MAP OF GHANA SHOWING THE STUDY AREAS

MAP OF GHANA SHOWING THE STUDY AREAS i

FORWARD The Baseline Assessment of Household Remittances was conducted in six administrative districts in the Ashanti and Brong Ahafo regions. The districts were purposively selected and they included Mampong, Sekyere Kumawu and Asante Akim North in the Ashanti Region and Berekum, Nkoranza South and Techiman in the Brong Ahafo Region. The study was designed to collect, analyse and disseminate information on background characteristics of households, housing conditions, incidence of receiving remittances, the size of remittances, frequency, channels used by remitters, types of goods received, uses of remittances, household member who decides on the use of the remittances, main challenges in receiving remittances, characteristics of emigrants and return migrants. The study was implemented by the Ghana Statistical Service with financial support from the International Organization for Migration (IOM). A Project Advisory Team made up of representatives from the IOM, Bank of Ghana, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of the Interior, Centre for Migration Studies, Ghana Statistical Service and Ghana Investment Promotion Center was set up to provide technical advice for the implementation of the study. The involvement of the Project Advisory Team was to create synergies among data collection initiatives and to ensure that the study provides a tool for monitoring progress towards national goals and global commitments as well as working within the data management action plan of the National Migration Policy. The Statistical Service is grateful to the International Organization for Migration for their valuable partnership, especially for providing funding for the entire study through the IOM Development Fund Project. We also wish to extend our appreciation to all who participated directly or indirectly in this study: the report writers, the field staff, and other survey personnel. BAAH WADIEH (ACTING GOVERNMENT STATISTICIAN & NATIONAL PROJECT DIRECTOR) ii

TABLE OF CONTENT MAP OF GHANA SHOWING THE STUDY AREAS... i FORWARD... ii LIST OF TABLES... v LIST OF FIGURES... vii LIST OF ACRONYMS...viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... ix CHAPTER ONE... 1 INTRODUCTION... 1 1.1 Background... 1 1.2 Objectives of the survey... 2 1.3 Survey Methodology... 3 1.4 Training and Fieldwork... 4 1.5 Quality Control and Data Processing... 4 1.6 Report Writing... 5 1.7 Concepts and definitions... 5 CHAPTER TWO... 8 BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS... 8 2.1 Introduction... 8 2.2 Population distribution... 8 2.3 Distribution of population by age group... 8 2.4 Household composition and Average Household Size... 9 2.5 Place of birth... 10 2.6 Duration of stay in the current place of residence... 11 2.7 Main reasons for moving to current place of residence... 12 2.8 Marital Status... 13 2.9 Literacy status... 13 2.10 School attendance... 14 2.11 Level of education... 14 2.12 Reason for not attending school... 16 2.13 Reasons for population 3 years and older who have never... 16 attended school... 16 2.14 Current activity status... 17 iii

2.15 Occupation... 18 2.16 Industry... 18 2.17 Employment status... 19 2.18 Employment Sector... 20 2.19 Housing conditions... 21 2.20 Access to Utilities and Household Facilities... 24 2.21 Type of toilet facilities... 27 2.22 Ownership of household assets... 27 CHAPTER THREE... 29 KEY FINDINGS... 29 3.1 Introduction... 29 3.2 Age distribution of emigrants... 29 3.3 Relationship of emigrants to head of household... 30 3.4 Marital status of emigrants 12 years and older... 30 3.5 Country of residence of emigrants... 31 3.6 Number of years lived abroad... 31 3.7 Main reasons for moving abroad... 32 3.8 Distribution of households receiving remittances... 33 3.9 Distribution of specific recipients of remittances... 39 3.10 Total and mean cash received by households as remittances... 40 3.11 Country of residence of remitters and type of remittances sent... 46 to households... 46 3.12 Uses of remittances... 46 3.13 Main challenge encountered in receiving remittances... 49 3.14 Characteristics of return migrants... 50 CHAPTER FOUR... 51 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS... 51 Conclusions and policy implications... 52 REFERENCES... 54 APPENDIX... 55 Participants in the Baseline Assessment of Household Remittances... 55 Questionnaire... 56 iv

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: Sample Allocation by region and district and number of EAs... 4 Table 2.1: Population distribution by district and sex... 8 Table 2.2: Population distribution by age-group and sex... 9 Table 2.3: Household composition and average size of population by district... 10 Table 2.4: Total population by district, duration of stay in current place of residence and sex... 12 Table 2.5: Main reason for moving to current place of residence by sex... 12 Table 2.6: Population 12 years and older by district, sex and marital status... 13 Table 2.7: Population 3 years and older by district, school attendance and sex... 14 Table 2.8: Population 3 years and older by level of education, district and sex... 15 Table 2.9: Reason for population 3-24 years old not attending school in the past 12 months... 16 Table 2.10: Population 3 years and older by reasons for never attending school by sex... 17 Table 2.11: Population 15 years and older by district, current activity status and sex... 17 Table 2.12: Employed population 15 years and older by main occupation and sex... 18 Table 2.13: Employed population 15 years and older by main industry and sex... 19 Table 2.14: Employment status of currently employed population 15 years and older by district and sex... 20 Table 2.15: Employment sector of currently employed population 15 years and older by district and sex... 21 Table 2.16: Types of dwelling, construction materials for wall, roof and floor and ownership arrangements by district... 23 Table 2.17: Main source of drinking water and general use, lighting for the dwelling and source of energy for cooking by district... 26 Table 2.18: Type of toilet facility by district... 27 Table 3.1: Age group of emigrants by sex... 29 Table 3.2: Relationship of emigrants to head of household by sex... 30 Table 3.3: Marital status of emigrants 12 years and older by sex... 30 Table 3.4: Country of residence of emigrants by sex... 31 Table 3.5: Households receiving remittances in the past 12 months preceding the study... 33 Table 3.6: Distribution of heads of households receiving remittances by district and sex... 34 Table 3.7: Age of heads of households receiving remittances by sex... 34 Table 3.8: Marital status of heads of households receiving remittances by sex... 35 Table 3.9: Highest educational level of heads of households receiving remittances by sex. 35 v

Table 3.10: Literacy status of heads of households receiving remittances by sex... 36 Table 3.11: Occupation of heads of households receiving remittances by sex... 37 Table 3.12: Industry of occupation of heads of households receiving remittances by sex... 37 Table 3.13: Employment status of heads of households receiving remittances by sex... 38 Table 3.14: Employment sector of heads of households receiving remittances by sex... 38 Table 3.15: Emigrants by general recipient of most recent household remittances, type and district... 39 Table 3.16: Emigrants by specific household recipient of remittances, type and district... 40 Table 3.17: Cash received in the 12 months preceding the study by district... 40 Table 3.18: Emigrants by frequency of remittances (cash and goods) sent in the 12 months... preceding the study by district... 41 Table 3.19: Cost incurred (Ghana Cedis) on remittances received in the 12 months preceding the study by district... 42 Table 3.20: Value of goods received in the 12 months preceding the study by district... 43 Table 3.21: Households receiving money in the 12 months preceding the study by channel used and districts... 43 Table 3.22: Households receiving money in the past 12 months by preferred channels used by remitters in sending remittances... 45 Table 3.23: Remitters by country of residence, type or remittance and recipient... 46 Table 3.24: Persons deciding on the use of remittances received... 47 Table 3.25: Persons deciding on use of remittances received by households in the 12 months preceding the study by district... 48 Table 3.26: Main challenge encountered by households receiving remittances in the 12 months preceding the survey by district... 49 Table 3.27: Characteristics of returned migrants... 50 vi

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: Population distribution by place of birth and sex... 11 Figure 2.2: Population 11 years and older by literacy status and district... 14 Figure 2.3: Proportion of households owning household amenities by district... 28 Figure 3.1: Emigrants by number of years lived abroad and sex... 32 Figure 3.2: Main reason emigrants moved abroad by sex... 32 Figure 3.3: Current activity status of heads of households 15 years and older receiving remittances by sex... 36 Figure 3.4: Type of goods received by household members... 42 Figure 3.5: Households receiving money in the 12 months preceding the study by preferred channels for receiving remittances... 44 Figure 3.6: Advice received by households to invest remittances received... 45 Figure 3.7: Persons deciding on the use of remittances received... 48 Figure 3.8: Main challenge encountered in receiving remittances... 49 vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS BAHR BoG CMS EAs ECOWAS GDP GIPC GSS IMF IOM JHS KVIP LMICs MFARI MoF MoI MTOs NMP ODA PHC PO SDGs UK UNDP USA WB Baseline Assessment of Household Remittances Bank of Ghana Centre for Migration Studies Enumeration Areas Economic Community of West African States Gross Domestic Product Ghana Investment Promotion Centre Ghana Statistical Service International Monetary Fund International Organization for Migration Junior High School Kumasi Ventilated-Improved Pit Low Middle Income Countries Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration Ministry of Finance Ministry of the Interior Money Transfer Operators National Migration Policy Official Development Assistance Population and Housing Census Post office Sustainable Development Goals United Kingdom United Nations Development Programme United States of America World Bank viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Globally, migrant remittances transferred to families in home countries directly become part of household budgets that can be spent on basic needs, serve as extra funds either for increasing consumption of durable and nondurable goods, or used for savings or investments. The Baseline Assessment of Household Remittances study was conducted in two administrative regions Ashanti and Brong Ahafo and covered six districts which were purposively selected for the study. The districts included Mampong, Sekyere Kumawu and Asante Akim North in the Ashanti Region and Berekum, Nkoranza South and Techiman in the Brong Ahafo Region. One thousand and two hundred (1,200) households were selected in 60 clusters based on the 2010 Population and Housing census (2010 PHC) sample frame. Twenty (20) households were sampled from each cluster for interview after listing of households in these clusters. The results of the study provides data for understanding the impact of remittances and for the formulation of a more effective policy for managing remittances for development. It will also serve as a monitoring tool to track migration targets of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as well as for other international commitments such as the ECOWAS targets for free movement and good governance. The study was implemented by the Ghana Statistical Service (GSS) with financial support from the International Organization for Migration (IOM) Development Fund under the project: Improving capacities to leverage remittances for development in Ghana. Place of birth More than three-quarters (76.2%) of the respondents were interviewed at the place where they were born while 23.8 percent were born outside their current locality of residence. The movement of people from one geographical to another area is influenced by several factors. Family issues (60.7%) is a major reason for migration of household members followed by economic issues (28.0%). Literacy status, school attendance and level of education of respondents About 7 in every 10 (72.2%) persons aged 11 years and older are literate while more than onequarter (27.8%) are not literate. About ninety percent (89.6%) of the population 3 years and older have ever attended school while 10.4 percent have never attended school. More males (93.8%) than females (89.6%) have ever attended school in the districts visited for the survey. Generally, the proportion of persons with primary or lower education (41.2%) is higher than those who had JHS/Middle School (36.4%) education in the six districts. As one moves up the education ladder, the proportion of persons with higher education reduces. Activity status, occupation and industry The economically active population constitute 66.7 percent while those not economically active form 33.3 percent. The proportion of males who are economically active (67.9%) is higher than females (65.8%). A majority of the employed population 15 years and older are ix

engaged as Service and Sales workers (36.5%) while about one-third (34.4%) work as skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery workers. Housing conditions of households Compound house is the most common form of dwelling unit for households accounting for 76.4 percent. More than one-quarter (27.0%) of households use public tap/ stand pipe as a source of drinking water, followed by those who use pipe-borne water outside the dwelling but from neighbours (17.3%). The main source of water for general use for most households is public tap/standpipe (27.8%). Households mainly own the following assets: bed (88.3%), mobile phone (83.9%), radio (71.8%), TV set (67.4%), watch (59.5%) and electric iron (55.9%). Destination of emigrants and duration of stay About 57 percent of the households interviewed had relatives and friends who lived outside Ghana. Most of the emigrants reside in the USA (25.6%), Italy (17.4%), the UK (16.7) and Germany (11.5%). Generally, more than half (55.3%) of the emigrants had lived abroad for at least 10 years. Of all the emigrants, 77.2 percent reported moving abroad for the purpose of employment. Households receiving remittances Out of 1,200 households interviewed in the six districts, 307 constituting 25.6 percent received remittances during the 12 months preceding the survey. The districts with higher proportions of households receiving remittances are Asante Akim North (32.0%) followed by Berekum (31.0%) while the least is Mampong (24.0%). Households who had friends and relatives living outside Ghana, about 45 percent of them received remittances during the reference period. This suggests that even though households may have friends and relatives living outside Ghana, not all of them will receive remittances. Size of remittances The total amount of cash received by households as remittances in the 12 months prior to the study is GH 1,361,678.00. Households in Berekum received the highest remittances of GH 532,272.00, followed by those in Asante Akim North (GH 313,261.00) while the lowest was received by households in Techiman (GH 69,700). The mean amount of cash received is GH 4,663.28. Berekum recorded the highest mean cash remittances of GH 9,177.10 while the lowest was Techiman with an amount of GH 1,834.21. Frequency of households receiving remittances More than two-fifths (43.8%) of households received cash remittances only once while those who received cash remittances two times is 20.3 percent. Like cash remittances, the majority of households also received goods once (61.4%). Types and value of goods received from emigrants Goods received by households from emigrants are in the form of clothing/shoes (50.0%), food (17.3%) and mobile phones (11.4%). The total value of goods received amounts to GH 1,042,463.00 with Berekum ity receiving the highest (GH 717,725.00). The x

mean value of goods received as remittance in the past 12 months preceding the survey in the selected districts amounted to GH 8,615.40. At the district level, the mean value of goods received ranges from GH 1,811.80 in the Mampong ity to GH 39,873.60 in Berekum ity. Channels used in remitting households and preferred channels More than half (52.6%) of all recipients indicated that they received their cash remittances through Money Transfer Operators. (MTOs). A further 39.4 percent indicated that it was sent through friends/relatives and the least proportion (4.5%) had the money transferred through the Post Office. Nearly half (49.7%) of the households would have preferred remitters sending remittances through the MTOs and about one-quarter (23.1%) showed preference to remitting through friends and relatives. Uses of cash remittances More than three-quarters (79.1%) of households in the survey districts used cash remittances received to meet daily needs. Other important uses of remittances were for payment for schooling or training of a household member (21.9%), and paying of medical bills (16.4%). About 6 percent of respondents used the cash for child support. Sources of cash and goods received by households as remittances In all, 27.1 percent of cash remittances and 30.7 percent of goods remitted were from emigrants residing in the United States of America. This is followed by those who reside in the United Kingdom with 16.5 percent of cash remittances and 17.9 percent of total goods sent. Germany and Italy were other countries from which more than ten percent of both cash and goods remittances received by households. Cash remittances from African countries constituted 5.0 percent with goods being only 1.4 percent of total goods sent to the six districts. Person deciding on the use of remittances received Seven out of ten households (69.7%) indicated that it is the household head who decides how the remittances are used. Seventeen percent of households also indicated that persons deciding on the use of remittances is the remitter while 10.3 percent said it is the recipient. Challenges encountered in receiving remittances The major challenges encountered by households are transfer time (25.0%), accessibility of service (23.3%) and privacy ((22.2%). The proportion of households indicating cost incurred (10.8%) is the least. Return migrants About seven out of ten (71.0%) return migrants indicated that while abroad, they sent remittances home while 29.4 percent did not send any remittances. The average amount of remittances sent by returned migrants is GhȻ3,175.00. The common mode of transferring remittances by return migrants is through MTOs (41.7%), friends/relatives (33.3%) and agent/courier (16.7%) and personally carried (8.3%). xi

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Migrant economic remittances are an important cradle of income and growing source of foreign funds for several developing countries. At present, these flows are more than double the official aid received by developing countries. Remittance flows globally, currently outstrip USD$100 billion which is higher than the value of official development assistance. Migrants are now sending earnings back to their families in developing countries at levels above US$441 billion, a figure three times the volume of official aid flows. The World Bank and the IMF have pointed out that, if remittances sent through informal channels are included, total remittances could be as much as 50 percent higher than the official record (World Bank, 2010; IMF, 2009). In 2010, officially recorded remittances to developing countries reached $334 billion (World Bank, 2010). By 2015, remittances sent to developing countries had reached US$432 billion (World Bank, 2016). These inflows of cash constitute more than 10 percent of GDP in some developing countries and lead to increased investments in health, education, and small businesses in various communities in these countries. The loss/benefit picture of this reality is two-fold: while the migration of highly skilled people from small and poor countries can affect basic service delivery in these countries, it can also generate numerous benefits, including increased trade, investment, knowledge, and technology transfers from diaspora contributions (Migration and Remittances Factbook, 2016). Moreover, since remittances are largely personal transactions from migrants to their friends and families, they tend to be well targeted to the needs of their recipients. Remittances directly augment the income of recipient households and have the ability to reduce poverty and to promote human development that eventually contribute to overall development (UNDP, 2011). In addition to providing financial resources for poor households, they positively affect poverty and welfare through indirect multiplier and macroeconomic effects (Ratha, 2007). Regression analyses across countries worldwide indeed show significant poverty reduction effects of remittances. For instance, household survey data show that remittances have reduced the poverty headcount ratio significantly in several least industrialized countries, including by 11 percent in Uganda, 6 percent in Bangladesh and 5 percent in Ghana (Ratha, 2007). Furthermore, remittances have been associated with increased household investments in education, health and entrepreneurship; all of which have a high social return in most circumstances. For instance, studies based on household surveys in El Salvador and Sri Lanka show that children of remittance-receiving households have a lower school drop-out ratio and that these households spend more on private tuition for their children. In Sri Lanka, the children in remittance-receiving households also have higher birth weight as well. Studies also indicate that remittances provide capital to small entrepreneurs, reduce credit constraints, and increase entrepreneurship. These overseas cash flows raise the standard of living of recipient families and friends. As one of the world s largest recipients of remittances, the Philippines received roughly 12 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) through this conduit in 2008. These flows have become the single most important source of foreign exchange to the economy and a significant source of 1

income for recipient families and friends in Philippines. Bangko Sentral (2009), points out that households that received remittances in the third quarter of 2009 in Philippines, spent part of it on food and other household needs, on education, and on medical expenses. While remittances shielded the economy during crisis situations in the past, the current global economic crisis has brought a new challenge to the role of remittances. In 2016, remittance flows to LMICs was projected to reach $442 billion, marking an increase of 0.8 percent over 2015. The modest recovery in 2016 is largely driven by the increase in remittance flows to Latin America and the Caribbean on the back of a stronger economy in the United States; by contrast, remittance flows to all other developing regions either declined or recorded a deceleration in growth. The top recipients of remittances in nominal US dollar terms, are India, China, the Philippines, Mexico and Pakistan and, in terms of remittances as a share of GDP, Nepal, Liberia, Tajikistan, Kyrgyz Republic and Haiti (World Bank, 2016). Migrant remittances form an important source of development finance (Ratha, 2007). Migrant remittances have played an important role in the economic development, social resilience and the improvement of household welfare in Ghana (Adger et al., 2002; Quartey & Blankson, 2004; Amuedo-Dorantes, 2007). The conservative estimates by the Bank of Ghana show that migrant remittances received from abroad by households constitute approximately 13 per cent of Ghana s GDP (Mazzucato et al., 2008). Migrant remittances from abroad have also been noted as an important source of foreign exchange, whose magnitude exceeded the amount of Official Development Assistance (ODA) in Ghana (Addison, 2004; Quartey, 2006). It has been argued that migrant remittances are becoming a potential source of external finance and its magnitude exceeds the amount of ODA in some developing countries. Migrant worker remittances have been the backbone of many households in Ghana where these remittances serve as a major source of income for the households, particularly in times of economic shocks. The importance of migrant worker remittances in Ghana is evidenced by the proliferation of money transfer institutions (both formal and informal) and the rapid increase in migrant remittances into the country. Being a source of income for most households, remittances generally require attention as they tend to be well targeted to the needs of recipients. However, it is important to understand the dynamics associated with it. This called for the conduct of a Baseline Assessment of Household Remittances (BAHR) in Ghana. This will inform and direct the conduct of a nationwide survey on remittances to leverage growth and poverty dividends as well as utilize remittances to cushion the impact of economic shocks. The results are expected to be depended upon to monitor, analyse and project remittance inflows. It will be relied upon to develop retail payment systems for remittance transfer and improve financial access of individuals and households. As part of policy measures, the findings may be used to inform policies aimed at reducing the costs of remittance transfers and leverage remittances for capital market access of financial institutions. 1.2 Objectives of the survey The main objective of the BAHR was to collect basic statistics on the situation, including remittances received by households, channel and the purposes for which remittances were received. The specific objectives of the survey included: 2

a. Estimate the size of cash and in-kind payments received by the household in a calendar year, including origin and characteristics b. Estimate the prevalence of household remittances c. Provide information on the channels used by remitters d. Provide data on the use of remittances received during the reference period e. Contribute to the improvement of data and monitoring remittances systems f. Provide up-to-date information for assessing the cost of remittances 1.3 Survey Methodology A structured household questionnaire was used for the BAHR. The questionnaire development was guided by a quantitative research approach based on the experiences drawn from work done by other countries on remittances survey. It was a structured pre-coded questionnaire designed to elicit information about all household members on their demographic characteristics, education, and economic activities; remittances received by households, relationship of the person remitting the household to the head of household, purpose of travelling, the size of remittances received by the households (cash and in-kind), frequency of remittances, methods used in sending remittances to the households and purpose for which the money was sent to the households as well as housing conditions. Basic information on all persons living in the households was solicited after which specific questions on remittances were directed at those who received remittances within the past 12 months preceding the study. 1.3.1 Coverage The BAHR as a pilot study was conducted in two administrative regions Ashanti and Brong Ahafo, and covered 1,200 households selected in 60 clusters based on the 2010 PHC sample frame. Twenty (20) households were sampled from each cluster for interview after listing of households. 1.3.2 Survey Sample The 2010 Population and Housing Census (2010 PHC) frame was used for the Baseline Assessment of Household Remittances which was conducted in six districts. The districts which were purposively selected included Mampong, Sekyere Kumawu and Asante Akim North in the Ashanti Region and Berekum, Nkoranza South and Techiman in the Brong Ahafo Region. These districts are known areas with lots of emigrants who usually send remittances back home. The sample design was based on a two-stage sample selection that enabled estimates of key indicators for the districts selected in the two regions to be calculated. The first stage selection involved selecting sample points (clusters) consisting of enumeration areas (EAs) delineated for the 2010 PHC. A total of 60 clusters were selected, 30 clusters per region, and shared equally for the three districts selected from each region (Table 1). 3

Table 1.1: Sample Allocation by region and district and number of EAs 2010 EAs selected 2010 Total Households selected Region District Total No. Number Proportion No. of HH Number Proportion of EAs Ashanti Mampong 164 10 16.67 19,203 200 16.67 Ashanti Sekyere Kumawu 121 10 16.67 14,185 200 16.67 Ashanti Asante Akim North 114 10 16.67 15,480 200 16.67 Brong Ahafo Berekum 169 10 16.67 31,129 200 16.67 Brong Ahafo Nkoranza South 165 10 16.67 21,565 200 16.67 Brong Ahafo Techiman 225 10 16.67 34,137 200 16.67 Total 60 100.00 1,200 100.00 The second stage selection involved the systematic selection of twenty (20) households in each cluster from the list compiled from a household listing operation that was undertaken in all the selected EAs. 1.4 Training and Fieldwork The training of field staff was carried out at one central location in Kumasi and lasted for three (3) days. The training included presentations, discussion of the questionnaire, mock interviews and field practices. Subject specific experts were engaged to give presentations to participants on their subject areas as they relate to the survey so as to guide participants on best practice. A manual accompanying the questionnaire was used extensively to guide the training. Overall, 24 field officers were trained and put into 6 teams to undertake the fieldwork. Twenty-three (23) days were used for field work during which each team was assigned 10 clusters. The fieldwork was structured to include listing of households and interview of the twenty selected households. Each team was made up of a supervisor, three interviewers and a driver. The supervisor carried out administrative duties on community entry, led in the listing of structures and edited all completed questionnaires for completeness and consistency. The field supervisor was also responsible for the day-to-day management of the team and acted as the liaison officer between the team and the survey secretariat. 1.5 Quality Control and Data Processing Extensive field supervision was carried out throughout the field work. Questionnaires submitted by interviewers to supervisors were checked for completeness and consistency. Field supervisors also revisited some selected households for re-interview on some selected questions. In addition to re-interview by supervisors, there was periodic monitoring by external monitors from the survey secretariat and IOM who supervised field activities for completeness and consistency. The monitors met teams in the field to check on the quality/quantity of work and advised on any apparent lapses. As part of the monitors responsibilities, they sat in and observed at least 3 interviews per team to ensure quality of work. Eighteen (18) days were used to capture the data from the paper questionnaire by three (3) data entry operators using CSPro v.4.o. The cleaned data was then exported to SPSS and analyzed. 4

1.6 Report Writing Upon completion of data processing (after the provision of a clean data set), the data was analyzed and the report on the findings prepared. To ensure comparability, final tables were disaggregated by sex, age, locality of residence (urban/rural), administrative districts and other socio-economic and demographic characteristics of respondents. Results from the survey is expected to form the basis for planning a nationwide survey on remittances, policy formulation and evidence-based decision making on remittances and their associated issues and benefits. 1.7 Concepts and definitions Household A household is defined as a person or a group of persons, who live together in the same house or compound, share the same house-keeping arrangements and recognize one person as the head of household A household therefore may consist of a man, his wife, children, distant relatives, or a housekeeper living with them. Visitors who spent the previous night with the household are also considered as members of the household. It is important to remember that members of a household are not necessarily related (by blood or marriage) because nonrelatives e.g. house helps, may form part of a household. Household size Household size refers to the total number of persons in a household irrespective of age, sex, or residential status. Household composition Household composition refers to the patterns of relationships between the head of household and other members of the household. This includes relationships such as spouse (wife/husband), child (son/daughter), grandchild, parent/parent-in-law, brother/sister, other relative and non-relative. Head of Household A member of the household was referred to as head if he or she was recognized as such by the other members of the household. The head of household is generally the person who has economic and social responsibility for the household. All relationships are defined with reference to the head Compound House A compound house refers to multiple dwelling units which are located within a compound. These dwelling units usually have shared toilet(s) and bath(s) and cooking either takes place outside, on the porch or in an enclosed area. The compound may or may not be surrounded by a wall fence or hedge. Work: It refers to any economic activity performed by the respondent that contributes to the economic production of goods and services. Examples are selling in a market/street, working in an enterprise/business or for government, working in one s own farm or enterprise, working on a household member s farm, etc. 5

Economically Active Population The economically active population was defined as persons who: Worked for pay or profit or family gain for at least one hour within the seven days preceding census night. This category of persons included those who were in paid employment or self-employment or contributing family workers; Did not work, but had job to return to; Were unemployed and actively looking for work. Economically not active The economically not active persons are those who did not work and were not seeking for work, that is, they are not currently employed or unemployed. This group includes persons who are studying or performing household duties (homemakers), retired persons, the disabled and other persons who were unable to work because of their disability or age (i.e., too young or old to work). Employed The employed are persons of working age (15 years and older) who, during the 7 days before the interview did any work for at least one hour for pay, profit or family gain, or worked without pay on a farm or family holding (including unpaid family workers), and those who had a job and were temporarily absent from work. Incuded are: At work, that is, persons who during the reference period performed some work for wage or salary either in cash or in kind or worked without pay. Had a job to go back to, but did not work within the reference period. The Unemployed This comprises all persons aged 15 years and above, who during the reference period were: Without work and had no fixed jobs; Currently available for work; Seeking for work by taking specific steps to look for work (e.g. writing applications, visiting job sites, visiting employment agencies and seeking help from friends and relatives in the search for jobs). Occupation Occupation refers to the type of work the person was engaged in at the establishment where he/she worked. All persons who worked during the reference period were classified by the kind of work they were engaged in. For those who did not work but had a job to return to, their occupation was the job they would go back to after the period of absence. Up to two occupations were considered if a person was engaged in more than one occupation. Industry Industry refers to the type of product produced or service rendered at the respondent s place of work. 6

Employment Status Employment status refers to the status of a person in the establishment where he/she currently works or previously worked. Eight employment status categories were provided: employee, self-employed without employees, self-employed with employees, casual worker, contributing family worker, apprentice, domestic employee (house help). Persons who could not be classified under any of the above categories were classified as other. Employment Sector This refers to the sector in which a person worked. The employment sectors covered in the census were public, private formal, private informal, semi-public/parastatal, NGOs and international organizations. Remittances Remittances represent household income from foreign economies arising mainly from the temporary or permanent movement of people to those economies. Remittances include cash and noncash items that flow through formal channels, such as via electronic wire, or through informal channels, such as money or goods carried across borders. They largely consist of funds and noncash items sent or given by individuals who have migrated to a new economy and become residents there, and the net compensation of border, seasonal, or other short-term workers who are employed in an economy in which they are not resident. Recipient households or recipients This refers to households that receive cash or in-kind remittances, Non-recipient households or non-recipients It refers to households that do not receive any kind of remittances. Senders or remitters They are individuals who have settled abroad and send remittances back home. Migration Migration, in this study, refers to movement of people across countries. Return Migrant A migrant who has come back to the country of origin from the country of destination. 7

CHAPTER TWO BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS 2.1 Introduction The objective of this chapter is to analyze the population distribution, household size, composition, structure and headships using data collected from the Baseline Assessment of Household Remittances study. An analysis is also made on the marital status, literacy, education, occupation and industry of respondents. The chapter also provides information on ownership of household assets and housing conditions. 2.2 Population distribution Table 2.1 presents information on the distribution of the population by sex and district of residence. Out of the 3,908 people recorded from the 1,200 selected households during the survey, 54.6 percent are females while 45.4 percent are males. This pattern of distribution is similar in all the districts with the proportion of females being higher than males. However, the proportion of males in the Nkoranza South District (49.5%) is very high compared to the other districts. Table 2.1: Population distribution by district and sex Number Percent District Male Female Total Male Female Total Mampong 303 353 656 46.2 53.8 100.0 Sekyere Kumawu 284 344 628 45.2 54.8 100.0 Asante Akim North 233 321 554 42.1 57.9 100.0 Berekum 311 363 674 46.1 53.9 100.0 Techiman 273 371 644 42.4 57.6 100.0 Nkoranza South 372 380 752 49.5 50.5 100.0 Total 1,776 2,132 3,908 45.4 54.6 100.0 2.3 Distribution of population by age group Table 2.2 indicates that the proportion of the population within the various age group decreases with increasing age. The Table reveals that, close to 40 percent of the population are below age 15 years which reflects the youthful nature of Ghana s population. This pattern is also reflected among the sexes. However, the proportion of males aged 0-19 is higher (52.0%) than that of the females (44.5%). 8

Table 2.2: Population distribution by age-group and sex Age Total Male Female 0-4 13.3 14.0 12.7 5-9 12.2 13.5 11.1 10-14 12.4 14.0 11.0 15-19 10.1 10.5 9.7 20-24 8.2 7.1 9.1 25-29 7.8 7.2 8.3 30-34 6.9 7.2 6.7 35-39 5.6 5.5 5.6 40-44 4.7 4.4 5.0 45-49 4.1 3.7 4.5 50-54 3.6 3.0 4.0 55-59 3.0 2.8 3.1 60-64 2.7 2.4 2.9 65+ 5.5 4.7 6.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number 3,908 1,776 2,132 2.4 Household composition and Average Household Size This section presents information on the household composition and average household size in the survey districts. The results show out of a total of 1,200 households surveyed, 53. 0 percent are headed by males whilst 47.0 percent are headed by females. Table 2.3 shows that a higher proportion of the household members are children (44.7%) of the household heads. This is followed by heads of households (30.7 %), with spouses constituting 10.2 percent. Foster children (0.1%) constitute the least of the household composition. The pattern of the household composition is similar in all the survey districts except Mampong (10.2%) and Sekyere Kumwu (9.9%) which have a relative higher proportion of grandchildren. The average household size in the six districts is 3.3. The average household size of male-headed households is 3.4 while female-headed households is 3.1. Nkoranza South however, has an average household size of 3.8 which is higher than the average household size for the five districts. 9

Table 2.3: Household composition and average size of population by sex of household head and district Household composition/ Average household size Mampong Sekyere Kumawu Asante Akim North Berekum Techiman Nkoranza South Male headed household Head 32.0 29.7 37.8 29.2 28.7 25.3 29.6 Spouse (Wife/Husband) 15.5 17.3 17.1 18.3 18.4 17.1 17.3 Child (Son/Daughter) 36.3 47.0 40.2 45.0 43.2 46.4 43.4 Parent/Parent in-law 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 Son/Daughter in-law 2.1 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 Grandchild 7.6 2.3 1.6 4.7 2.2 4.0 3.9 Brother/Sister 2.4 0.3 0.0 0.5 1.7 1.1 1.1 Step child 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 1.1 0.6 0.5 Foster child 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 Other relative 2.7 1.0 2.0 1.3 3.3 3.2 2.4 Non-relative 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.3 1.4 1.3 0.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Average household size 3.1 3.4 2.6 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.4 Female headed household Head 29.0 33.8 34.7 30.3 34.0 29.6 32.0 Spouse (Wife/Husband) 2.4 1.2 1.0 1.4 2.1 1.3 1.6 Child (Son/Daughter) 46.0 39.0 50.6 49.1 42.8 51.3 46.2 Parent/Parent in-law 0.6 2.4 2.9 0.7 1.4 0.9 1.5 Son/Daughter in-law 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.5 Grandchild 12.8 16.8 6.8 10.5 11.6 8.8 11.4 Brother/Sister 1.5 1.2 0.3 2.1 1.1 5.3 1.8 Step child 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.2 Other relative 1.5 5.2 3.2 5.9 6.0 0.0 3.7 Non-relative 4.9 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Average household size 3.5 3.0 2.9 3.3 2.9 3.4 3.1 Total Head 30.5 31.8 36.1 29.7 31.1 26.6 30.7 Spouse (Wife/Husband) 9.0 8.9 8.1 11.1 11.2 12.4 10.2 Child (Son/Daughter) 41.2 42.8 46.0 46.7 43.0 47.9 44.7 Parent/Parent in-law 0.5 1.8 1.6 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.9 Son/Daughter in-law 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.5 Grandchild 10.2 9.9 4.5 7.1 6.4 5.5 7.3 Brother/Sister 2.0 0.8 0.2 1.2 1.4 2.4 1.4 Step child 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.1 0.4 0.4 Foster child 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Other relative 2.1 3.2 2.7 3.3 4.5 2.3 3.0 Non-relative 2.9 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.8 0.9 0.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Average household size 3.3 3.1 2.8 3.4 3.2 3.8 3.3 Total 2.5 Place of birth Figure 2.1 indicates that majority (76.6%) of the people were interviewed at the place where they were born. The Figure also shows that there is not much variation among the sexes regarding the place of birth; whether respondents were born at the place of interview or outside the town or village of interview. 10

Figure 2.1: Population distribution by place of birth and sex Percent 90.0 80.0 76.6 75.9 76.2 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 23.4 24.1 23.8 10.0 0.0 Male Female Total Born in town or village of interview Born outside town or village of interview 2.6 Duration of stay in the current place of residence Table 2.4 presents information on the duration of stay of the population in the current place of residence. The Table depicts that more than two-thirds (66.8%) of the population in the six districts have not lived outside their place of birth while 16.9 percent have lived in the current place of residence for more than ten years. Only 2.5 percent of the population in the six districts have lived for less than one year. The pattern is not different among the sexes in all the various districts. This suggests that most of the people born in these districts do not migrate. 11

Table 2.4: Total population by district, duration of stay in current place of residence and sex Less than 1 year 1 year < 5 years 5 years < 10 years 10 years+ Since birth District Total Total Mampong 3.4 9.3 4.4 17.8 65.1 100.0 Sekyere Kumawu 1.9 9.1 4.6 11.0 73.4 100.0 Asante Akim North 3.6 9.2 5.1 17.9 64.3 100.0 Berekum 1.3 5.5 7.6 13.4 72.3 100.0 Techiman 3.6 9.9 5.1 17.1 64.3 100.0 Nkoranza South 1.7 7.6 5.2 23.4 62.1 100.0 Total 2.5 8.4 5.3 16.9 66.8 100.0 Male Mampong 3.6 9.9 4.3 18.5 63.7 100.0 Sekyere Kumawu 1.4 10.9 3.2 10.6 73.9 100.0 Asante Akim North 2.6 10.3 5.2 20.2 61.8 100.0 Berekum 1.3 5.1 8.7 11.3 73.6 100.0 Techiman 2.6 9.9 4.0 17.2 66.3 100.0 Nkoranza South 1.3 8.6 5.6 22.8 61.6 100.0 Total 2.1 9.0 5.2 16.9 66.8 100.0 Female Mampong 3.1 8.8 4.5 17.3 66.3 100.0 Sekyere Kumawu 2.3 7.6 5.8 11.3 73.0 100.0 Asante Akim North 4.4 8.4 5.0 16.2 66.0 100.0 Berekum 1.4 5.8 6.6 15.2 71.1 100.0 Techiman 4.3 10.0 5.9 17.0 62.8 100.0 Nkoranza South 2.1 6.6 4.7 23.9 62.6 100.0 Total 2.9 7.8 5.4 16.9 66.9 100.0 2.7 Main reasons for moving to current place of residence The movement of people from one geographical area to another is a daily phenomenon which is influenced by several factors. Table 2.5 presents information on the main reasons why people moved from one location to another. Family issues (60.7%) is a major contributor to migration followed by economic issues (28.0%). The Table further reveals that the proportion of females who moved based on family considerations is higher (72.2%) than that of males (46.9%). On the contrary, the proportion of males who moved for economic gains is high (41.4 %) compared to females (16.9%). Also, a slightly higher proportion of females (8.8%) than males (8.0%) moved for educational purposes. Table 2.5: Main reason for moving to current place of residence by sex Reason for moving Male Female Total Work 41.4 16.9 28.0 Join family 46.9 72.2 60.7 School/training 8.0 8.8 8.4 Conflict 0.5 0.3 0.4 Disaster (flood, drought, fire) 0.2 0.0 0.1 Other 3.1 1.8 2.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 12

2.8 Marital Status Table 2.6 shows that 43.6 percent of the population 12 years and older have never married while 36.4 percent are currently married. The proportions of males who have never married as well as those who are married are higher than females. However, the proportion of the males who have never married (51.6%) is relatively higher than that of those married (37.8%). The proportion of males who have married (37.8 %) is slightly higher compared to their female counterparts (35.2%). Table 2.6: Population 12 years and older by district, sex and marital status District/ Sex Married Consensual Union Separated Divorced Widowed Never Married Total Mampong 41.9 1.5 2.6 5.6 6.8 41.7 100.0 Sekyere Kumawu 29.9 9.3 2.2 6.9 12.9 38.8 100.0 Asante Akim North 31.0 11.3 2.2 6.5 7.3 41.8 100.0 Berekum 40.5 2.7 4.1 2.9 4.7 45.1 100.0 Techiman 32.1 9.7 1.8 5.4 5.6 45.4 100.0 Nkoranza South 40.1 2.0 1.3 4.1 4.8 47.6 100.0 Total 36.4 5.7 2.3 5.1 6.9 43.6 100.0 Male Mampong 41.4 1.4 1.9 2.8 2.8 49.8 100.0 Sekyere Kumawu 34.5 8.6 1.7 1.7 5.2 48.3 100.0 Asante Akim North 36.7 8.8 2.0 4.1 0.0 48.3 100.0 Berekum 40.6 0.9 1.4 1.8 0.5 54.8 100.0 Techiman 31.6 9.1 2.1 3.2 1.1 52.9 100.0 Nkoranza South 40.1 1.6 1.2 2.4 1.2 53.6 100.0 Total 37.8 4.5 1.7 2.6 1.8 51.6 100.0 Female Mampong 42.3 1.6 3.2 7.9 10.3 34.8 100.0 Sekyere Kumawu 26.6 9.8 2.5 10.7 18.4 32.0 100.0 Asante Akim North 27.2 12.9 2.2 8.0 12.1 37.5 100.0 Berekum 40.5 4.1 6.3 3.7 8.2 37.2 100.0 Techiman 32.4 10.2 1.6 7.0 9.0 39.8 100.0 Nkoranza South 40.2 2.4 1.4 5.6 8.0 42.3 100.0 Total 35.2 6.6 2.9 7.0 10.8 37.4 100.0 Total 2.9 Literacy status Literacy is the ability to read and write a simple statement with understanding. From Figure 2.2, about 7 in every 10 (72.2%) persons aged 11 years and older in the six districts are literate and more than one-quarter (27.8%) are not literate. The districts with relatively high proportions of the population not literate include Sekyere Kumawu (35.4%), Techiman ity (34.2%) and Asante Akim North (30.7%). In terms of the literate population, Mampong (79.7%) has the highest proportion, followed by Nkoranza South (76.6%) and Berekum (75.0%). 13

Figure 2.2: Population 11 years and older by literacy status and district Percent 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 72.2 27.8 Total 20.3 79.7 Mampong 35.4 64.6 Sekyere Kumawu 30.7 69.3 Asante Akim North 25.0 75.0 Berekum 34.2 65.8 Techiman 23.4 76.6 Nkoranza South Not literate Literate 2.10 School attendance Table 2.7 presents information on the population 3 years and older by school attendance and sex. Almost nine out of every ten of the population in the survey districts have ever attended school (89.6%) while about ten percent (10.4%) have never attended school. A higher proportion of males (93.8 %) than females (86.1%) have ever attended school. This pattern of distribution of the ever attended and the never attended is reflected in all the districts with Mampong (8.9%), Table 2.7: Population 3 years and older by district, school attendance and sex Ever attended Never attended Number District Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Mampong 93.2 89.3 91.1 6.8 10.7 8.9 280 328 608 Sekyere Kumawu 95.0 83.2 88.5 5.0 16.8 11.5 261 315 576 Asante Akim North 97.7 92.2 94.5 2.3 7.8 5.5 214 296 510 Berekum 95.8 87.1 91.1 4.2 12.9 8.9 287 341 628 Techiman 88.2 82.0 84.7 11.8 18.0 15.3 254 333 587 Nkoranza South 93.5 83.7 88.5 6.5 16.3 11.5 340 356 696 Total 93.8 86.1 89.6 6.2 13.9 10.4 1,636 1,969 3,605 2.11 Level of education Information on the level of education attained by population 3 years and older is shown in Table 2.8. In general, the proportion of the population with Primary or lower education (41.2%) is higher than those who had attained JHS/Middle (36.4%) or higher education. The data shows that in two districts, Mampong and Sekyere Kumawu however, the proportion of the population who had JHS/Middle education (36.6% and 41.4% respectively) is higher than 14

those who had Primary or lower education (35.4% and 40.0% respectively). The results also reveal that, as one moves higher along the education ladder, the proportion of the population with higher education decreases. With regard to the sexes, Table 2.8 shows that 41.2 percent of males had Primary or lower education, 33.6 percent had JHS/Middle education, while 15.5 percent had SHS/Secondary education. Almost equal proportions of males had Post-Secondary Diploma/HND/Nursing (4.3%) and Tertiary/other professional (4.2%) education. In the case of females, the pattern of distribution is not too different from that of males with a higher proportion having attained Primary or lower (41.1%) education while 38.9 percent had JHS/Middle education. Less than three percent of the female population had attained Post- Secondary Diploma/HND/Nursing and Tertiary/other professional education (2.8% and 2.2% respectively). Table 2.8: Population 3 years and older by level of education, district and sex Primary or lower JHS/ Middle SHS/ Secondary Voc/Tech/ Comm Post Sec. Dip/ HND/ Nursing Tertiary/ other prof Sex/District Total Total Mampong 35.4 36.6 15.7 1.6 5.1 5.6 100.0 Sekyere Kumawu 40.0 41.4 12.7 1.8 2.4 1.8 100.0 Asante Akim North 38.6 37.1 14.5 1.0 5.2 3.5 100.0 Berekum 44.1 30.8 18.2 1.2 3.5 2.3 100.0 Techiman 41.9 38.2 14.3 1.0 1.8 2.8 100.0 Nkoranza South 46.1 35.1 11.5 1.3 3.2 2.8 100.0 Total 41.2 36.4 14.5 1.3 3.5 3.1 100.0 Male Mampong 36.0 32.6 15.3 1.9 6.5 7.7 100.0 Sekyere Kumawu 42.3 37.5 14.1 1.2 2.4 2.4 100.0 Asante Akim North 37.3 34.9 17.2 1.0 5.3 4.3 100.0 Berekum 43.3 26.9 21.1 1.1 5.1 2.5 100.0 Techiman 39.7 37.5 15.2 0.4 2.7 4.5 100.0 Nkoranza South 46.5 33.6 11.0 1.3 3.8 3.8 100.0 Total 41.2 33.6 15.5 1.2 4.3 4.2 100.0 Female Mampong 34.8 40.3 16.0 1.4 3.8 3.8 100.0 Sekyere Kumawu 37.8 45.0 11.5 2.3 2.3 1.1 100.0 Asante Akim North 39.6 38.8 12.5 1.1 5.1 2.9 100.0 Berekum 44.8 34.3 15.5 1.3 2.0 2.0 100.0 Techiman 43.6 38.8 13.6 1.5 1.1 1.5 100.0 Nkoranza South 45.6 36.6 12.1 1.3 2.7 1.7 100.0 Total 41.1 38.9 13.6 1.5 2.8 2.2 100.0 15

2.12 Reason for not attending school Various reasons were given for persons aged 3 to 24 years not attending school/college during the 12 months preceding the study (Table 2.9). On the average, those who indicated they are Too young to attend school represent the highest proportion (46.7%). About a fifth (22.2%) also indicated that they cannot afford schooling while 15.6 percent were not interested in school. Among the males 56.0 percent cited being Too young, one-fifth (20.0 %) indicated that they are not interested in school while 16.0 percent attributed it to their inability to afford the cost of schooling. Eight percent of the males indicated that they were not attending school due to disability or illness. Thirty-five percent of the females also indicated that they were not attending school because they are Too young with another 30.0 percent giving the reason that they cannot afford schooling. One out of ten (10.0%) females indicated they were not interested in school. Five percent each of females said their families did not allow them to attend school or they have to help at home with household chores. The same proportions of females did not attend school because they had to learn a job or did not consider education as valuable (5.0% each). Table 2.9: Reason for population 3-24 years old not attending school in the past 12 months Reasons Male Female Total Too young 56.0 35.0 46.7 Disabled/illness 8.0 5.0 6.7 Cannot afford schooling 16.0 30.0 22.2 Family did not allow schooling 0.0 5.0 2.2 Not interested in school 20.0 10.0 15.6 Education not considered valuable 0.0 5.0 2.2 To learn a job 0.0 5.0 2.2 Help at home with household chores 0.0 5.0 2.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number 25 20 45 2.13 Reasons for population 3 years and older who have never attended school Data on the population 3 years and older by reasons for never attending school in their lifetime is presented in Table 2.10. The Table shows that, majority (30.5%) of persons said they cannot afford to attend school. About one-fifth (21.4%) never attended school because their families did not allow them to go to school while 16.3 percent indicated they are not interested in school. An additional 14.4 percent did not consider education as valuable The main reason given by majority of males for not attending school include the fact that they cannot afford schooling (22.8%). Almost one-fifth (19.9%) indicated that they are not interested in school. Equal proportions said they are too young and their families did not allow them to go to school (13.9% each). 16

In the case of females, about one-third (33.3%) indicated they cannot afford the cost of going to school. Those who said that their families did not allow them to go to school constitute 24.2 percent. Some females were also not interested in school (15.0%) and 16.1 percent did not consider education as valuable. Table 2.10: Population 3 years and older by reasons for never attending school by sex Reason Male Female Total Too young 13.9 2.6 5.6 Disabled/illness 8.9 1.5 3.5 No school/school too far 4.0 1.1 1.9 Cannot afford schooling 22.8 33.3 30.5 Family did not allow schooling 13.9 24.2 21.4 Not interested in school 19.8 15.0 16.3 Education not considered valuable 9.9 16.1 14.4 School not safe 1.0 0.4 0.5 To learn a job 2.0 0.4 0.8 To work for pay 1.0 0.4 0.5 Work as unpaid worker in family business/farm 3.0 2.2 2.4 Help at home with household chores 0.0 2.9 2.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number 101 273 374 2.14 Current activity status Current activity status refers to whether persons 15 years and older were economically active or inactive during the 7 days prior to the survey. It seeks to find out whether some work was done in the production of goods and services during the reference period. The economically active population constitute 66.7 percent while those not economically active form 33.3 percent (Table 2.11). The proportion of males who are economically active (67.9%) is higher than females (65.8%). Nkoranza South District (77.2%) recorded the highest proportion of economically active population while Berekum (60.0%) had the least. Table 2.11: Population 15 years and older by district, current activity status and sex Economically active Activity status Economically not active District Male Female Total Male Female Total Mampong 65.4 68.8 67.3 34.6 31.2 32.7 Sekyere Kumawu 62.2 64.8 63.7 37.8 35.2 36.3 Asante Akim North 69.9 62.9 65.7 30.1 37.1 34.3 Berekum 59.7 60.2 60.0 40.3 39.8 40.0 Techiman 67.9 62.8 64.9 32.1 37.2 35.1 Nkoranza South 80.3 74.6 77.2 19.7 25.4 22.8 Total 67.9 65.8 66.7 32.1 34.2 33.3 17

2.15 Occupation Table 2.12 presents information on the employed population 15 years and older by main occupation and sex. The data shows that the majority of the employed population is engaged as Service and Sales workers (36.5%). About one-third (34.4%) of the employed population work as Skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery workers. Craft and related trades workers and Professionals represent 9.5 percent and 8.3 percent respectively. With regard to the sexes, males are mainly engaged as Skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery workers (37.3%) or Services and Sales workers (19.1%). Thirteen percent of males work as craft and related trades workers while others are engaged as Professionals (11.2%). Females on the other hand are more likely to be engaged as Services and Sales workers (49.9%) and as skilled agriculture, forestry and fishery workers (32.2%). Females who are Professionals constitute 6.1 percent, while a small proportion are Managers (0.4%). Table 2.12: Employed population 15 years and older by main occupation and sex Current main occupation Male Female Total Managers 1.8 0.4 1.1 Professionals 11.2 6.1 8.3 Technicians and associate professionals 4.0 0.4 2.0 Clerical support workers 2.0 1.2 1.5 Service and sales workers 19.1 49.9 36.5 Skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery workers 37.3 32.2 34.4 Craft and related trades workers 13.0 6.7 9.5 Plant and machine operators, and assemblers 6 0.0 2.6 Elementary occupations 5.5 3.1 4.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number 705 914 1,619 2.16 Industry Table 2.13 presents data on the employed population 15 years and older by main industry and sex. More than one-third (36.6 %) of the employed population work in the Agriculture, forestry and fishing industry. About one-fifth (21.1%) of the employed population are engaged in Wholesale and retail, repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles. Eight percent are working in Education, while 6.1 percent work in the Manufacturing industry. Other industry sectors in which an appreciable proportion of the employed population work are Construction (4.4%) and Accommodation and food service activities (4.4%). The proportion of males and females employed in the various industries varies significantly. Among the males, 39.3 percent are in the Agriculture, forestry and fishing industry. One in every ten (10.4%) of the employed male population are engaged in the Wholesale and retail, repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles industry while 9.6 percent each are in Construction and Education. 18

More than one-third (34.6%) of the females work in the Agriculture, forestry and fishing industry with the Wholesale and retail, repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles industry employing 29.4 percent. Other industry sectors in which females are employed include Education (6.7%), Manufacturing (6.3%) and Accommodation and food service activities (6.3%). Table 2.13: Employed population 15 years and older by main industry and sex Main industry Male Female Total Agriculture, forestry and fishing 39.3 34.6 36.6 Mining and quarrying 0.7 0.0 0.3 Manufacturing 5.7 6.3 6.1 Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 0.6 0.2 0.4 Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities 0.6 0.4 0.5 Construction 9.6 0.3 4.4 Wholesale and retail; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles 10.4 29.4 21.1 Transportation and storage 8.4 0.1 3.7 Accommodation and food service activities 1.0 6.3 4.0 Information and communication 0.6 0.0 0.2 Financial and insurance activities 1.7 0.4 1.0 Real estate activities 0.3 0.1 0.2 Professional, scientific and technical activities 1.3 0.1 0.6 Administrative and support service activities 0.4 0.7 0.6 Public administration and defence; compulsory social security 0.9 0.2 0.5 Education 9.6 6.7 8.0 Human health and social work activities 3.0 2.1 2.5 Arts, entertainment and recreation 0.7 0.7 0.7 Other service activities 5.4 11.2 8.6 Activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods and services producing activities of households for own use 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number 705 914 1,619 2.17 Employment status Table 2.14 presents information on the employment status of the employed population 15 years and older in the study areas. From the Table, the majority of the employed population is selfemployed (67.8%), about one-fifth (19.4%) are employees with contributing family workers constituting 7.6 percent. A similar trend is observed in all the six districts selected for the study where more than half of the employed population 15 years and older are self-employed as well as employees. In the Nkoranza South district, about one-quarter (24.7%) percent of the employed population are contributing family workers (Table 2.14). The disaggregation of the data by sex, shows that males are more likely to be employees (27.8%) than females (12.9%). On the other hand, a higher proportion of females (73.2%) are self-employed compared to males (60.9%). The trend is similar for males and females for the six districts except Nkoranza South where the proportion of males who are self-employed (63.1%) is higher than females (54.0%). 19

Table 2.14: Employment status of currently employed population 15 years and older by district and sex Mampong Sekyere Kumawu Asante Akim North Berekum Techiman Nkoranza South Employment status Total Total Employee 31.2 14.6 20.7 17.6 23.2 11.0 19.4 Self-employed 62.1 71.5 70.3 80.0 69.2 58.4 67.8 Contributing family worker 2.5 5.0 1.8 1.5 3.0 24.7 7.6 Casual worker 0.7 0.9 2.2 0.0 2.3 2.0 1.4 Apprentice 3.5 8.0 5.0 0.9 2.3 3.6 3.7 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Male Employee 41.5 27.2 30.1 27.2 33.9 13.5 27.8 Self-employed 52.1 56.5 61.3 72.8 58.0 63.1 60.9 Contributing family worker 3.2 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 5.7 Casual worker 1.6 2.2 4.3 0.0 5.4 1.8 2.4 Apprentice 1.6 6.5 4.3 0.0 2.7 4.0 3.1 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Female Employee 23.3 6.8 14.0 10.2 15.0 8.6 12.9 Self-employed 69.8 80.9 76.7 85.7 77.6 54.0 73.2 Contributing family worker 1.8 3.4 3.1 2.7 5.4 31.9 9.1 Casual worker 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.6 Apprentice 5.1 8.9 5.4 1.4 2.0 3.3 4.2 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2.18 Employment Sector Table 2.15 presents information on the employment sector of the working population 15 years and older in the study districts. The data indicates that the Private sector employs majority (88.1%) of the working population followed by the public sector (10.3%). Within the districts, the private sector employs 77.7 percent of the employed population in Mampong, 91.6 percent in Sekyere Kumawu and 86.5 percent in Asante Akim North. Similarly, the Private sector employs about nine out of every ten persons employed in Berekum (88.5%), Techiman (91.5%) and Nkoranza South (92.1%). The district with the highest proportion of the working population engaged in the Public sector is Mampong (19.5%) followed by Asante Akim North (13.1%) and Berekum (9.6%). The rest of the districts have about seven percent of the employed population working in the Public sector. A similar trend is observed for the sexes. However, the proportion of females employed in the Private sector is higher than males in all districts except Nkoranza South where the proportion of males (92.4%) is slightly higher than females (91.9%). 20

Table 2.15: Employment sector of currently employed population 15 years and older by district and sex Mampong Sekyere Kumawu Asante Akim North Berekum Techiman Nkoranza South Employment sector Total Total Public (government) 19.5 6.7 13.1 9.6 6.6 7.0 10.3 Semi-public/parastatal 2.5 1.7 0.5 1.1 1.5 0.0 1.2 Private 77.7 91.6 86.5 88.5 91.5 92.1 88.1 NGO's (local and international) 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.4 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Male Public (government) 23.6 10.9 16.1 13.2 9.8 7.0 13.0 Semi-public/parastatal 2.4 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.8 0.0 1.1 Private 73.2 88.0 82.8 85.1 87.5 92.4 85.2 NGO's (local and international) 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.6 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Female Public (government) 16.4 4.1 10.9 6.8 4.1 7.0 8.2 Semi-public/parastatal 2.5 2.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.2 Private 81.1 93.9 89.1 91.2 94.6 91.9 90.3 NGO's (local and international) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.2 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2.19 Housing conditions Improved housing and social infrastructure are important not only for human health but also for economic and social development. Yet the population in many African countries including Ghana, face a lot of challenges linked to human behaviour. Some of these challenges are lack of infrastructure, economic activities, indiscriminate disposal of water waste, lack of control for collection and disposal of waste and open defecation. The effects of open defecation in particular are a major health concern. Not only does this practice pollute ground waters, but it also contaminates agricultural produce, and helps the spread of diseases such as diarrhea, cholera and bilharzias (WHO & UNICEF, 2010). This section looks at the housing conditions of the respondents in the study area. Type of Dwelling Table 2.16 presents information on the type of dwelling and the main material for the construction of the outer wall, the roof and the floor. The data shows that compound house is the most common form of dwelling unit with 76.4 percent of households occupying this type of dwelling. Less than ten percent of households (9.0%) occupy semi- detached houses. The district with the highest proportion of households occupying compound houses is Techiman (91.0%), with Nkoranza South having the least (55.5%). However, a relatively higher proportion of households in Nkoranza South (27.0%) occupy semi-detached compared to the other districts. 21

Main Materials for outer wall Table 2.16 further indicates that eight out of ten (81.6%) households live in dwelling units whose outer walls are mainly constructed with cement blocks/concrete while 15 percent occupy dwelling units with outer walls made of mud bricks/earth. Berekum (96.0%) has the highest proportion of households occupying houses with the outer walls constructed with cement blocks/concrete and Asante Akim North (65.5%) having the least. Asante Akim North district (26.5%) has the highest proportion of households living in houses whose outer wall is made of mud bricks/earth followed by Techiman North (22.5%). Mampong (1.0%) has the least proportion of households living in dwelling units with the main construction material for the outer wall being mud bricks/earth. Materials for roof Table 2.16 also shows that 96.5 percent of households in the districts live in dwelling units roofed with metal sheets. About three percent of households live in houses that are roofed with cement/concrete. A similar trend exists in the six districts selected for the study with each having more than nine out of ten households living in houses roofed with metal sheet. Materials for floor The type of materials used for the floor of a house affects the appearance and quality of the dwelling unit as well as health status of a household. As shown in Table 2.16, about nine out of ten (90.5%) households in the districts occupy dwelling units in which the floors are largely made of cement/concrete while about four percent (3.8%) live in houses with floors made of earth/mud. Within the districts, the majority of households live in dwelling units with floors made of cement with proportions ranging from 85 percent in Techiman ity to 96.5 percent in Nkoranza South district. The proportion of households living in dwelling units in which earth/mud is used as the floor material is highest in Sekyere Kumawu district (7.5%) and lowest in Asante Akim North district (0.5%). Ownership of dwelling Table 2.16 further present information on the ownership status of dwelling units occupied by households in the districts. The Table reveals that 34.5 percent of households in the districts live in dwellings units that are rent-free. About one-third (33.9%) of households own the dwelling units they occupy while 30.4 percent are renting. District variations exist in ownership of dwelling. While renting is the highest form of ownership in Mampong (47.0 %), owning is highest (49%) in Sekyere Kumawu followed by Techiman (42%). Rentfree occupancy is dominant among households in Asante Akim North (57.5%), Berekum (35.5%) and Nkoranza South (40%). 22

Table 2.16: Types of dwelling, construction materials for wall, roof and floor and ownership arrangements by district Characteristics of dwelling Mampong Sekyere Kumawu Asante Akim North Berekum Techiman Nkoranza South Type of dwelling Separate house (bungalow) 4.5 10.0 12.5 2.0 3.0 0.5 5.4 Semi-detached house 4.0 4.5 5.5 10.0 4.5 27.0 9.3 Flat/apartment 4.0 8.5 1.5 7.0 1.0 9.5 5.3 Compound house 83.0 68.5 80.0 80.5 91.0 55.5 76.4 Huts 2.5 1.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 7.0 3.0 Improvised dwelling (kiosk, container) 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Living quarters attached to office/shop 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Uncompleted building 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Wall Mud bricks/earth 1.0 15.5 26.5 3.0 22.5 21.5 15.0 Wood 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.0 0.6 Metal sheet/slate/asbestos 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Stone 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 burnt bricks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.2 Cement blocks/concrete 96.0 80.5 65.5 96.0 74.0 77.5 81.6 Landcrete 2.0 3.5 5.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 2.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Roof Mud bricks/earth 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.3 Wood 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Metal sheet 92.0 96.5 97.0 90.5 97.5 96.5 95.0 Slate/asbestos 1.5 0.5 1.0 2.0 0.5 0.0 0.9 Cement/concrete 5.5 2.5 2.0 5.0 1.5 0.5 2.8 Roofing tiles 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Bamboo 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Palm leaves/thatch (grass/raffia) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 2.0 0.5 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Floor Earth/mud 6.0 7.5 0.5 2.5 4.5 2.0 3.8 Cement/concrete 91.5 87.0 95.0 88.0 85.0 96.5 90.5 Stone 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.5 1.2 Wood 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.4 Vinyl tiles 1.5 1.0 0.5 4.0 5.5 0.0 2.1 Ceramic/porcelain/granite/ marble tiles 0.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.4 Terrazzo/terrazzo tiles 0.5 0.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Ownership Owning 31.5 49.0 19.0 32.0 42.0 30.0 33.9 Renting 47.0 20.5 22.5 31.5 32.0 29.0 30.4 Rent-free 21.0 30.0 57.5 35.5 23.0 40.0 34.5 Perching 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.5 1.0 0.8 Squatting 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 Other 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total 23

2.20 Access to Utilities and Household Facilities Table 2.17 presents information on the main source of drinking water and water for general use, lighting for the dwelling and source of energy for cooking by district. Drinking water About 27 percent of households in the districts use public tap/standpipe as the main source of drinking water, followed by those who use pipe-borne water outside their dwelling but from a neighbor s house (17.3%). In addition, 15.4 percent of households depend on sachet water with another 13.8 percent using water from a borehole/pump/tube well. A very small proportion of households obtain their drinking water from unprotected springs (0.4%). At the district level, Mampong recorded a high percentage of households (27%) using pipe-borne water outside dwelling but on compound, followed by those who use pipeborne outside dwelling but from neighbor s house (23.5%). Those who use water from a protected well, rain water, Tanker supply/vendor provided and unprotected spring form less than one percent. Most households in Sekyere Kumawu (32.5%) depend river/streams as their main source of drinking water followed by those who use sachet water (25.0%), while those who use pipeborne water outside dwelling but on compound, pipe-borne outside dwelling but from neighbor, protected well, rain water and unprotected spring recorded less than one percent. In Asante Akim North, about 41 percent of households rely on borehole/pump/tube well as their main source of drinking water, followed by those who use sachet water (30.5%). More than six out of ten households (62.0%) in Berekum have their main source of drinking water from a pipe-borne water outside the dwelling but from a neighbor s house followed by pipe-borne inside dwelling (11.5%) and sachet water. Water from a river/ stream, unprotected spring, Tanker supply/ vendor provided, rain water and public tap/stand pipe is hardly used in the ity. The main source of drinking water for households in Techiman is public tap/ stand pipe (39%) followed by those who use water from borehole/ pump/tube well (20.5%). In Nkoranza South district, 72 percent of households use water from a public tap/ stand pipe as their source of drinking water, followed by those who use pipe-borne inside dwelling (17.5%). Water for general use Table 2.17 further shows the main source of water for general use. The data shows that the main source of water for general use for most households is public tap/standpipe (27.8%) followed by pipe-borne outside dwelling but from a neighbor s house (16.9%) and borehole/pump/tube well (16.8%). The least water source for general use is rain water (0.3%) and unprotected spring (0.5%). 24

At the district level, 28 percent of households in Mampong depend on pipe-borne outside dwelling but in compound as a source of water for general use, while 21 percent each depend on pipe-borne water inside their dwelling and pipe-borne outside their dwelling but in a neighbor s house. Households in Sekyere Kumawu mainly use river/stream (36.5%) as their source of water for general use followed by those who use tanker supply/ vendor provided (17.5%), while those who use unprotected spring and pipe borne outside dwelling but on compound recorded less than one percent each. In Asante Akim North, most households (47.5%) use borehole/ pump/tube well as their source of water for general use, followed by public tap/ standpipe (20%). Very small proportions of households depend on rain water, sachet water, tanker supply/ vendor provided and unprotected spring as their source of water for general use in the district. The Table further indicates that while pipe-borne water outside dwelling is the main source of water for general use by households (59.5%) in Berekum, for households in Techiman and Nkoranza South, it is public tap/ standpipe (47% and 71% respectively). Lighting From Table 2.17, more than four-fifths of households (85.3%) have electricity (mains) as their main source of lighting followed by households using flashlight/torch (11.2%). The proportion of households using electricity (mains) as the main source of lighting is highest in Berekum (92.5%) and lowest in Asante Akim North (79.0%). On the other hand, the district with the highest proportion of households using flashlight/torch is Sekyere Kumawu (17%) with the lowest in Berekum (3.0%). Cooking fuel Table 2.17 also provides information on the sources of cooking fuel by households. The data shows that the main source of cooking fuel is charcoal (44.0%) followed by wood (32.7%) and gas (15.3%). The use of charcoal, wood and gas as the main source of cooking fuel for households is predominant in all the districts. 25

Table 2.17: Main source of drinking water and general use, lighting for the dwelling and source of energy for cooking by district Mampong Sekyere Kumawu Asante Akim North Berekum Techiman Nkoranza South Housing facilities Total Drinking water Pipe-borne inside dwelling 18.0 1.0 5.0 11.5 5.0 17.5 9.7 Pipe-borne on compound 27.0 0.0 8.0 6.5 1.0 7.0 8.3 Pipe-borne outside dwelling 23.5 0.5 1.5 62.0 13.0 3.5 17.3 Public tap/standpipe 16.5 20.5 13.0 0.5 38.5 72.0 26.8 Borehole/pump/tube well 3.5 9.5 40.5 8.5 20.5 0.0 13.8 Protected well 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.6 Rain water 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Sachet water 8.5 25.0 30.5 10.0 18.5 0.0 15.4 Tanker supply/vendor provided 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 Unprotected spring 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.4 River/stream 2.5 32.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Water for general use Pipe-borne inside dwelling 21.0 1.0 13.0 15.5 8.0 18.5 12.8 Outside dwelling but on compound 28.0 0.5 12.5 10.5 3.0 7.5 10.3 Outside dwelling but from neighbour s house 21.0 1.0 2.5 59.5 14.5 3.0 16.9 Public tap/standpipe 16.0 12.5 20.0 0.5 47.0 71.0 27.8 Borehole/pump/tube well 4.0 14.5 47.5 11.5 23.5 0.0 16.8 Protected well 0.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.8 Rain water 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 Sachet water 1.5 14.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 Tanker supply/vendor provided 0.0 17.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 Unprotected spring 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 River/stream 8.0 36.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 8.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Lighting Electricity (mains) 88.5 81.0 79.0 92.5 87.0 84.0 85.3 Electricity (private generator) 0.5 0.0 0.5 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.7 Kerosene lamp 1.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 1.4 Gas lamp 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 Solar energy 0.0 0.5 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.8 Candle 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Flashlight/torch 9.0 17.0 16.0 3.0 7.0 15.0 11.2 Other 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Cooking fuel None, no cooking 6.5 8.0 8.0 13.5 4.5 2.5 7.2 Wood 20.0 42.0 32.0 32.5 23.5 46.0 32.7 Charcoal 56.5 43.5 42.5 33.5 50.0 38.0 44.0 Gas 16.5 6.0 16.0 19.0 21.5 13.0 15.3 Electricity 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 Kerosene 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 Crop residue 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Sawdust 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 26

2.21 Type of toilet facilities Table 2.18 shows the types of toilet facility used by households in the study districts. The Table indicates that most households (37.9%) use public toilets (e.g. WC, KVIP, Pit pan), followed by Pit latrines (20.4%) and W.C (17.8%). An additional 16.3 percent of households are using KVIP. The Table further shows that 7.2 percent of households have no toilet facility and therefore, resort to open defecation. The district with the highest proportion of households using W.C is Mampong (33.5%) followed by Berekum (25.0%). The data again indicates that 37.5 percent of households in Nkoranza South use Pit latrines as their main toilet facility with both Mampong and Nkoranza South having 10.5 percent of their households resorting to open defecation. Table 2.18: Type of toilet facility by district Toilet facility Mampong Sekyere Kumawu Asante Akim North Berekum Techiman Nkoranza South Total No facility (e.g. bush/field) 10.5 3.0 7.0 2.5 9.5 10.5 7.2 W.C 33.5 13.5 16.5 25.0 11.0 7.5 17.8 Pit latrine 13.0 19.0 28.0 6.5 18.5 37.5 20.4 KVIP 12.0 10.5 13.0 21.0 14.0 27.0 16.3 Bucket/pan 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 Public toilet (e.g. WC, KVIP, pit pan) 31.0 52.0 35.5 45.0 47.0 17.0 37.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2.22 Ownership of household assets Table 2.19 presents information on the proportion of households ownership of household assets. The responses were multiple, meaning that a household could own several of these household assets. The Table indicates that most households mainly own the following assets: bed (88.3%), mobile phone (83.9%), radio (71.8%), TV set (67.4%), watch (59.5%) and electric iron (55.9%). 27

Figure 2.3: Proportion of households owning household amenities by district Household amenities Satelite dish Box iron Electric iron Blender Microwave Bed Sewing machine DVD/VCD Video deck Non digital photo camera Digital photo camera Desktop/laptop Washing machine? Electric generator Freezer Refrigerator Landline telephone Mobile phone TV Radio Wall clock boat without motor Boat with motor Car/truck Animal drawn cart Scooter Bicycle Watch 15.6 20.2 7.0 15.9 10.4 0.7 2.3 10.8 0.9 1.1 12.6 2.8 1.0 0.1 5.9 0.3 6.6 17.2 32.3 33.4 30.4 29.6 55.9 59.5 67.4 71.8 83.9 88.3 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 28

CHAPTER THREE KEY FINDINGS 3.1 Introduction This chapter deals with characteristics of emigrants, heads of households receiving remittances, prevalence of remittances, estimates of size and frequency of remittances and channels used to remit households. The chapter also discusses the type of goods received by households, the value of goods, uses of remittances, advice received to invest cash received, country of residences of remitters, etc. 3.2 Age distribution of emigrants This section discusses the characteristics of emigrants with regard to their age, relationship to the head of household, their marital status, the number of years lived abroad, country of residence and the main reason for moving abroad. Table 3.1 shows that of the total of 1,208 emigrants recorded, those in the age group 35-39 years constitute the highest proportion (15.0%) followed by those aged 40-44 (14.8%). Emigrants in the age group 30-54 years make up more than two-thirds (67.3%) of all emigrants recorded in the study districts. The proportion of male emigrants rises from age group 20-24 (3.2%) and get to the peaks at age groups 35-39 years (15.6%) and 40-44 years (15.0%). On the other hand, the highest proportion of female emigrants are at age group 30-34 years (17.7%). This suggests that the highest proportion of females are younger than their males counterparts. Age group Table 3.1: Age group of emigrants by sex Number Percent (%) Male Female Total Male Female Total 0-4 5 3 8 0.6 0.9 0.7 5-9 3 5 8 0.3 1.5 0.7 10-14 0 1 1 0.0 0.3 0.1 15-19 3 4 7 0.3 1.2 0.6 20-24 28 7 35 3.2 2.0 2.9 25-29 80 26 106 9.3 7.6 8.8 30-34 99 61 160 11.5 17.7 13.2 35-39 135 46 181 15.6 13.4 15.0 40-44 130 49 179 15.0 14.2 14.8 45-49 99 44 143 11.5 12.8 11.8 50-54 111 40 151 12.8 11.6 12.5 55-59 70 26 96 8.1 7.6 7.9 60-64 63 20 83 7.3 5.8 6.9 65+ 38 12 50 4.4 3.5 4.1 Total 864 344 1,208 100.0 100.0 100.0 29

3.3 Relationship of emigrants to head of household In terms of relationship to the head of household, Table 3.2 shows that 37.8 percent of the total population of emigrants are friends to the household head while 30.7 percent are brothers/sisters to the head of household. Among these two groups (siblings and friends) however, the proportion of female emigrants (73.5%) is higher than their male counterparts (66.5%). Table 3.2: Relationship of emigrants to head of household by sex Relationship to head of household Number Percent (%) Male Female Total Male Female Total Spouse (Wife/Husband) 18 1 19 2.1 0.3 1.6 Child (Son/Daughter) 64 34 98 7.4 9.7 8.1 Parent/Parent in-law 29 10 39 3.4 2.8 3.2 Son/Daughter in-law 16 7 23 1.9 2.0 1.9 Grandchild 7 2 9 0.8 0.6 0.7 Brother/Sister 252 121 373 29.2 34.5 30.7 Step child 5 2 7 0.6 0.6 0.6 Foster child 1 0 1 0.1 0.0 0.1 Friend 322 137 459 37.3 39.0 37.8 Other relative 128 30 158 14.8 8.5 13.0 Non-relative 19 7 26 2.2 2.0 2.1 Other 3 0 3 0.3 0.0 0.2 Total 864 351 1,215 100.0 100.0 100.0 3.4 Marital status of emigrants 12 years and older Table 3.3 shows the marital status of emigrants aged 12 years and older. From the Table, 74.4 percent of the emigrants are married and 17.0 percent have never been married. The married among the female population (76.1%) is higher than their male counterparts (73.8%). On the other hand, the proportion of males who have never married (18.7%) is higher compared with females (12.5%). The proportion of females who are divorced (7.2%) is nearly three times the proportion of males (2.5%). Table 3.3: Marital status of emigrants 12 years and older by sex Number Percent Marital status Male Female Total Male Female Total Married 630 255 885 73.8 76.1 74.4 Consensual Union 35 7 42 4.1 2.1 3.5 Separated 5 1 6 0.6 0.3 0.5 Divorced 21 24 45 2.5 7.2 3.8 Widowed 3 6 9 0.4 1.8 0.8 Never Married 160 42 202 18.7 12.5 17.0 Total 854 335 1,189 100.0 100.0 100.0 30

3.5 Country of residence of emigrants The country of residence of emigrants is shown in Table 3.4. Most emigrants from Ghana reside in the USA (25.6%), Italy (17.4%) and the UK (16.7). In terms of sexes, the proportion of Ghanaian female emigrants in the USA (33.1%) and UK (22.3%) is higher than males (22.5% in USA and 14.5% in the UK). On the other hand, the proportion of male emigrants in Italy (20.0%) and Germany (12.4%) is higher than females (Table 3.4). Table 3.4: Country of residence of emigrants by sex Country of residence Number Percent (%) Male Female Total Male Female Total UK 125 78 203 14.5 22.3 16.7 USA 194 116 310 22.5 33.1 25.6 Germany 107 32 139 12.4 9.1 11.5 Italy 173 38 211 20.0 10.9 17.4 Canada 21 12 33 2.4 3.4 2.7 Holland 13 8 21 1.5 2.3 1.7 Spain 64 6 70 7.4 1.7 5.8 Belgium 14 12 26 1.6 3.4 2.1 China 1 1 2 0.1 0.3 0.2 South Africa 13 9 22 1.5 2.6 1.8 Nigeria 6 1 7 0.7 0.3 0.6 Ivory Coast 4 3 7 0.5 0.9 0.6 Other ECOWAS 6 0 6 0.7 0.0 0.5 Other Africa 47 2 49 5.4 0.6 4.0 Other 75 32 107 8.7 9.1 8.8 Total 863 350 1,213 100.0 100.0 100.0 3.6 Number of years lived abroad The number of years an emigrant has lived abroad is an important indicator which determines remittance flow from that individual to friends and relatives. Figure 3.1 shows that 55.3 percent of the emigrants have lived abroad for at least 10 years and 3.3 percent have lived outside of Ghana for less than one year. There is disparity between the sexes as 56.7 percent of male emigrants and 51.8 percent of females emigrants have lived abroad for at least 10 years.. 31

Figure 3.1: Emigrants by number of years lived abroad and sex Percent 60.0 50.0 56.7 51.8 55.3 40.0 30.0 20.0 22.5 19.6 20.4 20.6 21.6 20.9 Male 10.0 3.0 4.1 3.3 Female Total 0.0 Years <1 1-4 5-9 10+ 3.7 Main reasons for moving abroad People move abroad for different reasons which include employment, education, family reasons and so on. Figure 3.2 presents information on the main reasons why people moved from the districts surveyed to live broad. In all, employment issues (77.2%) was the main contributor to migration followed by family issues (as people moved to join their families) (13.0%). The Figure further reveals that the proportion of males (85.6%) who moved based on economic gains is higher than females (56.5%). On the contrary, the proportion of females (30.7%) who moved for family issues is more than the proportion of males (5.9%). Also, a slightly higher proportion of males (8.2%) than females (7.6%) moved for educational purposes. Figure 3.2: Main reason emigrants moved abroad by sex Percent 90.0 80.0 85.6 77.2 70.0 60.0 56.5 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 30.7 13.0 7.4 8.2 7.6 5.9 4.5 1.2 Employment Education Family Other Reason 2.1 Male Female Total 32

3.8 Distribution of households receiving remittances Table 3.5 shows that, out of the 1,200 households interviewed in the six districts, 307 households constituting 25.6 percent received remittances during the 12 months preceding the survey. The districts with the higher proportions of households receiving remittances are Asante Akim North (32.0%) followed by Berekum (31.0%) while the least is Mampong (24.0%). About 57 percent of the households had relatives and friends who lived outside Ghana. Forty-five percent of households who had friends and relatives living outside Ghana received remittances during the reference period. This suggests that even though households may have friends and relatives living outside Ghana, not all of them will receive remittances. Berekum (73.0%) has the highest proportion of households having relatives and friends living outside Ghana, followed by Asante Akim North district (63.5%), with Sekyere Kumawu district recording the lowest proportion (38.0%) of households having relatives and friends living outside Ghana. However, in terms of households receiving remittances in the 12 months preceding the survey, Sekyere Kumawu District (52.6%) had the highest proportion while Techiman (37.8%) recorded the least proportion (Table 3.5). Table 3.5: Households receiving remittances in the past 12 months preceding the study Number Households with relatives and friends Households with relatives and friends Proportion Total households receiving Households with relatives and friends abroad and receiving remittances District Total number of households abroad Households receiving remittances abroad remittances Mampong 200 114 48 57.0 24.0 42.1 Sekyere Kumawu 200 76 40 38.0 20.0 52.6 Asante Akim North 200 127 64 63.5 32.0 50.4 Berekum 200 146 62 73.0 31.0 42.5 Techiman 200 111 42 55.5 21.0 37.8 Nkoranza South 200 108 51 54.0 25.5 47.2 Total 1,200 682 307 56.8 25.6 45.0 Households receiving remittances and characteristics of heads of household Table 3.6 shows that out of the total of 307 households that received remittances, majority (53.7%) of them are headed by males while the rest headed by females (46.3%). Sekyere Kumawu (62.5%) recorded the highest proportion female-headed households who received remittances and Nkoranza South had the lowest proportion (29.4%). 33

Table 3.6: Distribution of heads of households receiving remittances by district and sex Number Percent (%) District Male Female Total Male Female Total Mampong 30 18 48 62.5 37.5 100.0 Sekyere Kumawu 15 25 40 37.5 62.5 100.0 Asante Akim North 31 33 64 48.4 51.6 100.0 Berekum 36 26 62 58.1 41.9 100.0 Techiman 17 25 42 40.5 59.5 100.0 Nkoranza South 36 15 51 70.6 29.4 100.0 Total 165 142 307 53.7 46.3 100.0 Out of the total number of households that received remittances, the highest proportion of households heads that received remittances are in the age group 65 years and older (15.0%) and the lowest proportion in the age group 15-19 years (0.7%). It is observed that two-thirds (66.8%) of the household heads who received remittances are in the age group 25-54 years. Among the male-headed households that received remittances, the age group 35-39 years recorded the highest proportion (15.2%) followed by those age 65 years and older (13.9%). For the female-headed households, those aged 65 years and older recorded the highest proportion of 16.2 percent of those who received remittances (Table 3.7). Table 3.7: Age of heads of households receiving remittances by sex Age-group Number Percent (%) Male Female Total Male Female Total 15-19 1 1 2 0.6 0.7 0.7 20-24 9 10 19 5.5 7.0 6.2 25-29 19 16 35 11.5 11.3 11.4 30-34 22 13 35 13.3 9.2 11.4 35-39 25 16 41 15.2 11.3 13.4 40-44 16 11 27 9.7 7.7 8.8 45-49 16 19 35 9.7 13.4 11.4 50-54 13 19 32 7.9 13.4 10.4 55-59 8 8 16 4.8 5.6 5.2 60-64 13 6 19 7.9 4.2 6.2 65+ 23 23 46 13.9 16.2 15.0 Total 165 142 307 100.0 100.0 100.0 Almost half (48.9%) of the heads of households that received remittances are married, 18.2 percent have never been married and 11.4 percent are divorced. The proportion of males who are household heads who are married (64.2%) is higher compared females (31.0%). Also, male household heads who have never been married (20.5%) is higher than female household heads (15.5%) of households who received remittances. On the other hand, the proportions of female household heads who are divorced (19.0%) or widowed (16.2%) are higher than males. 34

Table 3.8: Marital status of heads of households receiving remittances by sex Number Percent (%) Marital status Male Female Total Male Female Total Married 106 44 150 64.2 31.0 48.9 Consensual Union 10 17 27 6.1 12.0 8.8 Separated 4 9 13 2.4 6.3 4.2 Divorced 8 27 35 4.8 19.0 11.4 Widowed 3 23 26 1.8 16.2 8.5 Never Married 34 22 56 20.6 15.5 18.2 Total 165 142 307 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 3.9 shows that the majority (56.3%) of the heads of households that received remittances have low level of education (below SHS level) with about one-quarters (25.7%) having Middle School education while about one-fifth (20.8%) have JSS/JHS education. It is observed that male household heads are more likely than females to have higher education. One in every ten (10.1%) of the heads of households that received remittances have no education (17.6 percent of females and 3.6 percent of males). Table 3.9: Highest educational level of heads of households receiving remittances by sex Number Percent (%) Educational Level Male Female Total Male Female Total None 6 25 31 3.6 17.6 10.1 Kindergarten 0 4 4 0.0 2.8 1.3 Primary 9 17 26 5.5 12.0 8.5 JSS/JHS 37 27 64 22.4 19.0 20.8 Middle 43 36 79 26.1 25.4 25.7 SSS/SHS 26 13 39 15.8 9.2 12.7 Secondary 9 6 15 5.5 4.2 4.9 Vocational/Technical/Commercial 9 2 11 5.5 1.4 3.6 Teacher training/agric/nursing certificate 3 2 5 1.8 1.4 1.6 Post-secondary diploma (HND, Teacher training, Nursing University diploma) 11 7 18 6.7 4.9 5.9 Tertiary 10 3 13 6.1 2.1 4.2 Other professional (CA, ACCA, ICT etc.) 2 0 2 1.2 0.0 0.7 Total 165 142 307 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 3.10 shows that, almost three-quarters (73.0%) of heads households that received remittances can read and write a simple sentence in at least one language. About two-fifths (42.7%) can read and write in English and a Ghanaian language with understanding. More than one-half (58.2%) of male household heads are literate in English and a Ghanaian language with less than one percent (0.7%) being literate in English, French and a Ghanaian language. Illiteracy among female household heads is high with a proportion of 43.0 percent. About onequarter (24.6%) of female household heads can read and write a simple sentence in English and a Ghanaian language (Table 3.10). 35

Table 3.10: Literacy status of heads of households receiving remittances by sex Number Percent (%) Literacy status Male Female Total Male Female Total None (not literate) 22 61 83 13.3 43.0 27.0 English only 31 19 50 18.8 13.4 16.3 Ghanaian language only 15 25 40 9.1 17.6 13.0 English and Ghanaian language 96 35 131 58.2 24.6 42.7 English, French and Ghanaian 1 1 2 language 0.6 0.7 0.7 Other 0 1 1 0.0 0.7 0.3 Total 165 142 307 100.0 100.0 100.0 Figure 3.3 shows that, out of the total number of heads of households that received remittances, 86.0 percent reported working while 14.0 percent indicated that they were not working. A higher proportion of the male heads of household (91.5%) are working compared to female heads of household (79.6%). Thus, more than twice as many male heads of household (8.5%) as female heads of household (20.4%) that received remittances are not working. Percent Figure 3.3: Current activity status of heads of households 15 years and older receiving remittances by sex 100.0 90.0 80.0 91.5 79.6 86.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 8.5 20.4 14.0 Working Not working 0.0 Male Female Total Occupation refers to the type of work a person is engaged in at the establishment where the person works. Majority of heads of households that received remittances are engaged in Service and sales work (34.5%), Skilled agriculture, forestry and fishery work (29.2%) and Craft and related trades (12.9%). Female heads of household (55.8%) are more likely than male heads (18.5%) to be engaged as Service and sales workers. On the other hand, male heads of household (33.8%) are more likely than female heads (23.0%) to be Skilled agriculture, forestry and fishery workers. Also, a higher proportion of male heads of household (15.9%) than females (8.8%) are into Craft and related trades work (Table 3.11). 36

Table 3.11: Occupation of heads of households receiving remittances by sex Number Percent (%) Current occupation Male Female Total Male Female Total Managers 4 2 6 2.6 1.8 2.3 Professionals 17 6 23 11.3 5.3 8.7 Technicians and associate 7 1 8 Professionals 4.6 0.9 3.0 Clerical support workers 2 3 5 1.3 2.7 1.9 Service and sales workers 28 63 91 18.5 55.8 34.5 Skilled agricultural, forestry and 51 26 77 fishery workers 33.8 23.0 29.2 Craft and related trades workers 24 10 34 15.9 8.8 12.9 Plant and machine operators, and assembler 10 0 10 6.6 0.0 3.8 Elementary occupations 8 2 10 5.3 1.8 3.8 Total 151 113 264 100.0 100.0 100.0 In terms of industry of occupation of heads of households that received remittances, about a third (31.4%) are engaged in Agriculture, forestry and fishing activities, one-fifth (20.8%) in Wholesale and retail trade activities and one-tenth (9.8%) in Education. A higher proportion of male household heads (36.4%) than females (24.8%) are into Agriculture, forestry and fishing activities. On the other hand, a higher proportion of females (34.5%) than males (10.6%) are into Wholesale and retail trade activities (Table 3.12). Table 3.12: Industry of occupation of heads of households receiving remittances by sex Number Percent (%) Current industry Male Female Total Male Female Total Agriculture, forestry and fishing 55 28 83 36.4 24.8 31.4 Mining and quarrying 1 0 1 0.7 0.0 0.4 Manufacturing 8 7 15 5.3 6.2 5.7 Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 1 0 1 0.7 0.0 0.4 Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities 2 1 3 1.3 0.9 1.1 Construction 14 1 15 9.3 0.9 5.7 Wholesale and retail; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles 16 39 55 10.6 34.5 20.8 Transportation and storage 12 0 12 7.9 0.0 4.5 Accommodation and food service activities 3 6 9 2.0 5.3 3.4 Information and communication 1 0 1 0.7 0.0 0.4 Financial and insurance activities 3 2 5 2.0 1.8 1.9 Professional, scientific and technical activities 4 0 4 2.6 0.0 1.5 Administrative and support service activities 1 0 1 0.7 0.0 0.4 Public administration and defence; compulsory social security 2 1 3 1.3 0.9 1.1 Education 14 12 26 9.3 10.6 9.8 Human health and social work activities 5 1 6 3.3 0.9 2.3 Arts, entertainment and recreation 0 2 2 0.0 1.8 0.8 Other service activities 9 13 22 6.0 11.5 8.3 Total 151 113 264 100.0 100.0 100.0 37

Out of the total number of household heads working, nearly three-quarters (73.9%) are selfemployed (61.4 percent are self-employed without employees and 12.5 percent are selfemployed with employees). About one-fifth (20.8%) are working as employees with only 1.1 percent being unpaid apprentices. For both male and female household heads, the proportion of those who worked as selfemployed (69.5 percent and 79.6 percent respectively) are more than the other categories of workers (Table 3.13). Table 3.13: Employment status of heads of households receiving remittances by sex Number Percent (%) Current status of employment Male Female Total Male Female Total Employee 40 15 55 26.5 13.3 20.8 Self-employed with employees 20 13 33 13.2 11.5 12.5 Self-employed without employees 85 77 162 56.3 68.1 61.4 Contributing family worker 3 2 5 2.0 1.8 1.9 Casual worker 3 3 6 2.0 2.7 2.3 Unpaid apprentice 0 3 3 0.0 2.7 1.1 Total 151 113 264 100.0 100.0 100.0 More than 8 out of 10 (85.2%) heads of household that received remittances are working in the Private sector while 11.7 percent are in the Public sector. There is not much variation in terms of sexes. Table 3.14: Employment sector of heads of households receiving remittances by sex Number Percent (%) Current sector of employment Male Female Total Male Female Total Public (Government) 19 12 31 12.6 10.6 11.7 Semi-Public/Parastatal 3 3 6 2.0 2.7 2.3 Private 128 97 225 84.8 85.8 85.2 NGO's (Local and International) 1 1 2 0.7 0.9 0.8 Total 151 113 264 100.0 100.0 100.0 Recipients of most recent remittances Generally, remittances (both cash and goods), are made to specific household members. From Table 3.15, six in every 10 (60.3%) of cash recipients and 55.7 percent of goods recipients are specific household members. With the exception of the Sekyere Kumawu district where a higher proportion (55.8%) of cash remittances were sent to the household as a whole, larger proportions of cash remitted were sent to specific household members in the other study districts. The proportion cash remitted to a specific household member is highest in Berekum (72.6%) and lowest in Techiman (52.2%). 38

With regard to goods sent, higher proportions of the recipients in all three districts in the Ashanti region (Mampong, Sekyere Kumawu and Asante Akim North) were specific household members. However, in the three districts of Brong Ahafo region (Berekum, Techiman and Nkoranza South), the goods sent were mainly to the household as a whole (Table 3.15). Recipient Table 3.15: Emigrants by general recipient of most recent household remittances, type and district Mampong Sekyere Kumawu Asante Akim North Berekum Techiman Nkoranza South Total Cash For household as a whole 40.0 55.8 35.1 27.4 47.8 44.6 39.7 For a specific member 60.0 44.2 64.9 72.6 52.2 55.4 60.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Goods For household as a whole 45.0 40.0 30.0 52.4 65.0 52.6 44.3 For a specific member 55.0 60.0 70.0 47.6 35.0 47.4 55.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3.9 Distribution of specific recipients of remittances Table 3.16 shows that 30.0 percent of household members who were cash recipients are brothers/sisters, one-quarter (24.7%) are other relatives and 12.1 percent are non-relatives of the sender. In Mampong, little more than half (51.5%) of the cash recipients were brothers/sisters while more than half (52.6%) of the cash recipients Sekyere Kumawu District were brothers/sisters or sons/daughters of the sender. Those who received cash remittances from abroad in Asante Akim North District, Techiman, Nkoranza South District and Berekum were mainly brothers/sisters (more than 60 percent) of the sender. In the Berekum cash recipients were mainly brothers/sisters, spouses and other relatives (54.8%). In the case of goods, household members who received them were mainly brothers/sisters (35.9%), other relatives (26.9%) and non-relatives (21.8%). Recipients within Asante Akim North district, Berekum and Techiman follow this general trend. Within Mampong, it was the brothers/sisters (54.5%) and non-relatives (27.3%) while brothers/sisters (55.6%) and other relatives (22.2%) dominate in the Nkoranza South District. Mothers and brothers/sisters dominate as recipients of goods in the Sekyere Kumawu (Table 3.16). 39

Table 3.16: Emigrants by specific household recipient of remittances, type and district Mampong Sekyere Kumawu Asante Akim North Berekum Techiman Nkoranza South Household members Total Cash Spouse 6.1 5.3 0.0 17.0 8.3 6.5 7.2 Son/Daughter 9.1 26.3 3.2 9.4 4.2 6.5 8.1 Son/Daughter-in-law 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Father 6.1 10.5 6.3 9.4 4.2 6.5 7.2 Mother 9.1 21.1 6.3 11.3 4.2 12.9 9.9 Brother/Sister 51.5 26.3 20.6 18.9 33.3 45.2 30.0 Parent-in-law 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.4 Other relative 12.1 10.5 42.9 18.9 29.2 16.1 24.7 Non-relative 6.1 0.0 19.0 13.2 16.7 6.5 12.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Goods Spouse 9.1 0.0 2.9 10.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 Son/Daughter 0.0 16.7 2.9 10.0 0.0 11.1 5.1 Son/Daughter-in-law 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Father 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 11.1 2.6 Mother 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 Brother/Sister 54.5 33.3 25.7 30.0 42.9 55.6 35.9 Other relative 9.1 16.7 34.3 20.0 42.9 22.2 26.9 Non-relative 27.3 0.0 31.4 20.0 14.3 0.0 21.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3.10 Total and mean cash received by households as remittances The total amount of cash received by households as remittances in the 12 months preceding the study was GH 1,361,678.00. Households in Berekum received the highest remittances of GH 532,272.00, followed by those in Asante Akim North (GH 313,261.00) while the lowest was from Techiman (GH 69,700.00). The mean amount of cash remitted was GH 4,663.28. Berekum recorded the highest mean cash remittances of GH 9,177.10 while the lowest was in Techiman with an amount of GH 1,834.21 (Table 3.17). Table 3.17: Cash received in the 12 months preceding the study by district District Households Mean cash ( ) Total cash ( ) Mampong 45 4,497.44 202,385 Sekyere Kumawu 39 2,067.95 80,650 Asante Akim North 63 4,972.40 313,261 Berekum 58 9,177.10 532,272 Techiman 38 1,834.21 69,700 Nkoranza South 49 3,334.90 163,410 Total 292 4,663.28 1,361,678 40

Frequency of remittances received Table 3.18 shows the frequency of receiving remittances by households in the 12 months preceding the study. More than two-fifths (43.8%) of households received cash remittances only once during the reference period while those who received cash remittances two times is 20.3 percent. Households in Mampong (60.0%) and those in Techiman (58.7%) are more likely to receive cash remittances once than the other districts. Like cash remittances, majority of households also received goods once (61.4%). About seven out of ten households in Techiman (75.0%), Asante Akim North (74.0%) and Mampong (70.0%) received goods once. Table 3.18: Emigrants by frequency of remittances (cash and goods) sent in the 12 months preceding the study by district Mampong Sekyere Kumawu Asante Akim North Berekum Techiman Nkoranza South Frequency Total Cash Once 60.0 30.2 41.2 35.6 58.7 41.1 43.8 Two times 9.1 18.6 22.7 16.4 19.6 33.9 20.3 Three time 5.5 18.6 11.3 16.4 10.9 8.9 11.9 Four times 1.8 9.3 12.4 17.8 6.5 7.1 10.0 Every month 18.2 23.3 12.4 13.7 4.3 5.4 12.7 Special occasions/ emergencies 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.8 Other 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Goods Once 70.0 40.0 74.0 28.6 75.0 52.6 61.4 Two times 5.0 0.0 14.0 38.1 15.0 31.6 17.9 Three time 15.0 20.0 4.0 4.8 10.0 5.3 7.9 Four times 5.0 40.0 2.0 23.8 0.0 5.3 8.6 Every month 5.0 0.0 6.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 3.6 Special occasions/ emergencies 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Cost incurred in receiving remittances Overall, 63.4 percent of cash recipients in the study districts did not incur any cost on the money received. Nearly one-quarter (23.8%) of the cash recipients spent between GH 10.00 and GH 99.00 as cost on the money received and about 4.4 percent spent at least GH 100.00 on the amount received (Table 3.19). A similar pattern is observed in all the districts except Nkoranza South where more than half of the cash recipients (53.6%) spent between GH 10.00 and GH 99.00 as cost on the money received while 30.4 percent did not incur any cost on the money received (Table 3.19). Table 3.19 further shows that the mean cost on the money received is GH 81.37 with variations in the districts. Asante Akim North District (GH 276.33) recorded the highest mean cost while Sekyere Kumawu (GH 18.00) had the least mean cost. 41

Table 3.19: Cost incurred (Ghana Cedis) on remittances received in the 12 months preceding the study by district District None 1-9 10-99 100+ Total Mean cost ( ) Total cost ( ) Mampong 73.2 10.7 12.5 3.6 100.0 31.00 465 Sekyere Kumawu 65.1 4.7 30.2 0.0 100.0 18.00 270 Asante Akim North 71.6 10.5 13.7 4.2 100.0 276.33 7,461 Berekum 75.7 4.3 15.7 4.3 100.0 48.71 828 Techiman 54.3 13.0 28.3 4.3 100.0 20.57 432 Nkoranza South 30.4 7.1 53.6 8.9 100.0 37.13 1,448 All 63.4 8.5 23.8 4.4 100.0 81.37 10,904 Types of goods received by households The survey elicited information about the type of goods received by household members from emigrants. Figure 3.4 indicates that half (50.0%) of household members received goods in the form of clothing/shoes, 17.3 percent received food and 11.4 percent had mobile phones. Only 4.5 percent received computers/laptops. Percent Figure 3.4: Type of goods received by household members 60.0 50.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 17.3 10.0 0.0 11.4 1.0 1.0 4.5 3.5 2.0 5.4 3.5 0.5 Goods Total and mean value of goods received by households The total value of goods received amounted to GH 1,042,463.00 with Berekum ity receiving the highest (GH 717,725.00). This is followed by the Asante Akim North District with GH 127,002.00 while Mampong ity (GH 30,801.00) recorded the least value 42

of goods received in. The mean value of goods received as remittance in the 12 months preceding the survey in the selected districts amounted to GH 8,615.40 per household and it is even higher than the cash remittances. At the district level, the mean value of goods received ranged from GH 1,811.80 in the Mampong ity to GH 39,873.60 in Berekum ity. Table 3.20: Value of goods received in the 12 months preceding the study by district District Households Value of goods Mean Value Mampong 17 30,801.00 1,811.80 Sekyere Kumawu 10 39,100.00 3,910.00 Asante Akim North 40 127,002.00 3,175.10 Berekum 18 717,725.00 39,873.60 Techiman 19 38,520.00 2,027.40 Nkoranza South 17 89,315.00 5,253.80 Total 121 1,042,463.00 8,615.40 Channels used in sending remittances Households which were recipients of remittances in the study districts were also asked of the channels used in receiving these remittances. More than half (52.6%) of all recipients indicated that they received their cash remittances through Money Transfer Operators (MTOs). A further 39.4 percent indicated that it was sent through friends/relatives with a small proportion (4.5%) having the money transferred through the Post Office. However, there are variations in the channels used. In all districts, except Techiman where about 60 percent (59.5%) of households received the money through friends and relatives, MTOs are the main channels through which remittances are sent. In the Asante Akim North District, 44.4 percent of remittances are carried personally by the remitter. Apart from Sekyere Kumawu (37.8%) and Berekum (35.1%), bank transfers is not a major channel of receiving remittances in the survey districts. Table 3.21: Households receiving money in the 12 months preceding the study by channel used and districts Mampong Sekyere Kumawu Asante Akim North Berekum Techiman Nkoranza South Channel used Total Bank transfer (cheques, drafts, direct deposit, etc.) 11.1 37.8 6.3 35.1 5.4 0.0 15.7 MTO (Money Transfer Operator) 48.9 59.5 47.6 57.9 45.9 56.3 52.6 Post office (money order) 2.2 0.0 1.6 14.0 8.1 0.0 4.5 Agent/courier 0.0 5.4 9.5 3.5 10.8 12.5 7.0 Personally carried it 11.1 10.8 44.4 0.0 8.1 12.5 16.0 Sent through friends/relatives 31.1 43.2 33.3 40.4 59.5 35.4 39.4 Other means 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 43

Preferred channels for receiving remittances Households receiving remittances were asked of the preferred channels through which they would have wished to receive their remittances. Figure 2.5 shows that nearly half (49.7%) of the households indicated that they would have preferred remitters sending remittances through the MTOs and about one-quarter (23.1%) showed preference to remitting them through friends and relatives (Figure 3.5). Figure 3.5: Households receiving money in the 12 months preceding the study by preferred channels for receiving remittances Percent 60.0 50.0 49.7 40.0 30.0 23.1 20.0 10.0 0.0 11.9 1.0 Bank transfer MTO Post office Agent/courier Personally carried it 4.5 9.4 friends/relatives 0.3 Other Channels Table 3.22 shows that in all six survey districts more than two-fifth of households would prefer receiving money through the MTOs, with Nkoranza South (58.3%) recording the highest proportion and Berekum the least (42.1%). Apart from the MTOs, nearly a quarter (23.1%) of households receiving remittances will prefer cash sent to them through relatives/friends. The next preferred means is through Bank Transfer except for in Sekyere Kumawu (27.0%) and Berekum (26.3%), where Bank Transfer is the second most preferred channel to receive cash remittances. The least preferred channel again is through the Post Office. 44

Table 3.22. Households receiving money in the past 12 months by preferred channels used by remitters in sending remittances Mampong Sekyere Kumawu Asante Akim North Berekum Techiman Nkoranza South Channels Total Bank transfer (cheques, draft, direct deposit, etc.) 6.7 27.0 6.3 26.3 0.0 4.2 11.9 MTO (Money transfer org. e.g. Western Union) 57.8 54.1 44.4 42.1 44.4 58.3 49.7 Post office (e.g. money order) 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.8 0.0 1.0 Agent/courier 0.0 2.7 4.8 3.5 5.6 10.4 4.5 Personally carried it 13.3 8.1 20.6 0.0 5.6 6.3 9.4 Sent through friends/relatives 20.0 8.1 23.8 24.6 41.7 20.8 23.1 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Advice received to invest remittances The impact of remittances on development depends on the use of remittances by recipient households. This section provides information on households who received advice on how to invest the remittances received. The results show that 12.6 percent of households received advice to invest the remittances received. At the district level, relatively high proportions of households in Berekum (28.3%) and Asante Akim North (18.8%) received advice to invest the remittances received. In Sekyere Kumawu however, virtually no households received advice to invest the remittances received (Figure 3.6). Figure 3.6: Advice received by households to invest remittances received Percent 30.0 28.3 25.0 20.0 18.8 15.0 10.0 12.6 11.1 5.0 3.7 3.7 0.0 Total Mampong 0.0 Sekyere Kumawu Asante Akim North Berekum Techiman Nkoranza South 45

3.11 Country of residence of remitters and type of remittances sent to households Table 3.23 shows remitters by country of residence, type of remittances sent and the recipient of the transfer. Overall, 27.1 percent of all emigrant who made cash remittances and 30.7 percent of goods remitters were resident in the United States of America. This is followed by residents in the United Kingdom with 16.5 percent of cash remittances and 17.9 percent of total goods sent. Germany and Italy are other major sources with more than ten percent of both cash and goods remittances received by households in the survey districts. Cash remittances from African countries constituted 5.0 percent with goods being only 1.4 percent of the total goods received in the six districts. Table 3.23: Remitters by country of residence, type or remittance and recipient Cash Goods Residence of remitter For a specific member For household as a whole Total For a specific member For household as a whole Total UK 15.7 17.8 16.5 17.9 17.7 17.9 USA 26.5 28.1 27.1 38.5 21.0 30.7 Germany 10.3 15.8 12.5 9.0 16.1 12.1 Italy 14.3 11.6 13.3 10.3 19.4 14.3 Canada 6.3 0.7 4.1 3.8 1.6 2.9 Holland 3.1 0.0 1.9 5.1 1.6 3.6 Spain 8.5 11.6 9.8 1.3 11.3 5.7 Belgium 2.2 0.0 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.4 China 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 South Africa 0.9 2.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ivory Coast 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other ECOWAS 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other Africa 3.1 2.7 3.0 2.6 0.0 1.4 Other 8.5 8.2 8.4 10.3 9.7 10.0 Total 100.0 100,0 100,0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3.12 Uses of remittances Households receiving cash remittances were asked how the money was used and the results are presented in Table 3.24. More than three-quarters (79.1%) of households in the survey districts indicated that the cash remittances received were mostly used to meet daily needs. The proportion of households is highest in Asante Akim North (85.7%) and lowest in the Nkoranza South (69.4%). Other important uses of the cash remittances received were for payment for schooling or training of a household member (21.9%), and paying of medical bills (16.4%). Table 3.24 further shows that 6.2 percent of respondents used the cash to support children with the highest proportion being in the Berekum ity (22.4%). Less than five percent of households in Mampong and Nkoranza South used the remittances to support children. 46

Table 3.24: Persons deciding on the use of remittances received by district Uses of cash received Mampong Sekyere Kumawu Asante Akim North Percent Berekum Techiman Nkoranza South Daily needs (buy food, clothes, household goods, etc.) 77.8 82.1 85.7 75.9 84.2 69.4 79.1 Pay for rent / household utilities 13.3 7.7 22.2 10.3 5.3 6.1 11.6 For agric purposes (land, farm tools or machinery, etc.) 4.4 5.1 11.1 8.6 2.6 4.1 6.5 Start a business (non-farm) 2.2 0.0 1.6 6.9 0.0 20.4 5.5 Financial investment 2.2 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.1 Savings 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 2.6 2.0 2.1 Purchase of land for nonagricultural purposes 2.2 15.4 3.2 1.7 0.0 10.2 5.1 Pay for sender's own marriage 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.7 Marriage of others 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.7 Purchase/pay for house/dwelling (including new house construction) 8.9 2.6 6.3 5.2 10.5 8.2 6.8 Pay off debt 4.4 0.0 1.6 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 Pay for schooling / training of household member 13.3 17.9 31.7 22.4 21.1 20.4 21.9 Pay for funeral or other social function 2.2 5.1 6.3 3.4 2.6 4.1 4.1 Pay for religious occasions 0.0 2.6 1.6 1.7 2.6 2.0 1.7 Pay for medical bills 13.3 35.9 20.6 15.5 2.6 10.2 16.4 Help others migrate / move other family members /visit abroad 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.7 Child support 2.2 7.7 0.0 22.4 0.0 2.0 6.2 Donation 0.0 2.6 1.6 0.0 7.9 0.0 1.7 Pay community development fund 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Other 0.0 2.6 4.8 8.6 0.0 0.0 3.1 Total 47

Generally, the decision on spending or investment of remittances is the sole prerogative of the household head in the six districts where the survey was carried out. Figure 3.7 shows that in about seven out of ten households (69.7%) it is the household head who decides how the remittances are used. Seventeen percent of households also indicated that persons deciding on the use of remittances is the remitter while for 10.3 percent of households it is the recipient. Figure 3.7: Persons deciding on the use of remittances received 10.3 2.0 0.7 0.3 17.0 69.7 Head of household The remitter The recipient Parents Siblings Someone else In all the six districts, household heads form higher proportions of persons who decide on the use of the money sent. The remitters are the next group of persons who decide on the use of the remittances with the exception of Nkoranza South and Sekyere Kumawu districts where the recipients come second after household heads (Table 3.25). Table 3.25: Persons deciding on use of remittances received by households in the 12 months preceding the study by district Person deciding Mampong Sekyere Kumawu Asante Akim North Berekum Techiman Nkoranza South Head of household 70.8 69.2 69.8 78.3 80.0 50.0 69.7 The remitter 18.8 7.7 22.2 11.7 17.5 22.0 17.0 The recipient 4.2 17.9 4.8 10.0 0.0 26.0 10.3 Parents 4.2 0.0 3.2 0.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 Siblings 2.1 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Someone else 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total 48

3.13 Main challenge encountered in receiving remittances The survey sought to find out from households the main challenge encountered in receiving remittances from abroad. The major challenges encountered by households include transfer time (25.0%), accessibility of service (23.3%) and privacy (22.2%). The proportion of households indicating cost incurred (10.8%) is the least. It must be noted that about one out of ten recipients stated that perceived risk (15.9%) was a challenge. Figure 3.8: Main challenge encountered in receiving remittances Percent 30.0 25.0 25.0 22.2 23.3 20.0 15.0 10.0 10.8 15.9 5.0 2.8 0.0 Cost Transfer time Privacy Perceived risk Accessibility of service Challenges Other Table 3.26 shows challenges encountered by households in receiving remittances in the districts. There are varying responses pertaining to the challenges encountered by households in the districts. For example, whereas perceived risk (32.0%) is the main challenge in the Mampong ity, in the Sekyere Kumawu district, the main challenge faced by households is accessibility of service (40.0%). Again, in the Techiman ity, 63.9 percent of households cited privacy as their main challenge, while in the Berekum ity, the main challenge is transfer time (53.8%). Table 3.26: Main challenge encountered by households receiving remittances in the 12 months preceding the survey by district Challenges Mampong Sekyere Kumawu Asante Akim North Berekum Techiman Nkoranza South Total Cost 12.0 8.0 5.9 23.1 11.1 0.0 10.8 Transfer time 20.0 12.0 29.4 53.8 0.0 29.4 25.0 Privacy 28.0 8.0 17.6 0.0 63.9 11.8 22.2 Perceived risk 32.0 28.0 11.8 2.6 2.8 26.5 15.9 Accessibility of service 8.0 40.0 29.4 15.4 22.2 29.4 23.3 Other 0.0 4.0 5.9 5.1 0.0 2.9 2.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 49

3.14 Characteristics of return migrants Results presented in Table 3.27 show that seventeen migrants had returned to Ghana and lived with their households at the time of the study. Concerning the activities of the return migrants while abroad, about 88 percent were working while 11.8 percent worked and studied at the same time. A return migrant is likely to spend an average of 6.2 years working outside Ghana. About 71 percent of the return migrants indicated that while abroad, they sent remittances home while 29.4 percent did not send any remittances home. The average amount of remittances sent by return migrants is GhȻ3,175.00. The highest mode of transferring remittances by return migrants is through Money Transfer Operators (41.7%), followed by friends/relatives (33.3%) and agent/courier (16.7%). Only 8.3 percent of the return migrants indicated that they personally carried the remittances. Table 3.27: Characteristics of returned migrants Details Total Number of returned migrants 17 Main activity abroad Working only 88.2 Working and studying 11.8 Total 100.0 Average number of years worked outside 6.2 Sent remittances home (percent) Sent remittances home 70.6 Did not send remittances home 29.4 Total 100.0 Average amount sent (GH cedis) 3,175.0 Channel of sending remittances MTO 41.7 Agent/courier 16.7 Personally carried it 8.3 Sent through friends/relatives 33.3 Total 100.0 50

CHAPTER FOUR SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This section presents a summary of the key findings and conclusions of the Baseline Assessment of Household Remittances conducted in six districts in Ashanti and Brong Ahafo regions of Ghana. Remittances are considered to be a major cushion to household income. Out of the 1,200 households interviewed in the six districts, 682 had relatives and friends who lived outside Ghana forming 56.8 percent of the total number of households covered. A total of 307 households, constituting 25.6 percent received remittances during the 12 months preceding the survey. Most emigrants reside in the USA (25.6%), Italy (17.4%), the UK (16.7) and Germany (11.5%). Generally, more than half (55.3%) of the emigrants have lived abroad for at least 10 years. Of all the emigrants, majority (77.2%) reported moving abroad for employment purposes. The main factor why the male emigrants moved abroad is for employment purposes (85.6%) and in the case of the females, they move abroad mainly for employment (56.5%) and to join their family (30.7%). Higher proportions of remittances (both cash and goods), are made to specific household members. Six in every 10 (60.3%) of cash recipients and 55.7 percent of goods received were for specific household members. The total amount of cash received by households as remittances in the 12 months preceding the study was GH 1,361,678.00. Households in Berekum received the highest remittances of GH 532,272.00, followed by those in Asante Akim North (GH 313,261.00) while the lowest was for households in Techiman (GH 69,700). The mean amount of cash is GH 4,663.28. Berekum recorded the highest mean cash remittances of GH 9,177.10 while the lowest is Techiman with an amount of GH 1,834.21. The total value of goods received amounted to GH 1,042,463.00 with Berekum ity receiving GH 717,725.00 as the highest. The mean value of goods received as remittance in the 12 months preceding the survey in the districts amounted to GH 8,615.40. At the district level, the mean value of goods received ranges from GH 1,811.80 in the Mampong ity to GH 39,873.60 in Berekum ity. More than two-fifths (43.8%) of households received cash remittances only once while those who received cash remittances two times is 20.3 percent. Like cash remittances, majority of households also received goods once (61.4%). Half (50.0%) of household members received goods from emigrants in the form of clothing/shoes, 17.3 percent received food and 11.4 percent had mobile phones. More than half (52.6%) of all remittances received by households are channeled through Money Transfer Organizations. (MTOs) while transfers through banks and Post Offices 51

account for 15.7 percent and 4.5 percent respectively. Remitters using informal channels is quite high. For instance, 39.4 percent of households received remittances through friends/relatives. Nearly half (49.7%) of the households indicated that they would have preferred remitters sending remittances through the MTOs and about one-quarter (23.1%) showed preference to being remitted through friends and relatives. More than three-quarters (79.1%) of households in the survey districts indicated that cash remittances received were mostly used to meet daily needs. Other important uses of cash remittances were for payment for schooling or training of a household member (21.9%), and paying of medical bills (16.4%). About 6 percent of households used the cash for child support. Only 3.1 percent of recipient households reported that they made financial investment with the remittances received while those who started business activities is 5.5 percent. Overall, 27.1 percent of all cash remittances and 30.7 percent of goods remitters were emigrants residing in the United States of America. This is followed by those who reside in the United Kingdom with 16.5 percent of cash remittances and 17.9 percent of total goods sent. Germany and Italy are other major sources with more than ten percent of both cash and goods remittances received by households. Cash remittances from African countries constituted 5.0 percent with goods being only 1.4 percent of total goods received. Seven out of ten households (69.7%) indicated that it is the household head who decided on how the remittances are spent. Seventeen percent of households also indicated that the person deciding on the use of remittances is the remitter while for 10.3 percent of the households it is the recipient. The major challenges encountered by households are transfer time (25.0%), accessibility of service (23.3%) and privacy ((22.2%). The proportion of households indicating cost incurred (10.8%) is the least. It must be noted that about one out of ten recipients stated that perceived risk (15.9%) was a challenge. About 71 percent of the return migrants indicated that while abroad, they sent remittances home while 29.4 percent did not send any remittances home. The average amount of remittances sent by return migrants is Gh 3,175.00. The highest mode of transferring remittances by return migrants is through MTOs (41.7%), friends/relatives (33.3%) and agent/courier (16.7%) and personally carried (8.3%). Conclusions and policy implications In terms of migrant numbers and the value of cash and goods received by households, the greater proportions came from emigrants residing in the United States of America, United Kingdom, Germany and Italy. It would seem that these are the main countries that would need the attention of policymakers in the quest to reduce the cost of channeling remittances to Ghana. Even though the study did not cover household income within the reference period (12 months preceding the survey) recording total cash remittances of GH 1,361,678.00 and a mean cash of GH 4,663.28 per household suggests that remittances contribute greatly to household income. Furthermore, the value of goods sent by remitters is huge with an average value of GH 8,615.40. Looking at the size of these flows, remittances have the potential to help households in improving their income and investing in viable ventures. 52

The study also emphasis on the circumstances in which migrants send remittances to relatives and friends in their country of origin. The primary interest of these remittances received by households is mostly to meet daily needs (buy food, clothes, household goods, etc.) as well as paying for schooling or training of a household member, paying of medical bills and for child support. Despite the growth and significance of remittances as a source of income to households, the results indicate that in receiving remittances, households encounter challenges such as transfer time, accessibility of service, privacy and security. 53

REFERENCES Adger et al., 2002; Adaptation to climate change in the developing world. University of East Anglia, Norwich, June 2003 Addison 2004; Union and Employment Growth: The One Constant? A Journal of economy and society, March 2004 Amuedo-Dorantes, 2007; Labour Market Assimilation of recent immigrants in Spain. An International Journal of Employment Relations, May 2007 Bangko Sentral 2009; The Philippine Economy, Annual Report, Advocacy Programs 70 Institutional Building 76 International Economic Cooperation, July 2009 International Monetary Fund, 2009; Do Workers Remittances Promote Economic Growth?, International Monetary Fund Working Paper, WP/09/153, Washington, DC. Mazzucato et al, 2008; Remittances in Ghana Origin: Origin, Destination and Issues of Measurement. International Organization Migration, February 2008 The Migration and Remittances Factbook, 2016 Quartey, 2006; The impact of migrant remittances on household welfare in Ghana. The African economic research consortium (AERC), Nairobi, Kenya, February 2006 Quartey and Blankson, 2004; Development, social resilience and the improvement of household welfare in Ghana, University of Ghana, June 2004. Ratha, D., 2007; Leveraging Remittances for Development, Migration Policy Institute, World Bank, Washington, DC. United Nation Development Program (2011) Towards Human Resilience: Sustaining MDG Progress in an Age of Economic Uncertainty. WHO & UNICEF (2010). Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2010 Update. World Health Organization, Geneva World Bank 2016; Remittance flows to the Sub-Saharan Africa region World Bank, 2010; Outlook for Remittance Flows 2010-2011, Migration and Development Brief, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank, 2016; Migration and Remittances: Migration and Development Brief 26, World Bank, Washington, DC. http://www.worldbank.org/migration 54

APPENDIX Participants in the Baseline Assessment of Household Remittances Baah Wadieh Anthony Amuzu Godwin Odei Gyebi Peter T. Peprah Owusu Kagya Emmanuel George Ossei Emmanuel Boateng Abena Osei-Akoto Jacqueline Anum Samilia Mintah Abakah Ansah Amatus Nobabumah Project Implementation Team Acting Government Statistician Deputy Government Statistician (O) Project Coordinator Trainer/Field Monitor Trainer/Field Monitor Trainer/Field Monitor Trainer/Field Monitor Data Processing/Field Monitor Data Processing/Field Monitor Data Processing/Field Monitor Ashanti Regional Statistician/Field Monitor Brong Ahafo Regional Statistician/Field Monitor Samuel Akrofi Darko Emmanuel Owusu Boateng Kofi Binditi B. N. G Lady Talata Bawa Loama Kombat Yaw Kyei Charles Arthur Alex Ntim Supervisors Gabriel Opoku Nyarko Gershon Terkple Doe Field interviewers Charles Otchere Larbi Ebo Abbiw Williams Andrews Nii Sowah Isaac Asante Mensah Fatai Bashiru Daniel Ansah Samuel Owusu Agyemang Kwamena Mensah Comfort Addai Egbert Vizeng Braimah Kofi Worae-Kusi Millicent Owusus Animaa Daniel Appiah Samuel Awuah Emmanuel Acquah Felix Osei Drivers Stephen Otoo Roland Akrong Wisdom Kuagbelah Daniel Mensah Gertrude Owusu Asamoah Patience Amelorku Data entry Officers Sanita Agyemang Michael Nartey Faustina Quainoo Mr. Baah Wadieh Michael O. Acheampong Emmanuel Boateng Godwin Odei Gyebi Emmanuel Cobbinah Report Writers/Reviewers Mr. Anthony Amuzu Owusu Kagya Gershon Togoh Patrick Adzovor Jacqueline Anum Abena Osei-Akoto Peter Peprah Emmanuel George Ossei Sarah Woode Samilia Mintah Hanna Frempong Konadu Alberta Eshun Support staff Felix Adjei Bernice Adjetey Mensah Ephraim Kakpor 55

Questionnaire STATISTICAL SERVICE REPUBLIC OF GHANA BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF HOUSEHOLD REMITTANCES SURVEY (ASHANTI AND BRONG AHAFO REGIONS) QUESTIONNAIRE 56