IMPACT EVALUATIONS AND COMMUNICATION Lessons learned from PKH in Indonesia

1. IMPACT EVALUATIONS AND COMMUNICATION Lessons learned from PKH in Indonesia Edi Suharto, PhD Director, Directorate of Social Security Ministry of Social Affairs, Indonesia Website: 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

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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 Receiving fulfilling Beneficiaries

5. Coverage Beneficiaries Areas and Human Resources 2014 2012 2010 2007

6. Beneficiaries, Facilitators and Operators

7. PKH: Mechanism Business Process Stakeholders

8. Process and targets • 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 • Province, district: service providers, operators, facilitators All stakeholders • National, regional, province: ministries, payment agencies, mass media, • District, subdistrict: beneficiaries, facilitators

9. Dissemination and coordination meeting

10. Community meeting

11. Technical guidance

12. Impact Evaluation: Methods and Actors • Internal • Assessment • Verification • Grievance mechanism • External • Spotcheck • Survey • FGD Staff of MOSA, Facilitators, Operators, Internal experts World Bank, Board of Planning, TNP2K, Academia, Think Tanks

13. 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

14. 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

15. How to communicate IEs? • 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 • Results of IEs • Shortcomings and causes • Immprovements and justifications

16. Communication: tools and products (1)

17. Communication Tools and Products (2)

18. 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

19. 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