Your donation attempt encountered a problem. Please refresh the page to try again.
You're faster than our page! Give the page a little longer to finish loading and try your donation again.
Indianapolis IN | IRS ruling year: 2004 | EIN: 32-0112278
Organization Mission
Water for Good is tackling water poverty in one of the world's most forgotten countries. Our goal? Clean, lasting water for every man, woman, and child in the Centra ... (More)
Water for Good is tackling water poverty in one of the world's most forgotten countries. Our goal? Clean, lasting water for every man, woman, and child in the Central African Republic. Founded in 2004, Water for Good is a faith-based non-profit organization based in Indiana, USA. We are committed to improving lives and demonstrating God's love to people through reliable clean water access in one of the world's most neglected countries, the Central African Republic (CAR). (Less)
Great
This charity's score is 95%, earning it a Four-Star rating. If this organization aligns with your passions and values, you can give with confidence.
This overall score is calculated from multiple beacon scores, weighted as follows: 35% Accountability & Finance, 50% Impact & Results, 10% Leadership & Adaptability, 5% Culture & Community. Learn more about our criteria and methodology.
We recognize that not all metrics and beacons equally predict a charity’s success. The percentage each beacon contributes to the organization’s overall rating depends on the number of beacons an organization has earned.
Use the tool below to select different beacons to see how the weighting shifts when only one, two, or three beacons are earned.
| Date Published | Form 990 FYE | Overall Score | Overall Rating |
| Rating Version: 2.1 | |||
| 2/1/2022 | 2020 | 86.66 |  |
| 12/1/2021 | 2020 | 86.36 | |
This organization received multiple star ratings within this fiscal year, due to an update to its Accountability and Transparency data and/or the receipt of an amended Form 990. | |||
| 11/1/2020 | 2019 | 84.69 | |
| 11/1/2019 | 2018 | 88.02 | |
| 6/1/2019 | 2017 | 84.35 | |
| 10/1/2018 | 2017 | 83.60 | |
| 12/1/2017 | 2016 | 78.30 |  |
| 9/1/2017 | 2016 | 78.12 | |
| 11/1/2016 | 2015 | 76.52 | |
| 10/1/2016 | 2015 | 74.79 | |
| 6/1/2016 | 2014 | 78.37 | |
| Rating Version: 2.0 | |||
| 12/1/2015 | 2014 | 74.35 | |
| 11/1/2015 | 2014 | 70.98 | |
| 9/1/2014 | 2013 | 74.53 | |
| 7/1/2014 | 2012 | 83.36 | |
| 5/1/2014 | 2012 | 81.86 | |
| 3/1/2014 | 2012 | 74.18 | |
The IRS is significantly delayed in processing nonprofits' annual tax filings (Forms 990). As a result, the Accountability & Finance score for Water for Good is outdated and the overall rating may not be representative of its current operations. Please check with the charity directly for any questions you may have.
Water for Good has earned a 87% for the Accountability & Finance beacon. See the metrics below for more information.
This beacon provides an assessment of a charity's financial health (financial efficiency, sustainability, and trustworthiness) and its commitment to governance practices and policies.
This Accountability & Finance score represents IRS Form 990 data up until FY 2020, which is the most recent Form 990 currently available to us.
Learn more
Full Credit
Partial Credit
No Credit
Not Applicable
Charity Navigator looks to confirm on the Form 990 that the organization has these governance practices in place.
Sources Include: IRS Form 990
| Independent Voting Board Members ... (More) The presence of an independent governing body is strongly recommended by many industry professionals to allow for full deliberation and diversity of thinking on governance and other organizational matters. Our analysts check the Form 990 to determine if the independent Board members are a voting majority and also at least five in number. (Less) | |
| No Material Diversion of Assets ... (More) A diversion of assets – any unauthorized conversion or use of the organization's assets other than for the organization's authorized purposes, including but not limited to embezzlement or theft – can seriously call into question a charity's financial integrity. We check the charity's last two Forms 990 to see if the charity has reported any diversion of assets. If the charity does report a diversion, then we check to see if it complied with the Form 990 instructions by describing what happened and its corrective action. This metric will be assigned to one of the following categories:
| |
| Audited Financials Prepared by Independent Accountant ... (More) Audited financial statements provide important information about financial accountability and accuracy. They should be prepared by an independent accountant with oversight from an audit committee. (It is not necessary that the audit committee be a separate committee. Often at smaller charities, it falls within the responsibilities of the finance committee or the executive committee.) The committee provides an important oversight layer between the management of the organization, which is responsible for the financial information reported, and the independent accountant, who reviews the financials and issues an opinion based on its findings. We check the charity's Form 990 reporting to see if it meets this criteria.
| |
| Does Not Provide Loan(s) to or Receive Loan(s) From Related Parties ... (More) Making loans to related parties such as key officers, staff, or Board members, is not standard practice in the sector as it may divert the charity's funds away from its charitable mission and can lead to real and perceived conflict-of-interest problems. This practice is discouraged by sector trade groups which point to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act when they call for charities to refrain from making loans to directors and executives. And the IRS is concerned enough with the practice that it requires charities to disclose on their Form 990 any loans to or from current and former officers, directors, trustees, key employees, and other "disqualified persons." Furthermore, some state laws go so far as to prohibit loans to board members and officers. And although employees and trustees are permitted to make loans to charities, this practice can also result in real and/or perceived conflict of interest problems for the charity. Furthermore, it is problematic because it is an indicator that the organization is not financially secure. (Less) | |
| Documents Board Meeting Minutes ... (More) An official record of the events that take place during a board meeting ensures that a contemporaneous document exists for future reference. Charities are not required to make their Board meeting minutes available to the public. As such, we are not able to review and critique their minutes. For this performance metric, we are checking to see if the charity reports on its Form 990 that it does keep those minutes. In the future, we will also track and rate whether or not a charity keeps minutes for its committee meetings. (Less) | |
| Distributes 990 to Board Before Filing ... (More) Providing copies of the Form to the governing body in advance of filing is considered a best practice, as it allows for thorough review by the individuals charged with overseeing the organization. The Form 990 asks the charity to disclose whether or not it has followed this best practice. If the charity has not distributed its Form 990 to the board before filing, then we deduct 4 points from its Accountability and Transparency score. (Less) | |
| Does not Compensate Board Members ... (More) The IRS requires that any compensation paid to members of the charity's governing body be listed on the Form 990. Furthermore, all members of the governing body need to be listed whether or not they are compensated. It is not unusual for some members of the board to have compensation listed. The executive director of the organization frequently has a seat on the board, for instance, and is compensated for being a full time staff member. However, it is rare for a charity to compensate individuals only for serving on its Board of Directors. Although this sort of board compensation is not illegal, it is not considered a best practice. (Less) | |
Charity Navigator looks to confirm on the Form 990, or for some metrics on the charity's website, that the organization has these policies in place.
Sources Include: IRS Form 990 and organization's website
| Conflict of Interest ... (More) Such a policy protects the organization, and by extension those it serves, when it is considering entering into a transaction that may benefit the private interest of an officer or director of the organization. Charities are not required to share their conflict of interest policies with the public. Although we can not evaluate the substance of its policy, we can tell you if the charity has one in place based on the information it reports on its Form 990. If the charity does not have a Conflict of Interest policy, then we deduct 4 points from its Accountability and Transparency score. (Less) | |
| Whistleblower ... (More) This policy outlines procedures for handling employee complaints, as well as a confidential way for employees to report any financial mismanagement. Here we are reporting on the existence of a policy as reported by the charity on its Form 990. (Less) | |
| Records Retention and Destruction ... (More) Such a policy establishes guidelines for handling, backing up, archiving and destruction of documents. These guidelines foster good record keeping procedures that promotes data integrity. Here we are reporting on the existence of a policy as reported by the charity on its Form 990. If the charity does not have a Records Retention and Destruction Policy, then we deduct 4 points from its Accountability and Transparency score. (Less) | |
| CEO Compensation Process ... (More) This process indicates that the organization has a documented policy that it follows year after year. The policy should indicate that an objective and independent review process of the CEO's compensation has been conducted which includes benchmarking against comparable organizations. We check to be sure that the charity has reported on its Form 990 its process for determining its CEO pay. (Less) | |
| Donor Privacy ... (More) Donors can be reluctant to contribute to a charity when their name, address, or other basic information may become part of donor lists that are exchanged or sold, resulting in an influx of charitable solicitations from other organizations. Our analysts check the charity's website to see if the organization has a donor privacy policy in place and what it does and does not cover. Privacy policies are assigned to one of the following categories:
The privacy policy must be specific to donor information. A general website policy which references "visitor" or "user" personal information will not suffice. A policy that refers to donor information collected on the website is also not sufficient as the policy must be comprehensive and applicable to both online and offline donors. The existence of a privacy policy of any type does not prohibit the charity itself from contacting the donor for informational, educational, or solicitation purposes. (Less) | |
Charity Navigator looks to confirm on the Form 990, or for some metrics on the charity's website, that the organization makes this information easily accessible.
Sources Include: IRS Form 990 and organization's website
| CEO Salary Listed on 990 ... (More) Charities are required to list their CEO's name and compensation on the Form 990. Our analysts check to be sure that the charities complied with the Form 990 instructions and included this information in their filing. (Less) | |
| Board of Directors Listed on Website ... (More) Our analysts check to see if the charity lists Board members on its website. Publishing this information enables donors and other stakeholders to ascertain the make up of the charity's governing body. This enables stakeholders to report concerns to the Board. Charity Navigator does not cross-check the Board members listed on the website with that reported on the Form 990, because the latter often isn't available until more than a year after the charity's fiscal year ends. In that time, the charity's Board members may have changed, and the charity typically reflects those more recent changes on the website. (Less) | |
| Key Staff Listed on Website ... (More) It is important for donors and other stakeholders to know who runs the organization day-to-day. Charity Navigator does not cross-check the leadership listed on the website with that reported on the Form 990 because the latter often isn't available until more than a year after the charity's fiscal year ends. In that time, the charity's leadership may have changed and the charity typically reflects those more recent changes on the website. In other words, since the Form 990 isn't especially timely, it can not be used to verify the leadership information published on the charity's site. (Less) | |
| Audited Financial Statements Listed on Website ... (More) We check the charity's website to see if it has published its audited financial statements for the fiscal year represented by the most recently filed IRS Form 990. It is important for donors to have easy access to this financial report to help determine if the organization is managing its financial resources well. We currently rate charities on whether or not they publish their audit on their website. (Less) | |
| Form 990 Available on Website ... (More) We check the charity's website to see if it has published its most recently filed IRS Form 990 (a direct link to the charity's 990 on an external site is sufficient). It is important for donors to have easy access to this financial report to help determine if the organization is managing its financial resources well. (Less) | |
Full CreditPartial CreditNo CreditNot ApplicableLiabilities to Assets Ratio - 21.60% - 5/10 ptsLiabilities to Assets Ratio - 21.60% - 5/10 pts
The Liabilities to Assets Ratio is determined by Total Liabilities divided by Total Assets (most recent 990).
Part of our goal in rating the financial performance of charities is to help donors assess the financial capacity and sustainability of a charity. As do organizations in other sectors, charities must be mindful of their management of total liabilites in relation to their total assets. This ratio is an indicator of an organization’s solvency and or long term sustainability. Dividing a charity's total liabilities by its total assets yields this percentage.
Source: IRS Form 990
Working Capital Ratio - 0.56 years - 7.5/10 ptsWorking Capital Ratio - 0.56 years - 7.5/10 pts
Determines how long a charity could sustain its level of spending using its net available assets, or working capital, as reported on its most recently filed Form 990. We include in a charity's working capital unrestricted and temporarily restricted net assets, and exclude permanently restricted net assets. Dividing these net available assets in the most recent year by a charity's average total expenses, yields the working capital ratio. We calculate the charity's average total expenses over its three most recent fiscal years.
Source: IRS Form 990
Fundraising Efficiency - $0.15 - 7.5/10 ptsFundraising Efficiency - $0.15 - 7.5/10 pts
The amount spent to raise $1 in charitable contributions. To calculate a charity's fundraising efficiency, we divide its average fundraising expenses by the average total contributions it receives. We calculate the charity's average expenses and average contributions over its three most recent fiscal years.
Source: IRS Form 990
Administrative Expense Ratio - 13.00% - 10/10 ptsAdministrative Expense Ratio - 13.00% - 10/10 pts
As reported by charities on their IRS Form 990, this measure reflects what percent of its total budget a charity spends on overhead, administrative staff and associated costs, and organizational meetings. Dividing a charity's average administrative expenses by its average total functional expenses yields this percentage. We calculate the charity's average expenses over its three most recent fiscal years.
Source: IRS Form 990
Fundraising Expense Ratio - 15.40% - 5/10 ptsFundraising Expense Ratio - 15.40% - 5/10 pts
This measure reflects what a charity spends to raise money. Fundraising expenses can include campaign printing, publicity, mailing, and staffing and costs incurred in soliciting donations, memberships, and grants. Dividing a charity's average fundraising expenses by its average total functional expenses yields this percentage. We calculate the charity's average expenses over its three most recent fiscal years.
Source: IRS Form 990
Program Expense Ratio - 71.50% - 6.14/10 ptsProgram Expense Ratio - 71.50% - 6.14/10 pts
The Program Expense Ratio is determined by Program Expenses divided by Total Expense (average of most recent three 990s).
This measure reflects the percent of its total expenses a charity spends on the programs and services it exists to deliver. Dividing a charity's average program expenses by its average total functional expenses yields this percentage. We calculate the charity's average expenses over its three most recent fiscal years.
Source: IRS Form 990
Program Expense Growth - 37.22% - 10/10 ptsProgram Expense Growth - 37.22% - 10/10 pts
Organizations that demonstrate consistent annual growth in program expenses are able to outpace inflation and thus sustain their programs year to year. These organizations also supply givers with greater confidence by maintaining broad public support for their programs. We compute the average annual growth of program expenses using the following formula: [(Yn/Y0)(1/n)]-1, where Y0 is a charity's program expenses in the first year of the interval analyzed, Yn is the charity's program expenses in the most recent year, and n is the interval of years passed between Y0 and Yn.
Source: IRS Form 990
This chart displays the trend of revenue and expenses over the past several years for this organization, as reported on their IRS Form 990.
Presented here are this organizations key compensated staff members as identified by our analysts. This compensation data includes salary, cash bonuses and expense accounts and is displayed exactly how it is reported to the IRS. The amounts do not include nontaxable benefits, deferred compensation, or other amounts not reported on Form W-2. In some cases, these amounts may include compensation from related organizations. Read the IRS policies for compensation reporting
Jon Allen, Chief Executive Officer
$120,000 (2.38% of Total Expenses)
Jim Hocking, Founder
$120,000 (2.38% of Total Expenses)
Current CEO and Board Chair can be found in the Leadership & Adaptability report below.
Source: IRS Form 990 (page 7), filing year 2020
Below are some key data points from the Exempt Organization IRS Business Master File (BMF) for this organization. Learn more about the BMF on the IRS website
Foundation Status:
Organization which receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or the general public 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) (BMF foundation code: 15)
Affiliation:
Independent - the organization is an independent organization or an independent auxiliary (i.e., not affiliated with a National, Regional, or Geographic grouping of organizations). (BMF affiliation code: 3)
The Form 990 is a document that nonprofit organizations file with the IRS annually. We leverage finance and accountability data from it to form Encompass ratings. Click here to search for this organization's Forms 990 on the IRS website (if any are available). Simply enter the organization's name (Water for Good) or EIN (320112278) in the 'Search Term' field.
Water for Good has earned a 100% for the Impact & Results beacon. See the metrics below for more information.
This beacon estimates the actual impact a charity has on the lives of those it serves, and determines whether it is making good use of donor resources to achieve that impact.
Learn more
Full CreditPartial CreditNo CreditNot Applicable
Program
Maintenance Program
Activities
The nonprofit's local technicians maintained and monitored 1,125 water projects, keeping the clean water flowing from improved sources in rural areas of the Central African Republic, one of poorest countries in the world.
Program Type
Beneficiaries Served
Program Geography
Time Period of Data
Outcomes: Changes in the lives of those served by a nonprofit. They can be caused by the nonprofit.
Costs: The money spent by a nonprofit and its partners and beneficiaries.
Impact: Outcome caused by a nonprofit relative to its cost.
Cost-effectiveness: A judgment as to whether the cost was a good use of resources to cause the outcome.
Outcome Metric
Outcome Data Source
Ratings are based on data the nonprofit itself collects on its work. We use the most recent year with sufficient data. Typically, this data allows us to calculate direct changes in participants' lives, such as increased income.
Outcome data collected through local staff, who complete electronic reports on-site during service visits, providing photo and G.P.S. verification water project location and functionality. Beneficiary numbers are self-reported by community members and capped at 1,000 people per project.
Method for Attributing Outcomes
We don't know if the observed changes were caused by the nonprofit's program or something else happening at the same time (e.g., a participant got a raise). To determine causation, we take the outcomes we observe and subtract an estimate of the outcomes that would have happened even without the program (i.e., counterfactual outcomes).
The nonprofit conservatively estimates that 56 percent of water projects in the Central African Republic would be functional without the nonprofit's maintenance program, and 90 percent of projects are functional with the program. Thus, the nonprofit attributes 44 percent of people who have access now to the maintenance program.
Cost Data Source
After estimating the program's outcomes, we need to determine how much it cost to achieve those outcomes. All monetary costs are counted, whether they are borne by a nonprofit service deliverer or by the nonprofit’s public and private partners.
Program cost data reported by the nonprofit. Partner and beneficiary costs reported by the nonprofit or estimated by Charity Navigator.
We calculate impact, defined as the change in outcomes attributable to a program divided by the cost to achieve those outcomes.
Impact Statement
$1 provides clean water to a person for a year.
Benchmark for Rating
Impact & Results scores of water access programs are based on the cost to provide clean water relative to the market cost that a person incurs to buy water in that country. Programs receive an Impact & Results score of 100 if they provide water for less than 75% of the estimated market costs, and a score of 75 if they do so for less than 125%. If a nonprofit reports impact but doesn't meet the threshold for cost-effectiveness, it earns a score of 50.
Determination
Water for Good reported its largest program on its FY 2020 Form 990 as:
Spent in most recent FY
Percent of program expenses
WASH
Spent in most recent FY
Percent of program expenses
Pump Maintenance
Spent in most recent FY
Percent of program expenses
WASH Universal Access
Spent in most recent FY
Percent of program expenses
Radio
Water for Good has earned a 100% for the Culture & Community beacon. See the metrics below for more information.
This beacon provides an assessment of the organization's culture and connectedness to the community it serves.
Learn more
Full CreditPartial CreditNo CreditNot ApplicableConstituent Feedback - Data Available - 100/100 ptsConstituent Feedback - Data Available - 100/100 pts
100% of beacon score
This organization reported that it is collecting feedback from the constituents and/or communities it serves. Charity Navigator believes nonprofit organizations that engage in inclusive practices, such as collecting feedback from the people and communities they serve, may be more effective.
Who are the people you serve with your mission? Describe briefly.
Water for Good serves Central Africans who do not have access to sustainable, clean water. Only 35% of its five million people have access to safe water, and these systems’ rate of failure can exceed 40% without professional maintenance. Most people where we work are under the age of 35 and are affected by extreme economic poverty and political instability. Most people survive on subsistence farming and live in an extremely rural context. With our new water access program, we aim to reach an additional 650,000 people by the end of 2026 in Region 2. Our water maintenance program serves more than 885,000 people annually across nine prefectures, including those of Region 2 (Bangui, Mambéré-Kadéï, Ombella-Mpoko, Sangha-Mbaéré, Nana-Mbaéré, Ouham-Pendé, Lobaye, Ouham, and Kémo).
How is your organization collecting feedback from the people you serve?
Electronic surveys (by email, tablet, etc.), Community meetings or town halls
How is your organization using feedback from the people you serve?
To make fundamental changes to our programs and/or operations, To inform the development of new programs/projects
With whom does your organization share the feedback you got from the people you serve?
Our staff, Our board, Our funders, Our community partners
How has asking for feedback from the people you serve changed your relationship with them or shifted power - over decisions, resources, rules or in other ways - to them?
Soliciting feedback has shifted Water for Good's model to increase water access and improve service delivery.
What challenges does your organization face in collecting feedback from the people you serve?
It is difficult to find the ongoing funding to support feedback collection, Staff find it hard to prioritize feedback collection and review due to lack of time
Briefly describe a recent change that your organization made in response to feedback from the people you serve.
Our sustainable water program provides professional maintenance services to water systems on a bi-annual basis as part of our circuit-rider service model. It currently provides services across a large geographical region that spans nine prefectures. Recently, we executed household-level surveys to program participants and asked about their satisfaction with Water for Good’s services. We learned that program participants were unsatisfied with our lack of responsive maintenance services when water systems breakdown between scheduled visits. Thus, we are working to improve our responsive capacity by regionalizing our program such that different teams can focus on different areas to respond to water system breakdowns within 72 hours.
Equity Practices - No Data Available - UnscoredEquity Practices - No Data Available - Unscored
This organization has not provided information regarding the Equity Practices it is presently implementing. As such, the organization has not earned a score on this metric. Charity Navigator believes nonprofit organizations implementing effective equity policies and practices can enhance a nonprofit's decision-making, staff motivation, innovation, and effectiveness.
Water for Good has earned a 100% for the Leadership & Adaptability beacon. See the metrics below for more information.
This beacon provides an assessment of the organization's leadership capacity, strategic thinking and planning, and ability to innovate or respond to changes in constituent demand/need or other relevant social and economic conditions to achieve the organization's mission.
Learn more
Full CreditPartial CreditNo CreditNot ApplicableMission - 10/10 ptsMission - 10/10 pts
The nonprofit organization presents evidence of strategic thinking through articulating the organization's mission
Our mission is clean, lasting water for every man, woman, and child in the Central African Republic, the 2nd poorest country in the world. Our goal is to provide clean and reliable water services through private-sector solutions, which will end water poverty in the Central African Republic. In addition to drilling wells, we know a reliable maintenance program must be part of the solution. Water for Good maintains a commitment to keeping the water running, for good. Focusing on sustainability, we incubate professionalized local water service providers that can deliver clean water in coordination with the local government and non-profit partners.
Vision - 10/10 ptsVision - 10/10 pts
The nonprofit organization presents evidence of strategic thinking through articulating the organization’s vision.
Water for Good’s vision is an end to water poverty in the Central African Republic, for good, and share our learnings with others to promote the end of water poverty in other countries.
Source: Nonprofit submitted responses
Goals - 20/20 ptsGoals - 20/20 pts
The nonprofit organization presents evidence of strategic thinking and goal setting through sharing their most important strategic goals.
Goal One: To reach everyone with reliable, safe water access in Region 2 by implementing new water projects and professional maintenance services, and then scale operations to reach the entire country
Goal Type: Grow, expand, scale or increase access to the existing programs and services.
Goal Two: To improve water sector coordination and communication between non-profits, government, and other organizations with the long-term goal of strengthening private-public water sector partnerships
Goal Type: This goal reflects our commitment to further our advocacy work for our organization and or cause area.
Goal Three: To incubate and spin-off professionalized, local water service providers that can deliver clean water in coordination with the local government and non-profit partners to keep water running, for good
Goal Type: New program(s) based on observed changes in needs among our constituencies/communities served.
Leadership Development - 15/15 ptsLeadership Development - 15/15 pts
The nonprofit provides evidence of investment in leadership development
The professional mentor works with the executive team of our organization on leadership development, and also the members of the executive team and our directors attended conferences, webinars, and training to improve their knowledge and skills in their professional fields.
Mobilizing for Mission - 15/15 ptsMobilizing for Mission - 15/15 pts
The nonprofit provides evidence of leadership through focusing externally and mobilizing resources for the mission.
Strategic Partnerships
Networks of Collective Impact Efforts
Thought Leadership
Raising Awareness
Community Building
Policy Advocacy
Water for Good undertakes diverse activities to mobilize our mission externally. We engage in strategic partnerships with other organizations, such as UNICEF, World Vision, Central African governmental institutions, and many others. As thought leaders, we participate in conferences and publish learnings with networks (WASH Agenda for Change, Uptime, the Accord Network, and the Safe Water Enterprise Community of Practice). In the Central African Republic, we participate in the Humanitarian WASH Cluster, which serves to coordinate efforts across multiple organizations. Our advocacy program also actively engages government to promote communication, collaboration, and raise awareness of our mission and strategy. Through our new water access and radio programs, we directly engage in training community water point committees and provide sanitation and hygiene education. Finally, we raise awareness of our mission and cause through fundraising events and activities, and on social media.
Adaptability Story - 30/30 ptsAdaptability Story - 30/30 pts
The nonprofit has an opportunity to tell the story of how the organization adapted to tremendous external changes in the last year.
Water for Good has worked in the Central African Republic for the last 18 years and has adapted to tremendous external changes that are inherent to a country with chronic conflicts and insecurity. In 2020, the Central African Republic not only confronted the COVID-19 pandemic but also struggled with an explosion of violence that erupted approaching the presidential election in December. Rebel groups seized several towns nearby Bangui, the capital city. Despite the presence of nearly 13,000 UN Peacekeepers, insecurity rocked the country, and violence further exasperated humanitarian needs and the number of those displaced by violence. It was estimated that half of the population relied on humanitarian assistance and a fifth had been displaced by violence. Following the election, mass displacement was observed as more than 20,000 people fled their homes and violence continued to threaten people's lives throughout the first quarter of the year. Given the gravity of the violence and insecurity, Water for Good was unable to operate its programs as planned from December 2020 through March 2021. From previous experience and our core organizational values, we knew in our head and our hearts that it was in our staff’ and our organization’s best interests not to lay off personnel. Yet, it was difficult to fund salaries when program objectives were not being met. Consequently, we leveraged our network of private donors to support us during this difficult time. With our donors' generosity, we were able to continue paying salaries throughout this period of heightened insecurity. While we weren’t producing our planned programmatic results, we used this time to re-group as an organization, advance programmatic planning, and complete outstanding housekeeping activities. The organizational progress we made during this time enabled our organization to bounce back swiftly and we finished 2021 with exceptional programmatic results.
Impact & Results
Accountability & Finance
Culture & Community
Leadership & Adaptability
The Giving Basket is having some issues. If you wish to donate, please refresh the page. If the problem persists contact us.
Cart ID: Not Assigned
The Giving Basket is having some issues. If you wish to donate, please refresh the page. If the problem persists contact us.
Cart ID: Not Assigned
