The 2009 AFI Global Policy Forum

Summary of Results from Participant Feedback

1. Overall Satisfaction

AFI, in conjunction with the Central Bank of Kenya, held its first Global Policy Forum in Nairobi, Kenya September 14-16, 2009. Eighty policy makers from 38 countries and 88 strategic partners, including researchers, private sector representatives, and NGOs (constituting 60 different institutions) were in attendance.

Based on participant surveys (a total of 103 surveys were completed and returned), the overwhelming majority of participants (63%) reported being “very satisfied” with the forum; 36% reported being “satisfied” and only 1% reported being “very unsatisfied.” When asked about satisfaction with the contacts made with other participants, the majority answered that they were “very satisfied” (55%). An additional 42% said they were “satisfied,” only 2% said they were “unsatisfied,” 1% was “very unsatisfied,” and two declined to answer.

The survey questions on satisfaction were designed with four (4) possible multiple choice answers (Very Satisfied, Satisfied, Unsatisfied, Very Unsatisfied). Without a possible choice representing a neutral position (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied), there is a possibility that the results are slightly biased towards the “satisfied” category. However, even considering the “satisfied” category as neutral leaning more towards satisfied than dissatisfied, the results are largely positive.

2. Sessions

Participants were asked to identify their three (3) favorite sessions during the forum. The mobile banking fishbowl received the most votes, closely followed by the presentation by M-Pesa. These top two sessions were the most popular by a large margin. They were followed by the presentation on the global state of financial inclusion, the agent banking fishbowl, and finally the consumer protection fishbowl.

3. Best Part of Forum and Areas for Improvement

When asked what they liked most about the Global Policy Forum (an open-ended question in the survey), participants largely identified the networking and/or exchange as the best part of the forum (57%). Meanwhile, 36% said they liked some aspect of the sessions- either content or format (such as fishbowls).

Also cited by respondents as what they liked most about the forum were:
• The caliber and mix of the participants present at the forum (high level officials; quality of participants and speakers; diversity of cultural, professional, and intellectual backgrounds; well-balanced attendance; private sector)
• The spirit or tone of the forum (open, informal, interconnected, innovative, friendly, and positive)
• The organization of the forum (program arrangement, relevant topics, the format, logistics, “excellent organization, timely management, courtesy of staff”)

The most common suggestion that participants had for improving the forum was to make the sessions and days less dense and to allow for more time for Q&A.

4. Conclusions

Participants found the organization and content of the forum unique and the experience of learning from other policy practitioners more effective than the traditional models of learning from outside experts. Participants appreciated the opportunity to network and exchange ideas. Many participants mentioned that the opportunity to interact with, and learn from, the policy makers behind some of the most successful policy solutions around the world was a rare and valuable opportunity.

Additionally, based on the analysis of the survey data, it is clear that policy makers and the other partners of AFI have distinct needs and perspectives. For example, compared to the other participants, policy makers demonstrated a stronger interest in the data-oriented presentations, such as the “State of Financial Inclusion” and “Policy Makers Meet Researchers: Using Survey Data”. Policy makers also demonstrated a stronger interest in the topic of consumer protection. This is illustrated by their higher percentage of votes for the consumer protection fishbowl as well as the financial education demonstration. AFI will take into account the distinct needs and perspectives of its different stakeholders (policy makers and non-policy makers) when assessing feedback and considering the design of future events and services.