Results from the Hygiene Cost Effectiveness study in Burkina Faso

Results from the
Hygiene Cost Effectiveness
study in Burkina Faso
Juste Hermann Nansi
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre

Hygiene cost effectiveness study in Burkina Faso, Juste NANSI

Outline
• Context
• Limitations
• Results
• Next steps

Monitoring Sustainable WASH Service Delivery Symposium


Context of the HCE methodology
application in Burkina Faso



SaniFaso
• Four-year rural household sanitation programme running from
2010-2014
• Application of National H&S strategy toward MDG in 12 districts
• 3 millions Euros budget co-funded by EU
• Aiming to improve H&S for 16 000 households by supporting
services management by local authorities, subsidising
construction of improved latrines and hygiene promotion
(combining CLTS and SARAR/PHAST)
• Implemented in consortium: Eau Vive, GIZ, Helvetas, IRC and
WaterAid.



Hygiene Cost / Effectiveness
evaluation within SaniFaso



HCE within SaniFaso
CLTS
CLTS CLTS
CLTS CLTS
CLTS
workshop inin
workshop workshop 1 1 in
workshop in workshop 2 2 in
workshop in
Ladiana
Ladiana Ouahabou
Ouahabou Ouahabou
Ouahabou

Home visits inin Ladiana and Ouahabou
Home visits Ladiana and Ouahabou Home visits (continuing)
Home visits (continuing)

November 2011 February 2012 May 2012 November 2012

• Household costs • Project costs • Household costs
• Household behavioural data • Household behavioural data



Limitations of the HCE study



About some assumptions

• This study does not capture information about where hand washing
water comes from (supposed to be clean while this is often not the
case).

• Behaviour is dependent on specific equipment e.g. a family latrine is
a necessary condition for hygienic HH sanitation. This approach
rules out other scenarios that could be considered as hygienic
behaviour: for example, burying faeces or using public latrines
which are better than open defecation.



About collected data

• Data on household expenditures are very limited: do not take into
account in kind expenditures or sums spent on accessing water from
an improved source

• Data on external expenditures do not take into account expenditure
for direct support which are very important in hygiene promotion
activities e.g SaniFaso staff costs or support given by public health
authorities that are involved in the promotion of hygienic behaviour



Result of the HCE study



Effectiveness of SaniFaso on faecal
containment and latrine use in Ouahabou

• High effectiveness with 28 HH (from 1 in 2011 to 29 in 2012
owning and using an improved latrine)
• Basic effectiveness with 6 HH (from 0 to 6)
• Limited effectiveness with 11 HH (from 0 to 11)
• Slight but Positive change (822 HH), taking into account that:
– Not all households had already been covered by home visits of
hygiene workers or given opportunity of subsidized latrine
– Most of those able to finance themselves an improved latrine
need more than one year from decision to action.



Effectiveness of SaniFaso on domestic water
management in Ouahabou
• 35 additional HH always use improved water sources and collect
water with appropriate containers (from 446 to 481)

• High effectiveness with 10 HH (from 109 in 2011 to 119 in 2012 with
adequate behavior of domestic water management i.e. previous
criteria + appropriate drawn)

• Little but Positive change (822 HH), taking into account that:
– Not all households have already been covered by home visits of
hygiene workers
– All costs related to this behavior improvement are paid by HH, no
subsidies.


Effectiveness of SaniFaso on hand washing
with soap at critical times in Ladiana

• All the HH already had hand washing facility in 2011, no change in
2012

• From 2% of HH with good behaviors in 2011 to 0% in 2012

• Surprising observations that need to be shared and discussed with
local stakeholders for better understanding and appropriate
adjustments in hygiene promotion activities



Costs of hygiene behaviour changes in Ladiana and
Ouahabou from 2011 to 2012
Ouahabou (822 HH) Ladiana (271 HH)
HH with good
Nov. 2011 Nov. 2012 Nov. 2011 Nov. 2012
behaviour
Faecal containment
1 29 (+3.4%) 0 3 (+1.1%)
and latrine use
Hand washing 26 59 (+4%) 15 5 (-3.7%)
Domestic water
109 119 (+1.2%) 4 8 (+1.5%)
management

SaniFaso hygiene 841 USD 1090 USD
promotion costs 1 USD per HH 4 USD per HH
23 USD / 5.11 USD /
HH latrine CapEx Not available Not available
latrine latrine
0.75 USD / 0.75 USD /
HH latrine OpEx 1 USD/ latrine Not available
latrine latrine
HH hand washing 4.18 USD / 4.5 USD / 3 USD / 2.55 USD /
OpEx month month month month



Some analysis around Costs and Hygiene
behaviour changes
• While the target groups of hygiene promotion activities are HH, the
observed expenditures per village are not proportional to the
number of HH targeted
• But surprisingly comparing Ladiana to Ouahabou, higher external
investment per HH doesn’t induce better effectiveness thus there is
an urgent need to reflect on what happened in Ladiana
• Lack of external investment in water induce very limited
improvement in domestic water management behavior
• Visibly, higher HH investments lead to better effectiveness of
hygiene promotion activities
• Confirm necessity to track costs/effectiveness to improve hygiene
interventions



Next steps…



From project evaluation to service monitoring

• Improving SaniFaso hygiene promotion activities based on the
results of the HCE study

• Improving and adapting HCE methodology for local authority-led
regular hygiene services monitoring to improve decisions/actions

• Enable the embedding of HCE methodology in national hygiene
interventions monitoring framework


Barka!
Juste Hermann NANSI / IRC

Results from the Hygiene Cost Effectiveness study in Burkina Faso

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Results from the Hygiene Cost Effectiveness study in Burkina Faso

Ähnlich wie Results from the Hygiene Cost Effectiveness study in Burkina Faso (20)

Mehr von IRC

Mehr von IRC (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Results from the Hygiene Cost Effectiveness study in Burkina Faso