Contents

I. Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................... 2
II. Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................................................ 3
III. Executive summary ........................................................................................................................... 4
IV. Background and context ................................................................................................................... 9
V. Survey objectives ................................................................................................................................ 10
VI. Methodology................................................................................................................................... 11
Survey area and sample frame ............................................................................................................... 11
Sampling size and methodology ............................................................................................................. 11
Indicators and questionnaire elaboration .............................................................................................. 12
Ethics and consent .................................................................................................................................. 13
Recruitment and training ........................................................................................................................ 13
Data collection and quality control measures ........................................................................................ 14
Data analysis plan ................................................................................................................................... 14
Limitations, challenges and lessons learnt ............................................................................................. 15
Challenges............................................................................................................................................... 15
VII. Key results and finding .................................................................................................................... 16
Water Supply........................................................................................................................................... 16
Hygiene ................................................................................................................................................... 21
Sanitation ................................................................................................................................................ 23
Waste management................................................................................................................................ 25
Messaging ............................................................................................................................................... 26
VIII. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 28
IX. Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 28
X. Annexes ............................................................................................................................................... 30
Annex 1: Questionnaire .......................................................................................................................... 30
Annex 2: KAP Survey work plan .............................................................................................................. 30
Annex 3: Communities covered in the KAP survey ................................................................................. 32
Annex 4: Community contact persons .................................................................................................... 32
Annex 5: KAP survey team ...................................................................................................................... 33
Annex 6: Activity Photos ......................................................................................................................... 36

1
 I. Acknowledgements

UNHCR wishes to thank all partners (IPs and Ops) for this opportunity to contribute to the creation
of new knowledge in the WASH sector in Rhino Camp Refuge settlement. This study comes at a
crucial time in Rhino Camp. A time when UNHCR has declared her strategic intention to embark
on long-term development activities within the settlement. We believe that findings of this study
contribute to other studies to provide the basis for measuring and comparing progress in the
WASH sector. UNHCR in Rhino Camp operation sees this as a great landmark to celebrate. UNHCR
thanks all those whose efforts contributed to the production of this survey.

We thank WASH sector for the opportunity and the financial support to carry this out.

We thank OPM, Arua District through its various units who contributed to the survey notably the
DWO, DHO who provided the support we wanted to carry this out.

We thank all interviewees, RWCs and communities who facilitated our work.

Finally, we thank the baseline survey team for their commitment and dedication in getting this
done in good time. UNHCR would like to single out Acidri Daniel WMU M&E Team Lead, Apire
Samuel-WMU Senior WASH Officer and all WMU field staff and all the Humanitarian Support
Personnel on Public Health Promotion for taking up this challenge, for preparing the whole survey
and for leading in the data collection, analysis, report writing and editing.
Through your collective efforts we have an end line survey done and we thank you for this.

UNHCR

31st December 2020

2
 II. Abbreviations and Acronyms

KAP Knowledge and Practices

DWO District Water Officer
DHO District Health Officer
WASH Water and Sanitation Hygiene
WTWG Wash Technical Working Group
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
MHM Menstrual Hygiene Management
HH Household
OPM Office of the Prime Minister
POCs Persons of Concern
RWCs Refugee Welfare Councils.

3
 III. Executive summary
Introduction
Uganda is hosting over 1 million refugees (Uganda Refugee Response, UNCHR, and September
2020) with about 190,742 (UNHCR 30th September 2020) of them settled in Rhino Camp refugee
settlement. This rapid influx of refugees has put pressure on key facilities and services including
shelter and WASH infrastructure.

In addition, the influx also led to destruction of systems, hence creating for interventions to
reconstruct them. In order to efficiently and effectively improve WASH service delivery in the
settlement, there is need for accurate and reliable information on which to base programmatic
decisions. Rhino Camp settlement has had a number of interventions by different partners, and in
as much as there were access indicators obtained regularly by the partners that provide extremely
useful average figures at settlement level, there has been a gap in the in-depth understanding of
the situation at household level and to account for disparities within the settlement so as to
measure the impact of the interventions.

In consideration of the existing challenges, UNHCR in collaboration with government and WASH
actors, conducted endline KAP survey to understand progress made through the established
/provided WASH services in comparison with acceptable standards as well as assessing existing
gaps to facilitate evidence based planning of future programs.
Methodology
The survey mainly utilized 2 methods: Household questionnaire survey and documentary review.
The survey covered all the 7 zones of Rhino Camp settlement, with samples drawn from all the
zones. Sample size for each zone was calculated using the UNHCR sample size determination tool.
A sample of 2,364 (only refugees) was interviewed using the household questionnaire survey.
Reviewed documents included: partners periodic updates, minutes of WASH meetings. Data was
collected using Kobo data collection software and analysed using the Standardized UNHCR WASH
KAP analysis tool, Advanced excel analyser and SPSS data analysis software.

4
 Key findings
UNHCR WASH standard Indicators

These programme indicators are common to UNHCR WASH projects. The data is specific only to
the programme areas and does not necessarily represent any national figures or trends.

Parameter Indicator Ocea Siripi Eden Tika Odobu Ofua Omugo Over Overall
all endline
base
line
Water Average litres of 24.1 24.9 19.9 26.2 24.1 19.9 24.8 22.0 23.5
Quantity potable water/per
person/per day
collected at HH
level
% HHs with at 50% 53% 44% 44% 45% 39% 52% 22% 47%
least 10 L/p
protected water
storage capacity
Water Maximum 296 424 369 321 337 296 329 381 337
Access distance [m] from
household to
potable water
collection point
Water % HHs collecting 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99.8 100%
Quality drinking water %
from
protected/treated
sources
Sanitation % HHs with family 92% 94% 93% 58% 95% 99% 99% 79% 90%
latrine/toilet
% HHs reporting 99% 98% 99% 78% 98% 99% 99% 91% 96%
defecating in a
toilet/latrine
% HHs practicing 5% 6% 1% 28% 9% 4% 3% 15% 8%
open defecation.
**Includes
defecating in the
bush at night.
% HHs having 78% 75% 85% 65% 72% 93% 90% 75% 80%
access to a
bathing facility

5
Hygiene % HHs with access 87% 87% 72% 77% 67% 78% 95% 48% 81%
to soap
% HHs with access 36% 57% 74% 36% 45% 53% 61% 14% 52%
to a specific hand-
washing device
% respondents 99.4% 100% 99.0% 99.4% 100% 98.4% 100% 83.9 99.5%
knowing at least 3 %
critical moments
when to wash
hands
Solid % HHs with access 82.4% 83.7% 88.9% 51.9% 82.3% 66.9% 70.8% 74.2 74.8%
Waste to solid waste %
disposal facility

6
 Other WASH related indicators

Parameter Indicator
Water Supply A majority of the households have access to improved water facilities.
Most of the of the households (94%) reported public tap/standpipe as their
principal source of drinking water for members in the household
compared to (4%) who reported hand pump/borehole and 2% had piped
water connection to their households.

Adult females (81%), adult males (5%) and children (11-18 years) (14%) are
responsible to fetch water for domestic use. Majority of the households
(95%) reported that water sources are within 500-meter radius a 6-minute
walk distance. At least 95% of the population use jerry cans for water
collection and storage.

Average litres of potable water/per person/per day collected at household

level is above post emergency standard at 24 L/p/d. At zone level, Ocea
stands at 24.1, Siripi at 24.9, Eden at 19.9, Tika at 26.2, Odobu at 24.1, Ofua
at 19.9 and Omugo at 24.8. Generally, the water per capita is above the
post emergency standard of 20 L/p/d.

About (47%) of the households had at least 10 L/p protected water storage
capacity while the rest (53%) had less than 10 L/p storage capacity.

Most of the water points are at acceptable distances from households,

average distance to the nearest water point was 337 metres. The minimum
distance to the nearest water point was 80 metres while the maximum at
2400 metres. Over half of the households (55%) clean their containers once
a week while less than half of the households (39%) clean their containers
every time they use them. The rest 6% clean their containers once in a
month.
Water treatment
Most households (85%) were observed when pouring and dipping cups to
scoop water from their drinking water containers, the result showed that
there was no contact between the hands and water in the container hence
no contamination. More sensitisation is required for the (15%) regarding
safe water chain.
Sanitation About (21%) reported that children under-5 living in the households usually
defecate in the open. Meanwhile, (42%) reported that children under 5
years are always introduced to the household latrine (this applied to only
children who can walk and squat), 8% use plastic pot, and 4% use
communal latrine for their children. For children under-5 who do not use
a latrine, all the households collect and dispose of their faeces in the latrine.
 A very few number of adult household members (8%) defecate in the open
especially at night. They gave a reason of no latrine in the household (51%),
latrine too far (17%), and it is too dark at night (27%). The majority of the
households (90%) use a single household facility, 6% have shared facility
used by a number of households. Majority of the households (80%) have a
designated shower/bathing facility with exception of only (20%) of the
households.
Waste management Majority of households (75%) have access to solid waste disposal facility.
Most households (73%) dispose of domestic waste in the household pit.
With (12%) in designated open area, (9%) at the undesignated open area,
(1%) bury it, (2%) dispose in communal and (3%) burn it. It was observed
that (75%) of the households had clean courtyards with exception of only
(25%) of the households.
Hygiene The key times when people practice hand washing with soap include
before eating (97%), after defecation (92%) and before cooking/meal
preparation (83%). Other important key times on hand washing with soap
registered very low such as before breast-feeding (35%), after handling
baby faeces or diapers (23%) and before feeding children (27%).

Hand washing with soap and water is widely practiced as claimed by 52%
of the respondents, though hand washing with water only is practiced by
81%, and in the absence of soap 42% of the respondents use ash for proper
handwashing. The main reasons why people do not wash hands with soap
is the Inability to afford soap (11%), Soap already used up (79%), and other
reasons (10%).

The observation from the survey also revealed that, 36% of households
who had hand-washing facility did not have soap place next to it while 64%
had soap at the hand washing station. Furthermore, (19%) of households
did not have water in the hand-washing device.
Health and hygiene messages More than half (90%) of the surveyed communities has access to health
and hygiene messages. Messages vary and the most common ones include
hand washing with soap, use of mosquito nets, latrine use, cleaning and
covering water containers, covering food and cleanliness around water
points.

The most preferred channels for receiving hygiene messages are home
visits (78%), community meetings (15%), radio (4%), FGD and printed flyers
each at (2%).
Diarrhoea prevalence, Diarrheal cases were reported by (23%) of the surveyed households
knowledge and health seeking especially among children less than 5 years while for 5 years and above it
behaviour was reported at (12%)

8
 Respondents believe that the most common causes of diarrhoea include;
transmission by drinking dirty water (93%), eating dirty or undercooked
food (91%), and through flies (76%).

They believe that diarrhoea can be prevented through, washing hand with
soap and water (81%), cooking food well (79%), boiling or treating water/
drinking clean water (81%), cleaning eating utensils (44%), covering food
properly (36%), washing fruits and vegetables before eating (44%) and
using toilet/latrine facility to defecate (38%) among other measures.

IV. Background and context

Uganda is one of the largest asylum countries worldwide and the largest in Africa, giving a tragic
reminder of the fragility and conflict in the great lakes’ region. As of 30th September 2020, Uganda
hosted an estimated 1,381,122 refugees spread over 30 refugee settlements across 12 districts.
The main causes for the refugee influx in Rhino Camp settlement is the crisis in South Sudan, which
sharply deteriorated in mid-2016. Renewed fighting in South Sudan in July 2016 caused many
South Sudanese to flee the country and seek safety in northwest Uganda. As of 30th September
2020, there were 190,742 refugees settled in Rhino camp refugee settlement. Displacement is
expected to continue, as South Sudan’s security situation has not improved although there is a
reduction in the average daily arrivals of refugees. There were over 50,000 new refugee arrivals in
2020.

The continued influx of people has created demand for a range of social services, including water,
sanitation and hygiene services and put pressure on existing infrastructure.

One of the critical needs in post-emergency is accurate and reliable information on which to base
programmatic decisions. However, to be able to know what the situation is at household level and
to account for disparities within Rhino Camp Refugees Settlement, WMU as the Implementing
WASH partner commissioned an endline KAP survey in December 2020 whose results are
highlighted in this report through household survey with a sound sample size representing
accurately the rest of the settlement.

9
 V. Survey objectives
The main objective of the endline survey is to track programme results, impact and long-lasting
change of the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene interventions in Rhino Camp refugee settlement.

Specific objectives are to;

 Establish the Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP) of refugees in relation to WASH in
Rhino Camp refugee settlement.
 Generate information regarding quality, access to and effectiveness of WASH interventions in
Rhino Camp refugee settlement.
 To gain a better understanding of and evaluate the current Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices
(KAP) of refugees in relation to Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

10
 VI. Methodology
Survey area and sample frame
The KAP was conducted in Rhino Camp settlement particularly in the 7 zones in Arua District. The
sample sizes were determined using the UNHCR sample size determination tool, and samples were
determined per zone.
The respondents from household level were extracted from the OPM statistics of registered
refugees in Rhino Camp Refugee Settlement. This formed a sample frame from which sample size
was drawn. As seen from the table below;

Rhino Camp settlement sample size

Zone Population Household size Sample household
Zone I 13,688 2,631 336
Zone II 12,603 3,031 342
Zone III 4,740 1,078 284
Zone IV 9,035 2,545 335
Zone V 12,500 2,227 329
Zone VI 26,952 6,787 365
Zone VII 36,504 11,513 373
Total 116,022 29,812 2,364

Sampling size and methodology

Simple Random sampling was adopted to reflect and compare the experiences across the 7 zones.
Enumerators were instructed to go to the identified locations and interview the household closest
to the location. The selection of respondents was done using systematic or simple random
sampling. Each community was clustered based on zones. The number of respondents were then
divided among the zones. In each zone, the respondent was selected by skipping two households
and considering the third household.
The table below shows the different zones and their respective sample sizes as well as number of
data collectors

Zone Households Selected sample size Number of enumerators

Zone 1: Ocea 2,631 336 12
Zone 2: Siripi 3,031 342 12
Zone 3: Eden 1,078 284 12
Zone 4: Tika 2,545 335 12
Zone 5: Odobu 2,227 329 12
Zone 6: Ofua 6,787 365 12
Zone 7: Omugo 11,513 373 12
Total 29,812 2,364 84

11
Indicators and questionnaire elaboration

The standard WASH KAP survey Questionnaire (see Annex 1) was designed by UNHCR to produce
responses relating to the degree of access to different WASH services at the household and
individual levels, as well as responses relating to the perceptions of barriers and to the solutions
required to increase access to services.

The questionnaire was reviewed in WASH Working Group meeting to remove some optional
questions. The tool was then transformed into an electronic questionnaire to be administered with
tablets and mobile phones using the Kobo collect data collection software. The questionnaire logic
was integrated into the Kobo collect software to ensure that the right questions were asked, and
that enumerators did not have to manually skip irrelevant questions.

The questionnaire was pre-tested with the field staff in Ocea zone. Modification of the instruments
was done based on the feedback for example some optional questions that were not needed for
the survey were skipped. Issues on data gathering faced by the pre-testing team were discussed
and addressed accordingly in preparation for the actual data collection.

In addition, the questionnaire was meant to generate results to address the following key
indicators.

Section in the
Parameter Indicator questionnaire
Water Supply Average litres of potable water/per person/per day
collected at HH level
% HHs with at least 10 L/p protected water storage
capacity
Maximum distance [m] from household to potable
water collection point Section B
Water treatment % HHs collecting drinking water from
protected/treated sources Section C
Hygiene % HHs with access to soap
% HHs with access to a specific hand-washing
device
% respondents knowing at least 3 critical moments
when to wash hands Section D
Sanitation % HHs with family latrine/toilet
% HHs reporting defecating in a toilet/latrine
% HHs practicing open defecation. **Includes
defecating in the bush at night.
% HHs having access to a bathing facility Section E
Solid Waste % HHs with access to solid waste disposal facility Section E

12
Ethics and consent
Ethical considerations were considered from the inception of the research design and during the
questionnaire administration. During the primary data collection process, the enumerators
explained the survey’s purpose, the collected data’s intended use, and the personal data
anonymization process. Additionally, the numerators also emphasized that participation in the
survey was voluntary and that respondents could choose to stop the interview process at any
time, or skip questions that they did not wish to answer.
The research teams then gained verbal consent from all household members for quantitative data
collection process emphasising the issue of confidentiality and the security of the information they
are providing. For successful management of expectations from household members, the
enumerators clearly explained that participating in the survey would not lead to any direct
benefits, nor could the enumerators provide diagnostic or individual case management support
to each household visited. The research objectives and implementation plan was discussed and
shared with key WASH partners in the settlement including UNHCR, OPM and the district and this
took place through WASH sector meetings and individual meetings with OPM and district officials.
Stakeholder consultations were also conducted so as to improve the questionnaire.
Recruitment and training
A total of 84 enumerators were recruited from the zones within the settlement after the
temporary positions were advertised and successful enumerators shortlisted and interviewed.
The enumerators were then trained for 3 days on actual data collection exercise. 7 supervisors
selected from WMU staff helped to monitor and support the enumerators during data collection.

Enumerators picking GPS coordinate during training Enumerators attending end line survey training

13
Data collection and quality control measures
The enumerators received 3 days of
training and administered the
questionnaire on tablets and mobile
phones. In principle, the team
composed of at least a male and a
female enumerator, in order to ensure
quality, gender sensitive interviews.
Interpreters were not used during
interview sessions because the
enumerators were comfortable and
well-versed with the language spoken in
the areas where they worked. For
children in the households aged 0-17
Enumerator conducting household interviews years old, interviews were conducted
chiefly with the mothers or primary
caregivers. In these cases, interviews
addressed household level questions,
as well as individual questions
concerning both the mothers or
primary caregivers themselves and
their children, carefully respecting
ethical considerations and advice
provided by UNHCR. For the individuals
of 18 years or above, enumerators
directly asked all the questions from all
the sections of the questionnaire.
Collected data was stored on a secure
Enumerator conducting household interviews UNHCR Kobo server and checked daily
by WMU M&E Officer for inconsistencies. Each household survey took approximately 60 minutes
to administer. Exact times varied depending on the responses from the household heads and
whether or not there were identified person to respond to survey questions.

Data analysis plan

All quantitative data collected was fully reviewed and consolidated into a single dataset for all the
7 zones. In accordance with the analysis plan, thematic analysis was conducted based on the
different sectors that appear as sections of this report, and using different types of disaggregation
in order to elicit further meaning (e.g. location, age, gender). Statistical tests were then run for
selected variables in order to establish correlation factors. Specifically, descriptive analyses using
multivariate analysis statistical hypothesis tests (chi² for variance, independence, regression
analyses, etc.) were used in order to describe and compare the various groups considered by the
study and validate the statistical relevance of findings. All the major statistical results in this report

14
was analysed using the standardized UNHCR WASH KAP analysis tool, advanced excel analysis and
SPSS data analysis software.
Limitations, challenges and lessons learnt
Challenges
There were challenges in this work especially during the data collection process. Below are some
of the major obstacles that confronted the team.

 Some community members were reluctant to participate in the survey. They informed
the field teams that there have been many surveys conducted in the past and no
interventions (project) have resulted from these surveys.
 Other community members even exaggerated their condition/situation in order to elicit
sympathy. To triangulate what they were told, field teams had to verify some concerns like
verifying the storage containers of water.
 Mobile data collecting gadgets (Phones &tablets) were not enough and some had weak
batteries, some data collectors had to use their personal phones to collect data this was
not sustainable as the cell phone batteries were weak and some gadgets kept freezing
hence delaying the whole process.
 Some respondents especially women were shy responding to menstrual hygiene questions
administered by male data collectors.

Lessons learnt

 The hiring of local and community based data collectors who understand the local context
not only facilitated the work but also helped in creating community acceptance.
 Future funding for Surveys, partner organizations should invest in mobile data collection
gadgets (cell Phones& tablets) to ease data collection.
 Some communities have high knowledge on hygiene but this does not translate into
practice.

15
 VII. Key results and finding

Water Supply
Main source of drinking water

Figure 1: Main source of domestic drinking water for household

members
Handpumps/boreholes Piped connection to house (or neighbour’s house) Public tap/standpipe

98.5% 96.5% 98.1% 96.0% 94.2%

91.9% 93.9%
85.1%

0.6% 14.6% 3.8% 1.9%

7.5% 1.1%
3.5% 6.1% 3.6%
0.6% 0.3% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3%

Zone 1: OCEA Zone 2: SIRIPI Zone 3: EDEN Zone 4: TIKA Zone 5: Zone 6: OFUA Zone 7: Total
ODOBU OMUGO

According to the survey findings as presented in

figure 1 above, majority of the households (94%)
across all the reported public tap/standpipe as
their main source of drinking water for members
in the household as compared to only (3.6%) who
reported handpumps/boreholes and only 1.9%
who reported piped connection to the household.
At the zonal level, Ocea zone reported the highest Public tap/stand pipe providing clean drinking water for
majority of households who get their main households
drinking water from public tap/standpipe (99%),
closely followed by Ofua (98%), Ede (97%) and
Omugo (96%) respectively. Odobu zone had 94%,
Tika at 92% and Siripi at 85% of the households.
There were household water extensions reported
at Tika, Omugo and some parts of Ofua zone. The
survey revealed an improvement in public
tap/standpipe water supply by 9% from baseline.
This is as result of continuous operation and
maintenance activities and new extensions in the
zones. Piped water connection at a household in Tika zone

16
Second most used source of domestic drinking water

Figure 2: Second most used source of drinking water for household

members
89% 93%
88% 85%
74%

51% 46%
34% 33%
20% 23%
11% 14% 12%
8% 4% 6% 3% 0% 3%
2% 1% 0% 1%
Piped connection to house…

Piped connection to house…

Piped connection to house…

Did not collect from…

Did not collect from…

Did not collect from…

Did not collect from…

Did not collect from…

Did not collect from…

Did not collect from…

Handpumps/boreholes

Handpumps/boreholes

Handpumps/boreholes

Handpumps/boreholes

Handpumps/boreholes

Handpumps/boreholes

Handpumps/boreholes
Public tap/standpipe

Public tap/standpipe

Public tap/standpipe

Public tap/standpipe

Public tap/standpipe

Public tap/standpipe

Public tap/standpipe
Zone 1: OCEA Zone 2: SIRIPI Zone 3: EDEN Zone 4: TIKA Zone 5: Zone 6: OFUA Zone 7:
ODOBU OMUGO

The survey also looked at finding out the alternative source of domestic drinking water for the
households. The result as in figure 2 above revealed that, over half of the households across all
zones use handpump/borehole as their main alternative water source at (64%) while about 34%
of the households did not collect water from any other source apart from their main source of
water which is public tap/stand pipe. Piped connection to the household was reported at Tika
(33%) and Ofua zone (3%).
Sources of water for other activities
Figure 3: Source of water household members use for other activities
60%
50% 55%
40%
30%
20%
10% 16%
12% 1% 0% 13% 2%
0%
Piped
connection to Surface water
Handpumps/b Protected Public Unprotected Unprotected
house (or (lake, pond,
oreholes spring tap/standpipe hand-dug well spring
neighbour’s dam, river)
house)
Total 12% 1% 0% 55% 13% 16% 2%

17
The survey sort to find out about the sources of water the households use for other activities like
gardening, brick laying, animal consumption and others as in figure 3 above. The results revealed
that, over half of households (55%) use public tap/standpipe for other activities in the household
and this is followed by about (16%) of the households who use unprotected hand-dug well for
other domestic activities while others use Surface water (lake, pond, dam, river) (13%),
handpump/borehole (12%), unprotected spring (2%) while piped connection to household was
reported at 1%.
Water per capita per zone

According to the findings from

Figure 4: Average litres of portable
the survey, the average liters of
water/per person/ per day collected in a
portable water/per person/ per
portable container
day collected at household level
across all the zones stand at 24 26.2
24.1 24.9 24.1 24.8
23.5
compared to 22 at baseline. The 19.9 19.9
findings from the survey revealed
at zone level that, Tika had a
better percapita at 26.2 l/p/d
closely Ocea and Odobu both
reported 24 l/p/d each while
Eden and Ofua both reported 20 Zone 1: Zone 2: Zone 3: Zone 4: Zone 5: Zone 6: Zone 7: Total
OCEA SIRIPI EDEN TIKA ODOBU OFUA OMUGO
l/p/d. The percapita across all the
zones conforms to the emergency standard of 20 l/p/d, this could be as a result of routine system
repairs and maintenance and fixing broken tap stands and extensions to new areas in the zones

Protected water storage container

According to findings as in figure 5,

the percentage of households with Figure 5: % of households with atleast 10
at least 10 liters/per person of litres/person protected water storage
protected water storage capacity capacity
across all the zones stand at 47% 53% 52%
50%
compared to the baseline figure of 44% 44% 45% 47%
39%
22%. The survey also revealed that
Siripi, Omugo and Ocea had a
higher figure at 53%, 52% and 50%
respectively. This was followed by
Odobu at 45%, Eden and Tika each
at 44%, while Ofua had 39%. This Ocea Siripi Eden Tika Odobu Ofua Omugo Overall
was very low as compared to the
post emergency standard of over 80% of the households though an improvement by 25% from
the baseline. Since the storage capacity is very low, this can also affect the daily water

18
consumption capacity and or increase on the frequency of water collection per day from the water
source.
Distance to the nearest water point

From the survey findings, the

overall average walking Figure 6: Household distance to the nearest
distance by household water point
members to the nearest 424
water point was 337 meters 369
321 337 329 337
compared to the baseline 296 296
figure of 381 meters. Further
findings from the survey
revealed that, in the
settlement, most households
walk a maximum distance of
Zone 1: Zone 2: Zone 3: Zone 4: Zone 5: Zone 6: Zone 7: Total
about 2400 meters from their OCEA SIRIPI EDEN TIKA ODOBU OFUA OMUGO
households to portable water
collection point especially when the nearest source is broken down with the minimum distance as
short as 80 metres. The survey revealed that, at Tika and Eden, most households walk as far as
over 424 metres to get water with households from Eden walking 369 meters.
Amount of water collected for households’ needs and reasons why household don’t collect enough
water
The survey looks at whether households collect enough water to meet their needs. The response
indicated that close to half of the households (48%) reported that they collect enough water for
their household needs compared to (29%)
at baseline with the exception of (52%) of Figure 8: Reasons for not getting enough
water
the households who do not collect enough
water for their households. Among the
Water is too far 8%
reasons as to why households do not collect
Waiting time at the water point… 6%
Figure 7: Amount of water
There are water shortages 18%
collected to meet all household
needs Limitation of volume of water… 3%

Don't have enough storage… 64%

Yes
No
48% enough water to meet their needs as presented in
52%
figure 8 above, most households reported that they
do not have enough storage containers for
collecting water (64%); this was followed by
households who reported water shortages (18%).
The rest of the households gave other reasons such as, waiting time at water point being too long

19
(6%), water being too far (8%), and limitation of volume of water that can be collected at water
point at 3%.

Persons who collect water for the household

Figure 9: Persons who collect
On who usually collect water for the households, the water for the households
Child
majority of the households (81%) reported that it is (11-18
adult females who usually collect water for the years)
14%
household, followed by children aged 11-18 years at
14% and adult male at 5%. Adult Adult
male female
Cleaning drinking water containers 5% 81%

The households were asked how frequent they clean

their drinking water containers, the response
indicated that, over half of the households (55%) clean
their containers at least once a week,
followed by (39%) of the households who Figure 10: Period for cleaning drinking
clean their containers every time they use water containers At least
them. The other 6% clean their containers once a
once in a month. On how households clean Every time
month
6%
their drinking water containers, close to half we use
of the households (43%) reported that, they them
At least
39%
wash their containers using rocks/sand once a week
55%
while shaking, less than half of the
households (40%) wash their containers
with a specific product like omo detergent,
soap powder, etc. while about 10% and 8%
either wash their containers with a piece of
tissue/sponge or they just rinse them with Figure 11: How drinking water containers
water. The respondents were also tested on are cleaned
safe water chain at household level, the
Wash them with a specific
result revealed that, the majority 85% of the product (such as Omo detergent 40%
households were seen to observe safe water or bleach, soap powder etc.)
chain at their households while the rest 15% Wash them with a piece of
did not observe safe water chain. 8%
tissue/sponge

Wash them by using rocks/sand

43%
and shaking

Rinse them with water 10%

20
Hygiene
Presence of soap

The survey revealed the percentage Figure 12: Presence of soap for the
of households with access to soap at households
81% compared to the baseline figure
No Yes
of only 48%. Most households (79%) 95%
reported that by the time of the 87% 87%
77% 78% 81%
72%
survey they had ran out of soap while 67%
(11%) of households could not afford
soap and 10% gave other reasons for 28%
33%
23% 22% 19%
not having soap. 13% 13%
5%
Further analysis revealed that,
Zone 1: Zone 2: Zone 3: Zone 4: Zone 5: Zone 6: Zone 7: Total
majority of the households (85%) got
OCEA SIRIPI EDEN TIKA ODOBU OFUA OMUGO
soap through a distribution by NGOs
while 10% purchase soap and rest 5%
Figure 13: What households use in absence of
were gifted soap. Furthermore, over
soap
half of the households (56%) revealed 56%
that they would use Ash in absence of
soap. 35% would use water only, 8% 35%
use sand and the rest 1% do not use
anything when there is no soap at the 8%
household. 1%

Ash Do not use Sand Water only

anything

21
Critical hand washing moments
Figure 13: Critical moment of hand washing at the household

97%
92%
83%

35%
27% 23%

2%

Before eating Before cooking After defecation Before Before feeding After handling a Other
breastfeeding children child's stool

The households were asked to name at least 3 of the most important times when someone should
wash hand. The survey revealed as in figure 13 above that most household members stated the 3
moments as before eating (97%), after defecation (92%) and before cooking/meal preparation
(83%). The rest of the households also identified another set of 3 critical moment of hand washing
as; After handling a child’s stool (23%), before breastfeeding (27%), and before feeding children
(35%).
Specific hand washing device/station at household

The survey also

Figure 14: Access to specific handwashing facility
assessed the
No Yes presence of hand
74% washing facility in
64% 64% the household. The
61%
57% 55% result revealed as in
53% 52%
47% 48%
43% 45% figure 14 above that,
39%
36% 36% over half of the
26% household had hand
washing
device/station in
their households
Zone 1: Zone 2: Zone 3: Zone 4: Zone 5: Zone 6: Zone 7: Total
compared to only
OCEA SIRIPI EDEN TIKA ODOBU OFUA OMUGO
14% of the
households reporting presence of hand washing facility at baseline while the rest (48%) did not
have hand washing facility in their household. From the observations carried out, 81% of
households with hand washing device had water in it and the rest 19% did not have water meaning
either the water got finished or the device is not being used. The observation from the survey also

22
revealed that, 64% of households who had hand-washing facility had soap placed next to it while
46% had no soap at the hand washing station.

Sanitation
Where household members excluding children under 5 defecate

Figure 15: Where household members (excluding children under 5)

defecate
Communal latrine Household latrine Open defecation

94% 93% 95% 99% 99%

92% 90%

58%

20% 22%
7% 1% 5% 2% 6% 2% 2% 6% 4%
0% 1% 1% 0% 1%

Zone 1: OCEA Zone 2: SIRIPI Zone 3: EDEN Zone 4: TIKA Zone 5: Zone 6: OFUA Zone 7: Total
ODOBU OMUGO

According to the survey findings as in figure 15, the majority of household members (90%)
defecate in the household latrine (this excludes children under 5years of age) compared to 79%
of the households at baseline. With only a few (6%) who use communal latrine (new arrivals were
considered to use communal latrine) while about (4%) practice open defecation in places where
they stay. The survey also revealed that, the percentage of households with access to latrine/toilet
stands at 95%.

Figure 16: Where children under-5 living in the household defecate

No child under-5 Communal latrine Household latrine Open defecation Plastic pot

55% 58%
52%
47%
42%
39% 39%
35% 36%
26% 24% 25% 24% 25%
23% 23% 21% 20% 23% 21%
18% 18%
9%11% 8% 8% 10% 10% 8%
8% 8%
5% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4%
1% 1% 1%

Zone 1: OCEA Zone 2: SIRIPI Zone 3: EDEN Zone 4: TIKA Zone 5: Zone 6: OFUA Zone 7: Total
ODOBU OMUGO

From the findings as in figure 16, close to half of the households 42% reported that, the children
under 5 years who have started walking always defecate in the household latrine while about 21%
of the households reported that children under 5 years practice open defecation and about 8% of
the households use plastic pots for the children under 5 years to defecate, while the rest 4% take

23
their children to the nearby communal latrine to defecate. For children under-5 who do not use a
latrine, finding revealed that, all the households collect and dispose of their faeces in the latrine.
Practice of open defecation among adult members of the household
Figure 17: Practice of open defecation among the adult members of the
household
Don’t know No Yes

93% 99% 97%

89% 92% 89%
85%
70%

28%
10% 5% 6% 9% 5% 8%
1% 1% 2% 2% 4% 3% 3%

Zone 1: OCEA Zone 2: SIRIPI Zone 3: EDEN Zone 4: TIKA Zone 5: Zone 6: OFUA Zone 7: Total
ODOBU OMUGO

The survey also revealed as in figure 17 below that, about 8% of adult members in the household
defecate in the open especially at night compared to 16% at baseline and they gave a reason of
no latrine in the household (51%), latrine is too far (17%) and too dark at night (27%).
Presence of bathing facility for the households
Figure 18: Presence of bathing facility in the household
Do not have a designated bathing facility Have a designated shower/bathing facility
93% 90%
85%
78% 75% 80%
72%
65%

35%
25% 28%
22% 20%
15%
7% 10%

Zone 1: OCEA Zone 2: SIRIPI Zone 3: EDEN Zone 4: TIKA Zone 5: Zone 6: OFUA Zone 7: Total
ODOBU OMUGO

The survey revealed as in figure 18 above that, the majority of the households (80%) have a
designated shower/bathing facility compared to 75% at baseline with exception of 20% of the
households with no bathing facility as it was observed in the households during the survey. It was
also observed that, 95% of households cover their food when it is kept for another person.

24
Waste management

According to the
survey, the Figure 19: Where households dispose domestic waste
percentage of
73%
households with
access to solid
waste disposal
facility stands at
75%. Much as
there is solid
waste disposal
facility in most of
12% 9%
the households,
3% 1% 2% 1%
the practice of
dumping waste
Burn it Bury it Communal Designated Household Other Undesignated
in the facility pit open area pit open area
remains poor
with wastes visible near the households and on the compound as observed by enumerators during
the data collection process. The figure 19 revealed more than half of the households 73% dispose
of domestic waste in the household pit, with 12% in designated and 9% in undesignated open area,
3% burn domestic waste, 2% dispose in communal pit and another 1% bury it. It was observed
that, 81% of the households had clean courtyard with exception of only 19% where rubbish was
seen littered on the compound.

Presence of abnormal vector near the household

Figure 20: Presence of abnormal vector near The most common abnormal
the household vector reported by households
84% were mosquitoes at 84%
followed by rodents at 56%,
56% flies were reported by 45% of
45% the households while
39%
cockroaches reported by 39% of
the households. About 9% of
9% the households did not observe
2%
any abnormal presence of
Rodents Mosquitoes Flies Cockroaches Others Did not vectors at their homes.
observe any
vector

25
Messaging
Respondents were asked to indicate the
available common means to receive Figure 21: Best common means
health and hygiene messages. The available to receive hygiene and
result revealed home visits from CHWs health messages
SMS 1%
(74%) as the best common means
Radio 5%
followed by community meetings at
Printed flyers 1%
16%, radio at 5%, printed flyers at 1%
Other 1%
and Focussed Group Discussions at 2%
Home visits from CHWs 74%
and others at 1%. Furthermore, the
figure 22 revealed that 78% of the
Focus Group Discussions 2%
households prefer receiving hygiene Community meetings 16%
and health messages through home
visits by hygiene promoters, 15% from
community meetings, only 4% would Figure 22: The beast alternative to
prefer radio while 2% prefer either receive hygiene and health messages
printed flyers or Focus Group
Discussions. The survey further asked
SMS 1%
the respondents if they had received a Radio 4%
community health worker in their Printed flyers 2%
community in the last month, about Other 1%
58% had received visits while only 35% Home visits from CHWs 78%
reported attending community Focus Group Discussions 2%
meetings on health and hygiene Community meetings 15%
messages.

26
Diarrhoea prevalence, knowledge and health seeking Behaviour
From the survey, the diarrhoea
prevalence among children under 5 Figure 23: Ways that people can get
years was at 23% while among 5 diarrhea
years and above was at 12%. The
household members mentioned Don't know 1%
the most common possible causes Other 3%
of diarrhoea as: through drinking From swimming or bathing in… 7%
contaminated water (93%), From contact with someone… 13%
through eating contaminated or From flies 76%
undercooked food (91%), from flies From unpleasant odors 28%
at 76%, from unpleasant odor at Through contaminated or… 91%
28% and from contact with Through contaminated water 93%
someone sick with diarrhoea (13%).
The respondents also mentioned
Figure 24: Ways that people can prevent
some uncommon ways such as diarrhea
through swimming/bathing in
surface water (7%) while about 1% Other 1
Cover food 36
of the households don’t know the
Store water safely 17
ways that people can get diarrhoea. Bury faeces 20
This result means that most Dispose of children’s faeces in… 24
household members have good Use toilet/latrine facility to… 38
Clean home with bleach 12
knowledge and understanding on
Cleaning cooking utensils 44
health related issues because of Wash fruits and vegetables 44
several health education sessions Cook food well 79
conducted by hygiene Wash hands with soap and water 81
Boil or treat your water/drink… 81
promoters/community health
workers.
Respondents were also asked ways in which diarrhoea can be prevented as in figure 24 above.
They mentioned the most common ways as: washing hand with soap and water (81%), boiling or
treating water or drinking clean water (81%), cooking food well (79%), cleaning cooking utensils
(44%), washing fruits and vegetables at 444%, covering food (36%), and using latrine/toilet facility
to defecate (38%). Other preventive measures include disposing of children’s faeces in latrine
(24%), and storing water safely for drinking (17%).

27
Conclusion
In view of the above indicator findings, this KAP survey acknowledges that partners have done a
tremendous job in improving the living conditions of the refugees in relation to Water, hygiene
and Sanitation compared to the baseline KAP survey findings. However, there are still challenges
under the different thematic areas to ensure that the standards are met. Access and use of safe
water has improve with average litres per capita at 24 l/p/d compared to 22 l/p/d as at baseline
survey. A 10 litre per person protected water storage capacity is still low at 47% compared to
baseline figure of 22%. Though the survey found out that the major source of water across the
settlement was public tap/standpipe (94%), the proportion of households collecting water from
protected source has greatly improved which is at 100% and this conforms to the post
emergency standard. This implies that the current water supply systems have greatly improved
in the settlement. The sanitation situation in terms of open defecation is still bad since the open
defection at still at 8% which is supposed to be zero and so more needs to be done by distributing
latrine digging kits and encouraging households to dig latrines. In reference to reports from the
Water supply technical working group and WMU monthly reports, some of the systems have
challenges, they are faced with continuous breakdowns; therefore, this survey recommends
among other things that the technical working group should not only stop at reviewing and
approving designs, but should also follow up on the implementation of the approved designs to
avoid variations between proposed and as built designs.

VIII. Recommendations
Water

 There is need for continuous maintenance and rehabilitation water supply systems and tap
stands that broke down with close monitoring by the Water Supply Technical Working Group.
This is to ensure that the partners and contractors adhere to the standards and thus lead to
the attainment of the required per capita water consumption of 20l/c/d across all the zones.
 WMU as the lead WASH partner responsible for undertaking the operation and maintenance
of water supply system should ensure that the systems remain functional to guarantee the
water per capita does not drop below the current and that household continue to get water
from protected/treated source. Sustainable operation and maintenance mechanisms should
be put in place by setting up community management structures and livelihood options.
 Massive rehabilitation of boreholes and fixing broken taps should be prioritized to improve
water supply situation especially in Eden and Ofua zone where the water situation is so bad.

28
Sanitation

 Appropriate technological options should be utilized to ensure the challenge of ever filling and
collapsible pit latrines are averted.
 Since the settlement has reached post emergency phase, partners need to encourage
households to venture into sanitation marketing with a main focus on cash based interventions
like livelihood projects to boost community members’ demand for sanitation products
including latrine construction materials.
 In as much as most households have and use latrines, it is still imperative for partners to
consider the fact that latrines would fill up, hence creating a need for support to construct
others. Since the settlement has moved from an emergency to a post emergency phase,
partners need to continue to encourage households to construct toilets/latrine so that cases
of open defecation can either disappear or reduce. More so, WMU needs to continue
distributing latrine digging kits across all the zones and also encourage household members to
dig latrine holes.
 Sanitation activities should target elimination of open defecation by adults and safe disposal
of children faeces since the cases continue to be high in the settlement most especially in Tika
zone and households should be encouraged to construct bathing facilities since the access to
these facilities.
Hygiene

 There is need for partners to encourage household heads to provide more Non-Food Items
such as soap, jerricans and hand-washing facilities such as tippy taps to households. This is
likely to increase the per capita consumption of water since most respondents had water
storage containers less than 10L.
 Women in reproductive ages should be trained on how to manufacture reusable pads as well
as their proper disposal. This is because the findings found out that most women used
disposable pads and disposed sanitary pads in latrines this leads to faster filling up of the
latrines.
 There is need for intensive hygiene promotion activities across all the zones with particular
focus on Tika zone since the situation there is not fine and more interventions to improve
hygiene awareness within the community should be generated.
Messaging

 Information Education and Communication (IEC) materials on WASH, especially

handwashing with soap at critical times should be intensified the study found out, the
practice of handwashing is only at 52% in Rhino Camp refugee settlement.
 There is need for refresher training to equip hygiene promoters, Refugee welfare
committees and Water User Committees on WASH promotion approaches as well as on
monitoring of community health improvement strategies. The findings showed that, the
most preferred way of receiving messages was through home visits by the community
health workers (Hygiene Promoters).

29
 IX. Annexes

Annex 1: Questionnaire

2a - Standard WASH
KAP Questionnaire.docx

Annex 2: KAP Survey work plan

Field Activity plan to conduct KAP survey in Rhino Camp settlement

No. Activity Associated Tasks Days Date Output

Stage 1: Inception/Preparatory Phase

1 Develop survey Review and revise draft 2 days 26-27 KAP questionnaire and
instruments and questionnaire and develop October sample design
sampling design detailed sample design 2020 (plus FGD
questionnaire)
2 Review of Inception Report (including 2 days 27-28 Data collection tools
methodology questionnaire, sample design October reviewed
and tools and work plan) to be reviewed 2020
by UNHCR and WASH TWG
3 Development of Select M&E committee will 3 days 28-30 Database in Kobo
the database. develop and program a October collect tool to
database using Kobo collect to 2020 facilitate easy data
conduct mobile data collection collection.
Stage 2: Recruitment & Training of Enumerators and Pre-Testing

1 Recruitment of Identification of potential 3 days 16-18 Contacted and

the staff candidates from the former staff November recruited
Recruiting enumerators 2020 Supervisors, Data
Conducting planning meeting Collectors and
with field team Encoders
2 Writing of Drafting of the Terms of Flexible TORs for Survey
ToR for staff references for 2 kinds of staff Supervisors, Data
Collectors
3 Signing of Flexible Briefing on expected
Contracts & activities
Briefing
4 Training of field Orientation and training of all 2 Days 19-20 Field staff trained (The
staff field staff (supervisors, and November supervisors will
enumerators) on research 2020 mentor and guide the
objectives, questionnaire and data collectors at the
techniques field level)

30
 5 Pre-testing of Identification of pilot areas and 1 day 21 Revised
the instruments conducting pre-test November Instruments and
and 2020 techniques
review/adopt
tools for the
survey
Stage 3: Fieldwork

1 Data collection Implementation of data 5 days/ 23-27 Completed baseline

collection exercise in agreed zone November KAP surveys
sampling areas 2020
Field supervision and quality Properly filled up
control. The supervisors must questionnaires and
ensure that questionnaires are gaps addressed.
properly filled up in the Kobo
collect tool and identified gaps
are addressed.
2 Submission of Upload all field records onto the 1 day 28 Completed
output and Kobo collect server. November questionnaires
review field 2020
data
Stage 4: Data cleaning and Analysis

1 Data transfer WMU M&E Officers will transfer 2 30 Data entry completed
from mobile all data from all the mobile Days November-
equipment to device into the Kobo collect 1
Kobo collect database December
server 2020
2 Data Cleaning Implement successive rounds of 3 days 2-4 Completed databank
and merging data cleaning to detect and December with accurate data and
correct any data entry errors 2020 information.
and to check the accuracy and
consistency of the data.
3 Data Cleaned data will be analyzed 5 days 7-11 Analysis of baseline
Analysis and using UNHCR KAP survey December indicators
Interpretation analyzer, SPSS and Excel 2020
Analyzer
Stage 5: Report Making & Dissemination

1 Develop draft Develop and submit Final Report 5 days 11-16 Draft report
of Final Report for review by UNHCR and December
for WTWG 2020
comment

31
 2 Review of draft Review of draft KAP survey 3 days 14-16 Feedback on draft
KAP Survey report by UNHCR and WTWG December report
report 2020
3 Integration of While doing the modification of 2 days 15-16 Comments
comments the report, send invitation to December integrated
the Consortium and relevant 2020
government agencies
4 Presentation of Follow up the invitees 1 day 16 Feedback on the
the Findings December findings
2020
5 Develop Develop and submit Final Report 5 days 15-16 Final Report submitted
Final and dissemination materials; December
Baseline Power Point presentation and 2 2020
Report page summary of findings

Annex 3: Communities covered in the KAP survey

Rhino Camp settlement sample size

Zone Population Household size Sample household
Zone I 13,688 2,631 336
Zone II 12,603 3,031 342
Zone III 4,740 1,078 284
Zone IV 9,035 2,545 335
Zone V 12,500 2,227 329
Zone VI 26,952 6,787 365
Zone VII 36,504 11,513 373
Total 116,022 29,812 2,364
Annex 4: Community contact persons
S/N NAMES Designation Zone TELEPHONE
1 AYUME ISAAC RWC 1 Ofua 0773361385
2 BALA SIMON RWC 1 Ocea 0750427792
3 JACOB MANYON MANYOK RWC 1 Siripi 0780990737
4 JAMAICA NELSON RWC 1 Eden 0771249055
5 MOHAMMED JACKSON RWC 1 Tika 0753493002
6 SARAH RWC 1 Odobu 0702476566

32
Annex 5: KAP survey team
List of enumerators
Omugo
S/N ENUMERATOR NAME MOBILE NUMBER
1 Angundu Collins 256787181011
2 Mungujakisa Edwin 256776877905
3 Joja Tom 256783668672
4 Munduga Tonny 256779545543
5 Ariku Simon 256785676562
6 Angunjia Peter 256775212729
7 Badi Michael 256789385951
8 Sida Harriet 256786684814
9 Sitima Agnes 256777262003
10 Aleti Jesca 256775032154
11 Ajiga Nobert 256772815488
12 Afulu Joseph Junior 256771819332

Siripi
S/N ENUMERATOR NAME MOBILE NUMBER
1 Wadok Stephen Longa 256771288318

2 Aluma Joseph 256783171791

3 Nyakuru Bibiana 256758195118

4 Monday David 256779693699

5 Oliver Lugala Jackson 256786183666

6 Okuonjiga Robert 256701880652

7 Taban Emmanuel 256789710667

8 Rufas Bita Elias 256787179088

9 Inziku Felex 256707313389

10 Cyrus Emmanuel 256773380795

11 Kenyi Emmanuel 256779601403

12 Keji Beida 256783262015

Ocea
S/N ENUMERATOR NAME MOBILE NUMBER
1 Juma Francis 256788222220

2 Ayikoru Milka 256784080182

33
3 Timothy Johnson Jalan 256789120892

4 Vicky Night Sitima 256775987091

5 Sunday Joyce 256779010718

6 Lemi Emmanuel 256786877697

7 Julias Nyerere Christopher Wani 256775061669

8 Peter Gatchuk Machar 256789698968

9 Letiru Joan 256772409463

10 Onen Joseph Willy 256759059167

11 Madepi Salume 256758489657

12 Gatluak Jok Kuol 256751906023

Odobu
S/N ENUMERATOR NAME MOBILE NUMBER
1 Kofi Anan 256771066536

2 Abujabar Samson 256780454028

3 Pech Lim Gatluak 256780400659

4 Sanya Stephen 256779714500

5 Oryem Quincy Willy 256782334070

6 Majuk Dan 256786105580

7 Met Lim Gatluak 256780542338

8 Charles Woja Surur 256789692982

9 Immaculate Kojoki 256705468528

10 Asiku Leonard 256781483144

11 Amule Abubakar 256778590313

12 Night Aida 256700206456

Tika
S/N ENUMERATOR NAME MOBILE NUMBER
1 Vulima Pasikole 256787426263

2 Toko Santus 256785304970

3 Awininiki Susan 256782344415

34
4 Faida Jane 256773738469

5 Guma Emmanuel 256774628258

6 Ayikoru Harriet 256775029929

7 Oroma Samuel 256783799149

8 Arindu Alfred 256786505529

9 Trimaru Monica 256778720715

10 Dama Emmanuel 256789146683

11 Toma Vivian Hildah 256776579804

12 Gati Geofrey 256774840128

Ofua
S/N ENUMERATOR NAME MOBILE NUMBER
1 Towongo Francis 256753336415

2 Moga Justine 256754428874

3 Asibaziyo Godliver 256776829599

4 Musoke Mark 256700263706

5 Yakani Lenard 256773992142

6 Adomati Lawrence 256785519657

7 Amandi Wilfred 256707313384

8 Adriko Constantine 256759649253

9 Goya Moses 256772421936

10 Ayozu Joy 256774865333

11 Buzu Bridget Bako 256779696105

12 Oliver Dada Vitale 256781469500

Eden
S/N ENUMERATOR NAME MOBILE NUMBER
1 Taban Phillip 256785115860

2 Emmanuel Juka Sapana 256781464145

3 Nelson Mandela 256784300066

4 Data Charles 256778766185

35
 5 Joice Monday 256770516991

6 Inna Janet Taban 256772404210

7 Khemis Ezibon Morris 256775736667

8 Amanda Hope 256784988517

9 Wamoya Balam 256756512468

10 Drijaru Clara 256777815045

11 Atibuni Festus 256777515704

12 Yire Econi 256703538168

Annex 6: Activity Photos

Enumerators picking GPS coordinate during training Enumerators attending end line survey training

Enumerator conducting household interviews Enumerator conducting household interviews

36
Public tap/stand pipe providing clean drinking water for
households
Piped water connection at a household in Tika zone

WMU M&E Officer training enumerators on data collection

Enumerator conducting household interviews

37