Hi Sean,
I think this paper offers a great example of how PPI was used in combination with PWR and another household survey to target services of BASIX (India). Fonkoze also has a number of documents describing how it has used PPI data (in conjunction with other data) for social performance management, notably to manage impacts of the earthquake.
But point-in-time and change-over-time analysis is essentially what these tools are designed to do (as are most M&E activities). As Julie said, the tools are being used in contexts outside of microfinance (most PAT users are not MF): FHI360's STRIVE project has used both tools (documentation forthcoming) in the context of VCD; PAT is being used as part of a larger tool to assess impacts of a women's empowerment program in multiple countries. Another project was working on integrating GPS data to track changes by location more accurately. The LIFT project is using PPI & PAT (modified) as part of a larger survey to develop a referral system to help health clinic patients link with economic strengthening services.
I've also helped people analyze their PAT data more deeply to learn from specific indicators, client data and disaggregated results (many people use the rural/urban and regional PAT indicators to compare results).
I will point out that a number of organizations have found that these tools are not generally sensitive enough to track changes over short periods of time. I'm working on a new project with Abt Associates that attempts to address the issue of change over time sensitivity; we are piloting tools in Uganda & Tanzania - if anyone has particular interest in these countries please contact me directly as we are looking for input on their design.
For this and other reasons (like getting a more holistic view of poverty), I generally recommend people use more than one tool: PAT (and PPI) users will combine a tool with food security measures, a housing index, asset indicators, self-reported income data, etc (see these videos I produced last year; essentially poverty tools 101). Though even doing so people will often see inconsistent results. We did an e-consultation through POWG (now STEP UP) a few years ago to discuss issues Freedom From Hunger and Trickle Up had in interpreting PPI & food security data (basically, the results were inconsistent: PPI score going down while food security increasing). FFH has since developed an Impact Stories methodology that really does a lot to highlight the complexity of poverty and how household decisions are made (I'm a big fan of this and anything that uses qualitative info to explain quantitative findings). And everything we know about impacts of MF (summarized in Goldberg 2005, Odell 2010, EPPI Centre 2010) points to inconsistent client outcomes related to poverty and its many dimensions (food security, housing, education, empowerment, etc.)
So back to your question about how the tools are being used, Sean, I brought up the points in I did above to emphasize that they are being used to tell a piece of the story of poverty outreach and changes over time but that the story is incomplete without deeper measures.
Thanks,
Margaret Richards
PAT Help Desk Director (helpdesk@povertytools.org)
STEP UP Facilitator & consultant (margaretelise@gmail.com)
__._,_.___
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (5) |
WARNING! If you hit REPLY, your message will go to the entire listserve, not just the original author!
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment