1 / 21

NABARD –GTZ Linkage Banking Project

NABARD –GTZ Linkage Banking Project. An attempt towards a refined and improved Management Information System for Linkage Banking. A Study on……. “Comparative Assessment of MIS Systems and Procedures maintained at the SHG level under the Linkage Banking Programme.”. Towards a.

tucker-wiley
Download Presentation

NABARD –GTZ Linkage Banking Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NABARD –GTZ Linkage Banking Project An attempt towards a refined and improved Management Information System for Linkage Banking

  2. A Study on……. “Comparative Assessment of MIS Systems and Procedures maintained at the SHG level under the Linkage Banking Programme.”

  3. Towards a Consensus On Standards for a better MIS Accounting Audit Performance Indicators Benchmarks Reporting Elements of MIS: Interflow of information? Reporting to higher management levels? How to measure performance objectively? How to judge/ assess”good” or “bad” performance? How to record transactions/actions? How to verify? Standards: a minimum limit of acceptable quality and performance

  4. TASKS OF THE STUDY… • To collect & analyze the applied accounting practices at the SHG level supported by different SHPIs. • To identify minimum standards of group health in terms of organizational & financial aspects.

  5. TASKS…. • To identify the strengths and weaknesses ofexisting approaches applied by different stakeholders. • To synthesize the collected material with regard to common minimum standards adopted by different SHPIs.

  6. TASKS…. • To derive a list of minimum Performance standards, which could be integrated intothe existing MIS under Linkage Banking.

  7. Methodology… • Size of the Sample :33 SHPIs + 78 SHGs • Models covered: Banks as SHPI. - 10 NGOs/VVV Clubs as SHPI. - 15 DRDAs as SHPI- 2 NGOs as MFIs /federations- 6

  8. Sample Distribution:

  9. Methodology…. Methodology: • Questionnaire Canvassing to 80 SHPIs & their respective SHGs. • Field Visits to 13 SHPIs & their respective SHGs. • Focussed group discussions with SHGs. • Study of Books of accounts at the SHG level, reporting formats and grading formats at SHPI level.

  10. Accounting Practices…. General Observations: • Diversity across the formats & BOAs prescribed by the SHPIs to the SHGs which are different for recording both financial & non-financial data. • Accuracy of BOA is directly proportional to the literacy levels of the person maintaining it.

  11. General Observations…. • In cases of Banks acting as SHPIs minimal BOAs are prescribed. • Quality of maintaining BOA differs across the groups and is a matter of concern in some.

  12. Verification/Auditing…. General Observations: • In most cases SHPI workers verified the BOAs of the SHGs on their visits. • In some cases book keepers of one SHG verified the BOAs of the other SHGs. • Only 5 SHPIs had utilized the services of external/internal auditors to conduct regular audits.

  13. Aspects considered critical…..(Rankings…) Aspect SHG SHPI Bank* Reg of Savings 1 1 3 Repay’t of loan 2 2 2 Atten rate 3 3 6 Regularity of meetings 4 4 4 Book keeping 5 5 1 Participation quality 5 6 - Robust internal lending - 6 - Usage of credit 6 - 5 * As reported by SHGs, out of experience of visits and interaction by bank staff.

  14. Performance Indicators & Benchmarks…. General Observations… • Multiple indicators exist for the same critical aspect across groups and organisations. • Different definitions and different means of recording data pertaining to the same critical aspect( for example – loan recoveries). • Only a few SHPIs & some SHGs were able to list the benchmarks for it.

  15. Performance Indicators, Benchmarks & Data Required….

  16. Performance Indicators, Benchmarks & Data Required ….

  17. Reporting….Flow of Information SHG to Bank: • Bank officials collect information about the health of the SHGs: -Through personal visits- Only in about 41% of the SHGs they undertake regular visit of at least once in three months. -Interaction with members when they visit the bank- bank staff are too busy during transacting hours for any meaningful discussion on group health.

  18. Reporting…. Flow of Information • Exchange of information between the SHG/ SHPI & Banks - not regular. • 27 out of 33 SHPIs have formulated grading formats but these are not actively used except at the time of first linkage. • After the linkage, Banks usually monitor the health of the groups through the the loan a/c & repayments at their end.

  19. Conclusions….. • With scaling up of linkage programme quality and performance standards become critical. • With increase in number of SHGs per SHPI and bank branch, MIS to measure the health of SHGs is a felt need. • Critical indicators need to be agreed between the three primary actors – SHG,SHPI and bank. • To measure the indicators, the minimal data to be recorded need to be agreed upon. Thus standards will emerge. This may require minimal changes of books of accounts.

  20. Conclusions….. • Groups to be encouraged to self monitor the critical indicators. • Training of SHG,SHPI and bank on the why and how of MIS. • Tracking of these indicators can provide an early warning system for the bank. • Cost of such monitoring have to be shared between the primary actors.

  21. THANK YOU

More Related