Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ): Congressional Budget Justification, FY 2021 | February 2020

Appendix: Annual Performance Report

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

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

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

Compact Commitments, Obligations, and Plan

As of First Quarter FY 2020

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

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

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

Closed Compacts

As of First Quarter FY 2020

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

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

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

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

Results of Recently-Closed Compacts and Threshold Programs

Georgia II Compact

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

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

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

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

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

Industry-led Skills and Workforce Development Project

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

STEM Higher Education Project

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

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

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

Evaluations Improving General Education Project

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

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

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

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

Industry-led Skills and Workforce Development Project

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

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

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

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

STEM Higher Education Project

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

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

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

Honduras Threshold Program

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

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

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

Outputs Public Financial Management

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

Public Private Partnerships

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Financial Management Project

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

Public-Private Partnerships Project

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

Projected Beneficiaries and Income Benefits by Compact 1 2

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

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

Evaluation-Based Economic Rates of Return

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

Results of the Mozambique Farmer Income Support Project

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

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

Results of the Nicaragua Transportation Project

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

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

Compact Funding by Sector as of Q4 FY 2019

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

Results by Sector as of Q4 FY 2019

 

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

Common Indicators as of Q1 FY 2020

Agriculture & Irrigation Common Indicators

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

Agriculture and Irrigation Common Indicator Definitions

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

Agriculture and Irrigation Common Indicator Definitions

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

Education Common Indicators

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

Education Common Indicator Definitions

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

Land Common Indicators

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

Land Common Indicator Definitions

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

Power Common Indicators

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

 

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

Power Common Indicator Definitions

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

Transportation Common Indicators

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

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

Transportation Common Indicator Definitions

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

Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) Common Indicators

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

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

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

WASH Common Indicator Definitions

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

FY 2020 Corporate Goals

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

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