Rowe Fund Report - scm.oas. · PDF fileDuring the biennium covered in this report, the ... advancement was successfully conducted. In ... Loan Technician Internship Program:

FIFTIETH REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE LEO S. ROWE PAN AMERICAN FUND (for the period January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014)

www.oas.org/en/rowefund http://www.oas.org/es/fondorowe http://www.oas.org/pt/fundorowe http://www.oas.org/fr/fondsrowe 7

[ T h i s p a g e w a s i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e f t b l a n k ]

http://www.oas.org/en/rowefund/

http://www.oas.org/es/fondorowe

http://www.oas.org/pt/fundorowe

http://www.oas.org/fr/fondsrowe


V I S I O N

To be the most reliable and sustainable source of student financial aid in the hemisphere aiming to promote intellectual and cultural exchange as well as friendship and understanding between the US and people of the Americas

M I S S I O N

Provide interest-free loans to international students from

Latin American and Caribbean OAS member states enrolled in

universities in the United States. Award subsidized student

loans to staff of the General Secretariat of the Organization of

American States.

* * * T H E W I L L * * *

“AND THE ENTIRE REMAINDER

THEREOF UNTO THE PAN

AMERICAN UNION,

HEREINBEFORE MENTIONED,

TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE

GOVERNING BOARD OF THE

PAN AMERICAN UNION AS A

REVOLVING FUND TO BE USED

UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS AS

THE GOVERNING BOARD MAY

DETERMINE AS A LOAN FUND

FOR LATIN AMERICAN [AND

CARIBBEAN] STUDENT WHO

MAY DESIRE TO STUDY IN THE

UNIVERSITIES OR COLLEGES OF

THE UNITED STATES. THIS

REVOLVING FUND MAY ALSO

BE USED BY THE GOVERNING

BOARD AS A LOAN FUND FOR

THE ENTIRE PERSONNEL OF

THE PAN AMERICAN UNION

UNDER REGULATIONS

PRESCRIBED BY THE

GOVERNING BOARD”.

From the last will and

testament of Dr. Leo S.

Rowe, signed on April 27,

1943, (page 10).






TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 10 II. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP ........................................................................................................ 12

1. CHAIR .................................................................................................................. 12

2. VICE CHAIR .......................................................................................................... 12

3. OTHER REPRESENTATIVES .................................................................................... 12

4. GENERAL SECRETARIAT ........................................................................................ 13

5. OTHER ................................................................................................................. 13

III. HISTORICAL INFORMATION ...................................................................................................... 14 IV. LOAN PORTFOLIO ..................................................................................................................... 15

1. LOAN MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................... 15

2. NEW LOAN ........................................................................................................... 16

V. INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO .......................................................................................................... 17 VI. STRATEGIC PLAN OF ACTION .................................................................................................... 18

1. INTEREST-FREE STUDENT LOANS .......................................................................... 19

Demographic Characteristics of Loans to Students, 2013 - 2014.............................. 20

Student Loan Management .................................................................................. 25

Survey to ex-beneficiaries ................................................................................... 29

2. LOANS TO STAFF OF THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT .................................................. 32

Decline in the Balance of Staff Loans .................................................................... 33

Demographic Characteristics of Loan Recipients ................................................... 33

Guarantee .......................................................................................................... 34

3. EXECUTION OF THE JULIA MAC LEAN SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM ............................. 34

4. VISIBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF ROWE FUND LOANS .......................................... 35

Promotion through Inter-Institutional Cooperation ............................................... 35

5. ROWE FUND MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL SECRETARIAT SERVICES ................... 37

Changes In The Committee’s Membership ............................................................ 37

The Rowe Fund Secretariat .................................................................................. 37

Meetings ............................................................................................................ 38

6. RESOURCE OPTIMIZATION AND FINANCIAL OUTLOOK OF THE ROWE FUND ........... 38

Income .............................................................................................................. 39

Expenses ............................................................................................................ 40

Independent Auditors Report .............................................................................. 42

VII. APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 43

1. APPENDIX A: ........................................................................................................ 43

2. APPENDIX B: ........................................................................................................ 56





www.oas.org/en/rowefund http://www.oas.org/es/fondorowe http://www.oas.org/pt/fundorowe http://www.oas.org/fr/fundsrowe 10

F I F T I E T H R E P O R T O F T H E C O M M I T T E E O F T H E L E O S . R O W E P A N A M E R I C A N F U N D

(For the period January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014)

In keeping with article 6 of its Statutes, the

Committee of the Leo S. Rowe Pan American

Fund (“The Rowe Fund” or “The Fund”)

hereby submits to the Permanent Council of

the Organization of American States (“the

OAS”) the fiftieth report on the activities of

the Rowe Fund and of the Committee for the

period January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014.

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides the results of the Rowe

Fund’s performance over the last two years

and features our efforts to increase program

integrity, improve customer service, and

achieve our strategic goals in the

management of this financial aid. The Rowe

Fund awards interest-free loans to students

from Latin American and the Caribbean

region to help supplement a portion of the

cost of their higher education studies in the

United States. This Fund also grants interest-

bearing loans to staff members of the General

Secretariat of the OAS for educational and

emergency purposes.

The OAS Permanent Council is responsible for

the administration of the Fund through a

Committee comprising four member states

and the OAS Secretary General. During 67

years of continuous operations, and through

prudent investments, the Fund has managed

to grow from the initial endowment of USD

623,605 (equivalent to USD 6.1 million in

2014 USD) to its current value of USD 17.0

million as of December 31st, 2014. The

income derived from investment is used to

cover its operational and payroll expenses as

well as to gradually expand the loan portfolio.

However, the Fund’s investments are exposed

to various risks, such as interest rate, credit

and overall market volatility. As such, only

recently has the Fund recovered, in real

terms, from the economic crisis of 2008,

when it lost 21.4 percent of its assets.

In addition, the Rowe Fund has over time

become a self-funded program as expenses

previously covered by the OAS Regular Fund

have been shifted to the Rowe Fund; for

example, the Rowe Fund has payed external

auditor’s fees since 2013.

Consequently, a steady stream of income

from other sources is desirable in order to

ensure sustainability, particularly during

financial bear markets.

Since its inception in 1948, the Fund has

awarded 8,351 loans worth USD 45.4 million

at 2014 prices.

During the biennium covered in this report,

the Fund delivered USD 1.5 million in aid to

239 students attending 82 universities

throughout the United States—an increase in

the outstanding loan portfolio of 4.7 percent

compared to 2011-2012.

The Rowe Fund Committee continuously

strives for the highest performance in the

administration and oversight of this financial

aid program. To this end, a survey to evaluate

the effectiveness of the student loan

program, its impact while studying in the

United States and beneficiaries’ career




http://www.oas.org/fr/fundsrowe


advancement was successfully conducted. In

spite of being a supplemental financial aid, 75

percent of beneficiaries indicated that the

Rowe Fund was very important to complete

their studies in the US. In fact, many of them

said that the completion of their US studies

would not have been possible without the

Rowe Fund’s aid as many applied during their

last year of studies.

In addition, targeted email outreach, webinars,

exhibits, and conferences were carried out to

improve the visibility of the program in less

represented countries.

To continue providing excellent customer

service and satisfaction, the Rowe Fund has

improved several tools and resources that

enable students to view their student loan

account and history online. At the same time,

the Fund staff has facilitated payments by

simplifying the steps to pay by credit card

online. In keeping with the social nature of the

Fund, the Fund has provided convenient options

to beneficiaries to help manage their student

loan debt. We remain committed to providing

beneficiaries with the resources necessary to

make informed financial decisions and help

further mitigate the incidence of default and

delinquency.

During the biennium, the Rowe Fund Committee

also administered and fully executed the

MacLean Scholarship Fund for Peruvian women

studying in the Washington, DC metropolitan

area.

The continued expansion of the educational

loan program and the goal of even greater

coverage are paramount priorities for the Rowe

Fund Committee. In this regard, we encourage

member and observer states to contribute to

the Rowe Fund or the supplementary guaranty

fund.

For over sixty-five years, the Rowe Fund has

successfully fulfilled Dr. Rowe’s vision of

facilitating access to higher education in the US

to young citizens of the hemisphere. Most

beneficiaries agree that interest-free loan

programs help supplement scholarships for

studies abroad. Scholarships are in high

demand, rather scarce, and not self-

sustaining.

The external auditing firm, Ernst & Young,

issued a clean and unqualified opinion on

the financial statements as of December

31st, 2013 and 2014, which represents the

highest level audit.

The success of the Rowe Fund student loan

program and continued progress fulfills

one of the mandates of the Sixth Summit of

the Americas, “to foster greater

international exchange of students, in order

to provide them with the greatest possible

learning opportunities.”

This report is a reflection of many accomplishments as well as a passion and commitment to our mission.






II. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Since 1948, the Rowe Fund endowment has

been entrusted to the Permanent Council and is

administered by a Committee comprised of the

Secretary General and representatives from four

member states. The representatives are elected

by the Permanent Council. With the exception

of the Secretary General of the GS/OAS, who is a

permanent member, the other four members

serve periods of four years. The management of

the Fund is undertaken by the Committee with

the support of the General Secretariat of the

OAS through a Technical Secretariat.

The countries designated by the Permanent

Council as members of the Committee from

January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014 were (in

alphabetical order):

Period of mandate

Antigua and Barbuda 2013 – 2016

Chile 2010 – 20132013

Dominican Republic 2012 – 2015

Paraguay 2014 – 2017

Saint Vincent and

the Grenadines 2014 – 2016*

United States 2011 – 2014

Chile’s period (2010 – 2013) expired in

December 2013, after which Paraguay joined

the Committee in 2014. Antigua and Barbuda

was re-elected for the 2013 – 2016 period;

however, the country yielded the seat to Saint

Vincent and the Grenadines*, which was elected

by the Permanent Council on September 15,

2014.

The individual representatives and their offices

during this biennium were as follows:

1. CHAIR

Antigua and Barbuda

Ambassador Deborah-Mae Lovell

Joy Dee Davis

(January 2013 – September 2014)

Permanent Representative of

Antigua and Barbuda to the Organization of

American States

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Ambassador La Celia A. Prince

Mr. Omari Williams (October 2014 – December 2014)

Representative of Saint Vincent and the

Grenadines to the Organization of

American States

2. VICE CHAIR

The United States

Ms. Margarita Riva-Geoghegan

(January 2013 – December 2014)

Ms. Carla Menendez McManus

(January 2013 – July 2013)

Ms. Melissa Kopolow Mc Call

(August 2013 – December 2014)

Representative of the United States to the

Organization of American States

3. OTHER REPRESENTATIVES

Chile

Ambassador Dario Paya

Marcelo Rojas

Francisco Devia

(January 2013 – September 2014)

Representative of Chile to the Organization

of American States

The Dominican Republic

Ambassador Pedro Verges

Morela Baez






Laura Brea Bujosa


Permanent Representative of the

Dominican Republic to the Organization of

American States

Paraguay

Ambassador Elisa Ruiz Dias

Jose E. Pereira

(October 2014 – December 2014)

Permanent Representative of Paraguay to the

Organization of American States

Representative of the Secretary General

Ms. Maria Levens, Director

Mr. David Vieira


Department of Human Development and

Education

4. GENERAL SECRETARIAT

The following staff members of the GS/OAS

provided the Rowe Fund with support services

during the biennium:

Technical Secretariat of the Rowe Fund:

Lina M. Sevillano


Technical Secretary

Ana María Lemos


Loan Technician

Gaetan Bucher


Loan Technician

Internship Program:

The Rowe Fund has actively sought to efficiently

utilize its resources by recruiting interns through

the OAS Internship Program. These interns are

assigned specific projects and provide invaluable

help to optimize Rowe Fund operations. In

the period 2013 – 2014, a total of five

interns assisted the Rowe Fund Secretariat

(listed in chronological order):

Spring 2013 Florencia Grignoli, Uruguay

Spring 2013 Suji Park, South Korea

Summer 2013 Jasmin Ozkur. Canada

Spring 2014 Catherine Mata, Costa Rica

Fall 2014 Betty Yee Choi, South Korea

Treasurer (The Treasurer of the OAS is also the

Treasurer of the Fund):

Mr. Javier Arnaiz


Director

Department of Financial and

Administrative Management Services

Legal Advisory Services Mr. Ruben Farje

Mr. Ruben Rudolph

Ms. Sarah Davidson

Department of Legal Affairs and Services

5. OTHER

Third Party Service Providers

Mr. Donald Silk

Director, Investment Consulting

Buck Consultants, LLC

Mr. Peter Kenny

Custodial services, Merrill Lynch Mr. Stephen Bluestone Bluestone LLC

Mr. Carlos Calderon CEO, OAS Staff Federal Credit Union






III. HISTORICAL INFORMATION

ince the beginning, the Rowe Fund has played an important role in fulfilling Dr. Rowe’s

vision of financially assisting Latin American [and Caribbean] young people to help them

complete their higher education in the US with the purpose of returning to their

respective countries and apply their knowledge for the betterment of the country and the

region as a whole. The Rowe Fund also grants loans to staff of the General Secretariat of the

Organization of American States for their or their dependent’s studies. As of December 31st,

2014, loans to students constituted 80.2 percent of the loan portfolio.

The Rowe Fund is comprised of a loan portfolio and an investment portfolio. Between 1948

(when the Leo S. Rowe Pan American Fund began operations) and December 31, 2014, the

Fund has awarded 8,351 loans to both citizens of Latin American and Caribbean countries

and staff members of the GS/OAS, representing a total of USD 22.4 million (equivalent to

USD 45.4 million, in 2014 USD). Through a cost-effective revolving loan program, funds

from repayment are generally used to issue new loans.

During 67 years of continuous operations, and through prudent investments in a portfolio,

the Fund has managed to grow from the initial endowment of USD 623,605 (equivalent to

USD 6.1 million in 2014 USD) to its current value of USD 17.0 million as of December 31st,

2014. The income derived from investment is used to cover its operational and payroll

expenses as well as to gradually expand the loan portfolio, of mainly supplementary interest-

free loans for studies in the US. However, not reinvesting most of the dividends hinders the

potential growth of the portfolio. The Fund has increasingly become a self-funded program

as the OAS Regular Fund’s monetary contribution through the Department of Human

Development and Education has progressively decreased (currently covering merely 1.1

percent of the Rowe Fund’s operational budget in 2014 equivalent to roughly USD 5,000).

Because of the above, maintaining the Fund’s real value is difficult as there is an ongoing

tradeoff between financial goals and philanthropic goals.

The administration of the Fund is divided into three entities: a) the Permanent Council,

through its Committee, b) the Technical Secretariat within the GS/OAS, and c) the OAS

Treasurer.

The Rowe Fund complies with one of the mandates stated at the Sixth Summit of the Americas in which heads of States jointly defined a hemispheric agenda:

To foster greater international exchange of students, in order to provide

them with the greatest possible learning opportunities.

Sixth Summit of the Americas

S






IV. LOAN PORTFOLIO

1. LOAN MANAGEMENT

The loan portfolio is comprised of loans to international students and loans to staff of the

General Secretariat. Considering the revolving nature of the Rowe Fund, the Committee

reviews and awards loans monthly and throughout the year. The new loans become part of

a loan portfolio of active accounts which are managed for approximately six to seven years.

The Rowe Fund Committee, through its Secretariat, strives to provide superior service and

information to its clients. In addition to loan origination, disbursement, and monitoring

academic status, the Secretariat is also responsible for collections, cancellations, reporting,

program visibility, and compliance of the Rowe Fund Statutes and Regulations. Changes in

the Rowe Fund Regulations were last approved by the Committee on July 28, 2014.

Graph 1. Amount (in 2014 US dollars) of Student and Staff Loans Approved, 1948-2014

The Rowe Fund managed 491 and 534 individual

student and staff loan accounts in 2013 and

2014, respectively; of which 57 and 88 were

repaid during the corresponding year. Due to

the revolving nature of the Fund and the success

“I highly recommend applying to the

Rowe Fund program. I would not have

completed my postgraduate studies without this

financial aid. My studies in the US have been

an added value in my career path”

Beneficiary from

Costa Rica

Master in Law – American University






in the recovery of loans, funds from repayment are used to issue new loans.

Table 1. End-of-year Balance of Loans, 2005 – 2014

2. NEW LOAN

During the period covered by this report, the Fund’s Secretariat received 271 applications

and the Committee awarded a total of 239 student and staff loans worth USD 1.5 million; of

which 75.6 percent were granted to international students from Latin American and

Caribbean countries studying in US universities. Almost a quarter of the loans granted were

second loans.

The loans awarded are distributed as shown in Table No 2 below:

Table 2. New Loans Awarded by the Committee, 2005 – 2014

2005 1,980,303 380,679 2,360,982 665 19.2%

2006 1,447,340 231,978 1,679,318 612 16.0%

2007 1,104,378 209,879 1,314,257 495 19.0%

2008 1,068,300 246,623 1,314,923 445 23.1%

2009 1,386,307 290,362 1,676,668 425 20.9%

2010 1,679,736 293,645 1,973,381 462 17.5%

2011 1,797,117 300,863 2,097,980 441 16.7%

2012 1,824,705 247,339 2,072,044 465 13.6%

2013 1,979,699 234,537 2,214,236 491 11.8%

2014 1,957,178 194,390 2,151,568 534 9.9%

% Loans to

Staff (b/a)Year

Nº of

accounts

managed

Outstanding

BalanceStudent (a) Staff (b)

NumberAmount

(US$)

2005 275,770 97,463 79 373,233

2006 233,762 65,158 51 298,920

2007 250,235 80,221 57 330,456

2008 408,285 142,708 87 550,993

2009 680,986 191,314 136 872,300

2010 690,255 162,795 130 853,050

2011 593,550 134,374 113 727,924

2012 597,766 97,014 103 694,780

2013 657,610 135,367 127 792,977

2014 646,950 86,473 112 733,423

Total 5,608,969 1,362,997 1,129 6,971,966

Year

Total

Student Staff






V. INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO

The Rowe Fund relies heavily on the performance of its investable assets to cover

operational costs and grow its loan portfolio. Although the Fund’s investments are exposed

to various risks, such as interest rate, credit and overall market volatility risks, over the past

five years, the Fund has outperformed its benchmark. Net assets are now about USD 2.7

million above the prior peak in 2007, in nominal terms. However, the real level of assets has

increased modestly in spite of favorable market conditions. The ability to generate a

positive real growth is difficult given the cost of providing interest-free loans, increase in

expenses and the impact of inflation among others. Consequently, a steady stream of

income from other sources is desirable in order to ensure sustainability, particularly during

financial bear markets.

In 2009, the Rowe Fund Committee adopted a policy of not reinvesting its dividends, with

the exception of dividends yielded by non-US equity assets. This policy was implemented in

order to have sufficient cash to meet the Rowe Fund’s obligations (namely issuance of loans

and operational expenses).

As of December 31st 2014, the investable portion represented 84.1 percent of the total net

assets; of which 44.0 percent correspond to equity and 40.1 percent to fixed income.

The investment advisor firm, Buck Consultants, LLC, monitored the performance of the

investable assets and recommended adjustments when needed. The Committee, with the

Treasurer’s guidance, made decisions that were executed by the custodial accordingly.

During the biennium, Merrill Lynch provided custodial and trading services to the Rowe

Fund. Due to fee increases, the Committee decided in late 2014 to hire Northern Trust

instead as custodial starting in 2015.

The following are some of the highlights of the investment portfolio:

During the biennium the Fund’s investment portfolio was comprised of equity

(Fidelity and Vanguard) and fixed-income securities (PIMCO All Assets and PIMCO

Total Return).

The increase in equity1 from 40.0 percent to 45.0 percent implemented in 2012 was

a good move as Vanguard offered the best return in 2014.

According to the investment advisor, the total investment portfolio returned 5.7

percent in 2014 but lagged the 6.2 percent return of the index mainly due to the

weakness from the two PIMCO funds.

The Rowe Fund’s Investment Policy Statement was approved in 2014. The

Investment Policy Statement is intended to assist the Committee by ensuring that it 1 During the past decade, the Rowe Fund has gradually reduced its equity exposure from 70.0 percent in

2005 to 50.0 percent during 2006 - 2010 and 40.0 percent adjusted in the last quarter of 2010.






makes investment-related decisions in a prudent manner. It outlines the underlying

philosophies and processes for the selection, monitoring, and evaluation of the

investment options and investment managers utilized by the Trust.

The Committee also approved a new investment policy target in December 2014

(see Graph Nº 2 below).

Graph 2. New Policy Target

The new policy target resulted from extensive debates with regards to the high

concentration of only one fund manager (PIMCO) to both, fixed income and

alternative assets, which represented 45.5 percent of the overall investment

portfolio at the end of 2014. Upon the abrupt departure of PIMCO’s founder, Bill

Gross, in October 2014, Buck Consultants recommended diversifying the Rowe

Fund’s investment portfolio by divesting of PIMCO Total Return and acquiring two

additional fund managers: PAYDEN Low Duration fund (Short Fixed Income) and

PRUDENTIAL Core Plus (Fixed Income). Said changes in the investment policy target

were executed in the first quarter of 2015.

VI. STRATEGIC PLAN OF ACTION

In efforts to uphold the tradition of success and embrace future challenges, on June 27,

2013, the Committee approved the 2013 – 2015 plan of action. The strategic plan is based

on six overarching strategic goals:

US large cap, 32%

Non US Equity, 13%

Fixed income, 26%

Short fixed income, 16%

Alternative, 10%

Cash, 3%

Ensuring sustainability, continuing expanding the educational loan program and the goal of even greater coverage are

paramount priorities for the Rowe Fund Committee






1. Promote cultural and academic exchange of international students by granting supplementary financial aid, in the form of interest-free student loans, to individuals from Latin American and Caribbean OAS member states for studies in the US.

2. Contribute to the human development of GS/OAS staff by granting subsidized loans intended to help finance their studies or the studies of their dependents.

3. Empower women and promote cultural and academic exchange by executing the will bequeathed by Ms. Julia Mac Lean.

4. Foster partnership with a wide array of stakeholders to ensure visibility and accessibility of loans throughout the hemisphere.

5. Manage the Fund’s operations and serve as Technical Secretariat for the Leo S. Rowe Fund Committee.

6. Optimize the Fund’s resources and monitor its financial and investment status to ensure superior services with limited funding.

STRATEGIC GOAL ONE: Promote cultural and academic exchange of

international students by granting supplementary financial aid, in the form

of interest-free loans to individuals from Latin American and Caribbean

OAS member states for studies in the US.

1. INTEREST-FREE STUDENT LOANS

Student loans are of a supplementary nature; therefore, the money granted by the Rowe

Fund is intended to cover a portion of the student’s tuition fees, living expenses, or

emergencies not covered by their main source of funding while studying in US universities.

These loans are made on the understanding that within a year of completion of their

studies, beneficiaries will return to their respective place of origin to assist in the

development of their countries.

Beneficiaries may repay the loan in fifty equal monthly installments. Loan repayment

begins three months after completion of the studies (there is a grace period from the time

the loan is granted until three months after graduation). Furthermore, loans are interest-

free as long as beneficiaries comply with the terms of the Agreement thus some loans may

bear interest which stretches the maturity day up to 90 installments.

Due to the highly social nature of the program, the Rowe Fund is susceptible to lose money

with every interest-free student loan it grants due to potential defaults, cost of opportunity,

and actuarial losses.






DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF LOANS TO STUDENTS, 2013 - 2014

Distribution by gender

Faithful to the principles of the OAS Charter, the Rowe

Fund does not discriminate for reasons of gender,

nationality, or ethnic origin. Gender mainstreaming

remains a priority at the OAS and the Rowe Fund has

responded to the Third Summit of the Americas’ mandate

by improving the process by which gender specific data are

collected. The gender gap in the distribution of new and total loans granted and managed

has narrowed. The percentage of loans awarded to women has risen from 33.3 percent in

1995 to 64.0 and 56.5 percent in 2013 and 2014, respectively.

Distribution by degree

During the biennium, on average 82.3 percent of all loans granted were intended to cover

graduate studies (master 80.1 percent and doctorate 2.2 percent) followed by

undergraduate degrees (17.7 percent). At the same time, the Rowe Fund serves young

citizens in the hemisphere; most of them (60.2 percent) between the ages of eighteen and

twenty-nine years old.

Graph 3. Level of Study by Gender, 2013 – 2014

11.0%

48.1%

1.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Bachelor Master Doctorate

Female

Male

Statistics compiled by the

Rowe Fund indicate an

increase in women’s

participation at every

level of education.






Distribution by region and field of study

The Caribbean as a whole benefited the most of the Rowe Fund’s financial aid during the

biennium. The field of preference for both male and female Rowe Fund grantees continues

to be business, finance and management, followed by social science and economics, fine

and applied arts, and legal studies, which combined represent 72.4 percent of the areas

chosen by beneficiaries during the biennium.

Rowe Fund beneficiaries are represented in hundreds of universities throughout the United

States; however, they are concentrated in New York, Washington DC, Florida and

Pennsylvania.

Graph 4. Student Loans Distributed by Region

Graph 5. Most Popular Fields of Study during 2013 – 2014

Caribbean, 42.0%

Centro America, 3.3%

Mexico, 15.5%

South America, 39.2%

0.6%

1.1%

2.2%

3.3%

5.0%

5.5%

9.9%

12.2%

15.5%

17.7%

27.1%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%

Aviation

Communication

Accounting

Education

Math and Computer Science

Engineering

Health Professions

Legal Studies

Fine & Applied Arts

Social Sciences and Economics

Business, Finance and Management






Table 3. Distribution of Student Loans per Region and Degree, 2013 – 2014

Regional trends and distribution by country

According to the Institute of International Education (IIE-Open Doors report), student

mobility to the United States from Latin American and the Caribbean students continues

rising and has doubled in the last forty years.

The number of students from the region reached 72,318 students in 2013/14 or 8.2 percent

of the total number of international students registered in US universities (886,052).

Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela are among the top 25 sending countries of

international students to the United States (together account for almost 5.0 percent of all

international students worldwide). Not surprisingly, said countries account for 42.0 percent

of Rowe Fund loans granted during the biennium and 59.7 percent when Jamaica is added

(see graph 6 below).

Graph 6. Student Loans Granted by Country, 2013-2014

Region Undergraduate Graduate Total

Caribbean 12.2% 29.8% 42.0%

Centro America 0.0% 2.8% 2.8%

Mexico 2.8% 12.7% 15.5%

South America 2.8% 37.0% 39.8%

Sum 17.7% 82.3% 100.0%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%

ColombiaJamaica

MexicoBrazil

Dominican RepublicThe Bahamas

Trinidad and TobagoArgentina

Saint LuciaAntigua and Barbuda

EcuadorVenezuela

BelizeChileHaiti

ParaguaySaint Vincent and the Grenadines

BoliviaDominica

PeruSaint Kitts and Nevis

UruguayBarbados

Costa RicaGuatemala

HondurasSuriname






Nonetheless, the Rowe Fund Committee is dedicated to

distributing loans on as wide a geographic basis as

possible. Thus, it remains concerned about the

geographic distribution of loans. This concern is not new,

even in the August 1956 America’s Magazine, in the article

“Legacy for Learning” the author indicated that: “the

Committee is not completely satisfied with the geographic

distribution of the loans […] the Colombians have always

led in the number of applications and loans secured.” The

article further explains that other competent applicants

do not have additional sources of funding and their

personal funds are so limited that, a loan instead of helping would actually hinder. However,

Colombians’ success is largely due to the assistance of ICETEX and in recent years of

COLFUTURO who refers their loan/scholarship recipients to the Rowe Fund.

Five countries of the 32 eligible OAS member states did not benefit from the program. They

are in alphabetical order: El Salvador, Granada, Guyana, Nicaragua and Panama. There are

currently 3,533 international students from these countries enrolled in US universities (a

very small portion - less than half percent- of the overall international student population).

It is the Committee’s priority to continue targeting promotional efforts towards prospective

beneficiaries from the least represented countries.

On the other side, it is worth noting that the following countries have increasingly and

traditionally benefited from this program: Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Jamaica, Mexico, and

Peru. Those six countries have received 61.0 percent of all loans granted during the past

decade (2005 – 2014) and 67.1 percent in the previous one (1995 – 2004) thus showing in

an improvement in the geographic distribution which is ratified by a lower coefficient of

variability2 from 1.8 during 1995 – 2004 to 1.5 during the last decade.

During the biennium, 2013-2014 two countries, Dominican Republic and the

Commonwealth of the Bahamas, are part of the six countries most benefited along with

Brazil, Colombia, México y Jamaica; which together represent 66.9 percent of all loans

granted.

2 The coefficient of variability measures the standard deviation of the two periods divided by the average

per country in each year, the smaller the coefficient of variability the better the geographic distribution.

Did you know that in

March 2011, President

Obama announced the 100k

Strong in the Americas

initiative to increase the

number of Latin American

and Caribbean students

studying in the United

States and in the region in

each direction?






Unconventional guaranty mechanisms

Rowe Fund loans are traditionally guaranteed by a US citizen or resident. Understanding

that finding a US citizen or resident willing to guarantee a loan for an international student

is challenging, the Committee has, since 2002, devised other mechanisms of guarantees,

including: loans underwritten by Institutions (mostly academic institutions or reputable

institution guaranteeing their employees who, in return, agree to work for the institution

upon completing their education in the US), a Certified Deposit opened at the OAS Staff

Federal Credit Union, loans sold at a discount, and the sub-guaranty loan account created

from donations.

Of the loans granted during the biennium, 16.9 percent and 17.4 percent made use of these

unconventional guarantors in 2013 and 2014, respectively. As seen in table 4 below, the

Committee has granted 175 student loans for USD 1.7 million using unconventional

guarantors since 2002. Of all loans granted, the Committee has charged off seven loans3

totaling USD 39,471.

Table 4. Student Loans Granted Using Unconventional Guarantors

The supplementary guaranty sub-fund created over ten years ago to help individuals who

are in dire need of the Rowe Fund financial aid to complete their US studies and lack a

suitable guarantor received donations during the biennium for USD 36,597. In fact, the

supplementary guaranty sub-fund increased from USD 24,389 to USD 60,986 at the end of

the biennium as it received the interest accrued from the Julia MacLean Scholarship fund

equivalent to USD 33,378. The Rowe Fund also received donations for USD 3,219 mainly

from ex-beneficiaries.

The expansion of the supplementary guaranty sub-fund is not an end in itself. Currently,

fundraising is a necessary precondition to the Fund so that it may continue to grant more

loans each year to fund even more underserved students, particularly from less-represented

countries.

3 Four against the student life-self-insurance account due to disability or death of beneficiary and three

loans due to default on payments. Said loans were sent to a collection agency.

Type of guarantor Count Loan granted Balance 12-14

CD or Savings account opened by the co-signer, as a guaranty 27 242,950 35,102

Loans awarded under an agreement with FUNDACYT, from Ecuador 19 285,000 -

Loans sold at a discount to the student’s employer 1 15,000 -

Loans underwritten by institutions 92 863,908 247,342

Supplementary guaranty sub-fund 36 330,085 117,855

Total 175 1,736,943 400,299






In 2014 the Rowe Fund Committee, with the cooperation of the OAS Secretariat of External

Relations, sent letters to all permanent observers requesting donations to boost the

supplementary guaranty sub-fund and help young citizens in the hemisphere complete their

higher education in the US.

STUDENT LOAN MANAGEMENT

Student loan management is divided into four stages:

a. Loan application process

b. Administration of loan repayment

c. Return to country of origin

d. Beneficiary satisfaction survey

Streamlined application process

Loans in grace period corresponded to 29.6% and 27.0% of the outstanding student loan portfolio as of December 31st, 2013 and 2014, respectively. Beneficiaries are not required to start making payments while in school; however, they need to provide proof of full time enrollment and transcripts. Beneficiaries begin repayment three months after completion of the studies for which the Rowe Fund loan is granted. The Committee, through its Secretariat, has made consistent efforts to reduce the overall time spent processing student loan applications (time elapsed from receipt of the application and issuing the check to the student). This improvement can be attributed to not only monthly round robin consultations but also to efficient processes and effective capabilities; which include superior service and information to student and borrowers and implementation of an online application form.






Graph 7. Average time elapsed between loan processing, approval and

disbursement, 2005 - 2014

Administered loan repayment

Loan management and credit card services

In accordance with Article 9 of the Rowe Fund Statutes, “the OAS Treasurer shall be in

charge of the receipt, accounting, and disbursement of the Funds.” Since 2002, the OAS

Treasurer outsourced this function to the OAS Staff Federal Credit Union (OASFCU), which

has handled the Rowe Fund individual loan accounts and management information system

of student and staff loans.

In late 2012, a bidding process for the best provider for loan management services and

credit card processing platform yielded one bidder: only the OASFCU submitted a proposal

with a minor reduction in price which resulted from transferring some labor intensive tasks

to the Rowe Fund Secretariat.

The Contracts and Award Committee suggested hiring the OASFCU for a year in 2013 and

bidding out the loan management service contract a second time in order to draw in

additional bidders and allow for negotiation. The OASFCU participated and, in early 2014,

won again the second bidding.

The OAS currently uses Bank of America’s platform to run online credit card payments. The

OAS provides this service for a fee to different units within the OAS, including the Rowe

A A A AA A

A A A A

B

B

BB B

B B BB B

C

C

C

C C

C CC

C C

D

D

DD

D

D D D

D D

99

66

34 32 days

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Da

ys

A. Receipt and evaluation of loan applications and approval by the CommitteeB. Once approved, the Agreement is sent to each student for signature and returned to the Rowe FundC. The Agreement is signed by the Rowe Fund Secretariat. D. Issuing check






Fund. The OASFCU recommended Blue Pay as the provider for the credit card platform

since the OASFCU does not offer this service. However, after evaluating the option, the

Treasurer indicated that the OAS will continue administering the platform offered by Bank

of America.

Rowe Fund loan repayment via credit card has increasingly become the preferred method of

payment. In fact, of all payments collected in 2014, 90.8 percent were made by credit card;

even though some countries in the hemisphere are imposing hefty fees to citizens using

international credit cards. The Rowe Fund continues to search for additional payment

options to facilitate repayment of the loan.

Graph 8. Payments made by credit card as a percentage of total payments

Loan collection and delinquency

Loans in repayment period corresponded to 70.4 percent and 73.0 percent of the

outstanding student loan portfolio in 2013 and 2014, respectively. The Rowe Fund had a

loss ratio or loans charged off4 equal to 0.3 percent and 1.4 percent in 2013 and 2014,

respectively. This low loss ratio is thanks to a steady monitoring of monthly payments,

negotiations, and counseling beneficiaries in order to avoid sending accounts to a collection

agency.

4 Default rate (charged off) or loss ratio is defined as the ratio between loans written off and the

outstanding loan balance. It represents the principal not repaid to the Rowe Fund, some of which is sent to third party collectors (collection agencies).

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%






I have still not received a

position as yet and have no income

[…] I am aggressively looking for a

job […] I am not deliberately

avoiding making payments. Please

help!!

However, said negotiations result in payment

plans which extend the repayment period of loans

and have led to an increase in an arrears5 rate

from 8.4 percent in 2013 to 12.4 percent in 2014.

This figure is still well below the arrears rate

experienced in previous decades, which often

reached up to a third of the student loan portfolio.

Most beneficiaries agree that the main difficulties to meet their loan obligations include:

not finding a job in the US to be able to use their optional practical training allowed by the

US laws upon graduation, relocating to their country, unemployment in their country,

illness, delays in graduation, or pursuing advanced studies. The Rowe Fund remains

committed to providing beneficiaries with the resources necessary to make informed

financial decisions and help further mitigate the incidence of default and delinquency.

Graph 9. Percentage of Student Loans Charged Off since 2005

Many loans charged off are considered uncollectible via in-house means and are thus sent

to collection agencies6. During the biennium, only six accounts were sent to Bluestone

International LLC, collection agency, located in Bethesda, MD.

5 Arrears rate is defined as the sum of the outstanding balance of loan accounts that are three or more

installments behind as a percentage of the total outstanding loan balance (before deducting the allowance for uncollectible balances). 6 Loan losses for death of the beneficiary are paid with the student life self-insurance account.

0.0%0.5%

9.3%

4.3%

0.6%0.3%

0.7% 0.6%0.3%

1.4%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014






“The Rowe Fund was crucial to be able

to finish my senior year in college at the

University of Michigan Ann Arbor. It

helped me pay half of the tuition for

that year”

Beneficiary from Venezuela

Monitored return to country of origin

Encouraging the recipients to return to their country of origin within a year of their

graduation from the US university validates the social and developmental raison d’ etre of

the Rowe Fund in that beneficiaries may utilize their acquired higher education to promote

economic growth, cultural exchange, and social development within their own countries

and the region.

Over a third of beneficiaries returned to their countries during the biennium, 41.0 percent

and 39.8 percent of beneficiaries continued studying in the US in 2013 and 2014

respectively and only a handful did not report their whereabouts (unable to locate). Most

of those who reside in the US are paying interest on their loans.

Table 5. Status of Return to County of Origin

SURVEY TO EX-BENEFICIARIES

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the student loan program, its impact and beneficiaries’ career advancement, the Rowe Fund carried out a survey answered by 248 or 44.4 percent of those surveyed. Some of the findings are summarized below:

The majority experienced upward social mobility upon completing their studies in

the United States:

Whereas only 10 percent of participants occupied senior level positions prior to

studying in the United States, 58 percent occupied high level positions after

completing their US studies.

Whereas only 35 percent of parents’ completed graduate or post-graduate studies,

87.7 percent of respondents completed graduate programs in US universities.

2013 2014

Resides in country of origin 35.3% 37.5%

Resides in the US 23.1% 22.2%

Currently studying in the US 41.0% 39.8%

Unable to locate 0.6% 0.5%






“The Rowe Fund is a great

benefit/support in order to finish

graduate studies. It was a significant

help for me and I appreciate it”

Beneficiary from El Salvador

Graph 10. Academic knowledge and career advancement where cited as the m ost

useful benefits acquired during their US studies

Graph 11. The Rowe Fund’s financial aid was ranked as highly important in the completion of their US studies

Not only did 75.0 percent of respondents indicated the Rowe Fund was crucial or a very important financial aid to complete their studies in the US, but also 69.0 percent of them indicated that completing their US studies would have not been possible without the Rowe Fund’s aid.

Respondents indicated that the Rowe Fund mostly covered between 10.0 and 30.0

percent of the tuition cost. The primary source of funding cited by respondents was personal or family funds; followed by discounts from US universities.

Rowe Fund interest-free loans were particularly crucial during their last year of studies in the United States.

34%

31%

13%

12%

9%

1%

1%

Academic knowledge

Career advancement

Personal development

Inter-cultural experience

Technical skills

Foreign language improvement

Increased Network

3%

10%

12%

21%

54%

Not importantat all

Barelyimportant

Somewhatimportant

Very important

Crucial






“The Rowe Fund Loan was pivotal in my

professional success. It has allowed me

to conclude my studies and have a

successful career in International Human

Rights […] Thanks to the loan facilities,

I am debt free!

I always recommend the Rowe Fund

whenever I have the chance”

Beneficiary from Brazil

Graph 12. Beneficiaries learned about the Rowe Fund Mostly through word of mouth through friends and family

Graph 13. Satisfaction with Rowe Fund services was in average 81.0 percent

excellent or good during the loan application process and repayment period

35%

34%

10%

5%

4%

1%

3%

7%

Friend/Relative

OAS website

US University

Search engine

Government

University in your country

OAS Office in your country

Other

48%

33%

16%

2% 0% 1%

51%

30%

14%

2% 2% 1%

Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor Did not reply

During the loan application process

During loan repayment






“Initially I thought it wasn't real because I've never heard of a no-interest loan that actually waits for you to

get done with school and that breaks up the payments in such small installments […] The Rowe Fund

representatives were very helpful during the application process and even afterwards. […] I'll definitely

recommend the Rowe Fund to others”

Beneficiary from Jamaica

“The Rowe Fund was fundamental in allowing me to complete my studies at Harvard. The loan was small

relative to the overall cost of my tuition but critical to meet the "last mile" of financial requirements to enroll

in my last year. I will always be grateful to the Fund”

Beneficiary from Argentina

“The Rowe Fund helped me meet the

requirements for the reclassification of

my position. It also helped me stay up to

date with the new technologies and to

reinforce what I had learned during my

studies as an undergraduate student”

GS/OAS Staff member Master in Computer Science

STRATEGIC GOAL TWO: Contribute to the human development of GS/OAS staff

by granting subsidized loans intended to help finance their studies or the

studies of their dependents

2. LOANS TO STAFF OF THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT

Interest-bearing loans are offered to GS/OAS staff for their or their dependents’ studies

with the purpose of enhancing their personal and professional development. Emergency

loans are granted as well, on a case-by-case basis mainly to help with unforeseen

catastrophic or serious events.

The Committee granted 58 loans during the biennium to staff of the GS/OAS. The interest

rate was 4.5 percent (or 1.25 above the prime rate of the US). These loans are repaid

through payroll deductions. Repayment of the loan begins one month after disbursement

of the loan.

Historically, loans to staff do not represent any

default risk since payment is made through payroll

deduction and any pending debts to the Rowe Fund

are paid with their termination benefits or

retirement fund. Furthermore, the interest derived

from staff loans above the inflationary cost is

considered net income for the Fund.






“The Rowe Fund was very important when I was a doctoral candidate at the University of Texas at Austin.

As a foreign student, I only had the option of working as a Teaching Assistant and I was running short of

funds to support myself and my two children. The OAS loans helped me in the last stages of attaining my

doctoral degree and I will forever be grateful for the opportunity to have this small but important

assistance during my schooling. […] It allowed me to pay rent and eat during my last semester”

Thank you!

Beneficiary from Chile

DECLINE IN THE BALANCE OF STAFF LOANS

The outstanding balance of staff loans has reached historical low levels and continues to

decrease in spite of the Rowe Fund’s efforts to attract new applicants. This highly subsidize

loan to staff members is one of the few benefits they have to advance their academic goals.

According to the Rowe Fund Regulations, the staff to student ratio should not exceed a third

of outstanding student loan balances; however as of December 31st, 2014, the ratio was

merely 9.9 percent

Graph 14. Outstanding Balance of Staff Loans

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF LOAN RECIPIENTS Of the loans granted during the biennium, 31.0 percent

were intended to help cover tuition for the staff

member’s studies, 67.3 percent were intended to help

cover the studies of their dependents, and 1.7 percent for

emergencies.

Most staff members who obtained the loan to help cover

their studies chose the following fields: accounting and business, finance, and management.

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

Did you know that since

1948, the Rowe Fund has

proudly fulfilled Dr. Rowe’s

vision to contribute to the

human development of staff

members of the GS/OAS?






“The Leo Rowe Fund enabled

me to complete a Master's in

International Conflict Management and

Public Policy […]”

GS/OAS Staff member Master in Conflict Resolution

GUARANTEE

Since 2002, loans to staff have mostly been

guaranteed by the OAS Staff Association (OASSA).

Many OAS staff members join the staff association

to be able to access this benefit. As said before

loans to staff have never had a precedent of default.

The Agreement with OASSA indicates that in the

event of default, OASSA would mitigate the losses

by absorbing ten percent of the defaulted amount.

The guaranty account OASSA-Rowe had an ending balance of USD 23,525.5 as of December

31st, 2014. The OAS Staff Association Agreement was renewed on December 3, 2014 for

three additional years.

Another form of guaranty is through a US citizen or resident willing to co-sign the loan.

During the biennium 17.2 percent of staff loans were underwritten by a US citizen or

resident. The Committee is also looking to expand the guaranty mechanisms to which Rowe

Fund staff loans are granted to make them more accessible to all staff members.

STRATEGIC GOAL THREE: Empower women and promote cultural and academic

exchange of students by executing the will bequeathed by Julia Mac Lean

3. EXECUTION OF THE JULIA MAC LEAN SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

The Julia Mac Lean Scholarship has traditionally been placed

under the Rowe Fund Secretariat. This scholarship was

established to provide scholarships for Peruvian women

studying in the Washington, DC metro area. Since the

GS/OAS accepted the gift in 1971 until December 31st, 2013,

the Rowe Fund has granted thirty scholarships to Peruvian

women studying in the DC metropolitan area as international students; ten of which were

granted during 2012 and 2013 (seven scholarships for USD 45,656 granted in 2012 and

three for USD 19,867 in 2013).

The Committee, with the consent of the mission of Peru to the OAS and the OAS Legal

Department, agreed to fully execute the Julia Mac Lean Funds and subsequently allocate the

interest accrued towards the Rowe Fund’s supplementary sub-guaranty account.

Did you know that 91

universities located in 31

U.S. states were

represented during the

biennium?






The balance due to the Mac Lean Fund is equal to the initial endowment of USD 65,523 plus

interest accrued equivalent to USD 33,378. As of December 31st, 2013, the original

endowment of USD 65,523 received from the estate of Mrs. Julia Mac Lean to the MacLean

Fund had been fully executed.

The complete list of Julia Mac Lean Scholarship recipients can be found in Appendix B,

Beneficiaries of the Julia Mac Lean Scholarship, 1971 – 2013.

STRATEGIC GOAL FOUR: foster partnership with a wide array of stakeholders

to ensure visibility and accessibility of loans throughout the hemisphere.

4. VISIBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF ROWE FUND LOANS

The continued expansion of the educational loan program and the goal of even greater

coverage to a more diverse group of applicants are paramount priorities for the Rowe Fund

Committee as it strives to maximize its operational resources for loan generation purposes

without jeopardizing its long-term sustainability.

PROMOTION THROUGH INTER-INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION

During the biennium, the Committee, through its Secretariat, has continued promoting the fund targeting those countries that have benefited less. To this end, the Fund’s Secretariat has:

Organized, presented, and hosted an annual session for the Washington International Education Conference (WIEC). Over 100 representatives from universities throughout the United States attended the event.

Presented and exhibited at the annual conference organized by the Association of International Educators (NAFSA) in Saint Louis, Missouri and San Diego, California.

Presented and exhibited at the EducationUSA Global Forum in Washington, DC organized by the State Department

Presented at the Asociación Panamericana de Crédito Educativo (APICE)

Organized virtual webinars with the EducationUSA regional coordinators from Central America and the Caribbean as well as the Southern cone.

Arranged participation for OAS Administrative Technicians to exhibit at college fairs organized by EducationUSA and the US Embassy in Trinidad and Tobago, Costa Rica, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.






Broadcasted for Teleamazonas, Ecuador organized by the State Department

Held webinars and participated in other social media events during International Education Week.

Provided support, hosted, and attended several events organized by the Embassy Dialogue Committee on higher education.

Published information and articles about the Rowe Fund in different networks such as newspapers, the Institute of International Education, the Embassy Dialogue Committee bulletin, the Inter-American Network of Academies of Science, International Financial Aid and College Scholarship Search, etc.

Held meetings and teleconferences with dozens of universities throughout the region at events or in headquarters.

Channeled publications to advertise the Rowe Fund.

Held informative meetings with several representatives of OAS missions during the first semester of 2014 and pursued initiatives derived from said meetings.

Disseminated information at the OAS General Assembly, Summit of the Americas, ministerial meetings, Virtual Educa, as well as to foreign student advisors, financial aid officers, Rotary International, among others.

Published biweekly announcements in Facebook.com/rowefund on different subjects pertaining to funding studies in the United States7.

Fostered inter-departmental cooperation with related areas such as Youth forum, OAS internship, YABT, MOAS, Scholarships, etc.

Promoted loans to staff as well within the General Secretariat with the help of the Department of Human Resources and OAS Staff Association.

The greater visibility of the Rowe Fund program was done at barely any cost as the Secretariat strives to obtain registration waivers, discounts through collaborative arrangements to minimize expenses. The above was accomplished with the only monetary contribution from OAS allocated by the Regular Fund through the Department of Human Development and Education (USD 4,998 in 2013 and USD 5,105 in 2014).

STRATEGIC GOAL FIVE: Manage the Fund’s operations and serve as Technical

Secretariat for the Leo S. Rowe Fund Committee

7 Increased visitors in Rowe Fund’s webpage from 43,289 in 2013 to 55,233 in 2014.

The Committee encourages member states to promote the Rowe Fund’s financial aid within their countries.






5. ROWE FUND MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL SECRETARIAT SERVICES

CHANGES IN THE COMMITTEE’S MEMBERSHIP

Chile’s four-year term as a member of the Committee expired in December 2013 and, on

September 15, 2014, the Permanent Council elected Paraguay for four years (2014 - 2017).

Since Paraguay’s appointment was made in September, Chile’s de facto term on the

Committee was extended. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines was also elected by the

Permanent Council on September 15th, 2014 as Antigua and Barbuda relinquished its

membership. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines’ term will expire in December 2016. At its

meeting Nº 1004, the members of the Committee thanked the representative of Antigua

and Barbuda, Ambassador Deborah-Mae Lovell and the representative of Chile, Mr.

Francisco Devia, for the cooperation received from them personally and form their

respective countries during the time they served as members of the Committee.

As is customary and in accordance with Article 5 of the Statutes, the Committee elects, at

the beginning of the year, a Chair and Vice Chair. During the biennium, the Committee

unanimously elected Ambassador Deborah-Mae Lovell, Permanent Representative of

Antigua and Barbuda to the Organization of American States, as Chair of the Leo S. Rowe

Fund Committee from January 1, 2013 to September 15, 2014 and ambassador La Celia

Prince, Representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, for the remainder of 2014.

Ms. Carla Menendez McManus was elected Vice Chair in 2013 and subsequently Ms.

Melissa Kopolow Mc Call in 2014; both are representatives of the United States to the

Organization of American States.

THE ROWE FUND SECRETARIAT

During the biennium, the Secretariat of the Rowe Fund was comprised of a small team of

three staff members (a Technical Secretary and two Loan Technicians) and interns. One of

the Loan Technicians, Ms. Ana Lemos, left her post on December 15, 2014. All paid

personnel were remunerated by the Rowe specific fund,8 including benefits such as tuition

reimbursement, professional training, and home leave.

8 The Rowe Fund Secretariat personnel consist of: a Technical Secretary (P-3), and two Loan Technicians

(G-6 and G-5). The three posts and job descriptions have been reviewed and audited in response to the recommendations made by the Inspector General (SG/OIG/EVAL-01-06).






MEETINGS

The Committee held nine meetings during the biennium (four in 2013 and five in 2014).

This frequency represents a significant decrease considering that less than a decade ago the

Committee used to hold up to twelve regular meetings per year. This decrease, however, is

a measure taken by the Committee to streamline the modus operandi of the Rowe Fund,

which also includes the use of round-robin consultation for approval of loans and for other

matters. As such, in months when the Committee did not meet, loan applications and

substantial matters requiring immediate attention were brought to the attention of the

Committee for approval through round-robin consultations, thus allowing for a more

expeditious loan approval process and recovery of loans.

In line with the hemispheric commitment to the environment, the Committee has also

consciously reduced excessive use of paper hard copies and thus has reduced printing to a

minimum. For this reason, the Rowe Fund Secretariat only issues information to the

Committee electronically.

STRATEGIC GOAL SIX: Optimize the Fund’s resources and monitor its financial

and investment status to ensure optimal services with limited resources

6. RESOURCE OPTIMIZATION AND FINANCIAL OUTLOOK OF THE ROWE FUND

Total net assets grew from USD 16.6 million in 2013 to USD 17.0 million as of December 31st,

2014. In nominal terms, net assets are about USD 2.6 million above the prior peak in 2007

prior to financial crises when the fund lost 21.4 percent of its assets. This represents annual

growth of about 2.2 percent which is above the average inflation rate of 1.8 percent (as

measured by CPI). So the real level of assets has increased modestly (roughly half million

dollars).

The Investment Advising firm indicated that targeting a positive real return over time is

crucial to maintain the purchasing (and lending) power of the Fund.

As of December 31st, 2014, the Rowe Fund’s assets were comprised of: financial

investments (84.1 percent), loans to students (10.8 percent), loans to OAS employees (1.1

percent) and equity in OAS treasury or money market account (4.1 percent).






Graph 15. Loan and Investment Portfolio, 2005 - 2014

As of December 31st, 2014, gross student loans remained around the same level as in 2013

(USD 1.9 million). Notwithstanding, staff loans continued its downward trend and remained

a small percentage (1.1 percent) of total net assets.

Overall, student loans as percentage of total net assets have been consistent at around 11.9

and 11.5 percent for 2013 and 2014, respectively. The loan to asset ratio in 2014 was lower

in spite of maintaining a similar outstanding balance due to increases in the total net assets.

This percentage still compares favorably to the low level of 7.6 percent at the end of 2007

and falls within the range recommended by the investment advisor firm.

The financial statements of the 2013-2014 Fund’s operations appear in Tables 1 and 2 of

the Statistical Appendix.

INCOME

The capital of the Fund is constituted by the net amount of the bequest of Dr. Leo S. Rowe. Its sources of income are mainly derived from capital investments, dividends, repayment of loans granted, interest received on loans, and occasional donations.

Every year, the Committee approves the limit on loans taking into account expected

repayments during the year, and contingent to cash availability and demand, may increase

the limit on loans. When loan repayment is lower than disbursement, the extra cash for

14.4

11.4

17.0

-

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Mill

ion

s

Investment portfolio

Staff Loan Balance

Student Loan Balance






new loans and operational cost has to be derived from its dividends; which is currently the

main source of income. Conversely, during periods when repayment is higher than

disbursement, the excess cash is invested in the market.

EXPENSES

The financial viability of any student loan program is affected by the level of administrative

costs, the default rate, inflation rate and, market volatility. In order to ensure sustainability

of the program, the Fund must be able to compensate actuarial losses -inherent when

granting interest-free loans that are paid after graduation- default rates, and administrative

expenses, with different sources of income without relying solely on the market.

The Rowe Fund is considered “Property of the Organization9.” Notwithstanding, operational

costs continue to rise as the Rowe Fund increasingly absorbs costs that were previously paid

by the OAS General Secretariat through the Regular Fund.

The OAS Regular Fund’s monetary contribution to the Rowe Fund program during the

biennium averaged USD 5,000 or 1.1 percent of the overall payroll and operational

expenses borne by the Rowe Fund.

As such, the following are examples of additional recurrent expenses charged to the Rowe

Fund during the biennium:

External auditor’s fees. In October 2013, the Committee was notified of retroactive

external auditor’s charges of up to USD 57,000 per year. Upon the Committee’s

meeting with the then Chair of the Administrative and Budget Committee and the

ex-director of the OAS Secretary of Administration and Finance, the external

auditor’s firm submitted their best and final offer, which included a reduction of

prices to USD 36,400 per year, beginning in 2013. Afterwards, the Rowe Fund was

due to pay USD 38,000 in 2015 and USD 39,600 in 2016. The Committee has made

additional unsuccessful attempts to reduce or entirely waive these new charges,

including an unsuccessful petition sent to the Permanent Council on November 14th,

2014.

Credit Card Charges. Bank of America currently provides an online credit card

platform to facilitate repayment of loans, which are processed by the OAS

Treasurer’s Department. The Rowe Fund began paying the following charges during

the biennium:

9 The Rowe Fund is considered "Property of the Organization" for the purposes of Article I(7) the

Headquarters Agreement between the Organization of American States and the Government of the United States.






o Interchange and merchant fees imposed by credit card companies

o Processing fees paid to the OAS Treasurer’s Department

Investment Advisory. Buck Consultant’s fees slightly increased in 2014

Custodial services. The Committee switched custodial and trading provider upon

receiving a notification of hefty price which were to start in July 2014. Thus, a new

company was hired in 2014 to begin services in 2015.

Graph 16. Rowe Fund’s operational expenses since 2005

The Rowe Fund, currently a self-funded program, has seen its expenses increase and grow

over the years. Expenses were slightly higher in 2014 compared to the previous year

(roughly 2.8 percent of total net assets). As noted before, expenses are a key impediment

to growing the student loan portfolio. Expenses consisted of: salaries10 (62.8 percent),

advising fees (2.6 percent), bank fees (19.4 percent which includes credit card and loan

management fees), external auditor’s fees (7.5 percent) and bad debt (7.5 percent; which

includes adjustment in the allowance for uncollectible loans, write offs, and self-insurance

for death of a beneficiary).

Expenses are a key impediment to growing the student loan portfolio. If costs continue to

grow meaningfully or should invested assets decline due to market events, the loan levels

will be severely affected.

10

Salaries were originally paid by the OAS-Regular Fund

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014






INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT

Ernst & Young, LLP (E&Y) issued an unbiased (“clean’) opinion for the 2013 and 2014 Leo S. Rowe Pan American annual audit of accounts. An unqualified opinion represents the highest level audit.

In 2013 the Board of External Auditors, however, highlighted the fact that there are many investment funds under the OAS umbrella, with varying levels of investment management expertise. The Board believes that all investment funds would benefit from comprehensive oversight and investment strategies.






VII. APPENDICES

1. APPENDIX A:

Table 1. Statement of Financial Position, 2013 – 2014, as of December 31st

Information extracted from the statements of financial position

2014 2013

ASSETS

Cash equivalents 656,589 674,363

Investments at Fair Value

Mutual funds invested in equity investments 7,509,323 7,050,392

Mutual funds invested in fixed income securities 6,841,321 6,871,234

Total cash equivalents and investments 15,007,233 14,595,989

Loans receivables

Student loans 1,957,178 1,979,699

Allowance for uncollectible loans (120,698) (116,978)

Total student loans receivables 1,836,480 1,862,721

Loans to employees of the OAS 194,390 234,537

Other receivables 38,747 33,929

Total Assets 17,076,850 16,727,176

LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS

Liabilities

Guarantor deposits 49,522 76,782

Other accounts payable 13,138 18,293

Total Liabilities 62,660 95,075

Net assets

Committee designated 1,000,000 1,000,000

Available for loans 15,918,652 15,541,203

Student life-self insurance 34,552 33,092

Supplementary guarantee for loans 60,986 57,806

Total Net Assets 17,014,190 16,632,101

Total Liabilities and Net Assets 17,076,850 16,727,176






Table 2. Statement of Activities, 2013 – 2014, as of December 31st

2014 2013

INCREASES

Dividend and interest investment income 508,304 353,249

Nte realized gains on investments 6 124,204

Net unrealized holding gains on investments 525,031 1,563,323

Loan interest income 9,532 10,115

Recovery of bad debt 1,135 6,843

Donations 3,180 82

Student Life-Self Insurance 2,961 3,378

Late loan penalty income 25,533 20,723

Revaluation of allowance 1,167

Other income and contributions - 19,867

Total Increases 1,075,682 2,102,951

DECREASES

Unrealized loss on investments 210,913 324,038

Administrative expenses 409,861 408,369

External auditor's fees 36,400 36,400

Bad debtb

29,373 4,695

Other costs 7,046 6,916

Julia Mac Lean Scholarship Fund - 19,867

Total decreases 693,593 800,285

Change in net assets 382,089 1,302,666

Net assets at beginning of year 16,632,101 15,329,435

Net assets at end of year 17,014,190 16,632,101






Table 3. Loan to asset ratio, 2005 - 2014

2005 1,980,303 12,928,292 15.3%

2006 1,447,340 13,858,607 10.4%

2007 1,104,378 14,447,712 7.6%

2008 1,068,300 11,358,312 9.4%

2009 1,386,307 13,403,016 10.3%

2010 1,679,736 14,441,841 11.6%

2011 1,797,117 14,113,862 12.7%

2012 1,824,705 15,329,436 11.9%

2013 1,979,699 16,632,101 11.9%

2014 1,957,178 17,014,190 11.5%

Outstanding

student loanNet AssetsYear

Student Loan to

Asset Ratio

2005 380,679 12,928,292 2.9%

2006 231,978 13,858,607 1.7%

2007 209,879 14,447,712 1.5%

2008 246,623 11,358,312 2.2%

2009 290,362 13,403,016 2.2%

2010 293,645 14,441,841 2.0%

2011 300,863 14,113,862 2.1%

2012 247,339 15,329,436 1.6%

2013 234,537 16,632,101 1.4%

2014 194,390 17,014,190 1.1%

Staff Loan to

Asset RatioYear

Outstanding

staff loanNet Assets






Table 4. Nominal and real net assets, 2005 – 2014

2005 12,928,292 15,671,235 15.7

2006 13,858,607 16,273,964 16.3

2007 14,447,712 16,499,245 16.5

2008 11,358,312 12,489,184 12.5

2009 13,403,016 14,792,431 14.8

2010 14,441,841 15,683,044 15.7

2011 14,113,862 14,856,644 14.9

2012 15,329,436 15,806,290 15.8

2013 16,632,101 16,901,905 16.9

2014 17,014,190 17,014,190 17.0

Year Net AssetsNet assets at

2014 pricesDiv/million






Table 5. Historical trend of student loan balances and percentage of arrears, 1975-

2014

a. Since 2002 figures were obtained from the APEX management information system provided by the outsourced company, OAS FCU and in the past couple of years verified with the External Auditor's report. The official financial statements provided the breakdown only until 12/31/1998. The end-of-1999 figures were obtained from a run of report IL5050 in the old MIS, dated 12/23/99; those for 2000 and 2001 were obtained from Aspex system.

b. Installments past due is defined as the sum of the outstanding balance for loan accounts that are three or more installments behind.

c. Before allowance for uncollectible balances (Statement of activities). d. Arrears consist of installments past due as a percentage of the total outstanding loan balance (before

deducting the allowance for uncollectible balances).

DateInstallments

not yet due

Installments

past dueb

Student

loan

balance

Allowance

for

uncollectibl

e loansc

Student

loan

balance (net

of reserve)

Percentage

in arrearsd

Dec-79 317,963 121,119 439,082 (42,397) 396,685 27.6%

Dec-80 341,560 133,060 474,620 (58,075) 416,545 28.0%

Dec-81 429,690 118,345 548,035 (47,249) 500,786 21.6%

Dec-82 534,983 137,938 672,921 (82,001) 590,920 20.5%

Dec-83 622,074 157,583 779,657 (89,213) 690,444 20.2%

Dec-84 624,414 225,550 849,964 (143,059) 706,905 26.5%

Dec-85 526,076 246,661 772,737 (146,162) 626,575 31.9%

Dec-86 454,191 224,377 678,568 (106,159) 572,409 33.1%

Dec-87 403,411 208,588 611,999 (112,090) 499,909 34.1%

Dec-88 452,854 159,346 612,200 (84,096) 528,104 26.0%

Dec-89 519,644 158,937 678,581 (84,237) 594,344 23.4%

Dec-90 550,837 159,514 710,351 (84,542) 625,809 22.5%

Dec-91 583,243 163,994 747,237 (86,917) 660,320 21.9%

Dec-92 780,738 179,036 959,774 (93,525) 866,249 18.7%

Dec-93 1,126,261 202,598 1,328,859 (107,442) 1,221,417 15.2%

Dec-94 1,552,037 202,598 1,754,635 (129,344) 1,625,291 11.5%

Dec-95 1,758,564 334,673 2,093,237 (197,774) 1,895,463 16.0%

Dec-96 1,998,907 439,256 2,438,163 (292,458) 2,145,705 18.0%

Dec-97 2,141,657 527,978 2,669,635 (423,938) 2,245,697 19.8%

Dec-98 2,237,252 430,335 2,667,587 (423,613) 2,243,974 16.1%

Dec-99 1,880,985 163,163 2,044,148 (324,080) 1,720,068 8.0%

Dec-00 1,732,612 283,154 2,015,766 (324,080) 1,691,686 14.0%

Dec-01 1,725,630 310,583 2,037,713 (328,481) 1,709,232 15.3%

Dec-02 1,894,474 353,469 2,247,943 (356,747) 1,891,196 15.7%

Dec-03 2,162,680 247,073 2,409,753 (227,087) 2,182,666 10.3%

Dec-04 1,987,526 337,979 2,325,505 (182,094) 2,143,411 14.5%

Dec-05 1,719,658 260,645 1,980,303 (150,835) 1,829,468 13.2%

Dec-06 1,178,294 269,046 1,447,340 (128,575) 1,318,765 18.6%

Dec-07 979,222 125,155 1,104,378 (162,168) 942,210 11.3%

Dec-08 1,001,060 67,240 1,068,300 (102,475) 965,825 6.3%

Dec-09 1,333,098 53,209 1,386,307 (127,795) 1,258,512 3.8%

Dec-10 1,600,878 78,845 1,679,723 (151,077) 1,528,646 4.7%

Dec-11 1,715,237 81,880 1,797,117 (142,859) 1,654,258 4.6%

Dec-12 1,715,848 108,857 1,824,705 (118,145) 1,706,560 6.0%

Dec-13 1,812,652 167,047 1,979,699 (116,978) 1,862,721 8.4%Dec-14 1,715,026 242,152 1,957,178 (120,698) 1,836,480 12.4%






Table 6. Student loans charged off, 2005 – 2014

Table 7. Student and staff loans, collected and disbursed, 2005 – 2014

a. The figures are extracted from the External Auditors Report.

YearAmount

grantedCharged off

Student

Outstanding

Balance

Percentage

of Defaulted

loans

Dec-05 155,550 346 1,980,303 0.0%

Dec-06 183,300 7,099 1,447,340 0.5%

Dec-07 270,300 102,922 1,104,378 9.3%

Dec-08 165,500 45,508 1,068,300 4.3%

Dec-09 12,390 8,356 1,386,307 0.6%

Dec-10 129,984 4,686 1,679,736 0.3%

Dec-11 99,588 12,932 1,797,117 0.7%

Dec-12 80,785 11,468 1,824,705 0.6%

Dec-13 87,160 5,640 1,979,699 0.3%

Dec-14 121,410 26,709 1,957,178 1.4%

Year Collecteda Disburseda Difference

Staff loans

disbursed as % of

total

Balance student

and staff

2005 926,750 383,677 543,073 25.4% 2,632,519

2006 980,584 298,940 681,644 21.8% 2,020,150

2007 739,367 319,113 420,254 28.8% 1,496,787

2008 588,689 553,816 34,873 26.8% 1,314,590

2009 505,770 847,387 (341,617) 21.0% 1,495,796

2010 605,650 896,888 (291,238) 19.6% 1,825,025

2011 626,679 743,158 (116,479) 17.8% 2,035,681

2012 687,444 649,494 37,950 13.3% 2,085,012

2013 693,604 835,796 (142,192) 15.7% 2,143,140

2014 738,030 675,362 62,668 12.8% 2,182,902






Table 8. Student loan balance and annual payments collected, 2005 – 2014

Source: official financial statements

a. Not adjusted for reserve for uncollectable loans b. The figures are extracted from the External Auditors Report

Table 9. Staff loan balance and annual payments collected, 2005 – 2014

Source: official financial statements

a. The figures are extracted from the External Auditors Report

Initial Final Average In US$b As % of average

loan balance

2005 2,325,505 1,980,303 2,152,904 631,356 29.3%

2006 1,980,303 1,447,340 1,713,822 766,725 44.7%

2007 1,447,340 1,104,378 1,275,859 608,954 47.7%

2008 1,104,378 1,068,300 1,086,339 466,730 43.0%

2009 1,068,300 1,386,307 1,227,304 362,358 29.5%

2010 1,386,307 1,679,736 1,533,021 420,927 27.5%

2011 1,679,736 1,797,117 1,738,427 490,101 28.2%

2012 1,797,117 1,824,705 1,810,911 526,467 29.1%

2013 1,824,705 1,979,699 1,902,202 549,227 28.9%

2014 1,979,699 1,957,178 1,968,439 611,410 31.1%

Year

Student loan balancesa Annual payments collected

Initial Final Average In US$b As % of average

loan balance

2005 578,550 380,679 479,615 295,394 61.6%

2006 380,679 231,978 306,329 213,859 69.8%

2007 231,978 209,879 220,929 130,413 59.0%

2008 209,879 246,623 228,251 121,959 53.4%

2009 246,623 290,362 268,493 143,412 53.4%

2010 290,362 293,645 292,004 184,723 63.3%

2011 293,645 300,863 297,254 136,578 45.9%

2012 300,863 247,339 274,101 160,977 58.7%

2013 247,339 234,537 240,938 144,377 59.9%

2014 234,537 194,390 214,464 126,620 59.0%

YearStaff loan balancesa Annual payments collected






Table 10. Historical data on loans granted since the inception of the Fund, 1948 –

2014

a. From 1948-49 to 1975-76, fiscal years run from July 1 to June 30. The 1976-77 data refers to the 18 month

period from July 1, 1976, to December 31, 1977. Since 1978, fiscal years correspond with calendar years. b. Values have been converted on the basis of purchasing power of the dollar in each OAS fiscal period, using

the US consumer price index (CPI-U, all items, US city average, 1982-84=100).

students staff total students staff students staff students staff

1948-1980 3333 697 4030 3,089,467 2,639,916 449,551 16,197,525 2,522,304 157,019 123,378

1981 120 49 169 256,896 -7.8% 163,854 93,042 413,691 234,908 3,447 4,794

1982 139 34 173 253,600 -1.3% 192,400 61,200 457,573 145,548 3,292 4,281

1983 186 25 211 326,022 28.6% 273,700 52,322 630,664 120,561 3,391 4,822

1984 151 29 180 285,560 -12.4% 232,900 52,660 514,442 116,318 3,407 4,011

1985 86 13 99 168,900 -40.9% 145,300 23,600 309,910 50,336 3,604 3,872

1986 83 9 92 161,360 -4.5% 148,600 12,760 311,165 26,719 3,749 2,969

1987 68 24 92 218,887 35.7% 139,060 79,827 280,935 161,270 4,131 6,720

1988 79 36 115 310,800 42.0% 213,480 97,320 414,148 188,799 5,242 5,244

1989 80 16 96 284,000 -8.6% 227,800 56,200 421,614 104,015 5,270 6,501

1990 61 19 80 249,665 -12.1% 174,000 75,665 305,532 132,862 5,009 6,993

1991 51 14 65 220,750 -11.6% 163,000 57,750 274,659 97,310 5,385 6,951

1992 102 39 141 560,166 153.8% 394,129 166,037 644,709 271,600 6,321 6,964

1993 121 37 158 725,600 29.5% 564,600 161,000 896,718 255,706 7,411 6,911

1994 138 36 174 825,500 13.8% 665,400 160,100 1,030,427 247,928 7,467 6,887

1995 129 26 155 766,768 -7.1% 631,268 135,500 950,630 204,050 7,369 7,848

1996 139 37 176 869,449 13.4% 689,893 179,556 1,009,117 262,639 7,260 7,098

1997 132 34 166 789,824 -9.2% 641,700 148,124 917,571 211,803 6,951 6,230

1998 137 16 153 772,600 -2.2% 660,750 111,850 930,320 157,482 6,791 9,843

1999 101 21 122 646,359 -16.3% 484,100 162,259 666,872 223,520 6,603 10,644

2000 99 33 132 674,201 4.3% 461,871 212,330 615,560 282,983 6,218 8,575

2001 102 37 139 905,872 34.4% 637,200 268,672 825,733 348,166 8,095 9,410

2002 122 37 159 1,090,506 20.4% 844,050 246,456 1,076,762 314,405 8,826 8,497

2003 112 33 145 935,223 -14.2% 747,264 187,959 932,049 234,438 8,322 7,104

2004 95 39 134 743,910 -20.5% 573,800 170,110 697,126 206,671 7,338 5,299

2005 54 25 79 373,233 -49.8% 275,770 97,463 324,062 114,530 6,001 4,581

2006 40 11 51 298,920 -19.9% 233,762 65,158 266,113 74,175 6,653 6,743

2007 36 21 57 330,456 10.5% 250,235 80,221 277,033 88,812 7,695 4,229

2008 59 28 87 550,990 66.7% 408,285 142,705 435,213 152,117 7,376 5,433

2009 101 35 136 872,300 58.3% 680,986 191,314 728,607 204,692 7,214 5,848

2010 97 33 130 853,050 -2.2% 690,255 162,795 726,668 171,383 7,491 5,193

2011 86 27 113 727,924 -14.7% 593,550 134,374 605,690 137,123 7,043 5,079

2012 79 24 103 694,780 -4.6% 597,766 97,014 597,766 97,014 7,567 4,042

2013 89 38 127 792,977 14.1% 657,610 135,367 668,278 137,563 7,509 3,620

2014 92 20 112 733,423 -7.5% 646,950 86,473 646,950 86,473 7,032 4,324

Totals 6,699 1,652 8,351 22,359,936 17,745,204 4,614,732 37,001,831 8,386,227 369,499 330,939

2014 US$(b)Years

(a)

Number of loans approved

Combined student and

staff loans

Current (US)

Rate of

change

(%)

Current US$

Average value per

loan approved, in 2014

US$

Total amount of loans approved






Table 11. Number of student loans approved a by year and country, 2005 – 2014

a. Corresponds to loans approved by the Committee only. b. Corresponds to the standard deviation of the figures shown for each year divided by the average per country

in that year. The smaller coefficient of variability the better the geographic distribution.

Country 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Antigua and Barbuda - - 1 - - 1 1 2 2 2

Argentina 4 5 - 1 3 3 2 4 4 2

Bahamas, Commonw ealth of the 1 - - - 2 - - 2 3 5

Barbados - - - - - 2 - - 1 -

Belize - 2 - - - - - 1 1 2

Bolivia 3 - 1 1 5 1 1 1 2 -

Brazil - 1 1 3 6 6 5 5 3 6

Chile 3 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 2

Colombia 10 7 5 6 21 21 14 18 23 12

Costa Rica - 2 1 3 2 - - 1 1 -

Dominica, Commonw ealth of 1 - 1 2 1 - 2 2 1 1

Dominican Republic 1 - 2 - - 3 2 1 2 7

Ecuador 6 1 2 11 6 3 4 3 3 1

El Salvador 1 1 - - 2 1 - - - -

Grenada - - - 2 - - 2 1 - -

Guatemala 1 - 1 - - - - 1 1 -

Guyana - - - - - - - - - -

Haiti - - - - 1 1 4 - 1 2

Honduras 5 2 1 3 1 - 1 3 1 -

Jamaica 2 2 3 5 18 21 16 10 14 18

Mexico 3 1 2 6 8 11 10 8 14 14

Nicaragua - - - - 1 - 1 1 - -

Panama - - - - 1 - 1 - - -

Paraguay 1 1 2 - 2 1 2 3 1 2

Peru 5 9 6 3 6 10 4 3 1 1

Saint Kitts and Nevis - - - 1 3 2 4 2 1 1

Saint Lucia 2 3 - 2 - 1 2 - 2 3

San Vicente and the Grenadines 1 - - - - 1 1 - 2 1

Suriname - - - 1 1 - - - - 1

Trinidad and Tobago 1 1 3 3 7 5 3 4 2 5

Uruguay - - 2 1 2 1 - 1 2 -

Venezuela 3 1 1 4 1 2 4 2 - 4

Totals 54 40 36 59 101 97 86 79 89 92

Countries represented yearly 19 16 18 19 23 20 22 23 25 21

Coefficient of variabilityb 1.4 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.5






Table 12. Amount (in thousand dollars) of student loans granted by year and country,

2005-2014

a. Corresponds to the standard deviation of the figures shown for each year divided by the average per

country in that year. The smaller coefficient of variability the better the geographic distribution.

Country 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Antigua and Barbuda 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 22.0 16.5 15.0

Argentina 26.3 29.4 0.0 6.5 21.5 22.5 14.7 33.9 37.5 15.0

Bahamas, Commonw ealth of the 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 19.4 17.3 37.2

Barbados 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0

Belize 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.5 15.0

Bolivia 16.7 0.0 7.5 7.5 37.1 15.0 9.4 4.0 11.0 0.0

Brazil 0.0 4.5 7.5 19.3 44.2 40.9 33.8 32.1 22.5 42.9

Chile 16.3 7.5 10.0 15.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 20.0

Colombia 59.3 35.9 33.0 43.5 140.5 160.9 94.4 133.5 168.6 79.2

Costa Rica 0.0 15.0 7.5 17.5 13.7 0.0 0.0 15.0 7.5 0.0

Dominica, Commonw ealth of 4.1 0.0 5.8 11.5 7.5 0.0 9.5 12.0 7.5 14.2

Dominican Republic 3.8 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 22.4 15.0 7.5 15.0 51.0

Ecuador 26.7 7.5 13.5 73.5 40.3 18.0 26.4 22.5 22.4 6.0

El Salvador 2.5 4.9 0.0 0.0 15.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Grenada 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 13.1 15.0 0.0 0.0

Guatemala 5.7 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 7.0 0.0

Guyana 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Haiti 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 7.5 27.4 0.0 3.3 11.7

Honduras 18.5 7.1 7.5 22.5 5.4 0.0 15.0 27.5 7.6 0.0

Jamaica 8.4 12.2 18.3 35.5 111.3 121.6 89.7 57.6 93.6 111.5

Mexico 10.1 6.2 15.0 45.0 61.2 77.1 69.5 64.5 114.9 107.8

Nicaragua 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 4.3 7.3 0.0 0.0

Panama 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Paraguay 6.7 1.2 12.7 0.0 15.0 7.3 15.0 17.1 10.0 12.5

Peru 27.3 59.5 45.0 17.6 27.9 70.0 33.8 28.6 7.5 6.7

Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 21.1 14.6 28.2 14.5 7.5 6.9

Saint Lucia 9.4 16.8 0.0 15.0 0.0 4.0 14.4 0.0 15.0 17.9

San Vicente and the Grenadines 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 3.9 0.0 14.8 6.7

Suriname 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5

Trinidad and Tobago 3.9 7.5 17.0 21.5 49.3 36.2 21.1 29.4 19.1 32.4

Uruguay 0.0 0.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 6.0 0.0 8.0 15.0 0.0

Venezuela 20.0 7.5 6.0 26.8 5.0 15.0 35.6 15.0 0.0 30.0

Totals 276 234 250 408 681 690 594 598 658 647

Coefficient of variabilitya 1.5 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.1 1.4 1.8 1.5






Table 13. Number and amount (in thousand dollars) of student loans granted by year

and country, 2013-2014 and 2005-2014

Country 2013-14 Percent Accumulated Country 2005-14 Percent Accumulated

Colombia 35 19.3 19.3 Colombia 137 18.7 18.7

Jamaica 32 17.7 37.0 Jamaica 109 14.9 33.6

Mexico 28 15.5 52.5 Mexico 77 10.5 44.1

Dominican Republic 9 5.0 57.5 Peru 48 6.5 50.6

Brazil 9 5.0 62.4 Ecuador 40 5.5 56.1

Bahamas, Commonw ealth of the 8 4.4 66.9 Brazil 36 4.9 61.0

Trinidad and Tobago 7 3.9 70.7 Trinidad and Tobago 34 4.6 65.6

Argentina 6 3.3 74.0 Argentina 28 3.8 69.4

Saint Lucia 5 2.8 76.8 Venezuela 22 3.0 72.4

Venezuela 4 2.2 79.0 Dominican Republic 18 2.5 74.9

Ecuador 4 2.2 81.2 Honduras 17 2.3 77.2

Antigua and Barbuda 4 2.2 83.4 Bolivia 15 2.0 79.3

San Vicente and the Grenadines 3 1.7 85.1 Paraguay 15 2.0 81.3

Paraguay 3 1.7 86.7 Saint Lucia 15 2.0 83.4

Haiti 3 1.7 88.4 Saint Kitts and Nevis 14 1.9 85.3

Chile 3 1.7 90.1 Bahamas, Commonw ealth of the 13 1.8 87.0

Belize 3 1.7 91.7 Dominica, Commonw ealth of 11 1.5 88.5

Uruguay 2 1.1 92.8 Chile 10 1.4 89.9

Saint Kitts and Nevis 2 1.1 93.9 Costa Rica 10 1.4 91.3

Peru 2 1.1 95.0 Antigua and Barbuda 9 1.2 92.5

Dominica, Commonw ealth of 2 1.1 96.1 Haiti 9 1.2 93.7

Bolivia 2 1.1 97.2 Uruguay 9 1.2 95.0

Suriname 1 0.6 97.8 Belize 6 0.8 95.8

Honduras 1 0.6 98.3 San Vicente and the Grenadines 6 0.8 96.6

Guatemala 1 0.6 98.9 El Salvador 5 0.7 97.3

Costa Rica 1 0.6 99.4 Grenada 5 0.7 98.0

Barbados 1 0.6 100.0 Guatemala 4 0.5 98.5

Panama - - 100.0 Barbados 3 0.4 98.9

Nicaragua - - 100.0 Nicaragua 3 0.4 99.3

Guyana - - 100.0 Suriname 3 0.4 99.7

Grenada - - 100.0 Panama 2 0.3 100.0

El Salvador - - 100.0 Guyana - - 100.0

Country 2013-14 Percent Accumulated Country 2005-2014 Percent Accumulated

Colombia 247.7 19.0 19.0 Colombia 948.7 18.8 18.8

Mexico 222.7 17.1 36.1 Jamaica 659.6 13.1 31.9

Jamaica 205.1 15.7 51.8 Mexico 571.2 11.3 43.3

Dominican Republic 66.0 5.1 56.8 Peru 323.9 6.4 49.7

Brazil 65.4 5.0 61.8 Ecuador 256.8 5.1 54.8

Bahamas, Commonw ealth of the 54.5 4.2 66.0 Brazil 247.6 4.9 59.7

Argentina 52.5 4.0 70.0 Trinidad and Tobago 237.3 4.7 64.4

Trinidad and Tobago 51.5 3.9 74.0 Argentina 207.3 4.1 68.6

Saint Lucia 32.9 2.5 76.5 Venezuela 160.9 3.2 71.8

Antigua and Barbuda 31.5 2.4 78.9 Dominican Republic 129.7 2.6 74.3

Venezuela 30.0 2.3 81.2 Honduras 111.0 2.2 76.5

Ecuador 28.4 2.2 83.4 Bolivia 108.1 2.1 78.7

Chile 24.7 1.9 85.3 Saint Kitts and Nevis 99.6 2.0 80.7

Paraguay 22.5 1.7 87.0 Paraguay 97.4 1.9 82.6

Dominica, Commonw ealth of 21.7 1.7 88.7 Saint Lucia 92.4 1.8 84.4

San Vicente and the Grenadines 21.5 1.6 90.3 Antigua and Barbuda 91.0 1.8 86.2

Belize 19.5 1.5 91.8 Bahamas, Commonw ealth of the 90.8 1.8 88.0

Haiti 15.0 1.1 93.0 Chile 81.0 1.6 89.7

Uruguay 15.0 1.1 94.1 Costa Rica 76.2 1.5 91.2

Saint Kitts and Nevis 14.4 1.1 95.2 Dominica, Commonw ealth of 72.1 1.4 92.6

Peru 14.2 1.1 96.3 Uruguay 64.0 1.3 93.9

Bolivia 11.0 0.8 97.2 Haiti 57.4 1.1 95.0

Honduras 7.6 0.6 97.7 San Vicente and the Grenadines 47.4 0.9 96.0

Barbados 7.5 0.6 98.3 Grenada 38.9 0.8 96.7

Costa Rica 7.5 0.6 98.9 Belize 34.7 0.7 97.4

Suriname 7.5 0.6 99.5 El Salvador 29.1 0.6 98.0

Guatemala 7.0 0.5 100.0 Guatemala 26.6 0.5 98.5

El Salvador - - 100.0 Barbados 22.5 0.4 99.0

Grenada - - 100.0 Suriname 21.0 0.4 99.4

Guyana - - 100.0 Nicaragua 19.1 0.4 99.8

Nicaragua - - 100.0 Panama 12.0 0.2 100.0

Panama - - 100.0 Guyana - - 100.0






Table 14. Gender breakdown of student loans by number and amount (in thousand

dollars) 2005-2014

Table 15. Breakdown by degree of studies (percentage), 2005-2014

Women Men Totals % of women Women Men Totals % of women

1995 43 86 129 33.3% 210.0 421.3 631.3 33.3%

2005 31 23 54 57.4% 153.1 122.7 275.8 55.5%

2006 21 19 40 52.5% 113.4 120.3 233.8 48.5%

2007 26 10 36 72.2% 176.0 74.2 250.2 70.3%

2008 27 32 59 45.8% 192.7 215.6 408.3 47.2%

2009 54 47 101 53.5% 343.9 337.1 681.0 50.5%

2010 48 49 97 49.5% 329.8 360.5 690.3 47.8%

2011 43 43 86 50.0% 283.6 309.0 592.6 47.9%

2012 40 39 79 50.6% 299.5 298.3 597.8 50.1%

2013 57 32 89 64.0% 416.2 241.4 657.6 63.3%

2014 52 40 92 56.5% 364.8 282.2 647.0 56.4%

YearNumber of loans approved Amount of loans approved

By Degree 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Undergraduate 33.3 12.5 19.4 25.4 33.7 32.0 32.6 29.1 37.1 34.8

Master's 61.1 70.0 66.7 62.7 63.4 61.9 58.1 63.3 56.2 60.9

Doctorate 5.6 15.0 8.3 10.2 1.0 5.2 4.7 7.6 4.5 4.3

Certif icate - 2.5 5.6 1.7 2.0 1.0 4.7 - 2.2 -






Table 16. International students from Latin America and the Caribbean by place of origin, 2013-2014

Institute of International Education. Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/opendoors

Place of Origin 2013/14 % of world

total

Caribbean 10,879 1.2%

Antigua and Barbuda 215 0.0%

Bahamas 1,744 0.2%

Barbados 285 0.0%

Cuba 69 0.0%

Dominica 191 0.0%

Dominican Republic 1,746 0.2%

Grenada 189 0.0%

Haiti 942 0.1%

Jamaica 2,502 0.3%

St. Kitts and Nevis 190 0.0%

St. Lucia 322 0.0%

St. Vincent and the Grenadines 105 0.0%

Trinidad and Tobago 1,440 0.2%

Mexico and Central America 22,276 2.5%

Belize 324 0.0%

Costa Rica 1,067 0.1%

El Salvador 1,233 0.1%

Guatemala 1,252 0.1%

Honduras 1,756 0.2%

Mexico 14,779 1.7%

Nicaragua 437 0.0%

Panama 1,428 0.2%

0.0%South America 39,163 4.4%

Argentina 1,902 0.2%

Bolivia 1,068 0.1%

Brazil 13,286 1.5%

Chile 2,432 0.3%

Colombia 7,083 0.8%

Ecuador 2,578 0.3%

Guyana 246 0.0%

Paraguay 492 0.1%

Peru 2,607 0.3%

Suriname 91 0.0%

Uruguay 353 0.0%

Venezuela 7,022 0.8%

LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN 72,318 8.2%

WORLD TOTAL 886,052 100.0%





http://www.iie.org/opendoors


2. APPENDIX B:

Table 17. Julia MacLean Scholarship Fund

Name Year University Degree and field of study

1 Rosana Maximiliano 1984 Montgomery College, MD Bachelor's in Electronic Data Processing

2 Pilar Navarro Grau 1987 American University, DC Master's in International Affairs

3 Susana Romero San Martín 1987 Columbia Union College Associate's in Business Administration

4 Maria del Pilar Arnillas 1988 George Washington University, DC Master's in Education

5 Maria del Carmen Cossu Saettone 1989 George Washington University, DC Master's in Teaching Museum Education

6 Mariela D. Buendia 1990 The Catholic University of America, DC Bachelor's in Arquitecture

7 Milena Portaro Van Oordt 1990 Marymount University, VA Bachelor's in Business Administration

8 Cristina C. Arias Uyen 1991 George Washington University, DC Master's in Business Administration

9 Helena A. Cuellar Tello 1991 George Washington University, DC Bacherlor's in Engineer

10 Jessica Ramos López 1992 American University, DC Master's in Spanish Studies

11 Cecilia I. Llosa 1992 American University, DC Master's in Information Systems

12 Ana Cecilia MacLean 1992 Georgetown University, DC Master in International Law

13 María Sol Menacho Quesada 1994 George Washington University, DC Bachelor's in Marketing

14 Sonia Jarama 1994 George Washington University, DC Doctorate in Psychology

15 Alicia M. MacLean 1994 Georgetown University, DC Bachelor's in Foreign Service

16 Marcela Huaita 1998 American University, DC Master's in International Law

17 Giovanna Ortigosa Bello 1998 The Catholic University of America, DC Doctorate Modern Languages

18 Nancy G. Bernales Pooley 1998 Marymount University - VA Master's in Business Administration

19 Fiorella L. Carmelino Pellegrini 1998 University of Maryland - College Park, MD Bachelor's in Economics

20 Rocío M. Malpica Valera 2002 Georgetown University, DC Master's in International Legal Studies

21 Emi C. Yamamura 2012 Georgetown University, DC Master's in Law

22 Ivette J. Ramos 2012 Northern Virginia Community College, VA Associate's in Teacher Education

23 Gracy M. Zapata 2012 Georgetown University, DC Master's in Law

24 Yesenia J. Cabezas 2012 SAIS- Johns Hopkins, DC Master's in International Public Policy

25 Katrin Ventocilla-Witjes 2012 Northern Virginia Community College, VA Associate's in Animal Health

26 Dayana N. Delgado 2012 Northern Virginia Community College, VA Associate's in Math

27 Ana E. Sotelo 2012 American University, DC Master's in Film

28 Fabiola Morales Carcelen 2013 Marymount University, VA Master's in Nursing

29 Vanessa del Carmen Rivas Plata 2013 Georgetown University, DC Master's in Law

30 Claudia L. Vargas Pastor 2013 Georgetown University, DC Master's in Law





Documents

Rowe Fund Report - scm.oas. · PDF fileDuring the biennium covered in this report, the ... advancement was successfully conducted. In ... Loan Technician Internship Program: