Challenges in Forming SHG Networks and How to Overcome Them

When Self-Help Groups (SHGs) come together to form a network or federation, the goal is straightforward: amplify their collective strength, improve access to credit, and create a stronger voice for their members. But the path from a cluster of individual SHGs to a well-functioning network is rarely smooth. Networks introduce a new layer of organizational complexity – one that can unintentionally undermine the very groups it was built to support. Understanding the key challenges in SHG network formation, and knowing how to address them head-on, is critical for anyone working in rural finance, women’s empowerment, or community development.

Why SHG networks matter – and why they’re hard to manage 🔗

An SHG is a small, community-based group of typically 10 to 25 women from similar socio-economic backgrounds who pool savings, extend internal credit, and support each other financially. Under India’s SHG-Bank Linkage Programme, initiated by NABARD in 1992, these groups can access formal bank loans without collateral – a major step toward financial inclusion for rural women. When multiple SHGs federate into a network, they gain collective bargaining power, economies of scale, and greater visibility with government and financial institutions.

However, a collaborative study across 12 SHG federations in six Indian states found that many federations had deviated from their core principles, with gaps in resources, expertise, and strategy creating a disconnect between policy intent and ground-level execution. The challenges are real, and they fall into three main categories: maintaining individual group vitality, managing the relationship with financial institutions, and keeping communication alive across the network.

Balancing focus between SHGs and the network 🔗

One of the most common and least-discussed problems in SHG network formation is what happens to individual groups once a larger network structure takes over. The network, with its visibility, resources, and institutional relationships, can easily become the dominant player – while the SHGs at the base begin to weaken.

How networks overshadow individual groups 🔗

When network leadership concentrates decision-making at the top, member SHGs gradually lose their participatory character. Research on SHG-Bank linkage models warns that federations can become “intrusive,” diluting the democratic features that make SHGs effective in the first place. Members stop feeling ownership over decisions. Savings discipline drops. The group’s internal lending, which is the financial lifeblood of each SHG, starts to suffer.

This is compounded when networks are formed too quickly, driven by government targets rather than organic readiness. As CGAP notes, a target-oriented approach by governments – using SHGs primarily as vehicles for program delivery without focusing on group dynamics – is one of the biggest threats to SHG sustainability. When the network’s agenda takes priority over the group’s internal health, dormancy and dropout become likely outcomes.

Strategies to maintain group vitality within a network 🔗

The solution is not to avoid forming networks but to build them in a way that keeps SHGs genuinely empowered. A few key strategies make a real difference:

Preserve internal governance: Each SHG within a network must continue holding its own regular meetings, managing its own savings register, and making its own lending decisions. The network should support this, not replace it. Capacity building at the group level – in bookkeeping, credit management, and leadership – must continue even after network formation.

Limit the network’s intervention in group affairs: The network’s role should be coordination and representation, not control. Clear written guidelines on what decisions belong to individual SHGs versus what is escalated to the network help prevent power creep.

Monitor group health separately: Networks should track the performance of each member SHG – attendance rates, savings regularity, internal loan repayment – as distinct metrics from network-level outcomes. State-level SHG monitoring cells, with direct links to district and block-level systems, are a recommended mechanism for collecting both quantitative and qualitative data on group health.

Invest in mature groups as mentors: Research from West Bengal shows that women with more than five years of SHG membership develop stronger social capital, trust, and resilience. Networks can leverage these experienced members as resource persons and peer mentors for newer groups, building capacity from within the community rather than relying on external trainers.

Conflict resolution with financial institutions 🔗

Banks are essential partners for SHG networks – but the relationship is not always easy. Loan disbursement disputes, documentation hurdles, and a fundamental mismatch in how banks and SHGs understand creditworthiness are recurring friction points.

Common sources of disputes 🔗

The most frequent tension arises around loan sanctioning and disbursement timelines. SHGs often need credit quickly for seasonal livelihoods or emergency needs, but banks work on institutional timelines that don’t always align. Documentation requirements – KYC compliance, grading assessments, passbook verification – can delay access for months. Even the RBI’s understanding of how SHGs function has been questioned by practitioners, with concerns that regulatory guidelines designed for individual borrowers create friction when applied to group-based lending.

Another source of conflict is loan adequacy. Analysis by ICRIER points out that small per-capita loan amounts – often under ₹4,000 for new SHGs – are insufficient for any meaningful livelihood activity, creating frustration and eroding group morale. When SHGs feel the credit they receive doesn’t match their repayment track record, trust in the banking relationship breaks down.

How networks can address banking disputes effectively 🔗

Know the regulatory framework: Networks gain significant leverage when they understand the rules that govern SHG-bank lending. Under the RBI’s DAY-NRLM master circular, no margin or collateral is required for SHG loans up to ₹10 lakh. Banks cannot insist on PAN cards for account opening, and KYC of all members is not required – only office bearers. When banks impose requirements beyond what regulations allow, network leaders who know these provisions can push back with authority.

Escalate through official channels: Most disputes can be resolved through structured escalation. Documented cases from Maharashtra show that SHG federations have successfully pressured banks to comply with loan disbursement obligations through organized collective action – including formal sit-ins. While this is a last resort, it underscores the power of collective voice. More routinely, networks can use State-Level Bankers’ Committee (SLBC) forums and Block Development Officers (BDOs) as formal escalation pathways.

Build a documented credit history: Networks should maintain consolidated records of all member SHGs’ savings, loan utilization, and repayment histories. This creates a data-backed case during negotiations with banks and demonstrates creditworthiness at the network level – which is harder for any individual SHG to establish alone.

Engage NABARD and NRLM support systems: Under DAY-NRLM, SHGs and their federations receive Revolving Funds and Community Investment Funds to build internal corpus. Networks that are formally linked to NRLM have access to handholding support and can leverage the mission’s institutional relationships with banks to smooth out disbursement issues.

Importance of intra-network communication 🔗

Even a well-structured SHG network can fail if information doesn’t flow effectively between its member groups and its leadership. Poor communication is one of the quieter threats to network cohesion – it doesn’t look like a crisis until member groups feel disconnected, uninformed, and disengaged.

What poor communication looks like in practice 🔗

In many SHG networks, information travels downward infrequently and upward rarely. Member groups may not know about new government schemes, changes in loan terms, or training opportunities until the deadline has passed. Grievances from individual SHGs – about unequal resource distribution, favoritism in loan allocation, or lack of support from the network body – go unheard until they become serious conflicts. Research published in BMC Public Health found that even within SHGs, critical information failed to reach all members because of inconsistent relay practices – a problem that scales up significantly at the network level.

Studies on SHG challenges in Odisha consistently identify non-cooperation and lack of coordination as primary drivers of group dormancy and dropout. When member groups don’t feel part of the larger network – when the network feels distant and bureaucratic rather than supportive – engagement drops sharply.

Building effective communication channels 🔗

Establish regular inter-SHG meetings: Networks should schedule periodic meetings – monthly or quarterly – where representatives from each member SHG come together. These are not just reporting sessions; they are forums for shared learning, grievance airing, and collective problem-solving. In well-functioning federations like Kudumbashree in Kerala, regular inter-group coordination has been foundational to sustaining the network’s vitality over decades.

Create two-way information flow: Communication must not only travel from the network body down to SHGs but also from individual groups upward. Each SHG should have a designated communication representative responsible for both sharing network updates at the group level and bringing group concerns to the network. This simple structural role prevents information bottlenecks.

Use accessible formats: In contexts where many members have limited literacy, written circulars are insufficient. Networks should use a combination of verbal briefings at group meetings, visual summaries, and – where feasible – mobile-based updates via SMS or WhatsApp groups. Digital tools have shown real promise in improving transparency and participation across SHG networks, particularly as rural smartphone penetration increases.

Create formal grievance mechanisms: Networks need a structured, accessible way for member SHGs to raise concerns without fear of marginalization. A simple written complaint register reviewed at each network meeting, with documented responses, signals to member groups that their voice matters and keeps leadership accountable.

Invest in social capital at the network level: Trust is the infrastructure of good communication. Evidence from SHG-based development interventions shows that sites with higher social capital – defined as norms of trust and reciprocity – had significantly better information sharing and participation outcomes. Building that trust requires consistent follow-through: when the network makes commitments to member SHGs, it must deliver on them.

Putting it together: a network that strengthens, not weakens, its SHGs 🔗

The challenges in SHG network formation are not insurmountable, but they do require deliberate attention. A network that sidelines its member groups, poorly manages its banking relationships, and lets communication deteriorate will ultimately undermine the empowerment it was designed to advance. Conversely, a network that keeps individual SHGs strong, knows how to advocate with financial institutions, and maintains open communication channels becomes a genuine multiplier of impact.

The foundation of all three solutions is the same: keeping the SHG – and its members – at the center. Networks exist to serve SHGs, not the other way around. When that principle is maintained in practice, not just in policy documents, networks become what they’re meant to be: a source of collective power that no individual group could access alone.

What do you think? If you were advising a newly formed SHG network, which of these three challenges – maintaining group vitality, managing bank relationships, or building communication – would you prioritize first, and why? And do you think digital tools like mobile apps or group messaging platforms can realistically bridge the communication gap in low-literacy rural SHG networks?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-help_group_(finance)
2. https://www.rjhssonline.com/HTML_Papers/Research%20Journal%20of%20Humanities%20and%20Social%20Sciences__PID__2019-10-1-29.html
3. https://slbckarnataka.com/UserFiles/slbc/Chap_VII.pdf
4. https://www.cgap.org/blog/revitalizing-self-help-group-movement-in-india
5. https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/self-help-groups-shgs
6. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44282-024-00057-5
7. https://icrier.org/pdf/22dec/ramanathan_issuespaper.pdf
8. https://www.microsave.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/FAQ_SHG-Bank-Linkage_English.pdf
9. https://sdgs.un.org/partnerships/empowerment-women-through-self-help-groups
10. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1985779
11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8350316/
12. https://academia.edu/34974744/THE_ISSUES_AND_CHALLENGES_OF_SELF_HELP_GROUPS_A_STUDY_IN_ODISHA
13. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/self-help-group/