Compact Amounts at Signing and Key Dates ($ millions)*
|Partner Country||Compact Amount (in millions)||Signed||Entry Into Force||Closed|
* 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
* Partial Termination of $190M to be deobligated in FY 2020 Q2 reflected here for planning purposes.
As of First Quarter FY 2020
|Country/Description||Fiscal Year of appropriation||Total|
|Cabo Verde II||–||–||–||–||–||–||–||–||$66||$66|
Threshold Program Amounts at Signing and Key Dates ($ millions)*
|São Tomé & Principe||$8.7||11/9/2007||4/15/2011|
* 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
|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:
|Outputs||Improving General Education Project
Industry-led Skills and Workforce Development Project
STEM Higher Education Project
|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:
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:
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
Public Private Partnerships
|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
Public-Private Partnerships Project
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.
|Compact||Estimated Number of Beneficiaries||Estimated Net Benefits over the Life of the Project 3|
|Cape Verde I||385,000||$84,600,000|
|Cape Verde II||604,000||$72,000,000|
|El Salvador II||6,446,000||N/A|
|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
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’Ivoire, El 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|
|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|
|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 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|
|El Salvador II||x||x||x||x||x||x|
|Cabo Verde I||x||–||x||5,167,848||5,043,885||98%|
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 & 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|
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
|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|
|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||–||–|
|‡ 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 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|
|Cabo Verde II||36||38||442||229||37,495||11,365|
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 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|
|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|
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
|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|
|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|
|* 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
|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*|
|Cabo Verde II||$783,369||$733,263||93.6%||$19,315,569||$18,827,292||97.5%||759||32||X||X||X|
|El Salvador II||X||X||X||X||X||X||X||X||–||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.
|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.|