The tools employed by MFIs to measure client activity and client poverty levels have improved significantly since we first started collecting this data in 1997. Such changes can affect the numbers reported to us. For example, the numbers in table 2 for NABARD show a reduction of 6 percent in total clients, which is predominantly a result of culling redundant self-help group (SHG) members from their data.
Figure 2 shows the trends in the tools that MFIs use to report the number of their clients who were living in extreme poverty when they received their first loan. Some use tools, such as the Grameen Foundation’s Progress out of Poverty Index® (PPI®), that are benchmarked against national and international poverty lines. Others use tools, such as Poverty Wealth Ranking, that show relative poverty levels in a community, but are not benchmarked against defined poverty lines. Still others use some form of estimate that is not based on any poverty measurement tool. As MFIs move away from estimating their poverty outreach to using more rigorous tools, the percentage of their clients that they report to us as being among the poorest usually declines.
Figure 2: Measuring Poorest Borrowers
* Benchmarked tools include Progress out of Poverty Index®, USAID Certified Poverty Measurement Tool, CGAP Poverty Assessment Tool, Poverty Scorecard, FINCA Client Assessment Tool, and data reported from a study or social audit conducted.
|← Previous: 2015 Report > Global Data Show Diverging Path||Next: 2015 Report > Strategic Focus →|
Table of Contents
- Executive Summary
- Where’s the Map?
- Global Data Show Diverging Paths
- Integrated Health and Microfinance
- Saving Groups
- Graduation Programs
- Agricultural Value Chains
- Conditional Cash-Transfer Programs
- Digital Finance
- Read the Full Report
- Get Your Copy
- Français (Coming soon!)
- Español (Coming soon!)
- Arabic (Coming soon!)