The SWASH Project

1
The SWASH Project

• Lessons Learned from Field Visits, Tuesday,
  October 26

2
The Field Visits

• Nyando, North Rachuonyo and Muhuroni districts
• Approx. 35 participants
• 8 Visits (announced and unannounced to direct
  funding and direct implementation schools)
• Monitoring tools applied

3
About Direct Funding Schools

• A SWASH pilot of the KESSP direct funding model
  in 18 schools with enhancements
• Funding and facilitated training was provided by
  SWASH but processes, standards and procedures
  followed were as per KESSP guidelines
• SWASH objective is to learn from pilot and make
  recommendations

4
About Direct Implementation Schools

• Latrine maintenance pilot based on studies that
  show latrine cleanliness affects absenteeism (50
  less absenteeism in schools with clean latrines)
  and that pupils show willingness to clean
  latrines
• Schools were given cleaning supplies, rosters for
  cleaning, soap, and toilet tissue

5
General Findings from Field Visits

• Funds were used primarily for latrine
  construction though latrines were not in use yet
• Hygiene and behavior change elements poor
  several schools did not have consistent water,
  soap, etc.
• Older sanitation facilities are hazardous and
  unsightly and should be torn down
• Gender imbalance in construction of girls and
  boys latrines
• Influence of school health clubs varied

6
General Findings for Direct Funding

• Latrines are not yet in use
• Infrastructure is generally of good quality
• There appeared to be a high degree of monitoring
  from a variety of institutions
• Training was generally reported to be sufficient
  though some would have preferred more in
  accounting and procurement procedures
• Community participation was generally high both
  in procurement and supervision

7
(No Transcript)
8
Direct Funding - Monitoring

• Monitoring was done by several actors, including
  Ministries of Public Health, Public Works, and
  Education officials, SMC, SIC, and CARE.
• Recommendations given appear to have been helpful
  and have resulted in changes
• Questions remain as to timing of visits,
  regularity, and roles
• Decentralized monitoring (zonal level) shows some
  promise

9
Direct Funding - Budgeting

• Schools prioritized sanitation in budgeting but
  ended up spending on drinking water and hygiene
  promotion
• Funds were spent on items not budgeted for at
  all documentation costs, draining water from pit
• Schools accessed additional funding sources to
  cover excess costs and expect to repay these
  amounts with the second tranche

10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
Direct Funding Additional Challenges

• Construction delayed due to late disbursements
  and consequently bad weather
• Higher costs of construction due to weather
  conditions
• A school reported that the timeline for preparing
  the budget was too short (1 week)
• A school reported that cheques were difficult to
  use
• Two schools reported that the Ministry of Public
  Works engineer did not always inspect
  construction on time, leading to delays

13
Conclusion

• In the schools visited, the direct funding model
  seems to have been generally effective for
  sanitation infrastructure with limited progress
  in water provision and hygiene promotion.
• It is appreciated as a multi-stakeholder and
  structured process with key involvements from
  community, government, and schools.