ABSTRACT

The high level of poverty in Ghana led to the introduction of the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) Program in 2008 to decrease the chronic/shock-induced poverty, address social risks and reduce their economic vulnerability. Inconclusive findings on the effects of the program led to this study. The objectives of the study were to evaluate the socio- economic effects of the LEAP on beneficiaries, the challenges that the implementation of the LEAP faces, and solutions to these challenges. With reference to the Functionalist Theory and the Sustainable Livelihood Framework, a mixed method approach was adopted to collect qualitative data through interviews and quantitative data with the use of a questionnaire. One hundred and nineteen (119) respondents were sampled from a population of 711 in the Asutifi North and South Districts. The study found that LEAP has reduced social risks, improved food security, improved access to health, increased access to education by children from beneficiary households and increased the access of beneficiaries to credit facilities. The challenges identified by the study to be hindering the implementation of the LEAP, included insufficiency of the funds, extortion of monies from the beneficiaries, lack of updated data, and political interference. The study suggests that the provision of economic rewards for Community Focal Persons, the need to adequately resource the secretariats responsible for LEAP implementation, and the regular review of grants for beneficiaries can help maximize the intended effects of the program.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

    Background of the study

Reports by UNICEF (2013) have shown that, even as at 2006 Ghana had been able to eradicate extreme hunger and poverty. For example, the overall poverty was reduced substantially from 51.7% in 1992 to 31.9% whiled 16.5% of the people were living below poverty in 2006. However, in the current round of the survey, it was reported that only about a quarter of Ghanaians are poor with less than a tenth being extremely poor. This amounts to 8.4% of people being extremely poor and 24.2% of people being described as poor. However, the general poverty level in the country is still high especially in rural areas (Cooke, Hague and McKay, 2016). According to the UNICEF report, although households in urban areas continue to have much lower average rates of poverty, rural poverty is almost four times high as urban poverty, making it two times higher than it was in the 1990. Besides the concentration of the poverty in rural areas, it has been argued that an extreme poverty rate of 18.5% is significant enough to deny many people of basic life essentials like food, health, education, shelter and others. In line with programs that are normally developed by other developing countries to make the lives of their citizenry better (Barrientos, 2013; Dinbabo, 2011), the government of Ghana in the year 2008 introduced the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) as a component of the National Social Protection Strategy (NSPS) (Government of Ghana, 2013) to help eradicate extreme poverty.

Since the 1990s in Ghana, much progress has been made in reducing poverty and improving the livelihoods of the extremely poor, enabling the country to achieve the millennium development

1

goal 1 which targeted reducing poverty by half the proportion of the population living in poverty. For example, overall poverty reduced substantially from 51.7% in 1992 to 31.9% in 2006. This has helped to lower the proportion of the population living in extreme poverty over the years. For example, report from Round 5 of the Ghana living Standard Survey (GLSS 5) suggested that about 16.5% of the people living in poverty as at 2005/2006. However, in the current round of the survey, it was reported that only about a quarter of Ghanaians are poor whilst under a tenth of the population are extremely poor. In percentage terms, this translated to 8.4% of people being extremely poor and 24.2% of people being described as poor. The survey assumed a lower poverty line of GHC¢792.05 per adult per year which is only based on considerations of nutritional requirements of household members such that, individuals with yearly incomes below the amount are considered to be in extreme poverty. The reason is that, even if their entire budget is allocated to food, they would not be able to meet their minimum nutrition requirements considering the average consumption basket). In real terms, more than 2.2 million Ghanaians (based on 2010 PHC projections) cannot afford to feed themselves with 2,900 calories per adult equivalent of food per day, even if they were to spend all their expenditures on food. Although the absolute number living in extreme poverty has reduced over time, it is still quite high given the fact that Ghana is considered to be a lower middle-income country.

Social intervention programs directed at the poor and vulnerable in society can be found in many jurisdictions across the globe. Currently, the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) is a major social intervention program for the poor in Ghana.

The LEAP program was launched in March, 2008 by the government of Ghana with the aim of providing a safety net for the poorest and most marginalized groups in the society. At the local level, the LEAP Since its introduction, it has expanded steadily year after year. As of 2013, the

LEAP had covered over 71,000 households in all ten (10) regions of the country (UNICEF, 2013).

LEAP is a cash transfer program for the poorest households in Ghana with three primary purposes of (a) decreasing the chronic or shock-induced poverty among the extremely poor in Ghana, (b) addressing the social risks among them and (c) reducing their economic vulnerability (Government of Ghana, 2013). A clear-cut criterion was set for qualification as a beneficiary of the LEAP. Beneficiaries of the program include the indigent, orphans and vulnerable children, the aged who are 65 years and above, and severely disabled people who cannot work. The category of children named as vulnerable includes single or double orphans; disabled children or chronically ill children; children from families with the family head who is chronically ill or below 18 years; or children in a family with a parent whose whereabouts are unknown (UNICEF,2013).

The selection of beneficiaries of the LEAP is in stages. At each stage, the responsibility lies in the hands of a committee. At the district level, the District LEAP Implementation Committee is responsible for the selection of the communities to benefit. At the community level, the Community LEAP Implementation Committee is responsible for discussing and selecting most disadvantaged families in the community (UNICEF, 2013). To check whether selected families are really poor or not, questions are asked and the feedback sent back to the community for discussion.

Payment of LEAP Money is supposed to be delivered to beneficiaries every two months (six times a year). Specifically, the months designated for payment include February, April, June, August, October and December. According to the revised payment system, monies are transferred according to household beneficiaries depending on the number of eligible beneficiaries in a family. In value terms, one beneficiary receives GH¢64.00 (USD 11.68), whiles two three, and

four or more beneficiaries receive GH¢76.00 (USD 13.87), GH¢88.00 (USD 16.06) and GH¢106.00 (USD 19.35) respectively. The money is usually received on behalf of the beneficiary family by the primary caregiver. The amount once received, is expected to be used for the acquisition of a balanced diet, the payment of educational expenses for children below 13 years, investing in farming or farm animals, livestock and petty trading (UNICEF, 2013).

There are arguments about the adequacy of this amount in helping achieve the intended purpose. There are also arguments about the effectiveness of the program. Further, research findings about the exact challenges preventing the programme from achieving its aim of cushioning the poor and encouraging them to seek capacity development and other empowering objectives remain inconclusive. It is therefore prudent to critically assess the impact of the program on beneficiaries so that it does not fail to fully achieve its objective of reducing poverty like some earlier government interventions aimed at poverty reduction (Bongfudene and Bawelle 2016; Chettri and Delap,2015; Jones and Perezineto 2010)

    Problem statement

Since the LEAP’s inception in Ghana, several impact assessments studies have been conducted especially at the beginning of this century. However, the results are not conclusive. For example, Osei (2011) conducted a study in which he assessed the extent to which the policy has been viably used to reduce poverty among the beneficiaries. After three years of its existence, the researcher suggested that, a universal social grant program of the nature of the LEAP will have the ability to reduce the incidence and depth of poverty as well as inequality in Ghana with a prediction that both the incidence of poverty and the Gini coefficient/Gini Ratio will be reduced by about 5 percentage points (Osei, 2011).

Other impact assessment studies by (Agbaam, 2013; Bongfudeme and Bawelle, 2016; Chettri, Delap, Kariki, and Roelen, 2015; Amuzu, Jones and Pereznieto, 2010) have been conducted and overall, the results seem to be positive. For example, it was found that, the LEAP has been able to increase food security among beneficiaries, increase enrolment into the NHIS (and thus access to health care), increase access to credit and increased school enrolment rate for children aged 6-13 years in the beneficiary households (Bongfudeme and Bawelle, 2016; Agbaam, 2013; Agbaam and Dinbabo, 2014). Notwithstanding these positive findings, other studies suggest that the program has had no real impact and yet others conclude that it has even brought negative impacts. In a study by Debrah (2013), it was found that the rural poor, particularly in the northern sector of the country, continue to suffer and wallow in poverty despite the presence of the program. In a more recent survey, Odura (2013) realized that the program has negatively influenced community social relations and has undermined citizens’ rights to hold the state accountable. The program according to Oduro’s conclusion unavoidably limits effective state building. For example, the introduction of the LEAP is said to be gradually eroding the traditional moral obligations towards one another in rural communities, and is leading to a gradual withdrawal of financial support by relatives of LEAP beneficiaries. In fact, he summed up that, the implementation of the LEAP program is gradually tearing down informal social support systems, both within and between households (p.33). These opposing findings makes it difficult to draw general conclusions on the outcomes of the LEAP. Given these inconclusive results on the impact of the LEAP in poverty alleviation, there is the need for more research. This study is therefore designed to fill the gaps in the existing empirical and theoretical literature by assessing how the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) has impacted the lives of beneficiaries in the Asutifi North and South Districts.

    The general aim of the study

The study’s main objective is to assess how the LEAP has changed the lives of the poor in the Asutifi North and South Districts in Brong Ahafo Region.

    Specific Objectives

In order to achieve the purpose of the study, the specific objectives of the study are:

1. To measure the extent to which the LEAP has changed the lives of the beneficiaries in the study area.
   1. Assess how the LEAP has been implemented and expose any difficulties that may have constrained the LEAP as a poverty alleviating tool in the Asutifi North and South Districts.
   1. To recommend how the implementation of the LEAP could be improved to boost its efficiency

    Research questions

In order to achieve the specific objectives of the study, the following research questions are set to be a guide.

1. How has the LEAP changed the lives of the target population?

• To what extend has the implementation of the LEAP been successful in Ghana?

• What improvements can be made in the implementation of the LEAP to enhance its success in Ghana?