1. Rohingya Response Joint Response Plan (JRP) Mid-term Review Workshop
July 8th, | Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh

2. Overview
The Rohingya Response Joint Response Plan (January – December 2019) includes three WASH objectives:
Ensure effective, sufficient and equitable provision of life saving water and sanitation services for targeted men, women, boys and girls
Ensure that all targeted men, women, boys and girls have the means and are encouraged to adopt individual and collective measures increasing health seeking behaviors to mitigate public health risks for the well-being of the affected population
Ensure that all WASH assistance promotes protection, safety and dignity of targeted men, women, boys and girls with focus on sustainable resilience-building approaches
Each objective includes three monitoring indicators to assist in tracking the WASH Sector’s progress in meeting these objectives.

3. Overview (cont.)
This presentation includes an overview of the WASH Sector’s progress in meeting the JRP monitoring indicators under each objective, as well as several additional monitoring indicators
Data to report on these indicators have been produced from several assessments implemented by REACH between April and July 2019:
WASH household follow-up assessment - May 2019 (sample-based)
Hygiene item assessment - July 2019
Sanitation infrastructure quality monitoring - July 2019 (sample-based)
Tubewells coding - April–June 2019 (census-based)

4. Overview (cont.)
The following information is included for each indicator:
July 2019 targets and progress in meeting them
The assessment from which data have been extracted
Identification of camps with above- and below-average proportions of households reporting conditions/perceptions relating to indicators
For composite and/or subjective indicators: an overview of the methodology employed to produce data

5. Objective one: Ensure effective, sufficient and equitable provision of life saving water and sanitation services for targeted men, women, boys and girls

6. Assessment: WASH household follow-up
Objective one – indicator one
% of targeted people in camps benefitting from at least 20 l/p/d safe water for drinking and other domestic purposes
JRP 2018 endline
July 2019 Target
July 2019 result
+/-
100%
53%
-47%
Methodology: Households presented all the containers used to collect water the day prior to the survey, with each container measured to determine approximate volume which was then multiplied by the amount of times it was used to collect water per day. Total volume was divided by the number of individuals within all surveyed households to determine an approximate l/p/d.
Important to note here that measurements from HH survey do not include water used outside the HH (e.g. washing clothes/bathing at tubewells, use of bathing cubicles, communal latrines etc.)
Also note - Only referring to water that they are collecting and storing we need guidelines for safe as per comments by Ollie - we have not analyzed the data for only 'improved water' for this indicator. However that would hardly change the number as % reported having access to improved water
Also it is important to note that the October FS looked at 15 lpd not 20 lpd and in october it was 56% of the pop that reached this goal.
Assessment: WASH household follow-up

7. Assessment: Sanitation infrastructure quality monitoring
Objective one – indicator two
% of targeted women, men, children in camps who are benefitting from functional and appropriately designed latrines
JRP 2018 endline
July 2019 Target
July 2019 result
+/-
748,173 (71%)
906,511 (100%)
21%*
58%*
Methodology
A latrine is considered functional if it has at least a roof and four walls without holes, a working door with a lock, a pan that is not clogged, and a slab that is not heavily damaged. Appropriately designed latrines include at least walls and door made out of CGI sheet and a concrete slab. To be classified as designed in compliance with the unified designs it also needs to have four concrete or metal posts and a wooden or MS angle frame for walls, door and roof, and a plastic roof.
Assessment: Sanitation infrastructure quality monitoring
* Preliminary findings. Refers to proportion of latrines that meet criteria, household component to be incorporated.

8. % functional and appropriately designed latrines – breakdown composite indicator
Criteria for functional and appropriately designed latrines
% latrines that meet these criteria
Criteria for functional and appropriately designed (according to the unified designs) latrines
Roof
99%*
No holes in the roof
94%*
Four walls
97%*
Functional and lockable door
86%*
Not possible to see inside
87%*
Floor not damaged beyond use
91%*
Pan that is not clogged or full
80%*
Pan with pan flap or water seal that is not clogged or full
46%*
Walls made of CGI sheet
95%*
Door made of CGI sheet
Concrete floor
96%*
Four concrete or metal pillars
66%*
Wooden or MS Angle frame used for door, walls and roof
82%*
Roof made of plastic sheet
57%*
Overall percentage of latrines that meets above criteria
58%*
21%*
Using last year’s definition (roof, four walls, lockable door and pan is not full, 69% of the latrines meet these criteria
Assessment: Sanitation infrastructure quality monitoring
*Preliminary findings

9. Objective two: Ensure that all targeted women, men, girls and boys have the means and are encouraged to adopt individual and collective measures increasing health seeking behaviors to mitigate public health risks for the well-being of the affected population

10. Objective two – indicator one
% of households in which respondent can identify
at least 3 of the critical hygiene practices
JRP 2018 endline
July 2019 Target
July 2019
result
+/-
70%
34%
-36%
Methodology:
Households were asked to identify the most important
times when people should wash their hands.
Critical times: 1) before eating, 2) before cooking, 3) after defecation, 4) before breastfeeding, 5) before feeding children, and 6) after handling a child’s stool/changing a child’s nappy/cleaning a child’s bottom
(Global WASH Cluster standard)
Below-average proportions of households in which respondent identified at least 3 critical practices were reported in Nayapara RC (15%) and Camp 1W (16%). Above-average proportions were reported in Camp 4 Extension (54%) and Camp 27 (48%).
Assessment: WASH household follow-up

11. Hygiene - % of households in which respondent can identify
at least 3 of the critical hygiene practices

12. Objective two – indicator one
% of respondents identifying different times when someone should wash their hands*
Female
Male
Before eating
96%
93%
After defecation
91%
89%
Before cooking/meal preparation
88%
61%
When hands look dirty
35%
62%
Before prayer
48%
When hands feel dirty
30%
42%
Before feeding children
36%
31%
After handling a child’s stool/changing a nappy/cleaning a child’s bottom
27%
Before breastfeeding
18%
26%
Don't know / prefer not to say 0% 1%
Handwashing when dealing with children clearly an issue here
*Respondents could select multiple options
Indicator type: Non-JRP / Assessment: WASH household follow-up

13. Indicator type: Non-JRP / Assessment: WASH household follow-up
Objective two – indicator two
% of targeted women, men, boys and girls who have received and are satisfied with the hygiene related information shared
JRP 2018 endline
July 2019 Target
July 2019 result
+/-
80%
39%
-41%
Methodology:
Refugee households were asked if they have received hygiene information AND if they are satisfied with hygiene related information.
A below-average proportion reported receiving and being satisfied with hygiene information in Camp 3 (25%). Above-average proportions were reported in Camp 10 and Camp 2E (both 56%).
Indicator type: Non-JRP / Assessment: WASH household follow-up
Important also to flag that satisfaction is very high (probably too high) so not receiving information is what's driving the indicator
Indicator: How satisfied are you with your access to hygiene activities and information (I think that this indicator is only looking at very satisfied)

14. Objective three: Ensure that all WASH assistance promotes protection, safety and dignity of targeted men, women, boys and girls with focus on sustainable resilience-building approaches

15. Objective three – indicator one
% of targeted people disaggregated by sex and age
including older people and those with disabilities who
are satisfied with the WASH response
JRP 2018 endline
July 2019 Target
July 2019 result
+/-
80%
92%
+12%
The lowest rates of satisfaction were recorded in Camp 15 (81%)
and Camp 6 (84%). The highest rates of satisfaction were recorded in Camp 4 Extension and Camp 5 (both 100%).
Assessment: WASH household follow-up
A very low proportion of the population reported facing difficulties seeing, hearing, walking, remembering, washing or concentrating. All less than 366 (walking/climbing) most around 193 or less

16. Objective three – indicator two
% of targeted women and girls of reproductive age
who have their menstrual hygiene needs met*
Females over 18 of reproductive age are considered to have their menstrual hygiene needs met if they reported
1) Facing no problems accessing MHM materials, AND
2) Facing no difficulties using the latrine whilst menstruating
July 2019 Target
60%
79%*
of assessed women and girls of reproductive age reported facing no problems accessing MHM materials AND facing no difficulties using the latrine whilst menstruating.
Indicator type: JRP* / Assessment: WASH household follow-up
11% reported attending MHM training
of assessed women and girls of reproductive age reported that someone from the household participated in hygiene activities in the past two weeks. This has not been included in the indicator calculation.
38%

17. Additional monitoring indicators

18. % of refugee households with access to an ‘improved’ source of water
JRP 2018 endline
July 2019 Target
July 2019 result
+/-
100%
99%
-1%
Methodology:
Households were asked to identify their source of drinking water.
Improved sources: tubewells, piped water/tapstand, protected dugwell, protected spring, cart with small tank/drum, water tank, rainwater collection, and bottled water
The highest rates of reliance on ‘unimproved’ water sources for drinking
by far was in Camp 27, with 5% of households using unprotected dugwells,
4% using unprotected springs, and 4% using surface water
Assessment: WASH household follow-up

19. Water
% of refugee households with access to an ‘improved’ source of water not exceeding 30 minutes collection time
JRP 2018 endline
July 2019 Target
July 2019 result
+/-
69%
Above-average proportions were recorded in Camp 23 (93%), Camp 17 and Camp 21 (both 83%). Below-average proportions of households reported
accessing ‘improved’ sources not exceeding 30 minutes in Camp 22 (30%),
Camp 24 (37%), Nayapara RC (41%), and Camp 27 (49%).
Assessment: WASH household follow-up

20. Water - % of refugee households with access to an ‘improved’ source of water not exceeding 30 minutes collection time

21. % of households using water treatment options
JRP 2018 endline
July 2019 Target
July 2019 result
+/-
100%
25%
-75%
Methodology
Households were asked if they have treated water before
drinking in the seven days prior to data collection
The lowest rates of households using treatment were in
Camp 23 (10%), Camp 3 (11%), Camp 17 (13%), and Camp 15 (15%).
The highest rates were in Camp 8E (46%), Camp 6 and Camp 7 (both 40%).
Assessment: WASH household follow-up

22. Water - % of households using water treatment options

23. Number of tubewells installed and functioning
Water
Number of tubewells installed and functioning
JRP 2018 endline
July 2019 Target
July 2019 result
+/-
N/A
13,067*
Methodology
All tubewells in all camps were tagged with a unique identifier, with key information (functionality, sanitary conditions, and location) collected for each facility. A tubewell was considered functional if water could be drawn from the pump at time of visit
Assessment: Tubewells coding
* Preliminary findings.

24. Water Number of tubewells installed and functioning
Camps with most tubewells
Camps with least tubewells
Camp
# of functional tubewells
Camp 9
854
Camp 7
741
Camp 13
736
Camp
# of functional tubewells
Nayapara RC 7
Camp 22 17
Camp 27 38
Assessment: Tubewells coding
* Preliminary findings.

25. % female-only latrines
Sanitation
% female-only latrines
JRP 2018 endline
July 2019 Target
July 2019 result
+/-
13%*
Assessment: Sanitation infrastructure quality monitoring
* Preliminary findings

26. % of functional bathing facilities
Sanitation
% of functional bathing facilities
JRP 2018 endline
July 2019 Target
July 2019 result
+/-
N/A
22%*
Methodology
A bathing facility is considered functional if it has a roof, four walls, a working door with a lock, a functional drainage channel, and a slab that is not damaged
Assessment: Sanitation infrastructure quality monitoring
* Preliminary findings

27. Sanitation
% of functional bathing facilities (definition JRP 2019 and 2018)
Definition functionality JRP 2019
% washrooms that meet this standard*
Roof
96%*
No hole in roof
84%*
Four walls
93%*
Lockable door
81%*
Not possible to see inside when door is closed
78%*
Floor not damaged beyond use
92%*
Functional drainage channel
25%*
Overall percentage that meets above standards
22%*
63%* (excluding drainage problems)
Using last year’s definition (roof, four walls and a lockable door 81% of the latrines meet these criteria
Assessment: Sanitation infrastructure quality monitoring
*Preliminary findings

28. Assessment: WASH household follow-up
Sanitation
% of households 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with solid waste management system nearby the household
JRP 2018 endline
July 2019 Target
July 2019 result
+/-
100%
74%
-26%
The lowest rates of satisfaction were in Camp 1E (56%), Camp 25 (45%), and Camp 9 (58%). The highest rates of satisfaction were reported in Camp 4E (99%), Nayapara RC (94%), and Camp 12 (92%).
Assessment: WASH household follow-up

29. Sanitation - % of households 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with solid waste management system nearby the household