Programme evaluations are expected to cover the various population groups that are nationally or locally the most deprived, vulnerable or marginalised. They typically have different social characteristics than the majority of the population: wealth, gender, geographical location, ethnicity, religion, age, health status, residential status etc. The meta-analysis found that UNICEF WASH programme evaluations tend to look at the condition of the poor and most deprived people as well as of women and girls, and to assess the performance of programmes in addressing their needs. The analysis is less thorough when it comes to elderly and disabled people, the remote and hard to reach, and other vulnerable, marginalised or deprived categories, as reflected in the findings by population group summarized below.
The poor and most deprived(53 reports from 35 countries)
Focus on particularly poor or deprived people is usually emphasised in the theories of change and logframes of CLTS interventions but too rarely in water supply and WASH in schools interventions.
Geographical targeting does not seem to be based on (or consistently applied) deprivation criteria in most of the WASH programmes evaluated (with the notable exceptions of Malawi 2011, Zimbabwe 2011, Sudan 2012, Bosnia-Herzegovina 2013, Burundi 2013, Kenya 2013 and Pakistan 2014).
Within intervention communities, the poorest particularly benefit from the water supply and sanitation interventions not as a result of clear UNICEF guidance or equity measures but as a result of internal community arrangements on water tariffs or latrine construction. UNICEF rarely makes use of pro-poor financial instruments for WASH services, and when it does, experience and learnings are not sufficiently documented both by the programme and by the evaluators.
The participation of the poorest in committees responsible for promoting good WASH behaviours and management at local and community level is confronted with several obstacles such as lack of education background, social exclusion from the decision-making process, self-marginalisation, lack of time etc. An increased participation is usually not promoted by UNICEF programming. Only one exception has been reported (Bosnia-Herzegovina 2013).
Qualitative evidence suggests a positive impact of WASH interventions on economic poverty through: reduced health expenses; increased time available for productive activities; improved schooling and therefore career prospects for students etc. However, the evidence remains weak, and is mostly anecdotal and self-reported. No evaluation attempted to generate quantitative evidence of the impact of WASH interventions on economic poverty.
Women and girls(41 reports from 30 countries)
The gender perspective of WASH programme evaluators mainly focusses on gender-separated latrines in schools, participation of women in school clubs and village committees, and reported benefits of improved access to WASH facilities.
Women and girls are undoubtedly the main beneficiaries of interventions that aim at improving access to water and sanitation, and improving behaviours and health. The main reasons consistently cited by women during household surveys and in-depth interviews is that they are responsible for fetching water (in most if not all cultural areas), they suffer the most from the lack of sanitation, and they are the ones expected to take care of sick family members. WASH interventions make their lives easier and tend to empower them.
Power relationships and dynamics of inequities within families and communities are not changed however. Their share in the decision-making related to issues that are traditionally male-dominated matters remain limited, especially water issues that have economic and political implications as opposed to sanitation which mainly remain household and environmental issues.
Quantitative evidence of impact of community water supply and WASH in schools interventions on girls schooling (enrolment, absenteeism, drop out, success) has not been proven in evaluations commissioned by UNICEF.
Aged and disabled people(21 reports from 20 countries)
The specific needs of the aged and/or disabled people seem to not be systematically taken into account in the design of the community water points and school latrines built or financed by UNICEF (Rwanda 2011, Ethiopia 2012, Liberia 2012, Ghana 2012, and Pakistan 2013). The two exceptions are Nigeria (2014) and Timor Leste (2015).
The community-led approach leaves to the households the responsibility of the latrine design, which does not always take into account the needs of all the family members.
The remote and hard to reach(7 reports from 6 countries)
Evaluation findings on performance of UNICEF WASH interventions are limited. They suggest that reaching the most remote populations may primarily be a focus of emergency and mixed programmes. Development programmes are rarely in the position to overcome obstacles related to logistics and associated costs, lack of adequate supply chain for WASH materials and services, and security. The few programmes that have been praised for appropriately targeting remote populations are mostly the ones that explicitly work at the intersection between development and emergency such as the Kenya WASH programme having a strong focus on climate change and disaster risk reduction (2013 evaluation), the post-emergency CLTS programme in Pakistan focussing on rural parts of flood and insecurity affected areas (2013 and 2014 evaluations), and the WASH programme in Sudan (2012). They attempt to reach the remote populations that are usually left behind because they are affected by other problems that require urgent attention from UNICEF. UNICEF Indonesia has also adopted a targeting strategy that includes schools on isolated islands and remote inland areas – with considerable logistical and implementation challenges and cost implications, as emphasised in the 2014 evaluation.
Apart from the few examples evoked above, addressing the needs of other categories among the most vulnerable and marginalised has not been highlighted in evaluation reports as a priority of UNICEF WASH programmes.
Religious minorities, pastoralists and elderly and disabled people are not mentioned as a specific target group in any evaluation report. Ethnic minorities and indigenous people are briefly mentioned in two reports (Bolivia 2011 and Philippines 2013), lower caste members in one report (India 2008) and people affected by HIV-AIDS in one report (Zimbabwe 2011). It is not clear from these reports how the WASH intervention addressed their specific needs and what the specific role of UNICEF was.
Peri-urban and slum dwellers are mentioned as target populations in a few reports (Liberia 2012 and 2013, Kenya 2012 and 2013, and Indonesia 2013), both described as easy to reach but often challenging when hardware intervention is involved because of land tenure issues.
Performance related to equity by population group is summarized as follows:
