|Title||WASH III Report on QIS data analysis: Findings from the first round 2014|
|Publication Type||Progress Report|
|Year of Publication||2015|
|Authors||Ahmed, M., Jacimovic, R., Bostoen, K., Ahammed Gazi, A.F.|
|Publisher||IRC and BRAC|
|Place Published||The Hague, The Netherlands and Dhaka, Bangladesh|
This report contains the results of the outcome monitoring of upazilas in the WASH III area at the beginning of the intervention. The data was collected with the Qualitative Information System (QIS) from representative sample upazilas.
The representative sample consisted of 3,544 households, 150 VWCs, 242 schools and 191 RSCs. Households have been classified as ultra-poor (UP), poor (PP) and non-poor (NP).
Outcome findings from the households show that although 99% of the households collect water from an arsenic free source, the water tends to become polluted during transportation and storage. Water is stored properly from the collection point only in 35% of the households. 32% of the households have a hygienic latrine. Members of 92% of the households that have a hygienic latrine regularly use it. Soap and water for hand washing was found in 45% of the households that had a hygienic latrine. 9% of the households that have a hygienic latrine do not properly manage the faecal content when the latrine pit is full. All these percentages are lower in case of poorer households.
The QIS ladder for performance of different committees are such that the programme needs at least a few more months to measure the actual activities of Village WASH Committees (VWCs), Student Brigades and School WASH Committees. Around 90% of the VWCs scored at the benchmark which means the committees hold meetings every two months and their documents are maintained properly. School latrines for girls constructed with the help of the partnership between BRAC WASH and a school authority were much cleaner than other latrines. 82% of the sample schools had menstrual hygiene management facilities in place.
Rural Sanitation Centres that received loan support and orientation scored higher at benchmark than those which received only orientation (84% vs. 67%).