Steering Committee Meeting: Discussion Points

1. Steering Committee Meeting: Discussion Points November 8, 2011

2. Questions for discussion • Should the SPTF standards be limited to activities common in the industry today, or should the standards include practices we know to be good even if very few organizations currently engage in them? • Given the lack of data needed to create credible benchmarks in many categories, should we be developing implementation strategiesrather than benchmarks? Or add a column to our document so it presents both? • How should we address gender in our standards and / or benchmarks? • What messaging should we use when we publicize the standards? • How many standards would be too many? • Is there are certain length that would be too long for a standard?

3. Question 1 – Must a “standard” be something we already see in practice? • Should we limit the standards to activities happening today, or should they include practices known to be good even if few organizations currently engage in the behavior? Examples: • Incentivizing staff based on social performance objectives. We know that staff behavior will always reflect what they are incentivized to do, but very few MFIs have incentive structures in place around social performance objectives • Having social performance data integrated into the MIS. Having good data is fundamental to managing performance, but very few institutions integrate SP data with FP data. • HR policies in general. Several suggested HR policies reflect good practices (e.g. “Having a gender policy that outlines how women are recruited and promoted”) that we generally do not yet see implemented by MFIs. • Some ideas for what to call the standards: • Standards for SPM • Recommended Practices for SPM • Guidelines for SPM

4. Question 2 – Shift from benchmarks to implementation strategies? (1 of 2) • Given the lack of data needed to create credible benchmarks in many categories, should we change our focus from developing benchmarks to developing implementation strategies? Or add a column to our document so it presents both? • Pros re: developing benchmarks: • The Task Force asked us to take a real stand on these issues. • A benchmark figure is a clear reference point against which to measure one’s performance. • Cons: • We do not have enough data to develop benchmarks for many of the standards. • We are getting pushback on the idea that a benchmark figure can be universal, given that that so many factors (e.g., size and age of the MFI, population served, location, regulatory environment) influence what is appropriate for a given MFI.

5. Question 2 – Shift from benchmarks to implementation strategies? (2 of 2) • Some SPTF members have said they do not like that column 3 in our document is called “benchmarks/guidelines.” • Should we choose one word or the other? • Should we come up with another word? • Should we have two columns (one for benchmarks, one for guidelines) and leave the benchmarks column blank if we can only fill in the guidelines column?

6. Question 2 – Shift from benchmarks to implementation strategies? Example: Example:

7. Question 3 – How will we address gender? • We have asked the thematic working groups to discuss gender. They have ideas, but recommend that the SPTF adopt an overarching strategy for gender that we apply to all standards in order to be consistent throughout our document. • We are speaking with working group facilitators later this week to hear their respective group’s feedback on this issue. • The gender working group has suggested the incorporation of gender issues into many of the standards. Questions: • If we specify “women” why wouldn’t we specify other groups (e.g., if the standards say “client satisfaction data should examine women’s satisfaction” why wouldn’t we say it should also examine the satisfaction of rural clients?) • What if an institution doesn’t have outreach to women in their mission—would these standards exclude those MFIs? • Would we want to identify the standards that could incorporate the gender lens without excluding MFIs that don’t have a gender focus?

8. Question 4 – What messaging will we use to publicize the standards? • Given that some organizations are already implementing all these standards, and others are implementing very few, how can we create messaging around these standards that resonates with our audience? Points to consider: • The term "minimum standards" seems to be intimidating to organizations that are not yet meeting most of the standards. • The idea that these will be obligatory is intimidating to some commenters. • Other commenters say their MFI is already meeting all these standards and they are too basic. • One commenter said we already had standards like this in place, yet we have a crisis in the industry, so clearly people were falsely representing their social performance. Does the method we will use to verify adherence to the standards need to become part of our messaging? • See the CEO letter to the Steering Committee, page 2, section “The Universal Standards are Better as a Diagnostic Tool than Reporting Tools.” Do you agree with this?

9. Question 5 – How many standards would be too many? • Do we have a limit beyond which we would have too many standards? • Currently, there are 18 individual standards, if “Protecting Clients’ Rights” counts as one standard. • Each standard will have multiple benchmarks/ guidelines.

10. Question 6 – How long should a standard be? • Some groups are discussing standards with sub-bullets, while others are suggesting single sentences. Is there a certain length that would be too long for a standard? • Example of a “long” standard being considered: • To ensure that products, service offerings and service delivery models meet the needs and constraints of target clients, the institution: • conducts market research with clients and field staff • segments key target client groups by needs, behaviors, and demographics, including gender • uses the market research and segmentation data to assist in the design of product and service offerings and in the implementation of service delivery models.