Role of Communities to Improve Targeting:
Download
1 / 11

REGIONAL POVERTY FORUM - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 73 Views
  • Uploaded on

Role of Communities to Improve Targeting: Indonesia’s experience. REGIONAL POVERTY FORUM. 1-3 D ecember 2010. There has been a growing interest in community targeting. Who may involve in the decision making process A community leader or a group of elite

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' REGIONAL POVERTY FORUM ' - lars-salinas


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Role of Communities to Improve Targeting:

Indonesia’s experience

REGIONAL POVERTY FORUM

1-3 December 2010


  • Who may involve in the decision making process

    • A community leader or a group of elite

    • Whole community member or representative subset

  • Advantages

    • Utilizes local information on individual circumstances

    • Allows for local concept of welfare

    • Better acceptance

  • Limitations

    • Risk of elite capture

    • May face low administrative capacity

    • May exacerbate patterns of social exclusion


  • Targeting process of Anti-Poverty Program for Left-behind Villages (IDT)

  • Central government selected poor villages received grants designated for loans for productive investment

  • Village head and Village Community Resilience Board then identified poor households eligible for the loan, without any imposed selection criteria from central government

  • Targeting outcomes

  • Wealthier and more unequal villages tend to target better

  • Overall, the poorest was more likely to be beneficiaries

  • Village headed by young and educated person more likely to exhibit better targeting

  • Key lessons

  • Elite capture is not always associated with inequality

  • Community target well the poorest

  • Capability of local agents enhance better targeting

  • Seems work better if strict limited budget/quota imposed


  • Targeting process of BLT (unconditional cash transfer)

  • The first stage was community heads to nominate lists of poor households in their area

  • A PMT survey was then conducted for those households listed in the first stage, to identify eligible households

  • Targeting key outcomes

  • Relatively high exclusion error (53%)

  • Exclude less poor and include more non-poor in rural areas than urban ones

  • Key lesson

  • Community face difficulties to choose too many members to be beneficiaries (in BLT up to near-poor, where the difference between near-poor and slightly above is not too obvious )

  • Require clear guidelines and good facilitation in selection process

  • Community setting in terms of level in knowing well individuals in the community matters


PMT

Community

Hybrid

  • 49 indicators

    • Housing characteristics

    • Assets

    • Household composition

    • Head education and occupation

    • Village characteristics

  • Scoring weights from existing socio-economic surveys

  • Door-to-door collection of data by Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS)

  • PMT scores calculated

  • Those below specific cut-off received transfer

  • Community ranks all households in sub-villages from poorest to richest

  • Community meeting held with different sub-treatments

    • Full community meetings

    • Elite only meetings

    • Day meetings

    • Night meetings

    • Randomised order of households for ranking

    • Identifying ten poorest first

  • Facilitator has community make pairwise household comparisons to produce a complete rank-list

  • Community ranks households as per community method

  • Told that government will verify their rankings

  • PMT assessed on lowest-ranked households

    • 1.5 times the village beneficiary quota



Beneficiaries

PMT centered to the left of community methods —better performing on average.

However, community methods select more of the very poor (those below PPP$1 per day).

  • Note that the target beneficiaries are up to near poor, and PMT was conducted with census

  • Key lessons

  • Community-led approaches better incorporate local knowledge and definition on poverty and so might reduce exclusion error of the very poor


Community Satisfaction

  • Comparing to PMT

  • Fewer complaints in comment box and also to sub-village head

  • Facilitators report less problems

  • Sub-village head more likely to think that programme appropriate, community happy, less likely to think households missing from list

  • Key lesson

  • Community satisfaction, and hence buy-in, is significantly higher when they are involved in the targeting process


  • The mis-targeting rate for the elite treatment was not significantly different than the whole community treatment

  • And, that the mis-targeting is worse under the community method is not due to increased elite capture of the community process

  • Other key findings

  • There is no significant difference results from meeting during the day (more women participants) and the night

  • The community outcomes match individual self-assessments  some form of self-targeting system?

  • The hybrid method resulted in both poor targeting performance and low legitimacy


  • Should communities be allowed to target themselves?

    • Closer to own concept of poverty and vulnerability

    • Higher satisfaction

    • Less likely to exclude the very poor

  • Are there other PMT-Community hybrids which would more effectively combine the benefits of both approaches?

    • e.g. Conducting PMT first, then using the community to verify and reduce exclusion and inclusion error in the very poor

  • Should different approaches or combinations of them be adopted for different locations?

  • Targeting Experiment 2

  • PMT, Community-hybrid, On Demand Application

  • Target beneficiaries of CCT (PKH): very poor + eligibility criteria


  • Circumstances where community-based targeting may work best

  • At community-setting where most likely to know each other well

  • Identifying the poorest (a few members of community to be beneficiaries)

  • For programs with strict budget constraint/quota

  • For programs that is temporary or with relatively small benefits

  • Well facilitate

  • Consideration

  • Capability of local agents

  • Required good social consensus; motivators to participate

  • May combined with other targeting methods


ad