This is our summary data table which I'll walk you through.
And it tells the information about everything we learned
in response, in our evaluations in these four contexts.
So, in the first column, we have the country in which we responded.
And in the second column, we have the household water treatment and safe storage
products that were distributed by any NGO that we were able to find and evaluate.
So, I want to highlight that none of these products that we
select or pre-select, we just evaluated
what other people had already, independently, distributed.
So in Nepal, a local NGO was living in the community and they
rented houses in the community and they received
chlorination products, tablets and two types of liquid.
They received these chlorination products from UNICEF and they distributed them
on a continuous basis, so for example, if you ran out
of Aquatabs, you can go back and two weeks later then,
you might get WaterGuard because that's what UNICEF had sent that week.
They distributed this on a continuous basis,
with training and ongoing training for the users.
And this was in the context of cholera.
Now, in Indonesia, the distribution was different.
These products, which were AirRahmat, a liquid chlorine product and
a tablet chlorine product were both distributed in NFI kits.
These are non food item kits.
They're a box that may have a stove, and a blanket, and
a tent, and some pots and pans, and some crayons for your kids.
And these NFI kits come with no training.
They're just distributed as a box.
Now, boiling was not promoted in Indonesia by any NGO,
but was widely used by the population because of previous training.
And so, we included it in our evaluation.
In Turkana, it was the same type of situation.
Aquatabs and PuR were included in an NFI kit distribution.
And people received a 30 minute training the day the NFI kits were distributed, on
how to use the products and that was all the training or follow-up they received.
In Haiti, there were quite different, modes of distribution.
Aquatabs were distributed in NFI kits within spontaneous
settlements, places where, where internally displaced people settled.
But they were also distributed in a separate
program that had existed in Haiti before the emergency,
through community health workers in a distributed network
of 200 community health workers in a rural area.
And those community health workers visited people's homes,
and provided ongoing education and access to the Aquatabs.
In both cases for the filters, and this is the first
time we see filters, we saw ceramic filters distributed in Haiti.
Those were flown in from the Dominican Republic, and
they were distributed with one training to the household.
And then Biosand filters were distributed over a
wide area through a network of priests, and
a few households in each
of the priests' network areas received Biosand filters.
What I'd like to point out here, of the products that were
distributed in these emergencies, they're primarily
chlorination products, and that has to
do with the fact that chlorination products were warehoused in the country
beforehand, and are quite small and easy to distribute in the emergency context.
Additionally, the only products of any distributed in the emergencies, we
saw, and this is within the first eight weeks of onset,
that were not available in country warehouse before the emergency, were
ceramic filters in Haiti and some of the Aquatabs in Haiti.
Every other product was stored in a warehouse prior to the emergency
when it was used, then, to respond to an acute emergency situation.
So now, I'd like to walk you through the next three columns, to show you our data.
So, in Nepal, essentially, what we see is 30% of people reported
using the chlorination products in their stored household drinking water.
And that's because we can't divide this up by product really
because you might have received Aquatabs two weeks ago and WaterGuard yesterday.
So, we're going to lump the stage together and show that
about 30% of the households reported they were using the chlorine.
Now, about 65% of those households actually had free chlorine residual in
their drinking water, when we did
an unannounced household survey.
Which means, really, in total, about 65% of 30%, which is about
eighteenish percent of the population, roughly a fifth, had free chlorine
residual in their drinking water, from the products that were distributed.
We weren't able to test microbiological indicators in this context
because we didn't have access to any electricity at all.
And so, we simply left free chlorine residual as the outcome of interest.
And that's the confirmed use, as the presence of free chlorine residual,
and effective use is improvement of water quality as measured by E. coli.