Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Corporate Policy

Policy for Monitoring and Evaluation of Compact and Threshold Programs

September 15, 2023


View as PDF


Acronym Meaning
CBA Cost Benefit Analysis
CP Condition Precedent
DQR Data Quality Review
EIF Entry into Force
EMC Evaluation Management Committee
ERR Economic Rate of Return
ITT Indicator Tracking Table
KPI Key Performance Indicator
M&E Monitoring & Evaluation
MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation
NARA National Archives Records Administration
QDRP Quarterly Disbursement Request Package
RCM Resident Country Mission
RDA Results Definition Assessment
TREDD Transparent, Reproducible, and Ethical Data and Documentation
USC United States Code
  • 1. Section 609(b)(1)(c) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended.
  • 2. As defined in the Guidelines for Economic and Beneficiary Analysis (March 2017).
  • 3. Ibid.
  • 4. Source: Cost Benefit Analysis Guidelines (June 2021).
  • 5. Source: MCC Guidelines for Transparent, Reproducible, and Ethical Data and Documentation (TREDD) (March 2020).
  • 6. Source: Cost Benefit Analysis Guidelines (June 2021).
  • 7. Principles into practice. Millennium Challenge Corporation. (2020, August 12). Retrieved September 27, 2022, from
  • 8. This definition aligns with both the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 and the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act of 2016.
  • 9. This aligns with Section 2(2) of the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act of 2016, which states that evaluations of U.S. foreign assistance programs should be used “as a basis for (A) making judgments and evaluations regarding the program; (B) improving program effectiveness; and (C) informing decisions about current and future programming.”.
  • 10. Section 609(b) of the MCA Act.
  • 11. This section provides a general overview of the MCC results framework, the characteristics of its critical components, and how the framework operates in practice. A more detailed description of the framework is provided in later sections of this policy.
  • 12. “Project designers” includes all relevant members of the MCC country team and the partner country development team/AE
  • 13. Date indicators, by nature, do not have a baseline value.
  • 14. Disaggregations (including baselines and targets) should be specified for targeted subpopulations even if Project Objectives do not explicitly name them.
  • 15. Note that more detail is not necessarily better for purposes of M&E. The goal is sufficient detail to understand the mechanism.
  • 16. The Results Definition Assessment is under development. It will replace the Evaluability Assessment. The Completeness Index will become a part of the RDA.
  • 17. Threshold program development often combines the elements of Phase 3: Project Definition with Phase 4: Project Development.
  • 18. This section is drafted by Economic Analysis team members.
  • 19. This section is drafted by Economic Analysis team members.
  • 20. All indicators on this list should, to the extent feasible, follow the characteristics described in Section Project Objective, Section Indicators, Section Baselines, and Section Targets.
  • 21. For Threshold Programs, as there is no CBA, the team will only have an M&E Specialist.
  • 22. The M&E Plan approved by the Accountable Entity’s Board of Directors (or appropriate partner country representative) and sent for MCC No Objection must be in English, although a local language version may also be prepared for reference.
  • 23. An official program modification is any change in scope to a program as described in MCC’s Policy on the Approval of Modifications to MCC Compact Programs.
  • 24. In the case of Threshold Programs: an official program modification approved by the Vice President of DPE.
  • 25. The sectors and common indicators for which data are routinely reported are identified in the Guidance on Common Indicators.
  • 26. Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018.
  • 27. For a description of rigor, ethics, unbiasedness and meaningful in the context of MCC evaluation, see Learning from 18 Years of Evaluation at MCC (
  • 28. Cost-effectiveness of MCC projects will continue to be assessed using cost-benefit analysis managed by MCC’s Economic Analysis Division. The evaluation data will be used to update the ex-ante cost-benefit analysis that was used to support the decision to invest in the project.
  • 29.
  • 30. This list does not address survey data, as survey data is typically not available frequently enough to appear in the ITT.