2009 Learning Agenda and Work Plan for Poverty Outreach Working

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.

While SEEP members’ main focus is on microfinance and enterprise development,

the role of other services and programs (health, nutrition, education, agriculture…)
will also be investigated by the POWG, as it is generally accepted by POWG
members that access to certain non-financial services enhances the outcomes very
poor people would experience from using microfinance and enterprise development
services.

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.

Learning Objective 1 – Definition and measurement of extreme poverty.

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:

1) (January – March, 2009) To organize a discussion led by a small task force of

POWG members on conceptualizing extreme poverty in a MED context. This
will include a review of definitions of (extreme, chronic) poverty by
researchers and practitioners with a focus on extreme poverty. Discussion
will be held virtually for most part with a few (up to three) conference calls to
monitor progress and identify next steps.

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.

Planned Learning Products:

1) Two to three page document “Conceptualization of Extreme Poverty”, with a

working definition of extreme poverty to be used by POWG members and to
be proposed to the MED field in general. The purpose of this paper is to
deepen our understanding of extreme poverty and to provide a common
framework for understanding, analyzing and measuring extreme poverty
within a MED intervention context.

2) Poverty Measurement Guide. This is a non-technical, user-friendly, guide on

what poverty measurement tools (absolute and relative) can do for
practitioners beyond satisfying the requirements of the legislation. The guide
will provide practitioners with a range of poverty measurement methods in
 relation to the various dimensions of poverty that will have been identified in
the previous document on conceptualizing extreme poverty. The guide is
meant to provide a comprehensive overview of the various tools available,
their pros and cons, scope of uses, and any further references to detailed
information on use of the tools. The guide is meant as a quick reference for
any practitioner who wants to know what tools are available to measure
poverty and will also include mini case studies of MED practitioners using
various tools.

Learning Objective 2 – Mapping MED approaches targeting very poor people;

benefit-cost analysis framework

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.

Planned Learning Products:

 1) Common framework for evaluating MED approaches targeting very poor
households.

2) Mapping or existing MED approaches targeting very poor households

according to framework.

3) One-day POWG discussion of assessment framework and identification of a

set of measurables for each of the framework aspects. This meeting will also
provide opportunity for POWG members to present ongoing pilot projects and
to refine a joint learning agenda according to this framework for 2009-2010.

4) SEEP AC Workshop: Introduction of a common assessment framework to

evaluate different MED approaches targeting very poor households, and
preliminary results (according to framework) of POWG member ongoing
pilots.

Planned Learning Objective 3 – for 2010/11

Pathways out of extreme poverty: integrating MED and social services to move
people permanently out of extreme poverty

With a common definition of extreme poverty, tools to measure extreme poverty

and a common framework to review and compare different approaches, the POWG
is ready to learn from other approaches and share its own members’ learning.
POWG members with ongoing pilot programs targeting very poor people will
participate in an action-learning network and receive funding to monitor their
programs according to established assessment framework (learning objective 2),
report findings to each other during periodic virtual meetings and a “MED and
extreme poverty” conference to share findings with other invited practitioners and
researchers.

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:

Andreas Spaeth, World Vision: andreas_spaeth@wvi.org

Sachi Shenoy, Unitus: sshenoy@unitus.com
Gareth Evans, World Relief: gevans@wr.org
Thierry van Bastelaer, Save the Children: tvanbastelaer@savechildren.org
Devorah Miller, Christian Children’s Fund: dmiller@ccfusa.org
Lisa Fraioli, Freedom From Hunger: lkfraioli@freedomfromhunger.org
Sarah Ward, Mercy Corps: sward@hq.mercycorps.org
Brian Beard, IRIS: briangbeard@erols.com
Claudine Zaninka, AMIR: amasezerano@terramail.rw
Malini Tolat, Grameen Foundation: mtolat@grameenfoundation.org
Cameron Rosenthal, Grameen Foundation: crosenthal@grameenfoundation.org
Anthony Leegwater, IRIS: aleegwater@iris.econ.umd.edu
Susannah Hopkins Leisher, Trickle Up: shleisher@trickleup.org

Non-POWG members who provided valuable feedback:

Tom Coleman, independent consultant: tcole2000@comcast.net
Syed Hashemi, CGAP: shashemi@worldbank.org
Evelyn Stark, Gates Foundation: evelynjstark@gmail.com