8/8/2019 19043 POWG Mid Year Meeting - Group Evaluation Framework

1/2

Evaluation Framework Discussion

1. Progress (mid May 2009)a. Some discussion on outlay for a general evaluation frameworkb. 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 beyonda. 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 externalinformation needs)

3. Targeting/screening new clients based on poverty criteriaii. Identify purposes of obtaining poverty data

1. Monitoring achievement of organizational objectives related to poverty2. MIS aid management decisions to achieve poverty outreach and

progress out of poverty

3. New product design4. (SP) Reporting to external stakeholders (including donors, investors, )5. Learning about program effectiveness: targeting, client changes

iii. Methodology Issues1. 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, similarpoverty tools (absolute measure, good trade-off between practicality

and accuracy) such as FCAT, FFHs food security tool?

1USAIDs 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.

8/8/2019 19043 POWG Mid Year Meeting - Group Evaluation Framework

2/2

3. What does the methodology of these tools does not allow us, but mightallow us in the future, if tools are adapted or redesigned for that

purpose?

iv. Using and interpreting the data1. 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 ofthem?

a. MIS, program managementb. New product designc. Improving targetingd. 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-yet-

users (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. PPIa. Mark Schreinerb. 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