Microenterprise programs can be found in a range of institutional settings – from single-purpose nonprofit organizations, to multi-purpose community-based organizations, to both regulated and unregulated Community Development Financial Institutions. To learn whether certain models for microenterprise development programs offer greater prospects for sustainability, program quality and client and/or community impact, between 2000 and 2002 FIELD worked with a group of organizations attempting to identify and expand the benefits of their particular approach.

Key Findings
By examining the strengths and weaknesses of various settings for microenterprise programs, FIELD was able to document and describe real differences among programs and offer some suggestions as to why that is the case. FIELD also documented the greatest challenges different instructional structures face when delivering services, and explored what it takes to succeed.

The key findings regarding institutional models, which are summarized in the publications from this cluster, are as follows:

• Human Service Organizations demonstrated the deepest outreach to low-income clients, with an average of 49 percent of their clients at or below 150 percent of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services standard. (This compared to an average of 29 percent for all programs and 31 percent for stand-alone training programs). They do this while maintaining a cost per client, on average, only a little more expensive than the larger pool of programs on which MicroTest data is gathered. These programs tend to be small, however, and do not appear to demonstrate any inherent interest in growth (although there are exceptional programs in this regard).
• CDCs demonstrate a real capacity to support local economic development and offer culturally appropriate services. Their targeting is somewhat less strong than Human Service Organizations: the median percent of clients at or below 150 percent of poverty for this group is 32 percent, but they match the larger pool of reporting programs in terms of clients at or below 80 percent of area medians (63 percent). CDC networks, serving a group of local CDCs, appear to have some potential for scale-up that individual CDCs can't manage (except in a few instances), and the data suggest that the cost structure of CDC networks may allow for increased scale with greater cost efficiency than other institutional structures may afford. (The Community Business Network of the Massachusetts Association of Community Development Corporations, had a cost per client of $877 compared to more than $2,000 for all programs.)
• Multi-service CDFIs (credit unions and loan funds with different lending lines) demonstrated high cost efficiency in their lending operations, spending almost one-fourth of what all MicroTest participants averaged in maintaining their microenterprise portfolios, and less than half the average amount spent by stand alone microloan funds. They also cover more of their operational costs than other programs (48 percent compared to 27 percent for all programs and 31 percent for microloan funds). They appear to control the risk in their microloan portfolios more effectively than other microenterprise organizations. Their targeting, however, is a little less strong than other types of organizations.

These findings are obviously preliminary and should be understood as an initial look with very limited data and a limited pool of organizations. A more nuanced look at the differences highlighted here can be found in the FIELD forums cited below.

FIELD also documented the greatest challenges different institutional structures face in delivering microenterprise development services, and found that those that succeed have strong executive leadership committed to microenterprise development, and that the program staff has:

• brought new resources into the institution,
• created visibility for the program within the organization, and
• worked explicitly on collaborating with other program services in their organizations.

FIELD also has documented how some organizations seek to compensate for "weaknesses" in their organizations by either adding program components or structures (becoming hybrid organizations) or by developing strategic partnerships with organizations that can provide services they cannot. Four publications from the cluster provide guidance to help institutions think more intentionally about how their structure supports or inhibits microenterprise program services, and how they can become more effective. They also offer some findings for donors to help them better assess the potential of specific organizations in terms of impact, scale and sustainability.

Publications
The publications from this grant cluster include:

FIELD forum Issue 12 - Ten grantees offer final thoughts on: Microenterprise Programs in Different Institutional Settings. This publication reports on the potential advantages and challenges of offering microenterprise development services through such organizational structures as Human Service Organizations, Community Development Corporation networks and Community Development Financial Institutions.

FIELD forum Issue 10 - Reflections On Operating Microenterprise Services From Within CDFIs. This publication takes a close look at Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) – and Community Development Credit Unions and enterprise-oriented loan funds in particular – as settings for microenterprise programs.

FIELD forum Issue 9 - A Close-Up Look at Microenterprise Programs in CDC Networks. This forum reports on conclusions drawn from a thorough examination of two Community Development Corporation (CDC) networks that offer microenterprise services.

FIELD forum Issue 8 - Microenterprise Programs in Human Service Organizations: Advantages and Challenges. The experiences of two community action agencies and two workforce development organizations are the focus of this forum, examining the advantages and challenges of operating microenterprise programs from within Human Service Organizations.

FIELD forum Issue 6 - Ten grantees expected to shed light on: Institutional Models for Microenterprise Development Programs. Written shortly after the grants were awarded in this learning cluster, this forum explains the rationale for conducting research on this topic and briefly describes the organizations that received grants.

Learning Cluster Members
The 10 organizations awarded grants as part of an attempt to learn more about which institutional settings offer the best environment for microenterprise development are described here.

Learning Evaluation
The learning evaluation for this cluster included both program monitoring and documentation, which are detailed here.