The impact on a Microfinance Institution of developing a clientele

of Persons with DisabilitiesLessons from Nyesigiso, Mali

Study conducted by Ibon Ormazabal, May – August 2010

Table of ContentAcronyms................................................................................................................................4

Executive Summary..............................................................................................................51. Introduction....................................................................................................................72. Methodology of the study.............................................................................................8

2.1 Documentation review..........................................................................................................8

2.2 Type of information...............................................................................................................8

a) Objective Information.........................................................................................................................8

b) Subjective Information.......................................................................................................................8

2.3 Compilation of Information...................................................................................................8

a) Individual interviews.............................................................................................................................9

b) Collective interviews.............................................................................................................................9

2.4 Data analysis.........................................................................................................................9

2.5 Methodological remarks.....................................................................................................10

2.6 Formulation of methodological recommendations.........................................................10

a) Create a Steering Committee to set up the study................................................................................10

b) Future researches should be done at the MFI level.............................................................................10

c) Adjust the questionnaire to the specific topics likely to be assessed..................................................11

d) Focus Group Discussion with members of same hierarchy................................................................11

e) Researcher team does not work for HI................................................................................................11

3. Impact of developing a disabled clientele: how good performance and improved reputation do not lead to further mobilization of the MFI…............................................12

3.1 An appropriate method contributes for good Financial and Social Performance and improves MFI reputation................................................................................................................12

a) Financial and social indicators............................................................................................................12

b) Reputation...........................................................................................................................................13

c) 3.1.3 Lending model...........................................................................................................................14

3.2 The short term impact of developing a disabled clientele does not generate changes in the MFI practices, methodologies and tools...........................................................14

a) Product Services..................................................................................................................................14

b) Management Information System.......................................................................................................15

c) Business Opportunity..........................................................................................................................16

d) Social Performance.............................................................................................................................17

e) Expansion to other branches...............................................................................................................18

2

f) Client approach...................................................................................................................................18

g) Accessibility and communication.......................................................................................................19

h) Level of engagement and Perception towards PwD...........................................................................19

3.3 The disabled clientele is still considered as difficult......................................................20

Satisfaction level towards PwD, what else does the MFI expect?..............................20

4. Recommendations to improve the development of a disabled clientele................204.1 Delete discrimination from product design for PwD:.....................................................20

4.2 Agreement on a loan product for PwD:...........................................................................21

4.3 Inform Nyesigiso about cross-subsidized products and theory on social impact:....22

4.4 Agreement on Management Information System for PwD:..........................................22

4.5 Involvement of the Top Management of the MFI:..........................................................22

4.6 Convince the MFI that a clientele of PwD is also a business opportunity:................23

4.7 Advocate disability in actors of Social Performance:....................................................23

4.8 Involve PwD with success stories to spread the word about Microfinance:..............23

4.9 Insist on credit and saving culture to counterparts:.......................................................24

4.10 Promote partnership between the main national DPO and MFI networks:...............24

5. Conclusion of the study..............................................................................................25Appendix 1...........................................................................................................................26Appendix 2............................................................................................................................ 27

3

AcronymsBoD: Board of Directors

CIDA: Canadian International Development Agency

CIF: Confédération des Institutions Financières

DID: Développement International Desjardins

DPO: Disabled People Organizations

EIHD: Emploi, Intégration des Handicapés pour le Développement

FDG: Focus Group Discussions

HI: Handicap International

IGA: Income Generating Activity

MFI: Microfinance Institution

MIS: Management Information System

PIPROHP: Amélioration de l’insertion professionnelle des personnes en situation de handicap à Bamako

PAR: Portfolio at Risk

PwD: Persons with Disabilities

SAF: System Automatique Financière

SP: Social Performance

4

Executive Summary Handicap International took the initiative to conduct a study on the impact of developing a clientele of Persons with Disabilities in a Microfinance Institution. There is an objective to assess changes in practices and attitudes towards PwD in microfinance programs. The country chosen was Mali and the MFI Nyesigiso. The reasons for that choice are good practices experienced in a project in its phase of implementation with Nyesigiso and the local partner EIHD representing PwD.

For that purpose, the methodology used considered disability as a cross-cutting issue. Thus, it was intended to assess all operational levels and stages of the MFI as well as some personal conceptions through a qualitative approach. Besides, there is a quantitative approach to analyse some outcomes coming out the project. Several key resource persons of the project were selected along with few others who have influence in decision-making processes in the MFI; all of them to be interviewed. At a first stage, it was prepared a questionnaire to try to select the different type of information that was necessary to request. The use of the questionnaire was adjusted according to the working level of the person or persons interviewed. The interviews focused on 2 models, individual and collective interviews. Collective interviews aimed to raise discussions in order to get diverse arguments and wider information. Finally, the method used to analyse disability as cross-cutting issue was classifying the data between operational activities of the MFI on one side and subjective and intangible information on the other side. This classification is also explained as operational activities hardly had any impact while in the subjective approach is the only part where we can find some negative and positive impacts.

The results of the study differ. The quantitative analysis shows positive results as only one microcredit out of 49 was more than 90 days on delay and the Portfolio at Risk for 30 days for disabled clients was 4% while for non-disabled clients was 8%. The benchmark considers a good PAR30d when it is lower than 5%.

On the other side, the qualitative approach shows positive, negative and lack of any type of impact. As regard to all the operative structure of the MFI, there was clearly a lack of any impact, either positive, or negative. The only positive measure came from one branch who just decided individually to count the number of disabled clients within the branch, even when they were not beneficiaries of the project. Another consequence for having developed a disabled clientele in the past was the shift from group to individual lending as experiences were rather negative. This is not astonishing as group lending models do not usually work correctly in an urban context.

All other operational activities of the MFI show a clear lack of impact, effects or consequences as regard to PwD. There is a product specifically for PwD but it will disappear once the project is over. Very similar is about the Management Information System and financial and social indicators. There is today a compilation of information to create a set of indicators concerning the monitoring of the project but there will be no continuation once the project is over and all the data concerns exclusively for the beneficiaries of the project, not PwD, and data is not even centralize. It is necessary to request it separately to each branch involved in the project. In addition, the MFI do not foresee to work with PwD in any other region in urban or rural areas as a consequence of the project, they just declare to be open for other partnerships. The incentives schemes for the credit agents have always been the same; they are for profit oriented rather than social as it is focused on the volume of credit disbursed and no the number of credits to improve the outreach. The MFI does not ask the disabled clientele about its satisfaction level as they do it randomly although they plan do so at the end of the project to beneficiaries. There is a specific process for the risk assessment and repayment capacity of the PwD but only to beneficiaries thanks to the support received from the local partner EIHD as part of the project. Besides, the internal tools of the MFI assessed like communication, accessibility, Social Performance or procedures as regard to PwD remain at the same level than before the partnership. The MFI declares that measures to take will be analysed only once the project is over and as a consequence of an accurate evaluation. It must be highlighted that Social Performance is

5

rather a new concept for the MFI and that they start developing SP together with other MFIs which form the network CIF1. This might also explain the reason why the MFI have policies that tends to its financial rather social mission.

Furthermore, as part of the qualitative analysis, the persons interviewed were asked about personal conceptions in the relation between PwD with the MFI, type of questions that lead to some extent to information that might be biased. Surprisingly, although reimbursement rates are better than for non-disabled clients, they do not have a positive level of satisfaction of the beneficiaries of the project and persons interviewed insist about the importance to support, helping PwD and raise awareness on credit and savings culture. This is explained as previous experiences with PwD were positive but the beneficiaries of the project have sometimes to be monitored and reminded for repayment. This may lead to the conclusion that the MFI still have prejudices towards PwD. However, interviewees believed that developing a disabled clientele is very positive as the MFI is gaining reputation in the community but thanks to the support of the partner EIHD which is recruiting the PwD, otherwise the MFI would have never reached such a number of disabled clientele. Indeed, some even declared that increase the number of PwD among its clientele is not part of the scope of work of MFI. Although they believe that developing a clientele of PwD could be a business opportunity, they have never thought about such an idea. Moreover, in one question the persons interviewed declared that their perception towards PwD have hardly changed but in a second question, when they were asked if their thoughts towards PwD have improved, they all agree positively, a good example of biased outcomes. Fortunately, most of them agree that they still can do much more for PwD but even when results today are quite positive, they do not dare to elaborate about the positive or negative impact of the project, they will do so once they conduct an evaluation. Therefore, it is not surprising that they believe they have never discriminated or marginalized anybody for its condition of disability, not even unconsciously.

To conclude, we point out a series of proposals to improve the impact within the MFI towards PwD. Internal and external communication of the MFI as regard to PwD seems very important and for that purpose it is essential a higher involvement of the top management of the MFI. Another proposal would to be to use PwD with good records to explain to PwD their experiences and even positive and negative aspects of the MFI and microfinance in general. Besides, there are 2 ethic debates which raise more questions than responses. This is about to happen with a loan product for PwD and the desire to measure and to monitor data. To which extend it is useful to create a loan product for PwD adapted to their needs or would it lead to reinforced discrimination against them? Is it useful to disaggregate data for PwD as it is today for women to monitor their performance or it is useless in terms of cost-efficient and would also lead to reinforced discrimination?

1 Confédération des Institutions financières is a network of 6 West African MFI

6

1. Introduction This study, initiative of Handicap International, aims to assess the impact of developing a disabled clientele at all levels of the structure of a microfinance institution (MFI). It intends to assess whether there were changes in tools, practices, processes, attitudes. In this study, disability is considered a cross-cutting issue and the methodology approach used could be described as whether the MFI has mainstreamed disability or not.

The context of the study is a project implemented by Handicap International whose partners are the Microfinance Institution (MFI) Nyesigiso and the Disabled People Organization (DPO) EIHD (Emploi, Intégration des Handicapés pour le Développement) in Bamako, Mali. The project is in its phase of implementation and therefore there might be future effects and consequences that cannot be observed today. This project is characterized by a special process of accompaniment for Persons with Disabilities in order to reduce Information Asymmetries2 and Moral Hazard3 whose main features are: training on Business Development Services, support on the elaboration of a business plan, support on the loan application, creation of a validation committee of credit demands, provide microcredit also for start-up businesses along with a grant scheme to specific projects and monitoring of the activity. There is a guaranty fund to partially cover possible risks of default of PwD. The project is supported by the MFI Headquarters and 2 branches, 1 at each side of the river Niger to facilitate accessibility to beneficiaries. Moreover, there is a specific product only for PwD where conditions are better than non-disabled clients but it will normally disappear once the project is over.

This choice is based on previous initiatives for the socio-economic integration of the disabled community in credit programs with a credit institution called Handi-Caisse and which was part of Nyesigiso. Due to some internal and governance problems, Handi-caisse no longer belongs to Nyesigiso. Anyhow, this initiative, where repayment rates were very low and did not really work properly, have served as a basis to develop today’s project. The project is named “Amelioration de l’insertion professionelle des personnes en situation de handicap à Bamako, Mali”, also called PIPROHP, and so far, results are promising. The main objective is to improve access to the labor market of PwD. Many PwD can only opt for self-employment as the unique economic activity. Self-employment usually requires an initial investment and consequently, microfinance becomes a crucial tool for them. Up-to-day, the reimbursement rate of the project is in line or even better than the non-disabled clients, the main indicator of success.

Nyesigiso is the first and only MFI in Bamako which has worked with DPOs. It is a coop institution whose first branch was created in 1990 in the Segou region of Mali, with the technical support of Developpement International Desjardins (DID) and the financial support of Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). The institution became a network in 1997. In size, Nyesigiso is the second largest MFI in Mali, with 127,000 clients and covering 5 administrative regions. In the coming years, the main objectives of the network are to pursue the modernization and computerization of its branches. In 2008 Nyesigiso achieved financial sustainability for its first time.

To spread the scope of the study, especially in a rural context, part of it was also supposed to be conducted in Timbuktu with beneficiaries of the MFI Jigiyaso Ba which is also collaborating with HI but the mission was finally cancelled due to security reasons.

In the next chapters, we will describe de methodology used to conduct the study and some methodological proposals, followed by the conclusions of the data analyzed and concluding with some operational proposals to improve the impact of PwD within microfinance programs.

2 Information Asymmetry is the condition in which some relevant information that may affect the evolution of a loan is known to some but not all parties involved. 3 Moral Hazard is a special case of Information Asymmetry. It may occur when the loan amount is finally used for another purpose that the one agreed by all parties.

7

2. Methodology of the study 2.1Documentation review

At first stage, we have collected information composed by reports and documents of previous and current projects at different phases of HI in Mali. The project of Insertion Socio – Economique et Soutien Associatif, when Handi-caisse was created. In addition, Amélioration de l’insertion professionnelle des Personnes en Situation de Handicap à Bamako, the on-going project where results are promising and the Projet d’appui à la pérennisation des actions de développement local initiés dans les cercles de Tombouctou et Gourma Rharous. This review was important to understand previous and current contexts where the disabled entrepreneurs are running their businesses as well as a basis for the elaboration of a questionnaire to implement the study.

2.2 Type of information

As defined earlier, the approach used for the implementation of this study is to assess if disability has been mainstreamed at all levels and structures of the MFI Nyesigiso. At the same time a qualitative approach assesses whether it has occurred some changes in attitudes, engagements or perceptions towards PwD in the practices of microfinance. For this purpose, it was created a questionnaire which was firstly discussed and then duly approved. The questionnaire targets key staff of the MFI. The questionnaire requests a wide range of different information in 2 different phases, before the project and today in order to assess any possible impact. The questionnaire should also be adjusted according to the person who is consulted. On that sense, the type of information requested to the MFI intended not to leave apart any subject where disability could be a simple concern. To facilitate the analysis, the info was also classified between objective and subjective depending on the character of the information requested. The full questionnaire used for the study is attached at the end of this report. The classification is therefore as follows:

a) Objective InformationIndicators, Products (credit and savings services), Management Information System, Methodology of the services (individual or group lending models and incentives schemes), Geographic target (urban and rural areas), MFI target (number disabled employees in the MFI, Communication policy, physical access to branches, future procedures to PwD, aspects of Social Performance, measures against poverty and/or other vulnerable groups, access to information or non-financial services) and Individual target (level of satisfaction of clients, risk analysis, financial and non-financial needs assessment and level of poverty of clients).

b) Subjective InformationThis info represents personal opinions as regard to the perception towards PwD, level of satisfaction with disabled clients, engagement level of the MFI personnel, the role of the local partners, if Persons with disabilities are considered a business opportunity, the reputation of the MFI in the community, the relation with non-disabled clients and the impact to the MFI. To conclude, they were invited to show their level of agreement or disagreement with a certain number of sentences about the relation between microfinance and PwD4.

2.3 Compilation of Information

The methodology used for the compilation of the information meant above was through interviews. Besides, the MFI was requested to provide information on the MIS to prepare a set of indicators. The interviews followed 2 different models, individual and collective interviews.

4 Some sentences in the last section of the questionnaire were taken out from a previous survey on the discrimination of MFI loan officers towards PwD conducted by Roy Mersland in Uganda.

8

Collective interviews were supposed to be Focus Group Discussions (FGD) but the persons interviewed never reached a considerable number for such purpose as it never exceeded 3 persons. The objective of the FGD was to raise discussions to get as much comments as possible to have more valuable information to facilitate a qualitative analysis. A FGD permits to get additional information from personal opinions of the different elements of the relation between the MFI and disability. Collective interviews could do so but only to certain and limited extend. Individual interviews occurred only when collective interviews were impossible to be set up.

Some key resource persons were selected for the interviews. Concretely, twelve different persons have been interviewed for the implementation of this study. They were selected according to their role for the inclusion of PwD in the MFI schemes. Eight out of the twelve are active members of the PIPROHP project working for Nyesigiso, six working at branch level and two in charge of credit services at Headquarters. Seven out of these eight persons have received training from HI on disability issues. One could not attend the training due to health reasons. The other four persons interviewed were chosen as they have an important role and influence in decision making processes. Two of them are in charge of the Social Performance of Nyesigiso. For the other two, one was the President of BoD branch III of Nyesigiso and the other one the President of Handi-caisse. In addition, as local partner for PwD, there was an informal meeting with the team members of EIHD to get to know better how they implement the accompaniment process with the beneficiaries of the project and listen to their experiences with MFIs. Questions from the questionnaire were adjusted according to persons interviewed. The persons interviewed, described by the methodology used, are the following:

a) Individual interviews1. Victor Weka, Managing Director of Handi-Caisse. He was not working for Handi-caisse during the period of collaboration with Nyesigiso. 51% of the 2000 person’s clientele in this credit institution are PwD.

2. Ousmane Sidibé, President of BoD branch VI Nyesigiso.

3. Malick Dramé, credit officer of branch Commune III. He could not attend the FGD prepared in his office because he was on mission.

b) Collective interviews1. Mamadou Haidara, Head of Human Resources at Headquarter, and Abdoulaye Sangaré, Head of Training Services at Headquarters, both persons in charged of the Social Performance of Nyesigiso. They did not receive training on disability issues.

2. Modibo Dembele, Head of Credit Services at Headquarters and Seydu Gueye, Credit analyst at Headquarters. Both of them were supposed to receive training on disability but only Modibo Dembele could do so as Seydu had an accident and was unavailable for a certain period.

3. Branch Commune III: Amourata Maiga, Managing Director and Hawa Draba, responsible of credit services. Both of them have received training on disability.

4. Branch Commune VI: Oumou Faneh, Managing Director, Fatoumata Bagayogo, responsible of credit services and Adama Bamba, loan officer. All of them did receive training on disability.

5. Team members of EIHD, President, Vice-president and Coordinator of monitors.

2.4 Data analysis

For the elaboration of the draft report, it was important to follow a pattern to analyse the data collected. Due to the complexity to process all the data, in order to facilitate the analysis the information was firstly classified in objective and subjective. We mean objective for operating activities of the MFI where the analysis of measures and impact is more concrete. Meanwhile, the

9

subjective information represents those that refer to personal opinions. At a second stage, for the elaboration of the report, it is first analyse the quantitative analysis together with the positive impacts. We then go forward with the negative impacts found to end-up with an analysis where it has been no further impact. Throughout the document, we will make references to the objective and subjective information to compare positive with negative results to analyse where it has been a lack of impact.

As a consequence of the method used and the information compiled, the conclusions achieved illustrate a qualitative rather than a quantitative analysis. Nevertheless, part of the set of indicators was also used to provide a short quantitative approach of the results of the study.

Based on the analysis of the data, at the end of the report it is pointed up a series of recommendations to improve the impact in MFI schemes as regard to PwD.

2.5Methodological remarks

It is important to highlight a major constraint during the Collective interviews. Throughout all of them, it was obvious the role of each employee as the first one responding was always the first one in hierarchy.

In addition, it should be remarked that as a consequence of the type of information requested, especially the one that correspond to subjective information, it is rather probable that some responses lead to biased conclusions. This was remarkable when interviewees were asked about the level of engagement and their perspective towards PwD.

2.6 Formulation of methodological recommendations

As it expected to conduct similar researches in further countries, based on the experience of current study and in order to improve future results, it would be interesting to carry out the following recommendations:

a) Create a Steering Committee to set up the studyIt would be interesting to set up a Steering Committee in advance for the implementation of the study between members of HI, the MFI, the DPO and the research team in order to involve all counterparts and discuss the type of questions that should be assessed to improve the impact of PwD in microfinance schemes. The Steering Committee would be useful to define specific objectives, the persons or FGD to interview and how to deal with them. This approach would facilitate the identification of persons to interview on how to improve the impact If HI advocates for mainstreaming disability within MFIs, there should be a common agreement on the different levels where disability could be integrated although at the beginning it might raise more questions and debates than responses. These debates are likely to occur especially within the MIS and loan conditions to PwD.

b) Future researches should be done at the MFI levelFuture researches should be tried to be based at the MFI level. Ask the MFI their willingness to welcome a researcher to develop such a study. It would be pleasant to have real access to internal resources of the MFI to conduct the study in better manners. This would mean to access tools such as the Management Information System and its capacity to introduce disability at all levels of their indicators or access internal communication mechanisms and for promotion and marketing tools of the MFI. An interaction of 2 to 4 weeks would facilitate better access to human resources from the top the bottom of the MFI hierarchy. Setting interviews was not easy due to their busy agenda or maybe lack of willingness. They might not feel comfortable when there is someone from HI learning how things are going on in their jobs. However, if there is a good communication, it may lead to increase the scope of the persons interviewed and exchange informally their ideas towards PwD and consequently access to more and valuable information.

10

c) Adjust the questionnaire to the specific topics likely to be assessedThe questionnaire might be adjusted as some questions might not be needed. The fact of considering disability as a cross-cutting issue aims to integrate disability at all levels possible but it might sometimes be incongruent or abstract. Personal questions like the level of engagement, satisfaction or perception are likely to be biased. With the support of the Steering Committee, the questionnaire should focus exclusively on the necessary levels to be assessed.

d) Focus Group Discussion with members of same hierarchyBased on the experience of this first study, future FGD should be arranged between employees who are at the same status, credit officers with credit officers and branch managers with branch managers. When the FGD is raised among colleges who have the same hierarchy at the MFI, they might feel more relax and pro-active to talk than in front of their supervisors. This may lead to increase the quality of the information collected although the necessity to arrange meetings in common places with different loan officers would probable not be easy at all.

e) Researcher team does not work for HIIn order to try to avoid biased information, an interesting approach would be that researchers present themselves as someone independent from HI, for instance from a university or research institution. It might be useful to go to interviews by another vehicle that does not belong to HI and with someone that do not work for HI in order to make it more reliable.

11

3. Impact of developing a disabled clientele: how good performance and improved reputation do not lead to further mobilization of the MFI…

3.1An appropriate method contributes for good Financial and Social Performance and improves MFI reputation

a) Financial and social indicatorsMost of this set of indicators was agreed between Développement International Desjardins and the MFI Nyesigiso to follow-up the purposes of the project PIPROHP. What matters here is that all these data belongs exclusively for the clients within the frame of the project. Indeed, both branches declare to have some other disabled clients but not represented in these figures.

Indicators at 31st May 2010 Commune III Commune VI

TOTAL 2 branches

Total number of clients 8 032 12 318 20 350

Total number of clients of PwD 49 17+??? 66+???

Total number of PwD received a loan for PIPROPH 32 17 49

Total loan volume disbursed to PwD (Fcfa) 7 526 366,00 4 206 704,00

11 733 070,00

Total loan volume disbursed to PwD (€) 11 473,87 € 6 413,08 € 17 886,95 €

Outstanding loan volume for PwD (Fcfa) 5 119 278,00 3 426 999,00

8 546 277,00

Outstanding loan volume for PwD (€) 7 804,29 € 5 224,43 € 13 028,72 €

Number of loans on arrear for PwD (1 day and +) 4 3 7

Number of loans on arrear for PwD (90 day and +) - 1 1

Delayed loan volume for PwD (1 day and +) - Fcfa 752 801,00 274 475,00 1 027 276,00

Outstanding arrears for PwD (1 day and +) - € 1 147,64 € 418,43 € 1 566,07 €Outstanding arrears volume for PwD (90 day and +) – Fcfa - 235 600,00 235 600,00

Delayed loan volume for PwD (90 day and +) - € - € 359,17 € 359,17 €

PAR 30days 7,09% 9,00% 8,05%

PAR 30days for PwD 0,00% 8,01% 4,00%

% clients of PwD 0,61% 0,14% 0,32%Loan average for PwD (PIPROHP)-Fcfa 235 198,94 247 453,18 241 326,06Loan average for PwD (PIPROHP)-Euros 358,56 € 377,24 € 367,90 €Loan average at Nyesigiso-€ (2008) 781,73 €Source for exchange rates: www.xe.com

12

The most interesting analysis on these indicators would be the Average Portfolio at Risk5 of 30 days for PwD which is lower than for non-disabled clients, 4% for PwD against 8% for non-disabled clientele. PAR 30 days is considered the most important indicator in microfinance to assess the quality portfolio of clients. The benchmark ratio is considered positive when it is lower than 5% so the result is much better for PwD than for non-disabled persons. In other words, we can conclude that the disabled clientele are repaying better than non-disabled clientele compared to the clients of the office.

The table also shows the average loan amount to PwD which is much lower than non-disabled clients. This indicator is normally used to measure the level of poverty of the clients and in this case we could make a positive analysis as the PwD targeted are poorer than the non-disabled clients. Anyhow, these figures are compared in different years which make them a bit influenced and furthermore, the maximum loan amount available to PwD within the project was 300.000Fcfa, about 460€ loan.

There is also a positive exception in the branch of Commune III who decided individually to count the total number of disabled clients in their branch. The number of total clients is 49 where 32 belong to the project and 17 were already clients before the establishment of PIPROHP, some did receive a credit and some others only had a savings account. Based on this figures, we could state that before the project there were only 17 disabled clients, even if there were more from branch VI, and it has increased now up to 66, representing a positive increase of 288%. The percentage of disabled clients in this branch represent 0,61% while in the branch Commune VI is only 0,14% but not taking into account those who do not belong to the PIPROHP project. Therefore the total percentage in the branch Commune VI is unknown although we estimate 0,32% without counting the disabled clientele out of the project in branch Commune VI. The only comparison possible is with the experience in Uganda6 where the disabled clientele represented a maximum of 1% in some branches.

The rest of the figures of the branch in Commune III are exclusively for the project and we can hardly make further analysis out of it. Moreover, the branches and headquarters could not declare to have developed any other indicator on financial or social aspects for PwD apart from those showed above which are also the ones proposed by a consultant from DID.

We can therefore conclude and highlight from the quantitative analysis the best positive impact on the development of a disabled clientele where the MFI has increased outreach focused on a minority and vulnerable group and at the same time is contributing to the financial statements of the MFI. In other words, the development of a disabled clientele has contributed positively to the financial and social mission of the MFI.

b) ReputationIn addition to the quantitative conclusions, reputation is by far the only issue where we can appreciate interviewees’ opinion about the positive impact for the MFI. One good example comes from Mamadou Haidara who described his experience in one important public event. He was replacing the President of Nyesigiso as he could not attend the event. He explained his high level of self-satisfaction when during the event the President of the FEMAPH (National Association for PwD) launched lots of good compliments addressed to Nyesigiso before the audience where there were high representatives of many different government institutions. Indeed, for him the subject of reputation is of high interest for the implementation of Social Performance. Most of the PwD who are registered within the EIHD know about this project and the willingness of Nyesigiso to work with PwD 5 Portfolio at Risk: It is the Outstanding Balance on arrears over ´n´ days + Gross outstanding Renegociated portfolio / Total Outstanding Loan Portfolio. In other words, the PAR is the percentage of loan portfolio disbursed which is at risk. Once there is an arrear, the PAR considers at risk all the coming instalments until the end of the loan. 6 The Norwegian Association of the Disabled (NAD) with the support of Roy Mersland and together with their counterparts the National Union of Disabled Persons of Uganda (NUDIPU) and the Association of Microfinance Institutions in Uganda (AMFIU) conducted a 2 years project where they accomplished to increase the percentage of PwD within Microfinance programs up to 1%. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1101701

13

as they have talked about it during the monthly meetings of EIHD. The persons in charge of credit services at Headquarters declared in the same line, the inclusion of Nyesigiso in reports of HI, DID or Cerise highlighting the inclusion of PwD in their programs goes in line with their social mission and positive impact on the reputation of the institution. In branch Commune III also declare that this reputation can be seen as a result of the good relations between the disabled and non-disabled clients where they exchange ideas and opinions in the queue like any other person. Actually, Nyesigiso is the only MFI in Bamako which is collaborating with DPOs for the inclusion of PwD in their programs. Anyhow, although we can conclude that the MFI has increased its reputation in the community as a consequence of developing a disabled clientele, it should be highlighted a lack of measures as a consequence of this gain of reputation. Measures to take in the future will be as a consequence of the results of the evaluation of the project.

c) 3.1.3 Lending modelWe include this section as a positive impact not because it is a consequence of developing a disabled clientele in the PIPROPH project in its phase of implementation but a consequence of the previous project where Handi-Caisse was created. We also consider it has been a positive impact on the lending model because the previous experiences where results were not good, served to understand the difficulties to set up a group lending model of PwD. Therefore, today’s project is working exclusively with an individual lending model and so far, results are positive. This can also be explained because Bamako represents an urban context and experiences in microfinance shows that group lending models are more likely to succeed in rural than in urban contexts and for this reason individual lending is becoming rather common in urban areas. However, it would require further research to verify if a group lending model of PwD in a rural region can have the same positive results than individual models in urban areas and therefore conclude that PwD requires individual lending models to succeed.

3.2The short term impact of developing a disabled clientele does not generate changes in the MFI practices, methodologies and tools

a) Product ServicesRegarding the impact on the products offered by the MFI, it must be said that no further changes have come in any of the financial services of the MFI, either credit, nor savings or any other product as a consequence of developing a disabled clientele. The MFI operates with the same financial services as usual and thanks to the PIPROPH project, with a new product specially addressed for PwD. There are 7 different types of credits in Nyesigiso including the loan for PwD within PIPROHP (women, agriculture, salaries, consumption, Income Generating Activities, mortgage and for PwD). Unfortunately, this product will normally disappear once the project is over. On this regard it is important to highlight that the project is divided in 2 different phases, the first one where the credit service has better conditions compared to other products and a second one, once the project is over by October 2010 (probably prolonged), where disabled clients become a “normal” client with the same conditions as any other person, without taking into consideration their situation of disability. Measures to be taken will be decided at the end of the project with a corresponding evaluation but so far, based on the responses of the responsible of credit services at headquarters, the MFI does not foresee to provide any special product for PwD after the 1st phase of the project. Only the loan officer Malick Dramé dares to say, in general terms, that if results continue like today, it will probably be a positive analysis and the necessity to take further measures but he has no influence at all on decision making processes.

Some are in favor and some against positive discrimination. It should be pointed out the opinion of the President of BoD branch III. He is in favor to offer credit services to PwD with better conditions

14

but he does not specifically support the idea of subsidies but better conditions just in order to facilitate repayments. Similar responses come from the employees of branch Commune III who agree that PwD should get better conditions, even using subventions. On the other side, there is the opinion of the credit officer Malick Dramé and the representatives of credit services at headquarters who believe that positive discrimination would only lead to strengthen discrimination as non-disabled clients might complain about their worst credit conditions and PwD will remain to be seen differently and at inferior level. To certain extent they might be right but they do not take into consideration the existing loan product which is working well and that PwD are able repay while if worsen the conditions may only lead to complicate capacities for PwD to repay and lead to over-indebtedness. If during the second phase, the loan for PwD no longer exists, it will be a struggle for PwD to repay as they would have to double the savings and pay higher interest rate. This lack of effects contrasts with the theory that a MFI with higher number of loan products better contributes to the social impact of the community. The higher the number of loan products the MFI has, the higher target population the MFI is addressing and the higher outreach is achieving.

On the other side, it must be mentioned that the maximum loan amount for PIPROHP is 300.000 Fcfa while the minimum is 50.000Fcfa. This limit does not exist in the other loans. It is quite normal that the first loan cycle is a rather small amount in order to raise awareness to the client on credit culture but to some extent, this limit amount looks more like a type of discrimination on product design. The loan amount should be based on repayment capacity. Actually if we compare the average loan amount for PwD with the total average loan amount of the MFI, as seen in the set of indicators, it is much smaller for PwD as a consequence of the amount limit.

Another type of discrimination recognized is also the age limit for PwD beneficiaries of the project. Any beneficiary must be under 40 years old to receive a loan from the MFI. The reasons argued are that the person is considered too old to develop any economic activity and the risk of death is also high and consequently the risk of default too. This age limit could be compensated with a life insurance in case of death or full incapacity, something that actually exists and that all clients of the MFI, PwD or not, are obliged to pay. Therefore, it is quite inexplicable that beneficiaries older than 40 years old cannot benefit and participate within the project.

The last important aspect as regard to products is to analyze the use of a guarantor to all clients. This can be explained as Mali lacks a Credit Bureau7. This is normally a principle against Microfinance rules worldwide although it is widely used. Actually, the use of this collateral is considered of high importance for Nyesigiso and might have a positive impact on reimbursement rates for the MFI for both disabled and non-disabled clientele. The use of this type of collateral raises peer pressure to clients which leads to lower default rates.

To conclude, we can therefore conclude that although the product designed for PwD is so far working very well, at this moment the MFI does not foresee to continue with this specific product or a product especially addressed for PwD.

b) Management Information SystemThis section pretends to measure not only the impact but also the possibilities of the MIS software within the MFI Nyesigiso. So far, there has been a small positive impact mentioned before with the individual initiative in one of the branches where they decided to count themselves the total number of disabled clients within the branch. The software used for MIS is called “System Automatique Financière – SAF” and at this stage, all data has been decentralized at branch level and solely on the context of the project PIPROHP. Indeed, to make a proper analysis of the indicators, it is needed to gather the information separately from both branches involved in the project. The data has not been centralized to facilitate a clear analysis and it is not planning to do so. Anyhow, within the software of

7 Credit Bureau is a centralized organism which consists on sharing the credit records of clients among the Financial Institutions in a given country with the objective to avoid over-indebted customers.

15

both branches, there is now a new icon regarding the content for the project PIPROPH and the centralization of the data between the 2 branches involve in the project would not probably mean a workload at this stage. All persons interviewed agreed that it would be possible to make a new icon to gather all the information for clients with disabilities. Actually, the President of BoD branch III stated that they had never thought about it but it would be a great idea to centralize the info from all branches of the MFI. The same is declared by the persons in charge of the Social Performance of the MFI. They believe it can be a positive initiative but they never have thought about it. However, one should consider that responses might also be biased.

On the other side, the 2 persons responsible of credit services at headquarters made a good appreciation and declared that because there is no discrimination, they make no distinction among disabled and non-disabled clients and do not declare in favour of such a measure. Actually, they believed this would be a type of discrimination as PwD would then be seen as a special group rather than persons like everybody. Another important matter to consider would be the workload to integrate all this info among all the branches of the MFI in the country. Sometimes, it might be difficult to identify whether some persons are considered or not handicapped as it does not have to be visible impairments all the time. To approve this type of initiative or any other, it should be clear that Nyesigiso is a coop institution where all members have rights to vote future initiatives in the General Assembly each year and decisions does not come only from the Board of Directors.

Therefore, we can affirm as it happens with a specific loan for PwD that some persons are in favour and some against measuring data for PwD if it has to be an initiative from the MFI. So far, there are not initiatives on this regard and they are not foreseen. Only the persons in charge of the Social Performance could be of influence for such initiative but considering that they did not think about it before the interview, one may think it will not be any measure in the coming future and even more considering that the persons in charge of the SP are also in charge of the Training Services and Human Resources department.

c) Business OpportunityThis question was directly linked to the importance of the role of a DPO to increase the number of disabled clients. All of them agree about the huge importance of the partnership but some responses like from Modibo Dembele, responsible for credit services at Headquarters and who had received the training on disability, was quite astonishing as he stated that it is out of his competence to increase a disabled clientele. Very important is the role of credit officers. They normally are in charge of increasing the outreach of the MFI and usually incentivized for that. Anyhow, in Nyesigiso they do not have such objective but to maintain the number of clients; therefore it seems rather difficult for them to go beyond and decide by themselves to recruit PwD as new clients. As declared by the staff in the branches, the doors are opened to everybody with no distinction on their condition of disability. Thus, if it is not thanks to the collaboration of EIHD and HI as financial supporter, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to achieve such numbers of disabled clients and improve the outreach of Nyesigiso. Therefore, we could conclude that the work of the DPO EIHD has a positive impact to improve the outreach on PwD but Nyesigiso still today do not consider PwD as a target population to increase their clientele and outreach in order to contribute to their social and financial mission. If the percentage of the disabled clientele is about to increase, it must compulsory require the work of a DPO.

In addition to the importance of the DPOs for increasing the number of disabled clients, as the DPOs should also be responsible to inform the MFI about the positive effects of developing a disabled clientele, the interviewees were asked whether they think PwD represent a business opportunity or not. In this question, we also wanted to assess if as a result of the project the persons interviewed considered developing a clientele of PwD as a business opportunity for the MFI. Indeed, all responses are positive on that regard and in most cases declared that they did not think about it before the project except Modibo Dembele and Seydu Gueye. However, there is the impression that

16

even after the project they never thought about it either as it was necessary to explain carefully the concept of the question, a reason to think that responses can easily be biased. Anyhow, the President of the branch III made a good appreciation as he fully agrees but it would be interesting to know to which extend this affirmation is correct as they do not really know how many disabled people are potential clients for Nyesigiso. In the same perspective responded the persons in charge of the Social Performance as they agree it might be a business opportunity but that’s something to “clarify in the future”. These are good appreciations which would actually require future researches although it seems quite difficult to make an accurate approach of the potential disabled population that could become clients of the MFI. The conception of business opportunity for the MFI is quite important as it gives a good motivation for them to approach the double bottom line8 in microfinance.

Unfortunately, we can conclude from this section that the MFI Nyesigiso, still after developing a disabled clientele with good results, does not think about PwD as a considerable target population that can positively contribute to the double bottom line in microfinance. Therefore, it is not surprising that they do not use the topic of disability either on the internal or external communication resources of the institution and refer to DPOs to increase the percentage of a disabled clientele in their program. Only during the period with Handi-caisse they used pictures of PwD in past publications but today as this credit institution no longer belongs to Nyesigiso, this idea is forgotten.

d) Social PerformanceAnother important aspect in the assessment of the MFI Nyesigiso is the implementation of Social Performance and whether they use the thematic of disability. There is a clear lack of effects in this assessment. The persons interviewed in charge of the SP declared to follow the guidelines of the Microfinance actor on SP, Cerise9, along with other 5 MFIs in western African countries that form the network CIF10. On this sense, they declared that the guidelines from Cerise do not include the topic of disability in any of part of the questionnaire and that what it is mainly discussed, is the discrimination and marginalization of clients in a more global context and not specially PwD. This may be true but only to some extent. The only references to disability in the guideline of Cerise is when they ask about the percentage of clients who are from socially marginalized and/or vulnerable groups where PwD are considered together with others who may be defined by race, caste, ethnicity or religion, and may also include homeless, internally displaced persons or refugees. The MFIs are asked to determine the percentage of clientele considered as vulnerable/marginalised group or if they finance activities which are employing minorities such as PwD. This is of special interest for HI but so far Nyesigiso is not able to inform about any of both questions.

Nevertheless, Nyesigiso works with women associations and women who are also infected by AIHDS. In this cases all credit disbursed is covered by 100% guarantee fund while with HI is only covering 60% in order to motivate the MFI to collect the money from the disabled clients and treat them like any other person. Anyhow, there is no link between the impacts of developing a disabled clientele with these initiatives as they come from other operating sources and is not a consequence of the partnership with HI.

However, it is important to highlight that although the social mission of Nyesigiso always existed since its creation, Nyesigiso received in 2009 their first evaluation on Social Performance from Cerise. Before that period, they declared that was not a major concern for the MFI as they unknown this type of initiatives. Thus, Social Performance is still a rather new topic for Nyesigiso which is about to improve with the partnership with CIF.

Nevertheless, it should also be considered that the persons in charge of the SP in Nyesigiso are also in charge of the Training services and Human Resources department. That’s to say, that even after

8 The double bottom line in Microfinance refers to the MFI’s mission statement to follow financial and social objectives. 9 http://www.cerise-microfinance.org/10 CIF is the Confédération des Institutions Financières which forms a network of 6 MFIs in western African countries. The MFIs are Nyesigiso and Kafo Jiginew from Mali, RCPB from Burkina Faso, FECECAM from Benin, FUCEC from Togo and PAMECAS from Senegal.

17

the evaluation received from Cerise on SP and that Nyesigiso forms together with other MFIs a network to implement and improve their social mission, they do not have specific employees working for that objective which would lead to conclude that SP is still today not be a major concern. This idea is reinforced with the description of the incentives scheme for loan officers.

Incentives with established objectives are quite common in MFIs for branches and especially for loan officers since most of their activities are developed outside the office. Financially oriented incentives are mostly common in the field of microfinance as it also happens with Nyesigiso. The factors which affect the incentives for credit officers are the PAR1, PAR30, default rate and amount of credit disbursed. This model shows exclusively a for-profit oriented objective rather than social as what matters here is the volume of the credits disbursed and not the number of credits where at least the outreach would increase in order to improve the social mission of the MFI. This might give an idea that the policy of the MFI goes further on its financial than social mission. There is no component on disability either before or after the project but this would probably make sense as it may only reinforce discrimination against PwD.

e) Expansion to other branchesWe try to analyse if as a consequence of targeting a disabled clientele, the MFI is addressing or planning to extend and increase their disabled clientele in other cities or villages in rural areas of the country. The branches are not involved is this kind of decision-making process and the respond from Headquarters is that once the project is over they will assess the positive and negative results and see whether it is worth to make efforts to extend the disabled clientele in another regions or not. The MFI ignores if they worked before in rural areas with PwD. They ensure that they probably did so but it is out of their knowledge. However, the President of BoD branch III declares that he is favour to work more for PwD having a special policy for them that includes also in other urban and rural areas but nowadays there are no initiatives on this regard.

We can conclude from these responses that today disability is not a major concern for the MFI and that even when results are positive, they do not consider increasing the disabled clientele in other regions either urban or rural if it is not with the support of a DPO who is recruiting the clientele for them.

f) Client approachSo far, results do not show any type of impact and at the same time it is hardly impossible to take any conclusions out of the analysis. The levels referred in this section are whether the MFI makes surveys to know the satisfaction level, the level of poverty and the financial and non-financial needs of its clients. At the same time the MFI was asked about the procedures on risk assessment.

As part of the PIPROPH project the disabled clients have a special application form to demand a credit where they are asked questions about their financial and non-financial concerns. Similarly, beneficiaries of the project have a special process to assess their repayment capacity and credit is disbursed only once an application has been approved by the Micro-project Validation Committee which is part of the project. PwD are not assessed on their level of poverty and will not ever be in the future but they will be asked about their satisfaction level with the MFI once and at the end of the project.

What we could only conclude is that there are not further decisions about what will be happen with the special procedures for the beneficiaries of the project such as the application form, Validation Committee or risk assessment analysis. As we could interpret from the responses of representatives of the credit services at headquarters, beneficiaries after the project will be as any normal client with the same procedures and conditions and most likely no special measures will be taken at these levels

18

g) Accessibility and communicationAs meant before in the project, disability is not used in the internal or external communication of the MFI. For instance, the head of credit services at Headquarters was asked about the access to information for blind or deaf people and stated that that was out of his competence.

In addition, there are no further perspectives for future initiatives to facilitate physical accessibility. Physical accessibility looks more complicated as it is time consuming and probably costly for the MFI. Anyhow the 2 branches involved in the project will be soon physically accessible for PwD. As regard to communication it would be very desirable that the topic of disability is more used as it might be very positive in terms of cost-efficiency for the MFI.

There are no further initiatives as a consequence of increasing a disabled clientele and if initiatives are to come up, this will only happen after a proper evaluation of the PIPROHP project by the MFI.

h) Level of engagement and Perception towards PwDTo achieve an accurate conclusion on these questions is rather difficult as these may be the best examples where answers can be biased. It was intended to assess if both concepts have improved as a consequence of developing a disabled clientele. Responses are irregular as a consequence of different opinions.

As regard to the level of engagement 5 out of 12 persons interviewed declared to be now more engaged to increase a clientele of PwD while 2 of them declares that is has not changed and 4 do not have any response. Others, like the President of BoD branch III, states that it has not changed at all as it was already very strong before the project due to personal reasons as his son is also disabled. The fact that the President of BoD the branch III, was not aware about the local partner EIHD implementing the project on disability might also shows that his level of involvement, is rather low. Anyhow, he was conscious about Handicap International who is financing the project. Previous initiatives such as the creation of Handi-caisse meant by the responsible of SP and credit at Headquarters shows that Nyesigiso was already in the past conscious about the topic of disability. This may also explain why in most cases it is declared a high level of engagement even before the project but since the MFI is not using disability within the internal or external communication tools it is difficult to conclude that there is an institutional commitment. Obviously, as individuals, they will rarely assert that they were not engaged towards PwD and even though, only 5 stated to have improved their commitment.

Moreover, similar analysis can be done as regard to the results of the MFI perception towards PwD before and after the inception of project. Twice in the questionnaire interviewees were asked about their perception towards PwD. When interviewees were asked if they agree that their thoughts about PwD have changed after their inclusion in microfinance programs, all of them agree with the sentence. However, when they were asked about how their perception has changed, most of them declared that it has hardly changed and only branch Commune III, which was more active than branch Commune III, responded positively. Therefore, it seems obvious that no real conclusions should be made on the positive or negative perception of PwD. Most people have personal experiences with PwD and declared that the perception has not specially changed as they did not have any bad consideration before the project. Mali is a country where disability is rather common; actually all persons interviewed except the loan officer of one branch declared to know someone who is in situation of disability. Mamadou Haidara, in charge of the Social Performance, declared that in the local TV, ORTM, it is sometimes screened good examples of PwD who successfully run a viable business, are married and their kids go to school but they are not specially clients of any MFI or talk about this issue. Some others, like in branch Commune III also declared that sometimes PwD are richer and more intelligent than non-disabled persons. However, the credit officer Malick Dramé from branch Commune III declared that still today he feels pity about them and most of the others insisted

19

on the importance and necessity to reinforce their capacities, support and help them as well as to raise awareness on credit culture. This perception probably shows that many of them still have prejudices about PwD but if PwD would have had exactly the same loan conditions than non-disabled clients maybe this perception would have considerably increased as a demonstration of their capacities.

Therefore, considering that results from both responses easily leads to biased conclusions we should not make clear conclusions. Anyhow, it seems that the level of engagement to develop a disabled clientele was rather good but has not necessarily improved as a consequence to developing a disabled clientele.

3.3The disabled clientele is still considered as difficult

Satisfaction level towards PwD, what else does the MFI expect?When interviewees were asked about their level of satisfaction with disabled clients before and at the day of today, results were surprisingly negative. We pay attention especially to the staff who is working face to face with PwD. In branch Commune VI declared that they have worked before with PwD and they were always among the best clients, repaying on time and consequently never needed to monitor their activities. Similar opinions come from the branch Commune III although the credit officer never worked with PwD before the project. These opinions change when asked about the beneficiaries of the project. There are cases where clients are on delay and need to be called on their phones, sometimes there is a need to move to their places to inform them about the delay and that they have to pay the instalment or assume the consequences and sometimes even threat them. This process is a considerable waste of time for the MFI. Nevertheless, they are not the only clients on that situation as we can see from the financial indicators and even on delay, we can see PwD normally pay before thirty days of delay and are even better payers than non-disabled clients. Therefore, despite that PwD are repaying well, the conception of the personnel of the MFI towards a disabled clientele has decreased when based on financial outcomes it would be normal if it was the other way round and would have positively increased.

One reason that might explain the delay repaying some loans could be that when PwD know they are part of project, they may have the impression to be assisted any time it is required. It might be also possible that PwD are used to receive favourable conditions and it is possible that there is still a work to do on that sense. Anyhow, there is empirical evidence that shows PwD repay the loans and to certain extent are better payers than non-disabled clients.

4. Recommendations to improve the development of a disabled clientele

4.1Delete discrimination from product design for PwD:

At a first stage, it would be recommendable to address the 2 aspects of discrimination, age and loan amount within the frame of the project. The loan amount is limited to 300.000Fcfa while it should be based on repayment capacity. Although it makes sense that a first loan cycle is not very large, the amount should not be limited. One disabled entrepreneur, member of EIHD, was excluded from the project as he was interested to reinforce his activity with a much larger loan. He already has 7

20

employees to his charge and running successfully a self-employment activity with a low risk of credit default. At the same time, beneficiaries can only benefit from a microcredit if they are less than 40 years old. Arguments for the age limit are the risk of decease or risk of default and this could be addressed with a life insurance, something that surprisingly already exists and all clients of Nyesigiso are obliged to pay. Loan amount should be agreed as regard to repayment capacity and age limit should be opened and flexible.

This discrimination from the project contrasts with the case of a disabled woman of 40 years old, she will be 41 soon, and who had recently received a loan of 400.000F. In addition, the existence of a guarantor ensures higher repayment rates.

4.2Agreement on a loan product for PwD:

This proposal raises important ethic debates that should be discussed before heading any decision. Arguments for and against a loan for PwD are understandable. Providing a concrete product for PwD might reinforce the idea that they are different and therefore they need special conditions rather than reinforce the idea that they equal and capable like non-disabled persons. But on the other side it may be useful in terms of cost-efficiency.

Besides that non-disabled clients might also complain about their worst loan conditions, most PwD believe they should get better conditions than non-disabled clients because of their condition of disability. That’s to say, they prefer to be considered differently. Moreover, the creation of a special product for PwD may also attract many PwD once they are aware that there is a loan product addressed for them, especially with a good marketing or communication campaign through DPOs. Conditions do not have to be necessarily better but more flexible. For instance, PwD seem capable and willing to pay like any other client, even at same interest rates but sometimes their capacity to generate income is lower than non-disabled clients. On that sense, provide longer maturity to their credits would be an interesting approach in order to reduce the amount for instalments, facilitate repayments and reduce over-indebtedness. This does not mean the MFI is earning less money. Indeed, with the declining balance interest rates, the one used in Nyesigiso, a 2 years loan generates more interest for the MFI than 1 year loan. Flexibility, reschedule and prolongation should be a basis to any loan for a PwD or other vulnerable groups. If a new product is to be created, rather than address it for PwD, it could be addressed or named as a product for vulnerable groups who have harder repayment capacity so that the reinforcement of discrimination against PwD is blurred.

Ideally, any loan product should be designed based on a survey and needs assessment to the beneficiaries. It is of high importance to involve PwD in the product design if they are about to benefit from it.

Nevertheless, there should be a common agreement and analyze which position makes more sense. Debates would lead to questions such as: To which extend the creation of a loan for PwD would reinforce discrimination against them? Is it ethical to give lower interest rates to PwD? How many PwD are running viable businesses? For how many PwD a credit would be interesting? Is it useful then to create such a product for PwD in terms of cost-efficiency? What it seems important is that Mali is a country where disability is relatively common and culturally in favour to support PwD. Therefore, a product specifically for PwD or “vulnerable groups”, which is not necessarily costly, may not be seen unmoral and to some certain may be suitable.

4.3Inform Nyesigiso about cross-subsidized products and theory on social impact:

21

Nyesigiso seems willing to contribute to the social mission of the MFI although it is a rather new topic for them. On that sense, it would be interesting to refer to the definition of cross-subsidization and the theory that MFIs with a diversified set of loan products have better social impact in their communities. Cross-subsidization is a very much used method in microfinance. An MFI with several loan products would be able to cross-subsidize its benefits from one product with very low profits or even losses to another with higher profits in order to increase outreach and improve its social mission while maintaining its financial mission. A loan for IGA which is very demanded at 16% interest rate for instance, may generate good profits for the MFI and these benefits could be balanced with a loan product for PwD for instance at 12%. This would make sense in a credit for PwD as they are also a minority group among clients and losses would never be high. Nyesigiso is capable to do so as they are already financially self-sufficient since 200811.

4.4Agreement on Management Information System for PwD:

It would be very interesting and facilitate work if Nyesigiso centralizes the data as regard to PwD. It is quite useless to request at branch level a set if indicators to make a global analysis of the disabled clientele in the MFI. What would happen if the project is prolonged and the branches involved become 4 or 6 and in different cities or involving different DPOs? It would multiply the work to do a proper analysis and the probabilities of errors are considerably higher when somebody has to manipulate figures. Indeed, the SAF system seems to be capable to collect all data as regard to PwD as today all the information collected is computerized at branch level within the system but exclusively for the project PIPROPH and not for a clientele of PwD. The desirable idea would be to disaggregate data for PwD as for instance it is done today with women. If centralize, indicators for PwD would come out directly and can facilitate financial and social comparison of PwD as regard to non-disabled clients. Nevertheless, such idea also raises ethic debates. It would probably require a workload to prepare the system and then identify and insert data of disabled clients. Many may wonder then if it is useful in terms of cost-efficiency. While women represent half of the global population, PwD represent a minority group and some may argue that comparing information of PwD or other vulnerable group with “normal” clients would only reinforce discrimination and the utility of the comparison analysis is not that valuable. If there is a non discrimination policy, this can be true to some extent. It would be interesting to know the total percentage that PwD represent in the clientele of a MFI but which is the usefulness to compare the PAR 30 days with other clients, just to highlight that PwD are good or bad clients? Isn’t it a discrimination policy that contrasts with the non discrimination policy of the MFI? In addition, such measures would be costly and time consuming. At this stage the solution is complicated. Therefore, HI should raise this debate with microfinance practitioners and actors of Social Performance.

4.5Involvement of the Top Management of the MFI:

When any organization aims to launch a message for promoting any service, idea or just a product, the use of internal communication coming from the top management of the organization is usually a common and crucial initiative if it is about to succeed. The same should be applied on MFIs for increasing a disabled clientele and not only in Bamako but in all regions and branches of the MFI throughout the country. The fact that the President of BoD branch III did not know about the EIHD shows that the commitment of the top management of the MFI is rather low. Besides, it would have been interesting to access the resources for internal communication. Nyesigiso is a coop institution and all members meet through General Assemblies at least once per year. The President was encouraged to suggest disability as an opportunity of clientele in the future Assembly.

11 http://mixmarket.org/mfi/nyesigiso/data

22

4.6Convince the MFI that a clientele of PwD is also a business opportunity:

The definition of business opportunity when developing a clientele of PwD is inexistent for the MFI. This should be among the main arguments for DPOs to convince MFIs for increasing a disabled clientele, not only because it is positive for its social mission but also for the economic mission of the MFI. Although MFIs try to do well, they hardly ever forget about its financial mission. The business opportunity is true but only to some extent as it is hardly impossible to quantify the number of PwD in any country and how many of them could become clients of the MFI. However, in a country like Mali, there is a large community of PwD and even if not all would need a microcredit that would provide benefits to the MFI, they can benefit of a saving account which would also increase the resources of the MFI.

4.7Advocate disability in actors of Social Performance:

If disability is to be mainstreamed within microfinance practices, HI should advocate and arrange meetings with microfinance practitioners, especially those involved in Social Performance to discuss whether it is feasible or not to integrate disability in this or that level. As a first approach, the ones where it might be more feasible seem to be product design, MIS, communication as well as evaluation of satisfaction level. Social Performance actors have also big influence in MFIs worldwide through their tools to assess Social Performance. These tools may sometimes lead to changes in practices among MFIs in order to get better rates in their social mission and gain reputation worldwide. Therefore, it would also be interesting to include disability within their tools so that they may raise awareness among MFIs. Some important actors might be Cerise, Microfinanzas Rating, ADA, Planet Finance, and obviously the CGAP.

4.8Involve PwD with success stories to spread the word about Microfinance:

As most staff of the MFI agreed, it would be interesting to mobilize one or several PwD who are clients of the MFI and have benefited from a microcredit and succeeded. The idea would be to tell other Persons with disabilities their positive and negative experiences with the MFI during the monthly meetings of EIHD. They would explain the positive sides of using a saving account and accessing a microcredit:

Savings are important for possible emergencies, investments to reach objectives and improve consumption but also to avoid the risk of being robbed.

Credit might not be necessary for everybody but the speaker can say why it was important for them and that it is a financial tool that might be helpful for some others if they fulfil some conditions.

They would also explain that MFIs are here for PwD and that everybody can go and demand their services without any support from EIHD. Inform about the importance of repaying the loan is important too. They could even use some guidelines about what to say. A good beneficiary for this could be Mamadou Dienta who is very pro-active and with very good communication skills although he has benefited the credit with the support of EIHD. If possible, it would be interesting to spread this type of initiative to bigger media like radio or TV and do it on a regular basis. The interesting approach is that it is a PwD like them who inform about the positive and negative effects and nobody else.

23

4.9Insist on credit and saving culture to counterparts:

As a consequence of a lower level of satisfaction towards PwD, insist to raise awareness on credit and saving culture among the beneficiaries, but also the local partner EIHD in charge to promote the message among PwD. Although it seems that beneficiaries are rarely defaulting, many of them needed to be recalled and followed for repayments. Therefore, there must be something that did not work well. An interesting anecdote happened with the Vice-president of EIHD. He stated that some PwD can buy food for them, for their families or important basics for living; so if after all they cannot repay the loan, it is not a failure because they made good use of the money. It seems important to explain the role of microfinance within communities, positive and negative aspects, like over-indebtedness. The message should be that if a loan is not invested properly, they may probably worsen their situation in a long-term and increase their vulnerability

4.10 Promote partnership between the main national DPO and MFI networks:

Institutionalize disability within the MFIs in Mali. Promote partnership between FEMAPH (Fédération Malienne des Associations de Personnes Handicapées) and APIM Mali (Association Professionnelle des Institutions de la Microfinance du Mali) using the resources of both organizations to broaden disability among MFIs throughout the whole country. A partnership between the 2 main national institutions would increase the scope and number of MFIs involved as well as to target an increased the number of PwD. It is of extremely importance that both institutions have a high reputation if the initiative is about to succeed. Activities could be such as promoting the idea that developing a disabled clientele is a business opportunity for the MFI, sensitization towards PwD to credit officers and top management, training to disabled entrepreneurs on cash management, advocacy efforts on media. These concepts would be reinforced thanks to the partnership but with several MFIs and in the whole country.

5. Conclusion of the study

24

As main conclusion of the study; even though results are quite positive at the day of today for the interests of the MFI, it would be that the development of a disabled clientele does not have any impact and effects in practices and tools and attitudes of the MFI as regard to PwD in the short term. To some extent this lack of effects can be normal considering that the project is still in its phase of implementation and has not yet been properly evaluated. Anyhow, at this stage it is foreseen that once the current project is over, the beneficiaries of the project becomes “normal” clients with the exactly the same conditions as non-disabled clients and any type of consideration as for their situation of disability.

However, the good financial and social results as well as a positive reputation for the MFI which gives international recognition contrast with the opinion of the MFI towards the clientele of PwD that it is important to keep supporting, helping and reinforcing their capacities or raising awareness on credit culture and that the MFI has never discriminated PwD, not even unconsciously. Nyesigiso shows sensitiveness towards PwD with previous initiatives such as Handi-caisse but the fact that they demand for their support when they are demonstrating to have capacities to be economically and morally independent, shows there is still the same perception along with prejudices that they are a different segment of the population and not like all others. However, would this perception improve if PwD would have had a loan product with the exactly the same conditions of non-disabled clients and still succeeding? In addition, the level of satisfaction as clients has even decreased when it should normally have been the other way round even if some beneficiaries pay on delay but pay even better than non-disabled clients.

The most important element would be that the development of disabled clients contributes to both the financial and social of the MFI, it is a business opportunity, but is still not considered a potential target group for the well-being of the MFI so that the MFI takes some initiatives to increase their outreach in more branches or regions. The best explanation for this would be that the MFI do not issue the subject of disability in the internal or external communication tools, it is a forgotten segment of the population that represents a considerably percentage of the population and with lot of potential for the well-being of the MFI. We can conclude that it is essential the role of DPOs for the positive contribution of financial and social statements of the MFI when it should also be themselves who take this kind of initiatives for the financial but also for the Social Performance of the MFI. The scheme of the incentives along with the fact that the persons in charge of the Social Performance of the MFI are also in charge of Training Services and Human Resources also show that the policy of the MFI is rather for profit-oriented than socially oriented.

In the coming future there will be the necessity to decide some important initiatives for the future procedures towards for the disabled clientele but this also raises important ethic questions such as, does a special product for PwD reinforce the discrimination toward them? Does disaggregated data of PwD reinforce discrimination against them? Is positive discrimination good or bad for the perception of PwD? However, it seems obvious that further measures in communication, satisfaction level or the inclusion of disability in the Social Performance tools of the MFI are cost-efficiency and an advantage for the MFI.

Appendix 1

25

Phrases \ Number of responses Fully agree Agree Neutral Disagree Fully

disagree

« I believe we have few disabled clients because there are not many PwD with feasible economic activities »

3 1 3 2 2

« I believe that one of the raisons why we have few disabled clients is because we have unconsciously marginalized or discriminated them »

1 1 9

« I believe that in this branch/institution, we have never discriminated a client for its situation of disability »

10 1

« I believe that we still can do much more for PwD in our branch/institution »

4 7

« My thoughts towards PwD have positively changed after their inclusion in Microfinance programs »

3 8

« I believe we should offer better loan conditions to PwD than the other clients »

2 3 1 5

« I believe PwD are too poor to save money »

5 6

« I am now more committed to increase the number of PwD in our branch/institution than before the project »

5 4 2

« I believe PwD do not normally have the necessary competences and skills to manage an enterprise successfully »

5 5

« I believe PwD are associated to a higher risk of default in reimbursement rates »

1 4 5

« I believe we have already put lots of efforts to increase our disabled clientele »

1 4 5

« I believe that we should identify PwD who have succeeded to attract more a clientele of PwD »

1 9

« I believe PwD do not usually have enough self-esteem to manage an economic activity with success »

1 8 1

Appendix 2

26

Conditions of credits available for PwD

MaturityInterest

rate (declining balance)

Compulsory savings

Installment

Up-front fees

Insurance Collateral

PIPROHP 12 months 13% 10% of loan

amount Monthly 2%Amount x 0,075 x maturity

Yes, guarantor

IGA12-36

months 12-16% 20% Monthly2% + 3%

1.500Fcfa fee + Amount x

0,075 x maturity

Yes, guarantor

Consump. 12

months 16% 20% Monthly2% + 3%

1.500Fcfa fee + Amount x

0,075 x maturity

Yes, guarantor

Salaries12-36

months 15% 20% Monthly2% + 3%

1.500Fcfa fee + Amount x

0,075 x maturity

Yes, guarantor

Annex 3Questionnaire à l'attention des Institutions de Microfinance partenariats de

Handicap International

Ce questionnaire prétend évaluer de manière globale l’impact dans l’IMF des clients handicapé. Il s’agit d’analyser les outils, procédures, processus et perceptions. L’utilisation de ce questionnaire doit être adaptée selon la fonction de la personne interviewée puisqu’un membre du Conseil d’Administration n’a pas la même information qu’un agent de crédit.

1) Prénom:2) Nom de famille:3) Position dans l’institution de crédit:4) Genre:5) Age : 6) Education:

Indicateurs financiers et sociaux (exemple de question où les interviewés ont besoin de chercher des données précises). Il doit être séparé par genre (homme, femme) comme convenu avec DID

- Nombre total de clients dans l’institution de crédit:

- Nombre de demandes de crédit par les PSH

- Nombre de crédits octroyés aux PSH

- Nombre de PSH différentes qui ont reçu un crédit

27

- Volume de crédit octroyé aux PSH

- Nombre de crédits aux PSH en cours

- Volume de crédit aux PSH en cours

- Nombre de crédit aux PSH en retard (1 jour et +) et (90 jours et +)

- Volume de crédit aux PSH en retard (1 jour et +) et (90 jours et+)

En plus de ces indicateurs, le réseau fournira la liste des prêts par tranche d’âge par caisse………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

7) Nombre de types de crédits différents dans l’IMF:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

8) Nombre de types de crédits différents dans l’IMF pour les clients handicapés:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

9) Type moyen d’intérêt chargé (linéaire):………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

10) Type moyen d’intérêt chargé aux clients handicapés (linéaire):………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

11) Frais de dossier pour les clients:12) Frais de dossier pour les clients handicapés:13) Epargne obligatoire pour les clients:14) Epargne obligatoire pour les clients handicapés:15) Taux chargés pendant le prêt pour les clients: Oui Non16) Taux chargés pendant le prêt pour les clients handicapés: Oui No17)

- Portefeuille à risque > 30j

- Portefeuille à risque > 30j pour clients handicapés

18) Durée moyen du prêt pour les clients:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

19) Durée moyen du prêt pour les clients handicapés:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

20) Régime de Prévoyance Crédit:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

28

21) Avez-vous des assurances vie dans vos crédits? Oui Non………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

22) Avez-vous un taux pour l’annulation du prêt? Oui NonSi oui, décrivez le taux:………………………………………………………………………………………………………

23) Avez-vous d’autres indicateurs de performance financière développés à partir de le partenariat avec EIHD-HI?Oui NonSi oui, le quels? Commentez votre répondre………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

24) Avez-vous d’autres indicateurs de performance sociale développés à partir de le partenariat avec EIHD-HI?Oui NonSi oui, le quels? Commentez votre répondre………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Questions Personnelles25) Avez-vous un familier, amie ou personne proche qui est handicapé?

Oui Non26) Quel est votre niveau d’engagement pour développer une clientèle handicapé?

- Avant le partenariat avec HI: Très fort Fort Neutre Faible Très faible

- Aujourd’hui:Très fort Fort Neutre Faible Très faible

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

27) Quel est votre niveau de satisfaction avec les clients handicapés?- Avant le partenariat avec HI: Très bon Bon Satisfaisant Moins que satisfaisant Insatisfaisant

- Aujourd’hui:Très bon Bon Satisfaisant Moins que satisfaisant Insatisfaisant

- Comment sont vos relations avec les clients handicapés?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

28) Comment a changé votre perception des clients handicapés à partir du projet?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

29

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

29) Comment considérez-vous le partenariat avec EIHD et HI pour développer une clientèle handicapé?

Très important Important Neutre Peu important Pas du tout important

Pourquoi?……………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………Croyez-vous que les personnes handicapés soient une opportunité de business à explorer en lien avec la mission sociale et financière de l’institution de crédit?

- Avant le projet:Tout à fait Assez Assez peu Pas du tout - Aujourd’hui: Tout à fait Assez Assez peu Pas du tout ……………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………30) Avez-vous l’impression que votre institution de crédit gagne en réputation dans votre

communauté avec le développement des clients handicapés?Oui Non- Si oui, comment utilisez-vous cette réputation?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………- Quelles sont les conséquences de l’évolution de cette réputation? Quel est l’influence du développement de la clientèle handicapée vis-à-vis d’autres types de clientèle?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

31) A votre avis, l’impact dans l’institution de crédit avec le développement des clients handicapés est: Très bon Bon Satisfaisant Moins que satisfaisant Insatisfaisant

Commentez votre répondre:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Système de Gestion de l’Information32) Quel est votre software pour le Système de Gestion de l’Information?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Avez-vous inséré les clients handicapés dans le SGI? Oui NonPensez vous centralisé dans le siège cette information dans le SGI? Oui Non- Commentez votre répondre:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

30

- Si non, spécifiez si ca serait possible avec le software en fonctionnement:Oui Non

Ciblage Géographique33) Travaillez-vous en zone rural avec des clients handicapés?

- Avant le projet: Oui Non- Aujourd’hui: Oui Non- Prévu pour la future: Oui NonAvez-vous l’intention d’étendre vos activités à l’égard des personnes handicapées à d’autres régions rurales ou agences de l’institution de crédit?Oui Non- Si oui, commentez votre réponse ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Ciblage Individuel34) Faites-vous des enquêtes auprès des clients pour savoir leur niveau de satisfaction?

Oui Non- et pour les clients handicapés ?Oui NonSi oui, quels sont les résultats?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

35) Faites-vous des enquêtes auprès des clients pour savoir leur niveau de pauvreté?Oui Non- Si oui, quels sont les résultats?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

36) Et pour connaître leurs besoins financiers?Oui Non- et leurs besoins non financiers?Oui NonSi oui, comment utilisez-vous cette analyse?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

37) Faites-vous une analyse de risque ou la capacité de payer de chaque client?Oui NonComment vous le faites?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………- Et des clients handicapés?Oui Non Comment vous le faites?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Ciblage de l’IMF38) Aviez-vous des clients handicapes avant le projet?

Oui NonSi oui, combien?....

31

39) Avez-vous des travailleurs handicapés dans votre institution de crédit pour démontrer votre sensibilisation?- Avant le projet: Oui Non Si oui, combien?..............- Aujourd’hui: Oui Non Si oui, combien?................

40) Utilisez-vous le sujet d’handicap dans votre communication pour attirer nouveau clients handicapés?Oui Non- Si oui, décrivez outils utilisés? Exemples: Pamphlets, brochures, posters, images…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

41) Pensez-vous faciliter l’accessibilité physique dans autres réseaux de votre IMF?Oui Non………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

42) Comment est-il est prévu de faire évoluer les procédures pour les personnes handicapées?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

43) Avez-vous des services non financiers? Oui Non - Quel type de services/formation?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

44) Avez-vous des lignes directrices ou des mesures spécifiques pour la performance sociale de vôtres clients? Si oui, le quels?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Méthodologie de lutte contre la pauvreté45) Utilisez-vous l’analyse individuelle des clients handicapés pour d’autres groupes vulnérables?

Exemples: ethnies, métiers spécifiques, groupes de travaille, segments de l’économie…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Méthodologie de services 46) Avez-vous des crédits individuels ou de groupe? Pour un motif spécial?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

47) Avez-vous des primes pour les agents de crédit?Oui Non- Si oui, sont-elles liées à des critères sociaux? Oui Non- Si oui, sont-elles liées aux clients handicapés? Oui NonDécrivez le fonctionnement des primes………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Opinion Personnelle48) Répondez avec votre opinion sur les phrases suivantes:

« Je crois que nous n'avons pas beaucoup de clients handicapés car il y a peu de personnes handicapées avec des activités économiques viables »

Très d’accord D’accord Neutre Peu d’accord Pas du tout d’accord

32

« Je crois que l'une des raisons pour lesquelles nous avons peu de clients handicapés est parce que nous les avons inconsciemment marginalisé ou discriminé »

Très d’accord D’accord Neutre Peu d’accord Pas du tout d’accord

« Je crois que dans cette réseau/institution, nous n'avons jamais discriminé un client en raison de son handicap »

Très d’accord D’accord Neutre Peu d’accord Pas du tout d’accord

« Je crois que nous pouvons faire encore plus pour les personnes handicapés dans notre réseau/institution »

Très d’accord D’accord Neutre Peu d’accord Pas du tout d’accord

« Ma pensée sur les personnes handicapés a changé positivement après son inclusion dans les programs de micro-finance »

Très d’accord D’accord Neutre Peu d’accord Pas du tout d’accord

« Je pense que nous devons offrir de meilleurs conditions de crédit aux personnes handicapées par rapport aux autres clients »

Très d’accord D’accord Neutre Peu d’accord Pas du tout d’accord

« Je crois que les personnes handicapées sont trop pauvres pour épargner »Très d’accord D’accord Neutre Peu d’accord Pas du tout

d’accord

« Je suis maintenant plus engagé à augmenter le nombre des clients handicapés dans notre réseau/institution qu’avant le projet »

Très d’accord D’accord Neutre Peu d’accord Pas du tout d’accord

« Je crois que les personnes handicapées habituellement n'ont pas les compétences nécessaires pour gérer des entreprises prospères »

Très d’accord D’accord Neutre Peu d’accord Pas du tout d’accord

« Je crois que les personnes handicapées sont associée à un risque plus élevé de défaut de remboursement de crédit »

Très d’accord D’accord Neutre Peu d’accord Pas du tout d’accord

« Je crois que nous avons déjà mis beaucoup d'efforts pour augmenter notre clientèle handicapé »Très d’accord D’accord Neutre Peu d’accord Pas du tout

d’accord

33

« Je crois que nous devrions identifier les personnes handicapées qui ont réussi et les utiliser pour atteindre plus de clients handicapées »

Très d’accord D’accord Neutre Peu d’accord Pas du tout d’accord

« Je crois que les personnes handicapées n'ont souvent pas suffisamment d'estime de soi pour gérer une entreprise avec succès »

Très d’accord D’accord Neutre Peu d’accord Pas du tout d’accord

« Je crois que nous avons peu clients handicapés car les autres membres de nos groupes de crédit ne veulent pas inclure des membres handicapés »

Très d’accord D’accord Neutre Peu d’accord Pas du tout d’accord

« Je crois qu'une bonne façon d'inclure plus de clients handicapés serait de motiver les groupes de crédit à prendre personnes  handicapées»

Très d’accord D’accord Neutre Peu d’accord Pas du tout d’accord

MERCI POUR VOTRE COLLABORATION!

34