Skip to content

· Public charity

Living Water Project

The Living Water Project is an effort to fund clean and accessible water for people in impoverished areas of the world, thereby also extending to them the love of God.

$549k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
—
States reached
$93k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

International$852kReligion$401kHuman Services$374kEducation$46kPhilanthropy$43kHealth$20kEnvironment$20k
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $260,545, the rows itemized in this filing. The $549,192 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $288,647 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k4 grants · $108k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $152k
$44,723
Median grant
—
States reached
$236k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Final Command Ministries$92,680
Zambia Mission Fund$59,500
Exile International$44,723
Invite Joy Burkino Faso$22,342
Water 4$21,300
Lipscomb University$20,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY20–24, $419k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 94% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Living Water International: $12k → 8%Water4 Foundation: $110k → 16%Made in the Streets: $13k → 4%Water4 Foundation: $87k → 16%Water4 Foundation: $86k → 16%Water 4: $70k → 16%Water4 Foundation: $42k → 16%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Grants abroad, by region: $289k on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Sub-Saharan Africa$289k · 100% · 3 grants

Stated purpose: GSA Road Church of Christ - To construct 16 clean water wells in Liberia and provide access to clean water to approximately 6400 people, · Paul Partey - to fund the construction of 18 new clean water wells in Ghana and 12 well refurbishments to provide access to clean water to those in need. These projects serve approximately 12,000 people. · Water Access - To provide 4 new clean water wells in Malawi and 14 well refurbishments in order to provide clean water access to approximately 7,200.

How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 12% of Living Water Project’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 44% of the giving stays in TN; by stated purpose, 3%.

Living Water Projectlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 88% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.7M · 7 repeat orgs$25k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +46% since the first grant, against +16% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
2

Total granted

$1.7M
$25k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+46%
+16%

Still filing today

86%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesInternationalReligionOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • FC
    FINAL COMMAND MINISTRIES
    6× · 2020–2025 · $677k · revenue +33%
  • WI
    WATER4 INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $416k · revenue +52%
  • ZC
    Zambia Christian College Inc dba Zambia Mission Fund
    6× · 2020–2025 · $320k · revenue +46%

Funded once

  • MI
    MADE IN THE STREETS
    one grant, 2024 · $13k · revenue 0%
  • Living Water International
    one grant, 2022 · $12k · revenue +16%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Living Water Project

The Living Water Project is an effort to fund clean and accessible water for people in impoverished areas of the world, thereby also extending to them the love of God.

International
2
Empowering Lives International

Empowering Lives International (ELI) ignites world changers. We equip families and orphans to crush poverty, embrace Christ, and share their transformation with others through their God-honoring income, their deepening relationship with…

Religion
3
Charity Global Inc

Charity: water is a non-profit organization bringing clean and safe water to people around the world. continued on schedule o.

Human Services
4
Living Water World Missions

The mission is to share the good news of jesus christ by providing water purification systems in communities throughout the world. the current focus is the central american country of guatemala.

International
5
Second Nile Global Corp

Our commitment to providing accessible clean water extends beyond the boundaries of countries, continents, and cultures. We are driven by a shared belief in the power of technology to transform lives, uplift communities, and create a more…

International
6
Twin Missions International

Mission work

Health
7
Partnership for Indigenous Peoples -Pipes - International

We are a global Christian organization committed to partnering with indigenous peoples, local churches, and community-based organizations to make disciples of Jesus Christ and help end extreme poverty. We serve indigenous pygmies,…

International
8
Barnabas Leadership Ministries

Ministry

—
9
The Filter Project

The Filter Project is a parachurch ministry whose mission is to pour Gods love into under-resourced communities through the gift of safe, filtered, drinking water in Kenya and plan to serve into additional countries in the future.

International
10
Wash for Life Inc

To Provide clean water to communities in Malawi, Africa

Human Services
11
Serving Our Neighbor International

To share the love of Jesus and advance God's Kingdom by serving our neighbors with water and community development projects. Installing water filters in Tanzania, education and training on water, sanitation and, hygiene.

International
12
It is Well International Inc
Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Zambia Christian College Inc dba Zambia Mission Fund; the most unlike its peers is Final Command Ministries. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

8 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 8 of the 9 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FINAL COMMAND MINISTRIES: $677,180 · ReligionFINAL COMMAND MINISTRIESZambia Christian College Inc dba Zambia Mission Fund: $319,842 · InternationalZambia Christian College Inc …EXILE INTERNATIONAL INC: $101,219 · InternationalEXILE INTERNATIONAL INCOneWorld Health: $38,000 · InternationalOneWorld HealthWATER4 INC: $415,622 · Human ServicesWATER4 INC+2 more: $25,000 · Human Services+2 moreLIPSCOMB UNIVERSITY: $136,000 · OtherLIPSCOMB UN…INVITE JOY - BURKINA FASO INC: $43,384 · OtherINVITE JOY …
Religion$677,180International$459,061Human Services$440,622Other$179,384

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFINAL COMMAND MINISTRIES: $677,180 over 6y, 11% of budgetWATER4 INC: $415,622 over 6y, 1.3% of budgetZambia Christian College Inc dba Zambia Mission Fund: $319,842 over 6y, 2.1% of budgetLIPSCOMB UNIVERSITY: $136,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetEXILE INTERNATIONAL INC: $101,219 over 5y, 1.8% of budgetOneWorld Health: $38,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetMADE IN THE STREETS: $13,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetLiving Water International: $12,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds FINAL COMMAND MINISTRIES ↗
  • Who funds WATER4 INC ↗
  • Who funds Zambia Christian College Inc dba Zambia Mission Fund ↗
  • Who funds LIPSCOMB UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds EXILE INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
  • Who funds OneWorld Health ↗
  • Who funds MADE IN THE STREETS ↗
  • Who funds Living Water International ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Servant FoundationKS14.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Servant Foundation · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · American Endowment Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Living Water Project funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Living Water Project. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 9 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Living Water Project’s filings →

    More from the funding graph