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

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

Fuel subsidies were taking funding away from pro-poor sectors

Source: APBN 2004 and APBDI+II realized budgets for 2003 consolidated.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Health Spending Road and I rrigationSpending

Education Spending Fuel Subsidies

Rp. Tri

llio

n (

20

04

pri

ces)

2004 Budget

Moreover, they primarily benefited the non-poor

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

Poorest

Quintile 1

Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Richest

Quintile 5

Diesel

Gas

Gasoline

Kerosene

Per Capita Expenditure Quintile

Million Rupiah

Source: SUSENAS 2003

Fuel subsidy was reallocated to fund programs that benefit the poor

Village Infrastructure

Basic Health Care and Hospital Insurance Poor

Operational Aid to Schools

Unconditional Cash Transfer

4. Infrastructure

3. Health

2. Education

1. Social Protection

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)

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

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

Basic Health Care and Health Insurance for the Poor

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

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

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

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

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

EVALUATION STRATEGY

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENTS1. HEALTH 2. EDUCATION 3. VILLAGE INFRASTRUCTURE

UCT QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT Line Ministries Program

Monitoring Reports

DE

C

05JA

N-A

PR

06M

AY

-SE

PT

06

Household Level Survey

– Susenas

Focus on Health, Education and UCT

Household and Facility Level

Survey

-

GDS

Quantitative and Qualitative Results Combined

EXPECTED RESULTS

Quantitative and Qualitative Information on:

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

• Socialization• Disbursements and

Leakages• Funds Utilization• Implementation (e.g.

community participation)

PROGRAM DESIGN

•Regulations•Guidelines•Operational Manuals•Targeting Strategy