SWOT analysis matrix | |
Gender issues | |
Forces | Weaknesses |
68.5% of latrines and 60.9% of urinals are separated and used by gender | Low gender sensitivity of WASH programmes and infrastructures |
44.8% of schools have an SGBV reporting policy | 11.5% of teachers trained in gender and gender approach |
66.7% of schools raise awareness on menstrual hygiene management | 6.7% of schools raise students’ awareness of gender issues |
| 30.3% of schools have a clear policy on gender equality |
| Only 1.2% of schools have posters on GBV |
| Lack of dedicated toilets and urinals for girls |
| Unequal representation of girls in school WASH clubs |
| At least 30% of girls draw water on punishments during school hours |
Opportunities | Threats |
Government commitment to gender promotion | Endemic toxic masculinity in peri-urban communities (patriarchy) |
Presence of supporting partners (UNICEF, Ministry, USAID) in gender | School environments less sensitive to the gender approach |
“Gender” module integrated into the country’s school curriculum | Sexual and reproductive health issues |
Presence of NGOs, feminist organizations defending the rights of girls | Increased absenteeism and school dropout of girl students |
Water | |
Strengths | Weaknesses |
15 out of 18 schools (83.3%) have functional water points | 89.1% of schools do not have water points, experiencing water chore |
77.5% of schools with water points use improved sources | 98.8% of schools lack water awareness posters |
67.3 of the schools carry out sensitizations on drinking water hygiene | 98% of latrines and 91% of urinals lack water for hygiene |
| 40.8% of handwashing facilities lack water for hand hygiene |
Opportunities | Threats |
Government’s political commitment to the SDGs | Climate change and acts of sabotage by the population |
Presence of the national service of rural hydraulics for water drilling | Student absenteeism, particularly among girls |
Presence of technical and financial partners: PNEVA, Unicef, etc. | Risk of the emergence of waterborne and dirty hands diseases |
| Increased risk of health, school, and gender impacts of fetching water |
Hygiene | |
Strengths | Weaknesses |
86.7% of schools educate students on hand hygiene | 43.0% of schools have handwashing facilities |
75% of existing hand-washing facilities are functional next to latrines | 90.3% of schools lack handwashing facilities next to latrines. |
59.2% of handwashing facilities are functional on school grounds | 97.2% of schools lack handwashing facilities next to urinals. |
Presence of school WASH clubs in some schools | 92% of schools lack hand hygiene posters. |
| 77% of schools do not ensure or monitor handwashing by students |
Opportunities | Threats |
Availability of the PNEVA | The imminent implosion of diarrhoeal and other dirty hands disease |
Presence of the hygiene and sanitation module in the school curriculum | Lack of accessible funding for WASH |
Presence of handwashing facilities in the market of the city | Covid-19 pandemic in a context of low water availability |
| Endemicity of dirty hands and waterborne diseases |
Sanitation | |
Strengths | Weaknesses |
98.2% of schools have latrines, of which 35.2% are improved latrines | 3.6% of schools have hygienic toilets |
52% of latrines have sanitary napkins and papers for intimate hygiene | 13.9% of schools have urinals and 2.4% have laundry facilities |
74.5% of schools raise awareness on the hygiene of WASH infrastructure | 51.5% of toilets and 82.6% of urinals do not provide privacy for girls |
Presence of a WASH brigade in some schools | 4.8% of schools have a WASH school brigade |
| 2.4% of schools allocate funds to maintain WASH infrastructure |
Opportunities | Threats |
Presence of the National Healthy Schools and Villages programme | Increased girls’ absenteeism in school |
Presence of technical support partners: UNICEF, USAID, UKaid, etc. | Increased incidence of diarrhoeal diseases and dirty hands |