VURU Water Paper 2014 (1)

Water and Sanitation Report: First Phase
Study, June 2014, Kanungu, Uganda
Volunteer
Uganda:
Research
Uganda
In
collabora*on
with
Great
Lakes
Regional
College

An investigation into water access, quality
and sanitation in primary and secondary
schools in Kanungu District
June 2014
Report prepared by Anthony Demetriou and Emma Kreeger
Research Coordinators, Volunteer Uganda
Data collection conducted by Olivia Beale, Liam Davies, Jared Joseph-White, Fiona Lam,
Adam Kee and Elena Suckling
In partnership with research interns at Great Lakes Regional College,
Kanungu:
Taremwa Hanningtone, Muhumuza Jackness, Atire Jones, Amanya Macklin, Ankwasa
Mercy, Musinguzi Paxtone, Kato Rachael, Oribariho Silver
With many thanks for the warm cooperation of the teachers working at the schools involved
with this study.

Executive summary
Whilst
developed
countries
have
largely
passed
by
the
suffering
and
indignity
that
accompanies
water
and

hygiene
related
sickness,
for
large
swathes
of
the
developing
world
it
is
a
firmly
entrenched
feature
of
life.

780
million
people
lack
access
to
an
improved
water
source,
over
10%
of
the
global
popula*on.
While
it
is

es*mated
that
2.6
billion
people
lack
access
to
adequate
sanita*on,
38%
of
the
global
popula*on.
As
a

result
of
this,
more
than
3.4
million
people
die
each
year
from
water,
sanita*on
and
hygiene
related
causes.

Though
the
water
and
sanita*on
sector
in
Uganda
has
shown
improvements
over
the
past
20
years,
there
is

s*ll
great
need
in
these
areas.
One
quarter
of
the
Ugandan
popula*on,
9.2
million
people,
lack
access
to

safe
water.
Nearly
two
thirds
of
the
popula*on,
24
million
people,
lack
access
to
adequate
sanita*on.

Consistent
reports
of
typhoid
and
diarrhoeal
disease
in
the
Kanungu
district
have
prompted
a
more

thorough
enquiry
into
the
accessibility
of
safe
drinking
water,
inves*ga*ng
common
methods
of
water

treatment,
sanita*on
and
hygiene
prac*ces,
and
knowledge
and
awareness
of
waterborne
diseases.
Schools

were
chosen
as
our
unit
of
analysis
as
it
is
children
who
are
most
vulnerable
to
water
and
hygiene
related

disease.

A
mixed
methods
approach
was
applied
to
the
design
of
this
study
allowing
for
the
collec*on
of
both

quan*ta*ve
and
qualita*ve
data
through
ques*onnaire
based
interviews
and
focus
group
discussions.

A
ques*onnaire
was
designed
by
Volunteer
Uganda
research
co-‐ordinators.
It
was
used
as
the
basis
of
30

structured
interviews
carried
out
with
head
teachers
or
senior
staff
in
each
school
studied.

Focus
group
ques*ons
were
designed
to
correspond
with
the
content
of
the
ques*onnaire.
The
discussion

consisted
of
respondents
answering
9
open-‐ended
ques*ons.
Volunteer
Uganda:
Research
Uganda
(VURU)

research
interns
moderated
focus
groups
across
30
schools
in
Kanungu
District.

Treated
drinking
water
in
each
school
studied
was
also
tested
for
faecal
contamina*on,
the
most
common

cause
of
microbial
pathogens
found
in
water.

It
was
discovered
through
ques*onnaire
data
that
whilst
most
schools
have
access
to
a
tap,
83%
of

respondents
reported
the
need
to
use
alterna*ve
sources
because
of
breakdowns.
Over
two
thirds
of

respondents
said
that
the
last
breakdown
lasted
for
over
a
week.
Addi*onally,
less
than
1
in
5
schools
use

an
adequate
amount
of
water
according
to
government
water
usage
targets.
Almost
two
thirds
of

respondents
said
that
they
felt
their
school
does
not
have
enough
water.
Only
two
thirds
of
schools
provide

drinking
water
for
students,
despite
all
schools
providing
drinking
water
for
staff.
Sadly,
85%
of
the
treated

drinking
water
tested
posi*ve
for
faecal
contamina*on,
showing
that
efforts
at
treatment
are
largely

unsuccessful.

9
broad
themes
emerged
in
focus
group
discussions.
Among
these
is
the
problem
of
school-‐community

conflict
which,
focus
groups
revealed,
is
a
problem
contribu*ng
to
and
arising
from
limited
water
access.

This
finding
is
in
line
with
what
was
wri_en
in
a
2006
Ministry
of
Educa*on
report
and
a
2013
WaterAid

report
on
water
and
sanita*on
in
schools.
Another
prominent
finding
was
how
the
use
of
water
for
hygiene

and
sanita*on
oben
sits
at
the
bo_om
of
a
hierarchy
of
perceived
importance
of
water
uses.
Whilst
a

commonly
expressed
concern
is
that
children
do
not
see
the
significance
of
trea*ng
water
and
that
it
is
near

impossible
to
prevent
them
from
drinking
untreated
water.
A
discussion
of
our
results
and
some

recommended
interven*ons
can
be
found
in
the
final
chapter
of
this
report.

Introduction
1.1 The global context 7
1.2 Foundation stones of development 7
1.3 Reducing water and sanitation related disease: transforming health in developing countries 8
1.4 Freshwater: supply and demand 9
1.5 Water and sanitation in Uganda 10
1.6 Water and sanitation in Kanungu 11
Volunteer Uganda: previous research
2.1 The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI): Pilot 2012 13
2.2 The Baseline study: Needs Assessment Report 2013 13
2.3 Malaria Report: First Phase Study 2014 14
The case for further research: Water 2014
3.1 Water and sanitation in Ugandan schools 15
3.2 Success of water, sanitation and hygiene programs in Ugandan schools 16
3.3 Water sanitation and hygiene programmes in Kanungu 16
Methods and research design
4.1 Survey design 18
4.2 Focus Group design 18
4.3 Water quality Testing 18
4.4 Locations and Sampling 19
4.5 Respondents 19
4.6 Procedure 
 
4.6.1 Questionnaire based interviews 20
4.7 Ethics 20
Questionnaire results
5.1 Adequate Water Access 21
5.1.2 Tap ownership 21
5.1.3 Water collection time 22
5.1.3.1 Collection time from primary source 22
5.1.3.2 Collection time for schools without taps 22
5.1.4 Water Usage 23
5.1.5 Perceptions on water availability and usage 23
5.1.6 Access to treated drinking water for students 23
5.2 Adequate Water Quality 24
5.2.1.1 Proportion of schools with protected primary source 24
5.2.1.2 Proportion of schools with protected alternative source 24
5.2.2 Risk of further contamination 24
5.2.2.1 Transport 24
5.2.2.2 Storage 25
5.2.2.3 Distribution 25

5.2.3 Safe drinking water 26
5.2.3.1 Provision of safe drinking water for students 26
5.2.3.2 Provision of safe drinking water for staff 26
5.2.4. Coliform bacteria testing 26
5.2.4.1 Sample test results 26
5.3 Adequate Sanitation 27
5.3.1 Sanitation facilities 27
5.3.1.1 Student: stance ratio 27
5.3.1.2 Hand washing facilities 28
5.3.1.3 Availability of soap 28
5.3.2 Education 29
Focus group analysis
6.1 Water access 34
6.1.1 Tap failure and consequences 34
6.1.2 Tensions in sharing water resources with the local community and inadequate supplies 35
6.1.3 Problems of topography 36
6.1.4 Consequences of child water collection 37
6.2 Drinking water quality 37
6.2.1 Insufficient storage and equipment impeding quality 37
6.2.2 The perception that piped water is safe to drink without treatment 38
6.2.3 The perceived unimportance of water treatment among students 38
6.3 Sanitation 40
6.3.1 The need to prioritise different uses of water 40
6.3.2 Water, hygiene and sanitation education in schools 40
Conclusions, limitations and recommendations
6 Conclusions and recommendations 42
6.1 Resource insufficiency, shared resources and community conflict 42
6.2 Recommendation 1: stakeholder meetings 43
6.3 Unsuccessful treatment of water 43
6.4 Recommendation 2: the introduction of a multi-barrier approach and further research 43
6.5 Poor quality water in ‘improved’ sources and the belief that this water is safe 44
6.6 Recommendation 3: a sensitisation programme 45
6.7 Insufficient drinking water supplied to students 45
6.8 Recommendation 4: further research into why drinking water is unavailable and the promotion of
alternative treatment 45
Bibliography

Volunteer Uganda: Research Uganda 2014
1
Introduction
1.1
The
global
context

Inadequate
access
to
clean
water
and
sanita*on
facili*es
‘claims
more
lives
through
disease
than
any
war

claims
through
guns.’'
Whilst
developed
countries
have
largely
passed
by
the
suffering
and
indignity
that

accompanies
water
and
hygiene
related
sickness,
for
large
swathes
of
the
developing
world
it
is
a
firmly

entrenched
feature
of
life.

A
joint
study
by
the
World
Health
Organisa*on
(WHO)
and
UNICEF
es*mates
that
780
million
people
lack

access
to
an
improved
water
source,
over
10%
of
the
global
popula*on.
While
it
is
es*mated
that
2.6
billion

people
lack
access
to
adequate
sanita*on,
38%
of
the
global
popula*on.
As
a
result
of
this,
more
than
3.4

million
people
die
each
year
from
water,
sanita*on
and
hygiene
related
causes
-‐
a
figure
almost
equal
to
1
the
whole
popula*on
of
Berlin
and
double
the
size
of
es*mates
being
made
ten
years
ago.
2
These
deaths
are
almost
en*rely
concentrated
in
the
developing
world
at
a
propor*on
of
99.8%
according

to
the
WHO.
Beyond
affec*ng
the
most
vulnerable
regions,
within
those
it
is
the
most
vulnerable
people
3
who
suffer
the
most
as
90%
of
such
deaths
occur
among
children.
Indeed,
for
children
under
five
years
old,
4
the
mortality
rate
is
greater
than
the
combined
burden
of
HIV/AIDS
and
malaria.
Further
exacerba*ng
this
5
problem
is
the
fact
that
the
outcomes
of
the
kind
of
gastrointes*nal
disease
caused
by
poor
water
and

sanita*on
are
more
severe
due
to
the
under-‐nutri*on
and
lack
of
comprehensive
interven*on
strategies
in

the
worst
affected
regions.
6
1.2
Founda:on
stones
of
development

There
is
broad
agreement
in
development
discourse
that
access
to
enough
safe
drinking
water
and

adequate
hygiene
and
sanita*on
facili*es
are
founda*onal
building
blocks
without
which
development
in

other
areas
cannot
meaningfully
occur.
Water,
or
its
absence
are
central
to
poverty
and
the
link
between

adequate
water
provision
and
poverty
allevia*on
is
well
established
in
the
literature.

In
rela*on
to
educa*on,
for
instance,
it
has
been
calculated
by
the
United
Na*ons
Development
Program

(UNDP)
in
a
report
inves*ga*ng
the
effects
of
water
scarcity
on
development
that
443
million
school
days

are
lost
each
year
due
to
water-‐related
illness.
If
they
could
be
reclaimed,
there
would
be
a
tremendous
7
leap
forward
in
the
ability
of
future
genera*ons
in
poorer
regions
to
take
the
development
of
their
na*ons

into
their
own
hands.
WHO, Safer Water, Better Health: Costs, benefits, and sustainability of interventions to protect and promote health, 20041
Ashbolt, M, Microbial contamination of drinking water and disease outcomes in developing regions, Toxicology, vol. 198, 2004, pp.2
229-238
WHO, Safer Water, Better Health: Costs, benefits, and sustainability of interventions to protect and promote health, 20043
Ashbolt loc.cit4
Liu, L, Global, regional, and national causes of child mortality: an updated systematic analysis for 2010 with time trends since 2000,5
Lancet, vol. 379, 2012, p. 2151–61
Ashbolt loc.cit6
UN-HABITAT/WHO, The Right to Water, Fact Sheet No. 35. United Nations, 20107
7

It
is
es*mated
by
the
WHO
that
for
every
$1
invested
in
water
and
sanita*on,
there
is
an
economic
return

of
between
$3
and
$34
in
terms
of
GDP.
Whilst
transposing
the
suffering
caused
by
poor
water,
hygiene
8
and
sanita*on
into
financial
terms
may
appear
to
be
a
shallow
reading
of
the
problem,
it
is
important
to

note
that
this
limita*on
on
the
ability
of
a
developing
economy
to
grow
and
on
individuals
to
par*cipate
in

that
economy
plays
a
serious
role
in
reinforcing
the
inequali*es
between
states
reoccurring
within
current

processes
of
global
development.
In
short,
if
a
person
is
constantly
burdened
by
sickness
they
cannot
work

and
therefore
cannot
contribute
to
their
economy.
In
this
sense
sickness
is
a
factor
that
detracts
from
the

ability
of
poor
countries
to
catch
up
to
rich
ones.

There
is
also
an
important
nexus
between
water
and
food
security,
however,
it
must
be
understood
with

reference
to
the
scarcity
of
fresh
water
which
is
discussed
in
more
detail
below.
Over
70%
of
the
planet’s

freshwater
is
used
in
agricultural
irriga*on.
The
majority
of
food
products
have
huge
amounts
of
water
9
embedded
into
the
process
of
their
produc*on.
If
current
trends
in
popula*on
growth,
economic
growth

and
urbanisa*on
con*nue,
the
strain
on
water
supply
could
cause
shormalls
in
global
cereal
produc*on
of

up
30%
by
2025.
A
food
shortage
of
this
order,
while
it
would
cause
a
percep*ble
shib
in
price
in
10
developed
countries,
would
cause
a
huge
transforma*on
in
the
accessibility
of
food
in
poorer
ones
causing

more
civil
unrest
in
response
to
spikes
in
food
prices.
The
World
Bank
reports
that
there
have
been
51
‘food

riots’
in
37
countries
since
2007
and
warns
that
more
are
likely
to
come.
This
kind
of
instability
is
hugely
11
inimical
to
development
and
intrinsically
linked
to
fresh
water
supplies.

1.3
Reducing
water
and
sanita:on
related
disease:
transforming
health
in
developing
countries

In
the
19th
century,
the
outbreak
of
a
cholera
epidemic
in
Germany
prompted
the
discovery
by
German

microbiologist
Robert
Koch
that
water
treatment
methods
such
as
chlorina*on
and
sand
filtra*on
greatly

reduce
pathogen
levels
in
water,
rendering
it
safe
to
drink.
By
the
end
of
the
century
this
became
the
norm

in
the
treatment
of
piped
water
in
Europe,
the
UK
and
North
America.
This
innova*on
‘resulted
in
the

largest
reduc*on
in
the
global
disease
burden
of
any
interven*on
since.’
With
this
history
in
mind
it
12
becomes
easier
to
appreciate
the
gravity
of
a
comparable
breakthrough
in,
say,
the
con*nent
of
Africa.

Improvements
in
water,
sanita*on
and
hygiene
could
prevent
at
least
9.1%
of
the
global
disease
burden
and

6.3%
of
all
deaths.
The
WHO
and
UNICEF
es*mate
that
improved
sanita*on
could
prevent
the
deaths
of
13
1.5
million
children
each
year
who
would
otherwise
be
lost
to
diarrhoeal
disease.
The
simple
act
of
hand

washing
aber
using
the
toilet
and
before
ea*ng
can
reduce
the
number
of
cases
of
diarrhoea
by
37%,

improved
water
sources
can
reduce
diarrhoea
morbidity
by
21%
and
improved
sanita*on
can
reduce
the

figure
by
37.5.
14
The
importance
of
hygiene,
water
and
sanita*on
to
development
is
manifested
in
agreements
of
collec*ve

ac*on
which
reflect
the
values
of
the
interna*onal
community.
In
2010
the
United
Na*ons
General

Assembly
officially
recognised
access
to
clean
water
and
sanita*on
as
inalienable
human
rights
through

Resolu*on
64/292,
acknowledging
them
as
necessary
prerequisites
for
the
realisa*on
of
all
human
rights.
15
WHO, Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of Water and Sanitation Improvements at the Global Level, 20048
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Facts Brief on Water and Food Security, 20089
Brabeck-Letmathe, P, Water scarcity and food security: the role of ‘virtual water trade’, www.water-challenge.com, accessed 2510
November 2014
Cuesta, J, No Food ,No Peace, World Bank Voices: Perspectives on Development, blogs.worldbank.org/voices/no-food-no-peace,11
accessed 25 November 2014
Ashbolt loc.cit12
WaterAid Uganda, Status of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in Primary Schools, 201313
WaterAid Uganda loc.cit14
United Nations General Assembly, Resolution A/RES/64/292, 201015
8

It
is
also
shown
in
the
target
to
halve
the
number
of
people
who
do
not
have
access
to
safe
drinking
water,

set
in
2000
as
one
of
the
Millennium
Development
Goals
(MDGs).
It
has
been
widely
reported
that
this
16
target
has
been
met
before
the
2015
deadline.
The
WHO
and
UNICEF
Joint
Monitoring
Programme
(JMP)
17
has
found
that
more
than
2
billion
people
gained
access
to
improved
drinking
water
sources
between
1990

and
2010.
‘Improved
drinking
water
sources’
are
defined
by
the
JMP
as
public
taps,
protected
dug
wells,

protected
springs,
or
rainwater
collec*on.
That
brings
the
total
up
to
6.1
billion
people
-‐
89%
of
the
global
18
popula*on.
Yet
the
same
progress
has
not
been
made
with
sanita*on,
with
around
2.6
billion
people
s*ll

lacking
basic
facili*es.
‘Basic
facili*es’
are
defined
by
the
JMP
as
those
which
‘do
not
ensure
hygienic
19
separa*on
of
human
excreta
from
human
contact’
-‐
including
pit
latrines
or
bucket
latrines.
20
Though
greater
access
to
improved
water
sources
such
as
protected
wells
or
piped
water
is
undoubtedly
a

step
forward,
it
is
worth
men*oning
here
that
water
quality
at
these
sources
has
not
been
tested.
They

protect
from
outside
contamina*on
but
this
protec*on
is
not
complete
and
is
not
comparable
to
a

comprehensive
mul*-‐barrier
treatment
system
-‐
one
in
which
pathogen
levels
are
minimised
through

mul*ple
processes,
such
as
sand
filtra*on,
solar
disinfec*on
or
chlorina*on.
It
is
unclear
how
safe
the
water

that
this
addi*onal
2
billion
people
are
drinking
really
is.
Furthermore,
very
significant
regional
dispari*es

have
emerged.
Nearly
half
of
the
2
billion
who
have
gained
access
to
improved
sources
of
water
are
in

China
and
India,
while
Africa
has
been
leb
behind.
Even
within
countries,
there
are
grave
inequali*es

between
rural
and
urban
areas.
21
1.4
Freshwater:
supply
and
demand

Though
it
is
a
renewable
resource,
with
precipita*on
renewing
supplies,
as
the
supply
of
water
remains
a

constant,
global
demand
is
constantly
increasing.
One
factor
in
this
is
the
rapid
urbanisa*on
occurring
in
the

developing
world.
As
more
and
more
people
flock
to
ci*es
in
search
of
a
be_er
standard
of
living,
their

water
consump*on
increases,
crea*ng
a
larger
aggregate
demand
and
need
for
sanita*on
facili*es.
Of
the

60
million
that
move
to
urban
areas
annually,
most
move
to
informal
se_lements
with
no
sanita*on

facili*es.
Adding
to
this
is
the
rapid
rate
at
which
the
global
popula*on
is
growing
-‐
surging
from
2.5
billion
22
in
1950
to
7
billion
in
2011.
United
Na*ons
projec*ons
expect
a
popula*on
of
8.9
billion
by
2050.
This
23
suggests
that
already
strained
water
supplies
and
sanita*on
facili*es
will
come
under
increasing
pressure.
A

report
by
the
Interna*onal
Water
Management
Ins*tute
(IWMI)
projects
that
if
water
use
is
not
made
more

efficient
in
terms
of
reducing
waste,
then
there
will
be
a
57%
rise
in
global
water
demand
by
2025.

24
With
these
facts
in
mind
it
becomes
clear
that
compe**on
for
water
is
likely
to
intensify
in
coming
decades

as
popula*on
growth,
urbanisa*on
and
industry
demand
greater
quan**es.
Sadly,
it
is
those
who
have
the

least
who
stand
to
lose
the
most.
The
IWMI
report
men*oned
above
warns
that
it
is
likely
that
those

‘people
with
the
weakest
rights
-‐
small
farmers
and
women
among
them
-‐
will
see
their
en*tlements
to

water
eroded
by
more
powerful
cons*tuencies.’
25
www.un.org/millenniumgoals/environ16
United Nations, Millennium Development Goals Report 2012, 201217
WHO/UNICEF, Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation 2012 Update, 201218
ibid19
ibid20
ibid21
UN Water, Tackling a Global Crisis: International Year of Sanitation, 200822
United Nations Population Division, World Population Prospects The 2012 Revision: Highlights and Advance Tables, 201223
International Water Management Institute, World Water Demand and Supply, 1990 to 2025: Scenarios and Issues, 199824
ibid25
9

1.5
Water
and
sanita:on
in
Uganda

Though
the
water
and
sanita*on
sector
in

Uganda
has
improved
considerably
over
the

past
20
years,
there
is
s*ll
great
need
in
these

areas.
One
quarter
of
the
Ugandan
popula*on,

9.2
million
people,
lack
access
to
safe
water.

Nearly
two
thirds
of
the
popula*on,
24
million

people,
lack
access
to
adequate
sanita*on.
26
Should
Uganda
meet
the
Millennium

Development
Goal
on
water
and
sanita*on,

72%
of
the
total
popula*on
would
need
to

have
access
to
safe
drinking
water
and
70%

would
need
to
have
access
to
improved

sanita*on.
The
Ugandan
government’s
own

target
is
to
increase
access
to
improved
water

in
rural
areas
to
77%
and
access
in
urban
areas

to
100%.
It
also
aims
to
increase
access
to

improved
sanita*on
in
rural
areas
to
80%
and

to
100%
in

urban
areas.
27
The
Ministry
for
Water
and
Environment’s

(MWE)
Annual
Water
and
Environment
Sector

Performance
Report
for
2014
states
that
as
of

June,
the
popula*on
with
access
to
safe
water

in
urban
areas
amounted
to
73%.
The
rural

popula*on
with
access
to

safe
water
remained
 
stagnant
at
64%.
Inadequate
funding
was
 
reportedly
the
cause
of
this
stagna*on.
28
 
The
WHO/UNIFEC
JMP
for
water
and
sanita*on,
drawing
on
a
mul*tude
of
datapoints,
is
more
posi*ve.

These
figures
state
that
72%
had
access
to
safe
water
by
2010,
5
years
ahead
of
the
2015
target.
Yet
it
also

notes
a
worrying
rural/urban
inequality
in
coverage
at
68%
and
95%.  29
The
MWE
2014
Sector
Performance
Report
states
that
74.6%
of
the
rural
popula*on
has
access
to

sanita*on,
up
from
71%
in
the
previous
year.
This
puts
Uganda
on
track
to
meet
the
na*onal
target
of
77%

access
to
sanita*on
by
2015.
Sanita*on
in
urban
areas
is
at
84%
excluding
Kampala
(for
which
data
does
not

exist)
and
is
is
unlikely
to
rise
to
the
100%
target
by
2015.
30
The
WHO/UNIFEC
JMP
is
less
op*mis*c.
According
to
their
2014
report,
only
34%
enjoy
improved
sanita*on

in
rural
areas
whilst
in
urban
areas
the
figure
is
33%.
The
total
propor*on
of
the
popula*on
that
enjoy

improved
sanita*on,
according
to
the
report
is
34%.
MWE
na*onal
es*mates
include
facili*es
which
are

shared
in
its
defini*on
of
improved
sanita*on,
where
as
the
JMP
does
not.
The
discrepancy
in
the
31
sta*s*cs
produced
by
the
MWE
and
the
JMP
show
that
figures
are
not
facts
when
it
comes
to
assessing

access
to
water
and
sanita*on
and
that
precise
measurement
is
difficult.

WaterAid, Where we work, www.wateraid.org/where-we-work/page/uganda, accessed 26 November 201426
Ugandan Ministry for Water and Environment, Annual Water and Environment Sector Performance Report for 2014, 201428
Ugandan Ministry for Water and Environment, op.cit30
10
Figure 1. Map of Uganda showing Kanungu, Mapbox,
www.mapbox.com retrieved 2 December 2014

Despite
the
clear
need
for
investment
in
improved
water
and
sanita*on
infrastructure,
government

investment
into
the
sector
as
a
propor*on
of
total
budget
has
been
spiralling
downward
over
the
past
10

years.
Budget
alloca*on
to
the
Ministry
of
Water
and
Environment
has
been
reduced
from
7.4%
of
the
total

budget
in
2004
to
2.8%
in
2014.
These
cuts
have
occurred
whilst
the
popula*on
of
Uganda
is
swibly

expanding
and
urbanising,
crea*ng
a
demand
for
water
and
sanita*on
facili*es
which
is
grows.

This
chronic
underinvestment
is
ironically
causing
considerable
economic
losses.
A
2012
report
es*mated

that
Uganda
loses
UGX
386
or
US$177
million
per
year
due
to
poor
sanita*on.
32
1.6
Water
and
sanita:on
in
Kanungu

Kanungu
District
is
located
in
southwestern
Uganda
and
is
split
into
9
sub-‐coun*es
and
2
town-‐councils.
It

has
a
popula*on
of
241,800
-‐
90%
of
which,
according
to
government
figures,
have
access
to
safe
water.
33
Safe
water
access
rates,
according
to
these
government
es*mates,
vary
from
72%
in
Kihihi
sub-‐country
to

95%
in
Kanyatorogo,
Kayonza,
Kirima,
Kambuga,
Mpungu,
Nyamirama,
Rugyeyo
and
Rutenga
sub-‐coun*es

as
well
as
Kanungu
Town
Council.
34
The
district
has
1,669
water
sources
in
total.
238
of
these
are
non-‐func*onal,
31
of
which
have
been
so
for

more
than
5
years
and
are
considered
by
the
MWE
to
be
abandoned.
The
breakdown
of
source
types
can

be
seen
in
figure
2.
35
Technical
breakdown,
that
is
a
breakdown
where
the
physical
equipment
cons*tu*ng
a
water
source

becomes
non-‐func*onal,
accounts
for
the
greatest
propor*on
of
breakdowns
at
nearly
a
third
(29%).

According
to
the
district
assistant
water
officer
this
is
because
few
people
pay
user
fees
for
the
maintenance

of
water
facili*es
-‐
when
facili*es
break
down,
there
are
insufficient
funds
to
cover

their
repair.
This
is
36
perhaps
a
predictable
outcome
of
the
Government
of
Uganda’s
1999
Na*onal
Water
Policy
which
shibs
the

responsibility
for
maintaining
and
mee*ng
the
costs
of
water
sources
away
from
government
and
onto

users.
The
second
most
significant
reason,
affec*ng
over
1
in
5
sources
(23.5%)
is
that
they
have
become

dry
or
low
yielding.
The
third,
affec*ng
a
similar
propor*on
(21.1%)
is
compromised
water
quality,
showing

that
though
a
source
may
have
all
of
the
trappings
of
protec*on.
this
does
not
always
ensure
quality.
37
Figure
2

38
The
district
is
equipped
with
3
pumped
water
supply
systems,
2
of
which
are
surface
water
based
whilst
1
is

groundwater
based.
Surface
water
being
that
which
collects
on
the
surface
of
the
ground:
streams,
rivers,

lakes,
swamps,
puddles
and
so
on.
Whilst
ground
water
is
held
underground
in
the
soil
or
in
the
pores
or

crevices
of
rock.
39
WHO/UNICEF, op.cit32
Ugandan Ministry of Water and Environment, Water Supply Atlas 2010, 201033
Ibid34
Ibid35
N. Wesonga, Pulse Check for New Districts: Kanungu’s Case, The Daily Monitor, 27 July 2014, retrieved from www.monitor.co.ug 236
December 2014
Ugandan Ministry of Water and Environment, Water Supply Atlas 2010, 201037
Adapted from Ugandan Ministry of Water and Environment, Water Supply Atlas 2010, 201038
Ibid39
11

Rainfall
is
an
important
source
of
water
and
driver
of
agricultural
produc*on
in
Kanungu,
a
district
in
which

73%
of
the
working
popula*on
are
employed
in
the
agricultural
sector,
as
irriga*on
is
rarely
used.
The
40
district
enjoys
a
tropical
climate,
with
far
more
rainfall
in
the
summer.
The
average
annual
temperature
in

Kanungu
is
18.9°C.
The
average
annual
rainfall
is
1,222mm,
double
the
received
precipita*on
of
London

which
received
601mm
and
is
seen
as
a
‘rainy
city’.
41
Ugandan Bureau of Statistics, Uganda Population and Housing Census Analytical Report, 200240
www.en.climate-data.org/location/50845/41
12

2
Volunteer Uganda: previous research
2.1
The
Multidimensional
Poverty
Index
(MPI):
Pilot
2012

The
MPI
research
undertaken
in
2012
tracked
changes
in
poverty
levels
of
participants
from
2007
to
2012
using
a

multidimensional
poverty
index
tool
designed
in
collaboration
with
Makerere
University,
Kampala.
An
improvement
was

seen
in
how
far
participants
had
to
travel
from
the
household
to
collect
water
for
consumption
as
the
report
shows
that

in
2007,
44%
of
participants
accessed
water
from
a
distance
over
500m
and
in
2012
this
figure
decreases
to
32%.

However,
in
2012
only
10%
had
access
to
piped
water
in
the
household,
20%
accessing
water
for
consumption
from

streams
and
swamps
and
the
remaining
70%
from
protected
taps
or
communal
springs,
with
little
change
from
2007.

2.2
The
Baseline
study:
Needs
Assessment
Report
2013

The
Needs
Assessment
Report
conducted
in
September
2013
represents
Volunteer
Uganda’s
most
recent
findings
across

multidimensional
levels
of
poverty
in
Kanungu.
Data
was
collected
by
mapping
surveys
conducted
in
structured

household
interviews
in
a
range
of
sub-‐counties
throughout
the
district.
The
report
offers
a
baseline
of
statistics
on
water

access,
quality
and
sanitation
which
feature
within
the
six
dimensions
of
poverty
the
report
covers:
education
and

culture,
organisation
and
participation,
income
and
employment,
interiority
and
motivation,
health
and
environment,

housing
and
infrastructure.

Indicators
of
poverty
were
classified
into
three
categories
according
to
responses
from
participants.
In
response
to
each

question
a
participant
was
ranked
as
to
whether
their
answer
corresponded
to
being
‘in
poverty’
(1)
‘at
risk
of
poverty’
(2)

or
‘not
in
poverty’
(3),
following
the
Stoplight
Approach
to
poverty
measurement
developed
by
Fundacion
Paraguaya.
42
(i)Water
access

Most
importantly,
the
data
highlights
that
access
to
water
for
consumption
is
among
1
of
the
top
three
most
pressing

needs
within
the
Kanungu
district.
93%
of
551
households
fall
within
category
1
and
2
responses
when
looking
at

adequate
water
for
consumption
as
an
indicator
of
poverty.

Furthermore
it
was
recorded
that
only
7%
of
respondents
have
access
to
piped
water
in
their
homes,
meaning
that
the

remaining
93%
fetch
water
or
must
travel
a
distance
to
collect
water
for
consumption
from
outside
the
household
in
the

form
of
communal
protected
springs
or
streams
and
swamps.
76%
of
respondents
travelled
over
a
distance
of
30

minutes
to
collect
water
for
the
household.

(ii)Water
quality
and
sanitation

Interestingly
‘water
treatment’
and
‘hand
hygiene,
sanitation’
had
the
highest
number
of
category
3
responses
at
94%

and
89%
respectively.
‘Clean
water
consumption’
was
also
amongst
the
higher
percentages
at
67%.

As
a
means
of
treating
water
for
consumption
94%
of
respondents
boiled
as
their
preferred
method
of
treating
water
for

consumption
opposed
to
using
other
methods
such
as
chlorination
tablets,
solar
disinfection
or
water
filtration.

However,
92%
of
respondents
were
sourcing
water
from
communal
protected
and
non-‐protected
springs,
rainwater,

streams
and
swamps
with
high
contamination
risks
making
the
water
unsafe
to
consume
without
treating
in
some
form.

As
income
and
employment
is
the
dimension
in
which
most
respondents
were
in
or
at
risk
of
poverty,
it
is
a
worrying

Burt, M, ’The “Poverty Stoplight” Approach to Eliminating Multidimensional Poverty: Business, Civil Society, and Government Working42
Together in Paraguay’, Innovations, pp.53-75, 2013
13

factor
that
a
lack
of
money
for
firewood
or
coal
could
cause
a
problem
in
water
treatment
for
consumption
and
lead
to

many
households
drinking
contaminated
water.

2.3
Malaria
Report:
First
Phase
Study
2014

This
report
focuses
primarily
upon
mosquito
net
possession,
usage
and
malaria
knowledge
in
the
Kanungu
district.
Data

was
obtained
through
structured
household
interviews
encompassing
a
sample
size
of
234
households.

It
is
important
to
note
that,
with
respect
to
knowledge
and
awareness
of
transition
of
malaria,
a
high
proportion
of

respondents
were
displayed
inadequate
of
education
on
this
topic.
The
second
most
popular
response
when
asked
what

could
be
done
to
prevent
malaria,
was
‘to
avoid
drinking
dirty
water’,
mentioned
94
times.
This
suggests
a
distinct
lack
of

knowledge
or
perhaps
misunderstanding
of
the
difference
between
malaria
and
water
borne
disease.

14

3
The case for further research: Water
2014
Previous
research
conducted
by
Volunteer
Uganda
has
highlighted
access
to
safe
water
and
knowledge
of
waterborne

disease
as
inadequate
in
the
district.
The
obtainability
of
safe
drinking
water,
the
common
methods
of
water
treatment

and
sanitation
and
hygiene
practices
in
Kanungu
District
all
warrant
further
investigation.

Education
has
arisen
as
an
important
behaviour
change
technique
to
reduce
waterborne
disease,
based
on
the
idea
that

raising
knowledge
and
awareness
of
good
and
bad
practices
and
their
outcomes
will
help
people
to
make
the
right

choices
to
mitigate
against
risk
of
disease.
43
3.1
Water
and
sanitation
in
Ugandan
schools

The
pursuit
of
Universal
Primary
Education
has
been
a
key
policy
used
by
the
Government
of
Uganda
in
the
drive
to

reduce
poverty.
Through
the
UPE
programme
the
Ugandan
government
abolished
tuition
fees
and
Parents
and
Teachers

Association
charges
for
primary
education.
Since
the
advent
of
this
policy,
enrolment
in
primary
school
increased
from

3.1
million
in
1996
to
7.6
million
in
2003,
a
figure
which
has
since
been
steadily
increasing.
This
increase
has
put
greater

strain
on
already
inadequate
water
and
sanitation
facilities
in
schools
and
has
resulted
in
low
hygiene
and
sanitation

standards
country-‐wide.

44
One
aspect
of
inadequate
sanitation
in
Ugandan
primary
schools
which
is
particularly
likely
to
cause
school
absence
is

inadequate
hygienic
facilities
for
girls.
Toilet
facilities,
according
to
a
report
by
the
Ugandan
Ministry
of
Education
and

Sports
admits
that
‘toilet
facilities
in
primary
schools
remain
inadequate
for
girls.’
28%
of
schools
had
shared
facilities,

eradicating
the
possibility
of
privacy.
Special
washrooms
were
seen
in
only
36%
of
primary
schools
-‐
even
of
these,
half

functioned
poorly
and
had
no
soap
or
basin.
The
study
found
that
rural
and
government
aided
schools
were
especially
ill-‐
equipped
and
were
less
likely
to
make
soap
or
a
basin
a
priority,
rendering
hygiene
facilities
ineffectual.
16%
of
girls

interviewed
cited
lack
of
privacy,
31%
cited
fear
of
soiling
toilets
and
51%
cited
poor
toilet
hygiene
as
factors
which
greatly

contribute
to
discomfort
during
menstruation,
potentially
leading
to
school
absence.
45
Overall,
toilet
hygiene
was
found
to
be
poor.
80%
of
primary
school
floors
were
wet
and
dirty,
whilst
the
figure
for

secondary
schools
is
79%.
Faeces
was
smeared
on
the
walls
of
33%
of
primary
schools
and
25%
of
primary
schools.
The

area
surrounding
toilets
was
soiled
in
40%
of
primary
schools
and
20%
of
secondary
schools
-‐
indicating
a
desire
to
avoid

the
use
of
dirty
facilities.
46
The
national
guidance
for
pupil:
stance
(a
stance
is
a
single
cubicle
of
a
latrine
block)
ratio
is
40:1.
Though
the
average

ratio
across
Uganda
has
improved
since
1997,
in
which
it
was
150:1,
the
proportion
of
primary
schools
achieving
this

benchmark
ratio
was
reported
to
be
only
25%
in
2006
and
a
more
recent
WaterAid
report
claims
that
only
22%
of
their

sample
achieved
it.
47
WHO, Combating Waterborne Disease at the Household Level, 200743
Bategeka, L and Okurut, N, Universal Primary Education Uganda, (Policy brief 10), 2005, retrieved from www.odi.org44
Ministry of Education and Sports, Sanitation and Hygiene in Primary Schools in Uganda, 200645
ibid46
15

The
same
WaterAid
report
found
that
though
all
primary
schools
in
their
sample
had
‘some
kind
of
sanitary
facility’,
there

was
a
real
shortage
of
hand
washing
facilities.
57%,
over
half,
lacked
hand
washing
facilities.
A
significant
deficit,
especially

in
light
of
the
fact
that
had
washing
can
reduce
the
prevalence
of
diarrheal
disease
by
47%.
48
In
the
WaterAid
study,
resources,
especially
financial
resources
were
highlighted
as
one
of
the
main
challenges
to

providing
adequate
facilities.
Interviewees
referred
to
NGO
work
as
the
main
source
of
improvement
for
HWS
standards,

whilst
government
funding
dwindles.
Another
was
limited
technical
skills:
appropriate
technologies
may
be
available,
but

there
is
a
shortage
of
personnel
with
the
expertise
to
construct
these
facilities.
Beyond
this,
limited
user
awareness
of
the

importance
of
and
the
proper
use
of
water
and
hygiene
facilities
was
considered
to
be
a
cause
of
improper
use
leading
to

degradation
as
well
as
non-‐use.

With
regard
to
water
accessibility,
conditions
were
also
found
to
be
inadequate.
The
MWE
recommends
a
minimum
of
5

litres
per
day
per
student
should
be
used
in
day
schools,
whilst
the
figure
is
higher
at
25
litres
per
student
per
day
in

boarding
schools.
According
to
this
threshold,
less
than
20%
of
primary
schools
use
an
adequate
amount
of
water.
Rural

schools
were
more
likely
to
meet
the
standard
at
22%,
whilst
only
13%
of
urban
schools
did.

49
Distance
to
the
main
water
source
has
also
proven
to
be
a
problem
in
Ugandan
schools.
In
their
nation-‐wide
study,
the

MWE
found
that
most
water
sources
were
further
than
the
recommended
distance
of
0.5km.
In
terms
of
the
operation

of
these
sources,
government
was
the
most
common
funder
of
water
facilities,
providing
for
48%
of
primary
schools.

Next
were
parents
and
the
community
which
fund
water
in
38%.
50
3.2
Success
of
water,
sanitation
and
hygiene
programs
in
Ugandan
schools

In
addition
to
the
above
projects
there
are
many
more
initiatives
that
have
been
implemented
throughout
Uganda.

These
include
many
more
WaterAid
projects,
a
WES
(water,
environment
and
sanitation)
programme
run
by
UNICEF,
the

Government
led
–
Global
Sanitation
Fund
(committed
to
expanding
to
reach
30
districts
from
2014),
Water
School
51
Uganda
and
The
Water
Project
which
provides
communities
with
wells,
are
just
but
a
few.

Dr
Albert
Rugumayo,
a
consultant
for
the
Ministry
of
Education,
has
published
a
report
in
which
he
discusses
the

successes
of
sanitation
programs
in
schools.
He
begins
by
acknowledging
the
virtual
non-‐existence
of
water
and
52
sanitation
provision
in
the
mid
1990’s
and
the
clear
improvement
there
has
been
since
sanitation
programs
have
been

implemented
to
date,
such
as
the
building
of
latrines
and
improved
access
to
drinking
water.
Importantly,
he
admits
that

less
progress
has
been
made
in
hygiene
education.
In
evaluating
the
impact
of
WASH
programs
across
Uganda
he
raises

the
issue
of
sustainability
and
highlights
that
whilst
performance
of
NGO’s
and
Government
action
can
be
measured
by

infrastructure,
there
is
little
measuring
actual
change
in
practices.
He
calls
for
monitoring
and
evaluation
systems
to
be
in

operation
to
ensure
behavioural
change
in
hygiene
habits
and
life
skills,
such
as
the
simple
act
of
hand
washing
correctly

with
soap
and
water.
As
WASH
projects
currently
stand,
without
real
change
in
behavioural
practices
when
initiatives
end

or
funding
stops,
schools
return
to
bad
sanitation
and
hygiene
habits
and
risk
water
related
illness.

3.3
Water
sanitation
and
hygiene
programmes
in
Kanungu

As
with
the
experience
of
WASH
(water,
sanitation
and
hygiene)
programmes
at
the
national
level,
in
Kanungu
there
has

been
success
in
terms
of
the
programs
which
ave
been
initiated
but
a
gaping
deficit
in
their
coverage
and
a
lack
of

monitoring
and
evaluation.
There
are
several
WASH
projects
currently
running
in
the
Kanungu
District.
In
August
2012

the
construction
of
the
government
backed
Banyara
Gravity
Flow
Scheme
was
completed.
Supported
by
the
Swarovski
53
jewellery
company’s
Waterschool
Uganda
project
the
scheme
facilitated
access
to
safe
water
for
24
schools
in
the

ibid48
ibid49
ibid50
Collaborative Council www.wsscc.org/countries/africa/uganda/global-sanitation-fund51
Rugumayo, A, Ministry of Education, Uganda - Scaling up School Sanitation Programmes at National Level, 200452
Magula, M, ‘Uganda: Mbabazi Hails Landmark Kanungu Water Scheme’, The Observer, 201453
16

Kayonza
sub-‐county,
3
health
units,
the
Kayonza
tea
factory
and
hundreds
of
households,
as
well
as
significantly
reducing

water
collection
time;
which
in
turn
has
largely
done
away
with
the
burden
of
an
arduous
journey
collecting
water
for

women
and
children.

The
Swarovski
Waterschool
Uganda
program
also
provides
water
boiling
equipment
and
teaches
sustainable
water
use.

They
operate
in
20
local
schools,
have
trained
80
teachers
and
impacted
nearly
25,000
community
members
in
Bwindi.

Schools
also
benefit
from
WASH
clubs
where
local
residents
are
taught
about
the
importance
of
sustainable
water
use,

effective
sanitation
and
good
hygiene
practices.
All
schools
participating
in
the
program
are
provided
with
rainwater
54
harvesting
tanks
and
sanitary
facilities.

In
addition,
52
schools
in
Kanungu
are
benefiting
from
the
WASH
campaign
run
by
Bwindi
Community
Hospital
in

collaboration
with
the
Vision
Group
(a
Ugandan
publishing
company)
and
WaterAid
Uganda.
This
initiative
gave
55
teachers
in
the
selected
schools
training
in
how
to
improve
hygiene
and
sanitation
in
their
schools.
Schools
were
also

shown
how
to
make
and
use
‘tippy
taps’
(a
plastic
jerry
can
or
water
bottle,
hung
from
a
rope
and
releases
water
when

tipped)
to
improve
hygiene
practices
such
as
washing
hands
after
using
the
toilet
and
before
eating
or
preparing
meals.

www.swarovskiwaterschool.com/uganda54
Bwindi Community Hospital, Annual Report 2011/2012, www.bwindihospital.com55
17

4
Methods and research design
A
mixed
methods
approach
was
applied
to
the
design
of
this
study
allowing
for
both
quantitative
and
qualitative
data
and

a
marriage
of
surveys
and
focus
group
discussions
to
improve
on
accuracy,
reliability
and
depth
of
findings.

4.1
Survey
design

The
survey
was
designed
by
Volunteer
Uganda
research
co-‐ordinators.
It
took
into
consideration
VU:
RU’s
previous

studies
and
recommendations
for
further
research
alongside
information
gathered
across
prominent
water,
sanitation

and
hygiene
focused
organisations,
NGO’s
and
charities
working
in
Uganda.

The
survey
consisted
of
50
questions,
set
out
in
8
sections:
school
demographics,
water
quantity
and
storage,
water

quality
and
usage,
water
source
and
collection,
water
reliability
and
dependence,
health
and
wellbeing,
treatment
of

water
and
toilets
and
sanitation.

The
survey
incorporated
both
open
and
closed
questions
to
allow
for
the
recording
of
both
precise
and
concrete
data

alongside
more
detailed
and
opinion
led
responses.
The
majority
of
questions
were
coded
for
quantitative
analysis
and
a

selection
left
open
to
allow
for
more
free-‐flowing
answers
to
be
later
categorised
and
coded.

4.2
Focus
Group
design

Focus
Group
questions
were
designed
to
encourage
discussion
in
line
with
the
eight
sections
of
the
survey.
The
discussion

consisted
of
9
key
questions.

4.3
Water
quality
Testing

In
order
to
measure
water
quality
within
each
school
in
the
study
it
became
apparent
that
water
quality
testing
would

play
an
essential
role
in
the
study’s
design.

According
to
the
World
Health
Organisation’s
(WHO)
Guideline
for
Drinking
Water
Quality,
safe
drinking
water
is
defined

as
water
that
“does
not
represent
any
significant
risk
to
health
over
a
lifetime
of
consumption,
including
different

sensitivities
that
may
occur
between
life
stages.” In
order
for
drinking
water
to
be
potable
it
is
important
that
it
is
free
56
from
contamination
of
bacterial
pathogens
responsible
for
waterborne
disease.
The
guidelines
describe
faecal

contamination
as
“the
greatest
microbial
risk”
to
drinking
water
as
most
disease
causing
pathogens
found
in
water

originate
in
the
faeces
of
humans
and
warm
blooded
animals.
57
Volunteer
Uganda
research
co-‐ordinators
decided
that
the
most
effective
method
of
testing
for
coliform
bacteria
(E-‐Coli)

would
be
to
use
a
water
testing
kit
known
as
the
total
coliform
bacteria
test
to
test
a
sample
of
drinking
water
from
each

school.
This
test
is
ultimately
a
test
of
suitability
for
human
consumption.
It
involves
a
simple
colour
indicator
providing
a

positive
or
negative
reading
for
the
presence
of
coliform
bacteria
in
the
sample,
a
strain
indicating
faecal
contamination.

An
example
can
be
seen
in
the
image
below.

World Health Organisation, Guideline for Safe Drinking Water, 4th Ed, 201156
ibid57
18


It
was
decided
that
within
each
school
a
sample
of
both
treated
and
untreated
water
would
be
taken,
and
any
water

sample
which
was
consumed
as
drinking
water
by
members
of
the
school
would
be
tested
for
the
coliform
bacteria.

4.4
Locations
and
Sampling

Schools
were
chosen
as
the
unit
of
analysis
of
the
study.
The
sampling
frame
was
based
on
a
purposive
sampling

technique,
operating
on
the
principle
that
the
best
information
can
be
obtained
through
deliberately
focusing
on
a
small

number
of
instances
selected
on
the
basis
of
their
known
attributes.
In
this
instance
selecting
30
schools
from
across
the

district,
15
primary
and
15
secondary,
and
within
each
of
these
groups
allowing
for
a
selection
of
both
private
and

government
schools,
and
boarding
and
non-‐boarding
schools.

The
study
returned
to
sub-‐counties
in
which
households
were
examined
in
the
2013
Needs
Assessment
Report:
Kazuru,

Kihihi,
and
Kanungu
Town.
In
addition
Kambuga,
Kirima,
Kanyantoroogo
and
Nyamerama
were
also
visited.
At
least
one

primary
and
one
secondary
were
sought
in
each
of
the
sub-‐counties
where
possible,
although
limitations
were
met
in

that
some
sub-‐counties
did
not
contain
secondary
schools.

4.5
Respondents

A
total
of
30
schools
were
visited,
within
each
school
one
senior
member
of
staff
was
selected
for
participation
in
the

questionnaire.
A
total
of
30
participants
were
interviewed;
26
males
and
4
females.

Focus
groups
were
held
in
29
schools,
of
which
14
were
primary
and
15
were
secondary.
Focus
group
participants
were

selected
across
varying
positions
throughout
the
school
to
provide
viewpoints
across
both
genders
and
levels
of

responsibility
to
present
a
more
accurate
picture
of
the
water
situation
within
each
school
setting.
A
total
of
146
people

took
part
in
focus
group
discussions,
an
average
of
5
participants
in
each
focus
group;
participants
held
positions
such
as

teacher,
matron,
cook,
cleaner,
school
advisor,
security
guard,
groundskeeper,
gatekeeper
and
director.

Involvement
in
the
study
was
entirely
voluntary
for
all
participants.
Each
school
was
given
a
small
facilitation
towards

lunch
costs
for
research
interns.
Both
survey
and
focus
group
questions
focused
on
responses
that
represented
the
whole

school
as
well
as
responses
that
focused
on
individual
opinions.
Representing
a
total
population
of
9,534
community

members
across
30
schools.

At
each
school
both
treated
and
non-‐treated
water
samples
were
collected.
A
total
of
27
schools
provided
water

samples,
of
which
all
were
treated
water
samples.
3
schools
did
not
have
any
water
available
for
testing
on
the
day
of

data
collection.
All
samples
were
taken
back
to
the
Volunteer
Uganda
lodge
where
water
quality
testing
was
carried
out

on
all
samples
confirmed
as
water
used
for
consumption.

19

4.6
Procedure 
 
4.6.1
Questionnaire
based
interviews

All
interviews
were
conducted
by
research
teams
comprising
of
one
or
two
field
research
interns
from
Volunteer
Uganda

and
one
or
two
research
interns
selected
from
Great
Lakes
Regional
College
(GLRC).
On
occasion,
GLRC
interns
would
58
assist
in
translation
when
needed.

Each
interview
followed
a
standardised
procedure.
A
formal
brief
outlining
the
purposes
and
objectives
of
the
study
were

read
out
in
both
English
and
the
local
language,
Rukiga.
Consent
forms
were
read
and
signed
by
the
participant
and
then

the
interview
proceeded
with
a
series
of
structured
questions.
Each
interview
ended
with
a
formal
debriefing.

4.6.2
Focus
groups

The
focus
group
discussions
were
conducted
by
the
same
team
of
research
interns
from
Volunteer
Uganda
and
GLRC.
In

line
with
the
format
of
the
interview,
a
brief
would
be
read
in
English
and
Rukiga
to
the
participants
and
consent
forms

would
then
be
read
and
signed.

One
volunteer
would
act
as
a
facilitator,
directing
discussion,
whilst
another
would

transcribe
and
a
third
translate
where
necessary.
Upon
the
conclusion
of
the
focus
group
discussion
a
debrief
would
be

read
in
English
and
Rukiga.

4.7
Ethics

All
field
researchers
and
GLRC
students
were
issued
with
VU:
RU’s
research
ethics
guidelines
prior
to
the
start
of
the

project,
made
aware
of
the
responsibilities
held
within
their
roles
and
the
ethical
regulations
they
must
commit
to
before

entering
the
field.

A
number
of
steps
were
taken
to
ensure
that
research
integrity
and
validity
was
preserved
at
all
times.
Both
survey
and

focus
group
respondents
were
required
to
be
over
the
age
of
18
years.
All
participants
were
required
to
have
read
a

project
brief
in
both
English
and
Rukiga
and
signed
a
consent
form
before
any
formal
interviewing
took
place.

All
participants
were
made
aware
of
their
right
to
terminate
the
interview
at
any
point
before
and
have
any
data
removed

from
the
dataset
and
destroyed
upon
withdrawal.
All
respondents
were
made
aware
of
the
anonymity
of
their

responses.

4.8
Data
Analysis

All
survey
data
was
transferred
into
a
Microsoft
Excel
spreadsheet.
Any
qualitative
data
was
coded
so
as
to
make
all

responses
quantitative.
Data
was
split
into
subtopics
within
access,
quality
and
sanitation,
analysed
using
data
analysis

tools
in
Excel
and
presented
as
descriptive
statistics.

The
approach
to
the
analysis
of
qualitative
focus
group
data
was
based
on
the
framework
analysis
approach
developed

by
Richard
A.
Krueger.
Analysis
progressed
through
the
stages
of
familiarisation,
identifying
a
thematic
framework,

indexing,
charting,
and
interpretation.
In
the
familiarisation
stage,
all
transcripts
were
read
thoroughly
and
consecutively

as
major
themes
began
to
emerge.
From
here
a
thematic
framework
within
which
to
organise
the
data
was
developed.

Once
the
thematic
framework
was
in
place,
researchers
sifted
through
and
indexed
the
data
as
passages
relevant
to

particular
themes
were
highlighted
and
sorted.
In
the
charting
stage,
these
passages
were
lifted
from
their
original

transcripts
and
grouped
in
terms
of
their
relevant
theme
in
order
to
facilitate
comparison
between
focus
groups
and
a

view
of
what
our
data
says
about
each
theme
on
the
whole,
an
important
stage
in
the
management
and
reduction
of

data.
From
there
the
data
was
interpreted,
with
the
intention
of
identifying
links
between
the
passages
and
the
data
as
a

whole.
The
focus
at
this
stage
was
on
identifying
larger
trends
and
emerging
ideas
which
cut
across
focus
group

discussions.

Local educational institution. GLRC alongside VU: RU offers research led internship programmes to students studying for diplomas58
and degree level qualiﬁcations.
20

5
Questionnaire results

5.1
Adequate
Water
Access

This
sec*on
will
analyse
responses
gathered
in
the
ques*onnaire
in
an
assessment
of
water
access
focusing

on:
water
sources,
tap
ownership,
collec*on
*me,
water
usage,
percep*ons
of
access
to
an
adequate
water

supply,
and
drinking
water
availability.

5.1.1
Main
water
source
used
by
schools

Figure
3:
Main
water
source
used
by
schools.
Values
refer
to
the
number
of
schools
in
each
category.

Data
revealed
that
the
majority
of
schools
are
accessing
water
from
springs
and
wells.
As

demonstrated
in
ﬁgure
3.

5.1.2
Tap
ownership

21
Figure
4:
20
schools
reported
tap
breakdowns,
the
dura*on
of
*me
the
tap
was
broken
for
(B)
is

displayed
here.
Values
show
the
number
of
schools
which
fall
into
each
category.

24
schools
own
taps
on
their
premises,
5
are
without
and
1
school
did
not
answer.
11
schools

owning
a
tap
are
primary
and
13
secondary,
no
differences
were
found
between
government
and

private
schools
in
tap
ownership.

Of
those
that
had
taps
83.33%
of
respondents
reported
tap
breakdowns
or
taps
ceasing
to
work,

figure
4
displays
how
long
taps
were
out
of
ac*on
for.
Respondents
stated
that
it
is
common
for

schools
to
share
taps
with
communi*es
which
can
oben
expose
them
to
a
higher
risk
of
breakdown

or
sabotage.
It
was
found
that
only
16.67%
of
school
taps
were
recorded
as
having
restricted
access

with
a
physical
barrier
in
place,
stopping
students
or
community
members
having
unlimited
access.

5.1.3
Water
collec:on
:me

5.1.3.1
Collec:on
:me
from
primary
source

Respondents
with
taps
were
asked
how
long
water
collec*on
took
on
a
return
journey
(going
to

collect
water
and
back
again).
22
of
24
schools
provided
data.
On
average
water
collec*on
*me
for

a
school
with
a
tap
is
13.5
minutes
(SD
=
20.03)
with
a
range
of
70
minutes.
The
vast
majority
of

schools
collect
water
on
foot,
1
school
has
use
of
a
bicycle
and
2
did
not
answer.

Time
taken
to
collect
water
from
the
source
for
the
5
schools
without
taps
varied.
The
average

collec*on
*me
(going
to
collect
water
and
back
again)
for
a
school
without
a
tap
is
34.79
minutes

(SD
=25.58)
with
a
range
of
56
minutes.
All
5
schools
collected
water
on
foot.

5.1.3.2
Collec:on
:me
for
schools
without
taps

24
schools
use
alternate
water
sources
when
access
to
their
primary
water
source
or
tap
is
unavailable,
of

these
19
schools
provided
data;
16
with
taps
and
3
without
taps.

The
average
collec*on
*me
(going
to
collect
water
and
back
again)
from
an
alterna*ve
source
for
schools

without
taps
is
31.7
minutes
(SD:
24.66)
with
a
range
of
35
minutes.
Indica*ng
here
minimal
change
from

the
primary
source
collec*on
*me.

Schools
with
taps
are
most
affected.
The
average
collec*on
*me
(going
to
collect
water
and
back
again)

from
an
alterna*ve
source,
for
a
school
with
a
tap
is
76.3
minutes
(SD
24.66)
with
a
range
of
35
minutes.

This
shows
a
very
high
increase
in
collec*on
*me
compared
to
when
the
taps
are
accessible.
This
is
further

displayed
in
figure
5
which
shows
only
one
school
with
a
tap
was
not
affected
with
a
*me
increase
when

using
an
alternate
water
source.

Figure
5:
Data
recorded
from
16
schools,
shows
the
minutes
(m)
added
in
collec*on
*me
for
schools
with

taps
when
collec*ng
water
from
an
alterna*ve
water
source.
Values
show
the
number
of
schools
which
fall

into
each
category.

22

5.1.4
Water
Usage

Ques*onnaire
respondents
were
asked
to
es*mate
their
school’s
daily
water
usage.
Less
than
1
in
5
schools

use
an
adequate
amount
of
water
according
to
government
water
usage
targets
of
5
litres
per
pupil
per
day

in
non-‐boarding
schools
and
25
litres
per
pupil
per
day
in
boarding
schools.
This
figure
reflects
every
form
of

water
use
from
consump*on
and
cooking
to
cleaning
and
personal
hygiene.
Water
usage
data
for
7
of
our

30
case
sample
is
unknown.
Results
also
show
that
the
average
amount
of
water
used
per
student
per
day

across
all
schools
is
just
2.98
(SD
=
3.76)
litres,
well
below
the
na*onal
targets
for
both
day
and
boarding

schools.

Secondary
schools
tend
to
fare
be_er
than
primary
schools
in
providing
adequate
water
as
3
of
the
10
for

which
we
have
data
meet
the
government
minimum
water
usage
threshold.
On
the
other
hand,
only
1

primary
school
of
the
13
for
which
we
have
data
is
mee*ng
the
target.
Secondary
schools
also
use
well
over

double
the
amount
of
water
per
student
per
day
than
primary
schools
do.
Secondary
schools
were
found
to

use
4.67
litres
on
average
whilst
primary
schools
use
only
1.67
litres.

5.1.5
Percep:ons
on
water
availability
and
usage

Each
respondent
was
asked
whether
or
not
they
felt
the
school
had
enough
water
in
which
63.33%
of
all

schools
responded
‘No’.
The
most
common
reasons
for
this
were
overconsump*on
of
water
from
others

using
the
same
source,
the
effects
of
dry
season
on
supply
and
demand
and
mechanical
breakdowns
of

taps.

In
addi*on
respondents
were
asked
to
rate
the
impact
of
dry
season
on
their
water
supply
according
to
the

following
scale:

1.
Very
severely

2.
Severely

3.
Moderately

4.
Not
very
much

5.
Not
at
all

All
schools
answered,
one
third
of
schools
repor*ng
a
moderate
effect,
27%
of
schools
repor*ng
not
very

much
or
none
at
all
and
the
remaining
37%
a
severe
or
very
severe
effect.

5.1.6
Access
to
treated
drinking
water
for
students

Only
2
thirds
of
schools
provide
treated
drinking
water
for
students,
despite
all
schools
providing
treated

drinking
water
for
staff.
Secondary
schools
perform
marginally
be_er
than
primary
schools
here,
with

73.33%
of
secondary
schools
providing
treated
drinking
water
for
students
and
only
60.00%
of
primary.

Results
also
showed
that
75.00%
of
private
schools
were
providing
treated
drinking
water
for
students

compared
to
just
50%
of
government
schools.

5
schools
could
not
provide
data
on
how
much
treated
water
was
made
available
to
students
for
drinking

on
an
average
day.
For
the
remaining
15
schools
a
child
would
receive
307ml
of
drinking
water
on
average

per
day
at
school
(SD:
171.24)
with
a
range
of
603ml.

Only
11
schools
are
able
to
provide
the
equivalent
of

a
200ml
glass
of
water
or
more,
one
of
these
schools
is
a
government
school.
A
full
breakdown
of
this
can

be
seen
in
table
2.

23

5.2
Adequate
Water
Quality

This
sec*on
will
analyse
data
collected
in
rela*on
to
the
quality
of
water
within
each
school
from
collec*on

at
the
source
through
to
*me
of
consump*on.
This
process
will
be
carried
out
by
analysing
data
points
in

rela*on
to;
accessibility
of
water
from
a
protected
site,
risks
of
further
contamina*on
through
passage
of

collec*on,
transport
and
storage,
provision
of
safe
drinking
water,
absence
due
to
water
related
disease
and

results
from
coliform
bacteria
tes*ng.

5.2.1.1
Propor:on
of
schools
with
protected
primary
source

Respondents
were
asked
to
state
which
type
of
water
source
they
normally
use
to
draw
water
from
(see

ﬁgure
3).
The
vast
majority
of
schools
are
obtaining
water
from
either
ground
or
surface
sites,
however
only

a
limited
number
of
these
are
protected.
Of
schools
accessing
water
from
a
spring
or
well
57.14%
of
those

sites
were
reported
as
protected
and
9.52%
were
not
known
to
be
protected
or
not.
Of
the
12
schools

accessing
water
from
a
protected
site
7
were
primary
(2
government
and
5
private)
and
were
5
secondary

(all
private).

4
schools
answered
rain
as
their
main
source
of
water
and
all
responded
‘Yes’
when
asked
if
their
water

source
was
protected,
one
respondent
also
claimed
to
have
a
protected
bore
hole.
This
suggests
there
may

be
some
inaccuracy
in
the
understanding
of
respondents
to
the
criteria
of
a
protected
water
site
or
a
lack
of

knowledge
regarding
their
water
source.

5.2.1.2
Propor:on
of
schools
with
protected
alterna:ve
source

Many
of
the
schools
in
the
study
stated
that
they
use
more
than
one
site
to
source
water.
Focusing
on
the

popula*on
that
use
a
protected
well
or
spring
as
their
main
water
source,
5
of
the
12
schools
use
alternate

sources
such
as
rivers
and
rainfall
which
are
non-‐protected
sites.
Therefore
sugges*ng
that
only
7
of
the
12

schools
(23.33%
of
all
schools)
are
accessing
water
solely
from
a
protected
site.

5.2.2
Risk
of
further
contamina:on

5.2.2.1
Transport

The
use
of
an
uncapped
container
in
transpor*ng
water
further
increases
the
risk
of
contamina*on
as
it

oﬀers
an
open
passage
for
bacteria
to
enter,
whilst
a
capped
container
or
commonly
used
‘jerry
can’
can

reduce
this
risk.
In
transpor*ng
water
from
the
water
source
to
the
school
83.33%
of
schools
are
using
jerry

cans.
The
remaining
16.67%
are
using
a
mix
of
jerry
cans,
bo_les
and
uncapped
containers.

When
asked
if
these
par*cular
containers
used
for
collec*ng
water
are
used
for
any
other
purposes
3

schools
answered
‘Yes’
and
1
school
did
not
know.
Despite
these
4
schools
using
jerry
cans
they
are

increasing
the
risk
of
contamina*ng
the
water
by
using
the
containers
for
alternate
purposes
as
the
water
is

exposed
to
cross
contamina*on.
All
schools
that
answered
yes
to
this
ques*on
were
government
schools.

24

5.2.2.2
Storage

The
number
of
schools
using
shop
bought
or
capped
storage
containers
to
store
water
used
for

consump*on
in
the
school
stands
at
43.33%.
Schools
using
either
uncapped
containers
or
a
mix
of
capped

and
uncapped
containers
to
store
their
water
are
at
a
higher
risk
of
contamina*on.

Figure
6:
Type
of
storage
facility
used
for
school
water
supply.
Values
show
the
number
of
schools
that
fall

into
each
category.

Half
of
schools
either
admi_ed
or
did
not
know
if
storage
containers
were
used
for
diﬀerent
purposes
other

than
storing
water.
Three
of
these
schools
were
using
capped
containers
but
increase
their
risk
of
water

contamina*on
when
those
containers
are
used
for
other
purposes,
these
three
schools
are
all
government

schools.

5.2.2.3
Distribu:on

Distribu*ng
water
using
a
dipping
method
can
further
increase
the
risk
of
contamina*on
four
schools
are

using
this
method.
4
schools
are
using
this
method.
This
can
be
seen
in
ﬁgure
7.

Figure
7:
Water
distribu*on
risk.
Data
displays
the
number
of
schools
that
dip
cups
or
vessels
into
the
water

compared
to
pouring
when
distribu*ng
water.
Values
show
the
number
of
schools
that
fall
into
each

category.

25

5.2.3
Safe
drinking
water

5.2.3.1
Provision
of
safe
drinking
water
for
students

Of
the
19
schools
that
provided
treated
drinking
water
for
students
the
majority
of
schools
are
using

firewood
to
boil
water
as
their
treatment
method
and
2
schools
use
water
purifica*on
or
chlorine
tablets.

When
the
school
that
did
not
treat
water
before
consump*on
for
students
was
asked
why
they
responded

“no
facili*es”.

When
respondents
were
asked
whether
or
not
to
their
knowledge
students
are
drinking
untreated
water
an

alarming
83.33%
responded
‘Yes’.
The
most
cited
reason
was
‘insufficient
boiled
water
available
at
school’,

the
second
most
recorded
answer
was
an
‘ignorance
or
lack
of
knowledge’.

5.2.3.2
Provision
of
safe
drinking
water
for
staff

In
contrast
to
students,
100%
of
schools
in
the
survey
provided
drinking
water
for
staff,
29
treated

water
before
consump*on
and
one
did
not.
29
of
the
schools
that
treat
water
for
staff
are
also

using
the
boiling
method
(fuelled
by
firewood)
and
one
school
use
chlorine
tablets.

When
respondents
were
asked
whether
to
their
knowledge
staff
ever
drink
untreated
water
only

one
school
responded
‘Yes’
and
three
schools
could
not
answer
or
did
not
know
the
answer.

5.2.4.
Coliform
bacteria
tes:ng

5.2.4.1
Sample
test
results

27
schools
provided
a
sample
of
water
used
for
consump*on
for
tes*ng,
all
of
the
samples
received
were

assured
to
be
treated
water
samples.
All
samples
were
tested
for
coliform
bacteria
using
a
water
safe
colour

indicator
to
test
either
yellow
(posi*ve)
or
purple
(nega*ve)
for
the
presence
of
the
pathogen.
85.18%

turned
yellow
indica*ng
the
presence
of
coliform
bacteria
and
14.82%
showed
a
nega*ve
purple
reading.

Figure
8:
An
example
of
a
posi*ve
(yellow)
on
the
leb
and
nega*ve
(purple)
reading
on
the
right,
indica*ng

the
presence
or
absence
of
coliform
bacteria.

26

Figure
9:
Number
of
schools
indica*ng
a
posi*ve
or
nega*ve
result
for
the
presence
of
coliform
bacteria
in
a

treated
water
sample
collected
on
day
of
data
collec*on.
Values
correspond
to
the
number
of
schools

within
each
category.
5.3
Adequate
Sanita:on

This
sec*on
will
look
at
how
we
can
measure
adequate
sanita*on
facili*es
and
prac*ces
within
schools
by

assessing
access
to
toilets,
hand
washing
facili*es,
good
and
bad
hygiene
and
sanita*on
prac*ces
and

hygiene
educa*on.
Where
appropriate
ﬁndings
will
be
compared
to
na*onal
approved
standards.

5.3.1
Sanita:on
facili:es

5.3.1.1
Student:
stance
ra:o

Interviewees
were
asked
how
many
latrine
stances
(single
cubicles
within
a
latrine
block)
their
school
has

available
for
students
to
use.
Across
our
sample,
26
of
30
schools
are
mee*ng
the
government
target
of
a

student:
stance
ra*o
of
40:1.

The
average
ra*o
across
all
schools
is
in-‐fact
exceeding
these
targets
at
30:1

(rounded
to
the
nearest
measure)
with
a
standard
devia*on
of
16.94
and
a
range
of
76.50.

Figure
10
shows

the
number
of
schools
mee*ng
the
government
targets.

27
Figure
10:
Government
student:
stance
ra*o
is
40:1.
Values
show
the
number
of
schools
within

each
category.


There
is
li_le
to
separate
the
performance
of
primary
and
secondary
schools
here.

13
of
15
primary
schools

are
mee*ng
the
target
of
40:1
whilst
12
of
15
secondary
schools
are.
The
average
student:
stance
ra*o
in

primary
schools
is
28:1
(SD
=
16.94)
with
a
range
of
48.18.

In
secondary
schools
the
figure
is
31:1
(SD
=

19.31)
with
a
range
of
76.50.

5.3.1.2
Hand
washing
facili:es

Respondents
were
asked
what
type
of
hand
washing
facili*es
were
available
for
both
staff
and
students
to

access
throughout
the
school
day.
Only
1
school
did
not
have
any
hand
washing
facili*es,
over
half
of

schools
used
water
in
jerry
cans,
and
small
number
of
schools
had
use
of
sinks
or
taps,
displayed
in
figure
11

below.

13.33%
primary
schools
have
a
tap
or
sink
used
as
a
hand
washing
facility
compared
to
53.33%
of
secondary

schools.
More
government
schools
have
a
sink
or
a
tap
at
40.00%
compared
to
30.00%
of
private
schools.

Figure
11:
Type
of
hand
washing
facili*es
available.
Values
show
the
number
of
schools
within
each

category.

5.3.1.3
Availability
of
soap

Figure
12:
Availability
of
soap
at
hand
washing
facility.
Values
show
the
number
of
schools
within
each

category.

28

VURU Water Paper 2014 (1)

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (13)

Destacado

Destacado (15)

Similar a VURU Water Paper 2014 (1)

Similar a VURU Water Paper 2014 (1) (20)

VURU Water Paper 2014 (1)