From Protection to Production:

Impacts of the Ghana LEAP
programme at community and
household level
Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty
(LEAP) Program
Unconditional cash transfer program began in 2008
Eligibility based ...
Talon Kumbungu District
Pru, Tain,
Kintampo North

Krachi East

Komenda, Twifo

Komenda District
LEAP payments during evaluation: sporadic and
lumpy
Transfer level very low during evaluation period
(later tripled)
Key areas of inquiry driving qualitative research:
•

Household economy
– How are households’ decisions/decision-making pr...
Methodological approach to qualitative research
• Focus group discussions (FGD), Key informant interviews (KII) and
househ...
Summary Findings: Household Economy
•

Serving as a safety net: improved consumption (diversity and more nutritious), scho...
Local Economy
•

Limited impacts on local markets: some increase in exchanges, increase &
diversification of goods & servi...
Social networks & risk-sharing
• Beneficiaries “re-entering” social networks, re-investing in alliances & social
security ...
Operational impacts
•

Payment delays have negative impacts: inability to plan, greater debt, asset
disinvestment, reversi...
Quantitative Evaluation Design: Difference in Differences
Propensity Score Matching
Baseline on
future T0
participants
(N=...
No impact of LEAP on consumption per adult
equivalent: where is money going?
Distribution of AE expenditure--Comparison ho...
Quantitative study indicates LEAP households
spend on non-consumption items with goal of
managing risk
• Increasing saving...
Increased share of households save
Share of household with savings
overall

female
headed

male
headed

size ≤ 4

size ≥ 5...
Reduction in share of households holding
loans (thus paying down debt)
Share of households holding loans
Percentage points...
Increase in extending credit to others
(even among these very poor households)
Impact of LEAP on amount of credit owed (as...
Reengaging with social networks—
increase in the amount of gifts given out
Amount of gifts given (in adult equivalent Cedi...
And an increase in the amount of gifts
received!
Impact of LEAP on gifts received (as share of consumption)
female
male
ov...
Beneficiaries are happier compared to
comparison households
Proportion happy with their life
Percentage points

overall

f...
Conclusions from Q2 findings
• Consistent story at household level (mostly)
– Indicating positive impacts on human capital...
From Protection to Production: Impacts of the Ghana LEAP programme at community and household level
From Protection to Production: Impacts of the Ghana LEAP programme at community and household level
From Protection to Production: Impacts of the Ghana LEAP programme at community and household level
From Protection to Production: Impacts of the Ghana LEAP programme at community and household level
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

From Protection to Production: Impacts of the Ghana LEAP programme at community and household level

1,409 views
1,282 views

Published on

http://www.fao.org/economic/PtoP/en/

Presented during the From Protection to Production project workshop, 24-25 September 2013, FAO HQ.

The From Protection to Production (PtoP) project is a multi-country impact evaluation of cash transfers in sub-Saharan Africa. The project is a collaborative effort between the FAO, the UNICEF Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office and the governments of Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Project activities are mainly funded by the Regular Fund, the DFID Research and Evidence Division and the EU.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,409
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
409
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 70,00
  • From Protection to Production: Impacts of the Ghana LEAP programme at community and household level

    1. 1. From Protection to Production: Impacts of the Ghana LEAP programme at community and household level
    2. 2. Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) Program Unconditional cash transfer program began in 2008 Eligibility based on poverty and having a household member in at least one of three demographic categories: Single parent with orphan or vulnerable child (85%), elderly over age 65 (10%) and person with extreme disability unable to work Community based targeting followed by central verification and final eligibility determination Provides cash and health insurance to beneficiaries Reached 70,000+ in 2012, 100+ districts
    3. 3. Talon Kumbungu District Pru, Tain, Kintampo North Krachi East Komenda, Twifo Komenda District
    4. 4. LEAP payments during evaluation: sporadic and lumpy
    5. 5. Transfer level very low during evaluation period (later tripled)
    6. 6. Key areas of inquiry driving qualitative research: • Household economy – How are households’ decisions/decision-making processes affected: livelihood choices, investments, savings, employment, consumption? • Local economy – Are multiplier effects created through impacts on local goods, services & labour markets in the community? Why? How? • Social networks – How are social networks effected - risk sharing, economic collaboration, social capital, trust? – Are there social inclusion effects for the most vulnerable – rising “voices”? • Operations – How do operational arrangements impact at household/community levels?
    7. 7. Methodological approach to qualitative research • Focus group discussions (FGD), Key informant interviews (KII) and household case studies (disaggregated by category: gender, wealth etc.) • Triangulation of tools (social mapping, wellbeing analysis, livelihood analysis, institutional analysis (venn diagram), household income & expenditure analysis) • Teams working in two different communities (1 week) in two regions and 1 day comparison community in both regions • Nightly team debriefings to identify patterns • Community validations to “confirm” findings; final debriefing with govt. and partners
    8. 8. Summary Findings: Household Economy • Serving as a safety net: improved consumption (diversity and more nutritious), school attendance, health, basic needs, family contributions • Some evidence of emerging HH investments in economic activities/production e.g. inputs, farm assets, hired labor, small animals, trade - depends on HH situational context – asset base, enabling environment, local conditions • Reduced child labor–gradual labor shift to own farm- less casual labor - the “last resort” • Greater creditworthiness but still risk averse – avoid credit in fear of debt • Reduced negative coping strategies (Kaaya-yei, eating stocks, asset disinvestment, debt • Women/FHH making own decisions-but typically HHs decide jointly & pool (depends on cultural context). Little transformation of patrilineal norms – small increase of women’s economic empowerment (access/control over resources) & influence in HH decisions
    9. 9. Local Economy • Limited impacts on local markets: some increase in exchanges, increase & diversification of goods & services particularly in smaller villages (e.g. food preparation, soaps, HH goods) “food bowls are now getting finished at the end of the day” (Dompoase) • Typical “payment-day surge” purchasing in local shops/market- but no price changes detected – LEAP transfer too small • Increased trust resulting in beneficiary creditworthiness, but reluctance to buy on credit, fear of indebtedness • Change in labour patterns: beneficiaries withdrawing from labour market when possible and even hiring in depending on context (Dompoase) * limiting factor is labour, not land.
    10. 10. Social networks & risk-sharing • Beneficiaries “re-entering” social networks, re-investing in alliances & social security - increasing social standing (family contributions, savings groups (susu), family levies (abusua to), church groups, funeral associations, welfare groups, social events) “now when someone dies, they say come” (Agona Abrim) • BENS viewed as less “drain” on others. More reliable, re-building & broadening social capital base, trust - builds self-esteem, confidence, hope “now we are able to mingle.”This strengthens potential for agency/change/empowerment • Some beginning to “help” others in need - small gifts • Jealousies- some tensions created (some “deserving” are excluded)
    11. 11. Operational impacts • Payment delays have negative impacts: inability to plan, greater debt, asset disinvestment, reversion to coping strategies. Preference for frequent, predictable payments rather than lumpy – as needs are immediate • Transfer diluted in larger households - not fully aligned with household size (4 max). Yet beneficiaries prefer broader coverage over increased amount – reflects value of social inclusion, equity, collective responsibility • Weak communication and grievance systems (targeting) are limiting transparency causing misunderstandings/resentment/jealousies/tension and reducing messaging & complementarities. This is a missed opportunity for transformation • Local community implementation structures (CLIC) are weak and in need of training, backstopping. They have a high potential to make a difference by strengthening human capital, productive assets, livelihoods, self-reliance • Questions of the role of local power structure: mixed views - elite capture fears: by default leaders are involved
    12. 12. Quantitative Evaluation Design: Difference in Differences Propensity Score Matching Baseline on future T0 participants (N=699; 2010) ISSER/Yale National Socioeconomic Survey (N=5000; 2010) C0 Matched comparison group (N=699) Follow-up T1 on participants (N=699; 2012) T0-T1= DT Difference-in differences DT – DC = DD Follow-up C on 1 comparison group (2012) (699+215) C0-C1= DC
    13. 13. No impact of LEAP on consumption per adult equivalent: where is money going? Distribution of AE expenditure--Comparison households 0 0 .005 .005 .01 .01 .015 .02 .015 Distribution of AE expenditure--LEAP households 0 50 100 150 200 aeexp Baseline 2010 Follow-up 2012 250 0 50 100 pcexp Baseline 2010 150 Follow-up 2012 Increase in both samples of roughly the same magnitude between 2010 and 2012 200
    14. 14. Quantitative study indicates LEAP households spend on non-consumption items with goal of managing risk • Increasing savings • Paying down debt • Re-engaging with social networks – More gift given out; more remittances received • Investing in some productive activities – More hired labor, increased expenditure on seeds
    15. 15. Increased share of households save Share of household with savings overall female headed male headed size ≤ 4 size ≥ 5 Impact 0.14 0.10 0.20 0.17 0.08 LEAP Baseline Mean ISSER Baseline Mean 0.22 0.40 0.19 0.34 0.26 0.49 0.18 0.38 0.28 0.43 Observations 3040 1637 1403 1940 1100 Percentage points Bold indicates statistical significance at 10 percent or less
    16. 16. Reduction in share of households holding loans (thus paying down debt) Share of households holding loans Percentage points overall female headed Impact -0.075 -0.079 -0.069 -0.124 0.011 LEAP Baseline Mean ISSER Baseline Mean 0.246 0.164 0.241 0.147 0.253 0.189 0.237 0.121 0.261 0.240 Observations 3040 1637 1403 1940 1100 Bold indicates statistical significance at 10 percent or less male headed size ≤ 4 size ≥ 5
    17. 17. Increase in extending credit to others (even among these very poor households) Impact of LEAP on amount of credit owed (as share of consumption) female male Percentage points overall headed headed size ≤ 4 size ≥ 5 Impact 0.022 0.004 0.035 0.016 0.078 LEAP Baseline Mean ISSER Baseline Mean 0.013 0.036 0.011 0.021 0.015 0.055 0.077 0.098 0.047 0.118 Observations 1817 973 844 1044 622 Bold indicates statistical significance at 10 percent or less
    18. 18. Reengaging with social networks— increase in the amount of gifts given out Amount of gifts given (in adult equivalent Cedi) female male AE Cedi overall headed headed size ≤ 4 size ≥ 5 Impact 1.60 1.80 1.11 1.88 1.11 LEAP Baseline Mean ISSER Baseline Mean 1.97 4.84 1.92 4.94 2.05 4.67 2.18 5.96 1.62 2.81 Observations 2979 1593 1386 1881 1098 Bold indicates statistical significance at 10 percent or less
    19. 19. And an increase in the amount of gifts received! Impact of LEAP on gifts received (as share of consumption) female male overall headed headed size ≤ 4 size ≥ 5 Share receiving LEAP Baseline Mean 0.024 0.621 0.031 0.667 0.012 0.554 -0.041 0.727 0.124 0.441 Amount received LEAP Baseline Mean 0.111 0.083 0.136 0.095 0.070 0.066 0.115 0.120 0.103 0.020 Bold indicates statistical significance at 10 percent or less
    20. 20. Beneficiaries are happier compared to comparison households Proportion happy with their life Percentage points overall female headed Impact 0.158 0.233 0.041 0.206 0.088 LEAP Baseline Mean ISSER Baseline Mean 0.395 0.597 0.357 0.589 0.451 0.608 0.382 0.587 0.418 0.614 Observations 3036 1634 1402 1937 1099 Bold indicates statistical significance at 10 percent male headed size ≤ 4 size ≥ 5
    21. 21. Conclusions from Q2 findings • Consistent story at household level (mostly) – Indicating positive impacts on human capital – Some indications of investment into productive activities – Allows households to improve credit-worthiness, reduce debt, increase savings – Enables re-entry into social networks, increased giftexchange even among these very poor households – Diverging findings on consumption at household level – Concerns with unpredictable (delayed) payments

    ×