Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ): Congressional Budget Justification, FY 2016 | January 2015

Appendix: FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and Plan

In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, MCC’s FY 2014 Annual Performance Report (APR) is contained in these appendices of the FY 2016 Congressional Budget Justification. MCC’s Agency Financial Report for FY 2014 has been produced separately and can be accessed at http://www.mcc.gov/documents/reports/report-fy2014-afr.pdf. Additionally, pursuant to GPRA, MCC is in the process of developing a new strategic plan and anticipates releasing it during FY 2015.

MCC’s Data-Driven Selection Process

MCC works with countries committed to good policy performance as determined by the MCC Board of Directors consisting of the Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. Trade Representative, USAID Administrator, and MCC’s Chief Executive Officer, as well as four non-governmental members appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

MCC is the only donor agency in the world to base selection so heavily and transparently on public, third-party policy performance data. MCC publishes annual scorecards of country performance on its 20 selection indicators that measure and compare commitment to democratic governance, economic freedom, and investment in people. The indicators–all drawn from publicly available datasets widely used across the international development community–are used to identify countries with policy environments that allow MCC funding to be effective.  With many countries eager to demonstrate a commitment to policy improvement because of the transparent selection criteria, this approach often inspires policy reform even before spending money and has been called the “MCC effect.”

When choosing country partners, the Board, by law, also takes into consideration the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth as well as funds available to MCC. When considering if a country should be eligible for a subsequent compact, the board also looks at that country’s record implementing its first compact.

Supplemental Information

MCC’s annual country scorecards play a key role in the selection process, helping identify a country’s commitment to policy reform and good governance relative to its income peers. In addition, the Board considers whether any adjustments should be made for data gaps, data lags or recent events since the indicators were published, as well as strengths or weaknesses in particular indicators. Where appropriate, the board will take into account additional quantitative and qualitative information, such as evidence of a country’s commitment to fighting corruption, investments in human development outcomes, or poverty rates. The types of supplemental data and lists of sources can be found on MCC’s website (http://1.usa.gov/18Qibjn).

Subsequent Compacts

MCC’s founding legislation permits the agency to enter into one or more subsequent compacts after completing a first. This provision recognizes the reality that for poor countries, even the ones with strong policies conducive to economic growth already in place, it takes decades of sustained growth to lift citizens out of poverty. However, MCC’s relationship with countries is not and should not be open-ended. MCC’s board is particularly selective when determining eligibility for subsequent compacts.  In those cases where subsequent compacts have been considered, they were determined to play a pivotal role in the ability to reduce poverty, promote economic growth, and provide opportunities to explore more innovative approaches, including ways to leverage additional country resources as well as potential private sector investment.

Selection for subsequent compacts is not automatic; on top of strong scorecard performance, the Board also assesses the first compact. To assess implementation of a prior compact, the Board examines the implementation of the first compact (especially in the areas of achievement of results, committed partnership and adherence to policies); looks for evidence of improved scorecard policy performance; and expects a commitment to further, deep sectoral reform in a subsequent compact.

Evidence and Evaluation after Selection

MCC’s selection process is data driven, as is the process for making investment decisions and evaluating results. MCC shares its data and learning publicly to improve its business and allow others to benefit from its experience.

Investment Decisions

After using data to drive selection, MCC then uses economic analysis to inform investment decisions. Because most poor countries have many development needs, local and international stakeholders often struggle with setting priorities. MCC uses several tools to identify investment opportunities that will be cost-effective and do the most to raise incomes and reduce poverty.

  • MCC asks partner countries to conduct a constraints analysis to identify the barriers to private investment and economic growth. Based on this analysis, in consultation with civil society and the private sector, countries propose possible projects for overcoming these barriers.
  • Program logic describes how a proposed investment is expected to reduce poverty through economic growth. It outlines the chain of project activities, showing how household incomes will increase. It informs project design, economic analysis and evaluation questions.
  • Cost-benefit analysis is used by partner countries and MCC to estimate the expected increase in household incomes of each proposed project. This helps MCC distinguish among projects with significant potential to spur growth and reduce poverty versus those that may be politically popular within a partner country but do not anticipate sufficient returns.
  • MCC calculates economic rates of return (ERRs) to inform project decisions and measures them again during implementation if projects are modified. The cost-benefit analysis describes how the dollars spent on each activity will lead to higher incomes. It generates an ERR that reflects the fundamental economic viability of each proposed investment—that is, whether the expected results justify the costs.
  • MCC and partner countries use an initial social and gender analysis (ISGA) as well as beneficiary analysis (BA) to assess how estimated project income gains will affect different income groups.

Monitoring Results

MCC is committed to delivering and measuring results throughout the investment lifecycle. MCC’s results framework measures, collects, and helps MCC learn about: policy reforms associated with compact eligibility; program investments; project inputs and outputs; interim outcomes; and performance and impact as measured through independent evaluations. MCC publishes quarterly reports of monitoring indicators against compact targets.

Leadership in Evaluation Practices

MCC uses independent evaluations for learning and accountability and to test assumptions about what works to reduce poverty. MCC’s independent evaluations build on monitoring to track input, output, and some outcome indicators during compact implementation. It is common in the development community to focus on inputs (such as the funds dedicated to farmer training), outputs (such as the number of farmers trained), and increasingly on some intermediate outcomes (such as the rate of farmer adoption of improved techniques for cultivation). MCC takes evaluation one step further to see if a link can be made between these indicators and an ultimate impact of increased household incomes. This is a difficult task, and evaluations are the primary mechanisms for measuring whether or not that link occurred and why by testing the assumptions underlying the program logic. Results build evidence to inform future investment decisions, both at MCC and in the broader development community.

Distinguishing between impact and performance evaluations.

  • Performance evaluations estimate the contribution of MCC investments to changes in trends on outcomes, including household income. Performance evaluations are less rigorous and cannot attribute causal impact to MCC investments because they do not utilize a counterfactual. Performance evaluations serve an accountability purpose by comparing changes between situations before and after MCC investments.
  • Impact evaluations are the most rigorous form of evaluations because they estimate the causal impact of MCC investments on key outcome indicators. They make it possible to know whether the observed impacts were caused specifically by an MCC investment or are the result of external factors. Impact evaluations compare what happened with the investment to what would have happened without it through the use of a counterfactual. About 40 percent of MCC's project portfolio is covered by impact evaluations.

Transparency and Learning

MCC shares its data and learning publicly to improve its business and allow others to benefit equally from its experience. In 2013, the International Aid Transparency Index ranked MCC the most transparent aid agency in the world. More importantly, MCC believes that its commitment to transparency is what holds the agency accountable to its mission and to learn and do better. MCC continues to look for ways to make its evidence, evaluation, and learning more accessible and useful to the agency’s own learning and for the broader development community.

Program Portfolios and Results

Compact Amounts at Signing and Key Dates ($ millions)*
Partner Country Sub-Saharan Africa Europe, Asia and Pacific Middle East and N. Africa Latin America Signing Entry Into Force Closed Dates
Madagascar 109.8       4/18/2005 7/27/2005 8/31/2009
Honduras       215.0 6/13/2005 9/29/2005 9/29/2010
Cabo Verde 110.1       7/4/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2010
Nicaragua       175.0 7/14/2005 5/26/2006 5/26/2011
Georgia   395.3     9/12/2005 4/7/2006 4/7/2011
Benin 307.3       2/22/2006 10/6/2006 10/6/2011
Vanuatu   65.7     3/2/2006 4/28/2006 4/28/2011
Armenia   235.7     3/27/2006 9/29/2006 9/29/2011
Ghana 547.0       8/1/2006 2/16/2007 2/16/2012
Mali 460.8       11/13/2006 9/17/2007 8/24/2012
El Salvador       460.9 11/29/2006 9/20/2007 9/20/2012
Mozambique 506.9       7/13/2007 9/22/2008 9/22/2013
Lesotho 362.6       7/23/2007 9/17/2008 9/17/2013
Morocco     697.5   8/31/2007 9/15/2008 9/15/2013
Mongolia   284.9     10/22/2007 9/17/2008 9/17/2013
Tanzania 698.1       2/17/2008 9/17/2008 9/17/2013
Burkina Faso 480.9       7/14/2008 7/31/2009  
Namibia 304.5       7/28/2008 9/16/2009  
Senegal 540.0       9/16/2009 9/23/2010  
Moldova   262.0     1/22/2010 9/1/2010  
Philippines   433.9     9/23/2010 05/25/11  
Jordan     275.1   10/25/2010 12/13/11  
Malawi 350.7       4/7/2011 9/20/2013  
Indonesia   600.0     11/19/2011 4/2/2013  
Cabo Verde, 2012 66.2       2/10/2012 11/30/2012  
Zambia 354.8       5/10/2012 11/15/2013  
Georgia, 2013   140.0     6/26/2013    
Ghana, 2014 498.2       8/5/2014    
El Salvador, 2014       277.0 9/30/2014    

* 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 next page reflects the net obligations/commitments associated with each compact.

Compact Obligations/Commitments by Year Appropriated as of September 2014 ($ millions)*
Country 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total
Armenia   176.6                   176.6
Benin   301.8                   301.8
Burkina Faso         480.9             480.9
Cabo Verde, 2005 108.5                     108.5
Cabo Verde, 2012                 66.2     66.2
El Salvador, 2006     361.8 87.8               449.6
El Salvador, 2014       8.0         109.0 160.0   277.0
Georgia, 2005 290.2 24.2   17.0 55.8             387.2
Georgia, 2013                 140.0     140.00
Ghana, 2006   536.3                   536.3
Ghana, 2014     17.0             283.0 198.2 498.2
Honduras 204.0                     204.0
Indonesia   55.0           545.0       600.0
Jordan           55.0 220.1         275.1
Kenya     0.1                 0.1
Lesotho       358.0               358.0
Madagascar 85.6                     85.6
Malawi             209.9 140.8       350.7
Mali     435.6                 435.6
Moldova 90.7 16.4 8.5 0.9 9.0 86.6 50.0         262.0
Mongolia       269.0               269.0
Morocco   72.0 578.2                 650.2
Mozambique       447.9               447.9
Namibia       224.1 80.4             304.5
Nicaragua 112.7                     112.7
Philippines             433.9         433.9
Senegal           540.0           540.0
Tanzania         694.5             694.5
Vanuatu   65.4                   65.4
Zambia                 354.8     354.8
Grand Total 891.7 1,247.6 1,401.1 1,412.8 1,320.6 681.6 913.9 685.8 670.0 442.0 198.2 9,866.3

*Amounts are net of de-obligations, where applicable. Also, amounts may not add due to rounding.

Threshold Program Amounts at Signing ($ millions)
Country Sub-Saharan Africa Eurasia Latin America Middle East and N. Africa Signing Date Completion Date
Burkina Faso 12.9       7/22/2005 9/30/2008
Malawi 20.9       9/23/2005 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     12/14/2006 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
Sao Tome & 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 In progress
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 12/1/2013
Timor-Leste   10.5     9/22/2010 3/31/2014
Honduras     15.6   8/29/2013 In progress

* MCC had a $23 million threshold program with Niger prior to suspension; however, only $17 million was spent prior to suspension and now $2 million has been allocated to complete the program.

Results of Recently Closed Compacts

Burkina Faso

The $480.9 million Burkina Faso Compact sought to reduce poverty through economic growth by making strategic investments to improve land tenure security and land management, enhance the volume and value of agriculture production, expand access to markets through investments in the road network, and increase primary school completion rates for girls.

Burkina Faso
Policy Reforms

Agriculture Development Project

Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM): The project worked with the Government of Burkina Faso (GOBF) to develop IWRM plans and strengthen water management institutions in the Mouhoun and Comoé Basins. These plans, the first of their kind, create a policy environment and institutional framework that allows for participatory feedback from local water users to ensure improved protection and equitable distribution of valuable water resources, proper levying of water use fees, adequate operation and maintenance of public infrastructure, and the realization of the economic potential of approximately 5 million Burkinabè living in the basins. Properly implemented IWRM plans will promote efficient use of land and water resources and increase agricultural production and employment opportunities.

Roads Project

The Burkina Faso Road Maintenance Fund (FER-B): The institutional arrangements for nationwide road maintenance have been enhanced under the compact. The FER-B adopted private sector accounting practices along with using a competitive selection panel for the director general. The board of FER-B also was restructured in order to have private sector participation and a change in statutes now allows private entities to supervise maintenance works. Additionally, procurement, financial, accounting, standardized bidding documents, and technical manuals were created and adopted. The GOBF has created, adopted and plans to continually update a five-year road maintenance plan and their 15-year master plan.

Rural Land Governance Project

Rural Land Law, Agrarian and Land Reorganization and Rural Land Services: Policy performance was outstanding. Under the project (including pre-compact support), Burkina Faso’s key laws on rural land were improved to emphasize more secure private rights to land, better land-use planning, and better conflict resolution. Fifty-four legal and regulatory reforms were adopted nationwide and decentralized land management services were implemented in 47 of Burkina Faso’s 302 rural communes. Other donors such as the French Development Agency, the European Union, the World Bank, and the GOBF itself have committed to expanding MCC-funded advancements to the remaining communes countrywide.

Outputs

Roads Project

  • As of the compact end date, 194 kilometers of primary roads were paved and 83.8 kilometers of rural roads were upgraded. An additional 80 kilometers of primary roads and 61.2 kilometers of rural roads were completed by the end of the compact closure period, meeting the compact’s targets for a total of 274 kilometers of primary roads and 145 kilometers of rural roads.
  • The 51  government officials  trained in road maintenance management and planning exceeded the target of 40.
  • At compact end, MCC funded the periodic maintenance of 322.5 kilometers of primary and rural roads, worth $29 million.

Rural Land Governance Project

  • 54 transformational laws and supporting regulations were developed to improve private rights to land, improve recognition and administration of those rights, and create a system of mediation of land disputes so they could be resolved quickly and cheaply. Land services offices were established in all 47 targeted communes, including building construction, personnel training, and technical assistance.
  • The government approved 2,167 rural land possession certificates (APFRs) out of a targeted 6,000. APFRs provide formal land use rights to individuals and is a new instrument to formalize land tenure created under the legal reforms described above and managed by the newly established land services offices. The government continues to issue APFRs post-compact.

Agriculture Development Project

  • The project exceeded the original target of 2033 hectares, providing 2240 hectares,   under improved irrigation. The Lery reservoir structure and dam gates were also rehabilitated under the compact.
  • 12,307 farmers were trained in improved production and farm management techniques, exceeding the compact’s target of 9,800 farmers trained.
  • 96 borrowers received medium-term loans totaling $2.8 million. (To allocate resources where they could make the greatest impact, the rural finance facility was discontinued as it was not meeting its targets.)
  • 16 water user associations were established with 207 executive officers trained.

BRIGHT 2 Schools Project

  • As targeted, 396 classrooms for grades 4-6, 122 kindergartens, and 264 private latrines were constructed. In addition, 10 boreholes were dug and seven boreholes rehabilitated.
  • The compact provided more than 185,000 sacks of dry rice for home consumption and daily meals for over 15,000 students during the school year.
  • Fourteen community awareness-raising sessions on girls’ education were held, and 80 community meetings were held on girls’ schooling, management and maintenance.
Expected Outcomes

Roads Project

  • Increased commercial investment and economic activities due to reduced travel time and vehicle operating costs.
  • Improved access to markets and health and education services.
  • Reduced travel time and reduced vehicle operating costs.
  • Increased sustainability of road network and protection of investments.

Rural Land Governance Project

  • Increased tenure security, including both perceptions of tenure security and decreases in actual conflict.
  • Increase in productive investments (land use shifts) and agricultural productivity by households and firms.
  • Improved access to land, land allocation and utilization.

Agriculture Development Project

  • Farmers realize sustainable increases in productivity, yields, and profits and have year-round access to irrigation.
  • Higher net income from agriculture/livestock and related products and sustained increases in livestock productivity.
  • Sustainable water resource management: Equitable allocation of water resources and reduced water use conflicts.
  • Sustainable and effective operation and maintenance of irrigation infrastructure.

BRIGHT 2 Schools Project

  • Maintain school enrollment rates for girls.
  • Maintain high attendance rates and primary school completion rates for girls.
  • Anchor importance of girls’ education in communities.
Evaluations

Roads Project

  • A performance evaluation and repeat analysis will be conducted to review traffic counts as well as a roughness assessment, tested by a repeat model evaluation. Final analyses and results are expected at the end of 2017.

Rural Land Governance Project

  • An impact evaluation will be conducted for the rural land governance project to assess perceptions of land-tenure security, frequency and types of land conflicts, etc. The evaluation has been divided into two phases. Baseline surveys have been conducted for both phases, along with an interim survey for phase 1. Follow-up surveys for both phases are planned for 2017.

Agriculture Development Project

  • For the Integrated Water Resource Management Activities, qualitative performance evaluations will be conducted approximately one year after project completion (Fall 2015) to assess continuity and sustainability of IWRM institutions and market structures. The final report is expected in early 2016.
  • Di lottery evaluation: A randomized control trial is underway to examine the impact of the new irrigated perimeter on recipients’ incomes and farming practices. The final report is expected in early 2018.
  • Farmer training evaluation:  An impact evaluation is underway to assess adoption of new practices, crop yields, and agricultural income. The final report is expected by early 2018.
  • Access to Rural Finance Activity: A qualitative performance evaluation will be conducted in 2015. The evaluation will assess activity conception, implementation, and short-term outcomes. The final report is expected in late 2015.

BRIGHT 2 Schools Project

  • An impact evaluation is being conducted, focusing on student enrollment and student achievement. The final report is expected by the end of 2015.

Namibia

The $304.5 million Namibia Compact was designed to reduce poverty through economic growth in Namibia. The program focused on improving the quality of education and training for underserved populations, and also attempts to capitalize on Namibia’s comparative advantages, namely large areas of semi-arid communal land suitable for livestock grazing, natural products indigenous to Namibia and diverse wildlife and unique landscapes ideal for ecotourism.

COUNTRY
Policy Reforms
  • Under the education project, the compact introduced a new preventive maintenance policy and operational guidelines for school infrastructure that clarified the roles and responsibilities in carrying out maintenance activities.
  • Through compact support, Namibia now has a levy system to finance vocational training. The National Training Fund was officially launched in April 2014 as a solid platform to advance access to vocational education in Namibia. By June 2014, a total of 2,100 employers were registered for the levy. The levy is established to support competition in the training market, specifically targeting priority skills.
  • A Continuous Professional Development system was established at the regional level to support assessments and improve coordination of training needs.
  • A policy was established for the Namibia Student Financial Assistance Fund, with accompanying strategy, regulations, procedures, and guidelines to facilitate more equitable distribution of and improved cost-recovery from student loans.
  • The Ministry of Environment and Tourism created a housing policy to support construction of new housing at Etosha National Park, plus an incentive-based staffing plan intended to sustain the benefits from the new infrastructure.
  • Under the Communal Land Support Project, for the first time since the operationalization of the Government of Namibia Communal Land Reform Act in 2003, a total of 19 policy recommendations forwarded to the Ministry of Land and Resettlement were approved. The most significant policy change is new procedures for spousal and joint registration of land rights. This change led to a revision of the land/parcel registration form to include spouses and, in particular, women.
  • In 2010, the Government of Namibia ratified a policy that allows it to more easily trace the sourcing of indigenous natural products and issue permits to produce and sell a sustainable level of devil’s claw. This new devil’s claw policy was revisited and revised three years later through an extensive stakeholder consultative process.
Outputs

Education Project
Improving quality of education activity

  • 48 schools built and/or renovated mostly in the poorest region of Namibia. These schools benefited from refurbished furniture, laboratory and IT equipment and notebook computers.
  • The partnership among Microsoft, Adaptrum, My Digital Bridge Foundation, and the Ministry of Education piloted TV white space technology to provide high-speed broadband internet to 27 rural schools and 10 educational circuit offices.
  • 65 educators provided instructional leadership skills
  • 105 administrators trained in facilities maintenance management
  • 159 educators trained in HIV/AIDS awareness

Vocational training activity

  • 8 Community Skills Development Centers built or renovated to increase the income-earning capacity of marginalized populations by developing their entrepreneurial and technical skills and fostering their participation in micro and small enterprises

Improving access and management of textbooks

  • Over 1.7 million textbooks covering math, English and sciences were procured and distributed nationally.

Investment in Regional Resource Study Centers

  • 3 Regional Resource and Study Centers built
  • 24,000 books purchased and distributed to Regional Resource and Study Centers

Tourism Project
Improving management and infrastructure at Etosha National Park

  • 100 percent of planned staff houses built at Etosha National Park
  • 30 junior staff houses renovated
  • 20 picnic sites built and upgraded

Conservancy support

  • 31 conservancies provided with capacity building training and services
  • Over 2,700 animals trans-located to communal conservancies

Marketing Namibia tourism

  • 20 destination online-marketing tools developed
  • 822 Namibian industry members trained
  • 158 North American tourism businesses offer tours of Namibia compared with 106 at the start of the compact

Agriculture Project
Land Access and Management Activity

  • 19 communal land legal and regulatory reforms adopted
  • 552 communal land outreach events held
  • 2,524 communal land stakeholders trained
  • 8,869 parcels corrected or incorporated in land system
  • 4,356 household land rights formalized
  • 70 water infrastructure sites built or rehabilitated
  • 1,290 participating households registered in the Community-Based Rangeland and Livestock Management program, and 38 grazing areas doing combined herding
  • 33 field facilitators certified in rangeland management

Livestock Support Activity

  • 5 new state veterinary offices constructed
  • 2 quarantine camps rehabilitated
  • 1,770,313 cattle tagged with radio tracking  tags

Indigenous Natural Products (INP) Activity

  • 61 Producer and Processor Organizations (PPOs) trained in organizational management
  • 3 PPOs certified as organic, fair trade, ethical trade, or to meet other specific requirements
  • 9,238 INP producers belonging to a PPO with a signed service agreement trained
  • 5,272 INP producers trained in sustainable harvesting techniques
Preliminary and Expected Outcomes

Education Project

  • 64 vocational training providers accredited or registered
  • 1,500 individuals trained in high-priority skills through the vocational training grant fund.

Additional expected outcomes under the Education Project, which will be monitored post-compact, include:

  • Improved pass rates on grade 10 and grade 12 math, science and English exams
  • 80 percent compliance rate for national training levy
  • 75 percent of supported vocational training graduates  secure employment
  • 53 percent increase in income for vocational training grant fund trainees
  • 240,000 visitors to  Regional Study and Resource  Centers  in first year
  • 33,980  book loans in first year from Regional Study and Resource Centers, including 1,980 from mobile units

Tourism Project

  • More than N$136,000,000 of new private sector investments secured by conservancies assisted by MCA-Namibia
  • 15 joint venture agreements between conservancies and private lodge operators established to build lodges and camps
  • 224 new job opportunities created in conservancies through joint venture agreements and other endeavors

Over 26,000 North American tourists arrived in Namibia during the 2012-2013 season, compared with 24,000 the previous year and 23,000 at baseline.
Agriculture Project

  • Five operational state veterinary offices
  • N$3.8 million paid to producers from indigenous natural products  sales in 2014 compared to N$1.2 million at baseline
Evaluations

Education Project

  • Three vocational training sub-activities are being evaluated through a combination of impact and performance evaluations. The evaluations focus on changes to the vocational training sector, as well as income and employment-related outcomes of trainees attending vocational training institutions supported by the compact. Baseline results are expected in 2015; final results are expected in 2016.
  • The Regional Study and Resource Center Activity is subject to a performance evaluation that is focused on the implementation and initial operations of these centers, how the centers are being used and the outcomes associated with that use. Reports will be produced periodically beginning in 2015.
  • A performance evaluation planned for Improving the Quality of General Education and Textbook activities will explore changes in the quality and efficiency of the procurement and distribution of textbooks. Results are expected in 2016-17.

Tourism Project

  • Performance evaluations of the Improved Management of Etosha National Park (ENP) and Tourism Marketing Activities will focus on changes in ENP management following the compact and tourism outcomes. Reports are expected in 2016.

Agriculture Project

  • An impact evaluation of the Community-Based Rangeland and Livestock Management Sub-Activity is focused on livestock, natural resource, and household wellbeing outcomes. Initial results are expected in 2015.
  • A performance evaluation of the Communal Land Support Sub-Activity focuses on changes in knowledge and awareness of land rights and procedures as well as perceptions of tenure security. Initial results are expected in 2015.

Compact Modifications

MCC employs a risk-based approach to the management of its foreign assistance portfolio and uses a number of mechanisms for managing projects that face potential major modifications, including:

  • Quarterly portfolio reviews of all compacts, with a focus on high-risk projects and activities;
  • Early identification of high-risk projects;
  • Close collaboration with partner countries to develop plans to prevent, mitigate, and manage project restructuring; and
  • Approval of modifications at the appropriate level.

MCC has also refined its compact development process to ensure that adequate due diligence is conducted on programs in advance of compact signing to increase the reliability of technical, cost and other estimates. During compact development, MCC also makes project design modifications to mitigate potential completion risk, currency fluctuations, and the potential for construction cost overruns.

There are no programmatic changes/compact modifications to report for FY 2014.

Estimating Compact Beneficiaries and Benefits

Under MCC's results framework, beneficiaries are defined as an individual and all members of that household who will experience an income gain as a result of MCC interventions. MCC considers 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 income as a result of the project. Before signing a compact, MCC estimates expected long-term income gains through a rigorous benefit-cost analysis and may modify estimates and/or the present value (PV) of benefits when project designs change during implementation.

Projected Beneficiaries and Income Benefits by Compact 1 2
Compact Estimated Number of Beneficiaries Estimated Long-Term Income Gain Over the Life of the Project (PV of Benefits) 3
Armenia 428,000 $295,500,000
Benin 14,059,000 $409,600,000
Burkina Faso 1,181,000 $151,000,000
Cabo Verde 2005 385,000 $149,500,000
Cabo Verde 2012 604,000 $112,900,000
El Salvador 706,000 $366,700,000
Georgia 2005 143,000 $301,300,000
Georgia 2013 1,770,000 $338,000,000
Ghana 1,217,000 $690,300,000
Honduras 1,705,000 $237,300,000
Indonesia1 2,900,000 $217,000,000
Jordan 3,657,000 $398,900,000
Lesotho 1,041,000 $376,000,000
Madagascar 480,000 $123,200,000
Malawi 983,000 $567,200,000
Mali 2,837,000 $393,600,000
Moldova 414,000 $259,900,000
Mongolia 2,058,000 $314,800,000
Morocco 1,695,000 $805,400,000
Mozambique 2,685,000 $542,300,000
Namibia 1,063,000 $310,400,000
Nicaragua 119,000 $83,500,000
Philippines 125,822,000 $483,300,000
Senegal 1,550,000 $625,000,000
Tanzania 5,425,000 $1,474,000,000
Vanuatu 39,000 $73,800,000
Zambia 1,230,000 $283,300,000
Total 4 174,996,000 $10,100,300,000

Sector Results—Agriculture, Education, Land, Roads, Water

Agriculture and Irrigation Common Indicators

A focus on results is one of the core principles on which the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) was founded. Within country-specific plans, MCC uses common indicators to aggregate results across countries within certain sectors. MCAs are not required to report on certain common indicators where collecting that data is too costly or infeasible given existing data collection plans.

Agriculture and Irrigation Common Indicators
    Process Indicators Output Indicators Outcome Indicators
Country Region (AI-1)
Value of signed irrigation feasibility and design contracts (USD)
(AI-2)
Percent disbursed of irrigation feasibility and design contracts
(AI-3)
Value of signed irrigation construction contracts (USD)
(AI-4)
Percent disbursed of irrigation construction contracts
(AI-5)
Temporary employment generated in irrigation
(AI-6)
Farmers trained
(AI-7)
Enterprises assisted
(AI-8)
Hectares under improved irrigation
(AI-9)
Loan borrowers
(AI-10)
Value of agricultural and rural loans (USD)
(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
MCC Total   65,086,225 93.0% 671,333,769 79.3% 6,145 271,650 4,147 120,063 1,171 87,753,366 124,209 34,947 976
Armenia EAPLA 4,601,073 100.0% 106,653,443 100.0% 2,389 45,639 227 1,008 13,133,200 26,424 178
El Salvador 15,363 272 29 10,820,274 11,520 163
Georgia 1,155,881 53.4% 291 19,880,003
Honduras 7,265 464 400 17,100,000 6,996
Moldova 4,930,848 93.1% 79,906,386 35.9% 121 4,638 273 38 6,653,126 1,271 37
Nicaragua 700,000 100.0% 9,104 9,104
Burkina Faso AFRICA 11,311,418 95.5% 57,141,012 107.7% 2,414 10,553 272 2,240 96 1,209,000 7,035 3,369 28
Cabo Verde I 5,167,848 97.6% 553 13 617,000 106
Ghana 5,202,887 100.0% 13,009,963 100.0% 66,930 1,724 514 16,740,762 59,060 535
Madagascar 31,366 324 1,100,000 1,892 1
Mali 9,077,220 98.2% 148,951,503 98.3% 1,308 97,503 500,000 801
Morocco 18,949,079 100.0% 108,017,501 99.0% 40,863 114 19,393 31,578 34
Mozambique 28,830 186
Namibia 9,238
Senegal 9,157,819 67.3% 152,486,112 42.3% 1,221
Gender*                            
  Female         177 40,723 93   112 414,638 11,161   15
  Male         3,579 73,538 366   1,030 6,238,488 23,569   50

All program data are as of September 10, 2014,  with the exception of the data from Burkina Faso which are as of June 10, 2014. Data are preliminary and subject to adjustment.† All financial data is of June 10, 2014. Grey shading indicatres closed-out Compacts; data revision is not expected for these Compacts.

*Gender totals may not match overall totals due to lack of gender counting in earlier compacts.

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.
(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.
(AI-8) Hectares under improved irrigation
The number of hectares served by existing or new irrigation infrastructure that are either rehabilitated or constructed with MCC funding.
(AI-9) Loan borrowers
The number of borrowers (primary sector producers, rural entrepreneurs, and associations) who access loans for on-farm, off-farm, and rural investment through MCC financial assistance.
(AI-10) Value of agricultural and rural loans
The value of agricultural loans and rural loans disbursed for on-farm, off-farm, and rural investments.
(AI-11) Farmers who have applied improved practices as a result of training
The number of primary sector producers (farmers, ranchers, fishermen, and other primary sector producers) that are applying new production or managerial techniques introduced or supported by MCC training or technical assistance, such as input use, production techniques, irrigation practices, post- harvest treatment, farm management techniques, or marketing strategies.
(AI-12) Hectares under improved practices as a result of training
The number of hectares on which farmers are applying new production or managerial techniques introduced or supported by MCC, such as input use, production techniques, irrigation practices, post-harvest treatment, farm management techniques, or marketing strategies.
(AI-13) Enterprises that have applied improved techniques
The number of rural enterprises; producer, processing, and marketing organizations; water users associations; trade and business associations; and community-based organizations that are applying managerial or processing techniques introduced or supported by MCC.

Education Common Indicators

A focus on results is one of the core principles on which the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) was founded. Within country-specific plans, MCC uses common indicators to aggregate results across countries within certain sectors. MCAs are not required to report on certain common indicators where collecting that data is too costly or infeasible given existing data collection plans.

Education Common Indicators
    Process Indicators Output Indicators Outcome Indicators
Country Region (E-1)
Value of signed educational facility construction, rehabilitation, and equipping contracts (USD)
(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
MCC Total   179,080,800 94.8% 5 745 4,160 228,693 62,120 176
El Salvador EAPLA 10,217,104 99.8% 22 377 30,632 4,285
Georgia II                
Mongolia 28,179,328 97.6% 5 18 1,370 17,480 11,967 176
Burkina Faso AFRICA 22,758,211 99.9% 396 557 35,909 4,035
Ghana 18,689,747 100.0% 250 41,019
Morocco 4,491,521 100.0% 1,856 102,518 41,383
Namibia 94,744,889 1 0 59 1,135 450
Gender*                  
  Female         2,029 77,114 36,936 98
  Male         1,754 71,143 20,449 78

All program data are as of September 10, 2014, with the exception of the data from Burkina Faso which are as of June 10, 2014. Data are preliminary and subject to adjustment.† Grey shading indicates closed-out Compacts; data revision is not expected for these Compacts. Indicators in this Results Framework may be added, removed , or modified as MCC’s investments in education evolve over time. ‡ All MCC education programs have as their long-term end goal an increase in individual or household income and a corresponding decrease in poverty. † All financial data is of June 10, 2014.

*Gender totals may not match overall totals due to lack of gender counting in earlier compacts.

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

A focus on results is one of the core principles on which the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) was founded. Within country-specific plans, MCC uses common indicators to aggregate results across countries within certain sectors. MCAs are not required to report on certain common indicators where collecting that data is too costly or infeasible given existing data collection plans.

Land Common Indicators
    Output Indicators Outcome Indicators
Country Region (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
(L-7) Percentage change in time for property transactions (L-8) Percentage change in cost for property transactions
MCC Total   108 205 99,578 13,224 304,271 304,662 NA NA
Mongolia EAPLA 6 15 3,920 10,639 18,336 20,672
Nicaragua 8 1,610
Benin AFRICA 50
Burkina Faso 54 13 74,157 2,341 17,284 5,127
Cabo Verde II 6 14 43
Ghana 4 3 427 23 1,481
Lesotho 11 1 575 158 53,296 21,753 -93
Madagascar 4 115 12,216
Mali 1 1,354
Mozambique 26 1,516 205,005 251,556
Namibia 23 2,524 8,869 4,356
Senegal 9 1,186 63 1,198    
Gender*                  
Male        61,808        
Female       21,495        
Joint                
Location                  
Urban           170,005 146,969    
Rural           35,000 104,587    

All program data are as of September 10, 2014, with the exception of the data from Burkina Faso which are as of June 10, 2014. Data are preliminary and subject to adjustment.† All financial data is of June 10, 2014. Grey shading indicates closed-out Compacts; data revision is not expected for these Compacts.

*Gender totals may not match overall totals due to lack of gender counting in earlier compacts.

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.

Roads Common Indicators

A focus on results is one of the core principles on which the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) was founded. Within country-specific plans, MCC uses common indicators to aggregate results across countries within certain sectors. MCAs are not required to report on certain common indicators where collecting that data is too costly or infeasible given existing data collection plans.

Roads Common Indicators
    Process Indicators Output Indicators Outcome Indicators
Country Region (R-1)
Value of signed 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)
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-9) Roughness (R-10)
Average annual daily traffic
(R-11)
Road traffic fatalities
MCC Total   149,664,529 89.4% 4,649 2,355,395,737 76.6% 3,937 43,663 2,444 NA NA
Armenia EAPLA 24.4 24.4 3.47 735
El Salvador 17,854,906 97% 223 230,436,425 96% 223.0 223.32
Georgia 11,980,000 99% 220.2 197,299,030 100% 220.2 217.90 1.50 1,092
Honduras 9,500,000 75% 672 184,500,000 70% 671.8 610.10
Moldova 93 93,029,240 75% 93.0 1,277
Mongolia 6,083,650 89% 19.3 73,108,907 91% 176.4 176.40 1.90 353
Nicaragua 6,900,000 100% 375.5 56,507,526 100% 74.0 74.0
Philippines 15,023,359 94% 222 194,156,353 29% 222.0
Vanuatu 5,300,000 100% 150 54,700,000 97% 149.7 149.70 3.00 368
Burkina Faso AFRICA 8,339,651 95% 536 140,205,145 68% 418.6 3,705 6
Cape Verde I 3,520,000 92% 63 24,280,000 100% 40.6 40.60 2.00  
Ghana 5,549,044 100% 943 250,604,022 100% 446.4 30,415 445.03     0
Mali 9,077,220 44% 42,918,038 35% 81.0 79.00
Mozambique 17,669,992 85% 253 132,240,557 88% 253.0 2,308 253  
Senegal 11,923,377 66% 406 271,128,882 30% 375.0 2,037
Tanzania 20,943,331 105% 473 410,281,613 91% 468.34 3,921 150.14 0 0 0
Gender*                        
Male               12,163        
Female               1,085        
Road Type                        
Primary   76,648,098   2,044 1,491,583,144   1,916   890.60      
Secondary   24,523,359   894 378,656,353   813   610.00      
Tertiary   13,444,028   902 142,014,736   643   460.84      

All program data are as of September 10, 2014, with the exception of the data from Burkina Faso which are as of June 10, 2014. Data are preliminary and subject to adjustment.† All financial data is of June 10, 2014. Grey shading indicates closed-out Compacts; data revision is not expected for these Compacts.

*Gender totals may not match overall totals due to lack of gender counting in earlier compacts.

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 reasibilty 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 Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene Common Indicators

A focus on results is one of the core principles on which the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) was founded. Within country-specific plans, MCC uses common indicators to aggregate results across countries within certain sectors. MCAs are not required to report on certain common indicators where collecting that data is too costly or infeasible given existing data collection plans.

Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene Common Indicators
    Process Indicators Output Indicators Outcome Indicators
Country Region (WS-1)
Value of signed water and sanitation feasibility and design contracts (USD)
(WS-2)
Percent disbursed of water and sanitation feasibility and design contracts
(WS-3)
Value of signed water and sanitation construction contracts (USD)
(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
(WS-8)
Non revenue water
(WS-9) Continuity of service (WS-10) Operating cost coverage (WS-11)
Volume of water produced**
Residential population connnected to sewer system** Residential population** (WS-12) Access to improved water supply (WS-13) Access to improved sanitation (WS-14) Residential water consumption** (WS-15) Industrial/Commercial water consumption** (WS-16) Incidence of diarrhea**
MCC Total   64,926,780 98.8% 574,167,451 71.8% 15,142 12,038 1,181 47.9% NA NA 200,330,000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
El Salvador EAPLA 6,484,687 95.9% 10,489,711 96.0% 2,406       83% 88%      
Georgia 266,865 100.0% 54,315,000 94.2%
Jordan 220,775,336 47.5% 952 58.0% 36 87% 72%
Cabo Verde II AFRICA 1,417,590 77.9% 17 22,332.0
Ghana 1,475,148 100.0% 13,949,465 100.0% 778 392 36
Lesotho 13,345,202 100.0% 59,733,645 79% 11,527 454 175 27.0%
Mozambique 35,076,009 99.1% 169,500,497 87.5% 2,276 8,400 614 23.4 19.5
Tanzania 6,861,280 79.0% 45,403,796 81.1% 387 48.8% 113% 200,330,000 167 998,440 0.0%
Zambia                                    
Gender*                                      
  Female         242 5,719                        
  Male         2,715 5,865                        

All program data are as of September 10, 2014. Data are preliminary and subject to adjustment.† All financial data is of June 10, 2014. Grey shading indicates closed-out Compacts; data revision is not expected for these Compacts. ** 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.

*Gender totals may not match overall totals due to lack of gender counting in earlier compacts.

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 2015 Corporate Goals

As part of MCC’s current performance management process, Corporate Goals are adopted each year and integrated into departmental goals and individual performance plans to ensure consistency and alignment.  The FY 2015 goals are listed below. Additionally, pursuant to GPRA, MCC is in the process of developing a new strategic plan and anticipates releasing it during FY 2015.

  1. Improve the quality and speed of the compact development process and present to the board three compacts and one threshold agreement by September 2015.
  2. Leverage internal, interagency, and private sector resources to maximize development impact of and returns on MCC investments and to increase scale of compact programs.
  3. Streamline business processes to improve cost effectiveness, oversight, organizational efficiency, and compact implementation and closure.
  4. Strengthen MCC practice and reputation through internal learning efforts, external engagement, and strategic communication.
  5. Improve organizational performance and health through better planning, decision-making, and communication.
Footnotes
  • 1. The table includes estimates for compacts having entered into force and have ERRs from which income benefit calculations can be drawn. Information for Indonesia is available for one out of three projects at this time.
  • 2. Estimates do not include projected beneficiaries of projects or activities that have been terminated or suspended (Madagascar, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mali, and Armenia).
  • 3. 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 USD 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. Column totals may not equal the sum of the individual rows due to rounding.