Beyond Microfinance: An Assessment of Services Provided by Savings and Lending Groups to Farmers in Rural South Sudan

Full Text

AFRICAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT | Beyond Microfinance | Toch & Riak (202 6 ) Page PAGE 1

AFRICAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AFRICAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT | Vol. 12, No. 1, 2025 | ISSN : 2581-4xxxX ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE Beyond Microfinance: An Assessment of Services Provided by Savings and Lending Groups to Farmers in Rural South Sudan Makoi Majok Toch ¹* Gabriel Alier Riak ² ¹ Department of Rural Development, School of Community Studies and Rural Development, Graduate College, University of Juba, South Sudan ² Department of Rural Development, University of Juba, South Sudan * Corresponding Author: Makoi Majok Toch | Email : [ payookofyali@gmail.com ] | ORCID : [ 0009-0003-8332-910X ] Received: Dec 2025 | Revised : Jan 202 6 | Accepted : Feb 202 6 | Published : Ma rch 202 6 DOI: https://doi.org/ ABSTRACT Community Group Savings and Lending (CGSL) entities across sub-Saharan Africa have undergone a paradigmatic evolution from simple financial pools into multidimensional community development platforms. This study provides a comprehensive assessment of the services offered by CGSLs to smallholder farmers in three ecologically and socio-politically distinct states of South Sudan — Eastern Equatoria , Jonglei, and Lakes State — drawing on a mixed-methods design that integrated structured questionnaires administered to 81 validated respondents (n=81; response rate 95%) with thematic analysis of in-depth interviews conducted via MAXQDA. Using descriptive statistics including frequency distributions and weighted mean scores, the study categorises CGSL services across two primary dimensions: financial provisioning (savings mobilisation, credit access, collective loan disbursement) and non-financial interventions (agricultural extension training, social cohesion building, capacity development). Results demonstrate that 92% of respondents confirmed CGSLs build local community capacity (mean = 4.21), 88% recognised Village Savings and Loan Associations ( VSLAs ) as the dominant delivery model (mean = 4.28), and 94% called for government-donor collaboration to sustain these services. Thematically, CGSLs emerge as holistic support systems that fill an institutional vacuum left by the near-total absence of formal banking in rural South Sudan. The study introduces the Holistic CGSL Service Delivery Framework (HCSDF), an original conceptual model that integrates financial and non-financial service streams into a unified platform. Findings confirm that CGSLs function as de facto informal cooperatives, providing extension services that the state currently cannot deliver, and that bundling financial credit with agricultural training significantly improves loan utilisation outcomes. Strategic recommendations are advanced for policymakers, NGO practitioners, and development partners to leverage CGSLs as vehicles for inclusive agricultural transformation. Keywords: CGSL; Village Savings and Loan Associations; Financial Inclusion; Agricultural Extension; South Sudan; Rural Development; Informal Finance; Service Delivery 1. INTRODUCTION The agrarian economies of sub-Saharan Africa are increasingly animated not by formal banking institutions but by grassroots financial architectures that communities have constructed out of necessity and social solidarity. Community Group Savings and Lending (CGSL) entities — encompassing Village Savings and Loan Associations ( VSLAs ), Rotating Savings and Credit Associations ( ROSCAs ), Savings and Internal Lending Communities ( SILCs ), and member-managed cooperatives — represent one of the most dynamic and understudied phenomena in the landscape of rural development ( Chineka & Mtetwa , 2021; Umeaduma , 2023) . Their pervasiveness is remarkable: it is estimated that more than 50 million rural households across Africa participate in some form of community-based savings group, yet the range of services these groups actually provide remains poorly catalogued and even more poorly theorised. South Sudan presents a paradigm case for interrogating this gap. As the world's youngest nation and one of its most fragile states, South Sudan is characterised by a formal financial sector that is effectively absent from the lives of the rural majority. Over 80 per cent of the population depends on subsistence and small-scale commercial agriculture as its primary livelihood (World Bank, 2022; FAO, 2021) , yet formal banks — concentrated almost entirely in the capital, Juba — are functionally inaccessible to the vast majority of smallholder farmers in Eastern Equatoria , Jonglei, and Lakes State. The consequence is a profound financial exclusion that structurally inhibits agricultural investment, constrains productivity, and perpetuates inter-generational poverty cycles. It is within this institutional vacuum that CGSLs have assumed an outsized developmental significance. Early scholarship on savings groups in Africa treated them primarily through a narrow microfinance lens, focusing almost exclusively on their function as credit intermediaries for the poor (AMINU, 2025; Karakara et al., 2021) . This framing, whilst capturing one important dimension of group activity, obscures a far richer service portfolio that has evolved organically from the practical needs of rural communities. Contemporary evidence from Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Bangladesh consistently points to CGSLs that deliver agricultural input loans, financial literacy training, peer-to-peer extension advisory services, social insurance through informal mutual support networks, and mechanisms for collective market access ( Ilesanmi , 2024; Mwasha , 2025; Li et al., 2024) . The question, then, is not merely whether CGSLs provide credit — it is what the full spectrum of their service portfolio looks like, how it is structured, how it varies across ecological and socio-political contexts, and how effectively it is perceived by the farmers who depend upon it. Existing scholarship has produced tantalising but fragmented evidence. Studies in India (Abed et al., 2025) , Cambodia (van Touch et al., 2024) , Bolivia ( Landaverde , 2022) , and multiple East African contexts have documented specific service elements within CGSL operations, but they have rarely attempted to produce a holistic, categorised map of those services — one that distinguishes financial from non-financial provisioning and situates service delivery within a theoretical framework. Moreover, almost none of this literature has been produced from or applied to the specific post-conflict context of South Sudan, where the challenges of delivering any service — formal or informal — are magnified by political instability, recurring climate shocks, displacement, and the near-total absence of supportive state infrastructure ( Borgomeo et al., 2023; Akuel , 2024) . This paper addresses the gap directly. It presents findings from original mixed-methods fieldwork conducted across three purposively selected states — Eastern Equatoria ( Magwi County), Jonglei ( Bor County), and Lakes State ( Yirol Town) — to produce an empirically grounded, theoretically situated assessment of the services provided by CGSLs to rural farmers. The states were selected because they represent meaningfully distinct socio-ecological configurations: Eastern Equatoria is a relatively stable agricultural zone; Jonglei is characterised by recurring flood events and inter-communal conflict; Lakes State presents a classic agro -pastoralist economy with low infrastructure density. Together they offer a lens through which the variability and consistency of CGSL service delivery can be assessed comparatively. The study is guided by the following primary research objective: to establish and categorise the comprehensive suite of services offered to farmers by Community Group Savings and Lending entities in rural South Sudan, with particular attention to the balance between financial provisioning and non-financial interventions. Secondary objectives include assessing the frequency and quality of specific service elements as perceived by members, evaluating the role of NGO facilitation in shaping the service portfolio, and developing a conceptual framework that can synthesise the findings into a generalisable model of holistic CGSL service delivery. The paper makes three principal contributions to the literature. First, it provides the most detailed empirical assessment of CGSL service delivery yet produced from the South Sudanese context. Second, it advances the Holistic CGSL Service Delivery Framework (HCSDF) — an original conceptual model that integrates financial and non-financial service streams and maps their interactions with agricultural outcomes. Third, it generates evidence-based strategic recommendations for policymakers and development practitioners seeking to leverage CGSLs as platforms for inclusive agricultural transformation in fragile and post-conflict settings. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews the multidimensional literature on CGSL service provision; Section 3 describes the materials and methods; Section 4 presents quantitative and qualitative results; Section 5 offers discussion and synthesis; and Section 6 concludes with strategic interventions. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL PERSPECTIVE The scholarly literature on CGSLs has expanded substantially over the past two decades, transitioning from narrow financial-services assessments towards broader explorations of their developmental roles. This section organises that literature across two foundational dimensions: financial provisioning and non-financial interventions, before engaging with the specific theoretical frameworks that undergird this study. 2.1 Financial Provisioning: Core Economic Functions, Savings Mobilisation, and Emergency Lending The foundational economic function of any CGSL is the mobilisation of savings from members and the subsequent deployment of those savings as intra-group loans. This mechanism, simple in architecture but profound in consequence, provides the rural poor with a disciplined pathway to capital accumulation that formal banks do not offer. Abed et al. (2025) conducted a mixed-methods study across 300 smallholder farming households in rural India, finding that savings groups provided short-term credit utilised by 68 per cent of participating farmers to purchase agricultural inputs, resulting in a 25 per cent increase in crop yields. The study underscored, however, that groups constrained to short-term lending products could not support the more substantial capital investments — mechanisation, irrigation infrastructure — that are required for structural agricultural transformation. Similar evidence from Cambodia illustrates the financial literacy dimension of service provision. Van Touch et al. (2024) surveyed 450 smallholder farmers and documented that CGSL participation contributed to a 30 per cent increase in household income, largely through improved credit access for fertiliser purchase. Critically, the study also identified a 20 per cent default rate driven by insufficient financial literacy — a finding that has direct implications for the design of CGSL financial education services. Jiménez Aliaga et al. (2023) corroborated this in Peru, where the absence of structured financial training within savings groups led to poor loan utilisation and elevated default rates despite income improvements of 35 per cent. The implication is clear: financial provisioning and financial education are not separable functions — they are complementary services whose joint delivery determines whether credit access translates into sustainable agricultural improvement. Emergency lending — the provision of rapid, accessible credit in response to unforeseen shocks — constitutes another critical financial service that CGSLs deliver in contexts where no formal insurance exists. Rahman et al. (2025) conducted a case study in flood-prone Bangladesh in which 60 per cent of CGSL members used group loans to purchase flood-resistant seed varieties and secure livestock following climate events, achieving a 10 per cent improvement in household food security. Mwasha (2025) documented comparable dynamics in Tanzania's Kilimanjaro region, where regression analysis of 400 farmers revealed that CGSL participation increased crop yields by 25 per cent but that 85 per cent of members lacked access to crop insurance — a gap that emergency group loans were partially, but insufficiently, filling. Chanda (2024) in Zambia similarly found that 78 per cent of CGSL members expressed acute need for more robust risk management services, pointing to a structural deficiency in the current financial service portfolio of most groups. In the African context specifically, the VSLA model has emerged as the dominant architecture for financial service delivery. Ngaiyaye (2024) assessed VSLA operations in Rwanda and found that 65 per cent of members used group loans to purchase seeds and fertilisers, generating a 20 per cent increase in crop yields. Ouma (2022) in Kenya documented that 75 per cent of VSLA participants accessed credit but that only 12 per cent of loans were directed towards long-term agricultural investments — a pattern that reflects the structural bias of most savings groups towards short-term lending horizons. Msukwa et al. (2021) in Malawi added that 72 per cent of CGSL members invested group loans in agricultural inputs, achieving a 25 per cent maize yield increase, but that only 20 per cent received any form of agricultural extension alongside their credit. This finding anticipates the critical importance of bundled service delivery, which is explored in Section 2.2. Rotating Savings and Credit Associations ( ROSCAs ) represent a complementary financial architecture, particularly prevalent in West Africa. Unlike VSLAs — which build a permanent loan fund — ROSCAs operate on a temporal redistribution model in which the full savings pot rotates among members on a cyclical basis. Ilesanmi (2024) in Uganda's Luwero district documented that 80 per cent of ROSCA members used rotating credit to purchase agricultural inputs, securing a 22 per cent yield improvement. Sime and Aune (2019) in Kenya's Rift Valley found a 30 per cent household income increase among ROSCA participants but noted that fewer than 10 per cent of groups offered any form of agricultural insurance. The convergence of these findings across diverse African settings establishes a consistent pattern: financial provisioning through savings mobilisation and credit is a near-universal CGSL service, but its developmental impact is systematically limited by the absence of complementary non-financial services, by short-term lending horizons, and by the near-total absence of risk management products. The literature from South Sudan is thinner but corroborative. Agrawal (2021) documented the role of savings groups in post-conflict communities, finding that financial access through group mechanisms was the primary strategy through which farmers rebuilt productive assets following conflict-induced displacement. Bingen (2019) provided early evidence that community-based financial services were filling the void left by formal bank withdrawal from rural areas, a dynamic that Akongdit (2019) situates within a broader analysis of institutional failure in South Sudan's post-independence governance landscape. These works collectively establish that financial provisioning by CGSLs in South Sudan is not optional or supplementary — it is existential, representing the only financial architecture to which the majority of rural farmers have any access. 2.2 Non-Financial Interventions: Educational Services, Social Cohesion, and Agricultural Extension Training If financial provisioning is the structural foundation of CGSL operations, non-financial services represent the developmental superstructure that determines whether that foundation translates into lasting agricultural and social transformation. The evidence for non-financial CGSL services spans agricultural extension training, financial literacy education, social cohesion building, and market linkage facilitation — a portfolio of interventions that, collectively, exceeds what many formal development programmes deliver. Agricultural extension training delivered through or alongside CGSLs has been documented across multiple contexts as a critical complement to credit provision. Msukwa et al. (2021) in Malawi found that CGSL groups that partnered with agricultural extension officers achieved substantially better loan utilisation outcomes because farmers could apply technical knowledge — on soil management, seed selection, pest control — to the productive assets they had purchased with group credit. Li et al. (2024) in Indonesia found that 65 per cent of farmers used CGSL loans to invest in improved technologies including drip irrigation and high-yield seed varieties, but that groups which provided no accompanying technical training saw the benefits of those investments erode over time due to improper application. Basu et al. (2020) in Myanmar corroborated this dynamic, finding that the absence of agricultural advisory services within CGSL frameworks systematically reduced the overall effectiveness of financial provisioning. The integration of agricultural extension within CGSL frameworks is particularly salient in the South Sudanese context, where state-delivered extension services have virtually collapsed. Utami et al. (2019) identified in Indonesia that only 15 per cent of CGSL-affiliated farmers had access to agricultural extension services — a proportion that is likely even lower in South Sudan. Sisang et al. (2019) in Kenya documented that knowledge gaps prevented full utilisation of agricultural inputs purchased with group loans, reducing productivity gains below their potential. The implication for CGSL service design in South Sudan is that extension services should not be treated as external add-ons but as integral components of a bundled service delivery model. Social cohesion building is the most intangible yet arguably the most foundational of all non-financial CGSL services. The regular meeting cycle of CGSLs — typically weekly or monthly — creates a structured space for social interaction, collective problem-solving, and the reinforcement of peer accountability norms. Yan et al. (2025) conducted a randomised control trial in rural China involving 600 farmers and found that CGSL participation produced a 35 per cent crop yield increase, with qualitative data revealing that the trust and mutual accountability generated by the group dynamic were critical enablers of technology adoption. Darmawan (2025) in Nepal found that social capital generated within CGSL groups reduced transaction costs associated with financial lending, making members more willing to extend and accept loans from peers — a dynamic that Banerjee and Duflo (2018) have theorised as the 'social collateral' mechanism that makes group lending viable in the absence of physical collateral. Financial literacy as a discrete educational service provided by or within CGSLs has received growing attention in the literature, particularly in relation to loan default prevention. Muwereza (2024) in Uganda found that financial literacy gaps among CGSL members resulted in poor loan management and elevated default rates despite income improvements. Owusu- Antoh (2019) in Ghana found that 60 per cent of members reported challenges in loan repayment linked to insufficient financial knowledge. Shahriar et al. (2020) in Bangladesh documented a 15 per cent default rate linked directly to the absence of financial education within CGSL operations. These findings converge on a consistent message: financial provisioning without financial education generates limited and fragile developmental outcomes. The most effective CGSLs are those that treat financial literacy training not as an optional enhancement but as a core service element. Market linkage facilitation — helping members access output markets for their agricultural produce — represents an emerging dimension of non-financial CGSL service delivery. Landaverde (2022) documented in Bolivia that savings groups which facilitated collective marketing enabled members to negotiate better prices for their produce, reducing the informational asymmetry that normally disadvantages smallholder farmers in market transactions. Gebreselassie (2021) in Ethiopia found that CGSLs that combined credit provision with collective marketing support generated higher household income gains than those focused exclusively on lending. Cisse (2024) in Senegal noted that CGSLs had reduced farmers' reliance on informal lenders but that a gap in market linkage services prevented the full capitalisation of improved credit access. The NGO role in shaping the non-financial service portfolio of CGSLs warrants specific attention. In South Sudan and across sub-Saharan Africa, international and local NGOs — including Catholic Relief Services (CRS), BRAC South Sudan, Save the Children, Oxfam, AVSI Foundation, and the Rural Finance Initiative (RUFI) — have been instrumental not only in establishing CGSL groups but in designing their service architectures. Waweru and Njeru (2018) found that NGO support was critical to the initial establishment of savings groups and to the introduction of financial education and extension components within those groups. Ntayi (2025) highlighted that NGO-facilitated CGSLs in Uganda provided a richer portfolio of non-financial services — including business skills training, agricultural extension, and psychosocial support — than organically formed groups. The implication is that the quality and range of non-financial CGSL services is, to a significant degree, a function of the intensity and design of NGO facilitation. Taken together, the literature establishes that the most developmentally effective CGSLs are those that have evolved beyond their original function as simple financial pools into what Ntayi (2025) describes as 'holistic support systems' — integrated platforms that bundle financial provisioning with agricultural extension, financial literacy education, social cohesion building, and market access facilitation. The gap in the existing literature, however, is the absence of a systematic, empirically grounded framework that maps these service dimensions, situates them within a coherent theoretical architecture, and tests their relevance in the specific fragile-state context of rural South Sudan. The present study fills this gap. 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1 Research Design and Philosophical Paradigm The study adopted a pragmatic philosophical paradigm, operationalised through a concurrent mixed-methods research design. Pragmatism, as articulated by Creswell and Plano Clark (2017) and Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010) , treats qualitative and quantitative methods not as opposing epistemologies but as complementary tools that, when combined, generate a more comprehensive and actionable understanding of complex social phenomena than either approach could achieve independently. This paradigm was selected as particularly appropriate for a study situated in the fluid, conflict-affected, and economically volatile context of rural South Sudan, where both the quantitative dimensions of financial service provision and the qualitative textures of lived experience are analytically necessary. A cross-sectional survey design was deployed to capture a temporally bounded snapshot of CGSL service perceptions and utilisation patterns across the three study states. 3.2 Study Area Fieldwork was conducted across three purposively selected states of South Sudan: Eastern Equatoria State ( Magwi County), Jonglei State ( Bor County), and Lakes State ( Yirol Town and surrounding areas). These states were selected to maximise ecological, socio-economic, and political diversity within the sample. Eastern Equatoria — part of South Sudan's 'greenbelt' — represents the relatively stable agricultural south, characterised by fertile soils, tropical climate, and a concentration of NGO activity including CRS, AVSI Foundation, the Rural Finance Initiative, and Equity Bank operations in Nimule/Torit. Jonglei, the country's largest state, is characterised by the vast floodplains of the White Nile, recurring catastrophic flooding, and severe inter-communal violence — making it a critical site for studying CGSL resilience under maximum institutional stress. Primary saving mechanisms in Jonglei include VSLAs and ROSCAs , with key supporting institutions including Save the Children, BRAC South Sudan, JAM International, and FAO. Lakes State presents a predominantly agro -pastoralist economy centred on Dinka cattle-keeping and subsistence sorghum cultivation, supported by Oxfam, VSF-Suisse, Plan International, and Buffalo Commercial Bank, with VSLAs and Pastoralist Field Schools as the primary CGSL modalities. 3.3 Study Population, Sample Size, and Sampling Strategy The study population comprised all members of Community Savings and Lending Groups ( CSLGs ) across the three target states, estimated at between 8,000 and 12,000 individuals based on reports from development agencies (IFAD, 2021) . Using Fisher's formula for sample size estimation from a known population (N=115 accessible CGSL members across the three sites), a target sample size of 85 respondents was calculated, producing a final valid sample of 81 respondents (n=81) after accounting for incomplete returns. The sample comprised 40 farmers (purposive sampling), 15 fishermen/women (convenience sampling), and 30 pastoralists (convenience sampling). This mixed sampling strategy was necessary to accommodate the contrasting mobility profiles of the target groups: farmers are largely stationary and amenable to purposive selection based on CGSL membership and agricultural engagement, whilst pastoralists and fishermen/women are mobile populations that required convenience-based recruitment at strategic gathering points including livestock markets and fishing communities. 3.4 Data Collection: Questionnaires and MAXQDA Thematic Analysis Primary quantitative data were collected through a structured questionnaire administered face-to-face to 81 validated respondents across the three study sites. The questionnaire comprised both closed-ended Likert-scale items (five-point scale: 1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree) designed to assess perceptions of CGSL service provision, and open-ended items to capture experiential narratives. Data collection took place between January and March 2024. Questionnaire validity was established through expert panel review involving academic staff from the University of Juba's Department of Rural Development, and reliability was confirmed through a pilot test yielding a Cronbach's alpha of 0.79 — comfortably above the 0.70 threshold recommended for social science research. Primary qualitative data were collected through semi-structured in-depth interviews with 15 key informants across the three study sites, including CGSL members, group leaders, NGO field officers, and agricultural extension personnel. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and uploaded into MAXQDA 2022 — a specialist qualitative data analysis software platform — for thematic coding. Thematic analysis was conducted following the six-phase protocol articulated by Braun and Clarke (2006) : familiarisation with data; initial code generation; theme searching; theme reviewing; theme defining and naming; and reporting. This process generated four primary thematic clusters that are reported in Section 4.6. Secondary data were sourced from a systematic review of peer-reviewed journal articles, government reports, FAO and World Bank publications, NGO field reports, and relevant academic theses, providing the contextual and comparative scaffolding within which primary findings are interpreted. 3.5 Analytical Approach: Descriptive Statistics for Service Evaluation Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistical techniques — specifically frequency distributions and weighted mean scores — to evaluate the range, prevalence, and perceived quality of CGSL services. The use of descriptive statistics, rather than inferential techniques, was appropriate given the exploratory and assessment-oriented objectives of this study: the aim was to document and characterise the service portfolio rather than to test causal hypotheses. Weighted mean scores on the five-point Likert scale were calculated for each service-related statement, enabling cross-state comparison and the identification of high-performing and underperforming service dimensions. Frequencies were disaggregated by state to enable comparative analysis across the three research sites. Mixed-method integration was achieved through a convergent parallel design (Creswell, 2014) : quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently, analysed independently, and then synthesised in the discussion section to produce a comprehensive and mutually corroborating account of CGSL service delivery. All data were collected with full informed consent from participants, and the research was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the University of Juba Graduate College. 4. RESULTS 4.1 Survey Response Rate and Sample Validation The data collection strategy achieved a high and geographically balanced response rate across all three study sites, as presented in Table 1. Of the 85 questionnaires administered, 81 were returned fully completed, yielding an overall response rate of 95 per cent. This high rate validates the rigour of the fieldwork and ensures that findings represent a balanced cross-section of farmer experience across three ecologically and socio-politically distinct South Sudanese states. Table 1 : Detailed Breakdown of Survey Response Rate by Data Collection Area State Data Collection Area Target Sample (n) Returned (f) Response Rate (%) Eastern Equatoria Magwi County 30 28 93% Jonglei Bor County 30 29 97% Lakes State Yirol Town 25 24 96% TOTAL — 85 81 95% Source: Field Survey Data (2024) 4.2 Demographic Profile of Respondents The sample of 81 validated respondents was predominantly male (69%; f=56), reflecting the cultural norms of patriarchal financial control in all three communities — most pronounced in Jonglei (76% male), where pastoralist traditions vest financial authority in men. The sample was youthful: 69 per cent of respondents fell between the ages of 26 and 35, with the 26–30 cohort being the most active (36%; f=29) — a finding consistent with evidence from Tanzania (Mwangi, 2022) that younger adults engage more actively with community lending due to entrepreneurial aspiration and capital need. A substantial majority (79%; f=64) were married, reinforcing the household financial pressure that motivates CGSL membership. The educational profile revealed a stark bimodal distribution: 36 per cent had never attended school (most concentrated in Lakes State: 54%) whilst an equal 36 per cent held university or tertiary qualifications (most concentrated in Eastern Equatoria : 50%) — a divide with direct implications for financial literacy and service utilisation. Farming was the primary occupation of 68 per cent (f=55) of respondents, confirming the agricultural focus of the sample. Membership in a CGSL was reported by 53 per cent of respondents (f=43), with the highest participation rate in Jonglei (59%) and the lowest in Lakes State (42%). 4.3 Service Evaluation: Financial Services, Trust-Building, and Capacity Development Table 2 provides the primary quantitative output of the study: a systematic categorisation and comparative evaluation of CGSL service dimensions across all three states, using weighted mean scores to indicate the