a pre-field-work analysis of ASA

There are pros and cons to every situation, every company, every concept. The trick is to run your cost-benefit analysis and figure out if the pros outweigh the cons, and if there's a way to ensure that fact.
Over the past week, studying the ASA model in depth, and gleaning information about Grameen and BRAC, I've begun to more clearly see the pros and cons to different microfinance models. They each have the same concept, but serve different purposes in the community. I have yet to decide which really is better. It might be an impossible analysis, comparing apples and oranges rather than different kinds of apples.
The ASA model has very specific benefits. They pride themselves on having a cost-effective and sustainable model. Since 2001 they have not relied on, or even accepted, any donation or grant money from outside foundations. The organization is completely self-reliant and self-sustainable. ASA is run primarily on a branch-level basis. Each branch has 3-5 loan officers that each have 18 groups with about 20 clients=1,800 clients per branch. Extreme decentralization of power and decision making allows most transactions and interactions to be run on a small level. The service charges cover all staff, office, and loan loss expenses for each branch. Within 12 months of creation, a new branch can be financially self-sufficient. Salary and expenses are paid, and new loans are given out, from service charges and installments each day. Excess funds are shuttled between branches and the Central offices, which runs entirely on interest funds from the branches. Because of this, ASA can grow exponentially without waiting on donations from outside sources.
ASA provides mandatory savings and life insurance resources, urging clients toward self-reliance. Each week they must pay a small amount of money into their savings account, which they can access at any time, and their security fund, which is returned sixfold upon death, or with interest after a certain allotment of years
The consolidated structure of decentralized power in the ASA model allows for a quick and efficient decision making and managerial process. In order to take out a loan, only the loan officer and branch manager must approve. One page of paperwork makes the application process easy, especially for the majority of clients who are illiterate. Within one week of initial application, the client will receive her loan, enabling quick and efficient relief for people in need of fast relief. The extensive written manual, and the authority of the branch manager, allow problems to be solved on a daily basis, rather than submitting questions and dilemma to higher officials and waiting for a response. Frequent visits from district officers and a monthly branch report give important information regarding structural fallacies give presiding authorities current knowledge with which to implement new changes. Simplified and precise accounting methods allow loan officers and branch managers to keep books and manage accounts, eliminating the need of a professional accountant. Cost is kept at an impressive low with limited staff, expenditure ceilings, and decentralized management.
Overall, ASA has specialized in and focused primarily on microfinance. With such intense specialization in an industry riddled with companies who provide many services to their clients, it has the benefit of an extremely well developed and effective microfinance model. They believe in a very fluid and hands-off approach. Give the people money, and they will find a way to take care of themselves. Although impoverished, the clients are still responsible adults who can utilize all resources in the area, including assistance from other NGOs, to find the things they need. ASA is grateful to other NGOs providing education, housing, business development, etc, to needy people in the area. Meanwhile, ASA works solely in microfinance, perfecting their model and enabling themselves to reach the poor and give them financial assistance