Bangladesh is in the pathway of attaining Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In order to achieve the goals, it is imperative to ensure inclusive development and end poverty and therefore, a concrete livelihood programme or public works model is essential. Public works programmes have been observed as “win-win” by generating employment, creating assets, and more specifically providing welfare transfer. These programmes further help in building new skills as an effective bridge to generate employment for the poor. More specifically, the programme broadly provides support in two ways: (i) governance of social protection and (ii) strengthening of the system, in order to ensure that economic growth is achieved in a more inclusive manner. This will allow economic opportunities to reach rural and urban poor and to protect vulnerable groups against shocks and prevent them from further slipping into poverty. Currently almost all developing countries operate a variety of livelihood programmes with the aim of eradicating poverty. These programmes are found to have significant positive impact on income level as well as their ability to cope with shocks. On the flip side, the basis of the use of cash transfer is highly debatable in the sense that people under cash transfer programme are often found to be ‘stuck’ in poverty. Henceforth, ideally graduation programmes combined with different social assistance approaches are proven to eradicate poverty and they outweigh other social security programmes. However, these programmes have to be sustainable and the duration of the programmes need to be long-term. Short-term public work projects fail to address the underlying structural factors that cause poverty in the first place.  In this context, this study attempts to identify how the Government of Bangladesh’s livelihood social security programmes are affecting the long-term welfare of the citizenry, and whether they provide a better value for money over direct cash transfers or not. Moreover, this study particularly aims at finding out whether livelihood graduation programmes have any long-term impact on beneficiaries or not. In doing so, the study predominantly – (i) deploys a survey technique on SWAPNO beneficiaries to compare it with baseline and endline, and (ii) compares between cash transfer and graduation programme using HIES 2016 data.