IMPACT EVALUATIONS AND COMMUNICATION Lessons learned from PKH in Indonesia

Edi Suharto, PhDDirector, Directorate of Social SecurityMinistry of Social Affairs, IndonesiaWebsite: www.policy.hu/suharto Emails: suharto@policy.hu and edsocialpolicy@gmail.com

To be presented at workshop on “Improving Targeting in Conditional Cash Transfer Programmes”, organised by Centre for Policy Analysis (CEPA) and International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), Colombo, 16-19 July 2012

Focus: to discuss How to comminicate IEs? Who were we trying to communicate

with, why and specifically about what?

What communication processes and products: why we choose them rather than any others?

Which seemed to work well, and which work well? Whether we did what we had originally planned to do or something different and why?

Communication approaches and products to increase key stakeholders’ awareness on the purpose of, process and results of IEs.

PKH

Communication

Flow of Presentation

• PKH: programme profile and business process

• Impact evaluations of PKH and communication approaches and tools to maximise the uptake of IEs?

• Lessons learned: challenges and window of opportunities

PKH: Family Hope Program• Conditional Cash Transfer for poor

families (i.e. below $25 per month per capita)

• Cash transfer: between $60 and $140 per year, paid every three month

• Conditionalities: visiting health centre and sending children to school

• Beneficiaries: pregnant and lactating mothers, families with children under 5-years old, or children enrolled in primary and secondary schools

Conditional Cash Transfer

Education

Health

Money

Beneficiaries

Receivingfulfilling

Coverage

Beneficiaries

500,000 HHs

816,000 HHs

1,500,000 HHs

3,000,000 HHs

Areas and Human Resources2007 2010 2012

Provinces 7 20 33

Districts 48 88 166

Sub-districts 337 946 1,909

Facilitators 1,305 3,452 6,712

Operators 192 455 871

Area/Regional Coordinator

3 20 36

MIS/Program Expert

3 3 192007

2010

2012

2014

Beneficiaries, Facilitators and Operators

PKH: MechanismBusiness Process

• Targeting• ValidationIdentification

• Coordination meeting• Community meeting• Training

Preparation

• Verification• Payment• Social guidance

Implementation

• Monitoring• Resertification• Transition to graduation

Evaluation

Stakeholders

PKH MOSA

MiEdu

Mi Health

MiCom

Local Govt

Telcom

Bank/ Post Off

Process and targets

DisseminationCooordination meetingCommunity meetingTechnical guidance

All stakeholders

Province, district: service providers,

operators, facilitators

National, regional, province: ministries, payment agencies, mass media,

District, subdistrict: beneficiaries,

facilitators

Target groups:• Beneficiaries• Facilitators & Operators• Service providers• Payment agencies: Post

Office/BRI• Ministries/Board: Education,

Health, Information, Planning, TNP2K

• Parliament members• NGOs and Think Tanks:

SMERU• International agencies: World

Bank, GIZ, AUSAID• Mass media

Dissemination and coordination meeting

Community meeting

Technical guidance

Impact Evaluation: Methods and Actors

Internal • Assessment• Verification• Grievance

mechanism External• Spotcheck• Survey• FGD

World Bank, Board of Planning, TNP2K, Academia, Think Tanks

Staff of MOSA, Facilitators, Operators, Internal experts

IEs: general findings

Health:• Increasing visits to health centres• Increasing expenditures on health• Improving health facilities

Education• Increasing participation rate in

schooling• Decreasing child labour• Improving education facilities

IEs: Shortcomings and improvements

More than 90% of payment is received by beneficiaries adequately and timely. Post Office is better than Bank Rakyat Indonesia. However, rigid procedures (esp. BRI) and scattered areas with lack of banking facilities and internet connections make payments are slow in some areas Community payment Moving PKH offices at ditrict level to province level

• PKH can increase purchasing power and reduce immediate hardship and poverty. But the impacts are still limited since the cash transfer is small• Approaching key stakeholders to increase the amount of cash transfer• Integrating Family Development Sessions into PKH conditionalities• Developing transition strategies: piloting “PKHPlus” integrating community

empowerment programs

How to communicate IEs?

Information Target Methods

• Results of IEs • Shortcomings and

causes• Immprovements

and justifications

INTERNAL (Management)• MOSA: Ministers, Director

Generals and related staffs• PKH administrators and

facilitators & operators EXTERNAL (Key stakeholders)• Related ministries and

bodies• Parliament members• Local governments• Beneficiaries

• Meetings• Policy memo (Nota

Dinas)• Policy Brief• Reports and letters• “Book” Pedoman

Umum (general Guideline)• Seminars and

workshops• FGDs

Communication: tools and products (1)

Communication Tools and Products (2)

Challenges• Dynamic of the PKH system of operation: huge number of

beneficiaries and human resources with regular payment and remunerations; changes of facilitators, operators, local government staffs

• Different geographical areas: wide range span of control and management; different accessibility to service providers, lack of banking facilities, weak internet connection

• Different stakeholders: governmental institutions, central and local, service providers, INGOs and international organizations with different capacities and commitment

Lessons learned• IT and MIS can enhance business process and flow of

communitaion effectively and timely. Yet human resources, such as coordinators, facilitators, operators remain key players in succeeding communication process and producing better results

• Strategic coordination and networking, regular meetings and monitoring, knowledge management and periodic capacity buildings need to be maintained and updated

• Big programme such as PKH require communication process and products to stick on KISS (Keep It Simple and Standardized). However, social aspect of the program needs flexibility and humanity