EVALUATION REPORT 
ETHIOPIA MILLENNIUM WATER 
ALLIANCE EX-POST EVALUATION 
WASH Ex-Post Evaluation Series—Water Communications and Knowledge
Management (CKM) Project
May 2018
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ECODIT LLC AND SOCIAL IMPACT, INC. FOR USAID UNDER THE WATER CKM PROJECT 
IDIQ NO. AID-OAA-I-14-00069; TASK ORDER NO. AID-OAA-TO-15-00046.
PHOTO CREDIT: KARI NELSON
AUTHORITY 
Prepared for USAID under the Water and Development Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity 
Contract No. AID-OAA-I-14-00069, Task Order No. AID-OAA-TO-15-00046, awarded September 
17, 2015, entitled “Water Communications and Knowledge Management (CKM) Project.” 
This final report is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States 
Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this report are the sole responsibility 
of ECODIT LLC and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. 
This report was prepared by the Water CKM project team, comprised of ECODIT LLC and Social 
Impact, Inc. 
i | E3/WATER CKM: MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
USAID.GOV E3/WATER CKM PROJECT – MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
The evaluation team (ET) appreciates the keen involvement of the many stakeholders of the 
Millennium Water Alliance-Ethiopia Program. Notably, the ET gives thanks for the tireless support of 
Mussie Tezazu and the Millennium Water Alliance Ethiopia office throughout the entire evaluation 
process. The ET appreciates the participation and feedback of staff at each of the implementing 
partner organizations: CARE, Catholic Relief Services, Food for the Hungry, Lifewater International, 
Living Water International, Water Partners International (subsequently renamed Water.org), Hope 
2020, World Vision, Relief Society of Tigray, Ethiopian Kale Hiwot Church, Water Action, and 
Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus-Development and Social Services Commission. Obtaining 
thorough documentation and insights into an activity that was completed nearly eight years ago can 
be very challenging. The thoughtful engagement of these organizations and their staff made this 
evaluation possible. The ET also thanks the staff at USAID, including Abigail Jones, Kathrin 
Tegenfeldt, Elizabeth Jordan, and Alison Macalady, for their steadfast support and feedback through 
the entire evaluation process. 
iii | E3/WATER CKM: MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Authority ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. i
Acknowledgments …………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………… ii
Acronyms ……………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………………... v
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………...………………………………vi
Purpose and Overview …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….vi
Scope ………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………….vi
Design ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………vii
Key Findings ………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………….vii
Discussion: Factors Affecting Sustainability …………………………………………………………………......……….viii
Key Implications and Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………..… x
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
Overview of Activity and Budget …….………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
Evaluation Questions …….……………………………………………………………………………………………….…… 4
Methodology ………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………….… 5
Sampling ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5
Data Collection Methods ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
Quality Checks and Analysis …………………………………………………………………………………….…………… 7
Limitations …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7
Findings and Conclusions ……………………………………………………………………….………………………… 9
Water Points: Current Status And Use ………………………………………………………………..………………… 9 
Water Points: Factors Affecting Sustainability ………………………………………………………………………… 14 
Latrines: Current Status And Use ………………………………………………………………..………………………… 24 
Handwashing: Current Status …………………………………………………………...…………………………………… 27 
Latrines And Handwashing: Factors Affecting Sustainability …………………………………………..………… 27 
Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………… 29
FIGURES 
Figure 1. MWA-EP Objectives............................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2. MWA-EP's Achievements.................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3. Timeline of MWA-EP's Main Donors............................................................................................... 4
Figure 4. Evaluation Data Sources...................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 5. Locations Visited by the ET ................................................................................................................ 6
Figure 6. South Gondor WP Inventory Data: WP Functionality.............................................................. 11
Figure 7. Waiting at a USAID Water Point................................................................................................... 14
Figure 8. WASHCO Operationality Statistics from WP Inventory in Amhara .................................... 15
Figure 9. WASHCOS with Maintenance Budget in South Gondar Zone of Amhara .......................... 17
Figure 10. Annual Per Capital Expenditure on Water in Ethiopia............................................................ 18
Figure 11. Hydrogeological Map of Ethiopia .................................................................................................. 22
TABLES
Table 1. Informant Distribution.......................................................................................................................... 6
Table 2. Water Point Functionality by Type of Water Scheme................................................................ 10
Table 3. Water Point Functionality by Region .............................................................................................. 10
Table 4. Water Fee Collection by Current Functionality Status.............................................................. 19
Table 5. Water Fee Recovery by Current Functionality Status................................................................ 20
USAID.GOV E3/WATER CKM PROJECT – MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | iv
v | E3/WATER CKM: MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ACRONYMS
CKM Communications and Knowledge Management
CLTS Community-Led Total Sanitation
CLTS-H Community-Led Total Sanitation and Hygiene
CNHF Conrad N. Hilton Foundation
CRS Catholic Relief Services
E. coli Escherichia coli
EECMY￾DASSC
Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus—Development and Social Services 
Commission
EKHC Ethiopian Kale Hiwot Church
ET Evaluation Team
FH Food for the Hungry
GOE Government of Ethiopia
HEW Health Extension Worker
HH Household
IP Implementing Partner
JMP Joint Monitoring Programme
LI Lifewater International
LWI Living Water International
LPCD Liters Per Capita Per Day
MPN Most Probable Number
MWA-EP Millennium Water Alliance-Ethiopia Program
NGO Non-Governmental Organizations
PHAST Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation
REST Relief Society of Tigray
SI Social Impact 
SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People’s Region
WASH Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene
WASHCO Community Water Management Approach
WHO World Health Organization
WP Water Point
WV World Vision
YHYH Your Health is in Your Hands Activity
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
USAID.GOV WATER CKM: MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | vi
PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW
Despite of decades of efforts to improve water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) in Ethiopia, its key 
WASH indicators remain some of the lowest in the world. As of 2015, only 30 percent of the rural 
Ethiopian population had access to water that meets its basic needs; 4 percent used improved, non￾shared sanitation; and 99 percent lacked any handwashing facility.1 With well over 14,000 children under 
5 dying from diarrheal disease annually in Ethiopia,2 it is imperative that WASH development activities 
are effective, efficient, and have long-lasting impacts. As in other sub-Saharan African countries, 
sustainability has been a challenge in Ethiopia. For example, a 2010/2011 national WASH inventory rated 
25 percent of water points as non-functional.3 This reflects growing, though limited, evidence across the 
sector of high rates of water point failure, sometimes just a few years after construction.4 The 
consequences are wasted money and time, disappointed communities, and dangerous health conditions.
USAID is committed to identifying sustainable approaches to WASH to avoid such pitfalls and ensure 
the long-term impact of its global WASH activities. By understanding the extent to which past project 
outcomes have been sustained and the factors that drove these outcomes, USAID hopes to learn 
lessons that can inform the design and implementation of future projects. This report presents findings 
from the third in a series of six ex-post evaluations designed to learn from completed USAID-funded 
WASH activities. The subject of this evaluation—the Millennium Water Alliance-Ethiopia Program 
(MWA-EP)—provides an opportunity to learn about the long-term outcomes related to rural water 
point construction and rehabilitation, community management of those water points, as well as 
participatory sanitation and hygiene education and construction activities. 
The Millennium Water Alliance (MWA) implemented MWA-EP in 24 rural woredas (districts) in Ethiopia 
between March 2004 and December 2009 with a budget of $4,677,670 from USAID and a $2,382,972 
cost-share from MWA. A consortium comprised of eight MWA implementing partners (IPs) carried out 
the activity. The MWA consortium built and rehabilitated water points (WPs) and trained community￾level water, sanitation, and hygiene committees (WASHCOs) to manage each of the WPs. The 
consortium also conducted hygiene and sanitation education, primarily using a participatory hygiene and 
sanitation transformation (PHAST) approach, and it supported the construction of household (both 
improved and unimproved) and public latrines.
SCOPE
The evaluation answered six key questions:
1. Water access: What is the level of service at water schemes completed by MWA-EP more than
seven years after activity?
2. Water use: To what extent are community members using the water?
3. Water point management: How have water schemes been maintained since MWA-EP?
1 WHO/UNICEF. 2017. Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: 2017 Update and SDG Baselines. 
Basic water access is defined as drinking water from an improved source, provided collection time is not more 
than 30 minutes for a round trip, including queuing. 2 WHO. 2016. Global Health Observatory. http://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.ghe1002015-ETH?lang=en 3 Ministry of Water and Energy, Government of Ethiopia. April 2013. Monitoring Water Supplies and Sanitation in 
Ethiopia. Presentation by Tamene Hailu Debela. https://www.slideshare.net/ircuser/2-hailu-nwi-kpi-msf2 4 Improve International. 2012. Statistics on Water Point Failures webpage: 
http://www.improveinternational.org/2012/10/25/sad-stats/ 
vii | E3/WATER CKM PROJECT – MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
4. Household latrine, handwashing facility use: To what extent are household-level and shared
community latrines and handwashing facilities supported by the activity still functional, adequately
maintained, and used?
5. Public latrine management: What systems and financial mechanisms have communities used
over time to maintain MWA-EP-supported public sanitation facilities and sustain outcomes?
6. Why? For each type of water and sanitation intervention, which factors contributed to or impaired
long-term sustainability?
DESIGN
The evaluation used a mixed-methods design that included: 64 qualitative individual and group 
interviews; structured observations of 13 WPs and 15 latrines; water quality tests of 10 WPs; and a 
review of secondary data. This review included an inventory of water point data in South Gondar Zone, 
Amhara, and latrine and water point data from woreda health and water offices. The evaluation team 
(ET) conducted data collection over a four-week period in October and November 2017, in seven of 
the activity’s 24 woredas. The seven were purposively selected in Amhara Region and Southern Nations, 
Nationalities, and People’s Region (SNNPR). The ET also conducted IP interviews and meetings with 
USAID in Addis Ababa. Prior to fieldwork, the ET conducted a desk review of both MWA-EP activity 
documentation and relevant WASH literature. 
KEY FINDINGS
WATER POINTS: CURRENT STATUS AND USE
The ET examined several aspects of the water points, including: basic functionality; quantity of water and 
use; and water quality, accessibility, and reliability.5
Most WPs visited had significant problems with basic functionality. Concerns about functionality 
arose during interviews and from direct observations. Only five of the 13 visited WPs were fully 
functional during ET observation. Three were not functioning at all. A secondary dataset representing 
4,352 water points in the Amhara region showed that only 44 percent of MWA-EP-established water 
points functioned as of 2016. WPs constructed during the same period by other 
implementers/organizations functioned at a rate of 53 percent, implying that the MWA-EP water points 
may be underperforming compared to other rural water infrastructure in the same area.
WPs appeared to be well used, and most produced sufficient quantities of water, yet most 
people relied on multiple sources. Community members used MWA-EP water points daily, when 
functional, particularly for drinking water. Measured flow rates at six of nine visited WPs could 
theoretically provide sufficient water for domestic uses for their intended communities. In spite of this, 
many households relied on other water sources in addition to the MWA-EP water points to meet all 
their needs. Little is known, however, about why people used multiple sources or how MWA-EP 
planned for multiple uses of water. 
Most WPs failed to meet water quality standards. Despite people’s beliefs that the MWA-EP water 
points served as a clean drinking water source, most were not tested regularly, and the majority (seven 
out of 10) were contaminated by Escherichia coli (E. coli) and no longer provided safe water. 
5 Definitions: Basic water point functionality assessed if a WP produced water at the time of visit. Water quantity 
refers to the USAID standard of 20L/person/day of water. Water quality refers the water supply being free of 
contamination (e.g. E. coli) and chemicals, (e.g. fluoride, and arsenic). Water point accessibility refers to USAID’s 
definition, that water collection should take no more than 30-minutes round-trip. Water point reliability refers to 
USAID’s common indicator HL.8.1-3, which requires year-round water point access without regular supply 
rationing or seasonal failure. Water point use refers to who is/is not using the WP and to what extent
USAID.GOV E3/WATER CKM PROJECT – MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | viii
Wait times at many WPs threatened accessibility. Respondents often reported wait times of more 
than 30 minutes, and WP observations confirmed crowding (averaging 10 containers/WP) and fill times 
(averaging 2.5 minutes/container) that put wait times at or around the 30-minute standard. With added 
travel time, water collection is not possible within a 30-minute standard in most activity areas visited. 
Reliability was a concern, but primarily for mechanical rather than seasonality reasons. While 
WASHCOs made many small repairs to the WPs, typically taking only a couple of weeks to complete, at 
the time of visit, many major repairs that affected functionality had not been completed due to a lack of 
funding. Seasonal fluctuations in water availability occurred in only a few of the sites visited. 
SANITATION AND HANDWASHING: CURRENT STATUS AND USE
Most households have replaced latrines as needed, but usage appears inconsistent, and users 
have not progressed up the sanitation ladder. Based on interviews and direct observations, most 
people who gained access to sanitation under MWA-EP have continued to replace their latrines when 
they fill. However, many of the original latrines still in use and their replacements were not well 
maintained, resulting in a lack of privacy and potential safety concerns, both factors that discourage use. 
As most of the observed latrines featured an “unimproved” design, it appears that, despite replacement, 
users have not progressed up the sanitation ladder and upgraded to better latrines.
Though latrine owners widely reported using their latrines, Health Extension Workers (HEWs) 
indicated that latrine usage is likely not as high as people indicate, and the observation data support this. 
Despite education on the importance of latrines, usage lags behind latrine construction. Though signs 
indicate that latrine coverage rates have been sustained, more work is still needed to change norms 
around usage. 
No public latrines remain functional. None of the MWA-EP–supported public latrines are functional 
today. People dismantled them for firewood, indicating that the community’s short-term demand for 
firewood outstripped perceived benefits of public latrines.
People likely overstate the extent of handwashing. Though most latrine owners reported washing 
their hands regularly, observation data and interviews with HEWs suggest this is an overstatement. 
None of the observations revealed handwashing stations or other signs of handwashing, and the HEWs 
noted significant challenges convincing people to wash their hands regularly. 
DISCUSSION: FACTORS AFFECTING SUSTAINABILITY
Myriad factors were found to influence long-term sustainability of outcomes described above, including 
managerial, financial, institutional, environmental, land tenure, and socio-behavioral factors. 
Managerial Factors. To support the sustainability of WPs, MWA-EP worked to build community buy￾in and establish community management structures (WASHCOs) consistent with the Government of 
Ethiopia’s (GOE) approach to rural water supply. Despite these efforts and trainings, WASHCOs 
struggled to effectively manage their WPs. Maintenance and repairs posed significant challenges. In 
particular, WASHCOs have struggled to generate sufficient funds to cover maintenance and repair
costs. This finding is in line with prior studies that have found that community management of 
infrastructure is difficult to sustain in the long term.6 Secondary data from an Amhara WP inventory 
suggest that MWA-EP-supported WASHCOs underperform compared to their peers, despite more of 
6 Peterson, A. and M. Kremer. 2007. “What Works in Fighting Diarrheal Diseases in Developing Countries? A 
Critical Review.” The World Bank Research Observer 22(1), 1-24. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40282334 and 
Lockwood, H. and J. Butterworth 2016. Global Study on Sustainable Rural Water Service Delivery Models: 
Country Brief Ethiopia. World Bank Report.
ix | E3/WATER CKM PROJECT – MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
them having received management training. Although information on the MWA-EP training efforts is not 
available, evaluation findings suggest that MWA-EP training was insufficient to ensure sustainability. 
For the public latrines, no information is known about the intended management or financial structures 
meant to maintain the latrines. Based on the finding that none of the public latrines remain, the 
management systems put in place were not successful.
Financial Factors. The inability of most WASHCOs to collect sufficient funds to cover WPs’ life cycle 
costs proved to be detrimental to their functionality and sustainability. Notable differences in fee 
collection existed at the regional and woreda levels. WASHCOs Amhara were significantly less 
successful in fee collection than those in SNNPR. The likely reasons for these difficulties, and for the 
variations across regions include: poor management by the WASHCOs, resistance to payment by users, 
inability of users to pay, prior custom of paying for water, and availability of alternative surface and 
groundwater sources in the area. 
The limited progress on construction or improvement of latrines at the household level is connected to 
both lack of finances and low prioritization of sanitation compared to other financial demands. Findings 
suggest that financial constraints also impact handwashing practices, particularly in water-scarce areas. 
Interviews suggest that when water is scarce—due to absolute or economic scarcity—people prioritize 
other water uses over handwashing. 
Institutional Factors. MWA-EP did not pay sufficient time or attention to establishing institutional 
support for WASHCOs from government offices at all levels, which significantly affected performance. 
For example, WASHCOs reported a lack of post-project training and limited water quality testing. A 
significant issue is lack of clarity surrounding the roles and responsibilities of government actors in 
support of the WPs. For example, interviews uncovered widely varying reports regarding who is 
responsible for key supporting activities such as WP repairs and water quality testing, even among 
individuals within the same entity. This confusion around roles and responsibilities, coupled with lack of 
support, exacerbated management and financial challenges at the WASHCO level, hindering long-term 
sustainability. 
In contrast to rural water supply provision, institutional roles and responsibilities for hygiene and 
sanitation at various government levels were well established, with all respondents agreeing that hygiene 
and sanitation promotion fell within the purview of the health offices and the HEWs. Though their role 
is clear, the health offices and HEWs face challenges affecting the delivery of training and other support 
services, including: insufficient staff to cover their zones, difficulty in accessing remote communities, and 
competing outreach priorities. For example, among the many health promotion topics in their purview, 
the government prioritizes other health topics over the promotion of sanitation, hand hygiene, and 
water safety.
Environmental Factors. Although environmental factors remain beyond the direct control of the 
activity (or the government), they can be planned for and anticipated in activity design. Respondents 
noted two key environmental factors relevant to the long-term success of the WPs: climatic concerns 
and hydrogeological water potential. The evaluation results suggest that the IPs effectively addressed 
these concerns by testing water availability and altering WP designs in response to the findings. This is 
likely reflected in the lack of significant seasonal reliability issues or the drying up of wells. 
Environmental factors may also play a role in fee collection and in hygiene and sanitation. Fee collection 
may be more difficult in areas where water is plentiful and free. In water scarce activity areas, people 
prioritize other uses for water over hygiene and sanitation. 
Land Tenure Factors. Land tenure concerns did not receive significant attention during implementation 
but posed a challenge to post-implementation sustainability. Land tenure issues arose for MWA-EP in 
USAID.GOV E3/WATER CKM PROJECT – MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | x 
three areas: 1) community conflicts regarding selection and compensation of landowners where 
community WPs were built; 2) lack of incentives for both tenants and landlords of rental properties to 
invest in water and sanitation infrastructure; and 3) rights of landowners to access water resources on 
their property. 
Social/Behavioral Factors. The 2008 final evaluation of MWA-EP found that the approaches to 
behavior change varied significantly among IPs and that the approaches were poorly defined and
coordinated. To improve sanitation and hygiene behavior change outcomes, respondents suggested 
increasing follow-up and support after the end of the intervention as well as persistent messaging to 
increase uptake, a suggestion that has some support in the literature.7 To be sustainable, this role would 
have to be taken up by community or government actors. 
KEY IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Position government entities to play a stronger role in sustained maintenance and
oversight. To ensure stronger institutional support, USAID should assist the government to
clarify the roles and responsibilities for government support of the WPs/WASHCOs and to ease
financial and logistical constraints faced by government offices in providing support.
2. Examine alternative rural water approaches to improve upon the community
management model. Both the literature and this evaluation found significant barriers to the
sustainability of community-managed rural WASH infrastructure, which suggests this approach
may not be the most effective. Before implementing additional community-managed rural water
infrastructure activities, USAID should examine potential models, their effectiveness, and
sustainability.
3. Account for life cycle costs when planning for water infrastructure and tariff setting.
All entities involved in operations, maintenance, and repair need to have sufficient resources to
fulfill those roles. In addition to positioning government entities to fulfill their role in supporting
life cycle costs (Recommendation #1), WASHCOs should be trained to budget and set tariffs
based on the full costs of WP maintenance, repair, and replacement.
4. Assess the suite of water needs and sources when designing new water access
projects. Understanding and planning for the full suite of community water needs will help
ensure new activities can be designed to provide water for priority uses.
5. Seek stronger, more consistent alternatives to simple education-based behavior
change approaches in areas with poor sanitation and hygiene norms. The lack of
latrine use and handwashing indicates the varied, PHAST-based approach of MWA-EP was not
sufficient to achieve true behavior change. Other approaches may be more successful and
should be assessed.
6. Improve people’s understanding and appreciation of water quality. In future activities,
USAID and IPs should ensure that community education activities address the importance of
water quality—both visible and invisible—and potential sources of contamination. They should
also equip communities with strategies to measure and mitigate contamination at both the
source and point of use.
7. Address land tenure issues during activity design and throughout implementation.
Taking an intentional approach to land tenure, such as having a well-defined action plan for site
placement, compensation and mediating potential conflicts, should become standard practice.
7 Wantland, D., B. Bewick, and T. Palermo. 2009. (Ed). Ritterband, L. “Periodic Prompts and Reminders in Health 
Promotion and Health Behavior Interventions: Systematic Review.” Journal of Medical Internet Research, 11(2). and 
Ory, M., M. Smith, N. Mier, and M. Wernicke. 2010. “The Science of Sustaining Health Behavior Change: The 
Health Maintenance Consortium.” American Journal of Health Behavior, 34(6), 647-659.
1 | E3/WATER CKM PROJECT – MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
INTRODUCTION
Despite of decades of efforts to improve water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) in Ethiopia, its key 
WASH indicators remain some of the lowest in the world. As of 2015, only 30 percent of the rural 
Ethiopian population had access to water that meets its basic needs; 4 percent used improved, non￾shared sanitation; and 99 percent lacked any handwashing facility.8 With well over 14,000 children under 
5 dying from diarrheal disease annually in Ethiopia,9 it is imperative that WASH development activities 
are effective, efficient, and have long-lasting impacts. As in other sub-Saharan African countries, 
sustainability has been a challenge in Ethiopia. For example, a 2010/2011 national WASH inventory rated 
25 percent of water points as non-functional.10 This reflects growing, though limited, evidence across 
the sector of high rates of water point failure, sometimes just a few years after construction.11 The 
consequences are wasted money and time, disappointed communities, and dangerous health conditions.
USAID is committed to identifying sustainable approaches to WASH to avoid such pitfalls and ensure 
the long-term impact of its global WASH activities. By understanding the extent to which past project 
outcomes have been sustained and the factors that drove these outcomes, USAID hopes to learn 
lessons that can inform the design and implementation of future projects. This report presents findings 
from the third in a series of six ex-post evaluations designed to learn from completed USAID-funded 
WASH activities. The subject of this evaluation—the Millennium Water Alliance-Ethiopia Program 
(MWA-EP)—provides an opportunity to learn about the long-term outcomes related to rural water 
point construction and rehabilitation, community management of those water points, as well as 
participatory sanitation and hygiene education and construction activities.
Key intended users of evaluation findings are USAID, other donors, Millennium Water Alliance (MWA) 
and its implementing partners (IPs), and WASH implementers in Ethiopia and other countries. Findings 
will inform and empower the Government of Ethiopia (GOE) and other host-country governments to 
hold donors and IPs to higher standards of implementation to ensure investments are long-lasting. 
Findings from this and future evaluations will also assist these intended users in determining areas for 
improvement in activity selection, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation to improved 
accountability to stakeholders and enhance long-term sustainability.
OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITY AND BUDGET 
In 2002, only 12 percent of Ethiopia’s rural population had access to an improved water source, and 
seven percent had access to adequate sanitation facilities.12 Water and sanitation-related diseases, 
particularly diarrhea, are the number two cause of death in Ethiopia followed by malaria and HIV/AIDS.13
Schools suffered from a lack of basic sanitation, and girls were frequently absent due to a lack of 
sanitation or due to household (HH) chores related to fetching water at a great distance from their 
homes. According to the MWA-EP’s baseline survey, completed in 2006, 76 percent of families in 
8 WHO/UNICEF. 2017. Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: 2017 Update and SDG Baselines. 
Basic water access is defined as drinking water from an improved source, provided collection time is not more 
than 30 minutes for a round trip, including queuing. 9 WHO. 2016. Global Health Observatory. http://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.ghe1002015-ETH?lang=en 10 Ministry of Water and Energy, Government of Ethiopia. April 2013. Monitoring Water Supplies and Sanitation in 
Ethiopia. Presentation by Tamene Hailu Debela. https://www.slideshare.net/ircuser/2-hailu-nwi-kpi-msf2 11 Improve International. 2012. Statistics on Water Point Failures webpage: 
http://www.improveinternational.org/2012/10/25/sad-stats/ 12 UNICEF. 2003. The State of the World’s Children. 13 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2018. Global Health-Ethiopia. 
https://www.cdc.gov/globalhealth/countries/ethiopia/
USAID.GOV E3/WATER CKM PROJECT – MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 2 
intervention areas had no access to an improved water source for daily household consumption. 
Women and girls were spending on average 57 minutes per day collecting water for their HHs. 
To address this situation, MWA implemented MWA-EP in 24 rural woredas (districts) in Ethiopia 
between March 2004 and December 2009 with a total budget of approximately $7 million, including
$4,677,670 from USAID and $2,382,972 from MWA cost-share. A consortium comprised of eight MWA 
IPs implemented the activity—CARE, Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Food for the Hungry (FH), 
Lifewater International (LI), Living Water International (LWI), Water Partners International 
(subsequently renamed Water.org), Hope 2020, and World Vision (WV)—along with local 
subcontracting non-governmental organizations (NGOs) Relief Society of Tigray (REST), Ethiopian Kale 
Hiwot Church (EKHC), Water Action, and Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus-Development 
and Social Services Commission (EECMY-DASSC). Though funding varied by IP both in total amount and 
duration, on average, each IP received approximately $900,000 in funding.
The objectives of the MWA-EP activity are shown in Figure 1. MWA-EP Objectives below. 
Figure 1. MWA-EP Objectives
1) Increase the level of access to sustainable, safe
water and sanitation services among poor and
vulnerable populations in rural and peri-urban
areas
2) Decrease the prevalence of water and
sanitation-related diseases, increasing time
available for economic development, education,
etc.
3) Promote integrated water (resources)
management at the local level with a focus on
maintaining the quantity and quality of drinking
water
4) Develop an efficient, effective, and replicable
partnership model for service delivery and
advocacy
MWA-EP Objectives
The IPs addressed water access issues through constructing and rehabilitating water supply schemes 
across intervention areas. MWA partners created community-based WASH committees (WASHCOs) 
to manage each of the water points.14 WASHCOs were provided training on how to manage the water 
schemes as well as in basic maintenance and repairs. 
The consortium also supported the construction of HH pit latrines, public latrines, and sanitation and 
handwashing facilities at schools. In most cases, however, the precise approaches taken by the IPs were 
not well documented. Each IP took a different approach to the support of HH latrine construction, with 
some IPs using demonstration latrines to encourage other HHs to construct their own while others 
relied on primarily on the participatory hygiene and sanitation transformation (PHAST) methodology15
for encouraging hygiene and sanitation adoption. It is not clear, however, whether any of the IPs directly 
assisted in or subsidized the construction/installation of the latrines or handwashing facilities. Due to 
14 One exception to this was in Ginchi Town, Dendi Woreda, Oromia, where Water.org and partner Water Action 
introduced a new financial management model by contracting out water points to private operators. 
15 According to the World Health Organization's “Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation,” PHAST is 
an adaptation of the self-esteem, associative strengths, resourcefulness, action-planning and responsibility 
methodology of participatory learning, which builds on people’s innate ability to address and resolve their own 
problems. It aims to empower communities to manage their water and to control sanitation-related diseases, and 
it does so by promoting health awareness and understanding which, in turn, lead to environmental and behavioral 
improvements.
3 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
the lack of information available on the specific approaches, this report refers to all latrines and
handwashing facilities as having been “supported” by MWA-EP, a term that likely means different types 
of support from different IPs.
Though IPs primarily used the PHAST methodology, according to the final evaluation in 2008, the 
specific approaches used within that (involvement of different stakeholders, reliance on different 
entities/individuals for education and sanitization, etc.) varied by IP. In the final year of implementation, 
WV and CRS began to use community-led sanitation (CLTS) to trigger behavior change. IPs working in 
schools formed school WASH Clubs to promote latrine cleanliness and handwashing stations equipped 
with soap or ash. According to activity reports and monitoring data, MWA-EP accomplished several 
WASH outcomes as shown in Figure 2. MWA-EP's Achievements below.16 
Figure 2. MWA-EP's Achievements
Water
• Construction or rehabilitation of 505 safe water supply schemes,17 providing
water access for an estimated 310,093 people
• Establishment and training of a local management WASHCO for each WP
Sanitation
• Construction of 91 ventilated improved pit latrines in schools and other
institutions, providing sanitation facility access for an estimated 93,379
schoolchildren and community members
• Support for 31,369 household pit latrines, providing sanitation facility access to
an estimated 181,112 people
• Construction of 182 public latrines, providing sanitation facility access to an
estimated 11,000 people
Hygiene
• Provision of hygiene and sanitation education to an estimated 301,550 people
The MWA-EP activity was implemented from 2004–2009 with USAID support, and several follow-on 
activities have occurred since then. Although MWA did not continue to receive USAID funding, MWA 
and its consortium continued to implement WASH activities Figure 3. Timeline of MWA-EP's Main 
Donors. 
MWA continued to implement water and sanitation activities in the same regions at the end of the 
MWA-EP activity. The first extension was implemented through a bridge grant (2010–2012) from the 
Conrad N. Hilton Foundation (CNHF). Later, additional funding from CNHF and the Coca-Cola Africa 
Foundation funded WASH activities from 2012–2014, and then CNHF funded activities between 2014–
2017. MWA is in the process of designing and finalizing a new activity, since its most recent activity 
concluded in 2017. The most recent CNHF-funded activity (2014–2017) added additional goals to its 
programming, including increasing access to WASH in institutions (schools and health care facilities) and 
seeking to strengthen capacity of national and local governments, community-based organizations, and 
16 The programmatic approaches evaluated from the MWA-EP 2004-2009 activity do not necessarily represent 
current approaches of MWA and its implementing partners. Lessons learned have likely led to adaptations in the 
past nine years.
17 This included construction of deep boreholes, machine-drilled shallow wells, hand-dug wells, and spot springs and 
spring development with extensions. It also included rehabilitation of hand-dug wells, springs, and shallow wells. 
USAID.GOV E3/WATER CKM PROJECT – MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 4 
the private sector to provide sustainable WASH services. At the time of the evaluation team (ET) visit, 
MWA was in the process of designing its CNHF–funded activities for 2017–2022. 
Figure 3. Timeline of MWA-EP's Main Donors
USAID also continued to fund follow-on activities through different IPs. USAID funded a follow-on 
activity to MWA-EP that Save the Children implemented called Your Health is in Your Hands (YHYH) 
from 2009–2013. YHYH operated in the same four regions as MWA-EP with similar objectives to 
increase access to water and sanitation and promote improved hygiene behavior. YHYH adopted a new 
sanitation and hygiene approach, CLTS and Hygiene (CLTS-H), and added an emphasis on school 
sanitation. 
Evaluations were conducted of MWA-EP and YHYH. Key findings of these evaluations are summarized
in the Inception Report, which is included in Annex I and are also used to inform the findings and 
conclusions of this evaluation.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
This evaluation addressed six questions as shown below. 
1. Water access: What is the level of service at water schemes completed by MWA-EP
more than seven years after activity?
2. Water use: To what extent are community members using the water?
3. Water point management: How have water schemes been maintained since MWA-EP?
4. Household latrine, handwashing facility use: To what extent are household-level and
shared community latrines and handwashing facilities supported by the activity still
functional, adequately maintained, and used?
5. Public latrine management: What systems and financial mechanisms have communities
used over time to maintain MWA-EP-supported public sanitation facilities and sustain
outcomes?
6. Why? For each type of water and sanitation intervention, which factors contributed to or
impaired long-term sustainability?
5 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
METHODOLOGY
Overview of Methods. This ex-post performance evaluation used a mixed-methods design that
included 64 qualitative individual and group interviews, 28 structured observations, 10 water quality 
tests of water points, and review of secondary data (see Figure 4. Evaluation Data Sources). Data 
collection was conducted over a four-week period in October and November 2017 in seven purposively 
selected former MWA-EP intervention areas in Amhara, Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People’s 
Region (SNNPR), and in Addis Ababa (See Figure 5. Locations Visited by the ET). Prior to 
fieldwork, the ET conducted a desk review of MWA-EP activity documentation, which included annual, 
quarterly, and final reports; final evaluations; and other available documentation of the MWA-EP 
approach, as well as of the relevant WASH literature. The ET developed interview guides and updated 
them as a group. See Annex III for the detailed data collection schedule and for a list of parties 
consulted, and Annex I for the Evaluation Design Matrix (Table 7 in the Inception Report), which 
details the data sources and the interviewee categories that informed the team’s answers to each of the 
evaluation questions. 
Figure 4. Data Collection Sources
Evaluation Team. A five-person team conducted the evaluation: Team Leader Kari Nelson, Ph.D.; 
Water CKM Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist Annette Fay; Senior WASH Evaluation Specialist Seifu
Tilahun, Ph.D.; WASH Specialist Dessalew Aynalem; and Logistician Mohamed Reshid. Senior Technical 
Advisor Leslie Greene Hodel provided additional support on evaluation design and data collection tools. 
Together, team members contributed expertise in evaluation, WASH, local context, and logistical 
planning. The ET (minus the logistician) split into two groups of two interviewers each—one to Amhara 
and one to SNNPR—for the duration of the fieldwork. 
SAMPLING 
In accordance with criteria guiding the ex-post evaluation series, data collection was limited to locations 
that did not receive follow-on WASH activities from USAID or other donors. Water CKM reviewed 
numerous WASH activities that occurred in Ethiopia since 2009 to ensure lack of location overlap. 
Based on this exercise, the ET excluded two out of 24 woredas with other WASH interventions from 
the sampling frame. 
Once potential contamination was accounted for, the ET purposively sampled specific sites to provide 
diversity of: types of infrastructure, implementing partners, and geographic locations, including locations 
where USAID is still active in the WASH sector. Under these criteria, the team selected seven woredas
in Amhara and SNNPR for data collection (Figure 5. Locations Visited by the ET). Table 1.
Informant Distribution summarizes the final distribution of Interview respondents. 
64 28
Structured 
Observations
10
Water Quality 
Tests
100+
Documents 
Reviewed
Qualitative 
Interviews 
Water Point 
Inventory
4400+ 
USAID.GOV E3/WATER CKM PROJECT – MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 6 
DATA COLLECTION METHODS Figure 5. Locations Visited by the ET
INFORMANT TYPE # INTERVIEWS
Woreda and kebele
government personnel
16
WASHCO members 13
Water users 12
Household latrine owners 11
Donor and implementing 
partner staff
5 
Health extension workers 
(HEWs)
7 
Table 1. Informant Distribution
Qualitative Interviews. The ET 
conducted interviews to gain insight 
about the perceptions of sustainability of 
the water schemes, sanitation facilities, 
and behavior change activities that 
MWA-EP introduced. The ET conducted 
64 interviews (see Figure 4.
Evaluation Data Sources)
representing individuals and 
organizations (see Annex III for a 
detailed list). 
The ET tailored interview protocols to 
the informant’s role and “causal 
distance” from MWA-EP activities and 
the time available for interviewing. The 
questions not only addressed knowledge 
and general perceptions, but also probed 
for specific examples of attitude and behavior change. See Annex II for interview protocols. 
Structured Observations. The ET conducted a total of 28 structured observations including 13 
water schemes and 15 household latrines. The ET employed a tool that assessed flow rate (via stroke 
tests and fill time measurement for schemes without handpumps) and observed maintenance and repair 
concerns. Observations at water schemes also included use of wash basins and animal troughs, where 
these were provided through MWA-EP. The observations assessed signs of use, cleanliness, structural
soundness, and signs of handwashing. The ET visited the sites after the end of the rainy season, which 
likely represents a high point in water availability. 
Water Quality Testing. To assess the adequacy of the service level, the ET used field-based water 
quality testing kits to determine whether each water point is currently free from E. coli contamination
using the Most Probable Number (MPN) method.18 The team also tested levels of arsenic and fluoride 
content. In total the ET tested 10 water points. The remaining three WPs visited could not be tested 
because they were not functional. 
Secondary Data. In addition to the activity data described
above, the ET reviewed water point inventory data from 
four woredas in South Gondar Zone of Amhara water 
office reports in SNNPR, and hygiene and sanitation 
statistics from the health offices in Farta and Simada, 
Amhara. The water point inventory in Amhara was 
conducted by CARE in 2016. It covered all WPs in the 
zone (not just those supported or constructed by CARE), 
including 54 MWA-EP water points and 4,352 other water 
points. The inventory included more than 40 variables
regarding the WPs and the managing WASHCOs, from 
geographic location to date of construction to functionality
of the WP to the existence and practices of the WASHCO.
18 E. Coli testing used Aquagenx compartment bag tests. Water was collected directly from the WP using sample 
collection bottles. Details on the testing process are available online: http://www.aquagenx.com/how-to-use-the-cbt/
7 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
QUALITY CHECKS AND ANALYSIS 
During fieldwork, the ET took detailed notes and recorded the interviews (when participants agreed) so 
that completeness could be verified. The ET conducted weekly quality checks on the data and shared its 
notes with the management team weekly, which reviewed them for quality and clarity. Furthermore, to 
ensure quality, the ET submitted a purposive sample of six interviews to be professionally transcribed 
and translated. Overall coding agreement between the detailed notes and the transcriptions was high, at 
over 97 percent for each pair. For each interview, this equates to only one or two codes that did not 
appear in both versions. A review of the mismatches revealed that the discrepancies were minor and 
largely inconsequential for the analysis. 
Following fieldwork, the ET organized the interviews, documents reviewed, structured site observations, 
and all other data and prepared it for analysis. The ET analyzed the detailed notes using a common 
codebook in MaxQDA 12 software; the same software was also used to analyze the final, coded dataset. 
The observation data was entered into Excel. The ET analyzed the data and triangulated all relevant 
information to ensure conclusions for each evaluation question reflected all available data and 
documented diverse perspectives. The team circulated all preliminary findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations internally to ensure the capture of all data and relevant perspectives. 
LIMITATIONS
The ET identified the following challenges and devised mitigation strategies during the evaluation. 
Selection Bias and Sample Size. The selection of evaluation sites was not random, but rather based 
on specific criteria aimed at maximizing what could be learned from the evaluation, as outlined in the 
methodology. The first stage of sampling targeted just those sites that had not seen a follow-on activity 
by another donor or outside organization. While this selection criteria helps to isolate just the effects of 
the MWA-EP activity, given the volume of WASH-related programming in Ethiopia, it also has the 
possibility of creating a biased sample. Areas that did not receive any further programming could be 
notably different from those that did, and the differences may or may not be related to the MWA-EP 
activity. For example, some areas may have received follow-on programming because the MWA-EP WPs 
failed early on, thus excluding particularly poor performers from the ET’s sample. Other areas may have 
had such poor water access that, despite the MWA-EP efforts, more work was needed and donors 
stepped in to continue building on the MWA-EP efforts. Given that a single woreda could have over 
1,000 WPs (and still not reach full service levels) and that MWA-EP built just 505 WPs across 24 
woredas, this is possibility to consider. 
The second stage of sampling was also purposive- aimed at maximizing what could be learned in the 
evaluation. Given the purposive nature of the sampling, the site visits do not form a representative 
sample. Thus, it is not possible to generalize their current status to the overall activity areas. This was an 
intentional choice in the evaluation design; one that allowed the team to collect richer and more 
detailed information about the water schemes, sanitation infrastructure, and behavior change of 
beneficiaries than would have been feasible had a representative sample been sought. The value of these 
rich perspectives is captured in the nuanced findings of this report. To mitigate concerns, the evaluation 
also drew on available secondary data. 
The secondary data from the South Gondar Zone of Amhara water point inventory enabled the ET to 
compare activity areas with the general population. This detailed and extensive dataset provided the 
team with an opportunity to expand its knowledge about the status of MWA WPs beyond those visited 
as part of the evaluation and put that status into context. However, it must be noted that the non-MWA 
WPs in the dataset do not form a formal comparison group, as would be needed in an impact evaluation.
Factors such as the selection of MWA sites could influence the comparability of these two groups. For 
instance, if MWA-EP had focused on supporting the poorest and most vulnerable communities, it might 
USAID.GOV E3/WATER CKM PROJECT – MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 8 
be unfair to compare such communities to the average. However, no information available to the ET 
suggests that such criteria were used for site selection in MWA-EP. Rather, most IPs indicate that site 
selection relied on collaboration with government entities and other NGOs in the area to identify 
communities that lacked access to a safe water supply. No other specific criteria have been noted that
might set MWA-EP sites apart from the “average.” 
Self-Selection Bias. Interviewees may have self-selected by either making themselves available for 
interviews or in the amount of time they allotted for the interview. Persons with stronger vested 
interests in the results of the evaluation (either negatively or positively) may have spent more time with 
the interviewers.
Recall Bias. Given that MWA-EP concluded in 2009, significant time has passed since the end of the 
activity. Thus, the ET faced challenges both in terms of documenting the MWA-EP approach as well as in 
trying to interview respondents about what they remember of the activity. In terms of documentation, 
though every effort was made to obtain everything possible, detailed information was not always 
available and key informants did not always remember specific details. For this reason, particularly 
around the specific implementation modalities of MWA-EP, the ET was unable to draw definitive 
conclusions regarding some aspects of the activity. For a list of respondents, see Annex III.
Given the time lag since the end of the activity, interviewees’ memories may have become hazy or 
biased based on other experiences. To mitigate this bias, the team triangulated all data sources to 
ensure sound conclusions. 
Positive Response Bias. Social norms can lead individuals to provide what they believe or interpret to 
be the “correct” response to interviewer questions, regardless of the accuracy of that response. In the 
case of hygiene and sanitation, it is likely that many respondents know or intuit that the “correct” 
response is that they use their latrine and wash their hands at all times. This bias could paint an overly 
positive view of hygiene and sanitation practices. To mitigate this potential bias, in addition to collecting 
interview data from latrine owners, the ET also met with HEWs and health office officials, as well as 
conducted direct observations of the latrines, looking for signs of use and handwashing. 
Identification of Households that Built a Latrine During the Activity. The ET knew that 
identifying households that had built a latrine with the support of the activity would be a challenge. Most 
latrines had not been designed to last as long as the time that has passed since construction with MWA. 
The ET hoped that households would have learned from their MWA experience and rebuilt their
latrines by 2017 to maintain access. Thus, to identify these households, the ET relied on support from 
the HEWs, community leaders, and WASHCO members who were involved in the activity at the time.
Additionally, to help jog people’s memories of the activity, the ET referenced significant events 
happening around the same time as the activity (such as major political events, the construction of the 
WP, droughts/floods, etc.)—an approach known as anchoring. In the end, the ET identified households 
that, to the greatest extent possible, were known to have built a latrine with the support of the activity. 
As noted above, this sample is not a representative sample. But the visits and interviews provide 
substantial insight into what has happened since the end of the activity and what some of the remaining 
constraints are around hygiene and sanitation. 
Implementation Complexities. MWA-EP was implemented by eight different implementing partners.
Per discussions with MWA and the IPs, implementation modalities varied by IP and by different 
geographic areas (such that the same IP may have used different approaches in different regions of the 
country). Thus, there is no singular “MWA-EP approach.” To fully compare the approaches, the 
evaluation would have needed eight different treatment arms to fully explore differences among 
implementers. Even more would have been needed to further disentangle the effects of specific 
components (such as site selection, community engagement, training design, etc.). Further complicating 
the ability to measure the effects of implementation modalities are other factors such as geography, 
9 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
hydrogeology, culture, and socio-economics. For these reasons, discussions of the possible effects of
implementation modalities on sustainability are explored, but the ET is unable to definitively measure the 
effect of specific approaches from each IP.
Translation Challenges. SNNPR comprises a diverse set of ethnic and linguistic groups. As such, even
within a relatively small geographic area, many different languages are spoken. This reality required that
the ET in SNNPR use different translators in different communities, possibly leading to inconsistencies in
how different translators approached their task. To mitigate this, the ET worked with each translator to
ensure an understanding of the interview protocols and the context of the evaluation. Given that several 
changeovers happened, however, and given the short time that each translator worked with the team, it
is likely that some inconsistencies may have persisted.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The findings and conclusions are organized across the three thematic areas of the activity: water points,
sanitation facilities, and hygiene practices. First, the report summarizes the current status and use of the 
WPs and then the factors contributing to or limiting their sustainability. This is followed by the current 
status and use of latrine infrastructure and handwashing facilities and practices. Finally, the factors
affecting sustainability of the latrines and handwashing are discussed jointly. 
WATER POINTS: CURRENT STATUS AND USE
To evaluate the current status and use of the WPs, the ET assessed WP functionality, water quantity, 
quality, accessibility, reliability, and use. This involved in-depth site visits, including direct observations, 
water quality tests, and interviews with WASHCOs and water users/collectors at 13 different water
points, as well as a review of available secondary data. 
The following findings distinguish between water schemes, water points, and water taps: 
• Water schemes are entire, connected water systems.
• Water point is a specific location on a scheme at which users can collect water.
• A “tap” is used to refer to the individual spigots, pipes, or pump stands from which water is
produced.
In the MWA context, the majority of water schemes consisted of a single WP (such as a shallow well 
with hand pump) while a few had multiple WPs (sometimes kilometers apart) on the same, connected 
water scheme. As for “taps,” while some WPs only had a single tap (such as a handpump producing 
water through a single pump stand), others (such as gravity fed spot springs) offered multiple 
spigots/pipes that produced water, allowing multiple users to collect water from the same WP at the 
same time. This terminology allows the ET to discuss different types of schemes in a consistent manner.
FINDINGS
Functionality. Among 13 visited WPs, five sites were fully functioning, five were partially functioning, 
and the remaining three were nonfunctional. While some definitions of “functionality” incorporate 
multiple aspects of WP operation into a single score or rating, to explore these many components in 
more depth, this evaluation has separated each aspect. Thus, to evaluate basic functionality, the ET used 
a narrow, point-in-time definition of the ability of the WP to produce water.19 This basic definition, 
19 The ET defined nonfunctional water points as those that were not able to produce any water at the time of visit. The team 
defined partially functional WPs as those able to provide water from some of the taps/pipes, but not to the extent of the 
original design. A fully functioning WP produced water from all originally constructed taps at any rate during the time of the 
visit.
USAID.GOV E3/WATER CKM PROJECT – MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 10
which does not account for flow rates or stroke tests (where hand pumps are used), is consistent with
other definitions used in Ethiopia, including that of the WP inventory that also serves as evidence in this
discussion. 20
Despite the reduced functionality at “partially functioning” WPs, at least some people still used them 
to collect water. In all cases of functionality problems, the ET identified the issues as mechanical in 
nature rather than an issue with the underlying availability of water (i.e., none of the points had “dried 
up”). Table 2. Water Point Functionality by Type of Water Scheme and Table 3. Water 
Point Functionality by Region summarize the functionality of the 13 WPs by type of scheme as well 
as region. Given the dispersions of these data, it is difficult to draw any conclusions about variations by 
type of water scheme or region. 
Of the 505 WPs constructed, MWA-EP installed 57 cattle troughs and 69 washing basins across the 
project areas. Only three of the WPs visited had cattle troughs and washing basins. However, the ET 
found none of the visited components still functioning or being used.
In SNNPR, the ET visited the MWA-built Soro-Sybia water extension scheme; a scheme that includes 27 
different water points. From interviews, the ET learned that only one of the scheme’s WPs functioned 
(the one that the team visited), and that the remaining 26 WPs did not function due to problems with 
20 The South Gondar Zone water point inventory used a similar definition of functionality as the ET. Though the inventory did 
not distinguish between partially functional and fully functional WPs, they defined functionality based on whether the water point 
was able to produce water at the time of visit.
11 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
the distribution line. Additionally, in Tembaro, water office officials identified “several” WPs as 
nonfunctioning but were unable to provide a precise number. 
Available secondary data allowed for an analysis of functionality beyond the WPs directly visited. In 
Amhara, the WP inventory dataset provided substantial data on WP functionality and management— 
both for WPs constructed through MWA-EP as well as for all other WPs in the South Gondar Zone. 
This dataset includes the MWA-EP activity woredas of Andabite, Dera, Farta, and Simada, and it includes 
data on 54 activity WPs and 4,352 non-activity WPs. Based on these data, as depicted in Figure 6.
South Gondor WP Inventory Data: WP Functionality, 44 percent of the MWA-EP WPs in these 
woredas functioned. This is substantially less than the 68 percent of non-MWA-EP WPs identified as 
functional. 
One might expect functionality to vary depending on the age of the WPs, with newer WPs more likely 
to still be functioning than older WPs like those constructed under the MWA activity. However, an 
analysis by the age of the WPs yielded similar results—58 percent of WPs in the zone built between 
2001–2012 are functional, which is still higher than the 44 percent of MWA WPs that are functional.21 A 
logistic regression further supports this finding, indicating that both age of the infrastructure as well as 
whether the WP was from the MWA-EP activity were statistically significant factors (p<.0001 in both 
cases).22 For every additional year of age, the WP is more likely to be nonfunctioning and, controlling for 
age, MWA WPs were less likely to be functional.
Quantity. As outlined in the Inception Report, USAID evaluates the quantity of water as a function of a 
HH’s ability to meet its daily water needs (defined as collecting at least 20L of water/person/day23). The 
first factor to consider in this estimation is the ability of the MWA-EP WPs to produce an adequate 
quantity of water. Among functional WPs, the average fill time at the water taps for a 20L container was 
152 seconds (equal to a flow rate of 7.8L/minute), with an overall range of 47–660 seconds (standard 
21 In examining the WP inventory dataset, a few anomalies were noted regarding the accuracy of WP construction 
dates, with some known entries being misestimated by a few years. For this reason, when attempting to compare 
WPs from a similar era, a range of 11 years was used rather than the actual 5-year duration of the activity to 
account for slight errors in dates. Sensitivity analyses reveal that small changes in the included date range do not 
substantially change the findings, with the range being from 53-58 percent; all well above the MWA functionality 
rate of 44 percent.
22 Logistic regression findings: MWA-EP Site (0=non-MWA-EP; 1=MWA-EP): coefficient=-1.03, z=-3.76, p=.0000; 
Age of the WP: coefficient=.01, z=6.02, p=.0000.
23 The GOE’s standard has increased to 25 L/person/day, however, 20 L/person/day was the standard in place during 
MWA-EP implementation and was the standard agreed to in the Inception Report.
Figure 6. South Gondor WP Inventory Data: WP Functionality
USAID.GOV E3/WATER CKM PROJECT – MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 12
deviation=172 seconds)24. Overall flow rates were largely sufficient, with all but one water tap taking 
160 seconds or less. These flow rates, factored across an entire day, and compared with the number of 
individuals the WP is serving indicates that, of 9 WPs, 6 had flow rates sufficient to serve the intended 
population.25 However, this maximum yield is not necessarily a “safe” yield that could be handled by the
underlying aquifer. Measuring the safe yield would require tests of aquifer recovery rates as well, which 
was not in the scope of this evaluation.26 
Across the WPs visited, most respondents reported that they collected water from multiple sources 
and not just the MWA-EP WP to meet their daily needs. The other water sources included natural 
springs, rivers/streams, and constructed/improved WPs. 
Quality. Only one of the WASHCOs interviewed indicated that it tested water quality regularly. Of the 
remainder, just over half said that after the WP was handed over to the WASHCO it was never tested, 
and the remainder said testing occurred only occasionally. A rating of “occasional” included a range of 
cases—from only ever having been tested once to situations where it had been tested regularly at some 
point in time, but that testing had stopped. Though the water sources were not regularly tested, if tests 
did come back noting a water quality issue, WASHCOs said they would treat the WP using chlorine or 
other appropriate chemicals.
In most interviews with community members, respondents reported believing that the MWA-EP WP 
provided water that was safe for drinking and that they never treated their drinking water. Despite this 
belief, seven of the 10 WPs tested positive for E. coli contamination using the World Health 
Organization (WHO) standard of no detectable E. coli (which is the same as the Ethiopian national 
standard). Of the samples tested, the ET recorded average E. coli levels of 12 MPN/100 mL with a range 
of 3.7 to >100 (the highest rating detectable by the equipment). 
In describing why they thought the water from the MWA-EP WPs was safe, users focused on the clarity 
of the water, the lack of debris, and the fact that the groundwater source was covered so animals could 
not touch the water source and contaminate it. Many respondents did not seem to understand or be 
aware of potential invisible contaminants. Though the sources of contamination could not be definitively 
identified, many of the contaminated WPs appeared to be visibly dirty (trash, debris, etc.), water storage 
tanks lacked covers, and stagnant water and muddy areas surrounded some of the WPs.
In terms of other potential contaminants, none of the visited WPs tested positive for arsenic (all 
received a <2 parts per billion rating, the lowest rating possible with the equipment used and less than 
the 10 parts per billion WHO and Ethiopian national standards). For fluoride, only one site in SNNPR
exceeded the WHO and national standard of 1.5mg/L. These findings are consistent with what one 
would expect given the geography. The highest concentrations of fluoride in groundwater in Ethiopia are 
known to be in the Rift Valley, which covers parts of SNNPR but is farther from the activity areas in 
Amhara.27 
Accessibility. As outlined in the Inception Report, USAID defines water accessibility in terms of how 
long it takes a person to collect water. The international norm, which USAID uses as a guideline, is 30 
minutes. This includes transport to and from the water point plus waiting and collection time. The 
24 Flow rates were measured using stroke tests for hand pumps or timers for water points that did not have hand 
pumps.
25 The ET was unable to speak with the WASHCO of 1 visited WP. Thus, data on households served are only 
available for 9 of 10 partially or fully functioning WPs.
26 International Committee of the Red Cross. 2011. Technical Review: Practical Guidelines for Test Pumping in 
Water Wells. Geneva, Switzerland. https://shop.icrc.org/icrc/pdf/view/id/904
27 British Geological Survey and Water Aid. 2001. Groundwater Quality: Ethiopia. 
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=1280 
13 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
evaluation measured this through interviews as well as by observing crowding and fill times at the WPs.
In half of the interviews, respondents reported wait times at the WPs of more than 30 minutes, which 
would be considered substandard per USAID guidelines. However, the ET noted inconsistencies in how 
respondents measured and reported time. As one stark example, a water collector insisted (despite 
probing) that it took three hours to fill a 20 L container from the WP. In this case, the ET’s direct 
observation of the fill time was closer to two minutes for a 20 L container. 
In terms of crowding and observed wait times at the WPs, the Lenda WP experienced particularly high 
demand, with 95 people waiting in line with 210 containers. However, other water points had 10 or 
fewer containers waiting to be filled at the time of visit. Though every effort was made to visit the WPs 
during peak times, given the distance and difficulty in accessing some sites, this was not always the case. 
Thus, it is possible that peak wait times could be higher than what was observed in some cases. 
Nonetheless, with an average fill time of approximately 2.5 minutes, this would put the remaining water 
points within or just above the 30-minute expected time frame for collecting water, not taking into 
account travel times. 
Though this had not been an explicit objective of the activity, as another measure of accessibility, the ET 
found that none of the visited WPs were handicap accessible. The WPs generally required navigation of 
stairs and, in some cases, navigation over/around barbed wire, difficult terrain, or other obstacles. 
Reliability. Reliability is assessed in line with USAID’s common indicator HL.8.1-3, which requires year￾round access without regular supply rationing or regular seasonal failure. As noted above, the ET 
observed problems with general WP functionality at many water schemes, which influenced overall 
reliability. Additionally, interviews highlighted the need for both major and minor repairs. Though 
respondents indicate that most repairs take two weeks or less to take place, in some cases, they can 
take several months. 
In terms of seasonal variations in water flow, the ET visited the sites after the end of the rainy season, 
rather than during a likely low point in water availability. Thus, the team relied on interviews to estimate 
seasonal effects. The majority of interviews indicated that water is available consistently across the year 
at MWA WPs. Where water was not consistently available year-round, most interviewees said that the 
biggest slowdowns in the flow of water occurred during the dry season (unsurprisingly). The ET noted 
some variations across regions, with sites in SNNPR slightly more likely to report seasonal fluctuations 
than in Amhara. In a few cases, however, such as the case of the Lenda WP in SNNPR with high 
demand, the supply never kept up with demand at any point in the year, mostly due to functionality 
limitations. 
The WP inventory in Amhara included a question asking about whether the WP provided consistent 
service throughout the year. In response to this question, the MWA-EP WPs rated about the same as 
non-MWA-EP WPs, with 8 percent and 9 percent of WPs, respectively, experiencing seasonal variations 
in water availability.
Use. Communities use the MWA-EP WPs regularly. According to interviews conducted, at least while 
the WPs were functional, they were being used daily. As noted above, most users indicate relying on 
multiple water sources to meet their needs. In discussing what they used the different WPs for, drinking 
water was the top-rated use for MWA-EP WPs, while for the non-MWA-EP WPs, the uses were evenly 
split among drinking water, washing, and for animals. Perhaps in line with the high use of MWA-EP WPs 
for drinking water, most respondents reported believing that the MWA-EP WPs provided safe water for 
drinking, and that they never treat their drinking water. This, despite the finding that many WPs were 
contaminated with E. coli. 
Insufficient data are available to determine the extent to which people used multiple water sources out 
of convenience (such as using water from a nearby stream for a use they don’t believe requires “clean” 
USAID.GOV E3/WATER CKM PROJECT – MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 14
water rather than walk farther to an improved WP) or because of insufficient water availability at the 
MWA-EP WPs to serve all their needs. Renwick et al (2007) suggests that taking into account all 
people’s water needs and potential sources can help ensure that water schemes are not overdrawn, 
exceeding their potential yield.28 In the case of MWA-EP, no data are available from activity 
documentation regarding whether the WPs were intended to provide just drinking water or if they 
were intended to serve all water needs. However, the inclusion of washing basins and cattle troughs at 
some WPs suggests more than just drinking water was taken into consideration during design. 
In most interviews, respondents indicated that all community members (regardless of wealth, gender, 
vulnerability status, or other characteristics) were able to use the MWA-EP WP. Respondents noted 
only a few exceptions for those who have their own WP or those who do not pay their water fees. 
CONCLUSIONS
The water access intervention had 
low sustainability in light of the 
majority of visited WPs being non￾or partially functional. Though 
some WPs experienced seasonal 
fluctuations in water availability, 
functionality problems were the 
primary contributors to reductions 
in reliability. Based on secondary 
data, the MWA-EP WPs may have 
more functionality problems than 
other WPs, which raises concerns 
about this particular activity’s 
approaches. 
Despite the functionality issues, 
water users reported being able to 
meet their water needs using a 
combination of the MWA-EP WPs 
and other water sources.
However, it is not clear given available data whether people chose to use multiple water points out of 
convenience or because the MWA-EP WPs cannot produce sufficient water. However, the maximum 
yield estimates suggest water sufficiency is not the core reason. 
Where the WPs were at least partially functional, the WPs were well used and were typically open to the 
entire community. Water quality was a concern, however, with the majority of WPs contaminated with 
E. coli. Despite the contamination, most water users believed that the MWA-EP WPs provided clean
drinking water. Though most WASHCOs said they would treat their WP if water quality issues were
discovered, most WPs were not tested regularly.
The belief that the MWA-EP WPs provided safe drinking water is consistent with the finding that the 
MWA-EP WPs were used most frequently for drinking water and less for other uses like washing or 
bathing. 
WATER POINTS: FACTORS AFFECTING SUSTAINABILITY 
28 Renwick, et. al, 2007, “Multiple Use Water Services for the Poor: Assessing the State of Knowledge,” Winrock 
International: Arlington, VA. https://www.winrock.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Multiple-Use-Water-Services￾for-the-Poor-Assessing-the-State-of-Knowledge.pdf
Photo credit: USAID Ethiopia 
Figure 7. Waiting at a USAID Water Point
15 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
FINDINGS
Management Factors. The MWA-EP activity created and trained a WASHCO for each WP to 
manage the day-to-day operations and maintenance. Though selection processes varied by IP, the 
WASHCO committees were comprised of volunteer community members. They are typically 
responsible for water fee collection, regular maintenance, and, to some extent, repairs. Unfortunately, 
no details were available to the ET regarding the content or duration of the training provided to the 
WASHCOs.
According to the IPs, building WASHCO and community capacity to support and oversee the WPs was
a key activity component intended to support long-term sustainability. This is consistent with Alexander 
et al (2015), which finds in Ethiopia that higher water scheme functionality scores are associated with 
having good records, meeting regularly, conducting financial audits, collecting higher monthly fees, 
designating a paid caretaker, and ensuring the committees have the capacity to perform minor repairs.29
To assess WASHCO management, the ET evaluated two key areas: overall WASHCO performance and 
WP maintenance and repair. 
WASHCO Performance
All WPs visited had WASHCOs; over half of the water user interviews noted that the WASHCOs could 
be doing a better job managing the WPs. Users’ key criticisms included: a need for improved 
maintenance of the WPs and a better ability to repair defects.
Figure 8. WASHCO Operationality Statistics from WP Inventory in Amhara
45%
61%
55%
39%
MWA Water Points
Non-MWA Water Points
Functioning Non Non-Functioning - and Partially Functioning
Though they use a low threshold for “functionality” of having a full complement of 7 active members, 
according to the WP inventory in South Gondar Zone of Amhara, a similar percentage of 
nonfunctioning MWA-EP WPs had a fully functional WASHCO as the non-MWA-EP group (Figure 8.
WASHCO Operationality Statistics from WP Inventory in Amhara). However, among the 
functioning WPs, only 45 percent of MWA-EP WPs had a fully functioning WASHCO compared to 61 
percent of functioning non-MWA-EP WPs.30 Interestingly, however, more MWA-EP-supported 
WASHCOs (70 percent) had received management training than non-MWA-EP WASHCOs (62 
percent). 
These concerns regarding WASHCO performance surfaced despite the focus IPs placed on WASHCO 
training and capacity building. Though the ability to generalize from the inventory dataset to all activity 
29 Alexander, K., Y. Tesfaye R. Dreibelbis, B. Abaire, and M. Freeman. 2015. “Governance and Functionality of 
Community Water Schemes in Rural Ethiopia.” International Journal of Public Health, 60(4), 1. 30 The water point inventory defined a fully functional WASHCO as having seven members who are engaged in 
supporting the water scheme. A partially functional WASHCO had some active members, but fewer than seven. A 
nonfunctional WASHCO did not have any active members.
USAID.GOV E3/WATER CKM PROJECT – MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 16
areas is limited, it does raise potential concerns about the content and quality of MWA-EP’s WASHCO 
trainings. 
In addition to WASHCO training and capacity building, IPs also emphasized community participation in 
decision making, which was intended to support both the effective management of the WPs as well as 
buy-in to the tariffs set for water. Although previous findings have varied, some articles on Ethiopia 
emphasize the need for strong community participation in decision-making to ensure sustainability.31
Though details on IPs’ specific approaches to engagement under MWA-EP are not available, none of the 
WASHCOs or water users voiced concerns about the engagement strategy. 
Water Point Maintenance and Repair
For purposes of the evaluation, maintenance was defined as those activities that need to be done on a 
regular basis to keep the WP functioning (such as tightening bolts, oiling moving parts, keeping the area 
around the water point clean, tending to any fencing, etc.). The ET divided repairs into two categories: 
minor (those that did not impair the overall functionality of the WP) and major (those that significantly 
impaired the functionality of the WP).
The ET identified maintenance issues, followed by minor repair needs, and theft of parts as the most 
commonly reported problems with the WPs. Theft includes the wooden posts used for fencing, water 
scheme piping, as well as the mechanical parts of the WPs. Though no respondents indicated that 
maintenance was never done on their WP, it was most frequently noted to be happening on an 
“occasional” basis, rather than a regular basis. 
Respondents widely noted the need for major and minor repairs. However, minor repairs were far 
more likely to have been completed than major repairs. In the case of major functionality issues, most 
problems arose in the last year or so, according to respondents. The number one reason that repairs 
are not completed, according to respondents, is a lack of money. Additional issues cited (though 
reported much less frequently than the financial concern) included difficulties obtaining parts and a lack 
of technical capacity. Respondents noted this latter concern at all levels—water offices, WASHCOs, and 
among artisans/technicians who were supposed to be able to repair the WPs. 
In terms of repair processes, the ET asked WASHCOs what they did when problems arose with their 
water point. WASHCOs provided inconsistent responses. The primary response when the needed 
repair went beyond a WASHCO’s technical or financial capacity was to contact the woreda water 
office. However, in some cases, the WASHCOs would first contact an official at the kebele
(neighborhood) level, who would then contact the woreda office on the WASHCO’s behalf. In other
cases, WASHCOs indicated that they would contact an NGO and not a government entity, and a few 
others said that the responsibility was entirely on them to keep the WP functioning, and that they did 
not receive any support from the government.
Most respondents said that the woreda water offices required them to make a community contribution 
before the water office would support the repair, which is a part of the GOE’s current “self-pay” 
approach to WASH. To this end, the ET encountered cases in which the community had been unwilling
or unable to make the requested contribution and, therefore, their WP had yet to be repaired. Though 
31 Tilahun, S., A. Tigabu, T. Tarekegne, M. Addisie, H. Beyene, Z. Alemeyehu, M. Ayele, A. Collick, and T. Steenhuis. 
2013. Factors in the Suboptimum Performance of Rural Water Supply Systems in the Ethiopian Highlands. In: Wolde 
Mekuria. (Ed). Rainwater Management for Resilient Livelihoods in Ethiopia: Proceedings of the Nile Basin 
Development Challenge Science Meeting, Addis Ababa, 9–10 July 2013. NBDC Technical Report 5. Nairobi, Kenya: 
International Livestock Research Institute.
17 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
some respondents referred to community contributions that could be paid “in-kind,” such as through 
provision of materials or labor, most referred to the required contribution as being financial.
When asked about the typical time needed to get the WP repaired, respondents most commonly 
indicated that repairs could be made within about two weeks. However, in some cases, particularly if 
obtaining parts was more difficult, it could take six months or longer.
Though the MWA-EP WASHCOs struggled with maintenance and repairs, it is important to note that 
community-managed water infrastructure has been shown to be difficult to maintain in the long term.32
The WP dataset corroborates this finding, which shows that only 63 percent of WPs are currently 
functional. 
Financial Factors. As noted above, water fee collection, higher fees, and strong financial management 
practices have been linked to higher levels of water scheme functionality.33 Thus, the evaluation 
examined the WASHCO’s ability to collect fees and cover their life cycle costs.
Fee Collection
The final MWA-EP activity evaluation conducted in 2008 reported that all WASHCOs collected water 
fees.34 However, only eight out of 12 of the interviewed MWA–EP-supported WASHCOs reported 
having ever collected fees, 6 of which were currently collecting fees.35 Of those who had ever collected 
fees, seven indicated that they had collected water fees at least up until their water point ceased 
functioning. If a WP broke down and could not be fixed, in many cases the WASHCO would stop 
collecting fees since the WP was no longer functioning and providing a service people would pay for. 
Collecting fees varied by region, with only one WASHCO in SNNPR reporting that it had never 
collected fees, while nearly half in Amhara had not. 
32 Peterson, A. and M. Kremer. 2007. “What Works in Fighting Diarrheal Diseases in Developing Countries? A 
Critical Review.” The World Bank Research Observer 22(1), 1-24. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40282334 and Lockwood, 
H. and J. Butterworth 2016. Global Study on Sustainable Rural Water Service Delivery Models: Country Brief
Ethiopia. World Bank Report.
33 Alexander, K. et al. 2015. 34 The Mitchell Group. 2008. External Program Evaluation of Cooperative Agreement No. 663-A-00-04-00419-00
Millennium Water Alliance (MWA) Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Program in Ethiopia.
35 The ET visited 13 water points. The ET only interviewed 12 MWA-EP-supported WASHCOs because at one of
the sites, no WASHCO member was available for an interview. However, one additional non-MWA WASHCO was
interviewed as it was only discovered during the interview that the WP the WASHCO supported was not from the
activity. Thus, the total number of WASHCO interviews was 13, including 12 supported by MWA-EP and one non￾MWA WASHCO.
27%
53%
73%
47%
MWA WASHCOs
All WASHCOs
Budget No Budget
Figure 9. WASHCOS with Maintenance Budget in South Gondar Zone of Amhara
USAID.GOV E3/WATER CKM PROJECT – MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 18
The WP inventory also sheds light on the performance of the MWA-EP WASHCOs in comparison with 
other WASHCOs in the region. In South Gondar Zone, the data show that though only 53 percent of 
all WASHCOs had a maintenance budget, even fewer (27 percent) of the MWA WASHCOs did.36 This 
finding was consistent even when the ET restricted the dataset just to WPs built around the same time 
as MWA-EP. 
Most WASHCOs that collected fees did so on a monthly or annual basis, though some WASHCOs in 
SNNPR charged on a per use basis. When WASHCOs collected water fees, the largest number of WPs 
charged between 10–25 birr/year (US $.36–$.91/year). In a couple cases, the fees amounted to more 
than 50 birr/year. Though the evaluation team was unable to confirm current fee recovery rates for any 
of the WASHCOs via written records, fee recovery rates reportedly vary significantly. While most 
WASHCOs report recovering most of the fees owed, the remaining report being able to recover less 
than half of the fees owed. 
How much was charged in water 
fees varied by region. In some 
cases in SNNPR, people were 
willing to pay relatively high prices
Figure 10. Annual Per Capital Expenditure on Water in Ethiopia
(more than 50 birr/year in some 
locations). In Amhara, on the 
other hand, the fees were 
generally lower, and in some
instances people had not yet even
accepted the idea that one should 
pay for water. 
Data from the WP inventory 
support the above findings 
regarding variations in water fee 
collection and provide additional 
detail on how this varies even 
among woredas in the same 
region. The South Gondar Zone
dataset show the percentage of 
WASHCOs that have a 
maintenance fund varies 
significantly across woredas, from 36 percent of WASHCOs in Simada to 63 percent of WASHCOs in 
Dera. This trend aligns with what the ET saw in site visits; sites in Simada had the greatest difficulty 
collecting fees while those in Dera collected fees more successfully. 
A survey of household expenditures conducted around 2005 paints a stark picture and provides a glimpse 
into the difficult environment MWA-EP IPs worked in, where very few areas of the country were 
accustomed to paying for their water. Figure 10. Annual Per Capital Expenditure on Water in 
Ethiopia provides a summary map of the water expenditure data.37 While some areas of SNNPR—
36 Having a maintenance budget was defined as having a planned/budgeted amount for maintenance needs that was factored into 
the overall WASHCO budget.
37 Disaster Risk Management and Food Security Sector, MOARD. 2014. An Atlas of Ethiopian Livelihoods: The Livelihoods 
Integration Unit. Addis Ababa: USAID.
19 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
particularly in and around the areas visited in this evaluation—paid for water at this time, none of the 
areas in Amhara did.
How fees are set, and the rates determined, could also affect whether the WASHCO is able to collect. 
This, too, varied by region. In SNNPR, respondents primarily indicated that the WASHCOs and/or the 
government set the fees, while in Amhara, respondents primarily indicated that it was the community that 
decided what the water fees should be. 
Life cycle Costs
Life cycle costs for a rural water point include the following types of costs: 
1. Cost of capital (loan interest)
2. Capital maintenance expenditure (nonroutine repair and rehabilitation)
3. Operating expenditure (routine, ongoing minor operations and maintenance expenditure on
labor, fuel, materials, etc.)
The main types of costs that fall in the purview of the WASHCOs are operating expenditures and, at 
least in part, capital maintenance expenditures. The cost of capital could fall in the purview of 
WASHCOs if they took out a loan to pay for repairs or other expenses. However, none of the 
WASHCOs interviewed mentioned this type of expense. Thus, the following paragraphs focus on items 
2 and 3—capital maintenance and operating expenditures. “Maintenance,” an operating expenditure, 
refers to regular, ongoing maintenance expenditures such as oiling parts, cleaning mechanisms, etc. The
ET split capital maintenance expenditures into “minor repairs” and “major repairs” as previously defined.
Despite the fact that most WASHCOs had collected fees at least at some point, none indicated that the
fees collected sufficiently covered all of their costs. Rather, they reported only being able to cover some, 
if any, of their costs. The most common expenditures they were able to pay for were a guard/caretaker
and minor repairs, but not major repairs and regular maintenance. 
An analysis of WP functionality by WASHCO fee collection and fee recovery rates sheds light on the
connection between water fees and WP functionality. As expected, a positive relationship exists
between fee collection and functionality. Tables 4 and 5 show that functional, and even partially 
functional, WPs more often had a WASHCO that had collected water fees (at least while the WP was
fully functional). Similarly, functional WPs more commonly had a WASHCO that was collecting all, or 
nearly all, of the water fees owed. 
USAID.GOV E3/WATER CKM PROJECT – MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 20
The challenges in collecting water fees are not unique to MWA-EP WASHCOs. The WP inventory 
shows that only a small percentage of all WASHCOs in the zone (19 percent) feel they can cover all of 
their costs with water fees. The MWA-EP WASHCOs had an even lower percentage, however, with 
only 6 percent believing that the fees they collected could cover all of their costs.
Interviewees noted the biggest challenges in collecting water fees: poverty and/or low ability to pay on 
the part of users, conflicts among water users, and a general lack of awareness on the part of 
community members regarding the need to pay for water. In terms of the conflicts between users, this 
typically involved conflicts between the users who did pay (or were able to pay) and those who did not 
(or could not). Those who paid would become upset that they had to pay for water while others did not 
pay yet still used the water. 
No WASHCOs provided documentation regarding their actual expenses or expenditures. Though a few 
estimated how much they thought they would need to collect to cover all of their costs, they could not 
provide documentation to back up the estimates. 
Institutional Factors. The GOE currently promotes a strong role for the woreda-level entities to 
support water infrastructure (typically requiring community contributions). However, this was not the 
case at the time of MWA-EP activity implementation. Available activity documentation did not clearly 
state the anticipated role of government structures in the MWA-EP activity other than mentioning that 
government would participate in various meetings and stakeholder events and HEWs would be involved 
in the sanitation and hygiene aspects of the activity. The available documents do not explicitly outline a 
broader role for water offices and the water ministry. 
The MWA-EP final evaluation noted government engagement as a weakness of the activity that should 
be addressed in future programming, which likely explains the limited documentation for the role of 
government actors. Additionally, the MWA-EP final evaluation found that poor technical support from 
woreda water offices and a lack of clear ownership rights likely posed a threat to WP sustainability. The 
evaluation also noted a lack of capacity building of woreda-level structures (both health and water), 
which could limit long-term effectiveness.38 The evaluation recommended an increased focus on building 
38 The Mitchell Group. 2008. External Program Evaluation of Cooperative Agreement No. 663-A-00-04-00419-00 Millennium 
Water Alliance (MWA) Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Program in Ethiopia.
21 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
capacity of government entities and doing more to link the activity with the relevant governmental 
support structures. 
In addition to the lack of clarity on who is responsible for which repairs to WPs, respondents provided 
widely varying responses regarding who was responsible for testing water quality, perhaps contributing 
to the finding that quality was not regularly tested, and in some cases never tested. Interviewees most 
frequently noted that it was the woreda water office’s responsibility. Several interviews also flagged a 
role for the zonal water office, the woreda health office, and NGOs. In some (though not all) cases, 
respondents mentioned the woreda water and health offices worked jointly on water quality testing. 
These inconsistencies existed even among water office officials. A similar lack of clarity affected the ET’s 
planning as it attempted to determine who within the government would best respond to questions on 
water quality. The ET received differing recommendations of whom to speak to, including the zonal and 
woreda water offices as well as the health offices. Given the lack of clarity on this responsibility, the ET 
asked all government entities about water quality testing. 
In addition to the lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities for repairs and water quality testing, 
interviews suggest that WASHCOs receive widely varying levels of support and that there is a lack of 
clarity around what the role of the woreda water offices is in support of the WPs. In speaking with
woreda and zonal water offices, respondents said they were responsible for a wide range of support 
activities, including (in descending order of frequency): 
• Technically supporting repairs
• Providing ongoing training to WASHCOs
• Conducting “supervision” or “control”
• Providing training during the start-up of a new WP and WASHCO
However, the WASHCOs had a notably different perspective. Although WASHCOs commonly 
identified a role for the woreda water offices in supporting repairs, they mentioned providing ongoing 
training only once. In a few cases, the WASHCOs reported that the woreda water offices played no 
role in supporting their WP. 
No WASHCOs reported any role of the zonal water offices in supporting their WPs (despite 
government respondents who said otherwise). Adding to the potential confusion, in a number of cases, 
both WASHCOs and water offices noted a substantive role for NGOs in providing on-going support to 
WPs. 
A lack of clarity is likely part of this disconnect on roles and responsibilities. In addition, the water 
offices noted several key challenges that limited their ability to adequately provide support to WPs, 
including (in descending order of frequency): 
• Insufficient budgets
• Insufficient transportation (i.e., vehicles) for staff to travel to sites
• General difficulties in accessing all WP sites
• Insufficient staff to cover the entire jurisdiction. A shortage of well-qualified staff at the
woreda level to support local infrastructure has also been found previously, with a shortfall
in staff of around 40 percent.39 
The unavailability of spare parts could also be an additional institutional concern; one that was noted in 
the final evaluation of MWA-EP in 2008.40 Though also a technical factor, given the extensive work by 
the GoE in improving the supply chain for spare parts, it is included here as an institutional factor. 
39 Lockwood, H. and J. Butterworth. 2016.
40 The Mitchell Group. 2008. 
USAID.GOV E3/WATER CKM PROJECT – MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 22
Interviewees for this ex-post evaluation suggest that availability of spare parts continues to be a concern, 
though much less so than the financial concerns previously discussed. Similarly, the final evaluation noted 
a lack of technical capacity within the WASHCOs as well as among the water office staff and supporting 
artisans/repair technicians as a constraint to being able to repair the WPs, but this issue ranked well 
behind financial concerns by respondents to this evaluation. 
Environmental Factors. As a part of the interviews, the ET asked IPs and government actors to 
identify the biggest challenges to WASH sustainability. Of the external factors noted—those donors and 
implementers cannot directly control—climate-related concerns topped the list. The concerns included: 
decreased rainfall over time, depletion of groundwater, and droughts and floods.
Although the ET did not have access to pre-activity feasibility or design studies that could provide fuller 
details, the activity reports do reference decisions made by IPs to maximize water potential and ensure, 
to the extent possible, that the availability of water would not be a major sustainability concern. For 
example, some IPs documented having to change locations or modify designs to better fit the 
environmental context. 
Hydrogeology has a potentially important role to play in the sustainability discussion. Areas with lower 
water potential, lower groundwater recharge rates, and that are drought-prone may have a more 
difficult time in the long run from a water-availability perspective. Though seasonality was a concern for 
some visited sites, variations in water service reliability occur more frequently for mechanical reasons
than because of water availability. 
On a related note, in addition to affecting sustainability overall, hydrogeology could potentially influence 
some of the regional and woreda-by-woreda differences noted previously regarding WASHCOs’ ability 
to collect fees. Hydrogeology maps (see Figure 11. Hydrogeological Map of Ethiopia) of Ethiopia 
show that while the visited woredas in South Gondar Zone are largely homogeneous and tend to have 
moderate to high water productivity potential, the SNNPR areas visited are much more variable. 
Though some areas in SNNPR have a similar hydrogeological profile to those in Amhara, these areas are 
interspersed with areas of much lower hydrological potential. In areas where water is more readily 
available, people may be more resistant to the idea of paying for a resource that they could otherwise 
get for free. In areas of relative scarcity, people may be more accustomed to having to pay for the 
scarce resource. 
AMHARA 
SNNPR
Figure 11. Hydrogeological Map of Ethiopia
23 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Technical Factors. Given that more than 8 years has passed since activity completion, it is not 
surprising that many of the water points have required repairs. However, several respondents (across 
different types of respondents) noted poor quality construction as a technical factor negatively impacting 
sustainability in some cases. The evaluation was not designed to assess construction quality and thus the 
ET could not confirm or refute these assertions. If construction quality were a significant concern, WPs 
would be expected to fall into disrepair quickly. However, most of the nonfunctioning and partially 
functioning WPs had fallen into disrepair in the last year or so. Only a couple had fallen into disrepair 
more than five years ago. With this in mind, the potential challenge of poor construction is noted, but 
cannot be independently verified or confirmed.
Land Tenure Security. Respondents raised land tenure concerns several times during the interviews 
as having an effect on sustainability of water, and in some cases sanitation, infrastructure. Interviews 
highlighted three different types of land tenure concerns: 1) the processes and compensation for using 
the land of rural landowners, particularly farmers, for community water infrastructure; 2) land tenure as 
it relates to urban/peri-urban settings and the incentives of tenants and landlords to invest in new water 
and sanitation infrastructure; and 3) water access rights. Activity documentation did not address how IPs 
dealt with land tenure concerns related to the construction of WASH infrastructure under the activity. 
The first type of water-related land tenure issue that arose in the interviews had to do with landowners 
being willing to give up part of their land for a communal use such as a WP and has links with the 
process and procedures through which this is handled, including compensation of land owners. A couple 
of interviewees noted these types of conflicts in the interviews. One farmer, who owned and farmed the 
land upon which a now defunct WP was constructed, indicated that the WP had led to significant 
conflicts between him and other community members. Other community members, he said, thought he 
was getting preferential treatment due to his proximity to the WP, and they did not like that he was 
chosen to be on the WASHCO and had received several days of per diem for WASHCO training, while 
other community members had not received this benefit. The conflicts had been so problematic, he said, 
that they bled over into conflicts over water fees and became a factor that led to the WASHCO’s 
inability to collect water fees and then fix the WP when it broke. Given his experiences, he said that he 
might allow an organization to rehabilitate the now-defunct WP, but he would refuse to let another WP 
be constructed elsewhere on his land. Though this issue regarding giving up one’s land and the process 
of compensation arose in the interviews, concerns like his have not been extensively assessed in the 
literature. 
Though MWA-EP implemented most of its activity in rural areas, an IP who had implemented the activity 
in peri-urban settings noted that encouraging people who rent their homes to invest in water and 
sanitation infrastructure was a challenge during implementation. For urban WASH, where many of the 
underserved are not land owners but tenants, the literature focuses on the incentives (or lack thereof) 
for tenants to invest in WASH infrastructure. Because they do not own the property they are living on, 
tenants are often unwilling to make costly investments in WASH infrastructure. On the reverse side, 
landlords are often unwilling to invest in WASH infrastructure improvements. Combined, these issues
pose a challenge for improving WASH infrastructure in urban and peri-urban areas. 
The third type of WASH-related land tenure issue explores water access rights. The right to access 
and/or use water resources—both surface and groundwater sources—is often discussed in the 
literature as being the source of conflicts. Particularly in areas with limited water resources, who is and 
is not able to gain access can be a troubling issue.41 This evaluation found very few restrictions regarding 
41 Mason, N. and P. Newborne. 2013. “Property Rights and Development Briefing: Water Rights and Rural Household Welfare. 
ODI. and Embaye Z. 2016. The Quest for Standard Tests in Prioritizing Water Use Rights in Ethiopia: Reasonable Use, Beneficial 
Use or ‘Beyond.’” Mizan Law Review 10(1).
USAID.GOV E3/WATER CKM PROJECT – MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 24
who was or was not able to use the WPs constructed through the activity. However, the ability to use
one particular MWA–EP constructed WP became an issue in one of the extension systems in SNNPR. 
The ET discovered that several kilometers of distribution pipes traversed the property of an owner who 
was unable to use water from the system, as the WP itself was far away. As a result, he damaged the 
distribution pipe so that he could access the water, causing problems further down the distribution line.
In this case, his concern was not directly with the construction of the distribution line on his property, 
but rather with his ability to access the water that ran through it.
CONCLUSIONS
Improving water service and delivery is a complex undertaking, involving multiple actors in an 
environment with geographic, geologic, and historical contexts that all have a role to play in determining 
sustainability. Within this context, the evaluation found that the functionality problems among MWA-EP 
WPs were primarily due to managerial, financial, and institutional issues rather than technical issues or 
seasonal fluctuations in water availability. 
The evaluation found that many of the WASHCOs struggled to effectively manage their WPs, with a 
negative effect on WP functionality. These problems exist despite the efforts of IPs on engaging 
community members and training the WASHCOs. Ongoing management issues contribute to concerns 
about the quality and content of the trainings provided, particularly in light of data that may indicate that 
MWA-EP-supported WASHCOs underperform their peers. 
In addition, many WASHCOs experienced difficulties in collecting water fees. Though some were more 
successful than others, some report never having collected fees at all. Insufficient resources are a 
significant constraint on WASHCO performance, particularly in terms of being able to pay for 
maintenance and repairs. But their ability to collect fees is not just the product of their management 
capacity. The history of water fee payment (or nonpayment) also likely affects WASHCO financial 
performance as do potential cultural differences and hydrogeology, which determines the availability of 
both surface and groundwater across the country. In the latter case, in areas where water is plentiful 
(even if from unimproved sources), people may be less willing to pay for something they can otherwise 
obtain for free. 
Similarly, potential weaknesses in WASHCO performance are also a reflection of the level of support 
and service the government provides. The evaluation found that this support is lacking. Though some 
concerns about technical capacity were raised, the bigger concerns were in regard to barriers the water 
offices face in providing effective support. These barriers include insufficient budgets, transportation
options, and staff, and likely contribute to their varied performance in supporting the MWA water 
points, as does the apparent lack of clarity around roles and responsibilities for everything from 
supporting repairs to testing water quality. 
Additionally, a variety of land tenure issues add to the complexities that WASHCOs must contend with 
in carrying out their duties, offering an additional stumbling block to ensuring sustainable access to safe 
water. Despite the challenges posed by land tenure issues in MWA-EP (and to other, similar projects), 
the WASH literature is only beginning to explore them, leaving significant room for further studies. 
LATRINES: CURRENT STATUS AND USE
FINDINGS: HOUSEHOLD LATRINES 
Functionality. In the seven intervention woredas studied in this evaluation, more than 9,000 
households constructed traditional pit latrines during the activity according to the final report. However, 
it was difficult to locate these latrines, and/or their replacements. On several occasions, the ET visited
latrines that turned out to not have been supported by the activity. Ultimately, the team visited 15 
households that, based on the best information available, built latrines under MWA-EP. Based on 
25 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
interviews with the latrine owners, most of the latrines had been reconstructed. In two cases, the
latrines constructed during the MWA-EP activity appeared to still be functional, though this raises
questions about the extent to which they have been used over the last eight to 13 years without 
overflowing the pits. 
Three of the observed latrines had washable slabs that would be considered “improved” based on Joint 
Monitoring Programme (JMP) definitions. Given MWA-EP’s focus on using locally appropriate 
technologies, this is not surprising. However, it is unclear given activity documentation exactly how 
many of the activity-supported latrines were constructed with washable (cement) slabs compared to
traditional pit latrines with either non-washable (often wood-based) slabs or a patchwork of logs to 
provide a platform over the pit. 
Site visits provided the ET with an in-depth understanding of latrine construction and use. To 
complement this, woreda-level data provided insight regarding higher level changes in access to latrines, 
which was one of the objectives of the MWA-EP activity. Overall, interviewees suggest that latrine 
coverage rates in their communities is high. However, coverage rates varied by region, with respondents 
in Amhara indicating lower coverage rates than in SNNPR. This finding is consistent with secondary data 
sources, which also find substantially higher latrine coverage rates in SNNPR than in Amhara.42
According to secondary data obtained from the Simada and Farta health offices, latrine coverage rates in 
these woredas are particularly low, at about 33 percent in both woredas. In SNNPR, interviews
underlined potential doubt regarding the woreda latrine coverage rates. According to these interviews, 
because latrine coverage rates are used as a metric for HEW performance, HEWs have an incentive to
inflate the numbers and show that they are doing a good job. A verification exercise was said to have 
been conducted in Tembaro in 2016, which revealed that only 50 percent of the total number of 
reported latrines actually functioned. 
Maintenance. Half of the interviewed HH latrine owners reported they regularly maintain and/or clean
their latrines. Only a couple of latrine owners indicated cleaning or maintaining their latrine infrequently, 
while the remainder said they conducted cleaning and maintenance “as needed.” The observation data 
indicate that most of the latrines (11 out of 15) were kept clean, but larger maintenance concerns
existed. Only two of the 15 observed latrines offered full privacy (complete walls and a door) and less 
than half were safely constructed, without risk of falling or collapse during use.
Use. As health officers pointed out, latrine coverage rates do not necessarily equate with latrine use.
When asked about latrine use, most latrine owners said they always use their latrine and that all 
members of their household use it. Only in one case did a latrine owner suggest that latrine use may not 
be as prevalent as some indicated. This latrine owner said that she built her latrine only because an 
HEW asked her to do so. The entire community had to build latrines to satisfy the requirements of the 
implementer. But her household does not actually use it, she said, nor did she believe others in her
community used their latrines. 
HEWs reported more conservative estimates of how many people actually used their latrines. 
Responses tended to rate usage as “most of the time” rather than always, like the latrine owners did.
One of the HEWs remarked that only around 85 percent of community members use the latrines they 
built. Community members do not intentionally demolish their latrines, she said, but they do not
necessarily replace them when full. And they do not necessarily use the latrine at all times, she said, 
rather, they use it when it is convenient and go in the open when it is not. 
In direct observations of the latrines, the ET noted signs of use for 10 out of 15 latrines. However, this
varied by region, with two of six showing signs of use in Amhara compared with eight of 10 in SNNPR.
42 DHS Ethiopia. 2016. Downloaded via STATCompliler.
USAID.GOV E3/WATER CKM PROJECT – MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 26
It is possible that positive response bias is influencing discussions of sanitation. If people know that they 
are supposed to be using latrines, they are more likely to report that they are using them, even if they 
are not, or are not using them as frequently as they report. It is for this reason that direct observation 
and triangulation between data sources is important. In support of this potential bias, two respondents
in Amhara reported in their interviews that they use their latrine all the time, but later, while the ET was 
completing its observation of the latrine, other family members indicated that the latrine was not used at 
all, which the direct observation confirmed. 
FINDINGS: PUBLIC LATRINES
Lifewater International through EECMY-DASSC introduced public latrines in two woredas: Soro and 
Limu in the Hadiya Zone of SNNPR. According to interviews with HEWs in these woredas, none of the 
MWA–supported public latrines are currently functional, or even in existence. Thus, the ET had no 
opportunity to make direct observations.
In Soro, the public latrines were said to have been destroyed by beneficiaries during the activity period
because people wanted to use the construction materials for firewood. The HEW said that destruction
of latrines for firewood is consistent with what they see with household latrines, where households in 
this area often destroy their own latrines for firewood in times of need. She also suggested that the 
kebele administration should have been more proactive in supporting the public latrines, and that the 
threat of fines could have scared community members away from destroying this common property.
In Limu, the MWA–supported public latrines fared better, surviving the original activity period.
According to the HEW, the community used the latrines for three years and even replaced them when 
the original ones became full. Interviewees claim that the quality of the construction of the replacement 
latrines was not as high as the originals. When the latrines were replaced, the community did not reuse 
the washable slabs from the original latrines because they had not been regularly cleaned and were 
considered too unsanitary to move. Also, the replacement latrines did not offer enough privacy because 
the builders skimped on the wood in constructing the walls. Eventually, the community in Limu 
dismantled the replacement latrines for their wood. 
CONCLUSIONS
Household Latrines
Based on the interviews and direct observations, it appears as though most of the MWA–EP-supported 
latrines are being replaced. However, many of the latrines are not being constructed or maintained in a 
high-quality manner, leaving many with incomplete privacy and potential safety concerns. As most of the 
observed latrines are of a rudimentary design (not using washable cement slabs), it appears that users 
have not progressed up the sanitation ladder and upgraded to better latrines as they replaced them.
Although latrine owners widely report using their latrines, there is reason to doubt the extent to which 
this is actually the case. Despite education on the importance of latrine use—both through MWA-EP as 
well as through ongoing support from the GOE and the HEWs—it likely lags behind latrine 
construction. Thus, though signs indicate that latrine coverage rates have improved, more work is still 
needed to encourage latrine use. 
Public Latrines 
None of the MWA–supported public latrines are functional today. Though little is known about the 
intended management or financial systems to support the public latrines in the long term, those systems 
appear to have been insufficient to keep the latrines maintained and functioning. In particular, the 
community’s need for firewood seems to have been so high that it outweighed the potential benefits of 
having the public latrine. 
27 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
HANDWASHING: CURRENT STATUS
FINDINGS 
Functionality and Maintenance. At the time of data collection, none of the 15 observed latrines had 
an installed handwashing facility, although most latrine owners stated in interviews that these were built 
at the time of latrine construction. In a few cases, when confronted with the absence of handwashing 
facilities, latrine owners explained they bring water and soap from their homes to wash their hands after 
using the latrine.
Use. When asked how frequently they wash their hands after using the latrine, the majority of latrine 
owners stated that they either always wash their hands or that they do most of the time. As with latrine 
use, however, there is some cause to doubt this self-reporting. First, handwashing is likely subject to the 
same positive response bias that latrine use is. If people know that they are supposed to be washing 
their hands, they are more likely to report that they are, even if they really are not.
As with latrine use, the HEWs tended to be more conservative in their estimates of how often people 
wash their hands. Whereas most latrine owners said they always washed their hands, no HEWs thought 
people washed their hands all the time. Rather, the HEWs were divided in their opinions, with about 
half saying people washed their hands most of the time and half saying people rarely or never wash their 
hands. 
Despite interviews with the latrine owners largely indicating that they washed their hands always or 
most of the time, none of the direct observations of latrines revealed evidence of handwashing, such as 
presence of a water container, water spots on the ground nearby, or availability of soap. In a similar 
vein, one HEW noted, “…usage is low…rarely [do] they wash their hands. You know that they are not 
washing their hands when you see the water they put there [the handwashing station] changes to green.
We cannot say they are putting in to action what they have learned.”
CONCLUSIONS
Although latrine owners claim to always wash their hands, the absence of handwashing facilities and the 
lack of observed signs of handwashing at the latrines cast doubt that this is always the case. Interviews 
with HEWs and the health offices shine additional light on the potential disconnect between what 
people say they are doing and actual practice. Though education around proper hygiene is ongoing with 
the support of the GOE and the HEWs, a lack of knowledge and ingrained traditions continue to pose 
obstacles to good handwashing practices. The reality that people would overstate the extent to which 
they wash their hands, however, suggests that they are at least aware of the issues. Thus, the gap 
appears to be in moving people from a base level of awareness to action.
LATRINES AND HANDWASHING: FACTORS AFFECTING SUSTAINABILITY
FINDINGS 
Management and Financial Factors. For household latrines, though it was not the top-rated 
concern, respondents noted that financial constraints could be an impediment to constructing latrines. It 
is also a barrier to improving latrines, which many latrine owners said they would like to do- in terms of 
location, privacy, or the use of cement over wood. Though primarily related to construction, this 
constraint can also affect use as some studies suggest that key factors affecting latrine use are: better 
maintenance, accessibility and privacy, the type of facility, cleanliness, and the age of latrines.43
43Garn, J., G. Sclar, M Freeman, G. Penakalapati, A. Gauthami, T. Kelly, P. Brooks, E. Rehfuess, S. Boisson, K. Medlicott, 
T. Clasen. 2017. “The Impact of Sanitation Interventions on Latrine Coverage and Latrine Use: A Systematic Review
and Meta-Analysis.” International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 220(2.B), 329-340.
USAID.GOV E3/WATER CKM PROJECT – MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 28
The available documentation on public latrines does not shed light on the planned management or 
financial structures. Nor were the HEW interviews able to provide insights on the intentions of the IP. 
Despite the lack of information, however, whatever mechanisms had been designed appear to have been 
insufficient to ensure sustainability of the latrines.
In terms of supporting sanitation and hygiene education, some health office respondents noted having 
insufficient resources to properly educate the communities. In addition, financial and environmental 
factors overlap in areas where water is scarce and where the costs of water are higher. To pay for 
water for handwashing, a household would need to value handwashing enough to justify the cost. This is 
likely a higher hurdle than for those who do not have to pay for extra water. Though decisive evidence 
on this matter is not available, it was noted as a possibility after the site visits. 
Institutional Factors. Whereas the roles and responsibilities for supporting the WPs appeared 
ambiguous, government entities seemed clear about their hygiene and sanitation responsibilities. Here, 
respondents unanimously reported that hygiene and sanitation matters fell within the purview of the 
health office, with the primary role being to educate and sensitize the community. The HEWs take 
primary responsibility for this education and sensitization. However, they are also responsible for 
educating people on other topics—known as “packages” such as on maternal and child health and 
immunizations. In some cases, interviewees noted, other packages may be prioritized over hygiene and 
sanitation, particularly in the face of limited human and financial resources. 
Environmental Factors. Interviewees noted environmental factors as impacting sustainability of 
sanitation infrastructure. Some flood prone areas posed a particular challenge for latrine owners, 
according to interviews. Excess water can cause latrines to fill and make them prone to collapse. 
Similarly, the soil type in some areas can also make latrines vulnerable to collapse. In other areas, 
interviewees noted that termites can cause problems with wood-based latrine construction (see below). 
Finally, challenges in overall access to water can limit its use for hygiene and sanitation purposes.
Technical Factors. MWA–EP-supported household-level latrines appear to be technologically 
appropriate and built from locally available materials. However, the one technical component that has a 
likely impact on sustainability is the use of wood-based construction in areas where termites are a 
problem. This poses a risk to the sustainability of the latrines and, potentially, user safety when wooden 
slabs deteriorate.
Social/Behavioral Factors. The final activity evaluation found that MWA-EP had not placed sufficient 
attention or focus on the hygiene and sanitation aspects of the activity. In particular, the evaluation notes 
that the behavior change approaches were not fully contextualized to the specific communities until late 
into implementation (after the baseline data was available in 2006). The evaluation also noted a poorly 
defined behavior change strategy to guide MWA-EP activities. Rather than basing approaches on a 
thorough contextual assessment and review of what works, IPs implemented an eclectic array of 
activities based on their own experiences (but not necessarily the experiences of others).44
Interviewees cited a lack of knowledge regarding the benefits and importance of latrine use and 
handwashing as a core reason why people failed to implement the practices. Though respondents noted
this lack of knowledge, all latrine owners reported having received hygiene and sanitation training during 
the MWA-EP activity. Additionally, the likely positive response bias encountered in interviews suggests 
that knowledge that they “should” be using latrines and washing their hands exists. However, interviews 
with health workers suggest that it is not base knowledge that is missing, but rather the next step from 
knowledge to action that remains a hurdle. Another barrier to behavior change, according to 
44 The Mitchell Group. 2008.
29 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
interviewees, is tradition. And interviews with HEWs and health office staff suggest that convincing 
community members to change their practices is difficult. As one HEW explained regarding latrine 
usage, “It is a practice deep rooted in the tradition of their ancestors. There is a resistance to change
what they acquired through the tradition. They say, ‘what happened to our parents who did not use 
latrine?’” To better support moving from basic knowledge to action interviewees indicated a desire for
more training and sensitization and suggested additional follow-up. Some studies point to the positive
effect of longer term messaging and support as a means of supporting the move from basic knowledge
to encouraging sustained behavior change.
45
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the roles and responsibilities at the institutional level for supporting household and public 
hygiene and sanitation are clearer than they are regarding support to the WPs. However, the health
office faces its own constraints to delivering effective services. They must cover wide geographic areas
with limited staff and funding and are also responsible for delivering education and support on other 
health topics, some of which are reported to take precedence over WASH topics.
At the household sanitation level, multiple factors influence outcomes, including access to sufficient 
resources, and environmental challenges like water scarcity and flooding. Water scarcity similarly 
impacts handwashing practices when households prioritize other water uses over handwashing. 
For the public latrines, though nothing is known about the intended management and financial 
structures put in place to support them, the evidence suggest that these systems did not succeed. 
45 Wantland, D., B. Bewick, and T. Palermo. 2009. (Ed). Ritterband, L. “Periodic Prompts and Reminders in Health 
Promotion and Health Behavior Interventions: Systematic Review.” Journal of Medical Internet Research, 11(2). and 
Ory, M., M. Smith, N. Mier, and M. Wernicke. 2010. “The Science of Sustaining Health Behavior Change: The Health 
Maintenance Consortium.” American Journal of Health Behavior, 34(6), 647-659.
USAID.GOV E3/WATER CKM PROJECT – MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 30
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Support government entities in playing a stronger role in sustained maintenance
and oversight. The water points lacked institutional support after the end of the activity, and
lack of clarity surrounded the roles and responsibilities of government entities and WASHCOs
related to WP maintenance and water quality testing. Additionally, longer-term messaging and
support, which should be led by the government rather than donors, might improve the
adoption and sustainability of hygiene and sanitation practices. Two critical areas for
improvement are needed: clarifying roles and responsibilities and easing constraints to
government support.
To better ensure the long-term sustainability of water infrastructure, future programming
should help ensure that roles and responsibilities of government agencies are clarified at all
levels, from the national level down to the kebele level. Communities also need to be informed
of their own roles and responsibilities as well as the expectations they should have for support
from relevant government entities so that they can hold those entities responsible. This
clarification of roles and responsibilities resides first with the GOE. However, there is space for
potential donor support for these efforts, which could take the form of technical assistance for
policy reform or capacity-building activities.
Ensuring long-term support, both for WPs and hygiene and sanitation messaging, also requires
alleviating barriers that water and health offices face in delivering services. Sufficient budgets,
staff, and equipment need to be allocated to ensure proper support. And staff need to have
adequate skills and training. As with the clarification of roles, the primary responsibility for
ameliorating these challenges belongs to the government. Donors can play a supporting role in
terms of backing any necessary policy reforms, encouraging good governance and social
accountability, incorporating life cycle costing exercises or building the capacity of government
institutions to create a strong enabling environment for WASH.
2. Examine alternative rural water approaches to improve upon the community
management model. Both the literature and this evaluation find significant barriers to the
sustainability of community-managed rural water infrastructure, which suggests this approach is
not the most effective. It is outside the scope of this evaluation to evaluate potential alternatives.
However, before implementing additional activities similar to MWA-EP and to continue
improving on past practices and explore new approaches, USAID should examine all potential
models, their effectiveness, and sustainability. Where studies already exist, those findings should
be incorporated into new activity plans, and where gaps exist, additional studies/assessments
should be conducted. While no perfect solution likely exists, such reflection could help future
activities learn from what works and what doesn’t.
3. Account for life cycle costs when planning for water infrastructure and tariff setting.
For water infrastructure to be sustainable, all entities involved in its maintenance and repair
need to have sufficient resources to fulfill those roles. The challenges water offices face in
covering life cycle costs and carrying out their responsibilities as well as how those challenges
could be alleviated are discussed in recommendation #1. For WASHCOs to be able to cover
their life cycle costs, these full costs would need to be built into the training they receive and
the tariff setting that occurs.
A tension exists between what community members are willing and/or able to pay for water and
the actual costs of operating and maintaining a water point. This is evident, in the variations seen
in WASHCOs’ ability to collect fees in different parts of the country. If fees are set above
people’s payment threshold, it could result in refusal to pay, which is a significant sustainability 
risk factor. In practical terms, it may not be possible for all WASHCOs to cover 100 percent of 
their costs. To ensure that this possibility is mitigated, IPs should incorporate willingness and 
ability of local communities to pay and the potential for incorporating programming to address 
this. For example, educational activities around the value and benefits of clean water could be 
conducted. 
If life cycle costs cannot be fully recovered by the WASHCOs via fees, then some other 
accommodation is necessary. Adjustments may be needed in what the WASHCOs are expected 
to support compared to what the government water offices or other structures are expected to 
support. 
4. Assess the suite of water needs and sources when designing new water access
projects. Project documents do not provide a clear understanding of whether water users
were intended to use the MWA WPs for just some water needs (i.e. drinking water) or for all
their water needs. However, the inclusion of washing basins and cattle troughs suggests the
intention was broader than just drinking water. No available data exist to shed light on the
extent that multiple water sources are utilized out of convenience versus necessity. Some
studies suggest that clarifying the intended water uses for a water scheme and ensuring that
planning accounts for all water uses would benefit long-term sustainability.
5. Seek stronger, more consistent alternatives to simple education-based behavior
change approaches in areas with poor sanitation and hygiene norms. The lack of
latrine use and handwashing indicates the simple and varied approaches to behavior change in
MWA-EP were not sufficient to achieve true behavior change. Newer approaches may be more
successful. Existing contextual knowledge regarding the strengths and weaknesses of different
approaches should be assessed prior to design and implementation.
6. Improve people’s understanding and appreciation of water quality. The evaluation
found that people typically thought that the water from the MWA WPs was clean based on
appearance Thus, water users tended to overlook the possibility or importance of microbial
contamination. In future activities, USAID and IPs should ensure that community education
activities provide specific education and knowledge around the importance of water quality—
both visible and invisible—and potential sources of contamination. Future activities should equip
communities with strategies to measure and mitigate contamination at both the source and point
of use.
7. Address land tenure issues during activity design and throughout implementation.
Having an intentional approach to land tenure issues starting from program design through
implementation should become standard practice. Land tenure issues did not appear to be a
primary barrier to sustainability, but they significantly affected the functionality of a few water
schemes. Land tenure issues were also a barrier for sanitation infrastructure in some of the peri￾urban areas where the activity worked. The potential impact of land tenure concerns is
significant enough to warrant more focused attention in the design and implementation of future
WASH activities.
31 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
This document was prepared by ECODIT LLC and Social Impact Inc for USAID. under the Water CKM Project, IDIQ NO. AID-OAA-I-14-
00069; TASK ORDER NO. AID-OAA-TO-15-00046.
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT ANNEXES
ETHIOPIA MILLENNIUM WATER ALLIANCE 
PROGRAM EVALUATION
WASH Ex-Post Evaluation Series – Water Communications and 
Knowledge Management (CKM) Project
May 9, 2018
PHOTO CREDIT; KARI NELSON
1 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Annex I: Evaluation Inception Report ………………………………………………………..…………………... 2
Annex II: Data Collection Tools ………………………………………………………………………………..… 36
Annex III: Data Collection Schedule and Parties Consulted……………………………….……130
Annex IV: Bibliography………………………………………………………………………….………………………. 133
D A FINAL PDF. IT WILL THROW OFF TH
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION ANNEXES | 2
ANNEX I: EVALUATION INCEPTION REPORT
INCEPTION REPORT 
ETHIOPIA MILLENNIUM WATER PROGRAM 
POST PROJECT EVALUATION
WASH Post Project Evaluation Series—Water Communications and 
Knowledge Management (CKM) Project
September 18, 2017
FIGURE SEQ FIGURE \* ARABIC 9. ADMINISTRATIVE MAP OF ETHIOPIA
Photo credit: CARE International Ethiopia
3 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Background on Post Project Evaluation Series
Activity Context
Evaluation Design Methodology
Evaluation Design Limitations and Risks
Utilization Plan
1
2
6
25
26
Team Composition and Management Plan 27
ANNEXES 
Annex A: Assessment of Site Contamination 33
Annex B: Evaluation Timeline 34 
Annex C: Draft Data Collection Instruments 35
Annex D: Works Cited 54
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION ANNEXES | 4
ACRONYMS 
BCC Behavior Change Communication
CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere
CFU Colony-Forming Unit
CKM Communications and Knowledge Management
CLTS Community-Led Total Sanitation
CLTS-H Community-Led Total Sanitation and Hygiene
CNHF Conrad N. Hilton Foundation
CRS Catholic Relief Services
EECMY-DASSC Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus—Development and Social Services 
Commission
EKHC Ethiopian Kale Hiwot Church
FH Food for the Hungry
GIs Group Interviews 
GOE Government of Ethiopia
HH Household
IPs Implementing Partners
JMP Joint Monitoring Programme
KII Key Informant Interview
LI Lifewater International
LWI Living Water International
LPCD
M&E
Liters Per Capita Per Day
Monitoring and Evaluation
MWA-EP Millennium Water Alliance Ethiopia Program
ODF Open Defecation Free
OWNP One WASH National Program
PHAST Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation
REST Relief Society of Tigray
SI Social Impact 
SIT Sustainability Index Tool 
STA Senior Technical Advisor 
STC YHYH Save the Children Your Health is in Your Hands Activity
TCCAF
VIP
The Coca-Cola Africa Foundation
Ventilated Improved Pit
WASH Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene
WASHCO Community Water Management Approach
WV World Vision
5 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
INTRODUCTION
The Water Communications and Knowledge Management (CKM) Project is pleased to present this 
inception report for the Millennium Water Alliance Ethiopia Program (MWA-EP) Post Project 
Evaluation. This document clarifies the evaluation purpose and questions, describes the evaluation team 
composition, presents the team’s proposed data collection and data analysis plans, indicates known 
limitations, and reviews the schedule of deliverables. 
BACKGROUND ON POST PROJECT EVALUATION SERIES
On September 17, 2015, USAID signed a contract with ECODIT for the Bureau for Economic Growth, 
Education and Environment (USAID/E3) Water Communications and Knowledge Management Project 
(AID-OAA-TO-15-00046), a five-year, $15 million task order under the Water and Development IDIQ. 
Under this contract, ECODIT is implementing knowledge management and communication services in 
support of the Water and Development Strategy and any follow-on water strategy. The project 
supports USAID’s E3 Water Office and its partners in increasing water program knowledge and data 
capture; enhancing knowledge creation and knowledge sharing internally and among a wide range of 
external water sector stakeholders working in the water sector; and improving communication and 
outreach through diverse stakeholder engagement. As part of Task 1.1, Knowledge and Data Capture, 
ECODIT and its subcontractor Social Impact (SI) are conducting a series of post-project evaluations of 
USAID water activities (Task 1.1.1) to further USAID’s understanding of why its completed WASH 
activities have or have not been sustained. The series of evaluations builds on lessons learned from the 
development of the Sustainability Index Tool (SIT) and its application in nine countries, including Ethiopia 
in 2015. The third of these evaluations is an ex-post performance evaluation of the MWA-EP.
Figure 14. Administrative Map of Ethiopia
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION ANNEXES | 6
ACTIVITY CONTEXT
In the early 2000s, only 12 percent of Ethiopia’s rural population had access to an improved water 
source, and 7 percent had access to adequate sanitation facilities.
1 Water- and sanitation-related 
diseases, particularly diarrhea, were among the top three causes of death followed by malaria and 
HIV/AIDS. Government workers suffered in rural settings, as did their ability to perform services for 
rural communities. Schools suffered from a lack of basic sanitation, and girls were frequently absent due 
to a lack of sanitation or due to household (HH) chores related to fetching water at a great distance 
from their home. According to the MWA-EP’s Baseline Survey, 76 percent of families in intervention 
areas had no access to an improved water source for daily household consumption. Women and girls 
were spending on average 57 minutes to collect water for their households. The majority of the 
population in these areas practiced subsistence farming. Ethiopia was the second-poorest country in the 
world in 2000. 
To address this situation, the Millennium Water Alliance (MWA) implemented MWA-EP in 24 rural 
woredas (districts) in Ethiopia between March 2004 and December 2009 with a budget of $4,677,670 
from USAID in addition to a $2,382,972 cost-share. MWA-EP was implemented by a consortium 
comprised of eight MWA implementing partners (IPs) —Cooperative for Assistance and Relief 
Everywhere (CARE), Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Food for the Hungry (FH), Lifewater International 
(LI), Living Water International (LWI), Water Partners International (subsequently renamed Water.org), 
Hope 2020, and World Vision (WV)—along with local subcontractor NGOs Relief Society of Tigray 
(REST), Ethiopian Kale Hiwot Church (EKHC), Water Action, and Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane 
Yesus–Development and Social Services Commission (EECMY-DASSC). Table 1 below shows the 
locations served by each IP.
Table 8. Regional and Woreda Distribution of MWA-EP IPs 
Region Woreda Implementing Partner Completion Year 
Amhara Achefer FH January 2009 
Bure CRS/Water Action2 January 2009 
Dera WV January 2009 
Dangila FH December 2009 
Jabitehinan CRS/Water Action December 2009 
Simada FH January 2008 
West Estie CARE December 2009 
Farta CARE June 2006 
Oromia Tole Hope 2020 December 2009 
Wonchi WV November 2007 
Dendi Water.org/Water Action January 2006 
Tigray Weri Leke Water.org/REST June 2009 
Adwa Water.org/REST August 2005 
1 UNICEF. 2003. The State of the World’s Children.
2 Implemented with USAID funding through the Water and Development Alliance, a partnership between USAID 
and the Coca Cola Foundation that is supported by the Global Environment & Technology Foundation.
7 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
T/Abregele Water.org/REST August 2005
Hawuzen Water.org/REST August 2005
H/Wajirat Water.org/REST August 2005
S/Samre Water.org/REST August 2005
Southern 
Nations, 
Nationalities and 
Peoples’ Region 
(SNNPR)
Badowacho CRS January 2008
Gofa Zuria LWI/EKHC December 2006
Kucha LWI/EKHC December 2006
Zalla LWI/EKHC December 2006
Soro WV November 2007
Limu and Soro LI/EECMY-DASSC December 2009
Tenbaro WV December 2009
The IPs addressed water access issues through building and rehabilitating water supply schemes across 
intervention areas. They also built shared community (public) latrines, HH demonstration pit latrines, 
and institutional sanitation and handwashing facilities at schools. MWA-EP IPs promoted hygiene and 
sanitation behavior change predominantly through the participatory hygiene and sanitation 
transformation (PHAST) methodology.3 In the final year of implementation, WV and CRS began to use 
community-led sanitation (CLTS) to trigger behavior change. IPs working in schools formed school 
WASH Clubs to ensure latrine cleanliness and the presence of soap or ash and water at handwashing 
stations. MWA partners used the Community Water Management Approach (WASHCOs) to manage 
water schemes.4 
3 According to the World Health Organizations' “Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation,” PHAST is 
an adaptation of the Self-esteem, Associative strengths, Resourcefulness, Action-planning and Responsibility (SARAR) 
methodology of participatory learning, which builds on people’s innate ability to address and resolve their own 
problems. It aims to empower communities to manage their water and to control sanitation-related diseases, and it 
does so by promoting health awareness and understanding which, in turn, lead to environmental and behavioral 
improvements.
4 One exception to this was in Ginchi Town, Dendi Woreda, Oromia, where Water.org and partner Water Action 
introduced a new financial management model by contracting out water points to private operators. 
Figure 15. MWA-EP Objectives
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION ANNEXES | 8
According to MWA-EP’s activity reports and monitoring data, the achievements were: 
● Construction or rehabilitation of 505 safe water supply schemes,5 providing water access for an
estimated 310,093 people;
● Construction of 91 ventilated improved pit latrines in schools and other institutions, providing
sanitation facility access for an estimated 93,379 school children and community members;
● Construction of 31,369 household demonstration pit latrines, providing sanitation facility access to
an estimated 181,112 people;
● Construction of 182 shared latrines, providing sanitation facility access to an estimated 11,000 people;
and
● Provision of hygiene and sanitation education to an estimated 301,550 people.
An external program evaluation was conducted during the final year of MWA-EP in 2008, prior to a 
one-year extension of the activity. The evaluation found that MWA-EP was “making progress in terms of 
increasing access to safe water supplies, sanitation and hygiene services in its target areas. There are also 
some good beginnings of the activity outcomes that contribute positively to the improved health and 
education of beneficiaries.”6 The evaluation noted key recommendations: 
● Sanitation and hygiene components require greater emphasis (149,850 beneficiaries), as they
lagged behind water supply development (226,080 beneficiaries).
● MWA-EP should work with the local government to ensure the WASHCOs adopt clearly
defined roles and responsibilities, including tasks in hygiene promotion, possibly with one
member specifically assigned to supervise and coordinate these activities.
● The activity should engage greater community participation in planning, such as deciding service
levels and the design and implementation of hygiene promotion activities.
● The weak capacity of woreda offices (particularly water, health, and education) and absence of
clear lines of accountability, including the lack of WASHCOs’ legal status and ownership rights
of user groups, remained a constant threat to the long-term sustainability of benefits and should
be addressed.
● The absence of a well-articulated information education communication and behavior change
communication (BCC) strategy had perhaps limited the activity’s impact on disease reduction
and should be addressed.
Since the end of MWA-EP in 2009, MWA has continued to implement water and sanitation activities in 
the same regions through a bridge grant (2010–2012) from the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation (CNHF), 
additional CNHF and the Coca-Cola Africa Foundation (TCCAF)–funded WASH activities (2012–2014) 
and CNHF–funded activities between 2014–2017. The current programming replaced Tigray with the 
Beneshangul-Gumuz Region and added increasing access to WASH in institutions (schools and health 
care facilities) as one of its goals. It also seeks to strengthen capacity of national and local government, 
community-based organizations, and the private sector to provide sustainable WASH services.
USAID funded a follow-on activity to MWA-EP implemented by Save the Children called Your Health is in 
Your Hands (STC YHYH) from 2009–2013. STC YHYH operated in the same four regions as MWA-EP 
with similar objectives to increase access to water and sanitation and promote hygiene behavior. YHYH 
used CLTS and Hygiene (CLTS-H), which adopted a different hygiene promotion approach and an 
emphasis on school sanitation. USAID’s SIT was applied to the STC YHYH activity in 2015. The SIT, 
5 This included construction of deep boreholes, machine-drilled shallow wells, hand-dug wells, and spot springs and 
spring development with extensions. It also included rehabilitation of hand-dug wells, springs, and shallow wells. 
6 The Mitchell Group. 2008. External Program Evaluation: WASH Program in Ethiopia. 
9 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
developed by USAID and Rotary International, assesses an activity using a set of quantitative and 
qualitative indicators that are grouped around five main factors associated with sustainability: 
institutional, management, financial, technical, and environmental. It also looks at different levels of a 
program, including both household and service provider, and at the enabling environment at the sub￾national and national levels. The following select risks to sustainability were identified:7
● The overall technical, financial, and administrative capacity of service providers at the community
level (including WASHCOs and volunteer clubs in schools) was very low across all communities
included in the SIT assessment, making minor maintenance challenging;
● Human resource gaps and slow procurement processes within government at the woreda level
prevented effective operations and utilization of financial resources in SIT assessment areas;
● Very few low-cost sanitation service options existed in SIT assessment areas;
● Deep-rooted cultural and social norms prevent the adoption of good hygiene behaviors and the
widespread and consistent use of latrines and handwashing at all critical times, threatening the
success of CLTS-H;
● The monitoring and support provided by the woreda government to the WASH service providers in
the community was inconsistent and inadequate;
● Low level of integration of sanitation and hygiene promotion activities between the schools and the
broader communities in which they are located made maintaining ODF status challenging;
● The willingness of individual households to pay tariffs for water supply services (particularly from
covered springs) that are operated at the community level were low;
● Poor documentation of payments was observed and very few WASHCOs had a bank account, while
in schools there was virtually no budget available for long-term major repair costs; and
● Regular data collection and dissemination on the quality and quantity of surface and groundwater
resources was limited, as was data on water supply demands (including for agricultural, industrial,
and domestic uses).
Likewise, the following select drivers to sustainability were identified:8
● Clear national construction standards and guidelines with respect to technical standards for all
WASH intervention types considered in the SIT were well developed at the national level and
disseminated through the One WASH National Program; and
● Households expressed a very high willingness to pay for sanitation services; however, there was also
a correspondingly high perception amongst those of an inability to pay.
The aforementioned evaluation results have been taken into account when developing the methodology 
and the specific questions included in the interview guides for this ex-post evaluation. Since MWA-EP’s 
initial design, several changes have occurred on a national scale that have also been taken into account. 
First, in 2015 Ethiopia achieved its Millennium Development Goal target of 57 percent access to safe 
drinking water, up from 13 percent in 1990. Access to sanitation remains low, however. Only 7 percent 
of the population had access to basic sanitation in 2015, according to baseline data for the Sustainable 
Development Goals.9 By 2020, the Government of Ethiopia (GOE) aims to reach full water access 
coverage and basic sanitation, 77 percent handwashing coverage, and 80 percent open defecation free 
(ODF) communities through its One WASH National Program (OWNP). 
7 Schweitzer R. 2015. Ethiopia WASH SIT: Final Report.
8 Ibid.
9 UNICEF/WHO. 2017. Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: 2017 Update and SDG Baselines. 
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION ANNEXES | 10
EVALUATION DESIGN METHODOLOGY 
PURPOSE 
This evaluation will examine the sustainability of water supply schemes, sanitation facilities, and behavior 
change activities introduced by MWA-EP more than seven years following activity completion. Key 
intended users of evaluation findings are USAID, other donors, MWA and its IPs, and implementers of 
WASH activities in Ethiopia and other countries. Findings will empower the GOE and other host￾country governments to hold donors and IPs to higher standards of activity implementation to ensure 
investments are long-lasting. Findings from this and future evaluations will also assist these intended 
users in determining areas for improvement in their current process of activity selection, design, 
implementation, monitoring and evaluation to ensure long-term sustainability and enable improved 
accountability to stakeholders. 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
This evaluation will answer the questions in Table 2 below.
Table 9. Evaluation Questions
Water
Sanitation
1.
2.
3.
What is the level of service at water schemes completed by MWA-EP more 
than seven years after activity close in terms of basic functionality, quantity 
output, quality, accessibility, and reliability?
To what extent are community members using the water points (by wealth, 
gender, vulnerability status)?
How have water schemes been maintained since MWA-EP activity closed in 
terms of management activities and systems, maintenance, and fee collection 
to cover recurrent lifecycle expenditures? 
4.
5.
To what extent are household-level and shared community latrines and 
handwashing facilities installed by the activity still functional, adequately 
maintained, and used by men, women, boys, and girls? 
What systems and financial mechanisms have communities used over time to 
maintain shared sanitation facilities and activities provided by MWA-EP? 
6. For each type of water and sanitation intervention, which factors or
approaches (enacted by USAID, implementers, communities, or external
Cross-Cutting entities) contributed to or impaired long-term sustainability of the activity
components named above? Specifically, which management, financial,
institutional, environmental, and technical factors affected the observed levels
of service and functionality?
To answer evaluation question one, the evaluation team will use data from multiple sources to 
categorize each water scheme according to service level criteria developed by IRC (see Table 3 
below).10,11
10 Moriarty, Patrick et al. 2011. Working paper 2. Ladders for assessing and Costing Water Service Delivery. IRC 
International Water and Sanitation Centre.
11 Fonseca, Catarina et al. 2011. Briefing Note 1a. Life-Cycle Costs Approach: Costing Sustainable Services. IRC 
International Water and Sanitation Centre.
11 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Table 10. Levels of Water Service
This framework’s basic service level aligns with USAID’s WASH standard indicators of basic access, and 
its definition of additional service levels will provide even more information about the sustainability of 
MWA-EP water provision activities. USAID’s WASH indicator HL.8.1-1: “Number of people gaining 
access to basic drinking water services as a result of USG assistance” identifies 20 liters/person/day as 
one of the minimum quantity standards for basic access, and basic accessibility requires total round-trip 
collection time to be 30 minutes or less, including wait time. Without a randomized household survey, 
the evaluation team unfortunately cannot determine the average distance to a water point across the 
community. The team will instead be able to estimate average waiting time at the source. This measure 
of crowding will serve as a partial indicator of accessibility in this framework. Though reliability service 
level criteria are vague in this framework, the evaluation team will define basic and intermediate service 
according to USAID’s WASH standard indicator HL.8.1-3, which requires year-round access without 
regular supply rationing or regular seasonal failure. USAID’s definition for safely managed water through 
HL.8.1-2: “Water points categorized into the basic service level must meet a fecal coliform standard of 0 
CFU/100 mL, arsenic standard of 10 parts per billion, and (at a minimum) host country standards for 
other chemicals that have been identified to pose a site-specific risk to human health” matches Ethiopian 
national standards for fecal coliform and arsenic. Ethiopia has additional standards for chemicals such as 
fluoride (1.5 mg/L maximum), which is a common problem in certain geographic areas of the country.12
To support evaluation question three, the evaluation team will seek documentation of lifecycle 
expenditures according to recurrent expenditure categories described by IRC:13
12 Ethiopian Standards Agency (ESA). 2013. Compulsory Ethiopian Standard (CES) 58: Drinking Water 
Specifications. First Edition.
13 Fonseca, Catarina et al. 2011.
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION ANNEXES | 12
● Cost of capital (loan interest)
● Capital maintenance expenditure (nonroutine repair and rehabilitation)
● Operating expenditure (routine, ongoing minor operations and maintenance expenditure on
labor, fuel, materials, etc. Includes routine household coping costs to reach their needed level of
service such as purchase of supplementary water)
● Expenditure on direct support (post-construction capacity building to local stakeholders to
support management)
● Expenditure on indirect support (cost of macro-level support such as policy and
government monitoring and maintenance systems covering the sector rather than a particular
water scheme)
The evaluation team will also use this same framework to examine lifecycle costs documented by shared 
community sanitation block managers, if such records exist. The team will compare costs to user fees 
and other revenue sources to determine whether revenue is adequate to sustain all recurrent costs. 
DATA COLLECTION METHODS 
This evaluation will include structured observations at WASH facilities and qualitative interviews with 
key stakeholders and beneficiaries. Each data collection method is described briefly below, and more 
details regarding data collection methods and instruments corresponding to each evaluation question are 
described in the Evaluation Design Matrix (Table 6).
Structured Observations at Water Points 
To examine sustainability, the team must determine not only whether water points are still dispensing 
water but also whether they dispense water to ensure at least basic access according to service levels 
described in Table 3. Assessing quantity service levels as well as basic present functionality requires 
structured observations and tests at the water point as well as source in cases of gravity-fed or piped 
rural systems. The evaluation team will use a structured observation tool, including flow rate, stroke and 
leakage tests, and observed risk of contamination. Observations will occur at both the source and up to 
four water points connected to it. Observations at water points will include observed use of basins and 
animal troughs, where these have been provided through MWA. Evaluators will also use this 
opportunity to observe factors that appear to facilitate or impair sustained functionality of this water 
point, such as engineering technology used or other apparent contextual factors.
Supports evaluation questions 1, 2, 6 
Structured Group Interview with Water Collectors 
Observations will be triangulated with a brief structured group interview with three to five persons 
gathering water at the time of the water point visit. One interview will be conducted per water point. 
This will be a group interview of those gathered at the water point; however, one individual may 
participate if he/she is the only person present. These interviews will elicit information on frequency of 
service outages and maintenance, ease of access, perceived water sufficiency and quality, equity of 
access, satisfaction with fees and management, and other source options commonly used. 
Supports evaluation questions 1, 2, 3, 6
Group Interview (GI) with Two to Three WASHCO Members 
13 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
The evaluation team will conduct a small group interview with two to three WASHCO members at 
selected water points. The team will seek to have at least one female WASHCO representative involved 
in each interview if females are present on the committee. This interview will combine closed-ended and 
open-ended questions to ensure an understanding of management systems over time. This interview will 
rely in part on WASHCO record data. The evaluation team anticipates some past record-keeping will 
not be available, and therefore, some of the past information may be gleaned solely from WASHCO 
members’ qualitative descriptions. Conditions and practices to be determined include: 
● Number of registered water point users, including demographic characteristics (if available); 
● WASHCO membership (including gender balance); 
● Roles and responsibilities of WASHCO vis-à-vis other parties; 
● Complete lifecycle cost data by type of expense, to extent possible; 
● Fee structure and its sufficiency to cover costs; 
● Community adherence to fees; 
● WASHCO capacity to complete maintenance; 
● Supply chain for maintenance of water and community sanitation (to the extent WASHCOs bear 
responsibility for sanitation); 
● Details of past maintenance needs since MWA-EP ended, including frequency of and reasons for 
repair, persons completing repair, funding source for repair, and average number of days of 
outages; 
● System and responsibilities (including local government) for monitoring and addressing water 
quality; and 
● General opinions about successes and challenges related to sustaining water services. 
WASHCO interviews will be triangulated with water point user structured interviews. In cases where 
MWA-EP water points are no longer functional, the evaluation team will attempt to interview former 
WASHCO members to better understand what led to this failure.
Supports evaluation questions 2, 3, 6 
Water Quality Testing at Water Points 
One component of service level adequacy is water quality. The evaluation team will use field-based 
water quality testing kits to determine whether each water point is currently free from fecal coliform 
contamination, per Ethiopian national standards. If feasible, chemical content such as arsenic and fluoride 
will also be tested. Another key component of the team’s service-level quality assessment is consultation 
of woreda health office records to determine whether water quality standards have been consistently 
tracked and met. Records and direct testing will be used together to categorize quality levels.
Supports evaluation question 1 
Structured Observations of Household and Shared Community Latrines 
Shared community latrines were only constructed by Lifewater International in Limu and Soro woredas. 
The evaluation team will sample from these latrine blocks and complete structured observations of 
cleanliness, safety, privacy, and level of usage by males and females. This will be supplemented by 
interviews with users and those responsible for maintenance.
Supports evaluation questions 4, 6 
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION ANNEXES | 14
Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with Household and Shared Community Latrine Users 
The evaluation team will purposively sample both males and females using the latrines to inquire about 
their perceptions of the latrines, frequency of usage by themselves and other community members 
(probing on differences by age, gender, disability, poverty, and distance from latrine), perceptions about 
the quality of maintenance and changes over time, and the degree to which they believe shared 
community latrines have affected household latrine ownership over time. The team will attempt to 
select both men and women to capture a variety of ages. If no people are using the latrines at the time 
of the site visit, the evaluation team will select other community members living nearby the latrines to 
inquire about the level of community usage, reasons for use/nonuse, and perceptions about maintenance 
over time. 
Supports evaluation questions 4, 5, 6 
Group Interviews with Shared Community Latrine Management 
At each sampled shared latrine block the evaluation team will interview the committee or persons 
responsible for maintaining the facilities. Interviews will address frequency of usage over time (probing 
on differences by age, gender, disability, poverty, and distance from latrine); systems for maintenance in 
terms of roles and responsibilities; lifecycle costs and financing mechanisms; frequency of and approach 
to completing repairs over time; and perceptions about the degree to which shared community latrines 
have affected household latrine ownership over time. 
Supports evaluation questions 4, 5, 6 
Key Informant Interviews with MWA-EP Implementers and USAID Staff 
In addition to methods mentioned above, the evaluation team will also conduct KIIs with MWA-EP 
implementers and USAID staff. These interviews, which will be conducted prior to field observations, 
will provide a deeper understanding of the activity design and implementation from the perspective of 
staff who were present at the time of the 2004–2009 activity. In cases where no individuals involved in 
the activity are still present, the evaluation team will seek the next most knowledgeable person who can 
speak to the organization’s general approaches. Implementers will also discuss government policy
changes over time, private sector engagement, efforts to improve sustainability, and perceived 
sustainability challenges, opportunities, and facilitators.
Supports evaluation question 6 
Key Informant Interview with Woreda and Kebele Government Personnel 
In each woreda with a sampled water scheme, the evaluation team will also conduct a KII or GI with 
woreda government personnel responsible for water scheme oversight. Interviews will include 
representatives of the water office (responsible for the development of water sources, oversight 
functionality, operations and maintenance, establishment and training of WASHCOs, and provision of 
spare parts and reagents) and health office (responsible for monitoring water quality, conducting sanitary 
inspection, providing technical support for water treatment, facilitating sanitation and hygiene promotion 
in the community, and overseeing the health extension program). Questions will address the level of 
woreda and kebele government involvement in oversight and technical support, regulatory and policy 
framework changes over time, challenges and opportunities to supporting community schemes and 
sustaining rural water schemes in general. During health office interviews the evaluation team will seek 
15 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
recorded data on frequency of water quality testing for water points included in the sample and results, 
dating back to 2009 if possible. In addition, the evaluation team will verify sampled water scheme and 
shared community latrine sites against woreda and kebele records to confirm whether any similar 
activities have occurred at these sites since 2009. In cases where such contamination is identified, the 
evaluation team will consider dropping these sites from data collection activities.
Supports evaluation question 6 
SAMPLING STRATEGY 
In accordance with criteria guiding the post project evaluation series, data collection will be limited to 
locations that did not receive follow-on WASH activities from USAID or other donors. Water CKM 
reviewed numerous WASH activities that occurred in Ethiopia since 2009 to ensure lack of location 
overlap. This process is described in Annex A. Two out of 24 woredas with other WASH interventions 
since 2009 were excluded from the sampling frame after this exercise.14 Water CKM is still waiting to 
receive responses from UNICEF and other implementers regarding other project locations, which may 
result in additional exclusions. For this reason, exact sampling locations have not yet been selected. 
Woreda and IP activities eligible for inclusion at this stage are shown in Table 4. 
14 Excluded woredas were those targeted with CNHF funding (projects occurring 2010–2012, 2011–2014, or 
2014–2017) and woredas targeted for the USAID–funded STC YHYH activity.
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION ANNEXES | 16
Table 11. Sampling frame of Locations Eligible for MWA-EP Post Project Evaluation 
Region Woreda Kebeles Implementing
Partner
Water Activities 
Completed Sanitation Completed
Amhara Achefer Denbolla, Forhe-sankra, 
Kunzula Zuria, Estumit, 
WomberiaI-yesus, 
Womberia-berkanta
Food for the Hungry 24 hand dug wells, 9 
spring development 
works, 5 rehabilitated 
hand dug wells; 5 
showers & washing 
basins, 7 cattle troughs
6 VIP latrines in 
schools; 952 
traditional pit latrines, 
31,939 community 
members received 
san/hyg education
Bure Denbun, Sertekez, Tyatya, 
Zeshiwen 
CRS/Water Action 4 drilled shallow wells; 
10 hand dug wells; 
6 spot springs 
w/extension
4 school ventilated 
improved pit (VIP) 
latrines
179 demonstration 
HH pit latrines
Dera Goha, Agar W.gati, 
Gelawdiwos and Dagon 
Debresina
WV 10 shallow wells, 6 
hand dug wells, 10 
washing basins, 3 
cattle troughs, 16 
WASHCOs
Dangila Bacha Dimssa, Ziguda Gult, 
Abadra Agaga, Dubie
FH 17 new water 
schemes, rehabilitated 
8 schemes, 4 cattle 
troughs constructed, 4 
washing basins
7 VIP school latrines, 
872 HH built tradition 
latrines, 44,802 people 
received san/hyg 
education
Simada Kebele 
2,3,4,5,6,9,10,11,12,15,19,20, 
and 22
FH 16 hand dug wells, 22
spring capping works, 
22 schemes 
rehabilitated, 60 
12 school VIP latrines, 
one woreda market 
place latrine, one at 
woreda bus station, 
WASHCOs 649 HH constructed 
established, 3 cattle 
troughs, 7 washing 
basins
traditional pit latrines 
with hand washing 
facilities
17 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
West Estie Mugerzeboye, 
Yedidgmegn
Shimemusha, CARE 11 spring 
developments, 21 
hand dug wells, 176 
WASHCO members
13 VIP latrines at 
schools, 2,365 HH 
constructed individual 
pit latrines, 15,764 
people received 
san/hyg education
Farta Qualiha, Zimha, 
Mahidermariam, 
Meskeltsion, Addis 
betekrstian, Simna, Medeb 
CARE 45 hand dug wells, 40 
spot spring 
development works, 
85 WASHCOs
21 institutional VIP 
latrines, 21,237 people 
received san/hyg 
education, 3,500 HH 
Gubida, Gentegna Woibila 
Goref, Atikana, Debelima, 
Amjaye addeder, Wukiro 
Tado mender, Askuma 
constructed 
traditional pit latrines
Deremo
Oromia Tole Alenushenkora, Kursti, HOPE 2020 1 drilled shallow well, 3 school VIP latrines
Tume-wayu/tegeba 6 water points 
constructed (type not 
specified), 6 shower 
houses; 6 washing 
basins; 6 cattle troughs
Wonchi Dimtu WV 1 spot springs 
w/extension, 
6 water points 
constructed (type not 
specified),
3 washing basins, 
4 cattle troughs
Dendi Ginchi Town, Dano-Ejersa 
Gibe
Water.org/Water Action 1 borehole, 
reservoir/piping, 14 
water points; 14 
WASHCOs
6 VIP latrines, 40 
model HH 
constructed 
traditional pit latrines
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION ANNEXES | 18
SNNPR Gofa Zuria Dano Myde 1; Danag 
(Gogera) 2; Selamber 2; 
Kodoume; Gala Gibo; 
LWI/EKHC 39 drilled shallow 
wells, 1 hand dug well, 
37 rehabilitated 
Merka 1; Tella; Selamber 3; shallow wells,
Mesha Cheba; Morka 2; 14 shallow wells 
Dana 3; Dana 4; Selamber 4 maintained
Kucha Gaale, HalaHa, Masha 
Chabe, Mela Kayisha, 
Morka, Selamber Ketena 2, 
LWI/EKHC Unknown at present
Sikolle Aslalo, Wuzete 
Banata 
Soro 1st Oda, 2nd Hankota, 
Hahora, Sundusa 
LI/EECMY-DASSC, WV 28 water points (type 
not specified)
182 shared 
community latrines;
10 school VIP latrines
Limu Digiba, Lisana Sena, 
Bobicho, Lisana Kusa, 
LI Unknown at present
Lareba
Tenbaro Mudula town, Osheto, 
Badda and Zambara
WV 13 water points (type 
not specified),
5 washing basins, 
7 cattle troughs
Zalla Mela kaysha, Mela Bayisa, 
Dale Wageshu 
LWI/EKHC Unknown at present
Tigray Adwa Gendebta, Mariam-shewito, 
Simret, Yeha
Water.org/REST 39 hand dug wells, 12 
spot springs/extension, 
6 rainwater harvesting, 
4 boreholes with 
handpumps
Hawuzen Debrehiwot, Dgum, Frewini, 
Hatset, Koraro, Megab, 
Siluh
Water.org/REST 16 water points, 1 
rainwater harvesting
19 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
H/Wajirat Hageresem, Adimso, 
Amdiweye, Degan, Fikre 
Alem, May Nebri, Hintalo, 
Bahirtseba, Adimesanu, 
Water.org/REST
SenaelH/selam, Ara Asega, 
Adikeyih
S/Samre Addis Alem, Chelsret, 
Hintsa Wa, Nebar Hadt, Adi 
Water.org/REST
dekiala,Hageresem, Mai 
Teklai, Adiweyne, W/adeka, 
Cheli Esret
T/Abregele Derko, E/Rufael, Hibret, 
Lemlem, Simret, 
TR/Mekerne
Water.org/REST 6 spring with 
handpumps, 4 
boreholes, 2 rainwater 
harvesting
Weri Leke Misema, Mai Tuem, Azmera, 
Endachewa, Wuhdet , 
Maichekemte, Mai Kuhli, 
Zongi, Mai Sagla, Weri
Water.org/REST 11 shallow wells,18 
hand dug wells, 4 
spring catchments
11,270 HH latrines
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION ANNEXES | 20
Given the predominantly qualitative nature of this evaluation, a representative sample of MWA-EP 
activities will not be possible. Rather, woredas will be selected using a stratified sample based on the 
types of infrastructure installed in the woreda and the distance between eligible kebeles. In addition to 
interviews with USAID, IPs, and GOE officials, the team will visit water schemes, household-level 
latrines, and communal latrine blocks. Table 5 outlines the data collection activities for each type of site 
to be visited. 
Table 12. Data Collection Activities for Each Type of Site
Water Schemes Household 
Latrines
Shared Community 
Latrine Block Project-Level
●
●
●
1 structured 
observation at each 
water point (up to 
4/scheme)
1 group interview 
with water collectors 
at each water point 
(up to 4/scheme)
1 WASHCO group 
interview (for full 
scheme or point most 
frequently used)
●
●
1 structured
observation at
up to 4 HH
latrines
4 KIIs with
owner
households
(one per
latrine)
●
●
●
1 structured 
observation at all 
latrines
4 KIIs with latrine 
users (2 male, 2 
female)
1 group interview 
with shared 
community latrine 
management
In Addis:
● 1 group interview or KII
with USAID staff
● 1 group interview or KII
with staff of each
implementing partner
whose work is under
evaluation
In the field:
● 1 KII with government
water office and 1 KII with
health office in each
woreda visited where
relevant works are under
evaluation
● 1 KII with kebele
government WASH
representative in each
kebele visited
The team will visit one water scheme per kebele and up to 4 HH latrines in each village selected. 
Communal latrine installations were only constructed in two woredas, therefore the community to be 
visited will be selected purposively to be near other installations. Water schemes will be purposively 
selected in order to ensure a variety of types of water schemes are selected for the evaluation (e.g., 
boreholes, hand-dug wells, spot springs, drilled shallow wells with hand pumps). HH latrine installations 
will be randomly selected to the extent possible within locations where a water scheme is visited. Given 
budgetary constraints, the team is proposing to restrict data collection to three regions and five 
woredas. 
Table 13. Summary Information for Fieldwork 
Summary Information for Recommended Fieldwork Option
Number of regions 3 Number of water points 32
Number of woredas 5 Number of HH latrines 24
21 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Number of days of fieldwork 19 Number of communal latrine blocks 3
Total Structured Observations 63 Total KIIs & GIs 98
The proposed regions are Oromia, SNNPR, and Amhara. Oromia will serve as a nearby location to 
Addis Ababa in which to pilot the interview guides before the team splits in two. Within the regions of 
SNNPR and Amhara, there are numerous potential woredas without risk of contamination from more 
recent WASH programming. The evaluation team believes these regions will be of interest to USAID 
because of the current programming within these regions overall. The team leader, two local senior 
evaluators, and a local mid-level evaluation specialist will conduct data collection supported by a 
translator. Indicated fieldwork includes the inbrief and outbrief with the mission, as well as two days for 
training at the beginning of the data collection period. Total interviews and observations come to 161. 
DATA ANALYSIS 
The evaluation team will transcribe and translate qualitative interviews and then analyze them using a 
common codebook to coordinate identification of themes and opinions. The evaluation team will 
analyze and triangulate all relevant stakeholder perspectives to ensure conclusions for each evaluation 
question reflect multiple perspectives. 
The evaluation team will input quantitative water point and latrine and hygiene facility observation data 
as well as quantifiable data from health office water quality records and WASHCO records such as 
registered number of water users, cost data, repair frequencies, and other figures into an Excel database 
to facilitate analysis. Results will be disaggregated by region and scheme type where possible. Data 
regarding sanitation and hygiene sustainability will be gender-disaggregated. Each water point will be 
categorized into service level for each category according to definitions in Table 3 using method 
triangulation. In cases where triangulation produces discrepant information, a single primary data source 
has been identified in Table 6. 
Desk review of relevant literature in the rural WASH sector and concerning Ethiopia in particular, such 
as USAID’s Household Economic Survey, will be conducted throughout the evaluation and results from 
this review will be triangulated with results from qualitative and quantitative aspects of data collection. 
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION ANNEXES | 22
Table 14. Evaluation Design Matrix
Evaluation 
Question Indicators Data Sources Data Collection Tools Analysis Methods Risks
1) What is the
present
functionality and
level of service at
water schemes
completed by
MWA-EP more
than seven years
after activity close
in terms of basic
functionality,
quantity output,
quality,
accessibility, and
reliability?
a) % of presently
functional water
points (by type,
region)
b) % of water points
providing water
quantity at each
service level: high
(≥60L/person/day),
intermediate
(≥40L/p/d), basic
(≥20L/p/d),
substandard
(≥5L/p/d)
c) % of water points
meeting national
quality standards at
each service level as
defined in Table 3,
according to
recorded data and
testing completed by
evaluation team
d) % of water points
with crowding/queue
meeting accessibility
standards at each
a-d) (primary source for
a, b) Structured
observations at water
points
b-e) WASHCO (or
similar management
body) group interview
and examination of
records
c) Water quality testing
by evaluation team
c) (primary for c)
Woreda health office
water quality test
records
b-f) Structured
interviews with water
users (primary)
WASHCO (or similar
management body)
examination of records
(water users record/
users master list at
scheme level)
(triangulation)
Structured observation tool includes 
assessment through functionality test; flow 
rate; stroke and leakage tests; length and 
wait time in queue; characteristics of 
people in queue; observed use of basins 
and animal troughs; observed 
contamination risk. To support question 
6, the tool will include expert assessment 
of appropriate technology and access and 
quality impediments
Qualitative interview guide with 
WASHCO includes interview questions 
and review of records to capture # and 
characteristics of registered water scheme 
users now compared to past (used in part 
to inform L/person/day calculations); 
average # days of water point downtime; 
repair log; user and community population 
data; water quality measurement records 
(though the team will seek these from 
woreda health offices, these may be 
available from WASHCO); and typical 
queue time. Regarding evaluation question 
3, the interview will also address detailed 
management practices, including lifecycle 
costs and expenditures: sources and 
sufficiency of revenue; roles and 
responsibilities for maintenance, 
monitoring, and other management 
practices; role of local government; 
Quantification of 
proportion of water 
points meeting 
criteria for each 
service level (by 
type, region)
Coding and 
synthesis of 
qualitative findings 
Schemes 
difficult to 
locate
WASHCO 
user records 
may be difficult 
to obtain or 
inaccurate 
23 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
service level, defined 
in Table 3
e) % of water points
meeting reliability
standards at each
service level as
defined in Table 3.
f) Extent of use of
other sources to
meet needs
g) Community
satisfaction with
water point
gender representation over time; and 
other issues. 
Water quality testing to measure 
presence of fecal coliforms.
KII and record review with woreda
health office will provide records of 
frequency and results of water quality 
testing.
Water user structured interview 
guide includes assessment of sufficiency 
of water for daily household needs; 
satisfaction with water quality, quantity, 
management; equity of access by 
wealth/gender/vulnerability status; average 
# days of water point downtime; typical 
queue time; usage patterns throughout the 
year, for which purposes, by which types 
of people
2) To what extent
are community
members using
the water points
(by wealth,
gender,
vulnerability
status)? Why?
a) estimated
proportion of local
community
population using
water point year￾round compared to
previous years (if
feasible, approximate
by wealth, gender,
vulnerability status)
Structured interviews 
with water users
(triangulation) 
See WASHCO and water user 
descriptions above
Quantification of 
proportion of 
population using 
water point year￾round
Coding and 
synthesis of 
qualitative findings 
for triangulation
Local 
population data 
or WASHCO 
user records 
may be difficult 
to obtain or 
inaccurate. If 
so, proportion 
using will be an 
approximation 
based on 
qualitative data
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION ANNEXES | 24
3) How have
water schemes
been maintained
since MWA-EP
activity close in
terms of
management
activities and
systems,
maintenance, and
fee collection to
cover recurrent
lifecycle
expenditures?
a) % WASHCOs (or
similar bodies) with
adequate capital
flows to cover
recurrent
expenditures
b) % WASHCOs
with bank accounts
and transparent
record-keeping
c) % water points
with average outages
lasting less than 5
days
d) % water points
with clear
management roles
and responsibilities
e) % water points
supported with
adequate knowledge
and supply chain
access for repairs
(including spare parts
& reagents for
disinfection and
water treatment)
a-e) (primary)
WASHCO (or similar
management body)
group interview and
examination of records
a-e) (triangulation)
Structured interviews
with water users
c-e) Woreda/kebele
water office interview
See WASHCO and water user 
descriptions above
KII guide with woreda/kebele water 
office will assess local government 
involvement in supporting WASHCOs in 
monitoring and management functions
Quantification of 
proportion of 
WASHCOs meeting 
criteria
Coding and 
synthesis of 
qualitative findings 
for description of 
management 
practices and 
triangulation
WASHCOs 
have disbanded 
(in this case 
community 
leaders will be 
interviewed)
WASHCO 
user records 
may be difficult 
to obtain or 
inaccurate
Cost data not 
available
4) To what extent
are household￾level and shared
a) % shared
community latrines
a) Structured
observations at shared
Structured shared community 
latrine observation tool includes 
observation of evident usage, cleanliness, 
Quantification of % 
of latrines meeting 
functionality and 
Shared 
community 
25 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
community 
latrines and 
handwashing 
facilities installed 
by the activity still 
functional, 
maintained, and 
used by men, 
women, boys, and 
girls?
that are in use and of 
acceptable quality 
community latrine 
blocks
a) KIIs with shared
community latrine users
odor, structural safety, privacy, queue, and 
availability of handwashing facilities with 
soap 
KII guide with shared community 
latrine users addresses perceptions of 
the latrines, frequency of usage by 
themselves and other community 
members (probing on differences by age, 
gender, disability, poverty, and distance 
from latrine), perceptions about the 
quality of maintenance and changes over 
time, frequency of unavailability, and the 
degree to which they believe shared 
community latrines have affected 
household latrine ownership over time
quality criteria (by 
gender)
Coding and 
synthesis of 
qualitative findings
latrines difficult 
to locate
5) What systems
and financial
mechanisms have
communities used
over time to
maintain shared
WASH facilities
and activities
provided by
MWA-EP?
a) % of communities
with management
structures and
procedures in place
for shared latrine
blocks that show
evidence of regular
maintenance
activities
b) % of shared
latrine management
structures with
adequate capital
flows to cover
recurrent
expenditures
a) Group interviews
with shared community
latrine management
Group interview guide with shared 
community latrine management
addresses frequency of usage over time 
(probing on differences by age, gender, 
disability, poverty, and distance from 
latrine); systems for maintenance in terms 
of roles and responsibilities, financing 
mechanisms, frequency of and approach to 
completing repairs over time; and 
perceptions about the degree to which 
shared community latrines have affected 
household latrine ownership over time
Quantification of % 
meeting criteria
Coding and 
synthesis of 
qualitative findings 
to provide general 
description of 
management 
procedures and 
triangulation of data
Shared 
community 
latrines difficult 
to locate
Cost data not 
available
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION ANNEXES | 26
6) For each type
of water and
sanitation
intervention,
which factors or
approaches
(enacted by
USAID,
implementers,
communities, or
external entities)
contributed to or
impaired long￾term sustainability
of the activity
components
named above?
Specifically, which
management,
financial,
institutional,
environmental,
and technical
factors affected
the observed
levels of service
and functionality?
a) Perceived factors
that improved and
inhibited ability to
manage/maintain/use
water schemes and
sanitation over time
KIIs with woreda and 
kebele government staff 
responsible for WASH 
oversight
KIIs with IPs
KIIs with USAID 
personnel responsible 
for MWA-EP or follow￾ons
Structured observation 
tool
KIIs with WASHCOs 
Group interviews with 
shared community 
latrine management
KIIs with shared 
community latrine users
Interview guide with woreda 
government (water, health offices)
includes assessment of kebele and woreda 
government frequency and type of 
involvement in scheme oversight and 
technical support; regulatory and policy 
framework changes over time; challenges 
to supporting community schemes; 
challenges to sustaining rural water 
schemes in general; oversight and 
challenges related to shared and 
institutional latrines
Interview guide with IPs includes 
detailed activity description; discussion of 
government policy changes over time; 
private sector engagement; efforts to 
improve sustainability; perceived 
challenges and facilitators to sustainability
Interview guide with USAID (includes 
assessment of lessons learned and changes 
in approach over time as a result; 
perceived barriers and facilitators to 
sustainability)
See descriptions of all other guides above 
Coding and 
synthesis of 
qualitative findings
Implementing 
partner (IP) 
staff involved in 
2004–2009 
may not still be 
employed with 
IP
Government 
staff not 
available to 
meet 
evaluation 
team in some 
cases
27 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
PLAN FOR GENDER AND SOCIAL ANALYSIS 
Gender and social factors play a strong role in WASH practices. In rural Ethiopia females typically bear 
the greatest burden for household water collection and application of hygiene practices; however, water 
resources management and decisionmaking at the community level is often dominated by males. Gender 
roles and expectations as well as gender-based vulnerabilities can also affect sanitation preferences. In 
any context, poorer community members or religious or ethnic minorities may have different access to 
WASH improvements due to financial or social constraints. Religious beliefs of Muslims tend to drive 
different sanitation and hygiene habits and preferences compared to Christians. To understand the 
degree to which activity outcomes have been sustained in light of gender, culture, and socio-economic 
status, the evaluation team will seek gender, socio-economic status, and culture/religion balance in 
interview targets to the extent possible. 
All GIs will be separated by gender to encourage freedom of response. Interview guides will inquire 
about gender roles, religion, culture, and socio-economic status in decisionmaking, financing, and 
maintenance of sanitation and hygiene practices both at the household and community level to identify 
whether these factors play a role that should be addressed to improve sustainability of WASH results in 
the future. Gender and religious composition of WASHCOs will also be examined. Furthermore, the 
evaluation team will be staffed with gender balance in mind, such that women are interviewing female 
respondents to the extent possible and males are interviewing men to the extent possible. This will also 
allow an analytical lens that can address whether male or female respondents have differing views or 
experiences related to issues discussed. The evaluation team intends to obtain sex, age, and poverty￾disaggregated quantitative data where possible and when available and address any differences noted by 
gender or poverty status in the analysis. For example, the team will note latrine conditions and usage 
separately for females and males. 
USAID.GOV
MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 28
EVALUATION DESIGN LIMITATIONS AND RISKS 
The evaluation team notes a few limitations to the proposed evaluation design as well as risks to the 
evaluation below along with mitigation strategies. Despite these limitations, the team believes this 
proposal includes the best possible evaluation approach for this context, given time and resource 
constraints.
The length of time between the end of the activity in December 2009 and this present study increases 
the likelihood that other donors or local governments have completed WASH interventions in sampled 
locations. This “multiple treatment interference” effect will be mitigated to the extent possible by 
reaching out to USAID, MWA-EP implementers active in targeted woredas, government officials, and 
other local groups to identify WASH activities in those locations since 2009. The evaluation team has 
already assessed a number of other activities and ruled out for certain two woredas in which other 
activities are known to have occurred since 2009. The team will continue to seek out information about 
other donor activities throughout the planning process. Adjustments to sampled locations can be made 
in cases where another intervention will have affected outcomes of interest. In spite of this, the team 
may still discover other activities having taken place when they arrive in the field. To mitigate this, the 
evaluation team will work to complete its interview with each woreda water office and health office 
prior to data collection at water points. During these interviews the team will verify whether any other 
interventions have occurred in sampled communities. In these cases data collection will be avoided if the 
MWA-EP intervention’s outcomes cannot be isolated, or particular data components will be removed 
from analysis. Community hygiene and sanitation outcomes resulting from PHAST activities cannot be 
evaluated quantitatively due to the lack of endline data to provide a point of comparison. Though CLTS 
was introduced by two implementers in the final year of the activity, it does not seem feasible to secure 
lists of declared ODF villages such that they can be examined to determine continued ODF status. This 
means household-level sanitation and hygiene activities will not be addressed through this evaluation.
Risks to evaluation quality and depth relate to potential difficulties locating water points, WASHCO 
records, household latrines dating to 2009, or knowledgeable implementers or USAID staff given the 
length of time since the activity ended. To the extent possible the evaluation team will seek support 
from local MWA-EP implementers to locate each site. In cases where WASHCO records are not 
available or complete, the team will rely on members’ qualitative recollection and note it as such. In 
cases where persons are no longer available to speak about MWA-EP firsthand, the team will rely on 
others with some peripheral knowledge.
While selection of GI participants through recommendations from the community is the most common 
approach to qualitative interview participant selection, it can potentially create bias if recommended 
participants all share higher education or privileged access to local authorities or teachers. The 
evaluation team will be explicit that it is seeking typical community members representing various 
economic classes. 
Finally, fieldwork is proposed for the month of October, which follows the rainy season in Ethiopia. It is 
possible that in some remote locations access will be difficult, and that farmers will be busier than during 
the dry season. The evaluation team will make sure the access of locations is taken into account during 
planning and, in terms of timing interviews with beneficiaries, will adapt to their schedule to ensure 
diversity of responses.
29 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
UTILIZATION PLAN 
The evaluation team will present preliminary findings to USAID/Ethiopia in Addis Ababa at the 
conclusion of data collection. An additional presentation will be held with MWA partners to provide 
early feedback on results. The evaluation team will then deliver a draft evaluation report to E3/W, 
USAID/Ethiopia, and MWA for comments prior to finalization to ensure it accurately portrays activities 
and clearly and effectively presents findings and recommendations. To encourage wider utilization and 
ultimate compilation with other sustainability evaluation “chapters” to come later in the evaluation 
series, the report will be succinct and will highlight actionable recommendations for the intended users 
of the evaluation. 
If desired, the evaluation team will also give a presentation of the final report findings in Washington, 
DC, to E3/W, MWA headquarters, and via webinar connection to the USAID/Ethiopia Mission, MWA 
Ethiopia partners, and other interested stakeholders. The Water CKM team will post the final report to 
USAID’s Development Experience Clearinghouse and collaborate with E3/W to facilitate dissemination 
to key stakeholders, including USAID missions, USAID/Washington staff, and IPs. A short evaluation 
brief will be written following approval of the final report, as well as a blog post on Water CKM’s
Globalwaters.org website to share findings more broadly. Findings from this evaluation, and future 
sustainability evaluation chapters, will be of interest to the wider WASH community and will be 
distributed broadly to inform sectoral discussion on sustainability. The Water CKM team will work with 
E3/W to identify additional channels and timing for dissemination of findings. Potential channels may 
include conferences, brown bags, and webinars in the water sector. The Water CKM team will also 
explore different formats for sharing findings with E3/W beyond the standard report format, including 
videos or podcasts.
USAID.GOV
MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 30
TEAM COMPOSITION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
TEAM COMPOSITION 
The evaluation team will consist of individuals that provide sufficient collective expertise to address all 
technical knowledge related to rural WASH. In particular, this includes evaluation expertise, local 
language expertise, rural Ethiopian WASH expertise, and local context and logistical planning expertise. 
Though the team composition and individual roles may shift among members, below is an illustrative 
listing of a team for this evaluation. As mentioned above, the team will seek gender balance in identifying 
team members.
▪ Kari Nelson, Team Leader and (STA - SI), will lead background research, coordinate and 
conduct field visits and data collection, lead data analysis, and co-author the evaluation report.
▪ Annette Fay, Water CKM Project Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist (SI), will 
analyze data and co-author the evaluation report. 
▪ Leslie Hodel, Senior Technical Advisor (STA - SI), led the evaluation design. 
▪ Seifu Tilahun, Ph.D., Senior Evaluator, will review the evaluation design, conduct field visits 
and data collection, and support in the analysis and report writing as needed. 
▪ Yemarshet Yemane, Senior Evaluator, will review the evaluation design, conduct field 
visits and data collection, and support in the analysis and report writing as needed.
▪ Dessalew Worky Aynalem, Mid-level Evaluator, will provide feedback on evaluation tools 
and methods, conduct KIIs and GIs, and assist with data analysis and report writing as needed. 
▪ Two interpreters will support the evaluation and team with Amharic and Oromifa 
interpretation during fieldwork data collection. 
▪ One logistician will support the evaluation team. Based on the experience from the first post 
project evaluation, the logistician will ideally have previously worked on MWA-EP, as this will 
assist in locating targeted respondents. If not, he/she will have work experience in the data 
collection locations.
EVALUATION TIMELINE 
Annex B and the list below provide a preliminary timeline for conducting the evaluation. In-country 
fieldwork will likely follow this approximate schedule, but the exact duration and route will be 
determined after final sample locations are known and in consultation with the fully staffed evaluation 
team. 
● Day 1: Evaluation team planning meeting
● Day 2: In-briefing with USAID mission; interviews with USAID, IPs; additional internal 
evaluation team planning
● Day 3: Qualitative training; translator training for KIIs/GIs
● Day 4: Pilot and refinement of water point observations, water testing, and WASHCO interview 
protocols
● Days 5–18: Data collection as follows:
Team 1: Team Leader + Senior Evaluator + Interpreter 
Team 2: Senior Evaluator + Mid-Level Evaluator + Interpreter
● Day 19: Evaluation team preliminary data analysis workshop 
● Day 20: Mission out-briefing and preliminary results presentation 
Based on the number of data collection activities required at each water scheme, it is estimated that all 
data collection from each water scheme can be completed within 1.5 days, though in some cases data 
31 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
collection may require more time. Each data collection team would strive to travel between sites within 
the remaining half day. All data collection activities at a shared community latrine would be completed 
within a day, and in cases where two sites are nearby, 1.5 to two shared latrine blocks can be completed 
within one day. Up to four household latrines can be completed in half a day. 
DELIVERABLES 
The evaluation team will submit the following deliverables: 
1. Inception Report. A draft inception report was submitted on July 28, 2017, and a final version 
was submitted on August 21, 2017. The inception report includes an overview of evaluation 
objectives and evaluation questions, narrative and graphic description of the timeline for 
fieldwork, discussion of evaluation design and data collection methods, identification of data 
sources, data analysis plan, and discussion of constraints and limitations. In order to develop an 
inception report that meets the needs of the mission, the Water CKM team met with the 
USAID/Ethiopia WASH representative to ensure her data needs are reflected on the evaluation 
questions and methodology. 
2. In-Briefing with USAID. The evaluation team will provide an in-brief to the USAID/Ethiopia 
Water Office and other interested mission staff preferably on October 3, 2017 but no later than 
October 5, 2017 to present the objectives and methodology for the evaluation. 
3. Out-Briefing with USAID. The out-briefing will consist of a PowerPoint presentation of 
findings, conclusions, and preliminary recommendations to be presented to USAID before 
international team members depart from Ethiopia. The out-briefing is tentatively planned for 
October 20, 2017.
4. Findings workshops with E3/W. Upon return from fieldwork, the Team Leader with 
facilitate a preliminary findings workshop with the E3/W team that will inform data coding and 
analysis. This workshop is tentatively schedule on November 6, 2017. Once the data has been 
analyzed, the Team Leader will facilitate another workshop that to ensure no further analysis is 
needed before report writing. This workshop is tentatively scheduled for December 5, 2017. 
5. First Draft Evaluation Report. The draft report will be submitted on December 22, 2017. 
The report will include the following sections: executive summary, purpose of the evaluation, 
methodology, findings, conclusions, and recommendations. USAID/E3 Water Office and 
USAID/Ethiopia and will provide comments within 10 business days to the interim report. 
6. Second Draft Evaluation Report. The Team Leader will revise the first draft evaluation 
report into a second draft that reflects USAID’s comments and suggestions. The final report will 
be submitted to the Contracting Officer Representative by January 26, 2018.
7. Final Evaluation Report. If another round of comments is needed, the Team Leader will 
revise the second draft into a final evaluation report which will be submitted by February 23, 
2018. 
USAID.GOV
MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 32
Annex A: Assessment of Site Contamination 
Annex B: Evaluation Timeline 
INCEPTION REPORT ANNEXES 
33 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
INCEPTION REPORT ANNEX A: ASSESSMENT OF SITE 
CONTAMINATION 
To isolate site conditions that represent the level of sustainability of MWA-EP activities alone, this 
evaluation must only include MWA-EP sites that have not received additional WASH interventions from 
other parties after 2009. The Water CKM team conducted an exhaustive search through different 
sources to identify other projects located in the same areas that may “contaminate” evaluation results. 
First, Water CKM reviewed woredas where MWA partners implemented WASH activities with follow￾on funding from the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation. Woredas that received follow-on funding were 
excluded from the evaluation sampling frame. Sites targeted by USAID’s Your Health is in Your Hands 
activity, implemented by Save the Children, were also excluded. Second, Water CKM reviewed the 
historical Safeguarding the World’s Water report data, which details the names of USAID-funded 
activities that were allocated water funding between fiscal year (FY) 2009 to FY2015. Through these 
data, Water CKM extracted all USAID Mission and Central Mechanism-funded and Overseas Foreign 
Disaster Assistance (OFDA)-funded WASH activities in Ethiopia since FY2009. Identifying the woredas 
or kebeles where these WASH activities took place proved to be more difficult. Materials available 
through the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) or through internet search were not all 
forthcoming about specific locations. Nevertheless, Water CKM identified woredas and kebeles for the 
majority of the USAID/Ethiopia Mission-funded activities and compared them to MWA-EP woredas and 
kebeles. OFDA activities were more difficult to locate because of the brevity of their implementation 
and the lack of readily available reporting from implementers. 
For non-USAID funded activities, Water CKM conducted internet searches to identify different 
nonprofit organizations that implemented WASH projects, including World Vision, Save the Children, 
Water.org, IRC, Project Concern, UNICEF, Project Waterfall, SNV, and the Coca-Cola Foundation. 
Water CKM also searched for WASH activities funded by bilateral and multilateral agencies including 
the United Nations, World Bank Group, African Development Bank, European Union, Australia, South 
Korea, and Japan for WASH-related funding in Ethiopia. Lastly, Water CKM is searching for 
documentation of any GOE WASH-related activities. 
In cases where locations of other WASH activities were not specified in documents obtained by the 
Water CKM team, Water CKM has reached out to implementers to request location information. The 
evaluation team will use this information to exclude additional locations from the sampling frame as 
needed. 
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 34
INCEPTION REPORT ANNEX B: EVALUATION TIMELINE
35 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
END OF INCEPTION REPORT 
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 36
ANNEX II: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS 
1. Interview Guides
a. Informed Consent Statement to be Used for All Data Collection
Efforts (Interviews, Focus Group Discussions)
Hello! We are here on behalf of a team from the United States called ECODIT, which is doing a study 
to help USAID better understand the Millennium Water Alliance-Ethiopia (MWA-EP) activity, 
implemented from 2004-2009. Our team was not a part of the implementation of this activity. We are 
independent evaluators who are here to learn about how well the activities and benefits from the 
activity have continued after the end of the activity. 
Through this evaluation we have selected some of your organization’s sites, which we plan to visit to 
learn whether activities and functionality have been sustained. We’d like to talk to you to learn more 
about your MWA-EP activities here and to learn about factors that may have affected the ability to 
sustain results. This information can help USAID improve its activities in the future throughout Ethiopia. 
Because you participated in this project, we are inviting you to help us understand these things by 
participating in this interview and sharing your opinions. Because we aim to learn both about what has 
helped sustain results as well as what did not help, there are no right or wrong answers. We seek your 
candid opinions.
This discussion will take about 1 hour of your time. There is no penalty or problem at all if you prefer 
not to participate. There is no risk to participating and also no direct benefit to you or your 
organization if you do choose to participate, other than knowing you may be helping to improve 
activities for other communities in Ethiopia in the future. 
We won’t be addressing any sensitive topics, but when we make a report on our findings, we will not 
include your name alongside opinions you share. However, in some cases we may want to name your 
organization. If there is anything you discuss that you prefer to take “off the record”, just let me know 
and I will honor that by pausing the recording and not attributing your organization. We want you to 
feel free to express your opinions. If you don’t feel comfortable answering a question, you can simply 
refuse to answer without problem. 
ASK: Do you have any questions? 
ASK: Do you want to participate? 
ASK: Do you mind if we record? 
Informed consent discussion completed? Yes_____ (interviewer initials) 
Do you agree to participate? Yes_____ No ______ (if no, end interview) 
37 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
b. Key Informant/Group Interview – USAID Employee
Location of interview: 
Name(s): _________________________ Position(s): _______________________ M/F 
Name(s): _________________________ Position(s): _______________________ M/F 
Name(s): _________________________ Position(s): _______________________ M/F 
Date of Interview: _________________ Time of Interview: ___________________ 
Name of Interviewer: ______________ Name of Note-taker: _________________ 
MUST READ THE CONSENT STATEMENT AND GAIN CONSENT FROM ALL 
RESPONDENTS BEFORE PROCEEDING
Questions (6) 
1. What was the nature of your involvement with MWA-EP (2004-2009)?
a. If not familiar with MWA-EP, when did you begin your current role with USAID?
2. What can you tell me about the activities and achievements of MWA-EP?
3. In what ways, if any, did the MWA-EP approach differ from other WASH projects before it?
a. PROBE: What do you think of that approach?
4. Are you aware of the degree to which MWA-EP WASH outcomes in particular were sustained since
it closed 8 years ago?
a. PROBE: Any guesses? Why?
5. What factors influenced the ability of MWA-EP project interventions to sustain WASH facilities and
behaviors? Why?
a. PROBE: What does it take to reach sustained use of water points, latrines, handwashing with
soap in rural Ethiopia and in particular in SNNPR, Oromia, Amhara?
6. What is particular to Ethiopia that we should be aware of that may have impacted the sustainability of
MWA-EP? If yes, how has USAID taken this into account in WASH programming since 2009?
7. Are there any particular aspects of MWA-EP that you think we should look at closely in our study?
8. Based on your experience with WASH in Ethiopia, what are the biggest threats to sustainability for
access to water, sanitation and hygiene projects?
a. FOLLOW-UP: Where have you seen evidence of that? Anything in the context of MWA-EP?
9. Have you seen any promising programmatic strategies to improving sustainability of WASH outcomes
in Ethiopia? Describe.
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 38
c. Key Informant Interview with Woreda/Kebele Water Office
Location of interview: 
Name(s): _________________________ Position(s): _______________________ M/F 
Name(s): _________________________ Position(s): _______________________ M/F 
Name(s): _________________________ Position(s): _______________________ M/F 
Date of Interview: _________________ Time of Interview: ___________________ 
Name of Interviewer: ______________ Name of Note-taker: _________________ 
MUST READ THE CONSENT STATEMENT AND GAIN CONSENT FROM ALL 
RESPONDENTS BEFORE PROCEEDING
General roles, responsibilities, accountability
1. What roles does your office play in supporting water schemes in this woreda/kebele?
• PROBE on types of training, monitoring, enforcement, repair, regular maintenance
• FOLLOW-UP: Who at your office is responsible for each activity? How often is each
activity done?
• FOLLOW-UP: How often is each water point visited?
2. Who is responsible for ensuring water is safe to drink?
• How is that done? (Probe on water quality)
3. What roles do WASHCOs play in supporting water schemes?
• PROBE on uncertainties or confusion
4. In what ways do you interact with WASHCOs that manage water schemes?
• PROBE on frequency of interaction, who interacts
5. What sort of training do you provide to WASHCOs?
6. What changes have there been to the government standards and roles in general across
agencies for WASH since 2009?
INTERVIEWER: Show a list of MWA-EP schemes of interest and note your special interest in talking about 
these water points for the remaining questions, if they have knowledge of them. If they cannot remember, it is 
OK for them to talk in general regarding all water points in the woreda/kebele.
Repair
1. Of these MWA-EP-supported water points, do you know how many of them are currently
functional? What, if any, types of problems have been encountered with these water points?
2. For these MWA-EP-supported water points, I want to understand how repairs are made and
who is involved in each step. Think about the last time one of these became broken and was no
longer working. Walk me through what happened next to get it working again.
PROBE on:
• What was the problem? How was it discovered?
• What role did WASHCO, Water Office, others play, and how did they start involvement?
• How long until each party got involved?
39 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
• Who made the repair?
• Were there any challenges to getting labor or parts for this? Why?
• How long did it take to make the repair?
• How was the repair paid for?
3. In general, where do supplies come from to fix water points?
FOLLOW-UP: How difficult is it to get needed supplies?
4. What kind of access is there to technical expertise necessary to perform repairs?
FOLLOW-UP: Do you or WASHCOs experience any challenges accessing technical help?
Costs and fees
1. Who determines the cost of usage for a water point?
2. How, if at all, are the costs of maintenance, repair, and other needs covered for these water
points?
3. What challenges are there to collecting fees or covering costs, if any?
4. What could be done differently to ensure costs are covered?
Reflections 
1. Has your office been successful in supporting these water points?
• PROBE: what is the individual’s definition of success
2. What challenges do you face in supporting these water points?
3. Is there anything else you’d like to discuss with me?
Sample “contamination” follow-up
INTERVIEWER: Show a list of MWA-EP schemes of interest along with related kebeles and villages and request 
as much information as possible about each one. 
NOTE TAKER: Record all answers. 
1. In general, looking at this list of kebeles and villages, are you aware of any new water schemes that
have been installed in these same areas since 2009? Describe each:
a. Kebele: _________Got: ________ Village: ____________ Implementer (donor): _________
Type of work done: _________________________________________________________
b. Kebele: _________Got: ________ Village: ____________ Implementer (donor): _________
Type of work done: _________________________________________________________
c. Kebele: _________Got: ________ Village: ____________ Implementer (donor): _________
Type of work done: _________________________________________________________
d. Kebele: _________Got: ________ Village: ____________ Implementer (donor): _________
Type of work done: _________________________________________________________
e. Kebele: _________Got: ________ Village: ____________ Implementer (donor): _________
Type of work done: _________________________________________________________
f. Kebele: _________Got: ________ Village: ____________ Implementer (donor): _________
Type of work done: _________________________________________________________
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 40
2. For each of these MWA-EP schemes/water points, are you aware of any rehabilitation efforts made to
these same schemes or water points since 2009?
Rehabilitated scheme/water point name: ________________________ 
Kebele: _______________ 
Got: _________________ 
Village: ________________ 
• Who rehabilitated it? ______________ DK
a) When? ________ DK
b) What did they do? ________________________________________
Rehabilitated scheme/water point name: ________________________ 
Kebele: _______________ 
Got: _________________ 
Village: ________________ 
• Who rehabilitated it? ______________ DK
a) When? ________ DK
b) What did they do? ________________________________________
Rehabilitated scheme/water point name: ________________________ 
Kebele: _______________ 
Got: _________________ 
Village: ________________ 
• Who rehabilitated it? ______________ DK
a) When? ________ DK
b) What did they do? ________________________________________
Rehabilitated scheme/water point name: ________________________ 
Kebele: _______________ 
Got: _________________ 
Village: ________________ 
• Who rehabilitated it? ______________ DK
a) When? ________ DK
b) What did they do? ________________________________________
Rehabilitated scheme/water point name: ________________________ 
Kebele: _______________ 
Got: _________________ 
Village: ________________ 
• Who rehabilitated it? ______________ DK
a) When? ________ DK
b) What did they do? ________________________________________
41 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
d. Key Informant Interview with Woreda/Kebele Health Office
Location of interview:
Name(s): _________________________ Position(s): _______________________ M/F 
Name(s): _________________________ Position(s): _______________________ M/F 
Name(s): _________________________ Position(s): _______________________ M/F 
Date of Interview: _________________ Time of Interview: ___________________ 
Name of Interviewer: ______________ Name of Note-taker: _________________ 
MUST READ THE CONSENT STATEMENT AND GAIN CONSENT FROM ALL 
RESPONDENTS BEFORE PROCEEDING 
1. What role does your office play in supporting water schemes in this woreda/kebele? [Free response]
• PROBE: What responsibility does this office have for monitoring water quality? Water availability?
2. Do you interact with WASHCOs that manage water schemes? In what ways?
3. Please describe which water points are tested, and what the tests measure. [Free response]
4. How often is water quality measured for each water point?
• At least 12 times per year
• At least 4 times per year, but less than 12 times
• More than once per year, but less than 4
• Once per year
• Less than once per year
• Quality is not tested
5. What happens when the quality test shows the source exceeds national
standards for biological or chemical pathogens? [Free response]
• PROBE: Who is responsible for fixing the problem?
• PROBE: How often is the problem addressed? How quickly?
6. What challenges does this office face in providing this support to water
schemes? [Free response]
7. What other roles, if any, do you play with regard to promoting safe WASH
practices in this area? [Free response]
Specify each MWA-EP water scheme and water point you would like to talk about. 
For each one, request water quality testing records dating back as far as 2009, if 
available. 
8. Do you have records of past water quality testing for these [MWA-EP] water points I can see? Yes /
No
9. MWA-EP water point name/location: _______________________________
If yes: INTERVIEWER: Note any readings that exceeded national standards (see box):
1. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
2. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
3. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
4. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
5. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
than 0.5 mg/L
Fecal coliforms, 
fecal streptococci, 
or E. coli: No more 
than 0 per 100mL
Arsenic: No more 
than10 parts per billion 
or 0.01mg/L
Fluoride: No more 
Water tests should not 
exceed:
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 42
6. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
7. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
8. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
9. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
(INTERVIEWER: Take a photo if possible. Describe which years records are available, frequency of testing (e.g. 
monthly, annual): 
___________________________________________________________________________
 _________________________________________________________________________________
 _________________________________________________________________________________
10. MWA-EP water point name/location: _______________________________
If yes: INTERVIEWER: Note any readings that exceeded national standards (see box):
1. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
2. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
3. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
4. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
5. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
6. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
7. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
8. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
9. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
(INTERVIEWER: Take a photo if possible. Describe which years records are available, frequency of testing (e.g. 
monthly, annual): 
___________________________________________________________________________
 _________________________________________________________________________________
 _________________________________________________________________________________
11. MWA-EP water point name/location: _______________________________
If yes: INTERVIEWER: Note any readings that exceeded national standards (see box):
1. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
2. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
3. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
4. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
5. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
6. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
7. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
8. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
9. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
(INTERVIEWER: Take a photo if possible. Describe which years records are available, frequency of testing (e.g. 
monthly, annual): 
___________________________________________________________________________
 _________________________________________________________________________________
 ________________________________________________________________________________
12. MWA-EP water point name/location: _______________________________
If yes: INTERVIEWER: Note any readings that exceeded national standards (see box):
1. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
2. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
3. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
43 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
4. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________ 
5. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________ 
6. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________ 
7. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________ 
8. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________ 
9. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________ 
(INTERVIEWER: Take a photo if possible. Describe which years records are available, frequency of testing (e.g. 
monthly, annual): 
___________________________________________________________________________
 _________________________________________________________________________________
 _________________________________________________________________________________
13. MWA-EP water point name/location: _______________________________
If yes: INTERVIEWER: Note any readings that exceeded national standards (see box):
1. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________ 
2. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________ 
3. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________ 
4. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________ 
5. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________ 
6. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________ 
7. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________ 
8. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________ 
9. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________ 
(INTERVIEWER: Take a photo if possible. Describe which years records are available, frequency of testing (e.g. 
monthly, annual): 
___________________________________________________________________________
 _________________________________________________________________________________
 _________________________________________________________________________________
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 44
e. Key Informant Interview – MWA-EP Implementer
MWA-EP IP: __________________ Date of Interview: ________________ 
Woreda: _____________________ Time of Interview: _______________ 
Kebele:  ______________________ Name of Interviewer: _____________ 
Got: _________________________ Name of Note-taker: _____________ 
Name: ________________________ Tel Number: _______________________  M/F
Name: ________________________ Tel Number: _______________________  M/F
Name: ________________________ Tel Number: _______________________  M/F
MUST READ THE CONSENT STATEMENT AND GAIN CONSENT FROM ALL 
RESPONDENTS BEFORE PROCEEDING 
1. What was the nature of your involvement with MWA-EP (2004-2009)?
a. Where applicable, what is your relationship to MWA now?
2. What types of WASH activities did your organization complete for MWA-EP?
3. How did your organization approach the selection of communities and the selection of the
implementation approach? Who was involved in the selection process for these two factors?
4. From your perspective, which MWA-EP activities were the most successful in terms of achieving
WASH adoption outcomes at the time of project completion? Why?
a. PROBE: What do you think made those activities successful?
b. PROBE: Are there any examples of very successful communities you can highlight? Please
describe.
5. What, if any, actions were taken during implementation to improve the long-term sustainability of
the WASH activities or benefits? Please describe.
a. What worked well for enabling sustainability of outcomes?
b. What were some of the major challenges?
6. In your experience in Ethiopia, what are some of the challenges to achieving long-term sustained
WASH infrastructure?
a. PROBE: How do things typically change after implementation is over- looking back one, two,
or eight years later?
b. PROBE: Ensure they address both infrastructure sustainability and behavior change sustainability.
7. What about sustaining good hygiene behavior? What are the challenges to achieving targeted
behaviors for the long term?
a. PROBE: How do things typically change after implementation is over- looking back one, two,
or three years later?
b. PROBE: Ensure they address both hygiene structure (e.g. handwashing station) sustainability and
behavior change sustainability.
8. Do you or your organization still have any contact with the villages your organization targeted for
MWA-EP, either formal or informal? If so, what types of contact or project monitoring are
occurring?
a. FOLLOW-UP: What, if anything, do you know about what happened in those villages since
the project ended 8 years ago, related to WASH and any other changes.
45 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
9. Are you aware of any new programs from other donors that occurred in the same kebeles within
the past three years?
10. Is there anything your organization does differently today to improve long-term sustainability, based
on lessons you’ve learned from MWA-EP? If so, please describe the changes made and why.
11. Do you have any other thoughts to share about MWA-EP or these general issues?
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 46
f. Key Informant Interview on Household and Shared Community Latrine 
Use
MWA-EP IP: __________________ Village: ___________________________ 
Woreda: _____________________ Date of KII: ________________________ 
Kebele: ______________________ Interviewer Name: __________________ 
Got: _________________________ Notetaker Name: ___________________ 
Respondent 1: Name: ___________________________ Gender: ____ Age: ___ 
MUST READ THE CONSENT STATEMENT AND GAIN CONSENT FROM ALL 
RESPONDENTS BEFORE PROCEEDING 
Reason for selection as KII respondent: 
a) Observed using latrine 
b) Living nearby latrine 
c) Owner of the latrine (for household latrines) 
Latrine block characteristics
1. When was this/these latrine(s) constructed? ________ DK 
2. Who constructed it? ______________ DK 
3. Since the time [organization] did this work, has any other outside group come to do any water 
or sanitation work with you or others in the community? If so, when did this occur and what did 
that organization do? 
4. How common is it for people in this community to have a HH latrine? 
User characteristics 
1. How often do you use this latrine vs using another latrine or another location (such as a field)? 
a. If not always: Where else do you go when you need to urinate or defecate? Why? 
2. How satisfied are you with this/these latrine(s)? Why? 
a. Probe: Satisfaction with reliability 
b. Probe: Satisfaction with quality of service 
c. Probe: Satisfaction with quantity of water provided 
d. Probe: Satisfaction with cleanliness and comfort 
3. Since this/these latrine(s) were built, have others invested in their own latrine? From your 
perspective, why have they/why have they not? 
Handwashing 
1. Was the handwashing station built at the same time as the latrine? 
2. How frequently do you observe people washing their hands with soap/ash and water after using 
the latrine? 
3. When the latrine was built, did the organization provide any lessons or training on handwashing 
practices? 
4. From your perspective, why might people not always wash their hands after using the latrine? 
47 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Maintenance, Cleaning, and Repair 
1. Who is responsible for the cleaning, maintenance, and repair of the latrine(s)?
a. Probe: Ask about all three components in case there are different people responsible
for different aspects
2. To what extent are the latrines cleaned and maintained on a regular basis? Are there any issues
that have arisen? If so, what are they?
3. Who pays for the cleaning, maintenance, and repair of the latrine(s)?
4. What are the biggest challenges to maintaining a clean and properly functioning latrine for
people to use? Is there anything an organization might be able to do to make this easier?
For Communal Latrines Only: Fees 
1. Where does the money come from to do repairs on these latrines?
2. Please describe all the fees that people pay to use this latrine.
a. Annual fee: _____________
b. Fee per use: _________
c. Other fee (describe): ____________
3. Who is responsible for collecting fees?
4. How are these fees collected?
5. Are there any users who do not pay prescribed fees, or not pay them regularly?
a. Probe: Who are these people?
b. Probe: Why don’t they pay?
6. Are there any other sources of money coming to this latrine?
a. If yes: Describe
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 48
g. Group Interview with Shared Community Latrine Management
MWA-EP IP: _________________ Village: _________________ 
Woreda: _________________ Date of GI: ______________ 
Kebele: _________________ Interviewer Name: _____________ 
Got: _________________ Notetaker Name: ___________________ 
Respondent 1: Name: _____________ Role in Management: _____________M/F Age: ___ 
Respondent 2: Name: _____________ Role in Management: _____________M/F Age: ___ 
Respondent 3: Name: _____________ Role in Management: _____________M/F Age: ___
MUST READ THE CONSENT STATEMENT AND GAIN CONSENT FROM ALL 
RESPONDENTS BEFORE PROCEEDING 
Latrine block characteristics
1. When was this latrine block constructed? ________ DK
2. Who constructed it? ______________ DK
3. Since the time [organization] did this work, has any other outside group come to your
community to do sanitation work? Yes / No / DK
a. If yes: Describe [Free response]
4. Do most people in this community have a HH latrine?
5. How satisfied do you think users are with this shared latrine?
User characteristics 
1. Who uses these latrines and why? Are there any people or groups of people who do not use it?
If so, why?
2. Approximately how many people use the latrines each day?
Hand Washing 
1. Is there a handwashing station available to users of the latrine? If not, was there one at the time
the latrines were built? If so, what happened to it?
2. How frequently do you observe people washing their hands with soap/ash and water after using
the latrine?
a. Probe: What reasons do you think there are for why people might not always wash
their hands afterwards?
Repair, Maintenance, and Cleaning 
1. How are maintenance and repairs of the latrines handled?
a. Probe: Who is responsible?
b. Probe: What are the processes in place?
2. What are the primary problems or issues encountered in managing the latrines? How has the
committee solved those issues?
a. Probe: Approximately how long does it normally take to resolve maintenance and repair
issues?
49 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
3. What type of support, if any, is provided by the government water office? What has been your 
experience working with the water office?
a. Probe: What has worked well in these interactions?
b. Probe: What challenges have you encountered?
4. How are maintenance and repairs paid for? 
Fees
1. What, if any, fees are collected to support the cleaning, maintenance, or repair of the latrines 
[Free response]? [If needed, probe on the following types of fees]
a. Annual fee: _____________
b. Fee per use: _________ 
c. Other fee (describe): ____________
2. How much money is spent per month to manage the latrines? How much does this vary over 
time?
3. To what extent are the expected fees actually paid by users? What is the recovery rate for the 
fees (if known)?
4. To what extent are the fees collected sufficient to cover the actual costs?
a. Probe: What expenses can be covered by the fees?
b. Probe: What expenses aren’t able to be covered by the fees if there are insufficient 
funds?
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 50
h. Group Interview with Two to Three WASHCO Members
Name of water scheme: ______________ Village: _________________ 
MWA-EP implementer: ______________ Scheme managed by: ____________ 
Woreda: _________________ Contact number for one respondent: 
Kebele: _________________ ________________ (name) 
Got: _________________ 
Respondent 1: Name: _____________ Role on WASHCO: ______________M/F Age: ___ 
Respondent 2: Name: _____________ Role on WASHCO: ______________M/F Age: ___ 
Respondent 3: Name: _____________ Role on WASHCO: ______________M/F Age: ___
MUST READ THE CONSENT STATEMENT AND GAIN CONSENT FROM ALL 
RESPONDENTS BEFORE PROCEEDING
Water point characteristics
1. When was this water scheme/point constructed? ________ DK
2. Who constructed it? ______________ DK
3. Has it been rehabilitated in any major way since it was constructed? Yes / No / DK
4. Who rehabilitated it? ______________ DK
5. When? ________ DK
6. Since the water scheme was constructed, has any other outside group come to improve this
water point or to do other water and sanitation work in your community? If yes, when and what
did they do?
7. How satisfied do you think the community is with this water point? [Free response]
User characteristics
1. How many households use this source? (estimate if not sure): ________
2. How long do people typically have to wait in line in order to pull their water?
Water quantity
1. If known, what is the typical flow rate for this water point in liters per minute? ________ DK
2. In general, is the quantity of water from this water point sufficient throughout the entire year? If
not, what do people do?
Water quality
1. Do you consider water from this source to be safe to drink? Why?
2. How often, if at all, is water quality measured for this water point?
a. At least 12 times per year
b. At least 4 times per year, but less than 12 times
c. More than once per year, but less than 4
d. Once per year
e. Less than once per year
f. Quality is not tested
51 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
3. What happens if the quality test shows there are values outside the norm (such as presence of
fecal bacteria, high levels of fluoride or arsenic, etc.)?
4. Do you have records of past water quality testing I can see? Yes / No
(INTERVIEWER: Take a photo or a photocopy if possible. Describe which years records are available,
what characteristics have been tested, the frequency of testing (e.g. monthly, annual), etc.
Water tests should not exceed:
Fecal coliforms, fecal streptococci, or E. coli: 
No more than 0 per 100mL
Arsenic: No more than10 parts per billion or 
0.01mg/L
Fluoride: No more than 0.5 mg/L
a. If yes: INTERVIEWER: Note any readings that exceeded national standards (see box):
i. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
ii. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
iii. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
iv. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
v. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
vi. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
vii. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
viii. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
ix. Year/month: ___________ Item tested: ________ Reading: __________
Maintenance and Repair
1. Who is responsible for monitoring the function of this water point? What, if any, role does the
Water Office play?
2. How frequently are repairs needed? What are the most frequent problems?
3. What are the primary challenges you face in ensuring that the water point is functioning properly
at all times?
Fees
1. What sources of funding are available to the WASHCO? How much is received from different
sources?
2. If there are usage fees, please describe them.
a. Annual fee: _____________
b. Fee per use: _________ per 10L container/ 20L container/other (write in): _________
c. Other fee (describe): ____________
3. To what extent do people actually pay the fees they owe? If known, what is the fee recovery
rate?
4. To what extent do the fees collected cover the actual costs for maintaining and repairing the
water scheme? If there is a gap in funding, how large is it, and how do you handle that gap?
5. Do you keep any records on payment? Can we see them?
Reflection on changes
1. To what extent have the ways in which the WASHCO manages the water scheme changed over
the last several years since the scheme was built? How has it changed? Has it been for the better
or the worse?
2. Is there anything else you’d like to discuss with me about this water point or the organization
that installed it?
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 52
i. Structured Group Interview with One or Two Water Collectors
Name of water scheme: ______________ Kebele: ____________________________ 
Name of water point: ________________ Got: _______________________________ 
MWA-EP implementer: _______________ Village: ____________________________ 
Woreda: ___________________________ Scheme/point managed by: ____________
Respondent Gender Age # years living here 
Person 1 
Person 2 
MUST READ THE CONSENT STATEMENT AND GAIN CONSENT FROM ALL 
RESPONDENTS BEFORE PROCEEDING 
Usage patterns 
1. How often do you come to this water point?
2. How much time do you typically spend waiting to get water each time?
3. Do you ever supplement with water from any other sources to meet your HH daily needs? If so,
why and from which sources?
4. Does the quantity of water from this source meet your daily needs?
a. Is this true at all points in the year or does this vary by season?
5. What do you use this water for?
6. Do you feel this water is safe to drink? Why or why not?
7. Do all people in this community have equal access to use this source? Why?
8. Which people do not use this source? Why?
a. PROBE on wealth/gender/vulnerable populations
Management 
1. Who manages this water point?
2. How well do you think it is being managed? Why?
a. PROBE: What are they doing well?
b. PROBE: What should they do differently?
3. Have there been any problems with the functionality of the water point? If so, what problems?
And how were those problems dealt with, and by whom?
4. What did you do when the water point wasn’t available?
5. What kind of changes have you noticed, if any, in the way this water point is managed or
repaired over time?
Finance
1. How much do you pay to use this water? To what extent is this price affordable for you and
your family?
2. Do all people pay the same? If not, why not?
3. How has the price changed, if at all, over the past 8 years?
4. Is there anything else you’d like to tell me about this water point or how it is managed?
53 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
2. Structured Observation Forms
a. Structured Observations at Water Points
Name of water scheme: ______________ Village: ___________________________ 
MWA-EP implementer: ______________ Local contact name: _________________ 
Woreda: __________________________ Local contact number: _______________ 
Kebele: ___________________________ Scheme managed by: ________________ 
Got: _____________________________ Type of scheme _____________________
Number of water points connected to this scheme ______ 
If water points managed separately, list management bodies for each point: 
Observations at water source (if separate from water point(s))
Observations at water point 1
1. How many people are waiting at the water point?
2. How many CONTAINERS ARE IN the queue to be filled? (Identify type of container to determine
volume)
3. Describe who is gathered at the water point (e.g. gender, age)
4. Are there washing basins?
5. If yes: Is there evidence these are being used?
6. Are there cattle troughs?
If yes: Is there evidence these are being used?
7. Is the water point currently dispensing water? Yes / No
8. If handpump: Note the number of strokes it takes for water to initially flow: ___
9. Fill a 20-liter container and use a stopwatch to measure the time it takes to fill the container with water. If
this is a handpump, also count the number of strokes it takes to fill it.
10. Number of seconds to fill 20 liters: ______
11. Number of strokes to fill 20 liters: ______
12. Note the severity of any apparent water leakage
13. Note any apparent repair or maintenance needs
14. Comment on overall challenges or threats
Observations at water point 2 (repeat questions for up to 4 water points)
Observations at water point 3
Observations at water point 4
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 54
b. Structured Observations of Household Latrines
MWA-EP implementer: _________________ Kebele: 
Woreda: ______________________________ 
_____________________________ Got: __________________ 
Village: ________________ 
Work with the village chief or other knowledgeable person to identify which latrines were constructed by the 
family due to participation in MWA program with USAID funding, and when each was constructed. Visit each 
latrine block and complete the following observations.
Latrine 1: 
1. Was this latrine constructed by the HH during the Yes / No / Don’t Know
MWA-EP project?
2. When was this latrine constructed? ______ DK Year: _______ 
Don’t Know
3. Gender designation: Females / Males / Not specified (any 
able to use) 
3.1. If there is gender designation: Is this latrine Yes / No 
separated from the other gender (by wall or 
distance)? 
4. Type of latrines a) VIP
b) Pour flush
c) Traditional, washable slab
d) Traditional, non-washable slab
e) Arborloo
f) Other (describe):
5. Total number of stalls in latrine block: _____ Number: ________ 
5.1. Latrine is open for use (unlocked): Yes / No 
5.2. Is there clear evidence latrine is being used Yes / No 
(note odor, contents of pit, observed use): 
Notes: _______________________ 
_____________________________ 
55 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
5.3. Does latrine 
that can fully 
offer full privacy 
close): ____
(walls and doors Yes / No
5.4. Door locks from inside? Yes / No
5.5. Safe construction (secure slab, lack of 
crumbling walls or roof): 
Yes / No
Notes: _______________________
____________________________
5.6. Easily usable for individuals with physical 
disabilities (e.g. no stairs, rails or devices 
for support, seat):
inside 
Yes / No
5.7. Cleanliness: Acceptable cleanliness 
with urine, feces, or used paper): 
(not soiled Yes / No
5.8. Odor: Acceptable odor 
tolerable smell): 
(no smell or mild, Yes / No
Notes: _______________________
____________________________
5.9. Flies: Are fewer than 3 flies present: Yes / No
6. Are materials for anal cleansing (paper or water
container) available in or near any stalls?
Yes / No
7. Take photo
8. Notes:
Latrine block 2: (repeat questions above for up to 8 latrines) 
Latrine block 3: 
Latrine block 4: 
Latrine block 5: 
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 56
Latrine block 6: 
Latrine block 7: 
Latrine block 8:
Handwashing facilities 
1. Are there any containers designated for
handwashing, whether full or not?
Yes / No
2. Take photo of container
3. Where are the containers 
apply)
located? (circle all that 1.1. Near latrine
1.2. Other (describe): __________
4. Is there water 
containers?
for handwashing today in any of the Yes / No
5. Is there soap for handwashing 
containers?
today at any of the Yes / No
6. Is there evidence that handwashing 
today (e.g. ground or soap is wet)?
is happening Yes / No
7. Did you 
today? If 
observe anyone washing 
yes, note gender/age
their hands Yes / No
Notes: ________________________
8. Did you 
washing 
observe anyone using the latrine and not 
their hands today? If yes, note gender/age
Yes / No
Notes: ________________________
57 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
c. Structured Observations of Shared Community Latrines
MWA-EP IP: ________________ 
Woreda: ___________________ 
Kebele: ____________________ 
Got: ______________________ 
Village: ____________________ 
Date of Obs: ________________ 
Time of Obs: ________________ 
Name of Observer: ___________ 
Work with the village chief or other knowledgeable person to identify which latrines were constructed by the 
MWA partner with USAID funding, when each was constructed, and how many people are using the latrine 
block. Visit each latrine block and complete the following observations.
Latrine block 1: 
1. Was this block constructed by MWA-EP project? Yes / No / Don’t Know
2. When was this block constructed? Year: _______ 
Don’t Know
3. Gender designation: Women / Men / Not specified (any able 
to use) 
a) If there is gender designation: Is 
block separated from the other 
wall or distance)?
this latrine 
gender (by 
Yes / No 
4. Type of latrines a) VIP
b) Pour flush
c) Traditional, washable slab
d) Traditional, non-washable slab
e) Other (describe):
5. Total number of stalls in block: _____ Number: _______ 
a) Number of stalls open for use (unlocked): Number: _______ 
_____
b) Number of stalls 
to complete the 
observer 
following 
was able to enter 
observations: 
Number: _______ 
____
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 58
c) Number of stalls with clear 
are being used (note odor, 
observed use): _____
evidence they 
contents of pit, 
Number: _______
d) Number of stalls offering full privacy (walls
and doors that can fully close): _____
Number: _______
e) Number 
inside: _
of stalls 
____
with doors that lock from Number: _______
f) Number of stalls with safe construction
(secure slab, lack of crumbling walls or roof):
Number: _______
____
g) Number of stalls easily usable for children
and persons with physical disabilities (e.g. no
stairs, rails or devices inside for support,
seat, small hole): ____
Number: _______
h) Cleanliness: Number of stalls with acceptable
cleanliness (not soiled with urine, feces, or
used paper): _____
Number: _______
i) Odor: Number of 
(no smell or mild, 
stalls of acceptable odor 
tolerable smell): _____
Number: _______
j) Flies: Number 
3): ____
of stalls with minimal flies (0- Number: _______
6. Are materials for anal cleansing (paper or water
container) available in or near any stalls?
Yes / No
7. Did you 
today?
observe anyone using these latrines ___Women
___Men
___Girl children
___Boy children
8. Take photo
9. Notes:
Latrine block 2: (repeat questions above for up to 4 blocks)
59 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Latrine block 3: 
Latrine block 4: 
Handwashing facilities 
10. Are there any containers designated for 
handwashing nearby, whether full or not? 
Yes / No 
11. Take photo of container
12. Where are the containers 
apply)
located? (circle all that a) Near latrines 
b) Other (describe) 
13. Is there water for handwashing 
the containers? 
today in any of Yes / No 
14. Is there soap for handwashing 
the containers? 
today at any of Yes / No 
15. Is there evidence that handwashing 
today (e.g. ground or soap is wet)? 
is happening Yes / No 
16. Did you observe female users 
hands today? 
washing their Yes / No 
17. Did you 
today? 
observe male users washing their hands Yes / No 
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 60
3. Interview Guides: Amharic 
a. Informed Consent Statement to be Used for All Data Collection 
Efforts (Interviews, Focus Group Discussions) (Amharic)
መረጃ ለመሰብሰብ ጥረት በሚደረግ ጊዜ ሁሉ ጥቅም ላይ የሚውል ፤ መረጃ ሰጪዎች ስለሚሳተፉበት
ቃለመጠይቅ በቂ ግንዛቤ አግኝተውና ተረድተው ስምምነታቸውን የሚሰጡበት መግለጫ፡ (ቃለመጠይቆች ፣
የቡድን ውይይቶች)
ጤና ይስጥልኝ! እዚህ የመጣነው ኢኮዲት (ECODIT) የተባለ የአሜሪካ ቡድን ወክለን ሲሆን ዩ.ኤስ.ኤ.አይ. ዲ (USAID) ከ1996 
እስከ 2001 ድረስ የተገበረውን የሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) ፕሮጀክት የስራ እንቅስቃሴ በተሻለ እንዲረዳው
ለማድረግ የሚከናወን ጥናት ነው፡፡ ይህንን ጥናት የሚያካሂደው ቡድን የሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ፕሮጀክት ትግበራ አካል አልነበረም፡፡
እኛ ገለልተኛ ገምጋሚዎች/መዛኞች ስንሆን እዚህ የተገኘነው በፕሮጀክቱ የተከናወኑ ስራዎች እና ያስገኙት ጥቅም ፕሮጀክቱ ከተጠናቀቀ
በኋላ ምን ያህል በዘላቂነት እንደቀጠሉ ለመረዳት ነው፡፡
በዚህ ግምገማ/ምዘና የተወሰኑ የፕሮጀክቱ ጣቢያዎችን ለመጎብኘት የመረጥን ሲሆን በጉብኝታችንም በፕሮጀክቱ የተገነቡ የውሃ ጣቢያዎች
አገልግሎት በመስጠት ላይ መሆናቸውን እና ከውሃ አቅርቦት ስራው ጋር ተያያዥነት ያላቸው ተግባራት በዘላቂነት እየተከናወኑ
መሆናቸውን ለማወቅ/ለመረዳት አቅደናል፡፡ እዚህ የሚገኙ የሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) ስራዎቻችሁ እና የተገኙ
ውጤቶችን ዘላቂ ለማድረግ እንዳይቻል እንቅፋት ፈጥረው ሊሆኑ የሚችሉ ምክንያቶች ካሉ የበለጠ ለማወቅ እንዲያስችለን ልናነጋግርዎት
እንፈልጋለን፡፡ ይህ መረጃ ዩ.ኤስ.ኤ.አይ.ዲ (USAID) ወደፊት በመላው ኢትዮጵያ የሚሰራቸውን ስራዎች እንዲያሻሽል ሊረዳው
ይችላል፡፡ በዚህ ፕሮጀክት ላይ ተሳትፎ የነበርዎት በመሆኑ እነዚህን ጉዳዮች ለመረዳት እንዲያስችለን በዚህ ቃለመጠይቅ እንዲሳተፉ እና
አስተያየትዎን እንዲያካፍሉ ጋብዘንዎታል፡፡ አላማችን የተገኙ ውጤቶች ዘላቂነት እንዲኖራቸው የረዱ ነገሮች ምን እንደሆኑ እና በሌላ
በኩል ደግሞ የተገኙ ውጤቶች ዘላቂነት እንዳይኖራቸው እንቅፋት የሆኑ ነገሮች ምን እንደሆኑ ለማወቅ ስለሆነ ትክክል ወይም ስህተት
የሚባል መልስ ባለመኖሩ አስተያየትዎን በነፃነት እንዲገልፁ እንፈልጋለን፡፡ 
ይህ ውይይት ወደ አንድ ሰዓት ይወስዳል፡፡ በዚህ ቃለምልልስ ለመሳተፍ ባይፈልጉ የሚደርስብዎ ምንም ዓይነት ቅጣት ወይም ችግር
አይኖርም፡፡ በውይይቱ ቢሳተፉ የሚያሰጋዎት ምንም ዓይነት ነገር የለም፡፡ ለመሳተፍ ከመረጡም እነዚህ ስራዎች በሌሎች የኢትዮጵያ
አካባቢዎች በተሻለ ሁኔታ እንዲተገበሩ እገዛ እያደረጉ ከመሆንዎት ባለፈ ሌላ ለእርስዎም ሆነ ለመስሪያቤትዎ የሚያገኙት ቀጥተኛ የሆነ
ጥቅም የለም፡፡
በዚህ ቃለመጠይቅ ችግር ሊፈጥሩ የሚችሉ/አወዛጋቢ ርዕሰ ጉዳዮችን አናነሳም፡፡ ቢሆንም የዚህ ጥናት ግኝቶች ተጠናቅረቀው በሚፃፉ
ጊዜ ስምዎትን ከሰጡን አስተያየት ጎን አናስቀምጥም፡፡ ነገር ግን በአንዳንድ ጉዳዮች ላይ የመስሪያ ቤትዎን ስም መጥቀስ ሊያስፈልገን ይችል
ይሆናል፡፡ ድምፅዎ ሳይቀዳ እንድንወያይ የሚፈልጉት ማኛውም ነገር ካለ ያሳውቁኝ እኔም መቅረፀ ድምፁን በማቆም እና የመስሪያ ቤትዎን
ስም ባለመጥቀስ ፍላጎትዎን አከብራለሁ፡፡ ነፃ ሆነው አስተያየትዎን እንዲገልፁ እንፈልጋለን፡፡ ለመመለስ የማይፈልጉት ጥያቄ ካለ ያለምንም
ችግር አልመልስም ማለት ይችላሉ፡፡
ይጠይቁ፡ ጥያቄ አለዎት?
ይጠይቁ፡ መሳተፍ ይፈልጋሉ? 
ይጠይቁ: ድምፅዎን ብንቀዳ ፈቃደኛ ነዎት?
ስለቃለመጠይቁ አላማ ለማስረዳት እና የተጠያቂውን ስምምነት ለማግኘት የተደረገው ውይይት ተጠናቋል? አዎ_____ (የቃለመጠይቅ
አድራጊው ፊርማ)
ለመሳተፍ ተስማምተዋል? አዎ_____ አይ ______ (ካተስማሙ ቃለመጠይቁን ያቁሙ)
61 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
b. Key Informant/Group Interview – USAID Employee (Amharic)
ከዩ.ኤስ.ኤ.አይ. ዲ (USAID) ሰራተኛ ዋና መረጃ ሰጪ/ ከቡድን ጋር የሚደረግ ቃለመጠይቅ
ቃለመጠይቅ የሚደረግበት ቦታ: 
ስም (ስሞች): _________________________ የስራ መደብ (መደቦች): ______________ ወ/ሴ
ስም (ስሞች): _________________________ የስራ መደብ (መደቦች): ______________ ወ/ሴ
ስም (ስሞች): _________________________ የስራ መደብ (መደቦች): ______________ ወ/ሴ
ቃለመጠይቅ የተደረገበት ቀን ፡ ቃለመጠይቁ የተደረገበት ሰዓት: 
የቃለመጠይቅ አድራጊ ስም: ማስታወሻ የሚይዘው ሰው ስም: 
ወደ ቃለመጠይቁ ከመግባትዎ በፊት የስምምነት መጠየቂያ መግለጫውን አንብበው ከሁሉም
መረጃ ሰጪዎች ስምምነት ማግኘት አለብዎት 
ጥያቄዎች (6) 
1. ከ1996 እስከ 2001 ዓ.ም በተተገበረው የሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊየንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) ፕሮጀክት ውስጥ የነበርዎት ተሳትፎ
ምን ነበር?
ሀ. ሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያን (MWA-EP) ፕሮጀክትን የማያውቁት ከሆነ አሁን በዩ.ኤስ.ኤ.አይ. ዲ (USAID) ውስጥ
የሚሰሩትን ስራ መቼ ጀመሩ?
2. ስለሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) የስራ እንቅስቃሴዎች እና ስኬቶች ምን ሊነግሩኝ ይችላሉ?
3. የሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) የአሰራር ዘዴ ቀደም ብለው ከነበሩ ከሌሎች የውሃ ፣ የአካባቢና እና የግል
ንፅህና (WASH) ፕጀክቶች የሚለይ ከሆነ የሚለየው በምን መንገድ ነው?
ሀ. የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ: ስለአሰራር ዘዴው ምን ያስባሉ?
4. የሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) የውሃ ፣ የአካባቢ እና የግል ንፅህና (WASH) ፕሮጀክት ከ8 ዓመት በፊት
ተጠናቆ ከተዘጋ በኋላ በተለይ በፕሮጀክቱ የተገኙት ውጤቶች ምንያህል ዘላቂ ሆነው እንደቀጠሉ የሚያውቁት ነገር አለ?
ሀ. የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ: በግምት ሊነግሩኝ ይችላሉ? ለምን?
5. በሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) ፕሮጀክት ትግበራዎች የተከናወኑ የውሃ ፣ የአካባቢና የግል ንፅህና (WASH)
ስራዎችና የአገልግሎቱ ተጠቃሚዎች መጡትን የባህሪ ለውጥ ዘላቂነት እንዲኖራቸው ያስቻሉት ምክንያቶች ምንድን ናቸው? ለምን?
ሀ. የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ: በኢትዮጵያ የገጠር አካባቢዎች በተለይም በደቡብ ብሔር ብሔረሰቦች እና ሕዝቦች ክልል ፣
በኦሮሚያ እና በአማራ ክልል ሰዎች እጃቸውን በሳሙና እንዲታጠቡ ፣ የውሃ ጣቢያዎችን እና መፀዳጃ ቤቶችን
በዘላቂነት እንዲጠቀሙ ለማድረግ ምን ማድረግ ያስፈልጋል? 
6. የሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) ፕሮጀክት ዘላቂ እንዲሆን አስተዋፅኦ አድርጎ ሊሆን የሚችልና በኢትዮጵያ
ነባራዊ ሁኔታ ብቻ ውጤታማ የሆነ እና ይህንን ጥናት የምናከናውን ሰዎች ልናውቀው የሚገባ የተለየ ምክንያት አለ? ምንድን ነው?
ካለስ ዩ.ኤስ.ኤ.አይ. ዲ (USAID) ይህን የተለየ ምክንያት ከ2001 ጀምሮ በሚከናወነው የውሃ ፣ የአካባቢ እና የግል ንፅህና
(WASH) ፕሮግራም አሰራር ውስጥ እንዲካተት ወይም ከግምት ውስጥ እንዲገባ አድርጓል?
7. በጥናታችን በቅርበት ወይም በትኩረት ልናያቸው ይገባል ብለው የሚያስቧቸው የተለዩ የሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ
ገፅታዎች አሉ?
8. በኢትዮጵያ ውስጥ ከውሃ ፣ የአከባቢ እና የግል ንፅህና (WASH) ጋር በተያያዘ ካለዎት ልምድ በመነሳት የውሃ አቅርቦት ፣ የአካባቢ
እና የግል ንፅሕና ፕጀክቶች ዘላቂነት እንዳኖራቸው ከፍተኛ ስጋት/እንቅፋት የሆኑ ነገሮች ምንድን ናቸው?
ሀ. የክትትል ጥያቄ፡ ለዚህ ማስረጃ የሚሆን ነገር የተመለከቱት የት ነው? ከሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP)
ፕሮጀክት ጋር በተያያዘ ያዩት/የተመለከቱን ነገር አለ
9. በኢትዮጵያ ከውሃ ፣ ከአካባቢ እና ከግል ንፅህና (WASH) ፕሮጀክቶች የተገኙ ውጤቶችን ዘላቂነት የሚያሻሽሉ ተስፋ ሰጪ
አሰራሮች ተመልክተዋል? ያብራሩ
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 62
c. Key Informant Interview with Woreda/Kebele Water Office 
(Amharic)
ከወረዳ ወይም ከቀበሌ የውሃ ጽ/ቤት ዋና መረጃ ሰጪ ጋር የሚደረግ ቃለመጠይቅ
የቃለመጠይቅ ቦታ: 
 
ስም (ስሞች): _________________________ የስራ መደብ (መደቦች): ______________ ወ/ሴ 
ስም (ስሞች): _________________________ የስራ መደብ (መደቦች): ______________ ወ/ሴ
ስም (ስሞች): _________________________ የስራ መደብ (መደቦች): ______________ ወ/ሴ 
ቃለመጠይቅ የተደረገበት ቀን: ቃለመጠይቅ የተደረገበት ሰዓት: 
የቃለመጠይቅ አድራጊ ስም፡ ማስታወሻ የሚይዘው ሰው ስም: 
ወደ ቃለመጠይቁ ከመግባትዎ በፊት የስምምነት መጠየቂያ መግለጫውን አንብበው ከሁሉም
መረጃ ሰጪዎች ስምምነት ማግኘት አለብዎት
አጠቃላይ ሚናዎች ፣ ኃላፊነቶች ፣ ተጠያቂነት
1. የውሃ ጽ/ቤቱ በዚህ ወረዳ ወይም ቀበሌ የውሃ አቅርቦትን ለማዳረስ ተወጥነው የሚተገበሩ ስራዎችን በመደገፍ ረገድ ምን
ሚናዎችን ይጫወታል? 
● የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ፡ በዚህ የውሃ አቅርቦት ትግበራ ውስጥ ምን ዓይነት ስልጠናዎች እንደተሰጡ ፣ ስለክትትል ፣
የውሃ አቅርቦትን ለማዳረስ የተወጠኑ እና እየተተገበሩ ያሉ ስራዎችን ስለማስፈፀም ፣ ስለ ጥገና እና የውሃ
ጣቢያውን ባለበት ጠብቆ ለማቆየት በመደበኛነት ስለሚከናወኑ ተግባራት እያውጣጡ ይጠይቁ
● የክትትል ጥያቄ፡ እነዚህ ከላይ የተጠቀሱትን ተግባራት እንዲሰራ ኃላፊነት የተሰጠው ማን ነው? እያንዳንዱ ስራ
በምን ያህል ጊዜ ይከናወናል?
● የክትትልጥያቄ፡ እያንዳንዱ የውሃ ጣቢያ በየስንት ጊዜው ይጎበኛል?
2. ውሃው ለመጠጥነት አስተማማኝ መሆኑን የሚያረጋግጠው ማነው? 
● ይህ የውሃ ጥራት ማረጋገጫ እንዴት ይከናወናል? (ስለውሃ ጥራት የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ ይጠይቁ)
3. የውሃ ፣ የአካባቢ እና የግል ንፅህና ኮሚቴዎች የውሃ አቅርቦትን ለማዳረስ የተነደፉ እና እየተተገበሩ ያሉ ስራዎችን በመደገፍ
ረገድ ምን ሚናዎችን ይጫወታሉ?
● የውሃ ኮሚቴዎች ከሚሰጡት ድጋፍ ጋር ተያይዞ ግራ መጋባት እና እርግጠኛ ያለመሆን ካለ ያውጣጡ
4. የውሃ አቅርቦትን ለማዳረስ የተነደፉ እና እየተተገበሩ ያሉ ስራዎችን ከሚያስተዳድሩት ከውሃ ፣ የአካባቢ እና የግል ንፅህና
ኮሚቴዎች (WASHCOs) ጋር በምን ዓይነት መንገዶች ግንኙነት ታደርጋላችሁ?
● በምን ያህል ጊዜ እንደሚገናኙ እና፣ ግንኙነቱ በማን እደሚደረግ ያውጣጣጡ
5. ለውሃ ፣ የአካባቢ እና የግል ንፅህና ኮሚቴዎች (WASHCOs) ምን ዓይነት ስልጠና ትሰጣላችሁ?
6. ከ2001 ወዲህ በተለያዩ ድርጅቶች የሚተገበሩ የውሃ ፣ የአካባቢ እና የግል ንፅህና ፕሮግራሞች በሙሉ በመንግስት
የሚተገበረውን የውሃ አቅርቦት ደረጃ ላይ ምን አይነት ለውጦችን አመጡ? መንግስት በውሃ አቅርቦት ረገድ ባለው ተሳትፎ
ላይስ ምን ለውጦች አመጡ?
ቃለመጠይቅ አድራጊ: ሊወያዩባቸው የሚፈልጓቸውን በሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) የተገነቡ የውሃ ጣቢያዎች
ዝርዝር ለተጠያቂዎች ያሳዩ፡፡ ተጠያቂዎቹ እነዚህን የውሃ ጣቢያዎች የሚያውቋቸው ከሆነ የሚቀጥሉትን ጥያቄዎች በእነዚህ የውሃ
ጣቢያዎች በተመለከተ የማድረግ ልዩ ፍላጎት እንዳለዎት ያስገንዝቧቸው፡፡ እነዚህን የውሃ ጣቢያዎች የማያስታውሷቸው ከሆነ ግን
በአጠቃላይ በወረዳው ወይም በቀበሌው ስለሚገኙ የውሃ ጣቢያዎች በሙሉ ቢያወሩ ምንም አይደለም፡፡
ጥገና
7. ከእነዚህ በሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) ድጋፍ ከሚደረግላቸው የውሃ ጣቢያዎች ውስጥ በአሁኑ
ወቅት ምን ያህሉ አገልግሎት እየሰጡ እንደሚገኙ ያውቃሉ? በእነዚህ የውሃ ጣቢያዎች ላይ ማንኛውም ዓይነት ችግር ደርሶ
የሚያውቅ ከሆነ ችግሮቹ ምንድን ናቸው?
63 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
8. ለእነዚህ በሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) ድጋፍ ለሚደረግላቸው የውሃ ጣቢያዎች ጥገናዎች እንዴት
እንደሚደረጉ እና በጥገናው ሂደት በየደረጃ ማን እንደሚሳተፍ መረዳት እፈልጋለሁ፡፡ እስኪ ከዚህ በፊት ከእነዚህ የውሃ
ጣቢያዎች ውስጥ ተሰብረው ከነበሩት እና አገልግሎት መስጠት አቁመው ከነበሩት መካከል ስለ አንዱ ያስታውሱ፡፡ እነዚህ
የውሃ ጣቦያዎች መልሰው አገልግሎት መስጠር እንዲጀምሩ ለማድረግ ምን ምን ተግባራት እንደተከናወኑ ይንገሩኝ፡፡
በሚከተሉት ላይ የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ ይጠይቁ:
● ችግሩ ምን ነበር? እንዴት ሊታወቅ ቻለ?
● የውሃ ፣ የአካባቢ እና የግል ንፅህና ኮሚቴዎች፣ የውሃ ጽ/ቤት እና ሌሎች ምን ሚና ተጫወቱ? ተሳትፎ ማድረግስ
የጀመሩት እንዴት ነው?
● እያንዳንዱ አካል እስኪሳተፍ ምን ያህል ጊዜ ፈጀ?
● ጥገናውን ማን አከናወነው?
● የሚጠግን ባለሙያ እና መለዋወጫ እቃዎች በማግኘት በኩል ያጋጠመ ችግር ነበር? ለምን?
● ጥገናውን ለማድረግ ምን ያህል ጊዜ ፈጀ?
● ለጥገናው የተከፈለው እንዴት ነው?
9. በአጠቃላይ ለውሃ ጣቢያዎች ጥገና የሚውሉ እቃዎች/አቅርቦቶች የሚመጡት ከየት ነው?
የክትትል ጥያቄ: ለጥገና አስፈላጊ የሆኑ እቃዎችን ለማግኘት ምን ያህል ከባድ ነው?
10. ጥገናዎችን ለማከናወን አስፈላጊ የሆኑ የቴክኒክ ሙያተኞችን ምን ያህል ማግኘት ይቻላል?
የክትትል ጥያቄ: እርስዎ ወይም የውሃ ፣ የአካባቢ እና የግል ንፅህና ኮሚቴዎች የቴክኒክ ድጋፍ በማገኘት ረገድ ማንኛውም
ዓይነት ችግር/ተግዳሮት አጋጥሟችሁ ያውቃል?
ወጪዎችና የአገልግሎት ክፍያዎች
11. ከአንድ የውሃ ጣቢያ ለመጠቀም የሚከፈለውን ክፍያ የሚወስነው ማነው?
12. እነዚህን የውሃ ጣቢያዎች ባሉበት ሁኔታ ጠብቆ ለማቆየት ፣ ለጥገና እና ለሌሎች አስፈላጊ ጉዳዮች የሚውል ወጪ ካለ
የሚሸፈነው እንዴት ነው?
13. ወጪዎችን ከመሸፈን እና ከክፍያ አሰባሰብ ጋር ተያይዞ ችግሮች/ተግዳሮቶች ካሉ እነዚህ ችግሮች ምንድን ናቸው?
14. ወጪዎች ሙሉ በሙሉ መሸፈናቸውን ለማረጋገጥ በተለየ መንገድ ምን ሊደረግ ይችላል?
አስተያየቶች/ሃሳቦች
15. ጽ/ት ቤትዎ እነዚህን የውሃ ጣቢያዎች በመደገፍ ረገድ ውጤታማ ነበር?
● የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ፡ ተጠያቂው ግለሰብ ለውጤታማነት/ለስኬታማነት የሚሰጡት ፍቺ ምንድን እንደሆነ ያውጣጡ?
16. እነዚህን የውሃ ጣቢያዎችን በመደገፍ ረገድ የሚያጋጥሟችሁ ተግዳሮቶች/ችግሮች ምንድን ናቸው?
17. ከእኔ ጋር መወያየት የሚፈልጉት ሌላ ማንኛውም ነገር አለ?
ስለ “ብክለት” ናሙና
ቃለመጠይቅ አድራጊ፡ ሊነጋገሩባቸው የሚፈልጓቸውን በሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) የተገነቡ የውሃ ጣቢያዎች
ዝርዝር ተያያዥነት ካላቸው የቀበሌዎች እና የመንደሮች ዝርዝር ጋር ለተጠያቂው ያሳዩዋቸው፡፡ ስለእያንዳንዳቸው የተቻለውን ያህል
መረጃ ይጠይቁ ፡፡
ለማስታወሻ ያዥ: ሁሉንም መልሶች ይመዝግቡ፡፡
1. በአጠቃላይ ይህን የቀበሌዎች እና የመንደሮች ዝርዝር ሲመለከቱ በእነዚህ አካባቢዎች ከ2001 በኋላ የውሃ አቅርቦት ለማዳረስ
በሚተገበሩ አዲስ ፕሮግራሞች ስለመኖራቸው ግንዛቤ አለዎት? እያንዳንዱን ያብራሩ:
ሀ. ቀበሌ: ጎጥ: መንደር: ______ ተግባሪ/ፈፃሚ (ለጋሽ ድርጅት):
ተሰራው ስራ ዓይነት:
ለ. ቀበሌ: ጎጥ: መንደር: ______ ተግባሪ/ፈፃሚ (ለጋሽ ድርጅት):
ተሰራው ስራ ዓይነት:
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 64
ሐ. ቀበሌ: ጎጥ: መንደር: ______ ተግባሪ/ፈፃሚ (ለጋሽ ድርጅት): 
ተሰራው ስራ ዓይነት: 
መ. ቀበሌ: ጎጥ: መንደር: ______ ተግባሪ/ፈፃሚ (ለጋሽ ድርጅት): 
ተሰራው ስራ ዓይነት: 
ሠ. ቀበሌ: ጎጥ: መንደር: ______ ተግባሪ/ፈፃሚ (ለጋሽ ድርጅት): 
ተሰራው ስራ ዓይነት: 
ረ. ቀበሌ: ጎጥ: መንደር: ______ ተግባሪ/ፈፃሚ (ለጋሽ ድርጅት): 
ተሰራው ስራ ዓይነት: 
2. ከ2001 ወዲህ እነዚህን እያንዳንዳቸውን የሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) የውሃ አቅርቦት ስራዎች/የውሃ
ጣቢያዎች መልሶ ለማቋቋም የተደረገ ማንኛውም ዓይነት ጥረት መኖሩን ያውቃሉ?
መልሶ ማቋቋም የተደረገለት የውሃ አቅርቦት ስርዓት/የውሃ ጣቢያ ስም: ________________ 
ቀበሌ: _______________ 
ጎጥ: _________________ 
መንደር: ________________ 
1. የመልሶ ማቋቋሙን ያደረገው ማነው? ______________ አላውቅም
2. መቼ? ________ አላውቅም
3. ምን አደረጉ? ________________________________________ 
መልሶ ማቋቋም የተደረገለት የውሃ አቅርቦት ስርዓት/የውሃ ጣቢያ ስም: ________________ 
ቀበሌ: _______________ 
ጎጥ: _________________ 
መንደር: ________________ 
4. መልሶ ማቋቋሙን ያደረገው ማነው? ______________ አላውቅም
5. መቼ? ________ አላውቅም
6. ምን አደረጉ? ________________________________________ 
መልሶ ማቋቋም የተደረገለት የውሃ አቅርቦት አገልግሎት ስርዓት/የውሃ ጣቢያ ስም: ________________ 
ቀበሌ: _______________ 
ጎጥ: _________________ 
መንደር: ________________ 
7. መልሶ ማቋቋሙን ያደረገው ማነው? ______________ አላውቅም
8. መቼ? ________ አላውቅም
9. ምን አደረጉ? ________________________________________ 
መልሶ ማቋቋም የተደረገለት የውሃ አቅርቦት ስርዓሰ/የውሃ ጣቢያ ስም: ________________ 
ቀበሌ: _______________ 
ጎጥ: _________________ 
መንደር: ________________ 
10. መልሶ ማቋቋሙን ያደረገው ማነው? ______________ አላውቅም
11. መቼ? ________ አላውቅም
12. ምን አደረጉ? ________________________________________ 
መልሶ ማቋቋም የተደረገለት የውሃ አቅርቦት ስርዓት /የውሃ ጣቢያ ስም: _________________ 
65 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ቀበሌ: _______________ 
ጎጥ: _________________ 
መንደር: ________________ 
13. መልሶ ማቋቋሙን ያደረገው ማነው? ______________ አላውቅም
14. መቼ? ________ አላውቅም
15. ምን አደረጉ? ________________________________________
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 66
d. Key Informant Interview with Woreda/Kebele Health Office
(Amharic)
ከወረዳ ወይም ከቀበሌ ጤና ጽ/ት ቤት ዋና መረጃ ሰጪ ጋር የሚደረግ ቃለመጠይቅ
የቃለመጠይቅ ቦታ: 
ስም (ስሞች): _________________________ የስራ መደብ (መደቦች): ______________ ወ/ሴ
ስም (ስሞች): _________________________ የስራ መደብ (መደቦች): ______________ ወ/ሴ
ስም (ስሞች): _________________________ የስራ መደብ (መደቦች): ______________ ወ/ሴ
ቃለመጠይቅ የተደረገበት ቀን: ቃለመጠይቅ የተደረገበት ሰዓት: 
የቃለመጠይቅ አድራጊ ስም፡ ማስታወሻ የሚይዘው ሰው ስም: 
ወደ ቃለመጠይቁ ከመግባትዎ በፊት የስምምነት መጠየቂያ መግለጫውን አንብበው ከሁሉም
መረጃ ሰጪዎች ስምምነት ማግኘት አለብዎት
1. የጤና ጽ/ቤቱ በዚህ ወረዳ ወይም ቀበሌ ያሉ የውሃ አቅርቦትን ለማዳረስ የተነደፉ እና የሚተገበሩ ስራዎችን በመደገፍ ረገድ ምን
ሚናዎችን ይጫወታል? [ነፃ ምላሽ]
● የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ: ይህ ቢሮ ውሃ መኖሩንና ጥራቱን ለመቆጣጠር ምን ዓይነት ኃላፊነት እንዳለበት ያውጣጡ?
2. የውሃ አቅርቦትን ለማዳረስ የተነደፉ እና የሚተገበሩ ስርዓቶች/የውሃ ጣቢያዎችን ከሚያስተዳድሩ የውሃ ፣ የአካባቢ እና የግል ንፅህና
ኮሚቴዎች ጋር ግንኙነት ታደርጋላችሁ? በምን ዓይነት መንገዶች?
3. እባክዎ የትኞቹ የውሃ ጣቢያዎች እንደተመረመሩ ይግለፁ፡፡ በምርመራዎቹ ምን እንደተለካ ጨምረው ያብራሩ፡፡ [ነፃ ምላሽ]
4. በእያንዳንዱ የውሃ ጣቢያ የውሃ ጥራት በየስንት ጊዜው ይለካል?
● ቢያንስ በዓመት 12 ጊዜ
● ከ12 ጊዜ ያነሰ ሆኖ በዓመት ቢያንስ 4 ጊዜ ይለካል
● ከ4 ጊዜ ያነሰ ሆኖ በዓመት ቢያንስ 1 ጊዜ ይለካል
● በዓመት አንድ ጊዜ
● በዓመት ከ1 ጊዜ ያነሰ
● ጥራቱ አይመረመርም
5. የጥራት ምርመራው ውጤት የውሃ ምንጩ በብሔራዊ ደረጃ ከተቀመጠው የባዮሎጂካል እና
ኬሚካል በሽታ አምጪ ተዋስያን የልኬት ደረጃ በላይ ከሆነ ምን ይደረጋል? [ነፃ ምላሽ]
● የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ: ችግሩን የመፍታት ኃላፊነት ያለበት ማን እንደሆነ ያውጣጡ?
● የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ: ችግሩ ምን ያህል በተደጋጋሚ እንደተፈታና በምን ያህል ፍጥነት
እንደተፈታ ያውጣጡ?
6. ይህ ጽ/ቤት የውሃ አቅርቦትን ለማዳረስ የተነደፉ እና የሚተገበሩ አሰራሮች ድጋፍ በሚሰጥበት
ወቅት የሚያጋጥሙት ችግሮች/ተግዳሮቶች ምንድን ናቸው? [ነፃ ምላሽ]
7. ጽ/ት ቤትዎ በዚህ አካባቢ የውሃ ፣ የአካባቢ እና የግል ንፅህና ልማናዶች እንዲዳብሩ ለማስተዋወቅ እና ለማጎልበት
የሚጫወታቸው ሌሎች ሚናዎች ካሉ ምንድን ናቸው? [ነፃ ምላሽ]
ለቃለመጠይቅ አድራጊ፡ ሊነጋገሩባቸው የሚፈልጓቸውን እያንዳንዱን የሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊየንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) የውሃ አቅርቦት
ስርዓት እና የውሃ ጣቢያ ይለዩ፡፡ ለእያንዳንዱ የውሃ ጣቢያ ከ2001 ጀምሮ ተመዝግቦ የተያዘ የውሃ ጥራት ምርመራ ካለ ይጠይቁ፡፡
የውሃ ልኬቶች መብለጥ
የሌለባቸው:
የፌካል ኩሊፎረም ይዘት፣ ፌካል
በሽታ አምጪ ባክቴሪያ ወይም
ኢኮላይ፡ በየ100ሊትር ከ0 
ያልበለጠ
የአርሰኒክ ይዘት: በአንድ ሊትር
ከ0.01 ሚሊ ግራም ያልበለጠ
የፍሎራይድ ይዘት: በሊትር
ከ0.5ሚሊ ግራም ያልበለጠ
67 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
8. ለእነዚህ የሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) የውሃ ጣቢያዎች ከዚህ ቀደም የተደረጉ እና ተመዝግበው
የተቀመጡ የውሃ ጥራት ምርመራ ካለዎት ሊያሳዩኝ ይችላሉ? አዎ/አይ
9. በሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊየንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) የተገነባ የውሃ ጣቢያ ስም/ቦታ: ___________
______________________________
የውሃ ጥራት ምርመራው ተመዝግቦ የተያዘ ከሆነ: ቃለመጠይቅ አድራጊ: ከብሔራዊ የልኬት ደረጃ የሚበልጥ ማንኛውም አይነት
የምርመራ ውጤት ካለ መዝግበው ይያዙ (ሳጥኑን ይመልከቱ):
1. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
2. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
3. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
4. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
5. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
6. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
7. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
8. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
9. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
 (ቃለመጠይቅ አድራጊ: ከተቻለ ፎቶግራፍ ያንሱ፡፡ የየትኞቹ ዓመታት የውሃ ጥራት ምርመራ ተመዝግቦ እንደሚገኝ ፣ ምርመራው
በየስንት ጊዜው እንደተደረገ ይግለፁ (ለምሳሌ በየወሩ፣ በየዓመቱ) 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
10. በሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) የተገነባ የውሃ ጣቢያ ስም/ቦታ: _________
______________________________
የውሃ ጥራት ምርመራው ተመዝግቦ የተያዘ ከሆነ: ቃለመጠይቅ አድራጊ: ከብሔራዊ የልኬት ደረጃ የሚበልጥ ማንኛውም አይነት
የምርመራ ውጤት ካለ መዝግበው ይያዙ (ሳጥኑን ይመልከቱ):
1. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
2. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
3. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
4. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
5. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
6. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
7. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
8. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
9. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
(ቃለመጠይቅ አድራጊ: ከተቻለ ፎቶግራፍ ያንሱ፡፡ የየትኞቹ ዓመታት የውሃ ጥራት ምርመራ ተመዝግቦ እንደሚገኝ ፣ ምርመራው
በየስንት ጊዜው እንደተደረገ ይግለፁ (ለምሳሌ በየወሩ፣ በየዓመቱ) 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 68
11. በሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) የተገነባ የውሃ ጣቢያ ስም/ቦታ:
_______________________________
የውሃ ጥራት ምርመራው ተመዝግቦ የተያዘ ከሆነ: ቃለመጠይቅ አድራጊ: ከብሔራዊ የልኬት ደረጃ የሚበልጥ ማንኛውም አይነት
የምርመራ ውጤት ካለ መዝግበው ይያዙ (ሳጥኑን ይመልከቱ):
1. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
2. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
3. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
4. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
5. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
6. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
7. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
8. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
9. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
(ቃለመጠይቅ አድራጊ: ከተቻለ ፎቶግራፍ ያንሱ፡፡ የየትኞቹ ዓመታት የውሃ ጥራት ምርመራ ተመዝግቦ እንደሚገኝ ፣ ምርመራው
በየስንት ጊዜው እንደተደረገ ይግለፁ (ለምሳሌ በየወሩ፣ በየዓመቱ) 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
12. በሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) የተገነቡባየውሃ ጣቢያ ስም/ቦታ:
_______________________________
የውሃ ጥራት ምርመራው ተመዝግቦ የተያዘ ከሆነ: ቃለመጠይቅ አድራጊ: ከብሔራዊ የልኬት ደረጃ የሚበልጥ ማንኛውም አይነት
የምርመራ ውጤት ካለ መዝግበው ይያዙ (ሳጥኑን ይመልከቱ):
1. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
2. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
3. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
4. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
5. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
6. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
7. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
8. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
9. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
(ቃለመጠይቅ አድራጊ: ከተቻለ ፎቶግራፍ ያንሱ፡፡ የየትኞቹ ዓመታት የውሃ ጥራት ምርመራ ተመዝግቦ እንደሚገኝ ፣ ምርመራው
በየስንት ጊዜው እንደተደረገ ይግለፁ (ለምሳሌ በየወሩ፣ በየዓመቱ) 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________
69 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
13. በሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊየንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) የተገነቡ የውሃ ጣቢያ ስም/ቦታ: 
_______________________________
የውሃ ጥራት ምርመራው ተመዝግቦ የተያዘ ከሆነ: ቃለመጠይቅ አድራጊ: ከብሔራዊ የልኬት ደረጃ የሚበልጥ ማንኛውም አይነት
የምርመራ ውጤት ካለ መዝግበው ይያዙ (ሳጥኑን ይመልከቱ):
1. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
2. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
3. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
4. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
5. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
6. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
7. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
8. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
9. ዓመት/ወር: የተመረመረው ነገር: _ የምርመራው ውጤት: 
(ቃለመጠይቅ አድራጊ: ከተቻለ ፎቶግራፍ ያንሱ፡፡ የየትኞቹ ዓመታት የውሃ ጥራት ምርመራ ተመዝግቦ እንደሚገኝ ፣ ምርመራው
በየስንት ጊዜው እንደተደረገ ይግለፁ (ለምሳሌ በየወሩ፣ በየዓመቱ) 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
__
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 70
e. Key Informant Interview – MWA-EP Implementer (Amharic)
የሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ አጋር ተግባሪ አካላት ዋና መረጃ ሰጪ ጋር የሚደረግ ቃለመጠይቅ 
የሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ አጋር ተግባሪ የቃለመጠይቅ ቀን: ________________ 
አካላት: ____________ 
የቃለመጠይቅ ሰዓት: _______________ 
ወረዳ: _____________________ 
የቃለመጠይቅ አድራጊ ስም: ______________ 
ቀበሌ:  ______________________ 
የማስታወሻ ያዥ ስም: ____________
ጎጥ: _________________________ 
ስም: ________________________ ሰልክ ቁጥር: _______________________  ወ/ሴ 
ስም: ________________________ ሰልክ ቁጥር: _______________________  ወ/ሴ   
ስም: ________________________ ሰልክ ቁጥር: _______________________  ወ/ሴ   
ወደ ቃለመጠይቁ ከመግባትዎ በፊት የስምምነት መጠየቂያ መግለጫውን አንብበው ከሁሉም
መረጃ ሰጪዎች ስምምነት ማግኘት አለብዎት
1. ከ1996 እስከ 2001 ዓ.ም. ድረስ በተተገበረው የሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) ፕሮግራም ውስጥ የነበርዎት
ተሳትፎ ምን ዓይነት ነበር?
ሀ. በአሁን ወቅት ከሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ (MWA) ፕሮጅክት ጋር ግንኙነት ካሎት ግንኙነትዎ ምንድን ነው? 
2. ድርጅትዎ ለሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) ምን ዓይነት የውሃ ፣ የአካባቢ እና የግል ንፅህና ሥራዎች ሰርቶ
አጠናቋል?
3. ድርጅትዎ የውሃ አቅርቦት የማዳረስ ስራዎችን የሚተገበርበትን ማህበረሰብ እና የአተገባበሩን አካሄድ ለመምረጥ ምን ዓይነት ዘዴ
ተጠቀመ? እነዚህን ሁለት ጉዳዮች በመምረጥ ሂደት ውስጥ ማን ተሳተፈ? 
4. በእርስዎ እይታ ፕሮጀክቱ በተጠናቀቀበት ወቅት ሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) ካከናወናቸው ተግባራት
መካከል የውሃ ፣ የአካባቢ እና የግል ንፅህናን ተግባራዊ በማድረግ የሚገኙ ውጤቶችን ይበልጥ ስኬታማ እንዲሆኑ ያደረጉት
የትኞቹ ተግባራት ናቸው? ለምን?
ሀ. የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ: እነዚህን ተግባራት ስኬታማ ያደረጋቸው ምን ይመስልዎታል?
ለ. የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ: በምሳሌነት ሊጠቅሷቸው የሚችሉ በጣም ስኬታማ የሆኑ ማህበረሰቦች አሉ? እባክዎ ይግለፁ፡፡
5. የውሃ ፣ የአካባቢ እና የግል ንፅህና ስራዎችን ወይም ከነዚህ ስራዎች የሚገኙት ጥቅሞችን የተሸለ የረዥም ጊዜ ዘላቂነት እንዲኖራቸው
በትግበራ ወቅት የተወሰዱ እርምጃዎች ካሉ ምንድን ናቸው? እባክዎ ይግለፁ፡፡
 ሀ. ውጤቶቹ ዘላቂነት እንዲኖራቸው ይበልጥ ያስቻለው ምንድን ነው?
 ለ. ዋና ዋና የሚባሉት ተግዳሮቶች ምንድን ነበሩ?
6. ካለዎት ልምድ በመነሳት በኢትዮጵያ ውስጥ የረጅም ጊዜ ዘላቂነት ያላቸው የውሃ ፣ የአካባቢ እና የግል ንፅህና መሰረተ ልማቶችን
ለማሳካት ከሚያጋጥሙ እንቅፋቶች/ተግዳሮቶች ውስጥ አንዳንዶቹ ምንድን ናቸው? 
ሀ. የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ: የውሃ ፣ አካባቢ እና የግል ንፅህና ፕሮጀክት ትግበራ ከተጠናቀቀ በኋላ ከአንድ ፣ ሁለት
ወይም ስምንት ዓመታት በኃላ መለስ ብለው ሲመለከቱ ነገሮች እንዴት ይቀያራሉ?
71 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ለ. የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ: ተጠያቂው ምላሽ በሚሰጡበት ወቅት ስለተገነቡ የውሃ መሰረተ ልማቶች እና በማህበረሰቡ
ላይ ስለመጣው የባህሪ ለውጥ ዘላቂነት ጉዳይ እንዲዳስሱ በጥያቄ ያውጣጡ
7. ሰዎች ያዳበሩቱን/ ያመጡትን ጥሩ የሆነ የግል ንፅህና የመጠበቅ ባህሪን ዘላቂ እንዲሆን ስለማድረግስ? ይህንን ሰዎች ያመጡትን
የባህሪ ለውጥ ለረዥ ጊዜ ዘላቂ እንዲሆን ለማድረግ እንቅፋት የሚሆኑ ነገሮች/ተግዳሮቶች ምንድን ናቸው?
ሀ. የውሃ ፣ አካባቢ እና የግል ንፅህና ፕሮጀክት ትግበራ ከተጠናቀቀ በኋላ ከአንድ ፣ ሁለት ወይም ሶስት ዓመታት በኃላ
መለስ ብለው ሲመለከቱ ነገሮች እንዴት ይቀያራሉ? 
ለ. የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ: ተጠያቂው ምላሽ በሚሰጡበት ወቅት ስለተገነቡ የግል ንፅህና መጠበቂያዎች (ለምሳሌ፡ የእጅ
መታጠቢያ ቦታዎች) እና በማህበረሰቡ ላይ ስለመጣው የባህሪ ለውጥ ዘላቂነት መዳሰሳቸውን እርግጠኛ ይሁኑ (በጥያቄ
ያውጣጡ)፡፡ 
8. እርስዎ ወይም ድርጅትዎ የሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) ይሰራባቸው ከነበሩ መንደሮች ጋር አሁንም
ቀጥተኛም ሆነ ቀጥተኛ ያልሆነ ግንኙነት አላችሁ? ግንኙነት ያላችሁ ከሆነ ምን ዓይነት ግንኙነት ወይም የፕሮጀክት ክትትል
እየተከናወነ ነው?
ሀ. የክትትል ጥያቄ: ፕሮጀክቱ ከተጠናቀቀ ከ8 ዓመት ወዲህ በእነዚህ መንደሮች ውስጥ ከውሃ ፣ የአካባቢ እና የግል ንፅህና
እንዲሁም ከሌሎች ለውጦች ጋር በተያያዘ በተጨባጭ እተፈጠረ ያለ የሚያውቁት ነገር አለ? ካለስ ምንድን ነው? 
9. በእነዚሁ ተመሳሳይ ቀበሌዎች/መንደሮች ውስጥ ባለፉት ሶስት ዓመታት በሌሎች ለጋሽ ድርጅቶች የተከናወኑ አዳዲስ ፕሮግራሞች
እንዳሉ ግንዛቤው አለዎት?
10. ድርጅትዎ ከሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) ፕሮጀክት ልምድ በመውሰድ በአሁኑ ወቅት የተሻለ የረዥም ጊዜ
ዘላቂነትን ለማምጣት በተለየ መልኩ የሚያደርገው ነገር አለ? ካለ እባክዎን ለውጦቹን አብራርተው ይግለጹ? ለምን?
11. ስለ ሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ (MWA-EP) ወይም በአጠቃላይ በነዚህ ጉዳዮች ዙሪያ ሊያካፍሉን የሚፈልጉት ሌላ
ሃሳብ አለ?
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 72
f. Key Informant Interview on Household and Shared Community
Latrine Use (Amharic)
ለቤተሰብ በአባውራ ደረጃ የተገነቡ መፀዳጃ ቤቶች እና የማህረሰብ የጋራ መጠቀሚያ መፀዳጃ ቤቶች አጠቃቀም በተመለከተ ከዋና
መረጃ ሰጪ ጋር የሚደረግ ቃለመጠይቅ
የሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ተግባሪ አጋር የቃለመጠይቅ ቀን:________________ 
አካላት: ____________ 
የቃለመጠይቅ ሰዓት:_______________ 
ወረዳ: _____________________ 
የቃለመጠይቅ አድራጊ ስም:_____________ 
ቀበሌ:  ______________________ 
የማስታወሻ ያዥ ስም:_____________ 
ጎጥ:_________________________ 
ምላሽ ሰጪ 1: ስም: ___________________________ ፆታ: ____ ዕድሜ: ___ 
ወደ ቃለመጠይቁ ከመግባትዎ በፊት የስምምነት መጠየቂያ መግለጫውን አንብበው ከሁሉም
መረጃ ሰጪዎች ስምምነት ማግኘት አለብዎት
ለቃለመጠይቁ ለዋና መረጃ ሰጪነት የተመረጡበት ምክንያት: 
ሀ. በመፀዳጃ ቤት ሲጠቀሙ ስለታዩ
ለ. በመፀዳጃ ቤት አቅራቢያ በመኖራቸው
ሐ. የመፀዳጃ ቤቱ ባለቤት ስለሆኑ (ለቤተሰብ የተገነቡ መፀዳጃ ቤቶች)
የመፀዳጃ ቤቶች ገፅታዎች/ሁኔታ
1. ይህ መፀዳጃ ቤት ተገነባ ወይም እነዚህ መጸዳጃ ቤቶች መቼ ተገነቡ? ________ አላውቅም
2. በማን ተገነባ/ተገነቡ? ______________ አላውቅም
3. ድርጅቱ ይህን የመፀዳጃ ቤት ግንባታ ካከናወነ በኋላ ከዚህ ድርጅት ውጪ የሆነ ማንኛውም ሌላ ዓይነት የውሃ አቅርቦት
ወይም የፅዳት ስራዎች የሚሰራ ከእርስዎ ወይም ከማህበረሰቡ አባላት ጋር ለመስራ የመጣ ድርጅት አለ? ከሆነ ይህ መቼ
ተከናወነ? ድርጅቱስ ምን ተግባር አከናወነ?
4. በዚህ ማህበረሰብ ውስጥ በአባውራ/በቤተሰብ ደረጃ መፀዳጃ ቤት መስራት የተለመደ ነው?
የመፀዳጃ ቤት ተጠቃሚዎች ሁኔታ
5. ይህን መፀዳጃ ቤት ከሌላ መፀዳጃ ቤት ወይም ከሌላ ቦታ (ለምሳሌ ሜዳ ላይ) ከሚጠቀሙት ጋር ሲያነፃፅሩት ምን ያህል
በተደጋጋሚ ይጠቀሙበታል?
ሀ. ይህን መፀዳጃ ቤት ሁልጊዜ የማይጠቀሙት ከሆነ ሽንት ለመሽናት ወይም ሰገራ ለመውጣት ሲፈልጉ ሌላ የት ቦታ ይሄዳሉ? 
ለምን? 
6. በዚህ መፀዳጃ ቤት/ቤቶች ምን ያህል ደስተኛ ነዎት? ለምን?
ሀ. የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ፡ ከአስተማማኝነቱ ጋር በተያያዘ ደስተኛ መሆናቸውን ያውጣጡ 
ለ. የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ፡ ከአልግሎት ጥራት ጋር በተያያዘ ደስተኛ መሆናቸውን ያውጣጡ 
ሀ. የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ፡ ከሚቀርበው የውሃ መጠን ጋር በተየያዘ ደስተኛ መሆናቸውን ያውጣጡ
መ. የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ፡ ከንፅህና እና ከምቾት ጋር በተያያዘ ደስተኛ መሆናቸውን ያውጣጡ
73 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
7. ይህ እነዚህ መፀዳጃ ቤት ከተገነባ ወይም እነዚህ መፀዳጃ ቤቶች ከተገነቡ ወዲህ ሌሎች ሰዎች የራሳቸው መፀዳጃ ቤቶች
ገንብተዋል? በእርስዎ እይታ ለምን ገነቡ ወይም አልገነቡም? 
እጅ መታጠብ 
8. የእጅ መታጠቢያው ቦታው የተሰራው መፀዳጃ ቤቱ በተገነባበት ወቅት ነው? 
9. ሰዎች መፀዳጃ ቤቱን ከተጠቀሙ በኋላ እጃቸውን በሳሙና/በአመድ እና ውሃ እንደሚታጠቡ ምንያህል በተደጋጋሚ
አስተውለዋል? 
10. መፀዳጃ ቤቱ በተገነባበት ወቅት ድርጅቱ እጅ የመታጠብ ልማድን ከማዳበር ጋር ተያይዞ የሰጠው ትምህርት ወይም ስልጠና
አለ? 
11. በእርስዎ እይታ ሰዎች መፀዳጃ ቤት ከተጠቀሙ በኋላ ሁልጊዜ እጃቸውን ላይታጠቡ የሚችሉበት ምክንያት ምንድን ነው? 
በማፀዳጃ ቤቱን ባለበት ሁኔታ ጠብቆ ማቆየት ፣ ፅዳት እና ጥገና 
12. ይህን መፀዳጃ ቤት ወይም መፀዳጃ ቤቶች ለማፅዳት፣ ባለበት ሁኔታ ጠብቆ ለማቆየት እና ለመጠገን ኃላፊነት የተሰጠው
ማነው? 
 ሀ. የማወጣጫ ጥያቄ፡ ምንአልባት እነዚህን ሶስት ስራዎች እንዲያከናውኑ ኃላፊነት የተሰጣቸው የተለያዩ ሰዎች ሊኖሩ ስለሚችሉ
ስለእያንዳንዱ በማውጣጣት ይጠይቁ 
 
13. ለመፀዳጃ ቤቶቹ በመደበኛነት ምን ያህል ፅዳት እና ጥበቃ ይደረግላቸዋል? ከዚህ ጋር ተያይዞ ተፈጥረው የሚያውቁ
ማንኛውም ዓይነት ችግሮች አሉ? ካሉ ምንድን ናቸው? 
14. መፀዳጃ ቤቱን ወይም መፀዳጃ ቤቶቹን ለማፅዳት፣ ጠብቆ ለማቆየት እና ለጥገና የሚያስፈልጉ ወጪዎችን የሚከፍለው
ማነው? 
15. መፀዳጃ ቤቶች ሁል ጊዜ ንፅህናቸው የተጠበቀና ለተጠቃሚዎች በአግባቡ አገልግሎት እንዲሰጡ ለማድረግ እንዳይቻል
የሚያደርጉ እንቅፋቶች/ ተግዳሮቶች ምንድን ናቸው? አንድ ድርጅት ይህን ችግር ለማቃለል ማድረግ የሚችል ማንኛውም ነገር
አለ?
ለጋራ መጠቀሚያ መፀዳጃ ቤቶች ብቻ: ክፍያዎች 
16. በእነዚህ መፀዳጃ ቤቶች ላይ የጥገና ስራዎችን ለማከናወን የሚያስችል ገንዘብ የሚገኘው ከየት ነው? 
17. እባክዎን ሰዎች ይህን መፀዳጃ ቤት ለመጠቀም የሚከፍሏቸውን ክፍያዎች ሁሉ ይዘርዝሩ
 ሀ. ዓመታዊ ክፍያ: _____________ 
 ለ. በተጠቀሙ ቁጥር የሚከፍሉት ክፍያ: _________ 
 ሐ. ሌላ ክፍያ (ያብራሩ): ____________ 
18. ክፍያዎችን የመሰብሰብ ኃላፊነት ያለበት ማነው?
19. እነዚህ ክፍያዎች የሚሰበሰቡት እንዴት ነው? 
20. የተጣለባቸውን ክፍያ ጥራሽ የማይከፍሉ ወይም በተገቢው ጊዜ የማይከፍሉ ተጠቃሚዎች 
አሉ? 
 ሀ. የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ፡ እነዚህ ሰዎች ማን ናቸው? 
 ለ. የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ፡ የማይከፍሉት ለምንድን ነው? 
21. ይህን መፀዳጃ ቤት ለማስተዳደር የሚሆን ገንዘብ የሚገኝባቸው ሌሎች ማንኛውም ዓይነት ምንጮች አሉ? 
 ሀ. አዎ ከሆነ፡ ያብራሩ
g. Group Interview with Shared Community Latrine Management (Amharic)
የማህበረሰብ የጋራ መጠቀሚያ የሆኑ መፀዳጃ ቤቶች አስተዳዳሪዎች ጋር የሚደረግ የቡድን ቃለመጠይቅ 
ሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ አጋር ተግባሪ አካላት: መንደር: __________________ 
_______________________ የቡድን ቃለመጠይቅ የተደረገበት 
ወረዳ: __________________ ቀን ፡ ____________________ 
ቀበሌ: ___________________ የቃለመጠይቅ አድራጊ ስም: ___________ 
ጎጥ: _____________________ የማስታወሻ ያዥ ስም: _______________ 
ምለሽ ሸጪ 1: ስም: ________በማስተዳደር ስራው ውስጥ ያለው ሚና: ________ወ/ሴ ዕድሜ: ___ 
ምለሽ ሸጪ 2: ስም: ________በማስተዳደር ስራው ውስጥ ያለው ሚና: ________ወ/ሴ ዕድሜ: ___ 
ምለሽ ሸጪ 3: ስም: ________በማስተዳደር ስራው ውስጥ ያለው ሚና: ________ወ/ሴ ዕድሜ: ___ 
ወደ ቃለመጠይቁ ከመግባትዎ በፊት የስምምነት መጠየቂያ መግለጫውን አንብበው ከሁሉም
መረጃ ሰጪዎች ስምምነት ማግኘት አለብዎት
የመፀዳጃ ቤቱ ሁኔታ
1. ይህ መፀዳጃ ቤት መቼ ተገነባ ወይም እነዚህ መፀዳጃ ቤቶች መቼ ተገነቡ? ______ አላውቅም 
2. በማን ተገነባ? ______________ አላውቅም 
3. ድርጅቱ ይህንን የመፀዳጃ ቤት ግንባታ ካከናወነ በኋላ ከዚህ ድርጅት ውጪ ማንኛውም ዓይነት የውሃ አቅርቦት ወይም
የፅዳት ስራዎች ከእርስዎ ወይም የማህበረሰቡ አባላት ጋር ለመስራ የመጣ ድርጅት አለ? ከሆነ ይህ መቼ ተከናወነ
ድርጅቱስ ምን አደረገ? 
4. በዚህ ማህበረሰብ ውስጥ አብዛኛው ሰው በቤተሰብ ደረጃ መፀዳጃ ቤት አለው? 
5. የዚህ የጋራ መፀዳጃ ቤት ተጠቃሚዎች በመፀዳጃ ቤቶቱ ምን ያህል ደስተኛ ናቸው? 
የተጠቃሚዎች ሁኔታ 
6. እነዚህን መፀዳጃ ቤቶች የሚጠቀምባቸው ማነው? ለምን? የማይጠቀምባቸው ሰው ወይም ቡድኖች አሉ? ካሉ ለምንድን
ነው የማይጠቀሙባቸው? 
7. በእያንዳንዱ ቀን በግምት ስንት ሰው መፀዳጃ ቤቶቹን ይጠቀማል? 
እጅን መታጠብ 
8. ለመፀዳጃ ቤት ተጠቃሚዎች የሚሆን የእጅ መታጠቢያ ቦታ አለ? ከሌለ መፀዳጃ ቤቶቹ በተገነቡበት ወቅት የእጅ
መታጠቢያ ነበር? ከነበረ ምን ደረሰበት/ምን ሆነ? 
9. ሰዎች መፀዳጃ ቤት ከተጠቀሙ በኋላ እጃቸውን በሳሙና ወይም በአመድ እና ውሃ ሲታጠቡ ምንያህል በተደጋጋሚ
አይተዋል/አስተውለዋል? 
ሀ. የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ፡ ሁልጊዜ ሰዎች መፀዳጃ ቤት ተጠቅመው ሲወጡ እጃቸውን የማይታጠቡባቸው ምክንያቶች
ናቸው ብለው የሚስቡዋቸው ነገሮች ምንድን ናቸው? 
ጥገና ፣ ባለበት ጠብቶ ስለማቆየት እና ፅዳት 
10. መፀዳጃ ቤቶቹን ባሉበት ሁኔታ ጠብቆ ማቆየት ጥገናዎች የሚከናወኑት እንዴት ነው? 
 ሀ. የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ፡ ኃላፊነቱ የማን ነው? 
 ለ. የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ፡ በተግባር ላይ የዋሉት የአሰራር ሂደቶች ምንድን ናቸው? 
75 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
11. መፀዳጃ ቤቶችን በማስተዳደር ረገድ በቀዳሚነት ያጋጠሙ ችግሮች ወይም ጉዳዮች ምንድን ናቸው? የውሃ ኮሚቴው
እነዚህን ችግሮች እንዴት ፈታቸው?
ሀ. የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ፡ በአብዛኛው የእጅ መታጠቢያዎችን ባሉበት ጠብቆ ከማቆየት እና ከጥገና ጋር የተያያዙ ችግሮችን
ለመፍታት ምን ያህል ጊዜ ይፈጃል? 
12. በውሃ ጽ/ት ቤት በኩል ከመንግስት የሚደረግ ድጋፍ ካለ ምን አይነት ድጋፍ ነው የሚደረገው? ከውሃ ጽ/ት ቤት ጋር
አብሮ መስራትን እንዴት ያዩታል ፣ ምን ይመስላል?
ሀ. የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ፡ በዚህ የስራ ግንኙነት ውስጥ ስኬታማ የነበረው ምንድን
 ነበር? 
 ለ. የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ፡ በዚህ የስራ ግንኙነት ውስጥ ምን ዓይነት ችግሮች/ተግዳሮቶች አጋጠምዎት? 
13. የእጅ መታጠቢያዎችን ባሉበት ጠብቆ ለማቆየት እና ለጥገና እንዴት ይከፈላል?
ክፍያዎች
14. የመፀዳጃ ቤቶች ፅዳት ፣ ጠብቆ ማቆየትና የጥገና ስራዎችን ለማገዝ የሚሰበሰቡ ክፍያዎች ካሉ ምንድን ናቸው? [ነፃ
ምላሽ] [አስፈላጊ ከሆነ በሚከፈሉት የክፍያ ዓይነቶች ላይ ለማውጣጣት ይሞክሩ]
ሀ. ዓመታዊ ክፍያ: _____________ 
ለ. በተጠቀሙ ቁጥር የሚደረግ ክፍያ: _________ 
ሐ. ሌላ አይነት ክፍያ (ያብራሩ): ____________ 
15. የመፀዳጃ ቤቶቹን ለማስተዳደር በወር ምን ያህል ገንዘብ ወጪ ይደረጋል? ይህ በየጊዜው በምን ያህል ይለያያል?
16. ተጠቃሚዎች እንዲከፍሉ የሚጠበቅባቸውን ክፍያዎች በተጨባጭ በምን ያህል ደረጃ ይከፈላሉ? ከውሃ አገልግሎት ክፍያ/
እንዲሰበሰብ ከሚጠበቀው ክፍያ ምን ያህሉ ይሰበሰባል (ይህ አሰራር የሚታወቅ ከሆነ) ፡
17. ከተጠቃሚዎች የሚሰበሰበው ክፍያ በምን ያህል መጠን ወጪዎችን ለመሸፈን ይበቃል?
ሀ. የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ: በተሰበሰቡት ክፍያዎችየትኞቹን ወጮዎች
 መሸፈን ይችላሉ? 
ለ. የማውጣጫ ጥያቄ፡ የተሰበሰበው ገንዘብ በቂ ካልነበረ በተሰበሰበው ክፍያ ሊሸፈኑ ያልቻሉት ወጪዎች የችኞቹ
ናቸው? 
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 76
h. Group Interview with Two to Three WASHCO Members (Amharic)
ከሁለት እስከ ሶስት ከሚሆኑ የውሃ ፣ የአካባቢ ፅዳትና የግል ንፅህና ኮሚቴ አባላት ጋር የሚደረግ የቡድን
ቃለ - መጠይቅ 
ውሃ አቅርቦት ስርዓት ስም: _________ 
የሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ ተግባሪ: _________________ 
ወረዳ: _________________ 
ቀበሌ: _________________ 
መንደር: _________________ 
ውሃ አቅትቦት ስርዓቱን የሚተዳደረው: ____________ 
ቃለ መጠይቁን ከሚሰጡት ሰዎች መካከል የአንዱ ስልክ ቁጥር፡ _____________ (ስም)__________ 
ጥ: _________________ 
ምላሽ ሰጪ 1፡ ስም: _____________እንደ የውሃ፣ ፅዳትና ንፅህና ኮሚቴነት ያላቸው ሚና: _______ 
 ወ/ሴ ዕድሜ: _______ 
ምላሽ ሰጪ 2፡ ስም: _____________እንደ የውሃ፣ ፅዳትና ንፅህና ኮሚቴነት ያላቸው ሚና: _______ 
 ወ/ሴ ዕድሜ: _______ 
ምላሽ ሰጪ 3፡ ስም: _____________እንደ የውሃ፣ ፅዳትና ንፅህና ኮሚቴነት ያላቸው ሚና: _______ 
ወ/ሴ ዕድሜ: _______ 
ወደ ቃለመጠይቁ ከመግባትዎ በፊት የስምምነት መጠየቂያ መግለጫውን አንብበው ከሁሉም
መረጃ ሰጪዎች ስምምነት ማግኘት አለብዎት
የውሃ ጣቢያው ገፅታ
1. ይህ የውሃ አቅርቦት ስርዓት/የውሃ ጣቢያ የተገነባው መቼ ነው? _________አላውቅም
2. የውሃ ጣቢያውን የገነባው ማን ነው? ______________ አላውቅም
3. ይህ የውሃ ጣቢያ ከተገነባ በኋላ በከፍተኛ ደረጃ መልሶ የማቋቋም/ከፍተኛ እድሳት ተደርጎለት ያውቃል? አዎ / አይ /
አላውቅም
4. መልሶ የማቋቋሙን/ የማደስ ስራው የሰራው ማን ነው? ______________ አላውቅም
5. ይህ የሆነው መቼ? ________ አላውቅም
6. ይህ የውሃ አቅርቦት ስርዓት ከተዘረጋ/ከተገነባ በኋላ ከዚህ ድርጅት ውጪ የሆነ የውሃ ጣቢያውን ለማሻሻል ወይም
ለሚኖሩበት ማህበረሰቡ ሌላ አይነት የውሃ አቅርቦትና የፅዳት ስራዎች ለመሰራት የመጣ ሌላ የውሃ አቅርቦት ስርዓት አለ? ካለ
ይህ መቼ ተከናወነ? የተከናወኑት ተግባራትስ ምንድን ነበሩ?
7. ማህበረሰቡ በዚህ የውሃ ጣቢያ ምን ያህል ደስተኛ ነው ብለው ያስባሉ? [ነፃ ምላሽ]
የተጠቃሚ ሁኔታ
8. በዚህ የውሃ ጣቢያ ምን ያህል አባውራዎች ይጠቀማሉ? (እርግጠኛ ካልሆኑ በግምት ይናገሩ): _______
9. ሰዎች ውሃ ሞልተው ለመውሰድ ለምን ያህል ጊዜ ሰልፍ ላይ መጠበቅ አለባቸው?
የውሃ መጠን
10. የሚታወቅ ከሆነ ፤ የዚህ ውሃ ጣቢያ የተለመደው የውሃ ፍሰት መጠን በደቂቃ ምን ያህል ሊትር ነው? ________
አላውቅም
77 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
11. በአጠቃላይ ከዚህ የውሃ ጣቢያ የሚገኘው የውሃ መጠን ለሙሉ ዓመት በቂ ነው? ካልሆነ ሰዎች ምን ያደርጋሉ?
የውሃ ጥራት
12. ከዚህ የውሃ ጣቢያ የሚገኘው ውሃ ለመጠጥ አስተማማኝ ነው ብለው ያምናሉ?
ለምን?
13. የዚህ የውሃ ጣቢያ የውሃ ጥራት የሚለካ ከሆነ በምን ያህል ጊዜ ይለካል?
ሀ. ቢያንስ በዓመት 12 ጊዜ
ለ. ከ12 ጊዜ ያነሰ ሆኖ በዓመት ቢያንስ 4 ጊዜ ይለካል
ሐ. ከ4 ጊዜ ያነሰ ሆኖ በዓመት ቢያንስ 1 ጊዜ ይለካል
መ. በዓመት አንድ ጊዜ
ሠ. በዓመት ከ1 ጊዜ ያነሰ
ረ. ጥራቱ አይመረመርም
14. የውሃ ጥራት ምርመራው ውጤት በውሃው ውስጥ መኖር ከሚገባው የኬሚካል ንጥረ-ነገሮች መጠን በላይ መኖሩን ካሳየ
(ለምሳሌ እንደ ፊካል ባክቴሪያ፣ ከፍተኛ መጠን ያለው ፍሎራይድ ወይም አርሰኒክ(መርዝ)፣ ወዘተ) ምን ይደረጋል/ምን
ይፈጠራል?
15. ከዚህ በፊት የተደረገ የውሃ ጥራት ምርመራ ተመዝግቦ ይቀመጣል? ይህ መረጃ ተመዝግቦ ተይዞ ከሆነ ለማይት እችላለሁ?
አዎ/አይ
(ቃለመጠይቅ አድራጊ: ከቻሉ ፎቶግራፍ ያንሱት ወይም ፎቶ ኮፒ አድርገው ይያዙት፡፡ የየትኞቹ ዓመታት መረጃ ተመዝግቦ
እንደሚገኝ ይግለፁ፣ የውሃ ምርመራው ምን ምነ አገሮች እንደተመረመሩ ፣ ምርመራው በምን ያህል የጊዜ ልዩነት እንደተከናወነ
(ለምሳሌ በየወሩ፣ በየዓመቱ) የመሳሰሉትን ይግለፁ
የውሃ ልኬቶች መብለጥ የሌለባቸው:
ፊካል ኩሊፎርምስ ፣ ፊካ ስተሪፐቶኮሲ ወይም ኢኮላይ፡ በየ100 ሚሊ ከ0 ያልበለጠ
አርሰኒክ/መርዝ፡ uK=ƒ` Ÿ0.01ሚሊ ግራም ያልበለጠ
ፍሎራይድ፡ በሊትር ከ0.5ሚሊ ገራም ያልበለጠ
ሀ. የተመዘገበ መረጃ ካለ፡ ቃለመጠይቅ አድራጊ: የምርመራው ውጤት በውሃው ውስጥ
 የሚገኙ የኬሚካል ንጥረ ነገሮች ተቀባይነት ካለው የብሄራዊ የልኬት ደረጃ ባላይ 
 አልፈው እንደሆነ ማታወሻ ይያዙ (የብሄራዊ የልኬት ደረጃውን በሳጥኑን ውስጥ
 ይመልከቱ):
1. ዓመት/ወር: _____ የተመረመረው ነገር: _____ የምርመራው ውጤቱ: __________
2. ዓመት/ወር: _____ የተመረመረው ነገር: _____ የምርመራው ውጤቱ: __________
3. ዓመት/ወር: _____ የተመረመረው ነገር: _____ የምርመራው ውጤቱ: __________
4. ዓመት/ወር: _____ የተመረመረው ነገር: _____ የምርመራው ውጤቱ:
5. ዓመት/ወር: ______የተመረመረው ነገር: _____ የምርመራው ውጤቱ:
6. ዓመት/ወር: ______የተመረመረው ነገር: _____ የምርመራው ውጤቱ:
7. ዓመት/ወር: ______የተመረመረው ነገር: _____ የምርመራው ውጤቱ:
8. ዓመት/ወር: ______የተመረመረው ነገር: _____ የምርመረው ውጤቱ:
9. ዓመት/ወር: ______የተመረመረው ነገር: _____ የምርመራውውጤቱ፡
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 78
የውሃ ጣቢያን ባለበት ጠብቆ ማቆየት እና ጥገና
16. ይህ የውሃ ጣቢያ አገልግሎት እየሰጠ/እየሰራ መሆኑን የመከታተል ሃላፊነት ያለበት ማነው? የውሃ ፅ/ቤት የሚጫወተው
ሚና አለ? ካለ የሚጫወተው ሚና ምንድን ነው?
17. ጥገና በየስንት ጊዜው ማድረግ ያስፈልጋል? በተደጋጋሚ የሚከሰቱት ችግሮች ምንድን ናቸው?
18. የውሃ ጣቢያው ሁል ጊዜ በአግባቡ አገልግሎት ሳያቋርጥ እንዲሰጥ/እንዲሰራ ለማድረግ በቀዳሚነት እንቅፋት የሆኑ
ተግዳሮቶች ምንድን ናቸው?
ክፍያዎች
19. ለውሃ ፣ የአካባቢ ፅዳትና የግል ንፅህና ኮሚቴ ክፍያ የሚሆን ምን የገንዘብ ምንጮች አሉ? ከተለያዩ ምንጮች ምን ያህል
ገንዘብ ተገኝቷል?
20. የውሃ አገልግሎት ለማግኘት የሚከፈሉ ክፍያዎች ካሉ እባክዎ ይግለጹ
ሀ. ዓመታዊ ክፍያ: ____________ _ 
ለ. በተጠቀሙ ቁጥር የሚከፈል ክፍያ: ______ 10 ሊትር ለሚይዝ እቃ/ ______ 20 ሊትር ለሚይዝ እቃ: 
_________ 
ሐ. ሌላ ክፍያ ካለ (ይግለፁ): ____________ 
21. ተጠቃሚዎች መክፈል የሚጠበቅባቸውን ክፍያዎች በተጨባጭ በምን ያህል ደረጃ ይከፈላሉ? ከውሃ አገልግሎት ክፍያ
ሊሰበሰብ ከታቀደው ምን ያህሉ ይሰበሰባል? (ይህ አሰራር የሚታወቅ ከሆነ)?
22. ከውሃ አገልግሎት ክፍያ የሚሰበሰበው ገንዘብ የውሃ ጣቢያውን ባለበት ጠብቆ ለማቆየትና ለጥገና የሚያስፈልጉ ወጪዎችን
በምን ያህል ጀረጃ ይሸፍናል? የማይሸፍን ከሆነ የገንዘብ ክፍተቱ ምን ያህል ትልቅ ነው? ይህንን የገንዘብ ክፍተትስ እንዴት
ይሞሉታል?
23. ክፍያዎችን መዝግበው ይይዛሉ? ማየት እንችላለን?
ስለተመለከተቸው ለውጦች አስተያየት
24. የውሃ አቅርቦቱ/ጣቢያው ከተገነባ ጊዜ ወዲህ የውሃ፣ ፅዳት እና የግል ንፅህና ኮሚቴ የውሃ አቅርቦቱን/ጣቢያውን
የሚያስተዳድሩባቸው መንገዶች ባለፉት የተወሰኑ ዓመታት ውስጥ ምን ያህል ተቀይረዋል? እንዴት ነው
የተቀየረው/የተለወጠው? የተደረገው ለውጥ ለተሸለ ነገር ነው ወይስ ወደባሰ ችግር የሚከት?
25. ስለዚህ የውሃ ጣቢያ ወይም ስለተገነባው ድርጅት ከእኔ ጋር ሊወያዩበት የሚፈልጉት ነገር አለ?
79 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
i. Structured Group Interview with One or Two Water Collectors 
(Amharic) 
የውሃ ጣቢያዎች ተጠቃሚ ከሆኑ አንድ ወይም ሁለት ውሃ ቀጂዎች ጋር የሚደረግ የተደራጀ ቃለ መጠ 
ውሃ አቅርቦትን ለማዳረስ የተዘረጋው 
የውሃ አቅርቦት ስርዓት ስም፡ ______________ ቀበሌ፡ _____________________ 
የውሃ ጣቢያው ስም: _____________________ ጎጥ: _____________________ 
የሚሊኒየም የወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ
(MWA-EP) ተገባሪ: _____________________ መንደር: ____________________ 
ወረዳ: _____________________ የውሃ አቅርቦት ስርዓት/የውሃ ጣቢያው 
የሚተዳደረው በ: ______________ 
 
ምላሽ ሰጪ ጸታ እድሜ እዚህ አካባቢ የነሩበት
ቁጥር
ዓመት
ቃለ መጠይቅ
ቁጥር 1 
ሰጪ ግለሰብ
ቃለ መጠይቅ
ቁጥር 2
ሰጪ ግለሰብ
ቃለ መጠይቁን ከመጀመርዎ በፊት የስምምነት መግለጫውን በማንበብ ለዚህ ቃለ መጠይቅ ምላሽ ከሚሰጡ ሰዎች በሙሉ ስምምነት
ማግኘት አለብዎት
የአጠቃቃም ሁኔታዎች
1. ወደዚህ የውሃ ጣቢያ ምንያህል ይመጣሉ?
2. ወደዚህ ውሃ ጣቢያ በመጡ ቁጥር ውሃ ቀድቶ ለመሄድ ወረፋ በመጠበቅ ምን ያህል ጊዜ ያጠፋሉ?
3. የቤተሰቡን የለት-ተለት የውሃ ፍላጎት እና ፍጆታ ለማሟላት ሲሉ ተጨማሪ ውሃ ከሌላ ከማንኛውም ቦታ (የውሃ መገኛ) 
ቀድተው ያውቃሉ? መልሱ አዎ ከሆነ ለምን? ይህን ተጨማሪ ውሃ የሚቀዱት ከየት ነው? 
4. ከዚህ የውሃ ጣቢያ የሚቀዱት/የሚያገኙት የውሃ መጠን በቀን ውስጥ ያለዎትን የውሃ ፍላጎት/ፍጆታ በበቂ ሁኔታ
የሚያሟላ ነው?
ሀ. ዓመቱን ሙሉ ተመሳሰይ መጠን ያለው ውሃ ያገኛሉ ወይንስ ከወቅት ወቅት የተለያየ መጠን ያለው ውሃ ነው
የሚያገኙት?
5. ይህንን ውሃ የሚጠቀሙበት ለምን ለምን አገልግሎት ነው?
6. ይሄ ውሃ ለመጠጥ ይሆናል/ ደህንነቱ የተጠበቀ እንደሆነ ይሰማዎታል? ለምን ይመስልዎታል? ለምን አይመስልዎትም?
7. የዚህ ማህበረሰብ አባል የሆነ ሰው ሁሉ ከዚህ የውሃ ጣቢያ እኩል መጠቀም ይችላል? ለምን?
8. ከዚህ የውሃ ጣቢያ መጠቀም የማይችሉት ሰዎች የትኞቹ ናቸው? ለምን?
ሀ. የማዉጣጫ ጥያቄ፡ ሃብት ያላቸው ሰዎች ፣ የተወሰነ ጾታ እና አቅመ-ደከማ የሆኑ የማህበረሰብ ክፍሎች የውሃ
ጣቢያውን የማይጠቀሙ እንደሆነ እያውጣጡ ይጠይቁ
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 80
የውሃ ጣቢያ አስተዳደር ሁኔታ
9. የውሃ ጣቢያውን የሚያስተዳድረው ማነው?
10. የውሃ ጣቢያው ምን ያህል በደህና/በጥሩ ሁኔታ እየተዳደረ ነው ብለው ያስባሉ? ለምን?
ሀ. የሚያስተዳድሩት አካላት በጥር ሁኔታ እያከናወኑ ያሉት ነገር ምንድን ነው? 
ለ. የሚያስተዳድሩት አካላት በተለየ/በሌላ መንገድ ሊያከናውኑት የሚገባ ነገር ምንድን ነው? 
11. የውሃ ጣቢያው አገልግሎት ከመስጠት ጋር በተያያዘ ችግሮች አጋጥመው ያውቃል? ከሆነ ምን አይነት ችግሮች
አጋጠመው ያውቃሉ? እነዚህን ችግሮች እንዴት ተፈቱ? ችግሮቹ በማን ተፈቱ?
12. የውሃው ጣቢያው አገልግሎት መስጠት ባቆመ ጊዜ ምን አደረጉ?
13. በጊዜ ሂደት ይህ የውሃ ጣቢያ የሚተዳደረበትን ወይም የሚጠገነበትን መንገድ በተመከተ ምን አይነት ለውጦች
ተመለከቱ?
የገንዘብ ምንጭ
14. ከዚህ የውሃ ጣቢያ ለመጠቀም/ለመቅዳት ምን ያህል ይከፍላሉ? ይህ ክፍያ እርሶና ቤተሰብዎ ለመክፈል የምትችሉት
(ከመክፈል አቅማችሁ ጋር ተመጣጣኝ) ነው?
15. ሁሉም ሰው የውሃ አገልግሎት ለማግኘት/ለመቅዳት የሚከፍለው ክፍያ ተመሳሳይ ነው? ካልሆነ ለምን?
16. ለውሃ አገልግሎት ክፍያ የሚከፈለው ክፍያ ባለፉት 8 ዓመታት ውስጥ ተቀይሮ የሚያውቅ ከሆነ እንዴት ነው
የተቀየረው?
17. ስለዚህ የውሃ ጣቢያ ወይም የውሃ ጣቢያው እንዴት እንደሚተዳደር ሊነግሩኝ ሚፈልጉት ሌላ ነገር አለ?
81 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
4. Structured Observation Forms (Amharic)
a. Structured Observations at Water Points (Amharic)
በውሃ ጣቢያዎች ላይ የሚደረግ የተደራጀ ምልከታ
የውሃ አቅርቦትን ለማዳረስ የተዘረገውና መንደር፡ _____________________ 
የሚተገበው ስርዓት ስም፡ ______________ 
የሚሊኒየም የወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ በቦታው ላይ ልናነጋግረው የምንችለው ሰው
(MWA-EP) ተገባሪ/አስፈጻሚ: ________________ ስም: ___________________ 
ወረዳ: ____________________ በቦታው ላይ ልናነጋግረው የምንችለው ሰው
ስልክ ቁጥር: _____________________ 
ቀበሌ፡ ___________________ የውሃ አቅርቦት ስርዓቱ የሚተዳደረው፡
 በ: _____________________ 
ጎጥ፡ _____________________ የውሃ አቅርቦት ስርዓቱ ዓይነት፡ 
_____________________
ከዚህ የውሃ አቅርቦት ስርዓት ጋር ተያያዥነት ያላቸው ወይም በዚህ የውሃ አቅርቦት ስርዓት የተገነቡ ውሃ ጣቢያዎች ቁጥር
________________
የውሃ ጣቢያዎች በተናጠል የሚተዳደሩ ከሆነ እያንዳንዱን የውሃ ጣቢያ የሚያስተዳድሩ አካላትን ይዘርዝሩ፡ 
በውሃ ምንጭ/ጮች ላይ የሚደረጉ ምልከታዎች (ከውሃ ጣቢያው/ዎች የተለየ/የተለዩ ከሆነ/ኑ)
በውሃ ጣቢያ ቁጥር 1 ላይ የሚደረጉ ምልከታዎች
1. በውሃው ጣቢያው ላይ ምን ያህል ሰዎች ወረፋ እየጠበቁ ነው?
2. ምን ያህል የውሃ መቅጃዎች ውሃ ለመሙላት ሰልፍ እየጠበቁ ነው? (የውሃውን መጠን ለማወቅ የውሃ መያዣውን እቃ አይነት
ይለዩ)
3. በውሃ ጣቢያው የተሰበሰቡ ሰዎች ምን አይነት ሰዎች እንደሆኑ ይግለፁ? (ለምሳሌ በጾታ ፣ በእድሜ)
4. የመታጠቢያ ገንዳዎች አሉ?
5. መልሱ አዎ ከሆነ እነዚህ የመታጠቢያ ገንዳዎች ጥቅም ላይ ለመዋላቸው የሚያመላክት
ነገር አለ?
6. የከብት ውሃ መጠጫ ጉድጋዶች አሉ?
መልሱ አዎ ከሆነ በጥቅም ላይ የዋሉ መሆናቸውን የሚያመላክት ነገር አለ?
7. በአሁሉ ወቅት ውሃ እያመነጨ/እየሰጥ የሚገኝ የውሃ ጣቢያ አለ? አዎ/አይ
8. በእጅ የሚገፋ አይነት ከሆነ እጀታው ምን ያህል ጊዜ ከተገፋ በኃላ ውሃ መውረድ እንደጀመረ ይመዝግቡ ይመዝግቡ:
______________
9. 20 ሌትር በሚይዝ እቃ ውሃ ይሙሉ ፣ እቃውን ለመሙሉት ምን ያህል ጊዜ እንደሚወስድ ለማወቅ ሰዓት/ደቂቃ ይያዙ፡፡ ይህ
በእጅ የሚገፋ አይነት የውሃ ጣቢያ ከሆነ የውሃ መቅጃ እቃውን ለመሙላት ስንት ጊዜ እጀታውን እደተገፋ ይቁጠሩ፡፡
10. 20 ሊትር የሚይዘውን የውሃ መያዣ እቃ ለመሙላት የወሰደው ሴኮንዶች: ______
11. 20 ሊትር የሚይዘውን የውሃ መቅጃ እቃ ለመሙላት እጀታውን ስንት ጊዜ ተገፋ: ______
12. ውሃ ጣቢያው በግልጽ የሚታይ ፤ ከፍተኛ የሆነ ውሃ የማንጠባጠብ / የመፍሰስ ችግር ካዩ ይመዝግቡ፡፡
13. የውሃ ጣቢያው ጥገና ወይም እድሳት እንደሚያስፈልገው በግልጽ የሚታይ ከሆነ ማስታወሻ ይያዙ፡፡
14. በአጠቃላይ በሚታዩ ተግዳሮቶች እና ስጋቶች ላይ አስተያየት ይስጡ
በውሃ ጣቢያ ቁጥር 2 ላይ የሚደረጉ ምልከታዎች (ከላይ የተቀመጡትን ጥያቄዎቹን እስከ 4ኛው የውሃ ጣቢያ ድረስ ይድገሙ)
በውሃ ጣቢያ ቁጥር 3 ላይ የሚደረጉ ምልከታዎች
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 82
በውሃ ጣቢያ ቁጥር 4 ላይ የሚደረጉ ምልከታዎች
83 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
b. Structured Observations of Household Latrines (Amharic)
በአባውራ ደረጃ የተገነቡ የመፀዳጃ ቤቶች ላይ የሚደረግ
የተደራጀ ምልከታ
የሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ 
የውሃ አቅርቦት ስርዓት ተግባሪ: __________ መንደር: ______________ ጎጥ: ____________ 
ወረዳ ፡_________________ 
ቀበሌ፡ _________________ 
በአካባቢው ከሚገኙ የማህበረሰብ መሪዎች/አለቆች ወይም ከሌሎች በማህበረሰብ ውስጥ እውቀት ካላቸው ሰዎች ጋር አብሮ በመስራት
አባውራዎች በአሜሪካ የልማት ድርጅት ዪ.ኤስ.ኤ.አይ. ዲ (USAID) የገንዘብ ድጋር በሚንቀሳቀሰው የሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ
ፕሮግራም ውስጥ በመሳተፋቸው የተገነቡ የመፀዳጃ ቤቶች የትኞቹ እንደሆኑ ይለዩ፡፡ እያንዳንዱን መፀዳጃ ቤት እየጎበኙ የሚከተሉትን
ምልከታዎች ይሙሉ፡፡ 
መፀዳጃ ቤት ቁጥር 1፡
1. ይህ መፀደጃ ቤት የሚሊኒየም ወተር አልያንስ
ፕሮጀክት በሚተገበርበት ወቅት በአባውራው
ኢትዮጵያ
የተገነባ ነው? 
አዎ/ አይደለም/ አላውቅም
3. ይህ መፀዳጃ ቤት የተገነባው መቼ ነው? ______አላውቅም በ_______ዓ. ም
መቼ እንደተገነባ አላውቅም
4. ለየፆታው የተወሰነ/የተመደበ የሴት/የወንድ/በፆታ ያልተለየ
ሊጠቀምበት የሚችል)
(ማኛውም ሰው
ሀ. ለየጾታው የተለየ ከሆነ፡
ከሌላው ጾታ የተለየው
ተራርቆ በመገንባት) 
የአንዱ ፆታ መፀዳጃ ቤት
እንዴት ነው? (በግድግዳ ወይም
አዎ/አይ
5. የመፀዳጃ ቤቶች አይነት ሀ. ልዩ/ከፍተኛ ደረጃ ያለው
ለ. ውሃ ማቆሪያ ያለው እና ውሃ የሚለቅ
ሐ. ባህላዊ የጉድጓድ መፀዳጃ ቤት ሆኖ ወለሉ
የሚታጠብ - የሲሚንቶ ወለል
መ. ባህላዊ የጉድጋድ መፀዳጃ ቤት ሆኖ ወለሉ
የማይታጠብ - የአፈር ወለል
ሠ. አነስተኛ የተቆፈረ ጉድጓድ ሆኖ የተከለለ/ከለላ
ያለው
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 84
ረ. ሌላ አይነት ካለ ይግለጹ
6. በመፀዳጃ
አሉ? 
ቤቱ ውስጥ በቁጥር ስንት የመጠቀሚያ ክፍሎች
በቁጥር: ________
5.1. መፀዳጃ ቤቱ
 (አልተቆለፈም) 
ለተጠቃሚዎች ክፍት ነው አዎ/አይደለም
5.2. መፀዳጃ ቤቱ ጥቅም
ማስረጃ አለ? (ሽታ
ይመልከቱ) 
ላይ
ካለ
መዋሉን የሚያመላክት
፣ የጉድጋዱን ውስጥ
ግልጽ አዎ/አይ
ማስታወሻ
______
፡
_________________
5.3. የመፀዳጃ ቤቱ ሙሉ ለሙሉ የተሸፈነ ሰው በነፃነት
ሊጠቀምበት የሚችል ነው? (ዙሪያውን ግድግዳ
የተሸፈነና ሙሉ ለሙሉ የሚዘጉ በሮች ያሉት) 
አዎ/አይ
5.4. በሩ ከውስጥ ይቆለፋል? አዎ/አይ
5.5. የግንባታው አስተማማኝነት (አስተማማኝ የሆነ ወለል፣
ግድግዳና ጣሪያው የማይነቃነቅ/የማይወላልቅ) 
አዎ/አይ
ማስታወሻ: 
____________________________
____________________________
5.6. አካል ጉዳተኞች በቀላሉ ሊመጠቀሙበት የሚችሉት
ነው? (ለምሳሌ ደረጃ የሌለው ፣ በውስጡ
ለመደገፊያነት የሚያገለግሉ ሃዲዶች እና እጀታዎች
ወይም መደገፊያ ፣ መቀመጫ ያለው) 
አዎ/አይ
5.7. የፅዳት ሁኔታ፡
የሆነ (በሽንት
የፅዳት ደረጃው ተቀባይነት ባለው ደረጃ
ያለተበከለ ፣ በሰገራ እና ጥቅም ላይ
አዎ/አይ
85 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
በዋለ የመፀዳጃ ቤት ወረቀት
ያልጨቀየ/ያለተጨማለቀ) 
5.8. ሽታ፡ ተቀባይነት ያለው ሽታ (ምንም ሽታ የሌለው
ወይም ሊቋቋሙት የሚቻሉት መጠነኛ ሽታ ያለው) 
አዎ/አይ
ማታወሻ፡_______________________
____________________________
5.9. ዝንቦች፡ ቁጥራቸው
በመፀዳጃ ቤቱ ካሉ 
ከሶስት ያነሱ/የማይበልጡ ዝምቦች አዎ/አይ
7. በመፀደጃ ቤቱ ውስጥ ባሉ በማንኛውን
በአቅራቢያቸው ለቂጥ መጥረጊያ/ማጽጃ
እንደ ወረቀት ወይም ውሃ በእቃ አለ?
ክፍሎች ውስጥ ወይም
የሚያገለግሉ ቁሳቁሶች
አዎ/አይ
8. ቁሳቁሶቹን ፎቶግራፍ ያንሱ
9. ማስታወሻ፡
የመፀዳጃ ቤት ቁጥር 2፡ (ከላይ ያሉትን ጥያቄዎች እስከ 8ኛው መፀዳጃ ቤት ይድገሙ) 
የመፀዳጃ ቤት ቁጥር 3፡
የመፀዳጃ ቤት ቁጥር 4፡
የመፀዳጃ ቤት ቁጥር 5፡
የመፀዳጃ ቤት ቁጥር 6፡
የመፀዳጃ ቤት ቁጥር 7፡
የመፀዳጃ ቤት ቁጥር 8፡
የእጅ መታጠቢያዎች
1. ለእጅ መታጠቢያ እንዲሆን ታስቦ በማንኛውም አይነት እቃ አዎ/ አይ
የተዘጋጀ ውሃ በአቅራቢያው አለ? ሙሉም ሆነ ጎዶሉ
2. የእጅ መታጠቢያ ውሃ የያዘውን እቃ ፎቶግራፍ ያንሱት
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 86
3. የእጅ መታጠቢያ ውሃ የያዙት እቃዎች የት ነው የተቀመጡት? 1.1. ከመፀዳጃ ቤቱ አጠገብ
(ትክክለኛውን የሆነውን ሁሉ ያክብቡ) 1.2. ሌላ ካለ ይግለጹ: __________
4. ዛሬ ለእጅ መታጠቢያ በተዘጋጁት
እቃዎች ውስጥ ውሃ አለ?
በማንኛውም የውሃ መያዣ አዎ/ አይ
5. ዛሬ ለእጅ መታጠቢያ በተዘጋጁት እቃዎች ላይ ሳሙና አለ? አዎ/አይ
6. ዛሬ ሰዎች መፀዳጃ ቤት ተጠቅመው ሲወጡ እጃቸውን
መታጠባቸውን የሚያመላክት ነገር አለ? (ለምሳሌ መሬቱ
ሳሙናው እርጥብ ከሆነ)
ወይም
አዎ/ አይ
7. ዛሬ መፀዳጃ ቤት ከተጠቀሙ በኃላ
የተመለከቷቸው ሰዎች አሉ? መልሱ
እጃቸውን
አዎ ከሆነ
ሲታጠቡ
ጾታቸውን
አዎ/ አይ
ያስቀምጡ
መስታወሻ: 
________________________
8. ዛሬ መፀዳጃ ቤት ከተጠቀሙ በኃላ እጃቸውን ያልታጠቡ
ተመልክተዋል? ከተመለከቱ ጾታቸውን ይግለጹ
ሰዎች አዎ/ አይ
መስታወሻ: ____________________
87 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
c. Structured Observations of Shared Community Latrines (Amharic)
የማህበረሰብ የጋራ መጠቀሚያ በሆኑ የመፀዳጃ ቤቶች ላይ የሚከናወን የተደራጀ ምልከታ
በአሜሪካ የልማት ድርጅት ዪ.ኤስ.ኤ.አይ. ዲ (USAID) በሚያገኝ የገንዘብ ድጋር የሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ አጋር አካላት የተገነቡ
የጋራ መፀዳጃ ቤቶች የትኞቹ እንደሆኑ ለይቶ ለማወቅ በአካባቢው ከሚገኙ የማህበረሰብ መሪዎች/አለቆች ወይም ከሌሎች በማህበረሰብ
ውስጥ እውቀት ካላቸው ሰዎች ጋር አብሮ መስራት፡፡ እያንዳንዱን መፀዳጃ ቤት እየጎበኙ የሚከተሉትን ምልከታዎች ይሙሉ፡፡ 
የሚሊኒየም ወተር አሊያንስ ኢትዮጵያ 
አጋር ተግባሪ አካላት: ___________ መንደር: _______________ 
ወረዳ ፡ ________________________ ምልከታ የተደረገበት ቀን፡ _____________________ 
ቀበሌ፡ ________________________ ምልከታ የተደረገበት ጊዜ/ሰዓት፡ ________________ 
ጎጥ: ________________________ ምልከታውን ያደረገው ሰው፡ ___________________ 
መፀዳጃ ቤት ህንፃ ቁጥር 1፡
1. ይህ መፀደጃ
የተገነባ ነው?
ቤት በሚሊኒየም ወተር አልያንስ ኢትዮጵያ አዎ/አይደለም /አላውቅም
2. ይህ መፀዳጃ ቤት የተገነባ መቼ ነው? በ_______ዓ. ም
አላውቅም
3. ለየፆታው የተወሰነ/የተመደበ የሴት/የወንድ/በጻታ ያልተለየ
ሊጠቀምበት የሚችል)
(ማንኛውም ሰው
ሀ) በጾታ የተለየ
ፆታ ተለይቶ
በመገንባት) 
ከሆነ፡ የአንዱ
የተገነባ ነው? 
ፆታ መፀዳጃ ቤት
(በግድግዳ ወይም
ከሌላው
ተራርቆ
አዎ /አይ
4. የመፀዳጃ ቤቶች አይነት ሀ. ከፍተኛ ደረጃ ያለው ልዩ
ለ. የውሃ ማቆሪ ያለውና ውሃ የሚለቅ
ሐ. ባህላዊ የጉድጋድ መፀዳጃ ቤት ሆኖ ሊታጠብ
የሚችል (በሲሚንቶ የተሰራ ወለል)
መ. ባህላዊ የጉድጋድ መፀዳጃ ቤት ሆኖ ሊታጠብ
የማይችል ወለል - አፈር
ሠ. ሌላ አይነት ካለ ይግለጹ
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 88
5. በመፀዳጃ
አሉ? 
ቤቱ ውስጥ በቁጥር ስንት ክፍሎች/ክፍልፋዮች
ቁጥር: _______
ሀ. ለተጠቃሚ ክፍት የሆኑ
ቤት ክፍሎች አሉ? 
(ያለቆለፉ) ስንት የመፀዳጃ ቁጥር: _______
ለ. ምልከታውን
የቻሉባቸው
የሚያከናውኑ
የመፀዳጃ ቤት
ሰዎች ሊገቡባቸው
ክፍሎች ቁጥር፡ 
ቁጥር: _______
ሐ. ሰዎች በመፀዳጃ ቤቱ ክፍሎች እየተጠቀሙባቸው
እንደሆነ የሚያመላክት ግልጽ ማስረጃ በስንት
ክፍሎች ውስጥ አለ? (ሽታ ካለ ፣ የጉድጋዱን ውስጥ
ይመልከቱ፡፡ ክፍሎቹን ሰዎች እየተጠቀሙባቸው
እንደሆነም ይመልከቱ) 
ቁጥር: _______
መ. በሚገባ የተከለሉ እና ሰዎች በነጻነት ሊጠቀሙባቸው
የሚችሉ የመፀዳጃ ቤት ክፍሎች በቁጥር ስንት
ናቸው (ግድግዳዎችና ሙሉ በሙሉ መዘጋት
የሚችሉ በሮች ያላቸው መሆኑን) 
ቁጥር: _______
ሠ. በውስጥ በኩል የሚቆለፍ በር
ክፍሎች ቁጥር ስንት ናቸው? 
____ 
ያላቸው የመፀዳጃ ቤት
ቁጥር: _______
ረ. ግንባታቸው አስተማማኝ የሆነ የመፀዳጃ ቤት ክፍሎች
በቁጥር ስንት ናቸው? (አስተማማኝ ጥብቅ የሆነ
ወለል፣ ግድግዳና ጣሪያው
የማይነቃነቅ/የማይወላልቅ) 
ቁጥር: _______
ሰ. ልጆች እና አካል ጉዳተኞች በቀላሉ ሊጠቀሙባቸው
የሚችሉ የመፀዳጃ ቤት ክፍሎች በቁጥር ስንት
ናቸው? (ለምሳሌ ደረጃዎች የሌላቸው ፣ በክፍሎቹ
ውስጥ ለመደገፊያነት የሚያገለግሉ ሃዲዶችና
ቁጥር: _______
89 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
እጀታዎች
ቀዳዳዎች
፣ መቀመጫ
መኖራቸው) 
እና ጠባብ የመፀዳጃ ቤት
ረ. የፅዳት ሁኔታ፡ ተቀባይነት ባለው ደረጃ ፅዳት ያላቸው
የመፀዳጃ ቤት ክፍሎች ስንት ናቸው (በሽንትና በሰገራ
ያልጨቀየ ፣ ጥቅም ላይ በዋለ የሽንት ቤት ወረቀት
ያለተጨማለቀ) 
ቁጥር: _______
ሸ. ሽታ፡ ተቀባይነት ያለው ሽታ ያላቸው የመፀዳጃ ቤት
ክፍሎች ቁጥር ስንት ናቸው (ሽታ
የሌላቸው፣/የማይሸቱ ወይም በመጠኑ የሚሸቱ፣
ለመቋቋም የሚቻል ሽታ ያላቸው) 
ቁጥር: _______
ቀ. ዝንቦች፡ አነስተኛ የዝንቦች ቁጥር
የመፀዳጃ ቤት ክፍሎች (ከ 0 –
የሚታዩባቸው
3) 
ቁጥር: _______
6. በመፀዳጃ ቤቱ ክፍሎች ውስጥ ወይም
ለቂጥ መጥረጊያ / ማፅጃ የሚያገለግሉ
ወረቀት ወይም ውሃ በእቃ ይገኛሉ? 
በአቅራቢያቸው
ቁሳቁሶች እንደ
አዎ/አይ
7. ዛሬ እነዚህን መፀዳጃ ቤቶች ማንኛውም
ሲጠቀምባቸው ተመልክተዋል? 
ሰው ___ ሴት
___ወንድ
___ሴት ልጆች
___ወንድ ልጆች
8. ፎቶ ግራፍ ያንስ
9. ማስታወሻ፡
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 90
የመፀዳጃ ቤት ቁጥር 2 (እስከ አራተኛው መፀዳጃ ቤት ድረስ ከላይ የተቀመጡትን ጥያቄዎቹ ይድገሙ)
የመፀዳጃ ቤት ቁጥር 3 
የመፀዳጃ ቤት ቁጥር 4 
የእጅ መታጠቢዎች 
10. ለእጅ መታጠቢያ እንዲሆን ታስቦ በማንኛውም አይነት እቃ
የተዘጋጀ ውሃ በአቅራቢያው አለ? ሙሉም ሆነ ጎዶሎ ቢሆን
አዎ/አይ
11. የውሃ መያዣ እቃውን ፎቶግራፍ ያንሱት
12. የውሃ ማስቀመጫዎቹ የተቀመጡት
የሆነውን ሁሉ ያክብቡ) 
የት ነው? (ትክክለኛ ሀ. ከመፀዳጃ ቤቱ አጠገብ
ለ. ሌላ ካለ ይግለጹ
13. ዛሬ ለእጅ
ውሃ አለ? 
መታጠቢያ በተዘጋጁት በማንኛውም እቃዎች ውስጥ አዎ/አይ
14. ዛሬ ለእጅ መታጠቢያ
ሳሙና አለ? 
በተዘጋጁት በማንኛውም እቃዎች ላይ አዎ/አይ
15. ዛሬ ሰዎች መፀዳጃ ቤት ተጠቅመው ሲወጡ እጃቸውን
መታጠባቸውን የሚያመላክት ነገር አለ? (ለምሳሌ መሬቱ
ወይም ሳሙናው እርጥብ ከሆነ) 
አዎ/አይ
16. ዛሬ ሴት የመፀዳጃ
ተመልክተዋል? 
ቤቱ ተጠቃሚዎች እጃቸውን ሲታጠቡ አዎ/አይ
17. ዛሬ ወንዶች የመፀዳጃ
ተመልክተዋል? 
ቤት ተጠቃሚዎች እጃቸውን ሲታጠቡ አዎ/አይ
91 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
5. Interview Guides: Afan Oromo
a. Informed Consent Statement to be Used for All Data Collection 
Efforts (Interviews, Focus Group Discussions) (Afan Oromo)
Walitti-qabsiisa C: Mixinee Gaafannoo Ragaan Ittiin walitti qabamu 
Ragaa walitti qabuudhaaf yeroo yaaliin taasifamu hundatti kan hojii 
irra oolu fi ragaa kennitoonni gaaffii fi deebiii irratti hirmaacuudhaaf 
hubannoo gahaa argatanii ibsa fedhii isaanii ittiin ibsatan
(Gaafannoowwan:-Maree garreedhaan taasifamu) 
Harka fuune! Nuti Garee Ameerikaa ECODIT jedhamu bakka buunee asitti kan argamne yoo ta’u, 
USAID dhaan hubannoo hojii walta’iinsa bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) bara 1996 hanga 
2001tti gaggeeffame caalmaatti akka gargaaru gochuuf qorannoo raawwatamuudha.Gareen qorannoo 
kana adeemsisu qaama raawwii Walta’iinsa Bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) olotti 
ibsamee miti. Nuti gamaggamtoota/ madaalttota bilisa yoo taanu, kan as jiruufis hojiiwwan pirojektichaan 
raawwatamanii fi pirojektichi erga xumuramee booda bu’aawwan isaan argamsiisan hamam akka ittifufe 
hubachuufiidha.
Gamaaggama /madaallii Kanaaf buufataaleen pirojektii/dhaabbata keessanii kan murtaa’an daawwachuuf 
kan filanne yoo ta’u, daawwannaa keenyaanis, buufataaleen bishaanii pirojektichaan ijaaraman tajaajila
kennaa jiraachuu isaanii fi hojiiwwan dhiheessii kana waliin wal-qabatan walitti-fufiinsaan raawwatamaa 
jiraachuu isaanii beekuuf karoorfaneera.Asitti kan argamuu waa’ee hojiiwwan Walta’iinsa bishaanii 
Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) fi bu’aawwan argaman wali-fufiinsa akka qabaatan gochuu akka hin 
danda’amne sababiiwwan tarii gufuu ta’aniiru ta’an caalmaatti beekuuf akka nu dandeessisan isin 
haasofsiisuu ni barbaana.Odeeffannoon kun hojiiwwan gara fuulduraatti (USAID) Itoophiyaa keessatti 
raawwatu akka fooyyessuuf gargaaruu ni danda’a. Piroojektii kana irratti, hirmaannaa kan qabdan waan 
ta’eef dhimmoota kana hubachuu akka nu dandeessisuuf gaaffii fi deebii kana irratti akka hirmaattanii fi 
yaada keessan akka qooddan isin affeerreera. Kaayyoon keenya bu’aawwan argaman walitti-fufiinsa akka 
qabaataniif wanttooti gagaaran maal akka ta’anii fi gama biraatiin bu’aawwan argaman walitti-fufiinsa akka 
hin qabaanne wanttooti gufuu ta’an maal akka ta’an beekuuf waan ta’eef deebiin sirriidha yookin 
dogongora jedhu waan hin jirreef yaada keessan bilisa taatanii akka ibsitan ni barbaanna.
Mareen kun sa’a tokko ni fudhata. Gaaffii fi deebii kanatti hirmaachuu yoo hin barbaanne adabbii 
yookiin rakkoon isin irra gahu tokkoyyuu hin jiru. Maree kanatti yoo hirmaattan wanti isin yaaddessuu 
tokkoyyuu hin jiru.Hirmaachuu yoo filattan hojiiwwan kunneen naannolee Itoophiyyaa kan birootti haala 
fooyya’een akka hojiirra oolu deeggarsa gochuu keessan beekuun ala isiniifis ta’e dhaabbata keessaniif 
qophaatti faayidaa kan biraan inni argamsiisu hin jiru.
Mata dureewwan rakkoo uumuu danda’an /falmisiisoo ta’an kamiyyuu hin kaafnnu.Argamnni qorannoo 
Kanaa qindeeffamanii yeroo barreeffamanitti maqaa keessan yaada nuu kennitan maddii hin keenyu. Haa 
ta’u malee, dhimmoota tokko tokko irratti maqaa dhaabbata keessanii ibsuun nu barbaachisa ta’uu 
danda’a.Sagaleen keessan osoo hin waraabamin dhimmoonni akka mari’annu barbaaddan kamiyyuu yoo 
jiraate nati beeksisaa, anis meeshaan ittiin waraabu dhaabuu fi maqaan dhaabbata keessanii akka hin 
tuqamne fedhii isin qabadan nan kabaja.Yaada keessan bilisaan akka ibsitan ni barbaanna. Gaaffiiwwan 
deebisuu hin barbaanne yoo jiraatan rakkoo tokko malee itti hin deebi’u jechuu ni dandeessu. 
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 92
Gaafadhaa: Gaaffii ni qabduu?
Gaafadhaa: Hirmaachuu ni barbaaduu?
Gaafadhaa: Sagaleen keessan akka waraabamu itti waliigaltuu?
Kaayyoo gaaffii fi deebii Kanaa ibsuu fi waliigaltee nama gaafatamuuu argachuuf mareen 
taasifame xumurameeraa? Eeyyeen _________ (mallattoo nama gaafii fi deebii taasisee)
Hirmaachuuf waliigaltanii? Eeyyeen ______ Lakki _______(yoo itti walii hingallee , gaaffii fi 
deebicha dhaabaa)
93 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
b. Key Informant/Group Interview – USAID Employee (Afan Oromo)
Hojjetaa (USAID) adda durummaan odeeffannoo kennu/gareedhaan gaaffii fi 
deebii taasifamu 
Bakka gaaffii fi deebii፡
Maqaa/wwan:________________________Gita/wwan hojii ________________Dhiira/Dubartii 
Maqaa/wwan:________________________Gita/wwan hojii ________________Dhiira/Dubartii 
Maqaa/wwan:________________________Gita/wwan hojii ________________Dhiira/Dubartii 
Guyyaa gaaffii fi deebiin itti taasifame ___________Yeroo gaaffii fi deebiin itti taasifame 
_______ 
Maqaa nama gaaffii fi deebii taasisuu ____________Maqaa nama yaadannoo 
qabatuu__________ 
GAAFFII FI DEEBII OSOO HIN JALQABIN DURA IBSA WALIIGALTEE ITTIIN 
GAAFATAN DUBBISTANII KANNEEN RAGAA KENNAN HUNDA IRRAA 
WALIIGALTEE ARGACHUU QABDU 
Gaaffiiwwan (6) 
1. Pirojektii walta’iinsa bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) (bara 1996 hanga 2001tti) jiru 
keessatti hirmaannaan isin qabdan maal ture)? 
a. Pirojektii walta’iinsa bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) kan hin beekne yoo ta’e, 
hojiin ammaa USAID keessatti hojjetan yoom eegaltan? 
2. Waa’ee sosochii hojiiwwanii fi milkaa’ina Pirojektii walta’iinsa bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa 
(MWA-EP) maal nati himuu dandeessu? 
3. Waa’ee tooftaa hojimaata Pirojektii walta’iinsa bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) 
pirojektoota kanneen duraa dhiheessii bishaanii, qulqullina naannoo fi kan dhuunfaa (WASH) addaan 
baatee ni qaba yoo ta’e karaa kamiin?
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 94
a. CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Haala tooftaa hojimaata isaa maal 
yaadu? 
4. Walta’iinsa bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP)tiin , piroojektiin dhiheessii bishaanii, qulqullina 
naannoo fi kan dhuunfaa(WASH) waggaa 8 dura xumuramee erga cufamee booda, keessumaa 
bu’aawwan pirojektichaan argaman hangam walitti-fufiinsa qabaatanii akka ittifufan wanti beektan ni 
jiraa? 
a. CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Tilmaamaan nati himuu ni 
dandeessuu? maaaliif? 
5. Raawwiin Pirojektii Walta’iinsa Bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) dhiheessii bishaanii, 
qulqullina naannoo fi kan dhuunfaa(WASH) taasifame irratti amalli dhaabbilee fi ittifayyadamtoota 
tajaajila Kanaa walitti-fufiinsa akka qabaatu sababnni/ kanneen gummachaa taasisan maalfaadha? Maaliif? 
a. CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Baadiyyaa Itoophiyaa keessummaa, 
Bulchiinsa Naannolee Sabaa fi Sab-lammoota Ummattota Kibbaa, Oromiyaa fi Amaaraa 
keessatti bakka raabsa bishaanii, mana fincaanii walitti-fufiinsaan akka fayyadamanii fi walitti￾fufiinsaan harka saamuunaadhaan akka dhiqatan gochuuf maal barbaachisa? 
6. Pirojektiin Walta’iinsa Bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) walitti-fufiinsa akka qabaatuuf 
gumaacha kan godhe ta’uu kan danda’uu fi haala qabatamaa Itoophiyaa qofaan bu’a qabeessa kan ta’ee fi 
nuti qorannoo kana kan adeemsifnu kan beekuu qabnnu sababnni adda ta’e jiraa? Yoo jiraate (USAID) 
sababa adda ta’e kana bara 2001 irraa jalqabee hojimaata bishaanii, qulqullina naannoo, fi dhuunfaa 
(WASH) irratti tilmaama keessa galcheeraa? 
7. Qorannoo keenyaan amala hojii Pirojektii Walta’iinsa Bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) 
adda kan ta’ee fi dhiheenyatti/xiyyeeffannaan kan nuti ilaalu qabna jettanii yaaddan jiruu? 
8. Itoophiyaa keessatti dhiheessii bishaanii, qulqullina naannoo fi kan dhuunfaa waliin wal – qabatee 
muuxannoo qabdan irraa ka’uudhaan pirojektoota dhiheessii bishaanii, qulqullina naannoo fi kan 
dhuunfaa (WASH) walitti-fufiinsa akka hin qabaanne wanttoonni yaaddoo guddaa ta’an maalfaadha?
 a. Gaaffii hordofffii: Ragaa isaa eessatti argitan? Pirojektii Walta’iinsa Bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa 
Kanaa (MWA-EP) waliin wal-qabatee wanti argitan ni jiraa? 
9. Itoophiyaa keessatti pirojektoota dhiheessii bishaanii, qulqullina naannoo fi kan dhuunfaa (WASH) 
irratti walitti-fufiinsa bu’aawwan argamanii fooyyessuuf hojimaata abdii namaa kennan agartaniittuu? 
Ibsaa. 
95 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
c. Key Informant Interview with Woreda/Kebele Water Office (Afan 
Oromo)
Waajjira Bishaanii Aanaa/Gandaa Irraa Nama Adda-durummaan Ragaa 
Kennu Waliin Gaaffii fi deebii Taasifamu 
Bakka gaaffii fi deebii፡
Maqaa/wwan:________________________Gita/wwan hojii ___________________Dhiira/Dubartii 
Maqaa/wwan:________________________Gita/wwan hojii ___________________Dhiira/Dubartii 
Maqaa/wwan:________________________Gita/wwan hojii ___________________Dhiira/Dubartii 
Guyyaa gaaffii fi deebiin itti taasifame ___________Yeroo gaaffii fi deebiin itti taasifame 
_______ 
Maqaa nama gaaffii fi deebii taasisuu ____________ Maqaa nama yaadannoo 
qabatuu__________ 
GAAFFII FI DEEBII OSOO HIN JALQABIN DURA IBSA WALIIGALTEE ITTIIN 
GAAFATAN DUBBISTANII KANNEEN RAGAA KENNAN HUNDA IRRAA 
WALIIGALTEE ARGACHUU QABDU 
 Shoora waliigalaa, ittigaaftamummaa, gaafatamummaa 
1. Waajjirri bishaanii kun Aanaa/ganda kana keessatti dhiheessii bishaanii kana waliin gahuuf iskiimota 
raawwachuuf kaa’amanii fi kanneen hojiirra ooluu qaban gama deeggaruutiin shoorri inni bahu 
maalinni? 
• CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU Raawwii dhiheessii bishaanii 
irratti gosa leenjiiwwan kennamanii, hordoffii, dhiheessii bishaanii waliin gahuuf iskiimota 
ka’amanii fi hojiirra oolaa jiran gama raawwachiisuutiin, waa’ee suphaa fi dhiheessi bishaanii 
kana haala inni jirutti eeganii tursuuf hojiiwwan haala idileetiin raawwataman akka 
caalmaatti isinitti himaniif gaafadhaa. 
• GAAFFII HORDOFFII: Hojiiwwan olitti ibsaman an akka raawwatamaniif 
ittigaafatamummaan eenyuuf kenname? tokkoon tokkoon hojii Kanaa yeroo hamamii 
keessatti raawwatama? 
• GAAFFII HORDOFFII: Tokkoon tokkoon buufata bishaanii yeroo hamamiitiin 
daawwatama? 
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 96
2. Bishaanichi dhugaatiif amansiisaa ta’uu isaa eenyutu mirkaneessa?
• Qulqullina bishaan kana mirkaneessuun attamitti raawwatama? (Waa’ee qulqullina
bishaanii irratti akka caaalmaaatti isinitti himan gaafadhaa )
3. Koreen qulqullina bishaanii, kan naannoo fi dhuunfaa dhiheessii bishaanii waliin gahuudhaaf
wixneewwan taa’anii fi kanneen raawwatamaa jiran gama deeggaruutiin shoora maalii bahu?
• Deeggarsa koree bishaanii waliin wal-qabatee wanti bitaa namatti galuu fi dhimmicha irratti
wanti ifa hin taane yoo jiraate akka caalmaatti isinitti himan taasisaa.
4. Dhiheessii bishaanii waliin gahuuf iskiimota taa’anii fi hojiirra oolaa jiran kana ilaalchisee koreewwan
bulchan (WASHCOs) waliin haala kamiin walitti-dhufeenya taasiftu?
• Yeroo hamamii keessatti akka wal-arganii fi walitti-dhufeenyichi karaa eenyuu akka
taasifamu akka isinitti himan taasisaa?
5. Koree bishaanii, qulqullina naannoo fi dhuunfaatiif (WASHCOs) leenjii attamii kennitu?
6. Bara 2001 as dhaabbilee adda addaatiin sagantaaleen dhiheessa bishaanii, qulqullina naannoo fi
dhuunfaa raawwataman hundi, hojimaata Mootummaan hirmaannaa dhiheessii bishaanii fi madaallii
qabu irratti jijjiirama maalii fidan?
NAMA GAAFFII GAAFATU: Tarreeffama buufata bishaanii Walta’iinsa Bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa 
Kanaa (MWA-EP) tiin hojjetamanii fi kanneen irratti mari’achuu barbaadan namoota gaaffii gaafatamanitti 
agarsiisaa. Kanneen gaafataman kun buufataalee bishaanii kana kan beekan yoo ta’e, gaaffiiwwan itti aananii 
jiran buufataalee bishaanii kunneen irratti taasisuuf fedhii addaa akka qabdan hubachiisaa. 
Buufataalee bishaanii kanneen hin yaadata yoo ta’e, akka waliigalatti waa’ee buufataalee bishaanii Aanicha 
yookiin gandicha keessatti argaman hundaa yoo dubbatan homaa miti. 
Suphaa 
7. Buufataalee bishaanii Walta’iinsa Bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) tiin deeggarsi
taasifamuuf keessaa yeroo ammaa meeqan isaaniitu tajaajila kennaa akka jiran ni beektuu?
Buufataalee bishaanii kannnen irratti rakkoon kamiyyuu gahee beeka yoo ta’e, rakkoowwan kun
maalfaadha?
8. Buufataalee bishaanii Walta’iinsa Bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) tiin deeggarsi
taasifamuuf suphaan haala kamiin akka taasifamuu fi sadarkaa tokkoon tokkoon isaa irratti eenyu
akka hirmaatu hubachuun barbaada.Mee Kanaan dura buufataalee bishaanii kanneen keessaa kan
cabanii turanii fi tajaajila kennuu dhaabanii turan jidduudhaa waa’ee isa tokko yaadadhaa. Akka irra
deebi’anii hojii eegalan gochuudhaaf maal akka raaawwatame nati himaa.
Akka baasanii isinitti himan gaafadhaa: 
• Rakkoon ture maalinni? Attamitti beekame?
• Koreewwan bishaanii qulqullina naannoo fi dhuunfaa, waajjiraaleen bishaanii fi kanneen
biroon shoora maalii bahan? Hirmaannaa gochuuf attamitti eegalan?
• Qaamni hundi hanga hirmaatutti yeroo hangam fudhate?
• Eenyutu suphaa kana raawwate?
• Ogeessa suphuu fi meeshaalee jijjiirraa gama argachuutiin rakkoon mudate jiraa? maaliif?
• Suphaa kana raawwachuuf yeroo hamamii fudhate?
• Suphaa Kanaaf attamitti kafalame?
97 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
9. Akka waliigalaatti, suphaa buufataalee bishaanii Kanaaf meeshaaleen oolan kan dhufan eessatii?
GAAFFII HORDOFFII: Meeshaalee suphaaf barbaachisan argachuuf haman cimaadha?
10. Suphaawwan raawwachuuf deeggarsa ogummaa teekinikaa barbaachisan argachuuf hangam 
danda’amaa?
GAAFFII HORDOFFII: Isin ykn koreen bishaanii, qulqullina naannoo fi kan dhuunfaa gama
deeggarsa teekinikaa argachuutiin rakkoon kamiyyuu isin quunnamee beekaa?
Baasiiwwanii fi kafalttiiwwan tajaajilaa 
11. Buufata bishaanii tokkoti fayyadamuuf kafalttii kafalamu kan murtteessuu eenyu?
12. Buufataalee bishaanii kana haala jiranitti eeganii turssuuf, baasii suphaa fi dhimmoota
barbaachisoo ta’an yoo jiraatan eenyutu danda’a/kafala?
13. Gama baasiiwwan danda’uu/kafaluu fi gama kafalttii walitti qabuutiin wal-qabatee rakkoowwan
yoo jiraatan rakkoowwan kunneen maalfaadha?
14. Baasiiwan guutumaa guutuutti danda’amuu/kafalamuu isa mirkaneefachuuf waan addaa maal
gochuu danda’ama?
Yaadawwan 
15. Waajjirri keessan buufataalee kana gama deeggaruutiin milkaa’eeraa?
• CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Nama gaafatamuf, bu’a
qabeessummaa/milkaa’inaaf hiiknni isin kennitan maalinni?
16. Buufatalee bishaanii kana gama deeggaruutiin hudhaawwan/ rakkoowwan isin quunnaman
maalfaadha?
17. Wanti biraan naa waliin irratti mar’achuu barbaadan kamiyyuu jiraa?
Saamuda waa’ee ” faalamaa”
NAMA GAAFFII FI DEEBII TAASISU: Kanneen irratti mari’achuu barbaaddan tarreefama buufataalee 
bishaanii Walta’iinsa Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) tiin ijaaramanii fi gandootaa/iddoowwan walitti￾dhufeenya qaban adda addaa itti agarsiisaa.Waaee tokkoon tokkoon isaanii ragaalee danda’ame gaafadhaa.
NAMA YAADANNOO QABATUUF: Deebiiwwan hunda galmmeessaa. 
1. Tarreefama gandaa fi bakka addaa kana yeroo ilaalttan akka walii-galaatti, naannolee kanattii bara 2001
booda dhiheessii bishaanii waliin gahuuf sagantaaleen haaraan jiraachuu isaanii hubannoo qabduu?
Tokkoon tokkoon isaa ibsaa:
a. Ganda:________________________Gooxii:_________________Bakka
addaa:________________
Kan hojjetu / raawwatu (Dhaabbata gargaarsaa):_________________________
Gosa hojii hojjetamee / raawwatamee_________________________________________
b. Ganda:________________________Gooxii:_________________Bakka
addaa:________________
Kan hojjetu / raawwatu (Dhaabbata gargaarsaa):_________________________
Gosa hojii hojjetamee / raawwatamee_________________________________________
c. Ganda:________________________Gooxii:_________________Bakka
addaa:________________
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 98
Kan hojjetu / raawwatu (Dhaabbata gargaarsaa):_________________________ 
Gosa hojii hojjetamee / raawwatamee_________________________________________ 
d. Ganda:________________________Gooxii:_________________Bakka 
addaa:________________ 
Kan hojjetu / raawwatu (Dhaabbata gargaarsaa):_________________________ 
Gosa hojii hojjetamee / raawwatamee_________________________________________ 
e. Ganda:________________________Gooxii:_________________Bakka 
addaa:________________ 
Kan hojjetu / raawwatu (Dhaabbata gargaarsaa):_________________________ 
Gosa hojii hojjetamee / raawwatamee_________________________________________ 
f. Ganda:________________________Gooxii:_________________Bakka 
addaa:________________ 
Kan hojjetu / raawwatu (Dhaabbata gargaarsaa):_________________________ 
Gosa hojii hojjetamee / raawwatamee_________________________________________ 
2. Bara 2001 as tokkoon tokkoon hojiiwwaan dhiheessii bishaanii/buufataalee bishaanii Walta’iinsi 
Bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) deebisaanii dhaabuuf yaaliin taasifame kamiyyuu 
jiraachuu isaa ni beektuu?
Maqaa giddugaleessa/buufata bishaanii hojiin deebisaanii dhaabuu raawwatameef: 
___________________ 
Ganda: _______________________________ 
Gooxii: _______________________________ 
Bakka addaa: __________________________ 
1. Eenyutu deebisee dhaabee: ____________________ Hin beeku
2. Yoom? _________Hin beeku 
3. Maal raawwatan? ___________________________________ 
Maqaa giddugaleessa/buufata bishaanii hojiin deebisaanii dhaabuu raawwatameef: 
___________________
Ganda: _______________________________ 
Gooxii: _______________________________ 
Bakka addaa: __________________________ 
4. Eenyutu deebisee dhaabee: ____________________ Hin beeku
5. Yoom? _________Hin beeku
6. Maal raawwatan? ___________________________________ 
Maqaa giddugaleessa/buufata bishaanii hojiin deebisaanii dhaabuu raawwatameef: 
___________________ 
Ganda: _______________________________ 
Gooxii: _______________________________ 
Bakka addaa: __________________________ 
7. Eenyutu deebisee dhaabee: ____________________ Hin beeku
8. Yoom? _________Hin beeku
99 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
9. Maal raawwatan? ___________________________________
Maqaa giddugaleessa/buufata bishaanii hojiin deebisaanii dhaabuu raawwatameef: 
___________________ 
Ganda: _______________________________ 
Gooxii: _______________________________ 
Bakka addaa: __________________________ 
10. Eenyutu deebisee dhaabee: ____________________ Hin beeku
11. Yoom? _________Hin beeku
12. Maal raawwatan? ___________________________________
Maqaa giddugaleessa/buufata bishaanii hojiin deebisaanii dhaabuu raawwatameef: 
___________________ 
Ganda: _______________________________ 
Gooxii: _______________________________ 
Bakka addaa: __________________________ 
13. Eenyutu deebisee dhaabee: ____________________ Hin beeku
14. Yoom? _________Hin beeku
15. Maal raawwatan? ___________________________________
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 100
d. Key Informant Interview with Woreda/Kebele Health Office (Afan
Oromo)
Waajjira Fayyaa Aanaa/Gandaa irraa nama adda durummaan ragaa
kennu waliin Gaaffii fi deebii Taasifamu 
Bakka gaffii fi deebii: 
Maqaa/wwan:__________________________ Gita/toota 
hojii________________Dhiira/Dubartii 
Maqaa/wwan:__________________________ Gita/toota 
hojii________________Dhiira/Dubartii 
Maqaa/wwan::__________________________Gita/toota 
hojii________________Dhiira/Dubartii 
Guyyaa gaaffii fi deebiin itti taasifame __________Yeroo gaaffii fi 
deebiin itti taasifame _______ 
Maqaa nama gaaffii fi deebii taasisuu __________ Maqaa nama 
yaadannoo qabatuu__________ 
GAAFFII FI DEEBII OSOO HIN JALQABIN DURA IBSA WALIIGALTEE ITTIIN 
GAAFATAN DUBBISTANII KANNEEN RAGAA KENNAN HUNDA IRRAA 
WALIIGALTEE ARGACHUU QABDU
1. Waajjirri fayyaa Aanaa/ganda kana keessatti dhiheessii bishaanii waliin gahuuf iskiimota
kaa’amanii fi hojiirra oolan gama deeggaruutiin shoora attamii baha? [deebii bilisaan]
• CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Waajjirri kun bishaan
jiraachuu isaa fi qulqullina bishaanii to’achuuf ittigaafatamummaa attamii qaba?
2. Dhiheessii bishaanii waliin gahuuf iskiimota/buufatalee bishaanii taa’anii fi hojjetaman
koreewwan bishaanii, qulqullina naannoo fi kan dhuunfaa bulchan waliin hariiroo ni taasiftuu?
Haalawwan attamiitiin?
3. Buufataalee bishaanii isaan kam akka qorataman ibsaa. Qorannoowwaniin maal akka madaalaman
dabalaatii ibsaa, [deebii bilisa ta’e]
4. Qulqullinni tokkoon tokkoon buufta bishaanii yeroo hamamiitti keessatti qoratama?
• Yoo xiqqaate waggaatti yeroo 12.
• Yeroo 12 gad ta’ee, yoo xiqqaate waggaatti yeroo 4 ni qoratama
• Yeroo 4 gad ta’ee, yoo xiqqaate waggaatti yeroo 1 ni qoratama
• Waggaatti yeroo tokko.
• Waggaatti yeroo tokkoo gad
Hanga qabiyyee qorrannoowan 
bishaanii darbuu hin qabnnee: 
• Qabiiyye kalifoormii boolii,
bakteeriyaa boolii
dhukkuba fida ykn ikolaayii
Liitira 100 keessattii 0 kan
hin caalle
• Qabiyyee Arsenikii:
Biliyoona keessaa ppoorttii
10 kan hin caalle ykn 0.01
mg/li
• Qabiyyeee filoraayidii: 0.5
mg/li kan hin caalle
101 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
• Qulqullinni isaa hin qoratamu.
5. Keemikaalotaa fi lubbu qabeeyyii dhukkubaaf ka’umsa ta’ani irratti bu’aan qorannoo qulqullinaa
madda bishaanii sadarkaa biyyoolessaa ol ta’e maal ta’a? [Deebii bilisaan]
• CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Rakkoo hiikuudhaaf eenyutu
ittigaafatamummaa qaba?
• CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Rakkoon hamam irra
dedeebi’amee furameera? Saffisa attamiitiin?
6. Waajjirri kun dhiheessii bishaanii waliin gahuuf iskiimota ka’amanii fi hojiirra oolaniif yeroo
deeggarsa kennutti hudhaawwan isa quunnaman maalfaadha? [Deebii bilisaan]
7. Waajjirri keessan muuxannoowwan bishaanii, qulqullina naannoo fi dhuunfaa naannoo Kanaa
beeksisuu fi gabbisuuf shoorawwan kan biroon inni bahu yoo jiraatan maalfaadha? [Deebii bilisaan]
Kan irratti dudubbachuu barbaaddan waa’ee tokkoon tokkoon iskiimii dhiheessii bishaanii fi buufata bishaanii 
Walta’iinsi Bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) adda baafadhaa. Bara 2001 irraa eegalee tokkoon 
tokkoon iskiimii dhiheessii bishaanii fi buufata bishaanii irratti qorannoon qulqullina bishaanii galmaa’e yoo 
jiraate gaafadhaa. 
8. Buufataalee bishaanii Walta’iinsi Bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) kunneeniif
qorannoowwan qulqullina bishaanii Kanaan dura taasifamanii fi galmaa’anii taa’an yoo qabaattan
nati agarsiisuu ni dandeessuu? Eeyyeen/Lakki
9. Maqaa buufata/iddoo bishaanii Walta’iinsi Bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa
(MWA-EP) ___________________________
NAMA GAAFFII FI DEEBII TAASISU: Qorannoon qulqullina bishaanii galmaa’ee kan qabame yoo 
ta’e, madaallii sadarkaa biyyooleessaa kan caalu bu’aan qorannoo yoo jiraate galmmeessaa 
qabadhaa (saanduqa ilaalaa).
1. Waggaa/ji’a_____________Wanta qoratame ______________Bu’aa
qorannochaa___________
2. Waggaa/ji’a_____________Wanta qoratame ______________Bu’aa
qorannochaa___________
3. Waggaa/ji’a_____________Wanta qoratame ______________Bu’aa
qorannochaa___________
4. Waggaa/ji’a_____________Wanta qoratame ______________Bu’aa
qorannochaa___________
5. Waggaa/ji’a_____________Wanta qoratame ______________Bu’aa
qorannochaa___________
6. Waggaa/ji’a_____________Wanta qoratame ______________Bu’aa
qorannochaa___________
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 102
7. Waggaa/ji’a_____________Wanta qoratame ______________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
8. Waggaa/ji’a_____________Wanta qoratame ______________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________
9. Waggaa/ji’a_____________Wanta qoratame ______________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
NAMA GAAFFII FI DEEBII TAASISU:Yoo danda’ame suuraa kaasaa.Ragaan qorannoo qulqullina 
bishaanii waggoota kamii galmaa’ee akka argamu, yeroo hamamii keessatti akka qoratamee ibsaa 
(fkn kan ji’aa,kan waggaa):
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________ 
10. Maqaa buufata/iddoo bishaanii Walta’iinsi Bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa 
(MWA-EP) ___________________________
NAMA GAAFFII FI DEEBII TAASISU: Qorannoon qulqullina bishaanii galmaa’ee kan qabame yoo 
ta’e, madaallii sadarkaa biyyooleessaa kan caalu bu’aan qorannoo yoo jiraate galmmeessaa 
qabadhaa (saanduqa ilaalaa) 
1. Waggaa/ji’a_____________Wanta qoratame ______________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
2. Waggaa/ji’a_____________Wanta qoratame ______________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
3. Waggaa/ji’a_____________Wanta qoratame ______________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
4. Waggaa/ji’a_____________Wanta qoratame ______________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
5. Waggaa/ji’a_____________Wanta qoratame ______________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
6. Waggaa/ji’a_____________Wanta qoratame ______________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
7. Waggaa/ji’a_____________Wanta qoratame ______________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
8. Waggaa/ji’a_____________Wanta qoratame ______________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
9. Waggaa/ji’a_____________Wanta qoratame ______________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
NAMA GAAFFII FI DEEBII TAASISU: Yoo danda’ame suuraa kaasaa.Ragaan qorannoo qulqullina 
bishaanii waggoota kamii galmaa’ee akka argamu, yeroo hamamii keessatti akka qoratamee ibsaa 
(fkn kan ji’aa,kan waggaa):
103 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________ 
11. Maqaa buufata/iddoo bishaanii Walta’iinsi bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa 
(MWA-EP) ___________________________
NAMA GAAFFII FI DEEBII TAASISU: Qorannoon qulqullina bishaanii galmaa’ee kan qabame yoo 
ta’e, madaallii sadarkaa biyyooleessaa kan caalu bu’aan qorannoo yoo jiraate galmmeessaa qabadhaa 
(saanduqa ilaalaa).
1. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
2. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
3. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
4. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
5. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
6. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
7. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
8. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
9. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
NAMA GAAFFII FI DEEBII TAASISU: Yoo danda’ame suuraa kaasaa.Ragaan qorannoo qulqullina 
bishaanii waggoota kamii galmaa’ee akka argamu, yeroo hamamii keessatti akka qoratamee ibsaa (fkn 
kan ji’aa, kan waggaa):
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________ 
12. Maqaa buufata/iddoo bishaanii Walta’iinsi bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP)
___________________________
NAMA GAAFFII FI DEEBII TAASISU: Qorannoon qulqullina bishaanii galmaa’ee kan qabame yoo 
ta’e, madaallii sadarkaa biyyooleessaa kan caalu bu’aan qorannoo yoo jiraate galmmeessaa qabadhaa 
(saanduqa ilaalaa).
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 104
1. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
2. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
3. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
4. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
5. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
6. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
7. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
8. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
9. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
NAMA GAAFFII FI DEEBII TAASISU: Yoo danda’ame suuraa kaasaa.Ragaan qorannoo qulqullina 
bishaanii waggoota kamii galmaa’ee akka argamu, yeroo hamamii keessatti akka qoratamee ibsaa (fkn 
kan ji’aa,kan waggaa):
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________ 
13. Maqaa buufata/iddoo bishaanii Walta’iinsi bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP)
___________________________
NAMA GAAFFII FI DEEBII TAASISU: Qorannoon qulqullina bishaanii galmaa’ee kan qabame yoo 
ta’e, madaallii sadarkaa biyyooleessaa kan caalu bu’aan qorannoo yoo jiraate galmmeessaa qabadhaa 
(saanduqa ilaalaa).
1. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
2. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
3. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
4. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
5. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
105 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
6. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
7. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
8. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
9. Waggaa/ji’a____________Wanta qoratame _________________Bu’aa 
qorannochaa___________ 
NAMA GAAFFII FI DEEBII TAASISU: Yoo danda’ame suuraa kaasaa.Ragaan qorannoo qulqullina 
bishaanii waggoota kamii galmaa’ee akka argamu, yeroo hamamii keessatti akka qoratamee ibsaa (fkn 
kan ji’aa,kan waggaa):
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________ 
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 106
e. Key Informant Interview – MWA-EP Implementer (Afan Oromo)
Qaamolee Walta’iinsi bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) 
waliin Gaaffii fi deebii- taasifamu 
Qaamolee Deeggartoota Raawwii Walta’iinsa Bishaanii Guyyaa gaaffii fi 
deebii______________ 
Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) _____________ 
Aanaa________________ Yeroo gaaffii fi 
deebii________________ 
Ganda_______________ Maqaa nama gaaffii fi 
deebii 
Gooxii____________
taasisuu___________________________ 
Maqaa nama yaadannoo 
qabatuu____________ 
Maqaa___________________________________Lakk.bilbilaa_________________________
Dhi/Dub 
Maqaa___________________________________Lakk.bilbilaa_________________________
Dhi/Dub 
Maqaa___________________________________Lakk.bilbilaa_________________________
Dhi/Dub 
GAAFFII FI DEEBII OSOO HIN JALQABIN DURA IBSA WALIIGALTEE ITTIIN 
GAAFATAN DUBBISTANII KANNEEN RAGAA KENNAN HUNDA IRRAA 
WALIIGALTEE ARGACHUU QABDU 
1. Bara 1996 hanga 2001tti kan raawatame sagantaa Walta’iinsi Bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa
(MWA-EP) keessatti haalli hirmaannaa keessanii maal ture?
a. Yeroo amma Walta’iinsi Bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) waliin hariiroo yoo
qabaatan haalli hariiroo keessanii maalinni?
2. Dhaabbanni keessan Walta’iinsi Bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) tiif hojiiwwwan
bishaanii, qulqullina naannoo fi dhuunfaa attamii hojjetee xumuree jiraa?
3. Dhaabbanni keessan hawaasaa hojiiwwan dhiheessii bishaani biratti raawwatuu fi haala
adeemsa raawwii isaa filachuuf tooftaa attamii fayydamee? Dhimmoota lamaan kana adeemsa
filachuuf keessatti eenyutu hirmaate?
4. Akka ilaalcha keessaniitti, pirojektii hojiiwwan Walta’iinsi bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa
(MWA-EP) yeroo xumurametti, hojiiwwan hojete keessaa kan bishaanii, qulqullina naannoo fi
dhuunfaa hojiirra oolchuun bu’aawwan argaman caalmaatti milkaawaa akka ta’an keessaa
hojiiwwan isaan kamii?maaliif?
a. CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Hojiiwwan kunneen akka
milka’aan maaltu gumaacha kan taasisan maalfaa isinitti fakkaata?
107 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
b. CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Hawaasa baayyee milkaa’ee fi
akka fakkeenyaatti kaasuu dandeessan jiruu? Ibsaa.
5. Hojiiwwan bishaan, qulqullina naannoo fi dhuunfaa ykn kanneen irraa bu’aawwan argaman walitti￾fufiinsa fooyya’e akka qabaatanii/yeroo dheeraaf akka walitti-fufaniif yeroo raawwiitti
tarkaanffileen fudhataman yoo jiraatan maalfaadha? Ibsaa ?
a. Bu’aawwan kunneen walittifufiinsa akka qabaataniif caalmaatti kan dandeessise maalinni?
b. Hudhaawwan gurguddoodha jedhaman maalfaa turan?
6. Muuxannoo qabdan irraa ka’uudhaan Itoophiyaa keessatti, walitti-fufiinsa yeroo dheeraa kan
qaban bu’uraalee misoomaa kan bishaanii, qulqullina naannoo fi kan dhuunfaa milkeessuuf
hudhaawwan quunnaman keessaa tokko tokko isaan kamfaadha?
a. CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Erga hojiin bishaanii,
qulqullina naannoo fi dhuunfaa xumuramee waggaa tokkoo, lamaa ykn waggaa saddeet
booda duubatti deebitanii yeroo ilaaltan dhimmoonni attamitti jijjiiramu?
b. CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Namni gaafatamu yeroo
deebii deebisanitti, waa’ee bu’uraalee misoomaa hojjetamanii fi hawaasa irratti jijjiirama
amalaa walitti-fufinsa qabu inni fide tutuquu isaanii mirkaneefadhaa/akka dubbatan
taasisaa.
7. Namoonni qulqullina dhuunfaa eeggachuu irratti jijjiiramni amalaa gaarii fidan walitti fufiinsa akka
qabaatu gochuratihoo? Jijjiirama amalaa namoonii fidan kana yeroo dheeraaf walitti-fufiinsa akka
qabaatu gochuudhaaf wantoonni gufuu ta’an /hudhaawwan quunnamuu danda’an maalfaadha?
a. Erga raawwiin pirojeektii bishaanii qulqullinaa naannoo fi dhuunfaa xumuramee waggaa
tokko, lama ykn waggaa sadii booda, gara boodaatti yeroo ilaalttan dhimmoonni haala
attamiitiin jijjiiramu?
b. CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU kan gaafataman yeroo deebii
deebisanitti, waa’ee wanttoota qulqullina ittiin eeggatanii (fkn.iddoo harka dhiqannaa)
ijaaramanii fi jijjiirraa amalaa hawaasa irratti dhufe tutuquu isaaii mirkaneefadhaa/ akka
dubbatan taasisaa.
8. Isin ykn Dhaabbanni keessan gandoota Walta’iinsi bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP)
keessatti hojjetaa ture waliin ammayyuu kallattiinis ta’e, al-kallattiin hariiroo ni qabduu? Hariiroo
qabdu yoo ta’e hariiroo attamii ykn hordoffii pirojektii attamiitu taasifamaa jira?
a. Gaaffii hordofffii: Erga pirojektiin xumuramee waggaa 8 as gandoota kana keessatti
bishaan, qulqullina naannoo fi kan dhuunfaa, akkasumas jijjiiramoota kanneen biroo waliin
wal-qabatee qabatamaadhaan wanti uumame isin beektan ni jiraa? Yoo jiraate maalinni?
9. Gandootuma kana keessatti, waggoottan sadan darbanitti, sagantaaleen haarawaan dhaabbilee
gargarsaa kanneen biroodhaan raawwataman akka jiran hubannoo qabduu?
10. Dhaabbannii keessan Walta’iinsi bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) Muuxannoo
fudhachuudhaan yeroo ammaa walitti-fufiinsa yeroo dheeraa fooyya’e fiduuf haala adda ta’een
wanti inni raawwatu jiraa? Yoo jiraate, jijjiiramoota jiran tareessaatii ibsaa.Maaliif?
11.Waa’ee Walta’iinsi bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) ykn waa’ee dhimmoota walii￾galaa kunneenii yaadi isin nuu qooddan kan biraan jiraa?
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 108
f. Key Informant Interview on Household and Shared Community
Latrine Use (Afan Oromo)
Manneen finccaanii maatii/sadarkaa abbaa warraatii fi kan hawaasni waliin 
akka itti-fayyadamu ijaaraman irratti gaaffii fi deebii nama adda 
durummaan ragaa kennu waliin taasifamu 
Qaamolee Deeggartoota Raawwii Walta’iinsa Bishaanii Guyyaa gaaffii fi 
deebii______ 
Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) ________________ Yeroo gaaffii 
fideebii__________ 
Aanaa________________ Maqaa nama gaaffii fi 
deebii 
taasisuu________________
___
Ganda_______________ Maqaa nama yaadannoo 
qabatuu________________
___
Gooxii____________
Deebii kennaa 1: Maqaa__________________ Saala___________Umurii_______________ 
GAAFFII FI DEEBII OSOO HIN JALQABIN DURA IBSA WALIIGALTEE ITTIIN 
GAAFATAN DUBBISTANII KANNEEN RAGAA KENNAN HUNDA IRRAA 
WALIIGALTEE ARGACHUU QABDU 
Gaafii fi deebii Kanaaf sababa adda durummaan ragaa kennuudhaaf filtamtaniif: 
a. Mana finccaaniitti osoo fayyadamaa jirtanii waan mul’ataniif
b. Naannoo mana finccaanii dhiheenyaan waan jiraattaniif
c. Mana ficcaanii waan qabddaniif/manneen finccaanii maatiif hojjetaman
Haalawwan mana finccaanii Kanaa 
1. Manni/een finccaanii kun yoom ijaarame/ijaaraman?________ hin beeku
2. Eenyuun ijaarame/man?______________hin beeku
3. Dhaabbatichi ijaarsa mana finccaanii kana erga raawwatee booda, dhaabbata Kanaan ala,
dhaabbanni dhiheessa bishaanii yookiin hojiiwwan qulqullinaa irratti hojjetu isin yookiin
miseensota hawaasa waliin hojjechuuf dhufe jiraa? yoo ta’e yoom raawwatame?dhaabbatichis
hojiiwwwan attamii raawwate?
4. Hawaasa kana keessatti sadarkaa abbaaa warraatti mana finccaannii hojjechuuf kan baratameedhaa?
109 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Haala fayyadamtootaa
5. Mana ficcaanii kana mana finccaanii kan biroo yookiin bakka kan biraa irraa(fakk. bakkee irratti 
kan fayyadaman waliin) wal-bira qabdanii yeroo madaalttan hamam irra dedeebitanii ittifayyadamtu? 
a. Mana finccaanii kana yeroo mara kana itti hinfayydamtan yoo ta’e, finccaaniif ykn boliif 
jecha eessa deemtu? Maaliif?
6. Mana /manneen finccaanii kanatti hamam gammadoodha?maaliif?
a. CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Amansiisaa ta’uu isaatiin wal￾qabatee gammadoo ta’uu isaanii gaafadhaa.
b. CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Tajaajila qulqullina qabu 
kennamuu waliin wal-qabatee gammadoo ta’uu isaanii gaafadhaa.
c. GAAFFII AKKA CALMAATTI DUBBATAN TAASISU:Hanga bishaan dhihaatuu waliin wal￾qabatee gammadoo ta’uu isaanii gaafadhaa
d. CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Qulqulluu fi mijaawaa ta’uu 
isaatiin wal-qabatee gammadoo ta’uu isaanii gaafadhaa.
7. Manni finccaanii kun erga ijaaramee ykn manneen finccaanii kunneen erga ijaaramanii as, namoonni 
biroon manneen finccaanii mataa isaanii ijaarataniiru?akka ilaalcha keessaniitti malliif ijaaratan ykn 
hin ijaaramne?
Harka dhiqannaa
8. Bakki harka dhiqannaa kun mana finccaanii kana waliin yeroo tokkotti ijaaramee? 
9. Namoonni mana finccaanichaa erga fayyadamanii booda, harka isaanii saamuunaa/daaraa fi 
bishaaniin akka dhiqatan hamam irra dedeebitanii hubatan?
10. Yeroo manni finccaanii kun ijaarametti dhaabbatichi harka dhiqannaa amaleeffachuu waliin wal￾qabatee barumsi ykn leenjiin inni kenne jiraa? 
11. Akka ilaalcha keessaniitti,namoonni mana finccaannii erga fayyadamanii booda, yeroo mara maaliif 
harka isaanii hin dhiqatan? maaliif?
Mana finccaanichaa haala inni irra jiruun eeganii tursuu, qulqullinaa fi suphaa 
12. Mana finccaanii yookiin manneen finccaanii kana qulqulleessuuf,haala inni irra jiruun eeganii tursuu 
fi suphuuf ittigaafatamnni eenyuuf kenname?
a. CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Tarii hojiiwwan sadeen kana 
akka raawwataniif namooti adda addaa ittigaafatamummaan kennameef jiraachuu waan 
danda’aniif waa’ee tokkoon tokkoon isaaii cimsaatii gaafadhaa.
13. Manneen finccaanii kenneeniif haala idileedhaan hangam qulqullinii fi eegumsi taasifamaaf? Kana 
waliin wal-qabatee rakkoowwan uuman kamiyyuu jiruu? Yoo jiraatan maalfaadha?
14. Mana yookiin mannen finccaanii qulqulleessuuf, eeganii tursiisuu fi baasii suphaadhaaf barbaachisan 
eenyutu kafala? 
15. Mana finccaanichaa yeroo mara qulqulluu akka ta’uu fi fayyadamtoota haalaan akka tajaajila kennu 
eeganii tursuu akka hin danda’amne hudhaawwan gurguddoon nama quunnaman maalfaadha? 
Dhaabbanni tokko rakkoo kana salphisuuf wanti inni raawwachuu danda’u jiraa? 
Manneen finccaanii waliinii qofaaf: Kafalttii
16. Manneen finccaanii kunneen irratti hojiiwwan suphaa raawwachuuf maallaqnni dandeessisu eessaa 
argama?
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 110
17. Namoonni mana finccaanii kana fayyadamuuf kafalttii isaan kafalan hunda mee tarreessaa.
a. Kafalttii waggaa_______________________________
b. Yeroodhuma fayyadaman kan kafalan______________
c. Kafalttii biraan yoo jiraate (ibsaa)__________________ 
18. Kafalttiiwwan walitti qabuuf eenyutu ittigaafatamummaa qaba?
19. Kafalttiiwan kunneen haala kamiin walitti qabamu?
20. Kafalttiiwwan isaanitti ramadame gonkumaa/yeroo barnaadame keessatti kan hin kafale jiruu?
a. CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Namoonni kunneen 
eenyuudha?
b. CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Kan hin kafalleef maaliif? 
21. Mana finccaanii kan bulchuuf maalaqnni ta’u maddawwan kanneen biroo maalaqnni dhufu 
kamiyyuu jiraa?
a. Eeyyeen yoo ta’e:ibsaa 
111 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
g. Group Interview with Shared Community Latrine Management 
(Afan Oromo) 
Mana finccaanii Hawaasi Waliin Itti fayyadaman Ilaalchisee, Gaggeessitoota 
isaa waliin Gaaffii fi deebii Gareen Taasifamu 
Qaamolee Deeggartoota Raawwii Walta’iinsa Bishaanii 
Bakka addaa___________________ 
Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) ________________ 
Guyyaa gaaffii fi deebii_________
Aanaa________________ Maqaa nama gaaffii fi deebii 
taasisuu_____________ 
Ganda_______________ Maqaa nama yaadannoo qabatuu____________ 
Gooxii____________ 
Deebii kennaa 1: Maqaa_______________Shoora gaggeessummaaa____________Dhi/dub 
Umurii_______ 
Deebii kennaa 2: Maqaa_______________Shoora gaggeessummaaa____________Dhi/dub 
Umurii_______ 
Deebii kennaa 3: Maqaa_______________Shoora gaggeessummaaa____________Dhi/dub 
Umurii_______ 
GAAFFII FI DEEBII OSOO HIN JALQABIN DURA IBSA WALIIGALTEE ITTIIN 
GAAFATAN DUBBISTANII KANNEEN RAGAA KENNAN HUNDA IRRAA 
WALIIGALTEE ARGACHUU QABDU
Haala Mana Finccaanii
1. Manni/manneen finccaanii kun yoom ijaarame/ ijaaraman ?_________ Hin beek
2. Eenyutu ijaare ?_________________ Hin beeku
3. Dhaabbatichi ijaarsa mana finccaanii kana erga raawwatee booda, dhaabbata Kanaan ala, 
dhaabbanni dhiheessa bishaanii yookiin hojiiwwan qulqullinaa irratti hojjetu isin yookiin 
miseensota hawaasa waliin hojjechuuf dhufe jiraa? yoo ta’e yoom raawwatame?dhaabbatichis 
hojiiwwwan attamii raawwate?
4. Hawaasa kana keessatti irra caalaan namaa sadarkaa abbaaa warraatti mana finccaanii qabaa?
5. Ittifayyadamtoonni mana finccaanii waliinii kunneen mana finccaanii kanattii hamam 
gammadoodha?
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 112
Haala addaa ittifayyadamtootaa 
6. Manneen finccaanii kanatti eenyutu fayyadama? Maaliif? Namni yookiin gareewwan itti
hinfayyadamnne yoo jiraatan? yoo jiraatan maallif itti hin fayyadaman?
7. Guyyaa guyyaatti timaamaan nama meeqatu manneen finccanii kanatti fayyadama?
Harka dhiqannaa 
8. Iddoon harka dhiqannaa fayyadamtoota mana finccaanii Kanaaf jiraa?yoo hin jiraanne yeroo
manneen finccaanii kunneen ijaaraman bakki harka dhiqannaa tureeraa/ yoo ture maaltu irra
gahe/maal ta’e?
9. Namoonni mana finccaanichaa erga fayyadamanii booda, harka isaanii saamuunaa/daaraa fi
bishaaniin akka dhiqatan hamam irra dedeebitanii hubatan?
a. CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Yeroo mara namoonni yeroo
mana finccaanii fayyadamanii bahan, sababoonni harka isaanii hin dhiqanneefiidha jettanii
yaadan maalinni?
Suphaa, bakka jiranitti eeganii tursuu fi qulqullina 
10. Manneen finccaanii bakka jiranitti eeganii tursuu fi haalli Suphaawwan itti raawwataman attamii?
a. CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Ittigaaftamummaan isaa kan
eenyuuti?
b. CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Adeemsawwan hojii irra oolan
maalfaadha?
11. Manneen finccaanii kana gama bulchuutiin rakkoowwan/dhimmoonni adda durummaan mudatan
maalfaadha? Koreen bishaanichaa rakkoowwan kana attamitti hike?
a. CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Irraa caalaa bakawwan harka
dhiqannaa kana bakka jiranitti gama eeganii tursuu fi rakkoowwan suphaa waliin wal￾qabatan furuuf yeroo hamamii fudhata?
12. Deeggarsi Mootummaan karaa waajjiraalee bishaanii taasisu yoo jiraate deeggarsa attamii taasisa?
waajjira bishaanii walliin wal-ta’anii hojjechuun attamii, maala fakkaata?
a. CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Hariiroo hojii Kanaa keessatti
wanti milkaa’aa ta’e maalinni?
b. CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU: Hariiroo hojii Kanaa keessatti
rakkoowwan/hudhaawwan attamiitu isin quunname?
13. Iddoowwan harka dhiqannaa haala jiraaniin eeganii tursuu fi kafalttiin suphaa attamitti kafalama?
Kafalttiiwwan 
113 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
14. Qulqullina manneen finccaanii eeganii tursuu fi hojiiwwan suphaa deeggaruuf kaffalttiiwwan walitti
qabaman yoo jiraatan maalfaadha? [Deebii bilisaa] [barbaachisaa yoo ta’e gosawwan kafalttii irratti
akka isaan dubbatan yaalii godhaa.
a. Kafalttii waggaa:__________
b. Yeroodhuma fayyadaman kan kafalamu:___________
c. Kafalttii biroon yoo jiraate (ibsaa)___________
15. Manneen finccaanii kana bulchuuf ji’atti maallaqa hamamitu baasii ta’a?kun yeroo yerootti 
hamamiin garaagarummaa qaba? 
16. Fayyadamtoonni kafalttiiwwan akka kafalan isaan irraa eegaman dhugumatti sadarkaa kamiin
kafalamu? fayyadamtoonni kafalttii kafalan yeroo hamamii keessatti deebisanii argatu? (Hojimaati
kun ni beekama yoo ta’e)?
17. Kafalttiin fayyadamtoota irraa walitti qabamu sadarkaa hamamiitiin baasiiwwan danda’a?
a. CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU Kafalttiiwwan walitti qabaman
baasiiwwan kamiin guutuu dandeessuu?
b. CAALMAATTI BAASANII AKKA HIMAN GAAFACHUU Maallaqinni walitti qabame kun
gahaa yoo hin taane, kafalttiiwwan walitti qabamaniin baasiiwwan guutamuu hin dandeenye
isaan kamfaadha?
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 114
h. Group Interview with Two to Three WASHCO Members (Afan 
Oromo)
Miseenssota Koree Bishaanii, Qulqullina Naannoo fi Dhuunfaa Lamaa hanga 
Sadii Ta’an Waliin Gaaffii fi deebii Taasifamu 
Maqaa bakka/iskiimii dhiheessa bishaanii___________________ 
Raawwataa Walta’iinsa Bishaanii Itoophiyaa Bakka addaa____________________ 
Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) Bakki /iskiimiin dhiheessii bishaanii kan ittiin 
_____________________ bulu_________________________ 
Aanaa_________________________ Kanneen gaaffii fi deebii irratti hirmaatan 
Ganda_____________________________ gidduudhaa lakk.bilbilaaa nama 
Gooxii____________________________ tokkoo___________ 
 
Deebii kennaa 1: Maqaa__________________ koree bisaanii,qulqullina naannoo fi dhuunfaa 
keessatti shoora isaan qaban______________________ dhiira/dubartii 
Umurii__________ 
Deebii kennaa 2: Maqaa__________________ koree bisaanii,qulqullina naannoo fi dhuunfaa 
keessatti shoora isaan qaban_______________________dhiira/dubartii 
Umurii__________ 
Deebii kennaa 3: Maqaa___________________ koree bisaanii,qulqullina naannoo fi dhuunfaa 
keessatti shoora isaan qaban_______________________ dhiira/dubartii 
Umurii__________ 
GAAFFII FI DEEBII OSOO HIN JALQABIN DURA IBSA WALIIGALTEE ITTIIN 
GAAFATAN DUBBISTANII KANNEEN RAGAA KENNAN HUNDA IRRAA 
WALIIGALTEE ARGACHUU QABDU
Haala buufata bishaanii
1. Iskiimiin dhiheessa bishaanii/Buufata bishaanii kun yoom ijaarame?_________ Hinbeeku
2. Buufata bishaanii kana Eenyyutu ijaarame?_________ ______________Hinbeeku
3. Buufati bishaanii kun erga hojjetamee booda haala cimaa ta’en hojiin deebisaanii 
dhaabuu/haaromsuu taasifameefii beekaa? Eeyyeen/Lakki/ Hinbeeku
115 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
4. Hojiii deebisaanii dhaabuu/haaromsuu kan hojjete eenyuudha?________ Hinbeeku
5. Kun kan ta’e yoomii?____________ Hinbeeku
6. Erga iskiimiin/bakki dhiheessa bishaanii kun ijaaramee booda,dhaabbata Kanaan ala kan ta’e,
buufata bishaanii kana fooyyessuuf yookiin hawaasa Kanaaf dhiheessii bishaanii fi qulqullinaa
hojjechuf iskiimiin dhiheessa bishaanii kan biraan dhufe jiraa? Yoo jiraate, yoom raawwatame?
Hojiiwwan raawwataman maalfaadha?
7. Hawaasni buufata bishaanii kanatti hamam gammadaadha jettanii yaaddu? [Deebii bilisaan]
Haala ittifayyadamtootaa 
8. Buufata bishaanii kanatti abbootii warraa meeqatu itti fayyadama? (yoo hin qulqulleeffanne
tilmaamaan dubadhaa):________
9. Namoonni bishaan isaanii guuttatanii fudhachuuf hiriira irratti yeroo hamamii itti fudhata?
Hama bishaaanii 
10. Yoo kan beekamu ta’e, buufata bishaanii Kanaan haala barameen daqiiqaatti bishaan liitira
meeqtu gad-bu’a? _____________hin beeku
11. Waliigalaatti, hangi bishaanii buufata bishaanii kana irraa argamu waggaa guutuudhaaf gahaadhaa?
Yoo hin taane namoonni maal godhu?
Qulqullina bishaanii
12. Bishaan buufata kana irraa argamu dhugaatiif amansiisaadha jettanii amantuu? Maaliif?
13. Qulqullinni bishaanii buufata bishaanii Kanaa kan madaalamu yoo ta’e, yeroo hamamiitti
madaalama?
a. Yoo xiqqaate waggaatti yeroo 12
b. Yeroo 12 gad ta’ee, waggaattii yoo xiqqaate yeroo 4 ni madaalama.
c. Yeroo 4 gad ta’ee, waggaatti yoo xiqqaate yeroo tokko ni madaalama.
d. Waggaatti yeroo tokko
e. Waggaatti yeroo tokkoo gad
f. Ququllinni isaa hin madaalamu.
14. Yoo qorannoon qulqullina bishaanichaa baay’ina keemikaalota bishaanicha keessa jiraachuu qabanii
ol agarsiise (fkn baakteeriyaa boolii, filooraayidii baayinni isaa ol’ka’e, summii, kkf) maal
godhama/maaltu uumama?
15. Ragaa qorannoo qulqullina bishaanii Kanaan duraa taasifamee galmaa’ee ni taa’aa? Ragaan kun
galmaa’ee qabamee kan jiru yoo ta’ee ilaaluu nan danda’aa? Eeyyeen/Lakki
(NAMA GAAFFII GAAFATU):Yoo dandeessan suuraa kaasaa ykn footoo koppii kaafadhaatii
qabadhaa.. Ragaan baroota kamii galmaa’ee akka jiru ibsaa. Qorannoo bishaanii Kanaan wanttooti
attamii akka qorataman, qorannochi garaagarumma yeroo hamamii keessatti akka raawwatame
(fkn.ji’a ji’aan, waggaa waggaan) kkf ibsaa.
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 116
a. Ragaan galmaa’e yoo jiraate:NAMNNI GAAFFII GAAFATU: Firiin qorannochaa wanttoota 
keemikaalaa bishaan keessatti argaman sadarkaa biyyoolessaa fudhatama qabuu ol 
darbeera yoo ta’e, yaadannoo qabadhaa( Sadarkaa qorannoo biyyoolessaa saanduqa 
keessatti ilaalaa)
i. Waggaa/ji’a___________Wanta qoratame _______dubbifama/bu’aa 
qorannoo________ 
ii. Waggaa/ji’a___________Wanta qoratame _______dubbifama/bu’aa 
qorannoo________ 
iii. Waggaa/ji’a___________Wanta qoratame _______dubbifama/bu’aa 
qorannoo________ 
iv. Waggaa/ji’a___________Wanta qoratame _______dubbifama/bu’aa 
qorannoo________ 
v. Waggaa/ji’a___________Wanta qoratame _______dubbifama/bu’aa 
qorannoo________ 
vi. Waggaa/ji’a___________Wanta qoratame _______dubbifama/bu’aa 
qorannoo________ 
vii. Waggaa/ji’a___________Wanta qoratame _______dubbifama/bu’aa 
qorannoo________ 
viii. Waggaa/ji’a___________Wanta qoratame _______dubbifama/bu’aa 
qorannoo________ 
ix. Waggaa/ji’a___________Wanta qoratame _______dubbifama/bu’aa 
qorannoo________ 
Buufata bishaanichaa bakka jirutti eeganii tursuu fi Suphaa
16. Buufati bishaanii tajaajila kennaa/ hojjechaa jiraachuu isaa hordofuuf eenyutu ittigaafatamummaa 
qaba? Shoorri waajjirri bishaanii bahu jiraa? yoo jiraate shoorri isaa maalinni?
17. Yeroo hamamiitti suphaa taasisuuf barbaachisa? Rakkoowan irra dedeebi’anii uumaman 
maalfaadha?
18. Buufati bishaanii kun yeroo hunda tajaajila kennaa/ hojjechaa jiraachuuf mirkaneefachuuf 
hudhaawwan adda durummaan gufuu ta’an maalfaadha? 
Kafalttiiwwan 
Yaaliiwwan bishaanii kanneen asiin gaditti ta’an caaluu hin qaban : 
• Raammoo Boolii (Fecal coliforms, fecal streptococci, or E. 
coli): ml 100 keessatti 0 kan hin caalle 
• Summii (Arsenic) Liitira 1keessatti mg 0.01 kan hin caalle 
• Filooraayidii (Fluoride): Liitira 1 keessatti mg 0.5 kan hin 
caalle 
117 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
19. Kafalttii koree bishaanii, qulqullina naannoo fi kan qulqullina dhuunfaatiif kan oolan maddawwan 
maallaqaa maaltu jiruu? Madden adda addaa irraa maallaqa hangamitu argameera? 
20. Yoo tajaajila bishaanii argachuuf kafalttiiwwan jiraatan ibsaa. 
a. Kafalttii waggaa:__________ 
b. Yeroodhuma fayyadaman kafalttii kafalamu:___________kuusaa liitira 10 
qabatu/kuusaa liitira 20qabatu/kan biroof yoo jiraate (barreessaa):_______________ 
c. Kafalttii biroon yoo jiraate (ibsaa)___________ 
21. Fayyadamttoonni kafalttii isaan irraa eegamu dhugumaanitti sadarkaa hamiin kafalu? Hojimaati kun 
kan beekamu yoo ta’e, tajajaajila bishaaniirra kafalttii akka sasaabamu eegamu keessaa meeqatu 
sasaabama? 
22. Maallaqanni tajaajila bishaanii kana irraa sasaabamu buufata bishaanii kana eeganii tursuu fi 
suphaadhaaf baasiiwwan barbaachisan sadarkaa hamamiitti danda’a? kan hin dandeenye yoo ta’e, 
qaawwaan isaa hamam guddadha? Qaawwaa maallaqaa kanas attamitti guuttu? 
23. Kafalttiiwwan kana galmeessitanii ni qabattuu? ilaaluu ni danenyaa? 
Jijjiiramoota ilaaltan 
24. Iskiimiin dhiheessii bishaanii/ buufati kun erga ijaaramee as koreen bishaanii, qulqullina naannoo fi 
kan dhuunfaa dhiheessi bishaani/buufaticha tooftaan inni itti bulchu waggoota muraasa darban 
keessatti hamam jijjiirameera? Attamitti jijjiirame? Jijjiiramnni taasifame waan fooyya’adhaaf moo 
rakkoo caaluuf? 
25. Kanaafuu, buufata bishaanii yookiin waa’ee dhaabbata ijaaree wanti anaa wajjin mari’achuu 
barbaadan ni jiraa? 
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 118
i. Structured Group Interview with One or Two Water Collectors
(Afan Oromo)
Fayyadamtoota Buufataalee Bishaanii Kanneen Bishaan 
Waraabbatan Tokko ykn Lamaa Ta’an Waliin Gaaffii fi deebii 
Qindaa’aa Taasifamu
Dhiheessii bishaanii waliin gahuuf kan diriiriffame irratti 
Maqaa Iskiimii/ piroojektii bishaanii___________________ 
Ganda_________________________ 
Maqaa bakka buufata bishaanii______________________ 
Gooxii_________________________ 
Raawwataa walta’iinsa bishaanii Itoophiyaa 
Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP)_______________ Bakka addaa______________ 
Aanaa____________________________ Iskiimiin bishaanii/ dhiheessiin 
bishaanii kun kan gaggeeffamu 
_________________ 
Deebii kennaa Saala Umurii Waggaa as jiraatan 
lakkoofsaan 
Nama gaaffii fi deebii 
irratti hirmaatu lakk 1
Nama gaaffii fi deebii 
irratti hirmaatu lakk 2
GAAFFII FI DEEBII OSOO HIN JALQABIN DURA IBSA WALIIGALTEE ITTIIN 
GAAFATAN DUBBISTANII KANNEEN RAGAA KENNAN HUNDA IRRAA 
WALIIGALTEE ARGACHUU QABDU 
Haala ittifayyadamaa 
1. Buufata bishaanii kana hamam dhuftu?
2. Buufata bishaanii kana yeroo dhutanitti bishaan waraabatanii deemuuf dabareef yeroo hamamii
isinitti fudhata?
3. Fedhii fi fayyadama bishaanii maatii keessanii guyya guyyaa guutuuf jecha bishaan dabalataaf jecha
madda bishaanii kamirraa kamiraayyuu bishaan waraabbattanii beektuu?
Deebiin isaa eeyyeen yoo ta’e, maaliif, akkasumas bishaan dabalataa kana eessa waraabbattu?
4. Buufata bishaanii kana irraa bishaanni waraabbattan fedhii fi fayyadama bishaannii guyyaa guyyaa
qabdan ni guutaa/gahaadhaa?
a. Waggaa guutuu hama bishaanii wal-fakkaatu ni argattuu? Yookiis yeroodhaa gara yerootti
hama bishaanii gara garaa arggattuu?
5. Bishaan kana tajaajila maaliitiif ittifayyadamtu?
119 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
6. Bishaan kun dhugaatiif ni ta’aa/ qulqullinni isaa kan eegame ta’ee isinitti dhagahamaa? Maaliif isinitti 
fakkaata? maaliif isinitti hin fakkaatu? 
7. Namni miseensa hawaasa Kanaa ta’e hundi buufata bishaanii kana wal-qixa itti-fayyadamuu ni 
danda’aa? Maaliif? 
8. Namoonni buufata bishaanii kanatti fayyadamuu hin dandeenye isaan kamiidha? Maaliif ?
a. Namonni qabeenya qaban, saala murtaa’ee fi kutaawwan hawaasaa qaama miidhamtoota 
ta’an buufta bishaanii kanatti kan hin fayyadamne yoo ta’e baasanii akka isinitti himan taasisaa.
Haala Bulchiinsa isaa
9. Buufata bishaanii kana eenuytu bulchaa?
10. Buufati bishaanii kun hamam haala gaariidhaan bulaa jira jettanii yaadduu? Maaliif?
a. Wanti bulchiinsi bishaanii haala gaariidhaan raawwachaa jiran maalinni?
b. Haala adda ta’een/karaa biraatin wanti isaan raawwachuu qabdan maalinni? 
11. Buufati bishaanii kun gama tajaajila kennuutiin wal - qabatee rakkoowwan quunnamanii beekuu? Yoo 
ta’e rakkoo attamiitu quunnamanii beeku? rakkoowwan kunneen attamitti hiikaman ? Rakkoowwan 
kunneen eenyuun hiikaman?
12. Buufati bishaanii yeroo tajaajila dhaabetti maal gootan?
13. Adeemsa yeroo keessatti haalli buufati bishaanii bule/itti suphame ilaalchisee, jijjiiramota attamii 
ilaaltan?
Madda maallaqaa
14. Buufata Bishaanii kanatti fayyadamuuf/waraabbachuuf qarshii meeqa kafaltu? kafaltiin kun isinii fi 
matiin keessan kan kafaluu dandeessan/dandeettii kafaluu keessan waliin kan wal-madaaluudhaa ? 
15. Namoonni hundi tajaajila bishaanii argachuuf/ waraabbachuuf kafalttiin kafalan kan wal-fakkaatuudhaa? 
Yoo hin taane maaliif? 
16. Tajaajila bishaaniitiif kafalttiin kafalamu waggoota 8 darban keessatti jijjiiramee kan beeku yoo 
ta’e, attamitti jijjiirame? 
Waa’ee buufata bishaan Kanaa yookiin buufati bishaanii attamitti akka bulu wanti nati himuu barbaaddan 
jiraa?
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 120
6. Structured Observation Forms (Afan Oromo)
a. Structured Observations at Water Points (Afan Oromo)
Buufataalee Bishaanii Irratti Do’iiwwan Qindaa’aa Taasifaman 
Dhiheessii bishaanii waliin gahuuf kan hojiirra oole 
Maqaa Iskiimii/piroojektii bishaanii_________________ Bakka addaa____________________ 
Raawwataa walta’iinsa bishaanii Itoophiyaa Bakka sanatti maqaa nama 
Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) __________ dubbisuu dandeenyeu 
_____________ 
Aanaa____________________________ Bakka sanatti lakk.bilbilaa nama 
Ganda____________________________ dubbisuu dandeenyeuu_________ 
Gooxii____________________________ Maddi/ Piroojektiin bishaanii kun 
kan gaggeeffamu 
____________________ 
Gosa Iskiimii/dhiheessii 
bisahaanicha 
____________________ 
Dhiheessa bishaanii Kanaan walitti-dhufeenya kan qaban yookiin dhiheessii bishaanii Kanaan baay’ina 
buufatalee bishaanii ijaaramanii________________ 
Buufataaleen bishaaanii qopha qophaatti kan bulan yoo ta’e, tokkoon tokkoon buufatalee bishaanii 
qaamolee bulchan tarreessaa: 
Do’ii bakka madda bishaanii (yoo bakka buufata bishaanii irraa adda ta’e/ta’an)
Do’ii bakka buufata bishaanii 1ffaa irratti taasifaman 
1. Namoota meeqatu bakka buufata bishaanitti dabaree eeggataa jiru?
2. Kuusaawwan bishaanii meeqatu bishaan guuttachuuf dabaree eegaa jira? (Hama bishaan
guutamuu beekuuf gosa kuusaa bishaanii adda baafadhaa)
3. Namoonni buufata bishaanitti walittqabaman namoota attamii akka ta’an ibsaa? (fkn
saalaann,umuriin)
4. Bakka/meeshaa iddoo itti dhiqatanii qabaa?
5. Deebiin isaa eeyyee yoo ta’e, bakki ittidhiqatan kunneen faayidaa irra ooluu isaanii wanti
mul’isu jiraa?
6. Bakka loon bishaan itti obaasan jiraa? Eeyyee yoo ta’e: faayidaa irra ooluu isaanii wanti mul’isu
jiraa?
7. Yeroo ammaa buufatni bishaanii kun bishaan maddisiisaa/kennaa jiraa? Eeyyeen/Lakki
8. Gosa paamppii harkaa dhiibamu yoo ta’e, qabannoon isaa yeroo meeqa erga dhiibame booda,
bishaanni bu’u akka jalqabe galmeessaa._____________
9. Kuusaa liitira 20 qabatutti bishaan guutaa, kuusaa kana guutuuf yeroo inni fudhatu beekuuf
sa’atii/daqiiqaa qabadhaa. Buufata bishaanii gose harkaa dhiibamu yoo ta’e, meeshaa bishaan
itti qabatan kana guutuuf yeroo meeqa qabannoo kun akka dhiibame lakka’aa.
10. Meeshaa Liitira 20 qabatu guutuudhaaf sakandoota inni fudhate_________
121 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
11. Meeshaa Liitira 20 qabatu guutuudhaaf qabannoon kun yeroo meeqa dhiibame? _________
12. Buufati bishaanii kun rakkoo coccobuu bishaanii sadarkaa hammaataadhaan ifatti mul’atu kan 
qabu ta’uu isaa yoo argitan, galmeeffadhaa.
13. Buufati bishanichaa Suphaa fi haaromsa akka isa barbaachisu ifati kan mul’atu yoo ta’e, 
galmeeffadhaa. 
14. Waliigalattii hudhaawwanii fi yaddowwan mul’atan irratti yaada kennaa.
Do’iiwwan buufata bishaanii 2ffaa irratti taasifaman (gaaffiiwwan kana hanga buufata bishaanii 4ffaattii irra 
deebi’aa)
Do’iiwwan buufata bishaanii 3ffaa irratti taasifaman 
Do’iiwwan buufata bishaanii 4ffaa irratti taasifaman 
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 122
b. Structured Observations of Household Latrines (Afan Oromo)
Do’ii qindaa’aa Manneen Finccaanii Sadarkaa Abbaa warraatti 
Hojjetaman Irratti Taasifamu 
Raawwataa dhiheessii bishaanii hojii walta’iinsa bishaanii 
Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP)________________ Bakka addaa________________ 
Aanaa_________________________ 
Ganda_________________________ 
Gooxii:________________________ 
Manneen finccaanii isaan kamitu deeggarsaa maallaqaa Dhaabbata Gargaarsaa Ameerikaa (USAID) irraa 
argamuun kan socho’u walta’iinsa bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP)keessatti abbootiin warraa 
hirmaachuu isaaniitiin akka ijaaraman beekuuf, gaggeessitoota hawaasa naannoo ykn hawaasa keessatti 
kanneen beekumsa qaban waliin hojjechuu. Tokkoon tokkoon mana finccaannii daawwachaa do’iiwwan 
itti aananii jiran guutaaa. 
Mana finccaanii lakkoofsa 1:
1. Manni finccaanii 
Itoophiyaa Jaarraa 
hojjetameedha? 
kun yeroo piroojektiin walta’iinsa bishaanii 
Kanaa (MWA-EP) jirutti abbootii warraatiin kan 
Eeyyeen / Miti hin beeku
2. Manni finccaanii kun yoom hojjetame?__________ hin beeku Bara: _______
Yoom akka hojjetame hin beeku
3. Saalaan kan ramadamee/adda bahe: Dubartii/Dhiira/saalaan kan adda hi
baane(namnni kamiyyuu fayyadamu
kan danda’u)
3.1 Yoo saalaan adda bahee jiraate: Manni finccaanii saala isa 
tokkoo, kan saala isaa biraa irraa attamitii adda bahee 
Eeyyeen / Lakki
jiraa (keenyaadhaan ykn walirraa fagaatee ijaaramuu isaa)? 
4. Gosa mana finccaanii a) Sadarkaa guddaa kan qabu/haala 
addaatiin kan qophaa’e
b) Kan bishaan gad-buusu
c) Kan aaddaa, mana finccaanii 
boollaa lafti isaa kan miiccamu 
(Siminttoo)
n 
u 
123 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
d) Kan aaddaa, mana finccaanii boollaa
lafti isaa kan hin miiccamu (lafti isaa
biyyoo)
) Boollaae gabaabaa qotame ta’ee
golgaa kan qabu
f) Kan biroon yoo jiraate ibsaa:
5. Waliigalatti manni finccaanichaa lakkoofsaan kutaa meeqa qaba? L ____________ akkoofsaan :
_____
5.1 Mana finccaanichaa 
cufamin): _____ 
fayyadamuudhaaf banaadhaa (kan hin eyyeen /E Miti
5.2 Mana finccaanii fayyidaa irra ooluu isaa ragaan ifati mul’atu 
(fooliin yoo qabaate, qaawwaa keessa ilaalaa): _____ 
Eeyyeen / Miti 
Yaadannoo________
5.3 Manni finccaanii guutumaa guttuutti kan golgame, namnni 
bilisa ta’ee kan ittifayyadamuu danda’uudhaa? (naannoon isaa 
keenyaa kan qabuu fi balbala guutumaa guutuutti cufamu kan 
qaban): _____ 
eyyeen /E Miti
5.4 Balbballi isaa keessaan kan cufamu eyyeen /E Miti
5.5 Ijarsa amansiisaa ta’e kan qaban(jalli isaa kan amansiisa ta’e, 
keenyaa fi baaxiin isaa kan hin sochonee fi kan hin buqaane): 
Eeyyeen /Miti
Yaadannoo_______________
5.6 Qaama miidhamttoonni salphaatti ittifayyadamuu 
danda’aniidhaa? (fakk.olka’iinsa kan hinqabnne, keessaan 
deeggarsaaf waan qabatamu kan qabu, bakka ta’an): ____
eyyeen /E Miti
5.7 Haala qulqullina: Mana finccaanichaa sadarkaa qulqullina 
fudhatamaa kan qabu (fkn finccaaniin hin faalamnne, boolii ykn 
waraqaa mana finccaanii fayyidaa irra oole): _____ 
eyyeen /E Miti
5.8 Foolii: 
xiqqaa 
Foolii fudhatamaa kan qabu (kan hin ajoofne 
dandamachuun danda’amu): _____
ykn foolii eyyeen /E Miti 
Yaadannoo_______________
5.9 Titisa: Mana finccaanii 
caalle kan qabu: ____ 
titisota lakkoofsi isaanii sadii gad / hin eyyeen /E Miti
6. Mana finccaanii keessatti kutaalee kamiyyuu keessatti ykn
dhiheenya isaaniitti meeshaalee hudduu haxaa’annaaf/qulqulla’uuf
kan tajaajilu kan akka waraqaa ykn bishaan kuusaadhaan jiruu?
eyyeen /E Lakki
7. Meeshaalee kana suuraa kaasaa
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 124
8. Yaadannoo: 
Mana finccaanii lakk. 2ffaa: (gaaffiiwwan olitti jiran hanga manneen finccaanii 8ffaa tti irra deebi’aa)
Mana finccaanii lakk. 3ffaa:
Mana finccaanii lakk. 4ffaa:
Mana finccaanii lakk. 5ffaa:
Mana finccaanii lakk. 6ffaa:
Mana finccaanii lakk. 7ffaa:
Mana finccaanii lakk. 8ffaa:
Tajaajilawwan harka dhiqannaa
 1. Harka dhiqannaaf akka oolu yaadamee gosa Eeyyeen/lakki 
meeshaa kamiiniyyuu dhiheenyatti bishaanni 
qophaa’e jiraa? guutamaa ta’us, ta’uu baatus?
2. Meeshaa bishaanii harka dhiqanaaf taa’ee 
jiru suuraaa kaafadhaa 
 3. Meeshaaleen bishaanii harka dhiqanaaf oolan a) Mana finccaaniitti dhihoo 
baatee jiru eessa taa’anii jiru? Issa sirrii ta’e 
hundatti mallattoo geenggoo taasisaa) b) Kan biroo ibsaa:_______________ 
4. Har’a meeshaalee bishaanni harka Eeyyeen/lakk 
dhiqannaadhaaf oolan kamiiniyyuu keessa 
bishaanni jiraa? 
5. Har’a meeshaalee harka dhiqanaadhaaf Eeyyeen/lakk 
qophaa’an irra saammunaan jiraa?
6. Har’a namooti mana finccaaniitti Eeyyeen/lakk 
fayyadamanii yeroo bahanitti. harka isaanii 
dhiqachuu isanii wanti agarsiisu jiraa?(fkn 
lafti yookiin saamunaan jiidhaa yoo ta’e? 
125 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
7. Har’a erga mana finccaaniitti fayyadamanii Eeyyeen/lakk
bahanii booda, namoota harka isaanii osoo
dhiqatan agartan jiruu? eeyyeen yoo ta’e
8.
saala isaanii ibsaa.
Har’a erga mana finccaaniitti fayyadamanii Eeyyeen/lakk
bahanii booda, namoonni harka isaanii osoo 
hin dhiqatin agartan jiruu ?eeyyeen yoo Yaadannoo____________________
ta’e, saala isaanii ibsaa.
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 126
c. Structured Observations of Shared Community Latrines (Afan 
Oromo)
Do’ii Qindaa’aa Mana finccaanii Hawaasni waliin itti fayyadamu irratti 
taasifamu 
Manneen finccaanii waliinii isaan kamitu deeggarsaa maallaqaa Dhaabbata Gargaarsaa Ameerikaa 
(USAID) irraa argamuun kan socho’u walta’iinsa bishaanii Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) qaamolee 
deeggaraniin kan ijaaraman ta’uu isaanii beekuuf, gaggeessitoota hawaasa naannoo ykn hawaasa keessatti 
kanneen beekumsa qaban waliin hojjechuu. Tokkoon tokkoon mana finccaannii daawwachaa do’iiwwan itti 
aananii jiran guutaaa. 
Raawwata deeggaraa Walta’iinsa bishaanii 
Itoophiyaa Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP):_________________ 
Aanaa______________________ 
Ganda______________________ 
Gooxii_______________________ 
Bakka addaa____________________ 
Guyyaa itti do’atame _________________ 
Yeroo itti do’atame ________________
Maqaa nama do’atee ________________
Mana finccaanii lakkoofsa 1: 
1. Manni ficcaanii kun piroojektii walta’iinsa bishaanii Itoophiyaa 
Jaarraa Kanaa (MWA-EP) dhaan kan hojjetameedha? 
Eeyyeen/Miti/hin beeku
2. Manni finccaanii kun yoom hojjetame? Bara: _______
Hin beeku
3. Saalaan kan ramadamee/adda bahe: Dubartii/Dhiira/saalaan kan adda hin 
baane(namnni ni kamiyyuu fayyadamuu 
kan danda’u)
a) Yoo saalaan adda bahee jiraate: Manni finccaanii saala isa 
tokkoo, kan saala isaa biraa irraa attamitii adda bahee jiraa 
(keenyaadhaan ykn walirraa fagaatee ijaaramuu isaa )? 
Eeyyeen / Miti
4. Gosa mana finccaanii a) Sadarkaa guddaa kan qabu/haala 
addaatiin kan qophaa’e
b) Kan bishaan gad-buusu
127 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
c) Kan aaddaa, mana finccaanii boollaa
lafti isaa kan miiccamu (Siminttoo)
d) Kan aaddaa, mana finccaanii boollaa
lafti isaa kan hin miiccamu (lafti isaa
biyyoo)
e) Boollaa gabaabaa qotame ta’ee
golgaa kan qabu
f) Kan biroon yoo jiraate ibsaa:
5. Waliigalatti manni finccaanichaa lakkoofsaan kutaa meeqa qaba? Lakkoofsaan : ____________
_____
a) Baay’ina 
(kan hin 
 kutaalee mana finccaanii 
cufamin): _____ 
fayyadamtootaaf banaa ta’an Lakkoofsaan : ____________
b) Baay’ina kuataalee 
danda’anii: ____
mana finccaanii do’attonnni keessa lixuu Lakkoofsaan : ____________
c) Namoonni manneen finccaanii kanattii fayyadamaa jiraachuu
isaanii ragaan ifatti mul’isuu kutaalee mana finccaanii Kanaa
meeqa keessatti argamu (fooliin yoo jiraate, qaawwaa isaa
keessa ilaalaa, namoonni kutaalee kunneenitti fayydamaa
jiraachuu isaanii ilaalaa):
Lakkoofsaan : ____________
d) Kutaalee mana finiccaanichaa haala gaariidhaan kan golgamanii fi
namoonni bilisa ta’anii itti fayyadamuu danda’aniidhaa?(keenyaa
kana qabanii fi balbaloota guutumaa guutuutti cufamuu danda’an
kan qaban )
Lakkoofsaan : ____________
e) Baay’ina kutaalee 
kan qaban:
mana finccaanii balbala keessaan cufamu Lakkoofsaan : ____________
f) Baay’ina mana finccaanii ijarsa amansiisaa ta’e kan qaban(jalli
isaa kan amansiisa/jabaa ta’e, keenyaa fi baaxiin isaa kan hin
sochonee fi kan hin buqaane): ____
Lakkoofsaan : ____________
g) Baay’ina kutaalee mana finccaanii daa’immanii fi qaama
miidhamttoonni salphaatti ittifayyadamuu danda’an
(fakk.olka’iinsa kan hinqabnne, deeggarsaaf waan qabatamu kan
qabu,bakka ta’an kan qabu, qaawwaa mana finccaanii dhiphoo
jiraachuu isaanii ):
Lakkoofsaan : ____________
h) Haala qulqullina: Kutaaleen mana finccaanichaa sadarkaa
qulqullina fudhatamaa qabuu kan qaban meeqa? (fkn finccaaniin
hin faalamnne, boolii ykn waraqaa mana finccaanii fayyidaa irra
oole):
Lakkoofsaan : ____________
i) Foolii : Baay’ina kutaalee mana finccaanichaa foolii foolii
fudhatamaa kan qabu(kan foolii hinqabne, hama tokko foolii
kana qaban, foolii dandamachuun danda’amu kan qaban):
Lakkoofsaan : ____________
_____
j) Titisa: Baay’ina kutaalee mana 
muraasini keessatti mul’atanii 
finccaanii 
(0-3): ___ 
lakkoofsi titisotaa Lakkoofsaan : ____________
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 128
6. Mana finccaanii keessatti kutaalee kamiyyuu keessatti ykn dhiheenya 
isaaniitti meeshaalee hudduu haxaa’annaaf/qulqulla’uuf kan 
tajaajilu kan akka waraqaa ykn bishaan kuusaadhaan jiruu? 
7. Har’a manneen finccaanii kanatti namni kamiyyuu osoo 
ittifayyadamaa jiruu agartaniituu? 
/
I
j
8. Suuraa kaasaa 
ii. Yaadannoo: 
Eeyyeen / Lakki
Dubartii________
Dhiira_________
joollee dubaraa________
oollee dhiiraa_________
Mana finccaanii lakk 2: (gaaffiiwwan olitti gaafataman hanga bilookii 4ffaa tti irra deebi’aa)
Mana finccaanii lakk 3:
Mana finccaanii lakk 4:
Tajaajilawwan harka dhiqannaa
iii. Harka dhiqannaaf akka oolu yaadamee gosa 
meeshaa kamiiniyyuu dhiheenyatti bishaanni 
qophaa’e jiraa? guutamaa ta’us, ta’uu baatus?
Eeyyeen/lakki
iv. Meeshaa bishaanii harka 
jiru suuraaa kaafadhaa 
dhiqanaaf taa’ee 
v. Meeshaaleen bishaanii harka dhiqanaaf oolan 
baatee jiru eessa taa’anii jiru? Issa sirrii ta’e 
hundatti mallattoo geenggoo taasisaa) 
a)
b)
Mana finccaaniitti dhihoo
Kan biroo ibsaa:_______________
vi. Har’a meeshaalee 
dhiqannaadhaaf oolan 
bishaanni jiraa? 
bishaanni 
kamiiniyyuu 
harka 
 keessa 
Eeyyeen/lakk
vii. Har’a meeshaalee harka 
qophaa’an irra saamuunaan 
dhiqanaadhaaf 
jiraa?
Eeyyeen/lakk
129 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
viii. Har’a namooti mana finccaaniitti fayyadamanii Eeyyeen/lakk 
yeroo bahanitti, harka isaanii dhiqachuu isanii 
wanti agarsiisu jiraa? (fkn lafti yookiin 
saamuunaan jiidhaa yoo ta’e? 
ix. Har’a dubartiin fayyadamtoota mana finccaannii Eeyyeen/lakki 
yeroo harka isaanii dhiqatan agartaniituu? 
x. Har’a dhiirri fayyadamtoota mana finccaannii Eeyyeen/lakki 
yeroo harka isaanii dhiqatan agartaniituu? 
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 130
ANNEX III: DATA COLLECTION SCHEDULE AND PARTIES 
CONSULTED 
Date Target Type Region Woreda
11/6/2017 MWA Implementer Interview Addis N/A
11/7/2017 MWA Implementer Interview Addis N/A
11/8/2017
Regional Water Office -
SNNP informal SNNP
11/8/2017 Zonal Water Office Informal Amhara
11/9/2017 Woreda Water Office Interview SNNP Kucha
11/9/2017 Woreda Health Office Interview SNNP Kucha
11/9/2017 Water User Interview SNNP Kucha
11/9/2017 Water sample Water Sample SNNP Kucha
11/9/2017 HH latrine obs
Latrine 
Observation SNNP Kucha
11/9/2017 HH latrine owner Interview SNNP Kucha
11/9/2017 Woreda Health Office Interview Amhara Simada
11/10/2017 CHW Interview SNNP Kucha
11/10/2017 WASHCO Interview SNNP Kucha
11/10/2017 HH latrine obs
Latrine 
Observation SNNP Kucha
11/10/2017 HH latrine obs
Latrine 
Observation SNNP Kucha
11/10/2017 Woreda Water Office Interview Amhara Simada
11/10/2017 HH latrine obs
Latrine 
Observation Amhara Simada
11/10/2017 WASCHO Interview Amhara Simada
11/10/2017 Latrine Owner Interview Amhara Simada
11/10/2017 Latrine Owner Interview Amhara Simada
11/10/2017 Water User Interview Amhara Simada
11/11/2017 Woreda Water Office Interview SNNP Soro
11/11/2017 Woreda Health Office Interview SNNP Soro
11/11/2017 Water Sample Water Sample Amhara Simada
11/11/2017 HH latrine obs
Latrine 
Observation Amhara Simada
11/11/2017 HH latrine obs
Latrine 
Observation Amhara Simada
11/11/2017 HH latrine owner Interview Amhara Simada
11/11/2017 HH latrine owner Interview Amhara Simada
11/11/2017 WASHCO Interview Amhara Simada
11/11/2017 Water User Interview Amhara Simada
11/13/2017 HH latrine owner Interview SNNP Soro
131 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
11/13/2017 HH latrine obs
Latrine 
Observation SNNP Soro
11/13/2017 HH latrine obs
Latrine 
Observation SNNP Soro
11/13/2017 HH latrine obs
Latrine 
Observation SNNP Soro
11/13/2017 HH latrine owner Interview SNNP Soro
11/13/2017 Water User Interview Amhara Simada
11/13/2017 HH latrine owner Interview Amhara Simada
11/13/2017 WASHCO Interview Amhara Simada
11/13/2017 Water Sample Water Sample Amhara Simada
11/13/2017 HH latrine obs
Latrine 
Observation Amhara Simada
11/14/2017 Water User Interview SNNP Soro
11/14/2017 WASHCO Interview SNNP Soro
11/14/2017 Water sample Water Sample SNNP Soro
11/14/2017 CHW Interview SNNP Soro
11/14/2017 Woreda Water Office Interview Amhara Farta
11/14/2017 Woreda Health Office Interview Amhara Farta
11/14/2017 Woreda Water Office Interview Amhara Dera
11/15/2017 Woreda Water Office Interview SNNP
East 
Badawacho
11/15/2017 Woreda Health Office Interview SNNP
East 
Badawacho
11/15/2017 Water User Interview Amhara Farta
11/15/2017 Water User Interview Amhara Farta
11/15/2017 WASCHO Interview Amhara Farta
11/15/2017 HH latrine owner Interview Amhara Farta
11/15/2017 HH latrine owner Interview Amhara Farta
11/15/2017 Water Sample Water Sample Amhara Farta
11/15/2017 HH latrine obs
Latrine 
Observation Amhara Farta
11/15/2017 HH latrine obs
Latrine 
Observation Amhara Farta
11/16/2017 Water User Interview SNNP
East 
Badawacho
11/16/2017 HH latrine obs
Latrine 
Observation SNNP
East 
Badawacho
11/16/2017 HH latrine obs
Latrine 
Observation SNNP
East 
Badawacho
11/16/2017 Water sample Water Sample SNNP
East 
Badawacho
11/16/2017 CHW Interview SNNP
East 
Badawacho
11/16/2017 WASCHO Interview Amhara Farta
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 132
11/16/2017 Water User Interview Amhara Farta
11/16/2017 CHW Interview Amhara Farta
East 
11/17/2017 WASHCO Interview SNNP Badawacho
East 
11/17/2017 HH latrine owner Interview SNNP Badawacho
11/17/2017 WASCHO Interview Amhara Dera
11/17/2017 Water User Interview Amhara Dera
11/17/2017 Water Sample Water Sample Amhara Dera
11/18/2017 WASHCO Interview SNNP Soro
11/18/2017 MWA Implementer Interview SNNP
11/18/2017 Water Sample Water Sample Amhara Dera
11/18/2017 CHW Interview Amhara Dera
11/18/2017 WASHCO Interview Amhara Dera
11/18/2017 Water User Interview Amhara Dera
11/20/2017 Woreda Water Office Interview SNNP Tenbaro
11/20/2017 Woreda Health Office Interview SNNP Tenbaro
11/20/2017 CHW Interview SNNP Tenbaro
11/21/2017 WASHCO Interview SNNP Tenbaro
11/21/2017 Water User Interview SNNP Tenbaro
11/21/2017 couple nonfunctional Interview SNNP Tenbaro
11/21/2017 WASHCO Interview SNNP Tenbaro
11/21/2017 water sample Water Sample SNNP Tenbaro
Latrine 
11/21/2017 HH latrine obs Observation SNNP Tenbaro
Latrine 
11/21/2017 HH latrine obs Observation SNNP Tenbaro
Latrine 
11/21/2017 HH latrine obs Observation SNNP Tenbaro
11/23/2017 MWA Implementer Interview Addis Addis
11/23/2017 MWA Implementer Interview Addis Addis
11/24/2017 CHW/latrine owner Interview SNNP
133 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ANNEX IV: BIBLIOGRAPHY 
Abaire, Bekele and Catholic Relief Services/Ethiopia. “Arborloo and Marketing”. Presentation at the 
Water and Health Conference at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, October 
14-18, 2013. 
African Ministers’ Council on Water. 2011. Water Supply and Sanitation in Ethiopia: Turning Finance into 
Services for 2015 and Beyond. Addis Ababa: Water and Sanitation Program. 
Amhara Regional Health Bureau. 2006. Whole System in the Room (WSR) Multi-stakeholder Meeting 
Technical Report: Aligning for Action: Sustainable Development through Safe Water, Environmental 
Sanitation and Hygiene. Water and Sanitation Program/World Bank and USAID/Hygiene 
Improvement Project. 
Amhara National Regional State Health Bureau. Woreda Resource Book: Community-Led Total Behavior 
Change in Hygiene and Sanitation: The Amhara Experience in Line with the Health Extension Program.
Water and Sanitation Program/World Bank and USAID/Hygiene Improvement Project. 
Bakker, Eline. 2013. Situational Analysis on Sanitation Marketing: CRS Experience in 3 Woredas. 
British Geological Survey. 2001. Groundwater Quality: Ethiopia. Keyworth, Nottingham: National 
Environment Research Council. 
CARE International in Ethiopia. 2007. Final Report: Farta Water and Sanitation Promotion (FWSP) Project. 
Millennium Water Alliance, USAID. 
CARE International in Ethiopia. 2008. Terminal Report, Farta and Estie Water and Sanitation (FEWS) Project. 
Michael and Susan Dell Foundation. 
Catholic Relief Services. 2009. Final Report on Improving Community Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene in Bure 
Woreda, Amhara Region. USAID. 
Catholic Relief Services. 2010. Improving Water and Sanitation Facilities in Jabi Tenhan Project Final Narrative 
Report. USAID. 
Catholic Relief Services. Innovations in Water and Sanitation: Promoting ecological sanitation in Ethiopia 
through the Arborloo latrine. Brochure. 
Catholic Relief Services. WASH Facilities in Jabitehnan. USAID. 
Catholic Relief Services/Ethiopia. 2008. Final Narrative Progress Report: Improving Water and Sanitation 
Facilities in Badawacho Woreda. Millennium Water Alliance, USAID. 
Catholic Relief Services/Ethiopia. 2008. Final Narrative Progress Report, Badawcho: Improving of Water and 
Sanitation Facilities in Badawacho Woreda. Millennium Water Alliance. 
Catholic Relief Services/Ethiopia. 2008. Q1 Report, Annex A.1 Bodowacho, Bure, and Jabitehinan. 
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 134
Catholic Relief Services/Ethiopia. 2014. July 2011-June 2014 Grantee Progress Report, Millennium Water 
Program. Millennium Water Alliance, Conrad N. Hilton Foundation. 
Catholic Relief Services/Ethiopia. 2014. Water, Sanitation , and Hygiene Fact Sheet. 
Center for Global Safe Water. 2008. Household Baseline Draft Report. Atlanta: Hubert Department of 
Global Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University. Millennium Water Program, 
USAID. 
Center for Global Safe Water. 2014. Endline Evaluation Report: Millennium Water Alliance – Ethiopia 
Program Partnership for Providing Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Services. Atlanta: Emory University. 
Central Statistical Agency [Ethiopia] and ICF. 2016. Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2016: Key 
Indicators Report. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Rockville, Maryland, USA. CSA and ICF. 
Central Statistical Agency [Ethiopia] and ORC Macro. 2006. Ethiopia Demographic and Heath Survey 2005. 
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and Calverton, Maryland, USA: Central Statistical Agency and ORC 
Marco. 
Central Statistical Agency. 2015. Statistical Report on the 2015 Urban Employment Unemployment Survey. 
Addis Ababa: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. 
Debela, T. H., Butterworth, J., Peace, J., Dimtse, D., and Getachew, H.. 2016. Introducing ICTs for 
WASH monitoring in Ethiopia. Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire: Rural Water Supply Network. 
Dinku, Siseraw. 2010. Final Report: External Evaluatoin of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Emergency 
Assistance and Preparedness in SNNPR, Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: Action contre la Faime International. 
Disaster Risk Management and Food Security Sector, MOARD. 2014. An Atlas of Ethiopian Livelihoods: The 
Livelihoods Integration Unit. Addis Ababa: USAID. 
Dundon, Susan and Jaleta, Malkamu. 2012. The Benefits of Shared Measurement Systems: Monitoring, 
Evaluation & Learning in the MWA Ethiopia Program. MWP Ethiopia. 
Food for the Hungry International/Ethiopia. 2007. First Quarter Progress Report: Simada Water Supply and 
Sanitation Project. Millennium Water Alliance, USAID. 
Food for the Hungry International/Ethiopia. 2007. First Quarter Progress Report: Simada Water Supply and 
Sanitation Project. Millennium Water Alliance, USAID. 
Food for the Hungry International/Ethiopia. 2007. Quarter One Report: Achefer Community Water Supply 
and Sanitation Project. Millennium Water Alliance, USAID. 
Food for the Hungry International/Ethiopia. 2007. Quarter Two Report: Achefer Community Water Supply 
and Sanitation Project. Millennium Water Alliance, USAID. 
Food for the Hungry International/Ethiopia. 2008. Achefer Project: Annual Operational Work Plan. 
Millennium Water Program Ethiopia, USAID. 
135 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Food for the Hungry International/Ethiopia. 2008. Completion Report: Simada Community Water supply and 
Sanitation Project. Millennium Water Alliance, USAID. 
Food for the Hungry International/Ethiopia. 2008. Fifth Quarter/First Quarter Extension Progress Report: 
Simada Water Supply and Sanitation Project. Millennium Water Alliance, USAID.
Food for the Hungry International/Ethiopia. 2008. Project Status Summary: Achefer Community Water 
Supply and Sanitation Project. Millennium Water Alliance, USAID.
Food for the Hungry International/Ethiopia. 2008. Proposal for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Project 
(WASH) in Dangila and Noth Achefer Districts, Amhara Region. Millennium Water Alliance, USAID.
Food for the Hungry International/Ethiopia. 2008. Quarter Four Report: Achefer Community Water Supply 
and Sanitation Project. Millennium Water Alliance, USAID.
Food for the Hungry International/Ethiopia. 2010. Annual Progress Report: Achefer Community Water Supply 
And Sanitation Project.
Food for the Hungry International/Ethiopia. 2010. Final Evaluation Report: Achefer Community Water Supply 
And Sanitation Project. Millennium Water Program Ethiopia, USAID.
Food for the Hungry International/Ethiopia. Dangila-Achefer Project Community Contribution Report: Achefer 
Community Water Supply and Sanitation Project. USAID.
Fry, D., Mideksa, D., Ambelu, A., Feyisa, Y., Abaire, B., Cunliffe, K., and Freeman, M. 2014. Adoption and 
Sustained Use of the Arborloo in Rural Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Study. Catholic Relief Services.
Hernandez, O., Rosenbaum, J., and Faris, K. 2011. Combining sanitation and hand washing promotion: an 
example from Amhara, Ethiopia. 35th WEDC International Conference, Loughborough, UK. 
Improve International. 2013. Collective Impact in Ethiopia 2004-2012: Independent Study of the Millennium 
Water Alliance WASH Program. Millennium Water Alliance.
International Committee of the Red Cross. 2011. Technical Review: Practical Guidelines for Test Pumping in 
Water Wells. Geneva, Switzerland. https://shop.icrc.org/icrc/pdf/view/id/904
Johnston, Rick. “Global SDG Indicators for WASH”. Presentation at the National WASH Multi￾Stakeholder Forum 8 at The Hilton Hotel in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, March 30-31, 2017.
Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene (JMP). 2017. Estimates on the use 
of water, sanitation and hygiene in Ethiopia. WHO and UNICEF.
Lemma, Teshome. “Presentation on Increased Access to WASH Services: Experience from MWP￾Ethiopia”. Presentation at the International WaTER Conference at the University of Oklahoma, 
Norman, OK, October 24-26, 2011. 
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 136
Lifewater International and Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus – Development and Social 
Services Commission. 2011. Final Report: Lemo and Soro Woreda Water supply, Sanitation and 
Hygiene (WaSH) Promotion Project. Millennium Water Alliance, Conrad N. Hilton Foundation.
Lifewater International. 2007. Cost Extension Budget Summary Modification #5. Millennium Water Program, 
USAID.
Living Water International. Shallow Water Wells Drilled in Zala, Kucha and Gofa Woredas of SNNPRG by 
LWI/EKHC from 2004-2006. USAID.
Millennium Water Alliance. 2004. Third Quarter Report. MWP Ethiopia.
Millennium Water Alliance. 2006. Millennium Water Program Baseline Survey Report: Amhar, Oromia, and 
SNNPR Regions, Ethiopia. USAID.
Millennium Water Alliance. 2006. Progress Report of the Fourth Quarter of FY 2006. Millennium Water 
Alliance, USAID.
Millennium Water Alliance. 2007. Progress Report of the 4th Quarter of 2006. MWP Ethiopia.
Millennium Water Alliance. 2007. Proposal for Modification No. 5 for Millennium Water Program Ethiopia. 
USAID.
Millennium Water Alliance. 2007. Technical Approach, 5th Modification to the MWA-EP Program. USAID.
Millennium Water Alliance. 2009. Ethiopia Close-Out Report: Amhara Community Watershed Partnership 
Project. U
Millennium Water Alliance. 2010. Millennium Water Project—Ethiopia Program Final Report. USAID.
Millennium Water Alliance. 2013. Annual Report, FY 2012. 
Millennium Water Alliance. 2015. Fourth Quarter Report. MWP Ethiopia.
Millennium Water Alliance. Brochure. USAID
National Planning Commission. 2016. Growth and Transformation Plan II (GTP II), Volume 1: Main Text. 
Addis Ababa: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
PHAST Initiative. 1997. Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation. WHO and UNDP/World Bank 
Water and Sanitation Program.
PSNP Plus. 2014. Real Impact: Ethiopia Case Study. USAID.
Renwick, et. al, 2007, “Multiple Use Water Services for the Poor: Assessing the State of Knowledge,” Winrock 
International: Arlington, VA. https://www.winrock.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Multiple￾Use-Water-Services-for-the-Poor-Assessing-the-State-of-Knowledge.pdf
137 | MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Suba, Misgina. 2009. The effect of Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation on improving hygiene 
and sanitation practices in East and West Hararghe zones, Oromia Region. Gondar: School of Public 
Health College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Gondar University.
The Mitchell Group. 2008. Final Report: External Program Evaluation of Millennium Water Alliance (MWA) 
Water, Sanitation And Hygiene (WASH) Program In Ethiopia. USAID.
The Water Institute at UNC. 2016. MWA Water Quality Study Report. Chapel Hill: The University of 
North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Millennium Water Alliance, Conrad N. Hilton Foundation.
Troup, John. 2007. Final Program Narrative Report from Living Water International to Millennium Water 
Alliance. Living Water International.
UNICEF. 2003. The State of the World’s Children 2003. New York, NY: UNICEF.
USAID Hygiene and Improvement Project. 2011. Results from Working at Scale for Better Sanitation and 
Hygiene in Amhara, Ethiopia: Baseline and Endline Comparisons of Institutional, Household, and School 
Surveys. Washington, D.C.: USAID.
USAID. 2016. Ethiopia Livelihood Baseline Profile: Tigray Region. Alaje-Ofla Highland Livelihood Zone 
(AOH). USAID.
USAID. 2016. Ethiopia Livelihood Baseline Profile: Tigray Region. Adiabo Lowland Livelihood Zone (ALL).
USAID.
USAID. 2016. Ethiopia Livelihood Baseline Profile: Tigray Region. Atsbi Wonberta Highland Livelihood Zone 
(AWH). USAID.
USAID. 2016. Ethiopia Livelihood Baseline Profile: Tigray Region. Central Mixed Crop Livelihood Zone 
(CMC). USAID.
USAID. 2016. Ethiopia Livelihood Baseline Profile: Tigray Region. Enderta Dry Midland Livelihood Zone 
(HSS). USAID. 
USAID. 2016. Ethiopia Livelihood Baseline Profile: Tigray Region. Eastern Plateau Livelihood Zone (EPL). 
USAID. 
USAID. 2016. Ethiopia Livelihood Baseline Profile: Tigray Region. Gesho Wheat Highland Livelihood Zone 
(GWH). USAID. 
USAID. 2016. Ethiopia Livelihood Baseline Profile: Tigray Region. Humera Sesame and Sorghum Livelihood 
Zone (HSS). USAID. 
USAID. 2016. Ethiopia Livelihood Baseline Profile: Tigray Region. Irob Mountains Livelihood Zone (IRM). 
USAID. 
USAID. 2016. Ethiopia Livelihood Baseline Profile: Tigray Region. Mereb Basin Livelihood Zone (MRB). 
USAID. 
USAID.GOV MWA-EP EX-POST EVALUATION | 138
USAID. 2016. Ethiopia Livelihood Baseline Profile: Tigray Region. Middle Tekeze Livelihood Zone (MTK). 
USAID. 
USAID/Ethiopia. 2003. Annual Report FY 2003.
WASHplus. 2016. Final Report: Developing and Testing Innovative WASH Approaches in Ethiopia. Washington 
D.C.,USA: USAID/WASHplus Project.
Water and Sanitation Program. 2011. Learning by Doing: Working at Scale in Ethiopia. World Bank. 
Water CKM/USAID. 2016. Ethiopia Water and Sanitation Profile. USAID.
Water for Africa through Leadership and Institutional Support (WALIS)/USAID. 2017. Africa, WASH, and 
the Millennium Development Goals. Washington, D.C.: USAID.
WaterAid. 2012. July-December 2011 Grantee Progress Report, WaterAid’s Gamo-Gofa WASH Program. 
Millenium Water Alliance, Conrad N. Hilton Foundation.
WaterPartners International. 2007. Millennium Water Program Final Report. USAID.
World Bank. 2017. Integrated Surveys on Agriculture Ethiopia: Ethiopia Socioeconomic Survey (ESS).
http://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/2783/study-description (December 20, 2017)
World Vision. 2009. Beneficiaries, Kebeles and Gots of the Constructed WASH projects. USAID.
World Vision. 2009. Quarter Four Report: Omo Bada Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Project. USAID.
World Vision/Ethiopia. 2007. Final Report: Dimtu Water and Sanitation Project at Wonchi ADP. Millennium 
Water Alliance, USAID.
World Vision/Ethiopia. 2007. Final Report: Sibiya Water and Sanitation Project at Shenkolla ADP. Millennium 
Water Alliance, USAID.
World Vision/Ethiopia. 2007. Quarterly Progress Report, First Year – Third Quarter. Millennium Water 
Program in Ethiopia.