1. Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys Data dissemination and further analysis workshop Water and Sanitation MICS4 Data Dissemination and Further Analysis Workshop

2. Access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation are fundamental rights. Access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation also have considerable health and economic benefits to households and individuals. Lack of access contributes to death and illness, especially among children under five. Background

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

4. Indicators and definitions Indicator: Drinking Water  Proportion of the population that uses an improved drinking water source Definition of improved drinking water sources:  Piped into dwelling, plot or yard  Public tap/standpipe  Tube well/borehole  Protected dug well  Protected spring  Rainwater collection

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 Total Percentage using improved sources of drinking water 1 Number of househol d members Improved sources Unimproved sources Piped water Tube- well/ bore-hole Pro- tected well Pro- tected spring Rain- water collectio n Bottled water Unpro- tected well Unpro- tected spring Tanker truck Cart with tank/ drum Surface water Bottled waterOther Into dwelling Into yard/plot To neigh- bour Public tap/ stand-pipe Region Region 1 100.0 Region 2 100.0 Region 3 100.0 Region 4 100.0 Region 5 100.0 Residence Urban 100.0 Rural 100.0 …. 1 MICS indicator 4.1; MDG indicator 7.8 Households using bottled water as the main source of drinking water are classified into improved or unimproved drinking water users according to the water source used for other purposes such as cooking and handwashing. Bottled water presented two times

6. Things to remember - drinking water Those that answered “Bottled water” to WS1 should be reflected in the indicator based on their response to WS2: What is the main source of water used by your household for other purposes such as cooking and hand washing? - Bottled water with improved source - Bottled water without improved source

7. Indicators and definitions Indicator definition: Household water treatment Percentage of the population applying any of the following treatment methods: -Boiling -Add bleach/chlorine -Use water filter -Solar disinfection

8. Indicators and definitions Indicator definition: Time to source Please report on the following: % of population with water on premises % of population using an improved source <30 min round trip % of population using an improved source ≥ 30 min round trip % of population using an unimproved source < 30 min round trip % of population using an unimproved source ≥ 30 min round trip ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 100%

9. 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 Number of household members 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 NoneBoil Add bleach/ chlorine Strain through a cloth Use water filter Solar dis- infection Let it stand and settleOtherMissing/DK 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 sourcesUsers of unimproved drinking water sources Number of household members Water on premises Less than 30 minutes 30 minutes or moreMissing/DK Water on premises Less than 30 minutes 30 minutes or moreMissing/DKTotal 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 15Missing/DKTotal Only household members in household using unimproved sources

10. Things to remember Time-to-source and main person responsible for carrying water (WS4 and WS5) When you report on Time-to-Source (WS4) or on the main person responsible for collecting water keep in mind that you are reporting on a sub-set of households only: Those that do not have water on premises. Report on your denominator as well: e.g. among the 25% of the population that does not have water on premises x% spends more than 30 minutes per water collection round trip and women and girls are the main carriers of water in 70% of the households

11. Things to remember: Household water treatment Multiple responses to question WS7 When aggregating a proportion of the population that uses an appropriate water treatment method – only count one appropriate method per household In your analysis you may want to tabulate the type of drinking water source with the methods of treatment and aggregate them for improved/unimproved to be able to say: 28% of the population that uses an (un-)improved drink water source applies an adequate water treatment method

12. Background – What’s included in MICS? Sanitation Type of toilet facility used Is this facility shared with other households? No -----------> Private facility Yes Households you know? –No ---------------> Public facility –Yes -------------> Shared facility »How many households? Safe disposal of child feces (U5 questionnaire) Assess the likelihood that hand washing with water and soap takes place through observation

13. Indicators and definitions Indicator: Sanitation  Proportion of the population that uses an improved sanitation facility Definition of improved sanitation facilities: Flush/pour flush to: –piped sewer system –septic tank –pit latrine Ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrine Pit latrine with slab Composting toilet

14. 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 Total Number of househo ld member s Improved sanitation facility Unimproved sanitation facility Open defecation (no facility, bush, field) Flush/pour flush to: Ventilate d improve d pit latrine Pit latrine with slab Compos -ting toilet Flush/ pour flush to somewhere else Pit latrine without slab/ open pitBucket Hanging toilet/ hanging latrineOther Piped sewer system Septic tank Pit latrine Unknow n place/no t sure/DK where Please note that WS5 table doesn’t present the indicator value. Use of improved sanitation facilities includes information on shared or public sanitation facilities: Those using a shared or public sanitation facility of an otherwise improved type of sanitation facility are excluded from the indicator

15. 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 facilitiesUsers of unimproved sanitation facilities Open defecatio n (no facility, bush, field)Total Number of househol d members Not shared 1 Public facility Shared by Missin g/DK Not shared Public facility Shared by Missin g/DK 5 households or less More than 5 household s 5 household s or less More than 5 household s Region Region 1100.0 Region 2100.0 Region 3100.0 Region 4100.0 Region 5100.0 Residence Urban100.0 Rural100.0 ……100.0 Total 100.0 1 MICS indicator 4.3; MDG indicator 7.9 Not shared: WS9=2; Public facility: WS10=2. Number of households sharing toilet facilities is based on responses to WS11 Denominators are obtained by weighting the number of households by the number of household members (HH11). Users of improved and unimproved sources of sanitation facilities are as shown in Table WS.5. Careful when comparing with results from previous MICS surveys: indicator needs to be recalculated by taking into account information on shared facilities

16. Estimating the use of public and shared facilities Shared sanitation facilities are of an improved type 1990 2008 Improved type Open defecation Unimproved type Open defecation Unimproved Shared Improved

17. 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 househol d members Improved drinking water 1 Unimprove d 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 Unimprove d facilities Open defecation Region Region 1 100.0 Region 2 100.0 Region 3 100.0 Region 4 100.0 Region 5 100.0 Residence Urban 100.0 Rural 100.0 ….. 100.0 Total 100.0 1 MICS indicator 4.1; MDG indicator 7.8 2 MICS indicator 4.3; MDG indicator 7.9

18. Indicators and definitions Child faeces disposal Percentage of children 0-3 years whose feces are disposed off adequately Indicator definition Used toilet or rinsed in toilet Buried

19. 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/latrine Put/rinsed into toilet or latrine Put/rinsed into drain or ditch Thrown into garbageBuried Left in the openOther Missing/ DKTotal Type of sanitaton 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 … Total 100.0 1 MICS indicator 4.4 Note: It is better to show the full distribution of practices as some will argue that disposing of diapers with solid waste is adequate and some will argue it is not; this eventually depends on how solid waste is handled about which we do not have information.

20. 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 sanitation facilities is higher in urban than in rural areas

21. Source: Nigeria MICS 2007 Poorer segments of the population have lower access to improved sources of drinking water Access to an improved drinking water source by wealth quintiles

22. Source: Nigeria MICS 2007 Water on premises is mostly a privilege of the richest Drinking water source on premises by wealth quintiles

23. Source: Nigeria MICS 2007 The poorest in Nigeria are 5 times less likely than the richest to use an improved sanitation facility Access to sanitation by wealth quintiles

24. Indicators and definitions Indicator definition: Hand washing Proportion of households with a dedicated place for hand washing where water and soap are present

25. Table WS.9: Water and soap at place for handwashing Percentage of households where place for handwashing was observed and percent distribution of households by availability of water and soap at place for handwashing, Country, Year Percentag e of household s where place for handwashi ng was observed Percentage of households where place for handwashing was not observed Total Number of household s Percent distribution of households where place for handwashing was observed, where: Total Number of household s where place for handwashi ng was observed Not in dwelling/pl ot/yard No permissio n to see Other reasonsMissing Water and soap are available 1 Water is available, soap is not available Water is not available, soap is available Water and soap are not available Table WS.10: Availability of soap Percent distribution of households by availability of soap in the dwelling, Country, Year Place for handwashing observed Place for handwashing not observed Total Percentag e of household s with soap anywhere in the dwelling 1 Number of household s Soap observed Soap not observed at place for handwashing Soap shown No soap in household Not able/Does not want to show soap Soap shown No soap in household Not able/Does not want to show soap

26. Things to remember – Hand washing Sometimes household used a bucket, basin or kettle to wash their hands. Though these objects may move around, they do count as “a dedicated place where hand washing takes place” Instead of soap in some cultures, ash or mud is used as cleansing materials. In such cases the presence of ash or mud at the dedicated place for hand washing can be substituted for soap in the indicator.

27. Some ideas for further analyses Source: Lao PDR, MICS 2006 Open defecation among the population in rural areas without road

28. Some ideas for further analyses Use of improved and unimproved drinking water sources by collection time, SSA Source: UNICEF analysis of MICS / DHS reports from17 countries in sub-Saharan Africa with >2 MICS / DHS reports

29. THANK YOU!