Microfinance satisfaction questionnaire

Transcription

1 Summary of responses to the satisfaction questionnaire sent to all partners of the Foundation April 2013

2 At 31 December 2012, the Foundation was funding 28 partner microfinance institutions in 16 countries. These MFIs had 1.7 million active borrowers, 88% of them women, 85% customers in rural areas and 28% located in Sub-Saharan Africa. In April 2013, the Development and Technical Assistance Unit of the Foundation conducted a satisfaction survey among its microfinance partners to determine their level of satisfaction on a number of points related to the funding and monitoring process of the Foundation in The questionnaire (30 questions) was sent to all partner MFIs at the end of Nineteen of the institutions consulted responded, a response rate of nearly 70%, slightly higher than the response rate to the questionnaire sent the previous year on the activities carried out in 2011 (response rate of 65% with 15 respondents). Twenty-nine questions were closed questions. One question was open with the possibility for the institution to provide feedback and comments. For the closed questions, respondents could choose between 10 levels of response ranging from 1 (unacceptable/highly dissatisfied) to 10 (very acceptable/very satisfied). Levels 5 and 6 corresponded to moderately acceptable/satisfied. 1. Results a) Overall satisfaction Overall, partners are satisfied with the relationship they have with the Foundation, with more than half of respondents (53%) being very satisfied with their partnership with the Foundation. However, this rate is significantly lower than that of last year s evaluation (73%). The rate of positive satisfaction rises to 84% if we take into account the somewhat satisfied and very satisfied respondents (87% in 2011). The number of moderately satisfied partners is slightly higher than in the previous evaluation with an increase from 13% to 16%. b) Satisfaction with the relationship with the Foundation s team Regarding the relationship between the MFIs and the Foundation s team, the level of satisfaction is generally higher than in In 2012, 62% of respondents say they were very satisfied by their relationship with the team, a rate that rises to 95% if we include respondents who reported being somewhat satisfied. In comparison, in 2011 the rates were 73% and 89% respectively. Thus, very satisfied respondents are fewer but, overall, partners are more satisfied with their relationship with the Foundation s team. By category, we note that the level of satisfaction of respondents is lower relating to responsiveness (67% in 2011 against 53% in 2012) and politeness and helpfulness of staff (80% in 2011 against 58% in 2012), but remains stable for availability (73% in 2011 against 74% in 2012).

3 c) Workload for MFIs and delays associated with the prospection/selection process Questioned about the workload related to the prospection/selection process and the delays between the submission of requested documents and the decision to perform due diligence, 26% of respondents believe it is very acceptable and 74% that it is acceptable, results that are relatively stable compared to 2011 (27% and 67% respectively). Thus, respondents are generally more satisfied with the prospection/selection workload (100% consider the workload is acceptable in 2012 compared to 94% in 2011). However, in 2012, 16% of respondents believe that the delay prior to due diligence is unsatisfactory compared to 7% in d) Transparency of the prospection/selection process The partners were also asked about their perception of the transparency of the prospection/selection process. Overall, 89% of respondents are satisfied with the transparency of the process, with 47% of them being very satisfied (compared to 53% very satisfied in 2011). However, one of the respondents thinks the transparency of the process is unsatisfactory. e) Due diligence The questionnaire also tried to determine the level of satisfaction of the MFIs related to due diligence. Overall, the workload for MFIs related to due diligence and its duration was considered as acceptable for 89% of respondents (compared to 93% in 2011). As for the quality and effectiveness of the due diligence, only 37% of respondent MFIs were very satisfied compared to 73% in 2011, while 53% of them were very satisfied with the transparency of the process (compared to 60% in 2011). Thus, concerning the due diligence, the level of satisfaction of the partners was slightly lower than in the previous year, although overall, 83% of respondents indicated they found the entire process satisfactory or acceptable compared to 90% in The number of

4 respondents who were moderately satisfied or who thought the process was not quite acceptable was up compared to 2011, especially regarding the quality and effectiveness of the due diligence and the transparency of the process (26% and 21% respectively compared to 13% for each of these criteria in 2011). f) Contract and disbursement delays When asked about the contract, 89% of respondents indicated that it was understandable (93% in 2011). However, it remains difficult to understand for a growing number of partners (11% in 2012 compared to 7% in 2011, that is two partners in 2012 compared to one partner in 2011). Concerning the workload related to the signing of the contract and the disbursement procedures, the vast majority of respondents considered it as acceptable (95% in 2012 compared to 100% in 2011). In 2011, 40% of respondents felt that workload was very acceptable whereas only 11% found it so in For 79% of respondents, the delay between due diligence and the loan disbursement or the implementation of the guarantee is satisfactory. However, the satisfaction level has decreased relative to 2011 (93%). g) Monitoring process The MFIs also evaluated the monitoring process, the frequency of which they found to be correct (89%). 11% of respondents found the frequency to be too high, a significant change compared to 2011 when all respondents felt that the frequency of contact with the Grameen Crédit Agricole Foundation was just what was needed. As for the quarterly reporting, 84% of respondents found it acceptable (100% in 2011) and 11% of them thought that an annual monitoring mission was too frequent (compared to 20% in 2011). When asked about the workload related to the SPI questionnaire, 89% of respondents found it acceptable or very acceptable compared to 87% in Overall, MFIs assessed the quality and effectiveness of monitoring missions positively (74%, that is 14 respondents), but 5% of them (one MFI) found the quality and effectiveness of these missions not at all satisfactory. In 2011, the results showed that 93% of respondents were satisfied with the quality and effectiveness of the monitoring process and that 7% of them (two MFIs) were moderately satisfied with these two factors. The monitoring of funding needs and of the availability of refinancing was perceived as good or very good by 68% of respondents (67% in 2011) but 11% of them found this monitoring unsatisfactory.

5 h) Financial products, interest rates and repayment terms In 2012, only 89% of respondents thought so. Among MFIs responding in 2012, 95% of them (18 institutions) reported having received a loan from the Foundation (93% in 2011) and 5% (7% in 2011) received a guarantee (only one MFI in 2012). For MFIs with an interest in loans who were asked about interest rates, 67% replied that they were competitive or very competitive. However, two MFIs thought the rates charged by the Foundation were not very or not at all competitive, and four others thought the rates charged by the Foundation were moderately competitive. In 2011, the rates charged by the Foundation were seen by all respondents as being relatively competitive. With regard to the repayment of loans, 72% of MFIs that responded to the survey considered repayment to be very easy or quite easy (86% in 2011). Moreover, the MFI that benefited from a guarantee in 2012 considered it very useful for improving the terms and conditions of loans from local banks. i) Improvements MFIs were asked about the loan product features they would like to see improved. The first demand relates to an improvement in the interest rates charged (25%), followed by an improved range of currencies offered (19%). The second demand relates to an improvement in the grace period proposed for loans (15%). Transparency relating to the Foundation s expected return is the third demand mentioned by respondents. In comparison, in 2011, respondents also considered price to be the main area for improvement (25%), followed by maturity (19%) and currency (15%). Transparency relating to the Foundation s expected return was also considered the least important feature for improvement (12%). j) Technical assistance In terms of technical assistance, five of the surveyed MFIs received support from the Foundation in 2012 compared to four in All MFIs having benefited from the Foundation's technical assistance support considered that it was tailored to their needs.

6 2. Key findings Partners who responded to the questionnaire are generally satisfied with the Foundation and its relationship with them, but there has been a general decline in the level of satisfaction compared to the 2011 survey. Areas for improvement that were highlighted by some of the partners are: Quality and effectiveness of due diligence Transparency of the due diligence process Reactivity of the teams Deadline for the implementation of due diligences Simplification of contracts Time between the due diligence and the disbursement of loans or the implementation of the guarantee Quality and effectiveness of monitoring missions Monitoring of financing needs and availability of refinancing Interest rates In the section allocated to comments (18 respondents), most respondents mentioned interest rates and the need to reduce the cost (33% of respondents). Implementation of tailored technical assistance services was also a regular feature of the comments of respondents (28%).

7 Crédit photos : Philippe Lissac Grameen Crédit Agricole Microfinance Foundation 5 Allée Scheffer L-2520 Luxembourg microfinance.grameen@credit-agricole-sa.fr