Evaluation report of the housing guaranty program : 268-HG-002

In 1992, the scope of the project was expanded to include seven infrastructure projects for improvements of sewer, water, road, and electrical systems. The DL20 program succeeded in achieving its overall objectives of assisting low-income families to repair or reconstruct dwelling damaged by the war. A total of 9,465 loans were granted, benefitting over 13,000 families and some 65,000 people, more than half of them low-income. Moreover, the infrastructure projects, which proved of great importance to the public at large, are located in urban residential areas in which over half of the households are low-income families. However, the program failed to provide funds to all occupants of the 60,000 dwellings intended to be repaired, due to shortage of funds and continued hostility in the country, which did not end until 11/90. The GOL indicated intentions to allocate funds from various non-USAID sources in order to complete the program. General findings are as follows. (1) Application procedures were simplified to increase access for borrowers, and loan repayment conditions were favorable; quarterly repayments of the loan plus payments for shelter do not exceed 25% of family income. (2) The establishment of regional and subregional offices increased the accessibility of the loans to the population at large and accelerated the lending process. (3) GOL management and accounting systems used for the DL20 program were sound and generally followed acceptable accounting practices; however, due to staff shortage, the loan repayments records were not current. (4) There was confusion about the exchange rates to be used for infrastructure expenditures and hence disagreement about the total U.S. dollar amount of loan disbursement. The GOL used exchange rates current at the time the construction contracts were issued, while USAID had stipulated that the exchange rate prevailing at the date of work completion be used. (5) The maximum loan amount was not always sufficient to meet the requirements of individual borrowers, nor was total program funding adequate to meet national needs. (6) The program would have benefitted by receiving TA to improve purchases of information technology, train staff, and manage the project more efficiently. (7) Both USAID and the grantee would have benefitted if program managers submitted periodic and annual reports detailing the program's goals, activities, accomplishments, problems, and plans for the future. (8) An interim program evaluation would have been useful to monitor the progress of the program as specified in the implementation agreement.