Table 19: whether committees effectively address concerns raised ...................................................38

6
Table 20: Tenants mode of access to water .........................................................................................39
Table 21: Sources of drinking water .....................................................................................................39
Table 22: Source of water for cooking..................................................................................................39
Table 23: Source of water for washing .................................................................................................39
Table 24: Source of water for livestock ................................................................................................40
Table 25: treatment for drinking water................................................................................................40
Table 26: Water storage .......................................................................................................................41
Table 27: Ways of solid waste disposal.................................................................................................41
Table 28: Challenges of effective waste management.........................................................................42
Table 29: Recommendation for addressing challenges of effective waste management....................42
Table 30: Availability of toilets within the plot.....................................................................................43
Table 31: Type of toilets within the plot...............................................................................................43
Table 32: Method of disposal of human excreta where toilet .............................................................43
Table 33: Ways of disposing human excreta ........................................................................................43
Table 34: Conditions of the latrines within the plots............................................................................44
Table 35: Methods of emptying filled up latrines.................................................................................45
Table 36: Frequency of toilet cleaning..................................................................................................45
Table 37: Responsibility of toilet cleaning ............................................................................................45
Table 38: Latrine/toilet functionability of the door..............................................................................46
Table 39: Materials used for toilets wall construction .........................................................................46
Table 40: when hands are washed .......................................................................................................47
Table 41: where children’s feaces are disposed...................................................................................47
Table 42: Description of quality of the toilet........................................................................................48
Table 43: Point of disposal of waste water from the household..........................................................48
Table 44: Available facilities..................................................................................................................49
Table 45: Rating of performance of the county government...............................................................53
Table 46: Areas where the county government needs to improve......................................................53
Table 47: Development partners working within the settlement ........................................................54
Table 48: Functions of the National vs County Governments in relation to sanitation........................56

7
Summary of the findings
Household socio-economic and demographic characteristics
i. In both Nyalenda and Obunga Settlements, majority of heads of households were men at 70.8%
and 60.8% respectively.
ii. Women headed 29% and 37% of the households in Nyalenda and Obunga while 1 household
was headed by a child in Obunga.
iii. Most of the respondents (42%) in Nyalenda have attained primary level of education followed
closely by secondary level of education (38%) while in Obunga, most of the respondents (47%)
have attained secondary level of education followed closely by primary level at 31%.
iv. In both the settlement areas, gender differentials are significant on the highest level of
education. Most of the women headed households in Nyalenda (50%) only attained primary
level of education with just 31% of the women having gone beyond primary level of education
compared to men headed households with more than half (59%) going beyond primary level of
education.
v. The same was noted in Obunga where just 42% of women heads of households compared to
74% of men headed households had gone beyond primary level of education
vi. 17% of the male household heads had attained tertiary level of education compared to Obunga
with 22.6%. Their female counterparts in both settlements had not attained any tertiary level
of education (0%).
vii. Majority of the households in Nyalenda (54%) have between 5 and 8 members while majority
of the households in Obunga (59%) had between 1 and 4 members.
viii. More than 50% of the respondents rely on own business or self-employment as the main source
of income at 71% and 53% for Nyalenda and Obunga settlements, respectively
ix. There is a significant differences in sources of income between the two settlements as more of
the respondents in Nyalenda depend on self – employment (38%) while in Obunga, more
respondents depend on salaried employment as the main source of income at 31%.
x. There is gender disparity in household incomes in Nyalenda where majority of the women
headed households (73%) had the lowest average monthly income of between KES 5000 and
KES 10000 compared to men headed households (44%), who had average monthly household
income of between KES 10000 and KES 20000 in the same settlement area.
xi. In Obunga, the disparity is still evident with 57.9% of the women earning between KES 5000
and KES 10000, against 25.8% of their male counterparts. Similarly, 54.8% male headed
households earned between KES 10,001 and KES 20,000 as compared to their female
counterparts who accounted for a paltry 31.6% within the same income bracket. 19.4 % of the
male headed households earned KES 20000 and above as compared to only 10.5% of the female
headed households.
xii. In terms of house occupancy, majority of the respondents are tenants in both settlements
(Nyalenda – 60% and Obunga – 80%).
xiii. Gender differentials were noted in terms of home ownership in Nyalenda where majority of the
women headed households (58%) of the respondents owned the houses themselves compared

8
to men headed households that only owned 33.3% of the houses they occupied in the same
settlement. In Obunga, 21.1% of the women owned their houses while their male counterparts
owned 16.1%.
xiv. House rent ranged between 2400 for a single unit in Nyalenda and KES 2000 for the same kind
of unit in Obunga.
xv. Majority of the landlords were male in both Obunga and Nyalenda at 75% and 73%
respectively.
xvi. On average, housing units owned by a single landlord/landlady in the two settlements varied
from between 6 to 8 units in Nyalenda and between 8 and 10 units in Obunga.
xvii. Landlords or plot owners are not organized into associations as only one plot owner/landlord
in Obunga and Nyalenda confirmed belonging to a landlord’s self-help group.
Environmental Sanitation
xviii. Landlords in Obunga cited poor sanitation and hygiene practices by tenants as the main reason
for poor sanitation in the settlement at 57.1% while their counterparts in Nyalenda reported it
at 45.8%. Lack of sewerage was cited at 12.5% in Nyalenda as a contributing factor to the poor
state of sanitation in the settlement.
xix. In addition 20% of landlords in Obunga cited high cost of constructing durable toilets while
16.7 % of their counterparts in Nyalenda cited high water table and poor soil structure as
contributory factors.
xx. 87% of plot owners/ landlords have thought of taking the necessary steps to improve their
tenants’ human excreta disposal in Obunga while in Nyalenda, this proportion stands at 83%.
xxi. In Obunga, 47% of the landlords/plot owners would like to improve their toilets to flush
toilet/WC and 40% to VIP latrines. In Nyalenda, however, plot owners desire to improve to pit
latrine and flush toilet/WC at 30% and 26% respectively.
xxii. Only 8.7% and 13% in Nyalenda are willing to upgrade to pour flush and WC connected to
septic tank in Nyalenda, respectively and 0% in Obunga.
xxiii. 93% of landlords/plot owners in Obunga and 91% in Nyalenda are willing to invest in their
preferred modes of improved human excreta disposal.
xxiv. None of the plot owners in Obunga have ever taken a loan to improve the sanitation facilities
in their plots but all are willing to take a loan for the same purpose.
xxv. In Nyalenda, only 3 of the plot owners have taken loans to improve the sanitation facilities in
their plots but 90% of those who have never taken a loan to improve sanitation in their plots
are willing to take such loans for the same purpose.
xxvi. In Obunga, all those willing to take loans to improve sanitation in their plots are willing to take
it up at 0% interest rate. The 0% interest rate is also preferred by 88% of the plot owners who
are willing to take a loan for the improvement of sanitation facilities in Nyalenda.
xxvii. The plot owners in Obunga are willing to take on average KES 25750.00 while in Nyalenda,
the plot owners are willing to borrow up to KES 4000 to improve sanitation facilities for their
tenants.
xxviii. Only 14% of the plot owners in Obunga confirmed ever receiving assistance in constructing
their existing toilets or latrines. In Nyalenda just 4% of the plot owners had received such help.
The assistance was in form of vent pipes in both cases.

9
Human Excreta Disposal and Hygiene
xxix. Majority of the households had pit latrines in their plots both in Nyalenda (78%) and Obunga
(72%). At least one household in each of the two settlements practiced open defecation (OD)
to dispose human excreta with the main reasons given being inadequate toilets in the settlements
xxx. Interestingly, however, the proportion of toilets that were either dirty, filled up, partly collapsed
and no longer in use was 40% in Nyalenda and 50% in Obunga.
xxxi. Therefore, effective latrine coverage and usage for the two settlements can be estimated at 38%
in Nyalenda and 22% in Obunga. Of this total, only 25% of the residents in Nyalenda felt the
toilets were safe and secure to use while in Obunga, only 21% felt the same.
xxxii. Makeshift toilets accounted for 6% and 18% in Nyalenda and Obunga respectively, while the
Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) accounted for 8% and 4% for Nyalenda and Obunga
respectively.
xxxiii. 7% and 21% of the toilets in Nyalenda and Obunga were filled up respectively and a further
16% and 10% required emptying at the time of the survey
xxxiv. 90% of the plot owners/ landlords/landladies interviewed in Obunga confirmed manual pit
emptying as the most common method for faecal sludge management while 70% of their
counterparts in Nyalenda did the same. Only 29% of landlords/landladies in Nyalenda used
mechanical exhauster services for pit emptying against 0% in Obunga.
xxxv. The tenants corroborated the above figures on prevalence of manual pit emptying at 71% for
Nyalenda and 92% for Obunga. Mechanical exhausters recorded 29% points in Nyalenda and
0% point in Obunga.
xxxvi. Most of the existing toilets in both the areas are cleaned daily (Nyalenda – 60%, Obunga –
53%) and when they are dirty (Nyalenda - 24% and 25%). Just 6% of the toilets in both
Nyalenda and Obunga are not cleaned at all.
xxxvii. Majority of the respondents from both settlements (Nyalenda – 67%, Obunga – 77%) where
toilets are at cleaned irrespective of the frequency in a day, week or month, agreed it is the
responsibility of the tenants to clean the toilets. Only a marginal 3.5% in Nyalenda and 6.3%
in Obunga felt it was the responsibility of the landlords.
xxxviii. 42% of respondents in Nyalenda and 46% in Obunga are at least satisfied by the current latrine
systems. 17% in Nyalenda and 26% in Obunga felt their latrine systems provided poor privacy
while 21% and 39% in Nyalenda and Obunga respectively, felt the toilet systems offered poor
convenience to users
xxxix. An insignificant 6% and 9% for Obunga and Nyalenda settlements, respectively, had hand
washing facilities
xl. Majority of the households in both the areas wash their hands with soap quite often (Nyalenda
- 95%, Obunga – 100%). In both areas, most people wash their hands just after visiting the toilet
(Nyalenda – 87%, Obunga – 88%), before and after eating food (Nyalenda – 73%, Obunga –
73%) and just before preparing food (Nyalenda – 53%, Obunga – 45%).
xli. Hand washing is mainly done in a basin or trough by most of the households in both the
settlement areas (Nyalenda – 85%, Obunga – 88%).
xlii. Waste water disposal was mainly done on open ground (Nyalenda – 73%, Obunga – 63%)
followed by open drains (Nyalenda – 21%, Obunga -31%).

10
Solid Waste Management
xliii. The landlords/ plot owners aver that the most common waste disposal method in Obunga are:
burning (53%), Open dumping sites or fields (27%) and compost pit (13%) while in Nyalenda
they are: burning (62%), open dumping/field (21%) and compost pit (8.3%).
xliv. The household survey findings confirmed the above, but gave high scores for burning in both
settlements (Nyalenda – 61%, Obunga – 51%). This was followed by compost pit (Nyalenda –
27%, Obunga – 45%).
xlv. On willingness to pay for solid waste collection services, 31% of the households in Nyalenda
are willing to pay for waste collection while in Obunga, a slightly higher proportion of 37% are
willing to pay for waste collection. The households are willing to pay up to KES 147 (23%) in
Nyalenda and KES 160 (39%) in Obunga respectively.
xlvi. In Nyalenda, the four (4) most common challenges of effective waste management in that order
is: poor waste disposal and sanitation practices from tenants, poor waste management by the
county government, Lack of enough toilet coverage and poor planning for infrastructure.
xlvii. In Obunga, these challenges are: poor planning for infrastructure, poor waste disposal and
sanitation practices from tenants, poor waste management practices by the county government
and lack of enough toilet coverage in the area.
Sources, cost and household water treatment and storage
xlviii. According to plot owners/landlords, the most common water points in Obunga is the standpipe
within the plot (47%). This is followed by water vendors at 33% while 13% indicated existing
household water connections.
xlix. In Nyalenda, 67% of the landlord/plot owners confirmed existence of standpipe within the plot
while 21% indicated household connection within the settlement.
l. From the household survey however, the most common source of drinking water among the
residents in both the two settlements are water kiosks (Nyalenda - 54%, Obunga – 63%)
followed by communal stand pipe (Nyalenda – 36%, Obunga – 31%). Only 10% of households
in Nyalenda relied on water connection in their households for drinking. For Obunga, the
proportion of households dependent on drinking water from household water connection was
only 4%.
li. The average cost of 20 litre jerrican of water from the kiosk was KES 3 in Nyalenda while in
Obunga the same quantity of water was sold for KES 3.94.
lii. The time taken for round trip to fetch water in Nyalenda was 6.5 minutes in Nyalenda while it
was 5.8 minutes in Obunga.
liii. 63% of the households in Nyalenda treat their drinking water while in Obunga, the proportion
of households that treat their drinking water stands at 53%.
liv. The most common mode of water treatment in the two settlements is chemical treatment used
by 70% and 72% of the households in Nyalenda and Obunga respectively. This was followed
by boiling at 27% in Nyalenda and 24% in Obunga, respectively.
lv. Most households in Nyalenda (54%) store drinking water in traditional pots while 37% of their
counterparts in Obunga did the same. Jerrican containers were also common in Obunga at 33%
and Nyalenda at 24%.
Community leadership and participation in decision making
lvi. Various committees exists to take care of health, water, environment and education in both
settlements. However, 15.7% of respondents in Nyalenda were aware about the water
committee as compared to 9.8% in Obunga. The Neighbourhood Planning Association (NPA)

11
in Nyalenda was known to 9% while the Residents Association in Obunga was known to 9.8%
only.
lvii. Majority of the women headed households (86%) in Nyalenda recognized provincial
administration (chiefs and assistant chiefs followed by religious leaders just like men in the
same area (provincial administration – 84%, religious leaders – 44%).
lviii. In Obunga, respondents also recognized the provincial administration at 95% for women and
77% for men.
lix. Of the respondents interviewed, 28% in Nyalenda were members of at least one of the
committees or associations confirmed to exist in the area while just 6% were members of any
such committees or associations confirmed to exist in Obunga.
lx. Members of any of the committees in Nyalenda, participate in the committees by attending
public participation meetings (39%) and raising issues affecting them and their communities
(28%).
lxi. Residents of Obunga and who are members of any of the committees, participation is mainly
by other engagements (42%), election of leaders (25%), attending public participation meetings
(17%) and raising issues affecting them and their community members (17%).
lxii. Participation by attending public participation meetings and raising issues affecting the
community were significantly different across the two settlements. Fewer respondents
confirmed participation in this manner in Obunga (17%) than Nyalenda (39%). A similar
number participated by raising issues affecting them and other community members (17%) in
Obunga as compared to 28% in Nyalenda.
lxiii. A higher proportion of men (30.6 %) compared to women (23.1%) were members of such
committees in Nyalenda.
lxiv. Majority of the respondents from the two areas do not believe that the committees are effective
in addressing the concerns raised by members of the community (Nyalenda – 71%, Obunga –
91%).
lxv. There was no significant relationship in the perception of women and men regarding the
effectiveness of the committees in addressing the concerns raised by community members at
34.8% for men and 15.8% for women in Nyalenda while in Obunga 15% of the men thought
they were effective against 0% for the women.
lxvi. Performance of the County Government in Kisumu toward improving water and sanitation
services in the two settlements was rated as poor by 30% of the respondents in Nyalenda and
48% respondents in Obunga.
lxvii. The respondents identified the following areas for improvement by the county government to
improve the status of sanitation in the settlements: waste management (Nyalenda- 42%,
Obunga-19%); compel landlords to build toilets (Nyalenda- 25%, Obunga -19%); and improve
sewerage and drainage (Nyalenda -15%, Obunga -39%).
Pit latrine emptying services
lxviii. Both landlords/plot owners and tenants sampled avow Pit latrine emptying services in Obunga
and Nyalenda is provided by private actors
lxix. An informal network of 30 (28 male, 2 female) manual pit latrine emptiers exists in Obunga
and Nyalenda having 7 (all male) manual pit emptiers registered with a Sanitation service
providing self-help group (Vuka sasa youth group)
lxx. Pit latrine emptying in Obunga and Nyalenda is done manually by the private actors using
rudimentary tools (cut jerry cans with ropes attached on them) for scoping out the sludge

12
lxxi. All the 7 manual pit emptiers in Nyalenda maintain that they are not aware of any other
technology for manual pit emptying, 3 manual pit emptiers in Obunga pointed out at knowing
the gulper technology
lxxii. All the manual pit emptiers reached by the survey confirmed that they wear no protective
clothing when at work. Reason given for this is that they perceive the earning from the work
cannot afford to purchase protective gear
lxxiii. Sludge from emptied pit latrines in Obunga and Nyalenda is on most occasions buried in earth
on a dug out pit nearby, however during the rainy season it is common practise to pour the
sludge into storm waters
lxxiv. All manual pit emptiers reached by the survey confirm they use open buckets to transport
emptied sludge to disposal point
lxxv. Specifically during the rainy season for Nyalenda, there is a lot of work for manual pit latrine
emptying as the latrines often fill with water
lxxvi. The manual pit emptiers aver that sludge must undergo some form of treatment before being
empties. Forms of treatment cited by pit emptiers from Obunga included use of a disinfectant
“Jeshi” that is poured a few hours before emptying, for Nyalenda the pit emptier poited out at
using soap detergent “omo” mixed with water then poured into the pit to reduce foul smell and
ash to kill worms
lxxvii. All respondents providing manual pit emptying confirmed that they do not market their work
but always get referrals from previous customers as well as repeat businesses
lxxviii. The manual pit emptiers reached by the survey maintain that this is a part time income
generating activity besides other engagement including fishing, boda boda bicycle riding,
landscaping and farm tending, motor bike mechanic, ice cream vending
lxxix. The average price charged for the manual pit emptying service ranges from KES 3000 to KES
5000 per door of pit latrines. However the manual pit emptiers agree that on many occasions
shrewd landlords cunningly deceive prospecting service providers that competitor was willing
to accept much lower rates resulting to manual pit emptiers accepting as little as KES 1000 to
undercut the competition
lxxx. All manual pit emptiers reached by survey confirmed they do not keep any form of records for
their business
lxxxi. The manual pit emptier from both Obunga and Nyalenda maintain that the frequency of landing
assignment is highly irregular
lxxxii. The manual pit emptiers also pointed out at not having any employees; when one pit emptiers
secures an assignment, he sources out help of preferred colleagues depending on the volume of
work from their network and pays them an agree wage after the assignment
lxxxiii. All surveyed manual pit emptiers agree that they are highly stigmatized in the community.
Example were given of community member throwing away cups used by the manual pit
emptiers to drink water on location of an assignment, to being referred to by people in their
community by derogatory words
lxxxiv. In Nyalenda the manual pit emptiers pointed out 12 cases of colleagues who have passed on
over the last 15 years with their deaths being attributed to their occupation as manual pit
emptiers. All 12 had symptoms of swollen stomachs and yellowing skin before their deaths.
lxxxv. Number of years on the job by the manual pit emptiers from Obunga and Nyalenda recorded
during the survey ranges from 5 years to 30 years
lxxxvi. 70% of the manual pit emptiers in Obunga and Nyalenda reached by the survey had aspirations
of making their services modernized, professional and profitable through training in business
skills and access to mechanized exhaustion technologies. The other 30 % were either content
with the status quo or expressed no idea of future aspirations.

13
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Background information
Kenya, like many countries in the developing world, experiences rapid rates of urbanization. This
urbanization unfortunately is taking place within the informal settlements and other peri urban areas
with lurid living environmental conditions. To make matters even worse, it is estimated that close to
60% of the population live in these settlements.
In Kisumu, Kenya’s third largest city the situation is much the same. People in the informal settlements
live in squalid conditions, characterized by poor housing, with inadequate clean water, poor sanitation
and lack of waste removal services. They live on land to which they have no legal claim and are
generally excluded from decision-making and resources allocation processes. Even when resources are
allocated, they do not address the priority needs of the poor either because of technology choices or
from blatant exclusion by the powers that be.
Over 50 % of Kisumu’s 600,000 residents live in deprivation and 80 % are tenant householders. Fewer
than 30 % have adequate toilets and open defecation is widespread (Practical Action, 2014). Slum-
dwellers’ demands for better sanitation infrastructure and services fail to influence landlords or
authorities. Enterprising residents dig and empty their own pits; some earning incomes by offering these
services to others, but standards are extremely poor and practices dangerous. The results of non-
governmental organization such as Kisumu Urban Apostolate Programme (KUAP) and Umande Trust
to effect change are promising, but limited by their organizational capacity. Human waste seep into
drinking and flood-waters cause a public health hazard, spreading water-borne diseases and degrading
the environment. Children under 5, women of reproductive age, people living with disabilities and
HIV/AIDS are most affected
Kisumu San - the Kisumu City Partnership for Improved Sanitation in Informal Settlements is a 5-year
water, sanitation and hygiene initiatives funded by Comic Relief and designed to trigger the delivery of
safer, healthier and better futures and enhance the voice of marginalized slum-dwellers. The project
recognizes that in urban areas, established community-based total sanitation (CLTS) approaches
promoted as Kenyan national policy need to be strengthened with greater attention given to the issue of
appropriateness and affordability of latrine technology and financing, safe disposal of excrement
through effective faecal sludge management and the institutionalization of sustainable mechanisms of
awareness raising.
Focusing primarily on the 3 low-income urban settlements of Obunga, Nyalenda A and B, this 5-year
project brings together the community, the County Government of Kisumu, Practical Action, KUAP
and Umande Trust in active partnerships that seek to directly contribute to 5 key outcomes namely:-
i. Greater engagement of Obunga and Nyalenda informal settlement residents (both women and
men) through the NPAs with the county government on WASH issues.
ii. The demand from residents of Obunga and Nyalenda for sanitation increases & hygiene
practices improve.
iii. Residents in Obunga&Nyalenda gain improved supply & coverage of appropriate & affordable
water & sanitation facilities and services
iv. Informal workers ( in pit-emptying & latrine construction) increase incomes sustainably while
policies & regulations become more favourable to them
v. Umande Trust and KUAP and their leaders are more effective in delivering on their missions
and strategic goals

14
1.1.1 Scope of the Study
The overall purpose of the baseline study is to develop bench marking indicators and provide
detailed information on the two settlements covering the following areas:
i. Provide and document detailed background information on the two settlements in the context
of Kisumu City and County; namely: location and size; geophysical features; socio
demographic characteristics; existing status of WASH service indicators and key development
issues,
ii. Review the policy and institutional framework at national and county levels governing water
and sanitation service delivery, identify gaps and make recommendations for improvement,
iii. Undertake gender profiling in Obunga and Nyalenda Informal Settlements to identify
underlying issues that affect women participation and leadership/ social inclusion in relation to
WASH service delivery and county planning and decision making process,
iv. Review existing county and city development strategies, plans, standards and technologies and
WASH delivery models vis-à-vis slum up grading initiatives in Kisumu City and make
recommendations for tested low cost technologies and standards for LIAs in the city,
v. Identify existing opportunities and constraints for effective community
participation/engagement in decision making through the Neighbourhood Planning Association
(NPAs) and other structures at the community, city and county levels in relation to sanitation
service delivery, and
vi. Identify all actors in WASH service delivery value chain using Participatory Markets Systems
Development (PMSD) and their specific roles; constraints and opportunities for improvement
and/ or scaling up improved service delivery in the two settlements.
1.1.2 Expected Outputs
At the end of the baseline survey, the following outputs were expected:
i. An inception report (maximum five pages) outlining the approach/methodology and
execution programme/timetable. This report shall be submitted for review and approval by
Practical Action and partners two (2) days after the signature of the contract before
commencement of the work.
ii. Data collection tools which shall be submitted within two days after acceptance of the
methodology for review and approval Practical Action and partners.
iii. Draft survey report which shall be submitted within five days after completion of the field
work and shall be accompanied with the raw data as collected by the data collection tools.
iv. Presentation of the key findings to the stakeholders in a validation workshop.
v. The final report which shall be submitted within five days after the stakeholders’
dissemination workshop and shall incorporate Practical Action and stakeholders’ inputs.
1.2 Status of Urban Water and Sanitation in Kenya
Urban water and sanitation coverage have steadily increased over the recent years, reaching 52% and
69% respectively in the country, courtesy of comprehensive and aggressive water sector reform
programmes operationalized through the Water Act (2002). The reforms led to the creation of new
institutions and effectively separated policy formulation, regulation, asset development and water
service provision.
The rate of urbanization in Kenya continues to soar, and an estimated 60 per cent of the population will
live in cities and towns by 2030. According to the Joint Monitoring Programme (2008)1
only 27 percent
1
Joint Monitoring Programme- Kenya Report, 2013

15
of the urban population had access to private improved sanitation in Kenya, most of which consisted of
simple pit latrines providing varied degrees of safety, hygiene and privacy. The sewerage coverage is
estimated at only about 12 percent with only 5 percent of the national sewerage effectively treated.
An assessment report in 2009 showed there were 43 sewerage systems in Kenya and wastewater
treatment plants in 15 towns (serving a total population of 900,000 inhabitants). The operation capacity
of these wastewater treatment plants is however, estimated at around 16 percent of design capacity. The
inefficiency is caused by a number of factors including:
 Inadequate operation and maintenance,
 Low connection rates to sewerage systems, which are often neglected and characterized by
overloaded pipes and blockages owing to intermittent water supply,
 Sewer bursts and non-functional treatment plants that discharge raw sewage into the
watercourses.
In poor urban settlements, less than 20 per cent of the population has access to sanitation, and 80 percent
of facilities are shallow pit latrines that contribute to pollution of the environment2
. Kenyan urban
settlements are characterized by uncontrolled, unsightly, and indiscriminate garbage disposal. Drains
are clogged during the rainy season, while streams running through settlements carry polluted water
from a combination of sources including sullage.
1.3 Background to Kisumu County and City
Kisumu County is one of the 47 Counties in Kenya. It lies within longitudes 33° 20’E and 35° 20’E and
latitudes 0° 20’South and 0° 50’South. The County is bordered by Homa Bay County to the South,
Nandi County to the North East, Kericho County to the East, Vihiga County to the North West and
Siaya County to the West. The County covers a total land area of 2009.5 km2 and another 567 km2
covered by waters of Lake Victoria, the second largest fresh water lake in the world.
Figure 1: Kisumu County Administrative Boundaries
Source: National Bureau of Statistics 2010
2 EHS Policy (2016-2030)

16
1.3.1 Sanitation Services in Kisumu County
In Kisumu County, the status of sanitation paints a grim picture. The county is ranked 10 out of the 47
counties in terms of sanitation indicators3
. In spite of this, however, 31.3 per cent of the population use
unimproved latrines; 30 per cent use improved latrines, while 25.9 per cent share latrines. The biggest
challenge to the county is the 12.9 per cent who still defecate in the open. According to the same report,
the county loses Ksh.740 million annually as a result of poor sanitation. These loses are due to poor
access, loss of time, premature deaths, healthcare costs and loss of productivity. The county’s progress
in Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) is not encouraging either. Out of 1,868 villages only 742
have been triggered and a dismal 506 progressing to achieve ODF statuses.
1.3.2 Kisumu City
Kisumu City is the third largest metropolis in Kenya with a population of over a half a million people.
It covers approximately 417 Km2
(297 km2
– land while 120 Km2
are under water). It is one of the
fastest growing cities in the region with an annual growth rate of 2.8%4
and currently serves as the main
commercial, industrial, transportation and communication hub in the greater Lake Victoria Basin
serving Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi. The city experiences one of the highest absolute
poverty rates in the country estimated at 48%, against the national average of 29%5
. About 50% of the
population live in the informal settlements and other peri-urban areas around the city and lack access to
basic infrastructure and services including water, sanitation, and waste management.
The city typology consists of the colonial city with its typical iron grid layout; the unplanned slum belt
around the colonial city and the sprawling peri-urban interphase undergoing rapid transformation as the
city expands as shown in the diagram below.
Figure 2: The slum Belt in Kisumu City
Source: ISUD Plan- 2013-2030
3
WSP Report, (2014)
4
Population Census 2009; UN Habitat 2008
5
UN Habitat (2005)

17
1.3.3Growth and development of slums in Kisumu City
The emergence and development of slums in Kisumu City is traceable to 1901 with the arrival of the
railway line in the town, then known as Port Florence. The town’s function as a lake port was further
enhanced with the railway line owing to increased accessibility and connectivity to other regions such
as Nairobi and Kampala, Uganda. This further promoted trade and other economic activities such as
farming and fishing. Rapid population growth in the subsequent years prompted the extension of the
town boundary to accommodate the additional population and various infrastructure facilities and
services. In 1908, the town was struck by bubonic plague leading to land use zoning in the residential
areas (Blocks A, B, and C for the European settlers, Asians and Africans, respectively) with the aim of
curbing future outbreak and spread of diseases across the racial groups.
In 1930, the town boundary was reduced (to exclude areas beyond Block C) to make it more
manageable. This led to the development of un-planned and other peri-urban settlements devoid of the
necessary infrastructure and facilities such as roads, water supply and sanitation services. In 1972, the
town boundary was again extended, a move that saw Nyalenda and Manyatta informal settlements
incorporated into the municipality.
Figure 3: Informal Settlements in Kisumu City
Source: Situational Analysis of Informal Settlements in Kisumu, UN Habitat, 2005

18
1.4 Project Locations
1.4.1 Nyalenda A Ward
Nyalenda settlement rose into prominence in 1901 with the arrival of the Railway line in Kisumu town
then known as Port Florence. An in-depth study into the names used in the area revealed that Nyalenda
area derives its name from the word ‘boma’ (cow-dung collection points) and the name ‘Pandpieri’ is
the equivalent of a hiding place. Dago is the local word for a Swampy area while Dunga was formerly
known as Nanga due to the fact that many Indian dhows used to dock in the area.
The settlement is located within the Kisumu City, within Kisumu County. Administratively, the
settlement sits in Kisumu East Sub County following the implementation of the devolved structures of
government. Together with and Manyatta B Ward, the sub locationscum wards form Kolwa West
Location in Winam Division. Politically, Nyalenda ‘A’ falls within Kisumu Town East Constituency.
The development of the settlement starts proximately 1km away from the City Centre and covers an
area of approximately 3.2 km2. The slum has got a well-developed linkage with its neighborhoods such
Manyatta, Nyalenda B, the CBD, and Nyamasaria among others. The smaller administrative units in
the ward include:
 Dago
 Kanyakwar
 Central
 Western
Table 1: Population size and distribution in Nyalenda A
Population
characteristics
No. of
Males
No. of
Females
Total
Population
No. of
HHs
Area (km2
Density
Slum
Nyalenda A 14,829 13,440 28,269 8,070 3.2 8,953
Source: Compiled from National Population and Housing Census (2009)
1.4.2 Nyalenda B Ward
Nyalenda ‘B’ Ward is one of the 35 Wards that make up Kisumu County and falls within Kisumu City
boundaries Administratively, the ward is located in Nyalenda ‘B’ sub location, West Kolwa Location,
in Kisumu Central Sub County. Politically, Nyalenda ‘B’Ward is in the Kisumu Town Central
Constituency. The development of the settlement starts proximately 1km away from the City Centre
and covers an area of 4.7 km2
(National Population and Housing Census 2009). The ward has got a well-
developedtransport network of marram roads s and is linked with its neighborhoods such Milimani, the
City Centre, and Nyalenda ‘A’ among others. The smaller administrative units in the ward include:
 Western
 Kilo
 Got Owak
 Nanga
 Dunga

19
Table 2: Population assize and distribution in Nyalenda ‘B’
Population
characteristics
No. of
Males
No. of
Females
Total
Population
No. of
HHs
Area (km2
Density
Slum
Nyalenda B 16,189 16,241 32,430 8,561 4.7 6,886
Source: Compiled from National Population and Housing Census (2009)
Figure 4: Nyalenda Settlement
Source: Socio-Economic Survey Report for Informal Settlements in Kisumu: Ministry of Land and
Urban Development

20
1.4.3 Obunga (Railways Ward)
Obunga settlement falls within Railways Ward is inhabited by the Kanyakwar, Gem ad Lego people
who migrated into the originally expansive farm land at the turn of the century. Its growth and
development like other settlements in Kisumu is attributed to the railway line and the up surge of the
migrant population into the larger Kisumu town. The smaller administrative units include:
 Kasarani
 Sega Sega
 Obunga Central I
 Obunga Central II
 Kamakowa
Table 3: Population size and distribution in Obunga
Population
characteristics
No. of
Males
No. of
Females
Total
Population
No. of
HHs
Area (km2
Density
Slum
1. Obunga 6,447 6107 12,554 3,553 6.6 1,913
Source: Compiled from National Population and Housing Census (2009) Figure 5: Obunga Informal settlement
Source: Socio-Economic Survey Report for Informal Settlements in Kisumu: Ministry of Land and
Urban Development

21
1. 5.1 Status of water supply and Sanitation services in Kisumu City
1.5.1.1 Sanitation services
In Kisumu City, however, the latest estimates indicate 55% coverage for sanitation (sewerage and onsite
sanitation). Out of the 55%, only 10 % of the population has access to the sewer network, mainly
concentrated within the Central Business District (CBD) of Kisumu City. The rest of the city, including
the up market Milimani Estate rely on conservancy/septic tanks and pit latrines. The situation in the
LIAs is further compounded by high water table and flash floods which make pit latrines unstable, often
filling with water rather than sludge. The worst hit settlements are the low lying Nyalenda, Obunga and
Bandani settlements. Manual pit emptying is common, but is unregulated and criminalized by the Public
Health Act6
. The emptiers lack appropriate equipment and protective gear for their trade. Designated
disposal sites are not available and raw sludge is dumped in the environment. Public toilets are few and
unevenly distributed. Moreover, the pay-as you-use toilets have not addressed the problem owing to
low incomes in the settlements. Ecological and bio sanitation technologies have been piloted by
development partners, but their uptake and scale up remain minimal owing to cultural barriers and initial
investment costs.
1.5.1.2 Water supply
The water coverage is estimated at 53%. The current water demand in the city and its environs is
estimated at 44,000 m3 per day, while the two water treatment plants serving the area have a
combined capacity of 45, 000m3 per day. However, these plants cannot be operated at full capacity
owing to inadequate distribution systems and aging infrastructure which cannot cope with high
pressures. The network distribution is indicated in the figure below.
Figure 6: Main water reticulation network in the LIAs in Kisumu City
Source: KIWASCO Strategic Guidelines for LIAs, 2013
6Public Health Act of Kenya, Cap 242

22
Existing Water Delivery Models-KIWASCO
Water delivery model Advantages Disadvantages
KIWASCO household
connections7
16000 serving
approximately 128,000
people
 Convenience to the customer, direct
relationship with KIWASCO
 Connection cost of Ksh. 6,0008
is beyond the reach of informal
settlement residents
 Additional material and labour costs if more than 50 m. KSHs
6000-10,000. This is beyond the ability of many residents
Kiosks
342 Kiosks serving
people thus 300 persons per
kiosk
 Public water access at a regulated price
 Reliable and semi-convenient access
 Accessible to any consumer with cash
 Led to elimination of water borne diseases
in informal settlement.
 Exploitation of customers by some operators.
 Cash only payments thus a consumer who cannot pay on spot
misses on the services.
 Long queues/ waiting time
DMM9
15 DMM lines having
connections of 2,546 serving
persons
 Lower tariffs compared to regular
customers
 Lower connection fees.
 Improved system for monitoring leading to
reduction in NRW
 Reduced staff-residents interface hence
low opportunity for corruption
 Created employment and enhance business
skills in the community
 Reduced tariffs hence penetration of
services and improved health in the
informal settlement
 Continued unplanned nature of the informal settlement
 Lack of frame work to deal with NRW for Master Operators
(MOs).
 Resistance by some community members because they have
illegal connection.
 MOs debts to KIWASCO
7Charges for new connections: ½’’= Ksh 4,000; ¾’’ =Ksh 5,000; 1’’ =Ksh 15,000; 3’’ =Ksh16,000; 4’’ =Ksh 30,000
8
Ksh. 1800 deposit (security), Ksh. 4,000 (connection fee), Ksh. 200 (connection form) if less than 50 metres
9
Delegated Management Model

23
1.6Slum upgrading initiatives in Kisumu
The national government and international development agencies have piloted a number of slums up
grading initiatives both in Kisumu and other towns in the past. Whilst some gains have been made towards
improving the lives of the urban poor in the settlements and useful lessons drawn, it remains to be seen how
the initiatives will be scaled up to provide sustainable urban solutions to the people who need it most, the
urban poor in Kenyan towns and cities.
1.6.1 Cities Development Strategy
Kisumu was the first city in Kenya to prepare, through a partnership with UN Habitat and other
stakeholders, a 5 years Cities Development Strategy (CDS) (2004-2009) targeting poverty reduction and
environmental management for the city. The CDS which was formally adopted the City Council as a policy
document provided the framework for achieving the following objectives:
 Improving the quality of life of 40% of the urban population by promoting actions towards a healthy
environment and access to quality food;
 Ensuring 40% of the population have access to potable water and sanitation;
 Encouraging public-private investment initiatives for improved productivity and poverty reduction;
 Developing and institutionalizing frameworks that promote stakeholder participation in urban planning
with due consideration to gender equity, efficiency and empowerment; and,
 Contribute to the reduction on current trends of environmental pollution within the city and its environs
for the protection of the lake and its resources.
1.6.2 Millennium Cities Initiatives
Kisumu was declared the first United Nation’s Millennium City in the world in January 2006, with specific
focus to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as articulated in the Cities Development
Strategy (CDS) which recognized water and sanitation as the major challenges towards sustainable urban
development in the lake side city. Since then, Kisumu has continued to attract development initiatives
including the on -going Kisumu Urban Project (KUP) whose objective is to enhance living conditions of
Kisumu’s population by introducing a comprehensive urban programmes. Key activities include
strengthening the local capacity (financial, technical and political) and supporting investments (solid waste
management, slum upgrading, commercial facilities and other public infrastructure and facilities). This
initiative is implemented by the County Government of Kisumu with financial supported by the
AgenceFrançaise de Développement (AFD).
1.6.3Cities without Slums
Kisumu, together with Nairobi and Mavoko were the first three cities in Kenya to pilot the Cities Without
Slums (CWS) initiative under the Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme KENSUP) implemented by UN
Habitat and the Government of Kenya in 2003. The main thrust of the process was to create conditions that
can sustain long term nationwide slum upgrading initiatives by harnessing political will while strengthening
nascent forms of organization of slum dwellers in the promotion of an inclusive process based on consensus
and partnership. The programme aimed at consolidating experiences of existing and past interventions to
undertake an integrated slum-upgrading programme which would eventually improve the conditions of
those living and working in the informal settlements in Kenya.
The strategies above laid out broad principles for attaining integrated and inclusive cities development.
However, it should be noted that they had shortcomings which undermined the overall success and
replication across Kenyan towns and cities. Some of these challenges include:
 Lack of sustainable financing models for prioritized community action/investment plans.
 Inadequate institutional as well as regulatory reforms and instruments to support the
implementation of the strategies,

24
 Lack of clarity on the roles of stakeholders and sustainable platforms to promote dialogue across
board,
 Lack of clear framework for providing feedback on progress and monitoring and evaluation,
 Unrealistic standards and regulations that ignored prevailing social and economic indicators of the
target beneficiaries,
 Lack of long term capacity development programmes for government officers, community
representatives and civil society organizations for sustained programme interventions, and
 Awareness raising across all stakeholders and exploration of synergy between formal and informal
private sector players for integration of pro poor considerations.
1.6.4 Kenya Informal Settlements Improvement Project
Kenya Informal Settlement Improvement Project (KISIP) is a Kenyan Government project jointly designed
and prepared with the World Bank, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida)
and the AgenceFrançaise de Développement (AFD). KISIP focuses on improving living conditions in
existing informal settlements or slums by investing in infrastructure and strengthening tenure security, as
well as supporting the government in planning for future urban growth in a manner that prevents emergence
of new slums, based on plans developed in consultation with the beneficiary communities. In addition,
KISIP is also supporting the Ministry of Land and Urban Development (MoLHUD) and the County
Governments in selected counties in planning to help them anticipate and manage future demand for
housing and environmentally healthy neigbourhoods as cities and urban areas expand.
The above overall objective and specific-objectives are to be achieved through the implementation of the
following four project components:
Component 1: Strengthening institutions and project management. This component will carry out
activities to strengthen the institutional capacity of MoLHUD and the selected counties. It will also carry
out a range of activities associated with programme implementation and establishment of a monitoring and
evaluation system.
Component 2: Enhancing tenure security. This component will support participatory mapping and
planning, cadastration, information systemization, registration and issuance of titles to individuals or groups
in informal settlements.
Component 3: Investing in infrastructure and service delivery. This component will support
implementation of community-driven settlement upgrading plans, investment in settlement level
infrastructure—water and sanitation systems, solid waste management, storm water drainage,
electrification, pedestrian walkways, roads, bicycle paths, street and security lighting, vending platforms,
public parks, and green spaces—and, where necessary, extension of trunk infrastructure to settlements.
Component 4: Planning for urban growth. This component will support the development of policies,
standards and systems that facilitate delivery of affordable serviced land and housing for low-income
households. It will also support the selected counties in implementing activities aimed to improvement
planning and management of future municipal growth.
1.6. 4 Kisumu City Partnership for Improved Sanitation in Informal Settlements (KisumuSan)
The project takes cognizance that over 50 % of Kisumu’s 600,000 residents live in deprivation and 80 %
are tenant householders. Fewer than 30 % have adequate toilets and open defecation is widespread
(Practical Action, 2014). Slum-dwellers’ demands for better sanitation infrastructure and services fail to
influence landlords or authorities. Enterprising residents dig and empty their own pits; some earning
incomes by offering these services to others, but standards are extremely poor and practices dangerous. The

25
results of non-governmental organization such as Kisumu Urban Apostolate Programme (KUAP) and
Umande Trust to effect change are promising, but limited by their organizational capacity. Human waste
seep into drinking and flood-waters cause a public health hazard, spreading water-borne diseases and
degrading the environment. Children under 5, women of reproductive age, people living with disabilities
and HIV/AIDS are most affected. The project has therefore, been designed to trigger the delivery of safer,
healthier and better futures and enhance the voice of marginalized slum-dwellers in Obunga and Nyalenda
informal settlements.
The current project appears to be specifically designed to complement existing national and county
government slum upgrading initiatives. The strategic objective to incentivize private sector participation in
sanitation service delivery appears novel. Caution has also been taken to subsidize the very poor and most
vulnerable with the two informal settlements to ensure that no one is left behind. Gender considerations
have also been made, taking into account that women are the de factor managers of water and sanitation
services, roles that have been hijacked by the men in the predominantly patriarchal society.
1.7 Climate Change and related issues in Kisumu City
Kisumu City’s geomorphological and climatic conditions are determined largely by three highlands (Nandi
Hills, Riat Hills and Kisian Hills), two plains (Kano Plains and Kanyakwar Plains), and several wetlands
and of course Lake Victoria, the second largest fresh water lake in the world. The city’s vulnerability to
climate change (CC) is a function of rapid urbanization and population growth (tripling from 150,000 in
1989 to more than 500,000 inhabitants in 2009), high poverty levels (48%), deforestation and soil erosion,
flooding, deterioration of the riparian reserve; and pollution and discharge of untreated solid and liquid
waste into the environment among other factors.
Approximately 60% of the city population lives in slums and other informal settlements which are
characterized by dense populations and lack basic infrastructure and services. They are the most vulnerable
to CC and its impacts which have been noted in the recent past including:
 Flash floods
 Receding water levels in Lake Victoria affecting water supply and fish breeding grounds
 Surface water pollution (rivers, lakes, earth dams)
 Prolonged droughts,
 Very high temperatures,
 Irregular and unpredictable rainfall patterns), and
 Disappearance of wetlands and endangered/rare species of aquatic flora and fauna
Owing to its location on the Kano plains and the Nyando river basin, the city experiences perennial foods
during the rainy season which wreak havoc on human population, livelihood assets (such as livestock, and
businesses) and infrastructure/services. Most shocks and stresses in the city may be categorized as follows:
 Natural disasters - climate change related resulting in flooding, drought, erosion and siltation of
water bodies including rivers and Lake Victoria,
 Social shocks - frequent disease outbreaks such as cholera, lack of access to food, shelter and
education, fire outbreaks in informal settlements, markets, road accidents caused by poor road
conditions,
 Economic stresses- unemployment, economic disparity, lack of access to financial resources
 Physical and infrastructure stresses - collapse of physical infrastructure- roads, water and sewerage
networks, power cables, collapse of bridges and culverts, houses and sanitation facilities etc.), and
 Political unrest -riots, demonstrations and violence leading to destruction of property and loss of
livelihoods.
All these factors individually or collectively impact negatively on the local population and affect the ability
of the County Government, city management and other institutions to provide efficient services. The burden
is greater for the urban poor (rising cost of food and transport; destruction of houses and businesses;

26
disruption of water supply, sanitation facilities and energy services; loss of livestock and sometimes even
human lives). The County government and the city both lack the necessary institutional framework,
policies, and staff capacity to adequately respond to disasters (natural or man-made) whenever they occur.
1.7.2 Impact of Climate Change on City Management and Residents
48% of Kisumu residents live below the poverty line ($2.5). This increases the burden of bearing the shocks
and stresses that come with CC further eroding their capacities and capabilities, and therefore, increases
their vulnerability. For example:
 Kisumu’s informal settlements are densely populated and poorly served by road networks and other
services compromising the ability of the city management to effectively respond to emergencies
in the LIAs,
 Loss of revenue due to destruction of property and livelihood assets,
 Interruption of essential service delivery such as provision of water and sanitation services;
 Redirection/reallocation of resources and personnel to emergency response, whenever such
disasters occur, at the expense of normal service delivery; and
 Huge reconstruction costs of roads, bridges and drainage systems
 Limited access to water increases the tariffs (costs) of clean drinking water leading to water borne
diseases and ailments,
 Lack of sanitation facilities lead to open defaecation (OD), environmental pollution and outbreak
of diseases such as cholera, and
 Lack of street lights (or lights on public spaces) increases insecurity for women and girls after night
fall and small business, often operated by women and youth, have to close early, leading to lost
business opportunities and incomes.

27
Chapter two: The design of the study
2.1 Overall Study Design
This was a cross sectional descriptive study that involved both qualitative and quantitative data collection
and analysis methods. All quantitative and qualitative data collected by the baseline study was
disaggregated by sex and beneficiary group.
2.2. Sampling
The formula below was used for calculating sample size is as follows:
 
2
2
122111 )1()1()1(2


   ZPPPPZPP
Dn
Where:
n = sample size
D = design effect = 2
P1 = the estimated proportion of indicator of interest = X%
P2 = the estimated proportion of indicator (at time of follow up survey) = X% + 5%
P = (P1 + P2) / 2;
∆2
= (P2 – P1)2
= (5%)2
= 0.0025
Z1- = the z-score which is the probability an observed change of size (P2 - P1) has not occurred by chance;
at 95% confidence level, =0.05 and Z1- = 1.65
Z1- = the z-score corresponding to the desired level of power to detect size (P2 - P1) with power of 80%,
=0.20 and Z1-=0.84
The following estimates were been taken into consideration in estimating the sample size:
 The indicator of interest (community access to toilets of 30%)
 The survey when repeated should detect changes of at least 5% points in the indicator of interest
 Confidence levels of 95% and power of 80%
 Design effect (DEF) of 2
 Response rates of at least 85%
2.2.1 Sampling procedures for the household survey
The sample size of 256 households as calculated using the above procedure were targeted during the
baseline survey and allocated between the 2 clusters in proportion to the total population of each cluster (ie.
Obunga and Nyalenda). We used a two stage stratified cluster sampling strategy, whereby the study clusters
were the Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) and Households our Secondary Sampling Units (SSUs). The first
stage involved the listing of all households from each cluster. The allocation of the number of households
to be surveyed in each cluster was done using proportion to population size (PPS) sampling which is based
on the actual number of households in the respective cluster ensuring that a more populated cluster got
more households selected.
At the second stage, households were randomly selected from the household lists of each cluster based on
the proportion calculated at the first stage. In cases, where people were not available at home, the field
interviewers made another visit to the household. For those households where no eligible household

28
respondent was available after two visits, the household was replaced by another household nearest to the
initially selected one.
2.3 Household survey questionnaires
A comprehensive household survey questionnaire was developed in consultation with the three
implementing partners. This tool focused on capturing responses on the key issues:
 Social , economic and demographic characteristics
 Beneficiary Analysis in relation to household and community access to and Quality of Water Sanitation
and Hygiene (WASH) Services
 Community Engagement and Social Inclusion
 WASH Service Coverage at the community level(public primary schools)
 Mapping of Partners/Stakeholders.
2.4 Resource Maps
Resource maps were drawn by various community groups using locally available materials to show location
and use of community resources e.g. water sources, schools, health facilities, financial institutions, market
centers, etc. Discussions during the mapping exercise lead to the identification of key opportunities and
issues existing within the project location. This information forms part of the baseline data. In each
settlement, 2 resource maps were drawn.
2.5 Focus Group Discussions (FGD)
Focus Group discussions were conducted with different community groups to collect qualitative baseline
information related to the key project indicators. In each settlement, an FGD was conducted for the
following categories of respondents:
 FDG for women only groups
 FDG for Neighbourhood Planning Association (NPA)
 FDG for WASH based Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) such as manual pit emptiers
2.6 Key informant interviews
The study team to conduct 6 key informant interviews for the following individuals:
 Two community leaders- one from each settlement
 Two project staff
 Two county government technical officers responsible for the areas
2.7 Desk review
This involved collecting and reviewing relevant documents to capture the secondary data. The following
key documents were reviewed:
 The project implementation documents to provide a further understanding of the project purpose
and scope
 The policy and institutional framework at national and county levels governing water and sanitation
service delivery
 Existing county and city development strategies, plans, standards and technologies and WASH
delivery models vis-à-vis slum up grading initiatives in Kisumu City
 Project reports of similar projects implemented in Kenya

29
2.8Execution of the study
Under the leadership of a Lead Consultant, a team of 4 multidisciplinary consultants worked together to
execute the assignment. The Lead consultant provided overall leadership in the design, field
implementation, data management and reporting. Data collection in each cluster was conducted by a team
of 5 individuals. Each team comprised four research assistants and one supervisor. The key informant
interviews were conducted directly by the consultants. Four data entry clerks were engaged to ensure that
data is expeditiously and accurately edited, cleaned and entered within the shortest time possible.
Data was collected via face-to-face interviews administered either in English or the appropriate local
language. Technical assistance and support supervision of fieldwork was provided by a two-tier structure
involving both the supervisors and the study consultants.
2.9 Data analysis
Statistical analysis software, SPSS, was used to analyze all quantitative (survey) data. Qualitative data was
analyzed using the following steps to ensure rigor is applied at every stage of analysis: First, recorded
interviews were first transcribed verbatim into Microsoft Word. Second, transcripts were uploaded into
qualitative software (NVivo8 or NUDIST*) for content analysis as both are highly suitable to use when
analyzing high-volumes of data. Third, a coding framework was developed following review of transcripts
and instruments used in data collection. This was used to code transcripts and identify key themes that
emerged from the data during content analysis.

30
3.0 Chapter Three: Study findings
3.1 Beneficiary Analysis in relation to Access to and Quality of WASH Services
The baseline study conducted in Nyalenda and Obunga Informal settlements was conducted in both
Nyalenda A and Nyalenda B wards in Nyalenda and Obunga in Railways Ward with 163 respondents from
Nyalenda and 93 from Obunga Settlements.
Majority of the households where the study was conducted were headed by men in both the settlements
(Nyalenda (115, 70.8%), Obunga (57, 60.8%). Women headed about 29% of the household in Nyalenda
and 37% in Obunga. Only one (1) household was headed by a child and this was in Obunga.
Table 4: Household’s head in Obunga and Nyalenda
Household Head
Settlement Area:
Nyalenda Obunga
Woman 48 (29.2%) 34 (37.3%)
Man 115 (70.8%) 57 (60.8%)
Child 0 (0.0%) 2 (2.0%)
The highest level of education by the respondents across Nyalenda and Obunga settlement areas show that
most of the respondents (42%) in Nyalenda have reached primary level of education followed closely by
secondary level of education (38%) while in Obunga, most of the respondents (47%) have attained
secondary level of education followed closely by primary level (31%). In both the settlement areas, gender
differentials are significant on the highest level of education. Most of the women headed households in
Nyalenda (50%) only reached primary level of education with just 31% of the women having gone beyond
the primary level of education compared to men headed households with more than half (59%) going
beyond primary level of education. The same was noted in Obunga where just 42% of women compared to
74% of men headed households had gone beyond primary level of education as table below shows.
Table 5: Education levels of the respondents
Highest Level of
Education
Household Head: Nyalenda Household Head: Obunga
Woman Man Woman Man Child
Never Attended School 11 (19.2%) 6 (3.2%) 3(5.3%) 3 (9.7%) 0 (0.0%)
Primary Education 30 (50.0%) 55 (38.1%) 10 (52.6%) 5 (16.1%) 2(100%)
Secondary Education 19 (30.8%) 60 (41.3%) 8 (42.1%) 14(51.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Tertiary Education 0 (0.0%) 26 (17.5%) 0 (0.0%) 6(22.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Significance: Χ² (3)=11.731, p=0.008 Χ² (6)=12.129, p=0.023
Majority of the households in Nyalenda (54%) have between 5 and 8 members while majority of the
households in Obunga (59%) had between 1 and 4 members. These difference in size of households was
significant across the two settlement areas but not by gender differentials.
In terms of source of income, more than half (50%) of the respondents in both sites depends either in own
employment or own business as the main source of income (Nyalenda – 71%, Obunga – 53%). Generally,
there is a significant differences in sources of income between the two settlements areas as most of the

31
respondents in Nyalenda depend on self – employment (38%) while in Obunga, most respondents depend
on salaried employment as the main source of income (31%) as table below shows.
Table 6: Sources of income
Source of income
Salaried Employment 4(7.7%) 16 (14.3%) 7 (21.1%) 23 (38.7%) 0 (0.0%)
Own Employment 7 (15.4%) 55 (47.6%) 7 (21.1%) 18 (32.3%) 0 (0.0%)
Own Business 22 (46.2%) 31 (27.0%) 17 (47.4%) 8 (12.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Other Sources 14 (30.8%) 13 (11.1%) 4 (10.5%) 9 (16.1%) 1 (100%)
Slightly more than 80% of the households in both Nyalenda and Obunga had average monthly household
income of between 5000 and 20000 (Nyalenda – 81%, Obunga – 84%).
In Nyalenda, there is a significant gender disparity in terms of average monthly household income. Majority
of the women headed households (73%) had the lowest average monthly income of between KES 5000 and
KES 10000 compared to men headed households that for majority (44%), had average monthly household
income of between KES 10000 and KES 20000 in the same settlement area.
Table 7: Average Household Income per month
Average HH Income
per month
5001-10000 73.1% 30.2% 57.9% 25.8% 100%
10001-20000 23.1% 44.4% 31.6% 54.8% 0.0%
20000+ 3.8% 25.4% 10.5% 19.4% 0.0%
Majority of the houses occupied by the respondents are not owned by residents (Nyalenda – 60%, Obunga
– 80%) but by someone else. The ownership of houses occupied by the residents are not significantly
different in the two settlement areas. For most of the residents (Nyalenda – 58%, Obunga – 70%) who
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
5001-10000 10001-20000 20000+
Average Household income per month in Ksh
Settlement Area: Nyalenda
Settlement Area: Obunga

32
occupy their own houses, these have been self – built figure below shows. For majority of the residents
staying in houses that they don’t own, the houses are leased or rented (Nyalenda – 98%, Obunga – 100%).
Gender differentials on ownership status of the occupied houses was significantly different in Nyalenda but
not in Obunga. Majority of the women headed household (58%) in Nyalenda were owned by the
respondents themselves compared to men headed households that only owned 33.3% of the houses they
occupied in the same settlement area. From the household survey, the mean amount of rent paid by
households that don’t own a house that they occupy in Nyalenda settlement is KES 2437 (178) while in
Obunga it is KES 2005 (154).
Table 8: Ownership of occupied house
Ownership of Occupied
House:
Yes 57.7% 33.3% 21.1% 16.1% 100%
No 42.3% 66.7% 78.9% 83.9% 0.0%
3.1.1 Profile of landlords/ladies
In the study, a total of 39 respondents owning residential units in both Nyalenda (15 respondents) and
Obunga (24 respondents) were also interviewed. Of the respondents, majority were males in both the areas
58.30%
8.30%
22.20%
11.10%
70%
0.00%
30.00%
0.00%
Built
Gifted
Inherited
Bought
Mode of Aquisition of Owned House
Settlement Area: Obunga Settlement Area: Nyalenda

33
(Nyalenda - 73%, Obunga – 75%) as shown below.
The plot owners interviewed in Obunga had on average between 8 and 10 housing units while their
counterparts in Nyalenda owned on average between 6 and 8 housing units. Of the units owned by plot
owners in Obunga, on average between 1 and 4 units were occupied while in Nyalenda, on average between
1 and 2 units were occupied.
The plot owners in Obunga spent on average KES 9266.40 (2582.80) on materials while in Nyalenda, this
investment was KES 20137.33 (3929.58). In Obunga, the average amount of money spent on labor during
the construction of housing units was KES 6360.00 (2563.12) while in Nyalenda this stands at KES 6000.00
(1303.84).
3.1.2 Membership to plot owners association in Obunga and Nyalenda Areas
Only one (1) of the landlords/landladies in Obunga belong to a plot owners association. In Nyalenda, this
was the same – one (1) landlord. The plot owner In Nyalenda belonged to Asembo Self Help Group.
Asembo Self Help Group has ten (10) members (9 men and 1 woman).
73.30% 75%
26.70% 25%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
Obunga Nyalenda
Settlement:
Profile of the Landlords/ladies
Male Female
7%
93%
Membership to landlords/ladies
association in Obunga
Yes No
4%
96%
Membership to landlords/ladies
association in Nyalenda
Yes No

34
3.1.3 Challenges faced in terms of providing better sanitation facilities for tenants:
Below are a list of challenges landlords face in providing better sanitation facilities especially toilets and
latrines to the tenants in both Obunga and Nyalenda settlements
Table 9: Challenges faced in providing better sanitation facilities
Challenges faced in terms of providing better sanitation facilities
for tenants:
Settlement Area
Obunga Nyalenda
Cost of constructing a modern and durable toilet is too high 3 1
Getting tenants to adhere to the set sanitation rules 8 11
High water table and soil structure 3 4
Lack of detergents to clean the toilets - 1
Lack of sewage line - 3
Toilets are not enough 1 1
Water accessibility problem - 2
3.1.4 Investment in Water and sanitation improvement by plot owners in Obunga and Nyalenda
Areas
Of the plot owners in Obunga area, 87% are/have thought of taking the necessary steps to improve their
tenants’ human excreta disposal. For the land owners in Nyalenda, this proportion stands at 83%. For these
group of plot owners willing to improve the disposal of human excreta in their plots in Obunga, 47% would
like to improve it to flush toilet/WC and 40% to VIP latrines. For the plot owners in Nyalenda, the desire
for most is to improve to pit latrine and flush toilet/WC at 30% and 26% respectively. This desire to change
the sanitation specific to mode of disposal of human excreta is significantly related to the two settlement
areas. This is since VIP latrines, pour flush toilets, WC connected to septic tanks and other human excreta
disposal mechanisms are highly regarded in Nyalenda but not in Obunga.
Table 10: Future preferred mode of disposal of human excreta
Future preferred mode of disposal of
human excreta:
Settlement: Significantly
Different?Obunga Nyalenda
Flush Toilet/WC 7 (46.7%) 6 (26.1%)
No
Pit Latrine 2 (13.3%) 7 (30.4%)
VIP Latrine 6 (40%) 2 (8.7%)
Pour Flush Toilet 0 (0.0%) 2 (8.7%)
WC Connected to septic tank 0 (0.0%) 3 (13%)
Other 0 (0.0%) 3 (13%)
For the plot owners willing to invest in improving modes of disposing human excreta, 93% in Obunga are
willing to pay for their preferred mode of disposal of human excreta. This proportion is 91% in Nyalenda.
On average, plot owners in Obunga are willing to pay KES 1000 while those in Nyalenda are willing to pay
KES 20000 for their preferred mode of disposal of human excreta.

35
None of the plot owners in Obunga have ever taken a loan to improve the sanitation facilities in their plots
but all are willing to take a loan for the same purpose. In Nyalenda, just 3 of the plot owners have taken
loan to improve the sanitation facilities in their plots but 90% (19) of those who have never taken a loan to
improve sanitation in their plots are willing to take such loans and for the same purpose.
Table 11: willingness to take a loan to improve sanitation facilities
Has taken a loan to improve
sanitation facilities in the plot:
Yes 0 (0.0%) 3 (12.5%)
Yes
No 15 (100%) 21 (87.5%)
Willing to take a loan to improve
sanitation facilities in the plot:
Yes 15 (100%) 19 (90.5%)
Yes
No 0 (0.0%) 2 (9.5%)
In Obunga, all those willing to take a loan to improve sanitation in their plots are willing to take it up at 0%
interest rate. The 0% interest rate is also preferred by 88% of the plot owners who are willing to take a loan
for the improvement of sanitation facilities in Nyalenda. The plot owners in Obunga are willing to take on
average KES 25750.00 (8148.36) while in Nyalenda, the plot owners are willing to burrow KES 40000
(15275.25) to improve sanitation facilities for their tenants.
Table 12: Interest participants willing to pay to improve sanitation facilities
Interest participants willing to pay for
borrow to improve sanitation facilities:
0 5 (100%) 7 (87.5%)
Yes
7 0 (0.0%) 1 (12.5%)
Only 14% of the plot owners in Obunga area confirmed having received assistance in constructing their
existing toilets or latrines. In Nyalenda just 4% of the plot owners had received such help. This help was
only in the form of provision of vent pipes for those who had received such help across the two areas.
93%
7%
Landlords/ladies willingness to pay for a
preferered mode of waste disposal in Obunga
Yes No
91%
9%
Landlords/ladies willingness to pay for a
preferred mode of waste disposal in Nyalenda
Yes No

36
Table 13: Assistance to construct toilets/latrines
Got assistance to construct existing
toilets/Latrines:
Yes 2 (14.3%) 1 (4.2%)
Yes
No 12 (85.7%) 23 (95.8%)
3.2 Community Engagement and Social Inclusion
3.2.1 Membership to social groups/networks and what they do (social capital)
In both the settlements, various committees exists to take care of health, water, environment, education,
Neighborhood Planning and development and other committees taking care of other issues within the
community. However, water committees and other committees are known by most of the residents of
Nyalenda to exist. In Obunga, most residents know of the existence of water committees, Neighborhood
Planning Associations and other committees as table below shows.
Table 14: Committees/associations that exist
Committees/associations that exists:
Settlement Area:
Nyalenda Obunga
Village Health Committee (5.6%) (0.0%)
Water Committee (15.7%) (9.8%)
Environment Committee (2.2%) (0.0%)
Education/School Committee (9%) (7.8%)
Neighborhood Planning Association (9%) (9.8%)
Ward Development Committee (9%) (2%)
Constituency Development Fund (3.4%) (3.9%)
Others (38.2%) (23.5%)
By gender, majority of the women headed household (86%) in Nyalenda recognize provincial
administration (chiefs and assistant chiefs followed by religious leaders as their respected community
leaders just like men in the same area (provincial administration – 84%, religious leaders – 44%). The most
respect leaders in the community in Obunga were also the provincial administration among majority of
women and men (women – 95%, men - 77%). Though the proportion of women who trusted officials in the
provincial administration was significantly higher than that of men in Obunga as table below shows.
Table 15: Recognized leaders in the community
Recognized
Leaders in the
community:
Woman Man
Significantl
y Different?
Woman Man Child
Signif
icance
Village Elders 3.8% 9.5% Yes 0.0% 0.0% 100% No
Chiefs/Assistant
Chiefs
88.5% 84.1%
Yes
94.7% 77.4% 0.0% No
Religious
Leaders
50.0% 44.4%
Yes
36.8% 35.5% 0.0%
Yes
Neighborhood
Planning
Associations
15.4% 14.3%
Yes
0.0% 6.5% 0.0%
Yes

37
Member of
County
Assembly
26.9% 30.2%
Yes
5.3% 16.1% 0.0%
Yes
Member of
Parliament
19.2% 25.4%
Yes
21.1% 22.6% 0.0%
Yes
Others 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% Yes
Of the respondents interviewed, 28% in Nyalenda were members of at least one of the committees or
associations confirmed to exist in the area while just 6% were members of any such committees or
associations confirmed to exist in Obunga. For those who are members of any of the committees in
Nyalenda, majority participate in the committees by attending public participation meetings (39%) and
raising issues affecting them and their communities (28%). For those from Obunga and who are members
of any of the committees, participation is mainly by other engagements (42%), election of leaders (25%),
attending public participation meetings (17%) and raising issues affecting them and their community
members (17%) as shown in table below. Participation by attending public participation meetings and
raising issues affecting the community are two ways of participation of the participants that is significantly
different across the two settlement area. This is specifically since fewer participants confirmed participating
in the committees in this manner in Obunga compared to Nyalenda.
Table 16: Participation in various committees
Participates in the committees by:
Settlement Area: Significantly
different?Nyalenda Obunga
Attending Public Participation meetings: 39% 17% No
Participation in the election of Leaders: 17% 25% Yes
Raising Issues affecting me and other members of the
community:
28% 17% No
Presenting Written Memos or Petitions 9% 0.0% Yes
Doing other things: 7% 42% Yes
Membership to the committees was not significantly associated to gender in both the settlement areas
through more a higher proportion of men compared to women were members of a committee in Nyalenda.
Table 17: Membership to various committees
Are you a member of any of the
above committees?
Yes 23.1% 30.6% 0.0% 10% 0.0%
No 76.9% 69.4% 100% 90% 100%
Also not significant cross the gender differentials in both the areas was ways of participating in the
committees for those who were members of any of the committees in Nyalenda and Obunga areas.
Table 18: Ways of participating in the various 37committees

38
Ways of
participating in
committees
Woman Man
Signifi
cance
Woman Man Child
Significanc
e
Attending Public
Participation
meetings:
23.1% 19.0% Yes 0.0% 6.5% 0.0%
Yes
Participation in the
election of Leaders:
15.4% 6.4%
Yes
100% 6.5% 0.0%
Yes
Raising Issues
affecting me and other
members of the
community:
11.5% 15.6%
Yes
0.0% 6.5% 0.0%
Yes
Presenting Written
Memos or Petitions
7.7% 3.2%
Yes
Doing other things: 0.0% 4.8% Yes 10.5% 9.7% 0.0% Yes
Majority of the respondents from the two areas do not believe that the committees that exist in their areas
are effective in addressing the concerns raised by members of the community (Nyalenda – 71%, Obunga –
91%)
.
Table 19: whether committees effectively address concerns raised
Is the committee/association effectively addressing
Concerns raised?
Settlement Area: Significantly
different?Nyalenda Obunga
Yes 29.2% 8.8% No
No 70.8% 91.2%
There was not significant relationship in the perception of women and men regarding the effectiveness of
the committees in addressing the concerns the community members raise as table below shows.
Is the committee/association
effectively addressing Concerns
raised?
Yes 15.8% 34.8% 0.0% 15% 0.0%
No 84.2% 65.2% 100% 85% 100%
3.3 WASH Service Coverage
3.3.1 Water and Sanitation Services in Nyalenda and Obunga Settlements
a) Water sources
The most common water point for tenants according to the plot owners in Obunga is the standpipe within
the plot as confirmed by 47% of the plot owners. This is followed by purchase of water from water vendors
according to 33% of the plot owners in the same area. Only 13% of the plot owners confirmed that water
connections reach household level in Obunga. In Nyalenda, water access points and connection at
household levels were mainly standpipe within plot and household water connection according to 67% and
21% of the plot owners respectively. Water access by buying through the vendors was only common in
Obunga but not in Nyalenda.

KisumuSan Bseline Survey Final Report 2016

KisumuSan Bseline Survey Final Report 2016

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to KisumuSan Bseline Survey Final Report 2016

Similar to KisumuSan Bseline Survey Final Report 2016 (20)

KisumuSan Bseline Survey Final Report 2016