Our theory of change, at Splash, is consistent and simple. But in application, our work gets customized locally, within each country, such that our model can appear varied to others even when it is fundamentally consistent.
It all begins with safe water. Everything we do is built on this foundation. And we secure clean water by leveraging existing technology and supply chains — established for commercial markets — and redirect them for a different end user: kids living in poverty who don’t have clean water.
Based upon the x-factor of clean water security — as this is our starting place — we continually ask, “Where will be the greatest return on investment?” In other words, where should we place our time, talent, focus, bandwidth, networks, rigor and resources? That answer is “kids.” Once we have that answer, it begs a new question: “Where are the most kids?” The answer to this, in turn, begs a new question.
All in all, there is a series of 13 questions. With them, we developed the Splash Innovation Framework, a visual display of our theory of change as customized in each country. To understand the Splash approach — like our 100% coverage model, or our radical transparency platform, or our ability to lever government relationships — one first must understand the essential logic-model of Splash. We invite to you take a look, here, and consider how our strategy in Nepal is similar and different from our strategy in Cambodia. How our approach in Ethiopia is similar and different than in Bangladesh. At their root, they are the same. Yet in practice, the decision point in each country makes the final product look very different.
We have noted our beginning point: Safe water. But we have not yet stated our end point: exit. Strategic exit. Scaled exit. Sustainable exit. Just as everything is built upon the foundation of safe water, everything is aimed toward the goal of exit. Indeed, Splash wants to become irrelevant. Obsolete. Unnecessary. But we approach our work so that solutions will endure — in locally rooted, economically stable ways — and that we don’t need to be “one more hang-around NGO” but instead can demonstrate proof of success at scale; support viable transition to full local ownership; and then exit while watching the solutions live on.