In 2024 we gave start-up grants of GH₵4,000 to 46 women, each paired with twelve months of weekly bookkeeping support. This year we visited all 46 to find out what had happened. Not a sample — all of them, including the ones we expected to have bad news.
What we found
- 41 are still trading two years on.
- 29 report a higher monthly income than when they started, by a median of GH₵[amount].
- 17 have taken on at least one other person, usually a relative, usually part-time.
- 5 have stopped.
The five matter more than the forty-one, because they are the only part of this cohort that tells us anything we did not already believe.
The five
Two closed after a family health emergency drained the working capital — in both cases a hospital bill for someone other than themselves. One closed when her landlord tripled the rent on her stall. One moved region to follow work. One told us plainly that trading was not what she wanted to do, and that she had accepted the grant because it was what was offered.
Four of the five failures were not business failures. They were the absence of a cushion.
That last conversation was the uncomfortable one. We had designed a programme and then looked for people to fit it, which is the exact error our own principles are supposed to prevent.
What changes
From the 2026 cohort we are testing two changes. First, a small emergency reserve held alongside the grant, which a woman can draw on once without it counting against her. Second, an honest conversation at enrolment about whether trading is what she actually wants, with a route to a different kind of support if it is not.
We will report on both next year, including if they do not work.
Written by [Author name], Programmes Lead