Educational institutions: HIV workplace programmes
To assess number of educational institutions that have implemented an HIV workplace programme to mitigate the impact of HIV and AIDS on the education sector.
The education sector, after the military and security services, is often the biggest government employer in a country. Education sector personnel, just like any other workforce, are affected by HIV. Productivity is undermined and, in countries with a generalized epidemic, there is higher morbidity and mortality among education personnel, which affects staff performance, absenteeism and turnover and general morale. Employees may have larger number of dependants. Those infected may suffer stigma and discrimination in the workplace. Yet the workplace is often a highly convenient and conducive setting for HIV control or prevention activities. Workplace-based interventions have proven to be effective in mitigating the impact of HIV.
Each educational institution is considered to be a ‘workplace’. Educational institutions are encouraged, as part of their workplace programmes, to develop integrated HIV prevention, treatment, care and support programmes. When introducing an integrated HIV workplace programme, it is important to measure and track the uptake of the programme. This indicator aims to measure the number of educational institutions that have implemented an HIV workplace programme.
A. Annual School Census
School and other institutional heads should be briefed that a comprehensive HIV workplace programme should cover the following key elements:
1. Information and training for staff on HIV and AIDS, which should focus on the following topics: transmission and prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs; rights of staff living with HIV; available grievance and disciplinary procedures; and services and benefits available at the school and in the community for staff living with or affected by HIV.
2. Prevention, care and support services that staff should be able to access through referral services in the community. Examples include the following: male and female condoms; voluntary HIV testing and pre- and post-test counselling (VCT): prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT); psycho-social support; and medical care and treatment (including nutritional advice and ARVs).
3. Grievance and disciplinary procedures, which should apply to cases of stigma or discrimination towards staff living with HIV or affected by HIV.
School and other institutional heads are then asked to answer the following two questions:
1. Is your educational institution implementing an HIV workplace programme that includes information and training for staff on HIV and AIDS and access to prevention, care and support services?
2. Are any grievance and disciplinary procedures in place?
No/Yes but these procedures are not enforced/Yes and these procedures are enforced
To be calculated as a percentage:
Number of responding educational institutions that have responded yes to both of the two questions.
Number of educational institutions surveyed.
B. School-based survey
The question asked to school/institutional head is:
Is your school/institution implementing an HIV workplace programme? If yes, please tick all the areas/services that are provided:
Calculated as a percentage:
Number of responding educational institutions that have implemented an HIV workplace programme that includes all the above components.
Number of educational institutions surveyed.
School and college (institution)-based survey or EMIS annual school/college census.
The indicator should be presented as a separate percentage for:
■ Geographical distribution: urban, rural and peri-urban.
The indicator is a measure of coverage. Ultimately, the desirable target should be 100 per cent – all educational institutions are required to implement an HIV workplace programme. However, each country may have set a realistic target that is lower than 100 per cent for a given period. If the percentage is found to be lower than 100 per cent of the given target, the education stakeholders should look into the data to identify what exactly disqualified the educational institutions from the numerator. This could include any one or more of the following reasons: 1) there may not be a relevant national policy for the educational institutions to refer to; 2) the educational institutions do not implement an HIV workplace programme at all; 3) the HIV workplace programme may not be comprehensive enough to cover all the key elements; 4) although there is an HIV workplace programme, there are no grievance and disciplinary procedures in place; and 5) grievance and disciplinary procedures are not enforced. It is important to analyse all those elements in order to develop and implement policies that address the gaps identified, for example, in terms of support provided to educational institutions by the ministry of education for a correct implementation of HIV workplace programmes, and/or supervision of implementation by inspectors.
If data are available for previous years, the trend in general or in relation to each of the above-mentioned subquestions should be examined by comparison. The results of this analysis will lead the education stakeholders to a better understanding of the progress and key impediments and bottlenecks in the implementation of policies measured by this indicator.
The findings from this indicator should be triangulated with the data from indicator #15 on ‘teacher attrition in the previous academic year’. A high rate of teacher attrition may be linked to the absence or low implementation of an HIV workplace programme in educational institutions, as teachers who do not receive information and training on HIV and AIDS are more likely to become infected by HIV. Teachers living with HIV who do not have access to care and support services are more likely to fall sick and to die. Those who are victims of stigma and discrimination in the workplace are more likely to stay away from schools.
Every 2-3 years
■ The indicator provides a measure of coverage of educational institutions that have implemented an HIV workplace programme.
■ The indicator is dependent on detailed and accurate records being maintained at the workplace (if collected through EMIS Annual School Census)
■ There is no measure of the impact of the HIV workplace programme.