Dadaab WASH Emergency Response

World Vision Kenya

Dadaab WASH emergency Response-

End term evaluation report FY 2011-12

Project Number: 196537

January 2013

Report Prepared By:

AFULLO AUGUSTINE (PhD) -Lead consultant

BENJAMIN DANGA (PhD) - Consultant

Sustainable futures, Nairobi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

AFFIRMATION:

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SECTION 1: EVALUATION Background

1.1DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

1.2EVALUATION TYPE, PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

1.2.1The Type of Evaluation

1.3 EVALUATION PARTNERS/TARGET AUDIENCE

1.4 AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY

1.5 TEAM ADVISORS

1.6 EVALUATION SUMMARY

1.7 LOGISTICS

1.8. PRODUCTS

1.9 LESSONS LEARNT

SECTION TWO: PROJECT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

2.1INTRODUCTION

2.2: THE METHODS

2.2.4.1Sampling Plan - Cluster Selection and Sample Size

2.242. Household Questionnaire Administration

2.3Data analysis and presentation

2.31 DATA QUALITY

2.32ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

2.33 LIMITATIONS

SECTION 3: FINDINGS

3.1 THE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE SURVEY

3.2 Respondents

3.3 THE HOUSEHOLDS

3.4 HH INCOME AND LIVELIHOODS

3.5 WATER SUPPLY

3.6 SANITATION

3.7 HYGIENE:

3.8 CHILD PROTECTION

3.9 DISASTER:

3.10 THE WV PROJECTS AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY

SECTION 4: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 CONCLUSIONS

4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

SECTION 5LESSSONS LEARNT

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Special gratitude’s goes to the National DM&E Coordinator, Lucy Mutheu, Branch II PEC, Ronald Ng’etich and Pamela Wamalwa, DME WASH for the support they provided during the evaluation tools and report review process

We highly appreciate the support accorded to our team by the M & E officer, Ernest Sigar.

Heartfelt gratitude goes to all staff for making a lot of efforts in ensuring that accurate information was obtained to do the field work and prepare this report.We thank the project manager Mr. Silphano and his deputy Maalim Aden and the water engineer, Mr Kiruaye for their support.

We sincerely thank the project liason officers, Zachary Mwadime, and Abdullahi for ensuring timely movements for our team. We are grateful to the host community and the refugees whose households we visited and for allowing our team to conduct the survey.

AFFIRMATION:

Except as acknowledged by the references in this document to other authors and publications, this ToR consists of our own work. This is part of the requirements of World Vision in line with Learning through Evaluation with Accountability and Planning (LEAP) framework, to fulfil the requirements of World Vision’s design, monitoring and evaluation learning system.

Primary quantitative and qualitative data collected throughout the evaluation process remains the property of the communities and families described in this document. Information and data must be used only with their consent.

CONSULTANT:

NAME: AFULLO AUGUSTINE, ()

SUSTAINABLE FUTURES.

POSITION: LEAD CONSULTANT

SIGN:...... DATE:......

CLIENT: WORLD VISION-Dadaab WASH project:

TITLE OF REPRESENTATIVE:......

NAME:......

SIGN:...... DATE......

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS

CWBT / Child Well Being Targets
DM&E / Design Monitoring and Evaluation
FGD / Focus Group Discussions
GOK / Government of Kenya
HH / House Hold
KII / Key Informants Interviews
LEAP / Learning through Evaluation with Accountability and Planning
L&R / Livelihood and Resilience
LWF / Lutheran World Federation
NFI / Non Food Item
NGO / Non Governmental Organization
NO / National Office (i.e. World Vision Kenya)
NRC / Norwegian Refugee Council
PEC / Program Enhancement Coordiantor
PEO / Programme Enhancement Officer
SPSS / Statistical Package for Social Scientists
TOR / Terms of Reference
UN / United Nations
UNHCR / United Nation High Commission for Refugees
WASH / Water Sanitation and Hygiene
WVK / World Vision Kenya

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) survey took place in Dadaab refugee camp, Northern Kenya. It covered 428 households from six geographical locations Welmerer (28.8%), Galmagala (12.3%), Nanighi – Guyo (6.9%), Alikune (14.4%), Gurufa (9.2%) and Dagahaley (28.4%). The respondents were sampled from three Geo-political regions of Dadaab refugee camp (18%), Fafi district (50%) and Lagdera district (32.5%) in North Eastern Kenya. However, at the end of the process, the survey covered 23% refugee HHs and 77% non- refugee (Host) HHs residing in Lagdera and Fafi districts.

Of the survey respondents, 138 (32.4%) were males while the rest (288 or 67.6%) were females. Of the 424 respondents, the mean age was 37.89 +0.55 years. The 428 households surveyed had a total of 2583 people of whom 1294 (50.1%) were males and 1289 (49.9%) were females. There are 1294 males and 1289 females in 425 HHs, giving a mean HH size of 6.08. Of these, a HH had a mean of 3.04+0.08 males and 3.03+0.09 females. Of the households, (300) 70.6% were male headed while (125) 29.4% were female headed. About 2% of the HHs had no males at all, while 1.4% had no females at all.

Among those not in school, the reasons cited are: too young (22%); parent can’t afford fee (15%); work for food / money – i.e. child labour (13%); no teachers (7%); child refused (5%); failed exams (3%).

The survey covered 23% refugee HHs and 77% non- refugee (Host) HHs residing in lagdera and Fafi districts. Under 5% of the refuges had been in camp for less than 1 year as follows: less than 1 month (1%); 1-6 months (1%); 7-12 months (2.2%). Over 95% had stayed for more than 1 year. The HH heads were largely pastoralists (32%), or housewives (16%). Some 10% were unemployed, 10% engaged in casual work; 7.5% were engaged in business.

The HHs earn a monthly income of between Kshs 0 and 30,000, with a mean of Kshs 7188+442.07. The mean daily per capita income is Kshs 39.42+2.42 (US$ 0.47). The threshold monthly income for living at poverty line is Kshs 15,296. This would mean that 398 HHs, or 93.4% live below poverty line. For refugees, their main source of income is casual labor (37%), and 32% do shop keeping. The meals taken by HHs are as follows: children take 2.39+.08 (i.e. 2.31-2.47 meals per day) while adults take 2.45+.03(i.e. 2.42 – 2.48 meals per day).

The water sources are as follows: borehole (61.4%); public tap / water kiosk (20.6%); and unprotected surface water (6.1%) being the top three, and constitute over 88% of all sources. About 87% of the sources are potable / improved. About 12% of all water sources were constructed in 2012, indicating that 88% existed before the WASH emergency project began. The water sources were largely constructed by government (63.7%), other NGOs (19%), World Vision (4.4%). About 78% of these have year round water supply, with 8.7% usable for less than 6 months in a year. The water sources are largely committee managed (78%). At least 83% HHs were accessing water within 1 hour of round trip, with 46.2% accessing it within 30 minutes. The water sources were therefore relatively close to HHs, enabling them to have a mean water use of 30.94 litres per capita per day (lcd). The % queuing for water reduced from 42% to 35% within the implementation period, meaning there has been an overall change in those queuing by 7% of the HHs. Among those queuing, they took 13.7 minutes in the past, compared with 14.3 minutes now, indicating they take an extra 0.6 minutes (i.e. 36 seconds more on the queue).

Currently, only 26.9% never queue at all to get water (from 14.9% before 2012), while 40.3% always queue (up from 27.3% before 2012). Another 18.6% sometimes queue. About 26.5% are comfortable with the time currently spent fetching water. At least 22% of HHs has saved some time as a result of improved access to water. The time saved has been used to: take care of children (48%); taking care of farm (19.5%); business (11.8%); attend group meetings (3.2%) and clean the house (3.2%).

For 37.3% HHs, livestock water source is different from HH source. The livestock water source was constructed by: Government (37.6%), World Vision (13.6%); other NGOs (15.2%), and other unknown (36.4%). About 65.5% HHs pay to access water. Amount paid for 20-litre water for HH use is Kshs 3.73, or Kshs 5.78 per person per day. This represents a ridiculous 14.7% of the daily per capita income, which renders the residents to be spending too much on water for HH use. Ideally, the maximum they should be spending is only 1-2% of their daily income on water- i.e. Kshs 0.3942-0.7884 (or 40-80 cents per parson per day, equivalent to Kshs 2.40 – 4.80 per household per day). About 65% of all HHs surveyed (largely non-refugees) pay for water for livestock, spending a mean of Kshs12.97. Of this, the payment is per livestock as follows: donkeys (Kshs 7.04); camels (Kshs 7.69); goats (Kshs 3.04); sheep (Kshs 2.68); cattle (3.69). Only 12.2% consider the price of watering livestock affordable. Whereas over 77% walk a return trip not exceeding 1km to access water, about one in three access water within 500m. This looks reasonable, indicating there is good progress towards meeting the MDG goal on access to potable water. For 10% of HHs, distance to livestock water source has been reduced. They attribute this to the following: Government (11.8% of whole population, or 42.1% who benefited); World Vision (6.8% of whole population, or 24.3% of those who benefited). Currently, there are 32.5% quarrels (down from 38.5% before 2012), 47.8% no quarrels (from 56.8% before 2012) and 19.5% currently don’t know about any quarrels over water sources (up from 4.7% before 2012). This would imply about 66% no quarrels from 61.5% before 2012. It has improved albeit marginally- by about 5%.

Only 52.5% surveyed HHs own latrines (70% of non-refugees). Of the host community with latrines, majority (51%) were constructed after 2011- within the project period. The latrines were largely built by WV (40.3%), or HHs supported by WV (12.6%). Overall, WV directly or indirectly helped construct about 50% of all latrines constructed within the period. The majority (74%) of the latrines were constructed safely away from water sources, thereby posing no sanitary risk. However, 26% are at a distance less than 10 from a water source, rendering them as sources of sanitary risk to water users. The maintenance of the latrines is at 47.5%. On the average, 89.9% of HHs always wash hands at critical times (up from 86.3%); 7.2% don’t wash at all (down from 9.4%), while those who only wash occasionally reduced from 4.4% to 3.8%. With only 70.1% HHs currently washing hands appropriately with water and soap up from 58.6% in 2011, it implies only 63% practice good hand-washing practice up from 50.5% in 2011. Currently, 82.8% consider the water they have a potable, up from 75.9% one year ago. However 40.4% treat drinking water, up from 33% one year ago. Those who never treat water have reduced from 60.8% to 55.9% currently. Those who treat water do so by boiling (13%); using chlorine-based disinfectants (26.8%), while 57% think their water is potable and requires no treatment. Prevalence of under five diarrhea decreased to 9.3% in 2011 to 7.2% in 2012. They attribute the decrease to safe water and exclusive breastfeeding.

Some 77.3% are aware of what child abuse means. All these abuses exist in the community as follows: denied basic rights (29.3%); exposure to harmful practices (20.7%); physical abuse (16.8%); emotional abuse (8.2%); exploitative work (5.8%); sexual abuse (6.7%); neglect (3.2%); fetch water at school time (9.1%). Child abuse in the community is rated as common (10%, down from 12.9% in 2011); rare (12.7% up from 7.8% in 2011); none (3.8%, unchanged over the period). Of the respondents, 29.9% are aware of what child protection means. In 2012, child protection is practices by 23.8% (up from 5.7%) in 2011, while the rest don’t. Whereas 8.9% HHs have benefited from child protection services, only 1.7%HHs respondent HHs have had their children benefiting as follows: 1.4% boys and 0.3% girls.

Households know what disaster means. Various disaster had been experienced in the past by a little over 80% HHs as follows: 18.7% rainfall extremes; 19.2% human diseases; 20.3% extreme temperature; 29% livestock disease. However, in the last 1 year, the HHs were largely affected as follows: rainfall (10.3%); crop failure (6.1%); drought (63.3%). Of the disaster affected HHs, 53.5% got support, largely from Red cross (40%); WFP (18%); Government (14%); UNHCR (7.3%), among others. Here WV contributed was cited to have contributed less than 1% of the support, even though all other systems which support disaster preparedness such as water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) were largely its own initiative, contributing 52-56% in each component of WASH, as has been mentioned earlier in the report.

Of the 60% HHs with under-fives, 9.1% had diarrhea. Of the children under 5 who 2.1% had blood diarrhea. The diarrhea was treated in 4.4% of all HHs (67% of all HHs with diarrhea) using the following methods: ORS (61%); no treatment (19%); and sugar-salt solution (8%). When sick, 62% more water. Only 4.7% were attended to by trained health provider; 7.7% were exclusively breastfed; 6.8% were dewormed in the last 6 months while 33.8% sleep under ITN.

Capacity building was one of the components of the WASH emergency project. Overall, 60.3% were not aware if training helped them improve in any way, with 40% indicating the training impacted them. However, of those trained, 40% were applying the knowledge with confidence. Results indicate that 4.7%, 10% and 4.7% had a dish rack, garbage dumping pit and a leaky tin respectively. New projects had been initiated in the survey area in the last 1 year, and 56 of the respondents were aware of at least a new project. These projects were in water (41%); sanitation (33%); education (12%), health (8%) and nutrition (5%). These projects were sponsored by: water (52% world Vision); sanitation (56% WV). Some 9.9% of the respondents (or 26% of those who were aware of new projects) participated in WV projects, with most gender participating as follows: men (40%); women 32%; girls (2.2%); boys (2.2%) and all 23%. It has improved lives of 13-15% of the HHs (or 77% of those who have participated in them). The benefits from these projects included: improved access to latrines, availability of latrines, improved access to water, better quality water, fewer water related diseases, improved hygiene, and improved livelihoods.

SECTION 1: EVALUATION Background

1.1DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

Dadaab is situated in North Eastern part of Kenya, and have been hosting refugees for over 20 years. Following the drought in the horn of Africa which is exacerbated by continuous conflict in Somalia, over 1,000 new refugees are arriving daily from Somalia to escape the Catastrophe. As of 15 September 2011, 437,797 refugees were registered in Dadaab refugee camp of whom 130,289 arrived in 2011[1].

The area within the three Districts (Fafi, Lagdera and Dadaab) around the refugee camps has been affected by the just ended drought. The situations have been recurring with almost definite pattern claiming lives of livestock leaving the people who are predominantly pastoralist vulnerable.

The area has also bared the pressure from presence of the refugees from Somalia for the last 20 years. Lately this has caused conflicts due to competition for dwindling natural resources. Environmental degradation has spread rapidly especially depletion of vegetation either by animals overgrazing or by use of biomass within the refugee camps. The ground water levels have also dropped due to high abstraction rates against low recharge. The current average borehole depth is approximately 200M.

There has been deliberated tendency of the agencies operating within this area to focus most of their attention within refugee camps and limiting their operation in the host community yet they are equally affected. These situations have caused a feeling of isolation in the host community and have strained the relationship of these agencies and the host community.

WVK implemented WASH activities with the aim that effective implementation of this project will help increase access to adequate safe water and sanitation for the both the host community and the refugees, thus reducing incidences of water borne diseases, improved health and enhanced resilience of the community from weather variables. In order to save lives and alleviate suffering for the new arrivals, WV responded to the Humanitarian crisis by intervening in the WASH sector and supporting households with non-food items to improve their quality of life.

Dadaab WASH Emergency Response has been implementing NFI provision, water and sanitation and hygiene activities since August 2011 to October 2012 within refugee camps and host community in Fafi and Lagdera districts. This has been done through drilling and equipping of six boreholes in Fafi and Lagdera districts, construction of 670 latrines for both refugees and members of the host community and awareness creation on sanitation and hygiene practices through community meetings and fora.

The proposed project was intended to directly contribute to the WVK National Office Strategy objective 1 which addresses “Improved Household Livelihood and Resilience” and sub objective 1:1 which focuses on “ Increased Access to safe water, Hygienic practices and sanitation in schools and health Centres” for the wellbeing of children and their families.

1.2EVALUATION TYPE, PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

1.2.1The Type of Evaluation

This is an end of project evaluation aimed at finding out what has been achieved over the 15 months (August 2011 to October 2012) the project has been in existence and to come up with suggestions on how design and implementation of future projects can be improved. Additionally, the exercise is intended to identify challenges and constrains that was faced during implementation for learning and improvement. The evaluation objectives will include but will not be limited to finding out the following aspects;

Specific Objectives

i)Access to potable Water

Determine the proportion (in %) of targeted members of the host communities that have access to clean potable water
Assess the proportion (%) of targeted population who walk for at most 500 meters from their household to the nearest water point
Determine the proportion of community members sensitized on discriminatory practices and on importance of women participation
Establish the average number of liters of water accessible to a person per day for drinking and domestic use
Establish the number of cattle troughs available within the community.
Establish the number of schools with roof water harvesting facilities, their numbers and adequacy
Determine the number of schools and clinics with year round access to improved drinking water source
Determine the proportion of households practicing recommended household water treatment

ii)Increased access to improved Sanitation facilities

Determine the proportion (%) of the communal latrines that are cleaned and maintained in such a way that they are used by all intended users
Assess the proportion (%) of latrines which are being used in a hygienic way
Determine the proportion (%) of targeted households that are disposing of children fecal matter immediately and hygienically.
Determine the level of community awareness of on sanitation practices.
Assess the % of households able to describe faecal oral disease transmission routes

Ways of transmission
Control/prevention practices

Establish Mosquito breeding grounds and management of waste water.
Establish the latrine : pupil ratio in schools (disaggregated by gender and by pre-primary and primary levels of education)

iii)Improved hygiene practices