Overview of Presentation

Survey of Implementers and Stakeholders at Sub-national Level on Issues relating to Identification of Poor Householdsin Kratie and Siem Reap provinces, March-May 2008 Research conducted by SBK Research on behalf of the MOP Identification of Poor Households Programme

Overview of Presentation • Objectives of the research • Research design and methodology • Key findings • Conclusions and Recommendations

Objectives of the research • Monitor the achievement of objectives of the MoP Identification of Poor Households Programme • Reflect on the perceptions and opinions of implementers, villagers and stakeholders, in order to further improve the process for identification of poor households • Disseminate experiences to stakeholders to promote the national Procedures for Identification of Poor Households, and to identify areas for improvement

Research design and methodology • Coverage: Kratie and Siem Reap, in areas covered by Round 1 of IDPoor implementation during second semester of 2007 • 6 communes (3 in each province), selected to cover areas with different livelihood types, ethnic groups • Kratie: Preak Saman, Kou Loab, Khseum • Siem Reap: Moung, Khchas, Anlong Samnar • 30 villages within these 6 communes—Planning and Budgeting Committee Representative Group (PBCRG) members • 12 villages within these 6 communes—Village Representative Group (VRG) members and villagers

Research design and methodology • Mostly qualitative, some quantitative • Conducted 44 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) • Total 298 persons participated in FGDs, of whom 167 were male, 131 female • Each FGD had 5 to 8 participants • Individual interviews of 239 respondents, of whom 123 were male, 116 female

Research design and methodology • PDOP (6 persons) were interviewed individually • PLAU Staff (2 persons) were interviewed individually • PFTs & DFTs (17 persons, of whom 14 were individually interviewed and in FGDs, and 3 of whom were individually interviewed) • PBCRGs (6 FGDs = 40 persons) • VRGs (12 FGDs = 65 persons) • Villagers—poor households (12 FGDs = 92 persons) • Villagers—non-poor Households (12 FGDs = 87 persons) • Villagers—Poor and Non-poor households (individual interviews =188 persons, and FGDs = 179 persons). These same villagers also took part in the FGDs. • Government/NGO/IO service providers (26 persons)

Main Research Questions • Understanding of objectives of Identification of Poor Households • Strong and weak aspects of the process • Fairness of process for choosing PBCRG and VRG representatives • Suggested improvements to the questionnaire • Capacity, commitment and willingness of implementers • Level of coordination between the PDOP/PLAU, PDOP/PFTs/DFTs

Main Research Questions • Sustainability of process • Level of participation and level of support by villagers • Opportunity to provide comment on Final Draft List of Poor Households • Perceived benefits of IDPoor / services available for provision to poor households • Perceived accuracy of the Final List of Poor Households • Frequency of updating the Lists of Poor Households • Sharing of information/data with service providers

Key Findings

Understanding of objectives of Identification of Poor Households • The six respondent types had different levels of understanding depending on their knowledge and ability • Provincial, district, and commune-level stakeholders and implementers understood the objectives well and in detail • Village-level respondents had less but still high understanding, mainly believing that the objective of IDPoor was for obtaining gifts or grants from government, and other assistance from NGOs/IOs

Strong aspects of the process • Existing human resources with existing structure/hierarchy used for implementation • Provincial, district, commune, and village levels are ready to participate in implementation • Documents, schedule, and procedures were provided from the national level, including budget • People involved were cooperative and had good commitment to implement the identification process and complete the List of Poor Households in their villages and communes

Weak aspects of the process • Capacity and ability of existing human resources, particularly at commune and village levels, is limited (knowledge, ability/capacity) • Implementers were very busy with many tasks at once (national census, commune/Sangkat development plan, identification of poor households, etc) • The programme provided a meagre budget for the implementation process, as now the price of food and goods including petrol are increasing • There was a lack of vehicles for transportation (however, funds were provided for petrol)

Fairness of process for choosing PBCRG and VRG representatives • All PBCRG focus group participants stated that the process of choosing PBCRG members was fair, because they were elected • Most VRG focus group participants felt that VRG members had been selected fairly • Quite evenly divided opinion among villagers in FGDs regarding the fairness of selection of VRG members. • Fair: because villagers knew the VRG members, and elected their representatives themselves • Unfair: because members selected by village chiefs or deputy village chiefs and presented to villagers as VRG candidates • Majority of villagers interviewed individually (55.9%) thought the process of selecting VRGs was fair, while only 9% thought it was unfair. High proportion of Don’t Know answers (35%).

Suggested improvements to the questionnaire • Most PBCRG and VRG focus group participants indicated that the questionnaire used for Identification of Poor Households is fair and appropriate. Only a few respondents indicated that the questionnaire used for Identification of Poor Households was not fair and appropriate considering the actual situation within their communes or villages. • Most villager focus group participants had difficulty suggesting improvements to the questionnaire, as it was beyond their level of knowledge or capacity

Capacity, commitment and willingness of implementers PDOP and PLAU staff, PFTs and DFTs were asked whether the PFTs and DFTs, PBCRG and VRG members have the capacity and willingness to implement this process again • Most respondents felt that PFTs and DFTs are capable, committed and willing to implement the process of Identification of Poor Households in the future • They also felt that PBCRG and VRG members have built up a good level of capacity, but would need refresher training again before conducting interviewing, as their capacity is lower (especially the VRG members)

Capacity, commitment and willingness of implementers • A typical comment of one DFT in Chhlong District, Kratie province: “We can do it because we already have experience of doing it once. The second time, we could do it better than last time. If refresher training is provided it will be even better—we will improve our knowledge, and we will be motivated to do it.”

Capacity, commitment and willingness of implementers • PBCRG and VRG members themselves answered that they were committed and willing to conduct IDPoor again, and were confident they could do it if they received refresher training to augment their experience • Sufficient documentation and training was provided last time, which gave them confidence for future implementation • Evident commitment of PBCRG and VRG members to helping the poor households in their community

Capacity, commitment and willingness of implementers PBCRG member comment in Khseum commune, Kratie: “We have the lists at hand, we have a certain level of understanding already [about the process], and the villagers can participate actively. [We are willing to do this] to serve the real poor households.”

Sustainability of Process • When asked how to achieve long-term sustainability of implementation, PDOP and PLAU staff emphasised: • the importance of integrating IDPoor with the commune development planning process as a task of Commune Councils • the need for allocation of appropriate allowances to cover subsistence costs of implementers, which could be supported by NGOs • PBCRG members felt that regular refresher training (especially to VRG members) and appropriate budget was key to achieving sustainability

Level of coordination between the PDOP/PLAU, PDOP/PFTs/DFTs • Majority of PDOP/PLAU staff, PFT and DFT respondents felt there were no problems in coordination between PDOP and PLAU, and between PDOP and PFTs/DFTs. However, in Siem Reap, some respondents said that meetings between the PDOP and PLAU were infrequent.

Level of participation and level of support by villagers; opportunity to provide comment on Final Draft List of Poor Households • Commune and Village authorities/ representatives strongly participated in and supported the implementation of identification of poor households. • Comment by DFT in Chhloung District, Kratie: "The level of support from commune councils and village authorities, and the communication between them, was extremely good, including the selection of PBCRG members, the high level of participation of villagers, the participation of NGOs and teachers; and their active participation in the selection of VRG members and in discussion about who should be classified as Poor Level 1, Poor Level 2 and Other households."

Level of participation and level of support by villagers; opportunity to provide comment on Final Draft List of Poor Households • Overall agreement among PBCRG/VRG members and villagers themselves that villagers both had the opportunity to participate, and did actually actively participate, in making objections and suggestions for changes to the Final Draft List of Poor Households • However, approximately half of participants in villager FGDs said that they did not see the draft List of Poor Households displayed in public places • Some villager respondents saw the lists but did not make objections or suggestions regarding the list because they were afraid that poor households in the list might react angrily

Level of participation and level of support by villagers; opportunity to provide comment on Final Draft List of Poor Households • Half of villager respondents (50.0%) interviewed individually believed that there was sufficient opportunity to make objections and suggestions. • Around one-fifth (19.1%) of villager respondents felt that there was not sufficient opportunity to make objections and suggestions. • A quite high proportion (30.9%) of villagers interviewed did not know whether there had been sufficient opportunity to make objections and suggestions for changes to the Final Draft List of Poor Households.

Level of participation and level of support by villagers; opportunity to provide comment on Final Draft List of Poor Households Comment by PBCRG member, Kou Loab commune, Kratie: "I have never before seen such strong participation in a village meeting [as in this process]. They really participated a lot. … In village or commune meetings, they never participated as much as this before, and they didn’t express their views much. But when we did Identification of Poor Households, 100 or more persons participated and they expressed their views a lot."

Level of participation and level of support by villagers; opportunity to provide comment on Final Draft List of Poor Households VRG member comment, Moung Tboung village, Moung commune, Siem Reap "The people were supportive, they warmly welcomed it, both old and young, during the meeting about doing identification of poor households."

Perceived benefits of IDPoor / services available for provision to poor households • Most respondents and participants in the FGDs of five types shared the view that poor households can receive real benefits from being identified as poor, such as free health services, scholarships for school pupils and students, social concession land, gifts and donations, credits for investment, free seeds and animals for raising, etc.

Perceived benefits of IDPoor / services available for provision to poor households • Most PBCRG participants of FGDs stated that the Lists of Poor Households had already been used by commune and village authorities • However, most VRG and villager FGD participants expressed the view that the Lists had not been used much yet by commune and village authorities (Note: survey was conducted 5-6 months after Lists of Poor Households had been approved by Commune Councils)

Perceived benefits of IDPoor / services available for provision to poor households • A majority of participants in FGDs felt that the services or assistance provided to poor households would be sufficient to justify all of the effort, because: • NGOs/IOs and government institutions acknowledged the Lists of Poor Households • They expected that these organisations and institutions could provide services and assistance • The majority of FGD participants expressed the view that identification of poor households is an initiative of great significance for reducing the poverty of poor households

Perceived accuracy of the Final List of Poor Households • PFTs and DFTs, PBCRG and VRG members perceived that the Final Lists of Poor Households are accurate. They felt that the level of false inclusion and false exclusion was low (no more than 5%). • Most villager respondents perceived that the Final Lists of Poor Households are accurate. The level of false inclusion and exclusion was perceived by the greatest number of respondents to be no more than 10%. However, there were a large number of “Don’t Know” responses. • Female villagers had a somewhat higher tendency than males to perceive the Lists as being accurate and representative.

Perceived accuracy of the Final List of Poor Households Perceived reasons for high level of accuracy: • Public display of draft Lists • Opportunity was provided for villagers to make objections and suggestions regarding changes to the Lists Perceived reasons for inaccuracies: • VRG members tried to include their relatives in the Lists, or even themselves even though they were not poor • Some households pretended to be poor or concealed information • Some households were missed by the process because they had migrated out of the village or were not at home during the period interviews were conducted • Meagre remuneration to VRG and PBCRG members for conducting household interviews

Frequency of updating the Lists of Poor Households Note: Only Government and NGO service providers were asked this question (26 respondents) • Most Government and NGO service providers felt that the List of Poor Households should be updated every year • A few respondents felt that the Lists should be updated once every three to five years, because an annual update is too frequent, considering the length of time it takes to complete the process, and the cost of implementation

Sharing of information/data with service providers • At the time of the survey, data from the PDOP was still in the process of being entered into the database and was therefore not ready for dissemination • Most government department respondents wished to obtain the data from the PDOP when it became available • Respondents were not aware of other promotional activities having been carried out by PDOPs

Summing up • Generally high level of understanding of the objectives of identification of poor households, both by implementers and villagers • Strong level of commitment and willingness to implement and participate in the process, which is a positive sign for future implementation; however local capacity is still limited and will require refresher training when conducting updates

Summing up • Implementers have a heavy workload, including IDPoor among a range of other tasks, which impacts on speed and quality of implementation • PBCRG and VRG members are generally accepted as being fairly chosen and therefore legitimate representatives of the community for conducting the IDPoor process • High level of participation, support and interest by commune and village authorities as well as villagers themselves

Summing up • Opportunity for villagers to make objections and provide suggestions on draft Lists of Poor Households quite extensive, but still needs to be improved and publicised more • Questionnaire generally accepted as fair and appropriate • To enhance sustainability, PDOP and PLAU staff emphasised the importance of integrating IDPoor with the commune development planning process as a task of Commune Councils

Summing up • Most people see the potential for real benefits from identification of poor households in the form of services and assistance to poor households; however, at the time of survey, utilisation of the Lists of Poor Households was probably still relatively low (only the paper lists were so far available, and data from the Database of Poor Households had not yet been disseminated yet at district and provincial level) • The majority of FGD participants expressed the view that identification of poor households is an initiative of great significance for reducing the poverty of poor households

Summing up • Level of accuracy of the Lists of Poor Households is perceived to be high, with inclusion and exclusion errors believed by most respondents to be no more than 5-10%. • Seems to be agreement (although the sample is small) that updates should be conducted annually in order to maintain accuracy of Lists of Poor Households • High level of interest among service providers in using the data, but promotion needs to be improved in order to raise their awareness of the process and data availability

Overview of Presentation