Skip to main content

Published on: 24/11/2011

In Nyanza Province, Kenya, a sustainability evaluation of 55 pilot primary schools 2.5 years after the implementation of the Safe Water System (SWS) intervention revealed that programme activities were not successfully sustained in any of the schools visited. The most common criterion met was drinking water provision.

Saboori et al (2011) [1] identified six enabling environment domains: financial capacity; accountability; technical feasibility and availability; community support; school leadership and management; and student engagement. While these domains pertain to the sustaining of the SWS activities in schools, they are likely to be applicable in creating an enabling environment and serve as proxy indicators for other school water, sanitation, and hygiene initiatives as well.

Five references used

The authors used five (of 16) references to IRC books and articles

“...Increased funding is necessary to improve school WASH access, but a critical challenge is the development of sustainable programmes in order to maximize efforts and available resources (IRC and UNICEF, 2005).”

....

“Creating a ‘school-based indicators’ monitoring system at the school, community, and district levels may be one of the means to improve school WASH conditions (IRC and UNICEF, 2007). To sustain project activities, preconditions and leading indicators that are practical, relevant, and actionable should be identified at project outset. Implementing organizations need to ensure routine monitoring systems are in place and mechanisms exist to identify problems in the system and, more importantly, to solve these problems. Likewise, systems of accountability for school leadership, communities, and local government actors need to be established so that all stakeholders can maintain the components that fall within their sphere of responsibility.

It is our hope that upcoming school WASH programmes can use the lessons learned from this post-final evaluation to develop interventions that beneficiaries are able to sustain for longer periods of time. In order to develop a better understanding of sustainability challenges and successes, programmes must conduct post-final evaluations that can inform best practices and enhance our understanding of the enabling environment.”

IRC references

IRC and UNICEF (2005) Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Education for Schools Roundtable Meeting, Oxford.

IRC and UNICEF (2007) Towards Effective Programming for WASH in Schools: AManual on Scaling Up Programmes for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in Schools, TP series, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, Delft, the Netherlands.

Mathew, K., Zachariah, S., Shordt, K., Snel, M., Cairncross, S., Biran, A., Schmidt, W. (2009) ‘The sustainability and impact of school sanitation, water and hygiene education in southern India’, Waterlines 28: 275–92.

Njuguna, Vincent, Karanja, Beth, Thuranira, Mishek, Shordt, Kathleen, Snel, Marielle, Cairncross, Sandy, Biran, Adam, Schmidt, Wolf-Peter (2007) The Sustainability and Impact of School Sanitation, Water and Hygiene Education in Kenya, UNICEF, New York.

Snel, M. (2004) The Worth of School Sanitation and Hygiene Education, International Water and Sanitation Centre (IRC), Delft, the Netherlands.

[1] Sustaining school hand washing and water treatment programmes: Lessons learned and to be learned

Shadi Saboori and Sarah Porter. Center for Global Safe Water, Hubert Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, USA;

Alex Mwaki and Ben Okech, CARE Kenya;

Matthew Freeman, Center for Global Safe Water, and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; and

Richard D. Rheingans, Center for Global Safe Water and Department of Environmental and Global Health,University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.

In: Waterlines Vol. 30 No. 4, October 2011

Back to
the top