The document summarizes the methodology and preliminary findings of a study assessing the life cycle costs and service levels of school sanitation facilities provided by BRAC's WASH program between 2006-2007. It describes the multi-stage sampling process used to select 117 schools across 6 upazillas. Data was collected using a questionnaire on costs and service levels, which was analyzed to develop a school sanitation service ladder framework. The preliminary findings show variations in service levels across schools in terms of access, use, reliability, water availability, environmental protection and menstrual hygiene management. The findings also provide insights on operations and maintenance costs associated with different service levels. The document concludes with recommendations for BRAC and next steps in further analyzing costs and refining

1. LCCA and School Service
Level for BRAC school
sanitation

2. Sampling
Step 1: 6 divisions of BRAC WASH I program since 2006-07
Step 2: Upazillas where WASH I School interventions were taken up (150 Upazillas )
Step 3: one Upazilla from each of the divisions randomly ( 6 Upazillas)
( Dumuria, Hossainpur, Gabtoli, Birganj, Rangunia, Beanibazar)
Step 4: Listing of all the schools in the selected 6 Upazillas (200+ schools )
Step 5:
 The school data from the 6 upazillas is then arranged in sequence using the
“year of toilet construction” as a criteria.
 All the schools where the latrines constructed in the years 2007 and 2008
were considered as the sample
 Assumption being larger scope for CapManEx in these older schools.
 A total of 117 schools have been finally selected to undertake the case study

3. Data collection tools and methods
• Costs and service levels questionnaire
• Pre tested in 6 schools and revised
• Translation of questionnaire into Bangla
• Developing guidelines for data collection
• Training of the field staff at the HQ
• Refresher training at the division level
• Data collection and transporting back to HQ
• Data entry and cleaning and analysis
• Preliminary findings

4. Disclaimer
• These are preliminary results only!!

5. School Sanitation service ladder
Service level
(or outcome
of the
intervention)
Access
(n. of latrines per
student)
use
(Safe use of
Latrines
hand washing ,
running water
and soap)
Reliability
( operation and
maintenance/cleanline
ss)
Drinking water
(water for drinking,
flushing, hand
washing)
Environmental
protection
Menstrual
hygiene
management
Improved +Sufficient/
proportionate
number toilets for
students ( as per
Bangladesh Govt
norms)
+ wash hands
with soap after
use
+ cleaning equipment &
materials available (
waste bins, brooms,
soaps, cleaning
detergents) in toilets or
accessible all the time
within the school
premises
+ Safe drinking water
(arsenic & bacteria
free) + running water
available all the time
for flushing and
washing
Re use of faecal
matter as
manure or
recycling for
other purposes
+ Sufficient
space is
available for
changing+
privacy is
ensured
Basic = norm Separate latrine for
boys and girls
Always used by
students and
teachers
Clean with no faecal
matter in pan, well
maintained water seal,
floor or walls + no
puddles of urine
Water available most
of the times for
washing and slushing
near the latrine
Faecal sludge
and waste water
in safe
confinement (in
one or two pits)
Availability of
facilities for
disposal +
dumping
facilities
+Napkins are
available within
the school
Sub-standard shared Used only by
some students /
only sometimes
Dirty/ improper
maintenance
Water rarely available
within the latrine for
flushing and washing
Faecal sludge
visible or no
proper drainage
Availability of
facilities for
disposal but no
dumping
facilities
No Service NA No one uses the
toilet
No maintenance at all
and difficult to use by
students
Non availability of
water
Open pit/ unsafe
disposal of faecal
sludge
No facilities
available

6. Criteria 1: Access
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Percentageofschools
Access by BRAC norms (% of
schools with separate facilities
boys and girls)
Access by Bangladesh norms
(toilet/student ratio)
Less than 50 Improved
Between 50-75 Basic
Between 75-90 Sub-standard
More than 90 No service

7. Criteria 2: Safe use and hand-washing
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Percentageofschools
Use BRAC norm
Use by availability of
HW, running water and
soap = Total

8. Criteria 3: Reliability
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%Percentagesofschools
Cleanliness of latrine
and water in water seal
Availability of cleaning
equipment
Total

9. Criteria 4: Water for drinking
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentageofschools
Type of source
Water treatment
Total

10. Criteria 5: Environmental protection
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentageofschools
Type of technology
Sludge disposal
Total

11. Criteria 6: Menstrual hygiene management
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Percentageofschools
Availability of facilities for
disposal and dumping =
Total
Napkins available within the
school

12. Overall Service Levels
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%Percentageofschools
Improved
Basic
Sub-standard
No service

13. One-off CapEx and CapManEx, per student is lower for
sub-standard and no service schools

14. OpEx per year, per student is lower for sub-standard and
no service schools

15. What needs to be done?
• School management needs to be motivated towards
cleanliness and drainage systems to be taken care
properly
• Focus on drinking water ( quality/running water in
toilets etc.)
• monitoring framework can be put in place for schools
for better decision making
• Actual maintenance costs of school sanitation can be
estimated for putting a system in place

16. What can BRAC do with the findings?
• BRAC can sensitise the school brigade and
management on cleanliness and maintenance
• BRAC can strengthen the IEC programs integrating
these concepts
• Informing the findings to VWCs and integrating in the
action plan
• Can BRAC support schools for Up gradation and
sensitise on environmental protection?

17. Next steps
• Indepth analysis of costs and correlating it with service
levels
• Revising the service ladder with most sensitive and
definite indicator

18. Thanks for your time,
presence, patience, attention,
feedback, support,
cooperation, hospitality.