Curious as to what my fellow fellows are experiencing in their respective assignments, I have been sending out some emails to several of them, containing some of my observations and thoughts about the program. Their responses have been very interesting – some vindicating, some defensive, some indifferent – but mostly supportive of my desire to disclose my candid evaluations and interested in communicating their own. It is so uplifting to see a group of intelligent and inquisitive people out there making their way in a program that leaves much room for growth and improvement. While some have been more proactive than others in voicing these opinions, some have been more ready to work within the existing parameters, and some are more accepting of the underlying benefit of our Kiva work, we all are here with a shared desire to help these MFIs achieve their social mission more efficiently. I was glad to hear from these individuals, who are experiencing very similar situations as I am, and it was particularly illuminating to hear them support some of my larger misgivings about the program’s conceptual foundations and methodology. As my “bosses” at Kiva have been less than responsive, nor interested, in discussing any of my constructive (really!) questions and concerns, it was entirely necessary to hear some real voices encouraging my inquiries and engaging with me.
Qualm #1: So what’s so bad about trimesters?
Kiva requires each MFI to send a financial report on the 15th of every month, with particular information included. Now, first of all, I completely understand the need for MFI cooperation with Kiva policies on financial data. This is essential to the process of auditing and maintaining transparency….but here is the gap that exists: FECECAV has 11 branches throughout the Maritime region of
I was worried that if FECECAV didn’t turn in this report, all of our efforts in trying to increase our monthly funding limit through journaling (which as I have already described, and as a Kiva lender myself can verify, is fairly inconsequential in the re-funding of loans on the Kiva site and should not carry such weight in the risk model nor in the fellows program,) creating precise business descriptions and quality photographs would go down the tubes as a result of tardy financial reporting – which obviously doesn’t look good…Therefore, I explained that we should try to quickly draw up a February report to send to Carol as soon as possible. Like that first day, when I pulled Rogier away from the clients lining up at his door to visit 10 Kiva clients, I felt disappointed in Kiva’s lack of attention to daily realities as well as a fundamental discord with Kiva policies when viewing them in action on the ground. To reinforce these emotions, I was faced with some opposition from Olivier, the finance director, and Daniel, who explained what an undertaking this would be. However, as always, they acquiesced…what choice did they have? Olivier spent an entire day working on the report, it was there on my computer the next morning, and Olivier did none of his own work that day.
One could chalk this up to a little hard work goes a long way, and there are certain things one must do to benefit from something great…but when it comes down to it, there is a very fine line between being helpful and being a burden here. It must truly be up to the individual MFI to decide, is it worth the hassle? If only that question were easily answerable…I will return to this difficult issue in a few minutes...
Ambiguity aside…if Kiva wants a thorough and transparent report, wouldn’t it be in their interest to wait another 10 days to have the most robust and well-calculated data?
Qualm #2: Journals, Journals, Journals
Last Thursday, I went out with Rogier to visit about 15 more Kiva clients for journals. Since I posted those 12 journals on the site 2 weeks ago, about 20 lenders responded to them…it was quite dramatic to see their animated reactions to FECECAV’s clients through my journal entries, which was of course encouraging. I attempted to translate some of this to Daniel and he was thrilled. In conjunction with his desire to increase FECECAV’s monthly limit, he made it a priority for me to visit clients with Rogier, who is the one who chose these clients for the site and knows them best. Although it kills me to drag him away from the applicants lined up at his door, if le directeur says go, we go. Obviously I was excited to be going out on the moto again, taking photos of clients to please Kiva lenders and witnessing FECECAV’s impact firsthand, but I couldn’t help feeling a bit selfish (Kiva and otherwise) and concerned about this kind of work. I sincerely hope that in the end FECECAV will benefit from it all…
So we tried to leave twice. It was almost 11am, and Rogier said in a flurry that morning when I asked if we were still on, that he would try to be ready at 9:30. I didn’t bother him of course, but when he saw me sneaking to the bathroom around 10:30, he smiled and said, “I’m ready! I’m ready!” He’d had his helmet on for about half an hour, but people kept calling him back into the office. He is such a hard worker, and exactly what the ‘Agents de Credit’ are supposed to be – which I observed about him on the first day and was only reinforced in the training.
Les Agents de Credit are the reason(s) that FECECAV clients repay their loans. Each agent is an integral piece of the FECECAV structure, and are committed to its success. One big risk or bad client can raise the entire organization’s rate of defaulted loans, with a frightening domino effect. They are taught calculations to recognize their Portfolio at Risk (PAR) and the hows and whys of keeping this at the lowest possible percentage. They carry out these missions with a mentality of practical zero-tolerance. Daniel and Robert l’Inspecteur (the director of audit control and fraud) emphasize the intolerance for lenience and sensitivity, and the magnitude of their role in FECECAV’s continued success. Robert put it like this, and I think it describes the consequence they place on the shoulders of les Agents to prevent delinquence and guarantee repayment: “Il faut penser d’un credit en retard comme un virus que nous attaque (We must think of a late payment as a virus that is attacking us.)” Daniel went on to reinforce this statement, adding, with zest as always, “Like a disease, it needs to be quarantined! Or it will contaminate the others!” This illustrates the FECECAV methodology, which is why it is so successful. If a client is late, they cannot get away with it. There are no excuses for late payments (as Daniel says with a vigorous scowl and a shake of his pointer finger, “Je ne veux pas ecouter ‘Seulment’ (I don’t want to hear, ‘but only!’)”) and there is no justification for sensitivity – no matter if the person in question is your wife, or your best friend, or your own son. Don’t wait for them to come to you, and if you don’t catch them the first time you go knocking on their door, go back three more times until you do or until they are too embarrassed to keep avoiding you.
Rogier is a model for them all. He’s an exemplary Agent de Credit and fantastically devoted. He and I got onto his motot (he is quite impressive on that thing as well…Athanase told me that he used to drive a taxi-moto) and were about to pull out onto the road when he saw someone speed by, yelled at them to stop frustratedly and then turned and hurriedly yelled “Leves toi! Leves toi! Je reviens! (Get up, get off! I’ll be right back!)” As I jumped off his moto he spun off, nearly colliding with an approaching scooter, in pursuit of the client. He returned 3 minutes later, a woman on the back of his scooter and ushered her into his office. She must be late on a payment, or he needs some information from her to finish her application. It could be a number of things, but as witnessed over and over again, this is the kind of thing he does so well. He draws out motivation from people’s veins as if he were a lab technician, composes lyrics of success and drives people to drag themselves out of poverty by not defaulting on those loans. As M. Yunus says, this is their chance and they do not want to fail, they cannot afford to fail. And Rogier really wants these people to pass the test they and FECECAV have put themselves up to, and it is his responsibility to reinforce, reprimand and literally chase them down to make sure they are victorious.
We visited 12 clients in 2 different quartiers of Kpalimé, but only managed to see about 7. We missed a lot of them unfortunately, as they were at school, at the marché, etc. and I could see the dissatisfaction cloud Rogier’s face. I had wasted a lot of his time and we were both frustrated. Near the end of our list, we stopped at a crumbling wall leading into a compound (being the courtyrard surrounded by windowless huts that I described in my last blog.) He grinned and said, “C’est chez moi. (This is my house.)” We went inside and he introduced me to his sister and his nieces who were making fufu, as well as his father who recently had a stroke and was lying on a sheet on a hard cement floor. It really breaks my heart sometimes to see even the strongest, most put-together people I know here living in conditions of complete and utter poverty. But at the same time, it I almost started to cry from sheer happiness when Rogier proudly brought me into his home, smiled at his family, and through his gleaming eyes and the bounce that is forever in his step, maintained his commanding dignity.
* * *
I wrote three journals with Louise after my trip out with Rogier. It was agonizingly slow, to say the least. She types slower than my Dad, obsessively edits as she goes along and saves the document after each sentence. I do not want to rush her (and she probably saves like that since they cut the current every few hours haha) but it took all of my patience to sit there and help construct each excruciating phrase. Unfortunately, after 1.5 hours and 3 journal entries, I was not convinced that she could do it herself. We will try again to do a few more...
But here is the qualm: It is tricky to try to explain the conversations that I had with clients in the field and then have her write the journals…far less than ideal. However, Louise is is one of the few people here that might have an hour each week to work on journals, which is why Daniel selected her. She is not a field worker like Rogier or a collectrice, and is not connected to the details of their daily lives, their loans or their businesses. It has nothing to do with her abilities, but she for sure will not have as much to add to a journal as someone out in the field every day. It would have been much more efficient had I been writing the journal with a field worker, who could say, oh yes, she forgot to mention it in the interview, but she was able to buy a new door for her house with the profits from her business! This is what the journals are supposed to be…not me and the CEO’s secretary copying and pasting phrases because we don’t have enough information for a good journal, because we don’t know the clients as well as someone in the other room…
Qualm #3: Peer to Peer? That’s all Greek to me…
I’m almost finished I promise. But this is the most important part, please read on :)
Something else I have noticed and am unnerved about is that the comments that lenders write in response to journal entries are all in English…in reverse, everything is translated from local languages into English for lenders to read, even if it takes extra time. I understand that they cannot lend money if they can’t read the business description, but is it not as important for these MFIs to see the impact of their journal entries? If the end goal of the journaling process is to truly create a peer-to-peer relationship between lenders and borrowers, shouldn’t both parties have the same rights to translation services and be able to effectively communicate with each other? In addition, why would FECECAV continue to write journal entries if they cannot read the responses from lenders that represent the impact of their hard work? It would be much more effective if the lender comments were translated back into the language of the business descriptions so that not only the field partners, but also the borrowers themselves – to whom most of the comments are personally addressed! – can be made privy to them.
Kiva prides itself on the relationships it builds between lenders and borrowers, but as far as I can see, this is a one-way street. Lenders benefit from the satisfaction of new photographs and updates in journals (when they are completed,) but no one seems to pay attention to that fact that no borrower has ever heard of so and so from Highland Park, IL, who writes them a comment in English, on a website on the internet, on a computer with electricity…Not every lender is rich, hence to practical and miraculous $25 loan, and can’t afford to fly to Togo to visit Essi Bongo in Kpalimé to show her that they are proud of her for combating her poverty and are supporting her every step of the way. Therefore, it is Kiva’s responsibility to fulfill this part of its mission, which I do not think is happening right now in this respect (which is kind of a big deal…) More effort needs to be made in bringing this process full circle if Kiva is to continue carrying the torch of the peer-to-peer lending process, because right now it is not a reciprocal relationship by any means. And it cannot rest on the shoulders of the field partner, because although they are receiving loans at 0% interest, this should not make them indebted to Kiva, almost prisoners to its policies – because of course they will bend over backwards to receive this “free money,” it helps them financially of course, but I do not feel that is it fair to guise it as anything more than a business relationship, because on this end, that is all it is.
In conclusion, I do not think that Kiva consciously attempts to dupe MFIs into accepting their non-lucrative, no-strings-attached, gesture of goodwill through interest-free loans. I am not saying this at all, and do not want to seem like I am perpetually complaining about an organization that does a lot of good. I am trying to be constructive truly, but every few days I notice something else, and it has been very frustrating for me to see the fissures that exist in Kiva policies in regard to REALITY.
To return to my earlier point…it is up to the individual MFI to decide for themselves whether the extra effort to work with Kiva is truly worth the burden it places on their staff and the toll it takes on their operational capacity for a relatively small bite (this will vary of course) out of their portfolio. However, I do not necessarily think that this is a fair choice, nor a position that I would ever want to put an organization like FECECAV in. Do the benefits of obliging our MFIs to make such a multifaceted and difficult decision, without a clear indication of which direction will yield more positive results, outweigh the costs?
No comments:
Post a Comment