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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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?

6. School WASH standards Pictures of : Water
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

7. School WASH standards Pictures of : Water
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

8. School WASH standards Pictures of : Water
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

9. School WASH standards Pictures of : Water
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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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
($ )
270
($2.64)

15. 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
($ )
270
($2.64)

16. 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, ,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.

17. 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

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

19. 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

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