This is the third year in which the Microcredit Summit has attempted to verify the data reported by its largest members. Practitioner institutions that submitted a 2002 Institutional Action Plan reporting more than two thousand clients were asked to provide the Campaign with the names of donor agencies, research institutions, networks or other institutions that could corroborate their data. In the letter addressed to the potential verifiers, the Secretariat defined the process as follows: “By confirm, we mean that you have visited the program, met the senior officials, reviewed aspects of the operation, they have provided you with numbers, and you believe that the institution and the numbers listed below are reliable and credible. While we understand that no one can provide absolute certainty, we would appreciate your participation in this process.” As in years gone by, the Summitís greatest challenge is bridging the gap between its commitment to reaching the poorest, and the lack of effective poverty measurement tools in use. Therefore, every use of the term ìpoorestî in these appendixes should be read within the context of this dilemma. It is anticipated that, with every successive report, the use of quality poverty measurements will increase; therefore, so too will the quality of the data reported.