Attachment 7_AID-696-A-16-00008 Isuku Iwacu Formative Research.pdf

Submission Date: March 30, 2018

Cooperative Agreement Number: AID-696-A-16-00008

Submitted to: AOR, Nicole Mukunzi

Submitted by: Eveline Viegas, Chief of Party

SNV USA

Queen’s Land House, KG 563 Street, BP 1049 Kigali - Rwanda Tel: +250 781 849 876 Email: eviegas@snvworld.org

This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development Rwanda (USAID/Rwanda). A courtesy copy will be provided by the implementing partner to the Rwanda Ministry of Infrastructure and other relevant Government of Rwanda entities.

ISUKU IWACU

Formative Research on Households’ Improved Sanitation March 2018

Isuku Iwacu Formative Research Report – March 2018

Contents

1. Background Information

2. Introduction

3. Methodology Used

3.1 Sampling of Villages for Data Collection

3.2 Questionnaires and Field Data Collection in Villages

3.3 Data Analysis of Results

4. Formative Research Results

4.1 Behavior 1: Heads of Household Provide Resources to Construct Improved Household Latrines When

Needed

4.2 Behavior 2: Heads of Households Get Loans for Sanitation Products and Services Every Time Needed ... 12

4.3 Behavior 3: Heads of Households Get Loans for Sanitation Products and Services Every Time Needed ... 15

5. General Conclusions and Recommendations

List of Tables

Table 1: Sampling

Table 2: Doers: For You, What Are the Things That Make It Easier to Construct Improved Household Latrines

When Needed?

Table 3: Non-Doers: For You, What Are the Things That You Think Would Make It Easier to Construct

Improved Household Latrines When Needed?

Table 4: Doers: What Makes It Difficult for You to Construct Improved Household Latrines When Needed?

Table 5: Non-doers: What Makes It Difficult for You to Construct Improved Household Latrines When

Needed?

Table 6: Doers: Who Are the People Who Have a Favorable Opinion of You if You Construct Improved

Household Latrines When Needed?

Table 7: Non-doers: Who Are the People Who Have a Favorable Opinion of You if You Construct Improved

Household Latrines When Needed?

Table 8: Doers: Who Are the People Who Have an Unfavorable Opinion of You if You Construct an Improved

Household Latrine When Needed?

Table 9: Non-doers: Who Are the People Who Have an Unfavorable Opinion of You if You Construct an

Improved Household Latrine When Needed?

Table 10: Doers: For You, What Are the Things That Make It Easier to Get Loans for Buying Sanitation

Products and/or Services?

Table 11: Non-doers: For You, What Are the Things That Make It Easier to Get Loans for Buying Sanitation

Products and/or Services?

Table 12: Doers: What Makes It Difficult for You to Get Loans for Buying Sanitation Products and/or Services?

Table 13: Non-doers: What Would Make It Difficult for You to Get Loans for Buying Sanitation Products and/or

Services?

Table 14: Doers: For You, What Are the Things That Make It Easier to Save for Buying Sanitation Products and/or Services?

Table 15: Non-doers: For you, What Are the Things That You Think Would Make It Easier to Save for Buying

Sanitation Products and/or Services?

Table 16: Doers: What Makes It Difficult for You to Save for Buying Sanitation Products and/or Services?

Table 17: Non-doers: What Would Make It Difficult for You to Save for Buying Sanitation Products and/or

Services?

Table 18: Doers: Who Are the People Who Have a Favorable Opinion of You if You Save for Buying Sanitation

Products and/or Services?

1. Background Information

The Rwanda Water and Sanitation Policy (2010) estimates national sanitation coverage at 45 percent. Through

Vision 2020 and Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy II (EDPRS II), Rwanda aspires to have

100 percent water supply and sanitation coverage by 2018.

Nationwide, 62 percent of the population has access to an improved, non-shared toilet facility, according to the

2015 WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program that monitored progress toward Millennium Development Goals.

In six districts (Kayonza, Rwamagana, Ngoma, Nyarugenge, Kicukiro, and Nyabihu), potential sanitation risk practices were documented, and revealed—among other things—that 32 percent of respondents do not have improved sanitation facilities. This was determined by analyzing and interpreting information collected by a USAID-funded baseline survey conducted by Catholic Relief Services within the scope of Gikuriro Integrated Nutrition and WASH program activity in October 2016.

Recently, Isuku Iwacu’s baseline showed some sanitation indicators are still low in the households of this project’s eight implementation districts. These findings were based on respondent information, socioeconomic status, latrine knowledge and perceptions, latrine owners, non-latrine owners, water, hygiene, kitchen area, and communication channels. The baseline includes respondent responses from rural and urban areas.

Isuku Iwacu baseline interviews were carried out in households, revealing that 49.3 percent of respondents were heads of households and 37.6 percent were spouses (all sexes inclusive), and 68.9 percent of all respondents were male and 31.1 percent were female. For heads of households, 27.3 percent had no schooling, 26.4 percent completed some primary schooling, and 25.9 percent finished primary school. Survey results proportionally reflect the perceptions of heads of households and their spouses.

2. Introduction

This report presents findings of the formative research conducted for Isuku Iwacu Rwanda Rural Sanitation Activity

(RRSA). From October (data collection) to December (data analysis) 2017, we used preliminary data of the Isuku Iwacu baseline to conduct formative research across the eight project districts (Nyarugenge, Kicukiro, Rwamagana, Ngoma, Kayonza, Nyanza, Ruhango, and Nyabihu).

The general objective of this formative research was to complement information gathered through USAID-funded baseline surveys conducted by SNV within the scope of Isuku Iwacu, and Catholic Relief Services within the scope of Gikuriro activity in the same districts. This was done by assessing and understanding the underlying and the most influential factors motivating or preventing heads of households (Isuku Iwacu primary target group) from adopting desired behaviors.

1. Heads of household provide resources to construct improved household latrines when needed.

As the baseline results show, male heads of household are most likely to make a final decision to build latrines in homes for both latrine owners and non-owners. (The preliminary data of the Isuku Iwacu baseline survey reveals that the final decision to build the first household latrine typically was made by heads of households at a rate of 81.4 percent of respondents from households owning latrines; and at rate of 80 percent in non-owner households). This shows that mobilization activities aimed at them should address allocating money and necessary resources for latrine construction and improvements.

2. Heads of households save money every month to purchase sanitation products and services and

3. Heads of households secure loans for sanitation products and services as needed. Preliminary data from the Isuku Iwacu baseline results show the difference between household incomes and preferred latrine costs, (673,527 Rwandan francs [FRw] is the annual average, and 72,000 FRw is the median household 12-month income. The latrine most preferred by respondents in the baseline is a cheaper model with a concrete slab, which costs an average of 138,317 FRw, with a median cost of 70,000 FRw).

In the current report, responses given by Doers—those practicing desired behaviors—are compared to responses from Non-doers—those who did not practice the desired behaviors. This sorts out the most influential factors motivating or preventing respondents from practicing the project’s desired behaviors.

The report revealed the secondary priority groups focused also on availability of products (this includes slabs, products, filters, soap, rainwater tanks, iron sheets, concrete, pans, pipes, hand washing, cleaning products) and the ability of service providers (individual masons, excavators, groups or cooperatives, and businesses) to provide required sanitation services.

3. Methodology Used

3.1 Sampling of Villages for Data Collection

A list of all villages and their populations was compiled for the eight districts of the target area. Nine villages from three sectors were selected from each district for the survey, using a simple random sampling technique.

Nine villages were selected randomly from three cells of three sectors within a district. In each village 90 households were randomly selected to be interviewed for each behavior (45 Doers and 45 Non-doers per village, covering three villages per sector). The formative research was conducted with heads of households or their spouses in their homes (the percentages of respondents’ sex are mentioned in the chapter of results). Respondents were selected randomly from different villages, and the interviews were conducted with 45 Doers and 45 Non-doers for each of the three behaviors assessed from each of the eight districts (90 questionnaires for each of three behaviors assessed per each district).

The initial formative research protocol planned to sample 30 households for each of three behaviors in the same village, but due to field constraints, 90 households were interviewed across different villages for each of three behaviors. Four focus group discussions (FDGs) and two FDGs with service providers also were planned, but these were conducted later, during the market consumer analysis survey conducted in November 2017.

Table 1: Sampling

Districts Sectors

Cells Villages Heads of households interviewed interviewed

RWAMAGANA Gahengeri Mutambwa Ryasenteteri 90

Musha Nyabisindu Rujumbura 90

Munyiginya Nyarubuye Kiyovu 90

NGOMA Rukira Buliba Kabeza 90

Zaza Nyagasozi Agatare 90

Sake Rukoma Irebero 90

Gahanga Nyakabanda Isangano 90

KICUKIRO

Kigarama Karugira Ihuriro 90

Nyarugunga Nonko Rugali 90

NYARUGENGE

Nyakabanda Nyakabanda II Kanyiranganji 90

Kanyinya Taba Kagarama 90

Mageragere Nyarurenzi Ayabaramba 90

NYANZA Busoro Munyinya Karambi 90

Kigoma Butansinda Kigoma 90

Muyira Nyundo Nyundo 90

RUHANGO Kinazi Kinazi Ruhuha 90

Mwendo Kabutare Dusego 90

Ntongwe Gako Kamakara 90

NYABIHU Shyira Kanyamitana Mataba 90

Jomba Gisizi Gikaranka 90

Bigogwe Rega Nyagafumberi 90

KAYONZA Rwinkwavu Mukoyoyo Nyarwashama 90

Gahini Kahi Akabare 90

Mukarange Nyagatovu Nyagatovu 90

3.2 Questionnaires and Field Data Collection in Villages

From October 2-12, 2017, three questionnaires were developed and installed on computer tablets for each of three prioritized behaviors to be assessed. Questions were designed to explore the most influential factors motivating or preventing the heads of targeted households in practicing desired behaviors.

Section A of the questionnaire was designed to determine if a respondent is a Doer or a Non-doer, which was defined as follows:

Behavior 1: Heads of households provide resources to construct improved household latrines when needed.

Doers are defined as those with an improved latrine and Non-doers are defined as those without a latrine or with a non-improved latrine.

Behavior 2: Heads of households get loans for sanitation products and services when they are needed. Doers are defined as those who get loans for buying sanitation products and/or services in the last two years (at least), and Non-doers are defined as those who don’t obtain loans at all.

Behavior 3: Heads of households save money for sanitation products and services that are purchased every month. Doers are defined as those who save money at least once a month for buying sanitation products and/or services, and Non-doers are defined as those who don’t save money at all.

Section B of the questionnaire comprised research questions developed for each of the three behaviors. On

October 13, 2017, data collectors were trained on the questionnaires. Also on that day, they and a few members of the target group in the Masaka sector of Kicukiro district were pretested to determine if the questions were understandable and effective.

The village survey questionnaires in English and Kinyarwanda are included as appendices of this report.

Field surveys were conducted over eight days (October 16-25, 2017). Household survey interviews were conducted by three field teams, each with nine data collectors supervised by a team leader and supported by the

Isuku Iwacu behavior change communication (BCC) team.

Each data collector interviewed 10 heads of household per day (five questionnaires for Non-doers and five for

Doers). Each of the three teams worked on a unique behavior per day per district, and the data collection was done using survey questionnaires installed on computer tablets to allow easy data collection and analysis.

Ninety heads of households were interviewed for each of the three behaviors in each of the eight districts, totaling

720 respondents for each of three behaviors assessed.

3.3 Data Analysis of Results

Respondents’ answers were analyzed to understand key factors impacting current sanitation perceptions, awareness, motivations, and drivers for household sanitation improvements.

From December 5-8, 2017, data from completed surveys was analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social

Sciences (SPSS) database of World Vision Rwanda. Raw data was cleaned, verified, and corrected, and key findings from Doers and Non-doers were compared to serve as a basis while defining and planning effective Isuku Iwacu

BCC activities and interventions.

Steps for analyzing variables measured during the formative research comprised screening out frequent factors, running the frequencies, screening out commonly cited supportive or non-supportive people, recoding a binary variable, and running proportions for the people who understand the existence of supportive systems (rules and regulations, culture, and taboos).

The findings were statistically presented mainly as percentages, with simple averages provided in the tables of this report.

4. Formative Research Results

4.1 Behavior 1: Heads of Household Provide Resources to Construct Improved Household

Latrines When Needed

Preliminary data of the Isuku baseline survey indicated that 91 percent of all respondents had an awareness of the advantages of owning a latrine, and that 79 percent agree it is highly important to spend money on a good latrine for their family’s health. But when assessing non-owners specifically, they had a low likelihood of building a latrine one year from today (22.2 percent, 11.9 percent and 42.1 percent with no chance/ hope, low likelihood, or medium likelihood, respectively).

Isuku Iwacu baseline’s data also revealed that the heads of households (68.9 percent of respondents were male and 31.1 percent were female) hold the primary responsibility for decisions on latrine construction, and this applied to both Doers and Non-doers.

Isuku Iwacu formative research aimed to understand the underlying reasons and the most influential factors motivating or preventing heads of households regarding provision of resources to construct improved latrines when needed. The results will inform Isuku Iwacu mobilization activities, with a focus on ensuring that key decision makers are more willing to consider latrines a priority and allocate money and resources for latrine construction and improvements.

A sample of 24 villages across eight districts in the formative research showed 724 respondents were randomly selected for this behavior. Among the total respondents, 321 (44.3 percent) were Doers and 403 (55.7 percent) were Non-doers. A greater proportion of respondents were female, at 381 (52.7 percent), while 343 were male

(47.3 percent).

Note: In this section, Doers are those with an improved latrine and Non-doers are defined as those without a latrine or with a non-improved latrine within Behavior 1 meaning.

A. Perceived Self-Efficacy/Skills

The formative research sought to examine perceived self-efficacy, among other things. This pertained to an individual's belief that he or she can do a something given his or her current knowledge and skills. Thus, it comes down to the set of knowledge, skills, abilities, and confidence necessary to perform a behavior. An individual’s perceptions of his or her own ability to carry out a behavior are important in behavior change, regardless of whether they know how, when, or where to do the behavior; what other people believe about it; or what positive or negative consequences will occur because of doing that behavior.

To get a broad understanding of respondents’ perceived self-efficacy, the formative research survey asked household heads about the factors that made it easier and more difficult to construct improved household latrines when needed.

Facilitating Factors: Most of the respondents (Non-doers and Doers) indicated that major facilitating factors were the availability of savings, financial capacity, understanding the importance, willingness, and easy availability of construction materials. Getting government permission to build a new latrine was mentioned only by Non-doers as an important facilitating factor.

As shown in Tables 2 and 3, among the factors that would make it easier to construct improved household latrines, financial capacity was mentioned more frequently within Non-doers (77.9 percent) than among Doers (57 percent). In addition, 19.6 percent of Doers and 10.7 percent of Non-doers mention an understanding of importance; while willingness was mentioned by 17.7 percent of Doers and 3.7 percent of Non-doers as important factors making it easier to construct an improved household latrine.

Table 2: Doers: For You, What Are the Things That Make It Easier to Construct Improved Household

Latrines When Needed?

Factors Frequencies Percentage

Saving 9 2.8%

Financial capacity 183 57%

Understanding the importance 63 19.6%

Willingness 57 17.7%

Availability of construction materials 9 2.8%

Total 321 100%

Table 3: Non-Doers: For You, What Are the Things That You Think Would Make It Easier to Construct

Improved Household Latrines When Needed?

Factors Frequencies Percentages

Financial capacity 314 77.9%

Understanding the importance 43 10.7%

Willingness 15 3.7%

Availability of construction Materials 20 4.9% government permission 2 0.5%

Other (unclassified) 9 2.2%

Total 403 100%

Barrier Factors: The factors mentioned as barriers among 321 Doers included lack of financial capacity, lack of construction materials, unwillingness, and poor understanding of the benefits of improved latrines.

Factors mentioned as barriers are similar to, and affirm what respondents mentioned as facilitating factors. For example, the financial capacity is mentioned as key barrier by 89.8 percent of the 321 Doer and 92 percent of 403

Non-doer respondents.

Other barriers mentioned include: lack of materials (1.4 percent for both Doers and Non-doers), unwillingness (2 percent of Doers and 0.7 percent of Non-doers), poor understanding/lack of awareness (5.4 percent of 321 Doers and 2.1 percent of 403 Non-doers), scarcity of land, lack of time, and government permission needed to build a new latrine. It is mostly in urban areas (i.e. Kigali city) that households are required to seek a construction permit from a sector-level government office before starting construction of a latrine. Often, when the plot size is not sufficient (which is a common issue in slums), the permit is not granted. To address this, Isuku Iwacu should promote innovative sanitation technologies to use in slums and on small plots of land, but also advocate for government institutions to ease regulations. (Tables 4 and 5).

Table 4: Doers: What Makes It Difficult for You to Construct Improved Household Latrines When

Needed?

Factors Frequencies Percentages

Lack of financial capacity 286 89.8%

Lack of materials 5 1.4%

Unwillingness 7 2%

Poor understanding 17 5.4%

Unclassified 4 1%

Government permission 2 0.7%

Total 321 100

Table 5: Non-doers: What Makes It Difficult for You to Construct Improved Household Latrines When

Needed?

Factors Frequencies Percentages

Lack of financial capacity 371 92.2%

Lack of materials 6 1.4%

Unwillingness 3 0.7%

Poor understanding 8 2.1%

Scarcity of land 3 0.7%

Scarcity of time 3 0.7%

Government permission 3 0.7%

Unclassified 6 1.4%

B. Perceived Social Norms (Influencing Groups): The influential groups most commonly mentioned for having a favorable opinion of constructing improved household latrines are: local leaders (28.9 percent of Doers and 26 percent of

Non-doers), family members (42.1 percent of Doers and 33.8 percent of Non-doers) and community members (11.2 percent of Doers and 21.6 percent of Non-doers). This shows that local leaders (including government authorities at all levels and faith leaders), could be a key to supporting Isuku Iwacu communication activities, since most people consider them major influencers. In addition, 11.2 percent of Doers and 21.6 percent of Non-doers considered community members to be influential, showing that Non-doers perceive that community members have greater awareness on constructing improved latrine than their own family members. This is different for Doers, who consider family members to have the same level of understanding, since they have taken steps together and constructed latrines in their homes.

This signifies that family members and community members should be targeted the same way when mobilizing communities to improve household sanitation status. Almost all Doers and Non-doers mentioned there was no such person who would have an unfavorable opinion of them for constructing an improved household latrine.

Table 6: Doers: Who Are the People Who Have a Favorable Opinion of You if You Construct Improved

Household Latrines When Needed?

Influential groups Frequencies Percentages

Local leaders 93 28.9%

Amasibo 4 1.3%

Spouse 23 7.2%

Family members 135 42.1%

Community members 36 11.2%

Unclassified 28 8.6%

Television 2 0.7%

Table 7: Non-doers: Who Are the People Who Have a Favorable Opinion of You if You Construct Improved

Household Latrines When Needed?

Influential groups Frequencies Percentages

Local leaders 105 26.0%

Amasibo 4 1.0%

Spouse 35 8.8%

Family members 136 33.8%

Community members 87 21.6%

Unclassified 10 2.5%

No one 26 6.4%

Household heads also were asked to mention people they thought might have an unfavorable opinion of them if they constructed an improved household latrine. As shown in Tables 8 and 9, almost all Doers and Non-doers mentioned that there was no such person who would have an unfavorable opinion of them.

Table 8: Doers: Who Are the People Who Have an Unfavorable Opinion of You if You Construct an

Improved Household Latrine When Needed?

Influential groups Frequencies Percentages

No one 302 94.0%

Neighbors 4 1.3%

Local leaders 2 0.7%

Amasibo 2 0.7%

Unclassified 7 2.0%

Spouse 2 0.7%

Do not know 2 0.7%

Table 9: Non-doers: Who Are the People Who Have an Unfavorable Opinion of You if You Construct an

Improved Household Latrine When Needed?

Influential groups Frequencies Percentages

No one 397 98.6%

Family 2 0.5%

Spouse 2 0.5%

People with poor attitude 2 0.5%

C. Perceived Access/Availability of Materials and Services/Masons

Perceived access to and availability of materials are linked to the degree of availability (to the targeted priority group) of the materials or services required to adopt a given behavior. This includes the targeted individual’s ease in accessing desired types of products or using a service, as well as issues related to cost, gender, culture, etc.

Household heads were interviewed on how difficult it was to get necessary resources by addressing a household’s financial capacity to afford materials and services that would enable them to construct improved household latrines. Only 22.2 percent of Doers and only 1.8 percent of Non-doers responded that they have no difficulty accessing resources for building an improved latrine.

Conversely, 77.8 percent of Doers and 98.2 percent of Non-doers said they have difficulty accessing resources to build an improved latrine.

These two statistics indicate the affordability to latrine products and services still show a prevalent gap in the communities, which requires that Isuku Iwacu design effective activities and innovations to overcome these issues.

Sanitation promotion activities should mobilize households to buy or build latrines and enhance awareness that an improved latrine’s cost is achievable when compared to other aspirational household goods.

A referral mechanism should be initiated at scale to provide information about availability of low-cost and affordable sanitation products/services and availability and access to saving plans and small loans (with information about materials credit/instalment payment terms). This will be achieved through interpersonal and door-to-door communication, mass media (radio), and outreach campaigns that will link households to sales outlets and financing plans for sanitation services

D. Perception of Regulations

Policy, laws, and regulations can affect behavior and access to products and services. In the current study, household heads were asked if they knew of any laws or rules in place, including community laws, that make it more conducive for them to construct improved household latrines when needed. Nearly 92 percent of the Doers and 93.2 percent of the Non-doers mentioned they were aware of regulations that make it conducive for them to construct improved latrines.

Isuku Iwacu should make efforts to advocate with relevant national authorities for possible amendments to, and to ease regulations to overcome some obstacles related to constructing improved household latrines. This is important, because government permission is required to build a new latrine, mostly in urban areas (i.e., Kigali city).

4.2 Behavior 2: Heads of Households Get Loans for Sanitation Products and Services Every Time

Needed

Preliminary data of the Isuku Iwacu baseline survey revealed that only 22.6 percent of respondents have taken a loan, but none was related to sanitation (most were used to pay school fees, support income-generating activities, and to build houses). However, 30.2 percent of 126 non-latrine owners would consider taking a loan to fund a latrine, and, 212 heads of households would build latrines through assistance. Only three households (0.3 percent) have taken a loan to build a new latrine.

Data also revealed a difference between household incomes and preferred latrine costs. This indicates households would not be able to afford improved latrines because they also must support other family needs. To help overcome this, Isuku Iwacu will promote a culture of obtaining loans to build improved latrines.

Reminder: In this section Doers are defined as those who get loans for buying sanitation products and/or services in the last two years (at least), and Non-doers are defined as those who don’t get loans at all.

From the formative research sample of 24 villages across eight districts, 730 respondents were randomly selected for this behavior. Among the total respondents, 345 were Doers (47.2 percent) and 385 were Non-doers (52.8 percent). More respondents were male, at 403 (55.2 percent), and 327 were female (44.8 percent).

A. Perceived Self-Efficacy/Skills

Facilitating Factors: Doer and Non-doer respondents mentioned the most common factors or conditions that make it easier to get loans for buying sanitation products and/or services were having collateral (20.6 percent of

Doers and 41.9 percent of Non-doers), having the capacity to repay the loan (32.4 percent of Doers and 18.6 percent of Non-doers), having group loans, and having a good record with microfinance institutions (See Tables

10 and 11).

Without guaranteed collateral, it is not easy for households to get loans. This indicates it might be advantageous for Isuku Iwacu to make microloans with simplified terms and conditions (to address the collateral issue) available to communities.

Table 10: Doers: For You, What Are the Things That Make It Easier to Get Loans for Buying Sanitation

Products and/or Services?

Conditions Frequencies Percentages

Having collateral 71 20.6%

Having a hygiene product material loan 10 2.9%

Having the capacity to repay the loan 113 32.4%

Having the purpose of the loan 10 2.9%

My right 10 2.9%

Low interest rate 10 2.9%

Understanding the need of clean hygiene 10 2.9%

Having groups loans 71 20.6%

Having enough time to pay back the loan 10 2.9%

Local leaders’ enforcement 10 2.9%

Sensitization 10 2.9%

Having the latrine need 10 2.9%

Total 345 100%

Table 11: Non-doers: For You, What Are the Things That Make It Easier to Get Loans for Buying Sanitation

Products and/or Services?

Conditions Frequencies Percentages

Having the capacity to repay the loan 71 18.6%

Having a good record in microfinance institutions from past period 27

7.0%

Having collateral 161 41.9%

Having an income-generating activity 9 2.3%

Being a Rwandan 18 4.7%

Fulfill the requirements 9 2.3%

Support the most vulnerable 9 2.3%

Being in loan group 63 16.3%

Willingness 9 2.3%

Having the latrine need 9 2.3%

Total 385 100%

Barrier Factors: As shown in Tables 12 and 13, the most common barrier to buying sanitation products and/or services for both Doers and Non-doers was the ability to acquire a loan.

Most respondents in both groups revealed that not having a collateral to access loans (34.2 percent of Doers and

52.2 percent of Non-doers) seems to be most significant barrier for community members to obtaining loans. To address this, it is recommended that Isuku Iwacu facilitate simplified microloans and other possible mechanisms that can enable households to provide required collateral.

Table 12: Doers: What Makes It Difficult for You to Get Loans for Buying Sanitation Products and/or

Services?

Barrier Frequencies Percentages

Very difficult 9 2.6%

Not having collateral 119 34.2%

Lack of information about loans 27 7.9%

Misuse of loans 27 7.9%

Inability to repay the loan 55 15.8%

Fear that their assets will be auctioned because of loan default 18 5.3%

Payment period is hard 9 2.6%

Shared loan responsibility 18 5.3%

Not easy to form saving and loan groups 18 5.3%

Banks don't serve people without collateral 9 2.6%

Bad reputation in the community 18 5.3%

Money used for latrine doesn't generate interest 9 2.6%

Loan conditions with high interest rates 9 2.6%

Table 13: Non-doers: What Would Make It Difficult for You to Get Loans for Buying Sanitation Products and/or Services?

Barriers Frequencies Percentages

Limited financial capacity 17 4.3%

Lack of information about loans 17 4.3%

Not having collateral 201 52.2%

Inability to repay 76 19.6%

Fear that their assets will be auctioned because of loan default 8 2.2%

Unstable location 8 2.2%

Bad reputation in the community 8 2.2%

It doesn't generate income 8 2.2%

Regulation barriers 17 4.3%

Not saving 17 4.3%

Poverty 8 2.2%

Total 385 100%

B. Perceived Social Norms: Influencing Groups

Doer and Non-doer responses revealed that spouses, local leaders, community members, parents, and financial institutions are expected to be the most influential groups having a favorable opinion of acquiring loans for buying sanitation products. In addition, almost all Doers and Non-doers mentioned there was no one having an unfavorable opinion toward them for acquiring loans for buying sanitation products and/or services. This shows that local leaders (including government authorities at all levels and faith leaders), could be a key support to Isuku

Iwacu communication activities, since most people see them as key influencers.

C. Perceived Access

Respondents talked about the level to which they found it difficult or easy to access loans for buying sanitation products and/or services. Slightly more respondents mentioned they found it difficult to obtain loans (88.2 percent of Non-doers and 74.9 percent of Doers). To address this, Isuku Iwacu should put more effort into making microloan products with simplified terms and conditions available.

D. Social Support

Most respondents said they believe there is a proper way to assist people in their communities (especially the poor, elderly, disabled, and orphans and vulnerable children), with 83.5 percent of Doers and 80.1 percent of

Non-doers agreeing on the point. While vulnerable community members might have access to loans, but their desire to acquire them would be affected by terms and conditions, such as collateral guarantees.

E. Policy

About a half of the Doers (49.1 percent) and 35.5 percent of the Non-doers mentioned regulations that make it conducive for household heads to get loans for buying sanitation products and/or services. The program will need to identify these regulations and increase community awareness of them as well as promote Isuku Iwacu microfinancing options.

It could be possible that the Non-doers are less aware of these helpful regulations than the Doers who have learned about them while taking out sanitation loans. Preliminary data from the Isuku Iwacu baseline survey showed that three households (0.3 percent) have taken a loan to build new improved latrines.

F. Culture: Gender Assessment

Respondents also revealed there are no cultural rules or taboos known against women obtaining loans to buy sanitation products and/or services.

However, a very small percentage of Doers (9.7 percent) and Non-doers (6.7 percent) mentioned the existence of such regulations. This indicates Isuku Iwacu should identify these norms and address them directly within its behavior change communication activities (it is mentioned as an issue from previous related research efforts).

4.3 Behavior 3: Heads of households save money every month to purchase sanitation products and services

The preliminary data revealed that only 48.9 percent of respondents belong to saving groups, mostly through

Village Savings and Loan Associations (23.6 percent), Savings and Internal Lending Communities (7.6 percent), tontines (16.6 percent) and others (1.1 percent). However, only 22.2 percent of 126 non-latrine owners are currently saving money toward building a latrine. Also, 44.5 percent of all respondents never save money, and 7.8 percent rarely save money. This also is strongly associated to Ubudehe wealth categories, since only 39.2 percent of 873 Ubudehe II respondents save money, only 12.8 percent of 284 Ubudehe 1 respondents save money, and only 47.1 percent of 1,050 Ubudehe III respondents save money. (Ubudehe is a long-standing Rwandan practice and culture of collective action and mutual support to solve problems within a community.)

Data also reveals that annual average income per household is 673,527 FRw, with 72,000 FRw being the median income over 12 months. The most preferred latrine is the pit latrine with a concrete slab prototype, which costs an average of 138,317 FRw, with a median cost of 70,000 FRw.

These two indicators show that households would not be able to afford the cost of improved latrine because they also must support other family needs. To help overcome this, Isuku Iwacu will use findings of the baseline and formative research to promote a culture of obtaining loans for improved latrine construction/purchase.

From the formative research sample of 24 villages across eight districts, 728 respondents were randomly selected for this behavior. Among total respondents, 383 were Doers (52.6 percent) and 345 were Non-doers (47.4 percent).

A greater proportion of respondents were male, at 382 (52.4 percent), and 346 were female (47.6 percent).

Both Doers and Non-doers mention poverty or lack of financial capacity as the most important factor that makes it difficult for household to save for buying sanitation products and/or services.

A. Perceived Self-Efficacy/Skills

Facilitating Factors: Doers and Non-doers are more likely to mention income generation as a key factor (27.1 percent of Doers and 46.9 percent of Non-doers), with financial support mentioned by 22.4 percent of Non-doers and only 1.7 percent of Doers. (See Tables 15 and 16).

The level of one’s income was mentioned as a key factor by both Doers and Non-doers, but it was more often raised by Doers. This likely indicates that Doers who have tried to save have experienced that is easier to save when adequate income is available.

In addition, 20.3 percent of Doers are more likely to mention that willingness is a key facilitating factor than the

8.2 percent of Non-doers. This might indicate that being able to routinely save is possible if one has the willingness to save.

Table 14: Doers: For You, What Are the Things That Make It Easier to Save for Buying Sanitation Products and/or Services?

Factors Frequencies Percentages

Willingness to save a little money consistently 79 20.3%

Needing more information about saving 6 1.7%

Allocate specific money for sanitation products 6 1.7%

Save for better health status of the family 13 3.4%

Income generation 104 27.1%

Sufficient agricultural crops 71 18.6%

Not misspending money on invaluable things 26 6.8%

Adhere to saving groups 59 15.3%

Family relationship, mutual understanding and planning 13 3.4%

Donor for financial support 6 1.7%

Behavior 3 Doers are defined as those who save money at least once a month for buying sanitation products and/or services and Non-doers are defined as those who don’t save money at all.

Total 383 100%

Table 15: Non-doers: For you, What Are the Things That You Think Would Make It Easier to Save for

Buying Sanitation Products and/or Services?

Facilitating factors Frequencies Percentages

Income generation 162 46.9%

Willingness to save little money consistently 29 8.2%

Donor for financial support 77 22.4%

Illnesses and physical unfitness 7 2.0%

Sufficient agricultural crops 14 4.1%

Avoid misspending money 7 2.0%

Adhere to saving groups 14 4.1%

Respecting saving rules and regulations 7 2.0%

Social economic categories should be related to real capacity of families 21 6.1%

Needing more information 7 2.0%

Barrier Factors: Both Doers and Non-doers mention that major barriers preventing them from saving money to buy sanitation products and/or services are: poverty or lack of financial capacity (39.3 percent of Doers and 63 percent of Non-doers), a job for making money/unemployment (16.1 percent of Doers and 10.9 percent of Non-doers), and that households also have other family needs that come before saving. It is difficult to save money while other family needs are not being covered. (See Tables 17 and 18).

This points to the need to advocate for and facilitate income-generating activities that support improved income, which will enable savings for development, which includes sanitation for families across all Ubudehe wealth categories. Most respondents are found in Ubudehe categories 1 and II (14.5 percent and 46.7 percent of 730 respondents), whereas only 38.8 percent fall in Ubudehe category III and none fall in Ubudehe category IV.

Additionally, 10.7 percent of Doers pointed to other barriers, such as a non-willingness to save money, while 6.5 percent of Non-doers mentioned lack of respect for saving rules and regulations.

Table 16: Doers: What Makes It Difficult for You to Save for Buying Sanitation Products and/or Services?

Barriers Frequencies Percentages

Poverty 150 39.3%

No job for making money 61 16.1%

No willingness to save money 41 10.7%

Insufficient agricultural crops 34 8.9%

Family disputes 14 3.6%

No respect for saving rules/regulations 7 1.8%

Insufficient information about saving 14 3.6%

Physical unfitness 7 1.8%

No adhering to saving groups 27 7.1%

Lack of family planning and child spacing 7 1.8%

Fearing the saving groups 7 1.8%

Family money misspent 14 3.6%

Table 17: Non-doers: What Would Make It Difficult for You to Save for Buying Sanitation Products and/or

Services?

Barriers Frequencies Percentages

Poverty 218 63.0%

No respect for saving rules/regulations 22 6.5%

Illness and physical disability 22 6.5%

Family money misspent 22 6.5%

No income generation 15 4.3%

No job for making money 38 10.9%

Social economic categories should be related to the real capacity of families 8

2.2%

Total 345 100

While interpreting these factors, financial income remains a significant focus for saving money to purchase a latrine.

It also can be interpreted that a culture of saving cannot not be attained if there is not enough household income.

It is recommended to address sanitation issues alongside government and community involvement mechanisms to help families improve financial resources and grow their ability to save for improved sanitation services and products.

B. Perceived Social Norms: Influencing Groups

Similarly, as with other behaviors discussed in earlier sections of this report, local leaders (39.1%) continue to be the most influential group having a positive influence on people’s ability to save for buying sanitation products.

Others are neighbors and community health workers (both at 10.9 percent) and saving groups (15.2 percent). See

Table 19.

Neither Doers nor Non-doers mentioned anyone with a negative opinion about saving money to buy sanitation products. This shows that Isuku Iwacu activities should primarily target local leaders (including government authorities and faith leaders) as key partners when planning and implementing Isuku Iwacu mobilization activities aimed at adopting desired behaviors.

Table 18: Doers: Who Are the People Who Have a Favorable Opinion of You if You Save for Buying

Sanitation Products and/or Services?

Encouragers Frequencies Percentages

Spouse 34 8.7%

Community health workers 42 10.9%

Local leaders 150 39.1%

Isibo groups (Those are government entities at village level comprising

10 to 15 households) 8

2.2%

Myself 4 1.9%

Afternoon parent meetings 8 2.2%

Different partners (such as NGOs and governments) 8 2.2%

Saving groups 59 15.2%

Masons 8 2.2%

Family members 11 6.5%

Neighbors 42 10.9%

None 9 4.4%

C. Perceived Access

Responses showed that 97.1 percent of Non-doers and 69.9 percent of Doers reported having difficulty saving money to buy sanitation products and/or services. This is linked to the fact that most respondents are found in

Ubudehe wealth categories 1 and II and are mostly poor and incapable of saving because family needs require most of their income. This strengthens the need to assist families in gaining access to income-generating activities that will increase their ability to save money for sanitation improvements, among other things.

Of respondents, 24.3 percent of 383 Doers and 29.9 percent of 345 Non-doers reported they likely would construct an improved latrine if they could save money. To facilitate this, Isuku Iwacu should support awareness-raising activities around creating a savings culture, to promote the construction of improved latrines.

D. Cultural Taboos

Results from the assessment of cultural taboos during the formative research showed 2.9 percent of Doers and

3.5 percent of Non-doers reported there are cultural rules or taboos against women saving money to pay for sanitation products and/or services. The exact cultural rules and taboos were not discussed deeply; so, for upcoming formative research, Isuku Iwacu should assess other factors around equal participation of men and women, to integrate their efforts toward household sanitation improvements.

Isuku Iwacu BCC activities should reach both men and women (heads of households and their spouses) to increase male approval of acquiring loans to construct improved latrines.

5. General Conclusions and Recommendations

The formative research investigated people’s current knowledge, practices, and perceptions related to sanitation. Based on the interpretation of research data and field observations, the following general statements can be made:

Isuku Iwacu should make advocacy efforts with relevant national authorities for possible amendments that ease regulations on latrine construction, to help overcome some obstacles, especially since government permission is required to build a new latrine in urban areas (i.e., Kigali city). Isuku Iwacu also should promote innovative sanitation technologies to use in slums and areas with small plots of land—something that also affects building latrines in urban areas.

The results of the formative research help define the secondary priority group as local leaders (including government authorities and faith leaders at all levels) on a first rank, family and community members on a second rank and community health workers on a third rank. The three groups are those most often mentioned as being influential. Isuku Iwacu should consider them as key actors during planning and implementing BCC sanitation promotion activities. All other key influencers should be considered as well.

Isuku Iwacu should collaborate with and seek adequate support and engagement of local leaders (including government authorities and faith leaders at all levels), because they can provide valuable support to project outcomes expansion. This is important, because districts play a role in allocating budgets, taking part in BCC activities plans, and implementing and monitoring progress. Isuku Iwacu BCC sessions should target family and community members (latrine owners and non-owners together), so they can provide testimony as needed, and to become involved in learning about improved household sanitations. Isuku Iwacu should consider and integrate community health workers as key mentors and supervisors to scale up sustainable delivery of BCC activities (Infection Prevention and Control activities and outreach activities), partake in community-based environmental health promotion program activities to build sanitation demand, and monitor change in communities.

A gap remains for sanitation product and service affordability (price) and access (availability) to markets. To address this, sanitation promotion activities should mobilize households to buy or build latrines, and at the same time enhance awareness that the cost is affordable when compared to other aspirational household goods. A referral mechanism comprising local leaders should be initiated at scale, to provide information about availability of low-cost and affordable sanitation products/services, and access to saving plans and small loans

(with the information about materials credit/installment payment terms). This will be achieved through interpersonal and door-to-door communication, mass media (radio), and outreach campaigns that will link households to sales outlets and financing plans for sanitation services.

The formative research shows it is difficult for households to obtain loans if no collateral is guaranteed, so

Isuku Iwacu should put more effort into facilitating microloan products with simplified terms and conditions.

Isuku Iwacu should make efforts to raise awareness on savings culture in communities, to help them afford and construct improved household latrines.

Income remains a significant factor in the ability to save for latrines. A culture of savings cannot be attained if there is not enough household income. It is recommended to address sanitation issues alongside government and community involvement mechanisms to assist families in strengthening income-generation resources, to be better able to save for improved sanitation services and products.

Isuku Iwacu should conduct further formative research exercises to more deeply explore issues affecting male and female equal participation in promoting sanitation. BCC activities should reach men and women (heads of households and their spouses) to increase the likelihood that men will approve of and take part in saving, acquire loans, and constructing improved latrines in their households. This is important, because research showed that community outreach campaigns are attended predominantly by women.

Isuku Iwacu should use the current report, along with baseline findings, to inform development of the BCC framework, including behaviors to be promoted, details of priority and influencing groups, activities that that link activities and the significant findings, details of the implementation plan (timelines, budget, training plans, etc.), and indicators to monitor effectiveness.