Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys Survey Design Workshop

MICS Survey Design Workshop

Multiple Indicator Cluster SurveysSurvey Design Workshop

Household Questionnaire

Contents

• Household information panel

• List of household members• Education• Child labour• Child discipline• Household characteristics• Insecticide treated nets• Indoor residual spraying

• Water and sanitation• Handwashing• Salt iodization

Upper panel – Completed before

household is contacted

Survey-specific household and cluster numbers

No “real” EA numbers please

“Regions” may be changed to what is used in country

Delete HH8 if Men’s Questionnaire not used, or is used for all men (no selection)

Date may need to be modified later, if re-visit

Customize introductory sentence, based on pre-test

Do not give up – HH9 may still not be final

Lower panel, to be completed after all the household is finalized

With the exception of HH16 and HH17

Delete 13A and 13B if Men’s Questionnaire not used

Record time before asking questions

List of household members important for demographic information, identification of eligible respondents, and indicators

Members: Use definition in your country, usually used in the census

First, vertical: HL2-HL4, the horizontal, questions for each member

May take out HL5, if dates are not well known

HL6A may be taken out if ITN module not used

HL7-HL7B important to identify eligible respondents for other questionnaires – take out HL7A if necessary

“Head” is designated by the respondent

But always start list with head of household

Completed age

HL7-HL7B completed by interviewer

Line numbers are very important, as they are assigned IDs to individuals in survey

HL11-HL14A for orphanhood and living arrangements

Only for those age 0-17

May want to take out HL12A and HL14A, if migration of parents is of no interest

HL15 is used as background information on children

Probe!!!!

Issue individual questionnaires NOW!

8.15 Children’s living arrangements HL Number of children age 0-17 years living with neither biological parent Total number of children age 0-17 years

8.16 Prevalence of children with one or both parents dead HL Number of children age 0-17 years with one or both

parents dead Total number of children age 0-17 years

8.19 Children with at least one parent living abroad HL Number of children 0-17 years with at least one

parent living abroad Number of children 0-17 years

Only father alive

Only mother

aliveBoth alive

Both dead

Father alive

Father dead

Mother alive

Mother dead

Total 100.0

SexMale 100.0Female 100.0

RegionRegion 1 100.0Region 2 100.0Region 3 100.0Region 4 100.0Region 5 100.0

AreaUrban 100.0Rural 100.0

Age0-4 100.05-9 100.010-14 100.015-17 100.0

Table CP.12: Children's living arrangements and orphanhoodPercent distribution of children age 0-17 years according to living arrangements, percentage of children age 0-17 years in households not living w ith a biological parent and percentage of children w ho have one or both parents dead, Country, Year

Living w ith both

parents

Living w ith neither parentLiving w ith

mother onlyLiving w ith father only

Impossible to

determine Total

Not living w ith a

biological parent1

One or both

parents dead 2

Number of

children age 0-17

years

Mother abroad

Father abroad

Both abroad Total

Total 100.0%Sex

Male 100.0%Female 100.0%

Age group

0-4 100.0%5-9 100.0%10-14 100.0%15-17 100.0%

Residence

Urban 100.0%Rural 100.0%

Region

Region 1 100.0%Region 2 100.0%Region 3 100.0%Region 4 100.0%Region 5 100.0%

Table CP14: Children 0-17 years with parents living elsewhere

Percent distribution of children 0-17 years w ith one or both parentsliving elsew here , Country, Year

Percentage of children 0-17 years w ith one or both parents living elsewhere Number of children 0-17 years w ith at

least one living parent is living elsew here ¹

Number of children 0-17

years

Collects information on• Highest level attended

and highest grade completed

• Attendance last year• Attendance this year

Copy names and ages of all household members here

The first part is for all population age 5 and above

“Grade” may be changed to reflect the term used in country

“attendance” and “completion” are important

If non-formal education is common and is of interest, the module needs to be modified on a case by case basis

For household population 5-24 only

References to school years may need to be changed

Only “attendance” here – defined as attendance at any time, which over-estimates real attendance.

This is not enrolment

We need to establish attendance during two consecutive school years

If the survey is conducted between two school years, the “current” school year is the previous school year, and the “previous” school year is the one preceding

Note that preschool is also included here

7.2 School readiness EDNumber of children in first grade of primary school who attended pre-school during the previous school year

Total number of children attending the first grade of primary school

7.3 Net intake rate in primary education ED Number of children of school-entry age who enter the first grade of primary school Total number of children of school-entry age

7.4 Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) ED Number of children of primary school age currently

attending primary or secondary school Total number of children of primary school age MDG 2.1

7.5 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) ED Number of children of secondary school age currently

attending secondary school or higher Total number of children of secondary school age

7.6 Children reaching last grade of primary ED Proportion of children entering the first grade of primary school who eventually reach last grade MDG 2.2

7.7 Primary completion rate ED Number of children attending the last grade of primary school (excluding repeaters)

Total number of children of primary school completion age (age appropriate to final grade of primary school)

7.8 Transition rate to secondary school ED

Number of children attending the last grade of primary school during the previous school year who are in the first grade of secondary school during the current school year

Total number of children attending the last grade of primary school during the previous school year

7.9 Gender parity index (primary school) ED Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) for girls

Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) for boys MDG 3.1

7.10 Gender parity index (secondary school) ED Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) for

girlsSecondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) for boys MDG 3.1

Large number of indicators

From preschool/school readiness to secondary school attendance

Indicators are calculated by taking the UNESCO ISCED classifications into account

Percentage of children attending first grade w ho

attended preschool in previous year1

Number of children attending first grade

of primary schoolTotal

SexMaleFemale

RegionRegion 1Region 2Region 3Region 4Region 5

AreaUrbanRural

Mother's educationNonePrimarySecondaryHigher

Percentage of children attending f irst grade of primary school w ho attended pre-school the previous year, Country, Year

Table ED.2: School readiness

Percentage of children of primary school entry age

entering grade 11

Number of children of primary school entry age

Total

SexMaleFemale


AreaUrbanRural


Percentage of children of primary school entry age entering grade 1 (net intake rate), Country, Year

Table ED.3: Primary school entry

Net attendance ratio (adjusted)

Number of children

Net attendance ratio (adjusted)

Number of children

Net attendance ratio (adjusted)1

Number of children

Total


AreaUrbanRural

Age at beginning of school year67891011


Table ED.4: Primary school attendancePercentage of children of primary school age attending primary or secondary school (adjusted net attendance ratio), Country, Year

Male Female Total


Percent attending primary school

Number of children



Number of children



Number of children

Total


AreaUrbanRural

Age at beginning of school year121314151617

Mother's educationNonePrimarySecondaryHigherCannot be determined

Table ED.5: Secondary school attendance

Percentage of children of secondary school age attending secondary school or higher (adjusted net attendance ratio) and percentage of children attending primary school, Country, Year

Male Female Total

Percent attending

grade 1 last school year w ho are in

grade 2 this school year

Percent attending grade 2 last school

year w ho are attending grade 3 this school year







Percent w ho reach grade 6 of those

w ho enter grade 11

Total

SexMaleFemale


AreaUrbanRural


Table ED.6: Children reaching last grade of primary schoolPercentage of children entering f irst grade of primary school w ho eventually reach the last grade of primary school (Survival rate to last grade of primary school), Country, Year

Primary school completion rate1

Number of children of primary school completion age

Transition rate to secondary school2

Number of children w ho w ere in the last grade of

primary school the previous year

Total

SexMaleFemale


AreaUrbanRural


Wealth index quintilePoorestSecondMiddleFourth Richest

Table ED.7: Primary school completion and transition to secondary schoolPrimary school completion rates and transition rate to secondary school, Country, Year

Primary school adjusted net attendance ratio (NAR),

girls

Primary school adjusted net attendance ratio (NAR),

boys

Gender parity index (GPI) for primary school adjusted NAR1

Secondary school adjusted net attendance

ratio (NAR), girls

Secondary school adjusted net attendance

ratio (NAR), boys

Gender parity index (GPI) for

secondary school adjusted

NAR2

Total


AreaUrbanRural

Education of mother/caretakerNonePrimarySecondaryHigherCannot be determined na na na

Wealth index quintilePoorestSecondMiddleFourth Richest

Table ED.8: Education gender parityRatio of adjusted net attendance ratios of girls to boys, in primary and secondary school, Country, Year

Having completed both the household list and the education module, we can also calculate the following MDG indicators:

8.17 School attendance of orphans HL - ED Number of children age 10-14 years who have lost both parents and are attending school

Total number of children age 10-14 years who have lost both parents MDG 6.4

8.18 School attendance of non-orphans HL - EDNumber of children age 10-14 years, whose parents are alive, who are living with one or both parents, and who are attending school

Total number of children age 10-14 years, whose parents are alive, and who are living with one or both parents

MDG 6.4

Child labour and child discipline modules

• Overview:– Child labour module is for children age 5-17– Child discipline module is for children age 1-14

• Collecting information on both modules for all children in these age groups would need long rosters (especially for child labour) and can be very repetitive and time consuming

• One child is selected from the age group 1-17 and information on this child is collected – depending on the age

Administration of modules

• Children age 1-4– Only child discipline module

• Children age 5-14– Both modules

• Children age 15-17– Only child labour module

Random selection of one child

Correct, unbiased selection is critical

List of children age 1-17, tables assigns rank numbers

If no household member age 1-17, skip to Household Characteristics module

Known as the Kish table for random selection

Use last digit of household number – can be 0 to 9

Total number of eligible children on the columns

Select the corresponding number from within the table

This is the rank number of the child selected for the modules

If more than 8 children?

Continue with child labour module if child is age 5-17

Module developed in consultation with ILO

Three main parts: Economic activity, hazardous work, and household chores

CL2: Economic activities, including a general question at the end (D)

Activities qualify here even if only one hour

Questions may be customized to reflect common activities

CL4 asked to determine the total number of hours during the last one week

Questions CL5-CL7 are about hazardous work

If at least one is applicable, we skip to CL8, because even one of these hazardous conditions qualifies the child into child labour

CL8-CL9: Activities that are currently considered as economic activity in national accounts, but considered household chores in MICS indicator

CL10-Cl12: Household chores

In all of the module, both the identification of activities and chores, and the amount of time child engaged in these activities and chores is important, as age-specific thresholds are used for the indicator

8.2 Child labour CL Number of children age 5-17 years who are involved in child labour Total number of children age 5-17 years

• Complicated algorithm for the indicator shown in the tables

Percentage of children age 5-11 involved in:

Total

SexMaleFemale


AreaUrbanRural

School attendanceYesNo

Mother’s educationNonePrimarySecondaryHigher

Table CP.2A: Children involved in economic activities

Number of children age 5-11

Number of children age

12-14Economic activity for at

least one hourEconomic activity

less than 14 hoursEconomic activity for

14 hours or more


Percentage of children by involvement in economic activity during the past w eek, according to age groups, Country, Year


15-17

Total percentage of children engaged in economic activities

above the age specif ic thresholds

Number of children age 5-17 years

Economic activity less than 43 hours

Economic activity for 43 hours or more


Total

SexMaleFemale


AreaUrbanRural

School attendanceYesNo

Mother’s educationNonePrimarySecondaryHigher

Total percentage of children engaged in household chores

above the age specif ic thresholds


Table CP.2B: Children involved in household chores

Household chores less

than 28 hours

Household chores for 28 hours or more


than 28 hours



than 43 hours


Percentage of children by involvement in household chores during the past w eek, according to age groups, Country, Year


Number of children age 5-11



12-14



15-17

Total

SexMaleFemale

Age5-11 years12-14 years15-17 years


AreaUrbanRural

Above the age specific

threshold

Table CP.2C: Child labourPercentage of children age 5-17 by involvement in economic activities or household chores during the past w eek, percentage of children age 5-17 w orking under hazardous conditions during the past w eek, and percentage of children engaged in child labour during the past w eek, Country, Year

Children involved in economic activities

Children involved in household chores

Children w orking under hazardous

conditionsTotal child

labour1


Below the age specific

threshold

Above the age specif ic

threshold

Below the age specif ic

threshold

Continue with child discipline module if child is 1-14 years

Included age 1 for the first time – we have evidence that children as young as age 1 are subjected to some of these disciplinary practices

We are interested in the use of disciplinary practices by any adult household member, during a one month period

Questions developed based on the Parent-Child Tactics Scale

The flow of questions is very important and cannot be changed

Very important to keep the wording of questions

Excellent translation is necessary

Last question is on attitude toward corporal punishment, not practices

If the child or the respondent have been away for the last month….

8.5 Violent discipline CDNumber of children age 1-14 years who experienced psychological aggression or physical punishment during the last one month preceding the survey

Total number of children age 1-14 years

• Psychological aggression– D – H

• Physical punishment– C– F– G– I– J– K

• I and K are severe punishments

Any SevereTotal

SexMaleFemale


AreaUrbanRural

Age1-2 years3-4 years5-9 years10-14 years

Education of household headNonePrimarySecondaryHigher

Table CP.4: Child discipline

Number of children age 1-

14 years

Percentage of children age 1-14 years who experienced: Percentage of children age 1-14 years according to method of disciplining the child, Country, Year

Only non-violent

disciplinePsychological aggression

Any violent discipline method1

Physical punishment

Total

SexMaleFemale


AreaUrbanRural

Age

Table CP.4B: Attitudes toward physical punishment

Percentage of respondents to the child discipline module w ho believe that child needs to be physically punished in order to bring up, raise, or educate child properly , Country, Year

Respondent believes that a

child needs to be physically punished

Respondents to the child discipline module

Household Characteristics

• Socio-cultural groups• Crowding• Physical characteristics of dwelling• Cooking• Solid fuels• Household and personal assets• Land and animal ownership

Household Characteristics

• Much of the information collected here is used for– Background characteristics of the households– Wealth index construction– Indicator (use of solid fuels)

Careful customization needed

Do not need to include many small ethnic groups here, if not necessary

Eventually, a combination of these is used for tabulations

There should not be repetition

Important to capture socio-cultural groups which might have different behaviors

If multi-ethnic households or marriages are common, this may not be sufficient – may need to collect more detailed information in household list, or individual questionnaires

Crowding

Floor, roof and exterior walls are used for wealth index construction, and need to be completed by the interviewer

Prior information, training may be necessary

Customization is needed

Use of solid fuels for cooking used to be an MDG indicator, not any more

3.11 Use of solid fuels for cooking HCNumber of household members in households that use solid fuels as the primary source of domestic energy to cook

Total number of household members

Coal, lignite

Char-coal Wood

Straw , shrubs, grass

Animal dung

Agricultural crop

residueRegion

Region 1 100.0Region 2 100.0Region 3 100.0Region 4 100.0Region 5 100.0


Education of household headNone 100.0Primary 100.0Secondary 100.0Higher 100.0

Wealth index quintilesPoorest 100.0Second 100.0Middle 100.0Fourth 100.0Richest 100.0

TotalOther fuel

Table CH.9: Solid fuel use

Percentage of household members in households using:

Percent distribution of household members according to type of cooking fuel used by the household, and percentage of household members living in households using solid fuels for cooking, Country, Year

Solid fuels

Electricity

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)

Natural Gas Biogas Kerosene

No food cooked in

the household

Solid fuels for cooking1

Number of household members

3.11 Use of solid fuels for cooking HCNumber of household members in households that use solid fuels as the primary source of domestic energy to cook

Total number of household members

In a separate room used as

kitchenElsew here in

the houseIn a separate

building OutdoorsAt another

place TotalRegion

Region 1 100.0Region 2 100.0Region 3 100.0Region 4 100.0Region 5 100.0



Wealth index quintilesPoorest 100.0Second 100.0Middle 100.0Fourth 100.0Richest 100.0

Table CH.10: Solid fuel use by place of cookingPercent distribution of household members in households using solid fuels by place of cooking, Country, Year

Number of household members in

households using solid fuels for cooking

Place of cooking:

Need to add to both lists

Details provided in customization guidelines

Basically, need to come up with a balanced list of items that apply to all types of households, poor, middle income or rich

Change “hectares” if necessary

Add or delete animals – this is farm animals, livestock – not pets

Purpose

• Most of the questions in this module can be used to construct the Wealth index

• Standard background variable of MICS

• Helps to explain differentials and to disaggregate indicators by socioeconomic status

Wealth index

• Information on possession of household assets, dwelling materials, water and sanitation, crowding (and others) are used in principal components analysis and households are categorized into quintiles of wealth

• Popular indicator used by DHS, WB etc to analyze disparities with regard to wealth/poverty

HC8 & HC9 - Add to the list

Each country should add to the list • at least five items of furniture • at least four additional household appliances

• so that the list includes– at least 3 items that even a poor household may have,– at least 3 items that a middle income household may have,– at least 3 items that a high income household may have.

Methodological issues

• Utmost care should be taken in asking questions on assets – the list has to be “balanced”

• Good training should be given to interviewers to easily recognize floor, roof, wall types – pictorials could be used

Insecticide Treated Nets and Indoor Residual Spraying

• To be used in malarious countries only• It is possible to use the modules in specific areas, if

parts of the country are not malarious• Depending on the availability and programs in the

country, the type of nets will need to be customized – need to insert names of brands available

• Need to do strong training, with samples, pictorials• For the TN module, we use a roster for bednets

We begin by asking about the total umber of mosquito nets, so as to build the roster

And ask the respondent to see the nets

Observe each net

Determine ITN status – need to be familiar with net availability, string training needed

Determine use of nets by household members

May be difficult to observe nets

Important to follow questionnaire flow when nets are being observed

Net quality not recorded (holes, quality etc)

If more than 3 nets, additional questionnaire needs to be used

Last part (TN11-TN12) used to establish use of nets the previous night for current use estimates

Need to ensure that members who did not stay in the house the previous night are not included under any net

But visitors should be recorded as “00”

Only to be included if programs exist

Not all malarious countries have IRS programs, and not always nationally

Exclude spraying by household member

3.12 Household availability of insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) TN Number of households with at least one insecticide

treated net (ITN) Total number of households

3.13 Households covered by vector control TN - IR

Number of households with at least one insecticide-treated net (ITN) or that received spraying through an IRS campaign in the last 12 months preceding the survey

Total number of households

3.14 Children under age 5 sleeping under any type of mosquito net TN Number of children under age 5 who slept under any

type of mosquito net the previous night Total number of children under age 5

3.15 Children under age 5 sleeping under insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) TN

Number of children under age 5 who slept under an insecticide-treated mosquito net (ITN) the previous night

Total number of children under age 5 MDG 6.7

3.19 Pregnant women sleeping under insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) TN Number of pregnant women who slept under an

insecticide-treated net (ITN) the previous night Total number of pregnant women

Percentage of households w ith at

least one mosquito net


least one long-lasting treated net


least one ITN1

Percentage of households w ith at least one ITN or

received IRS during the last 12 months2

Number of households


AreaUrbanRural

Education of household headNonePrimary SecondaryHigher

Wealth index quintilesPoorestSecondMiddleFourthRichest

Table CH.11: Household availability of insecticide treated nets and protection by a vector control methodPercentage of households w ith at least one mosquito net, percentage of households w ith at least one long-lasting treated net, percentage of households w ith at least one insecticide treated net (ITN) and percentage of households w hich either have at least one ITN or have received indoor residual spraying (IRS) in the last 12 months, Country, Year

Slept under any mosquito

net1

Slept under an insecticide treated

net2

SexMale Female


AreaUrbanRural

Age0-11 months12-23 months24-35 months36-47 months48-59 months


Percentage of children w ho slept

under an ITN living in households w ith at

least one ITN


59 living in households w ith at least one ITN

Table CH.12: Children sleeping under mosquito nets

Percentage of children age 0-59 months w ho slept under a mosquito net during the previous night, by type of net, Country, Year


59 months

Percentage of children age 0-59

w ho stayed in the household the

previous night

Percentage of children who: Number of children age 0-59 months w ho slept in the household the previous night

Slept under any mosquito net

Slept under an insecticide treated

net1


AreaUrbanRural

Age15-1920-2425-2930-3940-49

EducationNonePrimarySecondaryHigher

Table CH.13: Pregnant women sleeping under mosquito nets

Percentage of pregnant w omen w ho slept under a mosquito net during the previous night, by type of net, Country, Year

Percentage of pregnant w ome w ho

stayed in the household the previous night

Number of pregnant w omen

Percentage of pregnant w omen Number of pregnant w omen w ho slept in the household the previous night

Percentage of pregnant w omen w ho slept under

an ITN, living in households w ith at least

one ITN

Number of pregnant w omen

living in households w ith at least one

ITN

Water and Sanitation

• Drinking water and sanitation• Collect information on “improved” sources

– a source that by nature of its construction is adequately protected from outside contamination in particular with fecal matter

– a facility that hygienically separates human waste from human contact

Two questions – second question asked only if the main sources is bottled water

Some customization may be made, if absolutely necessary, but only in the form of sub-response categories

Do not combine categories – for example, protected and unprotected springs, as simply “spring”

If the “trip” to fetch water is more than 30 minutes, it has been shown that people compromise on their daily requirements by collecting less water

Also questions on who fetches the water – that can be used for other reasons (child protection, gender issues)

Water treatment

Piped into dwelling, compound, yard or plot Piped to neighbour Public tap/standpipe Tube well/Borehole Protected dug well Protected spring Rainwater collection

Flush/Pour flush to: piped sewer system septic tank pit latrine

Ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrine Pit latrine with slab Composting toilet

Unprotected dug well Unprotected spring Tanker truck Cart with small tank/drum Surface water (river, stream, dam, lake, pond, canal, irrigation channel) Bottled water*

Flush/Pour flush to elsewhere Pit latrine without slab/Open pit Bucket Hanging toilet/Hanging latrine Shared sanitation of any type No facilities, bush or field

UN

-IMPR

OVE

DIM

PRO

VED

Drinking water sources (incl. delivery points) Sanitation facilities

MDG definitions = MICS response categories

4.1 Use of improved drinking water sources WS Number of household members using improved

sources of drinking water Total number of household members MDG 7.8

4.2 Water treatment WSNumber of household members using unimproved drinking water who use an appropriate treatment method

Total number of household members in households using unimproved drinking water sources

4.3 Use of improved sanitation WS Number of household members using improved sanitation facilities which are not shared Total number of household members MDG 7.9

Indicators defined on the basis of household population, not the number of households

Into dw elling

Into yard/plot

To neigh-bour

Public tap/ stand-pipe

Total 100.0




Wealth index quintilePoorest 100.0Second 100.0Middle 100.0

Table WS.1: Use of improved water sources

Surface w ater

Bottled w ater* Other


Main source of drinking water

Total

Percentage using improved

sources of drinking w ater1

Improved sources

Cart w ith tank/ drum

Pro-tected w ell

Pro-tected spring

Unimproved sourcesPiped water

Percent distribution of household population according to main source of drinking w ater and percentage of household population using improved drinking w ater sources, Country, Year

Rain-w ater

collectionBottled w ater*

Unpro-tected w ell

Unpro-tected spring

Tanker truck

Tube-w ell/ bore-

hole

None Boil

Add bleach/ chlorine

Strain through a cloth

Use w ater f ilter

Solar dis-infection

Let it stand and

settle OtherMissing/

DKTotal


AreaUrban Rural

Main source of drinking waterImprovedUnimproved na na

Education of household headNonePrimary SecondaryHigher

Table WS.2: Household water treatment

Percentage of household population by drinking w ater treatment method used in the household, and for household members living in households w here an unimproved drinking w ater source is used, the percentage w ho are using an appropriate treatment method, Country, Year

Water treatment method used in the household Percentage of household members in households using unimproved

drinking w ater sources and using an appropriate w ater treatment

method1

Number of household members in

households using unimproved drinking

w ater sources


Water on premises

Less than 30 minutes

30 minutes or more

Missing/DK

Water on premises

Less than 30 minutes

30 minutes or more

Missing/DK Total

Total 100.0



Education of household headNone 100.0Primary 100.0Secondary 100.0Higher

Wealth index quintilePoorest 100.0Second 100.0Middle 100.0Fourth 100.0Richest 100.0

Table WS.3: Time to source of drinking water Percent distribution of household population according to time to go to source of drinking w ater, get w ater and return, for users of improved and unimproved drinking w ater sources, Country, Year


Users of improved drinking water sources

Users of unimproved drinking water sources

Time to source of drinking water

Adult w oman Adult manFemale child under age 15

Male child under age 15 Missing/DK Total

Total 100.0





Table WS.4: Person collecting water

Person usually collecting drinking w ater Number of households w ithout drinking w ater

on premises

Percentage of households w ithout drinking w ater on premises, and percent distribution of households w ithout drinking w ater on premises according to the person usually collecting drinking w ater used in the household, Country, Year


Percentage of households w ithout drinking w ater on

premises

Any others applicable in the country should be added here

However, main retain categories

Sharing is important as it determines the MDG indicator – shared facilities are not considered improved

4.3 Use of improved sanitation WS Number of household members using improved sanitation facilities which are not shared Total number of household members MDG 7.9

Piped sew er system

Septic tank

Pit latrine

Unknow n place/not

sure/DK w hereTotal 100.0





Open defecation (no facility, bush, f ield)

Compos-ting toilet

Improved sanitation facilityPit latrine w ithout

slab/ open pit

Table WS.5: Types of sanitation facilities

Percent distribution of household population according to type of toilet facility used by the household, Country, Year

Type of toilet facility used by household

Total

Unimproved sanitation facilityFlush/pour flush to:

Number of household membersBucket Other

Pit latrine w ith slab

Flush/ pour f lush to

somew here else

Hanging toilet/

hanging latrine

Ventilated improved pit latrine

5 households or less

More than 5 households

5 households or less

More than 5 households

Total 100.0





Users of improved sanitation facilities Users of unimproved sanitation facilitiesShared by Shared by

Open defecation (no facility, bush, f ield)

Notshared1

Public facility

Table WS.6: Use and sharing of sanitation facilitiesPercent distribution of household population by use of private and public sanitation facilities and use of shared facilities, by users of improved and unimproved sanitation facilities, Country, Year


Not shared

Public facility

Missing/DK

Missing/DK Total

Piped into dw elling, plot or

yardOther

improved

Shared improved facilities

Unimproved facilities

Open defecation

Total 100.0 100.0

RegionRegion 1 100.0 100.0Region 2 100.0 100.0Region 3 100.0 100.0Region 4 100.0 100.0Region 5 100.0 100.0

AreaUrban 100.0 100.0Rural 100.0 100.0

Education of household headNone 100.0 100.0Primary 100.0 100.0Secondary 100.0 100.0Higher 100.0 100.0

Wealth index quintilePoorest 100.0 100.0Second 100.0 100.0Middle 100.0 100.0Fourth 100.0 100.0Richest 100.0 100.0

Percentage of household population by drinking w ater and sanitation ladders, Country, Year

Table WS.8: Drinking water and sanitation ladders

Percentage of household population using:Improved drinking w ater sources and improved

sanitation


Improved drinking water1

Unimproved drinking w ater

Unimproved sanitation

Total TotalImproved sanitation2

Handwashing with water and soap is the most cost effective health intervention to reduce both the incidence of diarrhoea and pneumonia in children under five

Measuring behaviour usually ends with poor quality data

Please for handwashing and availability of soap are used as proxies – shown to reduce risk of diarrhoeal diseases

We ask to observe the specific place designated for handwashing, and observe the presence of water and soap – or other cleansing materials

Presence of tap is not sufficient!

In the event that we are not able to observe, we ask to see available in the house

In case there is no designated place for handwashing, and there is only moving kettles, for instance, this is not included in the numerator of the indicator

4.5 Place for handwashing HWNumber of households with a specific place for hand washing where water and soap (or other cleansing agent) are present


4.6 Availability of soap or other cleansing agent HW Number of households with soap or other cleansing

agent Total number of households

Soap or detergent is

available

Only ash, mud or sand is available

No soap, detergent nor ash/mud/sand

available

Soap or detergent is

available

Only ash/mud/sand

is available

No soap, detergent nor ash/mud/sand

available TotalTotal 100.0




Water is not available and:

Percentage of households w ith a specif ic place for handw ashing w ith w ater and soap, detergent or

ash/mud/sand available1

Table WS.9: Water and soap at place for handwashing

Percentage of households w here place for handw ashing w as observed and percent distribution of households by availability of w ater and soap at place for handw ashing, Country, Year

Percentage of households

w here place for handw ashing w as observed



w here place for handw ashing w as observed

Water is available and:

Place for handwashing observed

4.5 Place for handwashing HWNumber of households with a specific place for hand washing where water and soap (or other cleansing agent) are present


4.6 Availability of soap or other cleansing agent HW Number of households with soap or other cleansing

agent Total number of households

Soap or other cleansing agent

show n

No soap or other cleansing agent in

household

Not able/Does not w ant to show soap or other cleansing agent

Total 100.0





No soap or other

cleansing agent in

household

Not able/Does not w ant to show soap or other

cleansing agent

Table WS.10: Availability of soap or other cleansing agentPercent distribution of households by availability of soap or other cleansing agent in the dw elling, Country, Year

Place for handwashing observed Place for handw ashing not observed

Total

Percentage of households w ith

soap or other cleansing agent anyw here in the

dw elling1


Soap or other

cleansing agent

observed

Soap or other cleansing agent not observed at place for handwashing

Soap or other cleansing agent

show n

Before performing the salt iodization test, need to record the time

Iodine deficiency disorder is the world’s leading preventable mental retardation and impaired psychomotor development in young children

Salt is oidized to provide the needed iodine in populations

We test the content of salt used in the household with a simple rapid test kit

Salt is adequately iodized when it contains more tha 15 ppm of potassium iodate or potassium iodide

Separate test kits available – need to know which one to use before ordering

Percent distribution of households by consumption of iodized salt, Country, Year

Not iodized 0 PPM

>0 and <15 PPM 15+ PPM1 Total

Total 100.0




Table NU.9: Iodized salt consumption

Salt test resultNumber of

households in w hich salt w as tested or

w ith no salt

Percentage of households in

w hich salt w as tested


Percent of households w ith

No salt

2.16 Iodized salt consumption SI Number of households with salt testing 15 parts per million or more of iodide/iodate

Total number of households in which salt was tested or with no salt

Ending the questionnaire

Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys Survey Design Workshop

Documents

Transcript of Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys Survey Design Workshop