MICROENTERPRISE 

RESULTS REPORTING 

ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS 

FISCAL YEAR 2005 

June 2006 
C2 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005

The cover photo features a credit union member sitting among the clay pots she and her family have made to sell at city 

markets. Each member of her pottery-making family belongs to Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito San Jose de Punata, a 

credit union assisted by the World Council of Credit Unions, Inc. (WOCCU) program to serve the vast numbers of rural 

Bolivians without access to financial services. 

PHOTO COURTESY OF CHRIS ZARCONI 
MICROENTERPRISE 

RESULTS REPORTING 

ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS 

FISCAL YEAR 2005 

June 2006


ACRONYMS 

ACCION Americans for Community Cooperation in Other Nations 

ACDI/VOCA Agricultural Cooperative Development International/Volunteers in Overseas 

Cooperation and Assistance 

DA Development Assistance 

DCA Development Credit Authority 

CGAP Consultative Group to Assist the Poor 

CSH/HIV Child Survival and Health/Human Immunodeficiency Virus 

ED Enterprise Development 

ESF Economic Support Funds 

FIELD-Support Financial Integration, Economic Leveraging, Broad-Based Dissemination and 

Support Program 

FINCA Foundation for International Community Assistance 

FS Financial Services 

FSA Freedom Support Act 

FVP Funds that Benefit the Very Poor 

IGP Implementation Grant Program 

LAC Latin America and the Caribbean Region (USAID) 

LWA Leader with Associates 

MD USAID/Washington Microenterprise Development office 

MED Microenterprise Development 

MF Microfinance 

MFI Microfinance Institution 

MRR Microenterprise Results Reporting 

NGO Nongovernmental Organization 

PVO Private Voluntary Organization 

USAID/W United States Agency for International Development/Washington 

WOCCU World Council of Credit Unions 

INTRODUCTION 

This report fulfills the provision in Section 258(a) 

of PL 108-484, the 

Microenterprise Results and 

Accountability Act of 2004, 

that each year, “the Administrator of the Agency, acting 

through the Director of the 

office, shall submit to the 

appropriate congressional committees a report that contains a 

detailed description of the 

implementation of this title for 

the previous fiscal year.” 

Through three decades of foreign assistance, the United 

States Agency for International 

Development has refined its 

support strategies to the 

microenterprise/microfinance 

sector while increasing its levels 

of funding. This report presents 

some aspects of USAID’s FY 

2005 microenterprise development support in response to 

the reporting requirements 

included in PL 108-484. It 

was compiled by Microenterprise Results Reporting 

(MRR), USAID's official system for tracking its microenterprise investments. 

USAID focuses its assistance 

to the microenterprise sector 

strategically, in three areas: 

financial services, enterprise 

development, and enabling 

environment.1 Financial services and enterprise support are 

critical for poor households 

and businesses, enabling them 

to respond to new economic 

opportunities, build household assets, or cope with emergencies and crises. 

Improvements to the enabling 

environment allow microentrepreneurs to participate in marClient of Aid to Artisans Macedonia 

kets from which they have been 

excluded, increase their earnings 

and realize the benefits of international trade. 

PHOTO COURTESY OF AID TO ARTISANS/MACEDONIA 

1	 Microfinance refers to the provision of financial services adapted to the needs of low-income people, especially the provision of small loans, the acceptance of small savings deposits and simple payments services needed by microentrepreneurs 

and other poor people. 

Enterprise development services refers to the many interventions that help microenterprises start, survive and grow, 

including those that help them acquire skills and knowledge, gain access to financing and other inputs, and develop the commercial relationships with other firms (both micro-scale and larger firms) required to integrate into higher-value markets. 

Enabling environment refers to activities that promote appropriate laws, policies, regulations and supervisory and 

administrative practices that expand access to diverse financial services for low-income people or improve entrepreneurial 

opportunities and the business environment in which microenterprises operate. 

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 1 
Although this is the first annual 

report required under Public 

Law 108-484, the Microenterprise Results and Accountability 

Act of 2004, some of the 

reporting requirements contained in that Act have been 

instated by previous microenterprise legislation and reported 

on in previous Annual Reports 

to Congress. Many of those 

same reporting requirements are 

the subject of Congressional 

inquiries the Agency receives. 

These reporting needs are met 

through annual data collection 

and analysis carried out through 

USAID’s Microenterprise 

Results Reporting (MRR) 

system. 

This report is structured to give 

readers a clear sense of USAID’s 

activities to implement the 

Microenterprise Results and 

Accountability Act of 2004. 

The following chart provides a 

guide to the reporting requirements and the pages of the 

report on which they are 

addressed: 

reporting requirement item # (of 12) language in the law page 

1 The number of grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, 

contributions, or other form of assistance provided under 

section 252 [the section of the law authorizing USAID to 

provide microenterprise assistance], with a listing of: 

statistical annex A 

p.34 

(A) the amount of each grant, cooperative agreement, 

contract, or other form of assistance; 

statistical annex A 

(B) the name of each recipient and each developing 

country with respect to which projects or activities under 

the grant, cooperative agreement, contract, contribution, 

or other form of assistance were carried out; and 

statistical annex A 

(C) a listing of the number of countries receiving 

assistance authorized by section 252. 

statistical annex A 

p. 34 

2 The amount of assistance provided under section 252 

through central mechanisms. 

statistical annex B 

p. 39 

3 The name of each country that receives assistance under 

section 256 [the section of the law pertaining to the 

Development Credit Authority and credit instruments] 

and the amount of such assistance. 

Table 2 (p. 8) 

4 The level of funding provided through contracts, the level 

of funding provided through grants, contracts, and 

cooperative agreements that is estimated to be subgranted 

or subcontracted, as the case may be, to direct service 

providers, and an analysis of the comparative costeffectiveness and sustainability of projects carried out 

under these mechanisms. 

funding through 

contracts, Table 3, 

p. 9; estimate of subobligated funds, 

p.11-14; comparative 

cost-effectiveness 

and sustainability of 

projects carried out 

under various mechanisms, p. 10-12 

5 It is the sense of Congress that USAID should include in 

the report required by section 258 of the Foreign Assistance 

Act of 1961 (as added by section 6 of this Act) a description 

of all matching assistance (as described in paragraph (1)) 

provided for the prior year by recipients of microenterprise 

development assistance under such title. 

p. 14 

2 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 
reporting requirement item # (of 12) language in the law page 

6 The percentage of assistance furnished under section 252 

that was allocated to the very poor based on the data 

collected using the certified methods required by section 254. 

p. 14-16 

7 The estimated number of the very poor reached with 

assistance provided under section 252. 

p. 14-16 

8 Information on the efforts of the Agency to ensure that 

recipients of United States microenterprise and microfinance 

development assistance work closely with nongovernmental 

organizations and foreign governments to identify and assist 

victims or potential victims of severe forms of trafficking in 

persons and women who are victims of or susceptible to 

other forms of exploitation and violence. 

p. 16 

9 An estimate of the percentage of beneficiaries of assistance 

under this title in countries where a strong relationship 

between poverty and race or ethnicity has been demonstrated. 

p. 16-17 

10 The process of developing and applying poverty assessment 

procedures required under section 254 [the section of the 

law outlining the requirement for USAID to develop client 

poverty assessment tools and require their use by awardees 

by October 2006]. 

p. 17-18 

11 The results of the monitoring system required under 

section 253 [see A-D below]. 

p. 18-20 

(A) The monitoring system shall include performance goals for 

the assistance and expresses such goals in an objective and 

quantifiable form, to the extent feasible. 

p. 19 

(B) The monitoring system shall include performance indicators 

to be used in measuring or assessing the achievement of the 

performance goals described in paragraph (1) and the 

objective of the assistance authorized under section 252. 

p. 19 

(C) The monitoring system provides a basis for recommendations 

for adjustments to the assistance to enhance the sustainability 

and the impact of the assistance, particularly the impact of 

such assistance on the very poor, particularly poor women. 

p. 20 

(D) The monitoring system adopts the widespread use of proven 

and effective poverty assessment tools to successfully identify 

the very poor and ensure that they receive adequate access to 

microenterprise loans, savings, and assistance. 

p. 20 

12 Any additional information relating to the provision of 

assistance authorized by this title, including the use of poverty 

measurement tools required by section 254, or additional 

information on assistance provided by the United States to 

support microenterprise development under this title or any 

other provision of law. 

additional information on efforts to 

implement PL 108­

487, p. 20-22; information on the 

poverty measurement tools, p. 17-18 

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 3 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report fulfills 12 

reporting requirements 

included in PL 108-484, 

the Microenterprise Results and 

Accountability Act of 2004. 

Key findings from USAID's 

implementation of these 12 

requirements include: 

1) In FY 2005, USAID funded 

218 new and existing agreements in the form of grants, 

cooperative agreements, and 

contracts in 69 countries. 

2) In FY 2005, microenterprise 

development central programming totaled $21.9 million or 10 percent of total 

funds. This programming, 

from all funding accounts, 

complemented regional funding to Africa ($37.1million 

or 18 percent), Asia and 

Near East ($74.8 million or 

35 percent), Europe and 

Eurasia ($35.3 million or 17 

percent), and Latin America 

and the Caribbean ($42.3 

million or 20 percent). The 

Agency total for microenterprise funding in FY 2005 was 

$211.4 million. 

group bank account. 

3) Through the use of credit 

guarantees, $6.361 million 

in USAID funding has 

leveraged $224 million in 

credit from the private sector 

for institutions serving 

microfinance clients. 

4) In FY 2005, the amount of 

funds obligated directly to all 

non-profits was approximately 37 percent ($78.2 million) 

of total microenterprise support. This figure does not 

include the substantial subobligations that for-profit 

managing entities of umbrella programs make to nonprofits. USAID is refining its 

ability to capture sub-obligations data. The Agency's 

recent study of microfinance 

umbrella mechanisms found 

PHOTO COURTESY OF CHEMONICS, BEN FRASER, 2006 

Members of the Kabara Women’s Association weave baskets in Timbuktu, Mali. 

The USAID-funded Mali Finance project has trained association members in 

business management, which has helped them increase revenues and open a 

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 5 
that, for microfinance 

umbrella programs, or for 

other USAID programs, neither the profit/non-profit status of the recipient, nor the 

type of award, is a factor in 

determining sustainability. 

5) In FY 2005, $27.6 million of 

USAID funds were matched 

by an additional $9.2 million 

from other sources, such as 

private donations, multilateral funding, commercial and 

concessional borrowing, savings, and program income. 

6) USAID can state with confidence that, in FY 2005, 37 

percent of financial services 

funding ($38.4 million), and 

18 percent of enterprise 

development funding ($19.4 

million), benefited the very 

poor2. USAID assumes that a 

significantly larger share of 

microenterprise funding benefited very poor clients but 

cannot validate that assumption due to the poor fit 

between the mandated poverty loan proxy and the services 

that enterprise development 

institutions deliver to their 

clients. 

7) The constraints associated 

with the mandated proxy of 

poverty loan size limit 

USAID's ability to estimate 

accurately its outreach to 

very poor clients. By using 

newly developed poverty 

measurement tools in FY 

2006, the Agency expects to 

be able to provide a more 

reliable estimate of the number of very poor clients it 

reaches through microenterprise support. 

8) $15 million of USAID's 

microenterprise funding in 

FY 2005 (7 percent) assisted 

victims of trafficking in persons and women who are 

particularly vulnerable to 

other forms of exploitation 

and violence. 

9) From USAID's FY 2005 

microenterprise portfolio, 38 

percent of credit clients, 44 

percent of savings clients, 

and 10 percent of enterprise 

development clients are from 

countries where a relationship between poverty and 

race or ethnicity has been 

demonstrated. 

10)USAID facilitated the development of two poverty 

measurement tools that will 

be available to implementing 

partners by the congressionally mandated deadline of 

October 1, 2006. 

11)USAID established and 

measured quantifiable performance indicators in FY 

2005, substantially meeting 

or exceeding all targets 

except that for the percent 

of funds benefiting the very 

poor. Performance was particularly strong in the number of clients served (44 percent above the target of 4.5 

million) and the financial 

strength and sustainability of 

microfinance implementing 

partners. 

12)USAID has developed new 

activities, systems and performance analysis measures 

to ensure thorough compliance with the law and its 

new requirements. For 

example, to direct funding 

to PVOs, the Agency established a microenterprise 

Leader with Associates 

mechanism with a funding 

ceiling of $350 million over 

five years, expanding mission access to the microfinance and microenterprise 

development expertise of the 

non-profit community. 

Funds can be obligated 

through the new LWA (up 

to the $350 million ceiling) 

to the extent that missions 

and other operating units 

choose to use this mechanism to implement activities. As with other umbrella 

arrangements, the LWA also 

allows for sub-obligations to 

host country microfinance 

and microenterprise development institutions. 

2 “Very poor” as defined in the Microenterprise Results and Accountability Act of 2004 as people living on less than $1/day 

(purchasing power parity) or in the bottom 50% of those living below their country’s poverty line. 

6 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 
In FY 2005, USAID provided Reporting Reporting 

$211.4 million from all 

accounts to microenterprise Requirement 2 Requirement 3 

development programs world- Central Mechanisms Development Credit 

wide (See Table 1). 

Reporting 

Requirement 1 A-C 

The amount of funding provided through central mechanisms 

in FY 2005 totaled $21.9 million, as shown below. 

Authority 

Using USAID's Development 

Credit Authority (DCA), 

USAID missions have been able 

to expand the capital base for 

Funding 

In FY 2005, USAID funded 

218 new and existing agreements in the form of grants, 

cooperative agreements, and 

contracts in 69 countries. 

Statistical Annex A contains 

further details including a listing of countries receiving assisCENTRAL 

Microenterprise 

Development office 

Private Voluntary 

Cooperation Office 

Total CENTRAL 

US$ Millions 

$16.9 

$ 5.0 

$21.9 

microfinance by providing partial guarantees rather than 

grants. Such guarantees have 

been used by microfinance 

institutions (MFIs) to finance 

their growing portfolios and to 

encourage mainstream financial 

institutions, such as local commercial banks, to make loans to 

MFIs. tance, the amount of each 

award and the institutional Table 2 presents the countries 

recipient. that have benefited through FY 

TABLE 1. SOURCES OF USAID FUNDS FOR MICROENTERPRISE BY 

APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT (US$ MILLIONS), FY 1996-2005 

Fiscal Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

DA1 72.9 83.3 79.9 74.1 88.3 85.3 80.7 89.9 119.8 131.8 

ESF2 16.1 24.5 33.9 33.0 25.2 27.9 48.1 28.4 17.7 37.3 

FSA3 5.4 20.6 14.3 12.8 30.3 19.6 33.4 41.0 35.1 21.0 

SEED/SAI4 4.7 24.8 4.6 13.0 9.2 7.6 6.7 14.5 13.9 14.2 

CACEDRF5 3.2 8.0 

CSH/HIV6 0.8 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.6 0.4 

Local Currency 12.2 11.8 12.4 17.3 8.8 13.7 18.6 4.8 10.0 6.7 

Total 111.4 165.0 145.1 153.4 170.6 154.6 188.0 179.6 197.1 211.4 

1	 Development Assistance funds include the Development Fund for Africa. In 2005, DA also includes $14.5 million in funds 

appropriated under the Andean Counternarcotics Initiative (ACI) and International Narcotics Control (INC) in Colombia 

and Peru as well as $28.9 appropriated in Iraq through the Iraq Reconstruction and Relief Fund (IRRF). 

2 	 Economic Support Fund 

3 FREEDOM Support Act 

4 	 Funds appropriated under the Support for Eastern European Democracy (SEED) Act, under Special Assistance Initiatives 

(SAI), or for Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltics. 

5 	 Central America and Caribbean Emergency Disaster Recovery Fund 

6 	 Child Survival and Health/HIV.While shown here, these funds have not been counted toward USAID’s target of $200 million, because they count toward another Congressional earmark. 

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 7 
TABLE 2. DEVELOPMENT CREDIT AUTHORITY approximately 37 percent of total 

MICROFINANCE-RELATED GUARANTEES (US$ microenterprise support, which 

MILLIONS), FY 2001-2005 included funds to U.S.-based 

Region Countries 

Guarantee 

Subsidy 

Loan 

Facility 

PVOs (16 percent), local NGOs 

(16 percent), cooperatives (2 percent), credit unions (2 percent) 

Africa East Africa $0.095 $ 2.0 and research and educational 

Kenya $0.630 $ 9.2 institutions (1 percent). 

Uganda $1.964 $48.3 The amount obligated to conSouth Africa $0.076 $ 8.3 sulting firms was 51 percent of 

Asia/Near East Morocco $0.489 $27.0 total funds, an increase from 38 

Philippines $0.007 $ 0.8 percent in FY 2004. This 

Latin America/ increase is due largely to the 

Caribbean Ecuador $1.230 $17.4 initiation of large umbrella proGuatemala $0.116 $ 5.0 grams in some countries where 

Honduras $0.025 $ 1.0 local capacity is limited, and 

Jamaica $0.244 $ 8.5 comprehensive, multi-level 

Mexico1 $0.067 $ 3.5 

interventions are required for 

program success. 

Nicaragua $0.158 $ 5.0 

Peru $1.132 $28.0 

Global Worldwide $0.128 $60.0 

Total $6.361 $224.0 

1 The term on these guarantees expired in FY 2004. 

2005 from the credit assistance 

made available under the 

Development Credit Authority. 

The amounts shown under 

“Loan Facility” are the funds 

available for lending to the 

microfinance or microenterprise 

sector as a result of partial guarantees provided by USAID. 

Reporting 

Requirement 4 

Obligations and 

Sub-obligations 

The Microenterprise Results 

and Accountability Act directs 

USAID to report on “The level 

of funding provided through 

contracts, the level of funding 

provided through grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements that is estimated to be 

subgranted or subcontracted, as 

the case may be, to direct service providers, and an analysis of 

the comparative cost-effectiveness and sustainability of projects carried out under these 

mechanisms.” 

Table 3 presents a summary of 

how FY 2005 funds were obligated to institutions by type of 

institution. In FY 2005, the 

amount of funds obligated 

directly to all non-profits was 

Missions sometimes implement 

microenterprise and microfinance activities through large 

umbrella programs in which a 

single awardee (either a consulting firm or a PVO/NGO) carries out a broad range of activities to boost economic opportunities for microenterprises or 

expand financial services for the 

poor. While managed by a single entity, the umbrella program 

in most cases is carried out by a 

consortium of partners that 

bring distinct expertise, given 

the breadth of skills required by 

the program. Typically, a portion of funds obligated to the 

lead implementer or “prime” 

recipient is then sub-contracted 

or sub-granted to other consortium members to carry out 

activities within their area of 

expertise. In addition, USAID 

often designates a substantial 

share of the overall funding for 

8 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 
TABLE 3. USAID FUNDING FOR MICROENTERPRISE OBLIGATION RECIPIENTS, 

FY 20051 

Obligation Amount2 Percent of Amounts for Contracts3 

Institution Type (US$ millions) Total (%) (US$ millions) 

Bank $5.3 2.5% 0 

Business Association $0.6 0.3% 0 

Consulting Firm $106.7 50.5% $88.7 

Cooperative $4.2 2.0% $1.0 

Credit Union $5.2 2.5% $2.1 

Finance Company $0.3 0.1% 0 

For-Profit $2.6 1.2% $2.2 

Government Agency $1.8 0.9% 0 

NGO $33.5 15.8% $7.4 

Non Bank Financial Institution $3.7 1.8% 0 

Other $2.2 1.0% $0.5 

PVO $34.6 16.4% $16.9 

Research/Educational $1.5 0.7% $0.9 

USAID4 $9.2 4.3% $1.9 

Total $211.4 100.0% $121.6 

NGO, PVO, COOP, CU $77.5 36.7% $27.4 

Consulting Firms $106.7 50.5% $88.7 

Other For Profits $11.9 5.6% $2.2 

Total All Other Entities $15.3 7.2% $3.3 

Total $211.4 100.00% $121.6 

1 Please refer to pp. 12-14 for a discussion on what portion of the obligations here was sub-obligated to for-profit and nonprofit partners. 

2 Column shows obligations made to primary recipients, including umbrellas and apex organizations.Apex institutions are 

wholesale microfinance institutions that channel funds to retail lenders. 

3 This does not include the amounts provided through cooperative agreements, grants and other mechanisms. It also does 

not include amounts that were sub-contracted or sub-granted through these contracts. 

4 Obligations to USAID include those funds that were used for microenterprise project management and those for which 

specific implementing institutions had not yet been specified. 

the program for sub-grants and specialized “apex organizations,” A microfinance umbrella prosub-contracts to microfinance created specifically to channel gram might provide targeted 

institutions, enterprise support technical and financial support capacity-building support to 

organizations or other local to direct service providers, to many smaller financial instituservice providers. In microfi- strengthen the microfinance tions, initiate a credit informanance, USAID sometimes funds sector. tion bureau, and work to 

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 9 
change laws and regulations 

that impede profitable delivery 

of financial services to the poor. 

An enterprise development 

umbrella program might work 

at all levels of a value chain that 

are critical to the earnings and 

livelihoods of poorer households; an agribusiness umbrella 

program, for example, might 

work to improve policies that 

impede the sector's competitiveness while facilitating new market linkages, support services 

for producers, formation of 

smallholder associations, and 

improved availability of inputs, 

micro-irrigation and production 

technology. While consulting 

firms are more likely to have 

the requisite project management and technical capacity to 

coordinate complex umbrella 

programs with diverse interventions, non-profits often play key 

roles in umbrella programs, in 

some cases as the overall 

umbrella manager and in others 

as providers of specialized 

“niche” services such as organization of credit unions or village banking services. 

Cost-effectiveness, 

Sustainability and 

Sub-obligations 

USAID uses a range of methods 

to implement its microenterprise support, including grants 

for a wide variety of purposes, 

partial credit guarantees 

through the Development 

Credit Authority, and Global 

Development Alliance3 agreements. Moreover, USAID 

engages with a large number 

and wide variety of partners, 

including international PVOs 

(see Table 4), local NGOs, busiTABLE 4. FUNDING TO PVO NETWORKS, FY 1997-2005


Total USAID Awards Average Annual Award 

PVO Network (US$ Thousands) (US$ Thousands) 

ACCION International $19,785 $2,198 

ACDI/VOCA $64,434 $7,159 

Aid to Artisans $21,769 $2,419 

CARE International $19,113 $2,124 

Catholic Relief Services $37,211 $4,135 

Cooperative Housing Foundation $38,965 $4,329 

Enterprise Works Worldwide $22,291 $2,477 

FINCA International $54,806 $6,090 

Mercy Corps $17,368 $1,930 

National Cooperative Business Association $25,476 $2,831 

Opportunity International $36,649 $4,072 

Save the Children Federation $32,213 $3,579 

TechnoServe $48,485 $5,387 

WOCCU $40,395 $4,488 

World Vision Relief and Development $14,113 $1,568 

TOTAL Funding $493,073 $54,786 

3 The Global Development Alliance (GDA) forges public-private alliances to stimulate economic growth, develop business 

and workforces, address health and environmental issues and expand access to education and technology. 

10 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 
ness and trade associations, TABLE 5. REPORTED SUB-OBLIGATIONS, FY 2005


credit unions and cooperatives,


consulting firms, governments, Amounts for sub-grants and 


commercial banks, rural banks, Institution Type sub-contracts1 (US$ millions)


finance companies, non-bank Consulting Firm $10.1 

financial institutions and Cooperative	 $0.5 

research or educational institu- Credit Union	 $0.5 tions, among others. For-Profit	 $0.3 

The diversity of USAID's partners reflects its comprehensive 

strategy of working to strengthen institutions, the financial 

sectors and markets in which 

they compete, and the policy 

environments that circumscribe 

their potential. By drawing on a 

diverse pool of partners with a 

wide range of skills, working 

across the micro-, meso4- and 

macroeconomic levels, and tailoring its assistance to specific 

local conditions, USAID 

ensures that it can implement 

comprehensive programs efficiently and cost-effectively. 

Whether an umbrella or singlepurpose type of program design 

is more cost-effective depends 

on many factors, including the 

desired results, the maturity of 

the market and the capacity of 

the implementing partners. 

USAID’s recent study of microfinance umbrella programs 

focused (among other things) 

on their relative cost-effectiveness. Many of the findings 

apply to umbrellas but also 

more broadly to other agreements with for-profit and nonprofit partners. (This study is 

NGO	 $2.8 

Non Bank Financial Institution	 $0.1 

PVO	 $3.2 

Total	 $17.5 

1	 Column shows sub-grants or sub-contracts for technical assistance, purchase 

of commodities, loans, grants or guarantees. 

still in draft, and was recently 

reviewed by the advisory group, 

comprised of non-profit and 

for-profit practitioners, other 

donors, researchers, etc. Release 

to the general public is expected 

this summer.) The study's findings indicate that USAID-funded microfinance programs have 

been implemented successfully 

as both umbrella projects and as 

single-purpose projects by both 

for-profits and not-for-profits. 

Detailed analysis of the cost 

structures of not-for-profits and 

for-profits offers no evidence 

that these programs have been 

implemented inefficiently. 

Likewise, there is little evidence 

that either for-profits or notfor-profits are more cost effective in achieving project results. 

This study found that it is 

extremely difficult to directly 

compare cost-effectiveness 

between organizations and projects across countries, and virtually impossible to draw broad, 

general conclusions about relative cost-effectiveness. 

As shown in Figure 1, the 

amount of USAID support 

specifically for microfinance 

that flowed through umbrella 

agreements between FY 1997 

and FY 2005 was less then 30 

percent of new USAID obligations for microfinance, indicating that most USAID support 

for microfinance is still distributed through single-purpose 

programs, which are generally 

grants directly to not-for-profits. The share of microfinance 

funding programmed through 

umbrella programs during this 

period seems to have peaked at 

37 percent of total USAID 

funding for microfinance in FY 

4	 “Meso economic level” refers to the supporting infrastructure that the financial sector requires for growth and stabilization. 

In microfinance, this includes information technology service providers, credit bureaus, rating agencies, professional networks and associations, as well as access to technical assistance and training. 

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 11 
FIGURE 1: USAID FUNDING FOR MICROFINANCE at creating a financial system 

BY MECHANISM (US$ THOUSANDS) that permits greater and more 

(SEPT. 1, 1997 – SEPT. 31, 2005) sustainable access to financial 

$140,000 

$120,000 

$100,000 

$80,000 

$60,000 

$40,000 

$20,000 

$0 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

All MF Umbrellas All USAID Obligations for MF 

Linear (All MF Umbrellas) Linear (All USAID Obligations for MF) 

services. Ultimately, the nature 

of the procurement mechanism 

— contract or grant/cooperative 

agreement — has no influence 

on the level of program 

sustainability. 

Sub-obligations 

Recent refinements to USAID's 

MRR reporting system allow 

umbrella institutions to include 

more details on the various 

forms of assistance that may be 

transferred to local organizations via the umbrella institution. In particular, MRR 

requested umbrella institutions 

to report on the U.S. dollar 

equivalent of assistance (including technical assistance, loans, 

grants, guarantees, or equipment) disbursed in 2005. The 

data obtained for FY 2005 is 

reported in Table 5. 

Analysis of the database of 

microfinance umbrellas compiled for the study indicates 

that since 1997, nearly 47 percent of total funding for microfinance umbrellas was sub-obligated; most of these sub-obligations go to not-for-profits and 

their local affiliates. In addition, 

although for-profits served as 

primes for the majority of the 

umbrella programs, not-forprofits and their affiliates 

received much of the in-kind 

technical assistance and training, as well as funding, associated with these programs. 

2002, while just 10 percent of 

FY 2005 funding was obligated 

through umbrella programs. 

Sustainability of Various 

Assistance Mechanisms 

USAID's recent study of microfinance umbrella mechanisms 

found that, for microfinance 

umbrella programs, or for other 

USAID programs, the instrument is not a factor in determining sustainability. USAID 

uses contracts to procure goods 

or services to implement its 

own program, and cooperative 

agreements or grants to support 

or stimulate the recipient's program. The sustainability of the 

program is the result of sound 

analysis that ensures that benefits continue well beyond program subsidies. Umbrella programs are usually implemented 

under contracts rather than 

grants, as USAID perceives the 

need to exercise greater control 

over these large and complicated public investments. USAID 

staff has more control over the 

direction of programs implemented under a contract. 

Microfinance umbrella projects 

generally aim to reduce dependence on donor funding and 

subsidized technical assistance 

by addressing the market-level 

constraints to mainstreaming 

microfinance for the poor. 

These constraints often take the 

form of lack of services on 

which MFIs rely. Umbrellas 

address these constraints by 

building locally available supporting services, and strengthening the policy, regulatory, or 

legal framework for microfinance. For the cases studied, 

nearly all of the institutions 

assisted experienced increased 

financial sustainability and 

growth. The study of umbrella 

mechanisms found that programs focused at the level of a 

single institution cannot be as 

effective as umbrella programs 

12 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 
Additional detail on the subcontracts and sub-grants will 

eventually aid in providing a 

more comprehensive picture of 

the allocation of USAID funds. 

For FY 2005, the majority of 

umbrella awardees with agreements signed late in the fiscal 

year showed much of their 

funding still in hand at the time 

of reporting5; most of these 

funds will eventually be channeled to local organizations, but 

are not reflected in Table 5. 

Sub-obligations, such as subcontracts and sub-grants, are 

often a central component of 

microenterprise umbrella programs. Many different types of 

USAID award agreements 

involve subsequent sub-obligation of funds and delivery of 

services, commodities, etc. by 

the direct recipient to other 

organizations that thus benefit 

from USAID support without 

receiving obligations directly. 

Because umbrella programs 

managed by for-profits typically 

involve sub-obligations to nonprofits, accurate data on the full 

amount of USAID microenterprise funding to each type of 

institution has remained elusive. 

For the current reporting year, 

MRR requested additional information on the amounts allocated 

to local institutions through 

umbrella agreements, apexes or 

other types of wholesale institutions. Table 5 contains the data 

on their sub-recipients that was 

provided by direct recipients of 

USAID funding. As noted earlier, the amount of detail provided 

by the direct recipients considerably understates the amounts 

that will benefit local organizations. The data on funding flows 

between for-profits (primarily 

consulting firms) and non-profits (primarily PVOs and NGOs) 

is also likely to be incomplete. 

This is the first year for which 

MRR has attempted to collect 

data on sub-obligations for technical assistance as well as direct 

obligations. The data collection 

exercise and analysis proved far 

more difficult than anticipated. 

Reasons that the data is incomplete include the following: 

•	 The terms “facilitator” (for 

enterprise development 

umbrellas) and “apex” or 

“wholesaler” (for microfinance umbrellas) may not 

have been interpreted by 

reporting institutions to 

apply to the full range and 

kinds of agreements MRR 

intended to capture, particularly non-apex umbrellas that 

involve cash/service transfers 

to direct service providers 

(e.g., a large private sector 

development program with a 

component that aims to 

strengthen business service 

providers to microenterprises 

and micro-scale producers); 

•	 The MRR reporting request 

came too soon after the end 

of the fiscal year for many 

sub-agreements to have been 

finalized. That is, substantial 

funding amounts are sometimes obligated near the end 

of the fiscal year and the data 

request thus may come 

before the new activities ­

including sub-granted and 

sub-contracted activities - are 

operational, making it difficult or impossible for the 

MRR reporter to specify the 

ultimate recipients; 

• Direct recipients were 

requested to report the “cost 

of assistance to local institutions,” but if the assistance 

(funding, equipment, commodities, technical services) 

had not yet been provided, 

the costs were not yet known 

at the time of reporting; furthermore, the full costs of 

such assistance (when it does 

not involve cash transfers) 

may be difficult to estimate; 

•	 The direct costs of funding 

provided to local organizations, while easier to determine and report, may not 

include the full indirect costs 

of providing the sub-award; 

•	 The value of technical assistance in particular is very difficult to capture. 

The impact of these limitations 

on the quality of the sub-obliga5	 This is the case in several countries: in Egypt, where $5.8 million of a $6.0 million agreement is unallocated; in Barbados, 

where $3.5 million of a $4.1 million is unallocated; and in the Philippines and Uganda, where $2.7 million and $2.5 million, 

respectively, are unallocated. While these agreements were all with consulting firms, not all umbrella contractors are consulting firms; some are led by NGOs. 

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 13 
tions data is illustrated by 

USAID's support for microfinance in Iraq through an 

umbrella agreement with Louis 

Berger, Inc. This agreement is 

part of a $35 million multi-year 

program that includes $29 million in sub-grants to a combination of PVOs, indigenous Iraqi 

microfinance institutions 

(MFIs), an Iraqi loan guarantee 

company, and the World Bankbased Consultative Group to 

Assist the Poor (CGAP). Because 

these funds were not disbursed 

in FY 2005, they were not captured in the MRR system and 

are not presented in Table 5. 

The planned distribution of 

these funds is as follows: $8 million to ACDI/VOCA, $3 million to the Community Housing 

Fund, $5.8 million to Relief 

International, and $2.7 million 

to a group of indigenous MFIs 

that are being established in collaboration with the U.S. military. The Iraqi Company for 

Bank Guarantees Ltd., a nonbank financial institution, is 

being established with $8.7 million, in part to enhance access to 

credit from private banks for 

MFIs; and CGAP will receive 

$750,000 for short-term training 

of MFI staff and long-term 

training of trainers. Beyond this 

$29 million, additional mission 

funds will go to training Iraqi 

bank and MFI staff, strengthening a banking association, and 

facilitating legal and policy 

reform. 

In order to provide a more complete picture of sub-contracts 

and funding and other services 

“passed through” to local institutions, for the FY 2006 report to 

Congress, USAID plans to refine 

and improve the survey instrument and perform additional 

checks on data completeness and 

accuracy. In particular, those 

receiving USAID obligations 

directly will be instructed to provide complete detail on all 

planned sub-agreements known 

at the time of reporting. In addition, a more specific definition 

of “umbrella program” agreements will be provided; estimates of indirect costs will be 

requested; and respondents will 

be asked to report the value of 

sub-contracts and sub-grants, the 

value of technical assistance they 

provide, and the value of commodities, equipment and inkind assistance they provide, 

indicating the share of each that 

goes to direct service providers 

(the questionnaire will provide 

the definition of this term). 

While improvements to the system for FY 2006 are expected to 

provide some additional detail, it 

is doubtful that umbrellas will 

be able to provide a complete 

report on recently obligated 

funds unless sufficient time has 

elapsed from the signing of the 

funding agreement. 

Reporting 

Requirement 5 

Matching Assistance 

USAID frequently requires that 

its funds for a particular purpose 

be matched by funds from other 

sources, including the institution 

itself. In FY 2005, $27.6 million 

of USAID funds were matched 

by an additional $9.2 million 

from other sources. Matching 

funds from these sources may 

include funding from non-U.S. 

Government sources, including 

private donations, multilateral 

funding, commercial and concessional borrowing, savings and 

program income. 

Reporting 

Requirements 6-7 

Funds for Very Poor Clients 

Because the Microenterprise 

Results and Accountability Act 

of 2004 extended the deadline 

for implementing new poverty 

assessment measures to October 

1, 2006, MRR has used the 

measures established under the 

Microenterprise for Self 

Reliance Act of 2000 to determine the amount of FY 2005 

funds directed to very poor 

clients. The 2000 Act mandated 

that at least one-half of all 

USAID funding support for 

microenterprise development 

directly benefit the very poor, 

and established a “poverty loan” 

proxy for estimating the poverty 

status of clients. Poverty loan 

thresholds were set (in 1995 

US$) at: 

•	 $300 in Asia, the Near East, 

and Africa 

•	 $400 in Latin America and 

the Caribbean 

•	 $1,000 in Europe and 

Eurasia 

14 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 
For microfinance institutions, 

the Funds Benefiting the Very 

Poor (FVP) is equal to the percentage of the total loan portfolio held in poverty loans. For 

enterprise development institutions, the FVP is equal to the 

percentage of clients estimated 

to hold outstanding poverty 

loans from any source. Table 6 

shows the FVP for microfinance 

and enterprise development 

institutions in FY 2005. 

Because policy institutions do 

not report client data, they are 

excluded from Table 6.6 

Figure 2 compares the values set 

for poverty loan sizes in 2005 

dollars with 1995 dollars.7 The 

poverty loan amounts of $300, 

$400 and $1000, established by 

the 2000 Act in 1995 dollars, 

would be equivalent to $384, 

$513, and $1,282 in 2005. 

Because most institutions reporting data in 2005 reported on the 

1995 poverty loan amount 

rather than the 2005 poverty 

loan amount, it likely contributes to an understating of the 

numbers of poverty loans and 

associated amounts of portfolio 

held by USAID-supported MFIs. 

Table 6, which refers only to 

those institutions receiving FY 

2005 obligations, presents the 

results of the calculation of 

funds for poverty lending using 

the proxy of poverty loan size. 

Using the poverty loan measure 

established by Congress USAID 

does not meet the target of 50 

percent of total microenterprise 

development funds directly 

benefiting very poor clients. For 

obligations to support financial 

services, the estimated funds for 

the very poor is 37 percent; for 

enterprise development obligations, the estimated FVP is 18 

percent. The combined total for 

all FY 05 USAID obligations is 

23 percent. 

However, as has been discussed 

in prior annual reports, there is 

an important factor that undermines confidence in this conclusion. That is, when applied 

to enterprise development programs, the poverty loan proxy is 

TABLE 6. PERCENTAGE OF FUNDS BENEFITTING THE VERY POOR, FY 2005


Total Percent of Financial Percent of Enterprise Percent of Total 

Microenterprise Funding For Development Funding Funding Benefiting 

Bureau Funding (US$ millions) Poverty Lending For Poverty Loan Clients the Very Poor 

Africa Bureau $32.0 78%	 11% 20% 

Asia/Near East Bureau $71.6 36%	 13% 21% 

Europe/Eurasia Bureau $26.8 16% 5%	 9% 

Latin America/


Caribbean Bureau $38.9 35% 35% 35%


Central Bureaus $11.8 35%	 22% 26% 

Total all Bureaus1 $181.1 37%	 18% 23% 

1	 The total of $181.1 million excludes funds for policy, USAID management support, pending agreements and activities for 

which there is no client data that can be used to determine whether the beneficiaries were ‘very poor’. 

6	 The Microenterprise for Self-Reliance Act was amended in 2003 to define the very poor as either (1) those living in the 

bottom 50 percent of people below the official national poverty line or (2) those living on the equivalent of less than $1 

per day (adjusted for 1993 purchasing power parity). In compliance with the amended 2000 Act, USAID currently supports research to develop, test and certify tools for assessing the poverty levels of current or prospective microenterprise 

development clients. Beginning no later than October 1, 2006, USAID will require that institutions applying for microenterprise assistance document their service to very poor clients using one of the certified poverty assessment tools. In the 

meantime, the loan size thresholds specified in the Microenterprise for Self-Reliance Act of 2000 remain the operational 

proxy used to estimate the poverty status of clients of USAID-assisted microenterprise institutions. 

7	 The amounts shown for 2005 represent the value of U.S. dollars adjusted for inflation based on the Consumer Price 

Index. 

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 15 
$0 

$300 

$600 

$900 

$1,200 

$1,500 

2005 

1995 

Asia/Near East 

& Africa 

Latin America/ 

Caribbean 

Europe/ 

Eurasia 

$300 

$384 $400 

$513 

$1,000 

$1,282 

16 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 

a poor fit and yields data of 

questionable accuracy. In many 

cases, enterprise development 

institutions have been unable to 

comply with the request to 

report the number of poverty 

loans held by their clients. 

Despite the fact that the vast 

majority of clients of USAIDsupported enterprise development activities are from poor, 

rural areas, the mandated measure effectively excludes many of 

them because the institutions 

serving them do not know 

whether they have poverty loans 

from a third party source. Many 

enterprise development 

awardees decline to respond to 

this portion of the MRR survey 

rather than report data they 

consider highly unreliable. 

MRR does not know whether 

these microentrepreneurs have 

access to financial services. 

A second factor that influences 

the proportion of total USAID 

funds for the very poor is the 

low incidence of extreme poverty in the Europe and Eurasia 

region. In Kazakhstan8, for 

example, only 9.9 percent of 

the population is considered 

very poor, based on a nationally 

established poverty line. As has 

been noted before, USAID is 

working with a wide range of 

institutional types in the region, 

few of which work exclusively 

or primarily with those who 

meet the legislated definition of 

“very poor” at the time they 

receive USAID funding. As 

funding in this region increases, 

it has a direct bearing on lowering the overall percentage of 

microenterprise funds that benefit very poor people. 

The Microenterprise for SelfReliance Act of 2004 directs 

USAID to report on the estimated number of very poor 

clients as well. The poverty loan 

proxy currently in use is the 

measure of funds benefiting the 

very poor (per the Microenterprise for Self-Reliance Act of 

2000). Until that proxy is 

replaced with the poverty measurement tools, beginning 

October 1, 2006, USAID is 

constrained in reporting on the 

number of very poor clients. 

This is because MFIs do not 

keep records of numbers of very 

poor clients - they keep records 

of numbers and dollar amounts 

of what USAID designates as 

poverty loans. There is no way 

to reliably translate numbers of 

poverty loans to numbers of 

very poor clients. 

Reporting 

Requirement 8 

Funds to Assist Victims of 

Trafficking and Exploitation 

As mandated under PL 108­

484, for the first time USAID 

has requested additional information from field missions on 

their efforts to ensure that 

recipients of USAID microenterprise and microfinance development assistance work closely 

with NGOs and foreign governments to identify and assist 

victims of potential or severe 

forms of trafficking in persons 

and women who are victims of 

or susceptible to other forms of 

exploitation and violence. Table 

7 shows, by region, microenterprise funding obligated to 

microenterprise institutions 

specifically engaged in serving 

these groups. 

One mission in Latin 

America/Caribbean and several 

missions in each of the other 

regions reported funding 

microenterprise institutions for 

activities that specifically serve 

these groups. They include 

Benin, Democratic Republic of 

Congo and Liberia in Africa; 

India, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan and the Philippines in Asia 

and the Near East; Armenia and 

Ukraine in Europe and Eurasia; 

and Guyana in Latin America/ 

Caribbean. 

Reporting 

Requirement 9 

Poverty and Race/Ethnicity 

As mandated by PL 108-484, 

USAID is now required to 

report “[a]n estimate of the per8 For more detail, see research undertaken by the IRIS Center, at the University of Maryland,“Developing and Testing 

Poverty Assessment Tools: Results from Accuracy Tests in Kazakhstan,” United States Agency for International Development, 

November 2005. This paper is available at www.povertytools.org. 
TABLE 7. USAID MICROENTERPRISE FUNDING TO ASSIST VICTIMS OF 

TRAFFICKING AND EXPLOITATION, FY 2005 (US$ MILLIONS) 

Region 

Financial Services & 

Enabling Environment 

(US$ Millions) 

Enterprise Development 

& Enabling Environment 

(US$ Millions) 

Total 

(US$ Millions) 

Africa $0.656 $0.106 $0.762 

Asia/Near East $4.300 $8.030 $12.330 

Europe/Eurasia - $1.812 $1.812 

Latin America/Caribbean $0.115 $0.185 $0.300 

Total $5.071 $10.133 $15.204 

centage of beneficiaries of assistance under this title in countries where a strong relationship 

between poverty and race or ethnicity has been demonstrated.” 

In relation to this requirement, 

MRR requested information 

from USAID field missions in 

the FY 2005 survey. Table 8 

reports on the number of 

microenterprise clients where 

missions report that a relationship between poverty and race or 

ethnicity has been demonstrated. 

Reporting 

Requirement 10 

Poverty Assessment Tools 

The 2004 Act also requires this 

report to address: 

• “The process of developing 

and applying poverty assessment procedures required 

under section 254 [the section of the law outlining the 

requirement for USAID to 

develop client poverty assessment tools and require their 

use by awardees by October 

2006].” 

The Microenterprise for SelfReliance Act of 2000, as 

amended, mandated that half of 

all USAID microenterprise 

funds benefit very poor people, 

defined as those living on less 

than $1 a day (adjusted for purchasing power parity), or those 

living in the bottom 50 percent 

of people below their country's 

poverty line. The lack of widely 

applicable, low-cost tools for 

poverty assessment has made it 

difficult for USAID to determine whether it is meeting 

these mandated targets. 

Therefore, the 2000 Act also 

requires USAID to develop and 

certify at least two tools for 

assessing the poverty level of its 

microenterprise clients. 

The Microenterprise for SelfReliance Act set October 2005 

as the deadline for USAIDassisted microenterprise institutions to begin implementing 

the tools; subsequently, the 

Microenterprise Results and 

Accountability Act of 2004 

extended that deadline to 

October 1, 2006. A rigorous 

effort involving methodologists, 

academic advisors and practitioners has completed the development, testing and certification of two tools that can be 

implemented by partners beginning October 1, 2006. While 

USAID and its partners had 

hoped that these two tools that 

have been developed and certified for use at a regional or 

international level would predict client poverty status with 

acceptable accuracy, this has not 

proven to be the case. The testing process stipulated in the Act 

has yielded results that indicate 

that tools tailored to specific 

country (and even sub-national) 

characteristics will achieve significantly better accuracy. 

Practitioner organizations 

selected on a competitive basis 

have received funding to fieldtest country-level tools to 

ensure that these instruments 

meet the law's practicality standard, i.e., that the diverse range 

of practitioners with which 

USAID works can comply at 

reasonable cost. 

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 17 
TABLE 8. ESTIMATE OF CLIENTS IN COUNTRIES WHERE RELATIONSHIP 

BETWEEN POVERTY AND RACE OR ETHNICITY HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED1 

Enterprise 

Region Country1 Borrowers2 Savings Clients2 Development Clients 

Africa Mali 137,664 246,542 117 

South Africa 195,774 1,050 200 

Sudan 2,733 2,733 0 

Asia Nepal 62,710 58,381 38,259 

Tibet 0 0 34 

Europe/Eurasia Albania 0 0 316 

Serbia 2,758 2,758 6,335 

Latin America Bolivia 114,509 37,273 0 

Brazil 9,368 0 2,320 

Colombia 12,875 321,595 14,563 

Ecuador 659,714 414,979 0 

Guatemala 8,366 8,063 7,909 

Mexico 992,631 1,353,201 0 

Panama 0 0 859 

Peru 50,560 335,564 1,376 

Total 2,249,662 2,782,139 72,288 

As Percent of Total 

MED Clients Worldwide 38% 44% 10% 

1 	 USAID mission staff reported that a relationship is known to exist in these countries. There may be other countries 

where such a relationship exists but has not been reported to MRR. 

2 	 Borrowers and Savings Clients may refer to the same individuals in the case of some institutions that offer both services. 

By October 1, 2006, countryspecific tools will be available or 

in development for many countries, including those with the 

largest microenterprise development programs. USAID will 

continue to work in partnership 

with researchers and the practitioner community to develop 

and/or certify country-specific 

tools for all other countries in 

which USAID operates 

microenterprise programs. For 

more information about the 

process of developing, testing 

and certifying the tools, go to 

www.povertytools.org. 

Reporting 

Requirement 11 

Performance Monitoring 

System 

Several provisions of the 2004 

Act address performance monitoring. These provisions read as 

follows: 

(1) “The monitoring system 

shall include performance 

goals for the assistance and 

express such goals in an 

objective and quantifiable 

form, to the extent feasible.” 

(2) “The monitoring system 

shall include performance 

indicators to be used in 

measuring or assessing the 

achievement of the performance goals described in paragraph (1) and the objective 

of the assistance authorized 

under section 252 [of the 

Foreign Assistance Act of 

1961, as amended].” 

18 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 
(3) “The monitoring system 

provides a basis for recommendations for adjustments 

to the assistance to enhance 

the sustainability and the 

impact of the assistance, particularly the impact of such 

assistance on the very poor, 

particularly poor women.” 

(4) “The monitoring system 

adopts the widespread use of 

proven and effective poverty 

assessment tools to successfully identify the very poor 

and ensure that they receive 

adequate access to microenterprise loans, savings, and 

assistance.” 

As a basis for the new performance monitoring system, 

USAID set the outreach performance goals and indicators 

for FY 2005 that appear in 

Table 9. 

The count for microfinance 

clients is restricted to loan 

clients, as adding in clients for 

other financial services (savings, 

insurance, remittances) may 

result in double counting. 

On a worldwide basis, USAID 

and its implementing partners 

substantially met or exceeded all 

targets except that for the percent of funds benefiting the 

very poor as measured by the 

loan size proxy. Performance 

was particularly strong in the 

number of clients served (44 

percent above the target of 4.5 

million) and financial strength 

of microfinance implementing 

partners. 

FY 2005 is the last year for 

which the regionally-adjusted 

loan size proxy serves as the 

yardstick for measuring the 

extent of service to very poor 

clients.9 Beginning with the FY 

2006 MRR report, progress 

toward targets will be determined through use of improved 

client poverty assessment tools 

currently under development by 

USAID. The loan size proxy 

has proven increasingly problematic in estimating service to 

very poor microenterprise and 

microfinance clients. Even for 

microfinance clients, many are 

gaining access to financial services other than loans, such as 

savings, insurance and affordable remittance services, limiting the relevance and utility of 

a metric based solely on loans. 

For those benefiting from 

diverse enterprise support, such 

as access to better markets and 

improved technologies, the loan 

size proxy is clearly not relevant, 

as they may not receive poverty 

loans from any source, or if 

they do, this fact may not be 

known to the enterprise development facilitator/service 

provider. This contributes to 

TABLE 9. PERFORMANCE GOALS AND RESULTS, FY 2005


Total # of Women Rural Funds Benefiting Financially Sustainable 

Microfinance Clients Clients % Clients % Very Poor Clients % MFIs % 

FY 05 goal 3.8 million 60 40 50 50 

FY 05 actual 5.8 million 61 45 37 58 

Enterprise Development 

FY 05 goal 700,000 30 80 50 

FY 05 actual 694,649 29 95 18 

All clients 

FY 05 goal 4.5 million 50 

FY 05 actual 6.5 million 23 

The count for microfinance clients is restricted to loan clients, as adding in clients for other financial services (savings, insurance, remittances) may result in double counting. 

9 See the section on “Funds for the Very Poor” which begins on p. 15. 

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 19 
the enterprise development figures shown in Table 9. As the 

share of funding for enterprise 

development activities has 

grown, this bias has in turn 

lowered the overall estimate of 

funds benefiting very poor 

clients, a marked trend noted 

over the past several years. 

Another factor that affects the 

estimate of the extent to which 

USAID and its partners serve 

very poor clients is the geographic composition of 

microenterprise funding worldwide. As noted, the share of the 

population that meets the statutory definition is very small in 

some countries that have large 

microenterprise development 

programs, such as Ukraine. 

With the phase-in of the poverty measurement tools, USAID 

expects to have a better basis on 

which to determine the extent 

of service to very poor clients 

for the full range of microenterprise development activities. 

This in turn will provide a 

better basis for identifying 

opportunities to prescribe 

specific actions to improve 

performance. 

USAID is already taking steps 

to increase the extent of service 

to very poor clients. For example, competitive grant programs 

are focused specifically on identifying and supporting program 

models that promise to improve 

both the extent of service and 

the impact of that service on 

very poor microfinance and 

microenterprise clients. Intraagency working groups are 

identifying, testing and disseminating interventions that work 

for specific client segments that 

have a higher incidence of 

poverty, such as youth (including but not limited to orphans 

and vulnerable children), 

refugees and internally displaced persons, and residents of 

conflict-affected zones, remote 

rural communities, and areas 

with high HIV-AIDS incidence. 

In addition to these programs, 

USAID is continuing intensive 

work with field missions on 

designing, implementing and 

assessing programs that apply the 

knowledge of how best to serve 

the very poor that is emerging 

from this focused experimentation and applied research. In 

FY05, the MD office systematized a process of reviewing, 

commenting on and concurring 

with mission strategic plans. 

These activities complement the 

function of the poverty measurement tools, which can provide 

missions' partner institutions 

with a sense of their overall outreach to very poor clients. These 

findings can contribute to this 

consultative process between 

missions and the MD office. 

Through collaboration, USAID’s 

technical experts in microenterprise development can help missions apply best practices to their 

microenterprise programming. 

For example, extensive technical 

assistance to the Afghanistan 

mission resulted in a major new 

rural finance program that will 

extend credit, savings, and other 

financial services and support to 

tens of thousands of smallholder 

producers and rural families that 

have extremely little access to 

finance and are likely to be poorer than those benefiting from 

other USAID programs on the 

ground. 

Reporting 

Requirement 12 

Additional Information 

Since Congress passed the 

Microenterprise Results and 

Accountability Act of 2004 (PL 

108-484), USAID has developed new activities, systems and 

performance analysis measures 

to ensure thorough compliance 

with the law and its new 

requirements. 

As directed by the 2004 Act, 

USAID’s Microenterprise 

Development office funded at 

$16.9 million in FY2005, initiated new programs, including 

central programs designed 

specifically to strengthen its 

relationship with PVO partners 

and link them to missions. 

New Funding Programs 

The new programs USAID has 

established include competitive 

grants through the two rounds 

of the Implementation Grant 

Program (IGP). The first, 

“Access to Financial Services for 

the Very Poor,” will fund innovative approaches to increase 

access to financial services for 

the very poor, approaches that 

generate replicable processes, 

20 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 
tools and methodologies for use 

by the global microfinance 

industry. The second IGP competition, “Linking Economic 

Growth to Poor Households,” 

focuses on approaches that foster the competitiveness of 

industries in which large numbers of very small firms participate, by improving microentrepreneurs' access to the finance, 

business services and knowledge 

they need to compete in growing markets, while ensuring that 

the poor who operate these very 

small firms benefit from participating in growing markets. The 

combined funding for these 

worldwide grant competitions is 

$10 million, to be awarded to 

the top-ranking applicants. 

USAID also conducted additional small grant competitions 

that supported innovation and 

funded training and dissemination of best practices for microfinance and microenterprise 

networks. The Agency provided 

additional funding to the Small 

Enterprise Education and 

Promotion (SEEP) Network for 

its competitive Practitioner 

Learning Program, which provides grants and technical assistance to PVOs and NGOs for 

innovative microfinance and 

enterprise development activities, while also convening them 

in a learning network to capture 

knowledge for participants and 

for the broader industry as well. 

Taken together, these new grant 

competitions respond to the 

provisions in the law concerning central programs and 

emphasis on eligible implementing partners. 

In FY 2005, USAID also created a new microenterprise 

Leader with Associates (LWA) 

mechanism to achieve the policy goals reflected in the law, by 

enhancing USAID's access to 

the microfinance and microenterprise development expertise 

of the non-profit community 

and offering USAID missions a 

new and cost-effective option 

for carrying out work in this 

field. The activity, entitled 

Financial Integration, 

Economic Leveraging, BroadBased Dissemination and 

Support Program, or FIELDSupport, establishes a mechanism by which a non-profit or 

consortium of partners can provide services directly to USAID 

missions as well as other offices 

and operating units within 

USAID/Washington through 

Associate awards. 

The FIELD-Support LWA was 

awarded at the end of FY 2005. 

The Agency provided $2 million in start-up funds for the 

base “leader” agreement for 

activities that address these 

objectives. In addition, USAID 

Missions and USAID/W offices 

and operating units are able to 

enter into “associate” cooperative agreements, up to the 

LWA’s ceiling of $350 million 

over the five-year period. Funds 

can be obligated through the 

new LWA (up to the $350 million ceiling) to the extent that 

missions and other operating 

units choose to use this mechanism to implement activities. As 

with other umbrella arrangements, the LWA also allows for 

sub-obligations to host country 

microfinance and microenterprise development institutions. 

The LWA provides a streamlined procurement mechanism 

for missions to partner with 

NGOs and PVOs to meet 

growth and poverty alleviation 

goals, as an attractive alternative 

to working with contracts and 

for-profit firms. 

Its primary objectives include: 

1. Strengthening the economic 

status and security of poor 

households; 

2. Promoting economic growth 

that benefits poorer households and communities by 

supporting the access of 

micro and small enterprises 

(MSEs) to market 

opportunities; 

3. Promoting the development 

of financial systems that are 

accessible to all and meet the 

diverse needs of MSEs and 

poor households; and 

4 Improving the national, 

regional, or local enabling 

environment to boost the 

productivity, earnings, and 

competitiveness of MSEs. 

FIELD-Support is off to a 

strong start, with initial mission 

associate awards in the pipeline. 

Design and implementation of 

the LWA is one of a number of 

steps USAID has taken to 

ensure that it has access to the 

best possible combination of 

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 21 
partners with which to implement its microenterprise 

programs. 

To comply with the new statutory requirement that the 

Microenterprise Development 

office concur in strategies of 

USAID missions and bureaus 

that include microenterprise 

and microfinance components, 

MD staff has engaged with 

regional bureaus and missions 

to conduct thorough reviews of 

proposed strategies and activities. The office’s staff has been 

proactive as well in meeting the 

related provision in the law, i.e., 

that the office provide support 

and technical assistance to missions in developing new strategy 

elements and components. In 

the past year, for example, the 

microenterprise staff has provided on-site assistance to missions 

including Afghanistan, 

Pakistan, Indonesia, Mexico, 

Haiti, Brazil, Albania, the 

Central Asian Republics, 

Azerbaijan, Serbia, Morocco, 

Egypt, Jordan, India, Sri Lanka, 

Sudan, Liberia, Uganda, 

Tanzania and South Africa. The 

staff has also provided extensive 

virtual technical support in 

both strategy and activity 

design for diverse missions, 

including Iraq. 

22 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 
Annex A: Institutions with Amounts of 

FY 2005 Funding by Bureau 

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 23 
24 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 

Annex A: Institutions with Amounts of FY2005 Funding by Bureau (US$'000s) 

BUREAU MISSION INSTITUTION FUNC

AFRICA


AFRICA Bureau EcoLogic Finance/East Africa FIN

Total AFRICA B

Angola CLUSA Cooperative League of the United States/Angola 

WV W

orld Vision/Angola 

Total A

Benin 

CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere/Benin FIN

CRS/Benin FIN

Total 

Burkina Faso CRS/BF Catholic Relief Services-USCCB/Burkina Faso FIN

Total Burkina 

DR Congo 

PACT, Inc. Partners Acting Together/DR Congo FIN

Total DR C

Ethiopia 

ACDI/VOCA/Ethiopia 

ACSI Amhara Credit and Saving Institute/Ethiopia FIN

Chemonics International, Inc./Ethiopia 

Total Et

Ghana ADRA Adventist Relief Agency/Ghana 

OICI Opportunities Industrialization Centers International/Ghana 

TNS/G TechnoServe/Ghana 

Total G

Guinea Enrma Expanded Natural Resources Management/Guinea 

Total G

Kenya KBL K-Rep Bank, Ltd./Kenya FIN

KDA K-Rep Development Agency/Kenya FIN

Kenya BDS/Kenya 

SO

A

G SO

AG/Kenya FIN

Total 

Liberia AED Academy for Education Development/Liberia 

Total L

Madagascar Chemonics International, Inc./Madagascar 

Total Madag
MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 25 

BUREAU MISSION INSTITUTION FUNC

Malawi Chemonics International, Inc./Malawi FIN

Chemonics International, Inc./Malawi FINANCIAL PChemonics International, Inc./Malawi 

DAI Development Alternatives, Inc./Malawi 

Land O'Lakes, Inc./Malawi 

NASFAM National Smallholders Farmers' Association of Malawi/Malawi 

OIBM Opportunity International Bank of Malawi/Malawi FIN

Total M

Mali 

Microenterprise Support 

Chemonics International, Inc./Mali 

Tota

Mozambique 

ACDI/VOCA Mozambique/Mozambique 

ADRA/Mozambique 

Africare Mozambique Africare/Mozambique 

AWF/Mozambique 

CARE/Mozambique 

CLUSA Cooperative League of the United States of America/Mozambique 

CTA Confederation of Business Associations/Mozambique 

DAP II 

W

orld Vision/Mozambique 

FEMA/Mozambique 

FHI/Mozambique Food For The Hungry International/Mozambique 

Save the Children/Mozambique 

TechnoServe, Inc./Mozambique 

Total Mozam

Nigeria PRISMS Promoting Improved MSME Services Project/Nigeria FIN

Total N

Senegal Microenterprise Support 

Agreement Pending 

IRG International Resources Group/Senegal 

Total Se
26 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 

BUREAU MISSION INSTITUTION FUNC

Sierra Leone ARC American Refugee Committee/Sierra Leone 

Total Sierra L

South Africa VEGA 

Volunteers for Economic Growth Alliance/South Africa 

Total South A

Sudan Chemonics International, Inc./Sudan FIN

Total S

Tanzania Microenterprise Support 

Agreement Pending 

ApproTEC Appropriate Technologies for Enterprise Creation/Tanzania 

DAI Development Alternatives, Inc./Tanzania 

Total Tan

Uganda 

ACDI/VOCA/REAP II/Uganda 

Barclays Bank/Uganda FIN

Centenary Rural Development/Uganda FIN

Chemonics/APEP/Uganda 

Chemonics/SCOPE/Uganda FINANCIAL PO

DAI/PRIME/WEST Productive Resources Investment for Managing 

the Environment/Western Reg./Uganda

Land O'Lakes/Uganda 

Nile Bank/Uganda FIN

Rural SPEED Chemonics/Rural SPEED/Uganda FIN

Stanbic Bank Uganda, Ltd./Uganda FIN

Standard Chartered Bank Uganda, Ltd./Uganda FIN

UMU Uganda Microfinance Union/Uganda FIN

Total Ug

Zambia CLUSA-PROFIT Co-operative League of the USA - Production, Finance 

and Technology Program/Zambia

DAI Development Alternatives International/Zambia 

Total Za

Zimbabwe LEAD Trust Leveraging Economic Assistance for Development Trust/Zimbabwe 

Total Zimb

Total AF
MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 27 

BUREAU MISSION INSTITUTION FUNCT

ANE


Bangladesh IRG International Resources Group/Bangladesh 

IRIS/JOBS University of Maryland/Bangladesh 

WI MACH Winrock International Management of Aquatic Ecosystem through FINA

Community Hu./Bangladesh

WI (MACH) Winrock International (Management of Aquatic Ecosystem through 

Community Hu/Bangladesh

World Fish Center/Bangladesh 

Total Bangla

East Timor 

DAI/East Timor FINA

DAI/East Timor 

Total East T

Egypt AERI/Egypt 

Total E

India 

ACDI/VOCA/India 

CHF Cooperative Housing Foundation International/India FINA

Total 

Indonesia Agreement Pending 

BAH Booz Allen Hamilton/Indonesia FINANCIAL PO

Danamon/Indonesia CR

Development Alternatives Inc./SENADA/Indonesia FINANCIAL PO

GIAT/Nathan MSI Growth through Investment And Trade/Indonesia FINANCIAL PO

NCBA National Cooperative Business Association/Indonesia CRNCBA National Cooperative Business Association/Indonesia 

The Asia Foundation/Indonesia MED PO

VEGA 

Volunteers for Economic Growth Alliance/Indonesia MED PO

Total Indo

Iraq LBG/TSG JV Louis Berger Group/The Services Group Joint 

Venture/Iraq CR

Tota

Jordan AMIR Program Achievement of Market-Friendly Initiatives FINA

and Results Program/Jordan

AMIR Program Achievement of Market-Friendly Initiatives 

and Results Program/Jordan 

Total Jo
28 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 

BUREAU MISSION INSTITUTION FUNC

Mongolia Gobi Initiative-Phase II Mercy Corps and PACT, Inc./Mongolia 

Total Mo

Morocco AMOS Association de Microfinance Oued Srou/Morocco FIN

New Business Environment/Morocco FIN

Total Mo

Nepal IDE International Development Enterprises/Nepal 

Save the Children US/Nepal 

WE 

W

orld Education Incorporated/Nepal 

WI Winrock International/Nepal 

Total 

Pakistan KB Khushalibank/Pakistan FIN

PPAF Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund/Pakistan FIN

SAS Shorebank Advisory Services/Pakistan FIN

Total Pa

Philippines Agreement Pending FINANCIAL P

Carana Corporation/Philippines FINANCIAL P

Chemonics International, Inc./Philippines FIN

WOCCU/CUES-Phils.

W

orld Council of Credit Union, Inc./Credit Union FIN

Empowerment & Strengthen/Philippines 

Total Philip

RDM/A TBF The Bridge Fund/Tibet 

University of Rhode Island University of Rhode Island/ASIA Region FIN

Winrock STC Winrock International/Tibet FIN

Total R

West Bank /Gaza 

DAI/West Bank /Gaza 

SC Save the Children USA/West Bank /Gaza FIN

Total West Bank

Tota

E & E


Albania 

DAI Development Alternatives, Inc./Albania 

PSHM Partneri Shqiptar ne Mikrokredi/Albania FIN

Total A

Armenia 

DAI Development Alternatives, Inc./Armenia 

EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development/Armenia 

Total Ar
MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 29 

BUREAU MISSION INSTITUTION FUNC

Belarus CNFA/Belarus Citizens Network for Foreign Affairs (CNFA)/Belarus 

EBRD/Belarus European Bank for Reconstruction and Development/Belarus FIN

EF Eurasia Foundation/Belarus 

Total B

Central Asian Republics (CAR ) 

ACDI/VOCA CAMFA/EE Region FIN

Tota

Croatia 

DAI Development Alternatives, Inc./Croatia 

Total C

Kazakhstan 

ACDI/VOCA CAMFA/EE Region FIN

BearingPoint, Inc./Kazakhstan MED 

EBRD/KSBP European Bank for Reconstruction and Development/Kazakhstan FIN

Small Business/Kazakhstan

Pragma Corp/Kazakhstan Pragma Corp/Kazakhstan FIN

Total Kaza

Kosovo KCBS Kosovo Cluster and Business Support/Kosovo 

Total K

Kyrgyzstan 

ACDI/VOCA CAMFA/EE Region C

Ard, Inc./Kyrgyzstan MED 

BearingPoint, Inc./Kyrgyzstan BearingPoint, Inc./Kyrgyzstan FINANCIAL BearingPoint, Inc./Kyrgyzstan MED 

IFDC International Fertilizer Development Center/Kyrgyzstan 

IRT Investment Round Table Public Association/Kyrgyzstan FINANCIAL 

Land Reform/KG Chemonics International/Kyrgyzstan MED 

LARC/Kyrgyzstan 

MSFF EBRD Micro and Small Finance Facility Kyrgyzstan/Kyrgyzstan FIN

Pragma Corp./Kyrgyzstan MED Pragma Corp./Kyrgyzstan 

USAID Legal Infrastructure For a Market Economy Project, 

implemented by ARD/Checchi/Kyrgyzstan

USAID Legal Infrastructure For a Market Economy Project, MED 

implemented by ARD/Checchi/Kyrgyzstan 

Total Kyrg
30 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 

BUREAU MISSION INSTITUTION FUNC

Macedonia 

W

OCCU 

W

orld Council of Credit Unions, Inc./Macedonia FIN

Total Mac

Moldova BIZPRO-Moldova Development Alternatives, Inc./Moldova FINANCIAL 

BIZPRO-Moldova Development Alternatives, Inc./Moldova MED 

Chemonics/Moldova Chemonics International, Inc./Moldova 

CNFA Citizens Network of Foreign Affairs/Moldova 

Eurasia Foundation/Moldova 

FinCom Bank/Moldova FIN

Total M

Montenegro Cooperative Housing Foundation CHF/Montenegro 

International Relief and Development IRD/Montenegro 

Total Mont

Romania CHF International/Romania FIN

Total Ro

Russia 

ACDI/VOCA/Russia FIN

DAI Development Alternatives, Inc./Russia FINDAI Development Alternatives, Inc./Russia FINANCIAL 

Total 

Serbia 

ACDI/VOCA CDRA/Serbia 

ADF America's Development Foundation/Serbia 

Booz Allen Hamilton/Serbia 

CHF Cooperative Housing Foundation/CRDA/Serbia 

IRD International Relief and Development, Inc./CRDA/Serbia 

MCI Mercy Corps International/Serbia 

Total 

Tajikistan 

ACDI/VOCA CAMFA/EE Region FIN

ARD/CHECCHI/Tajikistan MED 

BearingPoint, Inc./Tajikistan FINANCIAL BearingPoint, Inc./Tajikistan MED 

EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development/Tajikistan FIN

Pragma Corp/Tajikistan 

Total Taj
MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 31 

BUREAU MISSION INSTITUTION FUNCT

Turkmenistan Pragma Corporation/Turkmenistan 

Total Turkme

Ukraine Abt Associates Inc/Ukraine MED P

ATCI Pragma Corporation/Access to Credit Initiative/Ukraine FINANCIAL P

BIZPRO-DAI/Ukraine MED P

Chemonics Urban/Rural Land Titling Initiative/Ukraine MED P

Chemonics-LED/Ukraine FINANCIAL PChemonics-LED/Ukraine MED P

CLC Emerging Markets Group/Ukraine FINANCIAL P

CURE/UREP Center for Ukrainian Reform Education/Ukraine MED P

Eurasia Foundation/Ukraine 

FMI Financial Markets International, Inc./Ukraine FINANCIAL PFMI Financial Markets International, Inc./Ukraine MED P

LOL AMP-Land O'Lakes/Ukraine 

Total Uk

Uzbekistan 

ACDI/VOCA CAMFA/EE Region FIN

BearingPoint, Inc./Uzbekistan MED P

Pragma/Uzbekistan 

WOCCU 

W

orld Council of Credit Unions, Inc./Uzbekistan FIN

Total Uzbe

Tota

MD 

ACDI/VOCA/Worldwide 

Agreement Pending FINAgreement Pending 

ATA Aid to Artisans/USA 

Chemonics International, Inc./Malawi FIN

Chemonics International, Inc./USA FINChemonics International, Inc./USA 

CPM Caja Popular mexicana/Mexico FIN

DAI Development Alternatives, Inc. FINANCIAL PDAI Development Alternatives, Inc. DAI Development Alternatives, Inc. FIN

DAI Development Alternatives, Inc./Brazil 

EMDAP Emerging Markets Development Assistance Program/Worldwide FIN
32 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 

BUREAU MISSION INSTITUTION FUNC

CENTRAL


Emerging Markets/Worldwide FINANCIAL 

IBM (Formerly PriceWaterhouseCoopers)/Worldwide FIN

IBM Business Consulting Services/South Africa FINANCIAL 

IRIS Center for Institutional Reform and the Informal Sector/Worldwide FINANCIAL 

LWA Leader with Associates/Worldwide FINANCIAL 

MD Office of Microenterprise Development/Worldwide FINANCIAL 

MEDA Mennonite Economic Development Associates/Pakistan 

Mercy Corps International/Azerbaijan/Azerbaijan 

SEEP Network/Worldwide FINANCIAL 

The QED Group, LLC/Worldwide MED 

Triple Trust Organization/South Africa 

Weidemann Assoc./Worldwide MED 

To

PVC AAC/MIS Americas Assoc of Coops/Mutual Insur. Soc/Worldwide FIN

ACDI/VOCA/Worldwide 

CHF Cooperative Housing Foundation 

Freedom from Hunger/USA FIN

IDE International Development Enterprises/Worldwide 

NCBA National Cooperative Business Association/USA 

PADF Pan American Development Foundation/LAC Region FIN

Plan International/Worldwide FIN

SEEP Network/Worldwide FIN

TechnoServe/Worldwide 

TMI The Mountain Institute/Worldwide 

World Council of Credit Unions/Worldwide FIN

WR W

orld Relief/Worldwide FIN

WV 

W

orld Vision Relief and Development/Worldwide FIN

Tota

Total CEN

LAC 

Bolivia 

DAI DAI PREMIER/Bolivia FINANCIAL 

WOCCU 

W

orld Council Of Credit Unions/Bolivia FIN

Total 
MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 33 

BUREAU MISSION INSTITUTION FUNC

Brazil CRS Catholic Relief Service/Brazil FI

DAI Development Alternatives Incorporated/Brazil DAI Development Alternatives Incorporated/Brazil MED 

Tota

Colombia 

ACDI/VOCA Colombia 

ATA Aid to Artisans/Colombia 

Chemonics International/Colombia 

CHF Cooperative Housing Foundation/Colombia FICHF Cooperative Housing Foundation/Colombia 

IOM International Office of Migration/Colombia FIIOM International Office of Migration/Colombia 

PADF Panamerican Development Foundation/Colombia FIPADF Panamerican Development Foundation/Colombia 

Total Co

Ecuador Banco Procredit Sociedad Financiera Ecuatorial/Ecuador FI

SALTO/DAI Strengthen Access to Microfinance and FI

Liberalization Task Order/Ecuador

WOCCU/Ecuador FI

Total E

El Salvador Agreement Pending FI

Total El Sa

Guatemala 

A

GEXPRONT/Guatemala 

STC Save The Children/Guatemala 

Total Gua

Guyana Carana Corporation/Guyana FI

Carana Corporation/Guyana FINANCIAL Carana Corporation/Guyana Carana Corporation/Guyana MED 

Total G

Haiti 

ATA Aid to Artisans/Haiti 

DAI/FINNET Financial Services Network Project/Haiti FI

DAI/HAP/Haiti 

FINCA/Haiti FI

Fonkoze Fondasyon Kole Zepol/Haiti FI

Tota

Honduras Fintrac, Inc./Centro de Desarrollo de Agronegocios/Honduras 

Total Ho

Jamaica Agreement Pending 
34 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 

BUREAU MISSION INSTITUTION FUNC

CARANA Corporation/Barbados FIN

DAI/Jamaica 

NCB National Commercial Bank, Ltd./Jamaica FIN

Total Ja

Mexico Microenterprise Support 

CPM Caja Popular Mexicana/Mexico FIN

CRS/Mexico FIN

Proyecto AFIRMA Acceso al Financimiento Rural para la Microempresa FIN

(AFIRMA), Development Al/Mexico

Proyecto AFIRMA Acceso al Financimiento Rural para la Microempresa FINANCIAL P

(AFIRMA), Development Al/Mexico 

Total M

Nicaragua ADRA/Nicaragua FIN

CRS Catholic Relief Services/Nicaragua FIN

PCI Project Concern International/Nicaragua FIN

Total Nica

Panama 

ACDI/VOCA/Panama 

AED Academy for Educational Development/Panama 

Total Pa

Peru 

CARITAS Juli FIN

Chemonics/Peru 

CMAC Piura/Peru FIN

CMAC Sullana/Peru FIN

COPEME Consorcio de organizaciones privadas de promocion a la 

pequenha y micro em/Peru

EDPYME CONFIANZA EDPYME CONFIANZA S.A./Peru FIN

Nathan Associates, Inc./Peru MED P

Tota

Total LAC 

Grand Total 

Total Number of 

Awards 

Total Number of Countries 

* MED POLICY = Enterprise Development Policy*Central Bureau awards fund activities worldwide* Total number of awards equals the number of new and existing agreements funded in FY 2005 
Annex B: Microenterprise Funding by 

Bureau, FY 2005 (US$ '000s) 

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 35 
36 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 

FINANCIAL ENTERPRISE 

BUREAU MISSION FINANCE POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPM

AFRICA


AFRICA Bureau $95 $0 $0 

Angola $0 $0 $1,191 

Benin $437 $0 $0 

Burkina Faso $744 $0 $0 

DR Congo $271 $0 $0 

Eritrea $0 $0 $0 

Ethiopia $300 $0 $500 

Ghana $0 $0 $5,622 

Guinea $0 $0 $871 

Kenya $1,367 $0 $1,186 

Liberia $0 $0 $106 

Madagascar $0 $0 $350 

Malawi $506 $345 $2,000 

Mali 

$0 

$0 $2,848 

Mozambique $0 $0 $2,671 

Namibia $0 $0 $0 

Nigeria $500 $0 $0 

Senegal $0 $0 $2,335 

Sierra Leone $0 $0 $127 

South Africa $0 $0 $500 

Sudan $2,000 $0 $0 

Tanzania $0 $0 $2,441 

Uganda $4,000 $146 $2,711 

Zambia $0 $0 $600 

Zimbabwe 

$0 

$0 $178 

Total AFRICA $10,220 $491 $26,237 

ANE


Afghanistan $0 $0 $0 

Bangladesh $74 $0 $569 
MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 37 

FINANCIAL ENTERPRISE 

BUREAU MISSION FINANCE POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPM

East Timor $288 $0 $86 

Egypt $0 $0 $6,000 

India $700 $0 $1,400 

Indonesia $7,750 $1,455 $2,817 

Iraq $28,886 $0 $0 

Jordan $420 $0 $2,107 

Mongolia $0 $0 $1,800 

Morocco $207 $0 

Nepal $0 $0 $2,282 

Pakistan $4,500 $0 $0 

Philippines $3,980 $560 $0 

RDM/A $236 $0 $81 

Tibet $0 $0 $0 

West Bank /Gaza $4,950 $2,750 

E&E


Total ANE $51,991 $2,015 $19,892 

Albania $262 $0 $938 

Armenia $0 $0 $1,644 

Azerbaijan $0 $0 

Belarus $98 $0 $48 

Bulgaria $0 $0 

CAR Central Asian Republics $154 $0 $0 

Croatia $0 $0 $3,407 

EE Bureau $0 $0 

Georgia $0 $0 

Kazakhstan $1,618 $0 $261 

Kosovo $0 $300 

Kyrgyzstan $1,376 $134 $1,247 

Macedonia $500 $0 $0 

Moldova $45 $46 $548 
38 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 

FINANCIAL ENTERPRISE 

BUREAU MISSION FINANCE POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPM

Montenegro $0 $0 $818 

Romania $800 $0 $0 

Russia $1,680 $720 $0 

Serbia $0 $0 $7,149 

Tajikistan $751 $100 $64 

Turkmenistan $0 $0 $54 

Ukraine $0 $1,521 $1,097 

Uzbekistan $1,870 $0 $74 

LAC


Total E&E $9,154 $2,521 $17,649 

Bolivia $448 $1,056 $0 

Brazil $50 $0 $755 

Colombia $2,099 $0 $11,407 

Ecuador $1,297 $0 $0 

El Salvador $100 $0 $0 

Guatemala $0 $0 $389 

Guyana $15 $100 $65 

Haiti $2,517 $0 $667 

Honduras $0 $0 $1,000 

Jamaica $4,364 $0 $7,360 

LAC Bureau $0 $0 $0 

Mexico $2,203 $345 $0 

Nicaragua $905 $0 $0 
MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 39 FINANCIAL ENTERPRISE 

BUREAU MISSION FINANCE POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPM

CENTRAL


Panama $0 $0 $1,566 

Peru $2,001 $0 $1,300 

Total LAC $15,999 $1,501 $24,509 

MD $3,236 $3,993 $3,629 

PVC $2,697 $2,303 

Total CENTRAL $5,933 $3,993 $5,932 

GRAND T

OTAL $93,297 $10,521 $94,219 

ANE Asia and Near EastE&E Europe and EurasiaLAC Latin America and the CaribbeanMD Microenterprise Development OfficePVC Private Voluntary Cooperation OfficeRDM/A Regional Development Mission/Asia 


U.S.Agency for International Development 

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW


Washington, DC 20523


Tel: (202) 712-0000


Fax: (202) 216-3524


www.usaid.gov