Program integrity requires clear objectives that are shared by all stakeholders and that balance quality and scale through good design and rigorous implementation. The sector will benefit from agencies willing to share learning on best practices for designing systems for scale and quality, all while continuing to meet member interests.

SGs can benefit a broad range of people, including the physically disabled, persons living with HIV/AIDS, and those socially excluded because of gender, caste, economic status, faith, age, or ethnicity. However, it is unrealistic to assume that vulnerable groups will join SGs in the absence of specific actions to include them. Programs with a mission to serve the most vulnerable will benefit from purposeful identification and targeting of vulnerable populations, proper planning, and a consistent measurement of inclusion.

Program outcomes depend above all on the trainer, the person who teaches members the policies, procedures, and values of SGs. Increasingly, facilitating agencies are recognizing the crucial role of trainers not only in the organization of SGs, but also in their ability to deliver ongoing support after the close of a program. The quality of service delivery, whether by program-paid trainers, by FFS trainers, or even by volunteers, depends on their motivation, commitment, skills, and management.

The various SG models have much in common. They all teach procedures based on the core values of SGs: democracy in decision making, transparency in group transactions, and autonomy of group operations. The strength of SGs depends on members’ commitment and respect for the chosen model and is manifested by members’ disciplined adherence to its values and procedures.

SGs are rarely seen as stand-alone initiatives. In a majority of cases, the groups are used as platforms for the introduction of products and services by facilitating agencies or external agents. In other cases, SGs might be retrofitted into existing programs, such as agriculture or HIV/AIDs initiatives as a way to provide financial and social safety nets. Facilitating agencies bear the responsibility to clearly communicate expectations and make information available to help members decide whether or not they want to engage in the additional activity, or, if being retrofitted into another initiative, in the SG itself. In either case, it is important to consider the objective and value-add of the proposition, develop a clear theory of change, and carefully assess the impact on members.

While building relationships with formal financial institutions has not traditionally been a central objective of SG programming, members and facilitating agencies are increasingly recognizing the benefits that these relationships may bring, such as security for excess liquidity, long-term savings, and access to larger loans. In some cases, SGs are opening accounts on their own; in others, facilitating agencies are actively bringing SGs and banks together and working with financial service providers (FSPs) to develop financial products especially intended for SGs. At the same time, however, many are concerned that some linkages may have a negative impact on group stability, group dynamics, and even members’ financial well-being. Irrespective of the approach, these models require careful assessment of possible risks and thoughtful implementation guided by group demand.

Increasingly, facilitating agencies are collecting data on SGs and their members, and carrying out operational and impact studies to better understand the benefits and challenges of membership. As the sector continues to grow, practitioners stress the need to adopt responsible data collection and dissemination practices, and to ensure that programs operate on well-researched and well-tested assumptions.