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 cleanlinessaffects 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

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

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 generallyeffective 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.