ENGINEERS WITHOUT BORDERS-USA PROGRAM QUALITY-RATINGS

QUALITY OF OUR WORK Project Process Improvements Feedback throughout design development Post trip reports gather lessons learned Ongoing monitoring reports measure impact over time Resource Development Technical webinars Process and development webinars Mentor resources Access to these and other resources is available through the Member pages of our website under the Webinars, Project Resources and Chapter Resources tabs. Sign in at

RATING OUR QUALITY Why Rate the Work of Chapters? Donor outreach Grant eligibility New program eligibility Organizational Goals of Rating System Transparency with chapters Improved quality over time Stronger adherence to principles

SUBMITTAL RATINGS Ratings are per report submittal. Report ratings are averaged over time. Each of 10 Principles is considered. 1 is poor, 2 is good, 3 is excellent. Rated value is indicated in PM notes. A full description of the criteria used by EWB-USA Project Managers to rate project submittals is available on the homepage of the Member pages of our website,

RATING OUTCOMES 1 – POOR More than one Principle is not met. Not eligible for grants and awards. 3 – EXCELLENT Exceptional example of all Principles. Recommended for grants and project awards. 2 – GOOD Adequately addresses Principles. Not a 1 or a 3. Eligible for grants, not recommended for project awards.

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT 1.ENGINEERING 2.COMMUNITY DRIVEN 3.COMMITMENT 4.QUALITY 5.SAFETY EWB-USA Principles of Development define our approach to the field of community development work. Find the complete list on our website:

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT 6.EXPERTISE 7.APPROPRIATENESS 8.SUSTAINABILITY 9.PARTNERS 10.EDUCATION EWB-USA Principles of Development define our approach to the field of community development work. Find the complete list on our website:

EXAMPLE RATINGS Each PM is rating between 10 and 30 reports each month. Similar project scopes can receive very different ratings. Make sure to demonstrate how your team will address each principle. How would you rate the following project submittals?

SANITATION Latrine project to improve standard design in area. Strong and long-term relationship with community and local partners. Community involvement in various stages of project development. No design details submitted for pit or superstructure. Eventual TAC approval after much follow-up. Decent HASP. Team has previous experience with latrines. Latrine design uses local materials. Strong educational program.

SOLID WASTE Engineering scope that community didnt have access to otherwise. Extensive work with local government. Very little review time required for TAC approval. HASP is well prepared. Technically sound team. Scope developed with community to ensure it was appropriate. Partnering directly with local community. Community funding is a challenge, chapter is working with them to find a solution. Solid waste management education and training incorporated in plans.

SANITATION Engineering scope meets basic human needs, but is too large. Very little community input to design. Long term commitment is met. Poor quality drawings, copied conceptual drawings from other org. Intended to implement without being present, send money to community. No site safety plan. Excellent technical skills on team. No community funding, minimal labor contribution. Local materials are used. Education plan is developed. Working with community directly. Non responsive to PM and TAC feedback.

WATER SUPPLY Water Supply project with unique water quality challenges. Collaboration with various in-country partners driving project. Plans for long-term involvement. Comprehensive, clear, and concise pre- assessment report. Thorough HASP. Chapter mentors are uniquely qualified for unique project challenges. Focus on relationship building and getting to know community resources and constraints on first trip. Clear focus on long-term sustainability. Very responsive to feedback.

WATER SUPPLY Gravity water supply for 25 homes 522, 523, 524, 525 reports submitted within a week of each other - less than one month prior to travel. Plan drawings for an entire water system were in one sketch on a quarter of a standard letter size page. Few design details. Professional Mentor not on PM review call and stated later the design was inadequate Students lacked expertise to address questions on PM review call Good in-country partner The University had a pre-existing long term relationship with community.

WATER SUPPLY Scope is large, but meeting basic human needs. Community is involved during planning. Team has resources and plans to fulfill five year commitment. Report is of professional quality. Follows process, but submitted late. Mentor has experience directly related to project. Technology is appropriate for community. NGO is providing education contribution. No monitoring and evaluation plan. Team is responsive to PM feedback. Team is working with community and NGO to get feedback during design.

WATER SUPPLY Standard water supply project. No mention of community involvement in post- implementation report. Sporadic progress on project. Post-Implementation report was significantly lacking. Unaware of H&S requirements. Team has strong qualifications. Good job on design as presented to TAC. Appropriate technology being used. Nothing reported on project sustainability.

CROP PROCESSOR Solves engineering problem the community does not have resources to. Community has given feedback. Team has resources to stay committed to community. Submittal is of professional quality. Safety for community is considered. Professional Mentor is very involved. Technical and community development expertise is demonstrated. Local materials will be used. Future O&M already included in design. Community is providing funding. Monitoring and education plan exist. Training for travel team is planned.

BRIDGE Pedestrian bridge of reasonable size identified by community as a priority Chapter had successfully completed previous projects in community Report lacking method to gather hydrology and hydraulic data Report was submitted late No bridge design mentor on the team Chapter was considering reasonable technologies

INTERPRETING RATINGS Descriptions of ratings criteria are on website. One rating will not reflect the overall quality of the entire project. Ratings will provide guidance on how to improve quality. Currently the majority of projects are rated a 2 – good quality.

QUESTIONS? Contact your Chapter Relations Manager (South Central Region) Contact your reviewing Project Manager