Post on 07-Jan-2016
description
transcript
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