Evaluation Framework Discussion 1. Progress (mid May 2009) a. Some discussion on outlay for a general evaluation framework b.

Most of our focus has been on utility beyond compliance1 (UBC) of poverty tools (especially PAT/PPI) c. Members have questions about methodology (how to use the tools correctly, including sampling, etc.), how PAT and PPI differ, what other purposes (beyond measuring poverty outreach) these tools can serve (and correct methodology to do so), what kind of trade-offs there are between accuracy and practical considerations (such as sample size), and what kind of results to expect (shared by those who have been using the PAT and PPI in the past). Some members are still thinking through what they would use these tools for. 2. Next steps for June 1 POWG meeting and beyond a. Poverty Measurement i. Identify uses for PAT/PPI (utility beyond compliance) 1. Measure poverty outreach (internal & external information needs, including SPM) 2. Measure progress out of poverty (also both internal and external information needs) 3. Targeting/screening new clients based on poverty criteria ii. Identify purposes of obtaining poverty data 1. Monitoring achievement of organizational objectives related to poverty 2. MIS aid management decisions to achieve poverty outreach and progress out of poverty 3. New product design 4. (SP) Reporting to external stakeholders (including donors, investors, ) 5. Learning about program effectiveness: targeting, client changes iii. Methodology Issues 1. What information is already available about methodology? What information/knowledge might already exist within the POWG and associated individuals (non-members) and how should we disseminate this knowledge? What information is not available or unknown to us? And how can we obtain this? 2. How do both tools (PPI/PAT) compare? How about other, similar poverty tools (absolute measure, good trade-off between practicality and accuracy) such as FCAT, FFH s food security tool ?

USAID s PAT and in some cases the PPI are used for compliance, i.e. reporting requirements to USAID as result of congressional mandate. The PAT is designed for that sole purpose, hence the expressed need for other uses of the tools. PPI and other poverty tools (FCAT, food security index ) are never used to report on poverty outreach as per congressional requirement.


3. What does the methodology of these tools does not allow us, but might allow us in the future, if tools are adapted or redesigned for that purpose? iv. Using and interpreting the data 1. Why do POWG members use or not use poverty tools? Is there a clear intent? 2. Now that we collected all these data, how can we make best use of them? a. MIS, program management b. New product design c. Improving targeting d. Learning about client changes and role of programs, products and services e. Triangulation with other client data? f. Other? v. Initiate collaboration with other poverty tool stakeholders (both users, promoters and developers of tools): IRIS, GF, USAID, SPTF (which is commissioning a consumer report on the poverty tools for SPM), and not-yetusers (Savings Led MF organizations, ED, VC, market facilitation) and working groups (SLWG, HAMED, SPWG), SIP (Divya, Tom Coleman). vi. Dialogue with tool developers is essential at this stage: 1. PAT: a. IRIS: Brian Beard (update on IRIS contract modification) b. USAID: Don Sillers 2. PPI a. Mark Schreiner b. Grameen Foundation: Malini Tolat (others? Nigel Biggar, Jeff T?) c. Microcredit Summit? 3. Others are active members of POWG: a. FCAT (FINCA) b. Food security survey (FFH) c. Other? b. Other dimensions of Evaluation Framework

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful