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, and across the wider rural stock it's worse. Rural Water Supply Network surveys repeatedly put non-functionality near a third, with country figures running 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, and that substitution is the most reliable signal on this page.

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

A 2023 review of 35 studies found hygiene promotion on its own had no significant effect on child deaths, which is the hardest outcome to move 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. The same review found household filters and tablets showed no significant effect on deaths on their own. Both reduce illness in other studies, but 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. Is the water at the home, or a walk away?

"Access to clean water" covers a lot of ground, and the WHO and UNICEF standard makes it specific. A source within a 30 minute round trip, queuing included, counts as basic. Further than that counts as limited. Water on the premises, available when needed and free from contamination, counts as safely managed.

A good answer says plainly which of those it delivers, and when the water was last tested. If testing happened at installation and never since, that's worth knowing.

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

Every water point eventually breaks, so what matters is whether there's a trained local mechanic, a parts supply within reach and money set aside for repairs. This is the leading indicator for question one, and it's 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" isn't a maintenance plan unless someone was funded and trained for it.

5. Does it work as well for women and girls?

Ask for the results for women and girls separately. Water burdens fall unevenly, and an overall figure can hide a much flatter result for them. On menstrual health the evidence is real but thinner than the sector implies: a 2024 review of 16 trials found mixed results, with school attendance rising 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 at home.

A good answer can speak to women and girls separately, 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, and whether anyone checked that the facility is somewhere women and girls will actually use after dark. That doesn't show up in a functionality rate, and it's the difference between a project that lasts and one that was merely built. Ask, and if you ever get the chance to see the work in person, take it.

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

Questions people also ask

How many water points stop working?

In the NGO programs studied in 2024, 21% weren't 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's one outcome measure among several, and it's a reason to ask a charity how it knows its filter program works.

What should a water charity be able to tell me?

How much of what it built five years ago still works, who maintains it, whether the water is at the home or a walk away, and who verified the numbers.

Does sanitation reduce child deaths?

In the 2023 review, yes, where it reached whole communities: 69% fewer deaths from diarrhea where sanitation was poor to begin with, and 22% fewer where it was already improved.

Do menstrual health programs keep girls in school?

Sometimes. A 2024 review of 16 trials across nine countries and roughly 18,000 girls found six positive results and three null, with attendance rising by close to six days a term where products and education came together. Facilities, not products, were the gap the reviewers pointed to.