CLIENT PROFILE
A microfinance institution with a large joint-liability-group (JLG) lending portfolio serving borrowers organized in groups of five to ten members, operating through a network of field-based center meetings across rural and semi-urban geographies.
BUSINESS CONTEXT
JLG lending is built around group liability – members of a joint liability group share responsibility for one another’s repayment – so an effective recovery approach must work at both the individual and group level, and align with the center-meeting cadence and group-leader dynamics that are central to how microfinance is delivered.
As delinquency rose in specific centers, the institution’s existing collection approach treated every overdue account individually, with no visibility into group-level liability status and no recovery strategy differentiated by group risk, which blunted the natural leverage of the JLG model and strained some field relationships.
CHALLENGE
- Delinquency was tracked strictly at the individual borrower level, so collectors had no visibility into whether other members of a defaulting borrower’s JLG were current, overdue, or already contacted.
- Every overdue account – whether an isolated missed installment or a sign of group-wide stress – was worked with the same approach, with no differentiated strategy based on group risk.
- Field and center-meeting follow-up had no defined escalation sequence, so the order and manner of engagement – center leader first, then group, then individual field visit, then branch escalation – varied inconsistently across branches.
- Branch and regional managers lacked a consolidated view of recovery performance at the center or group level, making it difficult to identify which centers needed additional support before delinquency spread further within a group.
CLEARDU PLATFORM IMPLEMENTED
Primary platform: Collexifi
Collexifi was implemented as the platform to configure structured, group-aware collection workflows – linking accounts to their JLG and center, and running a defined recovery strategy rather than undifferentiated individual account handling.
DETAILED SOFTWARE IMPLEMENTATION
- The portfolio was onboarded into Collexifi at both loan and group level, linking each borrower’s account to their JLG and center so that group-level repayment status is visible alongside every individual account.
- A tiered recovery strategy was configured: Tier 1 – center-leader and group-level engagement for early delinquency within a group; Tier 2 – structured individual field follow-up for members not resolved at the group level; Tier 3 – branch-level escalation for centers or groups showing recurring or elevated delinquency.
- Group-risk segmentation flagged JLGs with multiple concurrent overdue members for priority handling, distinct from isolated individual delinquency elsewhere in the portfolio.
- Follow-up scheduling was aligned to each center’s existing meeting cadence, so collection activity worked with, rather than against, the regular center-meeting rhythm.
- Field-executive and collector allocation rules were configured by center and branch, so the same team responsible for a center’s regular meetings also owned its collection follow-up.
- Branch- and region-level dashboards were built to show recovery performance by center and group, giving regional managers a consistent way to identify centers requiring additional support.
PROCESS TRANSFORMATION
Before: Before implementation, delinquency was tracked and worked purely at the individual level, with a single undifferentiated follow-up approach and no visibility into group-level liability or center-level performance.
After: After implementation, accounts are visible at both the individual and JLG group level, a tiered engagement strategy runs in sequence with center-meeting cadence, and branch and regional managers have consistent visibility into center- and group-level recovery performance.
- Field executives see group-liability context before each contact, allowing them to engage the center leader, the group, or the individual borrower at the appropriate tier.
- Branch managers can identify which centers are showing group-level stress and need additional support.
- Regional management gets a comparable, center-level view of recovery performance across branches.
PLATFORM CAPABILITIES USED
- JLG and center-level account linkage
- Group-risk segmentation
- Tiered collection workflow (center leader → group → individual → branch escalation)
- Center-meeting-aligned follow-up scheduling
- Collector and field-executive allocation by center and branch
- Recovery dashboards by center and group
- Portfolio segmentation
- Audit-ready collection records
KEY RESULTS
- 37% improvement in recovery within JLGs flagged as high-risk
- 26% reduction in individual accounts requiring branch-level escalation
- 30% improvement in field-executive productivity through center-aligned scheduling
- 100% of JLG accounts brought under group-aware tracking, up from purely individual-level tracking
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS AND CONTROLS
- Group-liability data was validated against the institution’s own group-formation and center records during onboarding.
- Escalation tiers were designed together with field operations teams to respect the community and social dynamics inherent to JLG lending.
- Field-executive workload was balanced across centers to avoid over-concentration of follow-up activity on any single team.
- Reporting cadence was aligned with the institution’s existing branch review cycles to support adoption.
CONCLUSION
By configuring Collexifi to work at both the individual and JLG group level, with a tiered recovery strategy sequenced around center-meeting cadence, the institution moved from undifferentiated, individual-only collection activity to a structured, group-aware recovery model. The result was a marked improvement in recovery within high-risk groups, more consistent field execution across branches, and clearer visibility for branch and regional management into where support was needed most.