Table 4. Characteristics of Latrines Built During CLTS Compared to Pre-Existing Latrines in 58 Villages in Ghana^a.

		latrine built
variable		pre-CLTS	during CLTS	p-value	CLTS latrines compared to pre-existing latrines
infrastructure	durable flooring materialb	84%	60%	<0.001	less durable flooring
	stable/safe flooring	94%	86%	0.005	slightly less stable/safe flooring
	fully intact walls	71%	55%	0.002	less likely to have intact walls
	intact door	77%	47%	<0.001	less likely to have an intact door
	protective roof	79%	57%	<0.001	less likely to have an intact roof
	pit ventilation	56%	31%	<0.001	less likely to be ventilated
	complete privacy	66%	48%	0.003	less privacy provided
	improved latrinec	52%	43%	0.026	less likely to be “improved”
upkeep	hole covered	50%	47%	0.584	comparable hole coverage
	clean (no feces on floor)	83%	83%	0.869	comparable cleanliness
	less than ∼10 flies	74%	70%	0.316	comparable level of flies
	water or cleansing material for handwashing	6%	21%	<0.001	better access to handwashing facilities

^aAnalysis covers the 530 of 554 privately owned latrines and 213 of 264 shared latrines that were observed during surveying in villages in both the CLTS and CLTS + NL Training interventions. Latrines placed in the pre-CLTS category were reported as more than 18 months old. Pre-CLTS includes 447 latrines, and during CLTS includes 296 latrines. Analysis accounts for unequal selection probability, nonresponse rates, and village clustering. P-values were generated with a t test.

^bConcrete or wood.

^cBased on the Joint Monitoring Program definition, though measurement of improved latrines varies globally.^31,32