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
Focus: to discuss
Communication
approaches and
products to
increase key
stakeholders’
awareness on the
purpose of, process
and results of IEs.
 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?
Flow of Presentation
Lessons
Commu
nication
PKH
• 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)
Conditional
• Cash transfer: between $60 and
$140 per year, paid every three
month
Cash
Transfer
• 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
fulfilling
Receiving
Beneficiaries
Coverage
Areas and Human Resources
Beneficiaries
2012
2014
3,000,000 HHs
1,500,000 HHs
2007
Provinces
816,000 HHs
2007
500,000 HHs
2012
7
20
33
48
88
166
337
946
1,909
1,305
3,452
6,712
192
455
871
Area/Regional
Coordinator
3
20
36
MIS/Program
Expert
3
3
19
Districts
Sub-districts
Facilitators
2010
2010
Operators
Beneficiaries, Facilitators and
Operators
PKH: Mechanism
Business Process
Identification
Preparation
Implementation
• Targeting
• Validation
• Coordination meeting
• Community meeting
• Training
• Verification
• Payment
• Social guidance
• Monitoring
Evaluation • Resertification
• Transition to graduation
MiEdu
Bank/
Post Off
Mi
Health
PKH
MOSA
Telcom
MiCom
Local
Govt
Stakeholders
Process and targets
Target groups:
Province, district:
service providers,
operators, facilitators
Technical
guidance
All stakeholders
Dissemination
•
•
•
•
•
Community
meeting
District, subdistrict:
beneficiaries,
facilitators
Cooordination
meeting
National, regional,
province: ministries,
payment agencies, mass
media,
•
•
•
•
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
Staff of MOSA,
Facilitators,
Operators, Internal
experts
External
• Spotcheck
• Survey
• FGD
World Bank, Board of
Planning, TNP2K,
Academia, Think Tanks
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
• Results of IEs
• Shortcomings and
causes
• Immprovements
and justifications
Target
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
Methods
• 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