c



 


O V Progress (mid May 2009)

a V
ome discussion on outlay for a general evaluation framework
b V Most of our focus has been on utility beyond complianceO (UBC) of poverty tools
(especially PAT/PPI)
c V 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)
ome members are still thinking through what they would use
these tools for
2 V ext steps for June O POWG meeting and beyond
a V Poverty Measurement
i V Identify uses for PAT/PPI (utility beyond compliance)
O V Measure poverty outreach (internal & external information needs,
including
PM)
2 V Measure progress out of poverty (also both internal and external
information needs)
3 V Targeting/screening new clients based on poverty criteria
ii V Identify purposes of obtaining poverty data
O V Monitoring achievement of organizational objectives related to poverty
2 V MI
ʹ aid management decisions to achieve poverty outreach and
progress out of poverty
3 V ew product design
4 V (
P) Reporting to external stakeholders (including donors, investors, ͙)
5 V earning about program effectiveness: targeting, client changes
iii V Methodology Issues
O V 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 V ow do both tools (PPI/PAT) compare? ow about other, similar
poverty tools (absolute measure, good trade-off between practicality
and accuracy) such as FCAT, FFs food security tool͙?

O
U
AIDs PAT and in some cases the PPI are used for compliance, i e reporting requirements to U
AID 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 index͙) are never used to report on poverty outreach as per
congressional requirement
 3 V 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 V Using and interpreting the data
O V Why do POWG members use or not use poverty tools? Is there a clear
intent?
2 V ow that we collected all these data, how can we make best use of
them?
a V MI
, program management
b V ew product design
c V Improving targeting
d V earning about client changes and role of programs, products
and services
e V Triangulation with other client data?
f V Other?
v V Initiate collaboration with other poverty tool stakeholders (both users,
promoters and developers of tools): IRI
, GF, U
AID,
PTF (which is
commissioning a ͞consumer report͟ on the poverty tools for
PM), and not-yet-
users (
avings ed MF organizations, ED, VC, market facilitation) and working
groups (
WG, AMED,
PWG),
IP (Divya, Tom Coleman)
vi V Dialogue with tool developers is essential at this stage:
O V PAT:
a V IRI
: Brian Beard (update on IRI
contract modification)
b V U
AID: Don
illers
2 V PPI
a V Mark
chreiner
b V Grameen Foundation: Malini Tolat (others? igel Biggar, Jeff T?)
c V Microcredit
ummit?
3 V Others are active members of POWG:
a V FCAT (FICA)
b V Food security survey (FF)
c V Other?
b V Other dimensions of Evaluation Framework