1. Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys Data Interpretation, Further Analysis and Dissemination Workshop Water and Sanitation

2. Overview of presentation 2  Water (4 table)  Sanitation (3 tables)  Drinking water and sanitation ladders (1 table)  Handwashing (2 tables)

3. Background – What’s included in MICS? Drinking water  Use of main drinking water source On premises? Off premises?  Application of household water treatment  Time-to-source (round-trip)  Who usually goes to the source to collect water? 3

4. Indicators and definitions 4.1: Drinking Water [MDG Indicator] 4  Piped into dwelling, plot or yard  Piped to neighbour  Public tap/standpipe  Tube well/borehole  Protected dug well  Protected spring  Rainwater collection Proportion of the population that uses an improved drinking water source

5. Table WS.1: Use of improved water sources Percent distribution of household population according to main source of drinking water and percentage of household population using improved drinking water sources, Country, Year Main source of drinking water Tota l % using improved sources of drinking water 1 Numbe r of househ old membe rs Improved sourcesUnimproved sources Piped water Tube- well/ bore- hole Pro- tected well Pro- tected spring Rain- water collect ion Bot- tled wa- ter a Unpr otect ed well Unpr otect ed sprin g Tanker truck Cart with tank/ drum Surfac e water Bot- tled wa- ter a Othe r Into dwelling Into yard/ plot To neigh- bour Public tap/ stand- pipe 1 MICS indicator 4.1; MDG indicator 7.8 - Use of improved drinking water sources Bottled water presented two times Bottled water is an improved source if also source of other purposes such as cooking and handwashing is also an improved source 5

6. Country Example 6

7. 7 Poorer segments of the population have lower access to improved sources of drinking water

8. 8 1990 2008

9. 9

10. 10

11. Indicators and definitions 4.2: Water treatment 11  Boiling  Add bleach/chlorine  Use water filter  Solar disinfection Percentage of the population applying any of the following treatment methods

12. 12 Table WS.2: Household water treatment Percentage of household population by drinking water treatment method used in the household, and for household members living in households where an unimproved drinking water source is used, the percentage who are using an appropriate treatment method, Country, Year Water treatment method used in the household Num- ber of house hold mem bers Percentage of household members in households using unimproved drinking water sources and using an appropriate water treatment method 1 Number of household members in households using unimproved drinking water sources No neBoil Add bleach /chlor- ine Strain through a cloth Use water filter Solar dis- infect ion Let it stand and settle Oth- er Miss- ing/ DK 1 MICS indicator 4.2 - Water treatment Responses may total to more than 100 percent since households may be using more than one treatment method

13. Country Example 13

14. 14 Table WS.3: Time to source of drinking water Percent distribution of household population according to time to go to source of drinking water, get water and return, for users of improved and unimproved drinking water sources, Country, Year Time to source of drinking water Users of improved drinking water sources Users of unimproved drinking water sources Total Number of household members Water on premises Less than 30 minutes 30 minutes or more Missing/ DK Water on premises Less than 30 minutes 30 minutes or more Missing /DK

15. 15 Country Example

16. 16

17. 17 Table WS.4: Person collecting water Percentage of households without drinking water on premises, and percent distribution of households without drinking water on premises according to the person usually collecting drinking water used in the household, Country, Year Percentage of households without drinking water on premises Number of households Person usually collecting drinking water Number of households without drinking water on premises Adult womanAdult man Female child under age 15 Male child under age 15 Missing/ DKTotal MICS5 Data Interpretation, Further Analysis and Dissemination Workshop

18. Country Example 18

19. 19  Water (4 table)  Sanitation (3 tables)  Drinking water and sanitation ladders (1 table)  Handwashing (2 tables) Overview of MICS5 contents

20. Background – What’s included in MICS? Sanitation  Use of improved sanitation  Safe disposal of child faeces (U5 questionnaire) 20

21. Indicators and definitions 4.3: Use of improved sanitation [MDG Indicator] 21  Flush/pour flush to:  piped sewer system  septic tank  pit latrine  Ventilated improved pit latrine  Pit latrine with slab  Composting toilet Percentage of the population that uses an improved sanitation facility which is not shared

22. Indicators and definitions 4.3: Use of improved sanitation [MDG Indicator] 22  Is this facility shared with other households?  No -----------> Private facility  Yes  Households you know?  No ---------> Public facility  Yes --------> Shared facility  How many households? Percentage of the population that uses an improved sanitation facility which is not shared

23. 23 Table WS.5: Types of sanitation facilities Percent distribution of household population according to type of toilet facility used by the household, Country, Year Type of toilet facility used by household Open defecat ion (no facility, bush, field)Total Numb er of house hold memb ers Improved sanitation facilityUnimproved sanitation facility Flush/Pour flush to: Ventil ated impro ved pit latrine Pit latrin e with slab Compos -ting toilet Flush/P our flush to somew here else Pit latrine witho ut slab/ open pit Buck et Hang ing toilet / latrin e Othe r Piped sewer system Septic tankPit latrine Unknown place/not sure/DK where WS5 table doesn’t present the 4.3 indicator value. Use of improved sanitation facilities includes information on shared or public sanitation facilities which is not included in this table

24. 24 Table WS.6: Use and sharing of sanitation facilities Percent distribution of household population by use of private and public sanitation facilities and use of shared facilities, by users of improved and unimproved sanitation facilities, Country, Year Users of improved sanitation facilities Users of unimproved sanitation facilities Open defecati on (no facility, bush, field)Total Number of house- hold mem- bers Not shared 1 Public facility Shared by Missing /DK Not shared Public facility Shared by Missi ng/D K 5 househol ds or less More than 5 house- holds 5 house- holds or less More than 5 house- holds 1 MICS indicator 4.3; MDG indicator 7.9 - Use of improved sanitation Those using a shared or public sanitation facility of an otherwise improved type of sanitation facility are excluded from the indicator Be careful when comparing with results from previous MICS surveys: indicator needs to be recalculated by taking into account information on shared facilities

25. Country Example 25

26. 26 The poorest in Nigeria are 5 times less likely than the richest to use an improved sanitation facility

28. 28

29. 29

30. 30

31. Indicators and definitions 4.4: Safe disposal of child faeces ] 31  Child used toilet/latrine  Put/rinsed into toilet/latrine Percentage of children age 0-2 years whose last stools were disposed off safely

32. Table WS.7: Disposal of child's faeces Percent distribution of children age 0-2 years according to place of disposal of child's faeces, and the percentage of children age 0-2 years whose stools were disposed of safely the last time the child passed stools, Country, Year Place of disposal of child's faeces Percentage of children whose stools were disposed of safely 1 Number of children age 0-2 years Child used toilet/latrin e Put/rinsed into toilet or latrine Put/rinsed into drain or ditch Thrown into garbageBuried Left in the openOther Missing /DKTotal Type of sanitation facility in dwelling Improved100.0 Unimproved100.0 Open defacation100.0 Region Region 1100.0 Region 2100.0 Region 3100.0 Region 4100.0 Region 5100.0 Residence Urban100.0 Rural100.0 … 1 MICS indicator 4.4 - Safe disposal of child’s faeces 32 It may be argued that disposing of diapers with solid waste is adequate; this eventually depends on how solid waste is handled about which we do not have information.

33. 33  Water (4 table)  Sanitation (3 tables)  Drinking water and sanitation ladders (1 table)  Handwashing (2 tables) Overview of MICS5 contents

34. Table WS.8: Drinking water and sanitation ladders Percentage of household population by drinking water and sanitation ladders, Country, Year Percentage of household population using: Number of househo ld member s Improved drinking water 1 Unimprov ed drinking waterTotal Improved sanitation 2 Unimproved sanitation Total Improved drinking water sources and improved sanitation Piped into dwelling, plot or yard Other improved Shared improved facilities Unimprov ed facilities Open defecatio n Region Region 1 100.0 Region 2 100.0 Region 3 100.0 Region 4 100.0 Region 5 100.0 Total 100.0 1 MICS indicator 4.1; MDG indicator 7.8 - Use of improved drinking water sources 2 MICS indicator 4.3; MDG indicator 7.9 - Use of improved sanitation 34

35. Country Example 35

36. 36  Water (4 table)  Sanitation (3 tables)  Drinking water and sanitation ladders (1 table)  Handwashing (2 tables) Overview of MICS5 contents

37. Indicators and definitions 4.5: Place for hand washing 4.6: Place for hand washing 37 Proportion of households with a specific place for hand washing where water and soap are present Proportion of households with soap anywhere in the dwelling Assessed through observation

38. 38 Table WS.9: Water and soap at place for handwashing Percentage of households where place for handwashing was observed, percentage with no specific place for handwashing, and percent distribution of households by availability of water and soap at specific place for handwashing, Country, Year Percentage of households : Number of households Place for handwashing observed No specific place for handwas hing in the dwelling, yard, or plotTotal Percentage of households with a specific place for handwashing where water and soap or other cleansing agent are present 1 Number of households where place for handwashing was observed or with no specific place for handwashing in the dwelling, yard, or plot Where place for handwashing was observed With no specific place for handwashing in the dwelling, yard, or plot Water is available and: Water is not available and: Soap present No soap: Soap present No soap: Ash, mud, or sand present No other cleansing agent present Ash, mud, or sand present No other cleansi ng agent present 1 MICS indicator 4.5 - Place for handwashing

39. 39 Table WS.10: Availability of soap or other cleansing agent Percent distribution of households by availability of soap or other cleansing agent in the dwelling, Country, Year Place for handwashing observed Place for handwashing not observed Total Percentage of households with soap or other cleansing agent anywhere in the dwelling 1 Number of househol ds Soap or other cleansing agent observed Soap or other cleansing agent not observed at place for handwashing Soap or other cleansing agent shown No soap or other cleansing agent in household Not able/Does not want to show soap or other cleansing agent Soap or other cleansing agent shown No soap or other cleansing agent in household Not able/Does not want to show soap or other cleansing agent 1 MICS indicator 4.6 - Availability of soap or other cleansing agent

40. Country Example 40

41. Expected patterns  Drinking water coverage is higher than sanitation coverage  Urban coverage is higher than rural coverage  Open defecation rates are higher in rural areas than in urban areas  Piped connections into the household, dwelling, plot or yard are higher in urban than in rural areas  The use of shared improved sanitation facilities is higher in urban than in rural areas 41