Ministry of Education, Science, Vocational Training and Early Education

Chipata, Mambwe and Lundazi WASH Facility Assessment

Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Acknowledgements

We would like to convey our heart-felt appreciation to the SPLASH Project staff for the support rendered to us in carrying out the baseline survey. This ranged from technical to moral support. The Chief of Party, the Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist and the IT Expert from the United States are particularly saluted. To all these we convey our sincere gratitude.

There are many other partners who made this baseline survey a success, including: The Provincial Education Officer‟s (PEO) office in Eastern Province; the District Education Board Secretary (DEBS) office in Chipata, Lundazi and Mambwe districts, CARE, the Supervisors and Research Assistants as well as all the school head teachers who provided very valuable data. To all these, we say, very many thanks indeed.

RuralNet Associates Limited P.O Box 51311, Kalundu, Lusaka, Zambia Email: [email protected] Website: www.ruralnet.co.zm

ii

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Table of Content

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... II LIST OF TABLES ...... VI LIST OF FIGURES ...... VII ACRONYMS ...... VIII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... IX PART I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Brief Overview of SPLASH ...... 1 1.2 Purpose and Objectives of the Baseline ...... 2 1.3 Background ...... 3 1.3.1 Current water and sanitation situation in schools in Zambia ...... 3 1.3.2 Current completion rates, pupil teacher contact time ...... 4 1.3.3 Water and sanitation policies in Zambia ...... 5 2.0 METHODOLOGY 6 2.1. Study Design and Approach ...... 6 2.2 Quantitative Survey ...... 6 2.3 Observations and Spot Checks ...... 7 2.4. Data Entry and Analysis ...... 7 2.5 Quality Control Measures ...... 8 2.6 Study Limitations ...... 9 2.7. Report Presentation ...... 10 PART II: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ...... 11 3.0 SCHOOL DATA 11 3.1 Type of Schools ...... 11 3.2 Total Enrolments ...... 11 3.3 Pupil Drop-out Rate ...... 12 3.4 Teachers in Schools ...... 13 3.5 Pupil – Teacher Ratio ...... 14 3.6 Pupil Absenteeism ...... 14 3.7 Teacher Absenteeism ...... 15 3.8 Number of Shifts ...... 16 4.0 ACCESS TO DRINKING WATER 17 4.1 Water Supply Points ...... 17 4.2 Drinking water facilities ...... 18

iii

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

4.3 Treatment of drinking water ...... 19 4.4 Transportation and storage of water ...... 20 4.5 Functionality of Water Supply Points ...... 20 4.6 Access to Water ...... 21 4.7 Maintenance of water facility ...... 22 4.8 Problems related to water facility ...... 23 5.0 ACCESS TO SANITATION FACILITIES 24 5.1 School Toilets ...... 24 5.2 Pupil toilet ratios for boys and girls ...... 26 5.3 Location of sanitation facilities ...... 27 5.4 Cleanliness of the toilets ...... 28 5.5 Privacy of toilets ...... 28 5.6 Menstrual Hygiene Management ...... 29 6.0 HAND WASHING FACILITIES 30 6.1 School Hand Washing Facilities ...... 30 6.2 Location of Hand Washing Facilities ...... 30 6.3 Group Hand Washing Facilities ...... 31 6.4 Water at Hand Washing Facility ...... 31 6.5 Soap at Hand Washing Facility ...... 31 6.6 Observations of Pupils hand washing ...... 32 7.0 WASH ACTIVITIES 33 7.1 Teacher Training in Hygiene Promotion ...... 33 7.2 School Plan for WASH Activities ...... 33 7.3 Organised Pupil WASH Groups ...... 33 7.4 Learning Materials for WASH ...... 33 8.0 DISTRICT WASHE COORDINATION (D-WASHE) 34 8.1 Organisations represented on D-WASHE Committee ...... 34 8.2 D-WASHE Action Plan ...... 35 8.3 D-WASHE Activities ...... 35 9.0 CONCLUSIONS 36 Bibliography ...... 38 APPENDICES 40 Appendix 1: SPLASH Baseline Questionnaire ...... 1 Appendix 2: SPLASH Log frame ...... 25 Appendix 3: Details of closed and additional schools ...... 32 Appendix 4: Data Collection Team for SPLASH Baseline Survey...... 34

Annexes:

iv

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Annex 1: Summary of school, water and sanitation data Annex 2: Map of schools which participated in SPLASH Baseline survey

v

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

List of Tables

Table 1: Total schools interviewed against the target ...... 7 Table 2: Enrolment rate for districts by gender ...... 12 Table 3: Dropout by gender by district ...... 13 Table 4: Highest and least number of teachers per school by district ...... 14 Table 5: Pupil – Teacher ratio against standard ratio ...... 14 Table 6: Pupil absenteeism by gender and district ...... 15 Table 7: Comparisons why boys and girls are absent from schools ...... 15 Table 8: Teacher absenteeism ...... 16 Table 9: Comparisons why male and female teachers were absent from schools ...... 16 Table 10: School shifts by district ...... 16 Table 11: Water supply points by school type ...... 18 Table 12: Water supply points in schools by district ...... 18 Table 13: Treatment of drinking water and water storage facilities in schools ...... 19 Table 14: Providers of funding for water treatment in schools ...... 20 Table 15: Functionality of water supply point in schools by district ...... 20 Table 16: Functionality of water supply point in schools by district ...... 21 Table 17: School sharing of water source with surrounding villages ...... 21 Table 18: Average number of villages and community members with access to the school water supply point ...... 22 Table 19: Availability of funds for operation and maintenance of school water facility ...... 22 Table 20: Problems related to water facility in school ...... 23 Table 21: Types of problems related to water facility encountered by schools ...... 23 Table 22: Presence of toilets/pit latrines in schools ...... 24 Table 23: Presence of toilets/pit latrines in schools ...... 25 Table 24: Types of Toilets in Schools ...... 25 Table 25: Types of Toilets in Schools by district ...... 25 Table 26: Number of shifts in school in relation to pupil toilet ratios for boys and girls ...... 27 Table 27: Location of sanitation facilities ...... 28 Table 28: Presence of toilets exclusively used by girls or boys ...... 29 Table 29: Male and female pupils toilets with doors ...... 29 Table 30: Provision of sanitary materials for MHM by school type ...... 30 Table 31: Presence of water facility against type of hand washing facility ...... 30 Table 32: Location of hand washing facility ...... 31 Table 33: Group hand washing facilities ...... 31 Table 34: Group hand washing facilities by school type ...... 31 Table 35: Water at hand washing facility ...... 31 Table 36: Soap at hand washing facility ...... 32 Table 37: Teacher trained in Hygiene promotion ...... 33 Table 38: School plan for wash activities ...... 33 Table 39: Organized pupil wash group ...... 33 Table 40: Learning materials for wash ...... 34 Table 41: Organisations represented on D-WASHE committee ...... 34 Table 42: School-related activities conducted by D-WASHE ...... 35

vi

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

List of Figures

Figure 1: Type of school by district ...... 11 Figure 2: Total Enrolments by gender by district ...... 12 Figure 3: Teachers by gender by district ...... 13 Figure 4: Water supply points at schools ...... 18 Figure 5: Main source of drinking water for pupils in schools ...... 19

vii

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Acronyms

APM Area Pump Menders CBOs Community Based Organizations DEBS District Education Board Secretary D-WASHE District Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Education FBOs Faith Based Organisations FHI Family Health International GRZ Government of Republic of Zambia HH Household IR Inception Report IR 1 Intermediate Result 1 MDGs Millennium Development Goals M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MESVTEE Ministry of Education, Science, Vocational Training and Early Education MLGH Ministry of Local Government and Housing MoE Ministry of Education NGOs Non-Governmental Organization NRWSSP National Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme ODK Open Data Kit O&M Operation and Maintenance PAGE Programme for the Advancement of Girls‟ Education PEO Provincial Education Officer PTA Parents Teachers Association RWSS Rural Water Supply and Sanitation SNDP Sixth National Development Plan SPLASH Schools Promoting Learning Achievement through Sanitation and Hygiene SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene WASHE Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Education USAID United States Agency for International Development

viii

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Executive Summary

Context of study

There are so many factors that can negatively affect pupils‟ learning, performance and teacher retention in Zambian schools. These could include among many others; inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene facilities.

It is against this background that the USAID funded SPLASH is implementing school WASH activities in Chipata, Lundazi and Mambwe districts of Eastern province. SPLASH is a 5-year school WASH program whose overall objective is to sustainably improve access to safe water, adequate sanitation, hygiene information and health practices to improve learning environments and educational performance in basic schools1.

The objective of the baseline survey was to conduct a facility assessment in all basic and community schools in the Chipata, Mambwe and Lundazi districts of the Eastern province. This assignment was meant to serve as the project‟s hardware and software baseline at the facility level. Specifically, the baseline survey was aimed at assessing school data; availability of water supply points in schools; availability and cleanliness of sanitation facilities; availability of hand washing facilities and practices; and functionality of D-WASHE committees in Chipata, Lundazi and Mambwe districts.

Overview of methodology

The baseline survey employed quantitative and qualitative research methods. The greater part of the survey was quantitative using semi-structured questionnaires. The qualitative research method was mainly used to conduct direct observations of hand washing facilities and practices during the implementation of the survey. The unit of analysis is the school. The total number of schools visited was 621 out of an initial target of 608. Of the 621 schools, 293 were in Chipata, 268 in Lundazi and 60 in Mambwe. Out of the total number of schools visited, 564 were operational while 57 had closed down. Two questionnaires were used, one to interview the school head teachers and another to interview the D-WASH Coordinators.

The data was collected using Samsung Galaxy tablets. This meant that data entry was done simultaneously with data collection in the field. The completed questionnaires were transmitted to a server where the questionnaires were downloaded by the RuralNet Data Analyst for quality checks.

Data collection had two major issues. First, some of the skips were programmed incorrectly. Second, data collection was slower than anticipated given the long distances between schools. ,

1 SPLASH (2012): WASH in Schools Program Plan; Page 9.

ix

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Summary of findings and discussions

School Data

A total of 122,070 (60,318 girls and 61,752 boys) pupils were enrolled in Chipata; 81,264 pupils (38,491 girls and 42,773 boys) were enrolled in Lundazi; and 22,549 pupils (10,910 girls and 11,639 boys) were enrolled in Mambwe district. This represented 49.4 percent girls and 50.6 percent boys in Chipata; 47.4 percent girls and 52.6 percent boys in Lundazi; and 48.4 percent girls and 51.6 percent boys in Mambwe district.

The overall dropout rate for the year ended for the three districts was 3.3 % of the total number of pupils enrolled in the 564 schools covered. On the other hand, the pupil/ teacher ratio was 49.7 in Chipata, 55.7 in Lundazi and 53.6 in Mambwe.

Teacher absenteeism during the field visit was minimal. Out of all schools visited, the average number of teachers absent was 2 in Chipata compared to 1 in both Lundazi and Mambwe.

Access to drinking water

Generally, there were more schools in the Eastern Province with water supply points than anticipated. Of the 564 schools visited, 70% (393) had water supply points and 30% (171) did not. Of the schools with water supply, 81% had a borehole and 2% had boreholes with piped water. The rest had protected wells (8%), unprotected wells (6%) and piped water (3 %).

The practice of treating drinking water is meant to get rid of impurities that contaminate the water and compromise its quality. Of the total 564 schools, only 13% practice drinking water treatment. In addition, only 34% had water storage facilities. The main storage facilities cited were buckets (64%), plastic containers (21%) and varied storage facilities (15%). In terms of hygiene knowledge and practices, 90% of those that had storage facilities, had covered containers.

There were multiple arrangements for maintaining the water facilities in Eastern Province. For instance, the maintenance of water facilities in Chipata, Lundazi and Mambwe districts was mainly by Parents Teachers Association (PTA) members (35%), school workers (6%), care takers (6%), Area Pump Menders (APM) (6%), all the pupils (5%) and 41% accounted for varied responses that included community, D-WASH and school administration.

Availability of funds for operation and maintenance (O&M) of water supply points was one of the challenges faced by the visited schools. In fact, the study showed that 76% of the schools in Chipata, Lundazi and Mambwe districts had no provision of funds to address water supply repairs. This implies that only 24% of schools had the funds.

x

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Of the 393 schools with water supply points, 90% (352) shared the water source with the surrounding villages while 10% (41) did not share due to non-existence of water supply points. The main source of water for the surrounding communities was a borehole which served an average of 5 villages per school.

Access to sanitation facilities

The survey indicated that 92% of the schools visited had toilet/pit latrine facilities while 8% did not. The average pupil/toilet ratio for boys was 1: 219 while the average pupil toilet ratio for girls was 1:207.

Of the 518 schools with sanitation facilities, 11% (59) had the boys and girls pupils share the facilities and 89% (459) did not share. It is worthwhile to note that 88% of the schools had toilets exclusively used by boys and 90% had toilets exclusively used by girls. In a bid to enhance privacy, 7% of the male and 9% of female pupils‟ toilets had doors. The rest “did not need doors” on account of the way the toilets were designed.

Of the 92% (518) schools that had toilet/pit latrine facilities, 66% had separate facilities for the teachers and 34% did not. The implication is that pupils and teachers shared the sanitation facilities in one-third (175) of the schools.

Menstrual Hygiene Management

The survey showed that 4% (22) of the schools in Chipata, Lundazi and Mambwe district provided materials for menstrual hygiene management (MHM) for the girl pupils, while 96% (496) did not.

Hand washing facilities

From all the schools surveyed, only 28% of the 564 schools had hand washing facilities. This may be partly the result of the fact that few teachers in the Eastern Province had ever been trained in hygiene promotion. Among schools with hand washing facilities, 60% were located near toilets.

The qualitative part of the baseline survey entailed observing whether pupils washed their hands with and without soap after toilet use and before eating. Most of the hand washing facilities did not have soap as only 14% of the schools had soap for hand washing during the school visit.

The observations conducted during the baseline study shows that the practice of „hand washing with soap after using the toilet’ was minimal, ranging from 3% to 6% for boys and from 1% to 4% for girls. On the other hand, the observations conducted during the baseline study shows that the practice of hand washing without soap after using the toilet was low at 1% for boys and girls.

xi

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Observation oN Hand washing facilities

Most (83%) hand washing facilities in schools had water. It must be pointed out here that even schools without water points engaged in hygiene activities such as hand washing.

xii

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

The tabular summary of the SPLASH Baseline survey findings is provided below:

At a Glance: Zambia Baseline School Characteristics

Indicator Mamb All Chipata Lundazi we Districts n=257 n=248 n=59 n=564

Public 75% 52% 51% 62%

Type of school Community 21% 45% 44% 34%

Grant 4% 3% 5% 4%

Boys 51% 53% 52% 51% Enrollment Girls 49% 47% 48% 49% School Boys 2.4% 3.1% 2.9% 2.7% Characteristics Dropout rate Girls 3.3% 3.7% 3.0% 3.4% Pupil-teacher ratio 54 60 56 56 Student absenteeism (Boys) 19% 22% 20% 20% Student absenteeism (Girls) 18% 21% 18% 19% Teacher absenteeism 13% 21% 11% 16% Has water source 74% 66% 68% 70%

Treats drinking water 13% 11% 16% 13%

Water treatment in school budget 47% 19% 10% 30%

Stores drinking water 38% 27% 51% 34%

Buckets 65% 66% 71% 66% Plastic containers 27% 14% 19% 21% Other Water Drinking water storage vessel (not mutually exclusive ) storage facilities 6% 14% 6% 9% Bucket & Plastic containers 2% 6% 3% 4% Functional water point 97% 92% 100% 95% Availability of O and M funds 26% 21% 28% 24%

Schools shares water with villages 85% 94% 93% 90% # of people with access to treated water 123,6 79,143 32,152 12,366 61

School has toilets 93% 93% 85% 92%

Flush toilet Girls 1% 0 0 1%

Boys 1% 0 0 1% Sanitation

VIP Girls 27% 24% 37% 29% Types of Boys 28% 23% 38% 29% toilets in

schools Temporal Girls 11% 9% 9% 9%

xiii

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

At a Glance: Zambia Baseline School Characteristics

Indicator Mamb All Chipata Lundazi we Districts n=257 n=248 n=59 n=564

Boys 9% 12% 10% 10%

Pit latrine Girls 60% 65% 52% 59%

Boys 60% 64% 51% 58% School has sex-segregated toilet (boys) 91% 84% 94% 88% School has sex-segregated toilet (girls) 92% 86% 94% 90% Average number boys per latrine 255 221 181 219 Average number girls per latrine 250 207 164 207 Sanitation facilities within 100 mts 68% 63% 80% 67% Toilet facility was clean (boys) 10% 11% 24% 12% Toilet facility was clean (girls) 8% 13% 24% 12% Toilet facility was clean (teachers) 25% 26% 44% 28% Toilet facility has locked entry 35% 50% 27% 38%

School also has sanitation facility for teachers 71% 60% 76% 66% School distributes MHM pads 5% 4% 4% 4%

Availability of HW facility 13% 10% 5% 28%

HW facility near toilet 61% 70% 83% 69%

Soap at HW facility 24% 14% 37% 25%

Water at HW facility 80% 81% 93% 83% Hand washing Schools enforcing group hand washing 26% 26% 17% 24% % of girls observed washing hands with soap after toilet 2% 1% 1% 1% % of boys observed washing hands with soap after toilet 4% 3% 4% 4%

Teachers trained in hygiene promotion 21% 31% 15% 25%

School has hygiene promotion materials 11% 15% 12% 13% Software School has WASH club Activities 26% 24% 10% 23%

School has plan for school WASH activities 32% 39% 20% 34%

School-based promotion targeting community 24% 28% 2% 23%

xiv

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

PART I. INTRODUCTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Children‟s inability to learn may be affected by inadequate and unsafe water, poor sanitation and hygiene conditions in several ways. These include diarrhoeal diseases and helminth infections, which force many children to be absent from school. Poor environmental conditions in the classroom can also make both teaching and learning very difficult2. Therefore, addressing problems of water, sanitation and hygiene in schools has a high likelihood of improving pupil learning, performance and teacher retention.

It is against this background that USAID is supporting the Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ) efforts through SPLASH (Schools Promoting Learning Achievement through Sanitation and Hygiene) to improve the water, sanitation and hygiene conditions in community and basic schools in 4 districts in Eastern province in order to improve educational outcomes.

1.1 Brief Overview of SPLASH

SPLASH is a 5-year USAID funded school WASH program whose overall objective is to sustainably improve access to safe water, adequate sanitation, hygiene information and health practices to improve learning environments and educational performance in basic and community schools3.

The SPLASH project promotes safe water and improved sanitation facilities in schools in Zambia‟s Eastern Province. The target districts are Chadiza, Chipata, Mambwe and Lundazi. The project benefits all children. However, it is expected to have a particular impact on female students who are principally disadvantaged by a lack of water and sanitation facilities in schools. The SPLASH program supports greater access, gender equity, and teacher retention in Zambian schools. Schools with safe water and improved sanitation facilities are assumed to be conducive to learning and stimulate academic performance.

2 UNICEF & WHO (2009): Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Standards for Schools in Low-cost Settings; Edited by John Adams, Jamie Bartram, Yves Chartier, Jackie Sims

3 SPLASH (2012): WASH in Schools Program Plan; Page 9.

1

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

1.2 Purpose and Objectives of the Baseline

1.2.1 General Objective

The objective of the SPLASH Baseline survey was to conduct a facility assessment in all basic and community schools in Chipata, Mambwe and Lundazi districts of Eastern province.

This activity was meant to serve as the project‟s hardware and software baseline at the facility level. The data collected will serve to inform and/or adjust project activities and targets, and evaluate project results.

1.2.2 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of SPLASH Baseline survey in both community and basic schools in all three districts of concern (Chipata, Lundazi and Mambwe) were as follows:

a) To collect data on enrolment, attendance and absenteeism rates; b) To assess the availability and type of water supply points, their functionality and the existence of drinking water facilities; c) To assess the availability and cleanliness of sanitation facilities d) To determine the existence of hand washing facilities with needed supplies, and observe handwashing practices after using the toilet and prior to eating.. e) To assess WASH promotional activities; f) To assess the coordination role of the D-WASH committees.

The design of the survey instrument was based on the SPLASH Log frame, from which the specific objectives were drawn.

1.2.3 Rationale of the Study

The study was undertaken for the following reasons;

(a) To use baseline survey results as evidence to influence inclusion of WASH indicators in Ministry of Education, Science, Vocational Training and Early Education (MESTVEE) Information Management System (EIMS). (b) To make it possible for programme managers to assess the performance of the project at the start, mid and end of the project thereby making it possible to attribute changes to the project. In general, the SPLASH Baseline survey will serve as a foundation for all follow-up surveys and evaluations such as the Mid Term and Final Evaluations.

This baseline report has been organized into three sections: Section 1 introduces the research and provides a background of the study undertaken; Section 2 presents findings followed by a discussion of implications; and Section 3 are annexes containing

2

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013 the list of schools with data on enrolment and WASH facilities and a map populated with WASH facilities.

1.3 Background

SPLASH is working with the Ministry of Education to create an environment that provides access to sufficient water for the school population, upholds hygiene and sanitation in school settings to ensure the availability of toilets and hand washing facilities, and the uptake of needed hygiene practices. The vision of WASH sector in the Sixth National Development Plan (SNDP) is to have, a Zambia where all users have access to water and sanitation and utilize them in an efficient and sustainable manner for wealth creation and improved livelihood by 20304.The implementation of the SPLASH Project will contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Education for All goals in Zambia.

The strategy of the SPLASH Project is to work on facility construction and capacity building at school and district levels for 2 – 3 years, then spend 2 years in each district using a „light touch‟ with reduced staff and resources to ensure that the systems required for sustainable use and maintenance of facilities are functioning and capable of satisfying the needs of school population (students and staff) 5.

The five task areas for SPLASH as identified by the USAID Program Description are as follows: 1. Install and rehabilitate improved drinking water, sanitation and hygiene infrastructure in schools, using a service delivery framework; 2. Improve the hygiene behaviors and health learners, teachers and subsequently their communities through innovations and participation; 3. Strengthen local governance and coordination of WASH in schools through the involvement of multiple stakeholders; 4. Engage those who set policies at the national, provincial and district levels to support WASH in schools through more effective and efficient policies and practices; and 5. Strengthen the capacity of small-scale service providers and the private sector to deliver WASH goods and services to both schools and communities on a sustainable basis.

1.3.1 Current water and sanitation situation in schools in Zambia

A study conducted by MESVTEE in 2008 among 44 schools located in both urban and rural areas concluded that only 29% and 9% of the schools visited met the recommended number of boys and girls per latrine, respectively. That study also

4 SPLASH (2012): WASH in Schools Program Plan; Page 5.

5 SPLASH (2012): WASH in Schools Program Plan; Page 10.

3

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013 concluded that very few students washed their hands regularly even in the presence of hand washing facilities because such families (often) did not have water. School statistics generated in 2011 were more comprehensive and conclusive. They indicate that out of 31,967 schools in the country, 50% met the student/latrine ratio requirements for boys or girls. The same statistics revealed that in 2012, the percent had increased to 58%. More recent statistics do not provide any information about hand washing facilities and practices.

The current study will help fill that gap and will provide specific quantity and quality data for water sources and sanitation facilities in the target districts

1.3.2 Current completion rates, pupil teacher contact time

Completion rate is a good measure of education system‟s performance. However, completion in itself is not sufficient. It is important to ensure that the pupils graduate with all the necessary knowledge needed to be prepared for the future. The quality of education is a priority for the Zambian government. However, there are many factors that contribute to student drop out rates, including social, economic (financial), cultural and health-related problems.

For countries like Zambia, there are reforms that the government embarked on to keep the children in school such as; enrolment of children at a right official age, child-friendly teaching and learning skills for teachers; flexible learning hours; abolition of corporal punishment and of compulsory school uniforms; wider availability of textbooks; school health measures, such as improved access to water and sanitation facilities in school; and school meals in drought-prone areas6.

In terms of primary completion rates in Zambia, the Zambia Millennium Development Goals Progress Report (2011:19) notes that 87.7 % of girls and 98.7 of boys reached grade 7 against the target of 100% in 2015. The completion rates for grade 9 and grade 12 in 2009 were 56.9% for grade 9 boys and 48.4% for grade 9 girls and 22.3% for grade 12 boys and 17.4% for grade 12 girls. The reasons for low secondary school completion rates may be due to lack of school and examination fees.

Furthermore, in 2006, primary school enrolment for girls was at 98% and 96% for boys7. The reason given for successful enrolment rate was the Free Basic Education Policy that was adopted in 2002 as well as a focus on girl education through the Programme for Advancement of Girls‟ Education (PAGE).

6 UNDP (2011): Zambia Human Development Progress Report. Service Delivery for Sustainable Human Development. Lusaka, Zambia; Page 21.

7 UNDP & Ministry of Finance and National Planning (MoFNP) (2011): Zambia Millenium Development Goals Progress Report 2011, Lusaka, Zambia; Page 19.

4

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

1.3.3 Water and sanitation policies in Zambia The Zambian government seeks to ensure that the health of its citizens is assured. The goal of the water and sanitation sector is “to achieve 75% accessibility to reliable safe water and 60% adequate sanitation by 2015 in order to enhance economic growth and improve the quality of life” SNDP (2006: 21).

The Zambian government through line ministries and in collaboration with other stakeholders (UNICEF, SNV, DANIDA, GIZ and civil society groups) has developed a number of policies and regulations that provide the basis for increasing and improving access to water supply and sanitation, to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Education for All goals. These include among many others; the Public Health Act (Drainage and Latrine regulation); the National Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme (NRWSSP); Ministry of Education infrastructure operation and implementation plans, School Health and Nutrition Program policies and implementing guidelines8.

According to the 1994 National Water Policy, seven principles govern the state's policy in water and sanitation and these are;

1. Separation of water resources management from water supply and sanitation. 2. Separation of regulatory and executive functions. 3. Devolution of authority to local authorities and private enterprises. 4. Achievement of full cost recovery for the water supply and sanitation services in the long run. 5. Human resources development leading to more effective institutions. 6. The use of technologies more appropriate to local conditions. 7. Increased budget spending to the sector.

It is notable that the sector has not been performing well due to inadequate implementation of sector plans, and strategies, low government funding, unclear institutional responsibilities, weak coordination mechanisms, inadequate baseline information, and insufficient human resources, among other factors hampering service delivery (Zambia Human Development Report 2011: 78).

The Ministry of Local Government and Housing (MLGH) has licensed 11 commercial water utilities to provide water and sanitation services in urban and Peri- Urban areas whereas those areas not covered by the ministry and local authorities are either served by independent company schemes or by demand driven community schemes in peri- urban and rural areas. The peri-urban and rural communities are said to receive services from the government Department of Water Affairs, district water, sanitation, health and education committees or NGOs, usually with support from international donors.

8 SPLASH (2012): WASH in Schools Program Plan; Page 5.

5

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

2.0 METHODOLOGY

The SPLASH Baseline survey employed quantitative and qualitative research methods. The greater part of the survey was quantitative using a structured questionnaire. The qualitative research method primarily focused on direct observations of hand washing facilities and practices during the implementation of the survey. For the facility assessment, the unit of analysis was the school. For D-WASHE related data, the unit of analysis was the district committee. The total number of schools from which data was collected was 564 out of a target of 608. Of the 564 schools, 257 were in Chipata, 248 in Lundazi and 59 in Mambwe districts (Refer to Table 1 for details). The quantitative questionnaire was administered to school head teachers and the D-WASH questionnaire was administered to the D-WASH coordinator.

2.1. Study Design and Approach

The approach entailed visiting all community and basic schools within each of the three districts surveyed.

The survey commenced on 3rd October 2012 with a 4 day training workshop for enumerators. Data collection was from 8th October for a period of 20 days, immediately followed by the data cleaning process. The survey had a total of 3 Supervisors, 25 enumerators (i.e. 10 were drawn from MESVTEE, 15 from RuralNet Associates Limited), and 2 intern-engineers from FHI360. In a bid to facilitate efficient execution of the survey, three (3) teams were formed as follows: Chipata district had 12 enumerators and 1 supervisor, Lundazi district had 10 enumerators, 1 intern-engineer and 1 supervisor and Mambwe district had 3 enumerators, 1 intern-engineer and 1 supervisor (See Appendix 4 for details of data collection teams). The main role of the supervisors was to provide overall leadership within the teams and to ensure collection of quality data. The main role of the intern-engineers was to provide technical support in terms of interpreting technical terms related to water and sanitation facilities.

In order to understand the state of local governance and coordination of WASH activities at district level, 3 interviews were conducted with the D-WASHE coordinators in Chipata, Lundazi and Mambwe districts. The details for quantitative and qualitative surveys are provided below.

2.2 Quantitative Survey

The survey targeted all the community and basic schools in operation. Table 1 shows the total number of schools visited against the target. The target number of schools that were supposed to be visited was 608 but data was collected from only 564 schools because these were the ones that were found to be operational at the time of data collection. 257 schools were canvassed in Chipata, 248 in Lundazi and 59 in Mambwe.

6

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

The reduction in the actual number of schools visited from the initial 608 was on account of a number of reasons, the dominant one being that some schools had ceased to exist because some communities had been cut off following floods leading to pupils stopping to attend school (Refer to Appendix 3 for details of the closed schools). Therefore, pupils were mainly absorbed in schools which were located near their communities in Mambwe and Lundazi district. Table 1 shows details of total number of schools interviewed from all the 3 types (government, grant and community) of basic and community schools for the 3 districts. See Appendix 1 for the survey instrument used.

Table 1: Total schools interviewed against the target Type of School Total District

Chipata Lundazi Mambwe Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual 362 352 Government School 191 192 138 130 33 30 246 192 Community School 92 55 129 111 25 26 0 20 Grant Aided 0 10 0 7 0 3 Total 283 257 267 248 58 59 608 564

The map of schools provides the specific location of each of the interviewed schools. Refer to Annex 2 for the map.

2.3 Observations and Spot Checks

As mentioned above, direct observations and spot checks were used to assess the practice of pupils‟ hand washing with and without soap and cleanliness of sanitation facilities. The findings of the observations were analysed quantitatively through the use of tabular presentation. Therefore, both quantitative and qualitative methods of study were employed simultaneously.

2.4. Data Entry and Analysis

The data were collected using the Samsung Galaxy tablets. This meant that data entry was done during the execution of the survey. The completed questionnaires were transmitted to a server where the questionnaires were later downloaded by the Data Analyst to provide quality checks.

The data were cleaned before analysis commenced. The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The parameters that were used in the analysis include district and school type (basic or community) and gender.

It is worthwhile to note that statistical analysis was conducted using chi square test in an effort to test the levels of significance between two variables. In addition, mean analysis

7

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013 was done on selected variables such as absenteeism rate and access to school water supply points by community members.

2.5 Quality Control Measures

There are a number of quality control measures that were employed during the execution of the SPLASH baseline survey. These measures can be categorized as pre- survey, survey and post-survey and are briefly discussed below.

The quality control measures before survey implementation are noted below. a) Consultative meeting with SPLASH project staff: In order to have a clear understanding of the expectations of the assignment, RuralNet Associates Limited had consultative meetings with the client on a number of technical and logistical issues. It was during this meeting that it became clear that there the study would cover the universe of basic and community schools in Chipata, Lundazi and Mambwe districts. b) Training of field staff and pre-testing of the survey instruments in Chipata: The supervisors and enumerators were trained to use the facility assessment questionnaire. The training included understanding the rationale of each question and the appropriate skip patterns. The training lasted 4 days and was held at the CrossroadS Lodge in Chipata. The pre-testing audience was the school head teachers. This pre-testing process resulted in adjustments of the data collection instrument.

The quality control measures which were put in place during the survey implementation included the following:- a) Supervision during data collection: The SPLASH Baseline survey had 3 teams, each led by a supervisor. The main role of the supervisors was to provide general leadership to the group, check the quality of the collected data and plan for logistics. The supervisors had to check for inconsistencies in responses and any other anormalies before uploading the data. Supervisors also transmitted the checked data to the database managed by RuralNet in Lusaka. b) Use of Samsung Galaxy tablets for data collection: The Samsung Galaxy tablets allowed for programming that minimized error and increased efficiency. all questions in the questionnaire were programmed using a software package called ODK Collect installed in the tablets. To make sure that all the questions that needed responses were not skipped, a command was employed that would not allow a researcher to move to the next question until the previous question was answered. An error appeared on the screen whenever a question was skipped illegally.

At the end of the interview, there were options to either save or finalize the questionnaire. The enumerators were advised to save the work so that the

8

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

supervisors could check the questions for consistency and quality. The software did not allow any questions to be finalized if it was not complete. If there was any question that was incomplete, upon clicking on finalize, the software would automatically take the enumerator to the exact question that had no response.

Tablets were programmed in such a way that all the questions that were not applicable were automatically skipped, thereby enhancing efficiency and minimization of errors resulting from accidentally skipping or answering non applicable questions.

Another notable advantage of the tablets was that once the data for that day had been collected, the supervisors were able to upload it using the internet through a server, ODK aggregates, that allowed the Data Analyst to access it immediately and undertake further data review.

The post-survey quality assurance measure was as follows:-

c) Merging of data and data cleaning: The data that came from the field was merged into one file and then the data cleaning process started. The data cleaning process mainly dealt with consistency checks in a bid to maintain high quality data. This process was done by the Data Analyst.

2.6 Study Limitations

Everything possible was done to minimize constraints and limitations given the available resources. However, the following are the key study limitations of the Baseline survey:

a) Programming of data collection instrument: The programming of the survey instrument using the Samsung Galaxy tablet was meant to minimize errors and ensure that skip patterns were correct. However, there were some incorrect skip patterns that were detected during the training workshop and the pretesting of the instrument. This was frustrating to the enumerators. In addition, the instrument required an enumerator to observe 10 male and female pupils practicing hand washing with and without soap after using the toilet and hand washing with soap before eating at school. However, the question 7.20a and 7.20b were both reading „hand washing with soap after using toilet‟. In most cases, the average observations ranged from 3 to 5 per school per interviewer. This was resolved by identifying the incorrect skip patterns and applying the correct skip patterns during data collection in the field. b) Long distances: The process of locating community and basic schools entailed travelling long distances in rough terrain. This inevitably caused some enumerators to be underutilized by visiting one school in some days.

9

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

2.7. Report Presentation

The information in this report has been presented using tables and descriptive text. Figures have been used for the purposes of simplifying the information and so that the reader can easily appreciate the information at a glance. There are also a number of variables that were cross-tabulated so as to demonstrate the dependent and independent variable relationship.

10

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

PART II: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

3.0 SCHOOL DATA

3.1 Type of Schools

A total of 564 schools were surveyed in the three districts, segmented as 255 in Chipata, 248 in Lundazi, and 61 in Mambwe. It is worth noting that there were 203 community, 343 government and 18 grant aided schools surveyed. Figure 1 below shows that in proportionate terms, Chipata has more (75%) government schools compared to Lundazi (52%) and Mambwe (51%) districts. Lundazi and Mambwe had relatively higher percentages of community schools (45% and 44%, respectively) than Chipata (21%). This was based on the overall distribution of schools in the districts suggesting that Chipata has more government schools than Lundazi and Mambwe districts.

Figure 1: Type of school by district

3.2 Total Enrolments

Overall, all the districts enrolled an almost equal proportion of both boys and girls. For example, Chipata, Lundazi and Mambwe districts enrolled 51%, 53% and 52% of boys, respectively, compared to 49%, 47% and 48% girls. The enrolment ratios exhibit a relative balance of gender in enrolments. These percentages were also translated at school level. An average of 242 boys compared to 237 girls were enrolled in each school in Chipata while an average of 173 boys and 155 girls were enrolled at each school in Lundazi, with Mambwe schools accounting for an average of 191 and 179 boy

11

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

and girl enrolments, respectively. Figure 2 below presents the overall enrolments per district by gender.

Figure 2: Total Enrolments by gender per district

Specifically, Table 2 shows enrolment figures for districts by gender between grades 1 – 4 and grades 5 - 9. An analysis of enrolment figures for boys and girls between grades 1 – 4 and those between grades 5 – 9 shows a relatively equal number for both girls and boys. In Zambia, the gender gap in enrolment is showing indications of narrowing. The enrolment levels of girls in both the urban and rural areas is showing developments towards parity. However, there is a higher number of boys between grades 5 – 9 than girls. In this regard, gender gaps appear to be more in the area of school drop outs. The proportion of girls that drop out of school in later grades is higher than that of boys9.

Table 2: Enrolment rate for districts by gender Chipata Lundazi Mambwe Grade 1 - 4 Grade 5 - 9 Grade 1 - 4 Grade 5 - 9 Grade 1 - 4 Grade 5 – 9 Gender Ave % Ave % Ave % Ave % Ave % Ave % (n=67,702) (n=44,810) (n=49,543) (n=23,426) (n=13,001) (n=7,731) Boys 131 49% 168 52% 102 51% 95 55% 110 50% 150 54% Girls 133 51% 157 48% 98 49% 77 45% 111 50% 126 46%

3.3 Pupil Drop-out Rate

The dropout rate was derived as the total pupil drop out divided by the total enrolment of pupils and multiplied by 100%. The dropout rates in all the three districts show some

9 The EFA 2000 Assessment: Zambia Country Report

12

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013 remarkable resemblance – there was a higher rate of girls dropping out of school. It should be noted that none of the boys dropped out in 66 schools in Chipata in 2012 compared to 41 schools where none of the girls dropped out. The non affected drop out cases for Lundazi involved 71 schools for boys and 39 schools for girls, while it was 14 and 12 schools for boys and girls respectively in Mambwe. Table 3 indicates the average dropout rates and proportions between boys and girls in the stated number of schools per district.

Table 3: Dropout by gender by district Gender Chipata Lundazi Mambwe

Average % Average % Average % Boys 6 2.4% 5 3.1% 6 2.9% Girls 8 3.3% 6 3.7% 6 3.0%

3.4 Teachers in Schools

The baseline survey instrument asked how many female and male teachers work at the schools visited. The findings indicate that an average of 4 male teachers worked at each school in Chipata district compared to 5 female teachers. This indicates that there were more female teachers working at each school in Chipata District (Figure 3 below presents the distribution of teachers per district by gender). The case is different for Lundazi and Mambwe which have more male teachers working at each school. There was an average of 4 male teachers at each Lundazi school, which is more than double the average number (2) of female teachers working at each school in the same district. In Mambwe, the figures averaged 4 male teachers and 3 female teachers working at each school. Male teachers are more likely to be deployed in rural districts like Lundazi and Mambwe. This may explain why Chipata district had more female teachers on average compared to Lundazi and Mambwe districts.

Figure 3: Teachers by gender by district

13

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Put differently, the findings indicate that the highest number of teachers in at least one school in Chipata included 17 male teachers compared to 60 female teachers. It is worth noting that the average number of teachers per school in Chipata was 5. The average number of teachers in Lundazi was 3 while that of Mambwe was 10 teachers per school. See Table 4 below for details.

Table 4: Highest and least number of teachers per school by district Gender Chipata Lundazi Mambwe of (n=2,274) (n=1,355) (n=398) Teachers Ave % Least Highest Ave % Least Highest Ave % Least Highest Male 4 43% 0 17 4 68% 0 10 4 60% 0 8

Female 5 57% 0 60 2 32% 0 26 3 40% 0 12

3.5 Pupil – Teacher Ratio

The pupil-teacher ratio was derived by computing the total pupil enrolments per district divided by total teachers per district and multiplied by 100%. The pupil – teacher ratio was 54 in each of the schools in Chipata, whereas it was 60 in Lundazi, and 56 in Mambwe district (See Table 5 for details). However, the Zambian Human Development Report for 2011 – Service Delivery for Sustainable Human Development indicates that standard pupils – teacher ratio is one teacher to 57 pupils.

Table 5: Pupil – Teacher ratio against standard ratio District Name Pupil – Teacher Ratio Chipata 54 Lundazi 60 Mambwe 56

3.6 Pupil Absenteeism

The baseline survey asked a question on pupil absenteeism based on their last roll call. The results of the survey showed that 20% of boys were absent from school as compared to 21% of girls. The district-based analysis indicated that the total boys‟ absenteeism rate for Chipata was 20%, 22% for Lundazi and 19% for Mambwe district. In the same way, the absenteeism rate for girls was 18% for Chipata, 21% for Lundazi and 18% for Mambwe district. The pupil absenteeism rate was computed as total number of absent pupils per district divided by total enrolment per district multiplied by 100%. See Table 6 for details.

14

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Table 6: Pupil absenteeism by gender and district Pupil Absenteeism Chipata Lundazi Mambwe n=22,665 n= 17,568 n=4,291 No. of Boys’ Average 46 38 39 No. of absent pupils 11,719 9,536 2,314 Highest 1,940 942 1,013 Percentage (%) 19% 22% 20% No. of Girls Average 43 33 34 No. of absent 10,946 8,032 1,977 Highest 2,468 993 936 Percentage (%) 18% 21% 18%

However, it should be noted here that pupil absenteeism is caused by several factors which may require to be investigated through qualitative approaches to gain further insights. Based on reported reasons why boys and girls were absent from schools, the respondents (school heads/senior teachers) indicated the following as reasons for absenteeism by boys: cattle herding; distance from home to school; economic reasons; family illnesses; feeding program; house chores (field/fishing); lack of interest; parents did not value the importance of education; school fees/poverty; attending to traditional ceremony; and, absence of teachers in schools. They also indicated the following as reasons why girls were absent from schools: distance to school; early pregnancies; economic reasons; initiation ceremonies; lack of interest; absence of teachers; menstrual related problems; parents did not value education; family illness; feeding program; house chores; personal illness; sanitation facilities are not enough for girls; school closed for some weeks; and, school fees/poverty. Table 7 below makes a comparison of the above reasons to explain why boys and girls were absent from schools.

Table 7: Comparisons why boys and girls are absent from schools No. Boys Girls 1 Herding cattle Distance from home to school 2 Distance from home to school Early pregnancies/marriages 3 Economic reasons Menstrual related problems 4 Attending to family illness Initiation ceremonies 5 Feeding program Attending to family illness 6 House chores/fishing Lack of teachers/school closed 7 Lack of interest Economic reasons 8 Parents do not value education Parents do not value education 9 Personal illness Lack of interest 10 School fees/poverty Feeding program 11 Traditional ceremony House chores 12 Absence of teachers School fees

3.7 Teacher Absenteeism

The baseline survey asked about the number of teachers absent from school on the actual day of field visit to each school. Table 8 below presents the findings of teacher absenteeism in schools on the actual day of field visit. The average number of teachers

15

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013 absent in schools in Chipata was 2 compared to 1 in both Lundazi and Mambwe. The highest number of teachers absent in a school in Chipata was 10 compared to 7 and 3 in Lundazi and Mambwe, respectively. The total district teacher absenteeism in Chipata was 296 while Lundazi recorded 286 and 44 for Mambwe.

Following the total number of teachers per district as indicated in Table 4 above, there were 2274 teachers in Chipata and a total of 296 teachers absent on the day of visit as indicated in Table 8. Therefore, the percentage of teachers absent in Chipata was 13% (296/2274 x 100 = 13%). For Lundazi and Mambwe, it was 21% (286/1355 x 100 = 21%) and 11% (44/398 x 100 = 11%) respectively. See Table 8 for details.

Table 8: Teacher absenteeism Teachers absent Chipata Lundazi Mambwe n=296 n=286 n=44 School average 2 1 1 Highest Number 10 7 3 Lowest Number 0 0 0 Percentage (%) 13% 21% 11%

The teachers were absent from schools mainly because of family funerals, family illnesses, were off duty, on leave or had permission to be absent on those particular days, had gone to collect their salaries from pay points, and were attending training workshops. The reasons male teachers were absent were the same for female teacher without any variation as indicated in Table 9 below.

Table 9: Comparisons why male and female teachers were absent from schools No. Male Teachers Female Teachers 1 Family funeral Family funeral 2 Family illness Family illness 3 Off duty Off duty 4 On leave On leave 5 Permission Permission 6 Personal business Personal business 7 Salary collection Salary collection 8 Study leave Study leave 9 Attending a training workshop Attending a training workshop

3.8 Number of Shifts

Generally the number of shifts varies from school to school and the main ones are the morning, mid-morning and afternoon shifts. The SPLASH Baseline survey confirmed that there were mainly 3 shifts in the schools visited in Eastern Province as shown in Table 10 below.

Table 10: School shifts by district School Shifts Chipata Lundazi Mambwe Total n=255 n=248 n=61 n=564 Shift 1: Morning 13% 17% 16% 85 (15%) Shift 2: Mid-Morning 56% 73% 64% 363 (64%)

16

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Shift 3: Afternoon 31% 10% 20% 116 (21%)

It is evident that most schools (64%) have pupils that belong to the mid-morning shift. The idea of school shifts is important as it plays a role in reducing congestion on water and sanitation facilities in schools. Therefore, it is important for project managers to consider school shifts when targeting water and sanitation interventions.

4.0 ACCESS TO DRINKING WATER

UNICEF has estimated that more than half of the world‟s schools lack clean toilets, drinking water and hygiene lessons for all school children. Safe water and sanitation are essential to protect children‟s health and their ability to learn at school – a fact dramatised by the tsunami catastrophe, which turned the spotlight on a global water and sanitation crisis affecting more than 2 billion people. In this sense, safe water and adequate sanitation are as vital to a child‟s education as textbooks10.

It is against this background that SPLASH is supporting interventions that will foster safe water and improved sanitation facilities in schools in order to improve learning achievement in reading and math. The first intermediate results (IR1) of the SPLASH Intermediate Results Framework is improved drinking water and sanitation facilities rehabilitated and installed in schools using service delivery framework.

4.1 Water Supply Points

Generally, there are more schools in Eastern Province with water supply points than without. Of the 564 schools visited during the SPLASH Baseline survey, 70% (393) had water supply points and 30% (171) did not. See Figure 4 for details.

10 A. Mooijman, M. Snel, S. Ganguly and K. Shordt. (2010). Strengthening Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in Schools – A WASH guidance manual with a focus on South Asia. The Hague, The Netherlands, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre. (TP Series 53). 308 pages Key words: WASH in schools, school sanitation, hygiene education, handwashing, training, water supply; Page 17-18.

17

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Figure 4: Water supply point at schools

Of the 70% (393) schools with water supply points, 18% accounted for community, 78% for government and 4% accounted for grant-aided schools. See Table 11 below.

Table 11: Water supply points by school type Type of School Total Community Government Grant-aided n=564 Water supply points n=203 n=343 n=18 Schools without water 171 77% 22% 1% supply points Schools with water 393 18% 78% 4% supply points

This clearly indicates that it was most of the government schools that had water supply points as compared to community and grant-aided schools.

Of the 70% (393) schools with water supply points, the district based analysis indicates that Chipata had 74%, Lundazi 66% and Mambwe 68%. See Table 12.

Table 12: Water supply points in schools by district District Name Chipata Lundazi Mambwe Water supply points n=257 n=248 n=59 Schools without water supply 26% 34% 32% points Schools with water supply 74% 66% 68% points

4.2 Drinking water facilities

The source of drinking water for pupils is directly linked to its quality. The water that is drawn from standard boreholes tends to be of higher quality as compared to water drawn from unprotected wells. The SPLASH baseline survey indicates that of the

18

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013 schools with water supply points (393), 81% had pump boreholes as the main source of drinking water for the pupils. On the other hand, the least was 2% with piped borehole water. See Figure 5 for details.

Figure 5: Main source of drinking water for pupils in schools

Further analysis by school type indicates that borehole (pump) as a main source of drinking water for pupils was highest (77%) in government, 19% in community and 4% in grant-aided schools.

4.3 Treatment of drinking water

The treatment of drinking water is meant to get rid of contaminants that compromise its quality. It is often said that „not all clear water is clean water‟. Of the total 564 schools, 87% did not treat drinking water in any way while 13% did treat. In addition, 66% of schools did not have drinking water storage facilities while 34% had storage water facilities. See Table 13 for details.

Table 13: Treatment of drinking water and water storage facilities in schools Drinking water storage facilities in school Treatment of drinking water in schools No Yes n=370 n=194 Schools that do not treat water 94% 75% Schools that do treat water 6% 25%

Of the 71 schools that treated drinking water, 96% used chlorine and 5% relied on boiling. The source of funding for treating drinking water was varied. In Chipata district, the main provider of funds for water treatment was school budget which accounts for 47%. In Lundazi and Mambwe districts, it was the clinic/Ministry of Health which accounted for 44% and 40% respectively. On the other hand, the community contributions for water treatment in Chipata and Lundazi are 8% and 7% respectively and non-existent in Mambwe district. The involvement of the community is critical as it

19

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013 will enhance sustainability of the practice of treating drinking water. See Table 14 for details.

Table 14: Providers of funding for water treatment in schools District Name Providers of funding for water Chipata Lundazi Mambwe treatment n=34 n=27 n=10 Community contributions 8% 7% 0 GRZ 14% 19% 30% NGOs 6% 7% 10% Others (V-WASHE & Chisomo program) 5% 4% 9% School Budget 47% 19% 10% School Budget & NGOs 5% 4% 0 Clinic /Ministry of Health 12% 44% 40%

4.4 Transportation and storage of water

Water that is meant for drinking can be contaminated from the water source to the point of consumption. The study revealed that 55% of schools use buckets to transport water, and 16% use plastic containers whereas 24% have consumers directly drink their water at the source.

Of the 564 schools, 34% had drinking water storage facilities. The main storage facilities were buckets (66%), plastic containers (21%), bucket and plastic containers (4%) and other storage facilities (9%). In terms of hygiene knowledge and practices, 90% of those that had storage facilities, were covering the containers while 10% were not.

4.5 Functionality of Water Supply Points

Of the 393 schools with a water supply point, 5% (18) had water supply points that are not functional and 95% (375) had points that are functional. Further analysis shows that it was the government schools (78%) that had more functional water supply points compared to community (18%) and grant-aided (4%) schools. See Table 15 below.

Table 15: Functionality of water supply point in schools by district School Type Total Functional water supply Community Government Grant n=393 points at schools n=72 n=305 n=16 Absence of functional water 5% 22% 78% 0 point/facility Presence of functional 95% 18% 78% 4% water point/facility

The district-based distribution of the schools with functional water supply points was such that Chipata had 97%, Lundazi had 92% and Mambwe had 100%. See Table 16 for details.

20

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Table 16: Functionality of water supply point in schools by district District Name Total Functional water supply Chipata Lundazi Mambwe n=393 points at schools n=189 n=164 n=40 Absence of functional water 5% 3% 8% 0 point/facility Presence of functional 95% 97% 92% 100% water point/facility

The study also showed that there were some school water supply points that need immediate repairs. Of the total 564 schools visited, 38% (215) had water points that needed immediate repairs while 62% did not.

The required repairs included pump (24%), replacing water pipes (18%), repair well cover (5%), repair of apron (2%) and 51% comprised of various combinations of repairs.

Among the schools that need repairs, 73% had a plan of how to deal with the repairs and 23% did not. In terms of paying for the repairs, 31% observed that the school budget would be used and 7% observed that the Government would pay for the repairs.

4.6 Access to Water

The primary beneficiaries of the water point are the pupils and teachers in visited schools. However, the school water points tend to indirectly benefit the nearby villages (hamlets). According to the SPLASH baseline survey, 90% (352) of schools shared the water source with the surrounding villages while 10% (41) did not. The district-based distribution of the schools that shared water with the surrounding villages was such that Chipata had 85%, Lundazi had 94% and Mambwe had 92%.See Table 17 below:

Table 17: School sharing of water source with surrounding villages District Name Chipata Lundazi Mambwe Category n=189 n=164 n=40 No. of schools that did not 15% 6% 8% share water No. of schools that shared 85% 94% 92% water

The estimated average number of villages that accessed water from the school water source was 5. The lowest number of villages accessing water from the school was 2 while the highest was 50. However, at district level, the average number of villages was such that Mambwe had 6 while Chipata and Lundazi both had 5.

The estimated average population of community members who had access to the water point was 346. The lowest population of community members who had access to the water point was 20 while the highest was 4,500. However, the district level analysis showed variations in the average population where Chipata had 488, Mambwe 338 and Lundazi had 211. See Table 18 for details.

21

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Table 18: Average number of villages and community members with access to the school water supply point Access to school Category District water point Chipata Lundazi Mambwe No. of villages with Average 5 5 6 access No. of schools 40% 47% 13% (n=275) Total villages 40% 44% 16% (n=1,337) Lowest 2 2 2 Highest 50 25 20 No. of community Average 488 211 338 members with No. of schools 46% 44% 10% access (n=351) Lowest 20 20 20 Highest 4,500 1,500 4000

On the other hand, the estimated average population of the school (i.e. teachers and pupils) who accessed the water from the school was 377. See Annex 1 for details.

The maximum number of people who are supposed to be accessing a water point as per standard are:  250 persons per water point with a hand pump, windmill driven pump, solar driven pump or electrical pump  150 persons per water point with bucket, chain and windlass or a rope pump11.

4.7 Maintenance of water facility

Water supply points are susceptible to wear and tear in view of the high demand of water exerted by community members and school pupils. The study revealed that the water facilities in Chipata, Lundazi and Mambwe Districts are maintained by Parents Teachers Association (PTA) members (35%), school workers (6%), care takers (6%), APM (6%), all the pupils (5%) and 41% accounted for community members, D-WASHE and school administration. In some schools, this is a multiple mechanism operating at the same time.

Availability of funds for operation and maintenance of water supply points is one of the challenges faced by the schools visited. The study showed that 76% of the schools in Chipata, Lundazi and Mambwe district do not have funds for operation and maintenance of the water facility against 24% of schools who had the funds. The district-based analysis of schools with available funds indicates that Chipata had 26%, Lundazi 21% and Mambwe district had 28%. See Table 19 for details.

Table 19: Availability of funds for operation and maintenance of school water facility District Name Availability of funds for operation and maintenance of Chipata Lundazi Mambwe school water facility n=189 n=164 n=39 Schools without funds 74% 79% 72% Schools with available funds 26% 21% 28%

11 Ministry of Local Government and Housing, DISS-RWSS Unit (2008): Manual for District Staff and Data Collection Supervisors, Zambia. 22

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

The low source of funds for operation and maintenance of water facility should be a matter of concern for SPLASH and at the same time presents an opportunity for sensitization and awareness raising of the pupils, school workers, care takers, APM and community members.

The main source of funds for operation and maintenance was PTA/PCSC as indicated by 43% of the schools. The other contributions were a combination of school administration and PTA/PCSC (10%), school administration (10%) and community contribution (10%).

4.8 Problems related to water facility

The study revealed that 53% of the schools with water points had experienced problems with the water facility while 47% did not. See Table 20 for a breakdown by districts.

Table 20: Problems related to water facility in school District Name Chipata Lundazi Mambwe Problems related to operating the water facility in school n=189 n=164 n=40 Schools without problems 47% 48% 48% Schools with problems 53% 52% 52%

The main problems related to the water facility which were encountered by schools across the districts were varied. In Chipata district, 40% of schools experienced service interruptions. In Lundazi district, the main problem was insufficient water supply as indicated by 27% of the schools and in Mambwe district, varied problems accounted for 38% of the schools in the district. These included broken chain, broken pipe, damaged bearings, lack of rope, worn out rubbers, windlass and pipes. See Table 21 for details. However, the problems related to water facilities in schools were resolved more quickly in Mambwe district due to the support that schools receive from Lodge owners in Mfuwe area.

Table 21: Types of problems related to water facility encountered by schools District Name Types of problems Chipata Lundazi Mambwe n=101 n=85 n=21 Service interruption 40% 24% 29% Insufficient water supply 19% 27% 24% Other reasons (i.e. broken chain, broken pipe, damaged bearings, lack of rope, worn out 19% 24% 38% rubbers, windlass and pipes) Quality of water 19% 16% 5% Pump has a problem 4% 9% 5%

23

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

5.0 Access to sanitation facilities

As already alluded to above, the first intermediate result (IR1) of the SPLASH Intermediate Results Framework is improved drinking water and sanitation facilities rehabilitated and installed in schools using service delivery framework. Good sanitation in schools is necessary as it provides a good learning environment for pupils. This is in line with the 7th key principle of the Sanitation and Hygiene Component of the National Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme (2006 – 2015) which states that „sanitation and hygiene in schools is given high priority, as this is essential for the health and learning environment of pupils and schools constitute good entry points for sanitation and hygiene promotion at community level’12.

5.1 School Toilets

The number of toilets and urinals required for each school depends on the number of children and staff13, as well as on when the school children and staff have access to the toilets. If access to toilets is restricted to break times, then peak demand could be high, particularly if all the classes have breaks at the same time14.

This baseline survey reviewed that 92% of the schools visited had toilet/pit latrine facilities while 8% did not. As expected, further analysis showed that government schools had the highest (65%) proportion of toilets/pit latrines compared to community (32%) and grant-aided (4%) schools. See Table 22 for details.

Table 22: Presence of toilets/pit latrines in schools School Type Total Presence of Toilet/Pit Community Government Grant n=564 Latrines in Schools n=203 n=343 n=18 Schools without toilets/pit 8% 85% 15% 0% latrines Schools with toilets/pit 92% 32% 65% 4% latrines

The district distribution of schools that did not have toilets was 7% for Chipata and Lundazi while Mambwe stood at 15% (Table 23).

12 Government of the Republic of Zambia (Ministry of Local Government and Housing): Sanitation and Hygiene Component of the National Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme (2006 – 2015) 13 WFP/UNESCO/WHO (World Food Programme, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, World Health Organization) (1999): School feeding handbook. WFP, Rome. 14 Zomerplaag J, Mooijman A (2005): Child-friendly hygiene and sanitation facilities in schools: indispensable to effective hygiene education. Technical paper series No. 47. IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, Delft and United Nations Children‟s Fund, New York (http://www.irc.nl) 24

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Table 23: Presence of toilets/pit latrines in schools District Presence of Toilet/Pit Chipata Lundazi Mambwe Latrines in Schools n=257 n=248 n=59 Schools without toilets/pit 7% 7% 15% latrines Schools with toilets/pit latrines 93% 93% 85%

Of the 8% (46) schools that did not have toilets or pit latrines, the pupils used the nearby bush (63%), temporary pit latrines (15%), neighboring village (4%) and went to their homes (4%) for defecation and urination.

In addition, of the 518 schools with the sanitation facilities, 98% (508) had no urinals for boys while 2% (10) had. The highest percentage of schools with urinals were Chipata with 80% (8), Lundazi with 10% (1) and Mambwe with 10% (1).

The study revealed that 84% of the 518 schools with sanitation facilities did not have disability friendly sanitation facilities while 16% had. Of the 16% (84) that had disability friendly sanitation facilities, 55% were in Lundazi, 42% in Chipata and 4% in Mambwe districts.

Further, the types of toilets in schools are presented in Table 24. The table suggests that between 60 and 70 per cent of the schools with both girls and boys‟ toilets did not meet the minimum standard of a ventilated improved pit latrine (VIP).

Table 24: Types of Toilets in Schools Types of Toilets in Schools Chipata Lundazi Mambwe Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys (n=237) (n=216) (n=227) (n=194) (n=51) (n=47) Flush toilets 1% 1% 0 0 0 0 Ventilated Improved Pit latrines (VIP) 27% 28% 24% 23% 37% 38% Temporal 11% 9% 9% 12% 9% 10% Pit latrines 60% 60% 65% 64% 52% 51%

Therefore, the proportion of schools with improved sanitation (flush toilets and VIPs) was 28% as indicated in Table 25.

Table 25: Types of Toilets in Schools by district District Total Presence of Toilet/Pit Chipata Lundazi Mambwe n=516 Latrines in Schools n=237 n=228 n=51 Improved toilet (VIP & 144 (28%) 69 56 19 Flush) Pit Latrines 139 147 25 311(60%) Temporal Pit Latrine 29 25 7 61 (12%)

These are examples of Ventilated Improved Pit latrines (VIP).

25

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

These are examples of ordinary pit latrines

These are examples of temporal pit latrines

5.2 Pupil toilet ratios for boys and girls

The provision of sufficient, accessible, private, secure, clean and culturally appropriate toilets for pupils and teachers is important. The standards for the pupil toilet ratio and

26

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013 teacher toilet ratio is such that: 1 toilet per 25 girls and 1 toilet for female staff; 1 toilet plus 1 urinal (or 50 cm wall) per 50 boys and 1 toilet for male staff15.

In Zambia, the government standards are 40 male and 25 female students per toilet16. In addition, national sanitation ratios show that 96 students in basic schools share 1 permanent sanitation facility. In Mambwe, 8,940 girls share 38 latrines and 9,506 boys share 36 latrines. In Lundazi, 31,482 girl children share 83 toilets and 35,191 share 79 toilets17. In view of this, the SPLASH Baseline survey has established that the proportion of schools that meet the GRZ target of 1 latrine per 25 girls was 5% and those that meet the target of 1 latrine per 40 boys was 14%.

The SPLASH Baseline survey shows that the average pupil/toilet ratio for boys was 219. In terms of district distribution, the ratio for Chipata was 255, Mambwe had 221 and Lundazi had 181.

On the other hand, the average pupil/toilet ratio for girls was 207. In terms of district distribution, the ratio for Chipata was 250, Mambwe had 207 and Lundazi had 164. In comparison with the standard, it is clear that there are more pupils and teachers who are accessing sanitation facilities in Chipata, Lundazi and Mambwe.

When compared to the number of shifts in each school, the boy and girl toilet ratio showed variations from one shift to the other. However, a similar pattern was observed with the morning shifts recording the lowest boy and girl toilet ratios at 1:71 and 1:66 respectively and the afternoon shifts with the highest boy and girl toilet ratios at 1:123 and 1:117 respectively. See Table 26 for details.

Table 26: Number of shifts in school in relation to pupil toilet ratios for boys and girls Number of shifts in schools Statistics Boy toilet ratio Girl toilet ratio Shift 1: Morning Mean 71.2817 65.6190 No. of schools 63 63 Shift 2: Mid-Morning Mean 91.0510 80.1429 No. of schools 339 337 Shift 3: Afternoon Mean 122.9872 117.4502 No. of schools 109 110 Total Mean 95.4259 86.3954 No. of schools 511 510

5.3 Location of sanitation facilities

The location of toilets should also take into account the need to minimize odours (taking account of prevailing winds) and avoid contamination of water supplies and food. All

15 UNICEF & WHO (2009): Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Standards for Schools in Low-cost Settings; Edited by John Adams, Jamie Bartram, Yves Chartier, Jackie Sims 16 USAID & WashPlus (2012): SPLASH-WASH Schools Program Plan, Washington DC, USA. 17 Ministry of Education (2010): ED*ASSIST, Lusaka Zambia 27

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013 latrines and infiltration systems should be located at least 30m from any groundwater source, and at least 1.5m above the groundwater table18.

Of the 92 % (518) schools with sanitation facilities (toilets/pit latrines), 33% (171) were not properly located while 67% were properly located. See Table 27 below for details by district.

Table 27: Location of sanitation facilities District Name

Proper location of sanitation facilities (safe distance Chipata Lundazi Mambwe from the water source and class room i.e. 100m) n=238 n=230 n=50

Not properly located schools 32% 37% 20% Properly located schools 68% 63% 80%

5.4 Cleanliness of the toilets

Toilets should be cleaned whenever they are dirty, and at least once per day, with a disinfectant being used on all exposed surfaces19.

Of the 92% (518) schools that have toilet facilities, the responsibility of cleaning toilets is with the pupils who usually take turns (94%) and school workers (2%).

5.5 Privacy of toilets

The provision of sufficient, accessible, private, secure, clean and culturally appropriate toilets for school children and staff20 is important. The privacy of toilets entails proper location and security by way of having lockable doors to protect pupils and teachers while using them.

5.5.1 Sharing of sanitation facilities

Of the 518 schools with sanitation facilities, 11% had the boys and girls pupils share the facilities and 89% (459) did not share. It is worthwhile to note that 88% of the schools had toilets exclusively used by boys and 90% exclusively used by girls. See Table 28 for details. This clearly demonstrates that most schools have sanitation facilities for members of the same sex. This is important as the girl child would not be comfortable sharing toilets with the boy child. Therefore, the risk of violence, including sexual violence is minimized.

18 Franceys R, Pickford J, Ree R (1992): A guide to the development of on-site sanitation. World Health Organization, Geneva. 19 UNICEF & WHO (2009): Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Standards for Schools in Low-cost Settings; Edited by John Adams, Jamie Bartram, Yves Chartier, Jackie Sims; Page 33.

20 UNICEF & WHO (2009): Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Standards for Schools in Low-cost Settings; Edited by John Adams, Jamie Bartram, Yves Chartier, Jackie Sims 28

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Table 28: Presence of toilets exclusively used by girls or boys Responses Districts Total n=518 Chipata Lundazi Mambwe Girls Boys n=238 n=230 n=50 Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys No 7% 9% 14% 16% 6% 6% 10% 12% Yes 92% 91% 86% 84% 94% 94% 90% 88%

5.5 2 Separate facilities for teachers

Of the 92% (518) schools that had toilet/pit latrine facilities, 66% had separate facilities for the teachers and 34% did not have. The implication is that pupils and teachers used the same sanitation facilities in 175 schools.

5.5.3 Presence of lockable doors

Of the 518 schools with sanitation facilities, 7% of the male and 9% of female pupils toilets had doors. However, the total picture indicates that 38% of schools had sanitation facilities which had lockable doors. This low presence of doors negatively affects the pupils‟ use of sanitation facilities. See Table 29 for details.

Table 29: Male and female pupils toilets with doors Responses Districts Total n=518 Chipata Lundazi Mambwe Girls Boys n=238 n=230 n=50 Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Yes 8% 8% 6% 4% 22% 14% 9% 7% No 82% 82% 94% 96% 78% 86% 91% 93%

5.6 Menstrual Hygiene Management

The lack of proper knowledge, lack of water and sanitation facilities, lack of privacy, lack of sanitary pads (leading girls to use and re-use pieces of cloth), hinder proper menstrual hygiene practices, which compromises the health and the quality of education of adolescent girls21.

The survey shows that there were some schools in Chipata, Lundazi and Mambwe districts that had materials for menstrual hygiene management (MHM). The proportion of schools that provided sanitary materials for MHM was government (86%), community (9%) and grant-aided (5%) schools. See Table 30for details.

21 UNICEF (2012): WASH for School Children (Provisional Draft) – State-of-the-art in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan & Sri Lanka. 29

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Table 30: Provision of sanitary materials for MHM by school type School Type Total Provision of sanitary Community Government Grant n=518 materials for MHM n=164 n=336 n=18 Sanitary materials not 96% 33% 64% 3% provided Sanitary materials provided 9% 86% 5% 4%

Of the 518 schools with sanitation facilities, 4% (22) provided sanitary materials and 96% (496) did not. The menstrual hygiene management material which were provided in schools include sanitary pads (41%), water for washing (27%), assorted (cotton wool, paper, water and tissue) (27%) and clothes (5%).

6.0 HAND WASHING FACILITIES

6.1 School Hand Washing Facilities

From all the schools surveyed during this baseline, only 28% of the 564 schools had hand washing facilities. The proportion of hand washing facilities by school type was government (79%), community (15%) and grant-aided (6%). The reasons for this situation include a combination of factors discussed in the following few tables below on hand washing. Some of these factors are that very few teachers are trained in hygiene promotion; very few schools had plans for hand washing activities and only a limited number of schools had pupils with organized hand wash activities.

Plastic basins on stands were very common for those schools with hand washing facilities as indicated in Table 31 below.

Table 31: Presence of water facility against type of hand washing facility Type of Washing facility Districts Chipata Lundazi Mambwe n=74 n=57 n=30 Open container 24% 23% 30% Other 18% 30% 3% Permanent block 4% 7% 0 Permanent block with open containers 0 2% 0 Plastic basins on stands 43% 25% 60% Plastic basins on stands with open containers 0 4% 0 Plastic basins on stands, other 0 2% 0 Buckets with taps 11% 7% 7%

6.2 Location of Hand Washing Facilities

These hand washing facilities were located near toilets in over 60 per cent of the schools with hand washing facilities. See Table 32 below for details.

30

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Table 32: Location of hand washing facility Location of Hand Washing facility District Chipata Lundazi Mambwe n=74 n=57 n=30 Near classrooms 28% 21% 7% Near toilets 61% 70% 83% Near toilets/classrooms 6% 9% 10% Other 5% 0 0

6.3 Group Hand Washing Facilities

It was also noted that these hand washing facilities were not largely group hand washing facilities since only 24% of schools practiced group hand washing and 76% did not. The proportion of schools that practiced group hand washing is at par in Chipata and Lundazi districts at 26% while Mambwe recorded 17% as indicated in Table 33.

Table 33: Group hand washing facilities Group Hand Washing facility District Chipata Lundazi Mambwe n=74 n=57 n=30 No 74% 74% 83% Yes 26% 26% 17%

In terms of analysis of school type in relation to group hand washing, the proportions were such that government schools recorded 85%, community (10%) and grant-aided schools had 5%. See Table 34 for details.

Table 34: Group hand washing facilities by school type Group Hand Washing School Type Total facility Community Government Grant n=161 n=24 n=127 n=10 No 16% 77% 7% 77% Yes 10% 85% 5% 23%

6.4 Water at Hand Washing Facility

Most (83%) of hand washing facilities in schools had water. It should be suggested here that even those schools without water were still engaging in hygiene promotion activities of hand washing. See Table 35 for details.

Table 35: Water at hand washing facility Water at Hand Washing District Name facility Chipata Lundazi Mambwe n=74 n=57 n=30 No 20% 19% 7% Yes 80% 81% 93%

6.5 Soap at Hand Washing Facility

The proportion of schools with soap at the hand washing facility was 23%. This shows that there were attempts in the schools to make available soap at hand washing

31

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013 facilities. The majority (77%), however, remained without soap at hand washing facilities. See Table 36 for details.

Table 36: Soap at hand washing facility Soap at Hand Washing District Total facility Chipata Lundazi Mambwe n=161 n=74 n=57 n=30 No 76% 86% 63% 77% Yes 24% 14% 37% 23%

6.6 Observations of Pupils hand washing

The survey entailed carrying out observations of pupils washing their hands with and without soap after toilet and washing hands with soap before eating their food. Most of the hand washing facilities did not have soap as shown by Table 35 above.

Basic hygiene measures taken by staff and school children – hand washing in particular – should not be compromised by lack of water or lack of access to hand washing basins or suitable alternatives. If soap is not available, then school children should be encouraged to wash their hands with water and a small amount of wood ash22.

The observations conducted during the baseline study shows that the practice of „hand washing for pupils with soap after using the toilet’ ranged from 3% to 6% for boys and from 1% to 4% for girls. The district-based analysis shows that pupils‟ hand washing with soap after using the toilet was 4% in Chipata and Mambwe respectively and 3% in Lundazi district for boys. As for girls‟ hand washing with soap after using the toilet, Mambwe and Lundazi districts recorded 1% respectively while Chipata district recorded 2%.

Schools with poor water, sanitation and hygiene conditions, and intense levels of person-to-person contact, are high-risk environments for children and staff, and exacerbate children‟s particular susceptibility to environmental health hazards23. The observations conducted during the baseline study shows that the practice of hand washing for pupils without soap after using the toilet at school was low at 1% for boys and girls. The district-based analysis shows that pupils‟ hand washing without soap after using the toilet was 2% in Chipata district for boys and was not practiced in Mambwe and Lundazi districts. This implies that most hand washing practices are still low among pupils in eastern province.

In addition, the observations conducted during the baseline study shows that the practice of hand washing for pupils before eating at school was low at 1% for boys and girls.

22 WFP/UNESCO/WHO (World Food Programme, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, World Health Organization) (1999): School feeding handbook. WFP, Rome. 23 UNICEF & WHO (2009): Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Standards for Schools in Low-cost Settings; Edited by John Adams, Jamie Bartram, Yves Chartier, Jackie Sims

32

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

7.0 WASH ACTIVITIES

7.1 Teacher Training in Hygiene Promotion

In terms of teacher training in hygiene promotion, over 69% of teachers were not trained in hygiene promotion, which could explain why the majority of schools did not put in place hand washing facilities as a way of promoting hygiene and good sanitation in schools. See Table 37 for details.

Table 37: Teacher trained in Hygiene promotion Teachers trained in Hygiene District Promotion Chipata Lundazi Mambwe n=257 n=248 n=59 No 79% 69% 85% Yes 21% 31% 15%

7.2 School Plan for WASH Activities

Most of the schools (over 61 %) in the districts did not have a plan for wash activities. See Table 38 for details.

Table 38: School plan for wash activities School has a Plan for Hand District Wash activities Chipata Lundazi Mambwe n=257 n=248 n=59 No 68% 61% 80% Yes 32% 39% 20%

7.3 Organised Pupil WASH Groups

Further, over 74 % of the schools did not have organized wash groups for pupils in the districts. These factors clearly indicate the reasons for the presence of very few wash activities in the districts. See Table 39 for details.

Table 39: Organized pupil wash group Organized Wash Group for District Pupils in school Chipata Lundazi Mambwe n=257 n=248 n=59 No 74% 76% 90% Yes 26% 24% 10%

7.4 Learning Materials for WASH

Following factors presented in the preceding tables above, Table 40 further augments the factors explaining the presence of very few wash facilities in very few schools in the three districts. The table shows that very few schools in the districts had hand wash learning materials.

33

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Table 40: Learning materials for wash School has Wash related District learning materials Chipata Lundazi Mambwe n=257 n=248 n=59 No 89% 85% 88% Yes 11% 15% 12%

8.0 District WASHE Coordination (D-WASHE)

As part of strengthening local governance and coordination of WASH in schools by involving multiple stakeholders, the water and sanitation sector policy requires all districts to form District Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Education (D-WASHE). The D- WASHE committee plays the role of managing the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (RWSS) sub-sector until the process of decentralisation is fully effected at district level.

The main roles of the D-WASHE committees are to: (a) assess the existing water, sanitation and hygiene situation in the district, (b) develop, implement and monitor D- WASHE plans, and (c) train and facilitate meetings with sub-district staff and communities on WASHE basic needs24.

The D-WASHE section of the SPLASH Baseline survey was administered to the D- WASHE coordinators in Chipata, Lundazi and Mambwe districts. Therefore, a total of 3 interviews were conducted.

The findings of this survey shows that the D-WASHE committee meets on a monthly basis in Chipata and Mambwe districtS and on a quarterly basis in Lundazi district.

8.1 Organisations represented on D-WASHE Committee

There are various stakeholders who are represented on the D-WASHE Committee. These include; Government ministries, faith-based organizations (FBOs), community- based organizations (CBOs) and the private sector. Table 41 below shows the representation of organizations on D-WASHE committee.

Table 41: Organisations represented on D-WASHE committee District Organisations Chipata  Ministry of Education  Ministry of Energy and Water Development (Department of Water Affairs)  Rural Water Supply and Sanitation  Department of Forestry  Community-oriented development  Great commission for people  CBOs  FBOs

24 Government of the Republic of Zambia (Ministry of Local Government and Housing): Sanitation and Hygiene Component of the National Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme (2006 – 2015)

34

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Lundazi  Ministry of Education  Ministry of Health  Ministry of Community Development  Ministry of Energy and Water Development (Department of Water Affairs)  Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock  Ministry of Works and Supply (Buildings Department)  Private Sector  FBOs

Mambwe  Ministry of Education  Ministry of Community Development  Rural Water Supply and Sanitation  Department of Forestry  NGOs

8.2 D-WASHE Action Plan

The consultations with the D-WASHE coordinators revealed that Chipata and Lundazi districts did not have D-WASHE Action Plans while Mambwe district had. In Lundazi district, the D-WASHE committee had not been active for some time. However, in Chipata district, the D-WASHE was still waiting for an orientation meeting as most members do not seem to know their functions.

8.3 D-WASHE Activities

The D-WASHE in Chipata, Lundazi and Mambwe districts implemented various activities related to schools in the first half of 2012. The activities are as shown in Table 42 below.

Table 42: School-related activities conducted by D-WASHE District Organisations Chipata  Meetings  Supervise drilling of boreholes  Supervision and maintenance of sanitation facilities  Training of communities  Sensitization and monitoring

Lundazi  Meetings  Supervision and maintenance of sanitation facilities  Training of communities  Sensitization and monitoring

Mambwe  Supervise of drilling of boreholes  Maintenance of sanitation facilities  Training of communities  Sensitization

35

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

9.0 Conclusions

The link between educational outcomes and the promotion of school hygiene and sanitation is evidently a paradigm shift – that of understanding drivers. The findings in this baseline survey show considerable needs for water and sanitation facilities in schools of Eastern province.

The SPLASH baseline survey has provided a facility assessment in all schools in Chipata, Lundazi and Mambwe districts of Eastern province. The data generated in this facility assessment is meant to inform and adjust SPLASH project activities and targets. To some extent, the baseline survey has provided data that can also be used to strengthen and update the M&E system of SPLASH project and that of the Ministry of Education, Science, Vocational Training and Early Education (MESVTEE). The SPLASH baseline survey has updated various variables in the EdAssist of 2010. These include; enrollment rate, dropout rate, pupil-teacher ratio, availability of water points, sources of drinking water and pupil-toilet ratio.

School Data

The average of 231 boys compared to 229 girls were enrolled in each school in Chipata while 167 boys and 147 girls were enrolled at each school in Lundazi, with Mambwe schools accounting for an average of 189 boys and 175 girls enrolled in each school in 2010 (Ed*Assist,2010). On the other hand, this baseline survey shows an average of 241 boys compared to 245 girls who were enrolled in each school in Chipata while 173 boys and 156 girls were enrolled at each school in Lundazi, with Mambwe schools accounting for an average of 195 boy and 183 girl enrolments.

The average drop-out rate for Chipata, Lundazi and Mambwe districts was 9 in 2010 (Ed*Assist, 2010). On the other hand, this baseline survey shows an average dropout rate of 6 for Chipata, Lundazi and Mambwe districts in 2012. The pupil-teacher ratio was 47.3 in Chipata, 63.6 in Lundazi and 55.7 in each of the schools in Mambwe district (Ed*Assist, 2010). On the other hand, the average pupil – teacher ratio was 54 in Chipata, 60 in Lundazi, and 56 in Mambwe district in 2012.

Access to drinking water

There were 20% of schools which had water supply points and 80% did not have in 2010 (Ed*Assist, 2010). Generally, there are more schools in Eastern Province with water supply points. Of the 564 schools visited during the SPLASH Baseline survey, 70% (393) had water supply points and 30% (171) did not have.

The main source of drinking water for pupils was pump boreholes as indicated by 48% of schools and 4% from piped borehole and piped water in 2010 (Ed*Assist, 2010). On the other hand, this baseline survey indicates that 81% of the schools had pump

36

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013 boreholes as the main source of drinking water for the pupils and 2% had piped borehole water.

Access to sanitation facilities

The average pupil/toilet ratio for boys and girls was 237 and 214 respectively in 2010 (Ed*Assist, 2010). However, this baseline survey shows that the average pupil/toilet ratio for boys and girls was 219 and 208 respectively. In terms of district distribution, the pupil/toilet ratio for boys in Chipata was 255, Mambwe had 221 and Lundazi had 181 and for girls, it was 250 in Chipata, 207 in Mambwe and 164 in Lundazi.

37

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Bibliography

A. Mooijman, M. Snel, S. Ganguly and K. Shordt. (2010). Strengthening Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in Schools – A WASH guidance manual with a focus on South Asia. The Hague, The Netherlands, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre. (TP Series 53). 308 pages Key words: WASH in schools, school sanitation, hygiene education, handwashing, training, water supply; Page 17-18.

Government of the Republic of Zambia (Ministry of Local Government and Housing): Sanitation and Hygiene Component of the National Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme (2006 – 2015).

Franceys R, Pickford J, Ree R (1992): A guide to the development of on-site sanitation. World Health Organization, Geneva http://www.cidrz.org/under_5_diarrhoeal_control (2012): Under 5 Diarrhea Control.”

Ministry of Education (2010): ED*ASSIST, Lusaka Zambia.

Ministry of Finance and National Planning & United Nations Development Programme (2011): Zambia Human Development Report 2011-Service Delivery for Sustainable Human Development.

Ministry of Local Government and Housing, DISS-RWSS Unit (2008): Manual for District Staff and Data Collection Supervisors, Zambia.

Ministry of Local Government and Housing (2006): Sanitation and Hygiene Component of the National Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme.” Lusaka, Zambia.

Sixth National Development Plan (2006): Ministry of Finance and National Planning. Lusaka, Zambia.

SPLASH (2012): WASH in Schools Program Plan.

The Zambia NGO Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Forum: Strategic Plan 2011 - 2015

UNICEF & WHO (2009): Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Standards for Schools in Low- cost Settings; Edited by John Adams, Jamie Bartram, Yves Chartier, Jackie Sims.

UNDP (2011): Zambia Human Development Progress Report. Service Delivery for Sustainable Human Development. Lusaka, Zambia.

UNECA (2012): Assessing Progress in Africa toward Millennium Development Goals,” http://new.uneca.org/Portals/mdgreports/2012/Goal02.pdf

38

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

USAID & WashPlus (2012): SPLASH-WASH Schools Program Plan, Washington DC, USA.

WFP/UNESCO/WHO (World Food Programme, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, World Health Organization) (1999): School feeding handbook. WFP, Rome

Zomerplaag J, Mooijman A (2005): Child-friendly hygiene and sanitation facilities in schools: indispensable to effective hygiene education. Technical paper series No. 47. IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, Delft and United Nations Children‟s Fund, New York (http://www.irc.nl)

39

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

APPENDICES

40

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Appendix 1: SPLASH Baseline Questionnaire

Date: ___/____/______

Province Name: ______District Name:______

Name of Village/Town:______

School Name:______School Type: 1. Government [ ]

Ward:______2. Community [ ]

3. Grant [ ]

4. Private [ ]

[ 2. School location: 1. Rural ] Urban [ ]

Name of Head Teacher: ______

Contact Number:______

Name of Enumerator: ______

Name of Supervisor:______1.0 School Data

Permane 1.1 How many class rooms are there in the school? nt Temporal 1.2 How many grades are taught at school? (tick answer) 1st [ ] What grades are taught in the school 2nd [ ] 3rd [ ]

1

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

4th [ ] 5th [ ] 6th [ ] 7th [ ] 8th [ ] 9th [ ]

1.3 How many shifts are there in the school? (write the number):______

(skip to 1.4 Are all grades taught at each shift? 1. Yes [ ] 1.7) 2. No [ ]

1.5 Are there some grades which come only in the morning? 1. Yes [ ] (skip to 2. No [ ] 1.7) Grades What grades are in the morning,mid-morning and afternoon 1.6 shifts? (Indicate grades) 1. Morning [ ] 2. Mid-Morning [ ] 3. Afternoon [ ] 4. Others, specify:______

1.7 How many male teachers work at the school? 1.8 How many female teachers work at the school?

1.9 Are there teachers that teach more than one grade? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ] (skip to

2

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

1.11)

1.1 1st 0 What grades are taught at the same time in the same room? (write the grades) cluster 2nd cluster 3rd cluster 1.1 1 How many male and female pupils are in grade 1 - 9? Male Female

Mid- Aftern Morning Morning oon 1.1 2 How many male pupils are enrolled at this school (in the different shifts)? 1.1 3 How many female pupils are enrolled at this school (in the different shifts)?

1.1 4 Absenteeism: How many male and female pupils were absent after roll call of the following specified grades? # of Pupils absent Femal Grade Male e 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th

3

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

1.1 5 What is the main reason why male pupils are absent from school? 1. Personal Illness 2. House chores 3. Family illness 4. Feeding Program 5. Other (specify):______

1.1 6 What is the main reason why female pupils are absent from school? 1. Personal Illness 2. House chores 3. Family illness 4. Feeding Program 5. Other (specify):______

1.1 7 What is the number of teachers absent during day of visit (write the number)?

1.1 8 What are the reasons for male teachers' absence? 1. Personal Illness 2. Family illness 3. Family funneral 4. Other (specify):______

4

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

1.1 9 What are the reasons for female teachers' absence? 1. Personal Illness 2. Family illness 3. Family funneral 4. Other (specify):______

1.2 0 How many male pupils have dropped out during the year?

1.2 1 How many female pupils have dropped out during the year?

1. 1.2 Pregnan 2 What is the main reason why male pupils drop out of school? cy 2. Marriag e 3. Economi c 4. Distance 5. Disabilit y 6. Lack MHM facilities 7. Others

1.2 What is the main reason why female pupils drop out of school? 1.

5

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

3 Pregnan cy 2. Marriag e 3. Economi c 4. Distance 5. Disabilit y 6. Lack MHM facilities 7. Others 2.0 Access to Drinking Water

2.1 Is there any type of water supply point at the school? 1. Yes [ ] (skip to 2. No [ ] 2.14)

2.2 What is the main source of drinking water for the pupils? 1. Piped water [ ] 2. Borehole (multiple responses are possible) (piped) [ ] 3. Borehole (pump) [ ] 4. Well (Unprotected) [ ] 5. Well (Protected) [ ] 6. Other, specify______

[ 2.3 In what year did the school begin to use this water source? (write year of the newest water source) ]

6

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

[ ] (skip to 2.4 Is the water point/facility functional? 1. Yes 2.6) 2. No [ ]

2.5 What is the alternative for water? 1. Piped water [ ] 2. Borehole (piped) [ ] 3. Borehole (pump) [ ] 4. Well (Unprotected) [ ] 5. Well (Protected) [ ] 6. Other, specify______

2.6 Does that water source need any immediate repairs? 1. Yes [ ] [ ] (skip to 2. No 2.10)

(multiple responses are 2.7 What type of repair is needed? possible) 1. Repair pump [ ] 2. Repair well cover [ ] 3. Repair apron [ ] 4. Repair well casing [ ] 5. other repairs, specify______

2.8 Does the school have a plan to get those repairs done? 1. Yes [ ] (Skip tp 2. No [ ] 2.10)

7

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

2.9 How will the school pay for the repairs? [ 1. School budget ] 2. Community [ contributions ] [ 3. NGO ] [ 4.GRZ ] 5. Other, specify [ ______]

2.1 0 How is the drinking water currently transported from the source to the point of consumption? 1. Plastic containers [ ] 2. Buckets [ ] 3. Jar/pots [ ] Skip to 4. Drink at source [ ] 2.14 5. Other specify______2.1 1 Who carries the water from the source to the point of consumption? 1. [ Pupils ] 2. Teachers 3. Community [ members ] 4. Other, specify______

2.1 2 Are there problems getting the water from the source to the point of consumption?

8

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

1. Yes [ ] (skip 2. No [ ] 2.14)

2.1 [ 3 What difficult(ies) are faced at source/during transport? 1. Difficult to carry ] 2. Not done [ regularly ] [ 3. Over crowding ] 4. other, specify______

2.1 4 Does the school have drinking water storage facilities? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

2.1 1. 5 How is the drinking water stored? (Multiple responses possible) Buckets [ ] 2. Plastic containers [ ] 3. other, specify______

2.1 6 Are the water containers covered? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

2.1 7 Do classrooms have drinking water? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

2.1 8 Does the school treat drinking water in any way? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ] (skip to

9

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

2.23)

2.1 9 What do you usually do to make water safe to drink? 1. Boiling [ ] 2. Filtering [ ] 3. Chlorinati ng [ ] 4. Other, specify______

2.2 0 How many liters of water were treated today? (Write the amount) [ ]

2.2 1 If the school uses products to treat the water, who provides the funding to treat the water? 1. School budget [ ] 2. Community contributions [ ] 3. Others, specify ______

2.2 2 If the school needs to regularly buy water treatment products, are there any problems [ getting the products when they are needed? 1. Yes ] [ 2. No ]

2.2 3 Do you share the water source with the surrounding compounds/villages? [ 1. Yes ] [ (Skip to 2. No ] 2.25)

10

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

2.2 4a How many villages access water from this water source? (write number of villages) [ ] 2.2 [ 4b How many people live in those villages? ]

2.2 1. All the 5 Who is responsible for maintaining the water facility? pupils [ ] 2. School workers [ ] 3. Pupils and workers [ ] 4. PTA/PCSC members [ ] 5. APM 6. Caretaker 7. Other,specify______

2.2 6 Does the school have funds for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of the water facility? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

2.2 1. School 7 What is the source of funds for Operation and Maintenance? Administration [ ] 2. PTA/PCSC (multiple responses possible) contribution [ ] 3. GRZ grant [ ] 4. Donor grant [ ] 5. Other,specify______

11

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

2.2 8 Have there been any recent problems operating the water facility? [ 1. Yes ] [ (skip to 2. No ] 2.32)

2.2 9 What types of problems have you encountered in the past three months? 1. Not enough water [ ] 2. Service interruption [ ] 3. Quality of water [ ]

2.3 0 How many weeks did it take to solve them? (write number of weeks) [ ]

2.3 1. School 1 Who participated in solving them? administration [ ] 2. PTA/PCSC [ ] 3. Ministry of Education [ ] 4. Ministry of Works [ ] 5. D WASHE Committee [ ] 6. APM [ ] 7. Caretaker [ ] 8. Ministry of Local Government and Housing [ ] 9. Department of Water Affairs [ ] 10. Others (specify) [ ]

12

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

2.3 2 Has the water supply been interrupted for at least a single day in the past month? 1. Yes [ ] (skip to 2. No [ ] 3.1)

2.3 3 How many days was there water shortage? (Write the number of days) [ ]

3.0 Access to sanitation facilities (tick as appropriate)

[ 3.1 Does the school have toilets/pit latrines? 1. Yes ] [ 2. No ] 3.2 Category No. of blocks No. of drop holes Male pupil Female pupil Male Teachers Female Teachers

1. Near 3.3 Where do the pupils go to urinate/defecate? by bush [ ] 2. Go to their homes [ ] 3. Other, specify______

3.4 Do the male and female pupils share the facilities? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

13

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

[ 3.5 Are there toilets used exclusively by female pupils? 1. Yes ] [ 2. No ]

1. VIP 3.6 What kind of toilets are these? toilet [ ] 2. Pit latrines [ ] 3. Waterborne/flush toilet [ ] 4. Other, specify 3.7 Type of blocks for female pupils Number 1. 1X1 [ ] 2. 1X2 [ ] 3. 1X3 [ ] 4. 1X4 [ ] 5. 1X5 [ ] 6. 1X6 [ ] 7. 1X7 [ ] 8. 1X8 [ ] 9. 1X9 [ ] 10. 1X10 [ ] 11. other specify______[ ]

3.8 Do the female pupils toilet have doors? 1. Yes [ ] skip to 2. No [ ] 3.10

3.9 Can these doors be locked from the inside of the toilet? 1. Yes [ ]

14

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

2. No [ ]

3.1 0 Are there sanitaty materials provided for Menstraul Hygiene Management (MHM)? Yes [ ] skip to No [ ] 3.12

1. 3.1 Sanitary 1 What materials are available for MHM? pads [ ] (tick all applicable) 2. Cloths [ ] 3. Water for washing [ ] 4. Other specify______

3.1 2 Do female pupils toilets have access to water inside the toilet? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

3.1 3 Do female pupils toilets have access handwashing facilities nearby? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

3.1 4 Do female pupils toilets have any facilities to dispose of soiled sanitary products? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

3.1 [ 5 Are there toilets used exclusively by boys? 1. Yes ] [ Skip to 2. No ] 3.17

15

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

3.1 6 What kind of toilets are these? 1. VIP toilet [ ] 2. Pit latrines [ ] 3. Waterborne/flush toilet [ ] 4. Other, specify 3.1 7 Type of blocks for male pupils Number 1. 1X1 [ ] 2. 1X2 [ ] 3. 1X3 [ ] 4. 1X4 [ ] 5. 1X5 [ ] 6. 1X6 [ ] 7. 1X7 [ ] 8. 1X8 [ ] 9. 1X9 [ ] 10. 1X10 [ ] 11. other specify______[ ]

3.1 8 Do the male pupils toilets have doors? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

3.1 9 Are there urinals for male pupils? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

3.2 0 Are the sanitation facilities located properly (safe distance is at least 100m from the water source and class room) 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

16

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

3.2 1 Are there separate facilities for the teachers? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

3.2 2 Who is responsible for cleaning the school toilets? 1. Pupils take turns [ ] 2. School workers [ ] 3. Other,specify______

3.2 [ 3 Are the sanitation facilities disadbility friendly? 1. Yes ] [ 2. No ]

4.0 Hand washing facilities (tick as appropriate)

[ 4.1 Does the school have hand washing facilities in place? 1. Yes ] [ Skip to 2. No ] 5.1

4.2 What type of hand washing facilities are in place? 1. Permanent block [ ] 2. Plastic basins on (tick all applicable) stands [ ] 3. Open containers [ ] 4. Other,specify______

17

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

4.3 Where are the hand washing facilities located? 1. Near the toilets [ ] 2. Near the (tick all applicable) classrooms [ ] 3. Near the feeding place [ ] 4. Other, specify______

4.4 How many times in the past week have the hand washing facilities been empty? 1. Never [ ] 2. Once [ ] 3. More than once [ ] 4. Always [ ]

4.5 Does the school practice group hand washing? 1. Yes [ ] (pupils washing their hands at given time as a group 2. No [ ] e.g. just after assembly when getting in class)

4.6 Is there water at the hand washing facility? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

4.7 Is there soap at the hand washing facility? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

4.8 What materials are available for hand washing other than water? 1. Ash 2. Soap 3. Other (specify)

4.9 Does the school have funds for purchasing soap? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ] Skip to

18

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

5.1

4.1 1. School 0 What is the source of these funds? Administrative 2. PTA/PCSS contribution 3. GRZ grant 4.Dono granst

5.0 WASH activities (tick as appropriate) 5.1 Are there teachers at the school that have been trained in hygiene promotion? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

Can you Kindly 5.2 Does the school have a plan for WASH activities? show me? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

5.3 Does the school have an organised WASH group for pupils? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

5.4 Does the school have WASH related learning materials? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

5.5 What WASH related learning materials did you see? 1. (Check which materials were seen) Books 2. Posters 3. Pamphlets 4. Fliers

19

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

5. Charts Others (specify)

5.6 Are there posters and Information Education Communication (IEC) materials on hygiene messages on the walls of the school? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

5.7 Are there school to community hygiene promotion activities? 1. Yes [ ] (probe in line with drama or any such activities) 2. No [ ]

5.8 What selected WASH activities that the school conducted in the last 6 months? a. Group hand washing instruction b. Drama c. Peer education d. Cleanining latrine e. Others (specify)

6.0 WASH Coordination (team leader/supervisor to interview D-WASH Coordinator) c. 6.1 How often does the D-WASHE committee meet?: a. Monthly b. Quarterly Never

6.2 Which Organisations are represented on the D-WASHE?:

c. Ministry of e. Ministry of Community a. Hospital b. NGO Education (MoE) d. Ministry of Health Development h. Local i. Local i. Ministry of Energy & Water f. Department of Water Affairs g. Private sector CBO FBO Developmet j. Others (specify)

6.3 Does the D-WSHE have an action plan in place? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

20

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

6.4 What activities has the D-WASHE conducted in the last 6 months related to the schools?

a. Meetings b. Supervising the drilling of boreholes c. Supervise maintenance of facilities d. Training of communities in maintenance e. Sensitisation g. Monitoring f. Planning water sanitation activities programs

7.0 Observations

7.1 Recor d school's GPS location

7.2 I would like to visit your sanitation facilities, water source and food shelter. I would like to take pictures. [ Is that OK with you? 1. Yes ] 2. No [ ]

7.3 a Picture of male pupil sanitation facilities (outside) 7.3 b Picture of male pupil sanitation facilities (inside) 7.4 a Picture of female pupil sanitation facilities (outside) 7.4 b Picture of female pupil sanitation facilities (inside) 7.5 a Picture of male teachers/staff sanitation facilities (outside) 7.5 b Picture of male teachers/staff sanitation facilities (inside) 7.6 a Picture of female teachers/staff sanitation facilities (outside) 7.6 b Picture of female teachers/staff sanitation facilities (inside) 7.7 Picture of male pupil hand washing station 7.8 Picture of female pupil hand washing station

21

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

7.9 Picture of teachers hand washing station 7.1 0 Pictures of handwashing facilities near food shelter 7.1 1 Picture of water source 7.1 2 Pictures of food shelter 7.1 3 Pictures of sanitation facilities for female teachers and staff

7.1 4 Is path to sanitation facility clear for male pupils? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

7.1 5 Is path to sanitation facility clear for female pupils? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

7.1 6 (Observation only: How clean are the toilets for:

Somew hat Clean clean Not clean 7.1 Male pupils 6a 7.1 Female pupils 6b 7.1 Staff and 6c administrators

Key Table for Above Toilet facilities have no visible feces in or Clean around facility, no litter, no flies,

22

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Somewhat Smeared fecal matter, some litter, some flies clean Not clean Considerable fecal matter, large amount of litter, many flies

7.1 7 Is there anal wiping material available in the sanitation facilities? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

7.1 8 What type of anal wiping material is available in the sanitation facilities? 1. Water 2. Paper 3. Rocks 4. Corn cobs 5. Leaves

7.1 9 Observe hand washing with soap after toilet 1. before school 2. at recess

Number of Male Female observation pupils pupils 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

23

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

7.2 Observe hand washing with soap before eating

Number of Male Female observation pupils pupils 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

24

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Appendix 2: SPLASH Log frame

Level Narrative Summary Performance Means of Assumptions Frequency (1) (2) Indicator/Objectively Verification/Reporting (5) (6) Verifiable Indicator (4) (3) Goal Education Academic performance rates School test results Contribution from the other Not applicable achievement in in standardized literacy and Ed*Assist projects (STEP-UP, ISEP, reading and math numeracy test for 5th graders OVC-ESI, WASH & SPAA). improved SPLASH not solely responsible for this measurement Availability of funding through-out project implementation for all indicators Purpose Contribute to P1. 40% improvement in School attendance WASH activities increase Baseline, equitable education attendance in target schools registers attendance among girls more midline and access through (disaggregated by sex) Ed*Assist/EMIS than boys. This may make endline in all improved water, girls remain in schools and schools sanitation and allow more equitable access hygiene Need to control for SHN Monthly in influence on attendance e.g. longitudinal school feeding. Initial surveillance anecdotal evidence suggests schools for 12 that absenteeism in schools months after in the Eastern Province completion of all ranges from 20-50%, with program the highest rate observed activities/inputs during the first term of the year as it coincides the a crucial period of the agricultural cycle. The increase expected is presented as a percent and not as percentage points. Thus, if the current absence

25

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

rate is 20%, a 40% improvement would mean that the absence rate dropped from 20% to 12%.

P2. XX % increase in School attendance Teacher /pupil contact Baseline, teacher/pupil contact time in registers increases academic midline and target schools Educational Statistical performance, mediating endline in all Bulletin factor would be a supportive schools Ed*Assist/EMIS school environment Teacher/pupil contact Monthly in increases as absenteeism longitudinal decreases among teachers surveillance and pupils. It is well schools for 12 established that teacher months after absenteeism reduces pupils completion of all academic performance25,26 program activities/inputs P3. XX % reduction in drop- Enrollment records Need to control for SHN out rates in target schools Ed*Assist/EMIS influence on attendance e.g. (disaggregated by sex) school feeding

25 Rogers, F&E Vargas (2009), No More Cutting Class? Reducing Teacher Absence and Providing Incentives for Performance. Policy Research Working Paper 4847, World Bank 26 Das, J, Dercon, S, Habyarimana, J & Krishnan, P (2005), Teacher Shocks and Student Learning: Evidence from Zambia. World Bank 26

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

IR 1 Improved drinking water, Output Indicators sanitation and hand IR1.1 443 water point facilities Program/District Availability of underground Every semester washing facilities rehabilitated or constructed reports water for boreholes constructed/rehabilitated in IR1.2 3094 sanitation facilities Program/District All facilities will meet GRZ Every semester schools using service constructed or rehabilitated that reports standards/specifications delivery framework meet national standards (disaggregated by sex and Facility monitoring pupils/teachers) form IR1.3 1154 hand washing Program/District None of significance Every semester facilities reports constructed/rehabilitated Facility monitoring form IR1.4 90% of targeted schools Program/District Provision of needed Every semester where teachers and learners reports products and supplies regularly, monthly have access to water treatment through school during longitudinal and safe storage Water point survey budgets/support from surveillance for 12 PTAs/PCSC27 months only, and baseline, midline and baseline IR1.5 270 schools have facilities Program/District Provision of cleansing Every semester and products to support reports material and menstrual regularly, monthly menstrual hygiene hygiene product by during longitudinal Facility monitoring PTA/PCSC or other means surveillance for 12 form months only, and baseline, midline and baseline IR1.6 # of people in target areas Program/District None of significance Every semester have access to improved records

27 Parent Community School Committee

27

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013 drinking water supply as a result of USG assistance (broken down Water point survey by students and community members) IR1.7 # of people in target areas Program report SLTS activities Annual with access to improved implemented and cover sanitation facilities as a result of communities surrounding USG assistance schools IR1.8 100% targeted schools Program/District None of significance Every semester incorporated into existing records national O&M institutional framework for water Outcome Indicators IR1.9 95% of SPLASH Facility monitoring Learners and teachers Monthly during constructed/rehabilitated toilets form appreciate and utilize longitudinal operational facilities correctly surveillance for 12 months and at baseline, midline and endline IR1.10 95 % of constructed Facility monitoring None of significance Monthly during hand washing facilities form longitudinal operational surveillance for 12 months and at baseline, midline and endline IR1.11 95 % of SPLASH Facility monitoring None of significance Baseline, midterm, constructed/rehabilitated water form endline points meeting operational sustainability criteria

28

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

IR 2 Improved hygiene behaviors of Output Indicators learners and teachers-and IR2.1 XX school catchment areas Program reports Presence of teachers Every semester subsequently communities- ignited to implement SLTS to be trained through the use of innovative IR2.2 XX teachers successfully Program reports None of significance Every semester and participatory methods complete in-service WASH training per school with USG Teacher survey Baseline, midterm, support endline IR2.3 XX administrators and Program reports None of significance Every semester officials successfully trained with USG support IR2.4 330 schools that have Program reports None of significance Every semester established WASH clubs and trained peer educators Pupil survey form IR2.5 XX schools in target areas Program records None of significance Every semester have access to teacher and pupil WASH educational materials by type of material Outcome Indicator IR2.6 XX teachers implementing Teacher survey Availability of project Baseline, midterm the WASH lessons and activities form funding and endline supported by SPLASH IR2.7 % of household heads Baseline, midline None of significance Baseline, midterm exposed to WASH promotion and endline and endline activities household surveys IR2.8 XX % of school catchment Facility None of significance Annual areas achieve ODF status monitoring form subsequent to implementation of SLTS

29

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

IR2.9 XX mean % of learners Baseline, midline None of significance Baseline, midterm know relevant WASH messages and endline pupil and endline imparted through WASH surveys promotion

IR2.10 XX mean % of learners Observation None of significance Monthly in practicing hand washing with form longitudinal soap at key times by end FY2016 surveillance schools for one year, and baseline, midterm and endline IR2.11 XX % of target schools Observation None of significance Monthly in enforcing group hand washing form longitudinal surveillance schools for one year and during baseline, midterm and endline

IR 3 Strengthened local governance Output Indicators and coordination of WASH in IR3.1 XX D-WASHE committees Community Annual schools through multiple develop district action plans with stakeholder organized stakeholder involvement stakeholder involvement providing support over time IR3.2 XX D-WASHE committees Program reports None of significance Every semester trained in planning, integrating and coordinating district school WASH programs IR3.3 XX PTAs or similar school Program reports PTA exist in target Every semester governance structures supported schools and are active Outcome Indicators IR3.4 XX % of targeted schools Financial Strategy to get Every semester that have adequate and reports PTA/PCSC records sustained stream of revenue to PTA/PCSC

30

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

operate and maintain WASH reports facilities

IR3.5 XX % D-WASHE Monitoring form None of significance Annual committees that are functional

IR 4 Effective policies and practices IR4.1 XX new policies, laws, Program reports Government provides Annual established at provincial and agreements, regulations, or (New an accommodating district levels to support WASH investment agreements documents platform and USAID in schools implemented that promote produced) gets involved in access to improved water supply seeking certain and sanitation changes in policy IR4.2 XX % of target schools Program reports Annual work planning Annual that incorporated WASH habitual activities into (annual) work plan

31

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

IR 5 Increased capacity of small- Output Indicators scale service providers and IR5.1 XX producer organizations, Program None of significance Annual private sector to deliver WASH trade and business associations reports goods and services to both supported by SPLASH activities schools and communities IR5.2 XX small-scale providers Program None of significance Annual oriented/trained in product and reports service provision and associated practices Outcome Indicators IR5.3 # of certified service Program None of significance Annual providers by gender records

Appendix 3: Details of closed and additional schools

Details of closed and additional schools in Chipata District

1.0 Special cases of non operational schools

1. Chibale community school had no teacher because he went to Mozambique in July and nobody in the community knew when he would be back and hence the school is not functioning. 2. Blessings community School was turned into a preschool 3. Labani and Kamazila are one and the same school 4. Matizi was closed and Kanamvula was opened to replace it 5. M‟mbalo and Mazunzo not known 6. Mwangazi is the name of a stream not a community school 7. SA community , Kambizule,Taonga, mukachi, Mkantha, Champanama, Chansato, Changuta and Tiyeseko do not exist 8. The rest of the cases are non operational/closed due to a number of reasons such as(ii) school closed because its too close to next school (iii) lack of infrastructure (iv) Lack of human resource (v) some community schools are not operating anymore because the teacher is just a volunteer who finds something to do while waiting to do other things in life such as education, crop production and the like(vi) For some schools nobody in the community knows where they were located. However, only one basic government school was closed because they did not meet the required sanitation standards. The rest of the cases are the community schools.

32

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

9. Katete alpha and kaleza are one and the same school.

2.0 List of additional schools not on the list of ‘total schools’

1. Chongo turn off community 2. Chibale (teacher left in september) 3. Ndembela basic 4. Mupapa 5. Tafika community 6. Kanamvula( one and the same as Matizi) 7. Kabibe community 8. Chiembekezo 9. Chisapwa community 10. Kalembe 11. Tangata community 12. Chisomo Stream side 13. Kasupe commnity 14. Mwase 15. Kwenje community 16. Walila Basic 17. Kamukomole community 18. Mlanga basic 19. Chenche community 20. Chiziro community 21. Kasenjere community 22. Nkhangawa

3.0 List of non-operational/closed schools

1. Selemani 2. M‟mbalo 3. Chikusulu basic 4. MT Streamside 5. Chan‟guta 6. Mthilansembe 7. Chansato 8. Mukachi 9. Chapanama 10. Mwangazi 11. Zungula 12. Nyaviteka 13. tiThandizile 14. Selemani 15. Chimphinga 16. Shanganan 17. Chipililo 18. Shepherd garden Christina 19. Chithokozo 20. Taonga 21. Chunga 22. Tigwilizane 23. Kabwile 24. Tikondane 25. Kambizule 26. Tithandizile 27. Kavele 28. Tiyeseko 29. Masiwa 30. Zungula 31. Mazunzo 32. SA 33. Mkantha 34. Kabwile 35. Mkulungu 36. Chibale

Details of closed and additional schools in Lundazi District

33

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

1.0 Special cases

1. Matuli community school was upgraded to Kazinda Basic . 2. Chamalaza, Chang‟ombe, Kokolo, Madaliso, Maila and Mkongwe do not exist

2.0 List of additional schools not on the list of ‘total schools’ 1. Nthanda community 2. Katete BEU community 3. Kamwala community 4. Champheta community

3.0 List of non-operational/closed schools

1. Chamalaza 2. Lusezi 3. Senderera 4. Chang‟ombe 5. Madaliso 6. Luwelezi 7. Chiphere 8. Maila 9. Kapoka 10. Kanyalubwe 11. Mkongwe 12. Kawambala 13. Kapalankhwale 14. Mthuzi IRI 15. Jalawe 16. Kavinyemwe 17. Ndaona 18. Tawona 19. Kakolo 20. Sambwa

Details of closed and additional schools in Mambwe District

1.0 List of additional schools not on the list of ‘total schools’

1. Mnyamanzi community 2. Ambidzi community

2.0 List of non-operational/closed schools

1. Mnyamanzi community

Appendix 4: Data Collection Team for SPLASH Baseline Survey

Data Collection Team for Chipata District

34

SPLASH Baseline Survey Final Report May 2013

Name Organization Cell Phone # 1. Titus Ernesto Ministry of Education 0979 828 277/0965 828 277 2. Magdaline Zimba Ministry of Education 0977 767 569 3. Frank Bwalya Ministry of Education 0966 223 296 4. Bernard Kakumbi Ministry of Education 0977 481 197 5. Charles Himoonga Ministry of Education 0977 944 247 6. Ruth Sachikuwa RuralNet Associates Limited 0966 519 524 7. Mwila chishala RuralNet Associates Limited 0977 369 351 8. Kalolo Mulenga RuralNet Associates Limited 0966 615 944 9. Kangwa Mupepa RuralNet Associates Limited 0976 517 163 10. Kelvin Munjile RuralNet Associates Limited 0976 261 790 11. Chabu Mulundu RuralNet Associates Limited 0978 070 136/ 0965 376 090 12. Siphiwe Lungu RuralNet Associates Limited 0961 128 434 13. Janet Tembo (Supervisor) RuralNet Associates Limited 0971-646482

Data Collection Team for Lundazi District Name Organization Cell Phone # 1. Bennett Musonda RuralNet Associates Limited 0966-911033 2. Bensic Chibawe Ministry of Education 0977-433238 3. Grace Kanyense RuralNet Associates Limited 0976-758180 4. Quabaniso Ndlovu Ministry of Education 0978-939922 5. Martha Mwale RuralNet Associates Limited 0979-134904/0966-210753 6. Kondwani Chirwa RuralNet Associates Limited 0973733817 7. Mosen Matimba RuralNet Associates Limited 0978489627 8. Chipo Nyemba RuralNet Associates Limited 0977-307201 9. Twaambo Munaumba RuralNet Associates Limited 0966-252091 10. Michael Kabaghe RuralNet Associates Limited 0964-107200 11. Allan Smith (Intern-Engineer) FHI 360 12. Emmanuel Chunda (Supervisor) RuralNet Associates Limited 0977-745290

Data Collection Team for Mambwe District Name Organization Cell Phone # 1. Green Phiri Ministry of Education 0977-703769 2. Meckson Banda Ministry of Education 0977-271854 3. Thomas Kamanga Ministry of Education 0979-450949 4. Mebeelo Kafungwa (Intern-Engineer) FHI 360 0964-016311 5. Njekwa Mukamba (Supervisor) RuralNet Associates Limited 0977-434531

35