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

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

4. 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. 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

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

8. The drinking water ladder 1990 2008 Surface water Other unimproved sources Other improved sources Piped onto premises

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

11. 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

13. Use of improved and unimproved drinking water sources by collection time Source: UNICEF analysis of MICS / DHS reports from17 countries in sub-Saharan Africa with >2 MICS / DHS reports

15. 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 faeces (U5 questionnaire) Assess the likelihood that hand washing with water and soap takes place through observation

16. Indicators and definitions 4.3: Use of improved sanitation [MDG Indicator]  Proportion of the population that uses an improved sanitation facility which is not shared 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

17. 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

18. 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

20. 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

21. Open defecation among the population in rural areas without road Source: Lao PDR, MICS 2006

22. 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

23. 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

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

26. 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 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.

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

28. 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

30. 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

31. THANK YOU!