,
# POLICY BRIEF
# African Liberators Economic Institute
## LEAP and the Elderly: Assessing Ghana’s Flagship Social Protection Programme for Older Persons
Policy Brief No. ALEI/AGE/2026/03 | October 2026
Prepared by: [Your Name], Executive Director, African Liberators Economic Institute
Contact: [Email] | [Phone] | [Website]
Series: Ageing, Social Protection and Human Rights
—
## About ALEI
The African Liberators Economic Institute (ALEI) is a Ghana-based non-governmental organisation and civil society organisation. It promotes scientific and knowledge-based research on economic restructuring, with a focus on developing alternative models for sustainable development.
ALEI’s main research priorities include promoting citizen action to fight poverty. It pays particular attention to issues that affect poor and vulnerable people, including social protection, ageing and human rights.
ALEI is led by [Your Name], an investigative and human rights journalist and editor of Ghanaian Watch.
## Suggested Citation
[Your Name]. (2026). LEAP and the Elderly: Assessing Ghana’s Flagship Social Protection Programme for Older Persons. African Liberators Economic Institute Policy Brief No. ALEI/AGE/2026/03. Accra, Ghana.
—
# Executive Summary
The Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) programme is Ghana’s main social protection programme for extremely poor and vulnerable households. Established in 2008, it provides cash transfers to help eligible households meet their basic needs and reduce poverty.
The programme has reached more than 1.5 million people across 350,580 households. Older persons aged 65 and above make up 27% of its beneficiaries. The other main beneficiary groups are persons with severe disabilities, orphaned and vulnerable children, and extremely poor pregnant women and households with infants.
The 98th LEAP payment cycle began on October 8, 2025, with an estimated value of GH₵135 million. The 99th payment cycle, which began on December 22, 2025, involved a total disbursement of GH₵139,329,463.37. LEAP completed its 100th payment cycle on February 11, 2026. During this cycle, eligible households across all 261 Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies received between GH₵320 and GH₵530, depending on the number of eligible household members.
These achievements show that LEAP has become an important part of Ghana’s social protection system. However, the programme still faces serious challenges relating to coverage, benefit levels, eligibility rules, payment arrangements, transparency and access to healthcare.
Ghana’s extreme poverty rate is reported to be 8.2%, representing approximately 2.4 million people. Yet LEAP reaches only about 1.5% of the national population. The programme’s reach is therefore limited compared with the scale of poverty and vulnerability in the country.
Older persons face particular difficulties. The programme’s age-based eligibility category begins at 65, leaving people aged 60–64 outside this category even when they have lost their income and cannot meet their basic needs. The cash transfer for a one-member household is GH₵320, which may be insufficient to cover food, housing, transport, medication and other essential expenses. Older people may also face difficulties reaching health facilities, paying for medicines and obtaining services that are not covered by the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS).
Concerns have also been raised about political influence and the transparency of beneficiary selection. Reports of older women at the Kukuo Witches Camp in the Nanumba South District losing LEAP support after a reassessment raise important questions about how programme exits are decided, communicated and reviewed.
The government has allocated GH₵1.1 billion to LEAP for 2026, the highest allocation since the programme began. The programme also plans to increase its coverage from approximately 350,000 to 450,000 households by the end of 2026. These commitments provide an opportunity to improve the programme, but increased funding and enrolment targets must be accompanied by transparent implementation, adequate benefits and effective monitoring.
This policy brief examines LEAP’s performance in supporting older persons through a social protection and human rights perspective. It draws on programme documents, statistical information, research studies and reported experiences of beneficiaries and service providers. It also considers how Ghana’s experience can contribute to the development of the forthcoming United Nations treaty on the rights of older persons.
The central argument is that LEAP provides important support but cannot, by itself, guarantee income security for older people. Ghana needs a stronger system that connects cash transfers, pensions, healthcare and community support. It should also develop a clear, costed plan for progressively expanding protection to older persons living in poverty.
## Key Findings
1. LEAP reaches more than 1.5 million people across 350,580 households in all 16 regions of Ghana.
2. Older persons aged 65 and above constitute 27% of LEAP beneficiaries. Persons with severe disabilities constitute 17%; orphaned and vulnerable children constitute 45%; and extremely poor pregnant women and households with infants constitute 11%.
3. The 98th payment cycle, which began in October 2025, was valued at an estimated GH₵135 million.
4. The 99th payment cycle, which began in December 2025, involved a total disbursement of GH₵139,329,463.37.
5. LEAP completed its 100th payment cycle on February 11, 2026.
6. The current benefit amounts are GH₵320 for one eligible household member, GH₵380 for two, GH₵440 for three, and GH₵530 for four or more.
7. Ghana’s extreme poverty rate is reported to be 8.2%, representing approximately 2.4 million people. LEAP’s reported coverage is about 1.5% of the national population.
8. The programme’s elderly eligibility category excludes people aged 60–64, leaving a gap for those approaching or moving out of formal employment without adequate retirement income.
9. According to Ghana’s report to the International Labour Organization (ILO), 78.5% of LEAP beneficiaries have been registered with the National Health Insurance Scheme.
10. Following the 2025–2026 reassessment, 226,930 households were reported to have moved above the extreme poverty threshold. A separate programme figure reports that 220,520 households exited LEAP. These figures require reconciliation to establish whether they refer to the same group and period.
11. The government allocated GH₵1.1 billion to LEAP for 2026, the highest allocation since the programme began.
12. LEAP plans to expand coverage from approximately 350,000 to 450,000 households by the end of 2026. The exact number of households enrolled and receiving payments should be confirmed against current programme records.
## Recommendations
1. Review the age-based eligibility rule and consider lowering the LEAP eligibility age for older persons from 65 to 60. The reform should be supported by a cost assessment, a review of existing pension arrangements and clear rules for people moving between employment, pensions and social assistance.
2. Introduce automatic identification and simplified enrolment for people aged 65 and above who are identified through the Ghana National Household Registry as living in extreme poverty. Eligible people should be informed of their status, given an opportunity to correct inaccurate records and provided with a clear appeal process.
3. Review LEAP benefit levels against the actual cost of essential goods and services. Consider a minimum transfer of GH₵500 per payment period for eligible single-member elderly households, subject to an affordability assessment and a clear inflation-adjustment formula. The government must specify whether this amount is paid monthly or bi-monthly.
4. Connect LEAP, the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) and the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) through secure data-sharing arrangements, referral systems and clear responsibilities. Integration should protect personal information and ensure that older people do not lose support because they are moving between programmes.
5. Improve transparency and public confidence through community-based verification, published eligibility rules, independent monitoring, accessible complaints procedures and regular social audits. Beneficiary information must be disclosed in ways that protect privacy and personal safety.
6. Expand coverage towards all older persons living in extreme poverty. Accelerate the planned expansion to 450,000 households, assess the actual number of eligible households that remain unsupported, and publish a costed roadmap for further expansion.
7. Ensure that the forthcoming UN treaty on the rights of older persons addresses social security, minimum income protection, adequate benefits, non-discrimination, accountability and the collection of reliable data on older persons.
—
# 1. Introduction
Ghana’s population is ageing. People aged 60 and above are reported to represent approximately 6.5% of the country’s population, or about 2 million people. This proportion is projected to reach 13% by 2050. In practical terms, Ghana will have a much larger older population within a single generation.
Population ageing has important implications for public spending, healthcare, pensions, employment, family responsibilities and poverty reduction. As people grow older, some lose their regular income, reduce their working hours or become unable to undertake physically demanding work. Others continue working in informal employment without a pension or reliable savings. Many depend on relatives, community support or small and irregular earnings.
These arrangements can become unreliable when relatives face unemployment, rising living costs or other financial pressures. Older people who live alone, have disabilities or require regular medical treatment may face even greater risks.
Ghana does not currently have a universal social pension covering all older persons. The Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) programme therefore plays an important role in supporting older people who live in extreme poverty and meet its eligibility requirements.
LEAP provides cash transfers to eligible extremely poor households. Its elderly category covers people aged 65 and above who lack productive capacity and do not have adequate household or community support to meet their basic needs.
The programme has reached more than 1.5 million people and completed its 100th payment cycle in February 2026. This is an important achievement. However, the number of people who receive assistance remains limited compared with the scale of poverty and the needs of an ageing population.
This policy brief examines LEAP’s performance in supporting older persons. It considers programme coverage, eligibility criteria, benefit adequacy, payment arrangements, targeting, healthcare access and links with other social protection programmes.
The brief draws on official programme information, government policy documents, statistical data, peer-reviewed research and qualitative evidence from older beneficiaries and service providers. It also examines the relationship between LEAP and Ghana’s human rights obligations, particularly the right to social security.
The forthcoming United Nations treaty on the rights of older persons provides an opportunity to develop stronger international standards for protecting older people’s dignity, independence and economic security.
The analysis identifies an important policy distinction: a programme may operate successfully and distribute cash to eligible households while still failing to reach a large share of older people who need assistance. Measuring success must therefore involve more than counting payment cycles or the amount of money disbursed. It must also consider who receives support, whether the amount is adequate, whether payments arrive on time, and whether beneficiaries can use the support to meet their essential needs.
# 2. Background: The LEAP Programme
## 2.1 Programme Genesis and Evolution
The Government of Ghana introduced LEAP in 2008 under the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection (MoGCSP).
The programme provides cash transfers to extremely poor and vulnerable households. Its immediate purpose is to help households meet basic needs and reduce short-term poverty. Its wider objective is to support long-term human development.
LEAP is a core component of Ghana’s National Social Protection Strategy.
Since its initial pilot phase, the programme has expanded to cover all 16 regions and all 261 Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDAs). It has become one of Ghana’s main government-funded social assistance programmes.
The completion of the 100th payment cycle in February 2026 demonstrates the programme’s continued operation and institutional importance. It also provides an opportunity to examine whether the programme’s design and implementation have kept pace with changes in the cost of living, the needs of older people and the country’s ageing population.
The number of payment cycles completed is a useful measure of continuity. However, it does not, by itself, show whether payments are adequate, whether all eligible households are enrolled, or whether beneficiaries receive their money without delays.
To assess performance properly, the government should publish regular information on enrolment, payment dates, payment amounts, complaints, exits from the programme and the number of eligible households that remain unsupported.
## 2.2 Eligibility Criteria
LEAP supports four main categories of extremely poor and vulnerable Ghanaians.
1. Aged 65 and above
This category covers older persons aged 65 years or above who lack productive capacity and do not have adequate household or community support to meet their basic needs. They constitute 27% of beneficiaries.
The eligibility rule is intended to support older people who are unable to provide for themselves adequately. However, the age threshold may exclude people aged 60–64 who have already lost their income or ability to work but do not qualify under the elderly category.
2. Persons with severe disabilities
This category covers individuals with severe physical or mental disabilities who cannot engage in productive economic activities and lack sufficient household support. They constitute 17% of beneficiaries.
The programme must consider the additional costs that some persons with disabilities face, including transport, assistive devices, personal support and healthcare. These costs may not be fully captured by household income assessments.
3. Orphaned and vulnerable children
This category covers households caring for orphaned and vulnerable children (OVC), including children affected by HIV/AIDS, extreme poverty or the loss of their parents. They constitute 45% of beneficiaries.
Supporting these households can help protect children’s welfare and development. However, the programme must also consider the needs of older people who care for children or grandchildren. Household assessments should identify situations in which an older person carries significant caregiving responsibilities.
4. Pregnant women and nursing mothers
This category covers extremely poor households with pregnant women or nursing mothers caring for infants aged 0–18 months. They constitute 11% of beneficiaries.
The programme aims to support vulnerable households during a period when maternal and infant health needs are particularly important.
All four categories must also meet the general requirement of extreme poverty, defined as living below the national extreme poverty line.
The categories provide a basis for targeting limited resources. However, the government should regularly review whether the eligibility rules capture the different forms of poverty experienced by older persons. Income alone may not fully reflect the financial burden of chronic illness, disability, social isolation or the absence of family support.
The government should also publish clear information on how it determines eligibility, how it verifies household circumstances and how people can appeal when they believe a decision is incorrect.
## 2.3 Targeting Methodology
LEAP uses a multi-stage targeting process that combines geographic targeting, categorical targeting and a Proxy-Means Test (PMT).
1. Poverty mapping
The Ghana Statistical Service uses poverty mapping to help identify the poorest districts and communities for programme targeting.
This approach helps direct limited resources towards areas with high levels of poverty. However, poverty within a district or community is not evenly distributed. Some extremely poor households may live in areas that are not classified as the poorest.
2. Community identification
Community members and Community Focal Persons (CFPs) identify households that may qualify for support within selected communities.
Community participation can help identify vulnerable people who may not be easily reached through administrative records. However, it can also create risks if community leaders or influential individuals improperly influence selection.
Clear criteria, written records and independent checks are therefore important.
3. PMT assessment
Trained field officers administer a Proxy-Means Test questionnaire electronically using tablets.
The questionnaire collects information used to estimate a household’s economic condition. The approach is intended to identify poor households where reliable income records may not be available.
However, a household’s circumstances may change quickly because of illness, bereavement, disability, loss of employment or rising medical expenses. A PMT assessment may not always capture these changes accurately.
4. Data processing
The collected PMT information is processed through the LEAP Management Information System (MIS), which calculates a score for each household.
Accurate data entry, secure information management and regular updates are necessary to reduce errors.
5. Threshold determination
The PMT formula is used to determine which households fall below the qualification threshold for LEAP support.
The government should periodically review the formula to ensure that it reflects the actual conditions of poor households, including the additional costs associated with ageing and disability.
6. Enrolment and payment
Qualified households are enrolled, biometric information is captured through e-zwich, and bi-monthly payments begin.
The enrolment process should be accessible to older people who have limited mobility, visual impairments, difficulties using technology or problems travelling to payment points.
The government should also provide clear information about payment dates, eligibility decisions and procedures for correcting errors.
Overall, the targeting process provides a structured method for selecting beneficiaries. However, its effectiveness depends on the quality of the data, the fairness of community selection, the accuracy of the PMT formula and the availability of a functioning complaints process.
## 2.4 Benefit Structure
LEAP payments are based on household size. The benefit amounts have increased several times since the programme began.
| Household size | Current benefit (GH₵) | Previous benefit (GH₵) | Increase |
|—|—:|—:|—:|
| 1 member | 320.00 | 256.00 | 25% |
| 2 members | 380.00 | 304.00 | 25% |
| 3 members | 440.00 | 352.00 | 25% |
| 4 or more members | 530.00 | 424.00 | 25% |
The revised amounts took effect in 2025 following the government’s commitment to index LEAP benefits against inflation.
The Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection has started implementing a structural benchmark for adjusting cash grants in line with inflation. The aim is to reduce the loss of purchasing power caused by rising prices.
Indexation is important because an increase in the amount of money paid does not necessarily mean that beneficiaries can afford more goods and services. If prices rise faster than the benefit, the real value of the transfer falls.
The government should therefore publish the method used to calculate adjustments, identify the inflation measure applied and state when new rates take effect. It should also review whether a single benefit formula adequately reflects the needs of older people who face regular medical and transport costs.
The table describes benefits according to household size, but the payment frequency and the precise period covered by the amounts should be stated clearly in official public information. This is necessary to assess whether the transfers are adequate for monthly living costs.
# 3. Methodology
This policy brief uses a mixed-methods approach. It combines quantitative data, document review, qualitative research and comparative analysis to examine LEAP’s effectiveness for older persons.
The approach allows the brief to consider both the scale of the programme and the experiences of people who depend on it.
## 3.1 Document Review
The document review covers:
– LEAP Management Information System (MIS) beneficiary data.
– Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection programme documents and press releases.
– Ghana Statistical Service poverty mapping and population data.
– Ghana National Household Registry (GNHR) records.
– The National Social Protection Strategy and related policy frameworks.
– Peer-reviewed research on LEAP’s effectiveness and targeting.
These sources provide information on programme design, beneficiary numbers, poverty levels, payments and implementation.
For policy decisions, administrative records should be checked against published reports and independent research. Differences in reporting dates, definitions or population groups can lead to incorrect comparisons.
## 3.2 Quantitative Data Analysis
The quantitative analysis considers:
– Beneficiary counts by category, region and household size.
– Benefit amounts and payment-cycle values.
– LEAP coverage relative to the population living in extreme poverty.
– NHIS registration rates among beneficiaries.
– Regional distribution of beneficiaries.
The analysis examines both the scale of assistance and the proportion of people who may need support but do not receive it.
Coverage figures must be interpreted carefully. The number of people receiving LEAP, the number of households enrolled and the percentage of the national population covered are different measures. They should not be treated as interchangeable.
## 3.3 Qualitative Research
The qualitative component includes:
– Semi-structured interviews with older LEAP beneficiaries in the Northern, Upper East and Ashanti Regions.
– Key informant interviews with Community Focal Persons (CFPs), Case Management Officers and Ministry officials.
– A review of documented beneficiary experiences, including those from the Kukuo Witches Camp in the Nanumba South District.
Qualitative research helps explain how programme rules affect people’s daily lives. It can identify difficulties that may not appear in administrative records, including delays, transport costs, communication problems and concerns about the fairness of beneficiary selection.
However, interview findings should not automatically be treated as representative of all LEAP beneficiaries. The number of participants, selection method, interview dates and limitations should be stated in the full research record.
Where findings concern alleged political influence or the removal of beneficiaries, the government and relevant programme officials should be given an opportunity to respond.
## 3.4 Comparative Analysis
The brief includes:
– Comparisons of LEAP coverage across regions of Ghana.
– International comparisons with cash transfer programmes in Kenya, South Africa and Rwanda.
International comparisons can help identify possible reforms. However, differences in population size, fiscal capacity, pension systems, poverty levels and programme design must be considered before drawing conclusions.
A policy that works in another country may require changes before it can be applied in Ghana. Comparisons should therefore focus on the principles and implementation methods that Ghana can adapt, rather than assuming that programmes are directly equivalent.
# 4. Findings: LEAP’s Performance for Older Persons
## 4.1 Coverage and Reach
LEAP currently reaches more than 1.5 million individuals across 350,580 households in all 16 regions of Ghana. Older persons aged 65 and above constitute 27% of beneficiaries, representing approximately 405,000 older persons based on the reported total of 1.5 million beneficiaries.
This indicates that LEAP provides support to a substantial number of older people. For many beneficiaries, the transfer may help pay for food, household necessities, transport and other essential expenses.
However, the programme’s coverage remains limited compared with the scale of poverty in Ghana.
According to the Ghana Statistical Service figures cited in this brief, 8.2% of Ghana’s population, or approximately 2.4 million people, live in extreme poverty. The brief also reports that LEAP serves more than 1.4 million of these individuals while reaching approximately 1.5% of the national population.
These figures use different denominators and appear to require further reconciliation. If LEAP serves more than 1.4 million people, that number should be compared with the relevant population and poverty category using consistent definitions. The reported 1.5% national coverage figure should also be checked against the latest official population and beneficiary records.
The World Bank has noted that LEAP, even after its planned expansion, will cover only a small share of the nearly 40% of Ghanaians living below the international poverty line. This international poverty measure is not necessarily the same as Ghana’s national extreme poverty measure.
The distinction matters. A programme may reach a large number of poor people but still leave many people without support. Policymakers must know exactly which poverty line and population denominator are being used before determining whether the programme is adequately targeted.
The main policy implication is that the government needs a clearer estimate of the number of older people who meet LEAP’s eligibility requirements but remain unenrolled. This would make it possible to measure the coverage gap, calculate the cost of expansion and set realistic targets for reaching the most vulnerable households.
The government should publish annual coverage figures disaggregated by age, sex, disability, region, household size and rural or urban location. These data would help identify groups that are being missed.
## 4.2 Payment Cycles and Disbursement
The 98th payment cycle began on October 8, 2025. It was valued at an estimated GH₵135 million and reached 350,580 households.
The 99th payment cycle began on December 22, 2025, and involved a total disbursement of GH₵139,329,463.37.
LEAP completed its 100th payment cycle on February 11, 2026. During the cycle, eligible households across all 261 MMDAs received between GH₵320 and GH₵530, depending on the number of eligible household members.
The Ministry of Finance allocated GH₵1.1 billion to LEAP for 2026, the highest allocation since the programme began. As of June 2026, GH₵485 million of this allocation had been released.
The allocation shows that the programme has received significant government budgetary attention. However, an approved allocation is not the same as money released, and money released is not necessarily the same as money paid to beneficiaries.
The difference between the annual allocation and the amount released by June 2026 makes it important to monitor the timing of releases and the schedule of payments. Delayed funding can lead to delayed transfers, making it harder for older people to plan their spending and buy food or medication.
The Ministry of Finance and MoGCSP should publish regular reports showing the amount budgeted, the amount released, the amount disbursed to households and the number of beneficiaries paid during each cycle. Reports should also explain any delays.
The government should establish and publish a payment calendar and a procedure for informing beneficiaries when payments are delayed. This would improve transparency and help beneficiaries plan around the support they receive.
## 4.3 Benefit Adequacy for Older Persons
The current benefit for a one-member household is GH₵320. For an older person living alone, this amount may be insufficient to cover food, housing, utilities, transport, medication and other basic expenses.
The brief notes that more than 22% of older Ghanaians in urban areas live alone. This figure should be verified against the relevant population study, including its year, geographical coverage and definition of living alone. Nevertheless, the policy concern is clear: older people who live alone may have fewer opportunities to share household expenses or receive daily assistance from relatives.
The Concerned SSNIT Pensioners Forum has stated that even the minimum SSNIT pension of GH₵409.56 is “woefully inadequate to even cover medication.” The LEAP transfer of GH₵320 is lower than this reported pension amount.
The comparison highlights the financial pressure facing older people who depend on limited public support. However, LEAP and SSNIT payments serve different groups and may follow different payment arrangements. Their adequacy should therefore be assessed using the period covered by each payment, eligibility rules and the actual cost of essential goods and services.
Older persons with chronic conditions, including arthritis, hypertension, diabetes, and vision or hearing impairments, may face regular costs for medicines, consultations, transport and other care. These costs can place considerable pressure on a small household budget.
The National Development Planning Commission has noted that NHIS coverage for older persons does not adequately address all health challenges associated with ageing. Conditions such as arthritis, stroke, diabetes, vision impairment and hearing impairment may not be fully covered under the NHIS approved list of services.
The implication is that the value of a cash transfer cannot be assessed by looking at the amount alone. Policymakers must consider the cost of food, housing, healthcare, transport and other essential services, as well as whether beneficiaries can access these services.
A practical response would be to commission a cost-of-basic-needs assessment for older people in different parts of Ghana. The assessment should include the costs faced by older people living alone, people with disabilities and those who need regular treatment.
The government could then use the findings to establish a transparent minimum benefit benchmark and adjust the transfer according to inflation. Any proposed increase should be costed against the number of eligible households and the available budget.
## 4.4 The 60–64 Age Gap
A major gap in LEAP’s design is the exclusion of people aged 60–64 from the elderly eligibility category.
Under LEAP’s current elderly category, eligibility begins at age 65. The brief also states that NHIS premium exemption begins at age 70. This creates a five-year gap between ages 65 and 69 for people who may not qualify for the elderly category of NHIS premium exemption. The brief’s concern about ages 60–64 is also important because people in that group may have lost their income but do not yet qualify for LEAP as elderly beneficiaries.
The National Development Planning Commission has identified the lack of coverage for people aged 60–69 in the exempt category of the NHIS as an issue requiring policy attention. The brief also identifies the exclusion of people aged 60–64 from the relevant LEAP and NHIS arrangements as a concern.
These age ranges should not be treated as identical. LEAP’s elderly eligibility rule and the NHIS premium-exemption rule are different policies. The exact age thresholds and applicable exemptions should be confirmed against current official rules before implementation.
The broader policy problem remains: people may lose their regular income before they become eligible for certain forms of social assistance or pension support.
A person aged 60–64 may have lost formal employment, may be unable to continue physically demanding work or may have no SSNIT pension. If that person also lacks family support, the absence of assistance can increase the risk of poverty.
The government should review the relationship between LEAP eligibility, retirement arrangements, SSNIT pension eligibility and NHIS exemptions. A reform should identify who would qualify for support at each age and how the different programmes would interact.
Lowering the LEAP eligibility age to 60 would close one potential gap, but it would also increase the number of people eligible for support. The government should estimate this additional number, calculate the likely cost and decide whether to introduce the reform nationally or in phases.
## 4.5 Targeting Effectiveness and Politicisation
The PMT-based targeting system has been assessed as effective in reducing inclusion errors, according to the LEAP 1000 baseline study. Inclusion errors occur when people who do not meet the eligibility requirements receive support.
However, reducing inclusion errors is only one part of effective targeting. A programme must also avoid exclusion errors, where eligible people who need support are left out.
Qualitative research has raised concerns about the transparency and fairness of beneficiary selection.
A 2025 qualitative study on the social inclusion and exclusion experiences of older adults in Ghana found that some participants knew about LEAP but wanted a different form of support because they had reservations about the programme. One respondent stated: “The current LEAP program is not sufficient, and is even politicized. It does not work.”
Other community-level research reported concerns that the beneficiary selection process was not transparent and was considered politicised. Participants expressed a general belief that the programme favoured people who supported the government in power.
These findings reflect the experiences and perceptions reported by study participants. They do not, by themselves, establish that political interference occurred in every case. Nevertheless, such perceptions can weaken public trust and discourage eligible people from applying.
The 2025–2026 reassessment raised additional concerns. Elderly women at the Kukuo Witches Camp in the Nanumba South District were reportedly removed from LEAP after the reassessment. The reported removals left them without important financial support and worsened their already difficult living conditions.
Many of these women had been accused of witchcraft and forced to leave their communities. They had relied on LEAP as their main source of income.
The cases raise questions about how the reassessment was conducted, what criteria were applied, whether the women’s circumstances were fully considered and whether they had access to an appeal.
The government should publish clear information on the reasons households are removed from LEAP. It should also establish a review process through which people can challenge a decision if they believe it is based on inaccurate data or does not reflect their current circumstances.
Beneficiaries should receive written or otherwise accessible explanations of decisions affecting them. Older people with limited literacy, disabilities or mobility difficulties should be able to receive assistance when submitting complaints.
Community verification can improve the accuracy of targeting, but it should not replace formal eligibility criteria or become a way for local political interests to control access.
Independent social audits, confidential complaints channels and periodic reviews by organisations outside the programme’s direct management would help identify unfair treatment and improve accountability.
## 4.6 Healthcare Access Barriers for Older LEAP Beneficiaries
Receiving a LEAP payment does not automatically mean that an older person can obtain the healthcare they need.
A study published in Primary Health Care Research & Development in 2023 examined barriers to healthcare access and use among older LEAP beneficiaries in north-western Ghana. It identified the following barriers:
– Geographic inaccessibility of healthcare.
– High costs of drugs and related services.
– Exclusion of essential services from the NHIS benefits package.
– Irregular cash transfers.
The study found that these barriers negatively affected access to and use of healthcare among older LEAP beneficiaries.
A separate study in the Atwima Nwabiagya District identified four main barriers to formal healthcare use among poor older people receiving LEAP support.
1. Physical accessibility barriers: Poor transport services and unsuitable facility designs make it difficult for some older people to reach or use health facilities.
2. Economic barriers: Low income, high charges and the limited scope of NHIS coverage prevent some older people from obtaining the services they need.
3. Social barriers: Communication and language difficulties, together with limited family support, make it harder for some older people to seek care and follow treatment advice.
4. Unfriendly healthcare environments: Poor attitudes among some healthcare providers can discourage older people from using formal health services.
These findings show that cash transfers alone cannot remove all the barriers to healthcare. An older person may receive a payment but still be unable to afford transport to a clinic, pay for medicines or obtain a service excluded from the NHIS benefits package.
The policy response should therefore combine financial assistance with improvements in healthcare access.
MoGCSP, the Ministry of Health, the NHIS and local government authorities should identify the main barriers faced by older beneficiaries in high-poverty communities. Depending on local needs and available resources, interventions could include improved referral arrangements, outreach services, transport support for the most vulnerable patients, clearer information about NHIS coverage and training for healthcare workers on respectful care for older people.
The government should also examine whether irregular LEAP payments contribute to missed appointments or interruptions in treatment. Payment schedules and healthcare support arrangements should be coordinated so that beneficiaries can plan for essential expenses.
## 4.7 NHIS Registration and Linkages
One positive finding is the reported level of NHIS registration among LEAP beneficiaries.
According to Ghana’s report to the International Labour Organization, 78.5% of LEAP beneficiaries have been registered with the NHIS.
This link is an important part of the programme’s design. The brief states that household members must be registered with the NHIS and maintain valid, regularly renewed NHIS cards as a co-responsibility condition for receiving LEAP grants.
However, registration is not the same as effective access to healthcare. A person may be registered but still face transport costs, medicine expenses, long distances to health facilities or services that are not covered.
The reported 78.5% registration rate also indicates that some beneficiaries may remain unregistered. The government should establish the reasons for non-registration and determine whether the remaining beneficiaries face difficulties with documentation, renewal, travel, information or other requirements.
Where programme rules permit, eligible beneficiaries should receive help to register and renew their NHIS membership. The process should be designed to avoid penalising older people for administrative barriers they cannot reasonably overcome.
MoGCSP and the NHIS should also establish a secure system for identifying beneficiaries who require assistance with registration or renewal. This system should comply with the Ghana Data Protection Act and limit the sharing of personal information to what is necessary for service delivery.
A stronger link between LEAP and NHIS would improve access, but it must be accompanied by efforts to address gaps in the services covered by the insurance scheme.
## 4.8 Programme Expansion and Reassessment
In 2025, the government undertook a nationwide reassessment of LEAP beneficiaries. The aim was to improve the programme and ensure that assistance reached people who continued to meet the eligibility requirements.
The Ghana National Household Registry (GNHR) led the reassessment. The process covered people aged 65 and above, persons with severe disabilities that resulted in functional limitations and a lack of productive capacity, and other vulnerable groups.
Following the reassessment, the programme reported the following developments:
– The programme ceiling was increased from 350,000 to 450,000 households.
– A total of 220,520 households exited the programme after showing improved living conditions or meeting graduation criteria.
– A total of 226,930 households were reported to have moved above the extreme poverty threshold.
– Nationwide enrolment of newly selected households began on April 27, 2026, and was expected to take between two and four weeks.
The government also introduced measures to support households leaving the programme. These included links to livelihood programmes, financial literacy training and community-based savings schemes.
Reassessment can help ensure that public funds reach households that continue to need support. It can also make room for new beneficiaries when some households improve their living conditions.
However, the process must distinguish between sustainable improvements in living standards and temporary changes in household circumstances. A household may experience a short-term increase in income but remain vulnerable to illness, job loss or other shocks.
The difference between the reported 220,520 households exiting the programme and the 226,930 households moving above the extreme poverty threshold should be explained. These numbers may refer to different stages, groups or measures. Without clarification, it is difficult to determine the exact effect of the reassessment.
The government should publish the reassessment criteria, the number of households assessed, the number retained, the number exited, the number newly enrolled and the number of complaints received. It should also report how many households that exited were linked to livelihood programmes or other forms of assistance.
The expansion to 450,000 households represents progress, but the number alone does not show whether the programme will reach all eligible older people. The government must establish how many households qualify, how many are enrolled and how many remain on a waiting list or outside the programme.
Expansion should therefore be linked to a clear coverage target, a budget plan and a system for tracking results.
# 5. Barriers to Effective Coverage
LEAP faces design, implementation and structural barriers that affect its ability to protect older people from poverty.
## 5.1 Design Barriers
Age threshold of 65
The elderly eligibility category excludes people aged 60–64. This can leave people without support during the transition from employment to retirement, particularly those who have no pension and cannot continue working.
Household-based targeting
LEAP targets households, which may make it harder to identify older people who live alone or whose needs are not fully reflected in household-level assessments. Some older people may have relatives listed as part of their household but receive little or no practical financial support from them.
The government should assess whether its household records accurately reflect living arrangements and the support available to older people.
Proxy-Means Test limitations
PMT may not fully capture the different dimensions of poverty experienced by older persons. Household assets or living conditions may not show whether a person can afford medication, has regular income, receives family support or can access essential services.
The PMT process should therefore be reviewed to determine whether additional indicators of health costs, disability, social isolation and caregiving responsibilities are needed.
## 5.2 Implementation Barriers
Politicisation
Some beneficiaries and research participants perceive the selection process as politically influenced. Such concerns can undermine public confidence, create perceptions of unfairness and discourage eligible households from seeking support.
Irregular payments
Delays in disbursement make it difficult for beneficiaries to plan their spending and meet basic needs. Older people who rely on LEAP to purchase food or medicine may be especially affected.
Geographic inaccessibility
Health facilities are often scattered and limited in rural areas. Older people may struggle to reach them even when they have NHIS registration.
Benefit inadequacy
The GH₵320 benefit for a one-member household may be insufficient to cover basic needs, particularly when the beneficiary has regular healthcare expenses.
These implementation problems require clear service standards, public reporting, adequate funding and effective complaints procedures.
## 5.3 Structural Barriers
Absence of a universal social pension
Ghana does not have a universal social pension covering all older persons. LEAP therefore remains a major source of assistance for older people who meet its eligibility rules, but it cannot guarantee income protection for everyone who needs it.
Fragmented programmes
LEAP, NHIS and SSNIT operate under different rules and administrative systems. Poor coordination can leave gaps between cash assistance, contributory pensions and healthcare support.
Data limitations
Insufficient data disaggregated by age, sex, disability, region and living arrangement makes it harder to identify unmet needs and assess whether programmes are reaching the most vulnerable groups.
Fiscal constraints
Government must balance social protection against other public spending needs. However, without a clear estimate of the number of older people requiring support and the cost of different policy options, it is difficult to plan sustainable expansion.
These structural barriers show why improvements to LEAP should form part of a wider social protection strategy. A stronger system should connect existing programmes, improve data quality and establish a long-term plan for protecting older people from poverty.
# 6. Policy Options and Recommendations
## 6.1 Reform Eligibility Criteria
### Recommendation 1: Lower the LEAP Eligibility Age for Older Persons from 65 to 60
The government should review the elderly eligibility age and consider lowering it from 65 to 60.
This would help address the gap faced by people who lose their income or ability to work before reaching age 65. It could be particularly important for people who do not qualify for a SSNIT pension or whose pension income is insufficient to meet their basic needs.
However, lowering the age would increase the number of people eligible for assistance and could place additional pressure on the LEAP budget. The government should not introduce the change without assessing its likely cost and the number of people who would qualify.
The Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection and the LEAP Secretariat should work with the Ghana Statistical Service, GNHR, SSNIT and the Ministry of Finance to:
– Estimate the number of people aged 60–64 living in extreme poverty.
– Identify how many are already receiving SSNIT pensions or other social assistance.
– Estimate the additional annual cost of including eligible people aged 60–64.
– Examine whether the reform should begin in the poorest districts before nationwide implementation.
– Establish clear rules for moving beneficiaries between LEAP, SSNIT and other programmes.
– Publish the proposed eligibility rules and invite feedback from older persons’ associations and civil society organisations.
The government should then publish a costed implementation plan, including the funding source, expected number of beneficiaries and timetable.
### Recommendation 2: Introduce Automatic Identification and Simplified Enrolment for People Aged 65 and Above
People aged 65 and above who are identified through the Ghana National Household Registry as living in extreme poverty should be considered for automatic identification and simplified enrolment into LEAP.
This approach would reduce the burden on older people who may have difficulty travelling to an office, completing forms or obtaining the documents needed to apply.
Automatic identification should not mean that people are enrolled without checks or without being informed. The government should verify eligibility, notify the person, provide an opportunity to correct inaccurate records and explain how to appeal a decision.
The GNHR and LEAP Secretariat should:
– Identify older people who appear to meet the eligibility requirements.
– Cross-check available information to reduce duplicate records and errors.
– Contact potentially eligible people through accessible communication methods.
– Provide assistance to people who lack documents or have mobility difficulties.
– Establish a clear process for correcting inaccurate information.
– Track how many people identified through the system are successfully enrolled.
The government should also ensure that the system does not exclude people whose information is missing or outdated. Community-based verification should be available for people who are not adequately represented in existing administrative records.
## 6.2 Increase Benefit Adequacy
### Recommendation 3: Review and Increase Benefits for Elderly Households
The current benefit of GH₵320 for a one-member household may not be sufficient to cover basic living expenses, including medication and healthcare.
The government should assess whether a minimum transfer of GH₵500 per month for eligible single-member elderly households is appropriate. The proposal should be based on evidence about the cost of essential needs and should be assessed against the public budget.
An important clarification is required: the current LEAP benefit table lists amounts by household size but does not clearly establish in this brief whether the stated amounts are monthly or bi-monthly. The proposed GH₵500 must therefore be defined as a monthly amount or a payment-period amount before it can be compared accurately with existing benefits.
The Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection, the Ministry of Finance and the Ghana Statistical Service should conduct a cost-of-basic-needs assessment covering food, housing, utilities, transport, medication and other essential expenses. The assessment should consider regional differences and the additional costs faced by older people with disabilities or chronic illnesses.
Following the assessment, the government should:
– Establish a minimum benefit benchmark for eligible elderly households.
– Estimate the additional annual cost of the proposed increase.
– Identify a sustainable funding source.
– Introduce a transparent formula for adjusting benefits when prices rise.
– Publish the effective date and payment period for each revised rate.
– Review the benefit regularly to ensure that it retains its purchasing power.
The comparison with the reported minimum SSNIT pension of GH₵409.56 can help illustrate the pressure facing older people, but the government should compare the payment periods and eligibility arrangements before drawing conclusions about relative adequacy.
An increase should be accompanied by reliable payment schedules. A higher benefit paid irregularly may still fail to meet beneficiaries’ needs.
## 6.3 Strengthen Programme Integration
### Recommendation 4: Integrate LEAP with SSNIT and NHIS
The government should strengthen coordination between LEAP, the Social Security and National Insurance Trust and the National Health Insurance Scheme.
The aim should be to create a more coherent social protection system in which older people can access the support for which they qualify without being lost between programmes.
The integration should include the following measures.
Data sharing between programmes
LEAP, SSNIT and NHIS should establish secure data-sharing arrangements that help identify eligible older people and determine whether they already receive support.
Data sharing must follow the Ghana Data Protection Act. Only information needed for a clear service-delivery purpose should be shared, and access should be restricted to authorised personnel.
Automatic NHIS registration support for older beneficiaries
The government should make it easier for LEAP beneficiaries aged 60 and above to register with the NHIS and renew their membership. Where legally and operationally possible, the process should use existing records to reduce the need for repeated applications.
The government should confirm the applicable exemption rules and ensure that the new arrangements do not create conflicting eligibility requirements.
Expansion of NHIS benefits
The Ministry of Health and NHIS should review the services most relevant to older people, including the management of chronic conditions and other health problems associated with ageing.
The review should identify which essential services are not covered, estimate the cost of expanding coverage and set priorities based on evidence about health needs and affordability.
Coordination between LEAP and SSNIT
The government should establish clear procedures for people moving between employment, contributory pensions and social assistance.
People who qualify for a SSNIT pension should receive information about how to apply. Those whose pension income remains insufficient should be assessed under the relevant social assistance rules rather than automatically losing support without a review of their circumstances.
A coordinated system should also identify older people who have no pension and no other reliable source of income.
The implementing agencies should publish a joint plan with named responsibilities, timelines and performance indicators. These should include the number of eligible people identified, the number successfully referred to another programme, registration rates and complaints resolved.
## 6.4 Address Politicisation and Targeting Concerns
### Recommendation 5: Strengthen Transparency and Community Oversight
The government should take practical steps to improve confidence in beneficiary selection and programme administration.
The following measures are recommended:
– Publish the eligibility criteria and explain how the PMT score is used.
– Provide accessible information about how to apply, how decisions are made and how to appeal.
– Involve traditional authorities and community leaders in verification without allowing them to override the official eligibility rules.
– Establish independent grievance and redress mechanisms.
– Conduct regular social audits of beneficiary selection and programme exits.
– Investigate credible reports of fraud, extortion, favouritism or improper political influence.
– Apply appropriate administrative or legal sanctions where wrongdoing is established.
– Publish anonymised information on complaints, investigations and outcomes.
Publishing beneficiary information can support public scrutiny, but it must be balanced against privacy and safety. Full personal details, sensitive disability information, health information and other data that could expose vulnerable people to harm should not be made publicly available.
A safer approach would be to publish information in a form that allows the public to assess the process without unnecessarily revealing personal information. Community-level verification can use secure procedures and provide a way for residents to report errors or suspected favouritism.
The government should also ensure that people removed from LEAP have access to a review process. A household should not lose support solely because of a data error or a temporary improvement that does not represent a lasting change in its circumstances.
## 6.5 Expand Coverage Towards Universal Protection
### Recommendation 6: Accelerate Expansion and Develop a Roadmap for Older Persons Living in Extreme Poverty
The government should proceed with the planned expansion from approximately 350,000 to 450,000 households and develop a longer-term roadmap for covering all older persons aged 65 and above who meet the extreme poverty criteria.
The expansion should be based on reliable information about the number of eligible households, the cost of assistance and the availability of funding.
The roadmap should include the following measures.
A phased approach
Begin with districts and communities where poverty and vulnerability are most severe. Use transparent criteria to prioritise areas, while maintaining a clear timetable for extending coverage to other eligible households.
Accurate targeting
Use the Ghana National Household Registry to identify potentially eligible households, while providing community verification and a way to include people missing from administrative records.
Dedicated budget allocations
Prepare a costed expansion plan that states the estimated number of beneficiaries, expected payment costs, administrative expenses and funding requirements for each year.
Coverage monitoring
Track the number of eligible households, the number enrolled, the number receiving payments and the number excluded or waiting for support.
Independent evaluation
Commission periodic assessments to determine whether the programme reduces poverty among older people and whether the benefits are adequate.
Transition and referral arrangements
When a household exits LEAP, assess whether it needs help accessing livelihood programmes, savings schemes or other social assistance. Exiting the programme should not automatically mean that the household no longer needs support.
A universal approach to protection does not necessarily mean that every older person must receive the same cash transfer regardless of income. The government should clarify whether its long-term objective is a universal social pension, targeted income support for older people living in poverty, or a combination of the two.
The distinction matters because the costs and distributional effects of these options are different. A universal social pension may reduce exclusion errors and simplify access, while targeted support can direct more resources to people with the greatest financial need. A clear policy and cost assessment is necessary before choosing the long-term model.
## 6.6 Link the Findings to the UN Treaty Process
### Recommendation 7: Ensure the UN Treaty on the Rights of Older Persons Addresses Cash Transfers and Income Security
Ghana’s experience with LEAP provides important lessons for the development of the forthcoming UN treaty on the rights of older persons.
The treaty should recognise that cash transfer programmes are important tools for reducing poverty but may not, by themselves, guarantee income security in old age.
The treaty should address the following issues:
The right to social security
The treaty should recognise social security as a core part of older persons’ rights, including access to income support that enables them to meet their essential needs.
Minimum income protection
The treaty should encourage states to establish social protection arrangements that prevent older people from falling into extreme poverty, including those who lack formal employment histories or contributory pensions.
Adequacy of benefits
States should be expected to assess whether benefits are sufficient to meet basic needs and to establish transparent arrangements for adjusting benefits when living costs rise.
Fair and transparent administration
Social protection programmes should have clear eligibility criteria, accessible application procedures, fair review mechanisms and effective protection against discrimination, fraud and political interference.
Disaggregated data
States should collect and publish appropriate data on older persons, including age, sex, disability, region, income and other relevant factors. Data collection must respect privacy and protect vulnerable individuals.
Accountability and access to remedies
Older people should have access to complaints procedures and independent review when they are denied support or removed from a programme.
Coordination between social protection systems
The treaty should encourage states to coordinate social assistance, contributory pensions, healthcare and other relevant programmes so that gaps in eligibility do not leave older people without essential support.
Ghana should use its experience with LEAP to contribute evidence-based recommendations to the treaty process. It should document the programme’s achievements, the gaps in coverage, the adequacy of benefits and the experiences of older people who have been excluded or removed from support.
# 7. Linkages to International Human Rights Law
The right to social security is recognised in Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
These instruments establish important principles, but they do not provide a complete, specific framework for every challenge experienced by older persons. Implementation has also been uneven across countries.
The UN Intergovernmental Working Group on the Rights of Older Persons, established in April 2025, provides an opportunity to address gaps in international protection. The process could help develop clearer standards on older people’s rights, including social security, adequate income, healthcare access and protection from discrimination.
Ghana’s experience with LEAP offers several lessons for the treaty drafting process.
1. Cash transfers are necessary but not sufficient.
LEAP reaches more than 1.5 million people, but its reported coverage is only 1.5% of the national population. The coverage figures need to be reconciled, but the wider concern remains that many people living in poverty are not reached by the programme.
The treaty should recognise that cash transfers alone cannot guarantee income security in old age. States should be encouraged to develop social protection systems that address both income poverty and barriers to essential services.
2. Benefit adequacy matters.
The current benefit for a one-member household is GH₵320. This may be insufficient to cover basic needs, particularly when an older person requires regular medication or healthcare.
The treaty should establish principles for assessing benefit adequacy and encourage states to ensure that social protection benefits respond to the cost of essential goods and services.
3. Programme design affects equity.
The exclusion of people aged 60–64 from LEAP’s elderly eligibility category illustrates how eligibility rules can create gaps in protection.
The treaty should promote social protection systems that consider people’s changing needs throughout their lives, including the transition from employment to retirement and the risks faced by people without contributory pensions.
4. Implementation is as important as policy.
Politicisation concerns, irregular payments and geographic barriers can reduce the effectiveness of social protection programmes, even when their objectives are appropriate.
The treaty should include principles for transparent administration, monitoring, accountability and access to remedies.
5. Healthcare access must complement income support.
An older person may receive cash assistance and have NHIS registration but still be unable to obtain the care they need because of transport costs, medicine expenses or gaps in insurance coverage.
The treaty should encourage states to coordinate social security with healthcare and other essential services.
These findings can inform the July 2027 UN Working Group session on the treaty outline and the November 2027 draft, as identified in the programme timetable cited in this brief. The latest official timetable should be confirmed before submission or formal citation.
Ghana’s contribution should include evidence from beneficiaries, service providers, programme administrators and independent researchers. This would help ensure that the treaty reflects the practical challenges faced by older persons in Ghana and other countries in the Global South.
# 8. Conclusion
LEAP is Ghana’s main social assistance programme for extremely poor and vulnerable households. For the approximately 405,000 older persons estimated to benefit from the programme, it provides an important source of financial support.
The completion of the 100th payment cycle in February 2026 is a significant milestone. The programme’s expansion across all 16 regions and its continued government funding demonstrate its importance within Ghana’s social protection system.
However, the number of payment cycles completed does not, by itself, show whether older people are receiving adequate support. LEAP still faces significant challenges relating to coverage, benefit levels, eligibility rules, payment reliability, healthcare access and public confidence in beneficiary selection.
The programme’s elderly eligibility category excludes people aged 60–64. Its GH₵320 benefit for a one-member household may not cover the full cost of basic needs. Although 78.5% of beneficiaries are reported to have NHIS registration, registration does not guarantee access to all necessary healthcare services.
Concerns about the removal of older women at the Kukuo Witches Camp following the 2025–2026 reassessment also demonstrate the need for transparent decisions, accessible appeals and effective safeguards for vulnerable people.
The government has allocated GH₵1.1 billion to LEAP for 2026 and plans to expand the programme to 450,000 households. These measures create an opportunity to improve the programme, but their impact will depend on how the funding is released, how beneficiaries are selected, whether payments arrive on time and whether eligible households are reached.
This brief recommends reviewing the eligibility age, simplifying enrolment, assessing benefit adequacy, strengthening links with SSNIT and NHIS, improving transparency and expanding coverage through a costed and measurable plan.
The government should also establish clear indicators for assessing progress. These should include the number of eligible older people enrolled, the proportion receiving payments on time, the adequacy of benefits relative to essential living costs, the number of complaints resolved and the number of people who remain without support despite meeting the eligibility requirements.
Ultimately, Ghana needs a long-term social protection framework that provides reliable income security for older people. A universal social pension is one possible part of that framework, but the government should assess its costs, coverage and relationship with existing programmes before determining the most appropriate model.
The forthcoming UN treaty on the rights of older persons provides an important opportunity to establish stronger international standards for social security in old age. Ghana’s experience with LEAP, including its achievements and continuing gaps, can contribute to a treaty that recognises older people’s right to dignity, adequate income, healthcare and effective protection against poverty.
—
# Annex A: Key Statistics and Data Sources
The following table brings together the key figures used in this policy brief. The figures should be checked against the original publications before formal submission, particularly where reporting periods or definitions may differ.
| Indicator | Value | Source |
|—|—|—|
| LEAP households, 98th cycle | 350,580 | MoGCSP / GNA |
| LEAP individuals reached | 1.5 million | MoGCSP / GNA |
| 98th cycle value | GH₵135 million | MoGCSP / The Herald Ghana |
| 99th cycle value | GH₵139,329,463.37 | Information Services Department |
| 100th cycle completion | February 11, 2026 | LEAP MIS |
| Elderly share of beneficiaries, aged 65+ | 27% | LEAP Eligibility Criteria |
| Share of severely disabled beneficiaries | 17% | LEAP Eligibility Criteria |
| Share of OVC beneficiaries | 45% | LEAP Eligibility Criteria |
| Share of pregnant women and infants category | 11% | LEAP Eligibility Criteria |
| Benefit for one member | GH₵320.00 | Information Services Department |
| Benefit for two members | GH₵380.00 | Information Services Department |
| Benefit for three members | GH₵440.00 | Information Services Department |
| Benefit for four or more members | GH₵530.00 | Information Services Department |
| Extreme poverty rate | 8.2%, or 2.4 million people | Ghana Statistical Service |
| LEAP national coverage | 1.5% of the population | World Bank |
| NHIS registration among beneficiaries | 78.5% | Ghana ILO Report |
| Households reported to have exited after reassessment | 220,520 | Information Services Department |
| Households reported to have moved above the poverty threshold | 226,930 | MyJoyOnline |
| 2026 budget allocation | GH₵1.1 billion | Information Services Department |
| Allocation released by June 2026 | GH₵485 million | MyJoyOnline |
| Expansion target | 450,000 households | GBC Ghana |
| LEAP payment cycles completed | 100, as of February 2026 | LEAP MIS |
The coverage figures should be interpreted carefully. In particular, the reported 1.5% of the national population, the 8.2% extreme poverty rate and the number of people receiving LEAP should be reconciled using consistent definitions and reporting periods.
The two reassessment figures—220,520 households exiting the programme and 226,930 households moving above the extreme poverty threshold—should also be checked to establish whether they refer to different groups or stages of the reassessment.
—
# Annex B: Methodology and Research Tools
## B.1 Document Analysis Protocol
The document analysis covers the following sources.
Programme documents:
– LEAP Management Information System (MIS) records.
– MoGCSP press releases and programme reports.
– Ghana National Household Registry (GNHR) data.
Policy documents:
– National Social Protection Strategy.
– National Ageing Policy (2010).
– Medium-Term National Development Policy Framework (2026–2029).
Statistical sources:
– Ghana Statistical Service poverty mapping and population projections.
– Ghana Living Standards Survey.
Peer-reviewed research:
– Studies on LEAP targeting.
– Research on healthcare access barriers.
– Studies documenting the experiences of LEAP beneficiaries.
The analysis should record the publication date, reporting period, definition of each indicator and the relevant page or section of each source. This will help readers verify the figures and understand any differences between reports.
## B.2 Quantitative Analysis Framework
The quantitative analysis includes the following components.
Descriptive statistics:
– Beneficiary counts by category, region and household size.
– Benefit amounts.
– Coverage rates.
Comparative analysis:
– LEAP coverage compared with the population living in extreme poverty.
– Regional distribution of beneficiaries.
Programme performance analysis:
– Payment-cycle values.
– Timeliness of disbursement.
– Progress towards programme expansion.
Where data are available, the analysis should distinguish between households approved for support, households enrolled and households that actually received a payment. This distinction will improve the assessment of effective coverage.
## B.3 Qualitative Research Tools
The qualitative research tools include:
– Semi-structured interview guides for older LEAP beneficiaries, covering benefit adequacy, healthcare access, social relationships and experiences with the programme.
– Key informant interview guides for Community Focal Persons, Case Management Officers and Ministry officials.
– Focus group discussion guides for older persons’ associations and community groups.
The research should document the selection of participants, the number of interviews conducted, the locations covered and the main limitations of the findings.
Participants should be able to discuss their experiences without fear that their comments will affect their eligibility for support.
## B.4 Stakeholder Mapping
Government:
– Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection (MoGCSP).
– LEAP Management Secretariat.
– Social Protection Directorate.
– Ghana National Household Registry (GNHR).
– Ministry of Finance.
Civil society:
– Older persons’ associations.
– Community-based organisations.
– Advocacy groups.
International organisations:
– World Bank.
– UNICEF.
– International Labour Organization (ILO).
– HelpAge International.
These stakeholders have different roles in programme financing, implementation, monitoring, research and advocacy. Effective reform will require clear responsibilities and coordination between them.
## B.5 Ethical Considerations
The research follows these ethical principles:
– Informed consent should be obtained from all interview participants.
– Personal identifiers should be anonymised.
– Researchers should be sensitive to the vulnerability of LEAP beneficiaries.
– Data should be protected in compliance with Ghana’s Data Protection Act.
Additional safeguards should be applied when interviewing older people who have experienced discrimination, displacement, disability, poverty or loss of benefits. Participation should be voluntary, and interviewees should understand that their decision to participate will not affect their access to government support.
Information should be stored securely and used only for the purposes explained to participants. Findings should be reported in ways that reduce the risk of exposing individuals to stigma, retaliation or other harm.
—
# Annex C: Timeline for Implementation
| Timeframe | Action | Responsible institution |
|—|—|—|
| Immediate: 0–6 months | Review the eligibility age for older persons and develop a proposal for lowering it to 60. | MoGCSP; LEAP Secretariat |
| Short-term: 6–12 months | Seek Cabinet approval for eligibility reform; assess and increase benefit levels for elderly households; strengthen community oversight mechanisms. | Cabinet; MoGCSP; Ministry of Finance |
| Medium-term: 1–3 years | Integrate LEAP with NHIS and SSNIT; expand coverage to 450,000 households; develop a roadmap for wider coverage. | MoGCSP; SSNIT; NHIS; GNHR |
| Long-term: 3–5 years | Work towards coverage of all persons aged 65 and above living in extreme poverty and integrate LEAP with a broader universal social pension framework, subject to policy and fiscal decisions. | All implementing agencies |
To make the timeline more practical, each action should have a named lead agency, a supporting agency, a budget, a deadline and a measurable result.
The immediate review of the eligibility age should produce a cost estimate and a proposal for Cabinet consideration. The short-term phase should include a public explanation of the new rules and an accessible process for identifying and enrolling eligible people.
The medium-term phase should establish the technical arrangements for secure data sharing between LEAP, NHIS, SSNIT and GNHR. It should also include a public report on progress towards the 450,000-household target.
The long-term phase should be informed by an assessment of the number of older people who remain unsupported, the cost of alternative social pension models and the government’s ability to finance them sustainably.
—
# Annex D: Glossary
LEAP: Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty.
MoGCSP: Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection.
GNHR: Ghana National Household Registry.
PMT: Proxy-Means Test.
MIS: Management Information System.
CFP: Community Focal Person.
NHIS: National Health Insurance Scheme.
SSNIT: Social Security and National Insurance Trust.
MMDA: Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assembly.
OVC: Orphaned and Vulnerable Children.
e-zwich: Ghana’s biometric payment system.
GhIPSS: Ghana Interbank Payment and Settlement Systems.
GSS: Ghana Statistical Service.
—
# References
1. Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection. (2025). LEAP Eligibility Criteria. Accra: MoGCSP.
2. Ghana News Agency. (2025, October 10). LEAP: Government begins 98th cycle payment, 1.5 million individuals to benefit.
3. The Herald Ghana. (2025, October 9). LEAP Cycle 98 to impact over 1.5 million lives – Dr Agnes Naa Momo Lartey.
4. Information Services Department. (2025, December 22). Government Disburses GHS139m LEAP Grant to 350,580 Households.
5. Information Services Department. (2026, April 24). LEAP Programme Expands as 400,000 Households Enrolled After Nationwide Review.
6. LEAP Management Information System. (2026). News & Events: LEAP Completes 100th Payment Cycle. Accra: MoGCSP.
7. Ghana Statistical Service. (2021). Population and Housing Census 2021. Accra: GSS.
8. World Bank. (2019). Ghana Social Protection Assessment. Washington, DC: World Bank.
9. National Development Planning Commission. (2026). Medium-Term National Development Policy Framework (2026–2029). Accra: NDPC.
10. Domapielle, M.K., Dassah, C., Dordaa, F., Cheabu, B.S.M., & Sulemana, M. (2023). Barriers to health care access and utilization among aged indigents under the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty Programme (LEAP): the perspective of users and service providers in north-western Ghana. Primary Health Care Research & Development.
11. We Are Forgotten: A Qualitative Descriptive Exploration of Social Inclusion-Exclusion Expectations and Experiences of Older Adults in Ghana. (2025). SAGE Publications.
12. Barriers to formal healthcare utilisation among poor older people under the livelihood empowerment against poverty programme in the Atwima Nwabiagya District of Ghana. (2019). BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1185.
13. International Labour Organization. (2024). Social Policy (Basic Aims and Standards) Convention, 1962 (No. 117) – Ghana. Geneva: ILO.
14. MyJoyOnline. (2026, October 8). Release climate, gender and environmental funds on time – CSOs urge government.
15. GBC Ghana. (2026, September 16). LEAP grant increases as government expands programme to 450,000 households.
16. Citi Newsroom. (2026, July 19). Kukuo witches camp residents appeal for restoration of LEAP support.
The references above are retained from the original brief. Before publication or formal submission, the author should verify each source’s title, date, publication details and the specific claims attributed to it. Where possible, include direct URLs, page numbers or report sections so that reviewers can locate the evidence.
—
© 2026 African Liberators Economic Institute. All rights reserved.
Policy Brief No. ALEI/AGE/2026/03