Seven-year Follow-up of the Ghana LEAP 1000 Evaluation: A Focus on Child Labor Impacts by Christian Osei

1. FOCUS ON CHILD LABOUR IMPACTS
Christian Osei (ISSER)
SEVEN-YEAR FOLLOW UP OF THE
GHANA LEAP 1000 EVALUATION

2. • Context
• Programme
• Study design
• Research
questions
• Findings
• Conclusions
• Policy implications
OVERVIEW

3. CONTEXT
• GDP growth started slowing in 2022 and
is expected to slow further in 2023
• High inflation
- In 2022, the Cedi lost over 40% of
its value against the US $
• Poverty reduction slowed in 2022, and it
is projected to slow down further in
2023.
• Child labour at 27.9% (MICS 2018)
− High regional disparities (49% in
Northern region)
− Children mostly work in agriculture
− Child labour rates are similar
between boys and girls

4. PROGRAMME
Eligibility
• Extreme poverty, assessed through a proxy means test
(PMT)
• At least one of the following:
- Age 65+ without any form of support
- Severely disabled
- Orphan and Vulnerable Children (OVC)
- Pregnant women and mothers with infants (from
2015)

5. STUDY DESIGN & TIMELINE
• Five districts
• Quasi-experimental design comparing households in the vicinity of the PMT
threshold
- Below threshold: LEAP 1000
- Above threshold: control
• Mixed methods
• Survey timeline
- 2015 (baseline)
- 2017 (after two years of implementation; short-term)
- 2022 (after seven years of implementation; long-term)
• Analysis sample: 2,141 households interviewed in all three rounds (86% of the
baseline sample of 2,497)

6. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
• What are the long-term (7 year)
impacts of LEAP 1000 on household
economic wellbeing?
• Were short-term (2 year) impacts
maintained?
• What are the effects of LEAP 1000 on
the young children that were the
main target group at inception?
• Schooling
• Child labour

7. FINDINGS
• Operations
• Household wellbeing
& economic activities
• Household health
• Schooling
• Child labour
outcomes

8. OPERATIONS – TIME SINCE LAST PAYMENT
0-2
months
3-4
months
5-9
months
10+
months
Don’t
know
Legend:
2017
2022

9. OPERATIONS – TRANSFER AMOUNTS (1 BENEFICIARY)

10. IMPACTS – HOUSEHOLD WELLBEING & ECONOMIC
ACTIVITIES
Impact
2022
Impact
2017
Difference
in impacts
(2022-2017)
Consumption NO
Poverty NO
Food security NO
Child material wellbeing NO
Happiness NO
Engaged in farming NO
Engaged in non-farming enterprise NO
Number of income sources NO
Hired any labour - -
Legend:
Protective impact
No impact
- Not measured
NO Impact size
remained
unchanged

11. IMPACTS – HOUSEHOLD WELLBEING & ECONOMIC
ACTIVITIES
Impact
2022
Impact
2017
Difference
in impacts
(2022-2017)
Consumption NO
Poverty NO
Food security NO
Child material wellbeing NO
Happiness NO
Engaged in farming NO
Engaged in non-farming enterprise NO
Number of income sources NO
Hired any labour - -
Legend:
Protective impact
No impact
- Not measured
NO Impact size remained
unchanged
“…we are happy
receiving those
moneys, because it has
reduced our burden, it
has helped us in our
daily feeding…”
(39-year-old parent)
“It has helped us in the
household to buy soap
to wash our clothes
and when the children
need anything, you buy
for them…”
(35-year-old parent)

12. IMPACTS – HOUSEHOLD & CHILD HEALTH
Impact
2022
Impact
2017
Difference
in impacts
(2022-2017)
Having valid NHIS card ↓
Ever had NHIS insurance NO
Illness (last 2 weeks) NO
Health care seeking (last 2 weeks) NO
Health expenditure (age ≥ 5) NO
Child health (age < 5) NO
Health expenditure (age < 5) NO
Legend:
Protective impact
No impact
- Not measured
NO Impact size
remained
unchanged
↓(↑) Impact size
declined
(increased)

13. IMPACTS – CHILD SCHOOLING, BY GENDER & AGE
Legend:
Protective
impact
No impact
Impact 2022
All Boys Girls 6-11 12-17
Currently enrolled
Average years of schooling
Education expenditure
(past 12 months)
Ever attended school
Attending school regularly
Can read and write

14. IMPACTS – CHILD TIME USE, BY GENDER
Impact 2022
All Boys Girls
Working children
Household chores (participation)
Household chores (hours)
Economic activities (participation)
Economic activities (hours)
Child labour
Long hours or hazardous conditions in
economic activities
Long hours in chores
Long hours or hazardous conditions in
economic activities or chores
Legend:
No impact
Potentially
adverse impacts

15. MAIN REASONS WHY CHILDREN WORK
Supplement family income
Support household
enterprise
Learn skills
School-related issues
Other

16. MAIN REASONS WHY CHILDREN WORK
Supplement family income
Support household
enterprise
Learn skills
School-related issues
Other
“Yes, they receive but it
is not enough to take
care of me and my
siblings in school. So,
we work to support
them”
(17-year-old child)
“It’s because we are
still living in poverty.
Sometimes we have no
other options…”
(51-year-old-parent)

17. CONCLUSIONS
• Some of the impacts detected in 2017 were sustained, including on
household consumption and poverty reduction
• However, other outcomes were not affected, including household
economic activities, morbidity and child health
• Schooling outcomes improved, especially for boys
• But the programme had no impacts on child labour outcomes
− Participation / hours in household chores was not affected
− Participation / hours in economic activities was not affected,
except for boys (↑)
− Child labour (long hours or exposure to hazards) was not affected

18. POLICY IMPLICATIONS
• Strengthen implementation aspects of LEAP, especially payment
amount and regularity
• Given most children work in agriculture, important to align payments
to the period preceding the peak of agricultural season, so
households can hire adult labour
• Enrollment in NHIS needs to be further supported and simplified
• Sensitization on schooling and labour outcomes is important to boost
positive impacts on schooling and reduction in child labour (potential
to further scale up ISS services and improve their quality)
• Strengthen the supply side of schooling

19. THANK YOU
Christian Osei
ckosei2000@gmail.com