This report summarizes the results of baseline and endline surveys conducted as part of Water is Life International's Wa(SHG) pilot program in Ethiopia. The surveys assessed knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to personal sanitation, water treatment, hand washing, and disease incidence. Key findings include an increase in knowledge of water treatment methods, a decrease in untreated water consumption, and improved hand washing practices, particularly after latrine use. The report provides recommendations and conclusions regarding program impact on hygiene behaviors and disease burden.
This document outlines the needs assessment process, which is a research-based method to identify and quantify community needs. A needs assessment involves brainstorming key issues, developing research questions, collecting primary data through surveys and interviews and secondary data research, analyzing the findings, and reporting the results. The needs assessment process provides objective evidence, demonstrates an organization's capacity and credibility, and supports grant proposals and service delivery improvements. The presentation encourages combining expertise with subcontractors and reviewing additional resources to effectively conduct a needs assessment.
Measuring Search Engine Quality using Spark and PythonSujit Pal
Presented at PyData Amsterdam 2016. Describes the Rewinder tool, to compare search engine configuration performance between Microsoft FAST and Apache Solr for the ScienceDirect search backend migration.
This document introduces the Child Status Index (CSI), a tool developed to monitor outcomes for orphaned and vulnerable children (OVC) receiving support programs in sub-Saharan Africa. The CSI was created through participatory research with local communities to assess child well-being across 12 domains, including food, shelter, health, education and psychosocial support. It provides a standardized way for programs to evaluate how services are impacting children and to match children's needs with available support. The CSI is being implemented by various NGOs and national monitoring systems to improve outcomes for OVC.
Water and sanitation, situation & hygine(wash) in nepalBhim Upadhyaya
The document provides statistics on water supply and sanitation coverage in Nepal as of 2010. It includes data by development region and district on population, percentage of population with access to water supply and sanitation. The nation had 80.38% coverage for water supply and 43.04% for sanitation. For water systems, most were gravity pipe systems and over 11% of schemes were over 20 years old. Latrine coverage was 43.04% with over half being water seal toilets.
This document proposes the creation of a "Talent Isle" digital platform to promote Lipton's Talent Hunt campaign. The Talent Isle would include interactive features like a Talent Chest, Cabin, and School providing archives of past competitions. It would allow participants to register, track stats and share testimonials. Sailboat crews of student ambassadors would be selected to promote the Isle on Facebook. Features like a magic pearl game and Super Brand Manager character would drive users to the site. The monthly costs would be Rs. 30,000 for basic access or Rs. 60,000 including web-SMS integration for updates. The goal is to leverage the campaign and reach 40,000+ new users across Pakistan.
Monitoring & Evaluating projects & programs: A stakeholder perspectiveJacques Myburgh
Jacques Myburgh is an existential coach who has a science degree in information systems and geology, an MBA from Oxford Brookes University, and experience in organizational change management, project management, and business coaching. He is currently researching the monitoring and evaluation of strategies to professionalize the coaching industry in South Africa for his MPhil in Management Coaching. The workshop he is presenting introduces a results-based evaluation framework for determining the efficiency and effectiveness of projects using stakeholder perspectives and mapping activities to intended results and impacts.
A series of modules on project cycle, planning and the logical framework, aimed at team leaders of international NGOs in developing countries.
Part 8 of 11
This document summarizes the baseline survey results of a street food vendor project in Kolkata, India. It found that most vendors are men over 40 years old with primary education or less. Most vendors earn around Rs. 360 per day in profits selling cooked foods. Baseline hygiene practices were generally poor, with 38% having dirt on floors and 35% not covering raw foods. The project will provide training to 600 randomly assigned vendors to test how training impacts behaviors and business performance.
This document outlines the needs assessment process, which is a research-based method to identify and quantify community needs. A needs assessment involves brainstorming key issues, developing research questions, collecting primary data through surveys and interviews and secondary data research, analyzing the findings, and reporting the results. The needs assessment process provides objective evidence, demonstrates an organization's capacity and credibility, and supports grant proposals and service delivery improvements. The presentation encourages combining expertise with subcontractors and reviewing additional resources to effectively conduct a needs assessment.
Measuring Search Engine Quality using Spark and PythonSujit Pal
Presented at PyData Amsterdam 2016. Describes the Rewinder tool, to compare search engine configuration performance between Microsoft FAST and Apache Solr for the ScienceDirect search backend migration.
This document introduces the Child Status Index (CSI), a tool developed to monitor outcomes for orphaned and vulnerable children (OVC) receiving support programs in sub-Saharan Africa. The CSI was created through participatory research with local communities to assess child well-being across 12 domains, including food, shelter, health, education and psychosocial support. It provides a standardized way for programs to evaluate how services are impacting children and to match children's needs with available support. The CSI is being implemented by various NGOs and national monitoring systems to improve outcomes for OVC.
Water and sanitation, situation & hygine(wash) in nepalBhim Upadhyaya
The document provides statistics on water supply and sanitation coverage in Nepal as of 2010. It includes data by development region and district on population, percentage of population with access to water supply and sanitation. The nation had 80.38% coverage for water supply and 43.04% for sanitation. For water systems, most were gravity pipe systems and over 11% of schemes were over 20 years old. Latrine coverage was 43.04% with over half being water seal toilets.
This document proposes the creation of a "Talent Isle" digital platform to promote Lipton's Talent Hunt campaign. The Talent Isle would include interactive features like a Talent Chest, Cabin, and School providing archives of past competitions. It would allow participants to register, track stats and share testimonials. Sailboat crews of student ambassadors would be selected to promote the Isle on Facebook. Features like a magic pearl game and Super Brand Manager character would drive users to the site. The monthly costs would be Rs. 30,000 for basic access or Rs. 60,000 including web-SMS integration for updates. The goal is to leverage the campaign and reach 40,000+ new users across Pakistan.
Monitoring & Evaluating projects & programs: A stakeholder perspectiveJacques Myburgh
Jacques Myburgh is an existential coach who has a science degree in information systems and geology, an MBA from Oxford Brookes University, and experience in organizational change management, project management, and business coaching. He is currently researching the monitoring and evaluation of strategies to professionalize the coaching industry in South Africa for his MPhil in Management Coaching. The workshop he is presenting introduces a results-based evaluation framework for determining the efficiency and effectiveness of projects using stakeholder perspectives and mapping activities to intended results and impacts.
A series of modules on project cycle, planning and the logical framework, aimed at team leaders of international NGOs in developing countries.
Part 8 of 11
This document summarizes the baseline survey results of a street food vendor project in Kolkata, India. It found that most vendors are men over 40 years old with primary education or less. Most vendors earn around Rs. 360 per day in profits selling cooked foods. Baseline hygiene practices were generally poor, with 38% having dirt on floors and 35% not covering raw foods. The project will provide training to 600 randomly assigned vendors to test how training impacts behaviors and business performance.
The document provides an introduction to a course on project monitoring and evaluation. It will cover various topics related to project management over 15 sessions totaling 42 hours. Key concepts that will be discussed include the project cycle, monitoring and evaluation logic and cycle, evaluation techniques, indicators, and data collection for monitoring and evaluation. It emphasizes understanding the practical meanings and importance of concepts rather than mathematical equations.
This document discusses water quality guidelines recommended by the WHO. It outlines parameters for drinking water quality including acceptability, microbiological, chemical, and radiological aspects. Key parameters include turbidity, color, taste, odor, microbiological indicators like coliform bacteria, and chemical constituents like arsenic, fluoride, lead, nitrates and certain organic compounds. The document also discusses sources of water like rainwater, surface water, and groundwater and different types of water pollution from industrial, agricultural and domestic sources.
In this file, you can ref interview materials for m&e such as, m&e situational interview, m&e behavioral interview, m&e phone interview, m&e interview thank you letter, m&e interview tips …
Top 88 m&e interview questions with answers pdf
free pdf download ebook
This document discusses indicators for monitoring and evaluating projects. It defines indicators as variables used to measure project outputs and impact. Key points made include: indicators are important for defining how effectiveness will be measured, aiding managers assess progress, and providing a basis for evaluation. The document outlines three types of indicators - process, outcome, and impact - and gives examples for a water project. It stresses that good indicators must be precise, reliable, valid, measurable, and practicable.
This document discusses matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems. It begins with an introduction to recommender systems and the content-based and collaborative filtering approaches. It then describes the matrix factorization model, which characterizes users and items with vectors to predict ratings. Methods like stochastic gradient descent and alternating least squares are used to optimize the model. The Netflix Prize competition is discussed, which helped popularize these techniques. In conclusion, matrix factorization has become dominant in collaborative filtering due to its superior accuracy over other methods.
Promoting a culture of monitoring and evaluation in educational institutions. How to develop a M&E system, and grounding M&E planning on the Logical Framework Approach, and using Logframe as reference for M&E.
Newspaper ads for Schweppes ran from March to October 2009. Analysis of sales data found that the newspaper campaign drove an immediate 11.5% increase in Schweppes sales during the initial phase. Over the entire campaign, newspaper ads boosted sales by 9.5%, and by a further 5.8% after the campaign. The newspaper campaign also increased trial of Schweppes products by 18% and boosted brand penetration by 12%.
This document summarizes a workshop on monitoring and evaluation that took place in Tamale, Ghana from September 3-5, 2013. It defines monitoring as the ongoing collection and comparison of data to indicators to assess progress towards goals and use of funds. It discusses different levels that can be monitored, including outputs, outcomes and impact. Frameworks for monitoring like logical frameworks, results chains, theories of change and outcome mapping are also introduced. The document emphasizes that stakeholders at different levels must be engaged in monitoring and evaluation.
Well this is my first presentation in the slide share. In this presentation i have mentioned about the concept of water quality and guidelines for it in with the perspective to human health and its management in Nepal.
Suggestion and feedbacks are really welcome.
Monitoring and evaluation is a vital component that determines the effectiveness of a corporation's assistance by establishing clear links between past, present and future initiatives and results. The process helps in improving the programme performance and achieving desired results. It provides opportunities for fine-tuning, re-orientation and planning of the programme effectively, without which it becomes impossible to measure the success and impact of the programme even if the approach is right.
16. MIS for Project Monitoring and Evaluation ifadseahub
This document discusses how a management information system (MIS) can be used for project monitoring and evaluation (M&E). It describes how the MIS allows for:
1) Efficient data collection through mobile devices to track activities, evaluations, technology adoption, and fund utilization.
2) Real-time monitoring and analysis of project indicators and logframes for management and evaluation.
3) Visualization of project data and progress reports through maps and charts.
4) Future integration with other systems and flexibility to develop additional modules over time.
How Lazada ranks products to improve customer experience and conversionEugene Yan Ziyou
Slides from sharing at Strata + Hadoop Singapore 2016 (http://conferences.oreilly.com/strata/hadoop-big-data-sg/public/schedule/detail/54542)
Ecommerce has enabled retailers to make all of their products available to consumers and consumers to access niche products not found in brick-and-mortar stores. This growth provides consumers with unparalleled choice. Nonetheless, the sheer number of products brings with it the challenge of helping users find relevant products with ease.
Lazada has tens of millions of products on its platform, and this number grows by approximately one million monthly. Lazada’s challenge: How can we help users easily discover good quality products they will like? How can we ensure product selection remains fresh and constantly updated?
One way to do this is through the ranking of products. Via ranking, Lazada helps customers easily find products that will delight them by ensuring these products appear in the first few pages. I’ll share how Lazada ranks products on our website. (Note: Google “how amazon ranks products” for some industry background)
Topics include how we:
* Develop methodology (and tricks) to solve not-so-well-defined problems
* Collect and store user-behavior data from our website and app
* Clean and prepare the data (e.g., handling outliers)
* Discover and create features useful features
* Build models to improve customer experience and meet business objectives
* Measure and test outcomes on our website
* Built this end-to-end on our Hadoop infrastructure, with tools including Kafka and Spark
The document outlines the objectives, principles, content areas and task levels of the Division Monitoring and Evaluation framework. The key points are:
1. The objectives of the framework are to provide management information to improve education service delivery, implement projects and programs effectively, allocate resources appropriately, and assess organizational performance.
2. Principles of the framework include ensuring quality information, strengthening existing systems, achieving results efficiently, transparency, synergy between entities, and using M&E for continuous learning and accountability.
3. Content areas of focus for M&E in the division are delivery of education services, educational programs/projects, curriculum implementation, technical assistance, resources, and organizational effectiveness and support.
Why everything is an A/B Test at PinterestKrishna Gade
This document discusses how Pinterest uses A/B testing for all aspects of their product and business. It summarizes key metrics used to measure user acquisition, activation, engagement and churn. It also provides examples of how Pinterest ran A/B tests for new features, copy testing, SEO changes and infrastructure updates to analyze impact on user behavior and site traffic. The document emphasizes the importance of testing all changes through experiments to understand their effects.
Recommender systems: Content-based and collaborative filteringViet-Trung TRAN
This document provides an overview of recommender systems, including content-based and collaborative filtering approaches. It discusses how content-based systems make recommendations based on item profiles and calculating similarity between user and item profiles. Collaborative filtering is described as finding similar users and making predictions based on their ratings. The document also covers evaluation metrics, complexity issues, and tips for building recommender systems.
This project aims to improve access to clean water and sanitation in rural Cambodia. It will construct new water points and repair existing ones for 29 villages, establishing a maintenance program to ensure long-term sustainability. It will also promote better hygiene practices through community workshops and build latrines in 8 schools. This 3-year project, which complements government goals, expects to train local maintenance teams and gradually transfer responsibility to community water groups and provincial authorities to continue support after project completion.
Spotify provides personalized music recommendations to over 100 million active users based on their listening history and the listening history of similar users. It utilizes various recommendation approaches, including collaborative filtering using latent factor models to create lower-dimensional representations of users and songs. Spotify also uses natural language processing models on playlist data and deep learning on audio features to power recommendations. Personalizing music at Spotify's massive scale across 30 million tracks presents challenges around cold starts, repeated consumption, and measuring recommendation quality.
The document discusses various qualitative research methods, including rapid appraisal, focus group discussions (FGDs), focus group interviews (FGIs), and in-depth interviews (IDIs). It provides descriptions and guidelines for conducting each method. Specifically, it outlines the key principles and steps for rapid appraisal, discusses how to develop discussion guides and conduct FGDs, and explains when FGIs and IDIs are appropriate qualitative research techniques.
The document outlines the proposal development process at an organization. It includes stages from initial research ideas through full proposal submission. Key aspects of the process include concept notes, pre-proposals, and full proposals that increase in detail at each stage. Pipeline facilitation aims to guide proposals through the process, ensure value, and set criteria for coordination, budget review, and technical or management team reviews. The goal is to have a pragmatic, flexible process that adds value to resource mobilization efforts.
The document discusses success stories and how to write them. It defines a success story as a narrative that shows how a program made a positive difference in people's lives. It should describe the situation, response, results including changes and benefits. The document provides tips on elements to include, such as who benefited, how they benefited, and how the program intervention made a difference. It also gives recommendations for writing style and taking photographs to illustrate the story.
Access and Behavioral Outcome Indicators for Water, Sanitation, and HygieneAED
The document summarizes a webinar presentation about a manual on access and behavioral outcome indicators for water, sanitation and hygiene programs. The manual was developed through an evidence-based process involving major organizations in the WASH field. It includes essential indicators for measuring access to water and sanitation facilities and behaviors related to handwashing, water treatment and safe excreta disposal. The presentation discusses how the manual can be used to select appropriate indicators for programs, set targets, and modify interventions based on whether targets are met. Limitations and plans for further development are also addressed.
How can we reduce open defecation in rural India?Yogesh Upadhyaya
The document discusses strategies for reducing open defecation in rural India. It notes that open defecation is a major public health issue, killing many children through diarrhea. Though toilet construction has increased access from 22% to 31% over 10 years, 69% of rural Indians still lack access. Key barriers include lack of toilets, poor quality construction, and social norms. Strategies proposed include improving delivery of subsidies for construction, ensuring quality construction with water supply and drainage, changing social norms among men, and monitoring usage not just construction. Addressing these issues could enable rural Indians to stop open defecation and improve health.
The document provides an introduction to a course on project monitoring and evaluation. It will cover various topics related to project management over 15 sessions totaling 42 hours. Key concepts that will be discussed include the project cycle, monitoring and evaluation logic and cycle, evaluation techniques, indicators, and data collection for monitoring and evaluation. It emphasizes understanding the practical meanings and importance of concepts rather than mathematical equations.
This document discusses water quality guidelines recommended by the WHO. It outlines parameters for drinking water quality including acceptability, microbiological, chemical, and radiological aspects. Key parameters include turbidity, color, taste, odor, microbiological indicators like coliform bacteria, and chemical constituents like arsenic, fluoride, lead, nitrates and certain organic compounds. The document also discusses sources of water like rainwater, surface water, and groundwater and different types of water pollution from industrial, agricultural and domestic sources.
In this file, you can ref interview materials for m&e such as, m&e situational interview, m&e behavioral interview, m&e phone interview, m&e interview thank you letter, m&e interview tips …
Top 88 m&e interview questions with answers pdf
free pdf download ebook
This document discusses indicators for monitoring and evaluating projects. It defines indicators as variables used to measure project outputs and impact. Key points made include: indicators are important for defining how effectiveness will be measured, aiding managers assess progress, and providing a basis for evaluation. The document outlines three types of indicators - process, outcome, and impact - and gives examples for a water project. It stresses that good indicators must be precise, reliable, valid, measurable, and practicable.
This document discusses matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems. It begins with an introduction to recommender systems and the content-based and collaborative filtering approaches. It then describes the matrix factorization model, which characterizes users and items with vectors to predict ratings. Methods like stochastic gradient descent and alternating least squares are used to optimize the model. The Netflix Prize competition is discussed, which helped popularize these techniques. In conclusion, matrix factorization has become dominant in collaborative filtering due to its superior accuracy over other methods.
Promoting a culture of monitoring and evaluation in educational institutions. How to develop a M&E system, and grounding M&E planning on the Logical Framework Approach, and using Logframe as reference for M&E.
Newspaper ads for Schweppes ran from March to October 2009. Analysis of sales data found that the newspaper campaign drove an immediate 11.5% increase in Schweppes sales during the initial phase. Over the entire campaign, newspaper ads boosted sales by 9.5%, and by a further 5.8% after the campaign. The newspaper campaign also increased trial of Schweppes products by 18% and boosted brand penetration by 12%.
This document summarizes a workshop on monitoring and evaluation that took place in Tamale, Ghana from September 3-5, 2013. It defines monitoring as the ongoing collection and comparison of data to indicators to assess progress towards goals and use of funds. It discusses different levels that can be monitored, including outputs, outcomes and impact. Frameworks for monitoring like logical frameworks, results chains, theories of change and outcome mapping are also introduced. The document emphasizes that stakeholders at different levels must be engaged in monitoring and evaluation.
Well this is my first presentation in the slide share. In this presentation i have mentioned about the concept of water quality and guidelines for it in with the perspective to human health and its management in Nepal.
Suggestion and feedbacks are really welcome.
Monitoring and evaluation is a vital component that determines the effectiveness of a corporation's assistance by establishing clear links between past, present and future initiatives and results. The process helps in improving the programme performance and achieving desired results. It provides opportunities for fine-tuning, re-orientation and planning of the programme effectively, without which it becomes impossible to measure the success and impact of the programme even if the approach is right.
16. MIS for Project Monitoring and Evaluation ifadseahub
This document discusses how a management information system (MIS) can be used for project monitoring and evaluation (M&E). It describes how the MIS allows for:
1) Efficient data collection through mobile devices to track activities, evaluations, technology adoption, and fund utilization.
2) Real-time monitoring and analysis of project indicators and logframes for management and evaluation.
3) Visualization of project data and progress reports through maps and charts.
4) Future integration with other systems and flexibility to develop additional modules over time.
How Lazada ranks products to improve customer experience and conversionEugene Yan Ziyou
Slides from sharing at Strata + Hadoop Singapore 2016 (http://conferences.oreilly.com/strata/hadoop-big-data-sg/public/schedule/detail/54542)
Ecommerce has enabled retailers to make all of their products available to consumers and consumers to access niche products not found in brick-and-mortar stores. This growth provides consumers with unparalleled choice. Nonetheless, the sheer number of products brings with it the challenge of helping users find relevant products with ease.
Lazada has tens of millions of products on its platform, and this number grows by approximately one million monthly. Lazada’s challenge: How can we help users easily discover good quality products they will like? How can we ensure product selection remains fresh and constantly updated?
One way to do this is through the ranking of products. Via ranking, Lazada helps customers easily find products that will delight them by ensuring these products appear in the first few pages. I’ll share how Lazada ranks products on our website. (Note: Google “how amazon ranks products” for some industry background)
Topics include how we:
* Develop methodology (and tricks) to solve not-so-well-defined problems
* Collect and store user-behavior data from our website and app
* Clean and prepare the data (e.g., handling outliers)
* Discover and create features useful features
* Build models to improve customer experience and meet business objectives
* Measure and test outcomes on our website
* Built this end-to-end on our Hadoop infrastructure, with tools including Kafka and Spark
The document outlines the objectives, principles, content areas and task levels of the Division Monitoring and Evaluation framework. The key points are:
1. The objectives of the framework are to provide management information to improve education service delivery, implement projects and programs effectively, allocate resources appropriately, and assess organizational performance.
2. Principles of the framework include ensuring quality information, strengthening existing systems, achieving results efficiently, transparency, synergy between entities, and using M&E for continuous learning and accountability.
3. Content areas of focus for M&E in the division are delivery of education services, educational programs/projects, curriculum implementation, technical assistance, resources, and organizational effectiveness and support.
Why everything is an A/B Test at PinterestKrishna Gade
This document discusses how Pinterest uses A/B testing for all aspects of their product and business. It summarizes key metrics used to measure user acquisition, activation, engagement and churn. It also provides examples of how Pinterest ran A/B tests for new features, copy testing, SEO changes and infrastructure updates to analyze impact on user behavior and site traffic. The document emphasizes the importance of testing all changes through experiments to understand their effects.
Recommender systems: Content-based and collaborative filteringViet-Trung TRAN
This document provides an overview of recommender systems, including content-based and collaborative filtering approaches. It discusses how content-based systems make recommendations based on item profiles and calculating similarity between user and item profiles. Collaborative filtering is described as finding similar users and making predictions based on their ratings. The document also covers evaluation metrics, complexity issues, and tips for building recommender systems.
This project aims to improve access to clean water and sanitation in rural Cambodia. It will construct new water points and repair existing ones for 29 villages, establishing a maintenance program to ensure long-term sustainability. It will also promote better hygiene practices through community workshops and build latrines in 8 schools. This 3-year project, which complements government goals, expects to train local maintenance teams and gradually transfer responsibility to community water groups and provincial authorities to continue support after project completion.
Spotify provides personalized music recommendations to over 100 million active users based on their listening history and the listening history of similar users. It utilizes various recommendation approaches, including collaborative filtering using latent factor models to create lower-dimensional representations of users and songs. Spotify also uses natural language processing models on playlist data and deep learning on audio features to power recommendations. Personalizing music at Spotify's massive scale across 30 million tracks presents challenges around cold starts, repeated consumption, and measuring recommendation quality.
The document discusses various qualitative research methods, including rapid appraisal, focus group discussions (FGDs), focus group interviews (FGIs), and in-depth interviews (IDIs). It provides descriptions and guidelines for conducting each method. Specifically, it outlines the key principles and steps for rapid appraisal, discusses how to develop discussion guides and conduct FGDs, and explains when FGIs and IDIs are appropriate qualitative research techniques.
The document outlines the proposal development process at an organization. It includes stages from initial research ideas through full proposal submission. Key aspects of the process include concept notes, pre-proposals, and full proposals that increase in detail at each stage. Pipeline facilitation aims to guide proposals through the process, ensure value, and set criteria for coordination, budget review, and technical or management team reviews. The goal is to have a pragmatic, flexible process that adds value to resource mobilization efforts.
The document discusses success stories and how to write them. It defines a success story as a narrative that shows how a program made a positive difference in people's lives. It should describe the situation, response, results including changes and benefits. The document provides tips on elements to include, such as who benefited, how they benefited, and how the program intervention made a difference. It also gives recommendations for writing style and taking photographs to illustrate the story.
Access and Behavioral Outcome Indicators for Water, Sanitation, and HygieneAED
The document summarizes a webinar presentation about a manual on access and behavioral outcome indicators for water, sanitation and hygiene programs. The manual was developed through an evidence-based process involving major organizations in the WASH field. It includes essential indicators for measuring access to water and sanitation facilities and behaviors related to handwashing, water treatment and safe excreta disposal. The presentation discusses how the manual can be used to select appropriate indicators for programs, set targets, and modify interventions based on whether targets are met. Limitations and plans for further development are also addressed.
How can we reduce open defecation in rural India?Yogesh Upadhyaya
The document discusses strategies for reducing open defecation in rural India. It notes that open defecation is a major public health issue, killing many children through diarrhea. Though toilet construction has increased access from 22% to 31% over 10 years, 69% of rural Indians still lack access. Key barriers include lack of toilets, poor quality construction, and social norms. Strategies proposed include improving delivery of subsidies for construction, ensuring quality construction with water supply and drainage, changing social norms among men, and monitoring usage not just construction. Addressing these issues could enable rural Indians to stop open defecation and improve health.
Sanitation Attitudes of Urban Dwellers and their Influence on Sanitation Prac...Premier Publishers
The campaign for improved sanitation is increasingly threatened as people’s attitudes seem not to promote proper sanitation practices. The study examined attitudes of urban dwellers in some communities in Central Region of Ghana towards sanitation and their influence on sanitation practices. A cross sectional survey research design was adopted for the study. Simple random sampling technique was used to select 360 inhabitants in three urban communities. A structured questionnaire was used for data collection. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the data. A significant number of respondents (76.4 %) had good attitudes towards sanitation whilst 58.0 % of respondents had good standard of sanitation practices. About half of the respondents (49.8 %) disposed of their solid waste daily through open dumping and three out of every ten persons disposed of their solid waste through open burning. Respondents’ attitudes towards sanitation weakly influenced their sanitation practices (r = 0.058, p = 0.269). This is because respondents’ attitudes towards sanitation contributed only by 5.8% in their sanitation practices. The findings of the study led to a conclusion that the high level of sanitation attitudes among urban dwellers in some communities in Central Region of Ghana could not be translated into actual practice. There was a gap between respondents’ attitudes towards sanitation and their standard of practices. It is recommended that the Central Regional Environmental Health and Sanitation Directorate should embark on a comprehensive campaign on health benefits of good sanitation practices and enforce a more robust environmental sanitation approach and health education to help translate the high sanitation attitudes among urban dwellers into actual practice.
Emerging experiences with sanitation financing models & approaches, in lao pdrDeclan O'Leary
This document provides an overview of sanitation financing models and approaches used in Savannakhet Province, Laos. It identifies 17 projects utilizing various models including direct grants/subsidies, revolving funds/loans, and private sector initiatives. The models aimed to increase sanitation access for over 6,000 households across 15 districts. Reported costs for sanitation materials ranged from $75-184 per unit under the revolving fund model. Repayment delinquency rates on loans ranged from 40-100%. The research found that different financing approaches have helped boost sanitation coverage but challenges remain to further increase access across the province.
The document discusses mainstreaming gender in water and sanitation policy. It describes how approaches to gender in policy have evolved from a welfare model focused on women's domestic roles, to a women in development model targeting women, to current gender and development models seeking to transform unequal gender relations and achieve equality. For water and sanitation policy, this means going beyond access to services to target economic equality, equal participation in decision making, and equality in business opportunities in the sector. Conducting gender analyses and audits can help inform gender-sensitive policy formulation.
Klickitat County Community Health Needs Assessment Data and Findings Septem...healthypeoplealliance
The document summarizes findings from a community health needs assessment conducted in Klickitat County, Washington. It describes the data collection process, demographics of the county population, survey results on access to and satisfaction with healthcare, and top health issues. Key findings include the county population is older and growing older than the state average, over 80% of residents have a primary care provider but access is lower in East County, and over 70% of residents gave high ratings to their healthcare in the last year.
Prof. Vibhuti Patel How inclusive is the eleventh five year plan a sectoral r...VIBHUTI PATEL
Measures to Improve the Condition of Women
Vibhuti Patel
1. Current Macro Economic Scenario
The current macroeconomic scenario has intensified feminization of poverty. A mid-term evaluation of the
Eleventh Five Year Plan from a gender perspective therefore is the need of the hour. Real wages of a large number
of women have declined. Women’s work burden in unpaid care economy (cooking, cleaning, nursing, collecting
fuel, fodder, water, etc) has increased many-fold due to withdrawal of state from social sector (Chakraborty,
2008). Privatisation of education, health and insurance has increased unpaid work of women in the working
class and lower middle class households (Hirway, 2009)—not accounted in the system of national accounting.
Gender friendly implementation of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) in terms of skill
building, resource generation, work conditions and remuneration reaching actual women beneficiaries is still a
distant dream. While large majority of women are drowning in the ocean of market fundamentalism, they are
given small sticks in the form of Self Help Groups (SHGs) and micro finance to save themselves.
Inflation in agricultural commodities, sky rocketing prices of essential food items such as grain, vegetables
and seasonal fruits has imposed massive hardship for women. The Arjun Sengupta Committee’s Report on
Unorganized Sector Labour (2007, GoI) notes that over 394.9 million workers (more than 85 per cent of the
working population and more than 78 per cent of the workers in unorganised sector) live with an income of less
than Rs. 20 a day. 80% of the Scheduled Tribes and the Scheduled Castes, 80% of the Other Backward Classes
and 85% of Muslims belong to the categories of “poor and vulnerable,” who earn less than Rs. 20 a day. 21%
to 46% of men and 57% to 83% of women in non-agricultural sectors are employed as casual workers, who
get less than minimum wages. The unorganised work-force contributes around 60% to the national economic
output of the country.
The neoliberal economic policies of financial sector reforms; attacks on the livelihood base of the farmers,
forest people and slum dwellers; land grab in the name of creation of Special Economic Zones, massive
displacement and relocation of the masses to suit the interests of construction industry violate ‘rights’ or
‘entitlements’ of the urban and rural poor, especially women from the marginalized sections.
together, Japan Habitat Association, Sawayume Kenya and the County Government of Homa Bay to improve the sanitation profiles in Homa Bay County and promote sustainable sanitation interventions, technologies and practices. The vision of the project is to sustainably improve the sanitation profiles of the rural communities of Kenya. The aim is to eradicate open defecation, promote universal access to improved sanitation facilities, and reduce the burden of diseases related to poor sanitation, increase sanitation technology choices among rural communities while improving the household incomes for investments in sanitation.
Framework and templates used by ministerial delegations to the 2016 Minister Meeting of the Sanitation and Water for All Partnership. PLease note that instructions are in the notes section.
By far, the most important factor influencing the consistent use of soap before eating food and feeding their child was the belief that it is indeed important to wash one’s hands with soap before eating food and feeding their child.
Social and Therapeutic Horticulture: The State of Practice in the United Kingdom
`
For more information, Please see websites below:
`
Organic Edible Schoolyards & Gardening with Children
http://scribd.com/doc/239851214
`
Double Food Production from your School Garden with Organic Tech
http://scribd.com/doc/239851079
`
Free School Gardening Art Posters
http://scribd.com/doc/239851159`
`
Increase Food Production with Companion Planting in your School Garden
http://scribd.com/doc/239851159
`
Healthy Foods Dramatically Improves Student Academic Success
http://scribd.com/doc/239851348
`
City Chickens for your Organic School Garden
http://scribd.com/doc/239850440
`
Simple Square Foot Gardening for Schools - Teacher Guide
http://scribd.com/doc/239851110
Status of Sanitation and Hygienic Conditions in Urban Communities in Gomoa Ea...Premier Publishers
The study examined the sanitation and hygienic conditions in urban communities in Gomoa East District in Central Region of Ghana. A cross sectional survey research design was adopted for the study. Simple random sampling technique was used to select 360 inhabitants from three urban communities. A structured questionnaire was used for data collection. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the data. The study revealed that tap water was the major source of drinking water in the communities, usually purchased from water vendors and stored in closed containers. Most inhabitants (42.5 %) used Public Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) latrines. Some household toilets (21.7 %) never had covers whilst the ones which had covers too were not closed after they had been used. As a result, most toilets produced offensive odour. Unwholesome environmental practices such as open dumping and burning of garbage were prevalent in the study area. The result of the multiple logistic regression showed significant association between gender and their participation in community sanitation exercise (p < 0.05) with male showing more participation than females (OR = 0.516, C.I = 0.308 – 0.865). The state of sanitation and hygienic conditions in the Gomoa East District was inadequate. There is the need for the District Environmental Health and Sanitation Department to establish and enforce a more robust environmental sanitation approach and health education to improve upon sanitary conditions in the Gomoa East District.
A survey of 39 recipients of an Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership (EICAP) food assistance program found that lack of knowledge about EICAP's programs was a primary contributor to low attendance. While some respondents reported understanding the benefits and functions of EICAP programs, they also reported feeling they had nothing to gain from them. The results suggest that communication needs to be improved to clarify what EICAP offers beyond food assistance and how its programs could benefit participants. It is recommended that EICAP increase information provided about its budgeting class and target outreach more specifically to those who could benefit.
Scope of Rapid Action Learning to combat Public health hazards in IndiaMd Ehtesham
Md Ehtesham proposes researching the scope and impact of Rapid Action Learning (RAL) units in evaluating and improving India's efforts to achieve universal sanitation coverage under the Swachh Bharat Mission. RAL units are intended to analyze best practices, identify problems, and disseminate information to facilitate effective implementation of Community Led Total Sanitation. The research aims to assess how RAL units function at district and state levels and explore how RAL can contribute to addressing public health hazards and help scale up sustainable public health programs.
High Five program: final report (2011-2014)abby ati
The final report of High Five program, a sanitation and hygiene practices improvement program, implemented in three cities in Indonesia: Medan, Surabaya and Makassar.
Even though progress towards the Millennium Development Goal target represents important gains in access for billions of people around the world, it has been uneven. Sharp geographic, sociocultural and economic inequalities in access persist and sometimes have increased. This report presents examples of unequal progress among marginalized and vulnerable groups.
This document summarizes the results of a scoping survey of organizations that produce local health data profiles and reports in Ireland. It found that while there is some collaboration, most profiles rely on a single organization's own datasets and there is significant variation in formats, targets audiences, and challenges. Common challenges included maintaining and updating data, costs, and differences in geographical boundaries. The survey identified over 60 unique datasets and opportunities for increased collaboration to strengthen health information functions.
6. Existing Local Health Data Systems: a summary of the pre-event survey of p...
Endline Report
1. Water is Life International
Wa(SHG) Pilot Program
Endline Survey Report
March 2016
Report prepared by Elizabeth Poulsen | elizabeth.ann.poulsen@gmail.com
Wa(SHG) Project Manager: Stephenie Chatfield | stephenie.chatfield@waterislifeinternational.com
WiLi Executive Director: David Harding | david.harding@waterislifeinternational.com
Water is Life, International (WiLi) | P.O. Box 540318 | Orlando, FL 32854 | (407) 716-4214
2. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | ii
Table of Contents
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................1
Methodology......................................................................................................................................1
Limitations.................................................................................................................................... 2
Summary of Results ......................................................................................................................... 2
Demographic Information about Survey Respondents ............................................................... 2
Personal Sanitation....................................................................................................................... 2
Water Treatment Knowledge and Practices............................................................................. 3
Hand-Washing Knowledge and Practices ................................................................................ 3
Incidence of Diarrheal Disease..................................................................................................... 4
Latrine Ownership........................................................................................................................ 5
Recommendations............................................................................................................................ 5
Conclusions....................................................................................................................................... 5
Appendix A: Program Logical Framework ...................................................................................... 6
Appendix B: Complete Baseline and Endline Survey Data ............................................................. 9
Appendix C: Survey Instrument (Questionnaire)...........................................................................21
Acronyms
CLA Cluster-Level Association
KAP Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices
SHG Self-Help Group
WaSH Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene
Wa(SHG) Wili’s Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Self-Help Group Program
WiLi Water is Life, International
3. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 1
Introduction
More than 70 percent of Ethiopia’s population lives without improved sanitation
coverage. This, coupled with poor sanitation behaviors, contributes to a high prevalence of
water-borne disease which disproportionately affects rural populations. Water is Life,
International (Wili) aims to address this health burden through their Wa(SHG) program, which
focuses primarily on changing personal sanitation and hygiene behaviors, with a secondary
focus on providing bio-sand water filters. Wili’s interventions will primarily be implemented to
and through an existing network of Self-Help Groups (SHGs), organized by Cluster-Level
Associations (CLAs). Partner organizations for the Wa(SHG) program include Tearfund,
Ethiopian Kale Heywet Church, Ethiopian Guenet Church, Desert Rose Consultancy, and the
Ethiopian Kale Heywet Church WET Center.
Wili conducted a pilot phase of the Wa(SHG) program from March 2015-February 2016
in the Dale and Shebedino Districts of the Awasa township in southern Ethiopia (see Figure 1).
The overall goal of this pilot phase was to test the effectiveness of the Wa(SHG) program, with a
focus on improving personal hygiene behaviors, alleviating the burden of water-borne diseases,
and improving the basic sanitation of program participants. A number of tools will assess
whether this pilot phase was successful; this report details the data uncovered through baseline
and endline KAP (knowledge, attitudes, and practices) surveys.
Figure 1: The Wa(SHG) project took place in the Dale and Shebedino districts of the Awasa township in southern
Ethiopia. (Image sources: commons.wikimedia.org, forecedmigration.org)
Methodology
The KAP surveys were designed to measure the overall project goal, as well as one of the
project’s four objectives; the full list of objectives are detailed in the program’s logical
framework, in Appendix A. This goal and objective (and their corresponding indicators) that this
report will discuss are as follows:
Program Goal/Impact: To test the implementation of a participatory WaSH training
program through the SHG network in order to improve personal hygiene behaviors,
alleviate the burden of water-borne diseases, and to improve the basic sanitation of
individuals in Ethiopia.
Indicator 1: Personal sanitation behaviors
4. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 2
Indicator 2: Incidence of diarrheal disease
Indicator 3: SHG members that have latrines
Program Objective 2: SHG members have an increased level of awareness and
knowledge of personal WaSH issues
Indicator 2.1: Knowledge of critical hand-washing times
Indicator 2.2: Awareness of disease-transmission and basic hygiene practices
A total of 219 baseline and 210 endline KAP surveys were conducted, representing about 20
percent of the total number of intended direct beneficiaries (1,000 people), and 5 percent of
total intended direct and indirect beneficiaries (4,500 people). The survey was conducted using
pen-and-paper questionnaires, by a team of enumerators who visited randomly selected
households in the program districts. All respondents indicated their consent to participate in the
survey after being informed about the survey purpose and their right to decline to participate.
Limitations
Much of the information gathered through the survey was self-reported: in many cases,
there was no way for the enumerator to verify whether the respondent was telling the truth (e.g.,
disease incidence, water treatment practices, personal hygiene practices, etc.). In these cases, it
is possible that the respondent may have wished to present the “right” answer, rather than the
truthful one, due to an (understandable) fear of judgment by the enumerator.
Additionally, English translations for open answers to survey questions (e.g.,
explanations for selecting “other”) were not available for the endline data. Fortunately, this did
not significantly limit analysis.
Summary of Results
This section will detail key results of the baseline and endline surveys, with a focus on
the program indicators previously outlined. For a detailed depiction of the answers to all of the
questions asked in the survey, including disaggregation by gender and rural/urban location
(when applicable), see Appendix B.
Demographic Information about Survey Respondents
In both the baseline and endline surveys, the majority of respondents were female (85%
and 68% in each respective survey). Most were married (77% and 81%), and between the ages of
18-40 (70% and 68%). About half of the households had between 4-6 people, while a third had
7-9 people, and around 15 percent had 1-3 people; 3 percent of households had over 10 people.
Between 77-86 percent of the households said that the male head of household could read, while
55-64 percent said that the female head of household could read.
Personal Sanitation
As outlined in the previous section of this report, the first indicator that will help to
measure the overall goal of the Wa(SHG) program is “personal sanitation behaviors.” The KAP
survey included a number of questions realting to this indicator, regarding water treatment and
hand-washing knowledge and practices.
5. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 3
Water Treatment Knowledge and Practices
As seen in Figure 2, there was a clear
increase in the number of respondents who
could identify at least one way to treat water.
Interestingly, the most-commonly cited
method for treating water changed from
baseline to endline, with solar disinfection
mentioned most commonly in the baseline,
and settling mentioned most frequently in the
endline (see Appendix B for more details).
There was a slight increase in the number of
respondents who said that they did something
to make their water safer to drink (58% to
64%), though this number is still relatively low.
There was a dramatic decrease in the number of
respondents who said that household members always drink
untreated water (see Figure 3), indicating that water
treatments practices are, in fact, probably increasing. There
were no major age or gender differences in the reported
frequency of drinking untreated water, but it is still much more
common in rural areas (70%) than urban areas (2%). Of
respondents who sometimes do not treat their water, this lack
of treatment is most likely to occur during the rainy season, or
when there is a lack of money (this was more commonly
mentioned in the endline survey than the baseline). There was
a drastic decrease in the number of respondents who said they
did not know how to treat their water (42% to 2%), that they
did not have a method to (41% to 3%), or that they forgot (26%
to 3%). However, nearly a third of respondents in the endline
survey said that they sometimes did not treat their water
because of a bad taste or a bad smell.
Hand-Washing Knowledge and Practices
In both the baseline and endline
surveys, most respondents named several
instances in which they usually wash their
hands, including before and after eating, before
preparing food, and after handling trash. There
was a noticeable increase in those who said they
washed their hands after latrine use (as seen in
Figure 4); reporting hand-washing after
defecation also increased noticeably.
Encouragingly, there was also a dramatic
increase in the number of respondents who
reported washing their hands with soap (36% to
76%), though 31 percent of respondents in rural
areas still do not wash their hands with soap.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Female Male Rural Urban
Baseline Endline
Figure 2: Percent of respondents who can identify at
least one way to treat water. (Overall: Baseline, 83%;
Endline, 95%)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Baseline Endline
Always Sometimes Never
Figure 3: Reported frequency with
which household members drink
untreated water
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Female Male Rural Urban
Baseline Endline
Figure 4: Percent of respondents who say they wash
their hands after latrine use. (Overall: Baseline, 59%;
Endline, 88%)
6. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 4
As seen in Figure 5, there was also a dramatic
increase in the number of households that had soap
present in a hand-washing area or near their latrine. This
data was based on first-hand observation by the survey
enumerators, and thus is likely to be even more reliable
than the self-reported hygiene behaviors.
For those who said that they don’t wash their
hands with soap, the most commonly cited reasons for
this were that it’s “not a common practice here,” or
“negligence/laziness.”
Incidence of Diarrheal Disease
The second goal-level indicator for the Wa(SHG) program is incidence of diarrheal
disease; incidence of malaria will also be discussed briefly, even though it is not a major focus of
the program.
There was a decrease in the percent of respondents who
reported that a family member had experienced diarrhea in the two
weeks proceeding the baseline survey (23%) versus the endline
survey (10%), indicating that the Wa(SHG) program activities were
indeed successful in achieving their goal. However, there is a
possibility that this change is attributable to something other than
Wili’s programming, for instance if there were other related
interventions occurring in the program region, or if there are
normally seasonal fluctuations in diarrheal disease incidence, etc.
There was also an increase in the percentage of respondents who correctly identified
causes of diarrhea; interestingly though, there was not much increase in those who mentioned
“dirty water” as a cause of diarrhea, and the percentage of those who mentioned dirty water in
rural areas actually went down. In the endline survey, knowledge for all causes of diarrhea was
higher in urban areas, and was higher among women as compared to male respondents.
Similarly, knowledge regarding prevention of
diarrhea increased from baseline to endline, with
especially noticeable increases among those who
mentioned “wash hands with soap” (45% to 64%) and
“treat water” (38% to 55%). However, as with many
other indicators, disaggregating these figures by rural
versus urban area provides a more nuanced view: while
nearly all respondents in urban areas connected hand-
washing and water treatment with diarrheal disease, less
than half of those in rural areas did so (see Figure 6).
Covering food and preparing food properly were also
mentioned frequently in the endline survey.
The reported incidence of malaria decreased slightly from baseline to endline (9% to
3%). Knowledge regarding malaria causes and prevention did not change dramatically, although
respondents were less likely to name incorrect causes of malaria in the endline survey, and they
were slightly more likely to mention eliminating breeding sites and using oil/lotion/herbs on
0%
50%
100%
Baseline Endline
Rural Urban
Figure 5: Soap is present in household.
(Overall: Baseline, 23%; Endline, 81%)
57%
Decrease in diarrheal
disease incidence
0%
50%
100%
"Wash hands
with soap"
"Treat water"
Rural Urban
Figure 6: Two named ways of preventing
diarrheal disease (from endline survey)
7. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 5
skin as prevention measures in the endline survey. Interestingly, as with knowledge regarding
diarrhea prevention, female endline survey respondents were more likely to name correct causes
and prevention measures for malaria than were male respondents.
Latrine Ownership
Unfortunately, both in the baseline and endline surveys, there are inconsistencies in the
data relating to latrine ownership. For example, even though 99 percent of endline survey
respondents stated that their family owns a latrine, half of the respondents stated that they
share a latrine with at least one other family, with many respondents sharing latrines with over
seven families. It is possible that respondents still considered a latrine to be under their
ownership even if it is shared, but this is not clear.
Additionally, there is variation in the recorded type of latrine owned by respondents: in
the baseline survey, 97 percent of respondents in urban areas stated that they had a pit latrine
with a slab, while 90 percent of urban respondents in the endline survey reported having a flush
or pour flush latrine. This could be due to an error in data entry, or (less likely) due to a very
different sampling strategy used in the baseline versus endline survey. Of course, it is also
possible (though also not likely) that nearly all households in the urban areas constructed a flush
latrine within the last year.
Recommendations
While the endline survey shows a similar magnitude of improvement in rural and urban
areas, it clearly indicates that the biggest gap in knowledge, practices, and health outcomes
remains in the rural areas. Therefore, future programming may wish to focus primarily or
exclusively on rural regions.
Additionally, since levels of knowledge relating to hygienic practices and water-borne
diseases are consistently higher among women than men, future programming could aim to
target men and women equally, rather than placing a heavier focus on women (as is a common
practice in many development programs). However, if it is determined that focusing on women
would help the program benefits to reach a higher number of people (e.g., children), then
focusing on women may in fact be appropriate.
Conclusions
Without further information regarding other programming taking place in the region
and other contextual details, it is difficult to definitively state that the positive trends outlined in
this report are due to Wili’s Wa(SHG) program. However, this assessment does provide strong
evidence that this is probably the case. Not only are Wili’s (probable) program effects diverse—
spanning knowledge, practices, and health outcomes—but the magnitude of change is also
remarkable, especially given the limited timeframe of the pilot phase. The project team and Wili
leadership should be congratulated for a job well done, and should regard their plans for future
programming with increased confidence.
8. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 6
Appendix A: Program Logical Framework
Objectives Indicators Evidence Risks or Assumptions
Goal/Impact
To test the implementation of
a participatory WaSH training
program through the SHG
network in order to improve
personal hygiene behaviors,
alleviate the burden of water-
borne diseases, and to
improve the basic sanitation of
individuals in Ethiopia
• Personal sanitation
behaviors
• Incidence of diarrheal
disease
• SHG members that
have latrines
KAP Survey
Purpose(s)/Outcome(s)
1.Improved facilitation skills
and capacity of 12 FLFs and
members of 12 CLA
members
1.1 Individual
performance during
program
implementation
Program Records
• Discovery/participatory
learning model will be more
effective than didactic
learning model
• FLFs and CLA members will
be effective facilitators
2.SHG members have an
increased level of
awareness and knowledge
of personal WaSH issues
2.1 Knowledge of critical
handwashing times
2.2 Awareness of disease
transmission and
basic hygiene
practices
KAP Survey,
Participant Surveys,
Facilitator Reflections
• SHG members want to learn
about WaSH
• SHG members consistently
attend group meetings and
receive trainings
3.SHG members take
meaningful action to
improve the WaSH
condition of their families,
homes, and communities
3.1 Presence of tippy-
taps in homes
3.2 Presence of soap
3.3 Presence of latrines
in homes
3.4 Change in personal
sanitation and
hygiene behaviors
Individual Actions
Plans, Participant
Surveys
• SHG members are
empowered within their
household to take action
• SHG members have access to
financial resources to make
changes
4.Bio-sand filters are locally
available and purchased by
SHG members
4.1 Presence of BSFs in
homes
4.2 Intention to purchase
BSF
BSF M&E, Individual
Action Plans
• SHG members are interested
in buying a bio-sand filter
• SHG members have the
financial resources to buy bio-
sand filters
9. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 7
Outputs
1. Twelve FLFs and twelve
CLA members are
trained in participatory
facilitation skills
Certificate in
Foundational
Facilitation Skills
Program Records
Participants will be interested
and complete the entire
course
2. One thousand SHG
members are supported
and trained in WaSH
Awareness and
implementing actions
plans
Attendance at weekly
trainings
Desire to learn WaSH
Awareness
Completed and
implemented Action
Plans
Weekly Attendance
Sheets, Participant
Surveys, Facilitator
Reflections, Individual
Action Plans
Water-borne diseases are a
health burden
Sanitation and hygiene
resources (eg. Soap, bottles,
chlorines tabs, etc.) locally
available and affordable
Individuals and SHGs have the
capacity to take community
action (eg. Building latrines)
3. Two locally established
bio-sand filter
manufacturers serving
the communities and
SHGs
Presence of bio-sand
filter manufacturing
shop
Sales record
BSF M&E, Individual
Action Plans
SHG members have the
financial resources to buy
bio-sand filters
Materials necessary for
manufacturing locally
available and affordable
4. Program successfully
monitored and
evaluated in a manner
that promotes
excellence and learning
Baseline and terminal
KAP survey report
Weekly monitoring
booklets kept and
completed
KAP Survey,
Monitoring materials
10. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 8
Activities
Output 1
1. Develop and produce a Foundational
Facilitation Skills module
2. Provide the training module to 12 identified
FLFs and 12 CLA representatives
Output 2
1. Adapt WaSH Awareness training curriculum to
the SHG context and produce materials
2. Identify 12 FLFs and 12 CLA representatives to
be trained
3. Train 12 FLFs in ToT of WaSH curriculum,
building on the foundational facilitation skills
training
4. Support the training of CLA members in WaSH
curriculum
5. Support the training of SHG members in
WaSH curriculum
6. Track the establishment and implementation
of Action Plans
Output 3
1. Identify and capacitate two local
manufacturers to produce bio-sand filters
2. Include household water treatment options,
including bio-sand filters, in WaSH curriculum
Output 4
1. Design monitoring and evaluation tools and
formats
2. Translate materials to Amharic
3. Train program staff on monitoring plan
4. Conduct baseline and terminal KAP surveys
5. Analyze monitoring and evaluation data
Necessary resources available in Ethiopia
FLFs and CLA members schedules accommodate a
multiple day training
Necessary resources available in Ethiopia
Proper permissions allow for editing of WaSH
Awareness materials
Strongly established CLAs exist in target area
FLFs have time to receive this training
FLFs have time to give training to CLA members
CLA members have time to give training to SHGs over
a period of 12 weeks
Effective monitoring system established
Local manufacturer will want to learn a new skill and
commit to developing a new business
Necessary resources available in Ethiopia
Monitoring formats are practical for intended
purposes
Staff makes time to do regular monitoring
11. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 9
Appendix B: Complete Baseline and Endline Survey Data
Household Demographics
Baseline Endline
Total
(n=219)
Female
(n=186)
Male
(n=33)
Rural
(n=129)
Urban
(n=90)
Total
(n=210)
Female
(n=158)
Male
(n=44)
Rural
(n=140)
Urban
(n=70)
Gender of the respondent
Female 85% 78%
Male 15% 22%
What is your marital status?
Single 9% 7%
Married 77% 81%
Separated/Divorced 4% 2%
Widow/er 10% 9%
How old are you now? (average) 37 36
Age bracket of the respondent
12-17 3% 2%
18-40 70% 68%
41-59 20% 25%
60+ 7% 5%
Who is the respondent? (relationship
within the household)
Wife 80% 72%
Husband 13% 20%
Daughter 3% 4%
Son 2% 4%
Grandparent 1% 0%
Other 1% 0%
How many people are living in the
household? (average)
1-3 15% 16%
4-6 51% 49%
7-9 31% 32%
10-12 3% 2%
Male head of household can read 77% 70% 94% 86% 84% 91%
Female head of household can read 55% 36% 82% 64% 56% 82%
12. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 10
Household Water Supply and Practices
Baseline Endline
Total
(n=219)
Female
(n=186)
Male
(n=33)
Rural
(n=129)
Urban
(n=90)
Total
(n=210)
Female
(n=158)
Male
(n=44)
Rural
(n=140)
Urban
(n=70)
Who usually collects water for the
family?
Adult women 41% 55% 21% 56% 69% 30%
Girls 33% 34% 32% 34% 27% 48%
Boys 13% 5% 23% 7% 2% 16%
Adult men 7% 3% 12% 3% 2% 6%
Delivered 4% 1% 8% 0% 0% 0%
Other 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 0%
Distance between dwelling and source
of drinking water
Within 500m 58% 27% 95% 77% 66% 98%
500m-1km 22% 36% 5% 18% 26% 1%
1km-3km 11% 21% 0% 5% 8% 0%
More than 3km 9% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Minutes spent collecting water (round-
trip)
Under 30 53% 24% 94% 71% 57% 99%
30 mins - 1 hour 13% 18% 5% 17% 25% 1%
1-2 hours 21% 36% 0% 7% 10% 0%
2+ hours 13% 22% 1% 5% 8% 0%
Household Water Treatment and
Storage
Baseline Endline
Total
(n=219)
Female
(n=186)
Male
(n=33)
Rural
(n=129)
Urban
(n=90)
Total
(n=210)
Female
(n=158)
Male
(n=44)
Rural
(n=140)
Urban
(n=70)
Number of large jerry cans collected
each day for entire household
1 1% 1%
2 39% 42%
3-4 29% 35%
4+ 31% 22%
13. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 11
Named ways of making water safer
Solar disinfection 36% 16%
Boiling 35% 51%
Settling 23% 61%
Liquid chlorine 20% 46%
Other 19% 14%
Cloth filter 16% 34%
None 16% 1%
Chlorine tablets 13% 38%
Ceramic filter 8% 9%
Membrane filter 7% 22%
Bio-sand filter 1% 12%
Coagulant/flocculent 0% 7%
Can identify at least one way to treat
water
83% 82% 84% 71% 99% 95% 96% 91% 92% 100%
Respondent gave permission for
enumerator to observe them getting a
cup of drinking water normally served
to children
Yes 96% 97%
No 3% 2%
Didn't have 1% 1%
(Observed) Sample was collected safely 63% 62% 65% 57% 70% 83% 81% 86% 74% 100%
Source of water sample
Public standpipe 61% 72% 44% 69% 91% 27%
Piped connection to hh 19% 6% 38% 28% 3% 73%
Protected dug well 8% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Borehole 2% 4% 0% 1% 2% 0%
Bottled water 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 0%
Rainwater 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Protected spring 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%
Tanker 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%
Unprotected dug well 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Unprotected spring 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
14. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 12
Other 16% 0% 16% 2% 3% 0%
(Observed) Water container was
covered/closed
81% 95%
(Observed) Water container was clean 67% 87%
(Observed) Water container was out of
reach of animals
68% 87%
Water was collected safely (no hands)
and was stored in a container that was
clean, covered, and out of reach of
animals
44% 31% 62% 75% 65% 96%
(Observed) Type of container used
Jerry can with lid 74% 90%
Jerry can 18% 4%
Bucket 3% 1%
Gallon jug 2% 1%
Ceramic pot 1% 1%
Bucket with tap 1% 4%
Large drum 0%
Other 0%
Respondent said they did something to
make water safer to drink
Yes 58% 64%
No 35% 35%
Do not know 7% 1%
How respondent says they made water
safer to drink (only respondents who
responded "yes" to previous question)
Solar disinfection 33% 8%
Boiling 22% 13%
Settling 19% 26%
Chlorine tablets 11% 11%
Liquid chlorine 6% 22%
Other 3% 1%
Ceramic filter 3% 1%
Membrane filter 2% 3%
15. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 13
Cloth filter 1% 5%
Biosand filter 0% 5%
Coagulent/flocculant 0% 4%
(Observed, if there is a filter) Filter is
assembled correctly
83% 100%
(Observed, if there is a filter) Filter is
wet
5% 71%
(Observed, if there is a filter) Filter is
clean
83% 88%
Frequency that adult men drink
untreated water
Always 52% 50% 55% 10% 14% 3%
Sometimes 32% 36% 26% 37% 55% 1%
Never 16% 14% 19% 53% 32% 96%
Frequency that adult women drink
untreated water
Always 52% 49% 56% 9% 13% 0%
Sometimes 32% 38% 25% 37% 56% 0%
Never 16% 13% 19% 54% 31% 100%
Frequency that children drink untreated
water
Always 52% 49% 57% 9% 13% 0%
Sometimes 29% 41% 9% 40% 60% 0%
Never 19% 9% 35% 51% 27% 100%
Frequency that sick/elderly drink
untreated water
Always 47% 50% 41% 9% 13% 0%
Sometimes 37% 41% 29% 38% 56% 1%
Never 17% 9% 30% 53% 31% 99%
Average frequency of drinking
untreated water
Always 51% 50% 52% 9% 13% 1%
Sometimes 34% 39% 22% 38% 57% 1%
Never 15% 11% 26% 53% 30% 98%
16. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 14
When respondent says they do not treat
water (multiple answers allowed)
Rainy season 28% 43% 7% 24% 32% 9%
Never 22% 5% 48%
Other 19% 15% 21% 12% 14% 9%
Dry season 16% 16% 17% 15% 19% 7%
Respondent always treats water 16% 13% 28% 23% 4% 42% 45% 30% 28% 71%
When no time 9% 4% 17% 1% 0% 3%
When no money 2% 2% 2% 18% 16% 20%
Reasons respondent gives for not
treating water (multiple answers
allowed)
Does not know how 42% 44% 34% 7% 50% 2% 1% 5% 3% 0%
Do not have a method to 41% 3%
Forgot 26% 6%
Bad taste 16% 34%
Other 12% 28%
Bad smell 12% 31%
Thinks water is clean 8% *
Requires too much money 8% 1%
Requires too much time 5% 1%
Broken 1% 0%
Reasons respondent gives for treating
water (multiple answers allowed)
Prevents disease 75% 87%
Makes water safe 69% 81%
Other 17% 3%
Free 2% 0%
Someone told me to 1% 2%
17. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 15
Sanitation Practices
Baseline Endline
Total
(n=219)
Female
(n=186)
Male
(n=33)
Rural
(n=129)
Urban
(n=90)
Total
(n=210)
Female
(n=158)
Male
(n=44)
Rural
(n=140)
Urban
(n=70)
Family owns latrine 98% 99%
Who helped construct latrine
Self 68% 65%
Local authority/Gov't 27% 25%
NGO 3% 16%
SHG 1% 2%
Other 1% 1%
Type of latrine
Pit latrine with slab 70% 51% 97% 48% 67% 9%
Pit latrine without slab 28% 48% 1% 20% 29% 0%
Flush/pour flush 1% 2% 0% 30% 1% 90%
Composting 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Latrine draining to canal/creek/river 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0%
Other 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%
Distance between latrine and house
Less than 50m 88% 82% 97% 92% 87% 100%
More than 50m 12% 18% 3% 8% 13% 0%
Number of families sharing latrine (if no
latrine in household)
2-4 32% 31% 33% 36% 21% 45%
5-7 28% 52% 19% 27% 36% 22%
7+ 40% 17% 49% 37% 46% 33%
Where family members go for
defecation (if no latrine)
Public latrine 37% 41%
Creek/canal/river 32% 0%
Neighbor's latrine 11% 0%
Other 11% 45%
Plastic bag 5% 0%
Dig a hole, bush/backyard/field 5% 14%
18. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 16
Main reason why family cannot
construct a latrine (if no latrine)
Not a priority 56% 0%
Defecation is not an issue 17% 6%
Other 17% 83%
Too expensive 6% 6%
A lot of space to defecate here 6% 0%
No space for construction 0% 6%
Disease Morbidity/Mortality and
Management
Baseline Endline
Total
(n=219)
Female
(n=186)
Male
(n=33)
Rural
(n=129)
Urban
(n=90)
Total
(n=210)
Female
(n=158)
Male
(n=44)
Rural
(n=140)
Urban
(n=70)
Someone in family has had diarrhea in last
two weeks
23% 35% 7% 10% 13% 2%
Age of family member who had diarrhea
0-5 years old 17% 25%
6-17 years old 31% 25%
18-59 years old 42% 50%
60+ years old 10% 0%
Someone in hh died within last 6 months
due to diarrhea
2% 3% 0% 1% 1% 0%
Age of member of hh who died
0-5 years old 0% 0%
6-17 years old 25% 100%
18-59 years old 75% 0%
60+ years old 0% 0%
Causes of diarrhea named by respondents
(multiple answers allowed)
Dirty food 60% 63% 47% 41% 38% 76% 76% 73% 67% 94%
Dirty water 59% 60% 53% 57% 63% 64% 66% 59% 50% 92%
Poor hygiene 48% 49% 41% 44% 54% 64% 68% 48% 57% 77%
Flies 47% 45% 56% 40% 57% 70% 68% 70% 62% 84%
19. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 17
Germs 43% 42% 47% 43% 43% 50% 54% 30% 31% 89%
Dirty hands 39% 38% 47% 34% 47% 56% 58% 41% 41% 87%
Open defecation 21% 22% 16% 18% 26% 45% 49% 32% 26% 81%
Other 6% 6% 6% 9% 2% 3% 4% 0% 5% 0%
Rain 5% 3% 16% 9% 0% 7% 8% 2% 4% 14%
Part of child's growth 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 5% 4% 5% 2% 11%
Witchcraft 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%
Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Respondent correctly identifies at least
one cause of diarrhea (dirty food, dirty
water, flies, germs, dirty hands, or open
defecation)
92% 92% 91% 89% 96% 98% 98% 98% 97% 100%
Ways of preventing diarrhea named by
respondents (multiple answers allowed)
Cover food 58% 54% 75% 60% 54% 71% 75% 52% 57% 99%
Drink clean water 55% 54% 59% 53% 57% 74% 78% 57% 65% 93%
Wash hands with soap 45% 47% 34% 28% 69% 64% 66% 52% 46% 99%
Latrine use 44% 40% 66% 47% 40% 73% 71% 80% 68% 84%
Prepare food properly (cooking, washing) 42% 42% 44% 36% 50% 51% 54% 34% 30% 94%
Treat water 38% 35% 56% 42% 33% 55% 55% 48% 36% 94%
Store water safely 38% 40% 28% 21% 63% 60% 66% 36% 41% 99%
No open defecation 30% 31% 25% 22% 41% 54% 58% 34% 34% 94%
Prayer 12% 12% 16% 14% 10% 3% 4% 0% 2% 4%
Go to traditional healer 8% 8% 13% 12% 2% 2% 2% 0% 1% 3%
Other 7% 8% 3% 10% 2% 1% 2% 0% 2% 0%
Do not know 1% 1% 3% 2% 0% 1% 1% 3% 2% 0%
Respondent correctly identifies at least
one way of preventing diarrhea (cover
food, drink clean water, wash hands with
soap, latrine use, prepare food properly,
treat water, store water safely, no open
defecation)
98% 97% 100% 96% 100% 99% 98% 100% 98% 100%
Someone in family has had malaria in last
two weeks
9% 2% 19% 3% 2% 3%
20. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 18
Age of family member who had malaria
0-5 years old 16% 25%
6-17 years old 37% 50%
18-59 years old 42% 25%
60+ years old 5% 0%
Someone in family died within last 6
months due to malaria
0% 1% 1% 0%
Age of hh member who died due to
malaria
0-5 years old 0% 0%
6-17 years old 100% 0%
18-59 years old 0% 100%
60+ years old 0% 0%
Causes of malaria named by respondents
(multiple answers allowed)
Mosquito bites 78% 78% 78% 87% 64% 87% 92% 77% 88% 86%
Dirty water 44% 48% 25% 22% 74% 27% 31% 11% 9% 63%
Rain/water 21% 18% 41% 35% 1% 9% 9% 5% 4% 19%
Sunshine 17% 18% 13% 10% 27% 15% 18% 5% 1% 43%
Dirty food 17% 20% 3% 7% 32% 15% 18% 5% 2% 41%
Flies 14% 16% 6% 8% 23% 23% 21% 30% 19% 31%
Bush/grasses 12% 13% 6% 6% 21% 26% 32% 7% 9% 60%
Other 12% 12% 9% 14% 9% 2% 3% 0% 4% 0%
Witchcraft 1% 2% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Ways of preventing malaria named by
respondents (multiple answers allowed)
Use of bednets 89% 88% 97% 88% 91% 90% 92% 80% 89% 91%
Eliminate mosquito breeding site 72% 72% 75% 77% 64% 85% 91% 66% 88% 86%
Use of smoke 39% 38% 44% 35% 44% 26% 27% 25% 27% 24%
Proper hygiene 37% 38% 28% 26% 52% 39% 40% 25% 22% 71%
Not taking dirty water/food 27% 31% 6% 16% 44% 19% 22% 2% 3% 51%
Other 6% 7% 3% 10% 1% 4% 4% 2% 6% 0%
Use oil/lotion/herbs on skin 1% 1% 0% 0% 3% 10% 11% 5% 0% 30%
21. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 19
Stop witchcraft 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 3%
Respondent correctly identifies at least
way of preventing malaria (using bednet,
eliminating breeding sites, use of smoke,
using oil/lotion/herbs on skin)
95% 95% 97% 93% 98% 95% 97% 84% 94% 97%
Hand-washing Practices
Baseline Endline
Total
(n=219)
Female
(n=186)
Male
(n=33)
Rural
(n=129)
Urban
(n=90)
Total
(n=210)
Female
(n=158)
Male
(n=44)
Rural
(n=140)
Urban
(n=70)
Times that respondents say they usually
wash hands
Before eating 97% 97% 94% 95% 100% 90% 91% 84% 86% 99%
After eating 88% 89% 84% 80% 100% 68% 72% 50% 54% 97%
Before food preparation 79% 82% 59% 80% 82% 78% 83% 55% 69% 93%
After handling trash 63% 63% 63% 64% 62% 65% 70% 41% 55% 84%
After latrine use 59% 56% 75% 61% 57% 88% 88% 84% 82% 99%
After defecation 39% 35% 59% 46% 29% 60% 63% 43% 43% 94%
Before feeding child 31% 30% 34% 31% 30% 47% 49% 34% 31% 0%
After handling animals 19% 19% 13% 28% 6% 31% 31% 25% 20% 54%
After handling baby's diaper/feces 13% 12% 19% 12% 14% 37% 39% 20% 19% 74%
Other 5% 5% 3% 7% 1% 6% 7% 5% 9% 0%
What respondents say they usually use
when washing hands
Water only 61% 66% 32% 58% 66% 10% 12% 7% 15% 1%
Water and soap 36% 32% 58% 37% 34% 76% 75% 80% 69% 91%
Water and ash 3% 2% 10% 6% 0% 13% 13% 12% 16% 7%
Water and sand/leaves 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Main factor that prevents family from
using soap (only respondents who said
they don't use soap)
Not a common practice here 44% 45% 30% 41% 48% 27% 30% 18% 32% 0%
Negligence/laziness 30% 30% 30% 25% 36% 40% 38% 55% 45% 13%
22. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 20
Too expensive 8% 6% 30% 14% 0% 13% 15% 9% 14% 13%
Water alone cleanses the hands 8% 9% 0% 3% 16% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other 5% 5% 0% 8% 0% 17% 15% 18% 9% 63%
Takes time 5% 4% 10% 8% 0% 2% 3% 0% 0% 13%
(Observed) House has a hand-washing
facility
No 61% 65% 57% 16% 22% 2%
Water and soap at hand-washing area 16% 13% 20% 40% 36% 48%
Only water (no soap) at hand-washing
area
12% 14% 9% 2% 1% 3%
Water and soap in or near latrine 7% 4% 11% 41% 38% 47%
Only water (no soap) in or near latrine 4% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0%
Soap is present in household (water and
soap at hand-washing area or near
latrine)
23% 17% 31% 81% 74% 95%
23. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 21
Appendix C: Survey Instrument (Questionnaire)
SuSurvey
Post Office Box 540318 | Orlando, FL 32854 | 407.716.4214 | www.waterIslifeinternational.org
KAP Survey on WaSH and Household Water Treatment Methods
INFORMED CONSENT
Good morning/good afternoon. My name is __________________. I am part of a team of people who
are assessing water practices in your community. Our team will be interviewing different
households in your area. Your local leaders have granted us permission to conduct this study,
and your house has been randomly selected to participate. You have been asked to participate
in this study because your personal views and experiences as a community member are
important to us. If you participate, I will ask you questions about your drinking water and
water use habits. The interview will take approximately 30 minutes. No one except me will
know that it was you who answered these questions. Would you like to participate?
A Interviewer
B Survey Number
C Date
D Time
E Location (Woreda, Kebele, Sub City, Village)
Section 1: HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS
1. Gender of the respondent 1[ ] Female 2[ ] Male
2. What is your marital status? 1[ ] Single 2[ ] Married
3[ ] Separated/Divorced 4[ ] Widow/er
3. How old are you now? ________ years
4. Age bracket of the respondent 1[ ] 12-17 yo 2[ ] 18-40 yo
3[ ] 41-59 yo 4[ ] 60 yo and above
5. Who is the respondent? (relationship within
the household)
1[ ] Wife 2[ ] Husband
3[ ] Daughter 4[ ] Son
5[ ] Grandparent 6[ ] Other:
6. How many people are living in the household?
________ people
Age Bracket Male Female Total
7. 0 – 5 years old
8. 6 – 17 years old
9. 18 – 59 years old
10. 60+ years old
11. Can the male head of household read? 1[ ] Yes 2[ ] No
12. Can the female head of household read? 1[ ] Yes 2[ ] No
13. What is your educational background? 1[ ] Can’t read/write 2[ ] 1 – 6 years
3[ ] 7 – 9 years 4[ ] 10 – 12 years
5[ ] College and above
Section 2: HOUSEHOLD WATER SUPPLY AND PRACTICES
14. Who usually collects water for the family? 1[ ] Adult men 2[ ] Boys 3[ ] Delivered
4[ ] Adult women 5[ ] Girls 6[ ] Other:
15. How far from your dwelling is the source of 1[ ] within 500 m 2[ ] 500m – 1km
24. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 22
SuSurvey
Post Office Box 540318 | Orlando, FL 32854 | 407.716.4214 | www.waterIslifeinternational.org
your drinking water? 3[ ] 1km – 3 km 4[ ] More than 3 km
16. How many minutes do you spend collecting
water from the source (round-trip)?
1[ ] within 30 mins 2[ ] 30 mins – 1 hour
3[ ] 1 hour – 2 hours 4[ ] More than 2 hours
17. How many large jerry cans of water are
collected each day for the entire household?
(Jerry can=20 L)
1[ ] 1 jerry can 2[ ] 2 jerry cans
2[ ] 3 – 4 jerry cans 4[ ] more than 4 jerry
cans
Section 3: HOUSEHOLD WATER TREATMENT AND STORAGE
18. Can you tell me all the ways you know to
make water safe to drink in your home?
(Multiple answer, ask “Any others?”)
1[ ] Boiling 2[ ] Settling 3[ ] Solar
disinfection
4[ ]Chlorine
tablets
5[ ] Membrane
filter
6[ ] Ceramic
filter
7[ ] Liquid
Chlorine
8[ ] Biosand
filter
9[ ]Coagulant/
flocculent
10[ ] Cloth filter 11[ ] None 12[ ] Other:
19. May I observe you giving me a cup of your
current drinking water for children from this
household?
1[ ] Yes 2[ ] No
3[ ] Do not have
20. OBSERVE: Was sample collected safely (not
touching water with hands)?
1[ ] Yes 2[ ] No
21. What source did this water come from? 1[ ] Piped
connection in hh
2[ ] Public
standpipe
3[ ] Protected
dug well
4[ ] Borehole 5[ ] Rainwater 6[ ] Tanker
7[ ] Protected
spring
8[ ] Unprotected
dug well
9[ ] Bottled
water
10[ ]
Unprotected
spring
11[ ] Other:
22. OBSERVE: Is the container covered/closed? 1[ ] Yes 2[ ] No
23. OBSERVE: Is the container clean? 1[ ] Yes 2[ ] No
24. OBSERVE: Is the container out of reach of
animals?
1[ ] Yes 2[ ] No
25. OBSERVE: What container is used for
drinking water?
1[ ] Bucket 2[ ] Jerry can
3[ ] Jerry can with lid 4[ ] Gallon jug
5[ ] Bucket with tap 6[ ] Ceramic pot
7[ ] Large drum 8[ ] Other:
26. Did you do anything to make the water safer
to drink?
1[ ] Yes 2[ ] No (if NO, proceed to Q31)
3[ ] Do not know
27. How did you make this water safer to drink? 1[ ] Boiling 2[ ] Settling 3[ ] Solar
disinfection
4[ ]Chlorine
tablets
5[ ] Membrane
filter
6[ ] Ceramic
filter
7[ ] Liquid
Chlorine
8[ ] Biosand
filter
9[ ]Coagulant/
flocculent
10[ ] Cloth filter 11[ ] Other:
28. If filter, OBSERVE: is the filter assembled
correctly?
1[ ] Yes 2[ ] No
29. If filter, OBSERVE: is the filter wet? 1[ ] Yes 2[ ] No
25. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 23
SuSurvey
Post Office Box 540318 | Orlando, FL 32854 | 407.716.4214 | www.waterIslifeinternational.org
30. If filter, OBSERVE: is the filter clean? 1[ ] Yes 2[ ] No
How often do:
31. -adult men drink untreated water? 1[ ] Always 2[ ] Sometimes 3[ ] Never
32. -adult women drink untreated water? 1[ ] Always 2[ ] Sometimes 3[ ] Never
33. -children drink untreated water? 1[ ] Always 2[ ] Sometimes 3[ ] Never
34. -sick/elderly drink untreated water? 1[ ] Always 2[ ] Sometimes 3[ ] Never
35. When do you NOT treat your water?
(multiple answers allowed)
1[ ] Dry season 2[ ] Rainy season 3[ ] When no
money
4[ ] When no
time
5[ ] I always
treat water
6[ ] Other:
36. Why do you NOT treat your water?
(multiple answers allowed)
1[ ] Bad taste 2[ ] Bad smell 3[ ] Forgot
4[ ] Requires
too much money
5[ ] Do not know
how
6[ ] Takes too
much time
7[ ] Broken 8[ ] Do not have
a method to
9[ ] Other:
37. Why do you treat your water?
(multiple answers allowed)
1[ ] Makes
water safe
2[ ] Prevents
disease
3[ ] Someone
told me to
4[ ] Free 5[ ] Other:
Section 4: SANITATION PRACTICES
38. Does your family own a latrine? 1[ ] Yes 2[ ] No (if NO, proceed to Q42)
39. If YES, who helped you construct the latrine? 1[ ] Self 2[ ] Local authority/Govt
3[ ] NGO 4[ ] SHG
5[ ] Other:
40. If YES, which type of latrine do you have? 1[ ] Flush/pour flush 2[ ] Composting latrine
3[ ] Pit latrine with slab 4[ ] Pit latrine without slab
5[ ] Latrine draining to
canal/creek/river
6[ ] Other:
41. If YES, how far is the latrine from your house?
(Then, proceed to Q45)
1[ ] Within 50
meters
2[ ] More than 50 meters
42. If sharing latrine with others, how many
families are sharing?
1[ ] 2-4 families 2[ ] 5-7 families
3[ ] More than 7 families
43. If NO latrine, where do your family members
go for defecation? (Tick the one that the family
usually practices)
1[ ] Neighbor’s latrine 2[ ] Public latrine
3[ ] Plastic bag 4[ ] Dig a hole
4[ ] Bush/backyard/field 5[ ] Creek/canal/river
6[ ] Other:
44. If NO latrine, what could be the MAIN reason
why your family cannot construct a latrine?
(Tick the one main reason)
1[ ] Too expensive 2[ ] Not a priority
3[ ] No space for
construction
4[ ] A lot of space to
defecate here
5[ ] Defecation is not an
issue
6[ ] Other:
Section 5: DISEASE MORBIDITY/MORTALITY AND MANAGEMENT
45. In the last 2 weeks, has anyone in your family
had diarrhea? (Note that diarrhea is defined as
the passing of stool 3 times or more in 24 hours
whether it is watery, bloody, mucoid, or water-
1[ ] Yes 2 [ ] No (If no, go straight
to Q47)
26. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 24
SuSurvey
Post Office Box 540318 | Orlando, FL 32854 | 407.716.4214 | www.waterIslifeinternational.org
wash like)
46. If YES, how old is the family member who had
diarrhea? ___________
1[ ] 0-5 years old 2[ ] 6-17 years old
3[ ] 18-59 years old 4[ ] 60 and above
47. Has anyone in your household died due to
diarrhea for the last 6 months?
1[ ] Yes 2[ ] No (If no, proceed to
Q49)
48. If YES, how old was that member of the
household? __________
1[ ] 0-5 years old 2[ ] 6-17 years old
3[ ] 18-59 years old 4[ ] 60 and above
49. What do you think can be the cause of
diarrhea? (Tick all that the respondent
mentions but do not influence his/her response)
1[ ] Rain 2[ ] Dirty hands 3[ ] Witchcraft
4[ ] Flies 5[ ] Dirty food 6[ ] Dirty water
7[ ] Germs 8[ ] Part of
child’s growth
9[ ] Poor
hygiene
10[ ] Open
defecation
11[ ] Do not
know
12[ ] Other:
50. How do you think diarrhea can be prevented?
(Tick all that the respondent mentions but
never influence his/her responses)
1[ ] Prayer 2[ ] Latrine use 3[ ] Treat water
4[ ] Do not
know
5[ ] Covering
food
6[ ] Drink clean
water
7[ ] No open
defecation
8[ ] Store water
safely
9[ ] Wash hands
with soap
10[ ] Prepare
food properly
(cooking,
washing)
11[ ] Go to
traditional
healer
12: Other:
51. In the last 2 weeks, has anyone in your family
had malaria?
1[ ] Yes 2 [ ] No (If no, go straight
to Q53)
52. If YES, how old is the family member who had
malaria? ___________
1[ ] 0-5 years old 2[ ] 6-17 years old
3[ ] 18-59 years old 4[ ] 60 and above
53. Has anyone in your household died due to
malaria for the last 6 months?
1[ ] Yes 2[ ] No (If no, proceed to
Q55)
54. If YES, how old was that member of the
household? __________
1[ ] 0-5 years old 2[ ] 6-17 years old
3[ ] 18-59 years old 4[ ] 60 and above
55. What do you think is the cause of malaria?
(Tick all that the respondent mentions but do
not influence)
1[ ] Rain/water 2[ ] Sunshine 3[ ] Witchcraft
4[ ] Flies 5[ ] Dirty food 6[ ] Dirty water
7[ ] Mosquito
bites
8[ ] Bush/
grasses
9[ ] Other:
56. What do you think is the best way to protect
yourself from malaria? (Tick all that the
respondent mentions but never influence
his/her responses)
1[ ] Proper
hygiene
2[ ] Use of
smoke
3[ ] Stop
witchcraft
4[ ] Use oil/
lotion/herbs on
skin
5[ ] Not taking
dirty
water/food
6[ ] Eliminate
mosquito
breeding site
7[ ] Use of bed
nets
8[ ] Other:
Section 6: HANDWASHING PRACTICES
57. Please tell me the times you usually wash your
hands? (ONLY tick what the respondent says.)
1[ ] Before
eating
2[ ] After
latrine use
3[ ] Before
feeding child
4[ ] After eating 5[ ] After
defecation
6[ ] After
handling trash
7[ ] Before food 8[ ] After 9[ ] After
27. iWa(SHG) Endline Survey Report – March 2016 | 25
SuSurvey
Post Office Box 540318 | Orlando, FL 32854 | 407.716.4214 | www.waterIslifeinternational.org
preparation handling baby’s
diaper/feces
handling
animals
10[ ] Other:
58. What do you usually use in washing hands?
(Tick the most commonly practiced)
1[ ] Water only 2[ ] Water
and soap
3[ ] Water and
sand/leaves
4[ ] Water and ash 5[ ] Other:
59. If the answer is 1 (water only), What is the
MAIN factor that prevents your family from
using soap?
1[ ] Washing with soap
takes time
2[ ] Soap is not a
common practice here
3[ ] Negligence/laziness 4[ ] Too expensive
5[ ] Water alone cleanses
the hand
6[ ] Other:
60. OBSERVATION ONLY: Is there any hand
washing facility available around the home?
1[ ] There are water and
soap near or within the
latrine
2[ ] There is ONLY water
near or within the latrine
3[ ] There are water and
soap at a designated hand
washing area
4[ ] There is ONLY water
at a designated hand
washing area
5[ ] There is no available washing station
NOTES:
ü Review the questionnaire
ü Ensure that you did not skip/forget any of the required fields
ü Thank the respondent for this/her participation