1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Executive Summary 3 1. E2E and the Haitian Housing Crisis 2. Task 3. Methodology 4. Delivery: Roadmap to Partnerships 5. Conclusion

II. Why Partner? 4 1. Who is E2E? 2. The role and assets partners can play

III. Methodology 5

1. How did we analyze possible partnerships 2. Critical Questions 3. SWOT analysis 4. Explain Buy In

IV. Fitting Partners into the Strategic Plan 6

1. Road map from Incubate to Seed to Scale 2. Internal and External growth 3. Checkpoints 4. Relationship to goals and milestones

V. Partner Profiles 7

1. Incubate 2. Seed 3. Scale

VI. Appendices 19

A. Charts B. Contacts C. Case Studies

2

I. Executive Summary

The amount of progress that E2E has made in the past three years has been unimaginable according it its leaders. After the 2010 earthquake, they believed they had something to offer the thousands of internally displaced persons. After three years they are finally building their prototype and in due time, one woman will benefit from an E2E home, with thousands of Haitians waiting. This growth and reality makes it all the more important that E2E continue to think of ways in which it can develop innovative solutions by listening and empowering those they serve.

As the Development Advisory Team for Engineering2Empower, we were tasked with the following question: How can E2E better understand and create opportunities to partner with government, financial institutions, and outside aid organizations to work towards a housing policy that not only delivers safe, affordable, and quality housing to residents but empowers residents throughout the process? In order to first examine opportunities for E2E, the team’s research methodology consisted of three main components: Haiti field study, case studies, and leadership interviews.

The team first performed field research in Port­au­Prince and Léogâne, Haiti, meeting with large­scale organizations such as Catholic Relief Services (CRS), American Red Cross (ARC), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The team also met with E2E’s community engagement representatives and observed an incubator activity. This field study allowed the researchers to develop an understanding of the organization both internally and externally from the local context both at a higher level in Port­au­Prince and on the ground in Léogâne.

From the insights gained while in Haiti, the team performed case studies of three organizations working in Haiti: Oxfam, CRS, and Build Change. All three organizations represent very process­based organizations and facilitate housing projects through implementation partnerships, training, and other channels leading to housing interventions. The team examined the strategic plans of each organization and the ways in which the organization interacts and engages with partnering organizations, federal institutions, and local people. Finally, the team conducted individual leadership interviews with the founders of E2E. Doing so allowed the team to assess the current vision, trajectories, and focus of E2E’s leadership.

From our synthesis of the realities of the Haitian housing crisis, the internal capacities of E2E, the focus of a process­oriented vision, and the importance of mutual partnerships we present our deliverable: a roadmap of partnerships that is incorporated into the current strategic plan developed by Engineering2Empower. The roadmap of partnerships also contains “profiles” of the types of organizations desired. We have decided upon this framework because we believe it allows Engineering2Empower to visualize and define the evolution of partnership development into their established process of development model of Incubate, Seed, Scale. This framework is best for Engineering2Empower because it is based off the existing activities that E2E projects to achieve. They are also aligned with the goals that have been identified in each stage. We firmly believe that these

3

partnerships can leverage the success of E2E realizing its goals and achieving its vision ­­ facilitating access to housing.

We recommend that the client refer to this report along the way and internalize the checkpoints and recommendations provided. This information contains valuable resources as E2E considers incorporating new partners externally or looking to expand internally. We hope that these partnership profiles provide information for the next appropriate step. It includes relevant information, possible contacts, and ideas to get them involved.

We believe this report will aid E2E in identifying opportunities for partnership and most importantly identifying the specific action steps to take to form the partnerships. By suggesting these specific steps and profiles E2E can take a critical view of what the next steps are and how best to capitalize on their achievements and assets.

II. Why Partner?

Engineering2Empower defines itself as a team of faculty at the University of Notre Dame who, along with their partners, envision a world where all families can afford safe and dignified homes. The vision is for Engineering2Empower to facilitate access to housing by seeding an integrated process that empowers local entrepreneurs to deliver engineered urban housing in the free market within formal economies. As an organization that is affiliated with a university Engineering2Empower has many assets and qualities that allow it to achieve its vision. The interdisciplinary environments at the University level are ideal for identifying comprehensive solutions to development challenges. There are diverse amounts of computational, intellectual, and laboratory resources. Also at the University of Notre Dame, is access to networks of socially conscious alumni and corporate partners as well as pathways to commercialization. Lastly, Engineering2Empower is dedicated to training the next generation of global citizens. The engineering expertise of E2E validates their model and allows them to continuously check and find new ways to make it more safe and affordable. Because Engineering2Empower has such a presence in Léogâne, Haiti they are able to receive feedback from potential clients easily to apply the model in the local context.

However we acknowledge that by defining what E2E is and its role in housing development we also know the extents to which the organization can operate. The weaknesses we have identified are derived from our own research and from the informational interviews of the leadership. First, there is a lack of business and financial management expertise. This is mostly due to focus on the technical aspect of the housing model as well as the focus on the process of implementation with the incubator. Secondly, E2E is currently heavily reliant on donor support. As a non­profit entity, E2E must depend on the support of donors, which at the E2E’s current phase is largely private. In the coming years as E2E expands, it will need to yield even more funding in order to pilot its model through E2E Depots. Third is the need for additional personnel. E2E is a very small organization comprised of mostly part­time

4

individuals. As E2E grows, the work demands will increase. For more information on the role of E2E see Figure 1 in Appendix A.

The mission of E2E demonstrates that partnership is a crucial aspect of the E2E model. We acknowledge that as E2E moves more towards its vision it needs to incorporate its current partners and future partners into their process. In addition, as more donors and sponsors begin to gain interest, it is important that Engineering2Empower evaluate itself as an organization, allowing E2E to deliberately define what outside organizations can contribute and gain through mutual partnerships. This analysis can better help to alleviate some of the challenges towards development that Engineering2Empower faces based on the above mentioned weaknesses and threats.

In order to effectively address our research question we used a methodology that forced us to

look inwardly and outwardly at exactly at who and what Engineering2Empower needs in order to get from one step to the next. Through this analysis we were able to compose “profiles” of the current partners Engineering2Empower has and potential partners it should consider in the near future. III. Methodology

For each weakness and threat determined, we saw opportunities for partnerships and internal expansion within E2E. For the recommendations identified, we completed a “profile” which provides background and characteristics of each potential partner. We followed a particular methodology of analysis to provide the best information that will be useful to Engineering2Empower using three key frameworks explained below. A. The Who, Why, What, How and When: The first framework we used asked a series of questions for each partner profile to determine the basics of the relationship.

Who? Who are we looking to bring in? What are there certain characteristics? Is this an

internal or external actor? Are they a part of our current network? Why? Why are they important to the E2E vision? How do they address the weaknesses or

threats faced by E2E? What? What will be their role in the process? What E2E activities will they be a part of? How? How will E2E engage with this actor? What will be the first interaction? What will the

relationship look like? When? At what point with they be a part of the process? End? Short term or long­term? B. SWOT

5

Secondly, we completed a SWOT analysis for each potential partner. As we did for E2E we considered the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for each of the recommendations. This is a necessary framework to understand the position that a possible partner would have. It allows E2E to see how a partner can be useful. It also highlights the external factors that other actors may face. C. Buy­In Lastly, we analyzed partner buy­in. In our research we realized that it was imperative to consider and highlight organization buy­in with in potential partners, especially for corporate donors, nonprofits, and government institutions. As seen from other cases like Catholic Relief Services and Build Change, buy­in was key to landing critical partnerships that launched their development projects to scale because the organization had goals which required outside resources. Therefore, with each recommendation we 1

address how E2E can increase partner buy in that has mutual investment. Framing buy­ins in a way that is creative, personalized, and beneficial (outside of personal or moral satisfaction) to the partner, can attract a stronger relationship. IV. Incorporating Partners into the E2E Strategic Plan

This roadmap visualizes the internal and external growth of E2E if it were to incorporate actors in genuine partnerships throughout the INCUBATE to SEED to SCALE process. After identifying partners and completing the “partner profiles” we aligned the partners into the strategic plan designed by Engineering2Empower. Because we identified when they should begin to be involved and what activities they should be involved with, including the ones identified in their strategic plan we were able to visually map out where exactly they fit in relation to E2E.

By thinking of the strategic plans as a road map versus a series of stages, we identified the specific sub­goals within the greater stages of Incubate ­ Seed ­ Scale, identifying specific steps, timeframes, and actors within each step. Currently, Engineering2Empower is in the “Incubate” stage moving towards “Seed”. It has already incorporated a few partners and it will continue to pick more up along the way in a snowball effect. The road map allows us to visually see where and when the internal and external actors will join the journey toward E2E’s vision. The partner profiles have been arranged in relation to the Incubate, Seed, Scale timeline. We included the goals and milestones of each stage and provided particular checkpoint questions that address how the partnerships can help to move E2E from one step to the next.

1 Interview: Michael Swiekar of Notre Dame’s Initiative for Global Development

6

We have identified the phases of partnerships that are necessary throughout the Incubate, Seed, and Scale stages. As partnerships are gained, they naturally snowball effect to leverage new partnerships in order to expand impact. In the case studies we performed, it was largely shown that partnerships follow a three­phase trajectory: corporate/private, implementing, and scaling partnerships. These fall directly in sequence with the incubate, seed, and scale stages.

In the incubator stage, partnerships are largely private and corporate. These types of

partnerships are necessary in the beginning phases while organizations are developing and forming. Corporate/private partnerships should be used to implement pilot projects. Partnerships, in light of the pilot project, can then be built up and used to leverage implementing partnerships, which are necessary in proving scalability. Implementing partners allow interventions to become sustainable in a local context. After the local intervention is completed and scalability is analyzed and verified, it is natural for scaling partnerships to be leveraged as the potential for replication is proven from community to community. In this way, the sequence of partnerships will allow the E2E model to fulfill its mission. V. Mapping Process and Partnerships

1) Incubate: *Note: The following are the goals, milestones, and activities identified by E2E for the Incubation stage during the first year of implementation. Those in Green signify what has been completed. The Yellow is what is currently in progress and the Blue are the recommendations that have been identified by the DAT team. Goals

HAITI: E2E will run brainstorming an implementation exercises in Haiti to finalize details of the E2E housing model.

ND: In parallel it will create a prototype at Notre Dame to support research on best practices and solutions for problems identified in the field

Key Milestones (Year 1)

Haiti group: 1) Incubator Planning and Recruiting (3 mo.) DONE 2) Incubator II and III (3 mo.) DONE 3) Incubator I (3 mo.) IN PROCESS 4) Prototype Construction (3 mo.) IN PROCESS

ND group: ­ Student engagement (3 mo.) DONE

7

­ Partnership building (3 mo.) DONE ­ Prototype design and testing (3 mo.) DONE ­ Housing Expo (3 mo.) IN PROCESS ­ Expand Student and Faculty partnerships to business/finance school

Partner 1: Business School Faculty and Student Partnerships A. Critical Questions Who: Esteem program or business students and faculty who have expertise in non profits. This could be

more of an external actor that follows the model of the DAT team. Why: Because the finances of the housing model is essential to its implementation, it is imperative to

focus attention on how the mortgage, subsidy, and savings package will function. Creating a team whose focus is to draft proposals to be presented to potential donors and banks will be infinitely useful for both internal and external progress.

What: Research and identify possible financial partnerships either in the states or in Haiti. Work closely with making connections to banks in Haiti such as Sojibank and Fonkoze.

How: Through the Esteem Program (David Murray), Mendoza College of Business (Melissa Paulsen), or Elizabeth Pomerenke. Set up a program or small consulting group that will work part time on this project.

When: The beginning of the Fall Semester next year, but work over the summer to create a cohort. The team will work in the fall semester to begin making the necessary connections and research needed. They should watch closely the CRS project in Haiti. This team will be short term and 2

will work early in the initial stages to begin initial conversations with financial institutions. B. SWOT

Strengths Expertise in business that is strongly

needed Innovative thinking and research

environment

Weaknesses Time commitment; part time Possible lack of full understanding of

situation

Opportunities Solidifying a model for financing the

home Reach out to different banks and

microfinance organizations to solicit interest

Threats Continuity of the partnership, may not be

long term

2 See Appendix B for contacts

8

C. Buy­in: This will be valuable consulting practice for students in the business programs. Students and faculty can use their expertise to evaluate risks and alternatives for potential financial partners. Collaboration would be helpful for those interested in nonprofits and aligns with the mission of using these skills to better the community, and could also provide a real­world project for a professor looking to connect students to practical projects. This also improves collaboration between different partnerships within the College of Business and College of Engineering and could be formalized into a course format. Partner 2: Corporate and Private Partners A. Critical Questions Who: Private and corporate partners that have been with E2E over the past three years and are already

invested in its mission. This includes ARCO/Murray and Notre Dame alumni. These partners should have a principle of social responsibility.

Why: E2E is dependent and reliant on outside donors that are not just university­based. It legitimizes E2E outside of Notre Dame and it can capitalize on the assets of others while allowing others to capitalize on the innovative thinking of E2E.

What: They should be directed to funding specific projects that E2E needs. Private and corporate partners will play an active role in the sustainability of Engineering2Empower and the model implementation.

How: Having corporate partners to provide certain aspects of the housing model such as formwork, materials, professional services, etc. The Corporate Relations Center at Notre Dame connect departments with corporate alumni. Also, corporate partners within the South Bend area could be of use to E2E as well. E2E could send corporate partners to come visit E2E at Notre Dame or on a trip to Haiti so that they can be more invested. It is also important to have a contact within Development at Notre Dame who can give insight to useful external donors and help to optimize efforts.

When: Some corporate partners have already been made. These will be long­term relationships and will continue to grow as new partnerships are formed.

B. SWOT

Strengths Access to a large network Have capital Have a specific set of expertise

Weaknesses Less experience in the development

field Other expenses

9

Opportunities Have corporate sponsors fund

certain parts of the E2E process Corporate Partners that have a

similar mission in free economies

Threats Might have their own agenda University may be too involved in

selection process Buy­in

C. Buy­In: Corporate partners should also gain something from partnership whether it be an active role

in the process or marketing E2E. Working with E2E can help the corporate sponsor to build a deeper network in Notre Dame and in Haiti as well as connect with existing partners. E2E should demonstrate how they have already been successful according to their successes with community engagement and the amount of impact had. Beyond the intellectual and moral benefits of partnering with E2E, there are many other potential reasons for buy­in, such as market potential for a company in Haiti.

Checkpoints:

Has E2E built local relationships? Successful completion of prototype? Did E2E use the demo home for fundraising and

promotion? How has it used its partnerships at Notre Dame to promote progress? Are current partners being updated on progress and success stories? Have we defined and negotiated the role of each corporate partner?

10

2) Seed Goals:

HAITI: E2E will pilot the housing and business model through an initial E2E Depot, cooperated by E2E and local Haitian entrepreneurs.

ND: In parallel it will continue research at Notre Dame to enhance and standardize the model and further best practices, including cost efficiency and constructability.

Key Milestones (Year 2)

Haiti group: 1) Establish First E2E Depot and (2) Savings Groups 2) Establish Standard Protocols 3) Build (2) Demo Homes 4) Promotional Events and Build (3) Demo Homes 5) Promotional Events

ND group: ­ Housing Expo Promotional Events ­ for continued funding ­ Expand student and faculty engagement across disciplines ­ Engineering team ­ Standardization of model for max. efficiency ­ Business team ­ Finance model and feasibility research ­ Marketing team ­ Spread awareness and engage donors ­ Development Advisory Team ­ Measurement and Evaluation ­ Partnership Building with International NGO’s

Partner 1: Microfinance Institution or Local Bank A. Critical Questions Who: Microfinance institution or local bank which operates the financial exchanges for home loans. This

organization should have a current presence in Haiti and experience working with low income people for different types of loans, such as Fonkoze.

Why: The role of the microfinance institution would be to manage the loans that clients would use to pay for E2E homes on the market, allowing families to move into homes much sooner.

What: Form direct business link between bank and E2E. Local people prefer to make payments through E2E, which will then make transfers to the bank, reinforcing the partnership between E2E and bank and facilitating ease of payments for loan recipients. This will also decrease the risk of default.

How: Use mobile savings texts to verify savings capacity. Allow bank to handle the loans for the pilot homes in order to collect first­hand data for savings capacity and default risk. Use donor relationships to back loans if defaulted, eliminating the risk for bank buy­in.

11

When: Establish relationship prior to pilot home construction. Set up the loan structure after establishing relationship and funding is procured to back loans if defaulted. Bank will handle loans throughout the payment period. Partnership will be long­term.

B. SWOT

Strengths Financial capacity Provide a variety of services

Weaknesses Possible have no experience in housing

microfinance for low income No precedent to base model off of

Opportunities Engaging credit consultants with low

income clients. Large market potential in community

Threats High risk of housing loans, necessary

capital to pilot on the E2E side, clients defaulting on their housing loans.

Community aversion of banks

Buy­in: Banking and microfinance institutions are market­driven, and seek good business. Increased clientele and operations allow banks to increase profits and legitimacy. E2E should demonstrate at least the savings capacity of potential clients.

Partner 2: Development Organization ­­ Implementing Partner A. Critical Questions Who: Organization which facilitates projects through providing assistance and resources to community

organizations (ie ­ Catholic Relief Services, Pan American Development Bank, Build Change, Red Cross).

Why: Allow the transition from Seed to Scale by demonstrating scalability and potential for replication. What: Implementing partners are necessary in order to take an intervention to scale. In the case of E2E,

it is necessary to have an implementing partner which will allow E2E Depots to be replicated from community to community. Implementing partnerships are also important for forming scaling partnerships.

How: Prove that E2E’s model has the means to scale and replicate through process analysis and pilot project analysis. Use corporate and private partnerships to leverage potential partnerships with implementing organization.

When: Build relationship during pilot project, allowing partnering organization to witness the process and scalability of the E2E model. Partnership will be short­term with the potential for long­term.

B. SWOT

12

Strengths Expertise in facilitating diverse array of

projects

Weaknesses Require significant level of buy­in

Opportunities Seed the expansion of the E2E model by

building the potential to scale the model

Threats Skepticism of working with universities

C. Buy­in: Implementing partners are always looking to expand impact and make their mark in more areas. Léogâne provides a great incentive for implementing partners, which are entirely focused in the Port­au­Prince metropolitan area. Partner 3: Advisory Board A. Critical Questions Who : A set group of people with specific expertise in areas that are weak for E2E. The purpose of the

Advisory Board is to give appropriate advice to make decisions, make E2E accountable, and be a sounding board for ideas.

Why: Advisory boards are necessary for organizations which require expertise outside of the explicit expertise of internal employees.

What: Initial advisory board would consist of partners with an individual expertise in: construction, development, business, insurance/policy, urban planner, and finance, respectively.

How: Use advocacy trips to allow potential advisory board members to obtain on­the­ground perspective as well as acclimate members to E2E methodology. Potential advisory board members can be found through the Notre Dame network. They could have experience working on other boards of Notre Dame or other organizations and companies.

When: After pilot project is under construction in order to promote buy­in. Partnership will be long­term, but with modification and expansion of expertise as needed.

B. SWOT

Strengths People who are experts in their field,

have recognition, experience in problemsolving, preferable experience in workingin Haiti.

Weaknesses New to E2E mission and vision. Potentially no existing stake in the

organization.

Opportunities Threats

13

Expanded networks, guidance from development experts.

Influence can be good and bad depending on interests.

Donor poaching during advocacy trips. Demand for more power over decisions.

Buy­in: Advisory board members will have specific buy­in’s depending on their background and organization. Board members should feel that their personal advice and expertise are unique and needed by E2E. Partner 4: Director, Financial Operations A. Critical Questions Who: An individual who has experience in leading business operations especially with, but not limited to

non profits and loan programs. Years of experience is needed. Experience in Haiti is a plus. Someone who can come on full time if possible to be a part of the E2E team.

Why: E2E needs someone that can work solely on financing of the homes. This will increase efficiency. What: This person would work with the banks and microfinance institutions and negotiate terms and

work with them during the pilot project along with Dustin, as well as identify potential partners in the US to work with. Outside of managing these networks, he/she would determine the economic feasibility of E2E depot model to determine the extent to which E2E needs to partner with the government for subsidies or development organizations for large grants.

How: The director would work alongside Dustin in Haiti for at least half the year and work in the US for the other half of the year. E2E would need to establish a permanent office and residence for a person in this position.

When: E2E should consider finding a director of financial operations in Haiti during the seed scale of implementation.

B. SWOT

Strengths Another director on the ground with

Dustin Expertise in financial program

management

Weaknesses New to E2E and may have trouble

buying in Possible lack of knowledge of Haiti

Opportunities Funding for this necessity through

corporate partners Partnership with implementor

organizations

Threats Lack of funding to pay someone for this

position

14

There could be major changes needed tothe E2E model based on the findings from someone in this position.

C. Buy­in: This is an opportunity for a business person to apply their skills in a less monetarily rewarding but a more personally rewarding position. It would be a great opportunity to travel for a couple of years and to challenge oneself in a different environment. E2E would also compensate this person with a reasonable salary. Checkpoints: What does success look like?

Have we identified individuals who are both invested in E2E’s mission and willing to advise it on a professional level?

Are we using the Advisory Board to address certain issues in fundraising, networks, and advice? Are they being updated on the progress of E2E?

Is the current implementation process efficient? Are there defined roles? Are the right skills present to carry out activities?

15

3. Scale: Goals:

HAITI: E2E will utilize a franchise model to replicate the success resulting from the INCUBATE and SEED stages. This scaling strategies will create a network of E2E Depots, each delivering a high and consistent level of quality and safe housing.

ND: Continue research into efficiency of delivery and standardization of housing model and depot management through the production of a toolkit. Measure and evaluate success for replication in similar earthquake ­ prone areas.

What Activities? Key Milestones (Year 3)

Haiti group: ­ Hire Additional Local Employees 1) Establish Second E2E Depot and Additional Savings Groups 2) Build (5) Demo Homes in New Location ­ Partner Engagement 3) Promotional Events and Franchise Kit Development

ND group: ­ Promotional Events ­ Partnership Building ­ Business Team ­ Prove market feasibility

Partner 1: Development Organization ­­ Scale Partner A. Critical Questions Who: An international organization who can step in and supply the capital needed to create more

depots. An organization that has already been working on housing in Haiti would be the best. USAID seems to be the most applicable organization at this time . (Others can be World Bank, 3

Bill and Melinda Gates, International Development Bank, and Center for Global Initiative) Why: To provide the expertise, in country networks, monitoring and evaluation, and funding networks

in E2E’s to bring the project to scale. What: To open E2E to larger funding networks and help increase the amount of personal. An

organization like USAID could fund a large scale project that E2E and other implementing partners could carry out. They would also provide the capital needed to expand.

How: To form this partnership E2E must prove their legitimacy and have resources of their own through corporate donors. They must also prove they have the personnel required to carry out implementation. This includes other development organizations, financial partners on the

3 Interview with Michael Sweikar of the Institute for Global Development

16

ground, as well as local municipalities. The presence in Leogane should be solidified and demonstrate expertise in the area.

When: When model has been proven to be market driven and partnerships have been made with microfinance organizations, other development organizations, and local municipalities. After partnering with a corporation for funding.

B. SWOT

Strengths Experience in scaling programs, Experience in project implementation, Connections with the Haitian

government, often influence policy. Manyare looking for sustainable solutions thatgo beyond NGOs building the homes

Weaknesses Have a large scope of activities and not

only focused on housing. Some are not focused on evaluation and monitoring, have specific timelines.

Opportunities Funding and assistance in proper

Monitoring and Evaluation, Scale Increased Networks Funding

Threats Particular guidelines Development agency’s own agenda may

not align with E2E’s Lack of interest in housing

C. Buy in : Increasing federal and public support through positive media of their support of a successful implementation project. Support of a self reliant, capacity building and relevant project that has the potential for Haitian government support. Partner 2: Public Institutions A. Critical Questions Who: Public institutions that work specifically on housing such as the ministry of housing, or ministry of

planning or the UCLBP. This also includes public institutions on the local level as well. 45

Why: To work within the drafted policy, to influence future policy, and to look for the possibility of government subsidies to fund housing efforts. Getting closer to the land tenure issue.

What: The government could learn from E2E’s model because it is self sustaining and based on market need. There is minimal effort if the plan is able to be self­finance; however, more likely there is a need for susubsidiesor the model to reach those most in need. Working off of the finance model E2E has established at this point, they will be about to present their model as a financially feasible and stable model that requires minimal aid.

4For more information see the UCLBP website: http://uclbp.gouv.ht/home/index.php 5 See contact info for Guillermo Rolando

17

How: First raising awareness in the local community to the local government. Second working in partnership with another larger public non­profit organization to bring the project and its merits to the attention of the UCLBP

When: While the relationship should be forming all along the process, especially with continued meetings in PaP with the UCLBP and with a continued presence in the local community, the actual partnership can only happen when the government has the funding to support such a project and E2E is able to prove their model for delivery is systematic and affordable.

B. SWOT

Strengths Currently working in in housing policy,

addressing challenges to housing such asland tenure

Support from other international organizations

Weaknesses Lack of funding, resources, and time Focus on housing in Port­au­Prince

Opportunities Creation of policies that would help E2E

increase access to housing, More presence of government in

alleviating housing, empowerment of government institutions.

Connection with Guillermo Ronaldo Connection with other development

advisors currently working with public inst.

Threats A change in presidential power can

jeopardize the work already done toward housing.

The decentralization of public institutions Lack of land tenure policy

C. Buy in: If E2E can prove their model is more financially feasible and successful than current models being implemented in PaP by larger organizations the government has a great incentive to invest in this model. E2E’s placement in Leogane is also a benefit because few organizations have ventured outside of the PaP. Checkpoints: What does success look like?

Have we been respectful and yet influenced policy (building standards. financial feasibility)? How are we addressing and representing the needs of the poorest of the poor? Have we utilized public institutions through relationships with our other partner organizations? Do we have a system for people to prove land tenure? Is the depot self­financed, self­run, and able to replicate? Does the Depot’s supply meet the market’s demand?

18

19

Appendix A: Figures

Strengths Educational institution at Notre Dame Creative and innovative thinking Engineering background and expertise Clear vision of housing in Haiti Research oriented university Presence in Leogane and community

support

Weaknesses Business/ Financial management

expertise Reliance on donor support Need for additional personnel

Opportunities Partnerships with financial organizations Microfinance/ business consultants in the

Notre Dame community Partnerships with large scaled NGOs Effective collaboration between Haiti

group and Notre Dame group

Threats Not enough substantial buy­in from

potential partners Market realities of the Haitian savers Lack of funding and support for large

funding and donations

Figure 1: SWOT Analysis of Engineering2Empower

20

Appendix B: Contacts David Alexis, Housing Community Infrastructure Coordinator Catholic Relief Services david.alexis@crs.org Anya Brickman, Student and Research Project Head Oxfam Housing and Settlements Division, Affordable Housing Institute, MIT Architecture Graduate School anyabrickmanraredon@gmail.com Molly Elston, Master’s of Global Health Intern Catholic Relief Services molly.elston@crs.org Diana Green, Senior Administrative Assistant Notre Dame Haiti Program dgreen5@nd.edu Reinhard Goethert, Principal Research Associate Massachusetts Institute of Technology Architecture rkg@mit.edu Joanna Heil, Head of Programs ­ Central Catholic Relief Services joanna.heil@crs.org Ryan Iafigliola, Director of International Field Operations The Fuller Center for Housing ryani@fullercenter.org Anna Konotchick, American Red Cross ­ Haiti, UC Berkeley Graduate School akonotchick@gmail.com Katelyn Leader, Fulbright Clinton Public Policy Fellow Ministry of Planning ­ Haiti katelyn.leader@gmail.com

21

Marie Denise Milord, Binational Coordinator University of Notre Dame mmilord@nd.edu Brooke Olster, Community Development Program Manager J/P Haitian Relief Organization brooke.olster@jphro.org Steve Reifenberg, Executive Director Kellogg Institute for International Studies sreifenb@nd.edu Kate Schuenke, Associate Director Haitian Catholic Education Initiatives kschuenk@nd.edu Michael Sweikar, Managing Director Notre Dame Initiative for Global Development msweikar@nd.edu Christopher Ward, Housing and Urban Development Advisor U.S. Agency for International Development cward@usaid.gov

22