Social Protection In Ghana; A Priority Or Another Political Gamble

Are good policies sufficient to indicate government’s commitment to social protection and community development?

While social policy can thrive in authoritarian political systems, democracies often present particularly favorable conditions for sustainable social provisions. And Ghana, like any functional democracy, has several policies for social protection, meant to provide assistance to disadvantaged groups, individuals and families through programs such as health care and child care. The Departments of social welfare and community development (DSWCD), have the primary responsibilities for preventing violence and providing services to those who are vulnerable and have suffered abuse, neglect and exploitation.

However, according to UNICEF’s budget brief for October 2020, “the overall budgetary allocations for social services to address the vulnerabilities, violence, abuse and exploitation are inadequate, excluding allocation for social protection programmes.” This document further sheds light on problems of inadequate staffing and insufficient funding for social welfare programmes, particularly transportation costs and other recurrent expenses. Wait a minute! Understaffing? Understaffing at a time several graduates remain unemployed? Insufficient funds? Had parliament not, just months ago, approved “cabinet minister-level salaries” for the first lady and second lady? But for incessant public backlash would the first and second ladies have rejected the offer? Is the government truly handicapped financially or is it not already clear that social protection is simply not a priority?

Now aside from the aforementioned problems that bedevil the DSWCD, there is also the problem of delayed funding. As at now, the quarterly disbursement of the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF), a fund meant to among other things, finance some social interventions for PWDs at the local government level, has still not been released to the various MMDAs for this year. Three percent of this fund would have been committed to three areas: providing education or vocational training for PWDS, catering to health care needs of PWDs, and for providing startup capital for either PWDS or their guardians. Now as government delays in its release of the funds, dozens of PWDs struggle to fend for themselves or raise healthcare costs and the DSWCD left with no choice, can only encourage applicants to hold on a little longer, or liaise with some local NGOs to provide some assistance to some of these people.

Another social intervention, LEAP, a cash transfer which is targeted at empowering poor and vulnerable people to “leap” out of poverty is also beset with the problem of delayed funds. Eligible beneficiaries of LEAP are people from extremely poor and vulnerable households that have anyone of the following specific categories of persons: orphaned and vulnerable children, persons with severe disability without any productive capacity and elderly persons sixty-five years and above. Beneficiaries are entitled to an amount of thirty-two Ghana cedis a month and payment is made bimonthly. The aim of LEAP is to improve daily feeding in vulnerable households. My checks with the DSWCD Ho municipal office revealed that LEAP payments for this year have not been made for the months of May, June, July and August. Again as the disbursement of these funds tarries, thousands of people struggle to make ends meet.

In the Ho municipality of the Volta region alone, some seven hundred and forty households are registered for this program, a number that could have increased substantially but for our prejudices and lack of insight into urban poverty, and a little over a thousand individuals are expected to benefit from it this year. Aside from the money received, members of registered households are also entitled to free National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) registration.

What should we prioritize? Quality of implementation or mere initiative

UNICEF’S Social Protection Budget brief underscores how delays in the disbursement of these funds can impact negatively, the tens of thousands of poor households that depend on these funds. Many of these households have limited resources to cope with such delays and yet time and time again, we witness these delays. If indeed we recognize social protection as a strategic anchor to drive growth and development, why the delays? If indeed we are committed to improving the lives of vulnerable people, why the delays? This only reinforces our governments’ (not only the current but previous ones) noncommitment to social protection.

It is evident thus, that while Ghana can have commendable social protection policies and institutions to champion implementation, these are not sufficient to indicate the government’s commitment to eradicating poverty and empowering vulnerable groups. It is not enough to have a good and well-drafted policy; its implementation counts. So, minimal financial commitment to the policies intended to drive development and empower the vulnerable equals bad governance and if Ghana is to advance, we must mend our ways. Gambling with the institutions and policies that matter, will not take us where we desire to be.

By Eyram Anaglate