Table 2.
Mean WASH performance target data for beneficiary schools and matched control schools
| Beneficiary schools | Matched control schools | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Follow-up %‡ (SD) | Baseline %‡ (SD) | % change* | P* | Follow-up %§ (SD) | % change† | P† | |
| Number of schools | 100 | 94 | 100 | ||||
| % of visits where schools met all four targets | 23 (34) | 0 (0) | 23 | – | 0 (0) | 23 | – |
| % of visits where schools met water supply target: functional, improved water point on school grounds | 81 (34) | 36 (48) | 45 | < 0.01 | 44 (47) | 37 | < 0.01 |
| % of visits where a water point was on school grounds, any | 90 (30) | 50 (50) | 40 | < 0.01 | 59 (48) | 31 | < 0.01 |
| % of visits where a water point was on school grounds, improved | 90 (30) | 41 (50) | 49 | < 0.01 | 56 (50) | 34 | < 0.01 |
| % of visits where a water point was on school grounds, functional | 82 (34) | 45 (50) | 37 | < 0.01 | 47 (46) | 35 | < 0.01 |
| % of visits where schools met sanitation target: at least one improved latrine that is clean and with no cracks in floors/walls/ceiling for every 70 pupils and latrines are sex segregated | 44 (42) | 11 (31) | 33 | < 0.01 | 5 (18) | 39 | < 0.01 |
| % of visits was a pupil latrine was on school grounds, any | 97 (15) | 79 (41) | 18 | < 0.01 | 83 (35) | 15 | 0.01 |
| % of visits where there was at least one improved latrine per 70 pupils | 71 (43) | 56 (50) | 15 | 0.02 | 39 (45) | 32 | < 0.01 |
| % of visits where there was at least one clean improved latrine per 70 pupils | 54 (41) | n/a§ | – | – | 21 (35) | 33 | < 0.01 |
| % of visits where there was at least one improved latrine with no cracks in floors/walls/ceiling per 70 pupils | 69 (42) | n/a§ | – | – | 34 (44) | 35 | < 0.01 |
| % of visits where there were sex-segregated latrines | 74 (38) | 26 (44) | 48 | < 0.01 | 14 (30) | 60 | < 0.01 |
| % of visits where schools met handwashing target: at least one handwashing container with water and soap available to pupils | 59 (36) | 20 (41) | 39 | < 0.01 | 5 (18) | 54 | < 0.01 |
| % of visits where a handwashing container was present | 81 (33) | 39 (49) | 42 | < 0.01 | 9 (24) | 72 | < 0.01 |
| % of visits where a handwashing container was present with water | 74 (36) | n/a§ | – | – | 8 (22) | 66 | < 0.01 |
| % of visits where a handwashing container was present with soap | 57 (36) | n/a§ | – | – | 5 (18) | 52 | < 0.01 |
| % of visits where schools met WASH supplies target: All WASH supplies present | 76 (29) | 9 (28) | 65 | < 0.01 | 9 (23) | 65 | < 0.01 |
| % of visits where a drinking water container was present | 96 (15) | 49 (50) | 47 | < 0.01 | 57 (44) | 39 | < 0.01 |
| % of visits where a kettle was present | 98 (9) | 37 (49) | 61 | < 0.01 | 53 (44) | 45 | < 0.01 |
| % of visits where detergent or bleach was present | 86 (24) | 37 (49) | 49 | < 0.01 | 27 (38) | 59 | < 0.01 |
| % of visits where soap was present | 88 (21) | 37 (49) | 51 | < 0.01 | 21 (33) | 67 | < 0.01 |
SD = standard deviation; WASH = water, sanitation, and hygiene.
*
Comparing beneficiary schools between follow-up and baseline. P values based on linear regression models accounting for repeated observations within schools.
†
Comparing beneficiary schools to matched control schools at follow-up. P values based on linear regression models controlling for the effect of the matching cluster.
‡
Percentages were calculated by aggregating averages across rounds for individual schools and then taking the mean within each intervention arm.
§
Baseline information was not available for some individual criteria.