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…

Lack of adequate WASH: a vicious cycle

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

WASH in Schools Bottleneck Analysis: Focusing on the essentials

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

THANK YOU!