[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78337-78344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21969]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION

[MCC FR 24-07]


Millennium Challenge Corporation Selection Criteria and 
Methodology Report for Fiscal Year 2025

AGENCY: Millennium Challenge Corporation.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, requires the 
Millennium Challenge Corporation to publish a report that identifies 
the criteria and methodology that MCC intends to use to determine which 
candidate countries may be eligible to be considered for assistance 
under the Millennium Challenge Act for fiscal year 2025. The report is 
set forth in full below.

(Authority: 22 U.S.C. 7707(b)(2))

    Dated: September 20, 2024.
Peter E. Jaffe,
Vice President, General Counsel, and Corporate Secretary.

Millennium Challenge Corporation

Selection Criteria and Methodology Report for Fiscal Year 2025

    This document explains how the Board of Directors (the Board) of 
the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) will identify, evaluate, and 
select eligible countries for fiscal year (FY) 2025. Specifically, this 
document discusses the following:

(I) Which countries MCC will evaluate
(II) How the Board evaluates these countries
    A. Overall evaluation
    B. For selection of an eligible country for a first compact
    C. For selection of an eligible country for a subsequent compact
    D. For selection of an eligible country for a concurrent compact
    E. For threshold program assistance
    F. A note on potential transition out of MCC's candidate pool after 
initial selection

    This report is provided in accordance with section 608(b) of the 
Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended (the Act), as more fully 
described in Appendix A.

[[Page 78338]]

(I) Which countries are evaluated?

    MCC evaluates the policy performance of all candidate countries and 
statutorily-prohibited countries by dividing them into separate income 
categories for the purposes of creating ``scorecards.'' These 
categories are used to account for the income bias that occurs when 
countries with more per capita resources perform better than countries 
with fewer. In FY 2025, those scorecard evaluation income categories 
\1\ are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The income groups align with the definitions of low income 
countries and lower middle countries using the historical 
International Development Association (IDA) threshold published by 
the World Bank. MCC has used these categories to evaluate country 
performance since FY 2004. While the amended statute no longer uses 
those definitions for funding purposes, MCC continues to use them 
for evaluation purposes. The third category is listed in case the 
Millennium Challenge Corporation Candidate Country Reform Act 
legislation or legislation that would similarly reform the 
composition of MCC's candidate pool becomes law prior to FY 2026 and 
between the date of publication of this report and the evaluation of 
countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Countries whose gross national income (GNI) per capita is 
$2,165 or less;
    <bullet> Countries whose GNI per capita is between $2,166 and 
$4,515; and
    <bullet> Countries whose GNI per capita is between $4,516 and 
$7,895.

(II) How does the Board evaluate these countries?

A. Overall Evaluation

    The Board looks at three statutorily-mandated factors when it 
evaluates any candidate country for compact eligibility: (1) policy 
performance; (2) the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate 
economic growth; and (3) the availability of MCC funds.
(1) Policy Performance
    Appendix C describes all 20 indicators, their definitions, what is 
required to ``pass,'' their source, and their relationship to the 
statutory criteria. Because of the importance of evaluating a country's 
policy performance in a comparable, cross-country way, the Board relies 
to the maximum extent possible upon the best-available objective and 
quantifiable policy performance indicators. These indicators act as 
proxies for a country's commitment to just and democratic governance, 
economic freedom, and investing in its people. Composed of 20 third-
party indicators in the categories of ruling justly, encouraging 
economic freedom, and investing in people, MCC scorecards are created 
for all candidate countries and statutorily-prohibited countries. To 
``pass'' most indicators on its scorecard, a country's score on each 
indicator must be above the median score in its income group (as 
defined above for scorecard evaluation purposes). For the inflation, 
political rights, civil liberties, and immunization rates \2\ 
indicators, however, MCC has established minimum or maximum scores for 
``passing.'' In particular, the Board considers whether a country:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A minimum score required to pass has been established for 
the immunization rates indicator only when the median score is above 
a 90 percent immunization rate. Countries must score above 90 
percent or the median for their scorecard income pool, whichever is 
lower, in order to pass the indicator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> passes at least 10 of the 20 indicators, with at least one 
pass in each of the three categories;
    <bullet> passes either the Political Rights or Civil Liberties 
indicator; and
    <bullet> passes the Control of Corruption indicator.
    While satisfaction of all three aspects means a country is termed 
to have ``passed'' the scorecard, the Board also considers whether the 
country performs ``substantially worse'' in any one policy category 
than it does on the scorecard overall.
    The mandatory passing of either the Political Rights or Civil 
Liberties indicators is called the Democratic Rights ``hard hurdle'' on 
the scorecard, while the mandatory passing of the Control of Corruption 
indicator is called the Control of Corruption ``hard hurdle.'' Not 
passing either ``hard hurdle'' results in not passing the scorecard 
overall, regardless of whether at least 10 of the 20 other indicators 
are passed.
    <bullet> Democratic Rights ``hard hurdle:'' This hurdle sets a 
minimum bar for democratic rights below which the Board will not 
consider a country for compact eligibility. Requiring that a country 
pass either the Political Rights or Civil Liberties indicator creates a 
democratic incentive for countries, recognizes the importance democracy 
plays in driving poverty-reducing economic growth, and holds MCC to the 
high standard of working with the best governed, poorest countries. 
When a candidate country is only passing one of the two indicators 
comprising the hurdle (instead of both), the Board will also closely 
examine why it is not passing the other indicator to understand what 
the score implies for the broader democratic environment and trajectory 
of the country. This examination will include consultation with both 
local and international civil society experts, among others. The hurdle 
is an important signal of the importance MCC places on democratic 
governance and the role of MCC programs in helping democracies deliver 
development results for their citizens--a democratic dividend.
    <bullet> Control of Corruption ``hard hurdle:'' Corruption in any 
country is an unacceptable tax on economic growth and an obstacle to 
the private sector investment needed to reduce poverty. Accordingly, 
MCC seeks out partner countries committed to combatting corruption. It 
is for this reason that MCC also has the Control of Corruption ``hard 
hurdle,'' which helps ensure that MCC is working with countries where 
there is relatively strong performance in controlling corruption. 
Requiring the passage of the indicator incentivizes countries to 
demonstrate a clear commitment to controlling corruption, and allows 
MCC to better understand the issue by seeing how the country performs 
relative to its peers and over time.
    Together, the 20 policy performance indicators are the predominant 
basis for determining which eligible countries will be selected for MCC 
assistance, and the Board expects a country to be passing its scorecard 
at the point the Board decides to select the country as eligible to 
develop a compact. The Board, however, also recognizes that even the 
best-available data has inherent challenges. Data gaps, real-time 
events versus data lags, the absence of narratives and nuanced detail, 
and other similar weaknesses affect each of these indicators. As such, 
the Board uses its judgment to interpret policy performance as measured 
by the scorecards. The Board may also consult other sources of 
information to enhance its understanding of the context underpinning a 
country's policy performance beyond scorecard issues (e.g., specific 
policy issues related to trade, the treatment of civil society, other 
U.S. aid programs, financial sector performance, and security/foreign 
policy concerns). The Board uses its judgment on how best to weigh such 
information in assessing overall policy performance and making a final 
determination.
(2) The Opportunity To Reduce Poverty and Generate Economic Growth
    While the Board considers a range of other information sources 
depending on the country, specific areas of attention typically include 
better understanding issues and trends in, and trajectory of:
    <bullet> the state of democratic and human rights (especially 
vulnerable groups \3\);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For example: women; children; LGBTQI+ individuals; people 
with disabilities; and workers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 78339]]

    <bullet> civil society's perspective on salient governance issues;
    <bullet> the control of corruption and rule of law;
    <bullet> the potential for the private sector (both local and 
foreign) to lead investment and growth;
    <bullet> poverty levels within a country; and
    <bullet> the country's institutional capacity.
    Where applicable, the Board also considers MCC's own experience and 
ability to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in a given 
country--such as considering MCC's core areas of expertise and skills 
versus a country's needs, and MCC's capacity to work with a country.
    This information provides greater clarity on the likelihood that 
MCC programs will have an appreciable impact on reducing poverty by 
generating economic growth in a given country. The Board has used such 
information to better understand when a country's performance on a 
particular indicator may not be up to date or is about to change. It 
has also used supplemental information to decline to select countries 
that are otherwise passing their scorecards. More details on this 
subject (sometimes referred to as ``supplemental information'') can be 
found on MCC's website: www.mcc.gov/who-we-select/indicators.
(3) The Availability of MCC Funds
    The final factor that the Board must consider when evaluating 
countries is the availability of funds. The agency's budget is 
constrained, and often specifically limited, by provisions in the Act 
and in applicable appropriations acts. MCC has a continuous pipeline of 
countries in program development, implementation, and closure. 
Consequently, the Board factors in MCC's overall portfolio when making 
its selection decisions given current and projected funding 
availability for each planned or existing program.
* * * * *
    The following subsections describe how the Board applies each of 
these three statutorily-mandated factors to: selection of countries for 
a compact, selection of countries for a subsequent compact, selection 
of countries for the threshold program, and selection of countries for 
a concurrent compact. A note follows on considerations for countries 
that might transition out of MCC's candidate pool after initial 
selection.

B. Evaluation for Selection of Eligible Countries for a First Compact

    When selecting eligible countries for a compact, the Board looks at 
all three statutorily-mandated aspects described in the previous 
section: (1) policy performance, first and foremost as measured by the 
scorecards and bolstered through supplemental information (as described 
in the previous section); (2) the opportunity to reduce poverty and 
generate economic growth, examined through the use of other supporting 
information (as described in the previous section); and (3) available 
funding.
    At a minimum, the Board considers whether a country passes its 
scorecard. The Board also examines supporting evidence that a country's 
commitment to just and democratic governance, economic freedom, and 
investing in its people is on a sound footing and performance is on a 
positive trajectory (especially on the ``hard hurdles'' of Democratic 
Rights and Control of Corruption), and that MCC will have the funds to 
support a meaningful compact with that country. Where applicable, 
previous threshold program information is also considered. For those 
countries currently developing or implementing a threshold program, the 
Board will examine the progress the country has made toward substantial 
implementation.
    The Board then weighs the information described above across each 
of the three dimensions. During the compact development period 
following initial selection, the Board reevaluates a selected country 
based on this same approach.

C. Evaluation for Selection of Eligible Countries for a Subsequent 
Compact

    Section 609(l) of the Act authorizes MCC to enter into ``one or 
more subsequent Compacts.'' MCC does not consider the eligibility of a 
country for a subsequent compact, however, before the country has 
completed its compact or is within 18 months of compact end date. 
Selection for a subsequent compact is not automatic and is intended for 
countries that (1) exhibit successful performance on their previous 
compact(s); (2) exhibit improved scorecard policy performance during 
the partnership; and (3) exhibit a continued commitment to further 
their sector reform efforts in any subsequent partnership. As a result, 
the Board has an even higher standard when selecting countries for 
subsequent compacts.
(1) Successful Implementation of the Previous Compact(s)
    To evaluate any previous compact's success, the Board examines 
whether the compact succeeded within its budget and time limits, in 
particular by looking at three aspects of each compact program:
    <bullet> The degree to which there is evidence of strong political 
will and management capacity: Is the partnership characterized by the 
country ensuring that both policy reforms and the compact program 
itself are both being implemented to the best of that country's 
ability?
    <bullet> The degree to which the country has exhibited commitment 
and capacity to achieve program results: Are the financial and project 
results being achieved; to what degree is the country committing its 
own resources to ensure the compact is a success; to what extent is the 
private sector engaged (if relevant); and are there other compact-
specific issues to take into account?
    <bullet> The degree to which the country has implemented the 
compact in accordance with MCC's core policies and standards: Is the 
country adhering to MCC's policies and procedures, including in 
critical areas such as: remediating unresolved claims of fraud, 
corruption, or abuse of funds; procurement; and monitoring and 
evaluation?
    Appendix D provides details on the specific information types 
examined and sources used in each of the three areas. Overall, the 
Board is looking for evidence that the previous compact(s) will be or 
has been completed on time and on budget, and that there is a 
commitment to continued, robust reform going forward.
(2) Improved Scorecard Policy Performance
    The Board also expects the country to have improved its overall 
scorecard policy performance during the partnership and to pass the 
scorecard in the year of selection for the subsequent compact. The 
Board focuses on the following:
    <bullet> The overall scorecard pass/fail rate over time and what 
this suggests about underlying policy performance, as well as an 
examination of the underlying reasons;
    <bullet> The progress over time on policy areas measured by both 
hard hurdle indicators--Democratic Rights and Control of Corruption--
including an examination of the underlying reasons; and
    <bullet> Other indicator trajectories deemed relevant by the Board.
    In all cases, while the Board expects the country to be passing its 
scorecard, the Board also examines other sources of information to 
understand the nuance and reasons behind scorecard or indicator 
performance over time, including any real-time updates, methodological 
changes within the indicators themselves, shifts in the

[[Page 78340]]

relevant candidate pool, or alternative policy performance perspectives 
(such as those gleaned through consultations with civil society and 
related stakeholders). The Board also consults other information 
sources to look at policy performance over time in areas not covered by 
the scorecard, but that the Board deems to be important (such as trade 
and foreign policy concerns).
(3) A commitment to Further Sector Reform
    The Board expects that subsequent compacts will endeavor to tackle 
deeper policy reforms necessary to unlock an identified constraint to 
growth. Consequently, the Board considers MCC's own experience during 
the previous compact in considering how committed the country is to 
reducing poverty and increasing economic growth, and tries to gauge the 
country's commitment to further sector reform should it be selected for 
a subsequent compact. This includes:
    <bullet> Assessing the country's delivery of policy reform during 
the previous compact (as described above);
    <bullet> Assessing expectations of the country's ability and 
willingness to continue embarking on sector policy reform in a 
subsequent compact;
    <bullet> Examining both other information sources describing the 
opportunity to reduce poverty by generating growth (as outlined in A.2 
above) and the prior compact's relative success overall (as discussed 
above); and
    <bullet> Considering how well funding can be leveraged for impact, 
given the country's experience in the previous compact.
* * * * *
    Through this overall approach to selection for a subsequent 
compact, the Board applies the three statutorily-mandated evaluation 
criteria (policy performance, the opportunity to reduce poverty and 
generate economic growth, and available funds) in a way that assesses 
the previous partnership from a compact success standpoint, a 
commitment to improved scorecard policy performance standpoint, and a 
commitment to continued sector policy reform standpoint. The Board then 
weighs all the information described above in making its decision.
    During the compact development period following initial selection, 
the Board reevaluates a selected country based on this same approach.

D. Evaluation for Concurrent Compacts

    Section 609(k) of the Act authorizes MCC to enter into one 
additional concurrent compact with a country if one or both of the 
compacts with the country is for the purpose of regional economic 
integration, increased regional trade, or cross-border collaborations.
    The fundamental criteria and process for the selection of countries 
for such compacts remains the same as those for the selection of 
countries for non-concurrent compacts: countries continue to be 
evaluated and selected individually, as described in sections II.A, 
II.B, II.C, and II.F.
    Section 609(k) also requires as a precondition for a concurrent 
compact that the Board determine that the country is making 
``considerable and demonstrable progress in implementing the terms of 
the existing Compact and supplementary agreements thereto.'' This 
statutory requirement is consistent with prior Board practice regarding 
the selection of a country for a non-concurrent compact. For a country 
where a concurrent compact is contemplated, the Board will take into 
account whether there is clear evidence of success, as relevant to the 
phase of the current compact. Among other information, the Board will 
examine the evaluation criteria described in Section II.C.1 above, 
notably:
    <bullet> The degree to which there is evidence of strong political 
will and management capacity;
    <bullet> The degree to which the country has exhibited commitment 
and capacity to achieve program results; and
    <bullet> The degree to which the country has implemented the 
compact in accordance with MCC's core policies and standards.
    In addition to providing information to the Board so it can make 
its determination regarding the country's progress in implementing its 
current compact, MCC will provide the Board with additional information 
relating to the potential for regional economic integration, increased 
regional trade, or cross-border collaborations for any country being 
considered for a concurrent compact. This information may include items 
such as:
    <bullet> The current state of a country's regional integration, 
such as common financial and political dialogue frameworks, integration 
of productive value chains, and cross-border flows of people, goods, 
and services.
    <bullet> The current and potential level of trade between a country 
and its neighbors, including analysis of trade flows and unexploited 
potential for trade, and an assessment of the extent and significance 
of tariff and non-tariff barriers, including information regarding the 
patterns of trade.
    <bullet> The potential gains from cross-border cooperation between 
a country and its neighbors to alleviate bilateral and regional 
bottlenecks to economic growth and poverty reduction, such as through 
physical infrastructure or coordinated policy and institutional 
reforms.
    The Board then weighs all information as a whole--the fundamental 
selection factors described in sections II.A, II.B, II.C, and II.F, the 
information regarding implementation of the current compact, and any 
additional relevant information regarding potential regional 
integration--to determine whether or not MCC will seek to enter into a 
concurrent compact with a country.

E. Evaluation for Threshold Program Assistance

    The Board may also evaluate countries for participation in the 
threshold program. Threshold programs provide assistance to candidate 
countries exhibiting a significant commitment to meeting the criteria 
described in the previous subsections but failing to meet such 
requirements. Specifically, in examining a candidate country's policy 
performance, the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic 
growth, and available funds, the Board will consider whether a country 
appears to be on a trajectory to becoming viable for compact 
eligibility in the medium or short term.

F. A Note on Potential Transition Out of MCC's Candidate Pool After 
Initial Selection

    Some candidate countries may have a high per capita income or a 
high growth rate that implies there is a chance they could transition 
out of MCC's candidate pool during the life of an MCC partnership. It 
is not possible to accurately predict if or when such a transition may 
occur.
    Nonetheless, such countries may have more resources at their 
disposal for funding their own growth and poverty reduction strategies. 
As a result, in addition to using the regular selection criteria 
described in the previous sections, the Board will use its discretion 
to assess both the need and the opportunity presented by partnering 
with such a country, in order to ensure that MCC's scarce grant funds 
are directed appropriately.
    Specifically, if a candidate country with a high probability of 
transitioning out of MCC's candidate pool is under consideration for 
selection, the Board will examine additional data and information 
related to the following:
    <bullet> Whether the country faces significant challenges accessing 
other sources of development financing (such

[[Page 78341]]

as international capital, domestic resources, and other donor 
assistance) and, if so, whether MCC grant financing would be an 
appropriate tool;
    <bullet> Whether the nature of poverty in the country (for example, 
high inequality or poverty headcount ratios relative to peer countries) 
presents a clear and strategic opportunity for MCC to assist the 
country in reducing such poverty through projects that spur economic 
growth;
    <bullet> Whether the country demonstrates particularly strong 
policy performance, including policies and actions that demonstrate a 
clear priority on poverty reduction; and
    <bullet> Whether MCC can reasonably expect that the country would 
contribute a significant amount of funding to the compact.
    These additional criteria would then be applied in any additional 
years of selection as the country continues to develop its compact. 
Should a country eventually transition out of MCC's candidate pool 
during compact development, it would no longer be a candidate for 
selection for that fiscal year. Continuing compact development beyond 
that point would then be at the Board's discretion.

Appendix A: Statutory Basis for This Report

    This report to Congress is provided in accordance with section 
608(b) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended (the 
Act), 22 U.S.C. 7707(b).
    Section 605 of the Act authorizes the provision of assistance to 
countries that enter into a Millennium Challenge Compact with the 
United States to support policies and programs that advance the 
progress of such countries in achieving lasting economic growth and 
poverty reduction. The Act requires MCC to take a number of steps in 
selecting countries for compact assistance for FY 2025 based on the 
countries' demonstrated commitment to just and democratic 
governance, economic freedom, and investing in their people, MCC's 
opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in the 
country, and the availability of funds. These steps include the 
submission of reports to the congressional committees specified in 
the Act and publication of information in the Federal Register that 
identify:
    (1) The countries that are ``candidate countries'' for 
assistance for FY 2025 based on per capita income levels and 
eligibility to receive assistance under U.S. law and countries that 
would be candidate countries but for specified legal prohibitions on 
assistance (section 608(a) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(a));
    (2) The criteria and methodology that MCC's Board of Directors 
(Board) will use to measure and evaluate policy performance of the 
candidate countries consistent with the requirements of subsections 
(a) and (b) of section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) in order to 
determine ``eligible countries'' from among the ``candidate 
countries'' (section 608(b) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(b)); and
    (3) The list of countries determined by the Board to be 
``eligible countries'' for FY 2025, with justification for 
eligibility determination and selection for compact negotiation, 
including those eligible countries with which MCC will seek to enter 
into compacts (section 608(d) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(d)).
    This report satisfies item 2 above.

Appendix B: Lists of all Candidate Countries and Statutorily-Prohibited 
Countries for Evaluation Purposes

Income Groups for Scorecards

    Since MCC was created, it has relied on the World Bank's gross 
national income (GNI) per capita income data (Atlas method) and the 
historical ceiling for eligibility as set by the World Bank's 
International Development Association (IDA) to divide countries into 
separate income categories for purposes of creating scorecards. 
These categories are used to account for the income bias that occurs 
when countries with more per capita resources perform better than 
countries with fewer. Using the historical IDA eligibility ceiling 
for the scorecard evaluation groups ensures that the poorest 
countries compete with their income level peers and are not compared 
against countries with more resources to mobilize. Similarly, if the 
Millennium Challenge Corporation Candidate Country Reform Act (or 
legislation that similarly revises the threshold for MCC's candidate 
pool to the World Bank threshold for initiating the International 
Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) graduation process 
for the Fiscal Year) were to become law, MCC would group the 
countries newly included in the income pool in a third group to 
maintain this principle of countries competing with their income 
peers.
    Therefore, for FY25, MCC will continue to use the historical IDA 
classifications for eligibility to categorize countries in groups 
for purposes of FY 2025 scorecard comparisons:
    <bullet> Countries with GNI per capita equal to or less than 
IDA's historical ceiling for eligibility (i.e., $2,165 for FY 2025); 
and
    <bullet> Countries with GNI per capita above IDA's historical 
ceiling for eligibility but below the World Bank's lower middle 
income/upper middle income country threshold (i.e., $2,166 and 
$4,515 for FY 2025).
    <bullet> Countries with GNI per capita above the World Bank's 
lower middle income/upper middle income country threshold but below 
the threshold for initiating the IBRD graduation process (i.e., 
$4,516 and $7,895 for FY 2025) would be a third category. This final 
category would be used only if legislation that reforms the 
composition of MCC's candidate pool passes between the date of 
publication of this report, and the evaluation of countries.
    The list of countries that are candidates for FY 2025 scorecard 
assessments is set forth in the current FY 2025 Candidate Country 
Report.

Appendix C: Indicator Definitions

    The following indicators will be used to measure candidate 
countries' demonstrated commitment to the criteria found in section 
607(b) of the Act. The indicators are intended to assess the degree 
to which the political and economic conditions in a country serve to 
promote broad-based sustainable economic growth and reduction of 
poverty and thus provide a sound environment for the use of MCC 
funds. The indicators are not goals in themselves; rather, they are 
proxy measures of policies that are linked to broad-based 
sustainable economic growth. The indicators were selected based on 
(i) their relationship to economic growth and poverty reduction; 
(ii) the number of countries they cover; (iii) transparency and 
availability; and (iv) relative soundness and objectivity. Where 
possible, the indicators are developed by independent sources. 
Listed below is a brief summary of the indicators (a detailed 
rationale for the adoption of these indicators can be found in the 
public Guide to the Indicators on MCC's website at www.mcc.gov/who-we-select/indicators).

Ruling Justly

    1. Political Rights: Independent experts rate countries on the 
prevalence of free and fair electoral processes; political pluralism 
and participation of all stakeholders; government accountability and 
transparency; freedom from domination by the military, foreign 
powers, totalitarian parties, religious hierarchies and economic 
oligarchies; and the political rights of minority groups, among 
other things. Pass: Score must be above the minimum score of 17 out 
of 40. Source: Freedom House.
    2. Civil Liberties: Independent experts rate countries on 
freedom of expression and belief; association and organizational 
rights; rule of law and human rights; and personal autonomy and 
economic rights, among other things. Pass: Score must be above the 
minimum score of 25 out of 60. Source: Freedom House.
    3. Freedom of Information: Measures the legal and practical 
steps taken by a government to enable or allow information to move 
freely through society; this includes measures of press freedom, 
national freedom of information laws, and the extent to which a 
county is shutting down social media or the internet. Pass: Score 
must be above the median score for the income group. Source: 
Reporters Without Borders/Access Now/Centre for Law and Democracy.
    4. Government Effectiveness: An index of surveys and expert 
assessments that rate countries on the quality of public service 
provision; civil servants' competency and independence from 
political pressures; and the government's ability to plan and 
implement sound policies, among other things. Pass: Score must be 
above the median score for the income group. Source: Worldwide 
Governance Indicators (World Bank/Brookings).
    5. Rule of Law: An index of surveys and expert assessments that 
rate countries on the extent to which the public has confidence in 
and abides by the rules of society; the incidence and impact of 
violent and nonviolent crime; the effectiveness,

[[Page 78342]]

independence, and predictability of the judiciary; the protection of 
property rights; and the enforceability of contracts, among other 
things. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the income 
group. Source: Worldwide Governance Indicators (World Bank/
Brookings).
    6. Control of Corruption: An index of surveys and expert 
assessments that rate countries on: ``grand corruption'' in the 
political arena; the frequency of petty corruption; the effects of 
corruption on the business environment; and the tendency of elites 
to engage in ``state capture,'' among other things. Pass: Score must 
be above the median score for the income group. Source: Worldwide 
Governance Indicators (World Bank/Brookings).

Encouraging Economic Freedom

    1. Fiscal Policy: General government net lending/borrowing as a 
percent of gross domestic product (GDP), averaged over a three-year 
period. Net lending/borrowing is calculated as revenue minus total 
expenditure. The data for this measure comes from the IMF's World 
Economic Outlook. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the 
income group. Source: The International Monetary Fund's World 
Economic Outlook Database.
    2. Inflation: The most recent average annual change in consumer 
prices. Pass: Score must be 15 percent or less. Source: The 
International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Database.
    3. Regulatory Quality: An index of surveys and expert 
assessments that rate countries on the burden of regulations on 
business; price controls; the government's role in the economy; and 
foreign investment regulation, among other areas. Pass: Score must 
be above the median score for the income group. Source: Worldwide 
Governance Indicators (World Bank/Brookings).
    4. Trade Policy: A measure of a country's openness to 
international trade based on weighted average tariff rates and non-
tariff barriers to trade. Pass: Score must be above the median score 
for the income group. Source: The Heritage Foundation.
    5. Gender in the Economy: An index that measures the extent to 
which laws provide men and women equal capacity to generate income 
or participate in the economy, including factors such as the 
capacity to access institutions, get a job, register a business, 
sign a contract, open a bank account, choose where to live, to 
travel freely, property rights protections, protections against 
domestic violence, and child marriage, among others. Pass: Score 
must be above the median score for the income group. Source: Women, 
Business, and the Law (World Bank) and the WORLD Policy Analysis 
Center (UCLA).
    6. Land Rights and Access: An index that rates countries on the 
extent to which the institutional, legal, and market framework 
provides secure land tenure and equitable access to land in rural 
areas and the extent to which men and women have the right to 
private property in practice and in law. Pass: Score must be above 
the median score for the income group. Source: The International 
Fund for Agricultural Development and Varieties of Democracy Index.
    7. Access to Credit: An index that ranks countries based on 
access and use of formal and informal financial services as measured 
by the number of bank branches and ATMs per 100,000 adults and the 
share of adults that have an account at a formal or informal 
financial institution. Pass: Score must be above the median score 
for the income group. Source: Financial Development Index 
(International Monetary Fund) and Findex (World Bank).
    8. Employment Opportunity: Measures a country government's 
commitment to ending slavery and forced labor, preventing employment 
discrimination, and protecting the rights of workers and people with 
disabilities. Pass: Score must be above the median score for the 
income group. Sources: Varieties of Democracy Institute and WORLD 
Policy Analysis Center (UCLA).

Investing in People

    1. Health Expenditures: Total current expenditures on health by 
government (excluding funding sourced from external donors) at all 
levels divided by GDP. Pass: Score must be above the median score 
for the income group. Source: The World Health Organization.
    2. Education Expenditures: Total expenditures on education by 
government at all levels divided by GDP. Pass: Score must be above 
the median score for the income group. Source: The United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and National 
Governments.
    3. Natural Resource Protection: Assesses a country government's 
commitment to preserving biodiversity and natural habitats, 
responsibly managing ecosystems and fisheries, and engaging in 
sustainable agriculture. Pass: Score must be above the median score 
for the income group. Source: Yale Center for Environmental Law and 
Policy and The Center for International Earth Science Information 
Network.
    4. Immunization Rates: The average of DPT3 and measles 
immunization coverage rates for the most recent year available. 
Pass: Score must be above either the median score for the income 
group or 90 percent, whichever is lower. Source: The World Health 
Organization and the United Nations Children's Fund.
    5. Girls Education:
    a. Girls' Primary Completion Rate: The number of female students 
enrolled in the last grade of primary education minus repeaters 
divided by the population in the relevant age cohort (gross intake 
ratio in the last grade of primary). Countries with a GNI/capita of 
$2,165 or less are assessed on this indicator. Pass: Score must be 
above the median score for the income group. Source: United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
    b. Girls' Secondary Completion Rate: Countries with a GNI/capita 
between $2,166 and $4,515 are assessed on the number of female 
pupils that have completed the last grade of lower secondary 
education divided by the population within three to five years of 
the intended age of completion, expressed as a percentage of the 
total population of females in the same age group. Countries with a 
GNI/capita of between $4,516 and $7,895 will be assessed on the 
number of female pupils that have completed the last grade of upper 
secondary education divided by the population within three to five 
years of the intended age of completion, expressed as a percentage 
of the total population of females in the same age group, if the 
Millennium Challenge Corporation Candidate Country Reform Act or 
legislation that similarly reforms the threshold for MCC's candidate 
pool were to become law. Pass: Score must be above the median score 
for the income group. Source: United Nations Educational, Scientific 
and Cultural Organization.
    6. Child Health: An index made up of three indicators: (i) 
access to improved water, (ii) access to improved sanitation, and 
(iii) child (ages 1-4) mortality. Pass: Score must be above the 
median score for the income group. Source: The Center for 
International Earth Science Information Network and the Yale Center 
for Environmental Law and Policy.

Relationship to Statutory Criteria

    Within each policy category, the Act sets out a number of 
specific selection criteria. A set of objective and quantifiable 
policy indicators is used to inform eligibility decisions for 
assistance and to measure the relative performance by candidate 
countries against these criteria. The Board's approach to 
determining eligibility ensures that performance against each of 
these criteria is assessed by at least one of the objective 
indicators. Most are addressed by multiple indicators. The specific 
indicators appear in parentheses next to the corresponding criterion 
set out in the Act.
    Section 607(b)(1): Just and democratic governance, including a 
demonstrated commitment to--
    (A) promote political pluralism, equality and the rule of law 
(Political Rights, Civil Liberties, Rule of Law, and Gender in the 
Economy);
    (B) respect human and civil rights, including the rights of 
people with disabilities (Political Rights, Civil Liberties, 
Employment Opportunity, and Freedom of Information);
    (C) protect private property rights (Civil Liberties, Regulatory 
Quality, Rule of Law, and Land Rights and Access);
    (D) encourage transparency and accountability of government 
(Political Rights, Civil Liberties, Freedom of Information, Control 
of Corruption, Rule of Law, and Government Effectiveness, Employment 
Opportunity);
    (E) combat corruption (Political Rights, Civil Liberties, Rule 
of Law, Freedom of Information, and Control of Corruption); and
    (F) the quality of the civil society enabling environment (Civil 
Liberties, Freedom of Information, Employment Opportunity, and Rule 
of Law).
    Section 607(b)(2): Economic freedom, including a demonstrated 
commitment to economic policies that--
    (A) encourage citizens and firms to participate in global trade 
and international capital markets (Fiscal Policy, Inflation, Trade 
Policy, and Regulatory Quality);
    (B) promote private sector growth (Inflation, Fiscal Policy, 
Land Rights and

[[Page 78343]]

Access, Access to Credit, Gender in the Economy, and Regulatory 
Quality);
    (C) strengthen market forces in the economy (Fiscal Policy, 
Inflation, Trade Policy, Land Rights and Access, Access to Credit, 
and Regulatory Quality); and
    (D) respect worker rights, including the right to form labor 
unions (Employment Opportunity, Civil Liberties, and Gender in the 
Economy).
    Section 607(b)(3): Investments in the people of such country, 
particularly women and children, including programs that--
    (A) promote broad-based primary education (Girls' Primary 
Education Completion Rate, Girls' Lower Secondary Education 
Completion Rate, Education Expenditures, and Employment 
Opportunity);
    (B) strengthen and build capacity to provide quality public 
health and reduce child mortality (Immunization Rates, Health 
Expenditures, and Child Health); and
    (C) promote the protection of biodiversity and the transparent 
and sustainable management and use of natural resources (Natural 
Resource Protection).

Appendix D: Subsequent and Concurrent Compact Considerations

    MCC reporting and data in the following chart are used to assess 
threshold program performance, compact performance of MCC compact 
countries nearing the end of compact implementation (i.e., within 18 
months of compact end date), or for current MCC compact countries 
under consideration for a concurrent compact, where appropriate. 
Some reporting used for assessment may contain sensitive information 
and adversely affect implementation or MCC-partner country 
relations. This information is for MCC's internal use and is not 
made public. However, key implementation information is summarized 
in compact status and results reports that are published quarterly 
on MCC's website under MCC country programs (www.mcc.gov/where-we-work) and monitoring and evaluation (www.mcc.gov/our-impact/m-and-e) 
web pages.
    For completed compacts, additional information is used to assess 
compact performance and is found in a country's ``Star Report.'' The 
Star Report and its associated annual business process capture key 
information to provide a framework for results and improve the 
ability to disseminate learning and evidence throughout the 
lifecycle of an MCC investment from selection to final evaluation. 
For each compact and threshold program, evidence is collected on 
performance indicators, evaluation results, partnerships, 
sustainability efforts, and learning, among other elements.
    In addition to the Star Reports, MCC also surveys staff on 
topics related to the quality of the partnership during design and 
implementation of programs, progress toward program results, a 
partner country's commitment to undertaking policy and institutional 
reforms, and compliance with MCC standards. Additional information 
on the survey can be found in the Guide to the Program Surveys: 
https://www.mcc.gov/resources/doc/guide-to-program-surveys-fy23.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Topic                     MCC reporting/data source              Published documents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Country Partnership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Political Will:
    <bullet> Status of major conditions   <bullet> Quarterly            <bullet> Quarterly results published as
     precedent.                            implementation reporting.     ``Table of Key Performance Indicators''
    <bullet> Program oversight/           <bullet> Quarterly results     (available by country): https://
     implementation:                       reporting.                    www.mcc.gov/itt.
    [cir] project restructures;           <bullet> MCC Star Reports.    <bullet> Star Reports (available by
    [cir] partner response to                                            country): https://www.mcc.gov/
     accountable entity capacity issues.                                 starreport/.
    <bullet> Political independence of
     the accountable entity.
Management Capacity:
    <bullet> Project management
     capacity.
    <bullet> Project performance.
    <bullet> Level of MCC intervention/
     oversight.
    <bullet> Relative level of resources
     required.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Program Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Results:                        ............................  ........................................
<bullet> Commitments--including           <bullet> Indicator tracking   <bullet> Monitoring and Evaluation Plans
 contributions to compact and threshold    tables.                       (available by country):https://
 funding.                                 <bullet> Quarterly financial   www.mcc.gov/meplan/.
<bullet> Disbursements.                    reporting.                   <bullet> Quarterly results published as
Project Results:                          <bullet> Quarterly             ``Table of Key Performance
<bullet> Output, outcome, objective        implementation reporting.     Indicators''(available by country):
 targets.                                 <bullet> Quarterly results     https://www.mcc.gov/itt.
<bullet> Accountable entity commitment     reporting.                   <bullet> Star Reports (available by
 to `focus on results'.                   <bullet> Impact evaluations.   country): https://www.mcc.gov/
<bullet> Accountable entity cooperation   <bullet> MCC Star Reports.     starreport/.
 on impact evaluation.
<bullet> Percent complete for process/
 outputs.
<bullet> Relevant outcome data.
<bullet> Details behind target delays.
Target Achievements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Adherence to Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Procurement.                     <bullet> Audits (GAO and      <bullet> Published OIG and GAO audits.
<bullet> Enviromental and social.          OIG).                        <bullet> Star Reports (available by
<bullet> Fraud and corruption.            <bullet> Quarterly             country): https://www.mcc.gov/
<bullet> Program closure.                  implementation reporting.     starreport/.
<bullet> Monitoring and evaluation.       <bullet> MCC Star Reports.
<bullet> All other legal provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Country Specific
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sustainability:                           ............................  ........................................
<bullet> Implementation entity.           <bullet> Quarterly            <bullet> Quarterly results published as
<bullet> MCC investments.                  implementation reporting.     ``Table of Key Performance Indicators''
Role of private sector or other donors:   <bullet> Quarterly results     (available by country): https://
<bullet> Other relevant investors/         reporting.                    www.mcc.gov/itt.
 investments.                             <bullet> MCC Star Reports.    <bullet> Star Reports (available by
<bullet> Other donors/programming.                                       country): https://www.mcc.gov/
<bullet> Status of relatd reforms.                                       starreport/.
<bullet> Trajectory of private sector
 involvement going forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 78344]]

[FR Doc. 2024-21969 Filed 9-24-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9211-03-P