After the assessment
It is important to keep proper records during the assessment process. Notes of interviews and observations should be made in a notebook and not on scraps of loose paper. These notes should be transcribed onto a computer as soon as possible after taking them. After the assessment work has been completed, the notes and data can be analysed and the results prepared and presented in a report.
Analysing the findings
Using more than one method for the assessment will produce more complete information but it will also generate a lot of data that needs to be summarised. The standard method is to gather the information together and incorporate it into a set of tables. This should be done as soon as possible after the end of the survey. Table 3.3 shows an example of a blank table that would be completed for each kebele in a survey area.
Table 3.3 Kebele data summary sheet.
| Kebele name: | ||
| Number | % | |
| Demographic information | ||
| Total population | ||
| Male population and percentage of total population | ||
| Female population and percentage of total population | ||
| Total number of households | ||
|
Sanitation information Number of households and the percentage of total households: |
||
| that understand the benefits of having a latrine | ||
| that practise open defecation | ||
| with a traditional latrine type | ||
| with an improved latrine type | ||
| with a latrine pit hole cover | ||
| with handwashing facilities | ||
| where residents wash their hands after using the latrine | ||
|
Solid waste information Number of households and the percentage of total households: |
||
| with a covered waste container | ||
| that sort waste at household level (separate organic and inorganic) | ||
| that recycle/reuse waste at household level | ||
| with a waste pit in their yard | ||
| that use a municipal refuse container | ||
| that dispose of waste in open areas | ||
The data can then be analysed and interpreted, and used to make decisions and recommendations for improvement. For example, suppose the analysis of a survey andobservational results in a kebele showed that latrine use is lower than it should be; the questionnaire survey indicated that many of the local people were unaware of the benefits of good sanitation; observations showed that many of the latrines were of poor construction and, after discussions with community leaders, the survey team learned that the Health Extension Worker (HEW) had been away from the kebele for an extended period for training. Table 3.4 shows how the survey team summarised the problem and identified a number of possible solutions.
Table 3.4 Example of problem analysis for a kebele’s low sanitation coverage.
| Main cause | Other causes | Possible solutions |
| Lack of awareness of the benefit of sanitation | History of open defecation |
Produce better information leaflets and posters. Encourage HEWs and select model households to promote latrine use. |
| Low quality of latrine construction (the pit walls often collapse during the rainy season) | Most of the latrines do not have pit linings |
Investigate possible local sources of lining materials. Look at the options for micro-finance systems to allow households to build better latrines. |
| The HEW has been away from the kebele on training | Lack of other staff to cover for the HEW |
Encourage community members to look after some of the HEW’s work during absences. Investigate sources of funding to employ or train more HEWs (longer term). |
Reporting
The findings of the investigation and analysis need to be summarised and incorporated into a report. The report should always refer explicitly to the aims of the assessment that were agreed at the beginning and say how well these have been achieved. Depending on what the aims were, the report may identify the areas where action is necessary and make recommendations for a programme to implement the action plan (like the example shown in Table 3.4). The report will often make suggestions about any additional survey work that may be needed.
It is also useful to produce a brief factsheet that summarises the findings of the survey and to hold a meeting with the kebele administration at the end of the project and share the report’s findings with them.
The report will be distributed to the organisation that commissioned the work. They may ask that the report is also sent to other interested organisations. In any event, the report should only be sent to other organisations with the specific permission of the funding organisation.
Case Study 3.1 describes an assessment that was made of a town in Tigray region as part of a large WASH improvement project. Read the case study and then answer the question that follows.
Case Study 3.1 Baseline survey of Wukro, Tigray.
In 2014, a baseline survey of the town of Wukro and its surrounding villages was undertaken. The assessment was reported in the form of a six-page summary made up of text tables, charts and photographs. Like many good reports, it presented the main findings as a series of bullet points on the first page. These were that:
- coverage of the town water supply system was high – the majority of users accessed the piped system through household connections rather than public standposts
- reliability of water supplies was poor and most town residents used less than 20 litres per person per day
- household coverage with improved sanitation facilities was also reasonably high
- public standposts in the town were under high demand and queues were long, while poor functionality of water points was a concern in the satellite villages
- the majority of public institutions had improved sanitation facilities.
More detail was then presented on the assessment results in the areas of water services, sanitation and hygiene and institutional WASH. For example, the section on sanitation and hygiene included the data shown in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 Household access to sanitation.
| Improved sanitation |
Flush toilet to piped sewer system Ventilated improved pit latrine Pit latrine with slab Composting toilet |
1% 4% 45% 4% |
0% 0% 12% 7% |
1% 6% 60% 3% |
| Unimproved sanitation |
Public latrine Other unimproved sanitation facility Pit latrine without slab Bush/open defecation |
1% 1% 25% 15% |
0% 2% 29% 50% |
1% 0% 24% 4% |
The report ended with a plan for recommended WASH interventions in the area.
(UNICEF, 2014)
Based on the findings in Table 3.5, compare (a) the use of improved sanitation facilities and (b) open defecation in urban and rural parts of the Wukro study area.
The answers are as follows:
- In urban parts of the study area, the majority of households (70%) make use of improved sanitation but in rural areas only 19% have improved facilities.
- The proportion of households practising open defecation is much higher in rural areas (50%) than urban areas (4%).