Using Field Visits and Questionnaires to Evaluate SHG Sustainability

When evaluating the long-term sustainability of a Self-Help Group (SHG), reading reports and reviewing registers from a desk is rarely enough. A structured field visit – paired with a well-designed questionnaire – gives evaluators direct, on-the-ground insight into how a group actually functions: how its members relate to one another, how loans move through the system, and what real challenges members face day to day. These visits are a cornerstone of any serious SHG assessment, and understanding how to conduct them effectively can make the difference between a superficial audit and a genuinely useful evaluation.

Why field visits matter for SHG sustainability assessments 🔗

SHGs are, at their core, social institutions built on trust, peer accountability, and collective discipline. Research published in SN Social Sciences confirms that many SHGs face persistent challenges related to group composition, irregular savings patterns, leadership quality, and information gaps – problems that financial records alone rarely reveal. A field visit creates the conditions to observe these dynamics directly, allowing evaluators to cross-check what is written in ledgers against what is actually happening on the ground.

A field visit typically involves attending a scheduled group meeting, conducting structured interviews with members individually or in small clusters, reviewing physical records on-site, and administering a standardised questionnaire. The goal is not just compliance checking – it is understanding. Are members genuinely engaged? Do they understand the terms of their loans? Is leadership shared, or concentrated in one or two individuals? These questions only get reliable answers through direct engagement.

Assessing group homogeneity and training needs 🔗

CGAP’s analysis of Indian SHG sustainability identifies group homogeneity as one of the foundational characteristics of a well-functioning group. A homogeneous group – where members share broadly similar socio-economic backgrounds, livelihoods, and community ties – tends to exhibit stronger internal trust, lower conflict, and better repayment performance. Evaluating homogeneity during a field visit is therefore one of the first priorities.

What to look for during the homogeneity assessment 🔗

Evaluators should use the questionnaire to collect basic demographic data on each member: occupation, income level, caste or community identity, landholding status, and time of residence in the area. These data points allow an assessor to gauge whether the group was formed on a sound social foundation or whether it was assembled hastily to meet program targets. Empirical research on SHG repayment performance has found that group homogeneity and solidarity between members are among the most significant predictors of whether a group will successfully repay loans – making this step far more than a formality.

During the visit, evaluators should also observe the meeting atmosphere. Do members speak freely? Is there visible hesitancy or dominance by a single individual? Are quieter members asked for their opinions? These behavioural observations supplement the questionnaire data and often surface dynamics that members may not articulate directly.

Identifying training gaps 🔗

Alongside homogeneity, the field visit should assess what training members have received and what gaps remain. Evaluators can ask members directly whether they have received training on financial literacy, record-keeping, conflict resolution, or livelihood skills. The responses – both verbal and observed – help identify where capacity-building support is most needed. Geneva Global’s field experience with SHG programs shows that when groups are given the freedom to identify and pursue their own training needs, rather than receiving top-down prescriptions, outcomes are significantly stronger. A good questionnaire therefore goes beyond asking what training was received to asking whether that training felt relevant and useful to the member’s actual situation.

Common training need indicators during a field visit include: members who cannot read the group’s registers, confusion about internal interest rate calculations, inability to articulate the group’s rules for loan eligibility, or lack of clarity about what happens in the event of a default. These are practical, observable signals that guide support planning after the evaluation is complete.

Financial transparency and loan procedures 🔗

Financial health is the backbone of SHG sustainability. The NIRDPR evaluation of India’s SHG-Bank Linkage Programme used the concept of “Pancha Sutras” – five core principles – as its sustainability benchmark: regular meetings, regular savings, regular internal lending, timely repayments, and transparent books of accounts. A field visit and questionnaire should be structured to verify each of these in practice, not just on paper.

Reviewing loan disbursement and interest rate practices 🔗

The questionnaire should ask each member specifically about the loan process: How was the loan amount decided? Who approved it? What interest rate was applied, and does the member know how it was set? In a well-functioning group, interest rates on internal loans are decided collectively in meetings and are applied uniformly. Evaluators should cross-check what members report against the group’s passbook and loan register. Discrepancies between the two are a red flag for poor transparency or potential mismanagement.

Bank of Baroda’s SHG lending guidelines require groups to follow established Panchasutras and maintain accurate, up-to-date books of accounts before they can access bank credit. Evaluators assessing SHGs for creditworthiness or continued support should therefore scrutinise whether record-keeping is genuinely current or filled in retroactively. Passbooks, cash books, and loan ledgers should all be available at the meeting – their absence or inconsistency is itself a meaningful data point.

Assessing repayment discipline and default handling 🔗

Repayment performance is one of the most telling indicators of group cohesion. Research on SHG loan repayment dynamics in India found that groups with lower savings balances and smaller outstanding loans are at considerably higher risk of default – and that geography matters, with central and northern states showing systematically weaker repayment rates. During a field visit, evaluators should ask about the group’s experience with overdue loans: Has any member defaulted? How did the group respond? Was the matter handled transparently in a meeting, or quietly swept aside?

The questionnaire should also probe whether members understand the consequences of default – both for themselves and for the group’s bank linkage prospects. DHAN Foundation’s analysis of SHG credit linkage gaps highlights how groups that lack timely access to credit often turn to informal lenders at high interest rates, undermining the financial gains from SHG membership. Evaluators should therefore ask whether members feel they receive loans when they need them, or whether delays push them back toward informal sources.

Verifying savings consistency 🔗

Regular savings are both a financial discipline and a measure of member commitment. Evaluators should verify through the register whether all members have made consistent contributions over the review period, and whether any member’s savings have been irregular. The questionnaire should ask members why they saved, whether savings amounts feel manageable, and whether any external shocks – illness, drought, family emergencies – disrupted their ability to contribute. This qualitative context is essential: inconsistent savings are not always a sign of poor discipline; sometimes they reflect genuine vulnerability that the group itself may need to address through a welfare fund or emergency lending protocol.

SHG member feedback and challenges 🔗

The most valuable data from a field visit often comes not from registers but from members themselves. 3ie’s evidence review of SHG programmes notes a consistent gap in evaluations: most assessments capture financial outcomes but fail to document governance structures, facilitation quality, and members’ own experiences of the programme. Addressing this gap requires building a structured member feedback component into every field visit.

Conducting member interviews effectively 🔗

Member feedback works best when it is gathered in a setting where individuals feel safe to speak honestly – which often means conducting some portion of the questionnaire one-on-one, away from the group leader or facilitating NGO staff. Group dynamics can suppress dissenting voices; a member who is unhappy with how decisions are made, or who feels that wealthier members receive preferential loan access, may not say so in a full group setting. The questionnaire should include direct questions such as: Do you feel your voice is heard in meetings? Are group decisions made jointly? Have you ever disagreed with how a loan was allocated, and if so, what happened?

Social capital research on SHGs in eastern India found that social trust between members and the promoting institution significantly shaped how openly members engaged with programme activities. In groups where trust was low, participation was perfunctory and message recall was weak. Evaluators should therefore pay attention to whether members demonstrate genuine ownership of the group – not just passive membership – since this is the deeper indicator of long-term sustainability.

Understanding common challenges members face 🔗

The questionnaire should systematically ask about the practical difficulties members encounter. Common challenges include: distance to the meeting venue, inability to attend due to agricultural or domestic work cycles, lack of confidence in handling finances, social pressure from family members (particularly husbands or in-laws) that discourages participation, and discomfort with documentation requirements. As documented by Drishti IAS in its overview of SHG challenges, a patriarchal social environment remains one of the structural barriers that limits women’s full participation in SHGs across rural India, even where formal access has expanded significantly.

It is equally important to ask members what has worked well – what has changed in their lives since joining, what they value most about the group, and what they would want to improve. This strengths-based dimension of feedback helps evaluators identify what should be preserved and scaled, not just what needs fixing. The Share Trust’s comparative assessment of SHG and Village Savings and Loans models found that groups offering flexible loan repayment terms and shared leadership produced stronger long-term empowerment outcomes – insights that only surface when members are given structured space to reflect on their own experiences.

Triangulating feedback with observations 🔗

Member feedback becomes most reliable when it is triangulated with field observations and record review. If members report that meetings are regular and well-attended, but the attendance register shows multiple gaps, that discrepancy warrants further probing. If members say loans are approved fairly, but the ledger shows the same two or three members repeatedly receiving the largest amounts, that pattern deserves investigation. The questionnaire is a structured tool, but the evaluator’s role is to be analytically active – reading the data, the registers, and the room simultaneously.

Field visits should also note the physical conditions of meetings: is there a consistent venue, are records stored safely, do members bring their passbooks, and does the group maintain an agenda for its meetings? These operational details, often overlooked in desk reviews, are strong indicators of whether a group is genuinely self-managed or is being propped up by an external facilitator.

Designing an effective field visit questionnaire 🔗

A well-structured questionnaire covers three domains in an integrated way: member profile and background (for homogeneity and training need analysis), financial processes (for loan and repayment assessment), and qualitative experience (for member feedback). It should mix closed questions – yes/no and numeric responses that allow comparison across groups – with open-ended questions that capture nuance. Evaluators should be trained to record not just what members say, but how they say it: confidence, hesitancy, and affect are part of the data.

The questionnaire should be piloted before wider use, ideally in one or two groups that are not part of the main evaluation sample, to identify ambiguous questions or translation issues. In multi-lingual contexts, ensuring that the questionnaire is accurately translated into the local language – and that evaluators are fluent in it – is non-negotiable. Responses collected through a language barrier are unlikely to yield reliable data on sensitive topics like internal conflicts or dissatisfaction with group leadership.

Finally, the results of the field visit should feed back into the SHG’s own development. Effective SHG facilitation practice treats evaluation as a learning process, not just an accountability exercise – using findings to trigger discussions within the group about what to improve, rather than simply filing a report. When members understand that the field visit is for their benefit, not just for the agency’s records, they engage with it more openly and honestly.

What do you think? If you were designing a field visit questionnaire for a newly formed SHG in a rural area, which dimension – group homogeneity, financial transparency, or member experience – would you prioritise first, and why? And how would you ensure that quieter or more marginalised members feel genuinely safe enough to share honest feedback during your visit?

References

1. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43545-025-01206-6
2. https://www.cgap.org/sites/default/files/CGAP-Occasional-Paper-Sustainability-of-Self-Help-Groups-in-India-Two-Analyses-Aug-2007.pdf
3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350729533_Repayment_Performance_of_Self-Help_Groups_in_Uttar_Pradesh_An_Empirical_Investigation
4. https://genevaglobal.com/education-articles/self-help-group-approach-evolves-towards-greater-impact-and-sustainability/
5. http://nirdpr.org.in/nird_docs/rss/rs070120.pdf
6. https://bankofbaroda.bank.in/business-banking/rural-and-agri/loans-and-advances/financing-under-self-help-groups
7. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3986772
8. https://dhan.org/developmentmatters/2017/august/case2.php
9. https://www.3ieimpact.org/blogs/empowering-women-through-self-help-groups-evidence-effectiveness-questions-scale
10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X2100190X
11. https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/self-help-groups-shgs
12. https://thesharetrust.org/resources/2019/2/12/assessment-of-the-self-help-group-shg-and-village-savings-and-loans-vsl-approaches
13. https://agriculture.institute/cooperative-and-farmers-organizations/steps-to-form-effective-self-help-groups/