There are many different models of women’s groups, and they vary in terms of organizing objective, function, size, governance, and linkages to formal institutions ( Desai et al., 2022). Groups with economic objectives, such as SHGs, village savings and loan associations (VSLAs), and rotating credit and savings associations (ROSCAs), are formed to promote savings and pool funds from which members can borrow. Other types of groups may focus on health, agriculture, advocacy, or community resource management – or a particular population group such as mothers, sexual violence survivors, or adolescent girls. Women’s groups may be standalone village or urban groups or regional network associations of groups. They may operate independently or with the support of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and/or formal financial institutions.

This broad definition of women’s groups enables an inclusive review of the evidence, but such breadth may mask important differences that limit cross-group comparisons. For example, a savings group might play a very different role than a community resource management group when responding to a particular shock. However, despite differing in function and form, most women’s groups, even as broadly defined, share some characteristics that allow for examining variation in the relationship of women’s groups to shocks across contexts.

We conceptualize resilience, our primary outcome of interest, along three dimensions: an absorptive capacity that refers to the ability to cope with or absorb shocks; an adaptive capacity that includes learning and strategic adjustments to mitigate the effects of shocks; and a transformative capacity that involves a systemic adjustment to the status quo that reduces vulnerability to shocks ( Bene et al., 2015; Tanner et al., 2017; Vaughan & Frankenberger, 2018). Individual resilience can refer to individual coping mechanisms and adjustments in various domains, including food security, consumption smoothing and savings, income and employment, psychological outcomes, and health outcomes. Group resilience can refer to the short-term ability of the group to continue functioning as before the shock or to the group’s ability to adapt to the shock, and to the longer-term ability of the group to continue functioning or group sustainability. There are many theorized mechanisms through which women’s groups can enhance resilience for members in the face of covariate shocks ( CARE, 2015; Diaz-Martin et al., 2023; Gram et al., 2019; Vaughan & Frankenberger, 2018; Weingärtner et al., 2017). Financial mechanisms that serve to increase members’ absorptive capacity include pooling risk and resources, social commitment to savings, and potential access to formal financial services through group linkages. For example, a VSLA or SHG may provide members with savings and credit with which to absorb the economic losses resulting from a rainfall shock ( Demont, 2013; Karlan et al., 2017). Social support mechanisms may enhance members’ psychological resilience to shocks ( Berry, 2015; Tol et al., 2020). Some groups facilitate learning and technical skills, such as water, sanitation, and hygiene training, and this access to new information may strengthen members’ adaptive capacity when faced with waterborne disease outbreaks ( Khatibi et al., 2011). Similarly, groups provide access to information networks that enable members to adopt livelihood diversification strategies to smooth household income during shocks ( Demont, 2013). Mechanisms such as collective action and group bargaining power can contribute to transformative capacity when women’s groups mobilize for system-level change, such as for more inclusive disaster response policy ( Clissold et al., 2020; Fordham et al., 2011).

Our examination of both individual and group resilience highlights the existence of a possible tension between strategies that promote the resilience of groups ( i.e., the group functioning and infrastructure withstanding the shock) and the resilience of group members ( i.e., individual group members withstanding the shock). While the three resilience capacities discussed above (absorptive, adaptive and transformative capacity) offer a helpful background framework for categorising individual resilience, we find that evidence is largely reported in terms of absorptive capacity for individuals; that is, the literature on women’s groups and resilience tends to prioritize individual or household outcome measures of consumption smoothing attributable to pooled resources and access to credit. We also find a lack of discussion around mechanisms of group resilience, particularly in the case of aggregate shocks that may threaten group sustainability. In our discussion of the evidence, we distinguish between results related to the ways in which covariate shocks may affect women’s groups and how groups may adapt policies or activities to sustain group resilience (in Section How do Shocks Affect Women’s Groups?) and results examining evidence pertaining to individual (or household) resilience (in Section How Do Women’s Groups Mitigate the Effects of Shocks for Members?).

This review was motivated by the COVID-19 crisis, and accordingly focuses specifically on member and group resilience to acute covariate shocks. These shocks include natural disasters, disease outbreaks, conflict, economic crises, and other events that have the potential to negatively affect all members of a group simultaneously. Because of the focus on mechanisms specific to covariate shocks, such as natural disasters or COVID-19, we did not examine group members’ resilience to idiosyncratic shocks that affect members at the individual level, such as the death of a household member, or to chronic stressors such as poverty or endemic disease.

Our included literature, as shown in Table 2, are diverse in geography, type of women’s group, and shock. ² Though women’s groups in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia are the most widely represented, studies are included from women’s groups in low-and middle-income countries across four continents. The groups in the included studies demonstrate a wide variety of goals and organizing purposes—indeed, many groups formed around multiple livelihoods, health, and financial interests. In terms of the types of shocks represented in the sample, we find more literature on natural disasters (56 out of 90 studies) than other acute covariate shocks ( e.g., 15 studies on health shocks, 10 on conflict shocks, and seven on economic shocks). The diversity in our included literature allows for an examination of the varied interactions between different types of women’s groups, acute covariate shocks, and the resilience of group members and their communities. We also purposively included studies with outcomes in a wide range of domains, including domains that may not be immediately obvious when discussing resilience. For example, we included outcomes related to pregnancy risks for adolescent girls, which can increase without the protection of time in school during pandemics ( Bandiera et al., 2019).

Quantitative and mixed methods research on the impacts of acute covariate shocks to women’s groups—and any resilience that groups may provide to members—is sparse. The majority of the literature available are qualitative in nature, and few studies are peer-reviewed. Out of 90 documents included in our sample, we identified 38 peer-reviewed journal articles, of which 32 used a quantitative or mixed methods research approach.

How do shocks affect women’s groups? This section discusses evidence on the effects of shocks on women’s groups activities and resources, features and adaptations through which women’s groups may increase resilience to shocks, and how shocks may serve as the impetus for new women’s groups.

The effects of shocks on women’s group activities and resources, and group resilience

The evidence on the effects of acute covariate shocks on women’s groups suggests consistently negative impacts on women’s group resources and activities (25 out of 29 documents reporting on this research question indicated an adverse impact on group resources and/or activities), indicating that covariate shocks can adversely affect group resilience. Women’s groups were unable to meet as frequently, ceased certain activities and services, and occasionally dissolved altogether ( Bandiera et al., 2019; BARA & IPA, 2013; Heltberg et al., 2013; Langlay, 2014; Pollard, 2003; Soares & Mullings, 2009). Some women’s groups changed their group function and adapted their activities to support community responses to a covariate shock, such as engaging in emergency warning communications ( Féron, 2020; Mulyasari & Shaw, 2014), information dissemination ( CARE, 2020a), and implementation of rescue and relief programming ( Mehta, 2009) – and this is discussed in greater detail in Section How Do Women’s Groups Support Community Responses to Shocks?.

Covariate shocks tend to have deleterious effects on group resources and resilience due to the majority of members experiencing difficulty in contributing to group funds ( i.e., through savings contributions or loan repayments) while simultaneously needing to draw upon group financial services such as credit and social insurance to cope with shocks ( Androsik, 2020; Atela et al., 2018; Bermudez & Matuszeski, 2010; Gash & Gray, 2016; Heltberg et al., 2013; Langlay, 2014; Nannozi, 2019; Nayar & Faisal, 1999). This drastic reduction in the supply of group resources, combined with a sudden increase in demand, may pose a serious challenge to group sustainability and resilience. Covariate shocks may also increase uncertainty around the costs and benefits of group membership. For example, a study during the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in South Africa found that individuals were less likely to continue membership in informal risk sharing networks due to the increased likelihood that other group members would die before repaying their loans ( Linkow & Rentschler, 2016). Similarly, a women’s group affected by an acute covariate shock faces a sustainability challenge if members perceive that the cost of group membership is not offset by the anticipated benefits of pooled resources.

Features and adaptations of women’s groups to increase resilience to shocks

There is limited evidence specifying the ways in which certain group models or implementation features can contribute to the ability of the group, and/or its members, to withstand shocks, but the existing literature provides some insights into the importance of organizational linkages, flexible policies, and social capital. The primary indicator of a group’s ability to persist and function during a covariate shock is the presence of a formal linkage between the women’s group and NGOs, financial institutions, and/or other women’s groups ( Coppock & Desta, 2013; Demont, 2013; Demont, 2022; Khandker et al., 2015). Linkages to external financial services and resources allow for uninterrupted access to credit for group members, as the resource pool is not constrained to the shock-affected women’s group; that is, the sudden increase in demand for resources during a shock does not threaten group sustainability because the linkage to an external organization prevents a simultaneous decrease in the resource supply.

We also found some evidence that women’s groups adapted their policies around member contributions and share-outs in an effort to mitigate the impact of shocks. Some savings groups timed the share-outs to coincide with the beginning of the lean (pre-harvest) season ( BARA & IPA, 2013; Brunie et al., 2014), while other savings groups implemented shorter loan cycles and new emergency funds to better cope with recurrent shocks ( CARE, 2020a). Women’s groups in India set up a new, banked resilience fund in Odisha after cyclone Fani ( Ghosh, 2019), and the Self Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) created a Livelihood Security Fund tailored to the needs of members living in disaster-prone areas of Gujarat, India ( Benni & Barkataky, 2018). Another adaptation includes the implementation of increased flexibility around contribution amounts during a negative shock, but this adaptation highlights a possible tension between the resilience of groups ( i.e., the group infrastructure and functioning withstanding the shock) and the resilience of group members ( i.e., individual group members withstanding the shock). For example, Demont (2022) found that policies of compulsory savings were central to group resilience after covariate weather shocks, but Khandker, Khalily, and Samad (2015) found that more flexible policies ( e.g., flexibility on loan repayment) were important for individual resilience during shocks.

Descriptions of women’s groups’ adaptation to shocks rarely speak to the implications of these adaptations, such as how these changes may alter the women’s group implementation or effectiveness, or whether these adaptations are sustained after a crisis. A notable exception is Ray-Bennett (2010), who examined how a policy change that prioritized women’s group resources for its most vulnerable members during a shock produced unintended adverse consequences, including group tension and conflict. After a major cyclone hit India in 1999, the NGO managing SHGs in the affected region implemented a policy known as a “vulnerability analysis” approach, which targeted group resources such as credit to poor group members over non-poor members of the same caste. While the intent of this approach was to promote equity, it resulted in the less vulnerable members exhibiting “extreme hostility” towards more vulnerable members that received priority. They “exerted extreme pressure” on the vulnerable recipients to deposit savings and repayments regularly regardless of their difficulties, and, if they failed, were met with "verbal abuse and fiery argument" (p. 252). Ultimately, the most vulnerable were unable to receive any further credit – which "reproduced and re-intensified local gender and class hierarchies, with more privileged women receiving far greater benefit than the poorer" (p. 253). SHGs that did not adopt the vulnerability analysis appeared to fare better than those that did, as this helped to "diffuse the pressure of the least vulnerable group members on the activities of the SHG" (p. 253). The findings of Ray-Bennett (2010) reveal that the implications of women’s group adaptations to shocks is an important—yet understudied—topic in the literature.

Women’s group respondents facing recurrent droughts in Northern Kenya also cited a number of factors important for group sustainability that are closely related to the social capital embedded in groups, including unity and social cohesion, transparency and accountability of group leadership, and the appropriate balance of incentives and discipline in order to “instill an ethos of shared rights and responsibilities” ( Coppock & Desta, 2013, p. 100).

Shocks as an impetus for the formation of groups

We also examined how shocks may serve as the impetus for new women’s groups to form. Women’s groups may form organically after a shock as a way for members to provide psychosocial support to one another ( Berry, 2015; Huang & Wong, 2013; Sim et al., 2019; Tol et al., 2020), to pool resources for survival ( Corbin & Hall, 2019; Falk, 2014; Porter, 2001; Tawodzera, 2012), and to advocate for inclusion in community response ( Clissold et al., 2020; Fordham et al., 2011).

In some cases, large covariate shocks such as natural disasters and war may attract NGOs to a region to distribute assistance. For example, BRAC began operations in Bangladesh in 1972 as a small-scale relief and rehabilitation project to help refugees after the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971 ( Chowdhury & Bhuiya, 2004). Because many NGOs prioritize women in their aid response, an increase in NGO activity may produce an increase in the proliferation and activity of women’s groups ( Kruks-Wisner, 2011; Yonder et al., 2005). Kruks-Wisner describes how the Tamil Nadu state in India experienced “two tsunamis” – the initial Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004, followed by “a wave [that] pumped unprecedented amounts of aid, materials, and personnel into the affected region” (2011). Many of these newly-arrived NGOs worked with SHGs to provide support and connect women to government officials for advocacy purposes during the recovery process. The relationship between women’s groups and NGOs is bidirectional, as NGOs may establish women’s groups as part of their organizational response, and groups of women may start groups or formalize existing groups after a disaster in order to attract NGO partnerships. For example, after civil conflict in Liberia, many women organized into women’s groups in an “entrepreneurial attempt” to access donor funding that prioritized disbursement to women ( Fuest, 2008).

How do women’s groups mitigate the effects of shocks for members? We next reviewed the literature to assess the extent to which participation in women’s groups is associated with member resilience during an acute covariate shock. We found 46 documents that included evidence on the role of women’s groups in the resilience of members to covariate shocks. Most of this evidence (26 documents) consisted of qualitative interviews with group members and focused on member experiences, without comparison to a control population of non-group members or women without access to groups. These interviews do not provide quantifiable evidence of resilience, but the shared experiences of the women interviewed supply valuable detail and context often lacking in quantitative studies for how group mechanisms produce resilience. For example, women’s groups that formed in the wake of the Rwandan genocide testified to the importance of the group for collective grieving and emotional support as a way to cope with the tragedy of lost family members and displacement ( Berry, 2015). Members of economic SHGs stressed the importance of group membership in accumulating savings and group-based credit to better absorb economic losses due to natural disasters or rainfall shocks – that is, economic SHGs contributed to members’ absorptive capacity ( Coppock & Desta, 2013; Gash & Gray, 2016), and members of agricultural groups attributed their ability to adapt to price shocks ( i.e., adaptive capacity) to shared group storage resources and trainings from group-affiliated NGOs ( Nannozi, 2019).

To address the empirical evidence on the extent to which women’s groups increase resilience to shocks, we limited our analysis to studies with a control or comparison group. Table 3 contains a summary of the included empirical studies (n=20).

The majority of the empirical studies (13 of 20) examined resilience to a weather shock. These weather shocks varied in terms of severity and acuteness, and this review includes evidence of groups providing resilience to seasonal hunger periods as well as to droughts, monsoons, and other climate disasters.

Resilience was most commonly measured using some indicator of consumption, such as changes in food security or household expenditures, and seven studies provided evidence that women’s group member households tended to be better able to smooth consumption during covariate weather shocks than non-member households ( Bahadur et al., 2016; BARA & IPA, 2013; Christian et al., 2019; Demont, 2013; Demont, 2022; Garikipati, 2008; Karlan et al., 2017). It is important to note that, while consumption tended to be higher for member households than non-member households, membership in a women’s group seldom fully mitigated the effect of the weather shock. That is, the shock reduced consumption for all households, but member households experienced less of a reduction in consumption than non-member households; their increased absorptive capacity provided the ability to absorb more of the shock before reducing consumption. For example, Demont (2022) surveyed households in India about the number of months in the past year that households had to reduce food consumption, finding that households in villages with women’s groups realized nearly 50% less of a reduction in food security during a rainfall shock (compared to households in villages without women’s groups). Christian et al. (2019) found no significant impact of women’s groups on food consumption in the year after Cyclone Phailin – but did find that households in treatment villages spent significantly more per capita (785 Rs) on non-food consumption after the shock. Women’s group members also tended to have higher household income after weather shocks ( Demont, 2022; Karlan et al., 2017; Wineman et al., 2017), as well as better disaster preparedness strategies than non-members – indicative of increased adaptive capacity ( Story et al., 2020; Weingärtner et al., 2017; Yaron et al., 2018).

However, two studies using food security and nutrition-related outcomes found no evidence that membership in a women’s group provided benefits during a weather shock. One study examined the length of time households subsisted on less than three meals per day and found no difference between the treatment and control group ( Ksoll et al., 2016). The other study found no significant benefit of group membership amongst households when examining child development outcomes several years post-drought ( De, 2011).

Three studies in sub-Saharan Africa provide mixed results on the ability of group membership to increase resilience to conflict shocks. Victims of conflict-related sexual violence participating in VSLAs in the DRC realized group benefits of increased food expenditure and decreased internalized stigma, but the study found no statistically significant differences between group members and non-group members for additional mental health and economic outcomes ( Bass et al., 2016). Similarly, adolescent girls living in the midst of conflict in South Sudan did not achieve the economic outcomes the group was designed to provide, but they did enroll in school at higher rates post-conflict than non-group adolescents ( Buehren et al., 2017). Neither of these two studies focused on groups specifically designed to mitigate the effects of these conflict shocks, but a third study conducted after civil unrest in Uganda measured the effect of interventions with specific mental health programming by newly formed groups and found that women in these group-based interventions had less psychological distress and better mental health than women in the comparison group ( Tol et al., 2020).

This review also includes two studies on the importance of access to savings and credit through women’s groups during price shocks, as well as a study of adolescent girls’ groups during the Ebola outbreak (detailed in Section Spotlight on Women’s Groups and Ebola). During a year of high price volatility, members of savings groups in El Salvador were 9.5 percentage points more likely to avoid experiencing hunger than non-member households ( Jahns, 2014). Likewise in Thailand, households in villages with microfinance groups were better able to smooth consumption than control villages in periods of widespread economic hardship ( Kaboski & Townsend, 2005).

During shocks to income and resources, access to group-based credit is an important mechanism for a household’s absorptive capacity, as credit can help to smooth consumption, reduce asset loss, and allows borrowers to avoid predatory lenders ( Weingärtner et al., 2017), especially when credit conditions are flexible ( Khandker et al., 2015). However, as described in the previous section, covariate shocks may deplete group resources to the extent that loans are not available to members – especially if the group is not formally linked to a broader network or a financial institution ( Demont, 2013; Gash & Gray, 2016). In cases where group-based credit is not available during a covariate shock, the savings and information sharing mechanisms of women’s groups may be paramount ( Karlan et al., 2017). The accountability and regular commitment of savings groups ensure that members have greater absorptive capacity through accumulated savings, while access to information networks about crop diversification strategies and labor opportunities allows members to increase their adaptive capacity by smoothing income during shocks ( Demont, 2013; Demont, 2022; Karlan et al., 2017). Mechanisms of shifting gender norms, empowerment, and collective action and mobilization may contribute to the transformative resilience of women’s group members during shocks ( Gram et al., 2019), which is described in more detail in Section How Do Women’s Groups Support Community Responses to Shocks?.

However, the literature also revealed certain limitations with regard to the ability of women’s groups to contribute to individual resilience during a shock. Women’s groups may not benefit all members equally, and improved resilience for member households does not always equate to improved resilience for the woman herself. There are very few subgroup analyses in the reviewed studies, and we know little about the potential differential impacts of women’s groups on members. Compulsory savings may also reduce the ability of the poorest women to join groups even when this mechanism contributes to increased member resilience. Additionally, Garikipati (2008) and Karlan et al. (2017) find that group-attributable improvements in household resilience may coincide with decreases in women’s empowerment outcomes around household decision-making and control of productive assets. Finally, the most vulnerable women in a community may be excluded from or forced out of groups due to negative perceptions of the poor ( Hossain & Rahman, 2018). These findings caution against the idea of interventions with women’s groups as sufficient to equitably support member resilience without addressing structural inequities.

How do women’s groups support community responses to shocks? We found consistent evidence of women’s groups playing a role in the community response to a shock. The literature revealed diverse examples of women’s groups partnering with a broad range of stakeholders to support all stages of responses to various shocks. In particular, women’s groups had the ability to organize and empower women to advocate for more inclusive resilience policies that are better aligned with women’s priorities ( Clissold et al., 2020), highlighting their potential role in transformative resilience through systemic change.

Women’s groups have supported multiple stages of community response to a shock: from preparation and disaster risk reduction to immediate response and relief efforts, to reconstruction and recovery, and finally by advocating for transformational change (see Figure 1). This includes both pre-existing women’s groups, which often serve as valuable human infrastructure in the face of a shock, as well as new women’s groups that form to mobilize women to respond to a shock in their community. After large natural disasters in South Asia, women’s groups actively participated to rebuild and rehabilitate their community – by setting up relief camps ( Nambiar, 2016), taking charge of large community kitchens for the displaced ( Shaji, 2020), holding household cleaning drives after floods ( Anandan, 2018), providing psychological counselling to the bereaved ( Anandan, 2018), and contributing significant sums of money from their savings toward the rebuilding of their community infrastructure ( Anandan, 2018). We found that many types of local organizations that center women, inclusive of small lending groups as well as large, networked advocacy organizations, engage with a broad range of stakeholders in these community efforts, such as forming advocacy coalitions with women’s rights organizations ( Fisher, 2009; Fordham et al., 2011), serving as government partners and implementers ( Yonder et al., 2005), partnering with local and international NGOs (INGO) ( Fordham et al., 2011) and working with multilateral institutions such as the UN ( Brickman Raredon, 2011).

The literature cites several locally relevant communication, implementation, monitoring, and advocacy roles that women’s groups can play in community responses to shocks. Women’s group connections to their communities mean that they “are talented in gathering local information that is difficult, if not impossible for outsiders to access” ( Yonder et al., 2005, p. 35). Involving women’s groups in community responses can also increase the cultural relevance of programming, bolstering community trust and leading to an improved response ( Camara et al., 2020). In their role as implementers of shock response programming, they can “function as intermediaries between their communities and the government in a manner that improves the speed, quality, and accountability of the government programs” ( Yonder et al., 2005, p. 35). They can also support monitoring of a response to a shock – including everything from tracking incidents of gender-based violence in shelters ( Fisher, 2009), to outbreak surveillance and reporting ( Deepa et al., 2008), to ensuring resources are allocated appropriately to those most in need ( Yonder et al., 2005). Finally, grassroots women’s organizations appear to play an important advocacy role in ensuring government and INGO programming best supports women and their communities ( Fordham et al., 2011).

However, women’s advocacy organizations, grassroots cooperatives, and federations of savings and credit groups have reported a lack of meaningful involvement in national disaster responses. Across 21 interviews of women’s advocacy organizations in Latin America, South Asia, and sub-Sharan Africa, Oxfam found that the majority felt “sidelined” from disaster response and recovery initiatives due to “perceived lack of technical capacity and reach”, as they “had never been consulted by aid agencies on resilience and disaster preparedness strategies, and had no contact with government and nongovernmental actors in charge of disaster response and recovery initiatives” ( Ravon, 2014, p. 17). Other sources corroborate this finding, as Goetz and Jenkins (2016) found multiple instances of the UN excluding women’s groups in the conflict resolution and peacebuilding processes, and Enarson, Fothergill, and Peek (2007) found that women and women’s grassroots organizations are often not in positions of authority during disaster relief and recovery. Gupta and Leung stated that “successful partnerships between grassroots women’s organizations and government agencies… are exceptions rather than the norm” in disaster risk reduction and recovery, and that typical programs such as aid and training too often “reproduce rather than redress women’s marginalization and vulnerabilities” (2011, p. 25).

As a result, these and other authors call for more meaningful partnerships with, and investments in, organizations that work with women, which include community-based small groups such as VLSAs, networks or federations of women’s groups, and NGOs/INGOs that work with women’s networks and women’s rights/advocacy organizations. Experts cite the potential of such partnerships to reduce the perpetuation of gender inequity through building local capacity instead of relying upon external expertise ( Gupta & Leung, 2011), and by supporting the ability of local women to be “permanent active agents of resilient development” ( Fordham et al., 2011, p. 65). Thus, our findings suggest that there is room for greater inclusion of women’s groups in community, government, and NGO response to shocks – and that increased inclusion has the potential to support community resilience.

Spotlight on women’s groups and Ebola. The Ebola epidemic from 2014–2015 had a catastrophic impact on VSLAs in Liberia, including absenteeism for VSLA meetings and activities, a decrease in contributions and resultant reduced funds available for loans, and–ultimately–the suspension of all VSLA activities ( Langlay, 2014). Men who were able to borrow money in Liberia during the crisis mostly did so through informal sources, such as family and friends, while women primarily relied on credit offered by savings clubs and susu clubs, as other formal financial services were suspended ( Korkoyah & Wreh, 2015). In Sierra Leone, the burden of the Ebola shock decreased group members’ ability and propensity to contribute savings – which, in turn, put pressure on the group’s social fund, despite it being needed for expenses related to burial and the care of orphaned and vulnerable children ( Androsik, 2020). However, while the Ebola epidemic highlighted the vulnerability of women’s savings groups to shocks, it also showed their resilience – as many VSLA group members in Liberia remained steadfast in their commitment to their group throughout the crisis ( Langlay, 2014).

Women’s groups adapted their activities, services, and roles in response to Ebola outbreaks in various ways. In Liberia, the financial savings and loan activities of VSLAs were disrupted, but groups naturally evolved to serve as important sources of psychosocial support to members during this period of extreme loss and grief ( Langlay, 2014). In response to recurrent conflict and the Ebola crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, VSLAs experimented with a “resilient VSLA model” to better cope with recurrent shocks that included shorter loan cycles, new emergency funds, and facilitating membership for displaced women ( CARE, 2020a). Women’s groups also adapted to play a role in the community response to Ebola in the DRC, where the World Health Organization trained women’s group representatives to spread awareness and share information in 30 Beni neighborhoods about vaccines, contact tracing, treatment, and the vulnerability of women and children to the disease ( WHO, 2018).

We found one study that incorporated a causal identification strategy to measure member resilience attributable to group membership during the Ebola outbreak. The study focused on the effectiveness of the Empowerment and Livelihood for Adolescents (ELA) intervention using a cluster-randomized controlled trial in Sierra Leone ( Bandiera et al., 2019). The Ebola outbreak occurred in the midst of the intervention and varied in severity across intervention locations. Thus, the authors were able to measure the mitigating impact of belonging to an ELA group during Ebola. The study found that group membership decreased the amount of time adolescent girls spent with men, decreased out-of-wedlock pregnancy by 7.5 percentage points, and increased school attendance by 8.5 percentage points. In a follow-up analysis, the positive effects persisted in higher human capital accumulation (increased school enrolment at higher levels of education) over time for group members ( Bandiera et al., 2020).