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

2. ©The Aspen Institute 2 MicroTest’s Mission To help microenterprise programs assess and improve performance

3. ©The Aspen Institute 3 MT Performance Framework  Reaching Target Groups  Who is the program actually serving?  Is the program fulfilling its outreach mission?  Achieving Program Scale  How many clients received credit and/or training related services?  What is the magnitude of program services delivered during the fiscal year?  What is the volume of lending activity?

4. ©The Aspen Institute 4 MT Performance Framework  Credit Program Effectiveness  What is the size of the portfolio?  What is the quality of the portfolio?  How does the level of risk in the portfolio influence portfolio quality?  Training Program Effectiveness  To what extent does the program succeed in assisting clients to achieve key training objectives?

5. ©The Aspen Institute 5 MT Performance Framework  Program Efficiency and Sustainability Measures  How efficiently does the program use internal resources?  What does it cost to deliver training and credit services?  How self-sufficient is the program?  How diversified is its funding?

6. ©The Aspen Institute 6 MT Outcomes Framework  Are clients starting businesses?  Are businesses surviving?  Are businesses providing income to clients?  Are businesses creating jobs?  Are clients moving off welfare, if they were on welfare?  Are clients’ households leaving poverty?  Do clients credit programs, in some part, for their outcomes?

7. ©The Aspen Institute 7 Characteristics of 2003 MicroTest Member Agencies Characteristics of 2003 MT Member Agencies MethodologyGeographic Setting Program Age Poverty Targeting 61 agencies reporting

8. ©The Aspen Institute 8 REACHING TARGET GROUPS

9. ©The Aspen Institute 9 Women and Minority Clients (as a % of all FY02 clients) N=61 MicroTest Average 40% Women, 60% Minorities, 53% 41% 42% 43% 44% 45% 46% 47% 48% 49% 50% 51% 52% 53% 54% 55% 56% 57% 58% 59% 60%

10. ©The Aspen Institute 10 Financially Disadvantaged Clients ( as a % of all FY02 clients) Averages for 48 programs 8% 28% 45% 65% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% TANF<100% HHS<150% HHS<80% AMI

11. ©The Aspen Institute 11 What is Top Performance in MicroTest? Top Performance : the highest level of achievement reached by 20% of MicroTest programs that reported against the performance measure. Note: The programs in this top performing group vary for each measure. Top performance is presented this way to provide benchmarks for practitioners interested in distinct areas of performance.

12. ©The Aspen Institute 12 Number of Clients> 447 Women Clients> 77% Minority Clients> 88% Clients ≤ 100% HHS at program intake > 48% Clients ≤ 150% HHS at intake> 69% Clients ≤ 80% HUD at intake> 89% Clients receiving TANF at intake> 11% Pre-Business Clients at intake> 70% Start-Up Businesses at intake> 40% On-Going Businesses at intake> 51% Top FY2002 Performance for Outreach

13. ©The Aspen Institute 13 ACHIEVING PROGRAM SCALE

14. ©The Aspen Institute 14 Program Scale Individuals Served in FY2002 by all MT agencies 61 MicroTest agencies reporting MeanMedianMin.Max.Sum Participants67943312246738,717 Clients3472508220921,175 Assisted Businesses2241598117213,684

15. ©The Aspen Institute 15 # of Biz Development Clients Served in FY2002, by Geographic Peer Groups Median BD Clients, 111 Median BD Clients, 232 Median BD Clients, 276 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Rural (n=14)Urban (n=28)State-wide (n=15)

16. ©The Aspen Institute 16 CREDIT PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS

17. ©The Aspen Institute 17 Credit Program Effectiveness Portfolio at Risk 54 MicroTest programs 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%60%65%70% Portfolio at Risk Rates # of MT Programs

18. ©The Aspen Institute 18 Credit Program Effectiveness Loan Loss 54 MicroTest programs 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0%4%8%12%16%20%24%28%32%36% Loan Loss Rate # of MT Programs

19. ©The Aspen Institute 19 TRAINING PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS

20. ©The Aspen Institute 20 Median Training Program Effectiveness Rates FY2002 Median, 82% Median, 80% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% Training Completion Rate (n=43) Biz Plan Completion Rate (n=39)

21. ©The Aspen Institute 21 PROGRAM EFFICIENCY & SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES

22. ©The Aspen Institute 22 Annual Program Costs for FY2002

23. ©The Aspen Institute 23 Credit Program Efficiency Operational Cost Rates in FY2002 51 MicroTest programs

24. ©The Aspen Institute 24 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Credit Led Training Led Rural Urban Dual Young Experienced Mature LIF LMI Median Operational Self- Sufficiency Top Performance Operational Self-Sufficiency MicroTest Peer Groups for FY2002

25. ©The Aspen Institute 25 Funding Diversification of Microenterprise Programs in MicroTest

26. ©The Aspen Institute 26 MICROTEST TREND GROUP DATA

27. ©The Aspen Institute 27 Trend Group Average Loan Sizes by Program Methodology $7,281 $6,594 Credit-Led, $5,317 $3,152 $2,853 Training-Led, $2,753 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 200020012002 Average Loan Size Trend data from 34 MicroTest agencies

28. ©The Aspen Institute 28 What feedback does MicroTest provide programs?  The MicroTest workbook contains immediate feedback as programs complete it  Each MT participant receives a custom report analyzing its trends and how its results compare to top performance, and to its peers.  Senior FIELD staff provide up to 1 hour of one- on-one consultation to each MT participant regarding how to interpret and use the data