INTRODUCTION:

Micro Finance is emerging as a powerful tool for poverty alleviation in the economy. In India, Micro finance scene is dominated by SHG-Bank linkage programme as a cost effective mechanism for providing financial services to the ‘unreached poor’. The SHGs today have become a vehicle to pursue diverse developmental agendas and even for the profit motive.

To avert such a situation, growth with quality has became the paramount agenda of today among different stakeholders, as there is an overreaching concern about sustainability of the SHG movement in India. Many public sector banks that were in the forefront of SHG bank linkage are approaching MFI for identifying a suitable agency to nurture their credit linked SHGs. There is an increasing concern among bankers about the quality of SHGs being promoted by themselves or by other promoters. In order to assess the quality of SHGs, banks use grading tools to assess the eligibility of a SHG for credit linkage. Despite having appropriate tool, the quality seems to have declined and the quality deterioration is visible in the form of higher delinquency rates, primarily because these rating tools were never given the sanctity they required.

Rating of SHGs assumes importance as it not only a pre-appraisal tool but as well a self evaluation which is a continuous process. Quality assessment of SHGs has come to be accepted as an important tool to ensure standards in SHGs. In the enthusiasm to ensure monitoring of SHGs every stakeholder had their own innovation in designing a new tool for grading of SHGs. This has resulted in flooding of market with rating tools with slight variation here and there (Devaprakash, 2005).

Only a few quality assessment studies were made in the country in general and Assam in particular. But the assessment tools are devised by different agencies for different purposes and different sets of users. Several rating systems for micro-finance interventions and Self-Help Groups (SHGs) have been developed in the past. But most of these were restricted to understanding the creditworthiness of SHGs and employed indicators on performance on basic group functions and credit absorption capabilities. Social, empowerment and behavioural aspects of SHG functioning rarely found a place in the rating system. Further, these rating tools speak different languages in assessing the quality of SHGs. Here, an effort is made in this paper to access the grass root issues relating to quality assessment and also to study the perception of SHG members about quality assessment parameters.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

In this section, an effort is made to review a number of studies that has gone into the various quality, sustainability and socio-economic issues related to SHGs in India. Sa-Dhan (2003) made a comparative study of assessment tools developed by various organization viz. NABARD, BASIX, MYRADA, CARE, APAMAS etc. and have identified eight broad thematic areas with various indicators and their benchmarks. The study also felt that unless a tool could provide an instant and clear analysis of the state of affairs of SHG, it would not popular in practice. However, the study identifies eight broad major indicators viz. Group Constitution, organizational discipline, organizational systems, financial management, credit policy external linkage etc. to access the quality of SHGs.

Reddy, C. S. (2005) observes that the state of SHGs identifies key areas of weakness which undermine the sustainability of SHG movement. He identifies the major areas such as financial management, governance and human resource ranges from weak to average quality for a majority of SHGs.

The study on SHGs conducted by EDA Rural System and APMAS (2006) on the SHG-Bank-linkage programme in India, addressed a wide range of issues including cases of dropouts from SHGs and internal politics, and issues of social harmony and social justice, community actions, book-keepings, equity, defaults and recoveries and sustainability of SHGs.

Another study conducted by Peoples Education and Development Organisation (Singh, 2006) about their SHGs programme and makes an attempt to evaluate social and economic impact on households of SHGs members. They observed that members involved in SHGs programme have increased involvement in decision making, awareness about various programmes and organizations. Moreover, the members get information about the different sources of credit and also reported that there are the evidences of household income, food security and increased standard of living.

Shades’ observed that 30 per cent of SHGs in the sample were involved in community actions. He accesses the quality of SHGs on different parameters like involvement in social harmony, social justices, community action etc. He further observes that only 15% of SHGs have good quality of records that are maintained by the group members.

In the beginning, in an effort to popularize SHG-Bank linkage among the bankers, the emphasis on quality was not given the required priority. While most of the grading tool were kept simple to encourage the field functionaries, the tool could not be administered with the seriousness it was required. Some years back, Sa-Dhan has developed a SHG Performance Measurement Tool (Sa-Dhan, 2005) based on its applied research with an objective of helping the SHPIs and Banks to understand the SHGs in required detail to assess its performance, including decision making for credit linkage. This tool helps the SHPIs to measure the quality of SHGs and to identify the areas of strengths and weaknesses of SHGs that would in turn help them to design their capacity building initiatives for SHGs in a more focused and cost effective manner.. The tool also helps Banks to understand and assess SHGs performance in the required detail for credit linkage.

A study carried out by the Indian Institute of Bank Management (IIBM, 2007), Guwahati, Assam, and commissioned by Sa-Dhan, shows that the SHG movement has not caught on in some north-eastern states for reasons that are peculiar to the region. The study also observes the banking constraints as a factor that hinders the quality of SHG in Northeast India.

In another study conducted by Centre of Micro Finance, Jaipur (Centre of Micro Finance, 2007), titled ‘Feasibility Study of a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for SHG financing through SHG Institutions’ developed sixteen variables to access the SHGs quality viz. Feeling of homogeneity/ Solidarity, Velocity of internal lending, Governance issues, attendance in meeting, member awareness about financial, transactions involvement in village issues etc.

In another study conducted by Haryana Community Forestry Project, (Govt. of Haryana, 2007) assessed the quality of SHGs in a self style way which comprises nine broad indicators which includes organisational capacity, saving and credit, financial management, micro-enterprises, skill development, awareness and attitudes, empowerment and influence, networks and linkages and plans and visions.

Another recent study on Quality and Sustainability of SHGs in Assam, sponsored by NABARD, and Andhra Pradesh Mahila Abhivruddhi Society (APMAS, 2009) reported that the SHG program has resulted in social and economic benefits to a significant percentage of the sample groups. Despite of all round support from the Government of Assam, NABARD, NGOs, RRBs and active participation of primary members, the condition of SHGs in the state is far from satisfaction. The study also reveals that the proliferation of SHG has posed a serious challenge to sustain this movement by maintaining quality of SHGs and hence, the quality assessment of SHGs is now being considered as a key concern. The study also articulated some serious challenges like uneven growth of SHGs in different parts and uneven quality of SHGs across the country and issues related to their sustainability.

Kumar (2010) while comparing the differences in quality of SHGs between SHGs under the umbrella of federations and other SHGs which are not part of federation observes that federation type SHGs are functioning well. He assesses the quality of SHGs by using NABARD CRI and also advised all banks to access the quality of SHGs using the CRI before every credit linkage. Roy (2007) undertaken quality assessment of SHGs in West Bengal and this was done by using twenty indicators like group meeting, members’ participation, group discipline, savings, micro-credit, financial management, economic and social initiatives and linkages with institutions. Factor analysis was done based on twelve indicators like cohesion in the group, initiative of the NGO, facilitation by PRI institutions, support of the bank, assistance of the line department, own initiative, livelihood opportunity, skill, infrastructure and market. Sahu (2010) assessed the quality of SHG in Northwest India based on the 13 indicators of the 200 SHGs, 27 percent of the groups are found to be strong and stable. A majority of the groups (62.5%) are found to be moderately stable. 10.5 percent groups are found to be poor. Hence in group formation, homogeneity in economic status should be given due weightage. Continuity in the perusal of social causes and issues, group processes, and other social parameters should be considered while fixing determinants of group quality.

The present study differs from earlier studies as it covers descriptive study on grass root issues relating to quality assessment of SHGs and a modest effort is also taken to study perception of SHG members about the quality assessment parameters and to put forward some suggestions in the context of quality assessment.

OBJECTIVES:

The objectives of this paper are-

1. To identify the quality issues of SHGs in selected study area.

2. To study the perception of SHG members toward quality assessment parameters.

3. To outline conclusions based on the findings of the study to put forward some suggestions in the context of quality assessment.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY:

The research design and methodology devised in this paper is being presented which has been designed keeping in mind the focused objectives and with the aim of acquiring accurate and authentic data. The study was restricted to only three district of Assam (Barak Valley) under both judgment and convenience sampling methods viz. Cachar, Karimganj, and Hailakandi District. From each district four developments blocks were selected under second level of random sampling. Again from each development blocks four revenue villages were selected under third level of random sampling. Further, from each revenue villages four SHGs were selected under fourth level of random sampling. Only SHGs under SGSY which are enlisted with Directorate of SHGs under SGSY, Nagaon District for the year 2008-09 and completed one years of existence are covered in the study and primary data are collected during the first half of 2011.Finally, 50 useful filled questionnaires from the selected District are collected, due to time shortage, apathy of group members, defunct SHGs and distance constraints.

Table 1: Selected Quality Assessment Indicators

Sl. Nos	Indicator	Sub-indicators
I	Plans and Visions	Purpose
I	Plans and Visions	Composition
	Financial Management	Purpose and coverage of financial and non-financial services
II	Organisational Capacity	Participation of members in decision making.
		Level of awareness and adherence to group norms and rules
		Selection and Rotation of Office Bearer/ Group Leaders
		Level of maintenance of records
		Transparency in operations
III	Savings and Credit	Management of SHG Funds
III	Savings and Credit	Loan Repayment by members
IV	Micro enterprise and Skill Development	Involvement in IGA/Micro enterprise development
V	Networks and Linkages	Linkage with Banks and other agencies
VI	Awareness and Attitudes	Social and community action
VIII	Empowerment and Influence	Self Reliance in Managing Affairs
Total	Selected Quality Assessment Parameters

Source: Self Complied

A set of questionnaires are being prepared for assessing the quality perceptions of members of the SHGs of the study area. These questionnaires are framed suitably by studying the existing literature of quality assessment. The enlisted quality assessment variables are identified and tabulated as table-1.

The finalized questionnaires contained fourteen statements for studying the respondent’s perception about the Selected Quality Assessment Parameters. The degree of each statement was determined using a four-point rating scale. The following scale was used to quantify the response in relation to the perceived support about the selected quality parameters (Table 2).

Table 2: Numerical Score on Degree of Support

Option	Degree of Support	Numerical Score
I	Strongly Agree	3
II	Agree	2
III	Neutral	1
IV	Disagree	0

Source: Self Complied

Issues Impacting Performance of SHGs

In accessing the quality issues of SHGs in the selected area, several issues and questions arises in the minds of researchers about the demographic and topographical factors. Non-formal nature of SHGs, the limited literacy, management experiences of SHG members and target approach etc. are the common issue that hinders the growth and performance of SHGs. A few other quality issues are pointed in below paragraphs.

· Quantity rather than quality: With more stress on the number of SHGs to be formed, the quality of the SHGs formed certainly took a back seat. The NGOs, the MFIs and even the Govt machinery were more involved in meeting the annual targets set. In many cases, many SHGs also came forward on their own to be recognised as voluntary SHGs which are existed only in paper. While SHGs were formed, coverage of the specific target population desired was an issue.

· Lack of standardisation / uniformity in practices: In the context of providing flexibility, there is lack of standard guidelines on internal system and processes project aspects like auditing, elections and rotation of office-bearers etc which hinders the performances of SHGs. Lack of proper and periodic orientation on essential practices, lack of effective performance monitoring etc hinders sustainability of the SHGs performances.

· Lack of planning for evolution of SHGs as income generating units: SHGs were motivated to take up income-generating economic activities. However, the project had not conceptualised the capacity building and other support systems like networking and marketing support that the SHGs would need.

· Lack of performance monitoring and evaluation: As against the envisaged role, the biggest gap was in monitoring and evaluation. MFI’s or NGO’s solely relied on the monthly formats provided by themselves. Even in this, many critical areas of SHG performance like conduct of elections, auditing, income generating activities etc., were not captured They did not have the time / human resources to directly assess the performance of SHGs, especially given their large numbers. Further, there was no mechanism to identify the weaker SHGs. Hence, monitoring with a view to bringing about course correction / strengthening weak SHGs could not be followed. In some instances, even when awareness of the poor performance of NGOs existed, it was not acted upon.

· Gaps in establishing linkages: Performance on credit linkage was not uniform across Development Blocks. There were few Development Blocks where a substantial number of SHGs were not able to take advantage of bank credit. The absence of regular monitoring of the NGO by the PIU and in turn the SHGs by the NGO took away any sort of accountability for performance. The lack of accountability brought in inefficiencies.

· Sustaining Group Cohesion: The formation, functioning and sustenance of the group depended to a large extent on group cohesion and dynamics. Since functioning and decision-making were based on consensus, unity of the group with a common ideology was important. Over a period of time, maintaining this cohesion was an issue. Quite a few groups experienced conflict before / at the time of / after venturing into income generating activities. Lack of agreement on the activity to be undertaken was the start of the problem. Conflicts arose in business decisions and management leading to lack of trust within the group. Lack of any sort of training on group dynamics, management also contributed to this.

· Capability of members: Marginalised/ backward community members including tribal’s are the target groups. Considering that very few women in these communities are literate, building the capacity of such groups in itself is an issue. Since the training programmes are usually standard and not customised as per the target audience, the improvement here has been marginal. As a result, power remains centred around the marginally better off members in these groups.

Table 3: Socio-Economic Profile of the Respondents

Socio-Economic Profile	No. of Respondents			Percentage
Gender
Male	30			60
Female	20			40
Age		Male	Female
Less than 30 years	5	3	2	8
30-40 years	30	18	12	60
Above 40 years	15	9	6	30
Annual Income
Upto Rupees Two Lakhs	50			100
Education
Primary Level	26	16	10	52
Tenth Standard	12	8	4	24
Above 10^th Standard	12	8	4	24
Experience with SHG (Duration of membership)
1-4 years	10	6	4	20
4-5 years	26	14	10	52
5-6 years	14	12	8	28

Source: Self complied

· Inadequate capacity building: Given the low capacity of members, capacity building of members was vital. This was also an important objective of the project and thereby a focus area. The training modules envisaged included Group Training, Animator and Representative Training, EDP Training, Vocational Training, Skill Training etc. However, there are few broad issues pertaining to this viz. Lack of coverage of certain important aspects in the training, inadequate coverage of all stakeholders and Backlog in the training envisaged. Various critical areas like managerial skills, communication skills, inter-personal skills, financial management skills, project monitoring skills, lack of refresher training, absence of training for new member etc., were important but were left uncovered.

EMPIRICALS AND ANALYSIS:

· Socio-economic Profile of the Respondents

The respondents of the study (Table 3) mainly belong to the age group 30-40 years as 60% of the respondents belong to that group. The respondents in the study cover all sections of society wherein representation of Hindu (64%), Muslims (35%), and Christian (1%) are ensured. Moreover, out of 50 respondents 12 belong to general caste, 19 belong to SC community, 8 belong to ST and 11 belong to OBC andMOBC. Further, majority of the respondents are married and they live in nuclear family. Further, 52% of the respondents have completed primary education, 24% of the respondents have completed Tenth standard of education level and 24% of the respondents have above Tenth standard of education level. The duration of membership of the respondents varies from 3 years to 8 years. However, 52% of the respondents are members for a period of 5 years, 28% for a period of 6 years and respondents belonging to 1 -4 years category are 20%. Lastly, 60% of the respondents are male and 40% of the respondents are female SHG members.

· Perceived Quality Assessment Parameter Index

Eight major elements of Quality Assessment Parameters as has been identified along with fourteen sub –elements as corresponding selected indicators are assessed and each response was quantified on four-point scale (0-3) as described earlier. The results have been arranged categorically and are depicted as below (Table 4).

Table 4: Perceived Selected Quality Assessment Parameters

Sl.Nos	Parameters	Mean score	SD
I	Purpose	2.040	1.3025
2	Composition	2.120	1.3060
3	Purpose and coverage of financial and non-financial services	2.240	1.4126
4	Participation of members in decision making.	1.820	1.4735
5	Level of awareness and adherence to group norms and rules	1.800	1.2594
6	Selection and Rotation of Office Bearer/ Group Leaders	2.00	1.5830
7	Level of maintenance of records	2.480	1.1666
8	Transparency in operations	2.200	1.0933
9	Management of SHG Funds	1.960	1.3880
10	Loan Repayment by members	1.680	0.9613
11	Involvement in IGA/Micro enterprise development	1.560	1.2205
12	Linkage with Banks and other agencies	1.680	0.8867
13	Social and community action	1.360	1.0807
14	Self Reliance in Managing Affairs	1.440	1.0034
Total	Selected Quality Assessment Parameters	1.699	10.1692

Source: Field Study and own computation

The highest possible score for each of the statement is three. It is very well evident from the Table 4 above that there is huge variation among different parameters within the various elements of Quality Assessment Parameters.

The study also attempts to measure the degree of support about the quality assessment parameters among different quality parameters. Below Table depicts the results of the ranking of the factors. As is clear from the Table-5, Financial Management is the most critical factor where respondents are supporting highly followed by Plans and Visions. This can be further said that ‘Organisational Capacity’ and ‘Savings and Credit’ are among the some other parameters which are perceived at higher level. ‘Awareness and Attitudes’ and ‘Empowerment and Influence’ achieved by Group/ members are perceived as less supportive parameters in measuring quality of SHGs.

Table 5: Broad Quality Assessment Parameter Mean Score

Sl.Nos	Critical Factors (Quality Parameters)	Mean Score	SD
I	Plans and Visions	2.080	2.4486
II	Financial Management	2.240	1.4126
III	Organisational Capacity	2.060	5.6756
IV	Savings and Credit	1.820	2.0667
V	Micro enterprise and Skill Development	1.680	0.9613
VI	Networks and Linkages	1.680	0.8867
VII	Awareness and Attitudes	1.360	1.0807
VIII	Empowerment and Influence	1.440	1.0034
Total	Selected Quality Assessment Parameters	1.699	10.1687

Source: Field Study and own computation

· Impact of Respondent Demographics on their Perceived Quality Assessment Parameters: Hypotheses Testing

1. Effect of Gender on Perceptions about Selected Quality Assessment Parameters

To test the impact of respondent demographics on their perceived quality assessment parameters various hypotheses were formulated and analyzed using appropriate statistical tools.

H₀1: There is no significant difference between male and female respondents with regard to “Plans and Visions” as an element of Quality Assessment Parameters.

H₀2: There is no significant difference between male and female respondents with regard to “Financial Management” as an element of Quality Assessment Parameters.

H₀3: There is no significant difference between male and female respondents with regard to “Organizational capacity” as an element of Quality Assessment Parameters.

H₀4: There is no significant difference between male and female respondents with regard to “Savings and Credit” as an element of Quality Assessment Parameters.

H₀5: There is no significant difference between male and female respondents with regard to “Micro enterprise and Skill Development” as an element of Quality Assessment Parameters.

H₀6: There is no significant difference between male and female respondents with regard to “Networks and Linkages” as an element of Quality Assessment Parameters.

H₀7: There is no significant difference between male and female respondents with regard to “Awareness and Attitudes” as an element of Quality Assessment Parameters.

H₀8: There is no significant difference between male and female respondents with regard to “Empowerment and Influence” as an element of Quality Assessment Parameters.

H₀9: With regard to Quality Assessment Parameters, male and female respondents do not differ significantly.

Table 6: Effect of Gender on Quality Assessment Parameter Perception

Sl. No	Hypotheses	Quality Parameters	Sex	n	Mean	SD	T value**	df	P Value	Result
1	H₀1	Plans and Visions	M	60	2.200	1.1626	1.1801	98	0.2408	NS
1	H₀1	Plans and Visions	F	40	1.900	1.3611
2	H₀2	Financial Management	M	30	2.200	0.6644	0.5821	48	0.5633	NS
2	H₀2	Financial Management	F	20	2.300	0.4702
3	H₀3	Organisational Capacity	M	150	2.033	2.6663	0.1976	248	0.845	NS
3	H₀3	Organisational Capacity	F	100	2.100	2.5649
4	H₀4	Savings and Credit	M	60	1.633	1.0807	2.0278	98	0.0453	*
4	H₀4	Savings and Credit	F	40	2.100	1.1965
5	H₀5	Micro enterprise and Skill Development	M	30	1.400	0.8137	1.7412	48	0.881	NS
5	H₀5	Micro enterprise and Skill Development	F	20	1.800	0.7678
6	H₀6	Networks and Linkages	M	30	1.667	0.8841	0.1341	48	0.8939	NS
6	H₀6	Networks and Linkages	F	20	1.700	0.8013
7	H₀7	Awareness and Attitudes	M	30	1.333	0.6065	0.3319	48	0.7474	NS
7	H₀7	Awareness and Attitudes	F	20	1.400	0.8208
8	H₀8	Empowerment and Influence	M	30	1.333	0.8841	1.020	48	0.3128	NS
8	H₀8	Empowerment and Influence	F	20	1.600	0.9403
9	H₀9	Aggregate	M	420	1.840	6.1064	0.8697	698	0.3848	NS
9	H₀9	Aggregate	F	280	1.486	3.6935

**Unpaired t test at 95% level of significance and P value is two tailed. * Significant at 5%, Source: Field Study and own computation

Table 7: Effect of Education Level on Quality Assessment Parameter Perception

Sl. No	Hypo theses	Quality Parameters	Education Level	n	Mean	SD	F value	df	P Value	Result
1	H₀10	Plans and Visions	Primary	52	2.077	1.3173	0.481	2,97	0.619	NS
			10^th Std	24	1.833	1.3027
			> 10^th std	24	2.167	0.9847
2	H₀11	Financial Management	Primary	26	2.462	0.5084	5.147	2,47	0.0095	*
			10^th Std	12	2.000	0.6030
			> 10^th std	12	2.667	0.4924
3	H₀12	Organisational Capacity	Primary	130	2.169	2.8523	0.050	2,247	0.951	NS
			10^th Std	60	2.167	2.5166
			> 10^th std	60	2.033	3.3257
4	H₀13	Savings and Credit	Primary	52	1.731	1.0288	0.761	2,97	0.470	NS
			10^th Std	24	2.083	1.5275
			> 10^th std	24	1.917	1.1146
5	H₀14	Micro enterprise and Skill Development	Primary	26	1.462	0.8593	1.284	2,47	0.286	NS
			10^th Std	12	1.833	0.7177
			> 10^th std	12	1.333	0.7785
6	H₀15	Networks and Linkages	Primary	26	1.615	0.9414	1.224	2,47	0.303	NS
			10^th Std	12	2.000	0.6030
			> 10^th std	12	1.500	0.7977
7	H₀16	Awareness and Attitudes	Primary	26	1.154	0.6748	2.454	2,47	0.097	NS
			10^th Std	12	1.667	0.7785
			> 10^th std	12	1.333	0.4924
8	H₀17	Empowerment and Influence	Primary	26	1.308	1.0870	0.273	2,47	0.762	NS
			10^th Std	12	1.500	0.5222
			> 10^th std	12	1.500	0.7977
9	H₀18	Aggregate	Primary	364	1.890	6.7126	0.013	2,1697	0.987	NS
			10^th Std	168	1.976	5.9289
			> 10^th std	168	1.905	5.4495

* Significant at 1%, Source: Field Study and own computation

Table 8: Effect of Duration of Membership on Quality Assessment Parameters perception

Sl. No	Hypotheses	Quality Parameters	Duration of Membership	N	Mean	SD	F value	df	P Value	Result
1	H₀19	Plans and Visions	1-4 Yrs	20	2.000	1.7638	0.176	2,97	0.839	NS
			4-5Yrs	52	1.962	1.3542
			5-6 Yrs	28	2.143	0.7263
2	H₀20	Financial Management	1-4 Yrs	10	2.600	0.5164	3.708	2,47	0.032	*
			4-5Yrs	26	2.462	0.5084
			5-6 Yrs	14	2.000	0.7845
3	H₀21	Organisational Capacity	1-4 Yrs	50	2.560	2.6162	0.952	2,247	0.387	NS
			4-5Yrs	130	1.954	3.0503
			5-6 Yrs	70	2.171	1.7033
4	H₀22	Savings and Credit	1-4 Yrs	20	2.100	0.7888	0.557	2,97	0.575	NS
			4-5Yrs	52	1.769	1.2403
			5-6 Yrs	24	1.857	1.3260
5	H₀23	Micro enterprise and Skill Development	1-4 Yrs	10	2.200	0.4216	6.261	2,47	0.004	**
			4-5Yrs	26	1.231	0.7104
			5-6 Yrs	14	1.571	0.9376
6	H₀24	Networks and Linkages	1-4 Yrs	10	2.000	0.6667	3.074	2,47	0.056	*
			4-5Yrs	26	1.385	0.6373
			5-6 Yrs	14	1.857	1.0271
7	H₀25	Awareness and Attitudes	1-4 Yrs	10	1.600	0.8433	1.331	2,47	0.274	NS
			4-5Yrs	26	1.308	0.7359
			5-6 Yrs	14	1.143	0.3631
8	H₀26	Empowerment and Influence	1-4 Yrs	10	1.800	0.7888	1.587	2,47	0.215	NS
			4-5Yrs	26	1.385	0.9414
			5-6 Yrs	14	1.143	0.8644
9	H₀29	Aggregate	1-4 Yrs	140	2.229	4.2895	0.320	2,697	0.726	NS
			4-5Yrs	364	1.786	6.1057
			5-6 Yrs	196	1.898	5.3164

*Significant at 5%; ** significant at 1%, Source: Field Study and own computation

Table 9: Effect of Age of Member’s on Quality Assessment Parameter Perception

Sl. No	Hypo theses	Quality Parameters	Age	n	Mean	SD	F value	df	P Value	Result
1	H₀30	Plans and Visions	>30 Yrs	10	2.200	1.5166	0.654	2,97	0.522	NS
			30-40 Yrs	60	1.900	1.3995
			>40 Yrs	30	2.200	0.9103
2	H₀31	Financial Management	>30 Yrs	5	3.000	0.0000	4.147	2,47	0.022	*
			30-40 Yrs	30	2.400	0.4983
			>40 Yrs	15	2.200	0.6761
3	H₀32	Organisational Capacity	>30 Yrs	25	2.520	2.0736	0.305	2,247	0.737	NS
			30-40 Yrs	150	2.053	2.8879
			>40 Yrs	75	2.093	2.7482
4	H₀33	Savings and Credit	>30 Yrs	10	1.900	0.4472	1.695	2,97	0.189	NS
			30-40 Yrs	60	1.700	1.3287
			>40 Yrs	30	2.167	0.8165
5	H₀34	Micro enterprise and Skill Development	>30 Yrs	5	2.200	0.8367	10.078	2,47	0.0002	**
			30-40 Yrs	30	1.267	0.7849
			>40 Yrs	15	2.333	0.8165
6	H₀35	Networks and Linkages	>30 Yrs	5	1.400	0.5477	9.622	2,47	0.0003	**
			30-40 Yrs	30	1.333	0.7112
			>40 Yrs	15	2.333	0.8165
7	H₀36	Awareness and Attitudes	>30 Yrs	5	1.400	0.5477	2.621	2,47	0.083	NS
			30-40 Yrs	30	1.467	0.7303
			>40 Yrs	15	1.000	0.5345
8	H₀37	Empowerment and Influence	>30 Yrs	5	1.400	0.5477	0.0001	2,47	0.9999	NS
			30-40 Yrs	30	1.400	0.8977
			>40 Yrs	15	1.400	1.0556
9	H₀38	Aggregate	>30 Yrs	70	2.157	4.1473	0.395	2,647	0.674	NS
			30-40 Yrs	420	1.671	5.667
			>40 Yrs	210	2.033	6.556

*Significant at 5%; ** Significant at 0.1%, Source: Field Study and own computation

CONCLUSION:

It is observed from the present study that ‘Financial Management’ is the most critical factor where respondents are supplying highly followed by ‘Plans and Vision’. Further, it is observed that ‘Organisational Capacity’ and ‘Saving and credit’ are among the some other parameters which are perceived at higher level. ‘Empowerment and Influence’ and ‘Awareness and attitudes’ undertaken by group/members are perceived as less supportive parameters in measuring quality of SHGs. However, a particular gap appears to be the absence of hard financial performances criteria in the quality assessment indicators of most agencies. On the other hand, even the number and range of ‘empowerment’ indicators was very limited and not consistently employed by even a fair number of the organisations covered.

It is further observed from the present study that gender and education level has no impact on perceived support on quality assessment parameters. Both types of SHG members perceived quality assessment parameters on the same footing. However, all members of the selected SHGs, their age and duration of membership do differ on perceived organised Financial Management ,External linkage and Credit policy as an element of quality assessment parameter. In fact, the experiences or duration of membership in SHGs does matter and provides better understanding of the quality assessment parameters.

Finally, it is observed that due to fast growing of the SHG-bank linkage programme, the quality of SHG has come under stress. Some of the factors affecting the quality of SHGs are (i) the target oriented approach of the government preparing group, (ii) inadequate incentive to NGO’s for nurturing their groups, (iii) lack of proper monitoring, (iv) absence of quality enhancement mechanism etc. It is further observed that quality of SHGs should not be stressed upon more than their numbers (i.e., quantity). Quality parameters would include not just financial and physical performance of the group, but also parameters to assess economic and livelihood goal achievement, social status improvement and entitlement access facilitation. In fact, rating of SHGs assumes importance as it is not only a pre-appraisal tool but as well a self monitoring yardstick for the SHGs themselves for self evaluation which is a continuous process. Quality assessment of SHGs has come to be accepted as an important tool to ensure standards in SHGs.

REFERENCES:

1. APMAS Assessment Findings, Status of SHG Federations in Andhra Pradesh, 2006. Available from: URL:http://www.microfinancegateway.org

2. APMAS, Quality and Sustainability of SHGs in Assam, 2009. Available from: URL:http:/www.apmas.org

3. Centre of Micro Finance Research, Jaipur, 2007. Available from: URL:http:/ goggle.com

4. Devaprakash, R, Balancing Quality and Quantity in SHGs in India. IBA Bulletin, August 2005, 25-39.

5. EDA Rural Systems and APMAS, Self Help Groups in India: A Study of the Lights and Shades, 2006. Available from: URL:http:/ www.edarural.com

6. Govt. of Harayana, Haryana Community Forestry Project. Self-Help Group Capability Assessment. Forest Department, Govt. of Haryana, 2007.

7. Kumar, Sunil, Centre for Micro Finance Research and BIRD, Lucknow, 2010. Available from: URL:http:/ www.birdindia.org.in

8. Reddy, C S, SHGs: A Keystone of Micro Finance in India: Women empowerment and Social Security, 2005. Available from: URL: http:/ www.self-help-approach.com.

9. Roy, Durgadas, 2007, Mid-term Evaluation of the composition and working of Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana in 24 Parganas South District (West Bengal), 2007. Available from: URL: http://wwww. planningcommission.nic.in.

10. Sa-Dhan, Quality Parameters of SHGs: A discussion paper, 2003. Available from: URL: http:/ www.sa-dhan.net

11. Sa-Dhan, Technical Tool Series 2. SHG Performance Measurement Tool, 2005. Available from: URL:http:/www.sa-dhan.net.

12. Sahu, Gagan Bihari, SHG Bank Linkages in North West India: Experiences and Challenges in Financial Access and Poverty Alleviation’, Centre for Micro-Finance (sub- centre), Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur, 2010.

13. Sharma, A, Expanding outreach to underserved regions: Kick-starting microfinance in north-eastern region. IIBM, Guwahati, 2007.

14. Singh, Jai Pal, PEDO’s SHG Programme Impact Assessment, A Draft Report, Centre for Microfinance, Jaipur, 2006. Available from: URL: http://www.solutionexchange-un.net.in/mf.

Received on 26.04.2012 Accepted on 30.05.2012

Asian J. Management 3(2): April-June, 2012 page 99-108