Abstract
Introduction
The Government of India has invested substantially in school water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) infrastructure through the Swachh Vidyalaya Abhiyan (Clean Schools Programme), yet low facility use persists, often due to weak operation and maintenance (O&M).
Guided by Pu et al, this study examines causes of poor O&M in school WASH systems in Uttar Pradesh, focusing on resources, information flows and accountability.
Methods
70 in-person interviews and nine WASH facility observations were conducted across nine government primary schools in three administrative blocks of one district in Uttar Pradesh, India. The respondents included, amongst others, headmasters (n=9), teachers (n=18), cleaners (n=7), local officials (n=5) and elected representatives (n=7).
Results
Resources: Schools depend heavily on the Gram Panchayat (Village Council) for staff and funds. One cleaner typically serves multiple public spaces and schools within a panchayat, leaving schools with infrequent cleaning support. Education department funds are limited, so schools rely on Panchayat funds for cleaning and repairs. However, Pradhans tend to prioritise visible upgrades, such as infrastructure improvements or wall painting, which offer greater community visibility and electoral value.
Information: Cleaners are aware of their roles and responsibilities. However, school headmasters do not formally monitor their activities and there are rarely any penalties for lapses.
Accountability: There is a disconnect between the authorities responsible for school WASH services and those overseeing their implementation. Cleaners report to Pradhans 4 under the Panchayati Raj Department rather than the Education Department, creating misaligned accountability. Consequently, inadequate maintenance of facilities often goes unaddressed.
Conclusions
Poor O&M of WASH facilities has historically been linked with inadequate financial and human resourcing. However, we argue that this underperformance is exacerbated by poor accountability mechanisms. The study’s findings informed the design of an intervention aimed at directly addressing this issue.
Keywords: Sanitation, Public Health, Qualitative Research
WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC
School water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) infrastructure alone does not ensure sustainable services because operation, maintenance and governance challenges often undermine functionality.
WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS
This study shows how fragmented governance, weak accountability and limited resources interact to constrain effective school WASH implementation.
HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY
The findings suggest that efforts to improve school WASH should extend beyond infrastructure provision to strengthen governance arrangements, clarify roles and responsibilities, ensure adequate resources for operation and maintenance and establish stronger accountability and monitoring mechanisms.
Background
The provision of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) facilities in schools is important for improving health and educational outcomes, such as diarrhoeal illnesses and absenteeism.1 India’s 2014 Swachh Vidyalaya programme, the education-sector counterpart of the Swachh Bharat Mission, aimed to support the national goal of eliminating open defecation by 2019. The programme substantially expanded school WASH infrastructure and recognised operation and maintenance (O&M) as central to sustainable service delivery. Subsequent initiatives, including the School Swachhata Action Plan and Swachh Vidyalaya Puraskar, further emphasised routine maintenance, functionality monitoring and school-level planning. However, despite infrastructure investments and behaviour change efforts, sustained use of WASH facilities in rural government schools remains constrained by poor O&M.2
A study by WaterAid indicated that, while significant progress has been made in India in the construction of school toilets, focused efforts are needed to establish effective O&M systems. Failure to provide earmarked funds is suggested to be a possible reason for gaps in the O&M of school WASH facilities. Three-fourths of teachers cited inadequacy of resources, and nearly half mentioned delays in fund allocation as reasons for such gaps.3 In addition to inadequate resources, the Water Integrity Network identified a lack of transparent information and accountability systems, resulting in the misuse of inadequate funds.4
Literature shows that school WASH investments often fail to translate into sustained functionality.2 Yet most programmes continue to prioritise resource and infrastructure provision over long-term service systems.2 Systematic investigation into underlying causes responsible for lack of sustainable use especially in the context of WASH in Schools has largely been lacking. We attempt to address this gap by using the Pu et al2 framework to look comprehensively at the role of not just Resources but also Information and Accountability (RIA) in addressing these challenges.
This study aiming to systematically identify factors responsible for the lack of sustained, effective O&M of existing WASH facilities, was conducted in nine government primary schools in three blocks of one district in Uttar Pradesh, India. The findings from the study were used to inform the design of an O&M intervention, which was later tested as part of a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT).5
Methods
Conceptual framework and objective
A 2022 systematic review by Pu et al identified ‘three simultaneously necessary components: resources, information and accountability’ (RIA) for ensuring effective WASH service delivery in schools.2 Using this framework (table 1), we examined the O&M of WASH infrastructure in the nine government primary schools in our sample.
Table 1. Resources, information and accountability.
| Component | Definition/description as in Pu et al2 |
|---|---|
| Resources | ‘Human, financial, physical and natural assets required for WASH service provision’. |
| Information | ‘A functioning information sharing mechanism delivers timely credible information that individuals need for effective decision-making such as their and others’ roles, responsibilities and consequences for failing to meet expectations’. |
| Accountability | Accountability mechanisms are defined as ‘measures that confront individuals with meaningful consequences for their choices and behaviours’. |
WASH, water, sanitation and hygiene.
The specific objective of this study was to explore the three factors defined in the Pu et al framework to understand the causes underlying the poor O&M of school WASH facilities drawing on existing evidence of persistent O&M gaps.
Study setting
The study was undertaken in nine schools located in Panchayats (Village Councils, the lowest administrative unit in India, comprising one to three villages) spread across three blocks in one district of Uttar Pradesh. The district is not named to maintain the anonymity of the study respondents. Two government departments are involved in WASH service provision in schools (see figure 1). The Education Department, represented at the block level by the Block Education Officer (BEO), to whom head masters (HMs) appointed by the Education Department of all schools in the block report. The Panchayati Raj Department is represented at the block level by the Block Development Officer (BDO), who liaises with the Pradhans (elected heads) of the Panchayats in his block to implement government development programmes. While the BEO and BDO are appointed government officials, Pradhan is an elected representative. The BDO therefore has limited authority over the Pradhan, except through sanctioning money from the Panchayat Fund, and does not wield as much control as his/her counterpart the BEO in the Education Department does over HMs.
Figure 1. Reporting structure for O&M of school WASH facilities. O&M, operation and maintenance; WASH, water, sanitation and hygiene.
In the context of O&M of WASH facilities, each school is entitled to the services of a government-appointed cleaner for upkeep of the school premises. The cleaner appointed by the Panchayati Raj Department reports to the Pradhan rather than the school, and the majority of their time is spent undertaking tasks related to common areas of villages comprising the Panchayat.
Sample selection
Primary data were collected through IDIs (in-depth interviews), KIIs (key informant interviews)6 and observations in nine schools across three purposively selected blocks with varying distances from the nearest town centre, based on the hypothesis that proximity would influence WASH functionality and O&M services. To maintain anonymity, the blocks are referred to as blocks 1, 2 and 3. Block 1, closest to the district headquarters, was expected to have better infrastructure and maintenance due to more frequent official visits. Block 2, the most remote, was expected to have lower-quality and less frequent maintenance. Block 3, located between the two, had also benefited from WASH infrastructure upgrades in 2019 funded by a development partner, including water filters, handwashing stations, and toilet-use buckets and mugs, with an average investment of INR100 000 (~US$1100)—exchange rate US$1=INR85.
From the list of all government primary schools in these blocks, we purposively selected three schools per block to balance feasibility in data collection with completeness in recording sufficient observations of WASH infrastructure. The selection criteria for schools included the availability of WASH infrastructure (gender-segregated toilets, handwashing stations, drinking water points), even if not completely functional. Since the study was to explore sustainable use, it was necessary to select schools with availability of the basic infrastructure.
At the school level, participant selection was purposive from among those considered directly responsible for maintaining WASH in schools. For most respondent categories, all individuals in the selected schools were included. For school management committees (SMC), the Head and available committee members were selected. The IDIs are conducted with HM, teacher, cleaner, cook, SMC Head and member, Gram Pradhan as the questions involved to capture individual experiences, issues and role related information, while KIIs were conducted with BDOs and BEOs as they were well positioned within their role to speak about policies and were touch points for the above-mentioned groups to speak on their experiences.
70 respondents who consented to participate are described in table 2.
Table 2. Sample for in-depth interviews and key informant interviews (KIIs).
| Respondent category | No of interviews |
|---|---|
| Headmaster/headmistress | 9 |
| Teacher | 18 |
| Cleaner (Government: 6; subcontracted: 1) | 7 |
| Cook* | 9 |
| School management committee (SMC) member | 8 |
| SMC head | 7 |
| Pradhan (village panchayat/council leader) | 7 |
| Block-level officials (BDOs)–(KII) | 2 |
| Block-level officials (BEOs)–(KII) | 3 |
| Total no. of interviews | 70 |
It was hypothesised that cooks might support WASH maintenance activities, but the study found little evidence of their involvement in the operation or maintenance of WASH facilities; they are therefore not discussed further.
BDO, Block Development Officer; BEO, Block Education Officer; WASH, water, sanitation and hygiene.
Data collection
Interviews
Interviews were conducted in Hindi via a semistructured interview guide developed based on the study objectives by WASH experts drawing from WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme.7 Key areas of inquiry included the availability of resources; effective information flows and existing accountability mechanisms as defined in the RIA framework (refer to online supplemental material 1–WASH Instrument).
Observations
In each school, a structured WASH observation (refer to online supplemental material 2–Observation Data) was conducted that included core indicators from the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme,7 such as the availability of drinking water from an improved source at the school; improved sanitation facilities that are single-sex and usable at the school; and handwashing facilities that have water and soap available. Additionally, observations focused on materials present inside toilets, signage outside toilets (such as buckets, cleaning brushes), latches inside the toilets to ensure safety and privacy, the presence of a school drinking water storage system, and the distance of WASH facilities from classrooms.
Training, consent and data management
Researchers were trained through online and in-person sessions by a senior qualitative researcher to ensure the use of appropriate and uniform methods of data collection to minimise researcher influence. A 3-day data collection training was conducted, followed by piloting of the data collection tools, in one of the non-sampled schools.
The data were collected during May 2022. Prior permission was obtained from each school’s HM. The purpose of the study was explained to each participant, and written consent was obtained. If participants were unable to read, oral consent was obtained in the presence of a witness. Interviews were recorded along with handwritten notes. Study team debriefings were held every day to share emerging learnings and adjust the study approach in response to changes in the local context as needed.
Analysis
The audio recordings from each interview were transcribed verbatim and translated into English. The two researchers who conducted the interviews independently reviewed the transcripts to familiarise themselves with the data. An initial codebook was developed a priori based on the domains and constructs of the RIA framework,8 with codes and their definitions established before coding began. The transcripts were then coded deductively using framework analysis in NVivo V.1.7.2. Where information in the transcripts did not fit adequately within the predefined codes, additional codes were introduced inductively during the coding process. The two researchers regularly discussed coding decisions, particularly where an excerpt could reasonably be assigned to more than one code or where the appropriate interpretation was unclear, and reached agreement through discussion.
Given the small number of interviews (n=9), the researchers conducted daily debriefing meetings during the data collection and analysis period. These meetings were used to review and discuss emerging findings from each school, clarify interpretations, and identify issues requiring further attention in subsequent interviews. Following coding, coded data were organised according to the relevant RIA framework components and compared across schools and participant groups. The researchers examined areas of convergence and divergence, recurring patterns, and differences in experiences and perspectives across sites and participant groups. Related codes were subsequently grouped and synthesised to develop the final findings. Field notes and interview summaries were also considered alongside the coded transcripts to inform interpretation and provide contextual information.
Observation data were analysed descriptively to document the availability, accessibility, maintenance, and cleanliness of WASH infrastructure at each school. These observations were compared with participants’ accounts to identify areas of convergence or discrepancy and were used to contextualise the interview findings rather than being analysed as an independent qualitative dataset.
Patient and public involvement
Patients and members of the public were not involved in the development of the research questions, outcome measures, study design, questionnaires, recruitment or conduct of the study. The study did not involve a clinical intervention or medical trial, and therefore, there was no patient involvement in these aspects of the research.
Participants and members of the public were also not involved in the interpretation or analysis of the study findings. However, findings were shared with relevant stakeholders following completion of the study. A dissemination workshop was convened in 2024 with headmasters and teachers from participating schools, as well as public officials and staff from development organisations, to share and discuss the research findings. A research brief is also being prepared and will be shared with teachers and headmasters across all participating schools.
As no patients or public advisers were involved in the study, there are no patient advisers to acknowledge in the contributorship statement or acknowledgements.
Results
The findings mentioned in this section contain information from the interviews conducted and the observations noted.
Description of the study schools
The study schools were all primary schools located at distances ranging from one to twelve km from the nearest town. School enrolment ranged from 70 to 659 students. The number of toilets per school varied from two to six, with all schools having gender-segregated toilets on the school premises. Only the largest school had a separate toilet for teachers. Almost all the schools had dedicated handwashing stations (as per COVID-19 mandates). Additional data related to the observational data are added in table 3.
Table 3. Summary statistics from observation data.
| Characteristic | Summary |
|---|---|
| School characteristics | |
| School type, n (%) | |
| Primary | 7 (77.8) |
| Composite | 1 (11.1) |
| Upper primary | 1 (11.1) |
| Number of staff, mean (range) | 10.8 (6–30) |
| Number of students enrolled, mean (range) | 132.7 (56–432) |
| Toilet facilities | |
| Student-toilet ratio, mean (range) | 47.5 (16.5–108) |
| Toilets appearing functional, n (%) | 4 (44.4) |
| Schools with water available in toilets, n (%) | 6 (66.7) |
| Schools where toilets appeared clean, n (%) | 4 (44.4) |
| Handwashing facilities | |
| Schools with a handwashing facility, n (%) | 5 (55.6) |
| Schools with water available at handwashing facility, n (%) | 8 (88.9) |
| Schools with soap available, n (%) | 5 (55.6) |
| Schools where students were observed using the handwashing facility, n (%) | 6 (66.7) |
| Drinking-water facilities | |
| Schools with a drinking-water point/tap, n (%) | 7 (77.8) |
Like most rural schools in India, all schools relied on groundwater from borewells pumped to overhead tanks and distributed through a piped system. All nine schools also had a handpump installed over the borewell. When there is no electricity to pump the water, or in schools whose tanks, motors and/or pipes require repairs, the handpump is the sole source of water supply. However, during our visit, all schools depended solely on handpumps due to the absence of electricity, while some also faced repairs to tanks, motors or pipes.
The following section discusses the findings related to each component of the RIA framework.
Resources
Resources related to the O&M of school WASH facilities, including human, financial and material, are discussed below.
Human resources
One cleaner is usually hired for cleaning the area covered by each Panchayat. In schools, duties include the cleaning of the entire school, comprising classrooms, the compound area, and any WASH infrastructure. Additionally, they are responsible for ad hoc district-level work as needed, such as during government events and elections.
From November, I was on election duty and came back in April. And from May, I have been here in Panchayat. So, for 5-6 months, I was on election work. - Government cleaner.
HMs reported limited visibility over cleaners’ whereabouts, as cleaners were often directed by Pradhans to prioritise village cleaning. Given the inability to combine the cleaning of villages with daily visits to schools, almost all the HMs reported that school WASH facilities were typically cleaned only once every 1 to 2 weeks.
The government-appointed cleaner receives a monthly salary of approximately INR20 000–INR25 000 (~US$235–US$294), which comes to a daily wage of INR650–INR850 (~US$7–US$10). This is substantial compared with the minimum daily wages in Uttar Pradesh for unskilled labourers in construction or maintenance, which are INR423 (~US$5).9 Headmasters reported that cleaners often subcontract their responsibilities to daily wage labourers for INR200–INR300 (~US$2–US$4) per day and may not themselves undertake the allocated work, which was also corroborated by the cleaners.
Given the low frequency of visits to schools (either by the cleaner or the subcontracted labourers), school authorities reported that schools (including WASH facilities) remain unclean.
No one cleans the toilets. The teacher asks someone to come and clean in one or two months. This causes a problem during the rainy season when the children want to use the toilets, but the toilets are dirty, and there is no space for excreta. - SMC Members
Even on these visits, the focus of the school and the cleaner was the common areas of the school, like classrooms, the area where midday meals are served, the grounds and not WASH areas. Our observations corroborated that five out of the nine schools had unclean toilets with a foul smell and visible faecal matter in the toilet pan. All HMs and teachers expressed the need for the appointment of dedicated cleaning staff for schools that would prioritise cleanliness.
One person should be appointed especially for the cleaning in school, who comes daily and timely, just like we see in malls where the cleaning takes place every 15 minutes. They should check & clean it every half an hour or every hour. The main problem is maintaining the cleanliness of the toilet. -Teacher
Financial resources
Schools rely on the Panchayati Raj Department for cleaners, as they have inadequate funds to cover the salary. School authorities have direct access to only the Composite Grant, provided by the Education Department for regular expenses. This ranges from approximately INR25 000 (~US$300) to INR75 000 (~US$900) annually, depending on student enrolment (for students less than 250 or more than 250), respectively. This annual grant is intended for maintenance and upkeep of the entire school, with approximately 27 items mentioned in an online list, including minor repairs and cleaning of school infrastructure, wall painting, whitewashing, the repair of WASH infrastructure and the purchase of cleaning materials. Although 10% of the Composite Grant funds are earmarked for WASH, this is grossly inadequate to cover the monthly salary of a cleaner (INR25 000 (~US$300)) or hire an additional cleaner, dedicated to schools and is often diverted towards more immediate school expenses (eg, urgent general repairs which should actually be funded by the Panchayat Fund), while still being reported under WASH expenditure.
Mostly, it is inadequate. Like now, there is no slope on our roof, so the water stops and collects. We have to get it fixed from the Composite Fund. Additionally, there are other expenses like painting the school walls, buying stationary which leaves us with no money to be spent on repairs and maintenance. - Headmaster
While the Composite fund assists with the daily operations and maintenance of schools, the Panchayat fund, controlled by the Pradhan, is expected to cover school infrastructure-related work or general repairs. The Pradhan authorises expenditures up to INR200 000 (~US$2300), beyond which approvals are required from the BDO. Panchayat funding for school WASH depends largely on the Pradhan’s priorities and relationship with the HM. In practice, Pradhans rarely prioritise WASH repairs, favouring more visible community investments instead. When asked to identify the top three priorities for investment in their communities, none of them mentioned repairs or upkeep of school WASH facilities. As one Pradhan noted,
There are many things to be done in my village. For example, there is no cremation site in our village. The allocated place is near the lake, but cremations are conducted near the canal. With respect to the animals that are out there for grazing, there is no facility for them to drink water. Regarding schools, school beautification is important along with improving the delivery of quality education by the teachers. - Pradhan
When prompted, Pradhans said they would prioritise visible, large-scale investments such as boundary walls and aesthetic improvements (eg, murals) over repairs. In addition to boundary walls protecting schools from vandalism, these projects were largely infrastructure related intended to showcase their work to the community and support re-election prospects.
During the study period, a programme of the Uttar Pradesh Government called Operation Vidyalaya Kayakalp required Pradhans to use the Panchayat Fund to improve school infrastructure,10 including WASH-related infrastructure. Pradhans continued to focus on aspects such as the tiling and construction of boundary walls rather than ensuring the usability of existing WASH infrastructure. This focus reflects Pradhans’ perception that visible upgrades resonate more with community preferences, while functional WASH facilities offer limited electoral returns.
Given the restricted availability of government sources of funding, HMs and teachers reported voluntarily contributing their personal funds to meet urgent WASH service needs at their schools and subsequently seeking reimbursement from the Composite Grant. These contributions helped cover the cost of minor repairs (eg, replacing a tap or making minor plumbing repairs, costing approximately INR500 or ~US$5–US$6), O&M (eg, daily labour charges for a private cleaner of INR100–INR300 or ~US$1–US$4), and purchasing soap and other consumables.
Material resources
The WASH-related resources assessed included infrastructure, cleaning materials and equipment specified in the Swachh Vidyalaya guidelines.11 Structured observations indicated that toilets in about half the schools appeared unusable due to visible faeces, foul odour and lack of water, with students often urinating outside school premises. All schools reported vandalism and flood-related damage, leaving WASH infrastructure dysfunctional. HMs mentioned persistent drainage-related issues, broken toilet seats, and broken pipes and overhead tanks (the last two being prerequisites to supply piped water inside the toilets), with insufficient funds for undertaking repair work. Locks were absent inside the toilets in eight out of nine schools, and toilets in two schools did not have functional taps. The HMs mentioned that the taps needed replacement repeatedly due to vandalism. Even where infrastructure was intact, unreliable electricity often prevented water from being pumped to overhead tanks, requiring manual collection and transport of water to toilets and other WASH facilities.
Both Pradhans and the HMs mentioned that any major infrastructure-related expense, such as repairing vandalised water connections, would necessitate fund mobilisation from the Panchayat. One way to prevent damage to school property due to vandalism was to construct boundary walls using Panchayat funds. This was an instance of alignment between the priorities of HMs and Pradhans, preventing vandalism for the former and providing visible evidence of ‘good work’ for the Pradhans.
The cleaning materials and related equipment (eg, soap, cleaning agents and water storage buckets) were purchased using funds from the school’s Composite Grant.
This time, we received Rs. 50,000. Because the amount was big, we estimated all the materials required for the school and did the shopping together. I do not go to purchase materials for Rs. 10 or 20. -Headmaster
Soap availability was not reported as a concern by school authorities, and we observed soap stored in the HM’s room. Only five of the nine schools had soap at the handwashing stations on the day of the visit. HMs noted that students tended to ‘overuse’ or misplace soap, leading schools to keep it under their custody and require students to request it before use.
HMs reported providing cleaning materials as needed, though some cleaners said they purchased supplies using their own salaries. Observations found buckets in only two of nine schools. While guidelines assign responsibility for cleaning materials to HMs through the Composite Grant, with Panchayat support if needed, HMs often relied on personal funds to cover these relatively small expenses.
Information
All information is shared by the BEO and the BDO with the HM and the Pradhan, respectively. Information regarding roles, fund utilisation, policy changes and key WASH responsibilities is passed down by the department to the appropriate accountable stakeholder. Information is disseminated through regular monthly meetings held at the block level, while urgent updates requiring immediate action are communicated via WhatsApp, which serves as the preferred primary channel for time-sensitive communication.
A few cleaners reported receiving district-issued duty rosters, but most relied on instructions from the Gram Pradhan. Although they receive training from the Panchayati Raj Department at recruitment, their duties are not formalised, and Pradhan-assigned village tasks typically take precedence over school cleaning. With no formal monitoring by school authorities or penalties for non-performance, cleaners visit schools only about once a fortnight, which HMs reported is insufficient to maintain WASH facilities.
Accountability
Schools lack formal mechanisms to oversee cleaners’ attendance and work performance. Accountability measures such as salary deductions for absenteeism fall solely under the authority of the Pradhan. Pradhans however prioritise village level rather than school level tasks. Since cleaners are appointed and paid through the Panchayati Raj system, they prioritise Pradhan-assigned duties, leaving school-related tasks, where no incentives exist, largely neglected.
I have submitted so many [grievance-related] applications in the BDO office, nothing happens. All the sweepers work for the Pradhan; they only ask to go here and there where the inspection has to be done. - Headmaster.
HMs suggested that accountability could improve if schools recorded the cleaner’s attendance and shared a brief report of daily work with the Pradhan so that absences could affect monthly pay. However, with only one cleaner responsible for all public areas in the Panchayat, including multiple villages and schools, the cleaner cannot visit each school daily, let alone ensure daily cleaning of WASH facilities.
I have to manage 5 villages- 2 marriage halls and 2 schools for cleaning. In the village, I have to clean drains every 2-3 days. There are some Gram Panchayats that have four schools. How can I manage so much? If there are four schools, and I go thrice a week to just the school, when will I see the village?- Government cleaner
As shown in figure 1, schools are expected to raise complaints with the BEO at the block level, who then discusses them with their counterpart in the BDO in the Panchayati Raj Department. However, complaints involving Pradhans (eg, enforcing cleaners’ duties in school or fund allocation for O&M of WASH facilities) are difficult to address, as they are accountable primarily to the community rather than government officials. BDOs exercise very limited control over Pradhans, with the possible exception of delaying (but not stopping) the release of Panchayat funds.
Pradhans have a perception of “being above others” and do not feel directly accountable to the system, i.e., to the BDOs. – BDO
Similar issues arise with the use of Panchayat funds for schools. While major infrastructural repairs require these funds, Pradhans are under no formal obligation to align spending with HM priorities because they are not accountable to the BEO. Although HMs and Pradhans coordinate on issues such as Gram Panchayat fund utilisation, midday meals, infrastructure repairs and preventing vandalism, funding decisions are shaped largely by their informal relationship and the Pradhan’s perception of community priorities. As elected representatives accountable to the community, Pradhans may also prioritise school investments that visibly demonstrate their contributions to the village.
We can only ask them to carry out the work. They respond that they will do it once the funds are available, and the discussion ends there. There are no further options-we cannot compel the release of funds or question why the work has not been completed. -Headmaster
Discussion
Using the RIA framework,3 our study explored the gaps underlying the poor O&M of the school WASH infrastructure in government schools in Uttar Pradesh. Overall, the WASH-related infrastructure in the schools visited showed signs of being unclean with inconsistent availability of consumables such as soap and cleaning materials and in need of maintenance and repair; with the inadequate irregular and infrequent visits by the government cleaner resulting in dirty and unusable WASH facilities. Similar gaps have been identified in previous studies related to WASH-related infrastructure in schools in other low-income countries, such as Zimbabwe12 and Nicaragua12,13; and a study across six countries in Africa.14 The proximate causes underlying these gaps in our study were found to be related to the inadequacy of financial and human resources. However, adequate financial availability can still result in poor O&M outcomes if information flows for decision-making and accountability mechanisms are not functioning correctly. Chatterley et al, for example, reported that despite the provision of adequate financial resources, repairs were not undertaken in schools in Bangladesh, with teachers waiting for the organisation that built the toilets to undertake this work.15 Chatterley et al15 had also noted that responsibilities regarding the continued maintenance of facilities were not adequately conveyed to teachers, resulting in inadequate O&M despite the provision of resources.15 Further probing in our study too suggested that gaps in the existence and practice of accountability mechanisms underpin the inadequate resources responsible for poor O&M. Although financial constraints within Panchayats are a contributing factor, the challenge extends beyond resource availability. Schools and the Education Department have limited authority over the allocation and management of these resources, which constrains their ability to address O&M needs effectively. Although the focus of most previous studies as well as interventions to improve WASH O&M has been on building new resources,3 in accordance with the conclusion of Pu’s 2022 study, we found that addressing dysfunctional infrastructure is not just about providing/allocating additional resources. An increase in providing additional cleaning staff through existing mechanisms is likely to result in the same issues. This needs to be complemented by accountability measures that rest with the school authorities. For example, HMs should be able to leverage any penalties/incentives for cleaners to ensure that the O&M work in the schools is undertaken. Similarly, increased allocation and even ringfencing of Panchayat Funds are unlikely to have an effect unless control is vested with the school. This finding is supported by earlier research (eg, in Nigeria), which shows that facilities were more functional in schools that had decentralised and directly controlled budgets than in those that were centralised and relied on government agencies for support with maintenance.15,16
With respect to information, we found that while information on roles and responsibilities and consequences of not meeting expectations is shared with cleaning staff, there are no direct consequences for not undertaking this work. Thus, there is an absence of links between information flow and accountability mechanisms, specifically with respect to their work in schools. The Panchayati Raj Department, which has authority, provides information and incentives to the cleaner through the Pradhan but is different from the department (Education) that is the beneficiary or for which the tasks are to be performed.
This study makes two important contributions to the school WASH literature. First, it provides empirical evidence on why school WASH facilities in Uttar Pradesh fall into disrepair despite substantial investments in infrastructure, highlighting the interplay of RIA in sustaining services. Given the state’s 41.4 million students,17 these findings have broad relevance.
Second, it shows how the RIA framework can be operationalised through a proactive O&M model that addresses maintenance resources, facility functionality through monitoring and establishing accountability mechanisms to ensure that maintenance issues are identified and resolved in a timely manner.
By illustrating how the RIA framework can be operationalised within the school WASH sector, the study provides a useful example for policymakers and practitioners seeking to strengthen the long-term functionality and effectiveness of WASH infrastructure investments.
An important limitation of the study is that it was restricted to schools which had the availability of WASH infrastructure (gender-segregated toilets, handwashing stations, drinking water points), even if not completely functional. Although it would be expected that findings would apply to all schools, it is possible that the degree of emphasis on resources could be higher in schools which lacked infrastructure.
Design of an O&M intervention
In designing an intervention for the O&M of WASH facilities, focusing on the provision of adequate financial and human resources alone would involve repeating the mistakes made by many interventions.15,18 Analysis of such interventions identifies the need to address other concomitant gaps in information and accountability to increase the likelihood that resources provided will be used appropriately.19,20 The main issue identified in our study is that the authority to control resources is vested in a department which is different from the department (Education) which receives these services. Therefore, we need to ensure that the benefits (and thus incentives to monitor programme performance) and responsibilities for programme performance rest with the same broad entity.
Table 4 highlights the key gaps we identified in RIA elements of WASH infrastructure and the features for consideration in designing an O&M intervention that would address these gaps.
Table 4. Summary of RIA gaps and main intervention features.
| RIA category | Gaps categorised by RIA framework |
|---|---|
| Resource gaps |
|
| Information gaps |
|
| Accountability gaps |
|
Main intervention components addressing the gaps
| |
O&M, operation and maintenance; RIA, resources, information and accountability; WASH, water, sanitation and hygiene.
The intervention proposes hiring a dedicated part-time cleaner for each school to manage WASH O&M. The HM (or a teacher) monitors attendance and performance, supported by clear roles, incentives and penalties. To keep costs affordable, the position is part-time and aligned with existing support staff salaries. Cleaners are responsible for daily cleaning, reporting repair needs, and are provided with necessary materials and equipment for 1 year by the implementing agency.
Creating appropriate information flows in the intervention involves informing schools about the intervention as well as their role and responsibilities regarding monitoring the work of the cleaning staff (eg, attendance and quality of work) and reporting any shortcomings to the implementing agency. To ensure accountability by the same actors who are receiving benefits, the HM of the school is designated to be responsible for monitoring the regular attendance and work being undertaken by the cleaner. Given findings in previous studies of the inadequate use of monitoring data to increase accountability,19,21 a mechanism (in the form of collecting grievances and feedback from HMs) is set up for enabling complaints from schools to be registered with the implementing agency, which would implement the necessary actions, such as temporarily providing replacement and addressing any gaps in the work undertaken by the cleaner. It is in the direct interest of HMs to report nonperformance since they would effectively lose the benefits of having clean WASH infrastructure if they did not report inadequacies in the O&M of WASH facilities in their schools.
Conclusions
Despite centralised investments in school WASH infrastructure under the Swachh Vidyalaya Mission, this study reveals persistent operational and systemic challenges in ensuring functional and well-maintained facilities in government primary schools in Uttar Pradesh. Our qualitative findings highlight key constraints across the three domains. While funding streams such as the Composite Grant and Panchayat Fund allocations exist, the amounts earmarked for WASH O&M are inadequate and often deprioritised. Human resources are overstretched, with government-appointed cleaners responsible for cleaning across multiple areas within the Panchayat, resulting in a limited daily presence in schools.
Information dissemination, although presented through guidelines and digital platforms, lacks an actionable focus on O&M. There are no consequences in place for not undertaking the prescribed cleaning in schools. Accountability mechanisms remain weak due to fragmented governance across the Panchayati Raj and Education departments, with limited interdepartmental coordination or enforcement for WASH-related responsibilities.
These findings informed the design of a context-specific intervention that provides human resources in the form of part-time cleaning staff, with defined performance-based accountability mechanisms. By addressing resource constraints, ensuring awareness of actionable information among all relevant individuals, and embedding enforceable accountability structures, the proposed intervention design has been implemented as part of an RCT. The results related to effectiveness are soon to be published.
Supplementary material
Acknowledgements
We thank World Vision US staff, particularly Kristie Urich, Ben Tidwell and Jordan Smoke, for their unwavering support for this study and helpful discussions on the global implications of the study findings. We extend our sincere gratitude to the school staff, government officials, community representatives, World Vision India program staff (Ms Swati Agnihotri) and other stakeholders in Uttar Pradesh who generously shared their time and insights for this research. We are thankful to the district and block-level education authorities for their support in providing permissions for conducting field work in government schools. We also acknowledge the efforts of our field research team, whose commitment and diligence made this study possible. The administrative support provided by Meenu Bhalla, Madhukar Dayal and Jenelle Vaneynde is gratefully acknowledged.
Footnotes
Funding: World Vision US. Sub award agreement number: 62999354-127176. Scampavia Global Research Fund.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Patient consent for publication: Not applicable.
Ethics approval: This study involves human participants and was approved by Sigma Institutional Review Board (Number: 10103/IRB/21-22) and from Stanford University (California, USA; protocol 69912). Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.
Data availability free text: The qualitative dataset generated and analysed during the current study is not publicly available owing to confidentiality protections, but deidentified thematic summary data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request.
References
- 1.Adams J, Simms J, Chartier Y, et al. World Health Organization Stylus Pub., LLC; 2010. Water sanitation and hygiene standards for schools in low-cost settings. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Pu CJR, Patel P, Hornsby G, et al. Necessary conditions for sustainable water and sanitation service delivery in schools: A systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2022;17:e0270847. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270847. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Mansi T. Water Aid, India; 2016. An assessment of school wash infrastructure and hygiene behaviors in nine states. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Conducting integrity assessments of wash in schools pilot project using the AWIS methodology in Andhra Pradesh, India 3 2. www.waterintegritynetwork.net n.d. Available.
- 5.Gracie H, et al. The Individual and Combined Impacts of School-Based Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) Education and Infrastructure Operation and Maintenance (O&M): A Factorial Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial in Uttar Pradesh, India. BMJ Glob Health. doi: 10.1101/2025.10.23.25338677. n.d. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6.World Bank . Identification for Development (ID4D) Initiative; 2020. Understanding people’s perspectives on identification: a qualitative research toolkit (working draft)https://cuts-cart.org/pdf/understanding-peoples-perspective-on-identification-a-qualitative-research-toolkit.pdf Available. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Guidance note/manual for monitoring wash in schools in the sustainable development goals i core questions and indicators for monitoring wash in schools in the sustainable development goals who library cataloguing-in-publication data core questions and indicators for monitoring wash in schools in the sustainable development goals. 2016. http://www.who.int/about/licensing/copyright_form/en/ Available.
- 8.Fife ST, Gossner JD. Deductive Qualitative Analysis: Evaluating, Expanding, and Refining Theory. Int J Qual Methods. 2024;23 doi: 10.1177/16094069241244856. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Mayashree A. UP current minimum wages in UP home > business & compliance > latest minimum wages in Uttar Pradesh (UP) 2025 latest minimum wages in Uttar Pradesh (UP) 2025. 2025
- 10.Government of Uttar Pradesh . India: Operation Kayakalp | Official website of Department of Basic Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh; Operation kayakalp. [Google Scholar]
- 11.For sustaining water, sanitation and hygiene in schools-guidelines for swachhata action plan sop for sustaining water, sanitation and hygiene in schools-guidelines for swachhata action plan
- 12.Dube B, January J. Factors Leading to Poor Water Sanitation Hygiene Among Primary School Going Children in Chitungwiza. J Public Health Afr. 2012;3:e7. :e7. doi: 10.4081/jphia.2012.e7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Majra JP, Gur A. School environment and sanitation in rural India. J Glob Infect Dis. 2010;2:109–11. doi: 10.4103/0974-777X.62882. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Morgan C, Bowling M, Bartram J, et al. Water, sanitation, and hygiene in schools: Status and implications of low coverage in Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2017;220:950–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.03.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Chatterley C, Linden KG, Javernick-Will A. Identifying pathways to continued maintenance of school sanitation in Belize. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev. 2013;3:411–22. doi: 10.2166/washdev.2013.128. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Ikoya PO. Centralization and decentralization of schools’ physical facilities management in Nigeria. Journal of Educational Administration. 2008;46:630–49. doi: 10.1108/09578230810895537. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Mehta AC. Education for All in India; 2026. School education in Uttar Pradesh: where do we stand? an analysis of udise+ data 2021–22 to 2024–25.https://educationforallinindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/School-Education-in-Uttar-Pradesh-Where-do-we-stand-UDISEPlus-2021-22-to-2024-25.pdfhttps://educationforallinindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/School-Education-in-Uttar-Pradesh-Where-do-we-stand-UDISEPlus-2021-22-to-2024-25.pdf Available. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Snyder JS, Prentice-Mott G, Boera C, et al. The Sustainability and Scalability of Private Sector Sanitation Delivery in Urban Informal Settlement Schools: A Mixed Methods Follow Up of a Randomized Trial in Nairobi, Kenya. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:1–17.:5298. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17155298. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Shadi Saboori SS, Alex Mwaki AM, Sarah Porter SP, et al. Sustaining school hand washing and water treatment programmes: Lessons learned and to be learned. Waterlines. 2011;30:298–311. doi: 10.3362/1756-3488.2011.040. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Okello E, Kapiga S, Grosskurth H, et al. Factors perceived to facilitate or hinder handwashing among primary students: a qualitative assessment of the Mikono Safi intervention schools in NW Tanzania. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e030947. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030947. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Caruso BA, Freeman MC, Garn JV, et al. Assessing the impact of a school-based latrine cleaning and handwashing program on pupil absence in Nyanza Province, Kenya: a cluster-randomized trial. Trop Med Int Health. 2014;19:1185–97. doi: 10.1111/tmi.12360. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
Data are available on reasonable request.