How to evaluate a water charity

A starting point, not a checklist. Five questions you can take into a conversation, with a sense of what a good answer sounds like.

1. What share of what you built five years ago is still working?

Construction is the easy part. A 2024 study of 1,805 water points across ten NGO programs in nine countries found 92% working in the first year and 79% at an average age of three and a half years. Across the wider rural stock it is worse. Rural Water Supply Network surveys repeatedly put non-functionality near a third, with country figures from 6% to over 50%.

A good answer is a number, with the year it refers to, and a sense of how it compares with others working in the same places. A weak answer is how many wells they built. That substitution is the most reliable signal here.

2. Is it water, sanitation and hygiene, or water alone?

A 2023 review of 35 studies covering 2,600 child deaths found hygiene promotion on its own had no significant effect on mortality, which is a harder outcome than illness and the one that matters most. Delivered alongside improved water supply it cut deaths by 29%. Sanitation worked when it reached whole communities rather than scattered households, with a far larger effect where baseline sanitation was poor: 69% fewer deaths from diarrhea against 22% where it was already improved. The same review found household water treatment, filters and tablets, showed no significant mortality effect on its own. Both reduce illness in other studies. Neither, alone, has been shown to reduce deaths.

A good answer describes coverage across a defined community and how the three parts connect. A weak answer counts latrines built, or leans on filters without explaining how they know they work.

3. What level of service, not just access?

"Access to clean water" covers a lot of ground. The WHO and UNICEF service ladder makes it specific. Basic means an improved source within a 30 minute round trip including queuing. Limited means the same source, further away. Safely managed means on the premises, available when needed, and free from contamination.

A good answer names the rung and says when water quality was last tested. If testing happened at installation and never since, that is worth knowing.

4. Who maintains it, and who pays for that?

Every water point breaks. What matters is whether there is a trained local mechanic, a parts supply within reach, and money set aside for repairs. This is the leading indicator for question one, and the only way to judge a program too young to have a five year record.

A good answer names the mechanic, the parts supply and the money. "The community will maintain it" is not a maintenance plan unless someone funded and trained for it.

5. Who is it working for?

Ask for the numbers cut by gender. Water burdens fall unevenly, and aggregate figures can hide a much flatter result for women and girls. On menstrual health the evidence is real but thinner than the sector implies. A 2024 review of 16 trials across nine countries and roughly 18,000 girls found mixed results, six positive and three null, with attendance rising by close to six days a term where products and education came together. The reviewers' own criticism is the useful part: most programs focus on products and training while neglecting private, usable facilities at school and home.

A good answer has the numbers disaggregated and can say what was built, not only what was taught.

None of these five tell you how the people delivering the program treated the community. Whether they arrived to ask or to install. Whether the community was a partner in the work or a means to a number in a report. Whether anyone checked that the facility is somewhere women and girls will actually use after dark. That does not show up in a functionality rate, and it is the difference between a project that lasts and one that is merely built. Ask, and where you can, go and look.

Once the program holds up, check the organization behind it. Registration, filings, governance and financial health are a separate job, and a strong program does not survive a weak organization.

Questions people also ask

How many water points stop working?

In the NGO programs studied in 2024, 21% were not working at an average age of three and a half years. Across the wider rural stock, surveys have repeatedly found non-functionality near a third.

Are water filters effective?

A 2023 review found household water treatment showed no significant effect on child mortality on its own. That is one outcome measure among several, and it is a reason to ask a charity how it knows its filter program works.

What should a water charity be able to tell me?

The functionality rate of its older water points, who maintains them, which rung of the service ladder it delivers, and who verified the numbers.

Is a handpump better than piped water?

Piped systems deliver a higher level of service and need more money and institutional support to sustain. In the 2024 study, tap stands on piped systems had 74% lower odds of working than handpump boreholes. The right choice depends on local capacity.