MicroTest FY 2002 Performance Highlights Copyright 2004 by the FIELD Program of the Aspen Institute

MicroTest FY 2002 Performance Highlights

Copyright 2004 by the FIELD Program of the Aspen Institute

©The Aspen Institute 2

MicroTest’s Mission

To help microenterprise programs assess and improve

performance


MT Performance Framework Reaching Target Groups

Who is the program actually serving? Is the program fulfilling its outreach mission?

Achieving Program Scale How many clients received credit and/or training

related services? What is the magnitude of program services

delivered during the fiscal year? What is the volume of lending activity?


MT Performance Framework

Credit Program Effectiveness What is the size of the portfolio? What is the quality of the portfolio? How does the level of risk in the portfolio

influence portfolio quality?

Training Program Effectiveness To what extent does the program succeed in

assisting clients to achieve key training objectives?


MT Performance Framework

Program Efficiency and Sustainability Measures How efficiently does the program use internal

resources? What does it cost to deliver training and credit

services? How self-sufficient is the program? How diversified is its funding?


MT Outcomes Framework Are clients starting businesses?

Are businesses surviving?

Are businesses providing income to clients?

Are businesses creating jobs?

Are clients moving off welfare, if they were on welfare?

Are clients’ households leaving poverty?

Do clients credit programs, in some part, for their outcomes?


Characteristics of 2003 MicroTest Member Agencies

Characteristics of 2003 MT Member Agencies

Credit-led46%Training-

led54%

Rural25%

Urban47%

State-wide28%

Young36%

Mature31%

Exper'd33%

Methodology Geographic Setting

Program Age Poverty Targeting

Low-income

56%

LMI clients44%

61 agencies reporting


REACHING TARGET GROUPS


Women and Minority Clients (as a % of all FY02 clients)

N=61

MicroTest Average40%

Women, 60%

Minorities, 53%

41%42%43%44%45%46%47%48%49%50%51%52%53%54%55%56%57%58%59%60%


Financially Disadvantaged Clients(as a % of all FY02 clients)

Averages for 48 programs

8%

28%

45%

65%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

TANF <100% HHS <150% HHS <80% AMI


What is Top Performance in MicroTest?

Top Performance:

the highest level of achievement reached by 20% of MicroTest programs that reported against the performance measure.

Note: The programs in this top performing group vary for each measure. Top performance is presented this way to provide benchmarks for practitioners interested in distinct areas of performance.


Number of Clients > 447

Women Clients > 77%

Minority Clients > 88%

Clients ≤ 100% HHS at program intake > 48%

Clients ≤ 150% HHS at intake > 69%

Clients ≤ 80% HUD at intake > 89%

Clients receiving TANF at intake > 11%

Pre-Business Clients at intake > 70%

Start-Up Businesses at intake > 40%

On-Going Businesses at intake > 51%

Top FY2002 Performance for Outreach


ACHIEVING PROGRAM SCALE


Program Scale Individuals Served in FY2002 by all MT agencies

61 MicroTest agencies reporting

Mean Median Min. Max. Sum

Participants 679 433 12 2467 38,717

Clients 347 250 8 2209 21,175

Assisted Businesses 224 159 8 1172 13,684


# of Biz Development Clients Served in FY2002, by Geographic Peer Groups

Median BD Clients, 111



0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Rural (n=14) Urban (n=28) State-wide (n=15)


CREDIT PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS


Credit Program EffectivenessPortfolio at Risk

54 MicroTest programs

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70%

Portfolio at Risk Rates

# o

f M

T P

rog

ram

s


Credit Program Effectiveness Loan Loss


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0% 4% 8% 12% 16% 20% 24% 28% 32% 36%

Loan Loss Rate

# o

f M

T P

rog

ram

s


TRAINING PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS


Median Training Program Effectiveness Rates FY2002

Median, 82%

Median, 80%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

Training Completion Rate

(n=43)

Biz Plan Completion Rate

(n=39)


PROGRAM EFFICIENCY & SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES


Average Median Minimum Maximum

Cost per Participant 1,775$ 1,082$ 152$ 17,442$

Cost per Client 2,683$ 2,251$ 152$ 9,948$

Cost per Business

Assist 5,030$ 3,244$ 358$ 26,163$

Annual Program Costs for FY2002


Credit Program EfficiencyOperational Cost Rates in FY2002

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Operational Cost Rate

# o

f M

T P

rog

ram

s



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Credit

Led

Train

ing L

edRura

l

Urban

Dual

Young

Exper

ience

d

Mat

ure LIFLM

I

Median Operational Self-Sufficiency

Top Performance

Operational Self-Sufficiency MicroTest Peer Groups for FY2002


Funding Diversification of Microenterprise Programs in MicroTest

Earned, 15%

Private, 23%

Federal, 35%

State, 12%

Local, 9%

Other, 6%


MICROTEST TREND GROUP DATA


Trend Group Average Loan Sizes by Program Methodology

$7,281

$6,594

Credit-Led,

$5,317

$3,152 $2,853

Training-Led,

$2,753

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

2000 2001 2002

Ave

rag

e L

oan

Siz

e

Trend data from 34 MicroTest agencies


What feedback does MicroTest provide programs?

The MicroTest workbook contains immediate feedback as programs complete it

Each MT participant receives a custom report analyzing its trends and how its results compare to top performance, and to its peers.

Senior FIELD staff provide up to 1 hour of one-on-one consultation to each MT participant regarding how to interpret and use the data

Documents

MicroTest FY 2002 Performance Highlights Copyright 2004 by the FIELD Program of the Aspen Institute