DESA: Gender Sensitive Citizen Budget Planning in Villages Baseline Study Report

Commissioned by

�

September 7, 2016

Written by

Utama P. Sandjaja & Hadi Prayitno

� 1

Table of Content

Table of Content 2..........................................................................................................

Acronyms, Abbreviations and Terminology 4.................................................................

Executive Summary 6.....................................................................................................

Core Baseline 9...............................................................................................................

Chapter One: Background 11.........................................................................................

A. Baseline Study and Its Objectives 11.........................................................................

B. A Brief Review 12.......................................................................................................

C. Assessing Participation on Budget Planning 14........................................................

Chapter Two: Methods for Baseline Study 17................................................................

A. Study Design and Methods 17...................................................................................

B. Data Collection 18......................................................................................................

C. Constraints and Challenges of Data Collection for Baseline Study 19......................

Chapter Three: Respondents’ Profile 20........................................................................

A. Community Survey Respondents 20..........................................................................

B. FGD Respondents 21.................................................................................................

C. KII Respondents 22....................................................................................................

Chapter Four: Key Results 23.........................................................................................

A. Dynamics of Village Planning and Budgeting 23........................................................

B. Community Participation in Village Planning and Budgeting 27................................

C. Roles of CSOs in Promoting Gender Responsive of Village Budget Planning 35.....

D. Gender Responsive Budget Analysis 43...................................................................

Chapter Five: Conclusions and Recommendations 49..................................................

A. Conclusions 49...........................................................................................................

B. Recommendations 50................................................................................................

Annex 1: Terms of Reference 53.....................................................................................

Annex 2: Community Survey Questionnaire 62..............................................................

Annex 3: FGD Checklist 67.............................................................................................

� 2

Annex 4: Questionnaires for Key Informant Interview (KII) 68........................................

Annex 5: KII’s Respondents 72.......................................................................................

Annex 6: FGD Respondents 75......................................................................................

Annex 7: Writers’ Bio 76.................................................................................................

� 3

Acronyms, Abbreviations and Terminology

APBD Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah (Regional Revenue and Expenditure Budget)

APBDesa Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Desa (Village Revenue and Expenditure Budget)

APBN Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara (State Revenue and Expenditure Budget)

Banjar Sub-village in Bali

BPD Badan Permusyarawatan Desa (Village Consultative Assembly Council)

BUMDesa Badan Usaha Milik Desa (Village-owned Enterprises

Camat The Head of Sub-District (Kecamatan)

Ditjen PPMD Direktorat Jendral Pembangunan dan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Desa (Directorate General of Village Development and People’s Empowerment)

Dusun Sub-Village

Forum Rembuk Warga

Citizen’s Consultative Forum

Inpres Instruksi Presiden (Presidential Instruction)

Kecamatan Sub-District

MKP Majelis Khusus Perempuan (Special Women Forum)

Musdes Musyawarah Desa (Village Consultative Forum)

Musrenbang Musyawarah Perencanaaan Pembangunan (Regional Development Planning Consultation)

Musrenbang Desa MusyawarahPerencanaan Pembangunan Desa (Village Development Planning Consultation)

Perbup Peraturan Bupati (District Head Regulation)

Perdes Peraturan Desa (Village Regulation)

Permendagri Peraturan Menteri Dalam Negeri (Minister of Home Affairs’ Regulation)

PHBS Perilaku Hidup Bersih dan Sehat (Clean and Healthy Living Behavior)

Polindes Poliklinik Desa (Village Clinic)

Poskesdes Pos Kesehatan Desa (Village Health Post/Unit)

Posyandu Pos Pelayanan Terpadu (Integrated health services post/unit)

PP Peraturan Pemerintah (Government Regulation)

RKP Rencana Kerja Program (Program Work Plan)

� 4

RKPDesa Rencana Kerja Program Desa (Village Program Work Plan)

RKPD Kabupaten/Kota

Rencana Kerja Program Daerah – Kabupaten/Kota (Regional Program Work Plan – District/City)

RPJMD Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Daerah (Regional Medium-Term Development Plan)

RPJMDesa Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Desa (Village Medium-Term Development Plan)

RPJMD Kabupaten/Kota

Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Daerah Kabupaten/Kota (Regional Mid-Term Development Plan – District/City)

RT Rukun Tetangga (Neighborhood Forum)

Rupiah (Rp Indonesia’s currency

RW Rukun Warga (Citizen’s Forum)

SKPD Satuan Kerja Perangkat Daerah (Local Government Work Unit)

� 5

Executive Summary

Village often becomes a contested arena in Indonesia’s development. Prior to enactment of the Village Law No 6/2014, village was put at the very bottom of Indonesia’s government hierarchy and treated as a silent object of Central and Regional Governments’ development programs and projects. – due to regional government’s regime and its low-level administrative structure.

However, with the newly enacted Village Law a new paradigm in village development was brought forth with its motto: “Desa Membangun dan Membangun Desa”. The new Village Law has introduced two major principles in this new paradigm of village development: i) recognition and ii) subsidiarity. Although under the new Law, village has been given a greater space for self-determination and public participation, it does not automatically change and transform village development from elite capture and poor participation to socially inclusive and broad-based citizen’s engagement. Efforts have to be made in order to work toward fulfilling the ideal goals of democratically and socially inclusive village development as stipulated in the Village Law No 6/2014.

In answering this challenges, Search for Common Ground (SEARCH) Indonesia in partnership with IDEA Yogyakarta is implementing a 36 months project entitled ‘DESA: Gender Sensitive Citizen Budget Planning in Indonesian Villages’, which will be implemented in Bogor, Bali, and Lombok. Specifically, this project seeks to tackle the challenge faced by Indonesian women and disadvantaged communities such as religious minorities, the disabled and the poor, whose needs and voices are often not heard by development activities, and are further deprived. Village elites typically undertake all aspects of planning and generally do not elicit or encourage community participation. This leads to a lack of transparency and opens the door to corruption.

Building on its extensive experience working with women parliamentary members and activitst at the national and local level, SEARCH intends to address these challenges by enhancing women and minority groups’ involvement in gender sensitive budget planning in local authorities at the village level. The main illustrated activities of this project include Training of Trainers and forums for local CSOs and community members to strengthen participatory village budgeting and empowering village community organizers to increase participation of women, minorities, and disabled communities in village budgeting.

SCFG conducted a baseline study with following objectives:

1. To identify the social, political, and economic factors that may influence the program’s set of plans and strategies;

2. To identify specific training needs of the local CSOs, women and men, village citizens, and local leaders;

3. To establish a benchmark against which to evaluate the results of the project and inform the programming strategy.

� 6

This baseline study was conducted in 12 villages in three selected districts of Kabupaten Bogor in West Java, Kabupaten Tabanan in Bali, and Kabupaten Lombok Barat in NTB from June 15 to 25, 2016. The baseline study employed a mixed-methods approach, combining community survey, key informants interview (KII), FGD, and budget analysis. The total number of respondents in community survey was 629 people. The baseline study also conducted three FGDs, and 18 interviews with village apparatuses, BPD members, sub-district officials, local government’s work unit’s officials, and women’s organizations, disabled groups, ethnic minority organizations.

Below are several key results of the baseline study:

1. A low utilization of village funds for service provision to women, disabled and ethnic minority groups – evident by the result of gender-responsive budget analysis which shows only an average of 5% of village’s special budget allocation available to fulfill needs of women, disabled, and ethnic minority in 2016 APBD in the three districts

2. Poor quality of village budget planning still exists due to these predominantly factors below:

• Village government has only given information related to RPJMDesa document to 3.9% of village citizen, 2016 RKPDesa document to 3.7% of village citizen, and 2016 APBDesa to 3.6% of village citizen.

• All citizens are not fully aware of their right to access information on village development policy and budget.

3. There are several major problems causing no guarantee of space for citizen’s participation, specifically women and marginalized groups, in village development planning process and formulation of village budget policy are as follow:

• Citizen’s engagement in reviewing RPJMDesa is only 14%, 2016 RKPDesa is 18.6% and 2016 APBDesa is around 16.2%.

• Women, disabled and ethnic minority’s groups’ engagement in reviewing 2016 RKPDesa is only 17% and 2016 APBDEsa is around 16.*%

• Village apparatuses assume that citizen’s participation can be adequately represented through village leaders.

• All Village governance administrators at district level and sub-district level tend to only focus their work on producing planning and budgeting documents.

• Regional government only evaluates the documents produced by village government, but does not evaluate the quality of transparency, participation, and accountability in the village.

• Citizens do not experience knowledge transformation regarding their rights to information, to engage in the policy formulation, and to conduct oversight on development implementation.

� 7

4. The role of CSOs in promoting inclusive and gender-responsive village budget planning will face challenges in village, sub-district, and district levels. Key problems faced by CSOs are as follow:

• 8 persons of 12 village apparatuses, 9 persons of 12 BPD members are willing to cooperate with CSOs

• 6 persons of 9 sub-districts officials, and 3 persons of 3 SKPD officials are thinking positive for CSOs to cooperate with village government

• CSO’s knowledge on Village Law and gender responsive budget is still relatively low.

General Recommendations are as follows:

1. Provide capacity development for project implementation team, especially knowledge and skills of village budget planning on a monthly basis.

2. Organize pre-cooperation forum with District BPMPD with the involvement of Sub-District, BPD, and Village Apparatuses

3. Facilitate the establishment of women’s groups or strengthening existing communities

4. Conduct participatory analysis of women’s needs to be addressed in village development policy

5. Conduct facilitation and provide regular collective learning forum to women’s groups or communities in the village.

6. Facilitate the formulation and implementation of village information system in order to improve the quality of transparency of village government

7. Facilitate the formulation of guidelines of women’s special consultative session in the village planning and budgeting process

8. Provide thematic discussion forums to develop sensitivity and comprehensive understanding of Village Law to district key stakeholders

9. Facilitate the involvement of BPMPD team in three monthly monitoring to villages

10.Provide capacity development for project implementation team, especially knowledge and skills of village budget planning on a monthly basis.

In addition to above general recommendations, the baseline assessment also generates district-specific recommendations which are available in the Conclusion & Recommendation part of the report.

� 8

Core Baseline

INDICATORS BASELINE ENDLINE

Easy public access to Village Development and Budget Information

3,9% citizens received information of RPJMDesa Document

3,7% citizens recieved information of 2016 RKPDesa Document

3,6% citizens recieved information of 2016 APBDesa Document

Quality of Citizen’s Participation in Village Budget Planning Process

20.9 % of citizen have been invited to the consultation forum at Neighborhood Forum (RT), Citizen Forum (RW), or Sub-Village (Dusun) to review 2016 RKPDesa

15.7% of citizen have been invited to the consultation forum at Neighborhood Forum (RT), Citizen Forum (RW), or Sub-Village (Dusun) to review 2016 APBDesa

14% of citizens have participated in Village Development Planning Consultation for RPJMDesa

18.6% of citizens have participated in Village Development Planning Consultation for 2016 RKPDesa

16.2% of citizens have participated in Village Development Planning Consultation for 2016 APBDesa

17% of Women, Disabled, and Ethnic Minority have participated in Village Development Planning Consultation for 2016 RKPDesa

� 9

Note:* Exclude selected villages in Bogor District** Based on interviews with 12 village apparatuses.***Based on interviews with 12 BPD members.**** Based on interviews with 9 sub-district officials.*****Based on 3 interviews with SKPD officials.

16.8% of Women, Disabled, and Ethnic Minority participated in Village Development Planning Consultation for 2016 APBDesa

Gender Responsive Village Budgeting

0,8% of budget have specially allocated to fulfill needs of women, disabled, and ethnic minority in 2016 APBD

5.1% of budget have been specially allocated fulfill needs of women, disabled, and ethnic minority in 2016 APBDesa*

The role of civil society organization in gender responsive village budget planning

Regional and Village Governments are willing to cooperate with Civil Society Organizations

Village Apparatuses: 67%**BPD: 75%***Sub District: 67%****SKPD: 100%*****

� 10

Chapter One: Background

A. Baseline Study and Its Objectives Search for Common Ground (SEARCH) Indonesia in partnership with IDEA Yogyakarta is implementing a 36 months project entitled ‘DESA: Gender Sensitive Citizen Budget Planning in Indonesian Villages’, which will be implemented in Bogor, Bali, and Lombok. This project seeks to answer the challenges faced by Indonesian women and disadvantaged communities such as religious minorities, the disabled and the poor, whose needs and voices are often not addressed by development activities, and are further deprived. Village elite typically undertake all aspects of planning and generally do not elicit or encourage community participation. This leads to a lack of transparency and opens the door to corruption. Building on its extensive experience working with women parliamentary members at the national and local level, artists and activists, SEARCH intends to address these challenges by enhancing women and minority groups’ involvement in gender sensitive budget planning at the village level. The main illustrated activities of this project include Training of Trainers and forums for local CSOs and community members to strengthen participatory village budgeting and empowering village community organizers to participate in village budgeting.

This baseline study will adhere to Search’s guiding work principles of participatory; culturally sensitive; affirming and positive while honest and productively critical and valuing knowledge and approaches from within the context. This baseline study implementation was carried out in consultation and in participation with key relevant stakeholders, appropriate community groups or key civil society individuals. The goal of the baseline study is to generate benchmark data related to the specific objectives and expected results of the project, so as to be able to measure progress towards the achievement of these objectives during the final evaluation at the end of the project.

The objectives of the baseline assessment study are:

a) To identify the social, political, and economic factors that may influence the program’s set of plans and strategies;

b) To identify specific training needs of the local CSOs, women and men, village citizens, and local leaders;

c) To establish a benchmark against which to evaluate the results of the project and inform the programming strategy.

This baseline took place in selected 12 villages in three chosen locations (Kabupaten/District) where program activities are implemented: Bogor District in West Java, Tabanan District in Bali, and West Lombok District in NTB. Out of the identified 12 villages, 9 villages were chosen as intervention villages in the DESA Project and the remaining 3 would be ‘control’ villages.

� 11

B. A Brief Review

1. Village Law and a new paradigm of village development The village reform era has started since the Village bill was approved by DPR’s plenary meeting on December 18, 2013 and was officially enacted by the Government of Indonesia as Village Law No. 6/2014 in January 2014.

There are three main arguments and urgencies behind formulation of the Village Law. Philosophically, a village has origin and communal rights to govern local public interests and actively participate to aim toward independence as espoused in the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, 1945n. Sociologically, the current governance of village has become irrelevant against current development, specifically in the issues of the status indigenous community rights, democratization, pluralism, public participation, and progress and equality of development which have resulted in widening regional disparity, poverty, and socio-cultural cleavages that can be potential threat to the foundation of the republic.

Legally, furthermore, the article of 18B section (2) of the Constitution states that ‘State recognizes and respects indigenous community rights and their communal rights to self-govern in so far as they follow and conform to ways of people’s lives and principles in the Republic of Indonesia’. However, article 18 section (7) 1945 Constitution which regulate village was simplistically translated into Law no 32/2004 on Regional Government. Thus, there is an urgent need for a more comprehensive and holistic legal framework to govern and regulate village development and affairs. This was the pre-text for the need and formulation of the Village Law No. 6/2014 in January 2014.

2. Village Funds: Purpose and Implementation State’s recognition and respect of village has been manifested through full delegation of authority, development, and budget. The Village Law has explicitly mandated the village with rights to authority and development, and thus, village will no longer be the locus and object of development, but as an arena and independent subject of development.

The implementation of newly mandated village’s authorities as mentioned above is supported by adequate funding from APBN annually in the form of funds transfer. This fundamentally reflects a new historic turn of village governance since the Republic of Indonesia gained its independence.

The purpose of Village Funds is to finance village government, development program, capacity building and community empowerment. In essence, Village Funds is expected to become a strategic policy instrument for the village government in an effort to improve people’s welfare and quality of live as well as poverty alleviation through fulfillment of basic rights and services, building infrastructure, development of local economy, and sustainable management of natural resources.

Based on data compiled by the Directorate General of Village Development and People’s Empowerment (Ditjen PPMD), The Ministry of Village, Disadvantaged Regions, and Transmigration, the utilization of village funds in 2015 amounted to

� 12

20.7Rp Trillion in which majority of it was used for village development (89.4%). The remaining funds were used for village government (5.4%), citizen’s empowerment (2.59%), and capacity building (2.57%).

In 2016, Village Funds allocated by the government in APBN is 46.9Rp Trillion or 127% increase from 2015. The priorities of 2016 Village Funds will focus on improving people’s welfare, quality of life, and poverty alleviation. Other priorities will include community empowerment to strengthen citizen’s capacity in promoting entrepreneurship, improving income livelihood, and expanding the scale of economy of village people.

Substantial increase in Village Funds will significantly affect the overall budget received by each village. In Tabanan District, each village will receive in average up to 736.1Rp Million and in West Lombok Barat District in average around 714.2Rp Million. Furthermore, District Bogor will receive in average 674Rp Million.

Table 1 – Village Funds 2015 dan 2016 di 3 Regencies (in Rupiah)

Source: APBN 2015, APBN 2016; BPS Tabanan, Kab. Bogor, dan Lombok Barat 2015

3. Inclusive Village: Women’s Rights, Disability, and Ethnic Minority Responsive

In December 15, 2015, village stakeholders, comprised of civil society, professional organizations, academics, government agencies, regional governments, and the Ministry of Village, Disadvantaged Region, and Transmigration, have declared nine consensuses on “DesaMembangun Indonesia” (Village Develops Indonesia). One relevant major point in an effort to promote gender responsive village planning and budgeting has been incorporated as the fifth consensus, which states: “that in an effort to fulfill inclusive village, development and community empowerment should guarantee and provide benefits for women, poor community, and disabled as well as marginalized groups”.

Inclusive village is viewed as a public arena, in which citizens can discuss and debate about public affairs. Planning is also viewed as a collective decision making arena to improve public livelihood. Inclusive village must be developed in order to safeguard evolving village customary ways of living, in which village’s traditional way of living is fully recognized by the State.

DistrictNumber of villages

2015 2016

Village Funds Total

Average per village

Village Funds Total

Average per village

Lombok Barat 119 37.847.411.000 318.045.471 84.996.512.000 714.256.403

Kab. Bogor 434 130.262.061.000 300.142.998 292.555.382.000 674.090.742

Tabanan 113 37.068.941.000 328.043.726 83.183.813.000 736.139.938

� 13

Inclusive village represents an internalized concept of social inclusion and rights-based approach to village development. The articulation of social inclusion concept is an attempt to place human dignity and freedom as the major social capital to achieve the quality of life ideal. Social inclusion approach promotes all elements of community receive equal treatment and opportunity as citizen regardless differences in religion, ethnicity, physical condition, sexual orientation, etc.

Rights-based approach to development can be implemented in the village provided that village government is willing to uphold the principles of equality, non-discrimination, participation, and inclusion, as well as accountability and rule of law.

C. Assessing Participation on Budget Planning

1. Citizen’s Participation in Village Governance Citizen’s active participation is a must in village governance. It is fundamentally important so that the aim of village development will improve people’s welfare and benefit village community. In addition, public participation can potentially prevent problems in village funds’ management and implementation. Law No. 6/2014 on Village guarantees citizen’s active participation, which explicitly states that one of core foundations of village governance is based on the principle of public participation. There are six articles (i.e., 3, 4, 68,72, 82, and 94) that ensure public participation in the Village Law.

The Village Law No 6/2014 has brought forth a new approach in ensuring a broad-based citizen participation in village development. The core value of the Village Law is development an independent and self-sufficient village that can actively participate in national development. Thus, public participation has become an integral component in village development as stated in article 82 in the Village Law. As stipulated in the Law, there are a number of ways citizens can participate in village development.

Table 2 – Citizen’s Participation ForaParticipation for Stakeholders involved Priority Issues

Village Development Planning Consultative Forum (MusrenbangDesa)

- Begin Pre MusrenbangDesa

- Pre MusrenbangDesa can be done in citizen’s consultative forum in sub-village or RW level

- Pre MusrenbangDesa can be organized based on thematic or sectoral groups

- Sub-village-based Pre Musrenbang’s delegations

- Sectoral groups Pre Musrenbang’s delegations: women, disability, poor, farmer, children, etc.

- Community leaders- Youth leaders- Religious leaders- RW and RT

representatives- BPD members- Village apparatuses- Village Head- Kecamatan officials- Kecamatan work unit

- Proposals related to District/City’s Medium-Term Development Planning (RPJMD)

- Proposals related to District/City’s Program Work Plan (RKPD)

- Discussion and decision on Village Program Work Plan

- Discussion and decision on Village Revenue and Expenditure Budget

� 14

The Village Law No 6/2014 regulates two types of citizen’s participation forum consist ing of a) Vi l lage Development Planning Consultat ive Forum (MusrenbangDesa) and Village Consultative Forum (MusyawarahDesa). MusrenbangDesa is organized to discuss and provide inputs in the process of formulating District/City’s Mid-Term Village Development Planning (RPJMD Kabupaten/ Kota), District/City’s Program Work Plan (RKPD Kabupaten/Kota), Village Program Work Plan (RKP Desa), and Village Revenue and Expenditure Budget (APB Desa). Musdes, on the other hand, is organized in an effort to discuss and review village strategic policies, such as village regulation (Perdes), village accountability reporting, village reorganization, village cooperation, village investment planning, establishment of village-owned enterprises (BUMDesa), and village asset management.

Procedurally, the management of MusrenbangDesa’s implementation is much more responsive to the needs of women, disability, and ethnic minority groups. Procedural management of MusrenbangDesa has been regulated in the Minister of Home Affairs’ regulation No. 54/2010 in which consultation process provides stages which should begin with pre consultation at the sub-village (Dusun or RW) level, and alternatively be organized by sectoral or professional groups, such as women, disabled, minority, farmer, fisherman, merchant, etc. On the other hand, the management of Musdes, a decision making forum of village strategic policy issues, does not provide space for sectoral forums to accommodate women and marginalized groups.

2. Women’s Participation Another major problem in citizen’s participation in village is lack of engagement of women in various citizen’s village participatory fora. Although the Village Law has provided a participatory space for women, in practice, women’s participation still encounters many problems. However, there is no specific provision that regulates the representation and participation of women and marginalized groups in such participatory fora. Thus, the Minister of Village, Disadvantaged Region, and

Village Consultative Forum- Article 55 in the Village

Law- Article 80, PP No.

43/2014 Jo PP No. 47/2015

Citizen’s representatives included:

- Indigenous leaders - Religious leaders- Community leaders- Education leaders- Farmer’s organizations- Fisherman’s

organizations- Handicraft’s

organizations- Women’s groups- Child protection’s groups - Representatives of poor

community - BPD representative- Village government

representative

- The making of village regulation (Perdes)

- Decision on Village’s Mid-Term Development Planning

- Accountability reporting on village development

- Village reorganization - Village cooperation- Investment planning in the

village - Establishment of Village-

owned enterprises (BUMDesa)

- Village assets- Extraordinary/emergency

events

� 15

Transmigration’s regulation (Permendes) was issued to ensure women groups’ participation, the result, however, was less than satisfactory.

Little or no participation of women in various village fora is also believed to have derived from lack of capacity of village apparatuses in understanding village governance. Many village officials lack understanding and even interest in engaging women in these fora.

Puskapol UI thus believes that promoting women’s leadership in citizen’s political participation in village is fundamentally important. There are three major arguments for supporting this assertion. First is the special characteristic of village. A village represents a smallest government unit characterized by both formal and personal processes operating in parallel due to the number of village population is relatively small, resulting in a rather intensive pattern of interaction among citizens and between leaders and citizens. This pattern of interaction will affect the opportunity and form of political participation in the various levels in the village.

As the Village Law regulates the election of village head and a rather large amount of village funds, citizen’s empowerment that enables citizens to oversee and participate in the dynamics of village politics has become more important. Village women represent a potential group that is traditionally confined to household Chores and child rearing. However, with enlargement of participatory space in village, these women should be able to strive for village leadership based on justice and equality.

Secondly, the structural constraint also impedes women’s political participation. Research by Puskapol UI (2013) notes low participation of women is generally caused by regulatory and geographical constraints as well as cultural obstacles that position women only in domestic duties and restrict her mobility in the public domain without family’s consent. In addition, in many cases, religion functions as additional barrier to women’s participation in public sphere. For instance, In Bali, for women who is interested in entering profession in public sphere, they need to obtain approval from Pandita‑ from her village. Although each village has its own distinct 1characteristics, these structural barriers will still undoubtedly limit women’s political participation in village’s decision making processes.

Thirdly, village’s welfare is basically an important reflection of the welfare of women and children. The measurement of village welfare’s level does not only rely on the amount of village revenue but also, more fundamentally, on welfare and quality of life, which include health and education. Mother and child’s mortality rate, access to affordable quality education, and access to health services and clean water clearly reflect the urgency to empower women for a greater engagement in village development.

Hindu’s religious cleric1

� 16

Chapter Two: Methods for Baseline Study

A. Study Design and Methods This baseline study was designed as a descriptive by employing mixed-methodology, combining quantitative and qualitative approaches in data collection process. Quantitative method was used through community survey, while qualitative methods were used in budget analysis, key informants interview (KII), and Focus Group Discussion (FGD).

Data collection Process of this study was conducted in several stages, consisting of budget analysis, community survey, Key Informants Interview (KII) of village, sub-district, and district governments’ apparatuses, and key non-state actors FGDs.

Budget analysis sought to look at the quality of district and village governments’ policy orientation toward the interest of women, disabled, and ethnic minority. In this case, the analysis identified and reviewed activities relevant and supporting the respect, protection, and fulfillment of rights of these three groups above, especially in 2016 budget year. More specifically, budget analysis also looked at portion of village funds in the village revenue and expenditure budget directed toward the fulfillment of needs and rights of these three marginalized groups above. Whether or not there was innovation and breakthrough of village government in formulating gender-responsive budgeting could be evaluated by the amount of activities and budget allocation each year.

Community survey was designed to looking at the quality of transparency, participation and accountability of village governance, policy formulation, and development implementation at the village level. Survey respondents were determined by probability sampling technique by using stratified random sampling. Using this approach, 10 percent of target population would be selected from the number of sub-village or Rukun Warga (RW) in each village. From selected sub-village, 10 percent of the total population would be selected as survey respondents. Using affirmative approach, the number of respondents had to consider 30 percent from women, disabled, and ethnic minority. The respondent criteria will exclude village apparatuses, BPD members, community/religious/youth leaders, and village development project coordinator.

Key Informants Interview (KII) of village, sub-district, and district apparatuses aimed to look at their perception and understanding of the quality of village planning and budget as dictated by Law No. 6/2014 on Village. The interviews also attempted to identify emancipatory initiatives in order to achieve gender responsive and fair village planning and budgeting. In addition, the interviews also explored the village and local governments’ apparatuses’ expectations on the role of citizens in strengthening public participation in village budget planning and development program, especially the role of women and marginalized communities.

Key informants were those who have authority in policy decision making in the village, from village government, village development, community empowerment and capacity building of village community. Key informants were selected from village, sub-district, and district levels. Details were as follow:

� 17

• Village level: village head or a minimum of village secretary, and one of village apparatuses, either chief of village affairs or section

• Sub-District level: Head of Sub-District (Camat) or chief of Community Empowerment Section (Kasi PMD)

• District Level: Head of Work Unit (SKPD) or Head of Program (Bidang) in the work unit responsible for handling village affairs.

• Non State Actors: CSO activists and/or women and marginalized groups

Additionally, the interview also attempted to understand the expectations of other village stakeholders with regard to the quality of village planning and budgeting.

The minimum number of key informants to be interviewed in each district was 15 people, consisting of 10 people from 4 villages, 2 from sub-districts, 1 from SKPD, and 2 from non-state actors.

Focus Group Discussion (FGD) aimed to explore perspectives of key non-state actors on the quality of public participation in the process of planning and utilization of village funds, focusing on the role or women, disabled, and ethnic minority. This FGD also aimed to obtain the level of awareness and understanding of key non-state actors on the importance of bringing gender-responsive budgeting in village budget planning. The FGD’s participants were expected to provide their opinion and evaluation on the quality of village planning and budgeting in the two years after the enactment of Law No. 6/2014 on Village. They were also encouraged to provide inputs and feedback for improvement of village budget planning, participation of women and marginalized communities, and role of civil society organizations.

The FGD’s participants consisted of individuals from women’s organizations, disabled organizations, ethnic minority organizations, NGOs, academics, local journalists, and district-level work unit handling the village affairs. Because the FGD participants were quite diverse, the FGDs were be divided into two parallel sessions: one FGD consisting of group of activists, including women and marginalized groups, and journalists, and another group of FGD comprised of local leaders. The two parallel FGD sessions were facilitated by the coordinator and local facilitator. Each of FGD group was around 8-10 participants.

B. Data Collection The baseline study was conducted in West Lombok, Tabanan, and Bogor Districts from June 15 to 25, 2016 in parallel. Data collection activities included recruitment of field assessment team, instrument briefing, community survey, KII, and FGD. Below is a brief description of data collection activities in the three districts.

Prior to conducting field assessment and data collection, the baseline team along with SEARCH’s DM&E Officer and Program Officer provide briefing to explain the overview and use of data collection instruments, consisting of (a) community survey, (b) KII, and (c) FGDs. The field assessment and data collection were divided into three main activities. The first was the field assessment team who conducted community survey by interviewing citizens who had been identified as respondents in the community survey. The second team was tasked to conduct Key Informant

� 18

Interview (KII) which was divided into two teams, The first team was tasked to interview district’s work units (SKPD) and local CSOs. The second team focused their interviews with village apparatuses, BPD, and sub-district work unit for village affairs. The third and last was FGDs. FGD was divided into two groups, one group consisting of CSOs, journalists, government’s work units, and academics, and the other group consisting of women’s organizations, disabled group, and ethnic minority.

C. Constraints and Challenges of Data Collection for Baseline Study Data collection in this baseline study was conducted during the fasting month of Ramadhan in which in Bogor and West Lombok District citizens were fasting for one whole month as the population of these two districts is Muslim. In these two districts, working hours at village, sub-district, and district governments were rather limited from 09.00 to 15.00.

Besides limited government’s activities, citizens doing fasting also limited their daily activity. As a result, community survey activity, key informants interview, and FGDs also experienced some constraints because the data collection activity had to adjust to people’s Ramadhan fasting schedule in NTB and Bogor and sub-village’s rituals (Banjar) in Bali

The total time for data collection process was only ten days effective which included a series of instrument briefing activities, community survey, key informants interview, and focus group discussion. Instrument usage briefing in West Lombok and Bogor was done by the baseline study team. However, briefing in Tabanan was delegated to local organizer because the data collection activity was done in parallel.

The implementation of data collection activities in West Lombok went well. Key stakeholders were open and willing to be informants or respondents of baseline study, and all APBDesa documents needed were successfully collected. However, data collection process in Tabanan and Bogor faced a number of constraints, which included field assessors were required to obtain permit from National Unity and Community Protection Agency (BakesbangLinmas), and were required to send a request letter for interview for government’s respondents. However, the field team managed to have full interviews with key relevant informants.

In Bogor District, field assessors did not manage to obtain APBDesa documents from the selected four villages targeted for this baseline study. Efforts being made through direct request to village government and district Satuan Kerja Perangkat Daerah (SKPD) were done repeatedly. However, until the final deadline for data analysis, documents were unsuccessfully obtained.

� 19

Chapter Three: Respondents’ Profile This baseline study had engaged 629 people as community survey’s respondents, 48 individuals in key Informants Interview (KII), and 60 active participants in FGDs in the three selected districts. The Total number of respondents in community survey was selected through using stratified random sampling technique by calculating 10 percent of the total population in the ten percent of Sub Village (Dusun) or RW in 12 selected villages in three districts. For KII, the interviewees were key stakeholders from village, sub-district, and districts governments. As for FGD, the majority of participants were key non-state actors consisting of CSOs, academicians, and local journalists. However, at FGDs in West Lombok and Bogor Districts, selected officials from local government’ work units were invited as observer of FGD. In addition, they could directly respond to any issue being raised in the FGD session.

A. Community Survey Respondents The criteria of community survey’s respondents was ordinary citizen who did not work in the village government, was not BPD member, was not part of any team of village development project, and was not village community or religious leader. The total number of respondents was 629 people consisting of 211 people in West Lombok District, 182 people in Tabanan District, and 237 people in Bogor District. From the total number of respondents, the average number of respondents surveyed in each village from the 12 selected villages was 52 people.

Table 3 – community survey’s respondents’ profile in three districts

Districts Sub Districts VillagesTotal Sub-village/ RW

Citizens’ Productive Age

Average citizen per Sub-village

10% of Sub-Village Population

Bogor

BojongGede Waringin Jaya 13 7.439 572 57

CibungbulangDukuh 8 4.491 561 56

Galuga 8 3.651 456 46

Sukamakmur Cibadak 5 3.878 776 78

Lombok Barat

KediriMontong Are 12 5.059 422 42

Jagaraga Indah 10 5.455 546 55

BatuLayar Bengkaung 7 3.419 488 49

Narmada Badrain 6 3.914 652 65

Tabanan

Kediri Nyambu 6 3.413 569 57

PenebelRejasa 4 1.691 423 42

Penatahan 6 2.617 436 44

Marga Geluntung 4 1.549 387 39

Total 629

� 20

Respondents in each village surveyed have included the minimum of 30 percent from women, disabled, and/or ethnic minority communities. This affirmative approach was chosen because one of the main objectives of this study was to have an in-depth look on the quality of engagement of those communities in village budget planning.

Table 4 – Community Survey Respondent’s Profile in Three Districts

In aggregate, the average of surveyed respondents in village level was 39.38 years, ranging from 19 years old being the youngest and 100 years old being the oldest. The number of women respondent reached 56% while the male respondents were only 44% in this community survey. Based on the educational level, the survey respondent profile was as follow: No Schooling 4%; Elementary 39%; Middle School 18%; High School 32%; and University 7%.

B. FGD Respondents The FGD’s respondents in each district at the minimum consist of representation of CSOs, disabled organizations, women’s organizations, ethnic minority organizations, and selected officials of relevant local government’s work units. FGDs were conducted in two groups. The first group consisted of representations from CSOs, academicians, local journalists, and local government’s work unit. The second group consisted of district-based women, disabled, and ethnic minority organizations.

District Villages

Education Sex

AverageAge

No Schooling

Elementary

Middle School

High School

University

Male

Female

Lombok Barat

Montong Are 0 17 10 11 4 22 20 30,6

Jagaraga Indah 17 18 8 10 2 15 40 40,7

Bengkaung 1 21 13 9 5 37 12 43,4

Badrain 2 36 13 12 2 29 36 36,1

Tabanan

Nyambu 3 13 10 26 3 43 12 41,5

Rejasa 0 3 9 29 1 4 38 43,3

Penatahan 0 12 10 17 5 26 18 44,4

Geluntung 0 3 2 32 2 15 24 37,5

Bogor

Waringin Jaya 0 1 7 35 14 28 29 41,1

Dukuh 1 21 16 12 6 21 35 38,6

Galuga 0 32 11 3 0 10 36 37,9

Cibadak 0 69 4 4 1 28 50 37,5

� 21

FGD in West Lombok district was attended by 16 participants in the first group and 7 participants in the second group. In Tabanan, the FGD was attended by 10 participants in the first group and 10 participants in the second group, and in Bogor District, 10 participants attended the first group and 7 participants attended the second group.

C. KII Respondents Targeted interviewees in the three districts consisted of village apparatuses, BPD members, sub-district officials, local government’s work unit’s officials, and women’s organizations, disabled groups, ethnic minority organizations. The total interviewees in this baseline study were 18 individuals for West Lombok, 15 individuals for Tabanan, and 15 individuals for Bogor.

Key stakeholders from village, sub-district, and district governments in West Lombok were more accessible and opened for interviews as they have had experiences working with external organizations, including NGOs in development projects and/or advocacy work in that area. Their responses to the assessors were also more opened as such it did not require any formal procedure, like work permit, request for an interview letter, and other documents.

The situation was very different in the cases of Tabanan and Bogor Districts, especially on the matter pertaining interview with officials at the district government. Thus, field assessors had to start by sending request for a meeting letter and follow up by lobbying key individuals for interview time. The formal procedure had to be followed by field assessors in Tabanan District staring from village to district government.

� 22

Chapter Four: Key Results

A. Dynamics of Village Planning and Budgeting Reform on regional public finance management has started since the enactment of Government Regulation (PP) No. 105/2000 on management and accountability of regional public finance. This regulation was the implementing policy of Law No. 22/1999 on Regional Autonomy. Based on this government regulation, performance based budgeting began to be instituted at regional level.

As the Regional Autonomy Law was revised and changed to Law No. 32/2004 on Regional Government, the Government Regulation (PP) No 58/2005 on Regional Public Finance Management was formulated to replace the previous government regulation. This regulation still continues to be used to supervise and monitor regional public finance. Based on that regulation, a number of technical implementing policies have been devised including MoHA regulation No. 13/2006 jo MoHA regulation No. 59/2007 and MoHA regulation No. 21/2011 on Guidelines for Regional Public Finance Management.

On the planning side, the government has specifically enacted Law No. 25/2004 on National Development Planning System. This law emphasizes that a good development planning is a planning that enables to combine participatory, technocratic, top down – bottom up and political approaches. Furthermore, another important aspect of this law is that the regional governments should consistently align their development planning within the central government’s national development policy framework from annual to long-term plan.

However, the governing mechanism of Province and District/City’s regional development plan does not operationally refer to the Law No. 25/2004. The implementing regulation and policy of regional public finance management are much more closely aligned with the Law No. 32/2004 on Regional Government. This was evident from a number of implementing regulation coming out from Law No. 32/2004, including Government Regulation No. 8/2008 on Phases and Mechanism of formulating, monitoring, and evaluating the implementation of regional development plan and was followed by MoHA regulation No. 54/2010 as the implementing policy which still continues to be used today.

More specifically, the regional government is also required to working on the acceleration of gender mainstreaming through gender-responsive budget planning. This was explicitly regulated by MoHA regulation No. 15/2008 jo MoHA regulation No. 67/2012 on Guidelines for the implementation of gender mainstreaming in the region.

Participatory approach of regional development plan is organized through citizens’ consultation at the neighborhood level (i.e., RT, RW, and sub-village). After this level, it is continued with the village development planning consultation and is continued at sub-district and then district/city levels. The Top Down – Bottom Up and technocratic approaches are conducted through local government’s work unit (SKPD) formulating initial work plan draft in parallel with the participatory planning process undergoing at the village and sub-district levels.

� 23

The technocratic document draft formulated by SKPD would then be put together with the compilation of citizens’ needs and suggestions from the village development planning consultation through the SKPD’s forum in order to align consistently citizen’s needs-based development plan with macro policy framework of regional government’s development. The result of all sectoral alignment will then be used by the regional government to finalize the regional government program’s work plan (RKPD) to be reviewed and endorsed through District/City’s Development Planning Consultation.

After fifteen years, the quality of public participation in regional development planning is still low. This is evident from the result by Indonesia Forum for Budget Transparency (FITRA) in Local Budget Index (LBI)‑ in 62 districts/cities that indicate 2that participation index only scored 25.1, the lowest score compared to dimensions of transparency, accountability, and gender equality.

Village development planning consultation in an effort to formulate Regional Government Work Plan (RKPD), Village Government Work Plan (RKP Desa) and Village Revenue and Expenditure Budget (APBDesa) review is organized yearly with majority attendance by the village elites from village apparatuses, BPD, community organization, as well as community and religious leaders. This asymmetric participation resulted from technical regulation produced by Central and Regional governments that did not require the participation of larger community as a prerequisite in village development planning consultation.

Important actors in village development planning consultation are Village Head, Secretary of Village, and BPD Members. The village head has the authority to appoint and endorse a working team and the main responsibility for implementing village development planning consultation falls with the secretary of village. On the other hand, BPD, as a citizen’s representative body, has the authority to regulate and evaluate the consultation activity, including providing inputs as to who should be involved in the consultation process.

A.1. Interview results Key stakeholders from sub-districts and SKPDs use formal or procedural standpoint to measure the quality of village planning and budgeting. However, they also admit that the ideal measurement of village budget planning process that there is a grassroots initiative or breakthrough to ensure meaningful public participation at the village level.

Interview results with 9 sub-district officials and 3 SKPD officials indicate that there is inherent contradiction on their evaluation of the quality of village budget planning process in their respective areas. Those who give good rating provide arguments that the planning processes have involved community leaders, supported by a team who can produce a planning document, and is in line with proper technical mechanism mandated by the Central and Regional Governments.

Prayitno, Hadi(2013). “Participatory Planning and Budgeting: Improving Access to Service for (Urban) 2

Poor”.Presentedat Asian Regional Conference on Social Accountability in Municipal Governance. Phnom Penh, Cambodia, January 31 – Februari 1, 2013.

� 24

For those who do not provide good rating argue that transparency, participation, and accountability principles have not been reflected in the village budget planning process. Furthermore, the budget planning consultation process has not involved a broad spectrum of citizen’s participation. It is exclusively limited to participation represented by community leaders and the development planning formulation team.

However, both interview groups, regardless to their opinions, have the ideal budget planning indicators. They include citizen’s participation, including women, disabled, and ethnic minority groups and development proposals proposed based on citizen’s priority needs.

Table 5 – Summary of KII’s Results

West Lombok

Sub District

- Overall, the village budget planning was relatively good. However, there were several villages doing it through copy pasting documents.

- Village has established a team that managed to produce planning document and involved community leaders.

- Ideally, the formulation of Village Revenue and Expenditure Budget should involve all spectrums of citizens and the proposals should reflect the citizen’s priority needs.

SKPD (District)

- Overall the village budget planning was already good because it involved women and village citizen’s empowerment cadre (KPMD)

- The ideal practice would be if the village would organize Women Special Consultation Session (MKP)

- The District government has issued District Head Regulation (Perbup) No. 10/ 2014 that requires a meeting session for MKP and involvement of KPMD in the village budget planning. In addition, the regulation ensures women’s proposal should be accommodated in Village Revenue and Expenditure Budget.

Tabanan

Sub District

- One sub-district claimed it had good budget planning because it involved community leaders

- However, two sub-districts claimed the budget planning was still not good because it was not participatory enough as mandated by the Village Law.

- The ideal practice would be if the draft was well formulated by Team 11 and then was presented in village development planning consultation.

- The ideal practice would if the process was conducted in the Banjar (sub-village) level first and followed by another consultation in the village level.

SKPD (District)

- The village budget planning process has not reflected transparency, participation, and accountability principles as mandated by the Village Law

- The ideal good practice would the process would comply with regulation and be an IT-based process.

� 25

Furthermore, activists from women, disabled, and ethnic minority’s organizations in the three districts proposed local government provide a special session forum for these three groups. They were also aware that they needed to be pro-active is seeking information and opportunity to be involved in village budget planning.

A.2. Community Survey Results Citizen’s knowledge on information regarding village budget planning process and budget policy is generally low and limited. Only 7 percent of the total respondents claimed that they knew about the village work plan and village revenue and expenditure budget documents, especially for the year 2016. The low level of citizen’s knowledge resulted from village government has not had an adequate information system easily accessible to public and was not pro-active in providing and circulating information to the public routinely.

The overall conclusion of citizen’s evaluation indicated that many village governments did not provide special session forum for women, disabled, and ethnic minority in formulating Village Work Plan and Revenue and Expenditure Budget. The total average score was 16,9% from the community survey in 12 villages that responded that village government did not provide special forum for women and marginalized community in village budget planning process.

Score for West Lombok District in the below table was resulted from the district enforcing mandatory special session for women (MKP) in every stage in village budget planning as stipulated by District Head Regulation No. 10/2014. However, there was no special forum or meeting session established or available for disabled and ethnic minority groups in all the villages being surveyed.

The rather high score for Tabanan District was in contradiction with what BPD and village apparatuses claimed that the village government did not provide any special forum to women, disabled, and ethnic minority group in village budget planning. The 46 percent of survey respondents’ score was based on their experiences when they were openly invited to attend village apparatuses’ socialization during the traditional ceremonies organized by Banjar or Indigenous village leaders. This was confirmed by indigenous village council leaders’ representative who attended the FGD.

Table 6 - Community survey on participatory space of minority and access to information

Bogor

Sub District

- The village budget planning was already good because it already complied with technical procedure and mechanism.

- However, there was one sub district that claimed it was less than satisfactory and it was in the process of improvement. Citizens have not been broadly engaged

- The ideal practice would be to have a broad-based citizen’s participation.

SKPD (District)

- Overall the effort for village budget planning process has not been maximum

- The process should all citizens from all elements in the village.

Stages Variable West Lombok Tabanan Bogor Average

� 26

Note: scores are derived from survey result calculated per district and then are described in average per district by themes

A.3. Key Problems/Issues Poor quality of village budget planning still exists due to these predominant factors listed below:

- Village government is still closed and not pro-active in providing public information to citizens

- Critical awareness of citizens has not fully realized, especially related to their rights to be involved in village budget planning

A.4. Opportunity for Change Based on the dynamics of village budget planning and various underpinning problems, there are several steps that can be taken by village key stakeholders to improve village budget planning:

- To provide capacity development to village government apparatuses in order for them to be able to implement transparency, participation, accountability principles in village budget planning as stipulated in the Village Law.

- To organize marginalized groups in the village in order to build their critical awareness

- To foster local government to facilitate and ensure the implementation of transparent, participatory, and accountable village budget planning.

B. Community Participation in Village Planning and Budgeting Citizens should assert their active role in village governance. Citizen’s active participation is critically essential in ensuring that village development efforts aimed to achieve citizen’s welfare in the village. In addition, citizen’s participation can reduce potential problem and misuse of utilization of village funds and village finance governance. The Law No. 6/2016 on Village has guaranteed citizen’s active participation. It is explicitly stipulated in the law that one of fundamentals of village governance should be based on participation principle. In the Law, citizen’s

RKP Desa

Percentage of village governments which provided special forum for minority groups

14,6% 32,5% 4,0% 17,0%

Percentage of citizens who are able to Access Information 4,9% 4,1% 2,2% 3,7%

APB Desa

Percentage of village government which provided Special forum for minority groups

10,5% 37,2% 2,7% 16,8%

Percentage of citizens who are able to Access Information 4,9% 4,5% 1,3% 3,6%

� 27

participation is regulated under six articles, consisting of article 3, 4, 68, 72, 82, and 94.

Participation is understood not only limited to attendance, but more importantly citizen’s access to decision making from the planning, implementation, and monitoring/oversight. This substantive participation is important to foster performance of a democratic village government. Thus, the village government must also ensure public access to information.

The reality of citizen’s engagement in village budget planning is highly dependent on decision of village head, village secretary, and BPD. These three parties have significant authority in determining the membership of which should be invited to citizen’s consultation forum (Forum Rembuk Warga), Village Development Planning Consultation (Musrenbang Desa) and Village Consultative Forum (Forum Musyawarah Desa).

Specifically, women’s groups’ engagement is secured in the Village Consultative Forum as stipulated in Government Regulation (PP) No 43/2014. In article 80 it is stipulated that citizen’s representatives in Musdes Forum should include indigenous leader, religious leader, community leader, education leader, farmer’s community, fisherman’s community, handicraft’s community, women’s community, child advocacy and protection’s groups, and poor community. In addition, the Village Consultative Forum can also include other community representative group based on local social-cultural condition.

Village budget planning process is regulated by MoHA Regulation (Permendagri) No. 113/2014 on Village Finance Management that explains that planning phases of Village Revenue and Expenditure Budget can only be done through the formulation by the Village Secretary and document be submitted to the Village Head. After receiving the document the Village Head will submit it to BPD for joint review and endorsement‑ . 3

This mechanism indicates that village government is not formally obligated to providing a participatory space for citizen in annual village budget planning‑ . 4However, there is still a small window of opportunity for citizen’s participation during the discussion and review with BPD. In this case, BPD can conduct consultation and review with citizen’s participation, including women and marginalized communities. This model of participation can only work if BPD has awareness and sensitivity of the significance of citizen’s role in village budget planning.

Generally, citizen wants to participate in village budget planning. However, their motivation tends to focus only on proposing that development in their neighborhood is funded by APBDesa. Citizen’s understanding of development generally means village infrastructure development, such as road, bridge, and irrigation pipeline.

This is regulated by MoHA regulation No. 113/2014 Chapter V – Governance, Section One – 3

Planning, specifically article 20

The MoHA regulation 113/2104 was formulated based on Government Regulation ( PP) No. 4

43/2014. However, the government regulation is substantively in conflict with the Village Law No 6/2014. A number of CSOs has filed judicial review to the Supreme Court to revoke Government Regulation No 43/2014 in mid 2014..

� 28

Table 7 - Citizen’s proposed activities

This indicates that citizen in general has not had enough sensitivity in understanding and responding to women and marginalized groups’ needs. Based on this condition, it has become crucially important that women and marginalized groups are directly involved in the consultation process in order to promote a more inclusive and gender responsive village budget policy.

One of the barriers of public participation is the lack of information regarding village budget planning, including information of the sources of annual funds received by the village. Thus, citizen does not know when consultation meetings on planning, review, and decision on ABPDesa are organized and conducted. Such information is only limitedly circulated to those who have special stature in the village, such as community and indigenous leaders, and community-based organization leaders.

During his administration, President Abdurrahman Wahid has issued a Presidential Instruction (Inpres) No. 9/2000 on Gender Mainstreaming in National Development. This Inpres aims to improve stature, role, and quality of women and promote gender equality and justice. Thus, government needs to do gender mainstreaming into the whole process of national development, from the central level to regional level.

The Inpres was followed by the issuance of MoHA Regulation No. 15/2008 which was then changed to No. 67/2011 on general guidelines on the implementation of Gender Mainstreaming in the region. Key message in the technical regulation that regional government is required to conducting gender analysis on regional mid-term development planning (RPJMD), SKPD’s strategic plan, SKPD’s work plan, and SKPD’s work plan and budget, Specifically, gender analysis result is formulated into Gender Budget Statement (GBS) document as a basic reference for (local government work unit (SKPD) to formulate Terms of Reference (TOR) as an integrated part of SKPD’s work plan budget/list of owner’s budget estimate. Regional government can technically work together with university and/or any competent external party to conduct gender analysis and formulate GBS.

Types of proposed activities Number of Respondents Percentage

Health services 12 2%

Education services 14 2%

Youth activities 5 1%

Basic infrastructure 73 12%

Working capital loan 24 4%

Marginalized community 11 2%

Religious activities and religious worship 14 2%

Civil administration services 7 1%

Do not answer 469 75%

� 29

In an alignment effort for national implementation, a joint circulatory letter was issued by The Ministry of National Development Planning, The Ministry of Finance, The Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Ministry of Women’s Empowerment and Child Protection on National Strategy for Accelerating Gender Mainstreaming through Gender Responsive Planning and Budgeting‑ . 5

Based on research on Local Budget Index (LBI)‑ , gender equality index was still low 6with score of 32.09 out of 100. Many regional governments do not formulate GBS, do not have disaggregated data, and do not have special allocation to respond to minority groups’ needs, including women, especially in Education work unit, Health work unit, and Public Works work unit.

Gender responsive planning and budgeting guidelines so far have only reached local government, and there is not any regulation specifically made for the village government. The Central Government has not issued any regulation requiring the village government to conduct gender analysis to be incorporated into their planning and budgeting documents. Therefore, any effort to promote and foster an inclusive and gender responsive village budget planning represents an innovation by the district and village governments.

Procedural constraints are not also triggered by citizen’s pressure to the village government, based at least on the two years of the implementation of the Village Law. Citizen rather has no knowledge that they have rights to know budget information and right to participate in budget planning. Based on past experiences, citizen assumes that strategic policy is only the concern of village head, village apparatuses, BPD, community organizations leader in their neighborhoods.

Transformation of citizen’s knowledge regarding the urgency of transparency and accountability of village governance, and public participation on decision process of strategic policy has not been well developed. The roles of community empowerment represent a strategic arena in which CSOs that have worked in the district government could extend their work into the village level.

On the other side, citizen’s initiative at the village to publicly engage with the existing formal mechanism of participation is not also done. Only 11% of total 12 villages in the three disctricts claimed that they themselves attended meetings on RPJM Desa although they were not invited. For those who never attended such meetings without invitation felt they were afraid, embarrassed and not confident enough. Majority of citizen express that they do not have the courage, confidence and feel embarrassed if they suddenly show at annual village budget planning meeting organized by village government without any invitation.

Circulatory Letter of Minister of National Development Planning/Head of 5

BAPPENASNumberr: 270/M.PPN/11/2012, Minister of Finance Number: SE-33/MK.02/2012, Minister of Home Affairs Number: 050/4379A/SJ and Minister of Women Empowerment and Child Protection Number: SE-46/MPP-PA/11/2011

Fitra’s Research Study on Measuring Regional Public Finance Performance (KiPAD) in 62 6

Districts/Cities in Indonesia. Presented at Asian Regional Conference on Social Accountability in Municipal Governance. Phnom Penh, Cambodia, January 31 –February 1, 2013

� 30

As for APBDesa meetings, 12% of total survey respondents claimed they attended such meetings. The remaining 88% chose not to attended meeting because they felt they were not knowledgeable, embarrassed, and did not have self-confidence.

Table 8 – Percentage of citizens attending village meetings without invitation

B.1. Interview results Relevant key informants that have provided information whether there is or not broad public participation and special engagement of women and marginalized communities were village apparatuses and BPD. These two institutional actors are the key stakeholders in strategic policy decision making in the village.

BPD is fully responsible for consultation process of RPJM Desa, 2016 RKP Desa, and 2016 APBDesa. They stated that for consultation meetings for the three planning and budgeting documents they only invited village apparatuses, community leaders, religious leaders, indigenous leaders, youth leaders, and leader of community-based organizations. In addition, they stated that BPD did not organize consultation meeting at sub-villages or RT or RW level. Specifically for consultation of 2016 Village program work plan and revenue and expenditure budget, they did not organize special consultation session with women and/or other marginalized groups.

Similar information was also given by village apparatuses. The formulation of village planning and budgeting documents was done by a special team formed by the Village Government under the supervision of Village Secretary. Those documents were then submitted by the Village Head to BPD to be jointly reviewed and endorsed. Village apparatuses stated that BPD usually organized consultation meetings of 2016 Village Work Program and Revenue and Expenditure Budget Plan by inviting village leaders and heads of community-based organizations. One of the village apparatuses from the twelve interviewees stated that involvement of PKK team, as one of the community-based organizations, represented an effort of village leadership to engage women group.

Districts / Village 

Lombok Barat  Tabanan Bogor  Averages

Montong Are

Bengkaung

Badrain

Jagaraga Indah

Nyambu

Rejasa

Penatahan

Geluntung

Waringin Jaya

Dukuh

Galuga

Cibadak

Present Without Invitation on RPJMDesa Discussion

5%

0%

9%

2%

13%

31%

16%

49%

7%

2%

0%

3%

11%

Present Without Invitation on APBDesa Discussion

5%

0%

9%

0%

14%

55%

14%

36%

4%

5%

0%

3%

12%

� 31

Table 9 – Interview results of BPD and Village apparatuses on citizen’s participation

Notes:- BPD members interviewed from the 12 villages were 12 people- Village apparatuses interviewed from the 12 villages were 12 people- The number on the table above was the total BPD and village apparatuses

interviewed

B.2. Community Survey Results The majority of survey respondents did not understand any terminology in the stages of village planning and budgeting. Only 7% of the total respondents surveyed in three districts had knowledge about the information on RPJM Desa, RKP Desa, and APB Desa. Furthermore, respondents could not differentiate clearly between a consultation meeting for providing inputs in development planning and a socialization meeting of village government for citizen.

Village government’s effort in providing space for citizen’s participation can be measured by whether or not there is action to allow citizens to attend and participate in forum or meetings to review RPJM Desa document, 2016 RKP Desa, and 2016 APB Desa. The three stages are selected because they are the core village planning and budgeting process as stipulated in the Village Law.

Tabel 9 – Combined Survey Results on Participatory Space for Citizen

The community survey results showed that village government’s effort to providing participatory space for citizen in village budget planning was still very low. This was reflected from the aggregated score of participatory space’s availability that only reached 16%. The evaluation of survey results was categorized into four which was:

Key InformantsCitizen’s Participation Special Forum for Marginalized

Groups

Yes No Available No

BPD 0 12 0 12

Village Apparatuses 0 12 1 11

Stages Variable Lombok Tabanan BogorTotal Average Score

RPJM Desa % of citizen invited by village government on Consultation Forum

27% 8% 7% 14%

RKP Desa 2016% of citizen invited by village government on Consultation Forum

16% 36% 4% 19%

APB Desa 2016% of citizen invited by village government on Consultation Forum

8% 37% 4% 16%

� 32

(i) very low with score 1-25; (ii) low with score 26-50; (iii) moderate with score 51-75; and (iv) good with score 76-100.

The description of the total average score based on stages was respondents who claimed to have received meeting invitation for themes regarding RPJM Desa with 14%, RKP Desa with 19%, and APBDesa with 16%. Although RPJM Desa received the highest score, it was still categorized as low. While consultation processes for RKP Desa and APB Desa was scored very low.

Community survey also identified that 12% of respondents had attempted to take initiative to attend meeting or consultation forum on theme related with 2016 APB Desa although they were not invited. A number of citizens that had critical awareness and courage could potentially develop their role as champion or change agent that could promote an inclusive and gender responsive village budget planning in the future. However, support and facilitation are required to developing those potential champions in the village.

Table 10 – Citizen’s initiative in attending APB Desa consultation

In responding to the difficulty in obtaining information regarding village development planning process and budget policy, citizen suggested that village government should improve its work performance quality in the future. Basically, citizens are interested in knowing information available in the village, so that if they would be involved in meetings, they could provide appropriate opinions and suggestions.

Based on the recapitulation of community survey, 50% of citizens stated the village government should socialize the village funds routinely to public. Furthermore, 22% of respondents wanted announcement from the village government down to the neighborhood forum (RT), so citizens in the neighborhood could receive the whole information from the neighborhood’s leader or at the billboard. Another option proposed by 11% of respondents was the use of information media, such as bulletin, banner, and pamphlets placed and circulated at important places in the village.

The most interesting and challenging suggestion proposed by 5% respondents was that village apparatuses provided the village budget planning information door to door so that citizens could receive the whole information directly.

Table 11 – Suggestions for opening access to information

Stage Variable Lombok Tabanan Tabanan Average

2016 APB Desa Development Planning Consultation

Attending without invitation

13% 21% 3% 9%

Socialization 315 50%

Announcement all the way to neighborhood forum (RT) 138 22%

Door to door information 31 5%

Information Media outlet (Bulletin, banner, Pamphlet, etc) 69 11%

� 33

In the community survey, citizens were also asked to give suggestion on types of activity much more relevant to their needs. However, 75% of respondents chose not to answer this question for various reasons, such as “don’t know” and “don’t understand”. The activities proposed are listed below.

Table 12 – Proposed activities to be funded by APB Desa

B.3. Major Problems There are several major problems causing no guarantee of space for citizen’s participation, specifically women and marginalized groups, in village development planning process and formulation of village budget policy are as follow:

- All Village apparatuses assumed that citizen’s participation can be adequately represented through village leaders.

- All Village aparatuses tended to only focus their work on producing planning and budgeting documents.

- Based on interviews, regional government only evaluated the documents produced by village government, but did not evaluate the quality of transparency, participation, and accountability in the village.

- the quantitative questionnaire reflected that the Citizens did not experience knowledge transformation regarding their rights to information, to engage in the policy formulation, and to conduct oversight on development implementation.

Appointing socialization officer 6 1%

Announcement at the places of religious worship 6 1%

Do not know 63 10%

Proposed new activities orientation Number Percentage

Health services 12 2%

Education services 14 2%

Youth and sport 5 1%

Infrastucture (roads, bridges, clean water, irrigation, waste holder) 73 12%

Working capital 24 4%

Assistance to poor and disabled communities 11 2%

Religious worship and activity 14 2%

Civil administration services 7 1%

Do not answer, do not understand, and do not know 469 75%

� 34

B.4. Opportunity for Change Constructive inputs in an effort to improve the quality of village governance and to ensure the quality of village development have been conveyed by key stakeholders in this baseline study in the three districts.

The compilation of alternative solutions being conveyed is as follow:

• Regional government provide facilitation and conduct oversight on the village government administrators to enable them to provide much better and more quality village budget information to the public.

• Civil society can take initiative to provide facilitation and build citizen’s capacity to help them be ready for a more active role in village budget planning.

• Village government allocates adequate budget to organize and conduct spatial-based planning forum (RT, RW, Dusun) and special-interest groups planning forum (women, disabled, minority)

C. Roles of CSOs in Promoting Gender Responsive of Village Budget Planning Civil society organizations have important role in the founding of the Village Law. They have worked since 2009 when the first draft initiated by DPR appeared with the title Village Development Bill. Various strategic coalitions were formed to safeguard the substantive contents in the Village Bill from central to regional levels. Various efforts were independently organized including public consultation, a series of discussions at the regional level and even seeking support from big mass organizations and DPR factions.

Civil society organizations have advanced experiences in responding to the importance of open, participatory, and responsible village governance as mandated by the Village Law. In each district of this program area, there are various forms of civil society organizations that have had work experiences in doing empowerment and facilitation to village community and government.

The vital roles of civil society organization include, for examples, promoting transparency of village governance, facilitating inclusive planning process that provides space for women and marginalized groups for decision making, and conducting capacity building for citizens. In addition, civil society organizations also work in facilitating relationship building between villager sand policy makers in sub-district and district levels to ensure policyharmonization in which policy issued by the village government does not contradict district-level policy

Specifically, the role of civil society organizations in these three selected program locations have not had massive scale program aiming at improving quality of public participation, specifically on women and marginalized communities in village budget planning process. Based on interactions in interviews and FGDs, performance of CSOs in West Lombok in promoting transparency, participation, and accountability in village budget planning appeared to be advanced compared to those CSOs in Tabanan and Bogor Districts.

� 35

Women as Family Head Organization (PeKKA) in West Lombok is an organization with national network that had developed Paradigta Academy, a school where PeKKA members learn women and children responsive village budget planning. Participants and alumni at the academy will then be sent to the field to form groups in villages and assert themselves to negotiate with village apparatuses to be involved in village budget planning.

PeKKA is the only organization located in West Lombok District that actively works in women’s economic empowerment, policy advocacy, and village budget advocacy. Other civil society organizations actively working in policy advocacy, such as SOMASI, Civil Society Network (JMS), FITRA NTB, and PATTIRO are located in Mataram City.

Civil society organizations in Tabanan Districts participating in this baseline study admitted none of them has experience on facilitation, empowerment, education and advocacy on village budgeting. A quite reputable organization in Tabanan is Kunti Bhakti Foundation, an organization that has long working experiences in economic empowerment and environmental management. Advocacy actor that is frequently present in Tabanan is LBH APIK whose work focuses on facilitation and advocacy of child protection cases. However, the organization is located in Denpasar City.

The situation in Bogor District was almost similar with Tabanan District. Civil society organizations (CSOs ), women organizations, disabled groups, and ethnic minority groups interviewed for the baseline study lack experience in doing advocacy on village budget planning. Even for the last two years, they have not had any interaction with key stakeholders in the village in an effort to safeguard the implementation of the Village Law.

SKPD, two districts, and three villages claimed that they never had any form of cooperation with civil society organization. This means that there was only one district and one village stated they had acknowledged cooperation with CSO in their areas. The cooperation was also packaged in the form of training for development of animal husbandry.

In essence, all civil society organizations claim that they prefer a more collaborative strategy either with regional government or village government. They have long abandoned confrontational approach through critique and direct confrontation with key stakeholders.

� 36

The role of civil society organizations in these three districts can be drawn from the story of CSOs’ experiences and perceptions from key government stakeholders, such as village head, BPD, sub-district official, and district SKPD official.

Key stakeholders in West Lombok District was more opened in building collaboration with program’s implementing partner as part of civil society organizations whose work reputation they were previously recognized. However, acceptance of key stakeholders in Tabanan and Bogor with program’s partners still faced obstacles because there were bad stigma of CSOs and resistant of external party’s involvement outside the government.

Table 13 – Key Stakeholders’ response to CSOs at Bogor District

Teguh Prasetyanto, ST – Chairperson Difabel Action Foundation, Bogor:“…Besides that, we usually conduct training for our members, so that they have skills and also courage (socially) to be in the public. We also generally assist SKPD to connect access to the program/activity to our members. This is rather more strategic than just giving endless critique”.

Hj. Nuraini – West Lombok PeKKACoordinator:“…PeKKAput emphasis on lobbyand negotiation with local government. For example, our wedding registration (isbatnikah) advocacy for members who have not had wedding registration book. Every year, PeKKA attempts to access program free wedding registration available in the district.”

KadekArlini – Head of LSM Kunti Bhakti,Tabanan:“Our organization choses facilitation as the main activity. Every month, we are conducting community facilitation. We don’t do critique like other NGOs do

Element Response on possible cooperation with CSO

Remarks

SKPD Possible - Should support BPMPD- Prefer with MoU

Bojonggede sub-district

Don’t know

Cibungbulang sub-district

Possible - Assist village government and citizen

Sukamakmur sub-district

No - CSO not capable, lack of professionalism

Cibadak – BPD Possible - Willing to help, not seeking money or profit- Must be clean & not seeking project

Dukuh – BPD Possible - Expertise in economic issue- Can play role as alternative

Galuga – BPD Possible - Develop capacity of citizens to increase participation

Cibadak – Apparatuses

No - Apparatuses are enough and adequate- CSO can only critique

� 37

Key stakeholders at the village, sub-district, and district levels in Bogor did not have direct friendly response to possible role of CSOs in providing facilitation in village budget planning. Even there were those who claimed that they did not need CSOs because they could only critique and lack of capacity in giving innovative development solution.

The table above represented the attitude shown by BPMPD official as one of SKPDs in charge with rural affairs was very cautious in accepting the presence of CSOs. Two prerequisites should be in place for CSOs to cooperate. They included that CSOs had to be registered and even had to have MoU as well as had the capacity to support their in managing the village.

Only one sub-district official from Cibungbulang could accept potential cooperation with CSOs. Bojonggede sub-district responded “don’t know” and Sukamakmur sub-district explicitly refused because there no professional CSO in Bogor.Only one village head or apparatuses and BPD refused and another one responded “don’t know”. The other five officials stated that they had conditional acceptance on possible cooperation with CSOs. Overall, SKPD, Sub-District officials, and village government conveyed that if CSOs wanted to establish cooperation with village, they had to fulfill these following criteria: a) registered at Badan Kesatuan Kebangsaan (National Unit Agency) at District Level, b) has MOU with either ministry or district government, and c) able to provide support for village development.

From these responses above, it could be concluded that CSOs’ works and reputation in village budget planning still have not been recognized by village government both from BPD and apparatuses. Thus, they felt that they did not have enough references of good CSOs while implementing policies in the village.

Table 14 – Key stakeholders’ Response to CSOs at Tabanan District

Dukuh – Apparatuses Possible - Must have solution, not just blind critique- Village head needs cooperation

Galuga – Apparatuses Possible - CSO must be registered at MoHA’s national unity and politics’s unit

- Must provide benefit to village

Waringinjaya – Apparatuses

Don’t know

Cecep Supriyadi – Cibadak Village Secretary - Bogor:“Actually, the role of CSOs should provide more assistance, not just critique. As of now, the village government has enough capacity to conduct village development planning.”

A. Khaliq F – Government Section Head, Sukamakmur Sub-District – Bogor:“Saat ini kecamatan dan desa belum membutuhkan kerja sama dengan LSM. Soalnya LSM yang ada tidak professional dan hanya bentukan sesaat saja.”

Element Response on potential cooperation with CSO

Remarks

� 38

Response by some key stakeholders indicated that they did not welcome the presence of CSOs in facilitating village budget planning process. However, other key stakeholders saw possibility working together with CSOs, but they put conditions on the possible cooperation, such as must be a legal entity, not selling training module‑ , and not imposing their agenda and being intrusive on village. Those 7responses suggested that district, sub-district, and village governments still felt resistance with new actor, including CSOs, being involved in village budget planning in their areas.

SKPD Possible - As long as they do not sell module- Must be capable of enhancing village

head and apparatuses’ perspective- Must be willing to do facilitation

Kediri sub-district Possible - Not intrusive- Capable of supporting village

development innovation- No such CSO exists

Marga sub-district Possible - CSOs must be committed to facilitating the formulation process of Village RKP and APB

Penebel sub-district Possible - CSOs must be committed to facilitating the formulation process of Village RKP and APB

Geluntung – BPD Possible - CSOs have more understanding on gender issue

Nyambu – BPD Possible - Must be capable of supporting development

Penatahan – BPD Possible - Must be capable of increasing citizen knowledge

Rejasa – BPD No - CSOs too intrusive- CSOs sell training

Geluntung – Apparatuses

Possible - Assist on environmentally based village governance

Nyambu – Apparatuses Possible - Assist to reduce administrative complication on village funds’ accountability

Penatahan – Apparatuses

Possible - Must be legally registered- Must support the work of village

government

Rejasa – Apparatuses No - No assistance needed

From 2015 and 2016, many NGOs came to SKPD, Sub-Districts, and Villages to sell various 7

training modules and Village Information System module

� 39

SKPD and three sub-district officials stated that they might welcome the assistance from CSOs. However, from village apparatuses and BPD, one completely refused any outside assistance from CSOs, and two others might welcome CSOs but also put conditions, such as assisting with administrative complication of village funds, must be capable of educating citizen, and must support the work of village government. On the other hand, there was one village would welcome CSOs without any condition because they were aware of CSO’s capacity and experiences were more advanced than them in relation with gender responsive budgeting.

Table 15 – Key Stakeholders’ response to CSOs in West Lombok

Overall, key stakeholders in West Lombok District could welcome CSOs because they were familiar with working together previously with CSOs. They also assumed

Ketut Sudiatmaja – BPD GeluntungVillage- Tabanan:“For me, CSO can help citizens, because they have a better understanding with gender-responsive program compared to us, the citizen of the village. “

Elements Response on potential cooperation with CSOs

Remarks

SKPD Possible - As long as not CSO that wants to take down village head

BatuLayar sub-district Don’t know - CSO should provide inputs to administrative matter and RPJMDesa, RKPDesa and APBDesa as well

Kediri sub-district Possible - CSO has opened citizen’s perspective

Narmada sub-district Possible - CSO could alleviate workload of village government

Bengkaung – BPD Don’t know

Bengkaung – Apparatuses

Don’t know

Montong Are – Apparatuses

Possible - CSO is helpful - CSO is needed to empower village

apparatuses and citizens

Montong Are – BPD Possible - Very helpful to village - Must be capable of empowering citizens

Badrain – Apparatuses Possible - Very helpful in strengthening capacity of village government

- Must be committed to empowering citizen

Badrain – BPD Possible - CSO has helped in program achievement

Jagaraga Indah – Apparatuses

Possible - CSO must be capable of developing citizen

Jagaraga Indah – BPD Possible - CSO is very helpful

� 40

that CSOs had enough capacity to help improve the performance of village governance and empower citizens. There were only one sub-district and one village that refused to give answer to potential role of CSOs in their area. Majority stakeholders, however, appreciated the role of CSO based on their current and previous experiences. They explicitly stated that they needed CSOs to provide facilitation to support their work performance.

C.1 Village Budgeting and People with Disability Disabled groups who had district-level organizations included, for example, Yayasan Difabel Action (Diffabled Action Foundation) in Bogor, Pusat Pengembangan Potensi Disabilitas (P3D) [Center for Disability’s Potential Development] in West Lombok and Panti Asuhan Bina Netra Mahatmiya (Bina Netra Mahatmiya Orphanage) in Tabanan. These organizations’ representatives concluded that district and village governments as well as public in general still did not have concern over disabled groups.

Two years after the enactment of Law No. 6/2014 on Village has not given any significant benefit to disabled group in the village. This was reflected by low engagement of disabled groups in policy making in the village, poor knowledge of village apparatuses on disabled group’s needs and treatment of disabled as handicapped and sick person.

They wanted the village government to be willing to provide time and special forum for disabled groups to be involved and engaged in village development planning and budgeting regularly. It aimed that disabled groups could optimally convey their needs and proposals to be accommodated in RKP Desa and APB Desa.

Until now, these three organizations had not conducted any village budget planning advocacy. They focused more on providing trainings for enhancing skills of their members and facilitating economic empowerment of the members of their organizations. West Lombok P3D and Yayasan Difabel Action Bogor had so far

Guplin, S.Pd – BPD Montong Are Village – West Lombok:

“For us, we accept any type of NGO that is interested in cooperating with us, especially if they want to help us develop village community. Cooperation between village government and NGO is very helpful”.

Teguh Prasetyanto – Yayasan Difabel Action Bogor:“… In my opinion, there is still no difference whether or not the Village Law exists. Or not yet significant. Because the implementation of Village Law has not yet engaged marginalized group…”

Drs. Kaswito, M.Si – Panti Sosial Bina Netra Mahatmiya Tabanan:“…Require village head’s commitment to disabled so budget for them is really allocated for their activities…”

Khalid – P3D Lombok Barat:“…Village government and apparatuses’ way of thinking and look at disability, until now, disabled is looked at as sick and handicapped people…”

� 41

worked very hard to access health’s SKPD at the district level to support their organizations’ activities yearly.

C.2. Major Problems The role of CSOs in promoting inclusive and gender-responsive village budget planning will face challenges in village, sub-district, and district levels. Key problems faced by CSOs are as follow:

• The FGDs and interviews indicate that CSO’s knowledge on Village Law and gender responsive budget is still relatively low.

• The FGDs and interviews with government officials indicate that CSO’s works in promoting gender responsive budgeting have not been recognized by key stakeholders

• The FGDs and interviews with organisations representing diffable communities concluded that district and village governments as well as public in general still did not have concern over disabled groups – making it even harder to advocate budget allocation for this marginalized group.

• The interview with district and village government officials indicate that they are still resistant with the presence and involvement of external party outside the government.

• Village governments’ perceptions towards CSO may be classified into two forms; those who have never worked with CSO previously, and those who have had negative experience in working with them. In West Lombok, relations between CSOs, village government, and district government have long been well-established.

C.3. Alternative Solutions In an effort to optimize the role of CSOs, specifically for program’s partners, to foster public participation in gender responsive village budgeting, there are several concrete steps needed to be taken including:

• Capacity development of CSO partners implementing the program on Village Law and gender responsive budgeting

• Program partners should strengthen relationship with key stakeholders through regular discussion on gender responsive budgeting.

� 42

D. Gender Responsive Budget Analysis Gender responsive budgeting (GRB) is a budget that accommodates justice for women and men in obtaining access, benefit, and participation in decision making, and in controlling resources as well as equality of opportunity in receiving development results‑ . The purpose of GRB is to ensure a more effective and 8efficient planning and reduce gaps of development beneficiaries.

GRB works by analyzing the impact of spending expenditure of an activity to women and men and then doing analysis whether that budget allocation has addressed needs of women and men. Therefore, GRB is embedded in the budget structure (program, activities, and outputs) in budget policy framework of ministry or government agency. An output that is derived from activity will support the achievement of program outcome. The key difference is that the substance or content of the output will be examined from gender perspective.

Implementation of gender responsive budgeting in Indonesia has been supported by various regulatory frameworks consisting of a number of laws and policies enacted to promoting and fulfilling gender equality in Indonesia. The Government of Indonesia has ratified CEDAW Convention (Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women) through the Law No. 7/1984 to promote gender equality and justice. This policy was later followed by the issuance of Presidential Instruction No. 9/2000 on Gender Mainstreaming in National Development. This Presidential Instruction has been very integral in the implementation of gender mainstreaming in planning, budgeting, and evaluation of gender-based development policy and program.

General guidelines of gender mainstreaming in the region has been formulated through MoHA Regulation No. 15/2008 which was later revised into MoHA Regulation No. 67/2011 although it did not have detailed guidelines. The gender mainstreaming guidelines were further developed after national strategy on gender responsive planning and budgeting along with its implementing guidelines. This has given basic steps and direction for ministry, government agency, and regional government on how to further operationalize it in the region. The national strategy was joint circulatory letter of four ministries in charge of national gender responsive planning and budgeting (MoHA, Bappenas, Ministry of Finance, and Ministry of Women’s Empowerment and Child Protection) which was approved in November 2012 and launched in March 5, 2013.

This analysis was conducted against 2016 APBD of the three districts and 2016 APBDdesa on twelve selected villages. In District level, the analysis will emphasize on identifying activities and budget in work units directly allocated for women, disabled, and ethnic minority. The allocated budget for those activities will be summed and be calculated as proportion against regional expenditure budget.

The analysis of APBDesa starts with calculating budget allocation based on four major priority areas, consisting of village government, development, community affairs and empowerment. Afterwards, the analysis will identify activities and budget

Indonesia’s Ministry of Finance’s Presentation titled : “Gender Responsive Budgeting in 8

Performance-Based Budgeting”. April 2, 2014

� 43

that have direct contribution to the fulfillment of rights of women, disabled, and ethnic minority in the four priority areas.

D.1. Results of District APBD Analysis The health of regional public finance is measured through Fiscal Capacity Index (IKF). West Lombok and Bogor Districts belong to regional group that low fiscal capacity index with the score of 0,17 and 0,31 respectively. However, Tabanan District has a high score category with index score of 1,05. The index score reflects the large or small of regional revenue, after being deducted from government operation and staff expenditure, to finance the needs of poor people in their region.

Table 16 – Comparison of District Fiscal Capacity

Sources: *) PMK No. 142 tahun 2014 | **) PMK No. 37 tahun 2016

The capacity of regional public finance in general will link between fiscal capacity and regional poverty level. Percentage Index of Regional Poor Population (IPPMD) in West Lombok falls into a very high category with 1,34, and Bogor falls into high category with 0,96. Whereas, Tabanan falls into low category with score of 0,45. In general, it is clear that West Lombok and Bogor have a much heavier fiscal challenges because the number of poor people in those regions is very large.

Regional public expenditure of 2016 Regional Budget in Bogor District is 7,01Trilliun Rupiah, in Tabanan 1,87 Trillion Rupiah, and in West Lombok is 1,56 Trillion Rupiah. Such a huge expenditure has caused budget deficit in Bogor District with 1,49Trillion Rupiah (-21,3% ) and Tabanan District with 44,5 Billion Rupiah (-2,4%). Only West Lombok District designs budget forecasting policy into a surplus of 12,1 Billion (0,8%).

Regional government allocates budget that spreads into various different activities into work units and agencies. Of all those activities, the activities that have direct benefits to women, disabled, and ethnic minority are only around 0,1% to 1.8% from the total regional public expenditure budget.

Region IRFD* IPPMD* IKF**

Lombok Barat 0,43 1,34 0,17

Tabanan 0,67 0,45 1,05

Bogor 0,25 0,96 0,31

� 44

Graphic 1– 2016 Gender Responsive Regional Activities and Budget

�Source: DJPK – KementerianKeuangan RI tahun 2016

West Lombok District has 23 types of activities relevant to the fulfillment of needs of women, disabled, and ethnic minority into eight work units (SKPD) with the total amount of Rp28,08 Billion or equal to 1,8% of the total public expenditure. The biggest allocation is for development of village infrastructure for clean water for Rp18,2 Billion and housing infrastructure development for Rp353,4 million. The development of infrastructure and facility for clean water is directly correlated with the fulfillment of citizen’s basic needs. Whereas, the development of housing infrastructure and facility is prioritized toward poor people who do not have adequate living arrangement.

Table 17 - Detailed activities and budget (in Indonesian Rupiah) of APBDesa at West Lombok District related to women, children, and ethnic minority’s

needs

0.0%

0.5%

0.9%

1.4%

1.8%M

illio

ns

'- 0

7,500,000,000

15,000,000,000

22,500,000,000

30,000,000,000

Lombok Barat Tabanan Bogor

0.4%

0.1%

1.8%1.8%

0.1%

0.4%

Montong Are Facility procurement at Posyandu 9.000.000

  Family sanitation for 12 Unit 117.500.000

  Additional food for children under five years old 13.560.000

Bengkaung Equipment procurement at Posyandu 3.000.000

  Health equipment procurement 2.200.000

  Equipment procurement at Poskedes 5.383.400

  Social assistance in health sector 7.500.000

  Social assistance in education sector 10.000.000

  Supporting activities for Posyandu 5.000.000

  Essential food staples for poor community 30.000.000

Jagaraga Indah Additional local Polindes 60.000.000

� 45

Tabanan District also plans ten activities that are spread to four work units in the amount of 2,56 billion or equal with 0,1% of the total regional public expenditure . Social Affairs Work Unit allocates Rp 1,5 Billion for renovating and fixing inadequate living arrangement. As for Bogor District, the government also allocates budget of Rp29,23 Billion or equal to 0,4% of the total regional public expenditure. Activities for functional literacy and providing additional foods receive allocation of Rp4,95 Billion and Rp4,53 Billion.

D.2. Results of APB Desa Analysis The biggest source of 2016 village revenue is the Village Funds from the national budget (APBN) and Village Funds Allocation that is a 10 percent from Shared Revenue Funds and General Allocation Funds received by the district government. Those two revenue sources have contributed in average up to 81% of the total budget managed by the village government.

Badrain Bantuan Stimulan untuk pedagang bakulan 24 org 12.000.000

  Building Maintenance for Poskesdes 5.076.466

 Matrasses procurement for pregnant mother exercise for 11 Unit 6.435.000

  Baby scale procurement at Posyandu7 unit 7.000.000

  Support for orphans 48 children @ 1 year 2.400.000

 Technical assistance on Education Sector 20 people @ 1 year 5.000.000

  Special social assistance for disabled 1.000.000

  Additional food for:  

  Baby and Children under five years old 16.800.000

 Babyand Children under five years old BGM 16 people x 3 months 14.400.000

  Pregnant Mothers 60 people x 12 months 10.800.000

  High Risk Pregnant Mothers21 people x 3 months 18.900.000

  Elderly 160 people x 12 months 19.200.000

  Mother, Baby, and Children under 5 yrsclass 4.320.000

 Health Promotion on Clean and Healthy Living Behavior (PHBS) 1.439.500

 USG Check for High Risk Pregnanti Mothers 21 people x 1 year 5.250.000

 HB Check up for High Risk Pregnant Mothers 21 people x 1 year 1.417.500

� 46

In addition, the village government also receives income from regional tax sharing revenue and other regional taxes, as well as, financial assistance by the Central Government and/or Provincial Government related to program cooperation. The ulitization of Village Allocation Funds and financial assistance are strictly regulated through technical guidelines for implementation annually. Thus, village government does not have enough discretion in utilizing those funds beyond what has been regulated under the technical guidelines.

Graphics 2 – Village Funds and Village Allocation Funds Ratio against APBDesa

�

Sumber: Village regulations on 2016 APBDesa 2016, on 8 villages in West Lombok and Tabanan

Thus, village government’s policy innovation can only be planned financially with a greater flexibility with Village Funds and Village Owned Revenue. In essence, village funds from National Budget is unconditional transfer to finance the authority based on the rights of origins and village-scoped authority.

2016 Village Revenue and Expenditure Budget (APB Desa) is prioritized to finance development and village government’s operation. Those two areas have absorbed 85.8% of total village funds, with portion of allocation to village government operation 35.4% and development 50.45. Whereas, community empowerment receives allocation of 5.1% and capacity building for citizens with 9.1%

Graphics 3 – Detailed Utilization of Village Funds based on Four Priority Areas

0.0%

25.0%

50.0%

75.0%

100.0%

Mill

ions

'-

225,000,000

450,000,000

675,000,000

900,000,000

Lombok Barat TabananDD (Rp)ADD (Rp)Rasio (%)

90.8%80.7%

89.3%

71.5%

40.7%

97.0%97.0%97.0% 97.0%

40.7%

71.5%

89.3%80.7%

90.8%

� 47

�

Total village budget relevant to the fulfillment of needs of women, disabled, and ethnic minority in average is 5.1%, with the lowest percentage of 0.4% at Nyambu Village and the highest percentage of 8,9% at Badrain Village. The average score is derived from tracking compilation and tagging of all planned activities in APBDesa documents in six villages.

The very low utilization of village funds for service provision to women, disabled and ethnic minority groups is resulted from no or lack of experience of village apparatuses in formulating program relevant to fulfilling needs of women and marginalized communities. In addition, those marginalized communities have never been engaged in formulating and discussing village budget. Thus, they are not able to express or convey their needs to be accommodated in APBDesa.

If these findings are further examined based on the region, the average gender responsive village budget in West Lombok is much better with the score of 7.2%. While, the average budget for women and marginalized groups in Tabanan District is very low with the score only reaching 1%.

Table 18 – Gender Responsive Budget Ratio

District Villages Gender Responsive Budget (Rp) Ratio (%)

Lombok Barat

Montong Are 140.060.000,00 8,7%

Bengkaung 63.083.400,00 4,6%

Jagaraga Indah 60.000.000,00 6,5%

Badrain 131.438.466,00 8,9%

TabananPenatahan 21.402.500,00 1,6%

Nyambu 3.500.000,00 0,4%

� 48

Chapter Five: Conclusions and Recommendations

A. Conclusions Inclusive, participatory, and gender responsive village governance is still far from what is expected although the governance principles in the Village Law No. 6/2014 have been implemented for the last two years. The most basic problem is low quality of transparency in the village level.

Village government is still closed and not active in delivering information on policy planning, source of village revenue, and forecast of village funds utilization to citizens. On the other hand, open access to information is mandatory for any public body, including village government, as mandated by Law No. 14/2008 on Open Access to Public Information and also the Village Law. Furthermore, critical awareness of citizens has not been formed, especially on their rights to be involved in village budget planning.

Second fundamental problem is participation. Village government does not organize citizen consultation forum at RT, RW, and Dusun/Banjar levels to seek citizens’ inputs comprehensively in the process of formulating RPJM Desa, 2016 RKP Desa, and 2016 APB Desa. The formulation of three key planning and budgeting documents is mainly done by a team formed by village government. As for review and endorsement it is only involved BPD, Village Head, Village Apparatuses, and Selected Village Leaders.

Village government in the three districts also did not organize meeting or special session for disabled and ethnic minority to provide inputs to the formulation RPJM Desa, 2016 RKP Desa, and 2016 APB Desa. Special Women’s Forum (MKP) at the village is only organized in West Lombok District because there is District Head Regulation No. 10/2014. This practice is not implemented by village Governments in Bogor and Tabanan Districts.

The content of the budget document has not considered the gender gap aspect. The formulation of activities in APB Desa document does not begin with gender analysis to identify needs of women, disabled, poor people, and ethnic minority. The APBDesa document is attaching gender responsive budgeting questionnaires sheet (gender budget statement). Thus, the analysis of 2016 APBDesa, average budget allocation that has specific benefit to vulnerable and marginalized groups in the village is only around 5,1 percent.

Plan to engage civil society organizations (CSOs) in an effort to facilitate the acceleration of change in the village does not automatically receive positive response from key stakeholders, particularly from government at district, sub-district, and village levels. Village stakeholders in Bogor and Tabanan Districts place many conditions to allow participation of CSOs in the process of empowering citizens and village budget planning because they are worried that CSOs can only critique without providing any real solution and end up selling training and modul. Key stakeholders in West Lombok are much more opened with participation of CSOs as they have experienced and received benefits from their collaborative work with CSOs.

� 49

B. Recommendations The baseline study intends to furnish recommendations to Search for Common Ground (SEARCH) and three region-based consortium CSO partners. Target group of the advocacy should focus on women’s groups because they represent vulnerable group needed to be involved in village development planning and budgeting process as stipulated in the Village Law. On the other hand, engagement of women has been followed up by regional government, so the pattern and approach of engagement are much easier to replicate in the village level.

Disabled and ethnic minority group should also be paid further attention. Although data on disabled and ethnic minority groups in the village is highly inadequate, the results of this baseline indicate a very low awareness and concerns among citizens and village apparatuses on the existence of these two marginalized groups On the other hand, public policies by the Central and Regional governments have not ensured their engagement in the process of village development and budget policy making. This condition is quite different with women’s groups whose existence has been recognized and their role has been articulated in Village Law and other related technical regulations. The focus of women’s groups as the target group actually also can extend to aspects of other marginalized dimension, which is poor women, women with special needs, and ethnic minority women in the village.

General Recommendations are as follows:

• The baseline study identified that CSO’s knowledge on Village Law and gender responsive budget is still relatively low therefore Search should provide capacity development for project implementation team, especially knowledge and skills of village budget planning on a monthly basis.

• The baseline study found that many of the district and village government have never previously worked with CSO – or have negative perceptiops on working with CSO. Therefore it is important for Seach to organize pre-cooperation forum with District BPMPD with the involvement of Sub-District, BPD, and Village Apparatuses

More specifically, the followings are recommendations that should be followed up by consortium organizations as local implementing partners:

Bogor Regency • Prepare Village-owned enterprises development concept that focuses on basic

services delivery as a strategic entry point for collaboration with village government.

• Facilitate the establishment of women’s groups or identify existing communities

• Conduct facilitation and provide regular collective learning forum to women’s groups or communities in the village.

• Conduct participatory analysis of women’s needs to be addressed in village development policy

� 50

• Facilitate women’s audit against the implementation of village activities funded by APBDesa

• Facilitate the formulation and implementation of village information system in order to improve the quality of transparency of village government

• Facilitate the formulation of guidelines of women’s special consultative session in the village planning and budgeting process

• Provide thematic discussion forums to develop sensitivity and comprehensive understanding of Village Law to district key stakeholders

• Promote District BPMPD to declare six village sites as pilot project for inclusive and participative village.

• Facilitate the involvement of BPMPD team in three monthly monitoring to villages

Tabanan Regency • Prepare concept of Children-Friendly Village and Village-owned enterprise on

waste management development as a strategic entry point for collaboration with village government

• Facilitate the establishment of women’s groups or identify existing communities

• Conduct facilitation and provide regular collective learning forum to women’s groups or communities in the village.

• Conduct participatory analysis of women’s needs to be addressed in village development policy

• Facilitate the formulation and implementation of village information system in order to improve the quality of transparency of village government

• Facilitate the formulation of guidelines of women’s special consultative session in the village planning and budgeting process

• Provide thematic discussion forums to develop sensitivity and comprehensive understanding of Village Law to district key stakeholders

• Promote District BPMPD to declare six village sites as pilot project for inclusive and participative village.

• Facilitate the involvement of BPMPD team in three monthly monitoring to villages

• Provide capacity development for project implementation team, especially knowledge and skills of village budget planning on a monthly basis.

West Lombok Regency • Strengthen existing women’s groups or communities

• Plan and organize regular collective learning to women’s groups or communities in the village.

� 51

• Conduct participatory analysis of women’s needs to be addressed in village development policy

• Facilitate the formulation and implementation of village information system in order to improve the quality of transparency of village government

• Facilitate the formulation of guidelines of women’s special consultative session in the village planning and budgeting process

• Facilitate the involvement of BPMPD team in three monthly monitoring to villages

• Facilitate the formulation of reward and punishment mechanism to promote a more transparent and participatory village

• Provide capacity development for project implementation team, especially knowledge and skills of village budget planning on a monthly basis.

� 52

Annex 1: Terms of Reference

Baseline Study

DESA: Gender Sensitive Citizen Budget Planning in Indonesian Villages

Search for Common Ground (SEARCH) seeks an experienced consultant, think tank, or research institute to carry out a high quality and rigorous baseline study of its project in Indonesia, "Gender Sensitive Citizen Budget Planning in Indonesian Villages". The project aims to enhance citizen involvement in gender sensitive budget planning in local authorities at the village level. This project is funded by European Union and implemented in three provinces in Indonesia, Bogor, Bali, and Lombok. This Terms of Reference (TOR) defines the work that must be carried out by the external consultant. It provides a brief outline of the project, specifies the scope of the baseline, and outlines the baseline method.

1. Background of the Organization

Search for Common Ground (SEARCH) is an international conflict transformation NGO with a mission to transform the way the world deals with conflict away from adversarial approaches towards collaborative solutions. SEARCH has been working in Indonesia since 2002. As a diverse country Indonesia has challenge of managing peace and tolerance within the community, SEARCH with the local partner support the process of building peace culture and gender equality through media, dialogue, outreach, and capacity strengthening.

SEARCH-Indonesia works primarily with civil society organizations, women’s groups, parliamentary members, educators, students, youth, artists, governmental bodies, religious leaders and groups, and general community in Indonesia to promote gender equality, peace and tolerance to end violent conflict in Indonesia.

2. The Project

Search for Common Ground (SEARCH) Indonesia is implementing a 36 months project entitled ‘DESA: Gender Sensitive Citizen Budget Planning in Indonesian Villages’, which will be implemented in Bogor, Bali, and Lombok. This project seeks to answer the challenge faced by Indonesian women and disadvantaged communities such as religious minorities, the disabled and the poor, whose needs and voices are often not heard by development activities, and are further deprived. Village elites typically undertake all aspects of planning and generally do not elicit or encourage community participation. This leads to a lack of transparency and opens the door to corruption. Building on its extensive experience working with women parliamentary members at the national and local level, artists and activists, SEARCH will address these challenges by enhancing women and minority groups’ involvement in gender sensitive budget planning in local authorities at the village level. The main illustrated activities of this project include Training of Trainers and forums for local CSOs and community members to strengthen participatory village budgeting and empowering village community organizers to participate in village budgeting.

� 53

2.1. Project objectives

The overall objective of the project isto enhance citizen involvement in gender sensitive budget planning in local authorities at the village level

2.1.1 The specific objectives are:

a) To increase the capacity of local Civil Society Organizations to strengthen citizens participation in all phases of public budget processes in a gender sensitive way;

b) To improve the capacity of citizens and local village leaders to engage constructively in a gender sensitive, public budget process.

2.1.2 Key Participants of the project include:

Primary Participant: male and female CSO actors, local village authorities, citizens (marginalised women and men in target area)

Secondary Participant (Government counterparts):

District-level government authorities, regional and national CSOs.

We expect to accomplish the following results:

• Increased awareness and understanding among civil society organizations on the use of gender sensitive public budgets

• Increased capacity of civil society organizations to engage community leaders as local facilitators to engage public budgeting processes at the village level

• Increased awareness and understanding of women community members and village leaders in gender sensitive public budgeting process

• Increased capacity of women community members and village leaders to engage constructively in a gender sensitive public budgeting process

3. The Baseline Assessment

Search’s approach to baseline study is grounded in the guiding principles of our work: participatory; culturally sensitive; affirming and positive while honest and productively critical and valuing knowledge and approaches from within the context. Search Indonesia will apply this approach to the DESA baseline study, which will be carried out in consultation and in participation with key relevant stakeholders, appropriate community groups or key civil society individuals. The goal of the baseline study is to generate benchmark data related to the specific objectives and expected results of the project, so as to be able to measure progress towards the achievement of these objectives during the final evaluation at the end of the project.

The objective of the baseline assessment are:

• To identify the social, political, and economic factors that may influence the program’s set of plans and strategies

� 54

• To identify specific training needs of the local CSOs, women and men, village citizens, and local leaders

• To establish a benchmark against which to evaluate the results of the project and inform the programming strategy

3.1 Key Baseline Questions:

• Context analysis:

1. What are the legal and procedural mechanisms around public budgeting at local level in Indonesia?

2. How the process does takes place at village level budget formulation? What is the existing provision, if any, for citizen’s involvement in the budget planning?

3. What are the mechanisms and practices around gender and minority sensitive budget planning at national to the village level? What are the key drivers for people wanting to get involved? What are the key barriers for entry into the budgeting process, particularly for women and minority stakeholders?

4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the village and district level public budgeting process in Indonesia? Does the current practice induce either vertical or horizontal conflict? If so, how?

5. Who are the key stakeholders in the public budgeting process at the village level? What are their roles in the public budgeting process in the village and district? To what extend do they influence the decision making in the public budgeting process both positively and negatively? How is the power relations between these actors?

• Baseline Study

1. To what extent do community members at the village level get involved in public budgeting processes? Do they contribute in gender and minority sensitive budget planning?

1.1.What percentage of the total budget has the government allocated for projects on gender and minority issues in the last five years?

1.2.How has the Village Mid-Term Development Plan document (RPJM Desa) addressed gender and minority issues?

2. How is the capacity of local CSOs in strengthening citizen participation in a gender and minority sensitive public budgeting? What are the existing practices, if any, facilitated by local CSOs to enhance citizen participation in public budgeting?

3. To what extent do women and minority stakeholders engage constructively with village leaders in a gender and minority responsive, public budget process? What is the capacity needs among them in order to engage

� 55

constructively in public budgeting? What are the knowledge and skills that they possess and what additional skills they require in championing public budgeting?

4. To what extent citizen, especially those from minority groups including women and youth, are aware of the gender and minority sensitive budgeting provisions and procedures?

5. What are the strengths and weaknesses on collaboration between CSOs and Local government units in facilitating gender and minority sensitive budgeting?

6. What are citizen’s suggestions on making the local public budgeting process inclusive, participatory and citizen friendly?

3.2 Methodology

The consultant will visit the three targeted cities in the project for the purpose of baseline assessment. The consultant will develop the methodology and tools of the baseline in consultation with SEARCH management and DM&E staff. The baseline methodology and data collection tools are required to be included in an inception report to be submitted within a week of signing the contract. The inception report, especially the data collection tools needs formal approval from SEARCH before starting the data collection in the field.

S/he will use a mixed quantitative and qualitative methods:

• Desk study review: It is important to review literatures on the topic of participatory budgeting at the village level, as well as gender and minority sensitive budget planning in Indonesia in order to clearly understand the dynamics. It is also mandatory to review project proposal, logical framework, and other sources of data to complete the baseline assessment.

• Budget Analysis: A review of financial documents at each of the targeted will be conducted to identify whether the current budget analysis at targeted villages reflects participation of women and minority stakeholder in the public budgeting process. The analysis will identify how much the villages currently spend for women and minority stakeholders, and on what, from their current financial sources.

• Key Informant Interviews (KIIs): Interviews will be conducted to gather in-depth information on the capacity of CSOs and village leaders in engaging with community members to increase gender and minority sensitive village budget planning. It will be carried out with at least 15 key informants in three target areas, including the CSO staffs, village leaders, village authorities, members of women and minority groups.

• Focus-Group Discussions (FGDs): Two FGDs, one with community members and one with CSO representatives, will be conducted in each of the chosen three target areas to assess. The information generated from the FGDs will complement the result of the public perception survey. The participants of

� 56

the FGDs will be selected to ensure all voices are heard and all aspects of the baseline questions are covered.

• Community Survey: A short community survey in 15 villages (4 target villages and 1 control village in each of the three districts) will be conducted to capture community’s perception towards gender and minority sensitive budgeting and the extent of community’s engagement to village budget planning. In order to do the survey effectively and appropriately, the consultant will calculate a proper total sample size based on the total population universe of the 15 villages using a scientific sample size calculation formula. The total sample size will then be distributed proportionately to the 15 villages and a survey will be carried out inclusive of gender, age, religion and ethnicity (if and where appropriate). The consultant is responsible for conducting the perception survey in target districts, including arranging the enumerators for the survey. The consultant can include survey budget in the proposal.

4. Scope of Work

4.1 Location

This baseline will take place in three chosen locations where program activities are implemented: Bogor in West Java, Tabanan in Bali, and Mataram in Lombok.

4.2 Deliverables:

Following specific deliverables are expected form the consultant.

• Within seven days from signing the contract, the consultant shall submit the Inception Report, which clearly defines the baseline methodology, such as clear outlines of FGDs and KII checklist, survey questionnaires, and a research timeline with specific deadlines for each deliverable. The inception report should also clearly explain the sampling methodology and sample size for the quantitative survey and clear and logical explanation of the number of FGDs and KIIs planned in each location. The inception report will be reviewed and approved by the SEARCH Team. The evaluator cannot start the data collection process without the SEARCH team’s approval on the inception report, including the sample size calculation and distribution across different locations.

• Data collection in the field. Consultant will take lead in conducting FGDs, survey, and interviews. The data collection from FGDs and KIIs should be documented well into transcripts or notes.

• Draft baseline report to be submitted within 15 days of completion of the data collection for the review and comments from SEARCH Indonesia Team and Institutional Learning Team from the headquarters. The review and feedback of the report could be more than one rounds depending on the quality of the report submitted by the consultant and the extent to which the comments and suggestions from the first round of review have been incorporated. Please note that the draft report should have INTEGRATED

� 57

analysis of both quantitate and qualitative data and NOT separate presentation of data form two methods.

• The baseline report after incorporating the comments from SEARCH. The report should be written strictly in English language and should be around 30 -35 pages (excluding annexes) in length and consists of:

a. Cover Page. SEARCH will provide sample cover sheet for reference.

b. Table of contents, list of acronyms/abbreviations and list of tables and charts

c. Executive summary of key findings and recommendations – no more than 3 pages.

d. Introduction: Short context analysis project description, baseline methodology with clear explanation of sampling and limitations, FGDs/KIIs participant selection and data analysis approach.

e. Context Analysis findings – a compulsory and important part of the report – presented per key criteria which includes a graph on procedural mechanisms around public budgeting. Search may publish the Context Analysis separately and therefore it should meet the standard of external publications quality.

f. Baseline findings, analysis, and conclusions with associated data presented per research objective and per criteria, via a reasonable balance of narrative vs. graphs and charts (mandatory). The findings can include subsections for each research criteria.

g. Recommendations for activities/intervention. The recommendations should be forward looking and should focus on program design, planning vs implementation, implementation methodology and approach, project monitoring and evaluation system, among others. The recommendations should also be frame according to each baseline criteria.

h. Appendices, which include collected data, detailed description of the methodology with research instruments, list of interviewees, bibliography, and consultant’s brief biography.

• The consultant is required to check at least first 15 completed questionnaires of every interviewer to ensure the quality and accuracy of data, compile and responsible for data entry process in SPSS, and recheck a minimum of 15% of entered data through double entry system.

• Once SEARCH sees that all feedback has been incorporated by the consultant, the final report will be approved by SEARCH through an official e-mail to consultant from SEARCH DM&E Officer with the knowledge of SEARCH Director of Program and HR Manager. Other means of communication that might imply that the work has been completed will not be regarded.

� 58

• Once the first draft is submitted and reviewed, SEARCH may decide based on the quality of the draft whether the consultant may be required to revise the draft at the SEARCH Indonesia office working closely with SEARCH DM&E Officer during the scheduled back and forth review.

• The report should be submitted electronically in a MS-Word document. The consultant is responsible for English editing of the final report and should be well formatted. The report will be credited to the evaluator and potentially placed in the public domain at the decision of SEARCH. A verbal presentation of the findings of the baseline in a meeting organized by SEARCH for its staff and its partners. The representative of the donor may be present in this meeting.

• All handwritten and electronic transcripts of interviews and FGDs, hard copies of the survey questionnaires, any logistics taken from SEARCH for the baseline purpose and photographs taken during the baseline should be submitted to SEARCH. Further to this, all information generated during the baseline will be the sole property of SEARCH and is subject to submission to SEARCH along with the final report or the termination of contract.

5. Baseline Team

The Study team will consist of external consultant, SEARCH DM&E Coordinator, SEARCH CKU Project Officer, SEARCH Asia Regional DM&E Specialist and SEARCH Indonesia Director of Program.

6. Duration, Deadline, and Timelines

The total number of working days for the baseline survey will be 7,5 weeks from the date of signing the contract (April 18th to June 9th 2016). The following timeline will be followed:

Application submission deadline April 14th 2016

Hiring of consultant April 18th 2016

Submission of inception paper April 24th 2016

Back and forth review of the inception paper

April 25th – 29th 2016

Field data collection for baseline assessment

April 30th – May 17th 2016

Submission of first draft of baseline study report

May 26th 2016

Back and forth review on the draft May 26st – June 2nd 2016

Submission of final draft of baseline assessment

June 3rd 2016

Submission of final edited report June 9th 2016

� 59

7. Logistical Support

Search Indonesia will provide preparatory and logistical assistance to the consultant(s), which include:

• Background materials (Program Proposal/TOR, Log Frame, etc.);

• Preparation meeting with Country Director and key program personnel;

• Identify interviewees and set up interviews;

• Meeting arrangements with stakeholders and beneficiaries;

• Logistical arrangement including travel

• Review of the report

• Office desk and supply if the consultant is required to work at the office.

8. Requirements of applicant

These qualifications are applicable to all consultant, think tanks, or research institute with interest to apply:

• Minimum 5 years applied experience in research and Design Monitoring & Evaluation experience in development programs

• Sound knowledge and experience on the field of Civil Society Empowerment, Public Administration, Public Budgeting, Development or other related social science field;

• Strong knowledge and experience working around the participatory public budgeting, village development in Indonesia.

• Proven quantitative and qualitative research skills (candidates should provide a copy of baseline/evaluation reports produced);Strong background in participatory design, monitoring and evaluation methodologies;

• Knowledge of logical and results frameworks;

• Knowledge of the use of conflict management curriculum, behavior change communications and media;

• Work experience in Indonesia;

• Fluent in English and Bahasa Indonesia;

Note that the consultant is required to look for the enumerators him/herself, budget, and manage the team of enumerator.

The consultant is required to respect the following Ethical Principles[1]:

• Comprehensive and systematic inquiry: Consultant should make the most of the existing information and full range of stakeholders available at the time of the review. Consultant should conduct systematic, data-based inquiries. He

� 60

or she should communicate his or her methods and approaches accurately and in sufficient detail to allow others to understand, interpret and critique his or her work. He or she should make clear the limitations of the review and its results.

• Competence: Consultant should possess the abilities and skills and experience appropriate to undertake the tasks proposed and should practice within the limits of his or her professional training and competence.

• Honesty and integrity: Consultant should be transparent with the contractor/constituent about: any conflict of interest, any change made in the negotiated project plan and the reasons why those changes were made, any risk that certain procedures or activities produce misleading review information.

• Respect for people: Consultant respect the security, dignity and self-worth of respondents, program participants. Consultant has the responsibility to be sensitive to and respect differences amongst participants in culture, religion, gender, disability, age and ethnicity.

In addition, the consultant will respect Search’s evaluations standards, to be found in Search’s evaluation guidelines: http://www.SEARCH.org/programmes/ilt/dme_guidelines.html

9. Applications

Interested candidates should send:

(1) Expression of interest

(2) CV with sample of evaluation or baseline report

(3) Proposed budgeting plan (including survey budget)

to phandayani@SEARCH.org with cc: usandyarani@SEARCH.org, by April 14th 2016

� 61

Annex 2: Community Survey Questionnaire Theme

1 : Background Information

a. Gender

(a) Male

(b) Female

(c) Others:_________

b. Age:_____Years

c. Occupations: (Fill both columns)

(a) fixed occupation: ____________

(b) additional occupation: ___________

d. Education:

(a)Elementary School or equivalent

(b)Middle School or equivalent

(c)High School or equivalent

(d)Diploma/Bachelor Degree

Theme 2 : Village Mid-Term Development Planning (RPJM Desa)

Context :

- Village is obligated to formulating RPJM Desa document as one of prerequisites for receiving village funds in 2015 and 2016

- Villa receiving village funds in 2015 and first tranche in 2016 must have the RPJM Desa document

- Formulation of RPJM Desa should involve broad-based participation of citizen including women and marginalized communities.

1. Have you ever been invited by the village government to attend/participate in meetings to review RPJM Desa document?

(a) Yes: ! 1 time ! 2 times ! 3 times ! more than 3 times

(b) No, Never: (Why?)

2. Have you ever attended the meetings even though you are not invited by the village government?

� 62

(a) Yes: ! 1 time ! 2 times ! 3 times ! more than 3 times

(b) No, Never: (Why?)

3. Have the village government ever made a public announcement to citizens to attend the RPJM Desa meeting through pamphlet, village messenger, announcement at religious worship, announcement at town hall?

(a) Yes: ! 1 time ! 2 times ! 3 kali ! More than 3 times

(b) No, Never: (Why?)

4. In what month and year, the current RPJM Desa was approved?

(a) Month: … … … … … … | Year: … … … … …

(b) Do not know: (Why?)

Theme 3 Formulation of Village Government Work Plan (RKP Desa)

Context :

- RKP Desa is the official planning document used as the reference for managing development planning

- RKP Desaia the official document that must be approved prior to making Village Revenue and Expenditure Budget (APB Desa) document

- If village has managed its own budget and implement development program in 2015 and early 2016, Desa must have approved RKP Desa document

1. Have you ever invited by the village government to participate in citizen’s consultation meeting at sub-village level (RW or Dusun) to review RKP Desa document?

(a) Yes: ! 1 time ! 2 times ! 3 times ! more than 3 times

(b) No, Never: (Why?)

2. Have the village government ever organized a citizen’s consultation meeting or pre development planning consultation meeting specifically for women, disability and/or ethnic minority groups?

(a) Yes: ! 1 time ! 2 times ! 3 times ! more than 3 times

(b) No, Never: (Why?)

3. Have you ever been invited by the village government to attend Village Development Planning Consultation meeting to review RKP Desa document at the town hall?

� 63

(a) Yes: ! 1 time ! 2 times ! 3 times ! more than 3 times

(b) No, Never: (Why?)

4. Have you ever been appointed as a delegation of village development planning forum to represent your village in Kecamatan (sub-district) development planning meeting, district work units’ (SKPD) meeting forums, and district development planning meeting?

(a) Yes: ! 1 time ! 2 times ! 3 times ! more than 3 times

(b) No, Never: (Why?)

5. In what month and year 2016 RKP is approved?

(a) Month:______ | Year:______

(b) Do not know: (Why?)

Tema 4 : Formulation of Village Revenue and Expenditure Budget (APB Desa)

Context :- Each village must prepare APB Desa document to finance village

development. - APB Desa document is also a requirement for village funds

transfer in 2015 and 2016

1. Have you ever been invited to attend meetings to review APB Desa document at sub-village level (Dusun, RW or RT)?

(a) Yes: ! 1 time ! 2 times ! 3 times ! more than 3 times

(b) No, Never: (Why?)

2. Have you ever been invited by the village government to attend meetings to review APB Desa document at town hall?

(a) Yes: ! 1 time ! 2 times ! 3 times ! more than 3 times

(b) No, Never: (Why)

3. Have you ever attended the meeting even though you are not invited by the village government?

(a) Yes: ! 1 time ! 2 times ! 3 times ! more than 3 times

(b) No, Never: (Why?)

4. In what month and year 2016 APB Desa is approved?

(a) Month:_______| Year:________

� 64

(b) Do not know: (Why?)

Theme 5 : Gender Responsive and Socially Inclusive Village Budget Planning Mechanism

Context :

- Citizen needs a mechanism that secures their engagement in planning and budgeting processes

- Village Planning and Budgeting Mechanism should be aligned and adapted based on local socio-cultural environment of the village

- Improvement to planning and budgeting mechanism can come from direct recommendations by citizen.

1. What should the village government do to ensure that citizen are well-informed with budget planning and development program?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

2. In your opinion, in what way can women, the poor, disabled, and ethnic minority actively participate in the formulation of RPJM Desa?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

3. In your opinion, in what way can women, the poor, disabled, and ethnic minority actively participate in the formulation of RKP Desa?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

4. In your opinion, in what way can women, the poor, disabled, and ethnic minority actively participate in the formulation of APB Desa?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

� 65

5. In your opinion, what are the priority activities needed to be funded by annual APB Desa?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

� 66

Annex 3: FGD Checklist 1. What are the best steps and strategy for an inclusive approach to promote

transparency village development and budget information?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

2. What are the most appropriate platform to ensure citizen’s participation in reviewing and formulating RPJM Desa, RKP Desa, dan APB Desa, Specifically for women, disabled, and ethnic minority?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

3. If the village government does not practice open access to information and inclusive citizen’s engagement, particularly with women, disabled, and ethnic minority, whom do you think has the authority to give sanction to/penalize the village government?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

4. What are the ways to ensure that annual village development program is well targeted and fully beneficial to women, disabled, and ethnic minority?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

5. What are the requirements for achieving inclusive village and gender responsive budgeting?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

� 67

Annex 4: Questionnaires for Key Informant Interview (KII) Target 1 : Village Stakeholders

� 68

Village Head/ Village Apparatuses

:

Mid-Term Village Development Planning (RPJM Desa)- Has the village formulated RPJM Desa document?- Which year was RPJM Desaformulated or when was the last

time was it revised?- Who was assigned by the village head to prepare RPJM

Desa document?- How many meetings were organized to review RPJM

Desadocument at the village level? Who were invited?- How many meetings were organized to review RPJM Desa

document at sub-village (RT, RW or Dusun) level? Who was in charge in organizing the meetings?

- Were women, disability and ethnic minority were involved in RPJM Desa review meetings?

Village Government Work Plan (RKP Desa)in 2016- Is village in the process of preparing 2016 RKP Desa

document? - Who is assigned by the village head to prepare RKP Desa

document?- How many meetings are organized to review

RKPDesadocument at the village level? Who are invited?- How many meetings are organized to review RKP Desa

document at sub-village (RT, RW or Dusun) level? Who is in charge in organizing the meetings?

- Were women, disability and ethnic minority were involved in RKP Desa review meetings?

- Is there any special program for women and marginalized groups in RKP Desa document?

Village Revenue and Expenditure Budget (APB Desa)FY 2016- Is village in the process of preparing 2016 APBDesa

document? - Who is assigned by the village head to prepare APBDesa

document?- How many meetings are organized to review APBDesa

document at the village level? Who are invited?- How many meetings are organized to review APBDesa

document at sub-village (RT, RW or Dusun) level? Who is in charge in organizing the meetings?

- Were women, disability and ethnic minority were involved in APB Desa review meetings?

- Is there any allocated budget for special program for women and marginalized groups in APB Desa document?

Strategic Roles of CSOs (Non-Government Stakeholders)- Have the village government ever engaged or cooperated

with CSOs? - What kind of criteria does village government have for

establishing cooperation?- In your opinion, Can CSOs assist village government and

citizen to promote an inclusive, gender responsive planning and budgeting practice?

� 69

BPD :

- Is BPD responsible for organizing meetings to review RPJM Desa, 2016 RKP Desa and APB Desa FY 2016?

- How many meetings are organized by village government to review RPJM Desa, 2016 RKP Desaand APB DesaFY 2016?

- Who are invited to the review meetings of RPJM Desa, 2016 RKP Desa and APB DesaFY 2016?

- Are there any special meetings arranged for women and marginalized groups to review RPJM Desa, 2016 RKP Desaand APB DesaFY2016?

- In your opinion, what are suggestions for improvement in organizing review meetings RPJM Desa, 2016 RKP Desaand APB DesaFY2016?

Strategic Roles of CSOs (Non-Government Stakeholders)- Have the village government ever engaged or cooperated

with CSOs? - What kind of criteria does village government have for

establishing cooperation?- In your opinion, Can CSOs assist village government and

citizen to promote an inclusive, gender responsive planning and budgeting practice?

Target 2 : District and Sub-District Stakeholders

SKPD (work unit) officials responsible for handling village affairs

:

- In your opinion, has village development planning process in the village been participatory or good? What are the examples?

- In your opinion, how should village development planning should ideally be practiced?

- What are your suggestions for improvement in the village? - Has there been any effort by work unit or district government

to improve village capacity? - How do work unit or district government monitoring the

quality of village development implementation?

Strategic Roles of CSOs (Non-Government Stakeholders)- Have the village government ever engaged or cooperated

with CSOs? - What kind of criteria does village government have for

establishing cooperation?- In your opinion, Can CSOs assist village government and

citizen to promote an inclusive, gender responsive planning and budgeting practice?

� 70

Sub District Stakeholders

:

- In your opinion, has village development planning process in the village been participatory or good? What are the examples?

- In your opinion, how should village development planning should ideally be practiced?

- What are your suggestions for improvement in the village? - Has there been any effort by work unit or district government

to improve village capacity? - How do work unit or district government monitoring the

quality of village development implementation?

� 71

Annex 5: KII’s Respondents District Names Institutions Interview Dates

West Lombok

1. Surapati Head of BPMPD 17 June 2016

2. Awaludin Section Chief of Institutional Empowerment, BPMPD

17 June 2016

3. Mudahan Head of Sub-Directorate 17 June 2016

4. Hj. Nuraini Coordinator of PeKKA Lobar 17 June 2016

5. Khalid P3D Lobar 17 June 2016

6. DewiDamayanti Head of WHDI Lobar 18 June 2016

7. Ni LuhSamiasih Secretary of WHDI Lobar 18 June 2016

8. Suratman Head of Government Affairs, Badrain Village

17 June 2016

9. Mas’ud BPD – Badrain Village 17 June 2016

10. Sudirman Section Chief Staff– Narmada Sub-District

17 June 2016

11. Nasrullah, BA Secretary of Sub-District Head – Kediri Sub-District

18 June 2016

12. Mujtahid Village Head – Montong Are 18 June 2016

13. Guplin, S.Pd BPD Head – Montong Are 18 June 2016

14. Suhaili Head of Government Affairs – Jagaraga Indah

18 June 2016

15. I WayanTagel BPD Head – Jagaraga Indah 18 June 2016

16. Saiful, SIP Secretary of Village – Bengkaung

18 June 2016

17. M. Rosidi, S.Pd BPD Member – Bengkaung 18 June 2016

18. Baharudin Section Chief, PMD – Kec. BatuLayar

17 June 2016

Tabanan 1. Drs. IG NgurahSupanji, M.Si

Head of BPMPD 21 June 2016

2. Drs. Kaswito, M.Si

Head of Bina Netra Mahatmiya

23 June 2016

3. Ahmen M. Lumira

Immanuel Church 23 June 2016

4. KadekArlini Kunti Bhakti NGO 21 June 2016

5. WayanSarimin Section Chief’s Staff – Penebel Sub-District

22 June 2016

� 72

6. I Made Murdika, STTP

Sub-District Head – Marga Sub-District

22 June 2016

7. Ni Made Setiasih, SE

Staff – Kec. Kediri 22 June 2016

8. I GedeWayanWihastra

KepalaDesa – Rejasa 22 June 2016

9. I WayanKurnawiasa

KepalaDesa – Penatahan 23 June 2016

10. Ida BagusSunarbawa

KepalaDesa – Nyambu 23 June 2016

11. I PutuGunarsa W, SH

Perbekel – DesaGeluntung 22 June 2016

12. I Made Sukana, MPd

BPD – Rejasa 22 June 2016

13. Made Subrata Ketua BPD – Penatahan 22 June 2016

14. I GustiNgurah Putra Tenaya

BPD – Nyambu 23 June 2016

15. KetutSudiatmaja Ketua BPD – Geluntung 23 June 2016

Bogor 1. Evi KasubditAparaturPemdes – BPMPD

23 June 2016

2. Teguh Prasetyanto, ST

Difable Action Indonesia 21 June 2016

3. NurlelaTurrahmah

SALIMAH 25 June 2016

4. Anton, SH Majelis Agama Konghucu 25 June 2016

5. Irawan Kasi Pembangunan – Kec. Bojonggede

23 June 2016

6. Lena Kasi Pemerintahan – Kec. Cibungbulang

21 June 2016

7. A. Khaliq F Kasi Pemerintahan – Kec. Sukamakmur

21 June 2016

8. Isamudin Anggota BPD – Cibadak 21 June 2016

9. Herman Ketua BPD – Dukuh 22 June 2016

10. Mahpudin Ketua BPD – Galuga 24 June 2016

11. CecepSupriyadi SekretarisDesa – Cibadak 21 June 2016

12. Budi KepalaDesa – Dukuh 22 June 2016

� 73

13. Endang Sujana KepalaDesa – Galuga 21 June 2016

14. Mulyadi SekretarisDesa – Galuga 25 June 2016

15. Andi SekretarisDesa – Waringin Jaya

23 June 2016

� 74

Annex 6: FGD Respondents District First Group’s Participants Second Group’s Participants

West Lombok

1. Saifuddin - BKPRMI2. Sri Anim – KPI NTB3. Zahratun -

PerkumpulanPancaKarsa4. Hasim - JMS5. Sapardi – Bappeda6. Kamaruddin - BPMPD7. Abdul Jihadi – Secretary of

PCNU Lobar8. Aminah – Head of CC Jagerage9. Ibrahim - Volunteer10. Hamdi – Somasi NTB11. Heru – Jurnalist (Suara NTB)12. ErvynKaffah – FITRA NTB13. IdhamHafidz – FITRA NTB14. Hj. Nuraeni – PeKKA Lobar15. Jumadi – FITRA NTB16. HadiPrayitno

1. Sri Sukarni - PATTIRO NTB2. Budi Santoso - P3D

(Center of Potential Development of Disability)

3. Hj. Nuraini – PeKKA Lobar4. Hilmiani – PeKKA Lobar5. Fitri - ASWARA6. Ni LuhSamiasih – WHDI

Lobar7. I WayanGetas –

PeradahKatolik

Tabanan 1. LuhRinitiRahayu - Bali Sruti2. Ni LuhPutuNilawati – LBH APIK3. NyomanMasni – LPA Bali4. Ayu Pt Natri - Academicians5. Ni NengahBudawati - P2TP2A 6. Made Sukaja – Academicians7. K. Arlini – LSM Kunti Bhakti8. Pt. Suartini – LPA Bali9. IGA DiahYuniti – Academicians10. TitikSuharyati – Bali Sruti

1. I WayanTontra– MMDP2. Kaswito – Mahatmia3. Ida Ayu P – Dria Raba4. Ni Made R – WahanaKria

Putri5. N.Y Prismawati – PKK6. G.A.N Murwati – PKK7. J. Joko Utomo – SLB BN 8. Pdt. M. Lumira – FKUB9. Ni Made Ana Kusuma D –

WHDI10.Ni Made Putriningsih –

WHDI

Bogor 1. Ari - KOPPEL2. Anwar Razak - KOPPEL3. Ayub B – Komppas Nusantara4. Eliyadi - BAPPEDA5. Lisa -

PerempuanPeduliPosyandu6. Tima – Aksamala Foundation7. Tika - BPMPD 8. Amin – Aksamala Foundation9. Soleh – PosyanduKenanga10. Asep – EFFA

1. Teguh Prasetianto - Bid. Difabel

2. Budi Santoso - Difabel Action

3. IsnaNur ’Aini – Difabel Action

4. TutiEriati – Bina Daksa5. Very - Komppas Nusantara 6. Nurita Anggraini - EFFA7. HasriMudjiati –

PersaudaraanMuslimah

� 75

Annex 7: Writers’ Bio

UTAMA P. SANDJAJA, PhD.

Utama (Sandy) is a Program Lead on Bappenas Hub Support, Village Development working Group, and Bureaucratic Reform Working Group at Knowledge Sector Initiative (KSI). Prior to KSI, Utama has worked in Partnership for Governance Reform in Indonesia (PGR) for 10 years. During his employment in PGR, he has developed, managed, and supervised various projects related to democratic consolidation, local governance, and decentralization in which civil society strengthening is an integral component of the program. He also managed and developed program/project staff to ensure staff perform effective project delivery according to expected targets. He has extensive conceptual and practical experiences in working on the areas of democracy, local governance and civil society empowerment through projects implementation. He has also been involved in the program development and project implementation monitoring. Utama has a thorough understanding of donor priorities in Indonesia and good working relationship with a number of state agencies and has worked with UNDP as a national consultant for a number of program developments for UNV and UNDP Governance Unit. Additionally, Utama also had experiences working in private and public sectors.

HADI PRAYITNO

He is an Advisor on Budget Policy and Village Funds at Directorate General Village Development and Community Empowerment; Ministry of Village, Disadvantage Regions, and Transmigration. He has worked as Knowledge Manager of National Secretariat of Indonesian Forum for Budget Transparency from 2009 to 2015. He has also a Team Leader of Budget Advocacy and Monitoring for Southeast Asia Countries, which supported by International Budget Partnership. Mobile/ WA: +6281949653162 | Email: hadibaik09@gmail.com

� 76