Table 2 Coding rubric developed to score outcome and conditions at each case school

Minimum of the following two measures: Reliably functional toilets ^a :

Students; Observation; Teachers; Field officer

1: students have reliable access to functional services; repairs timely addressed

0.67: all toilets usually function, but repair needs are not always timely addressed

0.33: some toilets are frequently unusable; repairs are not timely addressed

0: students do not have reliable access; repairs are rarely addressed

and Reliably clean toilets ^b :

1: all toilets are almost always clean and quickly cleaned when dirty

0.67: usually more or less clean, with some instances where they remain dirty

0.33: frequently unclean and are usually considered unclean by students

0: rarely clean and students label them as dirty

1: high quality materials and construction^c observed; no repair needs due to poor quality

Observation; Teachers; Field officer

0.67: mostly high quality materials and construction observed; very minor repair needs due to poor quality

0.33: poor quality materials or construction observed, but so far there have been no repair needs because of this

0: poor quality materials or construction observed and have had major repair needs because of this

1: community has contributed financially to toilet maintenance when needed

Teachers; Field officer

0.67: community contributes financially, but not every time the school requests help

0.33: community members provide limited support, such as providing a few bars of soap

0: community does not contribute at all to maintenance of the toilets

1: currently has government maintenance (SLIP) fund (app. 240–370 USD/year) and contingency fund (app. 9 USD/month)

Teachers; Field officer

0.67: currently has SLIP fund, but not contingency fund

0.33: currently has contingency fund, but not SLIP fund

0: the school does not receive any government funding

1: Members check the school toilets or talk with students at least once per month, and manage repairs if needed

Students; Teachers; Field officer

0.67: Members visit the school but not regularly (less than once per month) or limited in scope, but have or would manage repairs

0.33: Members rarely visit the school and are minimally involved in sanitation

0: Members don’t ever visit the school or manage repair needs

1: a specific teacher is responsible for toilet maintenance and has a cleaning schedule which is followed/monitored

Students; Teachers; Field officer

0.67: cleaning schedule usually followed but no specific teacher responsible

0: no specific teacher responsible for sanitation; no cleaning schedule or rarely followed

1: someone voluntarily takes extraordinary interest in school sanitation & is recognized by others (without whom hygiene activities would likely diminish or discontinue)

Observation; Students; Teachers; Field officer

0.67: someone leads sanitation activities but doesn’t include all aspects of maintenance and hygiene practices or others are identified who may continue their role

0.33: someone takes interest in sanitation at the school, but they don’t always take action or others would likely continue their role in their absence

0: There is no one identified as taking interest in sanitation at the school