WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE IN LEARNING CENTERS
Transcript of WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE IN LEARNING CENTERS
WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE IN LEARNING CENTERS
Towards achieving positive education and nutrition impacts
Indicator National Region 8
2012 2014 2014
Drop-out rate (Grade 1) 16% 7% 6.38%
Percent of grade 1 with ECD experience 67% 82% 87%
National Achievement Rate (Grade 6) 67% 70% 79%
Many Filipino children are not school ready and are performing poorly.
• Drop-out rate is highest in Grade 1 ; higher among males.
• ECD experience lower among males.
• Kindergarten Education Act of 2012 (RA 10157) - Compulsory kindergarten
• Early Years Act (EYA) of 2013 (RA 10410) • 0-8 years old – first crucial stage of education development;
• 3-5 years old – early learning stage: day care and kindergarten
Many Filipino children will not reach their full potential.
• Stunting - lack of height for age; indicator of physical and mental development • 30.3 percent of 0-5 years old (FNRI, 2013)
• 29.1 percent of 5-10 years old (FNRI, 2013)
• Stunting is more prevalent among males than females.
Impacts of stunting • Best measure of malnutrition: indicator for school completion
and performance
• 7-month delay in starting school
• 0.7 grades loss of schooling
• Local study: high-performing were much less likely to have been stunted (10-20% stunted) than poor-performing school children (40-50% stunted) (Belezario et al., 2000)
• Reduced productivity
• 10% potential reduction in lifetime earnings
• 2-3% losses in GDP
Placeholder: vicious cycle Nutrition/WASH
INADEQUATE WASH (open defecation, not handwashing with soap,
drinking unsafe water)
Fecal-oral exposure
Environmental
Enteropathy
Intestinal Worm
Infections
Diarrhoeal
Diseases
POOR NUTRITIONAL STATUS/
UNDERNUTRITION
Source: “Linking toilets to stunting” Sanitation and Stunting Conference, Delhi School of Economics; O. Cummings LSHTM
Sanitation and Stunting
• Environmental enteropathy – thickening of the gut wall, which reduces surface for absorbing nutrients
• Caused by fecal bacteria ingested in large quantities by young children living in conditions of poor sanitation
• Sub-clinical disorder – no manifest “eruption”
6
Extra food means nothing to stunted kids…
WASH in Schools Impacts DepED’s Essential Health Care Program
Source: School Health Impact Study. Fit for School, Inc. 2010
Daily Group hand washing with soap
Daily Group tooth brushing with fluoride
Bi-annual de worming
Social norm setting - peer expectation • Gaya-gaya
• Group motivation
• FUN!
Skills-based approach • Learning by doing
• Repetition = routine
Efficiency – upholds importance and doability of hygiene practice • Order
• Time
Why Group Hygiene Activities?
Why schools and day care centers? • Schools and DCCs as venue for socialization
• Group interaction
• Norm setting
• Structure and organization • Order
• Flexibility
• Opportunity • Time in school
• Service delivery
What do we need to invest in?
Improvement of WASH facilities in schools/ECCD centers • Water supply • Toilets • Group handwashing facilities
Operation and maintenance of WASH facilities • Cleaning supplies • Repair works
Hygiene supplies (soap, tooth brush, toothpaste), menstrual hygiene materials for older girls
Capacity-building of child development workers/teachers on health and hygiene promotion
Organization of parents/communities to support WASH in ECCD centers/schools
National enabling environment for local action
Joint Memorandum Circular on Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) in Early Childhood Care and Development
The WASH in ECCD objectives
Children have
improved hygiene practice
Families and Barangay build
Group handwashing
facilities
LGUs and barangays provide for
access to potable water and proper
sanitation
Funds to maintain toilets and sanitation
facilities
Providing hygiene kits
LGUs have committed
annual budgets
• Mobilize key relevant mandates and programs of concerned national agencies in support of WASH in ECCD at the local level
• Provide instructions to LGUs on improving/ensuring the delivery of WASH services in child development centers
Objectives of the JMC
Bringing together DILG, the ECCD Council and its members
Commitments to WASH in ECCD
Department of Social Welfare and Development
• Advocacy for installation of group handwashing facilities in ECCD centers
• Integration of WASH in child development worker training
• Integration of WASH in Supplementary Feeding program
• Promotion of WASH through 4Ps Family Development Sessions
• Integration of WASH facilities in KALAHI-CIDDS child development center construction
Commitments to WASH in ECCD
Department of Interior and Local Government
• Inclusion of WASH in ECCD in SALINTUBIG capacity building activities
• Inclusion of WASH/WASH in ECCD indicators in the Child-friendly governance audit
• Promote WASH in ECCD for funding under BUB
Commitments to WASH in ECCD
Department of Health
• Promotion of WASH in ECCD through Garantisadong Pambata
• Integration of WASH in ECCD the Gawad Kalusugan Awards
• Operationalization of WASH in ECCD in National Sustainable Sanitation Plan
• Coordination with other agencies on WASH in ECCD
Commitments to WASH in ECCD
Department of Education
• Support WASH in ECCD through WASH in Schools
• Sustain implementation of daily group hygiene activities, bi-annual deworming and correct practices for safety especially in the kindergarten level
Oversight of WASH in ECCD Role of the ECCD Council Secretariat
•Coordinate national government agencies on the
implementation of the JMC •Monitor implementation and facilitate submission of
reports to the ECCD Council Board •provide technical assistance and support services
Roles of the LGUs
Manage WASH in ECCD; Organize and support parent
associations to implement the WASH in ECCD Program; Provide counterpart funds for
capacity building for day care workers
• Provide WASH facilities to day care centers
Case of Cotabato City
• MOA with Philippine Center for Water and Sanitation
• Piloting in selected DCCs on-going
• Ordinance on WASH in ECCD passed
• Allocation of PhP 263,000 for WASH in ECCD annual budget
• Improvement of water supply, toilets and handwashing facilities in DCCs
• WASH in ECCD TWG
Case of Bobon, Northern Samar
• Piloting in selected DCCs in 2013-2014
• Ordinance on WASH in ECCD passed
• Formation of WASH in ECCD TWG
• AIP allocation for WASH in ECCD
• BUB funding for improvement of WASH facilities in DCCs
• LGU provision of hygiene kits to all DCCs
Case of Lanao del Norte • Piloting in selected DCCs in 2013-2014
• Incentives to Day Care Workers for implementation of WASH
• Parents and barangay construct WASH facilities and provide hygiene supplies
• Provincial Ordinance on WASH in ECCD passed
• AIP allocation for WASH in ECCD
WASH in Schools in the Philippines
Inequities in access: Urban vs. Rural; Regional
Key issues on functionality: • Appropriateness of design • Operation and maintenance
Sources of Water National Region 8
Any source 92% 82%
Piped 42% 33%
Source: DepED EBEIS SY 2015-2016
Toilet-pupil Ratio *
Level National Region 8
Over-all 1:39 1:40
ES 1:34 1:36
HS 1:49 1:57
*DepED standard ratio is 1:50
Source: DepED EBEIS SY 2014-2015
25
DepED Order No. 10, s. 2016: Policy and Guidelines for the Comprehensive DepED WASH in Schools Program
✔ Water ✔ Sanitation
✔ Hygiene
✔ Health Education
✔ Helminth Control
✔ Capacity Building
Luistro, 2016
DepED Wash in Schools
(WinS)
Program
Supervised daily group
handwashing with soap and
toothbrushing with
fluoride toothpaste among all
schoolchildren
Adequate, clean, functional, and
accessible toilet facilities in all
schools that meet the toilet-to-pupil
ratio
An organized system to make
safe drinking water available to all
students in school
Orientation of all teachers, heads of schools, facilities coordinators, and
health personnel on the DepED WinS
program Capacity building
for all DepED WinS program
implementers
Semi-annual deworming of
schoolchildren
Effective menstrual hygiene
management in all schools
Safe practices in food handling and preparation in all
schools
PROPOSED BENEFICIARIES FOR THE SCHOOL-BASED FEEDING PROGRAM SY 2013-2014 ABOVE THE CEILING
REGION
Number of Undernourished FINANCIAL ESTIMATES FOR KINDER FINANCIAL ESTIMATES FOR GR I-III TOTAL FINANCIAL ESTIMATES
Kinder Gr I
Gr II Gr III Sub-
Total Gr I-III
TOTAL
COST OF FEEDING FOR 120
DAYS
OPERATIONAL COST
TOTAL COST
COST OF FEEDING FOR 120
DAYS
OPERATIONAL COST
TOTAL COST
COST OF FEEDING FOR 120
DAYS
OPERATIONAL COST
TOTAL COST
I 14,613
2
1,
1
7
3 16,983 16,118 54,274 68,887 26,303,400.00 1,753,560.00 28,056,960.00 97,693,200.00 6,512,880.00
104,206,080.0
0
123,996,600.0
0 8,266,440.00 132,263,040.00
II 1,216
1,
0
0
9 7,776 7,319 16,104 17,320 2,188,800.00 145,920.00 2,334,720.00 28,987,200.00 1,932,480.00 30,919,680.00 31,176,000.00 2,078,400.00 33,254,400.00
III 14,704
3
6,
0
3
7 27,778 26,597 90,412 105,116 26,467,200.00 1,764,480.00 28,231,680.00
162,741,600.0
0 10,849,440.00
173,591,040.0
0
189,208,800.0
0 12,613,920.00 201,822,720.00
IV-A 20,678
6
5,
9
9
4 51,134 49,066 166,194 186,872 37,220,400.00 2,481,360.00 39,701,760.00
299,149,200.0
0 19,943,280.00
319,092,480.0
0
336,369,600.0
0 22,424,640.00 358,794,240.00
IV-B 5,932
2
2,
3
9
7 18,304 15,798 56,499 62,431 10,677,600.00 711,840.00 11,389,440.00
101,698,200.0
0 6,779,880.00
108,478,080.0
0
112,375,800.0
0 7,491,720.00 119,867,520.00
V 9,829
3
7,
6
8
0 28,630 27,323 93,633 103,462 17,692,200.00 1,179,480.00 18,871,680.00
168,539,400.0
0 11,235,960.00
179,775,360.0
0
186,231,600.0
0 12,415,440.00 198,647,040.00
VI 11,562
4
1,
4
7
6 31,693 28,694 101,863 113,425 20,811,600.00 1,387,440.00 22,199,040.00
183,353,400.0
0 12,223,560.00
195,576,960.0
0
204,165,000.0
0 13,611,000.00 217,776,000.00
VII 8,799
2
8,
6
2
8 21,482 20,529 70,639 79,438 15,838,200.00 1,055,880.00 16,894,080.00
127,150,200.0
0 8,476,680.00
135,626,880.0
0
142,988,400.0
0 9,532,560.00 152,520,960.00
VIII 926
2
1,
1
6
7 16,066 15,053 52,286 53,212 1,666,800.00 111,120.00 1,777,920.00 94,114,800.00 6,274,320.00
100,389,120.0
0 95,781,600.00 6,385,440.00 102,167,040.00
IX 5,946
1
9,
6
8
2 13,167 11,694 44,543 50,489 10,702,800.00 713,520.00 11,416,320.00 80,177,400.00 5,345,160.00 85,522,560.00 90,880,200.00 6,058,680.00 96,938,880.00
X 5,565
1
4,
1
4
3 12,108 10,682 36,933 42,498 10,017,000.00 667,800.00 10,684,800.00 66,479,400.00 4,431,960.00 70,911,360.00 76,496,400.00 5,099,760.00 81,596,160.00
XI 4,374
1
8,
5
6
1 11,838 10,059 40,458 44,832 7,873,200.00 524,880.00 8,398,080.00 72,824,400.00 4,854,960.00 77,679,360.00 80,697,600.00 5,379,840.00 86,077,440.00
XII 3,117
1
6,
9
0
5 11,581 10,417 38,903 42,020 5,610,600.00 374,040.00 5,984,640.00 70,025,400.00 4,668,360.00 74,693,760.00 75,636,000.00 5,042,400.00 80,678,400.00
Caraga 4,622
1
0,
2
7
9 7,483 7,042 24,804 29,426 8,319,600.00 554,640.00 8,874,240.00 44,647,200.00 2,976,480.00 47,623,680.00 52,966,800.00 3,531,120.00 56,497,920.00
CAR 664
3,
9
7
5 3,155 2,782 9,912 10,576 1,195,200.00 79,680.00 1,274,880.00 17,841,600.00 1,189,440.00 19,031,040.00 19,036,800.00 1,269,120.00 20,305,920.00
NCR 11,085
4
0,
9
5
2 33,902 30,596 105,450 116,535 19,953,000.00 1,330,200.00 21,283,200.00
189,810,000.0
0 12,654,000.00
202,464,000.0
0
209,763,000.0
0 13,984,200.00 223,747,200.00
ARMM 4,331
1
7,
7
3
4 12,010 9,664 39,408 43,739 7,795,800.00 519,720.00 8,315,520.00 70,934,400.00 4,728,960.00 75,663,360.00 78,730,200.00 5,248,680.00 83,978,880.00
TOTAL: 127,963
4
1
7,
7
9
2 325,090 299,433 1,042,315 1,170,278 230,333,400 15,355,560 245,688,960 1,876,167,000 125,077,800 2,001,244,800 2,106,500,400 140,433,360 2,246,933,760
Cost of Feeding:
No. of Beneficiaries x P15.00 x 120 Days
Operational Cost: No. of Beneficiaries x P20.00 x 6 months
DepEd Wash in Schools (WinS)
Program
HYGIENE
SANITATION
WATER
HEALTH EDUCATION
CAPACITY BUIDLING
DEWORMING
MENSTRUAL HYGIENE
MANAGEMENT
FOOD HANDLING &
PREPARATION
Luistro,2016
Addressing WASH in Schools Bottlenecks:
Focus on Behaviour and Participation
Traditional Approach New Approach
Many hygiene behaviours targeted
Focus on 3 key hygiene behaviours
Knowledge-based (independent behaviour)
Skills-based daily activities (group behaviour)
Supply/infrastructure-driven Integrative of demand, supply and enabling environment
Dependent on big public or private sector subsidy
School and community mobilization
Often high investment Low cost
Project-driven (piece-meal) Incremental milestones, at-scale
WASH in Schools: The Three Star Approach
Provides focus on what matters most in achieving WASH goals
Breaks down the WASH goals into achievable milestones
Enables the school to plan, budget and mobilize resources for incremental incremental progress for improving WASH in Schools
School-Based Management for
WASH in Schools
Decentralizing WASH in Schools Governance in a
Centralized Basic Education System
“I always say that when I visit a school, I only need 3 minutes to determine if it has a good school
head. I only need to smell if the toilet has stinky odor or see if there is a leaking roof. If there is no smell or leak, these have been addressed by the
school head. It means the school has a good leader.”
- Secretary of Education Armin Luistro
(Speech at the University of the Philippines Graduation 2015)
CENTRALIZED BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM
• National policy formulation
• EMIS data limited to water source and number of toilets; geared to national planning and budgeting
• Local government has supplementary role only; no accountability for school performance
KEY ISSUES ON WASH IN SCHOOLS
• Issuance of national guidelines on
WASH in schools took time
• Allocation for WASH in Schools in
school operating budget is only for
operation and maintenance and not
for infrastructure
• Standard toilet designs are
expensive
• Data on WASH inadequate for local
planning
• WinS not priority for local
government support
WinS Issues in Centralized System
Decentralized approach to WinS
• Localized policy formulation
• School-Based Management (SBM) Approach
Schools assess, plan and budget to address own needs
– School Improvement Plan (SIP)
School leadership and shared governance
Local resource mobilization
School performance monitoring and reporting
• WinS in Local School Board agenda
Example: Improving Access
• Expensive - dependent on national budget and procurement
• Contractor-built - no school participation
• Standard design - one-size fits all
CENTRALIZED APPROACH SBM APPROACH
• Low-cost - school can fund-raise and prioritize in budget
• School ownership and accountability
• Context-specific: functional and usable
• Incremental improvement - lends to 3-star approach