Social Impact Assessment of Microfinance Programmes - weman

difference, we found that active borrowers were spending 22 percent higher on food than
all other respondents (p=0.075), while for single difference the value was 23% (p=0.071).
Table 1: Regression Results
Single Difference Double Difference
Dependent Variable Coefficient t-value 1 Coefficient t-value
Log(Respondent Income) 0.11 0.72 -0.20 -0.88
Log(Household Income) 0.15 1.05 -0.04 -0.18
Log(Per Capita Income) 0.11 0.76 -0.08 -0.38
Log(Total Household Expenditure) -0.07 -0.92 0.02 0.14
Log(Food Expenditure) 0.12 -1.33 0.14 0.66
Educational Expenditure 45.00 0.27 -526.00 -1.19
Health Expenditure -55.00 -0.38 -265.00 -1.25
Savings 335.00 0.71 -269.00 -0.36
Asset Score 0.64 0.95 -0.66 -0.63
Children Enrolled in School(%) -4.88 -0.50 -15.00 -0.95
Boys Enrolled in School(%) -14.18 -1.24 -25.85 -1.49
Girls Enrolled in School(%) -0.10 -0.01 -12.30 -0.77
1 Significant at 10%(*), Significant at 5%(**), Significant at 1% (***)
4.4 Focus Group Discussions
This section discusses the client feedback of microfinance institutions and the various
coping mechanisms at the local level in terms of financial transactions. Information has
been gathered primarily through Focus Group Discussions with beneficiary groups in
randomly selected programme localities. Some additional information has also been
gathered through discussions with the respective programmes’ field and programme staff.
Group Composition:
• Focus group discussions were arranged with OCTs clients and non-clients in Orangi.
• A total of 20 males were interviewed. It was difficult for all the people to assemble at
any one place, therefore, small groups of 2-4 people were approached for comments
in different areas of Orangi. Direct discussion with female clients could not be
arranged due to a variety of reasons including festival celebrations. OCT provided
recent data on female clients and non-clients which was collected by its own team for
other research activities.
• Representation of non-clients was ensured. Out of 20 men, 5 were non-borrowers.
• Education level varied from matriculate to masters degree holders.
• The group had a mix of clients ranging from those in their eighth or ninth loan cycle
and those who were just one month old clients.
Involvement in microcredit programme – reasons and factors
• An overwhelming majority of clients mentioned expansion of business and
diversifying income generation as the key reason for which they sought loans. The
15