1. Ecuador’s outcomes on SPI aplication

2. RFR’s motivation in using SPI For the Network: ▫To establish a social performance process to evaluate social results of the market. ▫It is a complete tool ▫We receive trainning and feedback from CERISE ▫We access to new versions. For MFI: ▫It is a first step to begin social performance process, because SPI evaluates the MFI. ▫At the end, each MFI has an individual report that permits it to establish a work plan on weak areas.

3. MFI using SPI 31 MFI have applied SPI. Big MFI can cover all the cost (USD. 1,800) Medium MFI receive subsidies about 50% for the first time, then they cover all. Small MFI receive at the beginning more subsidies depending the availability of projects (p.e. Forolac, Oikocredit, HIVOS, CAF) It depends on motivation: ▫Donors, goverments, projects, investors demands social information.

4. RFR estructure to do this Stadistic and Studies Coordinator Social information Financial information We have 2 people trained by CERISE to conduct SPI and other tools as Network

5. Acceptability of results MFI are presenting results to: ▫Goverment funds; ▫Investors; ▫Donors; There are not problems about RFR is applying SPI as itself in their members, because we only conduct the tool implementation. We have the capacity to consolidate results, to do benchmarkings, monitoring the evolution of MFI and to present country reports.

6. Outcomes comparison of social audit in averages by region The average of 31 Ecuadorian institutions represented in the database indicate better results than the whole of Latin America (source CERISE and RFR) in all the dimensions of social performance, except for the dimension of targeting poor and excluded. Specifically, the Ecuadorian institutions are highlighted in the dimension of diversification and quality of their services.

7. Outcomes analysis of social audit differences in Ecuadorian MFIs Each institution has its particularities with regard to objectives and social mission them that stand out in certain dimensions, the difference relatively limited is observed at global score showing weaknesses that in some dimensions tend to be offset by the strengths identified in other. At the statistical level, for example is a divergence strong and significant among the fact of focusing on poor segments and diversification of services and also with the level of participation of clients in the institutional decision.

8. Institutional determinants of outcomes Several institutional parameters can influence the social profile of the institutions: maturity, size, legal form, mainly rural or urban intervention, etc. As for the size, note that large MFIS (with more than 30,000 active borrowers) obtained results very on top than the others, in particular the adaptation of services and social responsibility. Institutions need economies of scale to achieve diversify their products and to formalize policies and systems that ensure the quality of the service, as the social responsibility towards employees, customers or environment. The legal status of organizations is particularly significant, because to compare results added between cooperatives and NGOs show different social performance profiles.

9. Outcomes aggregated comparison of social audit by MFI type As evidenced by this graph, we can see that NGOs are most active in targeting geographic reaching poor in remote areas, and by individual segmentation, voluntarily moving towards vulnerable profiles. This emphasis tends to diminish in the COAC are based rather on principles of free association looking for attention.

10. Relationship of financial and social indicators Relationship between attention to vulnerable people and financial sustainability of MFIs The elements presented in this table indicate that when an institution focuses more vulnerable segments, have one lower financial margin, which is why a reduction in their income (interest rate), oblige them reduce their costs.

11. Thank you More information: www.rfr.org.ec