The Livelihood Empowerment against Poverty (LEAP) under the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social
Protection (MOGCSP) has been accused of over-spending an amount of GH¢15,369,309.97 over its
budget, which it cannot account for.
According to the Auditor General, the LEAP Management Secretariat (LMS) did not adhere to fund
utilisation guidelines, thus expending more funds on running the programme than allowed resulting in
excess spending of GH¢15,369,309.97, thus risking the sustainability of the programme.
Also, MOGCSP did not keep appropriate records on funds expended, said the Auditor-General in a report
to Parliament.
The money above does not include GH¢84,480.00 paid to dead beneficiaries and GH¢396,620.00 paid to
beneficiaries who no longer qualify to be on the programme.
This was contained in a ‘Transmittal Letter’ from the Auditor-General to the Speaker of Parliament dated
8 th August, 2023.
The letter covered a Performance Audit Report of the Auditor-General on the Management of
Livelihood Empowerment against Poverty (LEAP) by the Leap Secretariat.
The audit was in accordance with Article 187(2) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana and Sections 13(e)
and 16 of the Audit Service Act, 2000 (Act 584).
The LEAP program is a social protection initiative implemented by the Government of Ghana to provide
cash grants to extremely poor and vulnerable households to alleviate economic and social distress.
Piloted in 2008 and in its 15th year, the program targets vulnerable groups such as orphaned and
vulnerable children, breastfeeding mothers, old people and people with severe disabilities by providing
bi-monthly cash payments to eligible households in various districts across the country.
According to the Auditor- General Johnson Akuamoah Asiedu, at the end of December 2020, a total of
335,015 extremely poor households across 259 districts were enrolled in the LEAP Programme register.
“To ensure that the program is sustained, it is designed to be reassessed every four years to justify if a
beneficiary should still be on the program. As at 2022 and fourteen (14) years after LEAP’s existence,
beneficiaries have not been reassessed to determine whether they still fall within the eligible criteria to
stay on the programme or be removed,” the Auditor-General stated.
“In view of these, and in line with Sections 13e and 19 of the Audit Service Act 2000, Act 584, a
Performance Audit was commissioned on the management of LEAP to ascertain whether the Ministry of
Gender, Children and Social Protection (MOGCSP) ensured that LEAP Management Secretariat paid cash
grants to only eligible beneficiaries and ensured other expenditures aside cash grants were kept within
the required limit,” the report stated.
The audit was carried out from February to October 2022 at LEAP Management Secretariat and five
districts of three regions covering the period from 2017 to 2022.
“We found that LMS paid cash grants to caregivers of deceased beneficiaries in one-member
households, resulting in payments to 44 deceased beneficiaries amounting to GH¢84,480.00.
“We also noted that LMS did not conduct reassessments of LEAP beneficiaries as required. Despite
identifying positive impacts of the programme, LMS failed to graduate or exit beneficiaries even when
their socioeconomic status had improved. This led to payments of GH¢396,620.00 to beneficiaries who
no longer qualify to be on the programme.
“LEAP Management Secretariat (LMS) did not adhere to fund utilisation guidelines, thus expending more
funds on running the programme than allowed resulting in excess spending of GH¢15,369,309.97 risking
the sustainability of the programme. Also, MOGCSP did not keep appropriate records on funds
expended. iii
“We have made recommendations to LMS, the details of which are in this report, to bring about
improvement in their activities.
“We also recommended to MOGCSP to improve its records-keeping regime to enhance accountability,”
the Transmittal Letter stated.
(Below are the FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in the audit report).
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
44. We present our findings, conclusions, and recommendations under the following headings:
i. LMS paid cash grants to secondary caregivers of dead beneficiaries of one-member households,
ii. LMS did not graduate or exit LEAP beneficiaries and iii. MOGCSP did not ensure LEAP Agencies
adhered to fund utilisation guidelines.
LMS paid cash grants to secondary caregivers of dead beneficiaries of onemember households.
45. The LEAP Operational Manual (2020) Chapter 6, Case Management (Updates), requires the LMS
Operations Unit to collect information on beneficiaries in the case of a dead beneficiary and complete
the appropriate case form and submit to the Case Management Unit for verification and update of the
LEAP Register. This is to ensure that, only eligible beneficiaries receive cash grants. The Operations Unit
works through the District Social Welfare Officers (DSWOs) and Community Focal Persons (CFPs) at the
District and Community levels respectively.
46. We therefore expected the Operations Unit of LMS to collaborate with the DSWOs and CFPs through
their monitoring visits to periodically collate information on dead beneficiaries to update the LEAP
Register for each payment.
47. We found that LMS continued to pay cash grants to caregivers of 44 beneficiaries who were the only
members of a household even though they were 18 dead. The grants were paid to secondary
caregivers4 who are allowed by the LEAP programme to receive cash grants on behalf of beneficiaries
who were unable to collect their cash grants themselves during payment cycle events. The DSWOs and
CFPs at the District and community levels respectively did not pay regular visits to the beneficiaries to
determine whether the beneficiaries had died. Some secondary caregivers concealed the deaths of
beneficiaries from the DSWOs and CFPs, for fear that their report will cause them to be removed from
the programme. This lack of monitoring allowed some secondary caregivers to continue to collect funds
on behalf of the dead.
48. The Operations Unit placed greater focus on beneficiaries who had not received their cash grant,
hence the absence of information on the dead in the monitoring and evaluations reports of LMS. The
Head of LMS gave the assurance that henceforth he will ensure that payment is made only to persons
who meet the eligibility criteria.
Table 4 shows the number of dead beneficiaries in the Auditors’ sample of 665 beneficiaries who
received cash grants through their secondary caregivers.
This refers to people nominated to receive cash grants on behalf of beneficiaries.
49. Our analysis showed that, LMS allowed secondary caregivers to collect cash grants on behalf of 44
out of 54 (81%) deceased beneficiaries. This happened over a period spanning three months to eight
years. As a result, LMS paid an estimated amount of GH¢84,480.00 (See Appendix G for the
computation) to dead beneficiaries through their secondary caregivers within our audit period thereby
limiting the fiscal space for the programme to enrol more eligible beneficiaries.
Conclusion
50. The Operations Unit of the LMS did not provide the information needed by the Case Management
Unit to update the LEAP register to remove dead beneficiaries. Although the DSWOs and CFPs could
carry out their duties of identifying dead beneficiaries, they failed to do so due to poor monitoring and
reporting by the Operations Unit of LMS. This led to the payment of GH¢84,480.00 to people who were
not on the beneficiaries’ register.
Recommendation
51. We recommend that, the LMS should:
i. ensure the DSWOs and CFPs improve on their monitoring of beneficiaries through periodic visits and
request for information from the community members on cases of dead beneficiaries at payment cycle
events and
ii. ensure that the Case Management Unit updates the register with all cases of dead beneficiaries
before payment.
Management Response
52. “The Ministry through LMS has started implementing a strategy by dispatching teams during
payment to visit homes of one-member households to find out if the eligible beneficiaries are still alive
and if they have been receiving the money from the caregivers.
53. The District Social Welfare Officers (DSWOs) and the Community Focal Persons (CFPs) have been
tasked to monitor the activities of the beneficiary households and report any beneficiary who passed on
to the Case Management Unit of LMS for necessary investigation and quarantine where necessary.
54. The quarterly field monitoring activity which is being planned by the M&E unit will be used to follow
up on one-member households to find out if the eligible beneficiaries are dead or alive to help identify
households that need to be quarantined in the MIS to prevent them from receiving further payment”.
LMS did not graduate or exit LEAP beneficiaries.
55. The LEAP Operational Manual (2020), Chapter 7, Reassessment of LEAP (Graduating and Exiting
Households), requires LMS to evaluate household eligibility by carrying out a reassessment of
beneficiaries every four years using data that is up to date from the Ghana National Households Registry
(GNHR). This is to determine which LEAP households are eligible to exit, remain or graduate from the
programme. The data for household eligibility takes into 21 consideration socio-economic characteristics
such as education, vulnerability, occupation, possession of assets and access to sanitary facilities.
56. Chapter 7 also requires the Operations Unit of LMS to develop a reassessment implementation plan
and manage the process. The LMS (MIS Unit) is to liaise with GNHR for data synchronisation. The
Communication Unit is to sensitise stakeholders on the reassessment exercise and the Ministry is to
approve the reassessment plan and ensure the release of available budget for the reassessment activity.
57. According to the Annual Progress Reports on the LEAP programme from 2017 to 2020, LMS
identified the need to undertake reassessment of LEAP beneficiary households to ascertain their
eligibility to remain on the LEAP programme.
58. Our analysis of monitoring and evaluation reports for the audit period indicated that LMS identified
in 2017 and 2018 that LEAP had a positive impact on beneficiaries and the living conditions of 81.3% of
LEAP households had improved. The M&E Report for 2017 reported that “households could now feed
themselves and the stress of how to get food had reduced” and “beneficiary self-worth had increased
with the receipt of LEAP Grants”.
59. We found that although LMS had identified that the LEAP programme had a positive impact on
beneficiaries they did not undertake a reassessment that will lead to the exit or graduation of
beneficiaries.
60. We interviewed 665 beneficiaries using eligibility criterion from the 2007 LEAP Operational Manual
as a guide. (See Appendix D). We found that 170 beneficiaries were engaged in various economic
activities and their socio-economic status had improved since they were enrolled on the LEAP. These
beneficiaries indicated that they could now feed their families and pay their wards’ school fees from
profits made from trading and sale of farm produce. Those who were farmers indicated that they were
able to purchase more seedlings and hire farm hands to expand their farms. A beneficiary in the
Mamprusi East District showed the audit team his farm, attributing the positive outcome to his prudent
use of the LEAP cash grant.
61. Table 5 shows that 170 beneficiaries in our sample who were engaged in economic activities such as
farming, trading and other employment who should have been taken off the LEAP but remained on the
programme.
62. The LEAP Operational Manual (2007) defines an Orphaned and Vulnerable Child (OVC) as any person
below the age of eighteen years who has lost one or both parents, and who is exposed to moral,
physical and psychological danger as a result of neglect and/or abuse or incapacity whether or not a
parent is alive. As such, beneficiaries who are eligible to receive cash grants under the category of OVCs
must be below the age of 18 years.
63. We found a total of 52 OVCs who were 18 years and above. Some of the OVCs were employed in a
trade. In Tsopoli, for example, there was an OVC who 23 was 22 years old, but was still collecting cash
grants. Two other OVCs in Asene Manso were working as a taxi driver and a petty trader respectively.
64. Our review showed that there were enough grounds for LMS to undertake the reassessment to
determine those to exit or graduate. The Head of monitoring indicated that the Ministry took a decision
in 2018 to use data only from GNHR to reassess LEAP beneficiaries hence, the absence of the
reassessment exercise within the audit period. He however mentioned that GNHR had not made the
data available for the reassessment exercise, because the data was not up-to-date. The process of
reassessment is necessary to remove those whose socio-economic status had improved and can fend for
themselves so that LMS can enrol more people who are poor and vulnerable.
65. Due to the delay in reassessment, of the 170 beneficiaries shown in Table 5, an estimated amount of
GH¢396,620.00 was paid as cash grants to beneficiaries whose socio-economic status had improved
after they were enrolled on to the LEAP programme. (See Appendix H for the computation). This amount
could have been used to enrol other poor and vulnerable people onto the programme. Conclusion
66. LMS failed to plan and carry out reassessment of beneficiaries although they identified the need to
do so during their monitoring and evaluation of the programme. The policy decision to use data only
from GNHR was a hinderance to the objective of reassessing beneficiaries and led to the loss of
GH¢396,620.00 to the State.
Recommendation
67. We recommend that the Ministry in consultation with key stakeholdersshould: i. Review the decision
to use only data from GNHR to enable LMS reassess beneficiaries in the absence of up-to-date data from
GNHR, and 24 ii. LMS should carry out a reassessment to graduate and exit all those who are no longer
eligible to be on the programme.
Management Response
68. “We agree with the Auditors’ comments and would wish to state the actions being taken to improve
the situation. The Ministry recognizes that, the reassessment and recertification is crucial to the
sustenance and credibility of the LEAP Programme.
69. The Programme per its design is expected to undertake the reassessment in every four (4) years.
However, the LEAP Management Secretariat and for that matter, the Ministry since the inception of the
Programme in 2008 are unable to undertake this exercise until last year. The inability was partly due to
the associated political economy issues and funding and as it is capital intensive, it requires adequate
liquidity.
70. The Ministry is currently taking steps and engaging Development Partners for the needed support to
incrementally roll-out across all Districts in the country”. MOGCSP did not ensure that LMS adhered to
fund utilisation guidelines.
71. According to the LEAP Operational Manual (2020) Chapter 12, Financial Management (Financial
Transactions and Internal Controls), 90% of the programme cost is to be allocated to cash grants for
payment to beneficiaries and the remaining 10% for Payment Delivery Costs and Other Expenses.
Payment Delivery Costs are GhIPPS transactional fees (Payment Charges and fees) and Service Charges.
Other costs are, SPD LEAP Expenditure, LEAP Cash Grant mobilisation and LMS administrative Costs.
72. In contravention with the above guidelines, LMS from 2017 to 2021, expended GH¢440,975,113.96
on Cash Grants for beneficiaries forming 77.8% out of the total sum of GH¢566,849,888.53 allocated to
the programme for the period instead of GH¢510,164,899.68 being 90% as specified in the Manual.
73. We expected that the sum of the Payment Delivery Costs and Other Costs would not exceed
GH¢56,684,988.85 as required by the Operational Manual. From our analysis of interviews with
personnel of the Ministry, SPD and LMS we noted that they carried out activities listed in Table 7.
Table 7: Summary of activities of LEAP Implementing Agencies No Key Player Cost Item(s) Cost involved
1 Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection (MOGCSP) Programming Monitoring Cost and
Capacity Building. x 2 LEAP Management Secretariat (LMS) Cash Grant Management. x 3 Social
Protection Directorate (SPD) Monitoring Cost and Capacity Building. x 4 Ghana Interbank Payments and
Settlement Systems Limited (GhIPPS) Payment Charges and Fees and Service Charges x Source:
Compiled by Audit Team from documents reviewed at LMS and SPD
74. The Ministry’s Accountant had no details for expenditures on programme monitoring carried out.
The Accountant from SPD on the other hand, provided a 26 bulk amount of all its expenditures relating
to the LEAP programme under the caption “LEAP Related Expenditures” without providing the
breakdown of the specific tasks and their respective costs. The Accountant from LMS did not provide
costs on monitoring and capacity building as separate line items in the expenditure statements. We
requested for audited financial records on these costs from the Internal Auditor of LMS, but these
records were unavailable. These are in contravention with Section 25 (9)(a) of the Public Financial Act
2016, (Act 921) which requires the Principal Spending Officer to maintain records of all financial
commitments chargeable to each appropriation or item of expenditure. The details would have enabled
us to ascertain and analyse the distribution of their expenditures on the activities they carried out listed
in Table 7.
75. We expected LMS to have prepared yearly budgets of expected funds for Payment Delivery Cost and
Other expenses in adherence to the 90%-10% limits in the fund utilisation guidelines, but rather they
budgeted and expended an average of 78% and 22% for Cash Grants and Payment Delivery Cost and
Other expenses respectively.
76. To determine whether LMS adhered to the 10% allocation of programme costs to payments delivery
costs and other expenses also, we sought to determine the service charges and transactional fees for
each payment cycle within our scope but could not obtain the service charges. This was because LMS did
not provide separate line items on Cash grants and transactional fees for 17 payment cycles (56th – 64th,
66th – 68th; and 71st -75th) within our audit period in their payment Reconciliation Reports As a result,
the team was unable to determine the exact payment delivery and other costs for our scope.
77. Due to poor record keeping by the Ministry, SPD and LMS, the audit team could not ascertain the
complete cost implications to the LEAP Programme for our audit period. We noted that the Chief
Director did not ensure that the Ministry, 27 SPD and LMS maintained records of all financial
commitments chargeable to each appropriation or item of expenditure.
78. The incomplete financial records on payments by the accountants of the Ministry, SPD and LMS led
to the Chief Director’s inability to track expenses and overall cash flow leading to poor decision making
by the Ministry.
Conclusion
79. The Ministry did not have measures in place to ensure that payment delivery and other costs were
kept within agreed limits. As a result, the Programme Delivery Costs and Other Expenses exceeded the
agreed limits by 12.2% representing GH¢15,369,309.97. This practise could limit the fiscal space for
potential beneficiaries to be enrolled onto the programme. Recommendations
80. We recommend the Chief Director of the Ministry ensures that:
i. All the accountants on the LEAP programme maintain records and report on quarterly basis to the
Chief Director on all financial information related to cash grants and administrative cost relevant to the
LEAP programme,
ii. LMS Accountant provides a schedule for all recorded financial information bulked up in its books,
iii. The LMS Programme Head adheres to LEAP Fund utilisation guidelines during programme
implementation and
iv. Internal Auditor of the programme request monthly, all financial information related to cash grants
and administrative costs of the LMS from the Accounts office, undertake a monthly audit and issue
reports on them.
Management’s Response
81. “The Auditor’s comments and recommendations are well noted. It must be noted that the
Operational Manual referred to in the findings came into full effect in the year 28 2021. As at the years
ended 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 (partly), such guideline was not applicable.
82. Management of LEAP has deployed best cost management practices to control cost and to operate
within the 10% target. However, the continuous rise in inflation has caused a general increase in the
prices of goods and services over the years, which has adversely impacted the cost of operation of the
Program. Operational expenses on payment, monitoring, targeting, enrolment, training, communication,
case management have gone up over the period under review. The cumulative increase of these costs
whiles the LEAP grant amount paid to beneficiaries had remained unchanged for the past eight (8) years
rendered the 90% to 10% ratio unattainable.
83. This is because, since 2015 the cash grants paid to each LEAP beneficiary has not been adjusted in
line with the inflationary rates whiles the increasing operational costs to render service for the
beneficiaries have increased thereby making the stated ratio unattainable overtime.
84. Further, the LEAP program thrives on constant movement across the country for monitoring,
enrolment, communication, training and targeting. The vehicles of LEAP that are critical for this purpose
have not been changed for the past eight (8) years. These vehicles have become obsolete and the cost
of maintaining them is getting increasingly high over time. These high repair costs are having serious
impact on the operations expense of the Program leading to cost overruns, hence the inability to
maintain the 90/10 expenditure ratios.
85. The government of Ghana has increased the amount paid to each beneficiary by 100% effective
2023. Having increased the grant amount by 100% this year, the payments to beneficiaries are expected
to double whiles operational costs are expected to remain fairly the same. Hence, the Payment Delivery
& Other Costs are expected to automatically fall below the 10% threshold in the year 2023 and beyond”.
Auditors’ Comment
86. Management in their response to this finding, failed to address issues raised on cost details on the
monitoring, capacity building, cash grants, payment charges and fees in Table 7 relating to the Ministry,
LMS, SPD and GhIPPS. This would have helped to determine whether irrespective of the rise in
operational costs, the Ministry, LMS and SPD did not duplicate activities which could also end up in high
operational cost with no immediate benefit to the programme. Overall Conclusion
87. The audit has shown that LMS was complacent in applying the rules governing the LEAP programme.
They did not ensure that people whose names should not be in the register were expunged, neither did
they ensure that beneficiaries who have improved on their status upon joining LEAP were graduated or
exited. They had not been forthcoming in providing financial information to assess moneys they have
expended on Programme Delivery Cost and Other Expenses. We have provided recommendations to our
three major findings which when implemented diligently will enable LMS target, enrol and maintain the
vulnerable in society for LEAP to remain sustainable through cost-efficient administration.
