HIV care and treatment providers across sub-Saharan Africa are integrating livelihood interventions to improve food security of their clientele. Many integrated HIV and livelihood programmes (IHLPs) require the formation and use of groups of HIV-infected/affected individuals as the operational target for programme interventions, indeed, virtually without exception the group is the focal point for material and intellectual inputs of IHLPs. We sought to critically examine the group approach to programming among IHLPs in Uganda, and to explore and problematise the assumptions underpinning this model. A case study approach to studying 16 IHLPs was adopted. Each IHLP was treated as a case comprising multiple in-depth interviews conducted with staff along the livelihood programme chain. Additionally, in-depth interviews were conducted with staff from The AIDS Support Organization (TASO), and with members of 71 HIV-infected TASO-registered client households. Our analysis reveals three important considerations in IHLP programming regarding the group-centred approach: (1) Group membership is widely held to confer benefits in the form of psycho-social and motivational support, particularly in empowering individuals to access HIV services and handle stigma. This is contrasted with the problem of stigma inherent in joining groups defined by HIV-status; (2) Membership in groups can bring economic benefits through the pooling of labour and resources. These benefits however need to be set against the costs of membership, when members are required to make contributions in the form of money, goods or labour; (3) Sharing of goods and labour in the context of group membership allow members to access benefits which would otherwise be inaccessible. In exchange, individual choice and control are diminished and problems of resources held in common can arise. While the group model can bring benefits to IHLP efficiency and by extension to food security, and other outcomes, its application needs to be carefully scrutinised at the individual programme level, in terms of whether it is an appropriate approach, and in terms of mitigating potentially adverse effects.