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
80,000
Rp. Trillion (2004 prices)
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Health Spending Road and Irrigation Education Spending Fuel Subsidies
Spending
2004 Budget
Source: APBN 2004 and APBDI+II realized budgets for 2003 consolidated.
Moreover, they primarily benefited
the non-poor
Million
Rupiah
6,000,000
5,000,000
Kerosene
4,000,000
3,000,000 Gasoline
2,000,000 Gas
1,000,000
Diesel
0
Poorest Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Richest
Quint ile 1 Quint ile 5
Per Capita Expenditure Quintile
Source: SUSENAS 2003
Fuel subsidy was reallocated to fund
programs that benefit the poor
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
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
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
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
DEC 05
UCT QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT Line
Ministries
QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENTS
Program
1. HEALTH 2. EDUCATION
JAN-APR 06
3. VILLAGE INFRASTRUCTURE Monitoring
Reports
Household Level Household and
Survey Facility Level
– Survey
Susenas
-
Focus on Health,
MAY-SEPT 06
Education and UCT GDS
Quantitative and Qualitative Results Combined
EXPECTED RESULTS
Quantitative and Qualitative
Information on:
PROGRAM DESIGN PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION
•Regulations
•Guidelines • Socialization
•Operational Manuals • Disbursements and
•Targeting Strategy Leakages
• Funds Utilization
• Implementation (e.g.
community
participation)