ASSESSING PROGRAM DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION: INDONESIA’S RECENT EXPERIENCE

1. ASSESSING PROGRAM DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION: INDONESIA’S RECENT EXPERIENCE Forum on National Plans and PRSPs in East Asia Vientiane, Lao PDR, April 4-6, 2006

2. Introduction • Qualitative program assessment resulted in mid-course refinement in design of program and aspects of its implementation • Other program assessments undertaken following same approach but incorporating quantitative analysis

3. Fuel subsidies were taking funding away from pro-poor sectors 2004 Budget Source: APBN 2004 and APBDI+II realized budgets for 2003 consolidated.

4. Moreover, they primarily benefited the non-poor Source: SUSENAS 2003

5. 1. Social Protection Unconditional Cash Transfer 2. Education Operational Aid to Schools 3. Health Basic Health Care and Hospital Insurance Poor 4. Infrastructure Village Infrastructure Fuel subsidy was reallocated to fund programs that benefit the poor

6. Unconditional Cash Transfer (UCT) Program Description and Size: • Cash transfer to 15.5 million poor and near-poor families to compensate them for inflationary effects of the fuel price increase • The biggest coverage of any unconditional cash transfer program, compare to Brazilian’ UCT (Bolsa Familia) which covers± 8 million poor households • Each beneficiary family receives Rp. 100.000 per month, paid quarterly, for 1 year period (Oct 2005 to Sep 2006)

7. Operational Aid for Schools Program Description and Size: • The objective of the program is to provide block grants to schools so they can reduce the pupil’s contribution, but also allow the school to maintain the quality of educational services (including books, equipment, and uniform, and transport) • The size of the grant to schools is based on enrollment and school level: for primary schools– Rp. 235,000 /pupil/year, for junior secondary schools– Rp. 324,500/pupil/year • The target is 40.6 million students

8. Basic Health Care and Health Insurance for the Poor Program Description and Size: • The objective is to increase access and health service quality to all people in particular to the poor so as to achieve better health outcomes • The program is designed to cover: • Free of charge health services at public health clinics,and; • Free in-patient treatment at Third Class hospitals for the poor • The target is 60 million poor and near poor people

9. Rural Infrastructure Program Program Description and Size: • The objective is to enhance village level infrastructure through participatory decision-making at local level and at the same time create employment for the poor in 12,835 poor villages, which each village gets Rp. 250 million • Block grants are provided at the village level for the construction of roads, bridges, clean water, rural irrigation, and other infrastructure facilities to be decided by the local community

10. Reasons for UCT Assessment • Largest program of its kind in the world • Rapidly implemented in order to reduce impact of fuel subsidy reduction and therefore the program design and institutional framework were prepared hastily • Reports of public dissatisfaction in some areas indicated the program may be experiencing problems

11. Rapid UCT Assessment • Assessment carried out by 2 independent Indonesian research institutes • Qualitative assessment in 10 provinces, not intended to be nationally representative, but rather indicate “good and bad practices in implementation and program design” • Assessment focused on: • Targeting • Program Socialization • Distribution of Beneficiary Card • Funds Distribution • Complaints Handling

12. Results • Targeting – problems with registration and lack of verification – leakages to non-poor households • Program Socialization – patchy – public did not understand program objectives or criteria for beneficiaries • Beneficiary Cards – lack of verification • Funds Distribution – generally good, some regional innovations in scheduling and socialization of schedules • Complaints Handling – no formal complaint mechanism available in most areas

13. Impact of Qualitative Assessment • The Government used the results of the qualitative assessment to re-design the program for the second tranche of payments through: • More intensive socialization of program objectives and poverty criteria • Opportunity for households to register themselves for the program • Announcement of draft list and public hearing • Data verification and revision on beneficiary list • Door-to-door distribution of beneficiary cards • Establishment of sub-district level complaints posts

14. EVALUATION STRATEGY DEC 05 Line Ministries Program Monitoring Reports UCT QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT JAN-APR 06 QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENTS 1. HEALTH 2. EDUCATION 3. VILLAGE INFRASTRUCTURE Household Level Survey – Susenas Focus on Health, Education and UCT Household and Facility Level Survey - GDS MAY-SEPT 06 Quantitative and Qualitative Results Combined

15. EXPECTED RESULTS Quantitative and Qualitative Information on: • PROGRAM DESIGN • Regulations • Guidelines • Operational Manuals • Targeting Strategy • PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION • Socialization • Disbursements and Leakages • Funds Utilization • Implementation (e.g. community participation)