Management Input
Guideline for assessing Self Help Groups
In this issue, we bring you a rating tool for assessing the performance of self help groups (SHGs). The tool is specifically designed for disability NGOs having self help groups of disabled persons and their family members. These SHGs are not only involved in savings/credit activities but are also actively involved in advocacy. The check list given below will help assess each SHG's performance in a simple, but effective manner. The assessment is generally done for groups which are more than a year old.
Name of the Group:
Age of Group (year/month):
Total Members:
Area:
|
Sl.
No.
|
Particulars
|
Comments of Investigator
|
||||
|
Good
|
Satisfactory
|
Unsatisfactory
|
Remarks
|
|||
|
Section A. :GROUP PROCESS & WORKING:
|
||||||
|
1
|
‘Goals and Objectives of the Group’ well defined & in written form & known by its group members.
|
Available and
Known by all group members
|
Available and
Known by atleast 60% of the group members
|
Written form (may or may not );
And Known by less than half of members
|
|
|
|
2
|
‘Rules and Regulation for the Group’ are well defined, is in written form & agreed by all members
|
Atleast 80% members know about it
|
60-80% members know about it
|
Less than 60%
|
If not in written form, consider under category 3
|
|
|
3
|
Gender and Diversity
|
Atleast 70% PWDs and 50% female are group members (remaining family members of PWDs)
|
50-70% PWDs and 50% female (remaining family members of PWDs)
|
Less than 50% PWDs and female members in groups
|
It would be in proportionate to population of PWDs and family members in the area
|
|
|
4
|
Members can recognise their group name and names of other members of the group.
|
All can do this
|
Min 80% can do this
|
Less than 60%
|
|
|
|
5
|
Frequency of meetings (as per bylaws)
|
Min. 1 in a month
|
1 in a month
|
Not regular
|
|
|
|
6
|
Attendance in the meetings
|
More than 90%
|
70 -90%
|
Less than 70%
|
|
|
|
7
|
Decision Making (on various issues)
|
By consensus of all members (all members agree in one voice)
|
By Voting (No unanimity but by voting)
|
By Leaders /or NGO staff
|
One voice is preferred than “groups in group”
|
|
|
8
|
Participation and contribution of disabled members in meeting
|
Very high participation of disabled members from all sections (across diversity)
|
Medium level participation
|
Low level of participation of members
|
Assessor to use his prudence to measure this; not dominated by family members of PWDs.
|
|
|
9
|
Selection of office bearers
|
selection by consensus (in one voice by all members)
|
selection by voting
|
selection by NGO
|
One voice is preferred than “groups in group”
|
|
|
10
|
Maintenance of All concerned documents as per Group bye laws
|
All books regularly maintained and updated ( by group members or through external support by family member )
|
Most important registers ( minute, attendance, saving and loan) are updated (by members or through external support)
|
Irregular in maintaining and updating books
|
(As per Bye-laws documents can be - Minute book cum attendance register, Saving and loan register, bank pass book , individual pass book etc)
|
|
|
11
|
Group bank account and fund collection (savings and mobilisation)
|
Group a/c in Govt approved bank and members contributing regular (may be fixed ) amount of sum as saving and for group expenses
|
Group a/c in Govt approved bank but irregular contribution by members as savings and /or for group expenses
|
Members looks to NGO for funding their internal expenses
|
It is also important for sustainability as group needs to maintain its expenses from group funds
|
|
|
12
|
Utilisation of Group Funds/ savings or fund mobilised
|
Mainly used for covering group expenses and/or loaning- to members for productive purpose – IGP, Education, medical
|
Atleast 60% used for covering group expenses and/or loaning- to members for productive purpose – IGP education, Medical
|
Poor utilisation i.e., mainly for consumption purpose se
|
Important to see how group makes use of its internal mobilised funds. Important from sustainability point of view.
|
|
|
13
|
Deposit of mobilised amount in Banks
|
By members in rotation
|
By group leaders only
|
By NGO staff
|
|
|
|
14
|
Loan recoveries
|
More than 90%
|
70-90%
|
Less than 70%
|
If the group is in internal saving and lending
|
|
|
15
|
Leadership / Capacity building programme
|
All members have attended such prog
|
Only leaders have attended such program
|
No one attended
|
(It include skill development, etc prog)
|
|
|
16
|
Group work through ‘work or Action plan’ and review success in meetings
|
Always group work through plan and execute it
|
Sometime group work through plan and execute it.
|
No plans
|
|
|
|
Section B. : INFORMATION ON DISABILITY ISSUES:
|
||||||
|
1
|
Disability Laws / Acts
|
All are aware of Disability Laws
|
Known to most of members
|
Not known to many members
|
|
|
|
2
|
Knowledge of disability schemes/ prog. (Govt.) in district
|
All are aware of Disability schemes/ Prog.
|
Most are aware of Disability program/ schemes
|
No one knows
|
|
|
|
3
|
Knowledge of RTI ACT
|
All are aware of RTI Act
|
Most are aware of RTI Act
|
No one Knows
|
Also see how many have used it.
|
|
|
4
|
Network with Other Mainstream Groups / stakeholders
|
Group has developed good linkages with external groups
|
Group has taken initiative and is developing linkages
|
No external linkages
|
|
|
|
5
|
Disability issues taken up by group
|
More than 5 various disability issues taken up
|
2 - 4 various disability issues taken up
|
No issues taken up
|
|
|
Analysis:
Category 1 - SHGs with a score of 13 - 16 from “Section A” and 3 - 5 from “Section B” (total score of 16-21) from 'column GOOD' fall in Category 1
Assessment: Members can be supported by the NGO through a 'group corpus fund', to manage their own activities. Group linkages can be developed with other MFI's and banks for income generation activities. Members can be sent to other groups/workshops to strengthen similar initiatives in other areas. Groups can be given the responsibility to handle selected NGO activities independently.
Category 2 - SHGs with a score of 10 - 12 from “Section A” and minimum 03 from “Section B” (total score of 13-15) from 'columns GOOD & SATISFACTORY' fall in Category 2.
Assessment: Group members need 3 to 6 months time to improve, before they can be given a corpus fund or are linked with any other major intervention. Group needs to be further strengthened by way of training and leadership development.
Category 3 SHGs with a score of less than 10 from “Section A” and less than 03 from “Section B” (total score less than 13) from 'columns GOOD & SATISFACTORY' fall in Category 3.
Assessment: The group should not be considered for any of the above-mentioned interventions. The group should be strengthened through capacity building and leadership development
Note: The assessment should not be a questionnaire-oriented exercise where the members become passive participants. It should provide an opportunity for the members to assess their own performance in a participatory manner with the investigator assuming the role of a facilitator.
Contributed by: Neeraj Sharma, Manager Livelihoods, SARO.
The above format can be downloaded from the following URL: www.lcdsouthasia.org/shg_asses