fbpx

Let's get technical...

We’ll be honest; there’s a lot that goes into Living Water programs happening every day in 17 countries around the globe. Sometimes, the full scope of our work can be intimidating to understand, so we’re here to break it down for you.

A holistic approach

Living Water’s programs aim to increase physical, spiritual, and social well-being by increasing access to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), improving WASH practices, helping churches thrive, and building resilient communities.

We’re strategically incorporating our WASH Program Area (WPA) model into our regions. This approach allows us to focus more intentionally on the people and their unique needs. It helps us continuously strive towards the highest quality of work and provides life-changing, sustainable solutions to critical WASH needs.

Through the WPA model, we work in a pre-determined geographical location for 5-7 years, allowing our teams to collect data on all projects and activities. Rooted deeply into select regions, we’re able to form partnerships with local governments, drill deeper and more complex water systems, change hygiene behaviors over long periods, and form stronger relationships with local church leaders to expand God’s kingdom through disciple work.

What are we measuring?

To carry out our mission with excellence requires a robust monitoring & evaluation system that allows us to make better decisions as an organization, be accountable to our stakeholders, ensure effective and efficient use of funds, and assess the level of impact our programs are having.

Assess Baseline

Living Water staff and evaluators examine each new region where a proposed WPA is set to begin. This study evaluates the region’s current access to water, sanitation, and hygiene, and sets goals for the expected results at the end of a WPA.

Monitor Progress

Throughout the time that each WASH Program Area is in operation, Living Water teams continuously monitor the progress of how the programs are running, adjusting when new obstacles arise to ensure we stay on track to meeting endline goals.

Evaluate Results

At the end of each WPA, an external consultant for Living Water examines and documents the numbers and stories achieved and even provides recommendations on how to improve the next WPA to ensure our programs are continuously improving.

Post-Program Learning

We are committed to these high standards by continuing to collect data on all water projects through a mobile data collection platform for a period of 5 years.

Completed WASH Program Areas

42%
Baseline
72%
Endline

Cabaret, Haiti

Highlights
  • There was a large increase in the percentage of respondents who were satisfied with their primary water source quality between baseline (42%) and endline (72%).
  • By endline, 99% of households had access to a latrine – 77% of communities achieved Open Defecation Free (ODF) status over the course of the program.
42%
Baseline
77%
Endline

Cabaret, Haiti

Highlights
  • There was a large increase in the percentage of respondents who were satisfied with their primary water source quality between baseline (42%) and endline (77%).
  • By endline, 99% of households had access to a latrine – 77 communities achieved Open Defecation Free (ODF) status over the course of the program.

Tola, Nicaragua

Highlights
  • At baseline, 36% of households used an improved water source.
    By endline, two-thirds of households did.
  • There was a large increase in the percentage of respondents who were satisfied with their primary water source quality between baseline (62%) and endline (94%).
  • At endline, 64% of households had access to a handwashing station that showed evidence of recent use, compared to only 34% did at baseline.
36%
Baseline
67%
Endline
36%
Baseline
67%
Endline

Tola, Nicaragua

Highlights
  • At baseline, 36% of households used an improved water source.
    By endline, two-thirds of households did.
  • There was a large increase in the percentage of respondents who were satisfied with their primary water source quality between baseline (62%) and endline (94%).
  • At endline, 64% of households had access to a handwashing station that showed evidence of recent use, compared to only 34% did at baseline.
35%
Baseline
64%
Endline

Ruhaama, Uganda

Highlights
  • At baseline, 35% of households had access to at least basic water (improved source within 30 minutes). At endline, 64% of households had access.
  • At endline, 98% of households had a latrine.
  • At endline, 91% of respondents believed the church cares about their community.
35%
Baseline
64%
Endline

Ruhaama, Uganda

Highlights
  • At baseline, 35% of households had access to at least basic water (improved source within 30 minutes). At endline, 64% of households had access.
  • At endline, 98% of households had a latrine.
  • At endline, 91% of respondents believed the church cares about their community.

Chirundu, Zambia

Highlights
  • At baseline, 45% of households had access to at least basic water (improved source within 30 minutes). At endline, 74% of households had access.
  • Ninety-two percent of households had access to a latrine at endline, compared to 54% at baseline – 80% of communities were achieved ODF status.
  • At baseline, 30% of households contributed money to water point operations & maintenance. At endline, 84% contributed – an essential step towards sustainability.
45%
Baseline
74%
Endline
45%
Baseline
74%
Endline

Chirundu, Zambia

Highlights
  • At baseline, 45% of households had access to at least basic water (improved source within 30 minutes). At endline, 74% of households had access.
  • Ninety-two percent of households had access to a latrine at endline, compared to 54% at baseline – 80% of communities were achieved ODF status.
  • At baseline, 30% of households contributed money to water point operations & maintenance. At endline, 84% contributed – an essential step towards sustainability.
28%
Baseline
68%
Endline

Kisumu, Kenya

Highlights
  • 68% of households had access to basic drinking water at endline, compared to 28% at baseline.
  • 77% of respondents reported being satisfied with their primary water source’s quality, compared to 38% at baseline.
  • 87% of households had a handwashing station that showed evidence of recent use at endline, compared to 47% at baseline.
28%
Baseline
68%
Endline

Kisumu, Kenya

Highlights
  • 68% of households had access to basic drinking water at endline, compared to 28% at baseline.
  • 77% of respondents reported being satisfied with their primary water source’s quality, compared to 38% at baseline.
  • 87% of households had a handwashing station that showed evidence of recent use at endline, compared to 47% at baseline.

Nyabushozi, Uganda

Highlights
  • At baseline, only 18% of households took less than 30 minutes to fetch water. At endline, 77% did.
  • 85% of households had a handwashing facility that showed evidence of recent use at endline, compared to 42% at baseline.
18%
Baseline
77%
Endline
18%
Baseline
77%
Endline

Nyabushozi, Uganda

Highlights
  • At baseline, only 18% of households took less than 30 minutes to fetch water. At endline, 77% did.
  • 85% of households had a handwashing facility that showed evidence of recent use at endline, compared to 42% at baseline.
55%
Baseline
82%
Endline

Butere, Kenya

Highlights
  • At baseline, 55% of households had access to basic drinking water. At endline, 82% did.
  • At baseline, 66% of households had access to a clean latrine. By endline, 93% did.
  • 92% of households stored water in safe, covered containers at endline.
55%
Baseline
82%
Endline

Butere, Kenya

Highlights
  • At baseline, 55% of households had access to basic drinking water. At endline, 82% did.
  • At baseline, 66% of households had access to a clean latrine. By endline, 93% did.
  • 92% of households stored water in safe, covered containers at endline.

Real stories of change.

meet 1

Meet Timugibwa

from Uganda

“As a midwife, I could not wash the weighting machine regularly as prescribed and baby beds were hardly cleaned. With the only source of water being the lake, I would often leave the mothers unattended to run to the lake to collect water. ⁠We now have sanitary sinks with flowing water for the mothers, babies, and our staff. I feel safe and free. I see the dignity of mothers restored as they go back home clean.”

Meet Dr. Alejandra Marcela Garcia

from Honduras

“We only had water once or twice a month, so we kept water in containers, rationing what would be used in the health center. There was not enough water for the patients to use the toilets or wash their hands, nor was there enough to keep the clinic clean or for the staff to provide the necessary medical attention. But now we have water every day, improving our ability to assist patients looking for medical attention. Now we can provide quality care to the people who visit us because the lack of water will not be a problem.”

meet 3
meet 2

Meet Vijay

from South Asia

“Having no latrines exposed the children to many hardships. They had to take cover in bushes in the agricultural fields for their personal needs. Children, especially girls, dropped out of school because they could not cope with the shame and embarrassment. But now, with the new sanitation facilities, students love to come to school every day. They have developed good hygiene habits and learned to keep the environment neat. Now that attendance is back up, we are working on improving other areas of the school, hoping that more children will come forward and secure their future!”

Want to go deeper?

Sign In