FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LEVERAGING EFFECTIVE APPLICATION OF DIRECT INVESTMENTS PROJECT March 2016 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by a Cultural Practice, LLC Team headed by Dr. Daniel Dorsainvil and Eric Benschoter. ii Cover Photograph by the Evaluation Team: Manager of SME grantee CASTMI, involved in purified water production and bottling in Cap-Haïtien corridor, December 12, 2015. FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LEVERAGING EFFECTIVE APPLICATION OF DIRECT INVESTMENTS (LEAD) PROJECT March 3, 2016 Prepared under EVAL-ME IDIQ Contract AID-OAA-I-15-00016, Task Order Number AID-521-TO-15- 00008. Submitted by: Dr. Daniel Dorsainvil (Team Leader) Eric Benschoter (Assistant Team Leader) Contractor: Cultural Practice, LLC 4300 Montgomery Ave # 305, Bethesda, MD 20814, United States Tel: 301-654-1787 www.culturalpractice.com DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Final Performance Evaluation of the Leveraging Effective Application of Direct Investments (LEAD) Project was prepared by Team Leader Dr. Daniel Dorsainvil and Assistant Team Leader Eric Benschoter. Bauge Moncoeur, Franck Mahotiere, and Hudson Michel assisted with the data collection, focus group discussions, and key person interviews. The team would like to acknowledge the Pan American Development Foundation (PADF) staff for their support during the evaluation process. PADF staff facilitated introductions and meetings with project stakeholders like the partners and SMEs. Professionals from various financial institutions in Haiti provided valuable insight on relevant dimensions of the Haitian financial system. The team also appreciates LEAD partners and service providers for taking the time to respond to the survey questions. The team would also like to thank members of the Haitian Diaspora for shedding light on important aspects of the Diaspora experience, needs, and aspirations. The evaluation team benefitted greatly from the support and feedback from USAID staff at all stages of the evaluation. ii CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES................................................................................................................................. iii ACRONYMS...................................................................................................................................................................... iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................................. viiii PROJECT BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................................ viiii EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS......................................................................... viiii EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS............................................................................... viiii FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................................................... vviiii CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ixx RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................................................... x 1. EVALUATION PURPOSE & EVALUATION QUESTIONS........................................................................... 1 1.1 EVALUATION PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 EVALUATION QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................................ 1 2. PROJECT BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 COUNTRY CONTEXT ......................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 LEAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 LINK BEWTEEN USAID and LEAD RESULTS FRAMEWORKS.................................................................. 6 3. EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................... 8 3.1 DATA SOURCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 DATA COLLECTION METHODS...................................................................................................................... 8 3.3 DATA ANALYSIS METHODS ............................................................................................................................13 3.4 LIMITATIONS .........................................................................................................................................................13 4. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................15 4.1 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................................15 4.2 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................................29 4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................33 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................................36 ANNEXES ......................................................................................................................................................................... 38 ANNEX 1: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK........................................................................................... 38 ANNEX 2: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS .............................................................................................. 44 ANNEX 3: DATA ANALYSIS METHODS................................................................................................................ 68 ANNEX 4: LIST OF COMMUNITY PROJECTS AND BENEFICIARIES ........................................................... 70 ANNEX 5: LIST OF PERSONS AND INSTITUTIONS MET OR INTERVIEWED ........................................ 71 ANNEX 6: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST...................................................................... 74 iii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Tables and Figures Page(s) Table 1: Stakeholder and perspectives 1 Table 2: Selected macroeconomic indicators of the Haitian economy 2011-2015 3 Table 3: Promising activities by corridor 5 Table 4: Additional background information on the LEAD project 6 Table 5: Results and sub-results under the 2015 PMP 6 Table 6: Data collection method by evaluation question 9 Table 7: Number of data collection activities by nature and location 11 Table 8: Trend in financial inclusion in Haiti and other selected countries 16 Table 9: Investor connections established by LEAD 17 Table 10: Employee survey responses 18 Table 11: Innovation in remittances for community development 20 Table 12: Nature of connection with Diaspora contact providing funds 21 Table 13: Funds leveraged under component 2 23 Table 14: Sectors retained by LEAD and Diaspora sectoral preference 23 Table 15: Best practice for capturing Diaspora remittances 24 Table 16: Performance Indicators on Diaspora resources 25 Table 17: Additional Information and Support Needed to Invest 26 Table 18: Impact of capacity building 28 Table 19: Self-Perception of capacity 29 Table 20: Derived SME capacity 29 Table 21: Unemployment rates in Haiti in 2012 30 Table 22: FDI in Haiti and the Dominican Republic, 2011-2013 30 Figure 1: LEAD’s Year 4 Results Framework with Activities 7 iv ACRONYMS BPC Business Plan Competition BDS Business Development Services BRH Banque de la République d’Haïti CBO Community Based Organization CCIPNE Chambre de Commerce, d’Industrie et des Professions du Nord-Est ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean CFI Center for the Facilitation of Investment CLES Collectif de lutte contre l'Exclusion Sociale CLS Centre de Leadership Spécialisé DOSA Discussion Oriented Self-Assessment EGI Economic Growth Initiative FAVACA Florida Association for Volunteer Action Caribbean and the Americas FDI Foreign Direct Investment FGD Focus Group Discussions FTE Full-Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GDP Gross Domestic Product GOH Government of Haiti HDI Human Development Index HHTARG Haitian Hometown Association Resource Group v HRA Haitian Renewal Alliance HTA Hometown Associations IADB Inter-American Development Bank IDF Industrial Development Fund IHSI Institut Haïtien de Statistique et d’Informatique ILO International Labor Organization IP Implementing Partner IPTT Indicator Performance Tracking Table ISOL International School of Leadership KI Key Informant KII Key Informant Interview LMS Lead Management System LEVE Local Enterprise and Value Chain Enhancement LOP Life of Project MCI Ministry of Commerce and Industry M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs MHLA Ministry of Haitians Living Abroad OCAT Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool OFATMA Office d’Assurance, Accidents du Travail, Maladie, et Maternité ONA Office Nationale d’Assurance Vieillesse OSDH Organisation des Saint-Marcois pour le Développement d'Haïti vi PADF Pan American Development Foundation PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheets PMP Performance Monitoring Plan (project level) PROSA Participatory Results Oriented Self-Assessment REFRADET Réseau des femmes actives pour le développement de trou du Nord SE Social Enterprise SME Small and Medium Sized Enterprises SOFIHIDES Société Financière Haïtienne de Développement S.A. SOW Statement of Work TA Technical Assistance USAID U.S. Agency for International Development USG United States Government WDI World Development Indicators YSB Yunus Social Business vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT BACKGROUND Leveraging Effective Application of Direct Investments (LEAD) is a USAID-funded $12 million project implemented by the Pan American Development Foundation (PADF) from July 2011 and recently extended to March 2017. It was conceived as a pilot project with the objective of stimulating growth and employment by supporting Haitian small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and social enterprises (SEs) through small grants and technical assistance. The LEAD Project is designed to support USAID’s contribution to increased economic security and increased employment, contributing in turn to increased food and economic security in Haiti. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation provides USAID and PADF information on the overall impact of the LEAD project and is designed to inform decision making to improve program effectiveness and sustainability. The primary stakeholders for this evaluation include: USAID/Haiti, PADF, the Haitian SMEs, the Diaspora community, and the Government of Haiti (GOH). The evaluation responds to the objectives articulated in the following evaluation questions: 1. To what extent did the business competition model implemented by PADF attract investment and generate more employment? 2. To what extent was the LEAD project able to test and develop innovative approaches for capturing a greater portion of the Diaspora remittances for development? 3. What issues and gaps still need to be addressed by the project to mobilize Diaspora investment as sources of capital for SMEs? 4. To what extent did the Technical Assistance provided to SMEs help them improve their business operations? EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The evaluation team employed mixed methods to triangulate qualitative and quantitative data. Data collection tools included a desk review of project documents, 33 key informant interviews, two group interviews with 11 participants, seven focus groups with 38 participants from SME grantees and community-based organizations (CBOs), and 72 short questionnaires completed by SME participants and their employees. In addition, 15 site visits were arranged as a means of directly observing and verifying project activities in the three corridors defined under USAID’s strategy: Port-au-Prince, Cap-Haïtien, and Saint-Marc. Finally, a literature review was conducted to document best practices for business plan competition (BPC) models and Diaspora engagement. A few limitations affected the evaluation process. First, some non-grantee participants were reluctant to attend focus groups and were interviewed by phone instead. Second, key informants identified from financial institutions and Haitian government agencies had very limited knowledge of LEAD, but they did inform findings on Diaspora engagement. Third, some key indicators changed slightly in the LEAD performance monitoring plan (PMP) and the team did not find any clear indicators for tracking capacity built for SMEs. To address this limitation, the team conducted its own mini survey. There were also no indicators that tracked well with evaluation question 3. Finally, due to limitations in organizing focus groups exclusively by gender and limited project activities involving disabled persons, the team can provide only limited material on minority and/or disadvantaged groups in this report. viii FINDINGS Evaluation Question 1 - To what extent did the business competition model implemented by PADF attract investment and generate more employment? The evaluation team determined that the LEAD project was successful in stimulating investment, primarily measured by funds matched by LEAD grantees. While LEAD grantees disbursed $4.69 million or 67% of the $7 million life of project (LOP) target for matching funds and have committed to disburse $10 million in matching funds. If fully disbursed, this amount will exceed the target by $3 million. The project realized a match ratio of $1.04 for every grant dollar disbursed. In addition, foreign direct investment tracked largely as matching funds from Diaspora –owned SMEs reached at least $2.25 million, exceeding the LOP target of $1 million. However, most SME grantees do not feel that LEAD connected them with investors: only 28.6% of SME respondents agreed or strongly agreed that LEAD connected SMEs to investors. Overall, LEAD also had a positive impact on employment generation. Through the end of FY 2015, the LEAD project reported a cumulative total of 2,615.41 in the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs created. This is nearly double the LOP target of 1,200. FTEs are 62.2% male and 37.8% female. The total number of additional people employed by LEAD-supported enterprises through FY 2015 is 9,541 or 70.7% of the LOP target of 13,492. A total of 41.9% of SME employees surveyed were in newly created positions, with a slightly higher ratio of females in new positions (46.2%) than males (38.9%). SME employees surveyed have a generally positive outlook on the growth potential in their job, as well as on job security. Evaluation Question 2 - To what extent was the LEAD project able to test and develop innovative approaches for capturing a greater portion of the Diaspora remittances for development? Although LEAD activities for capturing Diaspora remittances conform to best practices documented in the literature reviewed by the evaluators, by the end of 2015 LEAD had limited success in testing and effectively implementing new methods for capturing Diaspora remittances for development. All the initiatives undertaken by LEAD so far involve the already existing “Development Impact through Remittances” model, which channels remittance funds to community projects through partnerships with Diaspora organizations. A total of $1.2 million (80% of the initial $1.5 million target) will be used once 12 community projects selected in late 2015 are fully implemented. LEAD had initially planned to fund 50 community projects over four years. Only 5.6 % of the community project applications were supported by LEAD, the vast majority of them having failed to meet basic selection criteria. Information on the Social Development Fund on the LEAD website is displayed in English and French, while the preferred language used by CBOs interviewed is Haitian Creole. There may be a need to foster greater understanding by incorporating audiovisual as well as written means of communication in Creole. Survey results suggest that a strategy designed to collect financial support from the Diaspora to fund community projects through donations is likely to meet with some success. Overall, 28% of respondents to the Diaspora survey reported that they did not require any friendship or family connection as a perquisite to engage in investments. Also, 2 out of 6 CBOs reported that these pre-existing relationships did not exist. While LEAD puts an emphasis on the Kiva platform to raise funds for SMEs and SEs through its organizational partnerships with Yunus and Fonkoze, there is no way to ensure that those funds are coming from the Diaspora. ix Evaluation Question 3 - What issues and gaps still need to be addressed by the project to mobilize Diaspora investment as sources of capital for SMEs? Diaspora SME and local grantees confirmed that access to financing is a major roadblock for them, and they credit LEAD for removing that constraint through the matching funds. Regarding direct Diaspora investment, the number of submissions for the BPC from Diaspora and other overseas entities (131 out of 175 or 75%) is lower than planned, although the number of investors reached with information about investment opportunities in Haiti at 2,401 is 16 times higher than expected. Diaspora SME grantees stated during focus group discussions (FGDs) and interviews that lack of trust is the main reason why the Diaspora is not ready to invest in Haiti. In addition, they have very specific needs such as the abililty to negotiate with local suppliers directly. Diaspora survey results published by the Haitian Hometown Association Resource Group (HHTARG) in a White Paper through support from the LEAD project indicate that some members of the Diaspora are able and willing to invest in Haiti and to directly support SMEs and SEs, albeit in small amounts. However impediments such as weak financial infrastructure and investment security, limited access to capital and political instability must be addressed. The survey also shows that very few respondents (less than 15%) have ever used the services or referred to GOH entities to get information on doing business in Haiti. Regarding Haitian Diaspora organizations as resource partners to help mobilize investments, those interviewed generally feel that they must rely too heavily on volunteers and lack the skills of professional accountants and project managers to manage grants from institutions such as USAID. Evaluation Question 4 - To what extent did the Technical Assistance provided to SMEs help them improve their business operations? LEAD succeeded in stimulating SMEs to improve their business practices, despite a few inconsistencies cited by BPC applicants regarding clear guidance on trainings and processes. Results of a survey conducted for this evaluation indicate that in general, SMEs who felt that LEAD improved their business plans also reported increases in revenues and employment, indicating some correlation. In addition, the service providers who partnered with LEAD to conduct trainings universally reported positive feedback from participants. Finally, survey results showed that most of the SMEs (66.7%) perceived themselves as having good capacity, although the LEAD project monitoring system lacked strong indicators to track this. CONCLUSIONS Overall, LEAD has been successful in meeting investment and employment targets. However, the project had limited success in mobilizing Diaspora resources for SMEs or for community projects. More can be done to test innovative ways for capturing remittances for investment from the Diaspora. Evaluation Question 1 - To what extent did the business competition model implemented by PADF attract investment and generate more employment? Investment: The project can claim a good measure of success in garnering investments from the SMEs it supports. However, the evidence is not clear that LEAD has fostered any links to outside investments, nor is it clear that these links contributed to the project’s registered revenue or employment increases. Employment: LEAD is exceeding the FTE targets and can take credit for fostering employment of nearly 10,000 Haitians. It is also clear that LEAD provides a level of stability for new and growing x enterprises that is felt by owners, investors and employees alike. This fosters optimism that is hard to come by in Haiti. Evaluation Question 2 - To what extent was the LEAD project able to test and develop innovative approaches for capturing a greater portion of the Diaspora remittances for development? Few applications were able to meet the selection criteria, indicating that more outreach may be needed to publicize selection criteria clearly and to provide technical assistance (TA) to CBOs. However, LEAD finances projects in areas preferred by the Diaspora, who are eager to fund development projects even outside of their own community, and Kiva may be a platform to collect significant resources from Haitian abroad. Evaluation Question 3 - What issues and gaps still need to be addressed by the project to mobilize Diaspora investment as sources of capital for SMEs? Besides needing information on rules, practices, and regulations, potential investors need assistance with the practical aspects of doing business in Haiti (dealing with suppliers and employees, for example), before and after making the decision to invest. Distrust is also a major hurdle that keeps the Diaspora from investing in Haiti, and institutions such as PADF or other international organizations may play an important role as guarantors. However, Diaspora organizations recognize that they need more capacity to be effective partners with larger institutions such as PADF. As members of the Diaspora are willing to commit only small amount in financing yearly, resources from many people will have to be pooled to finance ventures that require substantial funding, for example to match the LEAD Project’s $200,000 maximum to grantees. The extent of the information gap expressed by the Diaspora in the survey and the low usage of services from public or private Haitian institutions on doing business in Haiti point to the absence of an effective Diaspora policy to stimulate investment from Haitians abroad. Evaluation Question 4 - To what extent did the Technical Assistance provided to SMEs help them improve their business operations? LEAD grantees credit the project greatly with improving their business practices, claiming this has led to performance improvements in the form of increased revenue and employment. While the LEAD project does not yet have a consistent way to measure the level of capacity built through the TA provided, that is typically a difficult and long-term process. The relationships built between SME owners and LEAD grant managers, who guide them through the competition and assistance process, can also be credited for SMEs’ success. After the first two years of implementation, PADF learned to develop adequate levels of internal support to be able to work well with all SME grantees. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Program extension and new partnerships: The LEAD project had a significant impact on employment by addressing a key constraint: the lack of financing opportunities. It is unlikely that difficulties SMEs experience in securing funding or the distrust that keeps the Diaspora from investing more in Haiti will be resolved in the medium term. Therefore, we recommend that USAID insure continuity and sustainability of the LEAD project even beyond 2017, the year the project is scheduled to end. This could be achieved by defining an exit strategy that includes partnering with other international institutions, even US-based firms, and GOH. As the program xi has been extended to 2017, it seems opportune to start dialogues on how to achieve synergies between programs for greater impact and to ensure continuity. 2. Staffing and oversight: Relationship building is important to grantees’ success. The implementing partner needs adequate staff to build strong ties with all individual grantees as well as with partners. We recommend a small grant management unit with six to ten grantees assigned to each manager and oversight from a senior level position. The grant managers should be responsible for building relationships with the selected SMEs and for shepherding them through training and compliance processes. In that same vein, Diaspora grantees should be assigned a manager. The Diaspora will need significant support from the program as they will be navigating in unfamiliar territory. 3. Communication: The evaluation team found several areas for improvement in communication. PADF should develop clear communications protocols for each part of the process to increase transparency across the board. From the time of first contact with the grantee, protocols should dictate what information must be shared so that the applicant has a clear understanding of the timeline, decision points, and procedural steps. 4. Communication channels for some SEs and CBOs: Implement steps to recruit more SEs and CBOs by using innovative communication channels. Include information in Creole on the LEAD website, and use audiovisual material. In addition, explore the use of community radios and local television stations. 5. Capacity building for CBOs: Implement steps to extend capacity building (business plans, project writing seminars) to CBOs as a means of securing better quality applications to the community project component. 6. Tracking Diaspora contributions: Find ways of tracking Diaspora resources committed through Kiva by signing an information-sharing protocol with Kiva. LEAD does not know whether the Haitian Diaspora uses Kiva. 7. Performance indicators: Define indicators for tracking Diaspora SME investment and tracking capacity building with SMEs and other partners. 8. Effective Diaspora policy targeting investment: Implement steps to further analyze the Diaspora survey and use the White Paper as a basis for defining a Diaspora policy involving the GOH, its international partners, and the project. Some areas for actions include developing communication channels; producing and disseminating market-level information on priority sectors; hosting outreach events; staffing consulates and embassies with Diaspora liaison personnel; defining a funding strategy, and making provisions in MHLA’s and Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA)’s budgets. USAID and LEAD could start the process in partnership with CFI and MHLA. 9. Capacity building for Diaspora organizations: Diaspora organizations are essential partners for reaching potential investors. For them to effectively play that role, we recommend that steps be implemented to reinforce their capacity to act as a liaison with both individuals and institutions. Three areas need to be covered: community liaison and outreach personnel; GOH, donor and international institution liaisons; and grant writers and compliance officers. 1 1. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS 1.1 EVALUATION PURPOSE USAID requested a final performance evaluation of the Haiti Leveraging Effective Application of Direct Investments (LEAD) project implemented through the Pan American Development Foundation (PADF) to provide pertinent information to USAID and its partner on the overall impact of the LEAD project. The evaluation was designed to serve as a basis for considering whether or not an extension of the Cooperative Agreement can be granted to PADF, allowing them to improve the program effectiveness and sustainability through continuous technical assistance to the USG-assisted Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs). USAID made its request in July 2015, when LEAD completed its fourth year of implementation. The project has since been extended until March 2017, providing an opportunity to make recommendations for project design and implementation. The primary stakeholders for this evaluation include USAID/Haiti, PADF, the Haitian SMEs, the Diaspora community, and the Government of Haiti (GOH). Table 1 below lists stakeholders and their interests and perspectives on the evaluation’s purpose and findings. Table 1: Stakeholder and perspectives Stakeholder Interests and Perspectives USAID Public policy & future project design; Current project implementation; Support for GOH development policies. PADF Efficiency gains; Future project design. SMEs & SEs Financial strategy: new sources of financing; Needed technical assistance. GOH: MCI/CFI, MHLA Public policy: Investment policy and Diaspora- tailored projects Diaspora and other partners Investment opportunities; Risk mitigation; Development impact 1.2 EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation responds to USAID’s need for strong evidence on the effectiveness, relevance, and impact of its projects and projects on achieving its development objectives. The evaluation provides information on the results obtained by the project, with a focus on its contribution to the inflow of investment into the growth of SMEs, job creation, and the engagement of the Haitian Diaspora 2 community in the country’s development. The approach responds to the assessment and learning objectives articulated in the following evaluation questions: 1. To what extent did the business competition model implemented by PADF attract investment and generate more employment? 2. To what extent was the LEAD project able to test and develop innovative approaches for capturing a greater portion of the Diaspora remittances for development? 3. What issues and gaps still need to be addressed by the project to mobilize Diaspora investment as sources of capital for SMEs? 4. To what extent did the technical assistance provided to SMEs help them improve their business operations? Findings for evaluation questions 1 and 4 will inform stakeholders’ resource allocation decisions and project design choices. Indeed, achieving employment and investment targets, along with the viability of the jobs created, would indicate that the BPC strategy to recruit SMEs and SEs as a conduit for spurring economic growth is valid and worth replicating. The evaluation cannot assess whether a BPC strategy is superior to other approaches that also alleviate constraints to accessing credit and other forms of investment. Project results may also help decision makers predict the effect of investing in projects such as LEAD. For example, one of the LEAD Project’s primary assistance objectives is to create 13,492 jobs. Reaching that objective would mean that creating a job costs as little as $889.42, evenly split between administrative and operational costs and direct subsidies. Stakeholders will use findings from the evaluation to make decisions that relate to sectoral, channel, and design choices for attracting remittances and Diaspora savings for investment. Sectoral choices include domains of interest (education, agriculture, tourism, etc.) while channel choices include optimal place of contact and informational content. Design choices include specific strategies and procedures such as the competition and matching grant aspects of the project. The evaluation statement of work is presented in Annex 1. 3 2. PROJECT BACKGROUND 2.1 COUNTRY CONTEXT The Republic of Haiti is located on the island of Hispaniola, in the Greater Antilles archipelago of the Caribbean. Haiti is 27,750 square kilometers (10,714 sq. mi) in size and has an estimated 10.6 million people, making it the most populous country in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the third￾most populous country in the Caribbean as a whole. It is also the poorest, with the lowest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita and lowest ranking on the Human Development Index in the Western Hemisphere. The LEAD project was designed in the aftermath of the January 2010 earthquake that devastated many areas of Haiti, including the country’s capital, Port-au-Prince. As important as it was to provide humanitarian assistance to help alleviate people’s suffering, it was also deemed crucial to seize the opportunity provided by reconstruction to place the economy on a more sustainable growth trajectory by addressing certain structural issues.1 The main thrust was towards stimulating greater competitiveness and achieving higher real GDP growth rates in levels as well as in per capita terms. Inevitably, to reach the project objective, it was necessary to address both SMEs’ limited access to capital and their lack of managerial capacity and experience to make their businesses grow and prosper. While investment and capacity building were clearly needed, there were few proven methods or approaches to stimulate investment or build capacity. A cursory review of Haiti’s economic indicators, particularly over the past two years (see Table 2), shows a deterioration of the country’s macroeconomic environment characterized by declining real GDP growth rates, increased inflation, accelerated depreciation of the national currency, and increasing interest rates. Table 2: Selected macroeconomic indicators of the Haitian economy 2011-2015 Indicator 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 GDP (real yearly growth rate; end September) 5.5% 2.9% 4.2% 2.8% 1.7% Inflation : year on year (September) 10.4% 6.5% 4.5% 5.3% 11.3% Exchange rate: Gourdes/USD (Reference rate Central Bank of Haiti-end of September) 40.8742 42.3222 43.7429 45.5577 52.0717 Haiti’s Central bank discount rate: (taux de mise en pension) 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 12.0% 20.0% Source: Institut Haïtien de Statistique et d’Informatique (IHSI) and Banque de la République d’Haïti (BRH) Evaluation questions 2 and 3 address an important policy question about the best way to mobilize a portion of the estimated $3.7 billion of savings in the Haitian Diaspora (Ketkar and Ratha, 2011) in support of Haiti’s economic development. 1 Official Haitian planning documents of the time mention the need for “Refondation”, a theme that emphasized the necessity for public policy to rebuild on four fronts: i) institutional; ii) economic; iii) social; iv) territorial. 4 A study commissioned by The Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) in 2006 indicates that more than 3/4 (77%) of remittances from the Haitian Diaspora that year financed consumption: basic daily expenses such as food, utilities, and medicine. 2 Conversely, 23% of those resources reportedly went towards investment: starting a business, building a house, opening a savings account, paying for education, and other investments. The study further revealed that “starting a business” accounted for 25% of the resources not used for daily consumption. In other words, 5.75% of total remittances received were used to that end. Given that $1.65 billion in remittance money had been received in 2006, it can be calculated that $94.88 million were made available to Haitian businesses via that channel. That figure amounts to 58.9% of the $161 million in foreign direct investment (FDI) reported by ECLAC for that year. One is left to wonder what impact this investment had on the economy, and how many jobs it contributed to create. Indeed, not much is known from the referenced study about the size of the businesses created, their nature, or sustainability. To the extent that LEAD was able to attract Diaspora funds and that information can be gathered on specific businesses, their experiences, and outcomes, LEAD constitutes a good platform for exploring and understanding factors that affect the Diaspora decisions to invest or not in Haiti. The IADB study also reported that the category “Other” accounted for 1.8% of total remittances. Most probably, community-level projects are included under that heading. While the result shows that community-level projects accounted for only a small portion of remittances, not much is known about the nature of the projects financed or the channels used to secure the resources. Here again, the LEAD project is an opportunity to answer those questions and to gauge the effectiveness of procedures used to make remittances available to SEs and community projects. The U.S. government (USG) development strategy in Haiti closely follows the Haitian Government’s Plan of Action for National Recovery and Development and the Strategic Plan for the Development of Haiti, which targets priority sectors and new growth corridors with the greatest potential for job creation, decentralized economic development and social and institutional rebuilding. The USG focuses on three of the six development poles identified in the Plan of Action: Port-au Prince, St. Marc and Cap￾Haïtien.3 Further, the USG strategy is predicated on the growth sectors of agriculture, housing and urban development, and garment manufacturing as identified by the Haitian Private Sector Economic Forum and the Presidential Group on Competitiveness. Promising activities in each corridor are identified in Table 3 below. 2 Inter American Development Bank: Haiti Remittance Survey, 2007. While the study is somewhat dated, it is the most recent national survey that provides valuable information on the relative weight of consumption and investment items in total remittances received from the Haitian Diaspora. 3 The other three growth poles are Hinche, Gonaives, and Les Cayes. 5 Table 3: Promising activities by corridor Corridor Sectors/activities Cap-Haïtien Agricultural industry, and production, including apparel Construction Service opportunities within the tourism industry Saint-Marc Agriculture and group-based agricultural business Tourism Fuel efficient cooking and carbon market initiatives Port-au-Prince Not clearly specified in LEAD Cooperative Agreement, but broadly according to USAID priority sectors: Infrastructure Food Health Apparel 2.2 LEAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION LEAD is a $12 million USAID-funded project implemented by the Pan American Development Foundation (PADF) from July 2011 to the present. It was conceived as a pilot project to stimulate growth and employment by supporting Haitian small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and social enterprises (SEs) through small grants and technical assistance. Component 1 of the project used a Business Plan Competition (BPC) model to attract the best applicants among SMEs, and partnered with institutions experienced in social entrepreneurship to identify potential grantees among SEs. Under component 2, outreach activities were planned to help identify would-be investors among US-based businesses, and through relationships with Haitian Hometown Associations (HTAs) that would facilitate the mobilization of funds from the Haitian Diaspora. One basic premise of the LEAD initiative is that SMEs and SEs are vibrant social and economic institutions with substantial reach inside communities and their populations. The SMEs targeted by LEAD range in size from 10 to 100 employees. These enterprises constitute good vectors for stimulating growth and employment, for building social infrastructure and enhancing sustainable development in Haiti. However, they are constrained from reaching their potential by lack of investment and limited administrative and technical capacity. LEAD addressed these constraints by providing investment funding as well as technical assistance (TA) to selected enterprises, expecting that the combination would have positive effects on employment and growth. PADF pledged both its own internal capacity and that of its network and partners to identify potential beneficiaries, and to conduct outreach and TA activities to realize the following major results: 13,492 new jobs to be created by the end of year four, 45% of which would go to women, while an additional 10% would involve disabled persons; $7.0 million to come from the private sector, of which $1 million would come in the form of FDI; 50 community projects to be implemented; and $1.5 million to be raised from the Diaspora for community projects. Additional background information on the project is provided in Table 4 below: 6 Table 4: Additional background information on the LEAD project Award Numbers: 521-A-00-11-00010-00 Award Dates July 2011–July 2015 Funding Level: $12,000,000.00 Cost Share $1,250,000.00 Total Funding Level: $13,250,000.00 Implementing Partners: Pan-American Development Foundation (PADF) 2.3 LINK BEWTEEN USAID and LEAD RESULTS FRAMEWORKS The LEAD Project is designed to support USAID’s contribution to increased economic security and increased employment, contributing in turn to increased food and economic security in Haiti, as described in the project’s revised results framework in the most recent PMP of 2015. The project is structured to achieve two results: Result 1: Haitian Businesses and Social Enterprises strengthened to create jobs and expand infrastructure in targeted Development Corridors; Result 2: The development impact of remittances amplified. Each of these results has one or more sub-results that appear in Table 5 below, Table 5: Results and sub-results under the 2015 PMP Result 1 Result 2 Sub-Result 1.1: SMEs and SEs increase investment Sub-Result 1.2: Technical Assistance and business development services (BDS) enhance the viability of business plan competition participants. Sub-Result 2.1: The Diaspora has increased access to and knowledge of investment opportunities in Haiti Figure 1 below describes the activities associated with results and sub-results. 7 Figure 1: LEAD’s Year 4 Results Framework with Activities The most direct linkage that LEAD has to USAID’s objectives is supporting increased investment and access to capital. As stated in LEAD project documents, the critical assumptions for the development hypothesis that links the LEAD Results Framework to the USAID Results Framework include: 1. Increased access to capital for SMEs and SEs will lead to increased investment despite other constraints to doing business in Haiti. 2. Increased investment will lead to viable commercial and social enterprises and increased employment despite constraints to doing business in Haiti. 3. The environment for doing business in Haiti will not get significantly worse during the project life of LEAD. The deteriorating macroeconomic conditions of the Haitian economy discussed in the previous section suggest that assumption three has not held. Key Activities 1.2.1. Post-award technical assistance to sub-grantees 1.2.2: Support capacity building of BDS providers 1.2.2.1: Conduct skills assessment of BDS providers identified (PROSA/OCAT) tool. 1.2.2.2 Support BDS providers and local implementing partners (*special emphasis on Saint-Marc region*) Result 1 Haitian businesses (SMEs) and social enterprises strengthened to create jobs in targeted corridors Result 2 Development impact of remittances amplified Sub-result 1.1 SMEs and SEs increase investment Sub-result 1.2 Technical assistance and BDS enhance the viability of business plan Sub-Result 2.1 Diaspora has increased access to and knowledge of investment opportunities in Haiti Key Activities 1.1.1. SME Business Plan Competition Completed 1.1.2. Social Enterprises: Support Partner activities (Zafen, YSB…) Key Activities 2.1.1. Haitian Diaspora Survey 2.1.2. Road shows in Chicago, Miami, Boston and Atlanta 2.1.3. Build Haitian Investment Navigator (HIN) web portal 2.1.4.. Development of the Remittance Enhancement Program 2.1.5 Disburse the Social Development Fund remaining funds. Source: LEAD, PERFORMAMNCEMANAGEMENT PLAN, JANUARY 2015 8 3. EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The current section describes the methodology used to address the evaluation questions. This includes detailed descriptions of the variety of data sources consulted, methodologies for collecting data from those sources, as well as limitations encountered. This section also includes explanations of data analytics employed to produce the evidence presented in support of findings, conclusions and recommendations. Annexed materials provide additional details on the methodology, including data collection instruments such as interview and focus group guides and surveys, as well as detailed lists of data sources and analytical methods matched with the evaluation questions. 3.1 DATA SOURCES The evaluation methodology rests first on the collection of pertinent information from a variety of sources such as project documents, key informants, and SME grantees. The evaluation team began work by drafting an inception report and a subsequent evaluation plan upon review of a variety of LEAD project documents provided by USAID. These included annual reports from FY 2012-FY 2015, quarterly reports covering FY 2015, project proposals and agreements, and two performance management plans (PMP) from year 2 and year 4. Our intention was also to review the project database called LEAD Management System (LMS), but after initial consultations with LEAD staff, the evaluation team determined that it would be better to review project results output from the system in the form of the Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT). This data set contains information on the status of all project performance indicators over time. As such, it is an important monitoring and evaluation (M&E) tool, and was used as the primary source of quantitative information on impact as well as monitoring indicators. Next, the evaluation team reviewed best practices for BPC models and Diaspora engagement. The team consulted a sample of compliance training material used by the project and a Diaspora survey designed to better inform Diaspora engagement on investment opportunities, commonly referred to as the White Paper. Finally, the team consulted countrywide statistics and official documents to better understand the context in which LEAD was conceived and implemented. In addition to project related documents, the evaluation team produced a list of key stakeholders and provided it to USAID and PADF for confirmation. This list included USAID staff, PADF staff, other implementing partners, SME grantees, CBOs, SEs, financial institutions, business associations, training providers, GOH officials, and Diaspora members. Although the evaluation team was not able to meet with all of the people and organizations on the original list, they were able to meet with a sample of all key stakeholders. A complete list of individuals consulted is in Annex 5. During the first week of data collection, PADF staff provided the team with a contact matrix for all relevant stakeholders and assisted the team with a letter of introduction and some meeting scheduling. 3.2 DATA COLLECTION METHODS The evaluation team employed a mixed methods approach to data collection to triangulate qualitative and quantitative data. This approach allows the evaluation to fully address the evaluation questions and inform policy as well as project design discussions. The team comprised two expert evaluators as a Team Lead and Assistant Team Lead, supported by three data collectors. This evaluation began with a desk review of documents described above, which allowed the team to identify knowledge gaps in an inception report. The team focused heavily on results reported to date, as well as monitoring data and 9 methods employed by the project and described in the PMP. The documents allowed the team to become familiar with the project structure, timeline, and processes, especially related to the BPC, and were useful for identifying key stakeholders to include in the evaluation plan. Additional quantitative and qualitative data were collected through key informant interviews, group interviews, focus groups, and short questionnaires. In addition, the team made site visits to directly observe and verify project activities in the three corridors. The team was together for the first three full weeks of December in Haiti to collect all field-based data. The first week was spent refining the data collection instruments, translating them into Creole, and training the data collectors in administering all formats. All data collection exercises in the field were conducted during weeks two and three. Table 6 below presents the data collection sources and methods matched to each evaluation question. Each data source in the last column is labeled with the corresponding number of data methods from the “Data collection method” column preceding it. Table 6: Data collection method by evaluation question Evaluation Questions Data collection method Data Source (method) To what extent [did] the business competition model implemented by PADF attract investment and generate employment? 1. Document Review 2. Site Visit 3. Key Informant Interviews 4. Group Interviews 5. Focus Group Discussions 6. Survey • Cooperative agreement (1) • Project reports (1) • IPTT data (1) • Relevant studies on best BPC practices (1) • USAID representatives (4) • PADF staff (3,4) • Partners: EGI, Yunus Social Business, Fonkoze, SOFHIDES, FAVACA, CCIPNE, CLS (3) • SME owners – grant winners (2,5,6) • SME owners – non-winners (3,6) • Financial institution managers (3) • SME employees (6) To what extent was the LEAD project able to test and develop innovative approaches for capturing a greater proportion of the Diaspora remittances for development? 1. Document Review 2. Key Informant Interviews 3. Group Interviews 4. Focus Group Discussions 5. Survey • Processes/procedures/platforms for capturing remittances (1) • Studies on best practice to engage Diaspora remittances (1) • Government officials – MHLA, CFI (2) • Diaspora association – HHTARG, HRA (2) • Diaspora grantees and non-grantees (2,3) • CBOs and SEs (3) • PADF Staff (3,4) • USAID Staff (3) What issues and gaps still need to be addressed by the project to mobilize Diaspora investment as sources of capital for SMEs? 1. Document Review 2. Key Informant Interviews 3. Group Interviews 4. Focus Group Discussions • White Paper, “Haitian Diaspora Engagement and Investment in Haiti” (1) • Diaspora members identified in White Paper (2) • BPC participants from the Diaspora (2) • SME applicants to the BPC (4) • PADF Staff (2,3) • CBOs and SEs (4) 10 Table 6: Data collection method by evaluation question Evaluation Questions Data collection method Data Source (method) • USAID Staff (3) To what extent did the Technical Assistance provided to the SMEs help them improve their business operations? 1. Document Review 2. Site Visits 3. Key Informant Interviews 4. Focus Group Discussions 5. Survey • Training materials (1) • IPTT data (1) • Trainees/SME participants (2,4,5) • Business associations (3) • Trainers/Business Service Providers (2,3) 3.2.1 INTERVIEWS The evaluation team conducted 35 interviews with 44 people, including both individual and group interviews. A list of people interviewed is included in Annex 5. Although the team conducted most of the interviews in person in Haiti, due to time constraints and availability of respondents, 18 interviews involving key informants were conducted by telephone. The team conducted group interviews with USAID and PADF staff in the first week of data collection. The team also met individually with additional implementing partners, service providers, CBOs, and SEs. Although the data collection plan called for data collection from SMEs through focus groups and surveys, in some cases individual interviews were required. For example, SME applicants who participated in the BPC but did not win a grant did not show up for three scheduled focus groups in Port-au- Prince and Cap-Haïtien and were subsequently contacted individually using a modified interview guide. Finally, many of the phone interviews consisted of Diaspora members, both within and outside Haiti, as well as financial institution managers and GOH representatives. Interview guides, presented in Annex 2, were used to gather information from all sources identified. While the format of interview questions was mostly open ended, a structured questionnaire instrument also guided the interviewers. 3.2.2 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS (FGD) In week two of data collection, the team divided into two units, with the Assistant Team Lead and one Data Collector traveling to Cap-Haïtien and the rest of the team working in Port-au-Prince and St. Marc. The evaluation team conducted a total of seven FGDs in the project corridors. Four discussions were conducted with SME grantees and two were conducted with social enterprises or CBO grantees. All 31 SME grantee winners of the BPC and 12 SEs were invited to participate in separate groups, so no sample was required. Of those invited, 23 SME grantee winners and seven CBOs participated in focus groups. Only one focus group was conducted with SME non-grantees. The team attempted to sample a group of SME non-grantees for more focus groups, but only two selected SMEs appeared as scheduled. The team organized the groups geographically as well as by similar sectors of activity, thereby maintaining as much homogeneity as possible. The number of participants in each FGD ranged from 3 to 11, with a total of 38 participants across all seven focus groups, for an average of 5.4 participants per 11 focus group. Questions tracked the four evaluation questions and focused primarily on participation in the BPC, changes they experienced, training received and overall challenges and successes. For each focus group, the evaluation team rented hotel conference space, and each discussion lasted from 90 minutes to 2 hours. Data collectors took notes and consolidated comments for each FGD into separate reports. Table 7 below shows the various data collection activities by corridor and method of collection. Table 7: Number of data collection activities by nature and location (Female/Male)4 PORT-AU￾PRINCE SAINT￾MARC CAP￾HAITIEN TELEPHONE/ SKYPE PARTICIPANT TOTALS (Female/Male) FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 4 (9F/13M) 1 (1F/5M) 2 (4F/6M) 38 (14F/24M) SME INTERVIEWS 2 (1F/1M) 8 (2F/6M) 10 (3F/7M) KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS 5 (1F/4M) 18 (5F/13 M) 23 (6F/17M) GROUP INTERVIEWS USAID: 4 participants (3F/1M); PADF: 7 participants (4F/3M) 11 (7F/4M) SURVEYS 42 10 20 SITE VISITS 6 2 7 3.2.3 SURVEYS The evaluation team designed three short survey instruments for SMEs and their employees. The first focused primarily on the SME experience with the BPC. This survey was administered to all SME grantees, as well as a purposive sample of non-recipient grant applicants to analyze the differential effect, if any, of participation in the LEAD Project. Those who attended focus groups were given the survey at the beginning of the group. Email versions were sent to those the team did not meet with in person. A total of 28 survey responses were received; 23 from SME grantees and 5 from SME non-grantees. Because sufficient information is not available from the LEAD Project documents and the IPTT data, to develop business profiles on each SME recipients of matching investments, the team conducted another short survey of SMEs during its visits to the development corridors and when conducting FGDs designed to gather information on the impact of capacity-building initiatives on recipients. The instrument constitutes an abbreviated version of the Participatory, Results-Oriented Self-Assessment (PROSA) and Discussion Oriented Self-Assessment (DOSA) tools. The survey was administered to all 4 Where possible, we have added the number of individual participants at each data collection activity, disaggregated by sex. The surveys were conducted anonymously with no gender data recorded. The team did not track Individual people at each site visit. 12 interviewed grantees, and the information independently verifies the impact of TA and training impact on capacity building. The team received 12 responses from SME grantees for the capacity-building survey. Finally, the team administered a third brief survey to a sample of employees during site visits with SME grantees to gauge their length of employment, satisfaction and security, and the level of training they received or planned to receive. At least two employees were selected at each site, chosen to balance gender and type of employment (e.g., administrative, production, transportation, management). A total of 31 SME employees were surveyed. 3.2.4 SITE VISITS The team conducted 15 site visits across the three target corridors: six in Port-au-Prince, two in Saint￾Marc and seven in Cap-Haïtien. Site visits focused on examining SME grant recipient operations at their place of business. Evaluation team members followed a site visit report format to record locations, participants present, background, observations made, and findings to check against other data sources. As mentioned above, site visits were also an opportunity to administer the employee survey. PADF staff facilitated the visits but after making initial introductions did not participate in the visit or subsequent discussions. In addition to the SME sites, evaluation team members also attended a business plan presentation training session with SMEs conducted at the PADF’s office. In Port-au-Prince, the team visited two manufacturing operations, one recycling center, one agricultural enterprise, and one natural products producer. In Saint-Marc they visited one bakery and one agricultural enterprise. In Cap-Haïtien, they visited two agricultural enterprises, one hotel, two water purification enterprises, and two manufacturing plants, including one non-grantee SME. 3.2.5 SAMPLING The team used several sampling strategies to develop focus groups and to determine how to administer the three surveys. SMEs submitted 450 applications to the BPC, resulting in 32 awards with an additional 9 fast tracked for future awards. This left 409 applicants that did not successfully complete the process. LEAD provided the evaluation team with a list of 97 non-recipients from which to draw and administer interviews. While a substantially lower number than the team had anticipated, PADF staff explained that the other dossiers consisted of applicants who did complete the application process. At first, stratified random samples were drawn from that pool of 97 non-recipients, by industry and region, including overseas. The aim was to collect information from 5 to 10 non-grantees per corridor, and to invite them to interviews and focus groups, at which time they would have also been administered a short questionnaire. However, these samples yielded very low response rates, and thus the team decided to contact all 97 potential respondents and interview those willing to participate. SME winners in Port-au-Prince and Cap-Haitien were invited to focus groups. The team invited the two winners from Saint-Marc to focus groups in Port-au-Prince and also met them in their corridor for site visits. The team administered short questionnaires and capacity-building surveys during interviews and focus groups and administered employee questionnaires during site visits. 13 3.3 DATA ANALYSIS METHODS Each evaluation question required its own data collection methods and corresponding analytical tools to provide the evidence to support evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations. The major analysis methods used were content pattern, trend analysis, and cross tabulation. The application of the methods used for each evaluation question and the anticipated output of each method are outlined in Annex 3. Project data from the PMP and the IPTT are tabulated across reporting periods to examine the trends and changes over time and to compare planned vs. actual and/or before and after activities. For a more detailed look at how the business competition model affected investment and employment, the team also carried out a cross tabulation analysis to statistically show relationships between the variables pertaining to the competition’s implementation, such as the number of submissions and outreach events in relation to investment and employment with the outcomes. 3.4 LIMITATIONS The evaluation encountered some limitations that may have a bearing on the findings. First, not all planned focus groups were realized or were as well attended as anticipated. Of the 31 targeted SME recipients, 23 participated in FGDs and an additional one was interviewed by telephone. However, the team was able to reach only 10 of the 30 non-recipients, 7 interviewed by phone and 3 in person. As a result, we cannot assert that the views collected from these interviewees represent those held by the population of non-grantees as a whole. Second, members of some SME and microfinance units of commercial banks contacted by the team had limited knowledge of the LEAD project. The same was true of GOH officials from both the MHLA and the Center for the Facilitation of Investment (CFI). The team sought knowledgeable input from these two sources for findings on the best processes and strategies for attracting financial resources from the Diaspora. The evaluation team did interview high-level staff from three financial institutions with intimate knowledge of the LEAD project: Société Financière Haïtienne de Développement (SOFIHDES), Fonkoze, and FDI. In addition, the team gained insight on Diaspora issues from Diaspora SME recipient and non￾recipients interviews; Diaspora organizations the Haitian Hometown Association Resource Group (HHTARG) and Haitian Renewal Alliance (HRA); key informants in the Diaspora; the White Paper on the 2014 Diaspora survey; and documents found via a literature search on best practices for engaging Diaspora communities. Third, the evaluation team found discrepancies in project indicators and targets. The team analyzed all project reports and two versions of the PMP. In all of those documents, several key indicators seemed to change definitions, life of project, or annual targets. Other indicators were added or dropped from year to year. In addition, there was no clear monitoring plan for the capacity-building and training components of the project, which limited the team’s ability to track progress over time, and therefore its ability to fully address evaluation question 4.5 Fourth, as there were no indicators corresponding to evaluation question 3 on Diaspora capital for SMEs, the Team’s ability to judge the success of that initiative is limited. 5 As mentioned earlier, the team developed an abbreviated capacity survey to help fill that gap. 14 Finally, we had limited ability to organize FGDs exclusively for women, and information on outreach to disabled persons came solely from PADF and Fonkoze. This limited us in presenting significant evidence of the project’s impact on minority and disadvantaged groups. 15 4. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The current section summarizes findings and conclusions derived from the data collected and analyzed. The findings and conclusions are presented separately for each evaluation question and general recommendations are formulated. 4.1 FINDINGS The findings for evaluation questions 1 and 4 are derived mostly from quantitative performance indicators, while those for evaluation questions 2 and 3 rely on qualitative data from FGDs, interviews, and literature review. Evaluation Question 1 - To what extent did the business competition model implemented by PADF attract investment and generate more employment? In informal economies a significant portion of agents’ income or revenue is unobservable, unpredictable, or both. Support to SMEs helps them create jobs, making their employees’ income observable, which in turn can improve their access to credit on better terms. Formal employment entitles people to health insurance available through the Office d’Assurance, Accidents du Travail, Maladie, et Maternité (OFATMA), and other benefits such as credit for housing provided by the national pension plan, the Office Nationale d’Assurance Vieillesse (ONA). Employment also gives people the opportunity to participate in a popular informal credit institution, “sol,” with rotating interest-free credit. A significant gap exists between the Haitian commercial banking system and the needs of the Haitian economy, where many people lack access to commercial credit, the least expensive form of credit in the country. As of September 2015, the Haitian banking system recorded 1,884,187 deposit accounts but only 109,086 active loans for a workforce of about 4.5 million people. Moreover, in a country recently devastated by an earthquake, the only institution specializing in housing had a portfolio of 563 loans, and residential housing accounts for 8.86% of the total loan portfolio. In September 2009, before the January 2010 earthquake, that figure was 8.26%. Other avenues to credit exist, such as cooperatives, but they are generally more expensive. The LEAD Project established the business plan competition (BPC) as a way of promoting employment and stimulating investment through SMEs. Data from Table 8 suggests that much progress remains to be achieved in financial inclusion. Haiti is regressing even as by some measures its neighbors and other countries with similar human development indices (HDI) are improving. 16 Table 8: Trend in financial inclusion in Haiti and other selected countries COUNTRY RANK HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (HDI) 2015 %age of people over age 15 with an account 2011 2014 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 101 0.715 38 54 HAITI 163 0.483 22 19 RWANDA 163 0.483 33 42 UGANDA 163 0.483 20 44 Source: HDI, United Nations Development Program (UNDP); World Bank: Global FINDEX, 2015 LEAD has completed three rounds of the BPC model and is finalizing a fourth. The first round took about six months to award and selected only five grantees from 129 applications received; only 45 met the published eligibility criteria, perhaps because the applicants did not understand the instructions or were hoping for leniency in the process. Winners of the completion must match their grant amount by at least one to one. The second round collected 68 applications and made eight awards, and the third round collected 71 applications and made 18 awards. This slow start in the initial competition indicates a need for improved communications. Better submission and award ratios in later rounds indicate some improvement. Findings on Investment The evaluation team determined that the LEAD project was successful in stimulating investment. The project measured an increase in investment primarily through its matching component, and not through linkages to outside sources of investments. At the end of FY 2015, LEAD had granted $5.21 million to SMEs and had disbursed 86.6 % of these funds, or $4.51 million. The SME grantees have committed $10.0 million in cash and in kind matching investments, exceeding LOP targets of $7 million. They have disbursed a total of $4.69 million, or 67% of the $7 million target. That provides an anticipated match ratio of $1.91 matched to every grant dollar and a realized match ratio of $1.04 matched for every grant dollar disbursed. 6 After consulting documented best practices for business plan competitions and discussing LEAD with financial institutions’ key informants, there is no consensus on the required amount of the match. Although it was generally accepted that grantee contribution is healthy, particularly in sparking an incentive to succeed. In addition, the LEAD project tracks the FDI brought about through USG-supported matching grants activities. Although this indicator is not fully defined in the Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) of the LEAD project PMP, the project Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT)7 indicates that these investments track closely with matching investments from Diaspora-owned SMEs that received grants. Project documents report $3.25 million in FDI. The combined total from the first two 6 A portion of this data differs slightly from what was provided in the most recent Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT). That source cites $5.41 million in LEAD funds granted to SMEs, of which $3.64 million or 67.2% in grant funds disbursed. It also cites $10.2 million in matching funds committed by SMEs. 7 Performance data reported by the LEAD project was provided to the Evaluation Team primarily through periodic reports such as the Annual Report and through the detailed IPTT. When information from these sources differs for the same time period, we have drawn from the Annual Report unless there was not sufficient detail in the Report to indicate further disaggregation of data. 17 project years was $783,933, but this total was not disaggregated by US Diaspora vs. non-US source. All but $5,000 of the year three total of $859,327 was from non-US sources. The year four total was $1.6 million, which is roughly half of the cumulative amount of investment reported; however, about $1.1 million of that was reported from Kaytek, a SME dropped from the project due to the owner’s political aspirations. Because this was a recent development, it is unclear how much of the grant or corresponding investments were actualized under LEAD. Project documents indicate that Kaytak provided at least $99,668 in matching funds. If that were the total amount of the FDI from that SME, then the four-year total would be closer to $2.25 million. Regardless, the project well exceeded the LOP target of $1 million. Based on a survey of SME grantees during this evaluation, results on investments are mixed, as indicated in Table 9 below. Only 28.6% of SME respondents agreed or strongly agreed that LEAD connected SMEs to investors. People agreed that LEAD provided investment linkages had increased revenues (66.7%) and employment (66.7%), but so did SMEs who do not feel that LEAD provided investment linkages (66.7% for revenues and 83.3% for employment). 8 Table 9: Investor connections established by LEAD Survey Question Total Responses Affirmative Responses Percent of Affirmative Responses Agreed or strongly agreed LEAD connected SMEs to investors (39.1% somewhat agreed, 26.1% disagreed) 21 6 28.6 LEAD provides investment linkages, and business revenues have grown in the past 2 years 15 15 66.7 LEAD did not provide investment linkages, and business revenues have grown in the past 2 years 6 4 66.7 LEAD provides investment linkages and SME experienced an increase in employment 15 10 66.7 LEAD did not provide investment linkages and SME experienced an increase in employment 6 5 83.3 Source: Survey of SME grantees conducted during the evaluation Focus groups with SME grantees echoed these findings, with a clear consensus that although in some cases LEAD grant funds were leveraged for additional financing, those options were explored individually outside of LEAD and were very limited in most cases. SMEs cited unrealistic asset expectations from the lending instructions, mistrust, and high interest rates as limiting access to other sources of investment. Findings on Employment The LEAD project tracked two distinct indicators on employment: the number of additional full time equivalent positions (FTE) created and the number of additional people employed. Both indicators count direct and indirect employment generated by the project. Through the end of FY 2015, the LEAD project reported a cumulative increase of 2,615.41in the number of FTE jobs created. This is nearly double the LOP target of 1,200. During the first two years, these figures were not disaggregated by sex, but for FY 2014 and FY 2015, the FTEs were 62.2% male and 37.8% female. For FY 2014 and FY 2015, 71.6% of FTE jobs were in urban areas, 28.4% in rural areas; 30.9% were new jobs, and 69.1% continuing jobs as a result of LEAD support. Although the project tracked the sex of SME owners rather than 8 SME surveys were conducted anonymously and no personally identifiable information was collected, including the sex of the respondent. 18 employees, to report on the “proportion of female participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase access to productive economic resources,” the percentage of female FTEs reported exceeds the target ratio of 25% for this indicator. The number of SME grantees owned by women also exceeded the project target, as 12 of the 31 SME grantees are women owned (38.7%). The total number of additional people employed by LEAD-supported enterprises through FY 2015 is 9,541. This is 70.7% of the LOP target of 13,492. The sex disaggregation is the same as for FTEs. During the first two years, these figures were not disaggregated by sector or direct/indirect employment, but for FY 2014 and FY 2015, the additional people directly employed by LEAD grantees are 69.4%, with 30.6% indirectly employed due to LEAD support. Although the evaluation team attempted to group SMEs by sector during focus groups and survey administration, tracking and reporting on the employment distribution by sector is too problematic to be considered useful here because multiple sectors applied in many cases but were not tracked.9 However, it should be noted that agriculture related enterprises made a significant contribution to employment figures with one enterprise, PISA, working with hundreds of certified organic cacao farmers in the Cap-Haïtien corridor, directly employing over 1,300 people in FY 2015, according to project documents. The evaluation team interviewed one such farmer and discussed the network of growers at length with the PISA owner. To probe more deeply into the kinds of employment generated by LEAD, as well as the perceived stability and satisfaction of those employed by project grantees, the evaluation team conducted a mini survey during each of the 15 site visits. The team interviewed 31 SME grantee employees, 18 males and 13 females. The results are shown in Table 10. A total of 41.9% of respondents were in newly created positions, with a slightly higher ratio of females (46.2%) than males (38.9%) in new positions. The survey found that respondents had a generally positive outlook on their job’s growth potential and security. In all, 74.2% at least agreed somewhat that employment was increasing significantly in their company, and 96.8% agreed that they were working in a growing industry, with no significant difference in outlook by sex. In addition, 71% stated that their current job was more secure than their previous job, with several employees commenting that this was their first formal job. Women were slightly more optimistic (76.9%) than men (66.7%) about job security. 9 This was likely more problematic for indirect employment than direct employment because even if service providers or clients, who counted as indirect employers, worked outside of the sector of the LEAD grantee, their figures were still counted under the SME sector assignment. For example, if a bakery paid for the installation of new computers and software, those indirect jobs would still count under food service. For direct employment, there were some cases where a grantee may have fit under more than one category, such as Sisalco, which manufactures rope and textiles, but is classified as an agribusiness due to the sisal raw material production component. Table 10: SME Employee Survey Survey Question Affirmative Responses Percent Affirmative Male Female Total Male Female Total Number of Employees surveyed at SME site visits 18 13 31 100 100 100 Respondents in a recently created position. 7 6 13 38.9 46.2 41.9 At least somewhat agree that employment was increasing significantly within the company. 13 10 23 72.2 76.9 74.2 Agree they were working in a growing industry 18 12 30 100% 92.3 96.8 Agreed they are working in the industry in which they are most interested. 18 9 27 100% 69.2 87.1 19 Source: Survey of SME employees conducted for the evaluation Perception of pay was not significantly positive, but over half (58.1%) agreed at least somewhat that their current job pays well in comparison to previous employment.10 Women had a more positive outlook on pay comparison, with 69.2% responding affirmatively compared to 50% of men). Finally, a majority of employees surveyed (80.6%) agree that they have received or will receive training that will enhance job performance. Men had a slightly more positive response, with 83.3% responding affirmatively compared to 76.9% of women. SME grantees generally agreed in focus groups that the heavy focus and reporting on employment was sometimes a distraction from other business goals. Increased employment is not always a sign of growth or success, as it can also indicate inefficient management. However, it was also clear from discussions with grantees that they highly valued the training and capacity building they received in business plan development, and most said their businesses would not be as successful without the funds received through LEAD. Conversely, of the limited number of non-grantees who were willing to discuss the project, all consistently stated that they were now out of business or operating on a smaller scale as a result of not winning the competition. Evaluation Question 2 - To what extent was the LEAD project able to test and develop innovative approaches for capturing a greater portion of the Diaspora remittances for development? At the end of 2015, LEAD had limited success in testing and effectively implementing new methods for capturing Diaspora remittances for development. Testing innovative approaches The project got off to a slow start: midway, only 4 grants had been awarded. The remittance component suffered from the same setback: only two SEs, one of which is operating outside the USAID corridors,11 had been granted funds. Fairly late in the process the project acknowledged that testing new ways of engaging Diaspora remittances required more learning about proper channels and strategies to be used. It was only in 2014, under the auspices of the Haitian Hometown Association Resource Group (HHTARG) that a survey was undertaken to fill that information gap. Survey results were analyzed and 10 While generally respondents answered the majority of survey questions, they answered questions on job security and pay comparison to previous employment less. For each question on job security and compensation, 8 of the 31 respondents did not answer the questions with affirmative or negative. Table 7 tracks only affirmative responses, so that a non-response is treated as non-affirmative. The total response number of 31 is always used as the denominator for the percentage calculations. 11 Entrepreneurs Sociaux de Nicolas, a poultry farm operating in Mirebalais (Central Plateau region) with strong ties to Diaspora associations in the Boston area. Agree that their current job is more secure than their last. 12 10 22 66.7% 76.9% 71% At least somewhat agreed that their current job pays well compared to previous. 9 9 18 50% 69.2% 58.1% At least somewhat agree that employee either has received training or will receive training to improve job performance 15 10 25 83.3% 76.9% 80.6% 20 summarized in a White Paper that became available in 2015. LEAD wants to use the survey results, and has set up a $50,000 Diaspora Challenge fund that will help support further research on new ideas to engage the Diaspora. All the initiatives undertaken by LEAD so far involve basically the “Development Impact through Remittances” method.12 According to the Cooperative Agreement, LEAD was supposed to test a series of alternative methods beyond the already tested “Remittances for Development” strategy. Those alternative methods are listed in Table 11 below. Table 11: Innovation in Remittances for Community Development Method Objective Development Clusters Linking communities across several HTAs through a "mega" match, possibly directed to infrastructure enhancements that benefit clusters of communities and that align with market chains or farm-to-market linkages in which USAID and other donors are investing and with SME sub-grants made by PADF under LEAD's entrepreneurship component Community Competitions Holding project competitions at the community, rather than project, level. The successful community investment would be matched by the LEAD matching grant fund as well as Diaspora philanthropists not geographically tied to their interests or a Diaspora organization interested in regional impact or a particular area Targeted Initiatives to Benefit Women, the Disabled and Other Vulnerable People Seeking individual philanthropy, investment, and pooled remittances for projects that benefit and enhance the productivity and well-being of women, disabled, and other vulnerable people Connecting with Corporations Working with Diaspora members in the US to attract corporate investment in specific community-identified project[s] Investing in Community-Level Development Pooling Diaspora remittances for community investment through a productive enterprise which benefits the community and returns dividends to the investor Source: LEAD Cooperative Agreement 2011 These methods differ from the applied approach in a major way: the link to a specific community is broken, and philanthropists are asked to transcend interests in their immediate community or even their region. The approach would also test the Diaspora’s willingness to use their corporate connections in the United States to raise funds and would gauge their willingness to support projects that involve women and persons with disabilities. One way LEAD did allow such an alternative model to be tested, albeit indirectly, was through $25,000 provided to Fonkoze’s Zafen program to cover operational costs.13 Because of that support, Fonkoze was able to train and graduate beneficiaries who received $67,000 in loans on Kiva’s crowd-funding platform for 20 projects.14 That initiative trained 54 blind members of northern associations, and two enterprise owners with limited mobility were also involved. This finding is the only evidence that LEAD has had an impact on disabled persons. 12 In that model, PADF forms a partnership with Haitian Hometown Associations (HTAs) and other Diaspora groups, and local communities, and channels remittance funds for the implementation of community projects. Provisions for the selection of those projects are specified in a three-way memorandum of understanding that also stipulates the responsibilities of each party. 13 Communication, training, and supervision 14 Of these, 14 organizations are in the Northern corridor and 6 individual SMEs in the western corridor. 21 LEAD adopted a similar approach through its partnership with Yunus Social Business and the Economic Growth Initiative. 15 The partnership with the initiative has not yet borne fruit, and there appears to be a misalignment between the profiles of clients currently served by the organization (no ties with Diaspora, very small informal entities) and the criteria that SEs and SMEs have to meet to qualify for LEAD grants. We have found one instance of a Yunus Social Business client, Kreyol Essence, for which Diaspora resources were involved. The principal owner is from the Haitian Diaspora and was able to secure equity from other persons of Haitian origin living abroad. However, although Yunus Social Business is a Kiva partner and Haitian loans are posted on the platform, the evaluation could not document if the funds loaned to Kreyol Essence are from the Haitian Diaspora. CBOs and Diaspora remittances The focus group discussion organized in Cap-Haïtien and Saint-Marc with 6 CBOs (in Haitian Creole) helps shed light on the likelihood that philanthropists in the Diaspora are willing to invest outside their own community. Indeed, findings show that while Diaspora remittances materialize most often as a result of pre-existing relationships of remitters with the community (friendship, family ties, membership in an association), in 2 out of 6 CBOs, or 1/3, these pre-existing relationships did not exist. Similarly, 28% of respondents to the Diaspora survey reported that they did not require a friendship or family connection to engage in investments. Table 12 below shows the nature of connections between CBOs and the Diaspora. Table 12: Nature of Connection with Diaspora Contact Providing Funds Kòman ou te rive jwenn sipò patnè w genyen nan dyaspora a?16 How were you able to secure support from your partner in the Diaspora? Family or friend connection? Y: Yes N: No OJL 5 Seulement mes deux enfants: l'un aux USA et l'autre en France qui nous aident. Only my two children: one in the US and one in France Y Organisation des Saint￾Marcois pour le Développement d'Haïti Le seul montant de $5,000 US de la diaspora: Membres de la communauté ayant vécu au Brésil et maintenant résidant en Guyanne Française. Secured $5,000 from community members formerly living in Brazil and now living in French Guyana. Y Vision Citadelle Seulement les membres de Vision Citadelle vivant à l'extérieur. Only the members of Vision Citadelle living abroad. N Collectif de Lutte contre l'Exclusion Sociale L’organisation a eu contact avec la fondation Boston à l'aide d'une organisation féministe sise à Delmas 30. The organization had a contact with a foundation in Boston thanks to a feminist organization whose office is Delmas 30. N 15 One SME grantee is starting to set up a new model that LEAD is watching closely: the remittance through products model. The SME manufactures propane stove ovens and is marketing them (posters are placed in stores frequented by the Diaspora) in major US markets for the Diaspora to buy them for beneficiaries with Haiti. According to the SME, some orders are starting to flow in. 16 Some FGD participants answered in Creole, while other expressed themselves in French. All responses were translated into French. The English translation is shown for the benefit of the reader. 22 Table 12: Nature of Connection with Diaspora Contact Providing Funds Kòman ou te rive jwenn sipò patnè w genyen nan dyaspora a?16 How were you able to secure support from your partner in the Diaspora? Family or friend connection? Y: Yes N: No Réseau des femmes actives pour le développement de trou du Nord Le contact entre et un particulier de la diaspora a eu lieu grâce au contact personnel d'un membre de l'organisation et le particulier. The contact was established through an association member with a personal tie to the Diaspora member. Y International School of Leadership La responsable est une ancienne employée de l'organisation dénommée Fanm Ayisyen Nan Miami. Le contact a eu lieu grâce a son expérience dans l'association. The head of the organization is a former employee of the organization Fanm Ayisyen Nan Miami (Women in Miami). The contact was established because of her experience with that organization. Y Source: CP-SME CBO focus groups, 2015 Capturing Diaspora remittances The project changed focus from the first two years of its implementation, when the emphasis had been placed on identifying SEs with Diaspora ties to foster development and income generation in communities. By the end of 2012, this initiative had yielded only two grantees, and only $182,000 of the $500,000 fund (36.4%) had been committed. The SEs had been identified through LEAD’s ongoing relationship with Yunus Social Business. Starting in 2014, LEAD’s attention switched to mostly community-based organizations (CBOs) with ties in the Diaspora in order to promote impactful investments in support of community projects. To that effect, the LEAD Social Development Fund, a model patterned after its “Remittances for Development” methodology, was launched in January 2015.17 Through outreach the project was able to attract 216 applications into a competitive process that could help applicants benefit from available matching funds. Out of all those applications only 1218 (5.6% of the applications) met the selection criteria19 and were able to pass a due diligence process and make it to final review. Those institutions were referred for 17 The launch occurred on January 8, 2015 via “a “Call for Action” distributed by email to over 150 contacts including financial institutions, Chambers of Commerce, local associations, and relevant local and international organizations. LEAD also held information sessions in Saint-Marc (Jan 23, 2015), Fort-Liberté (Jan 29, 2015), Arcahaie (Feb 6, 2015). 18 See Annex 4 for more details on the 12 finalists. 19 The criteria: whether they respond to a need in the community; the existence of a Diaspora link; the quality of the matching funds: financial structure and validity of local organization; capacity of the implementing team; sustainability of the project; community impact; and community involvement. 23 approval to USAID, and they are supposed to receive $114,05620 in LEAD grants and will contribute $676,843 in matching funds. LEAD had initially planned to fund 50 community projects over four years, but by the end of 2015, only 12 such projects were in the pipeline to be funded. In contrast, community groups stated during focus group discussions that they have many unfunded projects ready to be submitted. Table 13 below shows the funds leveraged under component 2. It was anticipated that the project’s second component would leverage $1.5 million for community projects. Results show that $1.2 million (80% of the initial target) will be leveraged once the 12 projects are fully implemented. The higher than anticipated ratio (4.1:1 instead of 3:1) and the larger grants to the SEs explain why 80% of the leverage target was met, while only 24% (12/50) of the intended 50 community projects were funded. Table 13: Funds leveraged under component 2 Matching Capital LEAD Funds Ratio $546,000 $182,000 3.0 $676,843 $114,056 5.9 $1,222,843 $296,056 4.1 Source: LEAD annual report, 2015 Table 14 below compares the types of projects favored by LEAD (number of community projects in a given sector) and those sectors preferred by the Diaspora the HHTARG survey (that is, the number of times a sector was mentioned as a preferred area of investment, in percentages). In both cases, education and income-generating activities (agribusiness) are the top-ranked domains, with the number one and two rankings reversed. Health ranks in the middle on the Diaspora survey, akin to water and sanitation projects supported by LEAD. Table 14: Sectors retained by LEAD and Diaspora sectoral preference Sectors of Community projects retained by LEAD21 Preference of Diaspora in the White Paper Ranking Agribusiness Education 1 Education Business/Revenue generating 2 Water & sanitation Health 3 Infrastructure (public spaces or other collective equipment) Other 4 Environment 5 Best Practice The methods the LEAD Project used for capturing Diaspora remittances coincide with best practice documented in the literature covering the subject matter. Table 15 below presents a list of policy options and shows how LEAD adheres to them. 20 Starting in December 2015. 21 No project belonging to “Disaster Risk Reduction,” a 5th domain anticipated by LEAD was selected for funding. 24 Table 15: Best practice for capturing Diaspora remittances BEST PRACTICE FROM LITERATURE LEAD MODEL COMPLIANCE CHANNEL Diaspora outreach policy X LEAD has developed an outreach project using several channels. Cost reduction X By using the Kiva platform, the remitter can avoid the fees charged for money transfers Banking the unbanked X LEAD matching funds allow beneficiaries to find takers and are involved in productive investments. This opens the door to financial services. However, it is not clear why the matching ratio is set at 3:1, which seems overly stringent and arbitrary. No reference in the literature was found for that practice. Investment and Micro￾enterprise Incentives X Hometown Associations as Agents of Development X LEAD has tapped into the HTA through HHTARG, an organization with ties to 350 HTAs worldwide. Tourism22 X Financing of a project makes it more likely that remitter will travel to see achievement.23 Nostalgic trade24 X Agribusiness is an important sector funded by the matching fund. Source: Orozco, 2005 Evaluation Question 3 - What issues and gaps still need to be addressed by the project to mobilize Diaspora investment as sources of capital for SMEs? The project had not originally intended to seek Diaspora resources for investments in SMEs under component 1. This interest appears to have developed during the implementation and on the basis of the observed involvement of Diaspora SMEs with the BPC: a positive externality. The lack of clearly linked indicators from the onset to track Diaspora engagement under component 1 underscores this observation. Diaspora resources were targeted instead under component 2 of the project, which involved remittances rather than SME investment per se. Four indicators involving the Diaspora appear in the 2015 PMP: 1) the number of Diaspora and overseas submissions received for the LEAD BPC; 2) the number of communication channels used to inform the Diaspora and other investors; 3) the number of overseas partner institutions receiving LEAD capacity-building assistance; 4) the number of overseas partner institutions supported that have improved capacity to maximize the development impact of investment in Haiti. The results obtained by the project appear in Table 16 below. The number of submissions for the BPC from Diaspora and other overseas entities is lower than planned (131 out of planned 175, or 75%), although the number of investors reached with information about investment opportunities in Haiti, at 2,401, is 16 times higher than expected. The project was not successful in implementing the Haiti Investment Navigator. LEAD had relied on CFI, a Haitian public 22 One of two important elements in what is referred to as the “Five Ts” of integration, namely, transportation, telecommunication, tourism, transfer of remittances, and nostalgic trade (Orozco, 2003). 23 The White Paper shows that respondents supporting Haiti are far more likely to travel to the country than those that do not. 24 Ibid., 22. 25 sector entity under the umbrella of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, to set up that platform. Instead, it appears that the platform will become operational through a partnership between CFI and another USAID-funded project, Local Enterprise and Value Chain Enhancement (LEVE). Table 16: Performance Indicators on Diaspora resources Indicator LOP target 2015 Actual % realization LEAD comments Number of Diaspora and other overseas submissions received for the LEAD BPC 175 131 75 • Diaspora most favored sectors for investment are mainly Agribusiness (19 applicants), Service (12) and Tourism & Hospitality (10). • About 85% of overseas applications received are from United States. The remaining are from other countries. Number of target investors informed about investment opportunities through LEAD support or participation 150 2401 1601 • LEAD organized multiple informational sessions in the three corridors to launch the new BPC plan and to inform participants about business opportunities. • LEAD organized Diaspora Investment Tours in the U.S. in November-December 2014. Number of communication channels used to inform the Diaspora and other investors 7 6 8 E-mail, social media, website, printed materials, survey report, and exposition have been used. Haitian Investment Navigator is not yet operational. Number of overseas partner institutions supported that have improved capacity to maximize the development impact of investment in Haiti 1 1 100 HHTARG Source: IPTT, 2015 Fewer than anticipated Diaspora applicants, despite the great number of members that were reached, seem to indicate a reticence or some missing link to entice more people from the Diaspora to apply. The evaluation team relied on the White Paper, SME focus groups, and key informant interviews with Diaspora members to shed light on this apparent gap. The White Paper informs us that some individuals in the Diaspora are able and willing to invest in Haiti. However, some impediments need to be resolved before they do so. They include: a) Lack of information: Many survey respondents report not knowing how to invest, or what investment opportunities there are 26 b) Weak financial infrastructure and institutions: There are reservations about access to good financial services, and the ability to navigate the legal and regulatory system. The latter explain the next concern c) Weak Investment security d) Limited access to capital: Even if they have equity, it is limited, and they need to access credit not readily available in Haiti e) Political instability: This makes investing in Haiti risky The Diaspora survey shows that fewer than 15% of the 516 respondents have ever used the services or referred to GOH entities (including embassies and consulates, CFI, and MHLA) or Haitian Chambers of Commerce in Haiti or abroad to get information on Doing Business in Haiti. Table 17 below shows the kind of support the Diaspora would need to be more comfortable to invest in Haiti based on the HTTRG survey results. Table 17: Additional Information and Support Needed to Invest Additional Information Needed % of Survey Respondents Information on the Haitian financial sector, including terms and other financial support 43.0 Protection of intellectual property and other legal rights 40.5 Regulation on transferring capital in and out of Haiti 39.1 Procedure for registering a business in Haiti including wait time 38.8 Government and donor investment incentives 38.8 Accounting and auditing framework 38.2 Other 10.5 Additional Support Needed Business Managers to Oversee Operations 37.0 Business Development Support 33.3 Legal Business Advisor 33.1 Investment Advisors to Review Proposals 32.8 Transnational loans (Mortgage, Business, etc.) 28.7 Land Purchase Advisor 26.6 Other 7.8 Source: HHTARG 2015 Despite high risks and impediments, there seems to be willingness from the Diaspora to invest in Haiti. For instance, one Diaspora SME grantee insisted that she would not have been able to properly negotiate with suppliers or deal with human resource requirements had it not been for the assistance of PADF staff. Indeed, some 61% have some investment in Haiti, mostly in the form of land, rental property, or a house. In addition, 56% of respondents said they would be willing to support small businesses or social enterprises, mainly through donations. A total of 42% show a willingness to engage via interest-free loans, while 47% would participate with interest-bearing loans. The preferred yearly amount for donations or loans is in the $100-$499 interval. The FGDs provided another platform from which to explore the Diaspora’s engagement on investments in Haiti. Of the 23 SME grantees that participated in that forum, only 3 (all from the Diaspora) have secured funding from the Diaspora or are considering tapping into the Diaspora for equity participation. All other SMEs are of the opinion that the “Diaspora is not ready to invest in Haiti,” and the main reason is lack of trust (méfiance) that Haitians living overseas express. One participant suggested that 27 international institutions could mediate that fear by sharing the risk and participating in the investment to monitor the use of resources and provide supervision. Diaspora SME grantees confirmed (as did the local grantees) that access to financing constitutes a major roadblock, and they credit LEAD for having removed that constraint with the matching funds. The lending terms offered by the financial institutions in Haiti are prohibitive, and mere access to the commercial banks is at best very difficult. Interviews conducted with Microcredit and SME institutions were used to confirm that they do not finance start-ups or enterprises involved in agriculture. All Diaspora SMEs reported unsuccessful experiences with the Haitian banking sector. The outreach undertaken produced positive results as several Diaspora applicants (both grantees and non-grantees) responded that they learned about the BPC opportunity through Chambers of Commerce, consular services, or Diaspora liaison personnel. For local SMEs the most common channels were “Friend/acquaintance” or the newspaper. LEAD organized road shows in many large cities where the Haitian Diaspora tends to concentrate, including Miami, Atlanta, Boston, and Chicago. It was not until 2014 that the project signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Haitian Diaspora organizations HRA and HHTARG. The latter implemented the White Paper survey, while LEAD accompanied HRA to conferences it organized in the United States for the Diaspora. By far, the relationship with HHTARG seems strongest. It was the main driver behind the Diaspora survey and the White Paper, and it has a great number of HTAs in its membership and it had the capacity to mobilize Haitian professionals and other institutions in the Diaspora. However, before the relationship with LEAD can come to full fruition, HHTARG needs more capacity-building support than it has secured thus far from LEAD. Also, Haitian Diaspora organizations, echoed by key informants, are asking for a larger role in guiding project direction, an objective that could be met if they are afforded the opportunity to play an effective advisory role to the project. The most pressing needs expressed by Diaspora organizations include financial resources for full-time professional staff and consultants. At present, Diaspora organizations think there is too much reliance on volunteers. This is because reaching out to, and mobilizing the Diaspora is a difficult task that requires after-hours visits to makeshift meeting locations like basement churches and Masonic lodges. Evaluation Question 4 - To what extent did the Technical Assistance provided to SMEs help them improve their business operations? The LEAD project’s technical assistance to SMEs often began with submission of a business plan for the competition. PADF provided consultations and training sessions to guide applicants through the process, as well as to improve their capability to structure a useful business plan and to comply with requirements of doing business under a USAID grant. Although this process allowed PADF to build trust with applicants, this training was not consistent, with nearly all of the non-grantee applicants consulted stating that they did not receive training. In addition, many of the grantees who were starting up and did not have a consistent staff presence in Haiti, if the businesses were Diaspora-owned for example, also stated that they did not participate in consultations and trainings on compliance and business plan development. Project stakeholders consistently cited the lack of clear communication protocols or understanding of roles, processes, and outcomes as sources of frustration. Non-grantee participants consistently indicated in interviews that they did not receive feedback or reasons for non-selection. Several that made it to the final selection round were notified of their selection by a jury only one or two days before they needed to be in Haiti to make a presentation to a panel. Some were not able to accommodate this rushed notice. 28 Focus groups consistently brought up the tradeoffs between the benefits of receiving training as an applicant versus the large amount of time and effort required to stay engaged in the process. The time and level of effort required for multiple stages of trainings and consultations was deemed onerous; however, there was consensus that training ultimately improved the enterprises’ administrative, financial management, and logistical processes. The LEAD project also partnered with service providers who conducted formal trainings for grantees on business plan development, tax and financial accounting, due diligence, safety, and quality control. These service providers universally reported positive feedback from participants, with one showing a 96% approval rating in post-training feedback. The measurements of impact from these trainings are limited. One service provider reported that they did not systematically measure impact, but another reported that more SME beneficiaries were able to file taxes properly as a result of training. As the business plan support was a key aspect of LEAD’s technical assistance, the evaluation team explored the correlation between the business plan training and the key performance indicators of employment and revenue through the mini-survey of SME grantees. Table 18 shows the results. Of the 21 SMEs (91.3%) who responded that LEAD improved their business plan, 70% reported revenue growth in the past two years and 75% saw an increase in employment. The majority of SMEs feel strongly that the training they received improved their business operation. Since most SMEs who felt that LEAD improved their business plans also report an increase in business revenues and employment, there appears to be some correlation between these key LEAD inputs and outcomes. Table 18: Impact of capacity building Survey Question Total Responses Affirmative Responses Percent of Affirmative Responses Training received during the BPC improved business operations. (A large majority, 78.3%, agreed or strongly agreed.) 23 20 87.0 LEAD improved SME business plan. (A large majority, 87%, agreed or strongly agreed.) 23 21 91.3 LEAD improved SME business plan and business revenues have grown in the past 2 years. 20 14 70 LEAD improved SME business plan and SME experienced an increase in employment. 20 15 75 Source: Survey of SME owners conducted for the evaluation Although project reports cited the use of some form of Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool, either the DOSA or the PROSA, there was not much evidence of the use of these tools in monitoring the progress of SMEs. Therefore, the evaluation team conducted a mini-survey with 12 of the SME grantees based on these tools to perform a rapid appraisal of the SMEs self-perceptions of capacity. The more positive responses recorded, the greater the perceived capacity of the organization. Results are presented in Table 19. In general, financial management seemed to have the highest number of affirmative responses, or was the most common area of perceived capacity, with 83.3% of SMEs. Access to market information and credit seemed the most challenging areas. 29 Table 19: Self-Perception of capacity Survey Question Total Responses Number of Affirmative Responses Percent of Affirmative Responses SMEs regularly use established procedures to maintain revenue and expenses in balance. 12 10 83.3 Financial management practices lead to accurate financial projections. 12 10 83.3 Procurement practices contribute to the effective use of resources. 12 10 83.3 Staff training directly contributes to the achievement of organization’s goals. 12 9 75 SME has the appropriate level of staff to succeed. 12 4 33 Market information is available to them and used for decision making. 12 4 33 Agree that they have access to credit or investment funds. 12 2 16.7 Source: Survey of SME grantees conducted for the evaluation Based on responses to all assessment questions, Table 20 presents the SMEs’ perception of their overall capacity: the more affirmative responses to the questions, the higher the perceived capacity. Most of the SMEs, or 66.7%, responded positively to at least 90% of the survey questions and are ranked as having good capacity. Two SMEs are ranked as having fair capacity due to the number of their positive responses, and two face significant challenges by responding positively to 25% or less of the questions. It should be noted that the responses were recorded anonymously for these surveys, and no personally identifiable information was collected, including the sex of the respondent. Table 20: Derived SME capacity Survey Question Total Responses Affirmative Responses Percent of Affirmative Responses Good Capacity: SMEs responded positively to at least 90% of the survey questions25 12 8 66.7 Fair Capacity: SMEs responded positively to between 75% and 90% of questions 12 2 16.7 Significant Capacity Challenges: SMEs responded positively to 25% or less of the survey questions. 12 2 16.7 Source: Survey of SME grantees conducted for the evaluation 4.2 CONCLUSIONS Several conclusions can be drawn from the findings above. Overall, LEAD has been fairly successful in meeting investment and employment targets. For a considerable number of people, LEAD resulted in their first jobs. These results would not have been obtained had the project not given entrepreneurs access to financial resources. Taken together, these outcomes inform policy makers on the severity of 25 Three of these organizations completed only 67% of the questions, as they were presented with a truncated survey. Their response rate percentage was adjusted according to the total number of questions they received. 30 the capital constraints facing entrepreneurs in Haiti, and the effect that addressing such constraints can have on growth and employment. The project contributed to the creation of 10,000 jobs (74% of the initial target of 13,492), a significant outcome when one considers the general macroeconomic conditions, the size of the Haitian labor force at 4,314,484, and the country’s unemployment rate of 7% (see Table 21). According to the World Bank, 302,000 people in the Haitian labor force were unemployed in 2012. The jobs created under the project correspond to 3.3% of the 2012 unemployment figure. Table 21: Unemployment rates in Haiti in 2012 Segment of the population Rate Unemployment, female (% of female labor force) (modeled ILO estimate) 8% Unemployment, male (% of male labor force) (modeled ILO estimate) 6.1% Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate) 7% Unemployment, youth female (% of female labor force ages 15-24) (modeled ILO estimate) 20.6% Unemployment, youth male (% of male labor force ages 15-24) (modeled ILO estimate) 14.8% Unemployment, youth total (% of total labor force ages 15-24) (modeled ILO estimate) 17.4% Source: World Bank: World Development Indicators The project had more limited success in mobilizing Diaspora resources for SMEs or for community projects. Also, more progress needs to be made in testing innovative ways for capturing remittances or investment form the Diaspora. A positive outcome in that respect is the information produced by the Diaspora survey and the lessons learned from the many outreach efforts deployed. Undoubtedly these, as well as the relationships fostered within the Diaspora community, will serve as platforms for more progress to be achieved in new ways for engaging Diaspora resources for development. The mobilization of investment resources from abroad is a very important issue. Haiti lags behind other economies in the region in its ability to attract FDI, and Diaspora resources may be a viable conduit for stimulating investment and even FDI. Statistics in Table 22 show the differences in FDI between the Dominican Republic and Haiti. Table 22: FDI in Haiti and the Dominican Republic, 2011-2013 Year Dominican Republic Haiti GDP (millions of USD) FDI (millions of USD) % share of GDP GDP (millions of USD) FDI (millions of USD) % share of GDP 2011 55,433 2,277 4.1 7,517 119 1.6 2012 58,921 3,142 5.3 7,890 156 2.0 2013 60,614 1,991 3.3 8,459 186 2.2 Source: FDI (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, ECLAC); GDP: WDI, World Bank Evaluation Question 1 - To what extent did the business competition model implemented by PADF attract investment and generate more employment? LEAD has conducted three rounds of the business plan competition (BPC) model to date, with the project learning lessons and adjusting processes, procedures, and outreach with each round. It is clear by the steadily improving submission-to-award ratio that the project is learning how to do better 31 outreach, providing clearer instructions, and expanding the opportunity for selection, for example, by including startup businesses. Although the BPC model was a bit slow to grant funds and realize the match potential expected, it is already meeting its target of a one- to-one match with just less than half of the expected matching funds disbursed by the SMEs. From the project’s outset, SMEs were hesitant to fully buy into the process, but winning was a great motivator and beyond the competition participants began to see that the BPC could improve opportunities for other financing. Investment Although LEAD is doing well with its targets on matching investments, there is some confusion as to whether LEAD should be responsible for linking SME grantees to other sources of investment. The project does not have an indicator designed to track outside funding sources beyond the grant match that comes as a result of LEAD participation. Even the FDI indicator seems strongly linked to the grant match component. The traditional banks and financial institutions consulted for this evaluation were vaguely aware of LEAD and are not really viable sources of loans for LEAD SMEs. LEAD has explored other avenues and partnerships, through crowd-sourced funding for example, but the SME grantees generally have not felt that LEAD links them to other investors; only 28.6% of SMEs reporting that LEAD has helped them to make these connections. Further, any linkages made did not seem to correlate with the project’s documented increases in revenue or employment. Employment By both measures of employment, LEAD is enjoying a fairly good rate of success. Although it is unclear why the LOP targets for FTE employment do not appear to be in sync with actual people employed, LEAD is exceeding the FTE targets and can take credit for fostering the employment of nearly 10,000 Haitians. Tracking employment resulting from LEAD project participation is not without its challenges. Tracking both actual numbers of additional people employed, accurately accounting for indirect employment, and consistently calculating FTE employment (while still disaggregating by sector) has led this evaluation team to question what we can use from the data provided. LEAD provides a level of stability for new and growing enterprises that is felt by owners, investors, and employees alike. This stability fosters optimism that is hard to come by in Haiti. Evaluation Question 2 - To what extent was the LEAD project able to test and develop innovative approaches for capturing a greater portion of the Diaspora remittances for development? The project got off to a slow start, and with significant information gaps in their knowledge about the Diaspora, so that LEAD had limited opportunities to test new strategies for engaging the Diaspora. New approaches for engaging with the Diaspora are now in place, namely the Diaspora Challenge Fund, and more information is available on the community based on the findings of the White Paper, even though information gaps remain. Because the intended beneficiaries’ preferred language is Haitian Creole, LEAD needs to translate the information on its website into that language. In that same vein, to ensure that written language does not constitute an impediment for interested CBOs, LEAD should consider additional channels of communication. 32 Few applicants were able to meet the selection criteria, indicating a need to conduct more outreach to publicize selection criteria more clearly and to provide TA to CBOs. LEAD finances projects in areas preferred by the Diaspora, who are eager to fund development projects even outside of their own community, and Kiva may be a platform to collect significant resources from Haitian abroad. However, there is currently no way to gauge Kiva’s success in attracting Diaspora funds. Evaluation Question 3 - What issues and gaps still need to be addressed by the project to mobilize Diaspora investment as sources of capital for SMEs? First, there remains a lack of information on the Haitian business environment, the country’s rules and regulations, incentive programs and ways to effectively access investment opportunities. Outreach needs to be intensified so that more individuals and organizations in the Diaspora become aware of all those facts. Second, besides rule and regulations, there are practical aspects of doing business in Haiti (procurement, management of human resources, etc.) for which Diaspora investors require significant assistance before and after they make the decision to invest. Third, In the presence of an effective policy, one would expect some information gaps not to exist, and given the willingness stated by Diaspora respondents to invest in Haiti better usage of the services of those institutions should be observed. Fourth, there were no specific indicators to tack SME investments under component 1. This deficiency may have resulted in a lack of activities specifically tailored to attract Diaspora SME investments. Fifth, in addition to information involving the business environment, market data are needed on effective investment opportunities. Sixth, while there exist a great many Diaspora organizations, before they can fully be tapped into to mobilize the Haitian community abroad, they require resources and capacity building so that they can become more effective partners with larger institutions such as PADF. Seventh, given that most Diaspora members are only willing to commit up to $499 for donations or loans, resources from many people will have to be pooled in order to finance ventures that require $200,000 dollars in financing, indicating a remaining potential resource gap for SMEs of the types being currently financed by LEAD. Moreover, to the extent that the number of jobs created is correlated with the sizes of SMEs financed, there may be a need for projects such as LEAD to provide additional financing. Eighth, outreach may not be enough. Distrust is a major hurdle that will have to be overcome in order to attract more Diaspora investment to Haiti. However, there are limited ways to build trust and allay fears in the short and medium terms. They are based on bad personal experiences, political instability, and weak domestic institutions: we observed the relative low number of Diaspora submissions. There may be a role that institutions such as PADF or other international institutions can play by acting as guarantors or guardians of the credibility and trustworthiness of SME ventures. Ninth, under current conditions, the Haitian financial system affords Diaspora members limited access to financing. Projects such as LEAD are needed to help them leverage their equity to implement 33 investment projects in Haiti. The Diaspora is likely to invest in agriculture, and also to operate start-ups. There are virtually no doors open for these types of ventures. Evaluation Question 4 - To what extent did the Technical Assistance provided to SMEs help them improve their business operations? LEAD coached SMEs to improve practices. Grantees claim that the project improved their practices in accounting, internal controls, safety and environmental measures that they would not have adopted otherwise. Without those better practices they would have been less viable as businesses. Unfortunately, the LEAD project does not yet have a consistent way to measure the level of capacity built through the technical assistance provided. That is typically a difficult and long-term process. Regardless, LEAD grantees credit the project a great deal with improving their business plans; which they feel has ultimately led to performance improvements in the form of increased revenue and employment. In as much as training and technical assistance through partners and service providers can be credited, so can the relationships built between SME owners and LEAD grant managers, who guide them through the competition and assistance process. It is clear that a key lesson learned by PADF after the first two years of implementation was to develop adequate levels of support internally to be able to work very closely with all SME grantees to help ensure their success. 4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are based on the findings and conclusions associated with all four evaluation questions. While some conclusions map into a single recommendation, the recommendations are presented in the same order as the conclusions on which they are based. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Program extension and new partnerships: The LEAD project had a significant impact on employment by addressing a key constraint: the lack of financing opportunities. It is unlikely that difficulties SMEs experience in securing funding or the distrust that keeps the Diaspora from investing more in Haiti will be resolved in the medium term. Therefore, we recommend that USAID insure continuity and sustainability of the LEAD project even beyond 2017, the year the project is scheduled to end. This could be achieved by defining an exit strategy that includes partnering with other international institutions, even US-based firms, and GOH. USAID, other bilateral and multilateral public institutions and agencies, PADF, and Haitian stakeholders (GOH, including Central bank, banking system, and financial institutions at large) can collaborate to improve access to credit for start-ups and SMEs in general. GOH may want to provide funds that USG and other agencies can leverage to fund larger programs that IPs such as PADF can manage. As the program has been extended to 2017, it seems opportune to start dialogues on how to achieve synergies between programs for greater impact and to ensure continuity. 2. Staffing and oversight: Relationship building is important to grantees’ success. The implementing partner needs adequate staff to build strong ties with all individual grantees as well as with partners. We recommend a small grant management unit with six to ten grantees assigned to each manager and oversight from a senior level position. The grant managers should be responsible for building relationships with the selected SMEs and for shepherding them through training and compliance processes. The LEAD Project seems to have learned this lesson, and as they add more grantees from the latest competition, they may need more grant managers to shift the burden. 34 In that same vein, Diaspora grantees should be assigned a manager. The Diaspora will need significant support from the program as they will be navigating in unfamiliar territory, and currently LEAD has a limited staff carrying a heavy work load of monitoring, advising, reviewing dossiers and other tasks. 3. Communication: The evaluation team found several areas for improvement in communication. PADF should develop clear communications protocols for each part of the process to increase transparency across the board. From the time of first contact with the grantee, protocols should dictate what information must be shared so that the applicant has a clear understanding of the timeline, decision points, and procedural steps. If they are being judged or assessed at any part of the grant process, then selection or assessment criteria should be available and clearly stated, and scores or feedback should be recorded as part of the process. The process should allow enough lead time so that applicants need to present concepts or attend meetings, they can prepare presentations and make travel arrangements. Organizers of meetings, trainings, or other events with applicants or grantees should clarify who will participate and what the roles and responsibilities of all parties are. 4. Communication channels for some SEs and CBOs: Implement steps to recruit more SEs and CBOs by using innovative communication channels. Include information in Creole on the LEAD website, and use audiovisual material. In addition, explore the use of community radios and local television stations. 5. Capacity building for CBOs: Implement steps to extend capacity building (business plans, project writing seminars) to CBOs as a means of securing better quality applications to the community project component. Consider partnerships with specialized institutions that could provide funding and training to that effect. 6. Tracking Diaspora contributions: Find ways of tracking Diaspora resources committed through Kiva by signing an information-sharing protocol with Kiva. LEAD does not know whether the Haitian Diaspora uses Kiva. If the information is already available, Kiva can simply relay it to the project. If not, Kiva platform could include a box for donors to check. 7. Performance indicators: Define indicators for tracking Diaspora SME investment and tracking capacity building with SMEs and other partners. 8. Effective Diaspora policy targeting investment: Implement steps to further analyze the Diaspora survey and use the White Paper as a basis for defining a Diaspora policy involving the GOH, its international partners, and the project. Such a policy would clarify specific goals and objectives, investment targets, and sectors, and the institutional framework. Some areas for actions include developing communication channels, including a dynamic web-based interface; producing and disseminating market-level information on priority sectors; hosting outreach events; staffing consulates and embassies with Diaspora liaison personnel; defining a funding strategy, and making provisions in MHLA’s and Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA)’s budgets. USAID and LEAD could start the process in partnership with CFI and MHLA. Official Diaspora policies have been recently formulated in countries such as Ireland, Kenya, and Zimbabwe. MHLA could draw lessons from these examples and articulate an official Diaspora policy for Haiti. 9. Capacity building for Diaspora organizations: Diaspora organizations are essential partners for reaching potential investors. For them to effectively play that role, we recommend that 35 steps be implemented to reinforce their capacity to act as a liaison with both individuals and institutions. Three areas need to be covered community liaison and outreach personnel; GOH, donor and international institution liaisons; and grant writers and compliance officers. 36 REFERENCES Banque de la République d'Haïti, internal reports Direction Affaires Internationales. Banque de la République d'Haïti, Rapports Statistiques, various years Building Markets : Open for Business: A Glimpse into the Intersection of Development and Business in Haiti: 2009-2012, Building Markets, 2012 Demirguc-Kunt, Asli, Leora Klapper, Dorothe Singer, and Peter Van Oudheusden. 2015. “The Global Findex Database 2014: Measuring Financial Inclusion around the World.” Policy Research Working Paper 7255, World Bank, Washington, DC. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) - Foreign Direct Investment in Late America and The Caribbean, 2013, and 2015 European Parliament- THE IMPACTS OF REMITTANCES ON DEVELOPING COUNTRIES DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EXTERNAL POLICIES OF THE UNION DIRECTORATE B,POLICY DEPARTMENT, April 2014 Financial Integration, Economic Leveraging and Broad-Based Dissemination: Spurring Entrepreneurship Through Business Plan Competitions An Exploration of the TechnoServe Model in Haiti i, FHI360-FIELD BRIEF No. 10, March 2010 InfoDev : Global Good Practice in Incubation Policy Development and Implementation, InfoDev October 2010 Institut Haïtien de Statistique et d’Informatique (IHSI) : Les comptes Economiques, 2015 Inter American Development Bank, Haiti Remittance survey, March 2007 Ketkar, S.K; Ratha, R.- Diaspora bonds for funding education VIEWPOINT : Migration Letters, Volume: 8, No: 2, pp. 153 – 172 López-Acevedo, G.; Tan H.W, Hong W. Impact Evaluation of Small and Medium Enterprise Programs in Latin America and the Caribbean, The World Bank, 2011 Mendez England and Associates, EVALUATION OF THE USAID/HAITI INTEGRATED FINANCING FOR VALUE CHAINS AND ENTERPRISES (HIFIVE) PROGRAM New York City Global partners- Best Practice: Global Business Plan Competition to Promote Entrepreneurship, March 2013. Orozco, M. - Oportunidades y Estrategias para el desarrollo y el crecimiento a través de las remesas familiares a Nicaragua. Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Dialogue, 2003. Orozco, M.: INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL FLOWS AND WORKER REMITTANCES: BEST PRACTICES, UNDP, 2005 37 Orozco, Manuel; Porras, Laura; Yansura, Julia-Trends in Remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean in 2014 Inter-American Dialogue, February 24th, 2015 USAID-LEAD Annual and quarterly reports USAID-LEAD PMP, 2015 United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Human Development Index, 2105 38 ANNEXES ANNEX 1: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK I. Evaluation Purpose The purpose of this Scope of Work is to conduct a final performance evaluation of the Haiti LEAD project implemented through the Pan American Development Foundation (PADF). This evaluation shall provide pertinent information to USAID and its partner on the overall impact of the LEAD project and shall serve as a basis for considering whether or not an extension of the Cooperative Agreement can be granted to PADF, allowing them to improve the program effectiveness and sustainability through continuous technical assistance to the USG-assisted Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs). The primary stakeholders for this evaluation include: USAID/Haiti, PADF, the Haitian SMEs and the Government of Haiti (GOH). II. Background A. Identifying Information The LEAD now in their final phase of implementation, and USAID/Haiti wants to conduct a final performance evaluation of the program according to the new USAID Evaluation Policy: http://usaid.gov/evaluation. The table below provides a succinct summary of the LEAD project: Table 1: LEAD General Information Project Title: Leveraging Effective Application of Direct Investments (LEAD) Award Numbers: 521-A-00-11-00010-00 Award Dates July 2011 – July 2015 Funding Level: $12,000,000.00 Cost Share $1,250,000.00 Total Funding Level: $13,250,000.00 Implementing Partners: Pan-American Development (PADF) Foundation Agreement Officer Representative (AOR): Isaac Michel, 2229-8861 B. Development Context According to the best available data, the Haitian economy is primarily driven by informal micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) which generate up to 90% of new jobs. These informal MSMEs access financing primarily from microfinance institutions charging comparatively high interest rates, and thus are limited in their ability to grow and add new employees. The earthquake exacerbated this situation with 39 up to $2 billion in financing required to repair, rebuild and restart businesses. In this broader context, access to capital by SMEs becomes a limiting factor to business expansion in Haiti. The LEAD investments activity was designed to address this problem by demonstrating that a business plan competition model, enhanced by a matching grants program, would attract investments in Haitian SMEs that have high potential for growth and employment generation. The project was also designed to be closely coordinated with other USG business development and social investment programs in the three USG-supported development corridors of Port-au-Prince, Cap-Haitian and Saint-Marc (see illustrative map in ANNEX 1). The program has emphasized small and medium business development but exceptionally considered microenterprises that are judged to be at the crossroads of quickly converting to small businesses with more employees. USAID’s experience in promoting public-private partnerships demonstrates that public sector grant funding can successfully leverage significant direct investment in SMEs from the private sector as part of an economic growth and job creation approach. C. LEAD Intended Results Table 2 below summarizes the results framework of the LEAD project as presented in the cooperative agreement document. As illustrated, the overall goal of the project is to stimulate job creation through sustainable business and social enterprise development. To attend this goal the project has two intertwined strategic objectives: 1) To strengthen Haitian businesses and social enterprises to create jobs in the targeted corridors, and 2) To develop and test innovative mechanisms to increase the development impact of remittances in Haiti Table 2: Summary of LEAD Result Framework Goal Strategic Objectives Intermediate Results (IR) Goal: To create jobs and improve social infrastructure in three Haitian development corridors through sustainable business and social enterprise development, partnering US investors with small and medium Haitian firms. SO1: Haitian businesses (SMEs) and social enterprises strengthened to create jobs in targeted Corridors IR1.1: SMEs and Social Enterprises (SEs) increase investment IR1.2: Technical assistance and business development services enhance the viability of business plan competition participants. SO2: Development impact of remittances amplified IR2.1: The diaspora and other overseas providers of capital have increased access to and knowledge of investment and remittance opportunities in Haiti. D. Approaches and Implementation To achieve its strategic objectives the program was implemented in two distinct but mutually supportive components relative to each Strategic Objective. In component one the program has been implementing a matching grants program with is a competitive process which leverages business and social investments on a basis of at least 1:1. Proposals that offer to leverage beyond the 1:1 ratio receives preferable consideration. LEAD contributes between $50,000 and $200,000 per matching grant. In order to attract businesses to participate to the business plan competition, the program has developed outreach events in all three target corridors as a way to increase awareness on business opportunities in each area. This outreach approach was also extended to the diaspora who has manifested great interest in participating in the recovery effort after the earthquake. Road shows, 40 information sessions, opportunity fairs, capacity building training are examples of activities conducted to implement this component of the program. With respect to component two, the program had to develop and test new and innovative approaches that have potential for capturing a greater portion of remittances for development purposes in collaboration with communities, the diaspora and USAID. E. Existing Data It is important to underline that no baseline study has been conducted for this program. However, as part of the monitoring and evaluation plan, the program has collected the key monitoring data on a regular basis which allowed tracking the progress of the program towards meeting the expected results. From the award date to today the program has achieved the following results: • 267 business plans have been submitted to the business plan competition, including 53 from the diaspora. • 22 enterprises have been competitively selected to receive matching funds • 60 private enterprises have received business development services • 1,476 person-hours of training completed in private sector development capacity • Close to 6,000 persons have been employed in the supported SMEs • More than $2.8 million of private funds have been leveraged. III. Evaluation Questions 1. To what extent the business competition model implemented by PADF attracted investment and generated more employment? 2. To what extent the LEAD project was able to test and develop innovative approaches for capturing a greater portion of the diaspora remittances for development? What issues and gap still need to be addressed by the project to mobilize diaspora investment as sources of capital for SMEs? 3. To what extent the Technical Assistance provided to the SMEs help them improve their business operations? IV. Methodology It is expected that the evaluation team proposes an overall research design to address the evaluation questions and a plan for collecting and analyzing the data. Nevertheless, given the time, technical constraints and fixed resources devoted to the evaluation, the evaluation design should be based solely on a combination of qualitative techniques to address the evaluation questions. Key informant interviews, focus group interviews, field observation, and in depth review of projects quarterly reports are among the techniques that the evaluation team should consider when addressing the evaluation questions. V. Composition of the Evaluation Team The evaluation team will be comprised of two external consultants, namely a Team Leader and an Assistant Team Leader, and three data collectors. The Team Leader shall have at least a Master degree in economics and shall have at least 7 years’ experience in evaluating financial, workforce development and micro-finance programs. He/she will be responsible for planning the evaluation, coordinating the implementation of the evaluation, assigning evaluation responsibilities and tasks, and authoring the report, in particular findings, conclusions and recommendations. The Team Leader shall have fluent oral and writing communication skills in English and French, shall demonstrate experience interacting with developing country governments, international organizations, other bilateral donors, civil society representatives, and senior level 41 government officials; and have ability to work with diverse international teams and excellent interpersonal skills. The Assistant Team Leader shall have an advance degree (Master or above) or equivalent in development economics related field or in a field related to an area of expertise required for this evaluation (e.g qualitative research, monitoring ad evaluation). He/She shall have at least five years of experience in leading and conducting data collection and evaluation work, demonstrate experience with and understanding of monitoring and evaluation of the financial sector. The Assistant Team Leader should be a local consultant with good oral and writing communication skills in French and Haitian Creole. Fluency in English strongly desired. The data collectors are to be considered Key Personnel, although it will be up to the Offeror to determine how many they need to conduct their proposed activities. They shall have at least a B.A or B.S degree in social science and proven experience in conducting Focus Groups and writing Focus Group reports. They shall also have good oral and writing communication skills in French and Creole and shall demonstrated experience with and understanding of monitoring and evaluation of the financial or related sector. CVs are required for all key personnel. For the LEAD evaluation, all proposed consultants, including the data collectors, shall be considered as key personnel. VI. Schedule and Logistics It is estimated that the evaluation Team will spend a total of 43 days to plan and implement the evaluation and to write the report. All team members are expected to work six days a week. USAID/Haiti will provide basic logistics (clearances in liaison with the GOH and USAID partners, lodging recommendations, etc.) and some administrative support for the team, to be discussed at the outset. Task Level Of Effort Post award meeting 1 Work Plan to be submitted 2 Document Review 5 Inception report 1 Evaluation Plan 5 Data collection and analysis 15 Briefing on key findings with USAID/Haiti 1 First draft report 8 Finalizing Report 5 42 Total 43 VII. Deliverables The consulting team will submit or produce the following documents: 1. An inception report 2. A work plan 3. An evaluation plan to be submitted for USAID comments and approval. 4. Summary of key evaluation findings to be presented during a briefing to USAID/Haiti Mission staff. 5. First draft report to be submitted to the USAID/Haiti Mission for review and feedback. 6. The Team Leader will submit the final reports within 5 working days after receiving feedback of the draft report from USAID/Haiti. The final report should integrate USAID/Haiti’s comments, and must comply with the USAID Evaluation Policy. An acceptable report will meet the following requirements as per USAID policy (please see: the USAID Evaluation Policy): • The evaluation report shall represent a thoughtful, well-researched and well organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the project, what did not and why. • The evaluation report shall address all evaluation questions included in the scope of work. • The evaluation report shall include the scope of work as an Annex. All modifications to the scope of work, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team composition, methodology or timeline shall be agreed upon in writing by the USAID Mission M&E Specialist. • Evaluation methodology shall be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides will be included in an Annex to the final report. • Evaluation findings will assess outcomes and impacts using gender disaggregated data. • Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.). • Evaluation findings shall be presented as analyzed facts, evidence and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people’s opinions. • Findings shall be specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. Evaluation findings shall be supported by strong evidence (quantitative or/and qualitative) depending on the evaluation design proposed by the successful Offeror. • Sources of information need to be properly identified and listed in an Annex, including a list of all individuals interviewed. • Recommendations need to be supported by a specific set of findings. 7. Recommendations shall be action-oriented, practical and specific, with defined responsibility for the action. 8. Details about writing an evaluation report can also be found in the USAID publication Performance Monitoring and Evaluation TIPS: Constructing an Evaluation Report available at the following website: http://www.usaid.gov/policy/evalweb/documents/TIPS- Constructing an Evaluation Report.pdf. 9. USAID/Haiti requests both an electronic version of the final report (Microsoft Word 2003 format) in English and 5 hard copies of the report. The report will be released as a public document on the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) (http://dec.usaid.gov). 10. Electronic copies of clean data sets (Syntax files) with variables and value labels. 43 LEAD Evaluation Tentative Schedule TASKS TARGET DATE LEAD EVALUATION LEAD evaluation starts September 3, 2015 Work Plan submitted for USAID review and Approval No later than September 11, 2015 Inception Report submitted for USAID review and approval No later than September 18, 2015 Evaluation Plan submitted for USAID review and approval No later than September 25, 2015 First draft report No later than November 13, 2015 Briefing on key findings No later than November 18, 2015 Final draft report No later than December 4, 2015 USAID will provide comments and will request revision to the inception report, work plan, evaluation plan as part of USAID approval process. No additional LOE will be provided. 44 ANNEX 2: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS A1-Guide for focus groups and Questionnaire (SMEs, grantees) Informed consent statement: I am evaluating the USAID funded Leveraging Effective Applications of Direct Investment project (LEAD). I am working for a research firm called Cultural Practice. Your participation in this evaluation is entirely voluntary and it is your choice whether to participate or not. The choice that you make will have no bearing on your job and you may change your mind later and stop participation at any point. You may choose to not answer particular questions. This interview will take approximately 60 minutes. During the course of this interview if there is any question you do not understand, please do not hesitate to stop and ask me. Would you like to continue with your participation? Do you mind if we record and transcribe the interview? Map fè evalyasyon pwojè LEAD la USAID te finanse. Pwojè sa a te “ Sèvi avèk envestisman dirèk kòm tranplen pou bay biznis bon jan jarèt”. Map travay ak yon fim kap fè rechèch yo rele « Cultural Practice”. Patisipasyon w nan evalyasyon sa a toutafè volontè, kidonk se chwa paw si w aksepte patisipe ou pa. Chwa w la pap gen anken efè sou posizyon w nan travay la e ou kap deside kanpe patisipasyon w nenpòt ki lè. Ou ka chwazi pa reponn kèk kesyon. Entèvyou sa a ap pran 60 minit. Si w gen yon bagay ou pa konprann pandan nap pale a pa ezite kanpe m pou w mande m. Eske ou ta renmen kontinye ak patisipasyon w ? Eske sa deranje w si mwen anrejistre epi transkri diskisyon an ? Group Name/Relation to Project Activities: Location of Focus Group: Date: Contact Information: Question Guide: Begin with a round of introductions, asking each participant their name, position or relationship to the LEAD project or activities. 1. How did you hear about the business competition and/or training? Kijan enfòmasyon sou kesyon konkou paln dafè a ak tout fòmasyon sou li te rive vin jwenn ou ? 2. What were your motivations for participating in the LEAD project? What were your expectations? Kisa k te pouse w patisipe nan pwojè LEAD la? Kisa w tap atann? 3. In what ways did you participate or benefit from LEAD activities? Nan ki fason w te patisipe nan aktivite pwojè LEAD yo oswa ki avantaj ou te jwenn la dan yo? 4. What are the biggest successes and biggest challenges for your business? Kisa w ki pi gwo siksè (kè kontan) oswa pi gwo tèt fè mal ou nan biznis la ? 5. If you received training or business development support, how have you used the information you received to improve your business? Si w te benefisye fòmasyon oswa lòt sipò pou fè biznis la vanse, kijan w te itilize konesans sa yo pou amelyore biznis la ? 6. What other changes have you experienced in your business operations? What has caused those changes? Ki chanjman ou obsève ki fèt nan biznis la? Daprè ou menm kisa ki eksplike chanjman sa yo ? 45 7. Do you have a business plan? How did you create this plan? What information did you have available to you to support your business plan? Eske w genyen yon plan dafè? Eske se ou ki te fè plan dafè a? Ki enfòmasyon ou te jwenn ki te ede w reyalize plan sa a? 8. What unmet needs do you still have in operating your business? How do you plan to address those needs? Ki bezwen w toujou genyen sètadi ki sa ou santi ki manke w toujou, pou fè biznis ou an mache pi byen? Ki plan w genyen pou rive satisfè bezwen osinon mankman sa yo? 9. Have you increased your number of employees in the past year? Two years? If so, by how many and what kind of jobs have you added? How many men and women? Where are the jobs? Eske ou te ogmante kantite anplwaye ou yo lane ki sot pase a? 2 lane ki sot pase yo? Si wi, ki kantite ak ki kalte djòb ou te kreye ? Kantite gason, kantite fanm ? ki kote (nan ki zòn) djòb sa yo ye ? 10. What kind of financing options are available to you? Where do you go when you need a loan or other financing for your business? Ki kalte finansman nou ka jwenn ? Lè w bezwen lajan, ki kote ou konn al chache prete oswa ki lòt finansman ou kon ale dèyè pou biznis lan? 11. If you have an investment relationship with any Haitians living abroad, what is the nature of your relationship and how did it develop? If not, why not? Si w genyen relasyon dafè ak yon Ayisyen kap viv lòt bò, ki kalte relasyon sa a ye epi kòman l te devlope? Si w pa genyen, sa k fè sa? Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree No Answer 1. The application process was easy and straightforward. Tout etap demann lan (aplikasyon an) fasil epi senp. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 2. The selection process was fair and you were informed of the reasons for the decision made regarding your application. Tout etap yo dewoule nan transparans epi yo te fèm konnen rezon ki eksplike desizyon yo pran sou demann mwen an. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 3. You received assistance or training that improved your business operations. Mwen resevwa asistans oswa fòmasyon ki pèmèt biznis lan mache pi byen. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 4. You currently use a business plan to operate your business. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 46 Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree No Answer Map itilize yon plan dafè pou m fè biznis la mache 5. Your business plan was improved through participation in the LEAD project. Plan dafè mwen an amelyore dèske mwen te patisipe nan pwojè LEAD la. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 6. The project connected your business with investors. Pwojè LEAD la konekte biznis mwen an ak envestisè. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 7. Your business revenues have grown over the last two years. Pandan 2 lane ki pase yo, vant nan biznis la ogmante. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 8. You have many more employees today than you did two years ago. Mwen vini genyen plis anplwaye pase sam te genyen pandan 2 lane ki pase yo. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 47 A2 – Guide for focus groups and Questionnaire for SMEs, applicants, non-grantees. Informed consent statement: I am evaluating the USAID funded Leveraging Effective Applications of Direct Investment project (LEAD). I am working for a research firm called Cultural Practice. Your participation in this evaluation is entirely voluntary and it is your choice whether to participate or not. The choice that you make will have no bearing on your job and you may change your mind later and stop participation at any point. You may choose to not answer particular questions. This interview will take approximately 60 minutes. During the course of this interview if there is any question you do not understand, please do not hesitate to stop and ask me. Would you like to continue with your participation? Do you mind if we record and transcribe the interview? Map fè evalyasyon pwojè LEAD la USAID te finanse. Pwojè sa a te “ Sèvi avèk envestisman dirèk kòm tranplen pou bay biznis bon jan jarèt”. Map travay ak yon fim kap fè rechèch yo rele « Cultural Practice”. Patisipasyon w nan evalyasyon sa a toutafè volontè, kidonk se chwa paw si w aksepte patisipe ou pa. Chwa w la pap gen anken efè sou posizyon w nan travay la e ou kap deside kanpe patisipasyon w nenpòt ki lè. Ou ka chwazi pa reponn kèk kesyon. Entèvyou sa a ap pran 60 minit. Si w gen yon bagay ou pa konprann pandan nap pale a pa ezite kanpe m pou w mande m. Eske ou ta renmen kontinye ak patisipasyon w ? Eske sa deranje w si mwen anrejistre epi transkri diskisyon an ? Likert Scale Questions I’m going to ask you about your participation in the application process for small grants and training or technical assistance received under the LEAD project. On a scale from 1 to 5, with one meaning “strongly disagree” and 7 meaning “to a very great extent,” please give me your ranking for each of the following statements: Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree No Answer 1. The application process was easy and straightforward. Tout etap demann lan (aplikasyon an) fasil epi senp. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 2. The selection process was fair and you were informed of the reasons for the decision made regarding your application. Tout etap yo dewoule nan transparans epi yo te fèm konnen rezon ki eksplike desizyon yo pran sou demann mwen an. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 3. You received assistance or training that improved your business operations. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 48 Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree No Answer Mwen resevwa asistans oswa fòmasyon ki pèmèt biznis lan mache pi byen. 4. You currently use a business plan to operate your business. Map itilize yon plan dafè pou m fè biznis la mache 1 2 3 4 5 NA 5. Your business plan was improved through participation in the LEAD project. Plan dafè mwen an amelyore dèske mwen te patisipe nan pwojè LEAD la. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 6. The project connected your business with investors. Pwojè LEAD la konekte biznis mwen an ak envestisè. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 7. Your business revenues have grown over the last two years. Pandan 2 lane ki pase yo, vant nan biznis la ogmante. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 8. You have many more employees today than you did two years ago. Mwen vini genyen plis anplwaye pase sam te genyen pandan 2 lane ki pase yo. 1 2 3 4 5 NA Open Ended Questions 1. How did you hear about the business competition and/or training? Kijan enfòmasyon sou kesyon konkou plan dafè a ak tout fòmasyon sou li te rive vin jwenn ou ? 2. In what ways did you participate or benefit from LEAD activities? Nan ki fason w te patisipe nan aktivite pwojè LEAD yo oswa ki avantaj ou te jwenn ladan yo? 49 3. What are the biggest successes and biggest challenges for your business? Kisa w ki pi gwo siksè (kè kontan) oswa pi gwo tèt fè mal nan biznis ou a ? 4. If you received training or business development support, how have you used the information you received to improve your business? Si w te benefisye fòmasyon oswa lòt sipò pou fè biznis la grandi, kijan w te itilize konesans sa yo pou amelyore biznis la ? 5. What other changes have you experienced in your business operations? What has caused those changes? Ki chanjman ou obsève ki fèt nan biznis la? Daprè ou menm kisa ki eksplike chanjman sa yo ? 6. Where do you go for advice on your business? Ki kote ou konn ale chache konsèy pou fè biznis la mache? 7. If you currently have a business plan, how did you create this plan? What information did you have available to you to support your business plan Si w genyen yon plan dafè deja, kijan w te fè pou genyen plan dafè sa a? Ki enfòmasyon ou te jwenn ki te ede w reyalize plan sa a? 8. How have you used your business plan? Kòman w itilize plan dafè a? 9. What unmet needs do you still have in operating your business? How do you plan to address those needs? Ki bezwen w toujou genyen sètadi ki sa ou santi ki manke w toujou, pou fè biznis ou an mache pi byen? Ki plan w genyen pou rive satisfè bezwen osinon mankman sa yo? 10. Where do you go when you need a loan or other financing for your business? Lèw bezwen lajan, ki kote ou konn al chache prete oswa ki lòt finansman ou kon ale dèyè pou biznis lan? 11. If you have hired more employees, what factors have contributed to your decision? How do you generally make decisions about the number of employees you need? Si w te anplwaye piplis moun nan biznis la, poukisa ou te pran desizyon sa a ? An jeneral, kòman ou pran desizyon sou kantite anplwaye ou bezwen ? 50 A3 – Capacity Building Questionnaire for SMEs Informed consent statement: I am evaluating the USAID funded Leveraging Effective Applications of Direct Investment project (LEAD). I am working for a research firm called Cultural Practice. Your participation in this evaluation is entirely voluntary and it is your choice whether to participate or not. The choice that you make will have no bearing on your job and you may change your mind later and stop participation at any point. You may choose to not answer particular questions. This interview will take approximately 60 minutes. During the course of this interview if there is any question you do not understand, please do not hesitate to stop and ask me. Would you like to continue with your participation? Do you mind if we record and transcribe the interview? Map fè evalyasyon pwojè LEAD la USAID te finanse. Pwojè sa a te “ Sèvi avèk envestisman dirèk kòm tranplen pou bay biznis bon jan jarèt”. Map travay ak yon fim kap fè rechèch yo rele « Cultural Practice”. Patisipasyon w nan evalyasyon sa a toutafè volontè, kidonk se chwa paw si w aksepte patisipe ou pa. Chwa w la pap gen anken efè sou posizyon w nan travay la e ou kap deside kanpe patisipasyon w nenpòt ki lè. Ou ka chwazi pa reponn kèk kesyon. Entèvyou sa a ap pran 60 minit. Si w gen yon bagay ou pa konprann pandan nap pale a pa ezite kanpe m pou w mande m. Eske ou ta renmen kontinye ak patisipasyon w ? Eske sa deranje w si mwen anrejistre epi transkri diskisyon an ? Likert Scale Questions I’m going to ask you about your organizational processes and operation. On a scale from 1 to 7, with one meaning “strongly disagree” and 7 meaning “Strongly agree,” please give me your ranking for each of the following statements: Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree No Answer 1. We routinely offer staff training Nou fè fòmasyon regilyèman pou anplwaye yo. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 2. Our staff training directly contributes to the achievement of our organization’s goals. Fòmasyon pou ekip la kontribiye dirèkteman nan reyalizasyon objektif antrepriz la. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 3. We have the appropriate staff skills to succeed. Nou gen anplwaye ki gen kapasite (ladrès ak kompetans) pou biznis la rantab. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 4. We have the appropriate number of staff to succeed. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 51 Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree No Answer Nou gen kantite anplwaye nesesè pou fè biznis la rantab. 5. We regularly use established procedures to maintain our revenue and expenses in balance. Nou itilize règ ak prensip pou n kenbe an ekilib revni ak depans yo an tou tan. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 6. Our financial management practices lead to accurate financial projections. Fason nou jere lajan biznis lan pèmèt nou wè kijan finans nou ap ye pi devan. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 7. Our financial contingency measures prevent operational disruptions. Nou pran mezi finansye ki anpeche gwo sekous nan biznis la. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 8. Our procurement practices contribute to the effective use of resources. Metòd nou itilize pou n achte pèmèt nou byen itilize resous nou yo. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 9. Our cash management procedures lead to the timely disbursement of funds. Metòd nou itilize pou n jere lajan kach fasilite nou achte/peye alè. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 10. Regular audits of inventory is conducted 1 2 3 4 5 NA 52 Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree No Answer Nou fè odit ak envantè regilyèman 11. Market information is available and we access the information for decision making. Enfòmasyon ki disponib sou mache a pèmèt nou pran desizyon 1 2 3 4 5 NA 12. We have access to credit or investment funds. Nou gen posibilite jwenn kredi ak lòt fon pou n envesti 1 2 3 4 5 NA 53 A4 – Interview guide (CBOs and SEs in community projects) Informed consent statement: I am evaluating the USAID funded Leveraging Effective Applications of Direct Investment project (LEAD). I am working for a research firm called Cultural Practice. Your participation in this evaluation is entirely voluntary and it is your choice whether to participate or not. The choice that you make will have no bearing on your job and you may change your mind later and stop participation at any point. You may choose to not answer particular questions. This interview will take approximately 60 minutes. During the course of this interview if there is any question you do not understand, please do not hesitate to stop and ask me. Would you like to continue with your participation? Do you mind if we record and transcribe the interview? Map fè evalyasyon pwojè LEAD la USAID te finanse. Pwojè sa a te “ Sèvi avèk envestisman dirèk kòm tranplen pou bay biznis bon jan jarèt”. Map travay ak yon fim kap fè rechèch yo rele « Cultural Practice”. Patisipasyon w nan evalyasyon sa a toutafè volontè, kidonk se chwa paw si w aksepte patisipe ou pa. Chwa w la pap gen anken efè sou posizyon w nan travay la e ou kap deside kanpe patisipasyon w nenpòt ki lè. Ou ka chwazi pa reponn kèk kesyon. Entèvyou sa a ap pran 60 minit. Si w gen yon bagay ou pa konprann pandan nap pale a pa ezite kanpe m pou w mande m. Eske ou ta renmen kontinye ak patisipasyon w ? Eske sa deranje w si mwen anrejistre epi transkri diskisyon an ? Name: Position: Location: Date: Contact Information: 1. How did you hear about the LEAD community investment project? Kijan w te rive konnen dimansyon envestisman kominotè nan pwogram LEAD la? 2. What were the biggest challenges of finalizing your community project? Ki pi gwo defi (tèt fè mal) ou te genyen pou w te fini pwojè kominotè pa w la? 3. What are some of the benefits you see from the project? (Probe specifically on investment and employment) Ki avantaj ou wè pwogram lan bay? (Bay presizyon espesyalman sou envestisman ak djòb) 4. How were you able to secure support from your partner in the Diaspora? Kòman ou te rive jwenn sipò patnè w genyen nan dyaspora a? 5. What is the nature of the Diaspora support that you receive? How well does it meet your needs? Ki kalte sipò ou jwenn nan men Dyaspora a? Kòman sipò sa a reponn a sa w te bezwen? 6. How important is the support from the LEAD project in the sustainability of your work? Why? Kòman sipò ou jwenn nan pwojè LEAD la enpòtan pou dirabilite travay ou? Poukisa ? 54 A5– Interview guide (PADF project staff) Informed consent statement: I am evaluating the USAID funded Leveraging Effective Applications of Direct Investment project (LEAD). I am working for a research firm called Cultural Practice. Your participation in this evaluation is entirely voluntary and it is your choice whether to participate or not. The choice that you make will have no bearing on your job and you may change your mind later and stop participation at any point. You may choose to not answer particular questions. This interview will take approximately 60 minutes. Would you like to continue with your participation? Do you mind if we record and transcribe the interview? Name: Position: Location: Date: Contact Information: 1. What is your current position and role with your organization? 2. What experience or relationship do you have or have you had in the past with the LEAD? (Probe: Determine if the person is still working on the project and if not, how long since separation). 3. What are the biggest successes and biggest challenges of the project? (Probe: Relate comments to business competition model and Diaspora/investment engagement) 4. Please describe the process for the business competition model, both for solicitation and selection. Please also include information on the selection of industries or sectors to support. 5. Did PADF review other similar projects to create the model? If so, what were they and how were they incorporated into this model? 6. We understand the project tracked indicators on employment and investment. 7. How did you define those indicators and link them with the business competition model? 8. Why were these indicators selected? 9. What issues, if any, have you encountered with collecting data on these outcomes? 10. In terms of employment, what types of jobs have been created (part time/full time) and at what level (management, entry level, etc.)? 11. What approaches did the project take to identifying and engaging the Diaspora community? Other investors? How were these approaches selected? (Probe: Determine other project models reviewed, best practices and innovations considered and why.) 12. What needs have investor identified in order for them to participate in the project? How did the project work to meet those needs? 13. What approach did the project undertake to engage women-led enterprises? 14. Are you aware of special needs women-led businesses may have? 15. What approaches did the project undertake to engage disabled persons? 55 A6– Interview Guide (service providers: BDS, Technical assistance) a) FAVACA b) SOFIHDES c) CLS d) YABT e) CCIPNE Informed consent statement: I am evaluating the USAID funded Leveraging Effective Applications of Direct Investment project (LEAD). I am working for a research firm called Cultural Practice. Your participation in this evaluation is entirely voluntary and it is your choice whether to participate or not. The choice that you make will have no bearing on your job and you may change your mind later and stop participation at any point. You may choose to not answer particular questions. This interview will take approximately 60 minutes. During the course of this interview if there is any question you do not understand, please do not hesitate to stop and ask me. Would you like to continue with your participation? Do you mind if we record and transcribe the interview? Map fè evalyasyon pwojè LEAD la USAID te finanse. Pwojè sa a te “ Sèvi avèk envestisman dirèk kòm tranplen pou bay biznis bon jan jarèt”. Map travay ak yon fim kap fè rechèch yo rele « Cultural Practice”. Patisipasyon w nan evalyasyon sa a toutafè volontè, kidonk se chwa paw si w aksepte patisipe ou pa. Chwa w la pap gen anken efè sou posizyon w nan travay la e ou kap deside kanpe patisipasyon w nenpòt ki lè. Ou ka chwazi pa reponn kèk kesyon. Entèvyou sa a ap pran 60 minit. Si w gen yon bagay ou pa konprann pandan nap pale a pa ezite kanpe m pou w mande m. Eske ou ta renmen kontinye ak patisipasyon w ? Eske sa deranje w si mwen anrejistre epi transkri diskisyon an ? Name: Position: Location: Date: Contact Information: 1. What is your current position and role with your organization? Ki fonksyon ak wòl ou nan òganizasyon an? 2. What experience or relationship do you have or have you had in the past with the LEAD project? (Probe: Determine if the person is still working on the project and if not, how long since separation). Ki eksperyans oswa relasyon ou genyen / te genyen ak pwojè LEAD la ? (presize si moun lan toujou ap travay nan pwojè a oswa sil pap travay ankò, konbyen tan sa genyen) 3. What was the nature of the assistance or training provided by your organization? Ki kalte asistans oswa fòmasyon òganizasyon w lan te bay? 4. What feedback did you receive from the beneficiaries of your training/assistance? What did you do with regards to the feedback you received? Ki kòmantè ou te jwenn bò kote benefisyè yo sou fòmasyon / asistans ou te bay la? Ki sa w te fè pa rapò ak kòmantè ou te jwenn yo ? 5. How were improvements in operations or capacity measured? Kijan w te mezire pwogrè ki fèt nan kapasite moun yo? (fason yo travay ak nouvèl konesans yo genyen) 6. In what ways were your activities coordinated with other activities? Kijan aktivite sa yo (asistans oswa fòmasyon ou te bay) konekte ak lòt aktivite? 56 7. How did you select program participants? Please describe your due diligence process. In what ways did organizations pass or fail this process as a basis for selection? Kijan w te seleksyone benefisyè pwogram lan? Rakonte tout etap ki mennen w la. Nan ki fason òganizasyon an te reyisi oswa echwe nan etap yo pou fè seleksyon an? 8. What assistance, if any, did your organization receive from the LEAD project? If relevant, how did you measure the results of the assistance you received? Ki asistans òganizasyon w lan te resevwa nan pwojè LEAD la? Si w te benefisye asistans, kòman ou te mezire rezilta asistans ou te jwenn yo? 9. What are the biggest successes and biggest challenges you experience in working with the LEAD project? (Probe: Relate comments to timing of activities, delays, measurements of success) Ki pi gwo siksè ak pi gwo defi nan eksperyans travay ou ak pwojè LEAD? (Ranmase kòmantè sou dire aktivite yo, reta, mezi reyisit yo) 10. How do the activities and results related to the LEAD project compare with other similar projects in which you have participated? Please share any lessons learned. Kòman konpare aktivite ak rezilta pwojè LEAD la pa rapò ak (aktivite / rezilta) lòt pwojè ou te patisipe ki sanble ak LEAD? SVP pataje kèk leson ou aprann. 57 A7– Interview Guide (partners) (a) Economic Growth Initiative (b) Fonkoze (c) Yunus Social Business (d) HHTARG Informed consent statement: I am evaluating the USAID funded Leveraging Effective Applications of Direct Investment project (LEAD). I am working for a research firm called Cultural Practice. Your participation in this evaluation is entirely voluntary and it is your choice whether to participate or not. The choice that you make will have no bearing on your job and you may change your mind later and stop participation at any point. You may choose to not answer particular questions. This interview will take approximately 60 minutes. During the course of this interview if there is any question you do not understand, please do not hesitate to stop and ask me. Would you like to continue with your participation? Do you mind if we record and transcribe the interview? Map fè evalyasyon pwojè LEAD la USAID te finanse. Pwojè sa a te “Sèvi avèk envestisman dirèk kòm tranplen pou bay biznis bon jan jarèt”. Map travay ak yon fim kap fè rechèch yo rele « Cultural Practice”. Patisipasyon w nan evalyasyon sa a toutafè volontè, kidonk se chwa paw si w aksepte patisipe ou pa. Chwa w la pap gen anken efè sou posizyon w nan travay la e ou kap deside kanpe patisipasyon w nenpòt ki lè. Ou ka chwazi pa reponn kèk kesyon. Entèvyou sa a ap pran 60 minit. Si w gen yon bagay ou pa konprann pandan nap pale a pa ezite kanpe m pou w mande m. Eske ou ta renmen kontinye ak patisipasyon w ? Eske sa deranje w si mwen anrejistre epi transkri diskisyon an ? Name: Position: Location: Date: Contact Information: 1. What is your current position and role with your organization? Ki fonksyon ak wòl ou nan òganizasyon an? 2. What experience or relationship do you have or have you had in the past with the LEAD? (Probe: Determine if the person is still working on the project and if not, how long since separation). Ki eksperyans oswa relasyon ou genyen / te genyen ak pwojè LEAD la ? (presize si moun lan toujou ap travay nan pwojè a oswa sil pap travay ankò, konbyen tan sa genyen) 3. How and when was your partnership with the project established? Kòman e depi kilè patenarya ak pwojè a te tabli? 4. Was the experience overall positive or negative? Why? Eske eksperyans lan te pozitif oswa negatif? Pou kisa? 5. What are the biggest successes and biggest challenges you experience in working with the LEAD project? (Probe: Relate comments to timing of activities, delays, measurements of success) Ki pi gwo siksè ak pi gwo defi nan eksperyans travay ou ak pwojè LEAD? (Ranmase kòmantè sou dire aktivite yo, reta, mezi reyisit yo) 6. Did you receive training or benefits from the project? If yes, in what ways did it contribute to your participation? Eske w te resevwa fòmasyon oswa lòt avantaj nan pwojè sa a? Si wi, nan ki fason asistans sa a kontribiye a patisipasyon w nan pwojè a ? 58 7. Did you collect or receive any feedback from other partners or beneficiaries you worked with? If yes, please describe the feedback? Eske w te resevwa kòmantè lòt patnè oswa benefisyè ou te travay avè yo? Si wi, rakonte sa yo di?. 8. With whom and how have you coordinated your activities? Ak ki moun epi kòman ou te kòwòdone aktivite w yo? 59 A8– Interview Guide (Diaspora, recipients and non recipients) Informed consent statement: I am evaluating the USAID funded Leveraging Effective Applications of Direct Investment project (LEAD). I am working for a research firm called Cultural Practice. Your participation in this evaluation is entirely voluntary and it is your choice whether to participate or not. The choice that you make will have no bearing on your job and you may change your mind later and stop participation at any point. You may choose to not answer particular questions. This interview will take approximately 60 minutes. During the course of this interview if there is any question you do not understand, please do not hesitate to stop and ask me. Would you like to continue with your participation? Do you mind if we record and transcribe the interview? Map fè evalyasyon pwojè LEAD la USAID te finanse. Pwojè sa a te “ Sèvi avèk envestisman dirèk kòm tranplen pou bay biznis bon jan jarèt”. Map travay ak yon fim kap fè rechèch yo rele « Cultural Practice”. Patisipasyon w nan evalyasyon sa a toutafè volontè, kidonk se chwa paw si w aksepte patisipe ou pa. Chwa w la pap gen anken efè sou posizyon w nan travay la e ou kap deside kanpe patisipasyon w nenpòt ki lè. Ou ka chwazi pa reponn kèk kesyon. Entèvyou sa a ap pran 60 minit. Si w gen yon bagay ou pa konprann pandan nap pale a pa ezite kanpe m pou w mande m. Eske ou ta renmen kontinye ak patisipasyon w ? Eske sa deranje w si mwen anrejistre epi transkri diskisyon an ? Name: Position: Location: Date: Contact Information: 1. What is your current position and role with your organization? 2. What experience or relationship do you have or have you had in the past with LEAD project? 3. How were you informed about the project or contacted for participation? How effective was the project’s communication with you at meeting your needs for participation? 4. What was your level of investment in project activities? How did the program match your contribution? (Probe: amounts? Other contributions such as time, communication with other potential investors?) 5. What sectors in Haiti are in you interested in investing in? Why? 6. In what ways, if any have you invested in Haitian enterprises in the past and how was this experience similar and/or different? 7. How did the project communicate with you regarding progress or outcomes of your participation? (Probe: Were you aware of the project goals and measurements of success? Did you participate in any surveys, questionnaires or interviews regarding project outcomes?) 8. What other approaches to investment or identification of opportunities would further interest you in participation in this or other projects? 9. What additional information or other needs do you require for future investments? 60 A9– Interview guide (Diaspora: Organizations, Community leaders, entrepreneurs) Include non-applicants who were included in the 19 experts consulted in the Whitepaper Informed consent statement: I am evaluating the USAID funded Leveraging Effective Applications of Direct Investment project (LEAD). I am working for a research firm called Cultural Practice. Your participation in this evaluation is entirely voluntary and it is your choice whether to participate or not. The choice that you make will have no bearing on your job and you may change your mind later and stop participation at any point. You may choose to not answer particular questions. This interview will take approximately 60 minutes. During the course of this interview if there is any question you do not understand, please do not hesitate to stop and ask me. Would you like to continue with your participation? Do you mind if we record and transcribe the interview? Map fè evalyasyon pwojè LEAD la USAID te finanse. Pwojè sa a te “ Sèvi avèk envestisman dirèk kòm tranplen pou bay biznis bon jan jarèt”. Map travay ak yon fim kap fè rechèch yo rele « Cultural Practice”. Patisipasyon w nan evalyasyon sa a toutafè volontè, kidonk se chwa paw si w aksepte patisipe ou pa. Chwa w la pap gen anken efè sou posizyon w nan travay la e ou kap deside kanpe patisipasyon w nenpòt ki lè. Ou ka chwazi pa reponn kèk kesyon. Entèvyou sa a ap pran 60 minit. Si w gen yon bagay ou pa konprann pandan nap pale a pa ezite kanpe m pou w mande m. Eske ou ta renmen kontinye ak patisipasyon w ? Eske sa deranje w si mwen anrejistre epi transkri diskisyon an ? Name: Position: Location: Date: Contact Information: 1. What is your current position and role with your organization? 2. What experience or relationship do you have or have you had in the past with the LEAD project? (If they do have a connection with LEAD, ask the following subquestions) 2.1 How were you informed about the project or contacted for participation? How effective was the project’s communication with you at meeting your needs for participation? 2.2 What are your perspectives on how LEAD was able to stir interest in the Diaspora community? 2.3 How could your engagement and/or participation in the LEAD project been improved? 2.4 How does your experience with the LEAD project compare with other opportunities for investment or support in which you have participated in Haiti? 3. What are the biggest challenges for engaging the Diaspora community on Haiti for investment or development projects? 4. What solutions do you propose to overcome those challenges? 5. What are the risk factors for members of the Diaspora to reinvest in Haiti? How can these risks be mitigated? 61 A10– Interview guide (Financial institutions) Informed consent statement: I am evaluating the USAID funded Leveraging Effective Applications of Direct Investment project (LEAD). I am working for a research firm called Cultural Practice. Your participation in this evaluation is entirely voluntary and it is your choice whether to participate or not. The choice that you make will have no bearing on your job and you may change your mind later and stop participation at any point. You may choose to not answer particular questions. This interview will take approximately 60 minutes. During the course of this interview if there is any question you do not understand, please do not hesitate to stop and ask me. Would you like to continue with your participation? Do you mind if we record and transcribe the interview? Map fè evalyasyon pwojè LEAD la USAID te finanse. Pwojè sa a te “ Sèvi avèk envestisman dirèk kòm tranplen pou bay biznis bon jan jarèt”. Map travay ak yon fim kap fè rechèch yo rele « Cultural Practice”. Patisipasyon w nan evalyasyon sa a toutafè volontè, kidonk se chwa paw si w aksepte patisipe ou pa. Chwa w la pap gen anken efè sou posizyon w nan travay la e ou kap deside kanpe patisipasyon w nenpòt ki lè. Ou ka chwazi pa reponn kèk kesyon. Entèvyou sa a ap pran 60 minit. Si w gen yon bagay ou pa konprann pandan nap pale a pa ezite kanpe m pou w mande m. Eske ou ta renmen kontinye ak patisipasyon w ? Eske sa deranje w si mwen anrejistre epi transkri diskisyon an ? Name: Position: Location: Date: Contact Information: 1. What is your current position and role with your organization? Quelle fonction occupez-vous et quelles sont vos attributions au sein de votre organisation? 2. What experience or relationship do you have or have you had in the past with the LEAD project? Quelle expérience ou relation entretenez-vous ou aviez-vous entretenu par le passé avec le projet LEAD? 3. What are the biggest challenges of projects of that nature? Quels sont les plus grands défis des projets de ce genre ? 4. What impact do you think LEAD, or programs like it, has had or may have on your SME clients? Quel impact vous pensez que LEAD (ou des programmes similaires) a eu ou peut avoir sur vos clients PME? 5. What are some for the best strategies that may lead to success in such programs? Quelles sont les meilleures stratégies qui peuvent conduire au succès de tels programmes ? 6. What are the specific risk factors in supporting investments through the LEAD project? How can these risks be mitigated? Quels risques spécifiques sont liés au soutien de l’investissement par le biais du projet LEAD ? Comment ces risques peuvent-ils être atténués ou mitigés? 62 A11– Interview Guide (GOH) Informed consent statement: I am evaluating the USAID funded Leveraging Effective Applications of Direct Investment project (LEAD). I am working for a research firm called Cultural Practice. Your participation in this evaluation is entirely voluntary and it is your choice whether to participate or not. The choice that you make will have no bearing on your job and you may change your mind later and stop participation at any point. You may choose to not answer particular questions. This interview will take approximately 60 minutes. During the course of this interview if there is any question you do not understand, please do not hesitate to stop and ask me. Would you like to continue with your participation? Do you mind if we record and transcribe the interview? Map fè evalyasyon pwojè LEAD la USAID te finanse. Pwojè sa a te “ Sèvi avèk envestisman dirèk kòm tranplen pou bay biznis bon jan jarèt”. Map travay ak yon fim kap fè rechèch yo rele « Cultural Practice”. Patisipasyon w nan evalyasyon sa a toutafè volontè, kidonk se chwa paw si w aksepte patisipe ou pa. Chwa w la pap gen anken efè sou posizyon w nan travay la e ou kap deside kanpe patisipasyon w nenpòt ki lè. Ou ka chwazi pa reponn kèk kesyon. Entèvyou sa a ap pran 60 minit. Si w gen yon bagay ou pa konprann pandan nap pale a pa ezite kanpe m pou w mande m. Eske ou ta renmen kontinye ak patisipasyon w ? Eske sa deranje w si mwen anrejistre epi transkri diskisyon an ? Name: Position: Location: Date: Contact Information: 1. What is your current position and role with your organization? Quelle fonction occupez-vous et quelles sont vos attributions au sein de votre organisation? 2. What experience or relationship do you have or have you had in the past with the LEAD project? Quelle expérience ou relation entretenez-vous ou aviez-vous entretenu par le passé avec le projet LEAD? 3. How were you informed about the project or contacted for participation? How effective was the project’s communication with you at meeting your needs for participation? Comment avez-vous été informé ou contacté pour vous inciter à prendre part au projet ? Quelle est votre appréciation de l’efficacité de la communication entre le projet et vous, en tenant compte de vos besoins ou attentes? 4. What is the role of government in supporting investment in Haitian enterprise? How did the LEAD project engage you or your organization for support? Selon vous quel rôle l’Etat doit-il jouer pour stimuler l’investissement dans les entreprises haïtiennes ? Dans quelle mesure le projet LEAD a-t-il pu vous conduire personnellement ou encore votre institution à fournir ce soutien? 5. How did the project communicate with you regarding progress or outcomes of your participation? (Probe: Were you aware of the project goals and measurements of success? Did you participate in any surveys, questionnaires or interviews regarding project outcomes?) Par quelles canaux le projet vous-a-t-il tenu informé de l’effet de votre participation et des progrès y relatifs? (Étiez-vous au courant des objectifs du projet et des critères de succès ? Avez-vous participé à des enquêtes ou à des entrevues au sujet des résultats du projet ?) 63 6. From your perspective, what was the LEAD project’s contribution to increasing investments and employment in Haiti? A votre avis, quelle a été la contribution du projet LEAD en ce qui a trait à l’augmentation de l’investissement et de l’emploi en Haïti ? 7. What policies (regulations and training, for instance) need to be addressed to improve investment and effective support to SME’s in Haiti? In what ways did the LEAD project address those needs? Quelles politiques (règlementations et formation, par exemple) doivent être formulées et mises en place pour améliorer l'investissement et le soutien effectif aux PME en Haïti ? De quelle façon le projet a-t-il adressé ces besoins ? 64 A12– Field Observation Report Site Visit - Direct Observation Report Form 1. YOUR NAME, DATES AND LOCATION(S) OF SITE VISIT (either a cover page or on top of first page). Votre nom: Lieu et date de la visite 2. PARTICIPANTS IN THE VISIT: Include a list of evaluation team members present, as well as staff from USAID, implementing partners, or other stakeholders. Liste de presence (incluant le nom des members de l’équipe d’évaluation, representant USAID, partenaire de mise en oeuvre, et autres acteurs) 3. SUMMARY: (½ page): Key points of the visit summarized in one or two paragraphs. What were the key LEAD related activities and findings of the site visit? If your visit was conducted as part of an interview or other data collection exercise, indicate this here. 1 ou 2 paragraphes résumant les points clefs de la visite, quelle a été les activités du projet 4. BACKGROUND: (optional; < ½ page): Include information in this section only if it helps explain the rationale for your selection of the site or helps explain the context of the site visit. How did you identify and select the location for this site visit? 5. OBSERVATIONS: Provide a narrative of your experience at the site, including conversations, physical appearances, materials examined, qualities of relevant features or discussions. This will form a basis for any findings you note. 6. FINDINGS: Based on observations, provide findings relevant to LEAD activities. These will not translate directly into evaluation report findings, but will be used as triangulation data points against analyses performed on other data. These should be organized by relevant evaluation question. 65 A13– SME Employee Questionnaire During site visits, you may take the opportunity to conduct this questionnaire (briefly interview) employees of the organization hosting your visit to discuss the aspects of their employment such as job quality, durability and security. This may be a sensitive subject, so it will be important to get consent from a supervisor before continuing. You may also need to ask that the supervisor step away so that the employee feels comfortable answering questions in confidence. Informed consent statement: I am evaluating the USAID funded Leveraging Effective Applications of Direct Investment project (LEAD). I am working for a research firm called Cultural Practice. Your participation in this evaluation is entirely voluntary and it is your choice whether to participate or not. The choice that you make will have no bearing on your job and you may change your mind later and stop participation at any point. You may choose to not answer particular questions. This interview will take approximately 5 minutes. During the course of this interview if there is any question you do not understand, please do not hesitate to stop and ask me. Would you like to continue with your participation? Do you mind if we record and transcribe the interview? Map fè evalyasyon pwojè LEAD la USAID te finanse. Pwojè sa a te “ Sèvi avèk envestisman dirèk kòm tranplen pou bay biznis bon jan jarèt”. Map travay ak yon fim kap fè rechèch yo rele « Cultural Practice”. Patisipasyon w nan evalyasyon sa a toutafè volontè, kidonk se chwa paw si w aksepte patisipe ou pa. Chwa w la pap gen anken efè sou posizyon w nan travay la e ou kap deside kanpe patisipasyon w nenpòt ki lè. Ou ka chwazi pa reponn kèk kesyon. Entèvyou sa a ap pran 5 minit. Si w gen yon bagay ou pa konprann pandan nap pale a pa ezite kanpe m pou w mande m. Eske ou ta renmen kontinye ak patisipasyon w ? Eske sa deranje w si mwen anrejistre epi transkri diskisyon an ? Map fè evalyasyon pwojè LEAD la USAID te finance, pwojè sa a te “ Sèvi avèk envestisman dirèk kòm tranplen pou bay biznis bon jan jarèt”. Map travay ak yon fim kap fè rechèch yo rele « Cultural Practice”. Patisipasyon w nan evalyasyon sa a toutafè volontè, kidonk se chwa paw si w aksepte patisipe ou pa. Chwa w la pap gen anken efè sou posizyon w nan travay la epi ou kap deside kanpe patisipasyon w nenpòt ki lè. Ou ka chwazi pa reponn kèk kesyon. Entèvyou sa a ap pran apeprè 5 minit. Eske ou dakò kontinye ? Likert Scale Questions I’m going to ask you about your current employment here. On a scale from 1 to 7, with one meaning “Strongly Disagree” and 7 meaning “Strongly Agree,” please give me your ranking for each of the following statements: Mwen pral pale avè w sou travay ou isi a. Pou chak fraz mwen pral di la yo, map mande w pou bay yon nòt ant 1 a 5, “1 vle di mwen pa dakò ditou“ epi “5” vle di mwen dakò nèt ale”. Name: Job Position: Full Time or Part Time: (Y/N) Length of Employment (in years/months): Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree No Answer 1. My job was recently created. Djòb mwen an fenk kreye 1 2 3 4 5 NA 66 Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree No Answer 2. I am confident that this job will be available to me for at least a year. Mwen kwè map kenbe djòb sa a pou pipiti yon lane 1 2 3 4 5 NA 3. I am confident that this job will remain available to me for the next 3 to 5 years. Mwen gen asirans travay sa a ap la pandan 3 a 5 lane kap vini yo 1 2 3 4 5 NA 4. I have received training or am scheduled to receive training that will improve my job performance. Mwen resevwa fòmasyon oswa mwen pral resevwa fòmasyon kap fèm gen plis ladrès nan travay mwen 1 2 3 4 5 NA 5. Since I have been working here, employment has increased significantly. Depim kòmanse travay la a, kantite anplwaye yo ogmante 1 2 3 4 5 NA 6. I am happy to say that my employer is doing very well. Sa fèm kontan pou m wè biznis patwon an ap byen mache 1 2 3 4 5 NA 7. Compared to previous jobs, this job is more secure. Lèm konpare djòb sa a ak lòt kote mwen te ye avan yo, djòb sa a pi estab 1 2 3 4 5 NA 8. Compared to previous jobs, this job pays well. 1 2 3 4 5 NA 67 Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree No Answer Konpare ak djòb avan yo, sa a pi byen peye 9. This is a growing industry. Biznis sa a nan yon aktivite kap grandi epi ki gen avni nan peyi a 1 2 3 4 5 NA 10. This is the industry in which I am most interested in working. Se nan kalte biznis sa yo (akitivite sa a) mwen plis enterese travay 1 2 3 4 5 NA 68 ANNEX 3: DATA ANALYSIS METHODS Data Analysis method for each evaluation question Evaluation Question Analysis to Be Performed Data to Be Analyzed Anticipated Output 1. To what extent [did] the business competition model implemented by PADF attract investment and generate employment? Content pattern analysis; Comparison analysis; Trend analysis; cross tabulation Review of grant proposals, selection documents and monitoring reports. Key informant Interview responses. Focus group with SME employees. Documents on best practice for BPC Content Pattern: emergence of common themes/repeated ideas and concepts across data that support findings; Comparison: look at: -planned vs. actual results to determine extent of investment and employment from documents and interviews; -actual vs. best practice in BPC models. Trend: Record changes in investment and employment over time; Cross Tabulation: statistical analysis of two variables together, including # of submissions with investment amounts and employment figures. 2. To what extent the LEAD project was able to test and develop innovative approaches for capturing a greater proportion of the Diaspora remittances for development? Content pattern analysis; divergence/ convergence Review of processes/procedures for capturing remittances; Interviews with government officials; Interviews with financial institution managers; Interview and focus groups with Diaspora investors. Content Pattern: emergence of common themes/repeated ideas regarding different approaches to capturing remittances that support findings; Divergence/Convergence: Record and codify similarities and difference in interview and FGD responses. Divergences will prompt follow up for clarification/investigation. 3. What issues and gaps still need to be addressed by Content pattern analysis; divergence/ convergence Review of processes/procedures for capturing Content Pattern: emergence of common themes/repeated ideas 69 Data Analysis method for each evaluation question Evaluation Question Analysis to Be Performed Data to Be Analyzed Anticipated Output the project to mobilize Diaspora investment as sources of capital for SMEs? remittances; Interviews with government officials; Interviews with financial institution managers; Interview and focus groups with Diaspora investors. Documents on best practice for Diaspora engagement. regarding different sources of capital that support findings; Divergence/Convergence: Record and codify similarities and difference in interview and FGD responses. Divergences will prompt follow up for clarification/investigation. Comparison: look at actual vs. best practice in the area of Diaspora engagement. 4. To what extent has the Technical Assistance provided to the SMEs helped them improve their business operations? Comparison (before/after; planned/actual); divergence/ convergence Review of training materials and monitoring reports. Focus groups with trainees/SME participants. Interviews with trainers/business service providers. Comparison: Summary and tabulation of data both before and after training and planned outcomes vs. actual outcomes; Divergence/Convergence: Record and codify similarities and difference in interview and FGD responses. Divergences will prompt follow up for clarification/investigation. 70 ANNEX 4: LIST OF COMMUNITY PROJECTS AND BENEFICIARIES Name of Organization Corridor Type of Organization Investment purpose Amount requested from LEAD (USD) Matching funds Ratio International School of Leadership CAP￾HAITIEN CBO*4 School Rehabilitation 9,480 30,000 3.2 Collectif de lutte contre l'Exclusion Sociale (CCLES) CBO Purchase of a rice mill 10,000 37,000 3.7 Reseau des femmes actives pour le développement de trou du Nord (REFADET) CBO Purchase of equipment for transformation of agricultural products 10,000 50,000 5.0 Caritas Diocesaine de Fort-Liberté CBO Chicken farm reinforcement 10,000 40,000 4.0 Association des femmes entrepreneures Nord (FemEnNord) CBO Purchase of agricultural equipment to enhance operations 9,800 41,000 4.2 Atelier Soleil CBO Community Youth Theater 4,931 19,809 4.0 OJL 5 SAINT￾MARC Social Business Purchase of agricultural machines, construction of agricultural dryer 10,000 40,000 4.0 Vision Citadelle School Purchase of materials to build a water reservoir for the school 9,911 42,961 4.3 Organisation des Saint￾Marcois pour le Développement d'Haïti CBO Finish rehabilitation of a community school 10,000 40,251 4.0 Comité Développement commune Archaie (CODCOA) CBO Set up of a modern bee hives 10,000 30,000 3.0 Adrien Massa PORT-AU￾PRINCE School Construction of a water reservoir for a school 9,934 39,722 4.0 Haiti 155, Inc CBO Franchise of homemade ice cream with local fruit produce 10,000 266,100 26.6 TOTAL 114,056 676,843 5.9 71 ANNEX 5: LIST OF PERSONS AND INSTITUTIONS MET OR INTERVIEWED INSTITUTION PERSON CONTACTED TITLE/POSITION USAID ISAAC MICHEL Agreement Officer's Representative MARIE RENEE VERTUS Alternate Agreement Officers’ Representative LISA WALKER Deputy Office Chief for Economic Growth BEATRICE PIERRE Senior M& E Officer PADF NADIA CHERROUK Chief of Party CHANTALE PIERRE-LOUIS Deputy Chief of Party JEAN MICHEL LACOUR Grants Manager SOWMYA KRISHNAMOORTHY Senior Program officer F'TAMAR JEAN PIERRE BPC/SME relationship Manager DJEM'S ALEXIS Financial Officer RALPH CORIOLAN M&E Specialist IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS YUNUS SOCIAL BUSINESS PHILIPPE SAINT-CYR Country Director Economic Growth Initiative PATICK BRUN; ISABELLE CLERIE President; Executive Director SERVICE PROVIDERS SOFIHDES MICHAELLE LAMOTHE FORTUNE Director-SOFHITRAING CCPINE FRITZ JEAN President FAVACA DEMIAN PASQUARELLI Executive Director CLS LESLY JULES President PRO TOURISME BERTHIDE NOAILLES President JCF CONSEILS JACQUES BOUCHEREAU Co-Director INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT MICHEL LIAUTAUD INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT ROMEL ABELLARD INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS Fonkoze SMITH JOSEPH Business Analyst: Zafen, small growing business sector Fonds de Developpement Industriel LUBIN PIERRE CHARLES Director of Credit Department SOFiHDES KADY LOUIS CHARLES Director of Operations CAPITAL BANK/ MICROCREDIT NATIONAL & CAPITAL PME JULIO LAROSILIERE; DAPHNE ROSARION Director Micro Credit Department/ Director SME department 72 INSTITUTION PERSON CONTACTED TITLE/POSITION UNIBANK/MICRO CREDIT NATIONAL JOSEPH SIMILIEN Director Micro Credit Department SOGEBANK/SOGESOL EVANS BAPTISTE Director Commercial Operations￾Microcr4edi SMEs ACOD ELAN MONCHER Owner BOULANGERIE DE L'ENFANT JESUS CARL EDOUARD FREDA Co-owner CASTMI MANISE SINORIN Manager GLOBAL RECYCLING CYRILLE TURNIER Co-owner GLORY INDUSTRIES MYRTHA VILBON Owner HAIPLAST DUCKENCIA BOURDIERD Owner INGSA GERBY SAINT-FLEUR Owner KARIBU S.A NICOLAS NTAHIRAJA Owner Kreyol Essence YVE-CAR MOMPEROUSSE Owner LE JOURDAIN CARL JEAN-LOUIS Owner LES III ROIS PARNELL SAINT-PREUX Owner LES JUS DE MARMELADE S.A MARIE CLAUDE CALVIN Owner MADAM BELFWI KATLEEN JEANTY Owner MOULIN NAN NOTE Maryse Jean Louis Jumelle Owner Perfection Sewing Industries PATRICIA ELIAS Owner PISA ALINE ETLICHER R&D specialist SAPENSA STEVE MATHIEU Owner SIENNA ROGER LALLEMAND Owner SISALCO BERNARD BALMIR Owner SOGEPA YVES LAURENT Owner SURTAB DIDEROT MUSSET Manager SWITCH S.A MAXWELL MARCELIN Owner VEERHOUSE Voda BRENDON BREWSTER Owner X-QUIS Boulangerie JEAN BERNARD ETIENNE Owner DIMOCA S.A. ANDREW CLIFFFORD Owner LE PETIT LATANIER LYDJE LAHENS Owner Candle of Hope ANTOINE WESNER Owner CHARLES ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS. INC PAUL CHARLES Owner DE LA SOL ANNE JORDAN-REYNOLDS Owner 73 INSTITUTION PERSON CONTACTED TITLE/POSITION LE JARDIN S.A. VLADIMIR LALEAU; NATHALIE ETIENNE Co-owners INDUSTRIE HAUTE PRODUCTION MARKENSON ALTIDOR Owner SECURITE ENERGETIQUE ET SECURITE ALIMENTAIRE FABIENNE JOLIVERT Owner VISION EN SYNERGIE POUR UN EINITIATIVE ORGANISEE ET NATIONALE JUDE NOEL Owner NUANCE SHADES ELIZABETH DARNEL Owner CBO Vision Citadelle JOEL ARNOUX President OJL5 HOMER CHALCEUX Spokesperson Organisation des Saint￾Marcois pour le Développement d'Haïti SAINDELLE JEAN; SIMON LAINE; LUMENES VAL President; Treasurer; Vice president CADEC CANTAVE FORTUNE President Collectif de Lutte Contre l'Exclusion Social (CLES) ALBERT PIERRE PAUL JOSEPH Director Reseau des Femmes Actives pour le Développement Trou du Nord (REFADET) ELIZABETH PIERRE; ST-VIL VESLINE International School of Leadership LEFEVE EUNIDE Executive Director Diaspora organizations and key informants HRA FIRMIN BAKER President HHTARG KATLEEN FELIX President Kreyol Essence YVE-CAR MOMPEROUSSE SME owner Cogrès des Ingénieurs, Architects, Scientifiques, et Technicologues Haïtiens LUCKNER BAYAS President CHARLES INGINEERING SOLUTIONS. INC PAUL CHARLES SME owner DE LA SOL ANNE JORDAN-REYNOLDS SME owner GOH MHLA ROBERT LABROUSSE Minister CFI NORMA POWELL Director General 74 ANNEX 6: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Name Daniel Dorsainvil Title Team Leader Organization Cultural Practice LLC Evaluation Position? Team Leader Team member Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) AID-52 1-TO-15-00008 USAID Project(s) Evaluated (Include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) LEVERAGING EFFECTICE APPLICATION OF DIRECT INVESTMENT I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Yes No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I own shares (2.5%) in a company that unsuccessfully participated in the LEAD business plan competition (BPC) 75 I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Date January 11, 2016