by households lacking access to toilets at the baseline; these were the major beneficiaries of the program. However, even among the households with access to toilets at the baseline, we would expect a decline in households that had access to limited facilities (i.e., toilets shared among households) and that were to be provided with their own toilets under the project. In the subsample of households with access to toilets at the baseline, we observed almost no impact on those with limited facilities in arm 2 and, consequently, the coverage of basic and safely managed facilities remained mostly unaltered. In arm 3, the coverage of limited facilities declined by around 1 percentage point and the coverage of basic and safely managed facilities expanded by around 3 percentage points compared with the control group. However, none of these coefficients was statistically significant. In arm 1, basic coverage expanded by 5.3 percentage points compared with the control group and was significant at the 10 percent level. We also observed a 3.5 percentage point decline in the coverage of limited facilities in arm 1 compared with the control group, though it was not statistically significant.

# Open Defecation

Survey respondents were asked if any member of their household went out in the open to defecate. So, the results for open defecation reported in table 2 indicate open defecation by any member of a household. Open defecation decreased significantly across all intervention arms. In GPs that received regular project interventions, reported open defecation declined by 10.5 percentage points compared with control GPs. A similar reduction was observed in arm 2 and arm 3 GPs, where open defecation declined by 9 percentage points and 8.3 percentage points, respectively, relative to control GPs. The differential impacts of the intensive school awareness campaigns and intensive follow-up campaigns were on the negative side and not significant.

We also reported the results from the adjusted model (see table A.8 in the appendix). The results are very similar to the unadjusted model with similar levels of significance. We also compared changes in the defecation practices of households with and without access to toilets at the baseline (table 3 and table A.9). Households with access to toilets at the baseline saw a statistically significant reduction in open defecation. Open defecation declined by 12 percentage points in arm 1, by 8.7 percentage points in arm 2, and by 7.2 percentage points in arm 3 compared with the control arm. For the subsample of households without access to toilets at the baseline, project interventions had no effect on open defecation behavior in arm 1. In arm 2 and arm 3, open defecation declined by 4.3 and 6 percentage points, respectively, relative to the control group. None of these coefficients was statistically significant.

# Hygiene Awareness and Hygienic Behavior

**Table 4. Adult Hygiene Awareness** **<u>and Behavior—DID Unadjusted Model</u>**

||**N**|**No. of**<br>**Clusters**|**Adj.**<br>**R^2**|**(Treatment1 ***<br>**midline)Beta5**|**(Treatment2 ***<br>**midline)Beta6**|**(Treatment3 ***<br>**midline)Beta7**|**Beta5 =**<br>**Beta6#**|**Beta5 =**<br>**Beta7#**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Handwashing**|**knowledge**||||||||
|Knowledge|10,550|251|.06|.0645|.0654|.0935*|0|.35|

27