have data bias, Mercy Corps asked us to see if
sensors could be used to gather longer term
quantitative insights into sanitation practices.
In September 2012, a year after the official
close of the program, both latrine motion-detectors and the hand-washing sensors
were installed in four locations among the
16 neighborhoods targeted in the study. The
flowmeters were installed on pipelines providing water from elevated tanks to hand-washing stations and in-latrine bucket filling taps.
The latrine monitors were co-located with the
flowmeters and monitored door openings and
closings at each stall, as well as motion in one
of the four available stalls. each sensor was
independent of the others.
All data analysis was conducted exclusively
online, with each sensor’s reported data being
analyzed independently using a validated analysis algorithm. The flowmeters were calibrated to
the pressures at the installation location. Otherwise, all sensors of the same type were analyzed
in an identical manner. These algorithms generated date- and time-stamped event tables.
All eight of the sensors—two per site at
four sites—operated continuously for at least
four months. However, the sensor batteries
were consumed at varying rates and other
factors, such as humidity or cellular network
connectivity, contributed to a varying number
of data days reported. These variations were
compensated for during the analysis by considering average use calculations only during
the period of time data reported. Therefore,
while one sensor might have reported 100 days
of data, and another 150 days, each sensor was
averaged for its own reporting period, yielding
results that could be directly compared.
In order to compare the public health monitoring and evaluation survey data collected to
the sensor data, the analysis considered the
target household beneficiary population in
each of the four regions, divided by the number
of sites, then multiplied by four, the average
household size in Jakarta to get an average
target population at each site. For the latrine
monitor, this was further reduced by 3/4 to
account for the sensor monitoring only one of
four stalls. The first stall accessed through the
entry to the latrine building was instrumented,
under the assumption that this would be the
most highly trafficked of the stalls. The analysis then assumed that each use represented a
unique individual in the target population.
What’s more, flowmeters did not distinguish between taps installed inside latrines for
flushing versus outside for hand washing and
other uses. This likely biased results towards
showing greater hand-washing compliance
than what actually happened on the ground.
FIELD SURVE YS VS. MONITORING DATA
The R W Siaga Plus+ program conducted a baseline survey of 460 households in January and
February 2010, a mid-term evaluation in January
2011, and an endline survey of 500 households
primarily between May and September 2011.
The final evaluation was conducted in Jakarta
and Bekasi September 6 through 16, 2011, with
data collected from all four subdistricts where
the program was implemented. The purpose
of the final evaluation was to asses the overall
RW Siaga Plus+ program’s results and impacts
of target population
utilizing sanitation services.
of latrine use followed
of adults who report that they use improved sanitation facility.
of children < age five reported to use improved sanitation facility.
of caregivers who report washing hands after defecation.
of children < age five reported to wash hands after defecation
02 - 25%
00 - 40%
Detected latrine use followed by detected water use.