Table 5.

Percent of households that had a latrine / toilet facility by district and by education level of the household heads in the six study districts of Uganda

Background characteristics	Has no access to recommended toilet / latrine type (%)	Has access to recommended toilet / latrine type (%)	Ownership of recommended toilet / latrine type					Number of households (n)
			Traditional Pit Latrine (with a washable floor)	VIP Latrine	Ecological sanitation toilet	Pour Flush	Flush Toilet/WC
Overall	68.5 (65.4–71.6)	31.5 (28.5–34.7)	23.1 (20.4–26.0)	4.7 (3.4–6.3)	1.6 (0.9–2.6)	1.4 (0.8–2.5)	0.7 (0.2–1.4)	900
District
Busia	10.7 (6.2–16.7)	89.3 (83.3–93.8)	65.3 (57.1–72.9)	18.0 (12.2–25.1)	0.7 (0.0–3.7)	2.0 (0.4–5.7)	3.3 (1.1–7.6)	150
Kasese	62.6 (54.4–70.4)	37.4 (29.6–45.6)	28.7 (21.6–36.6)	5.3 (2.3–10.2)	0.7 (0.0–3.7)	2.0 (0.4–5.7)	0.7 (0.0–3.7)	150
Madi-Okollo	92.6 (87.3–96.3)	7.4 (3.7–12.7)	2.5 (0.7–6.7)	0.8 (0.0–3.7)	4.1 (1.5–8.5)	0.0	0.0	150
Namayingo	79.7 (72.7–86.1)	20.3 (13.9–27.3)	19.4 (13.3–26.6)	0.9 (0.0–3.7)	0.0	0.0	0.0	150
Ntoroko	92.2 (86.4–95.8)	7.8 (4.2–13.6)	5.0 (2.3–10.2)	0.0	0.0	2.8 (0.7–6.7)	0.0	150
Obongi	84.1 (77.1–89.5)	15.9 (10.5–22.7)	9.8 (5.7–16.0)	0.8 (0.0–3.7)	4.5 (1.9–9.4)	0.8 (0.0–3.7)	0.0	150
Education
No formal education	85.4 (77.9–91.4)	14.6 (8.6–22.1)	8.7 (4.1–15.0)	4.9 (1.9–10,7)	1.0 (0.0–4.6)	0.0	0.0	118
Primary	73.6 (69.4–77.5)	26.4 (22.5–30.6)	19.7 (16.2–23.5)	2.5 (1.3–4.4)	2.2 (1.0–3.9)	1.5 (0.6–3.0)	0.5 (0.0–1.5)	473
Secondary	61.6 (55.1–67.8)	38.4 (32.2–44.9)	29.5 (23.8–35.8)	5.8 (3.3–9.7)	0.9 (0.1–3.0)	1.3 (0.3–3.7)	0.9 (0.1–3.0)	237
Post-Secondary	32.8 (22.1–45.1)	67.2 (54.9–77.9)	44.8 (32.4–56.7)	14.9 (7.1–24.7)	1.5 (0.0–7.7)	3.0 (0.3–9.9)	3.0 (0.3–9.9)	70

There were variations in availability of latrines with education level of the respondents. The higher the education the more likely the respondents were to have the recommended latrines. These differences were statistically significant at each higher education level