WASH Baseline Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Evaluation

PROJECT: Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in DRC:

Strengthening Community Prevention, Response, and Recovery

SITE: BENI TOWN

Submitted: April 15, 2020
Cooperative Agreement: 720FDA20CA00003

Disclaimer: This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of IMA World
Health and Tearfund and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTEXT AND JUSTIFICATION………………………………………………………………...........................3
OBJECTIVE OF THE SURVEY………………………………………………………………...…..........................3
METHODOLOGY ………………………………………………………………………...………………………………….3
Data collection ………………………………………………………………...…….........................................4
Data analysis and report……………………………………………...……………………………………………….4
Results of the survey ………………………………………………………………...………………………………….5
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS………………………………………………………….………………………25

ABBREVIATIONS
IMA : IMA World Health
EVD : Ebola Virus Disease
OFDA : Office of U.S Foreign Disaster Assistance
PCI : Prevention and control of infections
WASH : Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
PPSSP : Programme de Promotion des Soins de Santé Primaire
DRC : Democratic Republic of Congo
SNHR : Service National de l’Hydraulique Rurale
HZ : Health Zone

2
 1. CONTEXT AND JUSTIFICATION
Tearfund has received funding for a project to continue the fight against Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in
North Kivu Province. The project is funded by USAID/OFDA via the international organization IMA World
Health. The project indicators are specifically defined in the project proposal and should be measured at
baseline in the community in order to provide a starting point for the project and assist in establishing
ambitious, yet realistic targets. The specific title of the project is: “Ebola Virus Disease in DRC:
Strengthening Community Prevention, Response, and Recovery”. The project is being implemented in
consortium with other actors, namely IMA, PPSSP, and Heal Africa. For Tearfund, the focus is on the
fight against and prevention of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in targeted Health Zones, namely Beni,
Rwanguba, Rutshuru, and Nyiragongo. It will be centered on three facets: preparedness to respond to
EVD in health facilities in Rwanguba, Rutshuru, and Nyiragongo Health Zones; the community facet in
Beni Health Zone; and rehabilitation of PCI/WASH infrastructures or EHA built in year 1 in Mabalako,
Beni, Kalunguta, Butembo, Katwa, Goma, Karisimbi, and Nyirogongo Health Zones. This survey is focused
on the community WASH activities that will be implemented in Beni Health Zone, including:
development/rehabilitation of water sources with reservoirs, rainwater harvesting in schools,
distribution of tools to dig family latrines, capacity building of community groups on EVD prevention and
other water-related diseases, hygiene and sanitation, the provision of handwashing kits to local
churches and targeted schools, supplying schools with kits for EVD screening, sensitization in the
households and schools targeted by the project. The study was conducted in 18 Health Areas in Beni
Health Zone.

2. OBJECTIVE OF THE SURVEY

To obtain baseline information/data on the following quantitative indicators:

● % of households with access to drinking water (for the different norms and standards to have
effective access to drinking water, see Sphere humanitarian standards)
● % of households targeted by hygiene promotion to keep drinking water in clean containers
● % of people in targeted health areas who can remember prevention measures for Ebola Virus
Disease
● % of household members who can recall health education messages received (ex. key moments
for hand washing)
● % of households that use clean latrines
● % of people who know at least 3 of the 5 critical moments for hand washing.

Additional qualitative data relating to school WASH activities were collected via focus groups and school
visits.

3. METHODOLOGY
● Training and deployment of data collectors
The survey team consisted of 72 data collectors from the 18 health areas. Data collectors were required
to meet certain recruitment criteria set by the Tearfund Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator in
collaboration with project teams, including the Project Coordinator (manager) and the project team
leader based in Beni. A 2-day training was organized by the Tearfund M&E Coordinator and focused on
the objective of the survey, understanding of the household questionnaire, and the use of tablets to
incorporate a synchronized questionnaire to the Tearfund DRC Kobo server. The method of sampling was
done by a random walk in a very dense community (see the structure of Beni town) where households
were picked at specific intervals throughout all health areas. It should be noted that given the security

3
situation, the health zone management team was strongly involved in all operations related to the study.
(They also got trained and followed the data collectors in the field).

● Data collection
The Kobo Collect Tools application was used for data collection, specifically Kobo Collect. The
questionnaire was configured on the Tearfund Kobo account and was set up on the tablets. Before any
data collection in the field, this household survey questionnaire was uploaded to the tablets to minimize
potential mistakes, for example standardizing questions, skip logic etc. At the end of each day, the
Tearfund teams met with the data collectors to make sure that all difficulties related to data collection
were addressed and solved. Two days of data collection was sufficient. For the qualitative data, 8 focus
groups were organized by the Tearfund team and 19 schools were visited.

● Sampling
Tearfund selected two populations in order to target both Beni residents and IDPs. Beni Health Zone
provided household data for 460,423 households in the 18 health areas. For the sample size calculation,
in which the confidence level was 95% and the margin of error was 5%, the sample size was 384
households. During our assessment preparation, Tearfund were informed of a further 196 IDP households
that were living on the outskirts of Beni town (but still within Beni Health Zone) and were displaced less
than 8 months ago. In order to explicitly hear the needs and interests of IDPs, the populations were
separated. Based on the sample size calculation, in which the confidence level was 95% and the margin of
error 5%, the sample size was 131 households. Therefore, the total number of households sampled was
515 households. The purpose of the sample size calculation was to determine point prevalence.

● Data analysis and reporting

The analysis was done by the MERL coordinator for Tearfund DRC. Quantitative analysis was done with
using PivotTables in Excel for quantitative data. Qualitative data analysis included transcription, coding,
interpretation and theory building. Once the data had been collected and recorded, it was coded by theme
or topic to analyze patterns of response. Patterns and thematic coding were then interpreted to build an
outcome of the process.

4. SURVEY LIMITATIONS

Issues of insecurity prevented the Tearfund staff who came to support the surveys from visiting all the
villages in which the surveys were conducted. One targeted health area was attacked while the data
collectors were being trained. After the attack, activities resumed, and communities accepted the data
collectors despite the stress they underwent.

5. RESULTS
SURVEY CHARACTERISTICS
Out of 515 respondents, 60% were female (Table 1). Over 80% (n=414) identified as head of
household. This may increase accuracy of the data, as heads of household know the context
and all the information related to their living conditions. The average number of household
members was 6 people per household.

4
Table 1. Survey respondents by location and gender.

Health Area Female (n, %) Male (n, %) Total

BOIKENE 11 (52%) 10 (48%) 21

BUNDJI 20 (67%) 10 (33%) 30

BUTSILI 22 (61%) 14 ( 36

KANZULINZULI 22 (69%) 10 (31%) 32

KASABINYOLE 26 (76%) 8 (24%) 34

KASANGA 5 (31%) 11 (69%) 16

MABAKANGA 23 (74%) 8 (26%) 31

MABOLIO 21(66%) 11 (34%) 32

MALEPE 25 (71%) 10 (29%) 35

Mandrandele 24 (75%) 8 (25%) 32

MUKULIA 9 (32%) 19 (68%) 28

NGONGOLIO 11 (69%) 5 (31%) 16

PAIDA 17(53%) 15 (47%) 32

RWANGOMA 6 (35%) 11 (65%) 17

SAYO 14 (42%) 19 (58%) 33

SUPA 13(48%) 14 (52%) 27

5
 TAMENDE 21 (64%) 12 (36%) 33

TUUNGANE 22 (73%) 8 (27%) 30

Total 312 (61%) 203 (29%) 515

WATER:

W1. Where do you usually get your drinking water?

Most households (89%) get water from an unprotected water point/spring (Table 2). The 11% of
households that get water from protected water points are those who live in the city. Respondents living
in the suburbs do not have access to protected water sources.

Table 2. Source of Drinking Water

Type of water point Frequency %

Borehole installed with pump (hand pump or foot pump) 9 2%

River 3 1%

Unprotected source/spring 300 58%

Protected source/spring 20 4%

Protected water tap/faucet 19 4%

Unprotected water tap/faucet 137 27%

Open wells dug by hands 7 1%

Protected wells dug by hands 20 4%

Total 515 100%

W2 .1. How many meters away is the water point? (Where you get drinking water for your house)

6
The majority of the population (77%) walks more than 500m (above sphere standards for emergencies)
to reach the water point (Table 3). This is a challenge for the population of Beni. Forty (40) households
(7%) say that they have a water point on site, but this does not mean that they have protected water
points; they generally have traditional wells often unprotected or badly protected.

Table 3. Distance to drinking water source

Responses/Variables Frequency %

Don’t know 9 2%

More than 500m 395 77%

Water source/spring on
site 40 8%

Less than or equal to

500m 71 14%

Total 515 100%

W2.2. Detailed analysis of the type of water point and the distance covered

The majority of households use unprotected water points and that most of the population of Beni face
distances beyond the WASH standard (see project sphere 2018). Of the 71 households who travel less
than 500m to collect water, only 7 go to a protected water point (Table 4). Of the 515 households, only
1.4% have access to protected water within 500m. 56 households (11%) have access to a protected water
point but have to travel much further than the standard norms, while 66% have to travel further than
500m and access an unprotected water point. 1.7% of the people interviewed during the survey were not
able to estimate the distance between their households and the water points. 40 households have water
points on site (7.8%). While collecting qualitative data, confirmation was given related to the aspect of
having water on site. Many of the households with a water area/place are located in Centerville or live
with people who have water points in their compounds, or their households are close to water wells dug
traditionally.

Table 4. Distance to water point and water source (protected vs. unprotected)

Less Don’t More Water

than or know than source
Protected Water Point equal to 500m on site Total (n, %)
500m (n, (n, %) (n, %)
%)

7
 Protected source/ spring 1 (0.2) 0 (0) 18(3) 1 (0.2) 20 (4)

Protected water tap 6 (1) 0 (0) 12 (2) 1 (0.2) 19 (4)

Drilling installed with pump

(hand pump or foot pump) 0 (0) 0 (0) 8 (2) 1 (0.2) 9 (2)

Protected wells dug by hands 0 (0) 0 (0) 18 (3) 2 (0.4) 20 (4)

Total (Protected Water Points) 7 (1) 0 (0) 56 (11) 5 (1) 68 (13)

Unprotected water points

River 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0.6) 3 (0.6)

Open wells dug by hands 1

0 (0) 4 (1) 2 (0.4) 7 (1)
(0.2)

Unprotected source/ spring 256

19 (4) 8 (2) 17 (3) 300 (58)
(50)

Unprotected water tap 45 (9) 0 (0) 79 (15) 13 (3) 137 (27)

339
64 (12) 9 (2) 35 (7) 447 (87)
S/Total (66)

Total (all water sources) 71 (13) 9 (2) 395 (77 40 (8) 515 (100)

W3. Frequency that water point breaks down

Water points break down Never according to 64% of respondents and Often for 36% of respondents.
Three households (1%) get their water from rivers, so this question was not applicable.

W4. Water Breakdown issues

Seasonal availability and technical problems are the 2 most frequently reported reasons water points are
inaccessible according to respondents (Table 5).

Table 5. Reason water is inaccessible

8
 %
Reason Frequency

80 43%

Technical problems - the source sometimes breaks down or gets polluted

92 49%
Available only at given period of the year (seasonal problems)

9 5%

Other

4 2%
Conflict prevents access to the source

2 1%
Don’t know

187 100%
Total

Comments:

Reasons for breakdowns are listed and the percentage is shown from each type of breakdown. Most
breakdowns experienced are due to seasonal problems with 92/187 households (49%) confirming that
the water point is only available at certain times of the year due to seasonal problems.

W5. Do you wait at water point?

Table 6. Waiting at water point

Row Labels Frequency %

No 188 36.50%

Yes 327 63.50%

Total 515 100%

9
Comments:

This table shows that having access to water remains a difficulty in Beni because the majority of the
population must wait at water points to access water, 327 households/people out of 515 interviewed
(63%) said this was the case. Different reasons are given in Table 7.

W6. How long does it take you to get water from the water points named above? (one response and
include the time you have to wait)

Table 7. Waiting time to get water

Assertion/ Variable Frequency Percentage

Less than 30 minutes 141 27.4%

30-60 minutes 163 31.7%

60 - 90 minutes 206 40.0%

Don’t know 4 0.8%

Refuse to answer 1 0.2%

Total 515 100.0%

Comments:

Most of the households travel further than the standard norms to access to water (see project sphere).
This table gives us information on the time it takes people to walk, including the waiting time, in order to
access water. Only 141 interviewees out of 515 (27%) walk for less than 30 minutes in order to access
water. Meanwhile, 399 interviewees out of 515 (72%) walk for over 30 minutes (including 30 to 60 minutes
31.7%; 60-90 minutes 40%). One person (0.2%) refused to respond, and 4 others were not able to estimate
the distance.

W7. Is water available at the water point any time you want it?

Table 8. Water availability at any time

Row Labels Frequency Percentage

10
 50.3%
No 259

49.7%
Yes 256

Total 515 100%

Comments:

Slightly more interviewees said that water is not available any time they want it, 259 interviewees out of
515 (50.3%). But 256 out of 515 (49.7%) said water is available any time they want it. Reasons for lack of
water: the water taps often break down; water is available, but the quality is very bad; the source dries
up in the dry season. The households that gave other reasons not mentioned in the variables say that for
some water points there are time restrictions to accessing water (from 6 A.M to 8 A.M and from 4 P.M to
6 P.M). Others said that water is only accessible in the evening, and still others stated that water points
often break down, often related to seasonal problems. During the rainy season the water can be polluted,
and during the dry season some water points dry up.

W8. How much water do you use daily in your household (In cans of 20 liters) One response?

Table 9. Daily water use

Row Labels Frequency Percentage

6.6%
One can of 20 liters 34

11.7%
Two cans of 20 liters 60

17.7%
Three cans of 20 liters 91

16.5%
Four cans of 20 liters 85

17.9%
Five cans of 20 liters 92

11.1%
Six cans of 20 liters 57

11
 0.6%
Don’t know 3

18.1%
More than 6 cans of 20 liters 93

Total 515 100%

Comments:

According to the average household size, which is 6 people per household, and taking into account the
standard water needs per person, each household should use a quantity of water between 90 and 120
liters, which is 5 to 6 cans a day per household. However, this table shows that only 47.1% of the
interviewees use enough water in their households. On the other hand, 52.5% do not have access to the
daily amount of water needed per person.

W9. Do you think that you have enough containers to stock water for the needs of your household?

Table 10. Sufficient containers to stock water

Row Labels Frequency Percentage

No 381 73.98%

Yes 134 26.02%

Total 515 100%

Comments:

The majority of interviewees/households do not have enough containers to store sufficient water for the
needs of their household. 381 households out of 515 (73.98%) stated that they do not have enough vessels
to store water.

W10. Do you treat your water in some way before you drink it?

Table 11. Water treatment

Row Labels Frequency Percentage

No 456 88.54%

Yes 59 11.46%

12
 Total 515 100%

Comments:

Although some households surveyed were unsure of the quality of water, especially in the rainy season
(because the water is polluted), the treatment of drinking water is rarely done despite the complaints of
the households in relation to water pollution. 88.54% of the households surveyed do not treat drinking
water.

W11. Ways (Containers) for keeping water in the households

Table 12. Household water storage

Percentage
Responses Frequency

123 23.88%
In a clean can with a cap

392 76.12%
In a can without a cap

0 0%
Other to specify

515 100.00%
Total

Comments:

This table shows the observations of the data collectors in relation to the containers in which households
store water; the majority of households, 392/515 (76.12%), store water in cans without caps, whereas
123/515 households (23.88%) store water in clean cans with caps. This shows there is a challenge around
water storage in the households.

1. Data on Hygiene
H1. Handwashing device available near the latrine

Table 13. Handwashing device availability

Row Labels Frequency Percentage

13
 4.08%
It is in the house (seen by the data collector) 21

74.37%
No 383

21.55%
Yes 111

Total 515 100%

Comments:

This table shows that most households in Beni town do not have handwashing devices. It is more of a
need in the context of Beni town where most of the population have no hand wash devices near their
restrooms. Handwashing devices should effectively contribute to fighting diseases caused by a lack of
hygiene. 74.37% of people interviewed during the study do not have handwashing devices, as opposed to
21.55% who say they have them and 4% have them in their houses.

H2. Reason for the lack of handwashing device near the restroom

Table 14. Reason for lack of handwashing device

Row Labels Frequency Percentage

Other: Specify 33 6.41%

Kept elsewhere – Fear of being

poisoned 2 0.39%

Kept elsewhere – Fear of being

stolen 38 7.38%

I have no handwashing device 442 85.83%

Total 515 100.00%

Comments:

14
Households made it clear that financial means limit them from having a hand wash device near their
restrooms/toilet. The community believes that hand wash devices must be bought as they do not know
other easy ways to make them themselves.

H3. Handwashing device available in the compound

Table 15. Handwashing device availability in compound

Row Labels Frequency Percentage

It is in the house (seen) by the data collector 21 4.08%

No 383 74.37%

Yes 111 21.55%

Total 515 100.00%

Comments:

It is strange that in a town where there have been victims of EVD, and which remains on alert against EVD,
a large number of households do not have handwashing devices in their compounds. We can immediately
conclude that handwashing devices at compound entrances or in the house of a third party is not used as
a measure to fight EVD.

H4. Critical moments for handwashing

Table 18. Number of critical moments for handwashing mentioned

Variables Frequency Percentage

Just a single moment 51 10%

mentioned

Two key moments 321 62%

mentioned

Three or more moments 143 28%

mentioned

15
 Total 515 100%

Comments:

This table shows that the majority of the interviewees were able to mention two key moments for
handwashing. In the most remote health areas of Beni Health Zone, people are less informed of hygienic
practices, which requires strong sensitization and a good monitoring on behavior change.

H.5 Places where people (households) habitually go to relieve themselves (toilet).

Table 19

Responses/Variables Frequency Percentage

Household latrine 109 21.17%

Latrine shared with others 404 78.45%

Public, at church, mosque 2 0.38%

Total 515 100.00%

Comments:

This table shows that the majority of households (78.45%) share latrines. Only 21.7% of households have
their own latrines. This shows the relevance of the intervention especially as according to the qualitative
data collected, one latrine can be shared by 2 or 3 households.

H.6 Observation on the cleanliness of the latrines (two criteria are put into evidence).

1. Absence of toilet paper (either on the floor or within a radius of 5 meters out of the latrine).

2. Absence of bad smell and a large number of flies.

Table 20

Responses Household % Latrine % Public, at church, %

latrine shared with mosque
others

Don’t 0.00% 3 1%
know

16
 No 28 25.69% 87 22% 2 100%

Yes - 1 and 46 42.20% 205 51%

2

Yes - only 25 22.94% 63 16%

1

Yes - only 10 9.17% 46 11%

2

Total 109 100% 404 100% 2 100%

Comments:

This table sums up the criteria which are taken into account to say that a latrine is clean. These criteria
are analyzed in relation to the area/place where the people/households go to relieve themselves (toilet).
57.8% or 63 households out of 109 (using their own latrines) are not clean. On the other hand, some
latrines shared with others (more than one household) are maintained to some extent. 51% or 205 out of
404 have been noted clean opposed to 49% noted dirty. That’s 199 latrines out of 404. However, public
latrines are not maintained.

H.7 Prevention measures against EVD mentioned/number of measures mentioned.

Table 21

Responses Frequency Percentage

One EVD prevention measure mentioned 115 22%

Two EVD prevention measures mentioned: 215 42%

Three EVD prevention measures mentioned 100 19%

Four EVD prevention measures mentioned 85 17%

17
 Total 515 100%

Comment:

This table shows that most of the households were not able to mention at least 4 prevention measures
against EVD. This is a big challenge in relation to this epidemic in Eastern Congo, including Beni.

1. Regular handwashing;
2. Avoid contact with vomit, saliva, semen, and vaginal secretions from patients with EVD;
3. Avoid contact with and eating of bush meat;
4. Avoid handling bodies of people who died of EVD.

7. Wash data in schools

7.1. School location and number of students

Table 22

N° Name of the Name of the Name of the Number of Number of # girls # boys
health area neighborhood school classrooms students
targeted

1 Paida Kithahamba EP Kitoko 7 193 103 90

Nzolo EP Beu 21 735 345 392

2 Kasanga Benengule EP Kisolekele 14 726 365 361

Biautu EP Kilewe 25 1698 824 854

3 Kasavinyole Muzenda EP Muzenda 16 906 480 426

Kighotso CS Ishango 15 80 37 43

4 Tamende Bas Congo EP Mbongosima 6 182 110 72

Kilembo EP la Merveille 6 180 105 75

5 Tuungane Sobiede EP Parapanda 6 180 105 75

18
 Munzambaye CS Kasovu 3 45 26 19

6 Mukula Magothe EP CBECA 10 538 257 281

Kikondi EP Eanga 8 325 152 173

7 Rwangoma Beu EP KISITSU 6 200 125 75

Rwangoma EP RWANGOMA 14 564 283 281

8 BUNDJI PASISI EP URUMA 5 58 25 33

KASANGA TUHA EP SAYUNI 12 624 362 262

9 Boikende MALOLU EP MATEMBO 6 190 100 90

UTESIBA EP BARAKA 6 350 185 165

10 MABAKANG MATONGE EP 32 1524 774 750

A MABAKANGA

KAMBING EP AMKENI 6 150 100 50

11 KANZULINZU KANZULINZULI EP 12 732 380 352

LI KANZULINZULI

ISOMBA EP ISHANGO 12 525 315 210

12 MABOLIO MUHONGA EP Mabolio 14 742 292 450

SENGE

BENENGULE2 EP MWITO 12 567 280 287

13 Ngongolio KIBALI EP NYALENE 6 334 153 181

ABIJANGONDO CS YAFE 13 206 116 90

19
 14 MALEPE KALIVA EP KESHENI 14 858 426 432

BEU EP BEU 8 300 163 137

15 BUTSILI VERTE CS NZOLOKO 14 245 25 220

NDINDI CS La 5 64 29 35
Misericorde

16 Sayo MUNDUBIENA EP Ntoyi 6 291 133 158

MAPEMBA EP TUHA KAINA 6 320 140 180

17 Mandrendel KAMUKUPI CS MUVINGI 6 320 139 181

e

KAIMBILI CS ALIKO 11 276 153 123

18 SUPA KALAU EP LAO 6 182 102 80

NGEVESULA EP PUIT DE 6 98 35 63
JACOB

Total (#) 375 15,508 7,744 7,746

Total (%) Average 50% 50%

41 students
/ class

Comments:

Schools were identified within selected villages/cells which allowed us to obtain the information and the
right number of students. A total of 36 schools were identified, of which 31 are located in the targeted
health areas and village neighborhoods targeted by the project and five of them are neighboring schools
which some children (students) from the targeted neighborhoods attend. In total this is 15508 students
of which 50% are girls. The average number of students per class is 41 across 375 classrooms.

7.2. Information on certain WASH aspects in schools

20
Table 23. WASH in Schools

Name of EHA Number Number The The Vessels/

the (WASH) of of Impluviu school is maintena container
school brigade handing Thermofl ms provided nce kit is s for
available wash ash at available with available water
at the devices the including water at the storage
school school the from school are
number REGIDES available
of water O. The at the
taps at water school
the point is
school at the
school. If
no, how
far is it
from the
school?

Ep Kitoko 0 0 0 0 No, 60M 4 spades 0

and 3
hoes

EP Beu Yes 10 1 2500L, 2 No, 10M 0 1 can of

water 20L, 2
taps tanks of
200L

EP Yes 2 2 2500L, 2 No, WF 8 hoes, 8 1 can of

Kisolekel water 500M squeegee 20L
e taps s, 8
spades

EP Kilewe Yes 26 3 2500L, 5 Yes 3 spades 2 cans of

water and 3 20L
taps squeegee
s

EP Yes 4 1 2500L, 2 No, 400M 4 spades, 4 cans of

Muzenda water 3 hoes 20L
taps

CS Yes 1 0 0 No, 200M No 1 can of

Ishango 20L

21
EP Yes 8 1 2500L No, 200M 4 spades, 0
Mbongos 4 hoes, 4
ima rakes

EP la No 3 0 0 No, 600M 0 0
Merveille

EP No, 0 1 0 0 No, 600M 0 4 cans of

Parapand 20L
a

CS 0 0 1 0 No, 800M 0 0
Kasovu

EP CBECA Yes 1 0 2500L, 2 Non, 6 hoes, 4 2 cans of

water 500M spades, 6 20L
taps rakes

EP Eanga Yes, 8 7 2 2500L, 2 No, 6KM 2 spades 0

water
taps

EP Yes, 6 0 0 2500L, 2 No,700M 0 0

KISITSU water
taps

EP Yes, 80 8 2 2500L, 2 No, 2KM 1 spade, 5 cans of

RWANGO water 2 20L
MA taps squeegee
s

EP 4 1 0 0 No, 50M 0 0
URUMA

EP Yes 6 2 5000L, 2 No 2 spades 2 cans of

SAYUNI water 20L
taps

EP 0 5 0 500l, 2 Non, WF 0 0
MATEMB water 1000M
O taps

22
EP 0 3 2 1000L, No, WF 0 0
BARAKA with 1 800M
water tap

EP 0 5 6 2500L, 2 Yes, 1 spade 3 cans of

MABAKA water 20L
NGA taps

EP No 3 0 2500L, 2 No, 300M 2 hoes, 2 2 cans of

AMKENI water spades 20L
taps

EP Yes 6 3 0 Yes, the 1 hoe, 1 8 cans of

KANZULI school is spade, 3 20L
NZULI provided squeegee
with s, 2
water brooms
from
REGIDES
O

EP Yes 4 1 1000L, No, 150M 0 1 can of

ISHANGO with 2 20L
water
taps

EP Yes 2 1 2500L No, 2 hoes, 2 1 can of

Mabolio with 2 Source spades, 2 20L
water 100M squeegee
taps s

EP Yes 3 1 2500L No, 2 hoes, 2 2 cans of

MWITO with 2 source spades, 2 20L
water 120M squeegee
taps s

EP Yes 2 1 500L, 2 No, 100 1 hoe, 1 1 can of

NYALENE water spade 20L
taps

CS YAFE 12 1 1 2500L Yes, the 1 spade, 1 can of

school is 2 hoes 20L
provided

23
 with
water
from
REGIDES
O

EP Yes, 7 5 0 2500L No, 50M 1 spade, 2 cans of

KESHENI 2 hoes, 2 20L
squeegee
s

EP BEU Yes, 16 0 2 0 No, 500M 2 3 cans of

squeegee 20L
s, 2
pickaxe, 7
buckets

CS Yes, 9 2 2 500 with No, WF 1 hoe, 2 3 cans of

NZOLOK 2 water 400M spades, 2 20L
O taps brooms

CS La Yes, 2 0 0 0 No, 0 0
Misericor REGIDES
de O WF
500M
from
househol
d

EP Ntoyi Yes, 8 7 3 2 tanks of No, 300M 2 brooms 3 cans of

500L with 20L and
1 water 10L
tap

EP TUHA No 0 0 0 No, 200M 2 brooms 0

KAINA

CS Yes, 8 1 2 2500L No, WF 1 hoe, 1 can of

MUVINGI with 2 1Km 20L, and
water 1 bucket
taps

24
 CS ALIKO Yes, 11 6 4 2500L, 2 No, WF 4 hoes, 2 3 cans of
water 300M spades 20L
taps

EP LAO No, 0 1 0 0 No, 500M 1 hoe 0

EP PUIT 0 0 0 0 No, 300M 0 0

DE JACOB

Comments:

-Brigade EHA (WASH) available at the school: 9 out of 36 schools don’t have an EHA (WASH) Brigade. The
27 schools which said they have Brigades made it clear that they need retraining and most of them have
brigades which have not been trained by experts. It is necessary to plan and cover all the gaps in relation
to the composition (gender) of the brigades, their specific roles and mandate, and also to update materials
in order to train those brigades.

-Number of handwashing devices: 7 out of 31 schools do not have handwashing devices, and those who
do say that they are worn out. The lack of handwashing devices in many schools compared to the number
of students was also noted.

-Number of Thermoflash at the school: 13 out of 36 schools have no Thermoflashs, those who do have
them have an insufficient number in relation to the number of students. This is a big risk at schools.

- Impluvium available at the school and water system from REGIDESO: 12 schools out of 36 have never
benefited from the impluvium, only one school out of 12 gets water provided by REGIDESO, but the head
of the school provision was irregular. Just 4 schools out of 36 have a water fountain (WF) built by
REGIDESO.

- The maintenance kit is available at the school: The hygiene kit is an indicator to prove the willingness
to promote cleanliness/sanitation in schools. 11 out of 36 schools do not have any sanitation kits. The
kits are incomplete in schools which do have kits and in many cases they are old.

- Containers/vessels for water keeping: 23 schools say they have water storage equipment, but it is
insufficient compared to the number of students and their needs. The tools/containers are not sufficient,
given the way REGIDESO provides schools with water. (For those that have fountains built by REGIDESO).
13 schools do not have water storage equipment.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

The baseline survey in Beni Health Zone was designed to clarify the nature of community needs to which
the consortium IMA-Tearfund-Heal Africa, and PPSSP intends to respond in the frame of the project
“Strengthening Community Prevention, Response, and Recovery against EVD”. The survey covered 515
households in 36 small neighborhoods selected from 18 health areas in Beni Health Zone. Those
neighborhoods were selected based on a given number of criteria including accessibility, security, WASH

25
vulnerability, public schools, elementary school, and presence of water points which are undeveloped.
After the data analysis collected in 18 health areas (list annexed) we came to the following conclusion:

● Water Requirements: As far as households are concerned, the surveys have shown that the
governmental company REGIDESO provides water in Beni town, but some neighborhoods are
supplied with water from different types of water points as mentioned (see table 3). However, a
large number of households have no access to drinking water. Only 7 people out of 515 (1.4%)
answered that they get water from a protected water point. 13.3% get water from an unprotected
water point that is within the standard relating to the distance between the household and the
water point. Furthermore, 56 people interviewed have access to protected water points which
are further from their house than the standard norms whereas 339 households (66%) travel
further than the standard norms and can only access unprotected water points. 1.7% of people
interviewed were not able to estimate the distance between their households and the water
points. Other households have water points on site but 40 out of 515 (7.8%) people interviewed
said that they wait for a long time at the water point due to poor flow and many people waiting.
Community members also stated that water points often break. The main reasons for breakdowns
include technical and seasonal problems. In addition, water points are often polluted in the rainy
season. People don’t have enough containers/vessels to keep water in, which means lots of
households cannot store enough water for their daily needs.
● Hygiene-sanitation: Handwashing devices near latrines and in school yards require particular
attention during different sensitizations, contrary to what was noticed on the knowledge of key
moments for hand wash. The lack of handwashing devices would be a contradiction in relation to
the theory that the interviewees showed. The EVD prevention measures are not well known in
the households. Most of the interviewees were not able to mention EVD prevention measures. In
most schools, the measures to fight EVD are not put in place. As mentality change is a process,
household visits (door-to-door-visits) could be effective in the fight against EVD. However, a
number of strategies should be applied in the field, among other things the recruitment of public
health promoters, native to the area, who know the language very well, but also know the context,
and whom the populations trust. The recruitment of teams from the area should contribute to
the project success. As far as sanitation is concerned, the latrines are not clean. There is high risk
of transmission and contamination of microbes from unclean latrines. It is advisable to work in
close collaboration with SNHR and the Beni Health Zone throughout the duration of the project.
● In schools: There is a need to intervene in relation to the results of the survey. It is encouraging
to be able to plan actions aimed at making schools more sanitary, mainly facilitating access to
water, distributing complete sanitation kits in all the schools, and containers for sufficient storage
of water. It is also recommended to organize and revitalize the EHA brigades and train them.
Handwashing devices are in a state of disrepair in some schools and others have never had them.
This represents a high risk of contamination given the number of students. The use of thermoflash
is very limited in schools, hence the importance of increasing the number and/or distributing to
all schools according to their needs.

26