This presentation deals with issues around WASH in Schools in India as experienced by UNICEF India. The presentation was given during the SWASH+ webinar in December 2012.

1. Addressing key bottlenecks in WASH in Schools:
UNICEF’s experience in India
IRC Webinar: WASH in Schools
Mamita Bora Thakkar
WASH Specialist
UNICEF India
December 13, 2012

2. Jammu & Kashmir
Himachal Pradesh
Punjab
Uttarakhand
Uttar Pradesh
Bihar
Jharkhand
West Bengal
Orissa
Chhattisgarh
Madhya PradeshGujarat
Rajasthan
Maharashtra
Goa
Karnataka
Andhra Pradesh
Tamil
NaduKerala
Assam
Sikkim
Arunachal Pradesh
Tripura
Meghalaya
Mizoram
Manipur
Nagaland
Lakshadweep
Andamand &
Nicobar
Islands
Haryana
< 25%
25 - 50%
50 - 75%
> 75%
National average
78%
2001
The sanitation status in India
Source-
WASH: UNICEF-WHO JMP 2010 update, Census 2011
School WASH: District Information System for Education (DISE) 2010
1.7 million (22% of world total) Under-5
children died in 2010 were born in India
Population
(millions)227 367 646 857 874 1225
655
626
MDG target (59%)
Will not be reached!
Rural India

3. Key government commitments
• Right to Education: guarantees separate toilets for girls and boys and safe
and adequate drinking water in schools. Sets a deadline of 3 years (2013)
to states, for compliance of RTE guidelines.
• Supreme Court Order (2012) “It is imperative that all schools must
provide toilet facilities; empirical researches have indicated that wherever
toilet facilities are not provided in the schools, parents do not send their
children (particularly girls) to schools’’.
• The Approach Paper for the 13th Five Year Plan (2007-2012) commits full
coverage of schools with drinking water and sanitation facilities by the end
of 2012, and coverage of 133,114 Anganwadi Centers with sanitation
facilities in the same period.
• Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (National Sanitation Campaign) sets deadline of
2013 for completion of WASH in Schools infratsructure targets.
There is a favorable administrative space in India

4. Ministry of Drinking
Water and Sanitation
- Funds for WASH
infrastructure
- Monitoring
- Budgets for
IEC, hygiene promotion
Ministry of Human
Resource Development
- Implements RTE –
provides for teacher-
education
systems, training and
capacity blg.
- EMIS
Ministry of Health
Ministry of Health
Implements the
School Health
Programme
The ministries involved

5. Key challenges- disparities in coverage
7 states (Orissa, Meghalaya, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Assam and Bihar) account for almost
50% (13.8 million) children without access to toilet facilities in schools.

6. Key challenges: Toilet vs pupil ratio
In states like Bihar, West Bengal, Maharashtra, one toilet is
used by more than 100 students.
NGP Study, CMS, 2010
41.0
57.5
65.9 68.0
85.6 88.6
103.6
113.6
126.8
145.3 149.3
242.5
89.5
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
220.0
240.0
260.0
Kerala
HimachalPradesh
AndhraPradesh
Haryana
Rajasthan
UttarPradesh
Maharashtra
Karnataka
Chhattisgarh
WestBengal
Tripura
Bihar
Total

7. Categories Determinants
Enabling
Environment
Social Norms
Legislation/Policy
Budget/expenditure
Governance/Partnerships
Supply
Availability of essential commodities/inputs
Access to adequately staffed services and
information
Demand
Financial access
Social cultural acceptability
Continuity of use
Quality
Quality
Expanded Tanahashi model - Determinants

8. 8
No Expanded Tanahashi model_WASH in Schools Bottle Neck Analysis
1 Enabling Environment (Generic) INDICATORS
1.1 •Social Norms
All children are expected to practice hand washing with soap at critical times and use safe
drinking water (PoU) by the head teacher and the community, and the community and head
teacher provide an enabling environment for children to practice the above
1.2 •Legal Framework
National legislation on WASH in Schools standards (including regional targets, gradual
improvements, inclusiveness, privacy and dignity for children) and monitoring systems are in
place
1.3
•Policy framework (existence/application of
policies which are critical for OT)
Government/Education sector policy reflects WASH in Schools, allocation of budget for
increasing access, operation and maintenance of facilities and hygiene education.
1.4
•Budget/expenditure – at national or sub-
national level?)
Availability of a multisectoral budget for WASH in Schools (capital and recurrent costs) at the
district level as a percentage of the national allocation made for the district.
2 Supply (Generic)
2.1 •Availability of essential commodities/inputs
% of schools having access to functional WASH facilities i.e. hand washing stands, toilets and
drinking water (PoU - point of use water treatment) as per national standards.
2.2 •Availability of human resources
% of schools with trained teachers on hygiene promotion in schools and dedicated staff for
operation and maintenance of WASH facilities
2.3 •Access to services
% of schools in communities where hygiene education is taking place on a daily basis (i.e. daily
hand washing with soap or ash, operation and maintenance of facilities)
3 Demand (Generic)
3.1 •Financial barriers
% of schools that can keep WASH facilities operational (including making soap available at
hand washing stands and PoU water treatment systems operational) as per national standards
3.2 •Social cultural barriers
% of school children in schools where WASH facilities are operational practicing hand washing
with soap after use of toilet and before eating food
4 Quality (Generic)
4.1 Quality Indicator 1
% of schools carrying out gradual improvements to their WASH facilities and keeping them
operational as per national standards (clean, hygienic, soap and drinking water available)

9. Enabling
environment
1: Adequate
policies and
legislation
Enabling
environment
2: Avialbility
of budgets vs.
budgets
required
Enabling
environemen
t 3: Data
availability
across major
Wins data
sources and
it's use for
advocacy
Supply 1:
Access to
facilities- %
age of
schools with
access to
toilet and
drinking
water
facilities
Supply 2:
Adequate
facilities -
%age of
schools with
adequate
sanitation
facilities, incl
uding
handwashing
facilities
Supply 3:
Adequate
facilities -
%age of
schools with
sustained
supply of
soaps
Demand 1:
Functionality
- %age of
schools with
functional, w
ell
maintained
WASH
facilities
Demand
2:O&M
budget-
%age of
schools with
dedicated
funds for
O&M of
WASH
facilities
Quality-
behaviour -
%age of
children
washing
hands before
eating food
and after
defecation
Series1 80% 50% 30% 84% 50% 12% 37% 20% 10%
80%
50%
30%
84%
50%
12%
37%
20%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Coverage
Bottleneck Analysis for WinS programming: Critical to take right
action at scale

10. Enabling
environment
1: Adequate
policies and
legislation
Enabling
environment
2: Avialbility
of budgets
vs. budgets
required
Enabling
environemen
t 3: Data
availability
across major
Wins data
sources and
it's use for
advocacy
Supply 1:
Access to
facilities- %
age of
schools with
access to
toilet and
drinking
water
facilities
Supply 2:
Adequate
facilities -
%age of
schools with
adequate
sanitation
facilities, incl
uding
handwashing
facilities
Supply 3:
Adequate
facilities -
%age of
schools with
sustained
supply of
soaps
Demand 1:
Functionality
- %age of
schools with
functional, w
ell
maintained
WASH
facilities
Demand
2:O&M
budget-
%age of
schools with
dedicated
funds for
O&M of
WASH
facilities
Quality-
behaviour -
%age of
children
washing
hands before
eating food
and after
defecation
Series1 80% 50% 30% 84% 50% 12% 37% 20% 10%
80%
50%
30%
84%
50%
12%
37%
20%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Coverage
Series1
Desired system efficiency in the short run
System efficiency
Bottleneck analysis for WinS programming: Critical to take right action at
scale

11. Enabling
environment
1: Adequate
policies and
legislation
Enabling
environment
2: Avialbility
of budgets
vs. budgets
required
Enabling
environemen
t 3: Data
availability
across major
Wins data
sources and
it's use for
advocacy
Supply 1:
Access to
facilities- %
age of
schools with
access to
toilet and
drinking
water
facilities
Supply 2:
Adequate
facilities -
%age of
schools with
adequate
sanitation
facilities, incl
uding
handwashing
facilities
Supply 3:
Adequate
facilities -
%age of
schools with
sustained
supply of
soaps
Demand 1:
Functionality
- %age of
schools with
functional, w
ell
maintained
WASH
facilities
Demand
2:O&M
budget-
%age of
schools with
dedicated
funds for
O&M of
WASH
facilities
Quality-
behaviour -
%age of
children
washing
hands before
eating food
and after
defecation
Series1 80% 50% 30% 84% 50% 12% 37% 20% 10%
80%
50%
30%
84%
50%
12%
37%
20%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Coverage
Desired system efficiency in the short run
System efficiency
Prioritizing time and energy

12. Advocacy tools
Consultations and
regular meetings
Data
analysis/Evidence/
snapshots
Policy briefs
Engagement with
elected
representatives
Advocacy tool
kits

13. Key results in policies and practice
• Standardized designs and
manuals mainstreamed in
states
• WASH norms now
included in CFS
framework under RTE at
the national level
• Identification of key issues
in monitoring.
• Acceptance of data gaps by
GOI- willingness to relook
at definitions etc.
• Functionality, HW
facilities, gender
disaggregated toilets
included.
• School Health Programme –
now includes
handwashing, hygiene
education and use of toilets in
schools
• Government circulars
institutionalizing HW in all
schools
• Subsequent state follow up
circulars
• Inter-ministerial
dialogue started for
dedicated allocation for
O&M
• Some states have
secured separate funds
from Education under
School Maintenance
grants O&M
Hygiene
and
handwashi
ng
WASH
standard
s
M&E

14. What next…???
• Innovation – leading to
standardization of approaches and
scaling up of handwashing with soap
in all schools.
• Shift towards Education – to take
more responsibility for WinS.
• Set higher standards for WinS in the
country- support scaling up of quality
services - benchmarking of schools.
• Institutional strengthening to
undertake all of the above.