Rating reports

Key data
| Income | £2.1m |
| Programme ratio | 86% |
| Admin. expenses ratio | 12% |
| Fundraising efficiency | 2p |
Output
~345,000 beneficiaries with improved access to water & sanitation
Reports
- Afghan Connection
- Africa Educational Trust
- Africa Now
- African Initiatives
- AfriKids
- Andrew Lees Trust
- BasicNeeds
- Blue Dragon
- Book Aid International
- Build Africa
- Cambodia Trust
- Excellent Development
- Health Unlimited
- Homeless International
- IMPACT Foundation
- International Childcare Trust
- MicroLoan Foundation
- Motivation Charitable Trust
- MSAVLC
- MyC4
- Nepal Leprosy Trust
- Pestalozzi Overseas Childrens Trust
- Prospect Burma
- Pump Aid
- Refugees United
- Riders For Health
- ShelterBoxTrust
- SolarAid
- Survivors Fund
- Target Tubercolosis
- Tools for Self-Reliance
- Tree Aid
- VETAID
- Vision Aid Overseas
- Women and Children First
The charity’s past quoted cost of £250 per pump refers only to the cost of raw materials to build each pump. In fact, the current cost is higher than this, due to hyper-inflation and exchange rate issues related to Zimbabwe. This is also due to cement and PVC piping having to be imported now due to production problems within Zimbabwe. The basic pump materials cost does not include Pump Aid’s labour costs and capital acquisition costs. The cost per pump figures given below are not representative of the material costs as these figures also include the Elephant Toilets installed and the planting of nutrition gardens and productive trees. The sanitation programme multiplies the impact of the water programme. Financial year 2009 forecasts for pump installations may have to be revised down after the Zimbabwe NGO banning. There were three months when operations were halted there, but this boosted the Malawi start up timing which compensated to some extent.
A typical school has around 500 students, but average direct beneficiaries per pump are estimated at 250. Using this figure under-estimates the whole programme impact but project expenses per beneficiary remains cost-effective. The total cost per beneficiary also remains low, highlighting the efficient use of overall funds. By comparison, WaterAid (£21m on projects in 2007) has a total cost per water and sanitation programme beneficiary (which we have ascertained includes a certain amount of double counting) of £11.79.
As a phased approach is taken to pump building in a region, pump installation can be allocated randomly to the first or second year of an installation programme, allowing the second year communities to act as an evaluation control for the first year’s. Crop yields, time saving, income differences, school registration figures, disease incidence, and other quantitative and qualitative measures can be compared between the communities. Partners are supporting the development of this evaluation programme, but further funding is required.
Previous page: Home
Next page: Ratings criteria