World Vision Wash Household Wash Evaluation Results: Zimbabwe
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
World Vision WaSH Household WaSH Evaluation Results: Zimbabwe Background In 2017, World Vision (WV) and the Water Institute (WI) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) conducted an evaluation of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WaSH) in households, communities (including water points), health care facilities (HCFs) and schools in WV program areas (mostly rural) in 14 countries including Zimbabwe. The goal of this evaluation was to describe the status of WV’s WaSH programs, provide comparative (Comp) data for monitoring future progress, and identify areas for programmatic improvement. Results from the household evaluation in Zimbabwe are described below. Results: WaSH Service Levels Water service levels* Sanitation service levels* Hygiene service levels* At Least Basic 6% 3% Basic 38% 3% 5% 49% 42% 58% Basic Limited Limited 8% 8% 11% 10% 13% Unimproved 91% 92% Limited 12% 15% Unimproved 11% 41% 41% 19% 25% Surface water Open No service Defecation WV (n=1053) Comp (n=1084) WV (n=1075) Comp (n=1087) WV (n=1077) Comp (n=1091) Water: Three out of five households in WV areas use a basic water service. A basic water service is an improved water source with collection time of less than 30 minutes for a roundtrip including queuing. Overall, one in three households had stored water that conformed to WHO standards. Most households did not use safe water storage practices. Sanitation: 4 out of 10 households in both WV and Comp areas had access to at least basic sanitation (improved sanitation and not shared with households) and another 4 out of 10 households in both areas practice open defecation. Hygiene: Overall, fewer than one in ten households used a basic hygiene service (which is a handwashing facility on the household premises with soap and water). WaSH Management and Water Storage Household Water Quality Indicator WV Comp HHs that pay for water (%)* 5%* 2% HHs always satisfied with water service (%)* 45%* 36% 35% 34% Low Risk WaSH committee for main water point (%)* 47%* 40% 16% 16% WaSH committees held mtg. in past year (%) 77% 78% Intermediate Risk HHs safely dispose of child feces(%) 43% 43% 16% 22% High Risk HHs that regularly store drinking water in a container (%) 94% 95% 33% HHs with a storage container with a spigot or tap (%) 2% 1% 27% Very High Risk HHs with storage container covered by a lid (%) 83% 85% WV (n=141) Comp (n=143) HHs with storage containers with a narrow opening (%)* 10% 13%* Highlights Definitions • 6 out of 10 households in WV areas used a basic water service. Comp: comparison area E. coli: a bacteria associated with diarrheal disease when present in drinking water HH: • 4 out of 10 households in both WV and Comp areas used at least a household Improved water: a source constructed to basic sanitation service. adequately prevent water from outside contamination • Less than 10% of households in both WV and Comp areas used a Improved sanitation: a facility that hygienically separates basic hygiene service. human excreta from human contact MPN: a measure of bacterial contamination in water OD: open defecation • One in three households used stored water that conformed to WaSH: water, sanitation, and hygiene WV: World Vision WHO standards. program area * - denotes statistical significance World Vision WaSH Household WaSH Evaluation Mehtods: Zimbabwe Evaluation Description and Methods Survey Areas In 2017, World Vision (WV) and the Water Institute at All surveys were conducted in clusters (or UNC conducted an evaluation of water, sanitation, and communities) within the Mashonaland Central, hygiene in 14 countries (Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Mashonaland East, Manicaland, Matabeleland North, Uganda, Tanzania, Ghana, Mali, Niger, Zambia, Malawi, and Matabeleland South provinces. Mozambique, Zimbabwe, India, and Honduras) with four focus areas (households, community water points, The clusters are displayed in the map below. schools, and healthcare facilities). In Zimbabwe, 56 clusters (of no more than 200 households) in areas where World Vision has worked and 56 clusters where they have not worked (i.e. comparison areas) were identified. Twenty-five households in each cluster were randomly selected for a survey. Enumerators visited households and householders responded to a survey encompassing water sources and storage practices; sanitation facilities; and hygiene. Householders provided water to the enumerators as they would normally take water for drinking. Water samples were collected from five households per cluster (where water was available at the time of survey) and tested for E. coli, an indicator of fecal contamination. † Microbial Water Quality Across Focus Areas Microbial Water Quality Risk Levels in WV Areas of † • In Zimbabwe, 70% of water points in WV areas Zimbabwe (WPT) met the WHO microbial water quality standards. Whereas, 71% of water points in Comp HighLow riskRisk areas met the WHO standards. 35% • In WV areas, household (HH) water quality was markedly lower than water at the source (WPT) with 70% 70% Intermediate risk 35% of household water meeting the WHO water 81% Intermediate risk quality standards compared to 70% of water points. 16% • Household water quality was similar in WV and Comp areas where 34% of household water met the WHO 16% High risk standards. Low risk • Water quality at schools (SCH) was higher than 11% 11% household stored water quality (HH), with 70% of 7% 33% 5% 6% water at surveyed SCHs meeting WHO water quality SafeVery High Risk standards. 12% 14% 10% • Water quality in healthcare facilities (HCF) was higher 3% than in schools (SCH), with 81% of water at surveyed WPT HH SCH HCF HCFs meeting the WHO water quality standards. †-According to WHO microbial drinking water quality standards Disclaimer: Results may not be generalizable to all regions of the country..