Rating and social performance
assessment of MFIs
4th Azerbaijan Micro-finance Conference
Baku – 16, 17 September 2008
Aldo Moauro – MicroFinanza Rating
Session outline
 Institutional profile of MicroFinanza Rating
 Introduction to social rating
 MicroFinanza Rating’s Social Rating and methodology
 Areas of analysis
 Scale and global results
 Lessons learned
2
Institutional profile of
MicroFinanza Rating
MicroFinanza Rating
 Private and independent rating agency specializing in microfinance and rural
finance
 Rating agency registered in the EU/CGAP/IADB Rating and Assessment Fund
and the first specialized rating agency licensed by a national regulatory
authority (Superintendence of Banks and Insurance of Ecuador)
 Currently working in Latin America, Africa, Asia, Central Asia, Russia and the
Caucasus, Eastern Europe and the Balkans and the MENA region.
 Rating of different types of MFIs: Microfinance NGOs, non-bank financial
institutions, savings and credit cooperatives (also multi-tier cooperative systems),
microfinance banks, banks, Apex institutions
 Offices in Europe (Italy), Latin America (Ecuador and Nicaragua), NIS countries
(Kyrgyzstan), Africa (Nairobi)
 Decentralization strategy (1 more office in 2008)
4
Our offices
MILAN
Bishkek
Managua
Quito
Nairobi
5
Recent drivers
 More than 270 evaluations in 45 countries
 Among our clients there are MFIs belonging to the major international networks
such as: Finca, World Vision, Save the Children, Opportunity International, Mercy
Corps, CRS, ACDI/VOCA, Aga Khan Development Network, ACCION, CARE, GRET
 A large number of investors use
our reports (Blue Orchard,
Deutsche
Bank,
Microvest,
Triodos, Oikocredit, KfW, etc.)
and require specific services
 First specialised rating agency
recognized by a national
regulatory
authority
(Superintendency of Banks and
Insurance in Ecuador) and
licensed to carry out credit
ratings
Number of ratings/assessments MicroFinanza Rating
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
Forecast
6
Our vision: progressive transparency
THE CONTEXT
OUR APPROACH
 Different MFIs (development
stage, institutional typologies,
etc.)
 Transparency graduation path
(accompanying and coaching
MFIs up to the rating through
different products)
 Products diversification to
meet the needs of different
stakeholders
 Different needs from different
stakeholders (donors, social
and commercial investors,
regulators)
7
Products diversification
ASSESSMENTS AND PRERATING SERVICES
SERVICES FOR INVESTORS
Institutional diagnosis
Customized services
Mini-assessment
Monitoring of MFIs
MICROFINANCE RATING
Investment advisory report
CREDIT RATING
Public and private rating
Updates and monitoring
Opinion on the general creditworthiness of
an entity
SOCIAL PERFORMANCE
RATING (SPR)
TRAINING
With survey and without survey
Rating and assessment methodologies
8
Introduction to social rating
Social performance and its
measurement
The effective translation of an organization's mission into practice and
the achievement of its social goals
The social goals the mission relate to:
Reaching target clients (poorer and excluded)
Meeting client needs and demands
Improving the lives of clients and their families
Social performance is not just about measuring short and long term
results that an MFI achieves, but also concerns the processes of the
MFI, the activities it undertakes, the products it offers and the
organizational values and behavior it promotes
not only results but also the process to achieve these results
10
What to measure?
Performance is not incidental
– Need to define desired
performance
– Need to measure against
desired performance
– What is explicitly defined and
measured is what is managed
Mission
Social
Performance
Financial
Performance
Performance Management
11
Social Performance Management
….…is the instutionalisation process of translating a mission into
practice and includes:
setting clear social objectives
tracking social performance
utilizing this information to improve the practice and
performance of an MFI in relation to its social objectives.
putting in place systems (products design, credit policies
and procedures, HR policy and management, customer
services, etc) aligned with social mission
promote values and correct behaviour towards staff, clients,
community and environment
12
Social performance rating
Provides an opinion on the capacity of an MFI to put its social mission
into practice and to achieve its social goals.
It is based on an analysis of the MFI social performance management
system and an evaluation of its results (output)
External and independent
Quantitative and qualitative
Objective
Comparable
Stand-alone or coupled with financial rating
13
Logical framework
“Put its mission into practice”
Social Performance Management
Mission and Objectives
Intent
Outreach
Systems
Output
Process and Input
Output
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
I
M
P
A
C
T
Services
Social responsibility – towards clients,
staff
Social Rating
community, environment,
Impact Study
14
Social rating vs. impact study
 An impact study measures the change in the living conditions of
one population due to the action of an MFI.
 Social rating does not measure impact; rather, it analyzes the
objectives, systems and results of the MFI, before the impact that
these may have on clients.
 Social Rating and impact studies are complementary tools,
meaning one does not substitute the other, but they respond to
different needs.
15
Social Performance Task Force (SPTF)
 Created in March 2005, promoted by CGAP, Argidius F., Ford F.
 Objective: Clearly defining social performance and addressing questions about measuring
and managing social performance.
 Leaders from various social performance initiatives in the microfinance industry: SEEP
Network, Imp-Act Consortium, CERISE, etc Task force members are: MFIs, social
investors, donors, specialized rating agencies
 Agreement on a common social performance framework and to develop an action plan to
move social performance forward. Two working groups were formed as a result of this
meeting: a Social Performance Task Force (“SP Task Force”) and a CGAP Donor
Working Group on Social Performance.
 The SP Task Force is working to better communicate with the industry what is meant by
social performance and address the diverse range of questions relating to social
performance measurement and management.
Social Rating – Objectives/benefits
 To establish social performance as equally important as financial sustainability in
microfinance
 To increase transparency in the microfinance field
 To contribute to generalizing the adoption of social performance criteria in
managing microfinance institutions
 To provide a clear picture of MFI social performance to the board, management
and staff of microfinance institutions
 To provide potential donors and investors with the most appropriate tools and
information for making resource allocation decisions
 To compare social performance across MFIs
17
MicroFinanza Rating’s Social Rating and
methodology
MicroFinanza Rating’s Proposal/Approach
Two Modalities of
Social Rating
Source of Information
Output (outreach and
quality of services)
Simple Social
Enhanced Social Rating
Rating (without
(with client survey – ESR)
client survey – SR)
Data and information available
at institutional level
Direct investigation at the clients’ level:
-submission of a questionnaire
(representative sample of recent clients)
- focus groups
Deeper analysis:
Outreach: proxies (loan size, % Outreach: complete socio-economic
profile (and poverty profile)
rural, % women, etc.)
Service Quality: proxies (no. off Service quality: direct feedback about
products/drop-out ratio)
clients satisfaction/dissatisfaction
 Why two modalities?
 Customised approach
different stakeholders
 To better answer to the questions:
- WHO are your (MFI) clients?
- Are you really meeting their needs?
different needs
19
Direct collection of client level data
1. Outreach is crucial, but the information collected by MFIs is
rarely sufficient to provide a complete picture of clients,
2. The validity of proxies (loan size) has not been proved
3. The standardization of outreach indicators is not yet achieved,
entailing limited comparability of data collected by MFI
The direct collection of client data is justified
– in an historical perspective: initial phase of development
– by pragmatic considerations: advantages in terms of
promotion of standards and creation of comparable indicators
– as a learning process for the MFIs, transmission of tools
20
Added values of the ESR
Enhanced Social Rating (ESR):
 Permits increased transparency in microfinance
 Permits increased comparability (Generate a database of comparable information to build
benchmarks)
 Permits reporting on the core social performance indicators (MIX)
 Represents an important step towards the establishment of an effective social
performance monitoring and tracking system (Direct transmission of tools to the
MFI)
 Provides baseline-data for impact studies on clients that may be conducted in future
 Can represent the basis for a study on the actual validity of proxies as estimates for
client poverty
21
Methodology: Areas of analysis
AREA
SUBAREA
Social Mission, Objectives and Strategy
SPM SYSTEM
SP tracking and monitoring systems
Consistency of the systems to the mission
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
SR towards the clients
SR towards the staff
SR towards the community and the environment
OUTREACH
Operational areas
Target reached
Variety of the service
QUALITY OF THE SERVICE
Appropriateness to clients’ needs and attention to
clients satisfaction
Non-financial Services
22
Methodology: source of information
 Interviews with the staff of the MFI (HQs and branches) and with
members of the BoD
 Documents available at MFI level (Business plans, manuals,
code of conduct, etc.)
 MIS
 Secondary sources: statistical studies, census and other relevant
national and international surveys
 Focus groups with clients: to assess service quality
• Intra-group homogeneity and inter-group heterogeneity
• Different sets of FG: urban/rural; group/individual loan, by products
 Survey of clients: to assess outreach, quality and SR
• Population of interest: recent active clients
• Approach – separate external team &/or MFI field staff
23
Main contents of the survey of clients
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Household members/activities (occupation, age, education)
Type of enterprises financed with micro-credit
PPI and/or income/consumption
Assets property and living condition
Access to financial service (financial exclusion)
Access to basic services
Awareness (cost and conditions of products)
Clients satisfaction
24
Poverty scorecard – PPI (1)
•
•
•
•
Specific tool for each country
Generally effective in both urban and rural context
Estimates the poverty profile of clients
Allows monitoring the poverty dynamic of clients
• Easy to collect, verifiable, non financial. Example:
– Household size
– Number of children attending school
– House characteristics
– Household assets
• Derived from a national household survey
25
26
Poverty scorecard – PPI (2)
1.
Poverty assessment tools, USAID, available for the following
countries: Albania, Bangladesh, Colombia, Ghana, Guatemala,
Haiti, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Madagascar,
Mexico, Peru, Philippines, Tajikistan, Uganda, Vietnam http://www.povertytools.org/USAID_Tools/USAID_Tools.htm
2.
Progress Out of poverty index, available for the following
countries : Bangladesh, Malawi, Bolivia, Nigeria, Haiti, Nepal,
India, South Africa, Mexico, El Salvador, Morocco, Palestine,
Pakistan, Nicaragua, Philippines, Kenya, Vietnam, Guatemala,
Mali http://www.microfinance.com/#Poverty_Scoring
27
ENHANCED SOCIAL RATING PROCESS
Adapt questionnaire
A
Contact
C
T
I
Train interviewers
Identify focus groups & branch
Preliminary
Proposal
Contract
V
I
Draft report
Set agenda
Set survey:
-counterpart
-interviewers
-sampling
-design questionaire
Supervise survey
Meetings
Branch & focus groups
I
S
Final meeting
CONTRACT
PRELIMINARY
30 days
MISSION
L
S
REPORTING
10 days
60 days
Submission of
questionnaires
O
Final report
Review survey output
& set data entry
E
O
Consider
feedbacks
on results &
social rating
Docs & data
T
T
Analyze notes,
data and docs
Data
entry
Contract
E-mail
Questionnaire
Report template
Proposal
Preliminary word, xls
Material for enterviewers’ training
Social data analysis tool
Sampling tools
Checklist
Survey data analysis tool
Material for focus group
Benchmark
Data entry template
Country sources database
Scoring and scale
Areas of analysis
DIMENSION
SUBDIMENSION SUMMARY OF ISSUES
INDICATORS
Clarity of the Mission (explicit expression of the main social goals)
Staff awareness and adherence of/to the mission (channel to disseminate it)
Mission, social
objectives and Balanced (social/financial) and supportive governance
Identification of SMART(Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time
strategy
Based) social objectives, their inclusion in the strategic plan and translation
in measurable targets
Appropriateness of the MIS to monitor social performance advancements and
achievement of social goals
MIS and SP
tracking
SPM SYSTEM system
Effective tracking and monitoring of social goals (socio-economic profile,
clients satisfaction/changes in living conditions):
 Use of poverty assessment tool(PPI, IRIS, other)
 Measurement and monitoring of drop-out and investigation of reasons
Appropriateness of the reporting system to inform governance and
management decisions related to social performance
Consistency of products characteristics and credit policies/procedures
with the mission
Systems’
adequacy to
the mission
Consistency of personnel policies with the mission (staff incentive, hiring,
training, staff evaluation, etc)
Targeting strategies and use of targeting tools: operational area/ niche of
client/pro-poor methodology
Market research/systems to investigate client satisfaction/Product
development
30
Basis for the analysis of a SPM system:
necessary steps in SPM
• Necessity to intentionally manage social performance to be
effectively able to put the mission into practice:
 Set a clear mission with explicit social goals
 Identify smart social goals and include them in strategic planning
 Put in place a strategy to achieve them (including setting
measurable targets for each social goal)
 Tracking and monitoring the achievement of social targets and
using results to improve social mission
 Put in place systems (policy/procedure/staff management) to be
able to achieve them
31
Basis for the analysis of a SPM system: Social
Mission Statement (clarity and diffusion)
 The existence of an unique official mission statement is strongly
recommended to ensure mission implementation and diffusion
 Mission has to be clear
 Social mission has to be an explicit expression of the main social
goals. It should clearly indicate the desired performance:
 SG1: Who: outreach (priority target to be reached)
 SG2: How: service offered
 SG3: Why: desired impact/purpose
 Has to reflect the actual prioritized target
 Social Mission should be communicated clearly and consistently
reinforced down the hierarchical ladder
MFIs with an explicit and clear mission statement will tend to be more
effective in fulfilling their social mission.
32
Good Example: “best practices”: Alsol
(Mexico)
MISSION STATEMENT:
“To work for poverty reduction in rural and semi-urban areas, providing financial
services to low income women with quality, responsibility, professionalism and
respect, as well as to support them with training trough specialised institutions”
The mission statement makes explicit reference to the three main recognised
social goals and seem to fully reflect the target clientele prioritised by directors and
managers. The identified target is quite narrow and specific. The importance
attached to the offering of non-financial social services is also clearly expressed
in the mission statement.
33
Good Example: “best practices”: Finca
Peru
ADHERENCE TO SOCIAL MISSION OF MANAGEMENT AND STAFF
• Social Mission is clearly communicated and consistently reinforced
• Existence of systematic channel to disperse the mission within the
organisation and to new staff
• The charismatic CEO, Mrs Iris Lanao Flores, keeps the management
team motivated and committed to the social added value of Finca
operations.
• Mission declaration and the values promoted by Finca are
systematically mentioned in official documents, a part of which is
circulated among staff and clients.
• Frequent staff meetings at branch level are taken as opportunities to
refresh the mission and to reinforce its central role in daily operations
34
Good Example: “best practices”: FDL
(Nicaragua)
STRATEGY
Social objectives are formalized in the strategic plan:
• Increase the portfolio dedicated to small agricultural and livestock entrepreneurs
• Increase the outreach to lower income microentrepreneurs (group loan methodology)
• Improve offer of non-financial services (through alliances with nfs providers)
• Increase the retention of good clients (reducing drop-out ratio)
Quite good quantification of social goals into measurable targets
• 60% of the outstanding portfolio dedicated to agricultural and livestock businesses;
• Increase the % of group lending (fixing targets in terms of number of groups for branches)
and adaptation of this methodology in two additional branches, Tipitapa and Estelì;
• Consolidate the development and investment portfolio (long term loans for fixed capital)
for the agricultural and livestock sector, increasing it from 17% to 20% of the total portfolio;
• Reduce the drop-out rate from 21.7% to 18%;
35
Dimensions of analysis:
SPM SYSTEM (MISSION, STRATEGY AND SYSTEMS)
1. SOCIAL MISSION, SOCIAL OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGY
Very supportive governance structure
Strong adherence to social mission of management and senior staff
Lack of systematic channel to disperse the mission within new staff
Social objectives are formalized in the strategic plan:
- Increase the portfolio dedicated to small agricultural and livestock entrepreneurs
- Increase the outreach to lower income microentrepreneurs (group loan methodology)
- Improve offer of non-financial services (through alliances with nfs providers)
- Increase the retention of good clients (reducing drop-out ratio)
Improvable quantification of social goals into measurable targets
36
Dimensions of analysis:
SPM SYSTEM (MISSION, STRATEGY AND SYSTEMS)
2. MIS AND SP TRACKING SYSTEM
 The assessment and monitoring of performance towards social
objectives is quite satisfactory (tracking of clients profile and
changes)
 Tracking drop-out ratio but no systematic investigation of
reasons for drop-out
3. SYSTEMS’ ADEQUACY TO THE MISSION
 Systems for facilitating the access to FDL’s services to poor
households (group lending/soft guarantee)
 Strong consistency of systems and practices to social mission
(adequate bonus system, staff performance evaluation, conduction
of satisfaction survey)
37
DIMENSION
SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
(SR)
SUBDIMENSION
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
INDICATORS
Towards staff
Existence of a formal code of conduct governing actions towards
employees
% women at management and staff level
Staff satisfaction and labor climate (Staff turn-over, etc)
Salaries in line with the levels of the financial sector
Effectiveness, fairness and transparency of the incentive system
Career and training opportunities
Security level of labor conditions
Conduction of staff satisfaction surveys and relative results
Towards clients
Existence of a formal code of conduct governing actions towards clients
(customer protection code)
Strategic approach to women empowerment
 Measures to face risk of over-indebtedness
Element of Customer Protection:
Pro-active mechanisms for obtaining client complaints and
responding to them (grievance mechanisms)
Use of communication methods appropriate to clients capacity and
financial awareness
Transparency of products and methodologies
•Clear communication of products’ conditions (oral and written)
•Clients’ awareness of the products’ offer and conditions
•Clients awareness of the effective interest rate
Towards community
and environment
Values promoted in the community
Community investment (% of operating revenue)
Existence and effective implementation of an environmental policy
Environment as a field of interest for the future development
Activities whose financing is prohibited (negative impact on environment38
or
community)
Dimensions of analysis:
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Toward Staff:
Quite high staff turnover in particular for
administrative staff (no bonus system for them)
Existence of an ethical code of conduct
Good labor climate reflecting adequate human
resources policies
Transparent incentive scheme
Non-monetary benefits (scholarship; internal
credits)
Conduction of personnel satisfaction and labor climate survey
Training and other actions to foster gender equality among staff
 Lack of a person dedicated to the training function, a need to be
strengthened; Lack of career plans for staff
 The base salary level is slightly lower than that offered by the regulated
financial sector
39
Dimensions of analysis:
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Toward Clients:
 strategy to address gender barriers and to promote women empowerment
(group loans/training to staff about gender issues)
 FDL does not charge clients with high costs (real portfolio yield 19%)
 Problem of over-indebtedness to be better monitored and managed
 Improvable client protection measures:
 the complex structure of the cost of loans and the lack of complete written documents given to
clients are among the main reasons limiting the overall transparency
- Existence of formal grievance channels (suggestion box; product development department
receiving clients coming to HQ), but not adequately advertised
 Foreign exchange risk born by clients
Toward Community and Environment:
 No formalized written formal policy but…
 Environment as an explicit field of interest (not financing agricultural activity
in area bordering the forest)
 Actions for preserving environment (green package product)
40
Example of indicators
41
DIMENSION
SUBDIMENSION SUMMARY OF ISSUES
INDICATORS
Coverage of the national territory
Operational
areas
Operational Area:
 rural/ urban;
 not served by formal financial intermediaries;
 affected by adverse climatic events
 socio-economic position respect to the national average (in terms of
HDI, MDG; unemployment rate, etc.)
 Breadth of outreach (active clients, gross loan/saving portfolio, growth)
 Social Vulnerability profile of clients and its household members (gender,
ethnical affiliation, occupation, education, no. of different sources of income,
etc.)
OUTREACH
Target reached
(breadth and
depth of
outreach)
Financed activities and employment support (sector, no. employees, etc)
Economic Poverty Profile (PPI)
 Access to basic services (water, sewage system, electricity, health serv.)
 Access to financial services/Financial Exclusion
 Assets ownership (house, land, other relevant in the context)
Loan size analysis
Dimensions of analysis:
OUTREACH - MIS
43
Dimensions of analysis:
OUTREACH - Survey: poverty rate
• To be compared with national average
44
OUTREACH - Survey: Property of Asset/Social
Poverty/access to financial services
45
Example of indicators
46
Example of indicators (2)
47
DIMENSION
SUBDIMENSION
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
INDICATORS
 Number and kind of credit products
Variety
 Supply of other financial services
 Supply of non-financial services
 Flexibility
 Appropriateness of the supply of services to the clients needs
QUALITY OF THE
SERVICE
Appropriateness
and client
satisfaction
 Client Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction .. Its perception respect to:
Service Delivery
Cost
Guarantee
Amount
Term
Repayment frequency
Customer care (relation with personnel)
Time to disburse a loan
Simplicity of documentations and procedures to get a credit
 Drop-out rate and its reasons
Non –financial
services
-Variety
-Quality
48
Dimensions of analysis:
QUALITY of the SERVICE
Example from FDL- Nicaragua case:
 Large variety of credit products
 Flexibility of loans conditions
Offer of non-financial services
Constant effort for innovation
Cost quite low
BUT
Saving and insurance not available
Long time for disbursement
No tools to assess the quality of non-financial services
49
Example of indicators
50
Scale and global analysis
Rating scale and outreach
•
Outreach: to be included in the
grade or described?
– described:
1. reaching development goals is not
necessarily a direct function of
depth of outreach (impact of
financing SME on the employment
of the poorest)
2. stakeholders can have different
priorities in terms of outreach
(women, refugees, ethnic
minorities; micro; SME)
– evaluated:
1. Coherence with the mission (actual
outreach vs. intended outreach)
AREA
WEIGHT
SPM SYSTEM
30%
SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
20%
OUTREACH
25%
QUALITY OF THE
SERVICE
25%
52
Synthesis of
the results
53
Rating grade
Definition
AAA
Excellent capacity to effectively translate its mission into practice and to
promote social values. Very high likelihood to achieve social goals.
AA
Very good capacity to effectively translate its mission into practice and to
promote social values. Very high likelihood to achieve social goals.
A
Good capacity to effectively translate its mission into practice and to promote
social values. Very high likelihood to achieve social goals.
BBB
Fairly good capacity to effectively translate its mission into practice and to
promote social values. High likelihood to achieve social goals.
BB
Adequate capacity to effectively translate its mission into practice and to
promote social values. High likelihood to achieve social goals.
B
Fairly adequate capacity to effectively translate its mission into practice and to
promote social values. Reasonable likelihood to achieve social goals.
C
Moderate capacity to effectively translate its mission into practice and to
promote social values. Reasonable likelihood to achieve social goals.
D
Inadequate capacity to effectively translate its mission into practice and to
promote social values. Low likelihood to achieve social goals.
The rating grade can be corrected with a + or – sign, which implies a slight positive or negative variation respect to the main grade.
54
Detailed judgment by area
Social performance
Social Performance Management system
Mission and strategy
Tracking and monitoring systems
Systems consistency to the mission
Social Responsibility
Social responsibility towards personnel
Social responsibility towards clients
Social responsibility towards community and environment
Outreach
Alignment of outreach depth to the mission
Breadth of outreach
Quality of the services
Variety of services
Appropriateness to clients' needs
Non financial services
Adequate
Adequate
Improvable
Improvable
Adequate
Adequate
Improvable
Good
Improvable
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
64%
51%
56%
73%
79%
55
Outreach description
Clients below poverty line
Clients w ithout previous
access to credit
Rural area, (no. clients)
74%
34%
37%
Households w ithout
improved sanitation
89%
58%Female clients
43%
Households w ithout
improved w ater
32%
Clients w ithout primary
education
56
Feedback from MFIs and Lessons learned
Social Rating Projects: our experiences so far
 3 simple social ratings (Latin America and ECA)
 5 enhanced social ratings in Latin America (Nicaragua, Mexico,
Perù, Chile) supported by Ford Foundation
 3 enhanced social ratings in Latin America (Ecuador and Perù)
supported by Oikocredit
 Additional 4 enhanced social ratings (Latin America, Eastern
Europe, Africa)
 Several social ratings already planned for 2008 (with various actors
including Oikocredit, Aga Khan Agency for Microfinance, social
investors/MFIs/donors) in Latin America and Central Asia
 New project: 6 social ratings supported by CordAid on 3 continents
 Rated MFIs include Banco Solidario Ecuador, FIE Bolivia, FDL
Nicaragua
58
Lessons learned
 Strong interest in social rating, resulting from the willingness to:





Improve the SPM and achieve social objectives
Align with social stakeholders’ expectations
Basis for a revision of mission statement
Basis for rethinking strategies
Enrichment of tools available at institution level to track poverty profile of clients
(Strong interest in PPI tool, frequently unknown)
 MFI involvement and willingness to participate is crucial
 Need to grow MFI awareness about what is a social performance
assessment and its conceptual framework. Learning about social
performance is a process:
 Distinction between social impact and performance not clear
 Areas of assessment of social rating not yet internalized
 Confusion among tools available
59
Lessons learned (2)
 Existence of synergies between SPA and technical assistance to
strengthen the SPMS
 Weakness of loan size proxy to estimate poverty
necessity to
develop tools to measure and monitor the poverty level of clients
 Outreach indicators to be adapted to the type of target served (i.e.
physical versus juridical persons)
 We can go toward standards and comparable indicators ….but
long way
60
Thank you!!!
MF Rating HQ
Corso Sempione, 65 20149 Milan – Italy Tel: +39-02-3656.5019 Fax: +39-02-3656.5018
MF Rating South America
Calle Pasaje El Jardín #152 y Avenida 6 de Diciembre, Quito – Ecuador Tel.: +593-2-2248.114
MF Rating Central America
Costado Nor-oeste Parque El Dorado Casa 116. Residencial El Dorado, Managua – Nicaragua
Tel.: +505-2480.858
MF Rating Central Asia, the Caucasus and Russia
231, Tynystanova Str., apt. 14 720011, Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic Tel: +996-312 68 2997
MF Rating Africa
c/o Prima Apartments, Gichugu Road, Kileleshwa, Nairobi - Kenya
Tel: +254 (0)20 300 6423; Mob: +254 (0)737 43 9297
Antenna in Brussels
Rue de la Victoire 101, Brusseles - Belgium Tel.: +32-2-539.2422
www.microfinanzarating.com info@microfinanzarating.com
61