1. User Reviews of Social Performance Assessment Tools (SPTs)

2. Background 2007 – SPTF & SEEP created Consumer’ Guide to SPTs 2008 – SPTF requests User Reviews Social Ratings: MCRIL, MicroFinanza, MicroRate, Planet Rating Social Audits: GRI, QAT, SPI 2008 – Ford Foundation & CGAP fund User Reviews

3. Purpose of User Reviews Provide potential users of SPTs with a comparative review of tools based on the experiences of past users Specific goals of the project Develop a User Review template Publish 7 User Reviews Provide user feedback to tool developers

4. Design Team: design, manage project Advisory Committee: provide guidance to the Design Team, review the report drafts Tool Developers Donors Investors Scholars Review Teams: conduct reviews Team Leader Local Consultant (for each region) Editorial Board: review, improve final reports

5. Tool Attributes Cost Duration Robustness Usefulness Ability to Customize Ease of Use Benefits SP Dimensions Mission Clarity Alignment of Systems Decision making Gender Member Governance Non-financial Services Responsibility to Clients Responsibility to Staff Responsibility to Community Responsibility to Environment Outreach Financial Services

6. Completed Steps… Project design Methodology Pilot On-site Reviews / Off- site Reviews Drafting, Reviewing Reports …In progress/ To Do  Improving user samples (some SPTs)  Final drafts  Factual corrections  Publish reports (June)  Develop website for enhanced features (August)

7. I. User Review Background II. Tool Description Developer Description Reviewer Explanation III. User Review Tool Attributes SP Dimensions IV. Appendices: Terms and Scoring Glossary Comparative Review Matrix Tool Outputs and Requirements

11. Questions/ Comments? Are there other tools for review? What other information will help you decide which tools to use (for future reviews?)