The document assesses urban poverty among households in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, Nigeria. It finds that poverty is characterized by low income, lack of jobs, inadequate access to water, power, food, and poor housing conditions. A survey of 388 households found average monthly income is 51,333 Naira. Most residents cannot afford basic necessities. The study recommends government interventions like job creation, affordable housing and loans, education and healthcare investments to alleviate poverty.

1. TOPIC:
ASSESSMENT OF URBAN POVERTY AMONG HOUSEHOLDS
IN YENAGOA, BAYELSA STATE
BY
AJA CHRISTIAN
NITP/TOPREC/2019/OW/004
SUPERVISOR:
TPL IKPOSO TARIMOBOWEI

2. BRIEF INTRODUCTION
According to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), 2004) poverty is not
having enough material possessions or income for a person's needs which
may include social, economic, and political elements.
Urban poverty is a form of poverty peculiar to urban areas. It is a state of
either relative or absolute want which is related to a geographical and social
environment (Ravallion M, et al, (2007). Urban poverty is primarily
because of influx of people to the urban areas which may result in over
population, environmental pollution, underemployment, unemployment,
uneven distributive measures in the national resource allocation.

3. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The first United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aims to “End
poverty in all its forms everywhere” (United Nations, 2015). Nigeria remains a
country with high levels of poverty (World Bank, 2018). Nigeria’s NBS, 2010
estimated Nigeria poverty at 46% based on the international poverty line of
$1.90 per person per day. Which means nearly 50% of Nigerians are poor.
Yenagoa, Bayelsa State is a geographical area in Nigeria and not immune from
trend of poverty and many poor families continue to migrate to the urban
centers constituting poverty in the urban areas. Thus, this study sought to assess
the urban poverty situation in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State to understand the nature
and dimension of the poverty in the area and to recommend amelioration
measures for the problem.

4. GOALAND OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
• Aim of the study
The main aim of the study is to assess urban poverty among household in
Yenagoa, Bayelsa State.
• Objectives of the Study
i. Assess the socio-economic characteristics of the households head in Yenagoa;
ii. Identify the main sources of income among the household head;
iii.Determine the living condition of the households;
iv.Identify the coping strategies employed by the households; and
v. Determine the nature and dimension of poverty in the study area;
vi.Recommend optimal coping strategies to ameliorate urban poverty in Yenagoa.

5. HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY
• H0:
There is no significant relationship between socio-economic of the
neighbourhood communities and their household urban poverty.
• H1:
There is significant relationship between socio-economic of the
neighbourhood communities and their household urban poverty.

6. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The study adopted descriptive research design. The primary method adopted for the
study is the survey method using a well-structured questionnaire to elicit information.
Population of the Study
S/N Communities
Population
(NPC, 2006)
Projection at
(3.2% growth rate)
No of Household (AHH=5)
1. Yenagoa 3,326
5,169.27 1,292.32
2. Swali 3,359
5,220.56 1,305.14
3. Onopa 8,342
12,965.14 3,241.28
4. Ovom 11,514
17,895.06 4,473.76
5. Famgbe 6,902
10,727.09 2,681.77
Total 33,443
51,977.11 12,994.28

7. SAMPLING SIZE AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES
The sample size is 388 household heads and was determined using Taro
Yameni Formula i.e n =
N
1+N e
2
Where: n = sample size to be determined, N = entire population of interest; e = allowable error (0.05) 1 = constant
Sampling Techniques
S/n Community Households Sample percent Sample size
1 Yenagoa 1,292 9.95 39
2 Swali 1,305 10.04 39
3 Onopa 3,241 24.94 97
4 Ovom 4,474 34.43 134
5 Famgbe 2,682 20.64 80
Total
12,994 100 388

8. Instrument for Data Collection
The primary instrument for the data collection was the questionnaire.
Method of Data Collection
Five (5) Research Assistants who reside in the selected communities were
trained on how to administer the questionnaires and guide the respondents
to complete the questionnaire for immediate retrieval.
Method of Data Presentation and Analysis
The Data generated from field were analyzed with the aid of frequencies,
percentages and charts. Correlation Coefficient statistical tool was used to
test the hypothesis.

9. RESULTS
The data were gathered using questionnaires which were administered
to 388 heads of households selected from the communities. Out of this,
388 questionnaires were duly completed and retrieved. This yields a
return rate of 97%. The results are summarized in the frequency Tables
presented in this section.

10. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
14.95
50.00
29.90
5.15
-
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
Less than 30 30-39 40-49 50-and above
Age Distribution
74.48
25.52
-
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
Male Female
Sex Distribution

11. HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND OCCUPATION
29.90
37.89
19.07
9.02
4.12
Trading
Civil/Public
Service
Artisan
Unskilled
Labourer
others
- 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00
Occupation
7.73
27.32
39.18
25.77
-
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
1 – 2 3 – 4 5 – 6 7 and above
Household Size

12. INCOME LEVEL
26.29
36.08
21.39
8.76
5.15
2.32
- 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00
18000 - 36000
36001 - 54000
54001 - 72000
72001 - 90000
90001 -108000
108001 above And the calculated
mean income of the
heads of the households
is N51,333

13. FOOD CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE PER DAY
26.80
48.45
15.46
6.70
2.58
-
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
Less than
1000
1001 – 2000 2001 – 3000 3001 – 4000 5000 and
above
And the calculated mean
income of the heads of the
households is N51,333

14. ACCESS TO WATER AND POWER SUPPLY
62.89
21.13
10.05
5.93
Public power
supply
private generator solar others
-
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
16.75
42.27
35.05
5.93
-
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
Public bore
hole
Water Vendors Private bore
hole
others

15. TYPE OF ACCOMMODATION
-
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
Rooming Housing Blocks of flats Detached-Bungalow Others

16. TYPE OF SCHOOLATTENDED AND REASONS
65.98
29.90
4.12
-
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
Public Private No schooling
Type of school attended
35.05
55.15
9.79
-
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
Proximity Cost Social prestige
reason

17. CONCLUSIONS.
10.82
19.33
6.96
26.03
21.39
12.37
3.09
- 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
Commercialization of Private Means of Transportation
Urban subsistent farming
Farming in Rural Area
Fishing/Livestock Rearing
Petty Trading
Street Hawking
Micro Finance Loan

18. TEST OF HYPOTHESIS USING CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
The calculated correlation co-efficient is r = 0.98 indicates
that there is a strong positive correlation between socioeconomic of
the neighbourhood communities and household urban poverty.
There is no relationship between socioeconomic of the neighbourhood
communities and urban poverty is rejected. The alternative hypothesis
that there is a relationship between socioeconomic of the
neighbourhood communities and urban poverty is substituted.

19. FINDINGS
Income poverty – low income
Occupational Poverty – low workforce
Access to Potable Water – inadequate water supply
Inadequate power supply – inadequate electricity supply
Inadequate Food Intake of Household Members – inadequate food
Housing Conditions in the Neighbourhoods – poor housing
Human Poverty – Education – poor education level and skill

20. RECOMMENDATION
 Government review of minimum wage policy
 Development of low cost housing estate
 Accessible mortgage facilities and loans
 Review of education curriculum to inculcate vocation and technical education
 Encouragement of agricultural production to ensure food security,
 Provision of affordable health care facilities
 Rehabilitation of existing infrastructure in the urban neighbourhoods communities and
 Provision of social amenities in the adjoining rural communities

21. CONCLUSIONS.
This study has examined poverty situation in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, using per
capita income and consumption expenditure to ascertain the nature and
dimension of poverty. From the analysis it was deduced that urban poverty in
Yenagoa is characterized by inadequate purchasing power, lack or inadequate
supply of some basic necessities of life such as housing, potable water and
sanitation, basic healthcare services, electricity and educational services. The
recommendations made in this research if duly followed will ameliorate the
urban poverty situation in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State.