PROPOSAL TO THE POWG

Promising Approaches for Serving Very Poor People

[Task Force]
2005-2006 Work plan

Background

The POWG has been working on a paper to identify promising approaches for serving
very poor people. The purpose of the paper has been to summarize what is currently
being done and to identify further areas for research and exploration. The facilitator sent
out the draft for initial comment to the ILO and to CGAP. Both the ILO and CGAP
encouraged the POWG to continue this research and to turn it in to a larger initiative with
more in depth case study analysis. In addition, there are currently a number of efforts
globally to explore poverty down reach and the POWG research would benefit from
tapping into these initiatives.

Proposal to POWG for 2005-6 work plan

This is up for proposal to the POWG. Both the paper and the case studies have been
written so far completely based on volunteer time of SEEP members. The proposed
project would involve raising funds to provide to practitioners to go in to greater depth
with their case study analysis, to evaluate programs, and create a book and training
materials for dissemination.

• Proposal to develop a task force that supports efforts to learn more about and
promote effective programming to serve very poor people.

• Develop an advisory group of noted experts in poverty down reach around the
world to coordinate research efforts and activities globally and to provide
guidance on the work plan of the POWG.

• Create a universal calendar of events to track workshops/conferences directly

related to poverty down reach.

Activities for POWG – current and future

1) FOR SEPT 20TH meeting-- Review issues paper that creates a framework for thinking
about serving very poor people. Essentially this would lay out the issues that need to be
explored and the questions that need to be answered through the field research. Add to
case study format – turn from outline to a research methodology….list the topics and
more specific questions that need to be considered in each category of the current case
study format. Institutional analysis vs. issue analysis – i.e., child labor, learning
conversations

2) Identify examples that we want to know more about (POWG has already done most of
this in step 1 and has begun to write the case studies). Some of the cases would be
selected because of the specific target market (e.g., people with HIV/AIDS, households
with children in the worst forms of child labor, etc.) and some would be more generic,
trying to reach the poorest of the poor in particular communities (ie, SEF). The sample
needs regional diversity [we need to identify a Latin American and CEE/NIS example],
and hopefully some diversity in the type of organization, the delivery model, lending
methodology, etc. We probably need to do 10-15 cases, there needs to be a decent
sampling for comparative purposes (e.g. to say anything substantive about rural areas,
we would need perhaps 3 cases in rural areas...that logic starts expanding the sample
size).

3) Field research. This would be a combination of small research consulting

assignments and verification. The exact shape of the field research depends on Step 1,
which we are well on our way to identifying. Each case study would be in the
neighborhood of 20-30 pages and they could stand on their own as individual outputs.
They should follow the same basic outline (as we have identified in our promising case
studies series), so that it is easy to pull out specific lessons across the case studies
(e.g., if we want to compare issues related to institutional culture across the case
studies, we know that we can find that information in section 3.5 of each study). Some of
these case studies would be cheaper than others--for example, the ILO can probably do
one on bonded labor and another one on child labor as an in-kind contribution; BRAC
has a library of research that is available and can be reshaped for this purpose. The
average case study would probably cost in the neighborhood of $5-10K depending on
the type of verification and whether local or international consultants are involved.
[CGAP has committed to fund the development of some of these cases – next step to
send Hashemi the case studies for review].

4) Preliminary synthesis: The case studies need to be analyzed to pull out preliminary
lessons and answers to the questions identified in step 1; this will be a lot of work, so
one possibility would be to involve members of the advisory group and POWG, as
individuals or small teams, to each answer one question or set of questions based on
the evidence from the field research...so somebody prepares notes on lessons learned
on targeting, someone on the design of loan products, someone on exclusivity, someone
on combining financial and non-financial, someone on sustainability and subsidies,
etc...then these papers could be presented in Step 5 to get a reality check from
practitioners.

5) Practitioners workshop: Bring together the practitioners/authors of the case studies to

present each institution’s approach and also document collective learning into a
publication.

This workshop would be complemented by other workshops that are taking place over
the following months. For example:

November 22, 2005 - Providing Microfinance to the bottom poor & Bonded Laborers –
ILO conference - Pakistan

February 7-9, 2006 – Pro Poor Innovation Challenge Grant summaries – CGAP - Rome,
Italy

6) Book. After the reality check, the different chapters could be revised accordingly and
then synthesized into a book. The primary audience for the book is practitioners, it
should be focused primarily on operational and management issues (e.g., product
design, staff incentives, organizational structure).

7) Global conference: A global conference would allow us to promote on a wide scale to

a diverse audience the lessons and findings from the research. Even better if the book
was already finished and available for conference participants to take home.

8) Donor paper: Another output is a note for donors giving suggestions and
recommendations on how they could push the poverty agenda (within the context of the
millenium development goals).

9) Donor conference: Perhaps it could be done as an add-on day to a meeting of the

CGAP member donors. Use the opportunity to present the paper in Step 8.

10) Training materials and funding for TOTs: Not everyone can attend the conference;
not everyone will read the book. So another strategy for promoting the messages is to
develop training materials and teach local trainers (perhaps via SEEP's local network
partners) how to offer the course. Once the materials are developed and the local
trainers trained, hopefully there would be enough demand for the course that they could
offer it on a cost recovery basis, so there wouldn't be a need to subsidize the local
training.

Advisory Board

What is the role of the advisory board? Review and comment on the concept paper and
case study outline, establish the criteria for appropriate case studies and help identify
case study subjects, perhaps even conduct some of the cases, draft specific chapters for
the book, review and comment on other chapters, attend and speak at the conferences.
By developing an advisory board, it enhances communication and reduces the likelihood
that similar parallel initiatives begin and it ensures the quality of the outputs.

The following people will be approached to be part of the Advisory Panel:

(listed alphabetically)
*Craig Churchill, ILO - (Child labor, trafficking)
John de Wit, SEF
Jill Donoghue, SEEP or Joan Parker, DAI - (HIV/AIDS)
*Chris Dunford, FFH - (Health, Food Security)
*Sam Daley Harris, MC Summit
*Syed Hashemi, CGAP
*John Hatch, FINCA
Robert Hickson, Microfinance Services PTY LTD
Dean Karlan, Princeton (MF Research on Non-Financial Services)
Imran Matin, BRAC - (Ultra Poor, Beggars)
Calvin Miller, FAO - (Rural)
Jonathan Morduch, NYU (Sustainability/Subsidies)
Kasia Pawlak, MFC - (Research from CEE and NIS)
Stuart Rutherford, SafeSave, or Kim Wilson, CRS, or Jeff Ashe, OXFAM - (Savings)
*Anton Simanowitz, Imp-Act
Sarah Ward, ARC - (Refugees, Post-conflict)
Others?
*accepted

Next step:
Write up a proposal along these lines (after recruiting the advisory group), and a budget
showing donor contributions, CGAP and some sort of contribution from the ILO (mostly
in-kind). In the meantime, Steps 1 and 2 could proceed before we find donors.

Comments from Anton Simanowitz:

1. For a more extended piece of work I do feel that its important to consider what
happens to people once they are reached. Also much of the methodology
required to reach very poor people also relates to how they are served once they
are in the programme ie. serving them effectively is a key component to ensuring
outreach.

Linked to this, i've been encouraging Hashemi to think about a 'pro-poor design
fund' to complement the innovation fund. My feeling is that many of the
innovations are not really innovations in poverty focus, and that a process of
supporting design and thinking about outreach and appropriate services for very
poor people needs to be encouraged. My understanding is that this is going to be
piloted, and there may well be opportunities to link the research you are doing to
the pro-poor design work.

2. The new Ford project researching microfinance in remote rural areas may also
be another point where you can link into existing work for this project.

3. I like the idea of having detailed case-studies using a common framework, and
then analysing these through a number of cross-cutting themes. It will be
important to define these themes carefully in advance of the case-study work so
as to ensure that the case-studies capture all the information that is needed.

4. For the case-studies it would be useful to attempt to hear two 'voices'. The
objective case-study author and the MFI itself. For the MFI voice you could ask
MFIs to define two or three key aspects of their methodology that are crucial in
their effectiveness in reaching very poor people, and two or three aspects for
effectiveness in serving the needs of their very poor clients. A third voice could
also be included - that of the clients, asking their perspectives on if/how the MFI
is effectiveness in its pro-poor approach.