Congressional Budget Justification, FY 2021

Executive Summary

(in millions of $) FY2019 Enacted FY2020 Enacted FY2021 Request
Total Appropriation/Request 905.0 905.0 800.0
  Total Compact Assistance 637.4 634.5 543.0
  Threshold Programs 45.0 30.0 27.0
  Compact Development/Oversight 113.1 131.0 113.5
   609(g) 24.1 36.0 30.0
   Due Diligence 89.0 95.0 83.5
  Administrative Expenses 105.0 105.0 112.0
  Office of the Inspector General 4.5 4.5 4.5

Introduction and Summary

The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) requests $800 million for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 to support compact programs in development, including a second compact program with Malawi and the first concurrent compacts for regional integration with Benin and Niger, as well as new threshold programs. 

MCC’s work reflects a model built on lessons learned through 15 years of experience in implementing development projects. In FY 2021, MCC will build on its model to find new, innovative ways to achieve a greater impact across its portfolio. To do this, MCC will focus on four organizational priorities: (1) empowering MCC staff for optimal performance; (2) establishing a culture of creativity that encourages smart risk; (3) crowding-in and enabling private investment; and (4) holding the agency and partner countries accountable. Focusing on these four areas will empower MCC to expand impact and continue to deliver on its singular mission to reduce poverty through economic growth.

MCC’s focus on transparency and accountability for results continues to be recognized. In November 2019, Results for America released the 2019 Invest in What Works Federal Standard of Excellence index, an annual scorecard of how federal agencies are using evidence and data to achieve better results. For the fourth consecutive year, MCC received the highest score of all federal agencies featured in the report for having built the infrastructure necessary to be able to use data, evidence, and evaluation in budget, policy, and management decisions.

The FY 2021 budget request supports the following activities:

  • Continued development of compact programs with Burkina Faso, Tunisia, Lesotho, Timor-Leste, Kosovo, Indonesia, Malawi, and Mozambique.
  • Development of MCC’s first concurrent compacts for regional integration with Benin and Niger to enhance cross-border transport. The Concurrent Compacts for Regional Integration section outlines the potential compacts.
  • Maintain MCC’s rigorous oversight model, including review of compact and threshold programs and adjusting plans, modifying activities, or eliminating programs or activities when deemed appropriate through regular monitoring mechanisms and oversight by MCC’s Board of Directors.
  • Manage the annual process of selecting countries to begin developing compact and threshold programs. MCC’s competitive selection process is a data-driven, transparent method for determining how the agency uses its development dollars. To be considered for MCC funding, countries must first pass MCC’s scorecard, which brings together 20 independent, third-party indicators that measure a country’s policy performance in the areas of economic freedom, investing in its people, and ruling justly. The MCC scorecard represents one of many ways the agency is unique in how it works to reduce poverty through economic growth around the world.
  • Maintain the momentum on streamlining and improving upon the compact and threshold development process to leverage efficiencies and reduce timelines while maintaining and improving the quality of MCC’s programs.
  • Use MCC’s unique evidence-based and rigorous approach to developing projects and assessing their impact. 
  • Develop and implement blended finance strategies throughout the life cycle of our programs to leverage private and public resources that will bring  greater development impacts to partner countries. In particular, MCC will continue to create an enabling environment for private investment and private enterprise in partner countries through critical public policy reforms and institutional capacity building. MCC will continue to collaborate with the private sector in the design, implementation, and sustainability of compact and threshold programs and seek co-financing opportunities and private dollar investments that leverage resources from MCC and from partner country governments for potential public-private partnerships. The Mobilizing Private Investment section outlines some examples of potential opportunities that may exist within MCC’s current portfolio of programs.
  • Continue the successful implementation of the Star Report, a business process developed to streamline burdensome reporting requirements by MCC’s country teams and consolidate existing programmatic information into a single, comprehensive document. The Star Report collects critical information throughout the lifecycle of each compact and threshold program covering topics such as performance, sustainability, and lessons learned. This report serves as a core document of record for the agency and as a go-to accountability resource for Congress and external stakeholders after a program is completed. 
  • Establish and implement a strong and dynamic knowledge management system, business practices, and tools to systematically share and deploy learning and results internally, externally, and with our partner countries, with the goal of improving efficiency and efficacy in the development and implementation of country programs.

Concurrent Compacts for Regional Integration

In December 2019, MCC’s Board of Directors again selected four partner countries in West Africa—Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, and Niger—to explore opportunities to support cross-border collaboration, increase regional trade, and enhance regional economic integration. MCC has been working with each of these partner countries to identify and assess projects that have strong support within the relevant countries and otherwise meet MCC’s stringent compact approval criteria. MCC requests funding to support the first opportunity, a regional transport project with Benin and Niger, in this FY 2021 budget request.

Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative

Gender analysis informs all aspects of MCC’s work, from the selection of country partners and early analysis, to program design and implementation, and through its monitoring and evaluation plans. Each country partner is required to develop and implement a Social and Gender Integration Plan, which provides a comprehensive roadmap for improving social inclusion and gender integration throughout MCC-funded compact and threshold programs.

MCC has also been actively involved in the design and implementation of the Trump Administration’s Women’s Global Development and Prosperity initiative (W-GDP). Advancing women’s economic opportunities is fundamental to achieving MCC’s mission to reduce poverty through economic growth. MCC actively works to advance women’s economic opportunities in partner countries across all three pillars of W-GDP.

For example, in Morocco and Côte d’Ivoire, MCC is supporting technical and vocational education and training (TVET) centers that will train women and men in skills in demand by the private sector and provide career counseling to connect them with private firms that seek their expertise. MCC’s recently closed compact in Georgia provided competitive grants for TVET programs that developed, tested, and disseminated innovative approaches to employment-oriented skills. These grants, which included $5.7 million in co-investment from the private sector, supported social and gender integration planning to ensure that girls and women have equal access to career development and training within a safe and welcoming learning environment. Also in Morocco, MCC is piloting a “Results-Based Financing Jobs Fund,” an innovative approach that provides incentives to providers to place women and at risk youth in jobs.

MCC’s threshold program in Kosovo is encouraging female employment in the energy sector by providing scholarships for technical degrees and by placing women in internships at energy firms and institutions. And, in Benin, MCC is training women entrepreneurs so that they can capitalize on new business opportunities with the extension of grid and off grid energy.

Women often face legal or policy barriers that prevent them from fully benefitting from the economic opportunities generated by growth. MCC works with governments to identify and address the most critical legal barriers to women’s economic participation and to strengthen policies and operations within the central and local governments. In Morocco, where MCC is supporting land reform, the government recently amended laws that govern the structure and administration of communal land and strengthen secure land rights for women. In Côte d’Ivoire, the government launched a new gender unit within the Ivoirian Ministry of National Education which is tasked with developing a new Gender in Education policy to improve education and skills training for girls and women.

U.S. Market Outreach

MCC engages with the private sector throughout the lifecycle of its compact and threshold programs. This engagement begins with program development, starting from the initial analyses that MCC undertakes with partner countries in the nascent phases of program development through to the evaluations after compact and threshold programs end. MCC works to create an attractive business environment and encourages private sector firms to invest alongside its compact programs.

MCC finances two types of procurements, those directly administered by MCC and those administered by an accountable entity in a partner country with MCC oversight. MCC-funded contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements are awarded through open, fair, and transparent procedures, including the evaluation processes. In such an environment, especially in the context of best value procurement, U.S. firms have been more successful than their foreign competitors in recent years.

MCC is engaging prospective U.S. bidders in its procurements and increasing awareness among U.S. firms of opportunities in MCC-financed programs. Through collaboration with the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), World Bank, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and others, MCC launched the “Work With Us” portion of its website as a one-stop shop for all agency-funded business and partnership opportunities. Additionally, MCC hosts regular market outreach events, publishes a 12-month forecast that is updated quarterly, and meets with U.S. firms that are either doing business in MCC partner countries or are interested in exploring these opportunities.

Most recently, MCC implemented a detailed market outreach plan to inform, attract, and further encourage U.S. firms to work with MCC. The market outreach plan includes the promotion of MCC partner country procurements to U.S. businesses, highlighting the advantages of working on MCC-funded projects while simultaneously addressing barriers to participation and building additional avenues for partnership with MCC through co-financing, joint research, knowledge sharing, and program co-design.

Mobilizing Private Investment

MCC’s development model includes mobilization of private investment as a key development tool. After a country is selected for MCC investment, MCC conducts an analysis of opportunities for increasing private sector investment. Programs are designed to catalyze private and commercial finance, while MCC works to assist partner countries in strengthening financial markets to support sustainable development and economic growth. Because strategic, long-term capital support is key to achieving lasting results from programs, MCC will continue to attract private and commercial finance in and around our compacts, while also improving leverage ratios. The current MCC blended-finance portfolio offers examples of how MCC employs grant facilities, public-private partnerships, and catalytic financing strategies to increase the impact and sustainability of programs.

Grant Facilities

Morocco: The Industrial Land Activity optimizes the way the government brings industrial land to market, shifting from a state- to a market-driven approach. A $30 million grant facility, the Fund for Sustainable Industrial Zones (FONZID), launched in March 2019 will incentivize private sector development and revitalization of industrial land.

Public-Private Partnerships

Morocco: Three industrial zone demonstration sites in the region of Casablanca-Settat, which will use public-private partnership (PPPs) models, are coming to market in 2020. The sites are expected to create a new cadre of industrial land developers that will increase the availability of industrial space for SMEs. The PPPs are expected to catalyze $25 million in capital investments by the private sector.

Côte d’Ivoire: MCC is supporting the development of a logistics center PPP for cargo movements through the Port of Abidjan. The center will provide pre-gate truck parking facilities, a logistics platform, and ancillary services to help reduce congestion in Abidjan and increase efficiency of container traffic through the Port. MCC is collaborating with USTDA to organize a reverse trade mission to bring an Ivorian delegation to the United States to visit ports with successful approaches for truck parking and logistics, and to meet with U.S. companies that specialize in logistics and fleet management technologies.

Benin: The Off-Grid Clean Energy Facility (OCEF) has attracted the interest of U.S. companies with innovative business models and technologies by providing competitive, matching grants to fund critical off-grid energy projects and energy efficiency measures. From a first call for proposals, a set of co-financing agreements for businesses providing solar home systems has been submitted to the national regulator for approval. A second call focused on mini-grid operators is underpinned by the government’s adoption of an off-grid electrification policy. This second call is currently in the proposal evaluation phase. The OCEF has also concluded a letter of agreement with a blended finance debt facility anchored by the African Development Bank, further attracting capital in and around MCC’s work in Benin.

Benin: MCC’s largest solar generation project to date has attracted the interest of U.S. companies. The transaction will be structured as an independent power producer (IPP), with the government of Benin recently approving a national IPP framework. A transaction advisor is supporting the tender process that is underway for four plants totaling at least 45 megawatts.

El Salvador: MCC’s compact is helping the Government of El Salvador to develop and bring to market up to six public private partnerships that will attract up to $250 million of private investment. The government has brought two of these PPPs for a cargo terminal and street lighting to market, and is conducting feasibility studies on the remaining four projects.

Catalytic and Co-Financing

Kosovo: As part of the Kosovo Threshold Program, MCC developed a partnership with the Government of Kosovo and the Kosovo Credit Guarantee Fund to unlock commercial financing for renewable energy projects. MCC will fund technical assistance to the Kosovo Credit Guarantee Fund and help build its capacity to provide renewable energy guarantees, with the aim of spurring investment in Kosovo’s renewable energy sector. MCC’s funding complements contributions from other donors and development finance institutions. The program will help unlock project financing that is needed to deliver up to 25 megawatts of renewable energy projects for Kosovo, addressing the lack of reliable electricity.

El Salvador: The El Salvador Investment Challenge facility has catalyzed up to $150 million of private investment by funding $75 million of public works that these private investments need to be viable (a leverage ratio of 2:1). These nine investments span from technical assistance and capacity building to infrastructure for water and roads.

Use of these blended finance models helps attract private dollars and bring a multitude of actors into the development space, promoting sustainable impact and longevity of MCC projects. By employing these mechanisms, MCC aims to increase the agency’s effectiveness, as well as expand understanding of how blended finance can close the gap between government resources, development funding, and the growing needs of the developing world.

The passage of the Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development (BUILD) Act of 2018 and the establishment of the new United States International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) have opened opportunities for U.S. leadership in development finance, as well as promoting interagency alignment on U.S. foreign policy goals. MCC participates on the DFC’s Development Finance Coordination Group, providing strategic insights grounded in 15 years of agency practice and learning. MCC also works with the DFC at the operational level, sharing the analytical products of MCC’s rigorous, evidence-driven approach to economic analysis and independent evaluation, such as MCC’s constraints to economic growth analysis. In FY 2021, MCC will also coordinate closely with the DFC to identify co-financing opportunities where MCC financing can enable the DFC to increase the scale and impact of its investments. Robust interagency collaboration with the DFC and across U.S. foreign assistance agencies will provide the United States with development finance capabilities required to maintain and achieve global leadership among international donors.

Compact Assistance

(in millions of $) FY 2019
Enacted
FY 2020
Enacted
FY 2021
Request
Total Appropriation/Request 905.0 905.0 800.0
    Total Compact Assistance 637.4 634.5 543.0

For FY 2021, MCC requests $543 million to support its first regional integration compacts, with Benin and Niger, as well as Malawi’s second compact. MCC will also continue development of compacts for Indonesia, Kosovo, Timor-Leste, Lesotho, Mozambique, Burkina Faso, and Tunisia.

The chart below provides updates for all of the compacts currently in development, including estimated compact sizes:

Countries and Appropriations Used (in millions of $) Prior Years FY 2020 FY 2021 Total
Malawi  6  22 243 270
Regional 300 300
Sri Lanka 480 480
Burkina Faso 411 39 450
Tunisia 271 139 409
Kosovo 100 24 124
Lesotho 149 162 310
Timor-Leste  41 250 291
Indonesia TBD
Mozambique TBD
Total 1,457 635 543 2,634

Updates for Compacts Currently in Development

Malawi

In December 2018, MCC’s Board of Directors selected Malawi to develop a second compact. Over the following months, the government worked closely with MCC to identify three binding constraints to the country’s economic growth. These include an unstable macroeconomic environment that is characterized by high interest rates, an overvalued currency, and high inflation; poor linkages between rural farms and markets, primarily as the result of the high cost of road freight transport services; and difficulties with access to land for investment due to unclear land rights and mismanagement of the estate sector. The government has developed a set of concept notes to address the root causes underlying the land and rural market linkages binding constraints. MCC expects to conclude development of the compact program in FY 2021.

Results from Malawi’s 2013 Compact

MCC’s initial compact program with Malawi came to an end in September 2018. The $350.7 million compact program set the foundation for major improvements in the performance of the country’s power sector and raised the potential for private sector participation. Through the compact, the government worked with eleven nongovernmental organizations to pilot activities that will improve natural resource management along the Shire River, which supplies the country’s hydropower plants. The government also increased the generation capacity of its primary hydropower plant; installed its first high-voltage power line; and refurbished, upgraded, and modernized other portions of its power grid. With support from General Electric, the government also introduced an automated management system that allows Malawi to monitor its grid in real time. With substantial technical assistance provided through the compact, the government adjusted electricity tariffs and amended power sector laws to allow private investment and undertook its first-ever competitive solicitation for independent power producers.

Indonesia

In December 2018, MCC’s Board of Directors selected Indonesia to develop a second compact. The government and MCC finalized a constraints analysis in October 2019, identifying the country’s binding constraints as lack of export-oriented competitiveness, domestic productivity and innovation, and costly and underdeveloped financial intermediation. The analysis also showed that gender inequality is a key disparity that negatively impacts economic growth. MCC expects to conclude the development of the compact program in early 2022.

Results from Indonesia’s 2011 Compact

MCC’s initial compact in Indonesia came to an end in April 2018. During the five-year compact program, the $600 million compact supported improvements in health and nutrition, modernization of public procurement functions, and sustainable energy and resource management. The nutrition project trained 17,500 providers of prenatal health services, distributed medical supplies, and conducted over 4,200 community sanitation behavior change meetings across 64 districts in an effort to combat low birth weight, childhood stunting, and childhood malnourishment. The procurement modernization project trained 1,000 procurement professionals (24 percent of them women) to apply modern procurement and management skills in national and local governments to increase procurement quality and achieve substantial savings. The energy project established a market-responsive Green Prosperity Facility that supported 66 projects for renewable energy, peatland restoration, sustainable agriculture, and improved natural resource management, and trained over 127,000 farmers in climate-smart agriculture, natural resource management, social forestry, and renewable energy. The implementation of the compact program sought to reinforce community ownership and innovation through flexible, scalable approaches.

Kosovo

In December 2018, MCC’s Board of Directors selected Kosovo to develop a compact. Since that time, the government has worked closely with MCC to update the constraints analysis it initially conducted during the development of its threshold program. The analysis identified two binding constraints to Kosovo’s economic growth, namely the unpredictable energy supply deficits that result from the country’s old and unreliable generation infrastructure and the excess demand for electricity that reflects insufficient investment in energy efficiency.

The government recently proposed projects that involve the development of Kosovo’s natural gas sector, the creation of energy reserves for power system balancing, the improvement of electricity distribution, and energy sector strengthening through policy and institutional reforms. With MCC’s assistance, the government will shortly initiate full feasibility studies to assess the viability of these potential projects. MCC expects to conclude the development of the compact program by the end of 2020.

Lesotho

In December 2017, MCC’s Board of Directors selected Lesotho to continue the development of a compact, following a two-year hiatus in which the Board of Directors monitored the country’s response to a series of governance and political stability concerns. MCC is working with the government on a program to improve planning and execution of capital investments in irrigation, agriculture and land, and to strengthen the health sector. MCC expects to conclude the development of the compact program in 2020.

Results from Lesotho’s 2007 Compact

MCC’s initial compact program in Lesotho ended in September 2013. The $362.5 million compact program supported the work of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) to mitigate the impacts of poor maternal health, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and other diseases, and partially funded the construction of water delivery systems associated with the Metolong Dam, which provides water to the capital city, Maseru. Through the compact, the government constructed over 29,000 latrines and 175 water systems, and after the end of the compact, the government completed another 75 water systems with its own funds. MCC expects approximately one million people to benefit from the compact.

Timor-Leste

In December 2017, MCC’s Board of Directors selected Timor-Leste to develop a compact program, building on its initial work to develop a threshold program over the previous year. Based on the results of the completed constraints analysis, the government set about identifying sectors and specific projects for further consideration. In September 2019, the government submitted two project proposals to address the country’s binding constraint in human capital. One proposed project aims to reduce disease by strengthening water, sanitation, and drainage infrastructure. The other proposed project aims to improve the quality of secondary education. MCC expects to conclude the development of the compact program in late 2020.

Mozambique

The MCC Board selected Mozambique as eligible to develop a second compact in December 2019, based on the strength of the partnership under the first compact and Mozambique’s recent strong scorecard performance. MCC and the Government of Mozambique have begun development of the second compact, which is likely to have a strong private sector/de-risking market approach, and the Government has shown strong early engagement.

Results from Mozambique’s 2007 Compact

In 2013 MCC completed a $506.9 million compact program with Mozambique to upgrade water and sanitation systems, rehabilitate roads used for commercial traffic, formalize land titles, and help farmers improve coconut crop management and yields, primarily in the country’s northern provinces. The water and sanitation project constructed 614 water points, expanded municipal water systems, and extended drainage. Under the roads project, the Government rehabilitated 253 km of roads. The land tenure project incorporated 205,005 parcels into the land system, and trained 1,516 local stakeholders in land tenure, land use mapping, and public outreach. Finally, the farmer support project cleared 600,000 diseased and dead trees, and trained 15,607 farmers in coconut disease surveillance. Overall, the compact sought to increase the productive capacity in Mozambique by improving to water and sanitation services, increasing access to productive resources and markets, establishing more secure access to land, and raising the productivity of farms.

Sri Lanka

In April 2019, MCC’s Board of Directors approved a $480 million compact with the Government of Sri Lanka to improve transportation and logistics infrastructure and land administration. The proposed program includes a transport project to reduce traffic congestion in the capital city and economic center of the country by upgrading eight major road corridors, improving public bus service, and rehabilitating a rural highway network to better connect lagging interior regions of the country with ports and markets. It also includes a land project that supports existing government efforts to increase the availability of land data and strengthen land tenure security, enhancing the use of land as a productive economic asset by smallholders, women, and the private sector. Sri Lanka’s Cabinet of Ministers approved the compact in October 2019, shortly before presidential elections. There has subsequently been a lengthy delay to signing the compact and a change in government in Sri Lanka. Before MCC will proceed to sign the compact, the new Government of Sri Lanka will need to make a clear and public expression of support for the partnership with MCC and demonstrate a commitment to broader engagement with the United States Government.

Burkina Faso

In December 2016, MCC’s Board of Directors selected Burkina Faso to develop a second compact program. MCC is currently refining the scope and budget for the proposed program, which will address the country’s high cost and lack of reliability of power. The majority of compact activities will focus on the rehabilitation and construction of energy transmission loops in and around Ouagadougou and Bobo-Dioulasso, key legal and regulatory reforms, as well as institutional capacity building. MCC expects to make a final program approval decision in winter 2020, hold compact negotiations in spring 2020, and seek MCC Board approval of the compact in June 2020. MCC’s decision not to pursue the regional transmission line between Ghana and Burkina Faso will not affect the scope of Burkina Faso’s domestic compact.

Results of Burkina Faso’s 2009 Compact

MCC’s initial compact with Burkina Faso came to an end in July 2014. The $480.9 million compact program aimed to address challenges in land reform, agriculture, transportation, and education. Through the land reform project, the government trained 8,700 local officials in lands rights and processed more than 13,000 land possession certificates, well over the target of 6,000 certificates. Through the agriculture project, the government constructed 2,240 hectares of irrigated farmland and rehabilitated a dam to protect new farms from catastrophic flooding. Through the road project, the government paved or upgraded 525 km of roads and developed new road maintenance planning tools to improve management of the country’s road network. Through the education project, the government built on the success of MCC’s earlier threshold program by building 396 new classrooms and increasing access to girls’ participation in primary school. Throughout implementation, the government demonstrated commitment and high-level engagement, meeting all conditions precedent, including requirements for significant institutional reforms, substantial new legislation, and 52 new implementing decrees and regulations.

Tunisia

In December 2016, MCC’s Board of Directors selected Tunisia to develop a compact. The Government of Tunisia proposed two projects to address binding constraints to the country’s economic growth. A business climate project aims to modernize the environment for doing business by reducing barriers to investment and facilitating trade and logistics, and may include regulatory and policy reform, digital government, support for small and medium-sized enterprises and potential improvements in port infrastructure and an industrial zone. A water scarcity project aims to manage water demand and promote water efficiency in agriculture, particularly in the interior regions of the country, by strengthening water resource management, training farmers in sustainable production, and rehabilitating water supply infrastructure. MCC expects to conclude the development of the compact program in 2020.

Compact Development Process Overview

Compact Portfolio Status Report

In FY 2021, MCC will be working with countries to develop 10 compacts for implementation. Program and sector data for compacts already in implementation can be found on our website, www.mcc.gov.

Graphic illustrating MCC's portfolio of country compacts from eligibility through implementation from FY 2019 to FY 2021.

Threshold Programs

(in millions of $) FY 2019
Enacted
FY 2020
Enacted
FY 2021
Request
Total Appropriation/Request 905.0 905.0 800.0
  Threshold Programs 45.0 30.0 27.0

MCC is requesting $27 million for threshold program assistance to countries that may be selected by the Board of Directors in December 2020. MCC’s threshold program has proven to be an effective tool to incentivize improved performance on MCC’s eligibility criteria in MCC candidate countries and to support positive policy and institutional reforms to address binding constraints to economic growth in selected partner countries.MCC’s request for FY 2021, together with enacted funding from prior years, would support any new countries selected by the Board in December 2020 as well as threshold programs under development, including Ethiopia, Kenya, and the Solomon Islands.

Background

MCC’s threshold program assists candidate countries to become compact eligible by motivating them to demonstrate their commitment to just and democratic governance, economic freedom, and investments in their people. By advancing policy reforms and strengthening institutions to address the most binding constraints to economic growth, threshold programs complement the incentive for policy reform created by the MCC scorecard and allowMCCto assess the opportunity for an impactful and cost-effective partnership before committing to a larger compact. The potential for a future compact essentially functions as a “carrot” to incentivize performance on a threshold program. The MCC model is designed to leverage off incentives.

As in compacts, MCC uses a rigorous, evidence-based approach in threshold programs, leading to high-quality programs that maximize potential systemic impact and lay the foundation for potential larger compacts. Threshold programs help countries to reduce constraints to faster economic growth, increase transparency and accountability, and provide MCC critical information about the countries’ political will and capacity to undertake the types of reforms that would have the greatest impact in compacts. A government’s level of engagement in a threshold program is one of the single best indicators as to how successful a future compact may be. Current threshold programs are: in Guatemala, improving secondary education; in Sierra Leone, creating the foundation for more effective and financially sustainable provision of critical water and electricity services; in Kosovo, fostering the use of data for more transparent and accountable governance; and in Togo, catalyzing private sector participation in the telecommunications sector.

A successful implementation of a threshold program yields significant advantages for a potential future compact. For example, a partner country will likely have enhanced its ability to design and implement projects that will generate the greatest results and have a head start on the work necessary to design a high-impact compact. However, countries with threshold programs are not guaranteed compact eligibility. Even if a country does not become compact eligible, threshold programs can help create the conditions for additional investment from the private sector or by other donors. Threshold programs also help governments to mobilize domestic resources, spend their budgets more transparently, deliver services more efficiently, and ultimately help countries finance their own development.

New and Developing Threshold Programs

Ethiopia

MCC selected Ethiopia for participation in the threshold program in December 2018, recognizing the ongoing efforts of the government to reform democratic institutions and encourage greater private sector participation in the economy. Working closely with USAID, the Harvard Center for International Development, and the government,MCCidentified the shortage of foreign exchange as the primary binding constraint to sustaining economic growth.MCCexpects to prioritize reforms that can improve the country’s export performance and aims to complete development of the program in FY 2020.

Solomon Islands

In December 2018,MCCselected Solomon Islands as eligible for threshold program assistance. The constraints analysis identified the inability to access land and ineffective natural resource management as the two most binding constraints to economic growth. MCC is conducting further analysis with the goal of approving a program by the end of 2020.

Kenya

The Board’s December 2019 selection of Kenya for a threshold program will give MCC the opportunity to engage with the country on policy and institutional reforms. Kenya is an important partner to the United States in East Africa, a region where MCC’s presence is growing. The Government of Kenya is highly motivated to perform on its threshold program and has expressed a clear desire for a compact. MCC has communicated that the threshold program needs immediate and high-level focus, and the Government has been responsive to date, starting with the signing of a Development Objective Assistance Agreement (DOAG) with USAID. The prospect of an MCC threshold program was key to incentivizing Kenya’s committment to signing the DOAG and to paying the United States arrears, an agreement which had been stalled for many years.

The Gambia

MCC’s Board of Directors selected The Gambia for the threshold program in December 2017, creating the opportunity for MCC to engage with the country on needed reforms as its transition to democracy continues. The government and MCC have worked constructively together to develop a policy and institutional reform program focused on The Gambia’s power sector. However, in June 2019, The Gambia was downgraded to Tier 3 in the U.S. Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report. As a result, MCC has paused program development and will not seek Board approval to resume until The Gambia takes sufficient measures to combat TIP and is removed from Tier 3 status.

Compact Development and Oversight: 609(g) and Due Diligence

(in millions of $) FY 2019
Enacted
FY 2020
Enacted
FY 2021
Request
Total Appropriation/Request 905.0 905.0 800.0
  Compact Development/Oversight 113.1 131.0 113.5
    609(g) Assistance 24.1 36.0 30.0
    Due Diligence 89.0 95.0 83.5

Compact development and oversight funding supports pre-compact planning, post-compact evaluations, and oversight activities. These activities are critical to the success of MCC programs and to ensuring that MCC, partner countries, and the development community are able to take advantage of the learning opportunities inherent in MCC programs. For FY 2021, MCC requests $113.5 million under compact development/oversight, including $30 million for 609(g) funding and $83.5 million for due diligence to support monitoring, programmatic oversight, and data collection and evaluation.

609(g) Assistance

Section 609(g) of MCC’s authorizing statute allows MCC to award contracts or grants for eligible countries for the purpose of facilitating the development or implementation of a compact. Laying the groundwork for compact programs helps MCC improve the quality of its compact programs and the ability of its partner countries to implement compacts successfully. Such groundwork includes project design studies, feasibility studies, environmental impact assessments, engineering and geotechnical designs, economic baseline surveys, technical assessments of financial management and procurement capabilities, and other specialized analyses that help partner countries fully prepare projects that can be implemented within the fixed five-year timeframe, within budget, and achieve substantial results for compact programs.

Due Diligence

For FY 2021, MCC currently expects to use $83.5 million for due diligence. Due diligence funds will be utilized at every stage of the compact and threshold program lifecycle. The funds will be used to obtain information that is necessary to evaluate, assess, and appraise proposed projects during compact and threshold program development, to effectively oversee and monitor projects during implementation, and to evaluate their results after close-out. These funds will be utilized to procure the technical expertise required throughout the compact and threshold program lifecycles and allow MCC to right-size its staffing requirements based on the relative size and diversity of its portfolio. Due diligence funds will be utilized after compact closure in order to conduct independent impact evaluations that use rigorous statistical methods to measure changes in beneficiary incomes related to MCC activities. In addition to offering valuable lessons on how MCC can improve, impact evaluations provide critical information about program successes.

Due diligence funds will also support data and technical expertise needed for calculating economic rates of return for compact projects. Through pre-compact economic modeling of expected economic rates of return, MCC will choose which projects are most likely to generate benefits, specifically, increased income for program beneficiaries, and refine program design to optimize results. Economic modeling done after compact closeout will help to assess the cost effectiveness of MCC’s programs.

Administrative Expenses

Administrative Expenses
(in millions of $) FY 2019 Enacted FY 2020 Enacted FY 2021 Request
Total Appropriation/Request 905.0 905.0 800.0
  Total Administrative Expenses 105.0 105.0 112.0
    Human Capital 60.3 61.8 63.2
    Training 1.0 1.0 1.0
    Overseas Operations 8.0 8.2 11
    Contracted Services 7.2 5.8 7.4
    Information Technology 15.0 15.0 15.2
    Rent, Leasehold & Improvements 6.3 6.3 6.4
    Travel 6.8 6.5 7.4
    Other Administrative Expenses 0.4 0.4 0.4

MCC’s FY 2021 request for Administrative Expenses seeks an increase of $7 million over its FY 2020 enacted level of $105 million. MCC has received a flat-line administrative expense cap in the appropriations for the last nine years, with no adjustment for inflation, and the agency has worked to keep its administrative expenses in line with upward inflationary pressures, largely from existing personnel costs, rent, and overseas operating costs. The FY 2021 budget level of $112 million will provide MCC with additional resources to support the mission while balancing compounded inflationary pressures. In FY 2021, it is projected that MCC will be managing the oversight and development of roughly $7 billion in its program portfolio. As such, associated administrative support is needed to continue MCC’s high quality and effective programs. Additionally, the increased funding would provide for the additional requirements in support of concurrent regional integration compacts and MCC’s new accountable entity audit program; including fully staffing these programs, administrative support, travel, and overseas operational costs.

Human Capital

MCC’s flat-lined administrative expense budget has required MCC to absorb inflationary costs associated with existing staff within its baseline budget, including annual federal pay raises in order to remain competitive across the federal marketplace, overseas hardship pay, and cost of living inflationary pay adjustments, including federal benefits, common across the federal government. In addition, the human capital funding requested includes an increase to support full-time equivalents (FTEs ) occurring in FY 2019 and FY 2020 associated with MCC’s Accountable Entity Audit Program and MCC’s regional integration programs.

Accountable Entity Audit Program

After MCC establishes a partnership with a country, the partner country sets up a local accountable entity that is responsible for compact, threshold program, or grant implementation overseen by MCC. Due to MCC’s heavy reliance on financial reporting from accountable entities to produce its annual financial statements and Agency Financial Report (AFR), MCC must have reasonable assurance that accountable entity financial reporting is reliable and accurate. Sufficiently robust audits of that financial reporting by qualified Independent Public Accounting firms (IPA) are a central component of building that assurance. Oversight for those audits was previously performed by USAID OIG. In FY 2019, MCC established its own Accountable Entity Audit Program to assume audit oversight functions. The associated costs have been included in this budget request to relieve some of the funding pressures MCC faces within the current administrative expense cap.

Overseas Operations

MCC is planning to expend $11 million in FY 2021 to continue supporting overseas administrative operations, including locally-engaged staff salaries and benefits, rent, residential allowance, relocation expenses, travel, shipping, office and residential furniture, IT equipment, official vehicles, and International Cooperative Administrative Support Services (ICASS). Although MCC maintains a small footprint overseas, it continually faces the pressure associated with ICASS and Capital Security Cost-Sharing (CSCS) burden sharing and cost arrangements established by the Department of State to maintain and operate embassy compounds. Likewise, MCC anticipates growing overseas costs in FY 2021 related to the addition of FTEs to support regional compacts as well as an increasing number of compact and threshold programs in the pipeline expected to reach a stage of development requiring an overseas direct-hire presence. While MCC continuously reviews the costs related to overseas operations in order to maximize the use of funding, additional funding is required in FY 2021 to appropriately support these efforts.

Information Technology (IT)

Information technology plays an integral role in supporting agency-wide initiatives, including a knowledge management system, learning and performance management systems, and ongoing improvements towards management information systems in support of MCC’s country partners. Rising IT costs continue to be offset through reinvestment of any savings, allowing MCC to maintain quality IT service without large increases toward baseline resources. While IT support in the previous President’s Budget reflected a concerted effort to minimize the request level based on available funding from prior years, this budget request reflects the actual need for IT support in FY 2021 as well as cyber-security risk mitigation. MCC continues to leverage efficiencies in IT services and has consolidated IT service contracts over the past two fiscal years to reduce the duplicate overhead costs resulting from contracting with multiple service providers. MCC also continues to leverage government-wide umbrella agreements to staff its initiatives and implement IT upgrades, rather than administering multiple contracts or using employees for special limited projects.

Rent

The FY 2021 budget request reflects the nominal percentage increase within the occupancy agreement. As in the prior fiscal years, MCC continues to maximize the use of its headquarters space, proactively using space-planning technology for seat management as well as conference and meeting space requirements. This has enabled MCC to maintain an efficient space footprint.

Office of the Inspector General

Office of the Inspector General Expenses
(in millions of $) FY 2019 Enacted FY 2020 Enacted FY 2021 Request
Total Appropriation/Request 905.0 905.0 800.0
  Office of the Inspector General 4.5 4.5 4.5

The estimates for the funding level of the Office of the Inspector General in this submission are consistent with the level requested as part of the FY 2020 President’s Budget Request and the current amount authorized in the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, for this purpose.

Proposed Legislative Changes

The proposed text of the MCC appropriations provision for FY 2021 is as follows:

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) (MCA), [$800,000,000] to remain available until expended: Provided, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, up to [$112,000,000] may be available for administrative expenses of the Millennium Challenge Corporation: Provided further, That section 605(e) of the MCA shall apply to funds appropriated under this heading: Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading may be made available for a Millennium Challenge Compact entered into pursuant to section 609 of the MCA only if such Compact obligates, or contains a commitment to obligate subject to the availability of funds and the mutual agreement of the parties to the Compact to proceed, the entire amount of the United States Government funding anticipated for the duration of the Compact: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, not to exceed $100,000 may be available for representation and entertainment expenses, of which not to exceed $5,000 may be available for entertainment expenses.

Appendix: Annual Performance Report

Compact Amounts at Signing and Key Dates ($ millions)*

Partner Country Compact Amount (in millions) Signed Entry Into Force Closed
Madagascar $109.8 04/18/2005 07/27/2005 08/31/2009
Honduras $215.0 06/14/2005 09/30/2005 09/30/2010
Cabo Verde $110.1 07/05/2005 10/18/2005 10/17/2010
Nicaragua $175.0 07/15/2005 05/26/2006 05/26/2011
Georgia $395.3 09/12/2005 04/07/2006 04/07/2011
Benin $307.3 02/22/2006 10/06/2006 10/06/2011
Vanuatu $65.7 03/02/2006 04/28/2006 04/28/2011
Armenia $235.7 03/27/2006 09/29/2006 09/29/2011
Ghana $547.0 08/01/2006 02/16/2007 02/16/2012
Mali $460.8 11/13/2006 09/18/2007 08/24/2012
El Salvador $460.9 11/29/2006 09/20/2007 09/20/2012
Mozambique $506.9 07/13/2007 09/22/2008 09/22/2013
Lesotho $362.6 07/23/2007 09/17/2008 09/17/2013
Morocco $697.5 08/31/2007 09/15/2008 09/15/2013
Mongolia $284.9 10/22/2007 09/17/2008 09/17/2013
Tanzania $698.1 02/17/2008 09/17/2008 09/17/2013
Burkina Faso $480.9 07/14/2008 07/31/2009 07/31/2014
Namibia $304.5 07/28/2008 09/16/2009 09/16/2014
Senegal $540.0 09/16/2009 09/23/2010 09/23/2015
Moldova $262.0 01/22/2010 09/01/2010 09/01/2015
Philippines $433.9 09/23/2010 05/25/2011 05/25/2016
Jordan $275.1 10/25/2010 12/13/2011 12/13/2016
Cabo Verde $66.2 02/10/2012 11/30/2012 11/30/2017
Indonesia $600.0 11/19/2011 04/02/2013 04/02/2018
Malawi $350.7 04/07/2011 09/20/2013 09/20/2018
Zambia $354.8 05/10/2012 11/15/2013 11/15/2018
Georgia $140.0 07/26/2013 07/01/2014 07/01/2019
Ghana $498.2 08/05/2014 09/06/2016
El Salvador $277.0 09/30/2014 09/09/2015
Benin $375.0 09/09/2015 06/22/2017
Liberia $256.7 10/02/2015 01/20/2016
Morocco $450.0 11/30/2015 06/30/2017
Niger $437.0 07/29/2016 01/26/2018
Côte d’Ivoire $524.7 11/07/2017 08/05/2019
Mongolia $350.0 07/27/2018
Senegal $550.0 12/10/2018
Nepal $500.0 09/14/2017

* Please note that the values above are the signed compact amounts and do not reflect lower actual expenditures due to early terminations or funds for a compact not being fully spent. The table on the following page reflects the net obligations/commitments associated with each compact.

Compact Commitments, Obligations, and Plan

As of First Quarter FY 2020

Country Program Fiscal Year of Appropriation
2010 & Prior 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
El Salvador II $117 $160 $277
Ghana II* $17 $276 $15 $308
Liberia $257 $257
Benin II $207 $168 $375
Morocco II $114 $1 $169 $166 $450
Niger $58 $379 $437
Nepal $108 $10 $69 $107 $129 $77 $500
Côte d’Ivoire $41 $9 $272 $10 $26 $167 $525
Mongolia II $100 $1 $95 $154 $350
Senegal II $21 $1 $447 $81 $550
Committed & Obligated $367 $664 $456/td> $671 $512 $391 $678 $81 $4,029

* Partial Termination of $190M to be deobligated in FY 2020 Q2 reflected here for planning purposes.

Country Program Planned Fiscal Year of appropriation
2010 & Prior 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
Burkina Faso II $13 $89 $309 $39 $450
Sri Lanka $110 $1 $46 $13 $107 $189 $13 $480
Tunisia $58 $76 $51 $86 $139 $409
Lesotho II $2 $5 $53 $89 $162 $310
Timor-Leste $41 $250 $291
Malawi II $6 $22 $243 $270
Kosovo $11 $2 $1 $7 $5 $75 $24 $124
Regional $300 $300
Indonesia II
Mozambique II
Planned $198 $8 $230 $14 $190 $245 $13 $563 $635 $543 $2,634

Closed Compacts

As of First Quarter FY 2020

Closed Compacts
Country/Description Fiscal Year of appropriation Total
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Armenia $177 $177
Benin 0 $302 $302
Burkina Faso $475 $475
Cabo Verde $109 $109
Cabo Verde II $66 $66
El Salvador $362 $88 $450
Georgia $290 $24 $17 $56 $387
Georgia II $139< $139
Ghana $536 $536
Honduras $204 $204
Indonesia $49 $425 $474
Jordan $55 $218 $273
Lesotho $358 $358
Madagascar $86 $86
Mali $434 $434
Moldova $90 $16 $8 $1 $9 $86 $49 $259
Mongolia $269 $269
Morocco $72 $578 $650
Mozambique $448 $448
Namibia $219 $76 $296
Nicaragua $113 $113
Philippines $385 $385
Senegal $433 $433
Tanzania $695 $695
Vanuatu $65 $65
Zambia $332 $332
Closed Compacts $891 $1,242 $1,383 $1,400 $1,310 $574 $860 $563 $536 $8,760

Threshold Program Amounts at Signing and Key Dates ($ millions)*

Threshold Program Amounts at Signing and Key Dates ($ millions)*
Country Threshold Program Signed Closed
Burkina Faso $12.9 7/22/2005 9/30/2008
Malawi $20.9 9/29/2005 9/30/2008
Albania $13.9 4/3/2006 11/15/2008
Tanzania $11.2 5/3/2006 12/30/2008
Paraguay $34.6 5/8/2006 8/31/2009
Zambia $22.7 5/22/2006 2/28/2009
Philippines $20.7 7/26/2006 5/29/2009
Jordan $25.0 10/17/2006 8/29/2009
Indonesia $55.0 11/17/2006 12/31/2010
Ukraine $45.0 12/4/2006 12/31/2009
Moldova $24.7 12/15/2006 2/28/2010
Kenya $12.7 3/23/2007 12/31/2010
Uganda $10.4 3/29/2007 12/31/2009
Guyana $6.7 8/23/2007 2/23/2010
São Tomé & Principe $8.7 11/9/2007 4/15/2011
Kyrgyz Republic $16.0 3/14/2008 6/30/2010
Niger $23.1 3/17/2008 12/31/2015
Peru $35.6 6/9/2008 9/30/2012
Rwanda $24.7 9/24/2008 12/31/2011
Albania $15.7 9/29/2008 7/31/2011
Paraguay $30.3 4/13/2009 7/31/2012
Liberia $15.1 7/6/2010 12/15/2013
Timor-Leste $10.5 9/22/2010 3/31/2014
Honduras $15.7 8/28/2013 5/31/2019
Guatemala $28.0 4/8/2015
Sierra Leone $44.4 11/17/2015
Kosovo $49.0 9/12/2017
Togo $35.0 2/14/2019

* Please note that the values above are the signed threshold program amounts and do not reflect lower actual expenditures due to early terminations or funds for a threshold program not being fully spent.

Results of Recently-Closed Compacts and Threshold Programs

Georgia II Compact

Indonesia
Overview On July 1, 2019 MCC concluded the Georgia II Compact, with 99 percent of the $140 million budget disbursed. The compact is expected to benefit 1.7 million Georgians over the long term, equipping them with better education and training, and increasing incomes in critical growth fields. The Improved Learning Environment Infrastructure Activity fully rehabilitated and modernized 91 public schools, which should benefit 40,000 schoolchildren. The Training Educators for Excellence Activity aimed to strengthen the subject knowledge, instructional skills, and management capacity of 18,000 secondary school teachers (12,000 of whom completed the full training program) and 2,000 principals. Through the Education Assessment Support Activity, Georgia participated in two rounds of three international assessments and conducted six science, technology, engineering, and mathematics ( STEM ) subject national assessments to provide data to policymakers. The Industry-Led Skills and Workforce Development Project developed 51 new or expanded technical and vocational education and training (TVET) programs at 10 education institutions in partnership with employers, enrolling over 1,900 students and graduating more than 700 during the compact. Finally, the STEM Higher Education Project provided seed money for a partnership between San Diego State University and three public Georgian universities to deliver high-quality, U.S. accredited STEM bachelor’s degrees. More than 600 students enrolled in these degree programs during the compact, more than one third of whom were women.

The government was a strong partner, not only demonstrating strong commitment to meeting compact objectives but also making commitments to sustain these objectives for years to come. The government exceeded its required $21 million country financial contribution, delivering approximately $33 million towards compact investments and an additional $10.5 million to continue supporting the STEM Higher Education Project after the compact ended. The government also established and funded a post-compact entity to ensure the sustainability of the MCC-funded program and to support ongoing monitoring and independent evaluations.

Policy Reforms The Georgia II Compact achieved key sector policy reforms in both school operations and maintenance and TVET:

  • MCC supported the creation of a school operations and maintenance (O&M) framework plan for all public schools, aimed at addressing the root cause of poor school infrastructure quality. The government plans to scale up this O&M program after the compact, including increased budget support.
  • In TVET, the compact provided technical assistance to the Ministry of Education and Science at the national level to strengthen sector policy in support of industry engagement, quality assurance, and career guidance, among other topics. Recent policy reforms introduced by the government will allow the public-private partnership model developed through the compact to continue for years to come and contribute toward continued improvement of TVET in Georgia.
Outputs Improving General Education Project

  • 91 education facilities were constructed or rehabilitated.
  • 39,830 students benefitted from the rehabilitated school buildings.
  • 1,409 school-based professional development facilitators and 1,823 school principals completed Leadership Academy 3.
  • By the end of the compact, 11,829 teachers completed the full course and received a certificate.
  • 6 national and 6 international assessments were developed and implemented withMCCfunding.

Industry-led Skills and Workforce Development Project

  • Industry co-investment in TVET provision amounted to $5,967,379.

STEM Higher Education Project

  • As part of the STEM Project, 131 instructors were trained.
  • $12,450,000 public and $3,139,836 private funds were leveraged.
Expected Outcomes Improved student learning outcomes are expected, in turn providing students with better employment opportunities and higher incomes.

Increased availability of higher quality TVET courses and better alignment with industry needs are expected, with graduates of the new and improved TVET courses are expected to have increased employment opportunities and earn higher salaries.

Increased quality of tertiary education in STEM fields is expected, with graduates experiencing improved employment opportunities and higher income for graduates of the improved programs.

Evaluations Improving General Education Project

MCC’s $140 million Georgia II Compact (2014-2019) funded the $73 million Improving General Education Quality (IGEQ) Project, which aimed to improve the quality of public STEM education in grades 7-12. The IGEQ Project assisted in rehabilitating education infrastructure and constructing science laboratories in targeted schools. A one-year sequence of training activities was provided to STEM educators and school directors on a nationwide basis.

MCC commissioned Mathematica Policy Research to conduct an independent interim performance evaluation of the IGEQ Project. This mixed-methods interim performance evaluation was designed to assess the impact of infrastructure and training improvements on STEM education. It drew on a combination of infrastructure assessments, surveys, and qualitative data collected from students, parents, teachers, and school directors. The evaluation found:

  • School Rehabilitation: In the first phase of school rehabilitation (29 schools), students experienced large improvements compared to baseline in heating, lighting, sanitation, building quality, and access to science laboratories and recreation facilities. Students and teachers agreed that these improvements addressed barriers to using classroom time effectively on instruction. The final report will estimate impacts for all rehabilitated schools and measure whether infrastructure upgrades improved learning outcomes.
  • Educator Training: The teacher training component was successfully delivered on a nationwide scale, with high completion rates for school directors (93 percent) and teachers (82 percent). One month after the one-year training sequence concluded, teachers reported that they had improved confidence using student-centered teaching practices, and school directors reported that they had increased provision of instructional leadership. However, there was little evidence of immediate changes in teachers’ classroom instruction practices. Planners of the teacher training component anticipate that further changes in instructional practices could develop over time. The final report will examine trends in teaching practices several years after the training sequence ended.

A final study covering the full set of evaluation questions is underway. Results will be available in 2021.

Industry-led Skills and Workforce Development Project

The second Georgia Compact funded a $16 million Industry-Led Skills and Workforce Development (ISWD) Project, which aimed to improve the alignment between the skills of TVET graduates and the skills demanded by the labor market. It provided grants to establish new or improved courses reflecting industry demand; awarded smaller grants to document and disseminate best practices; provided technical assistance to the government related to sector policy; and held annual TVET conferences.

MCC commissioned Mathematica Policy Research to conduct an independent interim performance evaluation of the ISWD Project. This mixed-methods interim performance evaluation focused on assessing program implementation, early results, and expectations for the future, and drew largely on a quantitative baseline survey of trainees, as well as qualitative data collected through interviews and focus groups. The evaluation found:

  • New Courses Successfully Established: Through the Program Improvement Competitive Grants Activity, the ISWD Project established 51 new or improved TVET courses in Georgia. These courses were established through close cooperation between the TVET provider and private sector partners, who provided valuable knowledge and material support.
  • Course Participation and Early Perceptions: Total enrollment in supported courses exceeded the compact’s target. Trainees and teachers had positive first impressions of the new courses. Trainees and employers were optimistic about trainees’ labor market prospects.
  • Other Project Activities: The small grants supported dissemination of best practices in ways that could be replicated by others. The technical assistance component delivered support for a wide range of policy reforms, but more work will have to be done after the compact. The Annual TVET Conference, which aimed to strengthen ties between TVET providers and private sector firms, was well-attended and well-received by stakeholders.

A final study covering the full set of evaluation questions is underway and results will be available in 2022.

STEM Higher Education Project

The STEM Higher Education Project was designed to support the delivery of high-quality STEM bachelor’s degree programs in Georgia by 1) bringing a U.S. university to Georgia to partner with Georgian public universities to offer U.S. bachelor’s degree programs in the STEM academic disciplines; and 2) providing capacity enhancement for Georgian public universities with the goal of reaching international standards and acquiring international program accreditation.

MCC commissioned Rand Corporation to conduct an independent final performance evaluation of the STEM project. The evaluation utilizes a mixed method approach that involves a quantitative analysis of surveys along with document and literature reviews and qualitative analyses of interviews, focus groups and case studies.

Baseline data collection will be completed in early 2020, and the baseline report is expected by the end of January 2020.

Honduras Threshold Program

Overview MCC’s $15.6 million Honduras Threshold Program successfully closed on August 31, 2019. It focused on improving the transparency and efficiency of public financial management (PFM) and public-private partnerships by providing technical assistance to key government institutions. It aimed to save the government money, improve service delivery, and reduce corruption through operationalizing best practices for budget and treasury management; streamlining procurement; strengthening auditing capacity; providing grants for civil society oversight; and augmenting capability of PPP professionals.
Policy Reforms The PFM project identified the complex and vicious cycle at the Secretariat of Finance that perpetuates cash shortfalls and delays in paying invoices; however, the project’s proposed solutions are dependent on major changes in how government institutions plan, budget, and procure goods and services.

Procurement assessments, Honduras’ electronic catalog, and trainings are leading to improvements in government procurement (within the primary procurement entity ONCAE); however, creating a formal certification for procurement officials and closing the loopholes that allow for corruption will require ongoing, long-term support.

The PPP project faced lack of buy-in at the main PPP institution, COALIANZA, and insufficient ownership at the Secretariat of Public Works and Infrastructure and was thus unable to achieving many of its original objectives. Instead, the program has worked closely with the Secretariat of Finance to support the establishment of a Fiscal Contingencies Unit with the authority to prevent PPPs from moving forward if they present a financial risk to the government.

Outputs Public Financial Management

  • 19 institutions evaluated regarding implementation of lawful operative procedures.
  • 138 procurement officials in the Government of Honduras certified for public contracting.
  • New integrated government procurement system (Honducompras) implemented in March 2018.
  • New electronic procurement system delivered and operational in key institutions.
  • 15 illicit enrichment cases filed in court and accepted by prosecutors.

Public Private Partnerships

  • Fiscal contingencies unit established.
  • 101 individuals received public-private partnership training.
  • Operations manual outlining internal and external operations for new Public-Private Partnership Unit was submitted in November 2018.
  • 7 employees hired to staff and operationalize new Public-Private Partnership Unit.
Expected Outcomes The Honduras Threshold Program sought to improve public financial management and supported the government to implement effective and transparent public-private partnerships in Honduras.

The program is expected to help the Government of Honduras save money, improve the procurement and delivery of public services, and reduce opportunities for corruption—ultimately strengthening governance in Honduras.

The Public Financial Management Project is expected to help the Government of Honduras to improve budget formulation and execution, planning, payments, procurement, auditing, and civil society oversight. The government uses PPPs to build many new infrastructure projects and deliver public services.

Evaluations MCC has commissioned a rigorous, independent, performance evaluation of the Public Financial Management Project and the Public-Private Partnerships Project. Interim data collection took place in October 2017 and was compared with data collected by the evaluation team in March 2016 culminating in an interim report, summarized here. It will be followed by an endline report expected to be released in 2020.

This interim report is part of a larger longitudinal performance evaluation of MCC’s threshold program in Honduras that involves diverse data collection activities. This interim report relies on data collected through a review of relevant documentation including (1) consultant deliverables, Government of Honduras documentation (e.g., budget reports and improvement plans), evaluations, and audit reports; (2) key informant interviews and group interviews; and (3) where possible, use of monitoring data from the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability indicators.

At the inception of the threshold program, this policy and institutional reform program only identified high-level objectives, and lacked a detailed theory of change with clear pathways to achieve stated objectives. This flexible approach to program implementation has allowed the program to respond to opportunities and adapt to challenges while driving towards those objectives. Conversely, this evaluation cannot measure fidelity to original design.

Interim key findings are listed below. The final endline report is expected to be available in 2020.

Public Financial Management Project

  • Due to the implementation of a PFM best practice (“baseline budgeting”), government institutions’ budgets increasingly reflect the actual costs for service delivery.
  • Procurement assessments and trainings have led to improvements in government procurement. Innovative civil society oversight of government institutions has resulted in public agency improvement plans.
  • Nonetheless, several ambitious budgeting, invoice payments, and procurement goals will require longer-term reform efforts beyond the program.

Public-Private Partnerships Project

  • Two key government PPP institutions have not taken advantage of program support, limiting improvements in the PPP process.
  • Instead, the program has supported and built the capacity of a unit in the Secretariat of Finance to ensure that PPPs do not pose a financial risk to the government.

Projected Beneficiaries and Income Benefits by Compact 1 2

Under MCC’s results framework, beneficiaries are defined as an individual and all members of his or her household who will experience an income gain as a result of MCC interventions. We consider that the entire household will benefit from the income gain and counts are multiplied by the average household size in the area or country. The beneficiary standard makes a distinction between individuals participating in a project and individuals expected to increase their income as a result of the project. Before signing a compact, MCC estimates the expected long-term income gains through a rigorous benefit-cost analysis. MCC may reassess and modify its beneficiary estimates and the present value of benefits when project designs change during implementation.

Projected Beneficiaries and Income Benefits by Compact
Compact Estimated Number of Beneficiaries Estimated Net Benefits over the Life of the Project 3
Armenia 428,000 $150,400,000
Benin 14,059,000 $140,400,000
Benin II 1,969,000 $24,800,000
Burkina Faso 1,181,000 ($123,300,000)
Cape Verde I 385,000 $84,600,000
Cape Verde II 604,000 $72,000,000
El Salvador 706,000 $262,100,000
El Salvador II 6,446,000 N/A
Georgia 143,000 $166,000,000
Georgia II 1,770,000 $18,200,000
Ghana 1,217,000 $520,400,000
Honduras 1,705,000 $190,400,000
Indonesia 1,700,000 $5,500,000
Jordan 3,000,000 $89,300,000
Lesotho 1,041,000 $86,800,000
Liberia 528,000 $8,000,000
Madagascar 480,000 $46,800,000
Malawi 983,000 $234,100,000
Mali 2,837,000 $136,300,000
Moldova 414,000 ($66,700,000)
Mongolia 2,058,000 $54,500,000
Morocco 1,695,000 $610,200,000
Morocco II 828,000 N/A
Mozambique 2,685,000 $120,900,000
Namibia 1,063,000 $125,000,000
Nicaragua 119,000 N/A
Niger 3,888,000 $238,700,000
Philippines 125,822,000 $159,700,000
Senegal 1,550,000 $110,600,000
Tanzania 5,425,000 $775,400,000
Vanuatu 39,000 N/A
Zambia 1,200,000 $62,200,000
Total for All Compacts 4 187,966,000 5 $4,314,926,000

Evaluation-Based Economic Rates of Return

All MCC projects are independently evaluated, and these independent evaluations often include evaluation-based economic rates of return (ERRs). Independently calculated ERRs complement the closeout ERRs that MCC calculates at the end of the compact. Because independent evaluations occur two to five years after compact closure, evaluation-based ERRs offer an updated assessment of a project’s costs and benefits post-compact. These ERRs still rely on forecasts for the later portion of MCC’s cost-benefit analysis evaluation horizon, which spans 20 years. Nonetheless, independent evaluation-based ERRs complete the accountability loop in a way that is rare among donors. Two examples are below, and MCC expects to complete ten additional evaluation-based ERRs in FY 2020.

Results of the Mozambique Farmer Income Support Project

MCC’s Farmer Income Support Project (FISP) was designed to reduce damage to the incomes of 1.7 million Mozambican farmers due to Coconut Lethal Yellowing Disease (CLYD). This was to be accomplished through (i) short-term surveillance, control and mitigation services, prompt eradication of diseased palms, and replanting with the less susceptible Mozambican Green Tall coconut variety, and (ii) technical advisory services to introduce crop-diversification options. Given forecast benefits to farmers’ incomes and the costs of the program, MCC originally forecast a project economic rate of return of 25.1 percent.

An independent evaluation of the FISP project’s impacts found that cutting trees and burning tree stumps in epidemic areas did reduce CLYD prevalence, but not to the degree originally forecast, resulting in lower than expected productivity impacts. Likewise, endemic area alternative crop uptake was lower than expected, likely due to insufficient input and output market linkages. The resulting updated, evaluation-based ERR estimate was 16.8 percent. Greater detail on the evaluation and lessons learned are available in MCC’s public evaluation catalog. 6

Results of the Nicaragua Transportation Project

MCC’s Nicaragua Transportation Project was designed to stimulate economic development and improve access to markets and social services by reducing transportation costs. It upgraded and rehabilitated 68 km of roads, consisting of two secondary roads and a trunk road. MCC originally forecast an economic return from the project of 13.2 percent based on reduced vehicle operating costs and travel time savings for road users, including new users expected to travel on the road due to improved road conditions resulting from the project.

The independent evaluation of this project estimated actual impacts using data from 2 years after the roads were completed. It found that the road roughness, a key indicator of transport costs, decreased 80 percent on average, and traffic increased 12 percent on average over the 2 years to 3,062 vehicles per day. At the same time, the capital costs for the road works came in on average 2.2 times those estimated prior to implementation. Given this balance of measured benefits and costs, the resulting evaluation-based ERR fell to 2.1 percent, primarily due to these higher costs. (Benefits were roughly consistent with ex-ante estimates.) Greater detail on the evaluation and lessons learned are available in MCC’s public evaluation catalog, 7  and MCC’s Principles into Practice: Lessons from MCC’s Investments in Roads. 8

Compact Funding by Sector as of Q4 FY 2019

Created with Highcharts 6.0.1Transport (Road, Water & Air)AgricultureWater Supply & SanitationEnergyProgram Administration & MonitoringHealth, Education & Community ServicesGovernance & LandFinancial ServicesAgriculture16%

Results by Sector as of Q4 FY 2019

 

Sector Indicator Total Portfolio Actuals Data Points Active and Completed Countries Tracked
Indicators listed are MCC’s common indicators, which are selected to aggregate sector results across countries Cumulative value for the indicator for both closed and active compacts (2005-Present). Number of compacts with available data Underlined text indicates compacts that are still active.
Roads Temporary employment generated in road construction 51,054 7 Armenia, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, El Salvador, Cote d’IvoireEl Salvador II, Georgia, Ghana, Honduras, Liberia, Mali, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Philippines, Senegal, Tanzania, Vanuatu
Kilometers of roads completed 3,035 15
Agriculture & Irrigation Farmers trained 404,477 14 Armenia, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, El Salvador, Georgia, Ghana, Honduras, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mali, Moldova, Morocco, Morocco II, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Senegal
Farmers who have applied improved practices as a result of training 126,592 10
Hectares under improved irrigation 203,963 8
Value of agricultural and rural loans $87,074,694 9
Water & Sanitation Temporary employment generated in water and sanitation construction 21,776 6 Cabo Verde II, El Salvador, Georgia, Ghana, Jordan, Lesotho, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia
People trained in hygiene and sanitary best practices 12,386 6
Water points constructed 1,191 4
Education Students participating 234,078 8 Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, El Salvador, El Salvador II, Georgia II, Ghana, Mongolia, Morocco, Morocco II, Namibia
Facilities completed 837 6
Graduates from MCC-supported education activities 62,938 6
Land Legal and regulatory reforms adopted 134 7 Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde II, Ghana, Indonesia, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Morocco II, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Senegal
Stakeholders trained 78,518 12
Land administration offices established or upgraded 399 8
Parcels corrected or incorporated in land system 352,975 8
Land rights formalized 320,722 7
Power Kilometers of lines completed 4,923 6 Benin II, El Salvador, Georgia, Ghana, Ghana II, Indonesia, Liberia, Malawi, Mongolia, Tanzania

Common Indicators as of Q1 FY 2020

Agriculture & Irrigation Common Indicators

Agriculture & Irrigation Common Indicators
Agriculture & Irrigation Process Indicators
Agriculture & Irrigation Common Indicators (AI-1) Value of signed irrigation fesibility and design contracts (AI-2.1) Amount Disbursed (AI-2) Percentage disbursed of irrigation feasibility and design contracts (AI-3) Value of signed irrigation construction contracts Amount Disbursed (AI-4) Percent of irrigation construction contracts
Unit USD Percentage USD Percentage
Classification Cumulative Level Cumulative Level
MCC Total $56,327,911 $47,369,352 84% 729,022,019 629,739,222 86%
Gender
Female
Male
Country
Armenia $4,601,073 $4,601,073 100% 106,653,443 106,653443 100%
El Salvador
El Salvador II x x x x x x
Georgia $1,115,881 $617,380 53% x x x
Honduras x x x x x
Indonesia x x x x x
Moldova $4,929,620 $4,719,796 96% 84,239,288 61,489,674 73%
Nicaragua 0 0 x x x x
Burkina Faso $17,268,474 $12,910,518 75% 74,339,448 70,862,959 95%
Cabo Verde I x x 5,167,848 5,043,885 98%
Ghana $5,202,887 $5,202,887 100% 13,009,963 13,009,963 100%
Madagascar x x x x x
Mali $9,077,220 $8,916,457 98% 148,951,503 146,354,137 98%
Morocco x x 111,353,027 110,239,497 99%
Mozambique x x x x x
Namibia x x x x x
Niger $4,402,582 $2,039,273 46% 30,596,850 x x
Senegal $9,690,173 $8,361,968 86% 154,710,649 116,085,665 75%

Agriculture and Irrigation Common Indicator Definitions

  • (AI-1) Value of signed irrigation feasibility and design contracts: The value of all signed feasibility, design, and environmental contracts, including resettlement action plans, for agricultural irrigation investments using 609(g) and compact funds.
  • (AI-2) Percent disbursed of irrigation feasibility and design contracts: The total amount of all signed feasibility, design, and environmental contracts, including resettlement action plans, for agricultural irrigation investments disbursed divided by the total value of all signed contracts.
  • (AI-3) Value of signed irrigation construction contracts: The value of all signed construction contracts for agricultural irrigation investments using compact funds.
Agriculture and Irrigation Outcome Indicators
Agriculture & Irrigation Output Indicators Agriculture and Irrigation Outcome Indicators
(AI-6) Farmers trained (AI-7) Enterprises assisted (AI-8) Hectares under improved irrigation (AI-9) Loan borrower (AI-10) Value of agricultural and rural loans (AI-11) Farmers who have applied improved practices as a result of training (AI-12) Hectares under improved practices as a result of training (AI-13) Enterprises that have applied improved techniques
Number Number Hectares Number USD Number Hectares Number
Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative
404,477 4,224 203,963 1,195 $87,074,694.40 126,592 42,226 1,016
298,363 520 1,187 $14,504,981.00 57,737 105
92,524 107 121 $924,102.00 17,660 20
205,839 413 1,066 $13,580,879 40,077 85
45,639 227 1,008 $13,133,200.00 26,424 x 178
15,363 281 29 $4,598,748.00 11,520 x 163
x 1 x x x x x x
x 291 x x $19,880,003.00 x x x
7,265 464 400 x $17,100,000.00 6,996 x x
129,142 x x x x x x x
6,569 334 11,526 62 $11,702,981.00 2,452 7,279 77
9,104 x x x x 9,104 x x
12,307 278 2,240 96 $2,802,000.00 8,237 3,369 28
553 x 13 x $617,000.00 106 x x
66,930 1,724 514 x $16,740,762.40 59,060 x 535
31,366 324 x x x 1,892 x 1
1,308 x 97,503 x $500,000.00 801 x x
40,863 114 53,376 x x x 31,578 34
28,830 186 x x x x x x
9,238 x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x
x x 38,391 x x x x x

Agriculture and Irrigation Common Indicator Definitions

  • (AI-4) Percent disbursed of irrigation construction contracts: The total amount of all signed construction contracts for agricultural irrigation investments disbursed divided by the total value of all signed contracts.
  • (AI-5) Temporary employment generated in irrigation: The number of people temporarily employed or contracted by MCA-contracted construction companies to work on construction of irrigation systems.
  • (AI-6) Farmers trained: The number of primary sector producers (farmers, ranchers, fishermen, and other primary sector producers) receiving technical assistance or participating in a training session (on improved production techniques and technologies, including post-harvest interventions, developing business, financial, or marketing planning, accessing credit or finance, or accessing input and output markets).
  • (AI-7) Enterprises assisted: The number of enterprises; producer, processing, and marketing organizations; water users associations; trade and business associations; and community-based organizations receiving assistance.

Education Common Indicators

Education Common Indicators
Process Indicators Output Indicators Outcome Indicators
(E-1) Value of signed educational facility construction, rehabilitation, and equipping contracts (USD) Amount Disbursed (E-2.1) (E-2) Percent disbursed of educational facility construction, rehabilitation, and equipping contracts (E-3) Legal, financial, and policy reforms adopted (E-4) Educational facilities constructed or rehabilitated (E-5) Instructors trained (E-6) Students participating in MCC-supported education activities (E-7) Graduates from MCC-supported education activities (E-8) Employed graduates of MCC-supported education activities
Unit US Dollars US Dollars Number Number Number Number Number Number
Classification Level Level Level Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative
MCC Total $287,605,930 $232,355,441 81% 14 837 6,575 234,078 62,938 0
Gender* 6,575 155,403 58,230
Female 3,378 80,524 37,091
Male 3,197 74,879 21,139
Country
Burkina Faso $22,758,211 $22,736,023 100% X 396 557 31,065 4,035 X
El Salvador I $9,857,585 $9,839,371 100% X 22 378 30,672 4,285 X
El Salvador II $57,229,722 $13,192,562 23% 8 1,614 16,341
Georgia II $42,742,227 $41,365,549 97% X 91 604 2,577 727 X
Ghana $18,689,747 $18,689,747 100% X 250 41,019 X X
Mongolia $28,179,328 $27,490,984 98% 5 18 1,370 17,480 11,967 X
Morocco $4,568,837 $3,480,627 76% X X 2,052 93,424 41,383 X
Morocco II $4,568,837 X X 1 X X
Namibia $96,290,298 $95,560,578 99% X 60 X 1,500 541 X
‡ All MCC education programs have as their long-term end goal an increase in individual or household income and a corresponding decrease in poverty.

Education Common Indicator Definitions

  • (E-1) Value of signed educational facility construction, rehabilitation, and equipping contracts: The value of all signed construction contracts for educational facility construction, rehabilitation, or equipping (e.g. information technology, desks and chairs, electricity and lighting, water systems, latrines) using compact funds.
  • (E-2) Percent disbursed of educational facility construction, rehabilitation, and equipping contracts: The total amount of all signed construction contracts for education facility works or equipping divided by the total value of all signed contracts.
  • (E-3) Legal, financial, and policy reforms adopted: The number of reforms adopted by the public sector attributable to compact support that increase the education sector’s capacity to improve access, quality, and/or relevance of education at any level, from primary to post-secondary.
  • (E-4) Educational facilities constructed or rehabilitated: The number of educational facilities constructed or rehabilitated according to standards stipulated in MCA contracts signed with implementers.
  • (E-5) Instructors trained: The number of classroom instructors who complete MCC-supported training focused on instructional quality as defined by the compact training activity.
  • (E-6) Students participating in MCC-supported education activities: The number of students enrolled or participating in MCC-supported educational schooling programs.
  • (E-7) Graduates from MCC-supported education activities: The number of students graduating from the highest grade (year) for that educational level in MCC-supported education schooling programs.
  • (E-8) Employed graduates of MCC-supported education activities: The number of MCC-supported training program graduates employed in their field of study within one year after graduation.

Land Common Indicators

Land Common Indicators
Land Output Indicators
(L-1) Legal and regulatory reforms adopted (L-2) Land administration offices established or upgraded (L-3) Stakeholders trained (L-4) Conflicts successfully mediated (L-5) Parcels corrected or incorporated in land system (L-6) Land rights formalized
Unit Number Number Number Number Parcels Number
Classification Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative
MCC Total 134 399 78,518 12,484 352,975 320,722
Gender 77,083.00 159,878
Female 21,843 54,903
Male 55,240 85,400
Joint 19,575
Location 299,679.00 280,725
Urban 200,922 156,232
Rural 98,757 124,493
Country
Benin X X 50 X X X
Burkina Faso 54 78 61,057 1,364 18,490 4,793
Cabo Verde II 36 38 442 229 37,495 11,365
Ghana 4 3 427 23 1,481 X
Indonesia X X 4,463 X X X
Lesotho 11 1 575 151 53,296 19,325
Madagascar 4 237 X X X X
Mali X 1 1,354 X X X
Mongolia 6 15 3,920 10,639 18,336 20,672
Morocco II X X
Mozambique X 26 1,516 X 205,005 251,556
Namibia 19 X 2,524 X 8,869 4,356
Nicaragua X X X X X X
Niger X X 550 X X X
Senegal X X 1,640 78 10,003 8,655

Land Common Indicator Definitions

  • (L-1) Legal and regulatory reforms adopted:  The number of specific pieces of legislation or implementing regulations adopted by the compact country and attributable to compact support.
  • (L-2) Land administration offices established or upgraded:  The number of land administration and service offices or other related facilities that the project physically establishes or upgrades.
  • (L-3) Stakeholders trained: The number of public officials, traditional authorities, project beneficiaries and representatives of the private sector, receiving formal on-the-job land training or technical assistance regarding registration, surveying, conflict resolution, land allocation, land use planning, land legislation, land management or new technologies.
  • (L-4) Conflicts successfully mediated: The number of disputed land and property rights cases that have been resolved by local authorities, contractors, mediators or courts with compact support.
  • (L-5) Parcels corrected or incorporated in land system: The number of parcels with relevant parcel information corrected or newly incorporated into an official land information system (whether a system for the property registry, cadastre or an integrated system).
  • (L-6) Land rights formalized: The number of household, commercial and other legal entities (e.g., NGOs, churches, hospitals) receiving formal recognition of ownership and/or use rights through certificates, titles, leases, or other recorded documentation by government institutions or traditional authorities at national or local levels.
  • (L-7) Percentage change in time for property transactions: The average percentage change in number of days for an individual or company to conduct a property transaction within the formal system.
  • (L-8) Percentage change in cost for property transactions: The average percentage change in US Dollars of out of pocket cost for an individual or company to conduct a property transaction within the formal system.

Power Common Indicators

Power Common Indicators
Power Process Indicators
(P-1) Value of signed power infrastructure feasibility and design contracts (P-2.1) Amount Disbursed (P-2) Percent disbursed of power infrastructure feasibility and design contracts (P-3) Value of signed power infrastructure construction contracts (P-4.1) Amount Disbursed (P-4) Percent disbursed of power infrastructure construction contracts (P-5) Temporary employment generated in power infrastructure construction
Unit USD Percentage USD Percentage Number
Classification Cumulative Level Cumulative Level Cumulative
MCC Total $181,353,320 $67,725,993 37% 536,543,392 446,320,214 83.2% 6,407
T&D
Transmission
Distribution
Gender 2,334.00
Female 170
Male 2,164
Grid
On-grid
Off-grid
Tariff class
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Country
Benin II $68,696,929.66 $12,575,394 18% X X X X
El Salvador X X X X X X
Georgia X X X X X X
Ghana X X X X X X
Ghana II $76,282,282 $22,207,623 29%
Indonesia X X X X X X X
Liberia X X X 149,503,123 149,503,123 100% X
Malawi $20,626,684 $15,837,791 77% 233,487,716 233,487,716 71.1% 2,334
Mongolia X X X X X X X
Tanzania $15,747,424 $17,105,186 109% 153,552,553 153,552,553 85.3% 4,073

 

Power Common Indicators
Power Output Indicators Power Outcome Indicators
(P-6) Generation capacity added (P-7 and P-10) Km lines upgraded or built (P-8) Transmission throughput capacity added (P-9 and P-11) Substation capacity added (P-12) Customers added by project (P-15) Total electricity supply (P-17) Installed generation capacity (P-23) Total electricity sold
Unit Megawatts Kilometers Megawatts Megavolt ampere Number Megawatt hours Megawatts Megawatt hours
Classification Cumulative Cumulative Level Cumulative Cumulative Level (cumulative) Level Level
MCC Total 113 4,923 NA 990 44,507 20,656,565 6,733 2,852,114
T&D 4,318.25
Transmission 24
Distribution 4,294
Gender
Female
Male
Grid 112.72 5,784
On-grid 108 8 5,718
Off-grid 5 5 66
Tariff class 2,448,785
Residential 1,030,693
Commercial 568,683
Industrial 849,409
Country
Benin II X X X X X 1,343,258 X 1,009,553
El Salvador X 1,523 X X 35,412 X X X
Georgia X X X X X X X X
Ghana X 99 X X X X X X
Ghana II 17,481,201 5,184
Indonesia 13 169 X X 9,095 X X X
Liberia 88 51 X 84 X 200,975 141 71,904
Malawi 12 409 X 906 X 1,631,130 459 1,444,888
Mongolia X X X X X X X X
Tanzania X 2,673 X X X X 949 325,769

Power Common Indicator Definitions

  • (P-1) Value of signed power infrastructure feasibility and design contracts: The value of all signed feasibility, design, and environmental impact assessment contracts, including resettlement action plans, for power infrastructure investments using 609(g) and compact funds.
  • (P-2) Percent disbursed of power infrastructure feasibility and design contracts: The total amount of all signed feasibility, design, and environmental impact assessment contracts, including resettlement action plans, for power infrastructure disbursed divided by the total current value of signed contracts.
  • (P-3) Value of signed power infrastructure construction contracts: The value of all signed construction contracts for power infrastructure investments using compact funds.
  • (P-6) Generation capacity added: Generation capacity added, measured in megawatts, resulting from construction of new generating capacity or reconstruction,
    rehabilitation, or upgrading of existing generating capacity funded with MCC support.
  • (P-7) Kilometers of transmission lines upgraded or built: The sum of linear kilometers of new, reconstructed, rehabilitated, or upgraded transmission lines that have been energized, tested and commissioned with MCC support.
  • (P-8) Transmission throughput capacity added: The increase in throughput capacity, measured in megawatts, added by new, reconstructed, rehabilitated, or upgraded transmission lines that have been energized, tested and commissioned with MCC support.
  • (P-9) Transmission substation capacity added: The total added transmission substation capacity, measured in mega volt-amperes that is energized, commissioned and accompanied by a test report and supervising engineer’s certification resulting from new construction or refurbishment of existing substations that is due to MCC support.
  • (P-10) Kilometers of distribution lines upgraded or built: The sum of linear kilometers of new, reconstructed, rehabilitated, or upgraded distribution lines that have been energized, tested and commissioned with MCC support.
  • (P-11) Distribution substation capacity added: The total added substation capacity, measured in mega volt amperes that is energized, commissioned and accompanied by a test report and supervising engineer’s certification resulting from new construction or refurbishment of existing substations supported by MCC.
  • (P-12) Customers added by project: The number of new customers that have gained access to a legal connection to electricity service from an electrical utility or service provider as a direct output of an MCC-funded project or intervention.
  • (P-13) Maintenance expenditure-asset value ratio: Actual maintenance expenditures / Total value of fixed assets
  • (P-14) Cost-reflective tariff regime: Average Tariff per kilowatt-hour / Long-run marginal cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity supplied to customers.
  • (P-15) Total electricity supply: Total electricity, in megawatt hours, produced or imported in a year.
  • (P-16) Power plant availability: Unweighted average across all power plants of the following: total number of hours per month that a plant is able and available to produce electricity / Total number of hours in the same month.
  • (P-17) Installed generation capacity: Total generation capacity, in megawatts, installed plants can generate within the country.
  • (P-18) Transmission system technical losses: 1- [Total megawatt hours transmitted out from transmission substations / Total megawatt hours received from generation to transmission substations]
  • (P-19) Distribution system losses: 1 – [Total megawatt hours billed / Total megawatt hours received from transmission]
  • (P-20) Commercial losses: Total distribution system losses (P-19) minus distribution technical losse
  • (P-21) System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI): Sum of durations, in customer-hours, of all customer interruptions in a quarter / Total number of customers connected to network in the same quarter.
  • (P-22) System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI): Sum of customer-interruptions in a quarter / Total number of customers connected to network in the same quarter.
  • (P-23) Total electricity sold: The total megawatt hours of electricity sales to all customer types.
  • (P-24) Operating cost-recovery ratio: Total revenue collected / Total operating cost.  Total operating cost is defined as operating expenses plus depreciation.
  • (P-25) Percentage of households connected to the national grid: Number of households that have access to a legal connection to electricity service from an electrical utility or service provider / Total number of households in the country.
  • (P-26) Share of renewable energy in the country: Total installed generation capacity of on- or off-grid renewable energy, in megawatts / Total installed generation capacity (P-17).

Transportation Common Indicators

Transportation Common Indicators
Process Indicators Output Indicators Outcome Indicators
(R-1) Value of signed road feasibility and design contracts (R-2.1) Value disbursed of road feasibility and design contracts (R-2) Percent disbursed of road feasibility and design contracts (R-3) Kilometers of roads under design (R-4) Value of signed road construction contracts (R-5.1) Value disbursed of roads construction contracts (R-5) Percent disbursed of road construction contracts (R-6) Kilometers of roads under works contracts (R-7) Temporary employment generated in road construction (R-8) Kilometers of roads completed (R-11) Road traffic fatalities
Unit USD Percentage Kilometers USD USD Percentage Kilometers Number Kilometers Number
Classification Cumulative Level Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Level Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Level
MCC Total $133,671,896 $128,086,773 96% 4,743 $2,413,409,298 $2,107,683,881 87% 3,923.3 51,054 3035 655
Gender* 15,689 49
Female 1,364 4
Male 14,325 45
Road Type* $99,850,486 $94,939,800 95% 4680 $2,191,830,269 $1,779,629,103 81% 3,311.6 2734
Primary $67,138,098 $65,210,295 97% 2153 $1,410,095,544 $1,113,822,526 79% 1,497.7 1178
Secondary $25,992,205 $22,171,033 85% 1591 $617,229,323 $526,845,893 85% 1,132.9 479
Tertiary $6,719,183 $7,558,472 112% 935 $164,505,401 $138,960,684 84% 681.0 1078
Country
Armenia X X X X X X 0.0 X 24 X
Burkina Faso $8,339,651 $9,625,883 115% 536 $140,205,145 $142,457,135 102% 419.1 4,162 278 6
Cape Verde I $3,520,000 $3,230,000 92% 63 $24,280,000 $24,278,171 100% 40.6 X 41 X
El Salvador I $18,321,410 $18,048,524 99% 223 $248,378,825 $240,211,648 97% 223.0 X 223 X
El Salvador II X X X 10 $67,450,677 $24,316,048 36% 5.6 1,232 X X
Georgia $11,980,000 $11,868,449 99% 0 $197,299,030 $197,299,030 100% 220.2 X 220 X
Ghana $5,549,044 $5,549,044 100% 943 $250,604,022 $250,604,022 100% 446.4 35,455 445 602
Honduras $9,500,000 $7,163,000 75% 673 $179,400,000 $128,412,000 72% 673.0 X 610 X
Liberia X X X X X X X X X X X
Mali $0 $0 X X $42,918,038 $15,018,313 35% 81.0 X 79 X
Moldova X X 96 $100,807,443 $97,020,289 96% 96.0 1,309 96 4
Mongolia $6,083,650 $5,421,254 89% 19 $73,108,907 $66,492,533 91% 176.4 X 176 X
Mozambique* $17,669,992 $15,049,358 85% 253 $132,240,557 $116,601,108 88% 253.0 2,308 253 X
Nicaragua $0 $0 X 376 $56,507,526 $56,507,526 100% 74.0 X 74 X
Niger $3,172,736 1,862,530.55 59% 300 X X X X X X X
Philippines $15,235,623 $14,391,002 94% 222 $173,156,531 $139,529,147 81% 222.0 X 175 0
Senegal $12,201,371 $12,444,412 102% 406 $271,128,882 $189,227,036 70% 375.0 2,757 X 42
Tanzania $19,143,331 $20,478,228 107% 473 $399,926,666 $363,711,825 91% 468.3 3,831 190 0
Vanuatu $2,955,088 $2,955,088 100% 150 $55,997,051 $55,997,051 100% 149.7 X 150 X
* Kilometers of road for Mozambique require verification through takeover certificates. However, takeover certificates were never provided and the number reported is not verified.

** According to the Common Indicator definition, a road is completed when official certificates are handed over and approved. In Senegal, this was taken to mean final acceptance of the road works, which typically happens after the end of the 1 year defects liability period which starts when the construction is completed and the roades are provisionally accepted. As part of its Compact, Senegal intended to rehabilitate 372 kilometers of national roads. By September 2015, when the Senegal Compact closed, no roads had achieved final acceptance, and therefore were not officially completed, per the common indicator definition. However, by the end of the Compact, 185km of roads had been fully rehabilitated and received provisional acceptance. An additional 72km were provisionally accepted in November 2015, and the remaining 116km are anticipated to be provisionally accepted with the support of the Government of Senegal by mid-2016.

Transportation Common Indicator Definitions

  • (R-1) Value of signed road feasibility and design contracts: The value of all signed feasibility, design, and environmental contracts, including resettlement action plans, for road investments using 609(g) and compact funds.
  • (R-2.1) Value disbursed of road feasibility and design contracts: The value disbursed of all signed feasibility, design, and environmental contracts, including resettlement action plans, for road investments using 609(g) and compact funds
  • (R-2) Percent disbursed of road feasibility and design contracts: The total amount of all signed feasibility, design, and environmental contracts, including resettlement action plans, for road investments disbursed divided by the total value of all signed contracts.
  • (R-3) Kilometers of roads under design: The length of roads in kilometers under design contracts. This includes designs for building new roads and reconstructing, rehabilitating, resurfacing or upgrading existing roads.
  • (R-4) Value of signed road construction contracts: The value of all signed construction contracts for new roads or reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing or upgrading of existing roads using compact funds.
  • (R-5.1) Value disbursed of roads construction contracts: The value disbursed of all signed construction contracts for new roads or reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing or upgrading of existing roads.
  • (R-5) Percent disbursed of road construction contracts:  The total amount of all signed construction contracts for new roads or reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing or upgrading of existing roads disbursed divided by the total value of all signed contracts.
  • (R-6) Kilometers of roads under works contracts: The length of roads in kilometers under works contracts for construction of new roads or reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing or upgrading of existing roads.
  • (R-7) Temporary employment generated in road construction: The number of people temporarily employed or contracted by MCA-contracted construction companies to work on construction of new roads
    or reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing or upgrading of existing roads.
  • (R-8) Kilometers of roads completed: The length of roads in kilometers on which construction of new roads or reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing or upgrading of existing roads is complete (certificates handed over and approved).
  • (R-9) Roughness: The measure of the roughness of the road surface, in meters of height per kilometer of distance traveled.
  • (R-10) Average annual daily traffic: The average number and type of vehicles per day, averaged over different times (day and night) and over different seasons to arrive at an annualized daily average.
  • (R-11) Road traffic fatalities: The number of road traffic fatalities per year on roads constructed, rehabilitated or improved with MCC funding.

Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) Common Indicators

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Common Indicators
Process Indicators Output Indicators Output Indicators
(WS-1) Value of signed water and sanitation feasibility and design contracts (USD) Amount Disbursed (WS-2) Percent disbursed of water and sanitation feasibility and design contracts (WS-3) Value of signed water and sanitaiton construction contracts (USD) Amount Disbursed (WS-4) Percent disbursed of water and sanitation construction contracts (WS-5) Temporary employment generated in water and sanitation construction (WS-6) People trained in hygiene and sanitary best practices (WS-7) Water points constructed Residential population connected to sewer system* Residential population*
Unit US Dollars Percentage USD Percentage Number Number Number Number Number
Classification Cumulative Level Cumulative Level Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative
MCC Total 54,337,691 $53,735,311 98.9% 816,963,219 763,548,856 93.5% 21,776 12,386 1,191 NA NA
Gender 9,862
 Female 1,123
 Male 8,739
Country
Cabo Verde II $783,369 $733,263 93.6% $19,315,569 $18,827,292 97.5% 759 32 X X X
El Salvador $4,983,800 $4,785,175 96.0% $10,451,448 $10,188,837 97.5% X 2,406 X X X
El Salvador II X X X X X X X X X X
Georgia $266,865 $266,865 100.0% $51,178,716 $51,178,716 94.2% X X X X X
Ghana $1,475,148 $1,475,148 100.0% $13,949,465 $13,949,465 100.0% X 778 392 X X
Jordan $0 $0 X $238,486,447 $238,486,447 100% 3,825 X X X X
Lesotho X X $47,189,579 $47,189,579 79% 11,527 454 175 X X
Mozambique $35,076,009 $34,753,498 99.1% $148,359,134 $148,359,134 87.5% 2,276 8,400 614 X X
Tanzania $6,861,280 $7,008,600 102.1% $36,801,560 $36,801,560 81.1% 387 X X X X
Zambia $4,891,220 $4,712,762 96.4% $198,567,825 $198,567,825 96.6% 3,002 316 10 X X
* This is a monitoring indicator; any change over baseline data represents the current trend and does not represent the direct impact of the MCC-investment.

** Jordan’s M&E Plan has, throughout the life of the compact, defined hours of supply as hours/week. As such all documentation is in this form. The value here has been divided by 7 here to accurately reflect supply hours per day.

*** The current unit for volume of water produced has a discrepancy. MCC M&E is in the process of revising theis common indicator to clarify and align with current industry standards.

WASH Common Indicator Definitions

  • (WS-1) Value of signed water and sanitation feasibility and design contracts: The value of all signed feasibility, design, and environmental contracts, including resettlement action plans, for water and sanitation investments using 609(g) and compact funds.
  • (WS-2) Percent disbursed of water and sanitation feasibility and design contracts: The total amount of all signed feasibility, design, and environmental contracts, including resettlement action plans, for water and sanitation investments disbursed divided by the total value of all signed contracts.
  • (WS-3) Value of signed water and sanitation construction contracts: The value of all signed construction contracts for reconstruction, rehabilitation, or upgrading of water and sanitation works using compact funds.
  • (WS-4) Percent disbursed of water and sanitation construction contracts: The total amount of all signed construction contracts for construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or upgrading of water and sanitation works disbursed divided by the total value of all signed contracts.
  • (WS-5) Temporary employment generated in water and sanitation construction: The number of people temporarily employed or contracted by MCA-contracted construction companies to work on construction
    of water or sanitation systems.
  • (WS-6) People trained in hygiene and sanitary best practices: The number of people who have completed training on hygiene and sanitary practices that block the fecal-oral transmission route.
  • (WS-7) Water points constructed: The number of non-networked, stand-alone water supply systems constructed, such as: protected dug wells, tube-wells / boreholes, protected natural springs and rainwater harvesting / catchment systems.
  • (WS-8) Non revenue water: The difference between water supplied and water sold (i.e. volume of water “lost”) expressed as a percentage of water supplied.
  • (WS-9) Continuity of service: Average hours of service per day for water supply.
  • (WS-10) Operating cost coverage: Total annual operational revenues divided by total annual operating costs
  • (WS-11) Volume of water produced: Total volume of water produced in cubic meters per day for the service area, i.e. leaving treatment works operated by the utility and purchased treated water, if any.
  • (WS-12) Access to improved water supply: The percentage of households in the MCC project area whose main source of drinking water is a private piped connection (into dwelling or yard), public tap/standpipe, tube-well, protected dug well, protected spring or rainwater.
  • (WS-13) Access to improved sanitation: The percentage of households in the MCC project area who get access to and use an improved sanitation facility such as flush toilet to a piped sewer system, flush toilet to a septic tank, flush or pour flush toilet to a pit, composting toilet, ventilated improved pit latrine or pit latrine with slab and cover.
  • (WS-14) Residential water consumption: The average water consumption in liters per person per day
  • (WS-15) Industrial/Commercial water consumption: The average amount of commercial water consumed measured in cubic meters per month.
  • (WS-16) Incidence of diarrhea: The percentage of individuals reported as having diarrhea in the two weeks preceding the survey.

FY 2020 Corporate Goals

For FY 2020, MCC management established four specific goals to guide agency planning and performance for the year. As in past years, these corporate goals are the starting point for annual department and division goal-setting, from which staff develop their individual performance plans. Below you will find MCC’s FY 2020 corporate goals with additional updates.

FY 2020 Corporate Goals
Corporate Goal Updates
Human Capital: empower our people for optimal performance MCC is undertaking a workforce assessment to better align workforce requirements and competencies directly to MCC’s mission, strategy, and priorities.
Innovation: establish a culture of creativity that encourages smart risk MCC is launching a second “Millennium Efficiency Challenge” to tap into the extensive knowledge of MCC staff to identify efficiencies and creative solutions to programmatic challenges while maintaining MCC’s rigorous quality standards and program approval criteria.
Private Investment: crowd-in and enable private investment MCC recently developed a blended finance strategy to expand and deepen MCC’s blended finance capacity, portfolio, and leverage, and a partnerships strategy to increase MCC program impact, innovation, scale, and sustainability of assistance programs through partnerships. Together these strategies form MCC’s overall private sector engagement strategy.
Accountability: hold ourselves and partners accountable for results MCC continues to intensify its focus on data and evidence-driven results. In FY 2020, MCC will issue four Star Reports, public-facing narratives of MCC’s assistance for a country from selection through project evaluation. Also, MCC expects to publish constraints analyses for programs in Togo and Burkina Faso, as well as 60 additional Evaluation Briefs, a new publicly-available 4-page summary of the key results and learning from MCC’s independent evaluations.
Footnotes
  • 1. The table includes estimates for compacts that have entered into force and have economic rates of return (ERRs) from which income benefit calculations can be drawn. The Ghana II compact does not yet have published ERRs.
  • 2. These estimates do not include the projected beneficiaries of projects or activities that have been terminated or suspended by MCC (Madagascar, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mongolia, and Armenia). In the case of Madagascar, the estimates account for the compact’s early termination.
  • 3. The Present Value (PV) of Benefits is the sum of all projected benefits accruing over the life of the project, typically 20 years, evaluated at a 10 percent discount rate.  Estimates are reported in millions of US$ in the year that the ERR analysis was completed.  Because the PV of benefits uses a discount rate, these figures cannot be compared directly to the undiscounted financial costs of MCC compacts, but must be compared to the PV of costs instead.
  • 4. Indonesia entries are currently available for only one of three projects. Liberia entries are currently available only for the energy project. Benin II entries are unavailable for the off-grid clean energy facility.
  • 5. Column totals may not equal the sum of the individual rows due to rounding.
  • 6. https://data.MCC.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog
  • 7. https://data.MCC.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog
  • 8. https://www.MCC.gov/our-impact/principles-into-practice