Using the Life Cycle Cost approach to inform school WASH advocacy in Kenya October 2015 Kelly Alexander Alex Mwaki – CARE Kenya Dorothy Adhiambo – CARE Kenya Malaika Cheney-Coker – CARE USA Dr. Matthew Freeman – Principal Investigator, Emory University, CGSW

Background of SWASH+ in Kenya Phase I Schools tended not to maintain existing facilities Central government annual grants to schools were inadequate Improving school WASH can impact diarrhea, STH, absenteeism Costs in schools Phase II Life Cycle Costs Private sector service provision Governance infrastructure, and that money was often not available and/ or not allocated to important consumables (like soap, cleaning materials, water treatment chemicals, and sanitary pads). Central government annual grants to schools (“capitation grants”) were inadequate to cover schools’ needs. September 18, 2018

Background of Life Cycle Cost Approach IRC has used the Life Cycle Cost method to better understand the costs of WASH service delivery Capital hardware Capital software Operation and minor maintenance Capital maintenance Cost of capital (interest payments on loans) Direct support (support of monitoring activities) Indirect support (costs associated with macro-level planning and policy making). September 18, 2018

Background of Life Cycle Cost Approach Life Cycle Cost Approach in Schools Capital hardware Capital software Operation and minor maintenance Capital maintenance Cost of capital (interest payments on loans) Direct support (support of monitoring activities) Indirect support (costs associated with macro-level planning and policy making). September 18, 2018

1. What are the current expenditures related to school WASH? Research Questions 1. What are the current expenditures related to school WASH? Who currently bears these costs? 2. What is the estimated cost of providing schools in Kenya with WASH that meets appropriate standards?

School WASH standards Pictures of : Water www.africanvision.org.uk Pictures of : Water Seasonally reliable, clean supply on-site Sanitation Private, gender-segregated toilets Clean and well maintained facilities Sufficient number of toilets to accommodate pupils Hygiene Water for handwashing Presence of soap for handwashing Pads for menstrual hygiene

School WASH standards Pictures of : Water www.africanvision.org.uk Pictures of : Water Seasonally reliable, clean supply on-site Sanitation Private, gender-segregated toilets Clean and well maintained facilities Sufficient number of toilets to accommodate pupils Hygiene Water for handwashing Presence of soap for handwashing Pads for menstrual hygiene

School WASH standards Pictures of : Water www.africanvision.org.uk Pictures of : Water Seasonally reliable, clean supply on-site Sanitation Private, gender-segregated toilets Clean and well maintained facilities Sufficient number of toilets to accommodate pupils Hygiene Water for handwashing Presence of soap for handwashing Pads for menstrual hygiene

School WASH standards Pictures of : Water www.africanvision.org.uk Pictures of : Water Seasonally reliable, clean supply on-site Sanitation Private, gender-segregated toilets Clean and well maintained facilities Sufficient number of toilets to accommodate pupils Hygiene Water for handwashing Presence of soap for handwashing Pads for menstrual hygiene

Methods Sample Data collection: Data analysis: 90 random government schools from 3 counties (Kisumu, Nyeri, Kilifi) Local shops, government offices and NGOs Data collection: - Head teacher interviews current WASH program costs - Observation of facilities estimated costs to meet standards - Shops - NGOs - Constituency Development Fund (CDF) offices Data analysis: - Current WASH costs (reported) - WASH costs needed to meet standard (current & estimated costs) September 18, 2018

Results 89 schools 7 hardware shops 6 local shops 3 government (CDF) offices 6 NGOs zip.kiva.org Estimated costs were remarkably similar September 18, 2018

Results: Who bears the current costs? Source of funds* Total Water Sanitation Hygiene General Use Donors 38.6% 13.8% 24.4% 0.4% Covered costs of water sources (tanks, boreholes), VIP latrines and handwashing containers. School funds 14.4% 5.8% 8.4% 0.2% Used for repairs to infrastructure, cleaning supplies, water treatment, and soap. PTA 19.5% 11.1% 8.3% 0.1% Water bills, salaries for watchmen, latrines, soap. Gov’t (CDF) 27.5% 4.2% 23.3% 0.0% Water tanks and latrines. Totals 100% 34.9% 64.4% 0.7%   *This table is not intended to conclude that all primary schools have 100% of their WASH program costs covered; instead this table is intended to demonstrate the current breakdown of who contributes money spent on WASH.

Results: Maintenance and recurrent costs Primary schools in Kenya currently receive 1,356 ($13.27) – As of 2015: 225 KES ($2.20) for WASH “related” costs  Up from 137 KES ($1.34) 270 KES ($2.60) per student per year required to cover recurrent and minor maintenance

Results: Maintenance and recurrent costs Category Estimated per school per year (KES) Estimated cost per student (KES) Maintenance cost (minor repairs)   Taps, pipes or gutters 4,000 10 Storage tanks (cleaning & repairs) 4,800 12 Latrines (locks, hinges, pipes & doors) 5,400 13.5 Structural repairs to latrines & urinals 3,200 8 Buckets & brooms 1,800 4.5 Handwashing taps 800 2 Maintenance costs (major repairs) General repairs to water hardware 5,000 12.5 General repairs to latrine hardware Latrine pit emptying (1 pit per year) 3,400 8.5 General repairs to hygiene hardware 2,800 7 Recurrent costs Water treatment 3,600 9 Watchman 18,000 45 Detergent & disinfectant 10,800 27 Soap for handwashing Sanitary pads Toilet paper 28,800 72 Total KES per year for a school of 400 108,000 ($1056.62) 270 ($2.64)

Results: Maintenance and recurrent costs Category Estimated per school per year (KES) Estimated cost per student (KES) Maintenance cost (minor repairs)   Taps, pipes or gutters 4,000 10 Storage tanks (cleaning & repairs) 4,800 12 Latrines (locks, hinges, pipes & doors) 5,400 13.5 Structural repairs to latrines & urinals 3,200 8 Buckets & brooms 1,800 4.5 Handwashing taps 800 2 Maintenance costs (major repairs) General repairs to water hardware 5,000 12.5 General repairs to latrine hardware Latrine pit emptying (1 pit per year) 3,400 8.5 General repairs to hygiene hardware 2,800 7 Recurrent costs Water treatment 3,600 9 Watchman 18,000 45 Detergent & disinfectant 10,800 27 Soap for handwashing Sanitary pads Toilet paper 28,800 72 Total KES per year for a school of 400 108,000 ($1056.62) 270 ($2.64)

Results: Capital Hardware Item Estimated per school per year (KES) Estimated cost per student (KES) Justification Borehole 850,000 2500 A school of 400 students would need at least 1200L of water per day for drinking and handwashing according to Sphere guidelines (3L per student per day). Borehole OR Tanks + gutters Two 10,000L tanks 240,000 600 Two 25,000L tanks 600,000 1,500 Gutters 18,000 45 VIP latrine: four doors 800,000 2,000 Four sets of four door VIP latrine. 16 doors for a school of 400. Handwashing system 20,000 50 Example: Four 250L containers Drinking water tanks 9,000 22.5 Example: Four 60L containers and one for girl’s hygiene Total Capital costs 1,679,000-1,687,000 (~$16k) 4,217.5-4,572.5 Total per school. Amount depends on borehole vs rainwater system ~ $41 per student - for a school of 400 students Schools need a minimum budget – if there are only 50 students, the “capitation grant” will be insufficient to establish capital hardware.

Results: Capital Software Type of Training Estimated per school per year (KES) Estimated cost per student (KES) Justification Teacher training 7,500 19 Training conducted at conference facility (2 teachers for 3 days) School Management training 15,000 38 Training conducted onsite at schools (13 people for 3 days) Artisan training 4,800 120 Training conducted onsite at schools (4 people for 1 day) Sub-county team training Training conducted at conference facility (2 people for 3 days) Total training costs 34,800 87 Total per school $2.79 per student per year September 18, 2018

Results: Breakdown of School WASH costs School WASH expenditures for schools in three Kenya counties (n=89) September 18, 2018

The cost allocated per student should be increased Conclusions The cost allocated per student should be increased A separate “WASH” budget line should be established 3. Guidance notes should accompany WASH budget line September 18, 2018

Life Cycle Costs Approach – Good advocacy tool Conclusions Life Cycle Costs Approach – Good advocacy tool