Effects of Safety Net Programmes on Livelihoods of Vulnarable Groups in Turkana South Sub-County, Kenya
Crispus Lokorkor Ekaale,Alice Kurgat,Peter Buluma
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2024.807004
2024-01-01
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science
Abstract:Safety net programs (SNPs) have become essential protective measures for the poor, vulnerable, and marginalized populations in both urban and rural areas worldwide. In Kenya, similar to other sub-Saharan nations, policies have been established to ensure cash flow in local markets, stabilize domestic food supplies, alleviate hunger among food-insecure populations, and promote sustainable livelihoods. Despite these interventions, a significant portion of households remains in poverty, with Turkana County having the highest rate at 77.7%, according to the Kenya Poverty Report, 2021.This study aimed to investigate the impact of safety net programs on the livelihoods of vulnerable groups in Turkana South Sub-County, Kenya. The specific objectives were to: examine the nature of cash and food transfer programs in the region; analyze the effects of cash transfer programs on the livelihoods of vulnerable groups; evaluate the impact of food transfer programs; and assess the future sustainability of these safety net programs. The study utilized Standard Economic Theory and the Theory of Change. A comparative research design was chosen to evaluate the effectiveness of cash and food transfers in meeting basic needs, assessing economic impact, determining sustainability, and gauging beneficiary satisfaction. The study population included households from four main government cash transfer programs under the National Safety Net Programs (NSNP) and the Turkana County government’s food distribution program supported by the World Food Program and World Vision Kenya. The sample consisted of 57 households benefiting from government cash transfer programs and 93 households from the county’s food transfer program, out of a total of 11,682 and 19,248 targeted households, respectively. To gather additional insights, 10 focus group discussions (FGDs) and twenty-five key informant interviews were conducted. Beneficiaries were purposefully selected based on their receipt of either cash or food transfers, and the data were stratified into cash and food transfer categories. Data collection methods included open-ended and closed-ended questionnaires, focus group interviews, and key informant discussions, supplemented by secondary data from both state and non-state actors and technical coordination units from the county. The study employed a mixed-method approach, combining qualitative and quantitative research with a comparative research design. Qualitative data was coded to identify patterns, trends, and relationships, and then analyzed thematically. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics such as percentages, graphs, and tables. The findings indicate a diverse perspective among respondents regarding the effectiveness of cash and food transfers in addressing the needs of vulnerable groups. While 41% favored cash transfers for their flexibility, 39% preferred food transfers for their immediate nutritional benefits. Additionally, 20% were open to either type of transfer, showing a flexible approach to assistance. The study also highlights the importance of continuous monitoring and evaluation to adaptively improve program effectiveness. Furthermore, the research identifies challenges in targeting, enrollment, and inclusivity, stressing the need for refined strategies to reach vulnerable populations. It recommends shifting from unconditional to conditional cash transfer programs. Suggested conditions include support for pregnant women, malnourished children under 3 or 5 years old, linking vulnerable groups with health institutions for immunizations, and connecting school-age children to early childhood education centers. Additionally, conditions should promote economic inclusion through entrepreneurship support, education and skills development, and access to financial services. Food transfers should complement households’ efforts to sustain themselves and protect their assets. An additional suggestion is to link safety net receivership with conditions such as requiring households to plant trees, which would help address climate change.