Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Group
The following learning agenda is based on input by members who attended the
POWG annual meeting at SEEP AC 2008 and other POWG members who could not
attend but are interested in playing an active role within the POWG. See Annex 1 for
list of POWG members who provided input for the 2009 learning agenda.
A growing number of POWG member organizations are starting to use these poverty
measurement tools and are beginning to learn the extent of their programs poverty
outreach and the efficiency of their targeting methods. Some members are also
interested in applying these poverty tools to learn better how products and services
meet the needs of very poor clients vs. moderately poor clients, how clients of
different poverty levels might perform differently (in terms of loan repayment, drop-
out, etc.). Some organizations have also started to use these poverty tools is to
monitor progress out of poverty over time by microfinance clients or participants in
other programs.
Learning Objectives
The POWG wants to learn how to better reach very poor people and provide them
with cost-effective, replicable microfinance and/or enterprise development services
to help them take sustainable steps out of poverty. The first two learning objectives
are planned for 2009, but must be seen in a longer timeframe as they are the first
steps to prepare for an eventual practitioner learning program in 2010-11,
expanding on already existing pilot programs initiated by POWG members.
Challenge: The recent development of cost-effective poverty tools (PAT and PPI)
that measure poverty of households tied to a national or international absolute
poverty line has enabled POWG members and others to measure their poverty
outreach in a standardized way and compare results among different geographic
locations and approaches as well as over time. This is a great improvement,
because until recently most organizations or programs targeting very poor
households did not have the means to demonstrate how poor their clients were in
absolute terms.
However, the simplicity of these poverty measurement tools tends to oversimplify
the phenomenon they measure, i.e. extreme poverty. Most agree that extreme
poverty is more complex than or even unrelated to having an income below
$1.25/day (2005, at purchasing power parity), but currently there exists no
“conceptual” definition of extreme poverty. For the POWG to move forward with a
joint learning agenda, we need to define for ourselves (and make recommendations
to other SEEP Network and the global MED field) what we understand by extreme
poverty and very poor households and how it can be operationalized (observed,
measured, conceptualized in a theory of change) by practitioners, reporting
agencies (MIX, for example), donors, social investors and researchers.
There is also confusion among practitioners about correct applications of the PAT
and PPI. How do they differ from each other? Can they be used for anything else
than measuring the proportion of people living below and above a certain poverty
line? Under what conditions can these tools be used to measure progress out of
poverty? In general, what are the possible uses of these tools and how can those
implemented correctly?
Learning Activities:
2) (January – June, 2009) Another task force will investigate what type of
poverty measurement tools are available to practitioners, for what purposes
they can be used, and –importantly- how they are to be used correctly. Both
IRIS and Grameen Foundation will play an active role, given their expertise
with absolute poverty measurement tools.
Challenge:
Various approaches to provide very poor people with useful (demanded) financial
products and enterprise development services have been suggested or have
already been piloted by SEEP members and others. Some examples include
graduation programs (turning very poor people into viable MF clients), integrated
service models, use of existing microcredit delivery infrastructure to provide
essential non-financial services related to health and education (microfinance plus),
promotion of self-managed savings and loan groups, etc. The POWG (along with
donors, practitioners, investors and other stakeholders) wants to be able to
compare these different approaches according to relevant dimensions such as cost,
outreach and social benefits.
Learning Activities: (May – November, 2009) The POWG will develop a common
framework to assess costs and benefits of various approaches that employ MED to
assist very poor people. This framework will borrow from existing cost-benefits
frameworks, other social performance measurement methods, and Mark Schreiner’s
Aspects of Outreach, among others. Within this framework different categories (e.g.
depth of poverty outreach - initial poverty, sustainability (cost) and scalability, client
benefits and outcomes - movement out of poverty) will be identified to classify
various approaches employed by POWG member organizations and others. Existing
approaches will be mapped according to these categories. The initial assessment
framework will be further discussed at a one-day POWG work meeting on Tuesday
before SEEP AC, and POGW members will identify a joint set of measurables to
accompany the various framework aspects (assessment dimensions). The finalized
framework will be used as a common framework to compare different approaches
within an anticipated practitioner learning program (2009-2010), which will
encompass already existing research initiatives (by members such as GF-USA,
Unitus, Trickle Up, Oxfam America, and others). The common framework will also be
presented in a SEEP AC workshop.
Pathways out of extreme poverty: integrating MED and social services to move
people permanently out of extreme poverty
One suggested area of emphasis is to learn more about sequencing financial as well
as non-financial services (and cost-effective ways to deliver the right services at the
right time, through partnerships, MF plus approaches, etc.) as very poor people
embark on a pathway out of poverty. This dialogue also needs to engage members
of enterprise development field (through SEEP’s VALUE initiative for instance),
sustainable livelihoods development (Livelihoods Network), and the growing
movement of “savings-led” (self-managed savings and credit groups) financial
service promoters. Potential learning products need to be further defined during
2009, and could include market research targeting very poor clients,
graduation/sequencing how-to guide, donor guidelines, smart subsidies and
innovative financing mechanisms.
POWG members who provided input to learning agenda and work plan: