Click here to load reader

Independent Progress Review · Web viewBadan Pusat Statistik (Statistics of Indonesia) BPJS Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial (Social Security Providers) BLT Bantuan Langsung Tunai

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)

Text of Independent Progress Review · Web viewBadan Pusat Statistik (Statistics of Indonesia) BPJS...

Independent Progress Review

Partnership for Knowledge-based Poverty Reduction

Final Report

November 2012

Final report November 2012viii

Aid Activity Summary

Aid Activity Name

Partnership for Knowledge-based Poverty Reduction

AidWorks initiative number

INJ244 Poverty Reduction and Social Protection Support/Activity 10A664 Partnership for Knowledge-based Poverty Reduction

Commencement date

11 June 2010

Completion date

30 June 2014

Total Australian $

7.5 million

Total other $


Delivery organisation(s)

Poverty Cluster Unit of the Reduction and Economic Management (PREM) team, the World Bank

Implementing Partner(s)

The World Bank

Local universities and think tanks



Primary Sector

MDG1 End Poverty and Hunger

Review team details

Independent review team:

Julie Hind team leader and evaluation specialist

Gatot Widayanto organisational development specialist

Euan Hind researcher supporting the team leader and author of literature review

Note: Pak Gatot had been previously engaged by BPS as a senior project advisor during the preparation of the Statcap-Cerdas project. Subsequently he was contracted by AIPEG as a senior change management advisor as part of the ongoing institutional reforms within BPS. To the best of our knowledge, his work was not associated with the design or implementation of the PKPR. Therefore, the review team does not perceive any conflict of interest for this independent review. If anything, his knowledge and experience with the broader reform processes in BPS are considered as advantageous. He brought to the review a level of understanding of the agency, its current situation and its reform efforts that proved valuable in terms of consulting with agency stakeholders and placing information in a broader context. AusAID was aware of this previous involvement of Pak Gatot with BPS when they engaged him for this review. They reported that they perceived no conflict of interest. Similarly, the PKPR team was aware of Pak Gatots previous experience with BPS and expressed no concern when he was engaged as part of the review team.


Mia Hapsari

Logistics support:

Patricia Bachtier Senior Program Manager, Social Protection, AusAID, Jakarta

Rafaella Wulandari Program Officer, Poverty Reduction Unit, AusAID, Jakarta


The review team would like to thank all those who participated in the review. We understand how difficult it can be to find time in very busy schedules, especially at short notice. We thank informants for their discussions with us and the help given when additional information was sought. We especially thank the PKPR - Vivi Alatas and her team.

We are particularly grateful for the active involvement of so many stakeholders in the workshop to discuss lessons from the review and the literature. We appreciated the lively discussion and points of clarification both of which helped us further our understanding of the program.

The discussion following the Aide Memoire was also very valuable. We thank the PKPR team for the additional information and the AusAID staff for helping us work through some of the conceptual issues, especially, Petra Karetji, Bernie Wyler, Fiona MacIver, Jurist Tan, Thomas Pratomo, and Patricia Bachtiar.

We would also like to thank those who helped to make this review proceed smoothly and efficiently. From AusAID: Patricia Bachtier and Rafaella Wulandari; and from PKPR: Edgar Janz.


Aid Activity Summaryii

Review team detailsii




Executive summaryvii


1.1.The Program1

1.2.The evaluation purpose1

1.3.Key evaluation questions2

1.4.Evaluation Activities2

1.5.Structure of this report2

2.To what extent is the AusAID funding enabling the program to meet its objectives?3

2.1.Have the interventions and instruments produced the desired effects? Could other interventions achieve better results?3

2.1.1.Overview of progress to date3

2.1.2.PKPR is providing GOI with a level of poverty analytics and advice not readily available by other means7

2.1.3.The expertise that PKPR can leverage is bringing added value to program design, delivery and evaluation8

2.1.4.Difficulties in determining if the current mix of interventions is the most appropriate one9

2.2.To what extent has the program strengthened the capacity of participating institutions? What factors are enabling or hindering this institutional strengthening?9

2.2.1.Capacity development is an integral part of the PKPR9

2.2.2.Positive results are reported where a collaborative approach is evident10

2.2.3.The capacity development strategy needs to be more planned, intentional and more directed by GoI11

2.2.4.A call for a change in approach to the support given to the BPS institutional reform process12

2.2.5.Missing opportunities to strengthen capacity as part of regular PKPR analytical work14

2.3.To what extent has the program provided motivation or incentives to participating institutions to collaborate in the utilisation of knowledge?14

2.3.1.Knowledge-based capacity development is core to PKPRs business14

2.3.2.An important contributor to the uptake of evidence-based decision-making15

2.3.3.Demonstrating a number of practices found to be successful in making the research to policy link16

2.3.4.Missing opportunities to include local institutes in knowledge sharing activities16

2.4.How durable are the institutional changes? Are they likely to sustain after donor funding has ceased?17

2.4.1.Essential practices for durability of institutional changes are, generally, evident17

2.5.How sufficient is the programs monitoring and evaluation framework in measuring change at individual and organisational levels, and in helping to improve the program?19

2.5.1.Difficulties in assessing progress of, and contribution to, program objectives19

3.To what extent do the program objectives remain relevant to national government policies and priorities and sectoral needs both now and beyond 2014?22

3.1.A mixed assessment in terms of relevance22

3.2.The proposal to strengthen analytical capacity of GoI agencies and local institutes could be enhanced in order to maximise outcomes27

4.What improvements could be made in the next phase of the program?31

4.1.What are the key lessons from this review and how do they compare with lessons from similar programs?31

4.1.1.A collaborative approach that enables self-direction achieves better results31

4.1.2.If a shift in the reliance on internationally supplied analytics is be achieved then strengthening the analytical capacity of local institutes must occur simultaneously and in a dedicated manner with a greater number of institutes32

4.1.3.When the scope is broadened beyond a programs comparative advantage value for money is placed at risk32

4.1.4.An effective monitoring and evaluation framework and good program oversight are essential if stakeholders are to understand if the program is achieving the desired outcomes and working in the right way for the right people33

4.1.5.Capacity development experiences are less positive in situations where program support is being implemented alongside oversight of the World Bank loan33


4.2.1.Monitoring and evaluation35

4.2.2.Focusing on PKPRs comparative advantage36

4.2.3.Strengthen the oversight of the program37

4.2.4.Shifting studies and rapid response analytics from predominantly PKPR executed to jointly executed with local institutes37

4.2.5.Enhance internal AusAID program integration37

4.2.6.Instituting a more planned approach to capacity development and one that is determined and managed by counterpart agencies37

Annex 1: Knowledge-Based Poverty Reduction: Analysis of Policy Briefs based on Hovland38

Annex 2: Assessment of the PKPR results framework against AusAID M&E standards40

Annex 3: Knowledge-Based Capacity Strengthening: Literature Synthesis and Annotated Bibliography42

Literature Synthesis42

Annotated Bibliography49

Annex 4 Evaluation plan61

Annex 5 Terms of Reference74

Independent progress review Partnership for Knowledge-based Poverty Reduction

Independent progress review Partnership for Knowledge-based Poverty Reduction

Final report November 2012vii



Australian Agency for International Development


Badan Perecanaan Pembangunan Nasional (National Development Planning Agency)


Badan Pusat Statistik (Statistics of Indonesia)


Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial (Social Security Providers)


Bantuan Langsung Tunai (unconditional cash transfers)


Beasiswa Siswa Miskin (Needy Students Assistance)


Change and reform for the development of statistics


Government of Indonesia


Joint management committee


Public Expenditure Review


Program Keluarga Harapan (Hopeful Family Program)


Partnership for Knowledge-based Poverty Reduction

PNPM Generasi

Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat . PNPM Generasi is an inn

Search related