Upload
puguh-bodro-irawan
View
98
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
PART FOURSocial Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects** The study was based on a paper prepared for ESCAP by Mr Puguh B. Irawan, Social Economist,Central Board of Statistics; and Mr Erman A. Rahman, Mr Haning Romdiati and Ms Uzair Suhaimi, National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS), Indonesia. The views expressed are those of the authors only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or its Secretariat.Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Socia
Citation preview
PART FOUR
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia:Analysis and Prospects*
* The study was based on a paper prepared for ESCAP by Mr Puguh B. Irawan, Social Economist,Central Board of Statistics; and Mr Erman A. Rahman, Mr Haning Romdiati and Ms UzairSuhaimi, National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS), Indonesia. The views expressedare those of the authors only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations orits Secretariat.
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
I. BACKGROUND
A. Impacts of the 1997 economic crisis
The most severe social impact of the crisis in Indonesia was the worsening of povertythat, in fact, had improved quite impressively in the two and a half decades preceding the1997 economic crisis. Between 1976 and 1996, poverty had declined from around 40 percent to just over 11 per cent (Table 1). The success of poverty alleviation was coupled withclear improvements in such areas as education and health. However, the crisis reversedthese developments, raising the number of poor people to 49.5 million by December 1998from 34.5 million in 1996.
The intensification of poverty was related to several factors: (a) the skyrocketingprices of basic commodities; (b) the contraction in production resulting in increases inunemployment; (c) the decline in household income in both urban and rural areas; and (d)the impact of El Niño.
Since then, however, the number of poor people has fallen from 48.4 million inFebruary 1999 to 37.5 million in August 1999. This favourable turn of events was greatlyinfluenced by the deflating prices of food commodities as well as the steady, although slow,recovery of the economy in general. To a certain extent, it may also have been a positiveeffect of social safety net programmes, such as Special Market Operations for Rice (OPK)and the labour intensive programme.
Notwithstanding the currently improved situation, the Government did not act quicklyenough in responding to the crisis when it erupted. It was stymied by an inadequatebureaucracy, the absence of early monitoring systems for social concerns, even by theunavailability of reliable and timely poverty statistics, as well as information on theidentification of the poor. It took some time, at least a full year, before it could mountmeaningful social safety net programmes.
B. Objectives of the study
The present country study has the following objectives:
(a) To assess the adequacy of policy formulation of social safety nets in Indonesia;
(b) To assess the efficacy of social safety net programme implementation; and
(c) To recommend measures to strengthen the responsiveness of social safety netprogrammes to short-term emergencies as well as to long-term strategies.
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
157
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
C. Anti-poverty policies
Long before the crisis, since the early 1970s, poverty alleviation has been one of themajor priorities in Indonesia’s national development strategy, although it was never statedexplicitly in any official document until the early 1990s. Various anti-poverty policies priorto the crisis in the country were carried out by both the Government and non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs), frequently with support in the form of financial assistance fromvarious donor agencies. The fundamental goal of this anti-poverty strategy was improvingthe welfare of the population and reducing the socio-economic gap or inequalities betweensub-groups of the population.
Table 1. Indonesia: Poverty line, estimated number and percentageof poor people, 1976-1999
Poverty line Percentage of poor people Number of poor people(rupiah/capita/m) (Po – Headcount Index) (in millions)
YearUrban & Percentage Urban & Absolute
Urban Rural Urban Rural rural points Urban Rural rural changechange (millions)
1976 4 522 2 849 38.8 40.4 40.1 – 10.0 44.2 54.2 –1978 4 969 2 981 30.8 33.4 33.3 – 6.8 8.3 38.9 47.2 – 7.01980 6 831 4 449 29.0 28.4 28.6 – 4.7 9.5 32.8 42.3 – 4.91981 9 777 5 877 28.1 26.5 26.9 – 1.7 9.3 31.3 40.6 – 1.71984 13 731 7 746 23.1 21.2 21.6 – 5.2 9.3 25.7 35.0 – 5.61987 17 381 10 294 20.1 16.1 17.4 – 4.2 9.7 20.3 30.0 – 5.01990 20 614 13 295 16.8 14.3 15.1 – 2.3 9.4 17.8 27.2 – 2.81993 27 905 18 244 13.4 13.8 13.7 – 1.4 8.7 17.2 25.9 – 1.31996 38 246 27 413 9.7 12.3 11.3 – 2.3 7.2 15.3 22.5 – 3.4
1996a 42 032 31 366 13.6 19.9 17.7 – 9.6 24.9 34.5 –Dec. 1998 96 959 72 780 21.9 25.7 24.2 6.5 17.6 31.9 49.5 15.0Feb. 1999 92 409 74 272 19.5 26.1 23.5 – 0.7 15.7 32.7 48.4 – 1.1
(19.4) (26.0) (23.4) (15.6) (32.4) (48.0)Aug. 1999 89 845 69 420 15.1 20.2 18.2 – 5.3 12.4 25.1 37.5 –10.9
(15.0) (20.0) (18.0) (12.3) (24.8) (37.1)
Source: Central Bureau of Statistics, 2000, Penyempurnaan Metodologi Penghitungan Penduduk Miskin danProfil Kemiskinan 1999(The revised methodology of counting the poor and poverty profiles 1999).
Note: 1. Figures in brackets are without East Timor.2. The highlighted figures (1996a-Aug.1999) apply a consistent standard of defining minimum basic
food and non-food in the poverty line.
158
Table 2. Indonesia: The averaged nominal (and real) expenditure, 1996-1999
(rupiah/capita/month)
URBAN RURAL
Lowest Middle Highest Lowest Middle Highest40 per 40 per 20 per All 40 per 40 per 20 per Allcent cent cent cent cent cent
1996 46 918 91 576 226 633 100 639 30 552 50 809 100 920 52 696
Dec. 1998 92 790 168 249 387 463 181 809 65 970 109 394 202 463 110 601(46 713) (84 700) (195 058) (91 527) (33 211) (55 071) (101 924) (55 679)
Feb. 1999 98 907 186 599 419 272 198 056 70 697 115 414 212 261 116 893(47 753) (90 092) (202 430) (95 624) (34 133) (55 414) (102 482) (56 437)
Aug. 1999 97 369 184 030 430 960 198 701 67 379 112 801 217 919 115 603(48 672) (91 992) (215 426) (99 325) (33 681) (56 386) (108 932) (57 787)
Percentage change:
1996-Dec. 1998 97.8 83.7 71.0 80.6 115.9 115.3 100.6 109.9 (–0.4) (–7.5) (–13.9) (–9.1) (8.7) (8.4) (9.9) (5.7)
Dec. 1998- 4.9 9.4 11.2 9.3 2.1 3.1 7.6 4.5Feb. 1999 (2.2) (6.4) (3.8) (4.5) (2.8) (0.6) (0.5) (1.4)
Feb. 1999- –1.6 –1.4 2.8 0.3 –4.7 –2.3 2.7 –1.1Aug. 1999 1.9) (2.1) (6.4) (3.9) (–1.3) (1.8) (6.3) (2.4)
Source: Irawan and Romdiati (2000).
Note: Numbers in brackets indicate the values of real expenditure/capita/month after the adjustment ofinflation rates in the respective periods.
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
Several programmes were implemented as part of the anti-poverty strategy. Amongthem, perhaps the most far-reaching, was the massive programme of intensification of ricecultivation, known by the acronym of Bimas and Inmas. The programme consisted of fourpillars: (a) introduction and dissemination of the Green Revolution technology, (b) distribu-tion of subsidized agricultural inputs (fertilizer and pesticide), (c) a massive programme ofinfrastructure development (irrigation and roads), and (d) a price support scheme operatedby the Food Logistics Agency. This programme accelerated rice production, from an annualgrowth rate of 3.7 per cent during the period 1972-1977 to 7.2 per cent during the period1977-1982. The rapid growth in agricultural production during the 1970s and the early1980s, in conjunction with the resulting employment creation in off-farm activities fromagricultural processing, transport and trade, was believed to have significantly contributed topoverty reduction, notably in rural Java.
159
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
The Government also launched direct intervention programmes aimed at alleviatingpoverty in 1994. In this effort, it adopted two approaches: geographic targeting andindividual targeting. Geographic targeting is based on the characteristics of regions,directing the funding to less developed regions (village or sub-district level). Individualtargeting, on the other hand, is based on information about individuals or households, suchas their income (living below the predetermined poverty line) or their social status (thedisadvantaged, etc.), channelling the anti-poverty programme to the lowest-income ordisadvantaged groups. Two of the direct anti-poverty intervention programmes prior to thecrisis were Inpres Desa Tertinggal (IDT), a major geographic targeting programme, andPembangunan Kesejahteraan Keluarga (PKK), an individual targeting programme.
The IDT programme, operated during the period 1994-1996, involved block transfersof an annual 20 to 60 million rupiah per village to around 20,000 poor or less developedvillages (about one third of the villages in the country). It had three complementarycomponents: (a) roll-over funds for small business, (b) provision of business/activityadvisers, and (c) rural infrastructure development. The funds were allocated specifically topromote income-generating activities through various economic activities by the poor, andlabour-intensive public works that involved the poor. With regard to a family approach, thetarget group of the programme was the poor households in the less developed villages whowere gathered into community groups, which collectively received roll-over working capitalto be used for establishing their members’ own productive enterprises, with the hope ofhelping them move out of poverty.
Estimates about the number of poor people reached by IDT varied from 27 to 30 percent (Alatas, 1998) to approximately 50 per cent (Molyneaux and Gertler, 1999). Therewas, however, a contrary view. Manning (1999:141) argued that the IDT programme wasunlikely to have made much progress toward poverty reduction since the decline of theincidence of poverty was only 7 per cent during the period 1990-1995.
In relation to individual targeting programmes, the empowerment programme forfamily welfare (PKS), implemented in 1995-1996, had two subprogrammes: (a) saving forfamily welfare, and (b) business credit for family welfare. The programme provided grantsdirectly to poor families as classified by the National Family Planning Coordinating Agency(pre-prosperous family and prosperous family I) in both non-IDT and IDT villages (the firstimplementation was only in IDT villages). The main purpose was to train and assist poorfamilies to develop productive small-scale enterprises in order to enhance family welfare.
It is difficult to make a precise judgement on whether or not the PKS programmeachieved its original goals. Although data published by the Office of the CoordinatingMinister for Welfare and Poverty Alleviation Affairs (1998) show that in mid-1998, thebusiness credit for family welfare in IDT villages absorbed more credit than the totalamount of funding (131.6 per cent), some data also show that the credits had been investedin banks with the expectation of making gains from higher interest rates rather than indirectly productive activities.
160
D. Social security schemes
The social security schemes, already in existence in Indonesia prior to the crisis,cover only those working in the formal sector, i.e. people in the Government and in theprivate sector. In general, social security benefits for civil servants and armed forcespersonnel comprise payment of retirement saving benefit and pension, and health care,whereas the benefits enjoyed by private and state enterprises’ employees, as covered inthe social security for private sector workers, include employment injury insurance, deathcompensation and retirement insurance.
A compulsory health insurance scheme for public servants, first introduced in1968, provided medical care for active workers, pensioners and their families. By1991, in an effort to provide better health services, the Government restructured thescheme. It provided comprehensive medical care to registered members and theirdependents either on capitation, budget or package system under the managed health-care concept.
A savings and insurance scheme for Government employees established in 1977provided two benefits: endowment insurance and pension. Endowment insurancerequires civil servants to contribute 3.25 per cent of their salaries to the scheme thatprovides a basis for a lump sum payment of over 16 months of the latest salary atretirement age (56 years) or in the event of death in service. To receive a monthlypension on retirement, civil servants are also compulsorily required to contribute 4.75per cent of their wage. By 1999, there were around 1.7 million retirees and around0.8 million survivors receiving a monthly pension in Indonesia. At the same time, thepension insurance scheme for government employees covered around 4 millionactive civil servants and around 160,000 state companies’ employees throughoutIndonesia. The insurance scheme for Indonesian armed forces personnel also providedtwo benefits to the armed forces personnel, endowment insurance and monthly pension,with the same portions of beneficiaries’ contribution as the one for governmentemployees.
The social security scheme for private sector employees, established in 1992,replaced a previous scheme that was first introduced in 1978. It applied to private andstate enterprises with 10 workers or more, or a monthly wage bill of 1 million rupiah.The scheme provided four benefits: compensation for work accidents, death benefit (terminsurance), old-age benefits (savings withdrawal) and health care.
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
161
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
II. SELECTED SOCIAL SAFETY NET PROGRAMMESDURING THE CRISIS
A. Introduction
In an effort to mitigate the adverse impact of the crisis on the poor and the othergroups in the country, the Government launched a number of social safety net programmesfor them. These social safety net programmes can be classified under four major areas ofconcern: (a) food security for the poor centred on the distribution of subsidized rice to poorhouseholds; (b) access of the poor to basic social services such as health and education; (c)access of the poor to income or employment opportunities; and (d) access of the poor toimproved livelihood through small and medium-sized enterprises development.
B. Food subsidy programme
Special Market Operations for Rice (OPK: Operasi Pasar Khusus) was aimed atassisting food insecure and poor families nationwide to meet their most fundamental needs.The programme distributed 20 kilograms of rice per family every month at the subsidizedprice of 1,000 rupiah per kilogram.1 This was a special programme specifically designed inthe wake of food riots and soaring food prices in mid-1998.
The OPK programme was first launched in the period July 1998-March 1999 andthen was continued in the fiscal years 1999/2000 and 2000. Beneficiaries consisted ofpre-prosperous families and prosperous stage I families. The programme was administeredjointly by the State Ministry of Food and Horticulture and the Food Logistic Agency.
The number of beneficiaries covered in the programme rapidly increased from onlyaround 142,000 families in the July 1998 pilot test to almost 9.4 million families inDecember 1998. The OPK programme continued to expand in December 1999, reachingover 12.3 million families. The figure in October 2000 shows that the programme haddistributed 162,048 tons of rice, or around 93 per cent of the target, to over 10.4 millionfamilies with an average of 15.5 kilogram/month/family.
The distribution was carried out through some 45,000 distribution points spread over thecountry. Payment was in cash, when rice was received by beneficiaries. Later payment,usually a fortnight after rice was received, was permitted when beneficiaries who were unableto buy obtained a written guarantee from local authorities. Failure to pay in two weeks causedthe next rice allocation to be postponed until the beneficiary was able to pay his or her debt.
1 In the first six months of its implementation from July to November 1998, the ration was 10 kilograms/month/family. But since December 1998, the quantity of rice being provided was increased to 20kilograms/month/family. It is worth noting that the average market price of rice of medium quality wasaround 1,800 rupiah/kilogram.
162
In financing this large-scale operation in food subsidy, the government spent around2.7 trillion rupiah (or an estimated 3.4 trillion rupiah at market prices) in the fiscal year1998/1999.
In terms of disseminating information, the OPK programme was given wide publicity,i.e. it was “socialized” through the mass media (television, local broadcasting radios andnewspapers); through social, religious and community groups; and through personal contactswith community leaders. The monitoring of the OPK programme was carried out throughdirect monitoring by implementing parties (local government, regional and subregional foodlogistics depots and relevant institutions), and through independent evaluation by NGOs anduniversities every six months.
The implementation of the OPK programme during the first year of operation waswidely criticized. The criticisms ranged from those directed at the readiness of theconcerned agencies to carry out their tasks, reports of corruption, exclusion of non-residentpoor (who had no identity cards), programme socialization, and probably the most impor-tant, the method used in determining the target group. Since then, the programme hassubsequently undergone significant design revisions, particularly with regard to geographictargeting.
Soon after the initial period of implementation, the programme was subjected to arapid field appraisal by the Social Monitoring and Early Response Unit (SMERU) (1998).SMERU carried out an appraisal in 21 urban areas and 19 rural areas in five provinces.The mission concluded that: (a) the administration of the OPK programme was notadequately done, partly because of the unavailability (or inadequacy) of an operationalbudget; (b) public information and outreach was inconsistent, inaccurate and ineffective; and(c) the quality of OPK rice was low and medium but in general, programme beneficiariesfound it acceptable. Another drawback of the OPK programme was the lack of operationalmechanisms to distribute cheap rice from distribution points to beneficiaries. This is thereason why the subsidized rice received by programme participants was less than 10kilograms. The community had to bear the indirect cost to collect and distribute the ricefrom the distribution points to the beneficiary’s households. These costs were generally notreimbursed by the programme.
SMERU has a more recent evaluation of the OPK programme. The SMERU reportshows that not all OPK beneficiaries were poor, defined as households within the firstquintile of the income spectrum. The target ratio of the OPK programme was 0.9,indicating that the programme was poorly targeted.2
2 Target ratio is defined as the ratio between the fraction of programme beneficiaries who are non-poorand the fraction of the overall population who are non-poor, and it ranges from 0 (refers to perfecttargeting) to 1.25 (refers to missed targeting).
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
163
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
However, a study by the Centre for Food, Nutrition and Agricultural Studies andServices (CEFNAS) (2000) in the urban areas of West Java, Central Java, East Java,Yogyakarta, Lampung and South Sulawesi indicates somewhat opposite findings:
• The programme was quite popular, as 97.5 per cent of respondents had heard ofthe programme mostly from local task forces;
• OPK beneficiaries were more likely to be families with low social and economicstatus, as indicated by the fact that almost three quarters of respondents had percapita expenditure of less than 300,000 rupiah per month and, on average, spentover two thirds of their expenditure on food;
• Rice distribution points were generally not far from residential areas of OPKbeneficiaries, as 86 per cent of the beneficiaries travelled less than 1 kilometre tocollect the rice in person;
• The average amount of rice received was 13.32 kg/family/month;
• The rice price purchased by programme beneficiaries was 1,025 rupiah perkilogram, which was slightly higher than the official price (1,000/kg). This pricewas acceptable to most of the beneficiaries as it was still lower than the marketprice. However, it was found too high by some 18 per cent of respondents who,in fact, could not afford it;
• More than 90 per cent of respondents had no complaint about the programmeservices; and
• Of the complaints expressed, 47.5 per cent related to the quality of rice, 4.9 percent to the quantity, and 7.3 per cent to the price.
Another study (by the Institute for Economic and Social Research and Education)directed to the rural areas of eight selected provinces that covered about 1,300 sampledhouseholds came up with somewhat different conclusions. The study said that 61 per centof all programme beneficiaries were poorly informed about the programme; that thebeneficiary household on average received only 11 kilograms per month at 1,050 rupiah perkilogram; and that the income transfer of the programme to a beneficiary household was15,357 rupiah. This study recommended the discontinuation of the OPK programme, unlessit was significantly improved, especially in regard to programme targeting, the distributionmechanism, programme “socialization” and transparency.
After major revisions in programme design and operation, in response to thecriticisms, the OPK programme proved a remarkable success. Reviewers Tabor and Sawit(1999) for instance praised the programme for its accomplishments in nearly everyperformance area. They concluded that the programme was well-coordinated, well-targetedand extremely cost-effective, as indicated among other things by: (a) almost 90 per centcoverage of the total poor population; (b) an 85 per cent ratio of net transfer benefits
164
received by target groups to total cost in the fiscal year 1998/1999; and (c) by the estimatedaverage transfer benefit of around 6,413 rupiah per month per beneficiary, which contributed6 per cent to the average income of poor households and 9 per cent to the average incomeof rural poor households. They also found that the OPK programme created some 72,000new jobs, contributed to price stability, enhanced consumer comfort, restored law and order,improved income distribution, and helped sustain the productivity of health and educationalspending.
C. Scholarship and block grants for primaryand secondary schools
Data suggest that Indonesia has achieved great success in improving the education ofits people during the last two and a half decades, especially at the primary and secondarylevels. Nevertheless, the country still faces many problems, recently exacerbated by theeconomic crisis. In response to this, the Indonesian government established the stay-in-school programme, under scholarships and block grants or operational assistance to primaryand secondary schools. This programme provides for scholarships to poor children andblock grants to poor schools. The programme was initiated in 1998, then expanded in thesecond and third year of implementation. The coverage of the programme was eligiblechildren and schools in all provinces in Indonesia. The scholarship programme usednational level data to target poor schools and local knowledge for the selection of individualparticipants. The executing agency is the Department of National Education, with theinvolvement of national, provincial, district, sub-district and school committees.
The scholarship programme was developed as an effort to prevent a large number ofchildren from poor families from dropping out of school (at primary, lower and uppersecondary schools) as a consequence of crisis-induced factors. During the crisis, many poorand near-poor families found it difficult to keep their children in school, as they found theirfinancial capacity too small relative to the school fees they had to pay. By providingfunding for those children, the Government enabled the poor families to let their childrenstay in school.
In addition, the Government, through the stay-in-school programme, extended supportto needy schools, both public and private, that provide services for the poor, to improve theschools’ ability to manage and maintain the quality of their services. The support consistedof block grants to primary, secondary and upper high schools.
The programme is planned to continue for a period of five years, with funding tocome from the state budget and loans from the World Bank and the Asian DevelopmentBank (ADB). The programme will spend a total of 5 trillion rupiah. Already it hasprovided scholarships to about 4.3 million students and block grants to approximately132,000 schools throughout the country.
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
165
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
As a rescue package, this programme was prepared in a rush, hence, it received muchcriticisms, especially in the early implementation stage. In later years, improvements werepursued on the basis of inputs from: (a) communities, both through complaining and massmedia; (b) internal evaluation from organizations executing the programme; (c) externalevaluation from academic researchers; and (d) recommendations from NGOs. The improvedprogramme design, along with a good commitment from the executing bodies, broughtabout satisfaction and appreciation from donor agencies and other concerned parties. In1999, the World Bank presented a President’s Award for Excellence to the programme as anappreciation of the Bank for the programme’s greatly improved performance.
According to the World Bank, there were four criteria used as indicators of the goodperformance of social safety nets in education (Info JPS, 2000:4):
• High response in preventing a decreased enrolment rate and quality of educationservices, as well as preventing an increased drop-out incidence;
• High cost-effectiveness of the fund since the programme was not funded by anew loan but by state budgets and a loan from the World Bank and ADB for fiveyears;
• High innovation since it made a new breakthrough in distributing the fund notthrough bureaucratic mechanisms but directly to the school and scholarshipholders through local post offices; and
• The involvement of many institutions, both from government (National EducationDepartment, Religion Department, Finance Department, National DevelopmentPlanning Agency (Bappenas) and PT Pos Indonesia) and international agencies,such as, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Bank, theAsia-Europe Meetings (ASEM), and the Australian Government’s overseas aidprogramme (AusAID), in the planning process and implementation of theprogramme.
In general, the problems that faced the social safety net in education were related totechnical implementation and finance. Technical problems included lack of information onthe programme at the community level, low ability and comprehension in programmeimplementation, and a lack of reliable indicators for target groups. Financial problems wererelated to leakage of the fund and corrupt practices.
One deficiency frequently ignored was the fact that scholarships covered only schoolfees and other related expenses. In some instances, the amount was not even enough tocover the bare educational needs of children from the very poor, as access to schools was amore pressing problem than that of school fees. Even though poor families could afford topay for school fees and other expenses, they could hardly afford to pay for the transporta-tion costs, especially for those with children who were at lower and upper secondaryschools, because these schools were often located at a distant away from their places ofresidence.
166
D. Programmes in the health sector
The social safety net programme in the health sector is the JPS-BK programme. Thishas the objective of helping poor families maintain their health and nutritional status whichmay have deteriorated as a consequence of crisis-induced factors. In operation since early1998, the JPS-BK programme extends basic health and reproductive health services and asystem of referrals to poor families, provided by community health centres and theirnetworks, including village midwives. The programme maintains and improves thenutritional status of pregnant women, children under two, post-partum women, as well asbabies of poor families.
The selection of the target group is based on a combination of the National FamilyPlanning Coordinating Agency’s list of PKS and Prosperous I families, and local criteriadetermined by village teams which consist of village midwives, the health section of villagecommunity councils, the village community reliance institutions, with assistance from theFamily Planning Field Officer.
To receive assistance, poor families selected into the programme were given a healthcard for seeking medical assistance and care from community health centres or other healthfacilities. The selected families were eligible to receive medical assistance for one fiscalyear and for the following fiscal year if they were selected again.
Based on the report covering the period from January to October 2000, the socialsafety net programme in the health sector has given health cards to around 10 million poorfamilies, or 92 per cent of the target, of which almost 39 per cent utilized health services,including nearly 20 per cent who made cumulative visits. In May 2000, the coverage ofpregnant mothers, birth-delivering mothers and post-natal mothers receiving basic midwiferyservices was 71 per cent, 49 per cent and 44 per cent of the targets, respectively. Underthe programme, every person received 10,000 rupiah for basic health services for the wholeyear. With that amount of money, it is very hard to get decent health services for thewhole year.
The social safety net in health was financed mainly by the state budget and two loanprojects from ADB. The total budget allocated to the programme was around 1,043 billionrupiah for fiscal year 1998/1999 and was 1,030.4 billion rupiah during fiscal year 1999/2000. Details of fund allocation and absorption are shown in annex III.
Both the fund for poor families and the fund for food and nutrition surveillance ofthe Health Security for the Community were distributed through post offices and regionaloffices of the Treasury.
Several independent studies on the performance of social safety net programmes inhealth have pointed to some apparent problems, including: (a) mis-targeting, (b) non-availability of data on prospective beneficiaries, (c) inconsistency of data, (d) administrative
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
167
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
problems arising from the fact that many poor families living in urban slums did not holdidentity cards and thus were not eligible to receive benefits, (e) the tendency for latedistribution of funding to community health centres and village midwives, and (f) a lack ofsocialization between beneficiaries and programme implementors at local levels.
Naturally, these problems have been, and continue to be, addressed by the programmeimplementors. In particular, much attention has been directed towards solving themis-targeting problem. Efforts in this area have been aimed at collecting more data aboutpopulations of target villages, removing inconsistencies in the existing data, and extractingmore information from data currently available. Administrative problems are also beingaddressed.
E. Supplementary food for primary school students
Since mid-1996, Indonesia has undertaken a national school-feeding programme toprovide supplementary food for primary school students, of both public and private schools.In the first year of implementation, the programme was operated only in Java and Bali. Bythe second year, it was expanded to include all poor villages throughout Indonesia. Duringthe crisis, the programme was further expanded and placed under the umbrella of socialsafety nets in health.
The supplementary food programme is a multi-sectoral programme. Because of this,many parties are involved in its administration, including the National EducationDepartment, Internal Affairs, Agriculture, Health, and Religion and the community. Theseinstitutions work together at all administrative levels from national to village level.
The objective of the programme is to improve the status of nutrition and healthamong primary school children by providing them with food supplements and enhancing theschools’ capability for delivering nutrition and health services to their constituents. Forschool children, the aims of the programme are: (a) reducing absenteeism, (b) alleviatingshort-term hunger, (c) increasing total energy, (d) educating children on topics of health andnutrition, and (e) reducing worm infection rates. For the schools, the programme attemptsto improve the knowledge of teachers on teaching health and nutrition topics. Parents andthe community itself are not left out. The programme offers them knowledge andinvolvement in children’s health and nutrition.
Generally, the programme provides a nutritional snack three times weekly, and insome schools, up to four times weekly. The supplemental foods are given to the children inthe form of locally available and prepared snacks. The use of local material in snacks isintended to support the development of the local economy and involve the local community(including school administrators and parents) in managing the programme. By involving allelements potentially concerned with children’s education, the implementation of theprogramme becomes the responsibility of government, parents and community together.
168
On the whole, the targeting of the programme seems to have been accurate. Thetarget group is all students at primary schools, including those at Islamic religious schoolsin the IDT villages across the country. Another target group is the community, especiallystudents’ parents and teachers. Targeting is continuously being improved to ensure thatstudents belonging to poor families in poor urban areas were included.
In the 1999/2000 fiscal year, the programme reached 100 per cent of targeted schoolsand almost 100 per cent of targeted students (roughly 9.5 million). The budget spent 489.9billion rupiah (94.5 per cent of the target), a fair amount reflecting the extent of coverageof schools and students.
In looking at the overall programme, at least two big issues appear, namely themanagement and the financing of the programme. As mentioned before, many individualsof various agencies are involved in the administration of the programme. In some cases,this situation gives rise to a lack of coordination which results in delays of fundallocations. This, in turn, leads to the reduction in the number of programme participants,and tardiness in the administration of projects, including the de-worming of children. Onthe positive side, this gives rise to an enhanced relationship among community members, akey aspect of human resources development and people’s empowerment, all vital elementsof community development.
In terms of financing, the funds allocated to the programme during five years(1996-2000) seem to have been well spent. The local implementors had the ability tocombine the social safety net fund with community support, thus achieving very goodresults. There were no reports of corruption or leakages from the fund.
F. Labour-intensive programmes
In response to the sharp increase of unemployment in the wake of the crisis, notablyamong unskilled workers, the government introduced a series of cash programmes to createpublic labour-intensive activities aimed at mobilizing the unemployed. The crashprogrammes were implemented in 10 cities across Java. In 1998, as the impact of the crisison people’s living standards became more severe, the government expanded the programmeinto a national social safety net to cover the whole country. Encompassed by the newsocial safety net, were labour-intensive public works projects aimed specifically at theunemployed in the urban and rural areas (under the project to overcome the impact ofdrought and employment problems programme), the unemployed skilled workers (under thelabour-intensive for skilled employment programme), and the unemployed in the forestrysector (under the labour-intensive programme in public works for slum and coastal areadevelopment). These programmes were implemented only in fiscal year 1998/1999 andwere later integrated into two larger programmes, the urban labour-intensive programme andthe special initiatives for unemployed women.
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
169
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
The programme to overcome the impact of drought was implemented by the Departmentof Manpower in two stages. Stage I, for the period from April to December 1998, aimed atcreating 28 million working man-days, and Stage II, for the period December 1998 to March1999, aimed at providing 23 million working man-days. The programmes were to cover 215districts in Stage I, and 220 districts in Stage II in all 27 provinces. Eligible participantsreceived a daily remuneration of 7,500 rupiah/person, a rate comparable to the regionalminimum wage rate. The funding of the programme, amounting to over 317 billion rupiah forStage I, and to 279 billion rupiah for Stage II, was fully supported by the state budget.
The programme to overcome the impact of drought focused on the creation ofemployment opportunities for manufacturing and construction labourers, as well as theextension of assistance to poor communities to improve their housing and living conditions.The programme was launched by the Department of Public Works during the period October1998-March 1999, with a total budget at 442.5 billion rupiah from the state’s supplementarybudget. Activities in this programme were expected to generate 12.7 million working man-days, and the remuneration for beneficiaries ranged between 7,500 and 10,000 rupiah,depending on the location. Activities included public work for the improvement of urbanslum and coastal settlement areas, flooding control and drainage improvement in urban areas,and the development of public facilities. The programme covered 13 provinces in Indonesia.
The labour-intensive project in the forestry sector was implemented by the Departmentof Forestry and Estate during the period June 1998-March 1999. It aimed at overcomingunemployment and underemployment through public works in forestry, improving the foodsecurity of poor communities through agroforestry activities, and overcoming deforestationthrough tree replanting. The beneficiaries were farmers’ associations, the unemployed, anduniversity graduates with a forestry background. The total budget allocated was 490.5 billionrupiah, with a target of generating 30.6 million working man-days from public workactivities in 810 villages in 155 districts in 19 provinces throughout Indonesia.
The programme for the skilled unemployed was implemented by the Department ofManpower with the aim of providing job or business opportunities to skilled unemployedthrough its two models: the establishment of productive economic units and the establish-ment of new self-employed business. Both models were intended to provide jobs andincome, new skills and business networks to the skilled unemployed, as well as to stimulatelocal economic activities. The total budget allocation was almost 400 billion rupiah duringthe period April 1998-March 1999, with a target of creating some 69,320 jobs from 3,466activity units. It was implemented in 26 provinces.
The programme of special initiatives for unemployed women was implemented underthe Department of Settlement and Regional Development. This was designed to provide jobopportunities to poor and unemployed women in urban areas through their proposedeconomic activities. Beneficiaries were women in poor households without a permanentincome and those living in urban areas. They were between 15 and 60 years old, with nohigher than a high school diplopma. The total budget was 75 billion rupiah, and the target
170
was to create 70,000 jobs for the poor urban unemployed, with a 80:20 female-malecomposition. It was implemented in six provinces with large urban centres (NorthSumatera, Jakarta, West Java, Central Java, East Java and South Sulawesi).
Finally, the urban public works programme was designed to provide job opportunitiesto around 400,000 unemployed with a 80:20 male-female composition and a compensationequal to the regional minimum wage. It was also implemented by the Department ofSettlement and Regional Development during the fiscal year 2000. Beneficiaries were theunskilled and poor unemployed in urban areas, aged 15-55 years, with no more than a highschool education. It was allocated with 366 billion rupiah from the state budget, and itcovered all provinces in Indonesia.
The programme to overcome the impact of drought has shown a fairly goodperformance in targeting. With a target of about 28 million working man-days in stage 1and some 23 million working man-days in stage 2, the programme succeeded in reaching110 per cent coverage and 88 percent in job creation, with the absorption of an allocatedbudget at 99.2 per cent and 78.9 per cent for stages 1 and 2, respectively, during the fiscalyear 1998/1999. A similar achievement was also made in the skilled public worksprogramme, which absorbed almost 90 per cent of the budget and provided 65,000 jobs, or100 per cent of the target, during the same fiscal year. Good performance was alsoindicated in other public works programmes, especially in the forestry sector whichabsorbed only 26.4 per cent of the allocated budget but created 44.6 per cent of the labour-intensive programmes in the slum and coastal areas. The budget absorption was relativelyhigh ranging between 75 and 96 per cent, but with low job-creation at around 20-60 percent of the target working man-days.
In designated regions implementing the programme to overcome the impact ofdrought, a study showed that the programme targeting was moderately effective, as less thantwo thirds of the variations in the allocations across regions can be explained by unemploy-ment and poverty levels (Lewis, 1999). This study also reported that the impact of theprogramme on job creation reached 59 million working man-days, with the estimated wageshare to the total budget allocation accounting for 75 per cent. The corresponding figuresfor the urban slum and coastal area improvement and public works programme were 57million working man-days and 45 per cent of the estimated wage share. Criteria selection-related mis-targeting, and male-biased benefit receivers are the two most frequently raisedproblems in the implementation of the programme.
In terms of targeting, the urban slum and coastal area improvement and public worksprogramme was fairly well-targeted, as 70 per cent of all beneficiaries were unemployed/laid-off workers, and 65 per cent of them were construction labourers. Nevertheless, theprogramme faced several problems. These included a lack of programme socialization andweaknesses in information delivery, as well as a lack of sustainability, especially since somecommunities could not maintain the completed projects and the proposed project/activitieswere sometimes not compatible with the actual needs of the village community.
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
171
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
The performance of the programme of special initiatives for unemployed women wassimilarly commendable. By October 2000, 47.4 per cent of the total allocated budget of 75billion rupiah had been disbursed, with almost 39 per cent of the targeted working man-days being absorbed by women. At the same time, the urban labour-intensive programmeshowed good performance. In 80 per cent of the districts implementing the programme, 90per cent of the registered workers were employed within a month, and the programmecreated 6.6 million working man-days, or 84.5 per cent of the target.
G. Programme of empowerment for the regions
Finally, a programme focusing on the empowerment of regions to overcome theimpacts of the economic crisis (PDM-DKE) was also launched. The PDM-DKE programmewas formulated to assist poor communities in urban and rural areas to improve theirpurchasing power through employment creation, and to rebuild/improve socio-economic andpublic facilities to support the production and distribution of goods and services. Theprogramme was implemented by Bappenas and the Department of Home Affairs. It wasfirst launched for the period from December 1998 to March 1999, then it continued inOctober-December 2000. Target groups were poor populations in urban and rural areas,particularly those who had lost jobs and income sources, and were unable to meet theirdaily basic needs (food, basic health and education). Thus, the selection of location gavehigh priority to villages with high unemployment rates, outside of those who have alreadybeen receiving assistance. Geographic coverage of the PDM-DKE programme was urbanand rural villages within sub-districts which were not receiving fund allocations from theSub-District Development Programme and the Urban Poverty Alleviation Programme.
In the first year of programme implementation, the total budget allocated for thePDM-DKE programme was around 1.8 trillion rupiah, and then in the following year, it wasallocated with 792 billion rupiah. As the programme consists of community-based develop-ment activities, its performance is reviewed from this perspective. Allocated funding is alsoreviewed as to its assignment to specific programme activities. During the fiscal year 1998-1999, 1.45 trillion rupiah was disbursed to finance various activities covered in the PDM-DKE programme, accounting for 93.4 per cent of the total allocated budget. Based onreports of programme implementation from districts, the allocated budget was disbursed tovarious programme activities in 1998-1999, as follows: 47.8 per cent for infrastructuredevelopment and 52.2 per cent for economic activities/businesses. It was also reported thatthe number of PDM-DKE programme beneficiaries was 115,222 community groups, whichwas around 8.6 million people with 10,047,980 working man-days.
The data as of October 2000 indicated that less than 10 per cent of the total allocatedbudget had been distributed to the target groups. In relation to the planning processundertaken at the community level, the report suggests that in almost all target villages, villagecommunity discussions were held on two occasions, whereby 86 per cent of villages, over onefifth of poor households took a role in the first and second community discussions.
172
H. Monitoring and evaluation
Much of what now takes place as monitoring and evaluation of social safety netprogrammes is self-initiated. Though this procedure has been well-appreciated in theimportance of its findings as guidance to programme implementation, it has been questionedon the grounds that it tends to be self-serving, i.e. exaggerating sucesses and minimizingfailures. As a result, NGOs have been encouraged to engage in the monitoring andevaluation of social safety nets at various levels. Among the NGOs that have been involvedin project monitoring and evaluation are the Social Monitoring and Early Response Unit orSMERU which assessed the impacts of several social safety nets on poverty, labour markets,health and education, gender, and crime, among others. After 18 months since itsestablishment, it had detailed its findings in more than 60 reports. The Civil SocietyIndependent Network for Transparency and Accountability of Indonesia Development, withits network in 40 districts in the country, has focused its efforts on improving transparencyand raising public awareness of government programmes. The Central IndependentMonitoring Unit and its provincial partners has monitored social safety net programmes inhealth and education.
In addition to moniting and evaluation, NGOs have also been involved in actualprogramme management of social safety nets and in the implementation of non-crisis relatedprogrammes.
III. OBSERVATIONS
A. Strengths and weaknesses
1. Targeting
In respect of targeting, several conclusions have been reached. With regard to thelink between geographic allocation of funds and the levels of unemployment and poverty, itwas ascertained that the variation in PDM-DKE funding allocation across districts was verystrongly associated with the variations in unemployment and poverty levels, with acoefficient R2 of 97 per cent. This means that the programme was extremely well-targetedas it was launched in regions with a high incidence of unemployment and poverty. It isimportant to note that the finding is merely an aggregate data-based analysis which oftenfails to reflect the reality. The results of the SMERU Rapid Field Appraisal Missionindicated that the database on the number of poor families (PKS and Prosperous I) andunemployed persons by districts used for budget allocation of the PDM-DKE programmewas in fact not consistent with the actual programme beneficiaries, causing many eligibleneedy people not to receive benefits. As a case in point, in the village of Kalirungkut,Surabaya, the mission found that only 6 per cent of total PKS in the village received funds
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
173
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
for economic activities and that the allocated funds substantially varied between villages,ranging from 5 million rupiah to 1 billion rupiah. The reason for this state of affairs wasthat the method of determining the budget allocation was based on district potential or thenumber of poor families and unemployed persons.
The National Planning Agency (BAPPENAS) itself as one of two implementingagencies admitted various problems in the implementation of the PDM-DKE programme.The following problems were identified:
(a) Late distribution of funds from the Original Office of Treasury to beneficiarieswhich was related to administrative problems, bureaucractic bottlenecks,geographic coverage, and lack of understanding towards distribution procedureamong local implementers;
(b) Fund leakage;
(c) Mis-targeting to the unintended beneficiaries largely because the number of theproposed programme beneficiaries was larger than the actual one;
(d) Lack of skills of concerned personnel in executing the programme, and poorreporting systems that led to a difficulty in carrying out monitoring mechanisms;
(e) Lack of programme socialization potentially causing inadequate transparency indelivering information on the overall programme implementation and overwhelm-ing local authorities’ interventions to the use of funds by beneficiaries; and
(f) Lack of understanding towards the procedure of programme implementationwhich had caused institutional-related problems, bringing about poor coordinationbetween implementors.
2. Coordination
As admitted by the Government (TKPP-JPS, October 1999: 3), the lack of awarenessand understanding of the spirit of social safety net programmes, institutional weaknesses,and the practices of corruption and collusion were the major sources of inefficiency in thefirst year of implementation. Although the management of the programmes has improvedand more public involvement has been encouraged by the application of “safeguardingmechanisms”, implementation remains at a rudimentary stage (Sekretariat TKPP-JPS, 2000).
Coordination, both horizontally and vertically, may be the most important aspectin implementing any social safety net programme. As shown earlier, they were planned andimplemented by several line ministries/agencies, with their budgets being channelled throughdifferent mechanisms, making horizontal coordination difficult. Moreover, theseprogrammes were mainly central government initiatives. Although local governments andthe local communities were encouraged to be actively involved in planning and the
174
subsequent steps (targeting, implementing, monitoring, etc.), they remained, for the mostpart, spectators to the process, lacking a “sense of belonging” as well as a “sense ofownership” of the programmes implemented in their localities. There is certainly a need todevelop more reasonable ways for coordinating activities of the government at the variouslevels, especially on the grass-roots level.
Again, the cancellation of PKP, PKPP, and PDM-DKE programmes in fiscal year1999/2000 may be a good example of a lack of coordination. Although such programmeswere repeatedly announced as a government priority in reducing the impact of the crisis, thelack of coordination between the programme implementing agencies and the financialauthority made the programme impossible to carry out, necessitating its cancellation duringthe fiscal year 1999/2000, and its late implemention in the following fiscal year. Thefinancial documents for those programmes were issued in the end of the first quarter offiscal year 2000 (PIN-JPS, 2000: 1), which is a 9-month fiscal year, and started deliveringbenefits to the beneficiaries only after three months of implementation at the end of theyear (TKPP-JPS, 2000).
3. Fund use
The crucial source of inefficiency in the social safety net programme implementationwas related to mismanagement and corruption of the programme funds. Fund misallocationand leakages occurred from the planning stage, implementing stage to evaluating andmonitoring stage. Misuse commonly occurs when programmes are delivered to targetbeneficiaries indirectly through the development of infrastructure projects. Mis-targetingproblems, such as the proposed projects being inconsistent with the actual needs of the poorcommunity, and limited benefits for the poor from the project implementation and outcome,are classical sources of inefficiency in programme implementation. In addition, the lack ofsound financial accountability and transparency are other important sources of fundleakages.
Table 3 provides an example of various practices of fund misuse potentially occur-ring in the implementation of any social safety net programme. This example is drawnfrom the result of an audit by the Financial and Development Auditing Agency on theimplementation of the PDM-DKE programme during the fiscal year 1998/1999 in eightprovinces. Overall, the proportion of fund misuse to the total budget allocated for theprogramme in these audited provinces was quite small, reaching only 3.4 per cent.However, an interesting feature appearing in the table is related to the types of misuse.Table 3 clearly indicates that mis-targeting and inefficient programme implementation werethe major sources of fund misuse, explaining around 57 per cent of the total financialmisuse. This was then followed by poor financial accountability and misuse over thedesignated criteria or procedures of programme implementation, leading to financial lossesfor the Government.
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
175
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
Table 3. Fund misuse in the implementation of PDM-DKE and AMP programmesbased on the results of an audit in eight provinces (North and West Sumatera,
Jakarta, West and Central Java, South Kalimantan, South Sulawesiand West Nusatenggara) for the fiscal year 1998/1999
Percentage Type of fund misuse Millions of share to total
rupiah misuse
1. Poor financial accountability: 8 935 26.4
a. PDM-DKE (poor project administration & financial 8 402 24.8accountability)
b. AMP PDM-DKE (incomplete supporting documents for 533 1.6financial accountability report)
2. Misuse over the designated criteria/rules indicating 5 484 16.2financial loss for government:
a. PDM-DKE (corruption, fictitious official travel and 4 980 14.7materials purchase)
b. AMP PDM-DKE (failure to return fund residue to state’s 504 1.5treasury)
3. Inefficient use of project fund: 127 0.4
(marked-up budget, project activities incompatible tolocal conditions)
4. Mis-targeting, ineffective programme implementation: 19 359 57.1
a. PDM-DKE 16 323 48.1b. AMP PDM-DKE 3 036 9.0
Total misuse in audited fund in the implementationof PDM-DKE in 8 provinces 33 905 100.0
Total budget allocated for PDM-DKE & AMP programmein 8 provinces 995 110
Percentage fund misuse to total allocated budget in 8 provinces 3.41
Source: Summarized and calculated from an unpublished report by the Financial and DevelopmentAuditing Agency.
The actual magnitude of misallocation and leakage in the overall social safety netprogramme implementation is impossible to detect. The difficulty is related to the fact thatboth misallocation and leakage may occur at various levels of implementing agencies fromthe central to the community level. However, based on an unconfirmed report, themagnitude of misallocation and leakage in four programmes, as shown in table 4, wasaround 788 billion rupiah. Compared with the total budget allocated to each programme in
176
the fiscal year 1998/1999, the proportions of misallocation and leakage were around 2 percent for the OPK programme, 32.6 per cent for the labour-intensive programme in forestry,37 per cent for the programmes to overcome the impact of drought and for skilled labour-intensive employment, and 11 per cent for the scholarship and the stay-in-schoolprogramme. Apart from the reliability of this report, financial-related mismanagement tendsto be frequent in the case of programmes or projects designed in a great rush andcontingent upon unpredicted events. This especially happens in the early implementationstage when those involved in the programmes do not know exactly how to proceed.
On the basis of complaints, the government has reviewed programme implementationand has tried to improve the outreach of social safety nets by using more accurate and timelydata for targeting, and by paying close attention to programme integration and women’sparticipation. The outcome of dialogues with community representatives was embodied in 13recommendations for the structural improvement of social safety net programme imple-mentation, followed by these five specific programmes for improvement: (a) intensification ofprogramme socialization; (b) development of mechanisms for complaint resolution; (c)provision of regular and clear performance indicators; (d) establishment of independentprogramme verification; and (e) increased involvement of civil society in monitoring.
B. Safeguarding the social safety net programmes
Although the social safety net programmes had a short-term perspective, it was placedin a long-term perspective when the Government placed it under the umbrella of ‘goodgovernance’. Starting in the fiscal year 1999/2000, the Government ruled that social safetynet programme implementation must have three essential characteristics, namely transpa-rency, participation and public accountability. These qualities were fostered in all socialsafety net transactions.
Table 4. Percentage crude estimates of fund misallocation and leakage in theimplementation of some reviewed social safety net programmes
during the fiscal year 1998/1999
Allocated fund Estimated misallocation/ Percentage Programme (in billions leakage (in billions misallocation/
of rupiah) of rupiah) leakage
Food subsidy of OPK 5 450 116.7 2.1Labour intensive in forestry 490.5 160 32.6PDKMK and P3T 997 370.2 37.1Scholarship and DBO 1 259 141.5 11.2
Source: Calculated from table 6 and report from the Ministry of Finance as quoted by Kompas, 17 May1999.
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
177
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
1. Transparency
In pursuit of transparency, the implementing agencies of social safety nets wererequired to disseminate programmes widely through the media. As a result, at the nationallevel, each programme implementing agency and the Social Safety Net InformationClearinghouse, established under the Coordinating Team, disseminated social safety netinformation through advertisements and dialogues on television and radio stations, advertise-ments in the newspapers, and publications of bulletins, leaflets and booklets. These weredistributed through local governments down to sub-district and village level, as well asthrough units having worldwide web sites (PIN-JPS, 2000: 5). In addition, local socialsafety net information centres produced and distributed information materials to variousgroups in the locality.
In reviewing the performance of information dissemination, the question has arisen asto whether the information reached the intended target groups or not. Studies on thequestion have been given opposing answers with some saying that prospective beneficiarieshave been well-informed, while some others indicated that many prospective beneficiarieshave received inadequate information or have not received any information at all, and thatonly a few people have made inquiries through local social safety net information centres.To explain the difference in the conclusions, it has been suggested that the favourable resultswere of programmes that have been preceded by careful and intense information work.
As a starting point to increase accountability of programme implementation, socialsafety net programmes were required to base their reports on actual performance. The firstindicator of performance in this reporting system was the number of reports received at thecentral level. As a new system, it did not run as well as expected. Only a few reportswere received and of those received, mostly were either incomplete or late.
The ultimate indicator is, of course, output. On this account, the social safety netprogrammes varied widely. The amount of rice distributed, the numbers of students whowere given scholarships, the number of schools that received block grants, the number ofpersons who were employed, and the number of women who have been employed, areamong the indicators of direct output and are easy to measure. However, the ultimateimpact of the programmes on recipients, whether their needs were satisfied and to whatextent, has not been measured.3
The transparency and accountability of implementation can be improved and wherethey have been carried out, they have contributed to the encouragement of the public’sinterest and participation in social safety nets.
3 See the series of “Social Safety Net Performance Report” and “Monitoring Report” produced by TKPP-JPS Secretariat (unpublished).
178
2. Independent verification
Another task pursued to lift the level of programme implementation is the programmeof independent verification. Here, the Controlling Team conducts field verification at thebeneficiary level on the monthly reports of “key social safety net programmes”4 in order toassess the reliability of reports. The results of the verification were interesting. Oneverification found that reports from the block grants for primary and secondary schoolsprogramme were reliable and reflected programme performance in the field.
Some reports, however, were considered “unverifiable”. These included the reports onthe OPK rice subsidy programme. The indicator chosen for the programme was ‘numbersof families receiving rice’ and the ‘amount of rice distributed’. There was no indicator setfor the quantity of rice distributed to each recipient which was what should have mattered,from the viewpoint of programme effectiveness.
3. Grievance resolution
The Coordinating Team and all programme implementing agencies established acomplaint resolution unit to handle and resolve any complaint relating to the socialsafety net programmes as well as to take up appropriate corrective measures. Thecomplaint resolution unit reported its actions to the general public and to the Coordinat-ing Team.
A monitoring report of October 2000 indicated that 73 per cent of the receivedcomplaints on the key social safety net programmes were resolved, and the remaining werestill being investigated. This performance is considered as on the low side. One reasonadvanced by one monitoring group for this low performance was the great number ofcomplaints that had to be tackled including complaints that dated back to the programme’sfirst year of implementation.
Although the results show significant achievement, there are several problems stillcrying out for a solution. The most important problem is the lack of information on theexistence of the local social safety net information centres. Another problem is that of nofollow-up by responsible institutions of the complaints after they have been made. Anotherproblem pertained to the status of “resolved complaints” which often required furtherfollow-up, particularly in referring criminal misconduct to the district attorney and/or localpolice offices.
4 The term “key social safety net programmes” refers to six social safety net programmes, i.e. OPK,Beasiswa & DBO Dikdasmen, JPS-BK, PKP, PKPP, and PDM-DKE.
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
179
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
Table 5. Complaints received and handled by the complaint resolution unit,February 1999 – October 2000
Complaints Resolved
Complaints Under Complaints No Percentage Key SSN Program received Investigation Proven Evidence of Complaints
to Prove Resolved(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
= [(4)+(5)]/(2)
Special Market Operations 428 227 158 43 47.0%for Rice (OPK)
Scholarship and School Block 828 110 520 198 86.7%Grant (SBG)
SSN on Health Sector (JPS-BK) 118 39 47 32 66.9%Urban Labour-Intensive (PKP) 86 23 44 19 73.3%Special Initiatives for Women 42 6 12 24 85.7%
Unemployment (SIWU)Empowerment of the 354 99 76 179 72.0%Regions to Overcome theImpact of the EconomicCrisis (PDM-DKE)
Total 1,502 405 781 316 73.0%
Source: Drawn from the Coordinating Team, Social Safety Net Performance Report and MonitoringReport of October 2000.
IV. THE ROLE OF DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS
A. The role of the Government
In general, social safety net programmes were implemented by the central governmentthrough the line ministries/agencies, with their local offices and local units. Furthermore,these programmes are coordinated by a Coordinating Team headed by BAPPENAS at thecentral level, and by the provincial and district/municipal development planning boards atthe local level in the regions. At another level, there is a controlling team, whose membersare reputable individuals from government and non-governmental organizations that providesinputs to policy-making and verifies reports. A third unit is an independent unit mandatedto monitor programme implementation in the field.
180
Province
INDEPENDENT MONITORINGTEAM/CIVIL SOCIETY
GROUPS
CONTROLLINGTEAM
COORDINATINGTEAM
Secretariat
CRU ICH
COORDINATINGTEAM
Secretariat
CRU IC
National
STAKEHOLDERS’FORUM
STAKEHOLDERS’FORUM
COORDINATINGTEAM
Secretariat
CRU IC
INDEPENDENT MONITORINGTEAM/CIVIL SOCIETY
GROUPS
Programmes
Programmes
Programmes
Figure I. National social safety net organizational setting
District/Municipal
The three components were expected to interact and discuss the results of theirrespective activities in a “stakeholders’ forum” that was to be set up at the national andlocal (district/municipal) levels. See figure I below.
Source: Adapted from the Coordinating Team for social safety net programmes (October 1999).
Notes: • Programmes = programme implementing agencies• CRU = Complaint Resolution Unit• ICH = Social safety net Information
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
181
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
B. Public participation
The introduction of the local stakeholders’ forum nationwide is expected to givereality to the plan of fostering civil society participation in government activities at the locallevel. The forum is expected to provide a public sphere for consultation on the planningand monitoring of programmes and the handling of complaints (Tim Kerja Persiapan FLP,2000). Local governments have been instructed to support the establishment of such forumsin their jurisdiction.
As indicated in figure I, civil society is expected to monitor social safety netimplementation independently. The government did not provide funds for such monitoringbut encouraged donor agencies to channel their grants directly to interested organizations.At the same time, most social safety nets already incorporate civil society and localcommunity participation in their programmes, including the participation of monitoringand evaluation consultants (Association of South-East Asian Nations Secretariat, August2000).
C. Non-governmental organizations
The establishment of the local stakeholders’ forum was expected to increase theinvolvement of civil society in decision-making in social safety net programme implementa-tion. In this era of decentralization, the introduction of the local forum can be considered adevolution of power from district/municipal government (and legislative body) to the peoplethemselves. As of October 2000, some 226 forums have been formed in the regions (out ofmore than 350 districts/municipalities).
However, there are still many issues and problems about the stakeholders’ forum thatremain to be resolved. One important issue is that most forums have been transformed into“civil society monitoring teams”, with the limited involvement of NGOs, rather than being apublic space for communication and interaction between local stakeholders – government,legislative body, NGOs, academicians, community representatives, and the press – as howthey were designed to be. On the part of government, there is an unwillingness to involve“anti-government NGOs” in the discussion of issues. From the civil society side, there is aperception that the forum is part of the government’s co-optation effort.
The stakeholders’ forums have so far been successful in initiating public participation,monitoring implementation in the field, organizing local civil society, and buildinginteraction mechanisms among local stakeholders (Tim Kerja Persiapan FLP, 2000: 12-13).
As has been pointed out, NGOs have been active in two distinct areas of decision-making and action in relation to social safety nets, the monitoring and the programmemanagement. They have also been active in implementing non-social safety net crisisresponse programmes of the communities.
182
V. FINANCING
A. Funding through the state budget
The social safety net budget totalled 14,820 billion rupiah, 11,873 billion rupiah, and5,463 billion rupiah in 1998/1999, 1999/2000, and 2000 respectively, as shown in Table 6.For each year, the total consists of a portion that comes from the development budget andanother portion that comes from the current or routine portion of the national budget. Thetable shows that social safety net budget is allocated to food security, education, health,employment creation, and community funds programmes.
Table 6. Budget allocation, implementing agency, and source of funds for socialsafety net programmes in Indonesia, 1998-2000
Budget allocation (billion rupiah)Intervention Sector and Implementing Budget
SSN Program 1998/1999 1999/2000 2000 Agency Source
Food Securlty: 633 117 8
Special Market Operation for Rice 0 5 8 BULOG and State budget(OPK), program management and DDN-ODsafeguarding only
National Food Security Program 633 0 0 Min. of State budgetthrough Farmers’ Empowerment Agriculture(PKPN-MPMP)
Development of Poultry Rural 0 57 0 Min. of JBICRearing Multiplication Centre Agriculture(RRMC)
Rehabilitation of Brackish Water 0 55 0 Min. of JBICShrimp Culture Infrastructures Agriculture
Education: 2 697 2 064 1 066
Scholarship and School Block 1 138 1 251 667 DEPDIKNAS ABD, WBGrant (SBG) and state
budget
Scholarship for University and 113 278 0 DEPDIKNAS State budgetBlock grant
Primary School Rehabilitation and 851 0 0 DEPDIKNAS State budgetDevelopment
Operational and Maintenance Funds 959 535 399 DEPDIKNAS, State budgetfor Primary Schools (DOP SD/MI) DEPAG, and
DDN-OD(continued)
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
183
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
Table 6 (continued)
Budget allocation (billion rupiah)Intervention Sector and Implementing Budget
SSN Program 1998/1999 1999/2000 2000 Agency Source
Health: 2 273 1 664 1 280
SSN in Health Sector (JPS-BK) 1 043 1 030 867 Min. of ADB andHealth state budget
Social Welfare (JPS-BS) 95 102 68 Min. of Social ADB andAffairs/BKSN state budget
Specific Block Grant for Community 721 0 0 Min. of Health State budgetHealth Centres and DDN
OD
Supplementary Food for Primary 414 532 345 Intersectoral State budgetSchool Students (PMT-AS)
Employment Creation: 2 066 1 000 441
Labour-Intensive Program to Eradicate 997 0 0 Min. of State budgetCrisis Impacts (PDKMK) and Labour- ManpowerIntensive for Trained Working Forces(P3T)
Labour-Intensive Program in Forestry 490 0 0 Min. of State budgetSector Forestry
Labour-Intensive Program in Public 579 850 366 Min. of Public State budgetWorks Program (PKSPU-CK in Works/DEP-1998/1999) / Urban Labour- KIMPRASWILIntensive (PKP)
Special Initiatives for Women 0 150 75 DEPKIM- State budgetUnemployment (PKPP) PRASWIL
Community Funds: 1 701 792 435
Empowerment of the Regions to 1 701 792 435 DDN-OD State budgetOvercome the Impact of theEconomic Crisis (PDM-DKE)
Total Development Budget 9 370 5 638 3 230
Rice Price Subsidy of OPK program 5 450 6 235 2 232 BULOG State budget(current/routine budget)
Total Budget 14 820 11 873 5 462
Source: Drawn from PIN-JPS (2000), Programme-Programme Jaring Pengaman Sosial (social safety netprogrammes) and other TKPP-JPS publications.
Notes: 1. Three programmes (PKP, PKPP, and PDM-DKE) were not implemented in fiscal year 1999/2000owing to fiscal limitations.
2. Three programmes (development of the rural multiplication centre, the rehabilitation of brackishwater shrimp culture, and scholarships and university block grants) were implemented as a regulardevelopment programme (non-social safety net) in fiscal year 2000.
184
Table 7 shows the social safety net budget in the context of the national budget.Two things are immediately noticeable from the table: first, that the total and social safetynet budgets for 1998/1999 were quite high, and second, that both declined thereafter. In1998/1999, the total budget amounted to 263,888 billion rupiah of which 14,820 billionrupiah, or 5.62 per cent, was allocated to social safety nets. Both decreased in thefollowing year, the total budget declining to 212,699 billion rupiah and the social safety netbudget to 11,873 billion rupiah. The percentage of the social safety net budget alsodecreased to 5.58 per cent of the total. The decline continued in 2000, when the totalbudget fell to 183,069 billion rupiah, and the social safety net budget to 5,462 billionrupiah. The share of the latter to the former also fell to 2.98 per cent. That the socialsafety net budget should go on a decline can perhaps be attributed to the fact that thecrisis to which it was addressed to has lessened, and the worsely affected, as well as therest of the population, have been returning to normal life. The fall in the total budget ismore difficult to explain since the economy is said to have been on the mend in the lastyear or two, and therefore has been better able to support a larger budget, but that isbeyond the scope of this paper.
Table 7 also shows the sectoral composition of the development budget. This budgettotalled 71,600 billion rupiah in 1998/1999, 61,747 billion rupiah in 1999/2000, and 39,387bilion rupiah in 2000.
The source and composition of the social safety net budget can also be seen from thetable. The total social safety net budget of 14,820 billion rupiah, 11,873 billion rupiah, and5,462 billion rupiah in the fiscal years 1998/1999, 1999/2000, and 2000 respectively, canalso be seen. The distribution of the social safety net budget to the different programmesand projects (i.e. food security, education, health, and employment creation) to the sectoralbudget, regional budget, and project loan funded budget is also shown.
The portion of the social safety net budget that is funded by foreign loans deserves acloser look. It was 5.6 per cent in 1998/1999, 14.8 per cent in 1999/2000, and 22.4 percent in 2000.
B. External sources of financing
Foreign loans played an important role in the financing of the social safety netprogrammes in Indonesia, and for that matter, in the financing of the whole developmentbudget. As Table 7 shows, out of the total development budget of 71,600 billion rupiah in1998/1999, 40,541 billion rupiah, or 56.6 per cent, was funded by foreign loans. In 1999/2000, out of the total development budget of 61,747 billion rupiah, 30,000 billion rupiah, or48.6 per cent, came from foreign loans. In 2000, the figures were: 39,387 billion rupiah ofthe total development budget, 16,030 billion rupiah, or 46.0 per cent, from foreign loans.The portion of foreign loans in the development budget is thus high, even if it is declining.
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
185
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
Table 7. Comparison between social safety net programmesand total budget and gross domestic product (GDP),
1998-2000
Budget Allocation (billlion rupiah)No. Budget Items
1998/1999 1999/2000 2000
1. DEVELOPMENT BUDGET
1.1 Sectoral Budget
A. SSN Programs Funded by Sectoral Budget 4 252 2 020 827
a. Food Security 633 5 8b. Education 612 832 378c. Health 940 183 0d. Employment Creation 2 066 1 000 441
B. Total Sectoral Budget 17 253 15 618 8 218Percentage of SSN to Total Sectoral Budget (A/B) 24.64 12.94 10.06
1.2 Regional Budget
A. SSN Programs Funded by Regional Budget 4 282 1 859 1 179
a. Education 1 446 535 399b. Health 1 135 532 345c. Community Funds 1 701 792 435
B. Total Regional Budget 13 806 16 129 15 139Percentage of SSN to Total Regional Budget (A/B) 31.01 11.53 7.79
1.3 Project Loan Funded Budget
A. SSN Programs Funded by Project Loan 836 1 758 1 224
a. Food Security 0 112 0b. Education 639 697 289c. Health 198 949 935
B. Total Project Loan Funded Budget 40 541 30 000 16 030Percentage of SSN to Total Loan Funded Budget (A/B) 2.06 5.86 7.64
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT BUDGET
A. Total SSN Programs Funded by Development Budget 9 370 5 638 3 230(1.1.A + 1.2.A + 1.3.A)
B. Total Development Budget (1.1.B + 1.2.B + 1.3.B) 71 600 61 747 39 387
Percentage of SSN to Total Development Budget (A/B) 13.09 9.13 8.20
(continued)
186
Table 7 (continued)
Budget Allocation (billlion rupiah)No. Budget Items
1998/1999 1999/2000 2000
2. CURRENT (ROUTINE) BUDGET
A. SSN Programs Funded by Current Budget 5 450 6 235 2 232(Rice Price Subsidy, OPK)
B. Total Current Budget 192 288 150 952 143 682
Percentage of SSN to Total Current Budget (A/B) 2.83 4.13 1.55
TOTAL BUDGET
A. Total SSN Budget 14 820 11 873 5 462B. Total Budget 263 888 212 699 183 069
Percentage of SSN to Total Budget (A/B) 5.62 5.58 2.98C. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 951 975 1 224 200 910 432
Percentage of SSN to GDP (A/C) 1.56 0.97 0.60
Source: 1. Calculated from several publications of TKPP-JPS.2. Financial Notes and Proposed Budget (1999/2000 and 2000).
Notes: 1. Categorization of the budgets of fiscal year 1998/99 and 1999/2000 follows newly implementedsystem (started in fiscal year 2000).
2. Three programmes (PKP, PKPP, and PDM-DKE) with a budget amounting Rp 1,792 billion werenot implemented in fiscal year 1999/2000 owing to limited budget.
3. Fiscal year 2000 is a transition from April-March budget period to January-December (only 9months).
Only a small percentage of total foreign loans went to social safety nets: 2.1 per centin 1998/1999; 5.9 per cent in 1999/2000; and 7.64 per cent in 2000. But the foreign loansthat went to the social safety net programme, small as they were relative to the total foreignloans, were considerable when matched against the total social safety net budget. As shownin table 8, they represented 5.64 per cent in 1998/1999, 14.82 per cent in 1999/2000, and22.4 per cent in 2000. In other words, the share of foreign loans in the financing of socialsafety nets in Indonesia is rising.
Foreign loans supporting the Indonesian development programme, including socialsafety nets, consist of the following: (a) from the World Bank, US$ 600 million; (b) fromADB, US$ 71,390; (c) from the Japan Bank for International Cooperation, US$ 600 million;and (d) smaller amounts from the United Nations and other sources, i.e. the United StatesAgency for International Development (USAID), Australian Agency for International Devel-opment (AusAID), the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the GermanGTZ, and the Dutch Aid.
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
187
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
Table 8. The role of international assistance in the funding ofsocial safety net (SSN) programmes by sector
1998/1999 1999/2000 2000
SSNIntervention
Total Foreign Proportion Total Foreign Proportion Total Foreign Progortion
SectorBudget Loan of Loan Budget Loan of Loan Budget Loan of Loan
Food Security 6 083 0 0.00 6 352 112 1.76 2 240 0 0.00Education 2 697 639 23.67 2 064 697 33.78 1 066 289 27.11Health 2 273 198 8.70 1 664 949 57.02 1 280 935 73.05Employment 2 066 0 0.00 1 000 0 0.00 441 0 0.00
CreationCommunity 1 701 0 0.00 792 0 0.00 435 0 0.00
Empowerment
Total 14 820 836 5.64 11 873 1 758 14.81 5 462 1 224 22.41
Source: Calculated from several publications of TKPP-JPS.
C. Remarks
Several considerations related to the social safety net programmes and the overallbudget need to be recognized. For all social safety net projects, there is a need to linkestimates of social impact to budget allocation. There is also a need to make clear thereturns that are expected from financial programmes. There are some obvious limitations todecentralization of budget allocation, including the lack of adequate planning capacity at thelocal level, problems in integrating local planning into national planning, and the ever presentreality of people at the community level “more often than not, still not directly involved inthe planning process” (Coveyers, 1982:109). These considerations should be addressed ifallocations are to correspond to their best sector, and if budgeting is to be decentralized.
The foreign loan component of the social safety net programmes also needs to beevaluated in the context of social safety nets as well as the whole national context. Theactual amount of this component is “small” at the present and does not appear to pose adanger to the sustainability of the system, but as a proportion to the total social safety netbudget, it is increasing. This rise, if not checked, will result in a heavy burden for presentand future generations of Indonesians.
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the strengths and weaknesses of the Indonesian social safety netprogrammes uncovered in the preceding discussions, the following recommendations,intended for improving and enhancing policy formulation and programme implementation,are being put forward.
188
A. Improvement in the administrative capacityof local planners and executors
Although there is need for improvement in the quality of higher level leadership insocial safety nets, the need is more pressing and urgent at the local level. Here, theimprovement must start from planning, and goes on to the implementation, down tomonitoring and evaluation. It must encompass all local officials, individuals and agenciesinvolved in social safety net policy and programme implementation. This is the keyword toguarantee efficient and effective social safety nets to their ultimate beneficiaries.
B. Establishment and continuous strengthening of databases
This is the only way to begin solving the ubiquitous problem of mis-targeting. Sincethe target groups of social safety nets are the poor who tend to be hit most severely bycrises, identifying the poor accurately improves the targeting of social safety nets. Howpoverty is measured and quantified then becomes important to the accurate targeting ofsocial safety nets. By and large, there are two types of poverty statistics or information.The first is the number of population living below the predetermined poverty line by region,and the second is the identification (names and addresses) of the poor. Quantitativeinformation on the various socio-economic dimensions of poverty will also be useful.These pieces of information must be gathered and compiled systematically in order toprovide an accurate and adequate basis for targeting the victims of crises who happen, inthe majority of cases, to be poor.
The data, for both national and local agencies, must be slowly but steadily built up ina data bank by professionally qualified individuals and institutions. They must beconstantly updated to ensure their reflection of current realities.
The table below outlines the top-down and bottom-up approaches to targeting ofsocial safety net programmes, in particular, and anti-poverty programmes in general. Ifused in combination, the two approaches will help ensure more accurate targeting for socialsafety net programmes.
C. Shift from crisis-oriented social safety net programmesto longer-term programmes
This calls for the effective transformation of short-term social safety nets to long-termsocial security programmes, schemes that will be continued into the future and for all time,similar to the existing social security system for people in the formal sector, in order toprovide continuing support and assistance to poor people even in between crises. Thisobviously requires funding that is not dependent on government coffers which sufferprecisely when crises occur, nor upon foreign loans that impose a burden of unpredictedweight on present and future generations. Ways must be found to start independentfinancing for social safety nets.
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
189
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
Table 9. The combined top-down and bottom-up approach indefining the target groups
Mechanism Type and mechanism of determining target groups
Approach of distributingbudget to the Geographic Sectoral Individual
poor targeting targeting targeting
Top-down Determining Data on number Data on number 1. Data on numberdistribution of and names of the and percentage and percentage ofassistance target sub-districts of poor households poor populationprogramme budget and villages by sector (industry and poor householdsallocated to the according to & occupation) of by districtstarget groups by poverty typology main breadwinner 2. Establishingprovincial and by districts and by districts several nationallydistrict levels, standardized andaccording to the operational criterianumber of the poor* of the poor
Bottom-up Determining Determining the final and most eligible Applying self-distribution of target sub-districts and villages on the selection or self-budget allocated to basis of the real condition, and mutual targeting at villagethe target groups compromise of all relevant interests and lowerby sub-district and administrativevillage levels, levels using theaccording to the standard criterianumber of finally with some localdetermined target adjustment, with thegroups and localities following procedures:
1. Identification ofthe target groups isfirst based onknowledge of localauthorities, commu-nity leaders, orvolunteers regularlyinvolved in distribut-ing tithe or donationto the needy
2. Direct verificationof the identifiedtarget groups todecide the final andmost eligible targetgroups
Note: * One of the most common formulas used to estimate funding allocated to alleviate the living standardof the poor to the predetermined poverty threshold is the derivation of F-G-T Indices which can bewritten as follows: Fi = P1/P0*Z*NP, where Fi: total funding allocated to the poor per month inregion-ith; P1: poverty gap index in region-ith; P0: head-count ratio (per cent poor to total population)in region-ith; Z: poverty line (rupiah/capita/month) in region-ith; and NP: absolute number of poorpopulation in region-ith.
190
AN
NE
X I
.
Sum
mar
y of
so
cial
saf
ety
net
impl
emen
tati
on d
urin
g th
e cr
isis
in
Indo
nesi
a
PR
OG
RA
MM
EA
IMS
TAR
GE
T G
RO
UP
SA
CT
IVIT
IES
TAR
GE
TA
LL
OC
AT
ION
1.O
pera
si P
asar
Khu
sus
•To
hel
p th
e ta
rget
gro
ups
•T
he t
arge
t gr
oups
are
•D
istr
ibut
e 10
kg/
•Fi
scal
yea
r 19
98/1
999:
(OP
K)
of p
oor
fam
ilies
to
fulf
ilPr
e-Pr
ospe
rous
(K
PS)
HH
/mon
th w
ith a
pri
ceTa
rget
: 14
.9 m
illio
nSp
ecia
l M
arke
tba
sic
need
s (r
ice)
with
and
Pros
pero
us I
of 1
0,00
0 ru
piah
/kg,
HH
sO
pera
tions
for
Ric
ech
eap
pric
e w
ith a
cer
tain
Fam
ilies
(K
S I)
and
the
quan
tity
has
been
Rea
lizat
ion:
1.0
6B
y O
ffic
e of
M
inis
ter
quan
tity
and
peri
odor
igin
ally
bas
ed o
n th
ein
crea
sed
to 2
0 kg
/m
illio
n to
ns o
f ri
cefo
r Fo
od A
ffai
rs a
nd•
Ric
e su
bsid
y in
the
regu
lar
Nat
iona
l Fa
mily
HH
/mon
th s
ince
Dec
.de
liver
ed t
o 5.
3Fo
od L
ogis
tics
Age
ncy
OPK
pro
gram
me
is n
otPl
anni
ng C
oord
inat
ing
1998
(up
to
1999
/200
0)m
illio
n H
Hs
(Jul
-(K
anto
r M
enpa
ngan
dist
ribu
ted
to g
ener
alA
genc
y da
ta t
hat
was
•In
200
0, t
he a
mou
nt o
fN
ov 1
998)
and
10.
0da
n B
ulog
)m
arke
t ch
anne
ls,
but
cont
inuo
usly
rev
iew
ed b
yri
ce i
s de
term
ined
by
each
mill
ion
HH
s (D
ec•
Peri
od:
FY 1
998/
1999
,di
rect
ly t
o th
e ta
rget
regi
onal
and
sub
regi
onal
loca
l go
vern
men
t w
ith19
98-M
ar 1
999)
on
1999
/200
0, a
nd 2
000
grou
psfo
od l
ogis
tics
depo
tsa
max
imum
of
20 k
g an
dav
erag
e/m
onth
.•
Sour
ce o
f fu
nd:
stat
e•
Qua
ntity
of
dist
ribu
ted
with
rel
ated
ins
titut
ions
min
imum
of
10 k
g.•
Fisc
al y
ear
1999
/200
0:bu
dget
(de
velo
pmen
tri
ce i
s no
t de
term
ined
•Po
or h
ouse
hold
s th
at a
re•
Ric
e di
stri
butio
n is
don
eTa
rget
: 14
.6 m
illio
nan
d cu
rren
t bu
dget
)by
mar
ket
dem
and,
not
incl
uded
in
the
data
by t
he s
peci
al t
eam
fro
mH
Hs
•C
over
age:
all
prov
ince
s.bu
t ba
sed
on t
he n
umbe
r(e
.g.
non-
regi
ster
ed p
oor)
the
food
log
istic
s de
pots
Rea
lizat
ion:
3.4
of t
arge
t fa
mili
esar
e el
igib
le t
o be
in c
olla
bora
tion
with
loc
alm
illio
n to
ns o
f ri
ce•
It i
s no
t in
tend
ed t
obe
nefi
ciar
ies
base
d on
peop
le a
t vi
llage
lev
el.
deliv
ered
to
10.9
stab
ilize
mar
ket
food
the
resu
lts o
f vi
llage
mill
ion
HH
s on
pric
es,
but
mer
ely
to h
elp
com
mun
ity m
eetin
gs(a
vera
ge/m
onth
)fo
od i
nsec
ure
fam
ilies
•Fi
scal
yea
r 20
00:
Targ
et:
14.3
mill
ion
HH
sR
ealiz
atio
n (a
s of
Oct
):1.
0 m
illio
n to
ns o
fri
ce d
eliv
ered
to
9.3
mill
ion
HH
s on
(ave
rage
/mon
th)
(con
tinu
ed)
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
191
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
AN
NE
X I
(c
ontin
ued)
PR
OG
RA
MM
EA
IMS
TAR
GE
T G
RO
UP
SA
CT
IVIT
IES
TAR
GE
TA
LL
OC
AT
ION
2.Pe
ning
kata
n K
etah
anan
•To
inc
reas
e th
e na
tiona
l•
Poor
far
mer
s/fi
sher
men
•Im
prov
ing
inte
nsif
icat
ion
•Ta
rget
: in
tens
ific
atio
nPa
ngan
Nas
iona
l m
elal
uifo
od s
tock
, av
aila
ble
and
expe
rien
cing
red
uctio
n in
of p
rodu
ctio
n of
ric
e,of
pro
duct
ion
of r
ice,
Pem
berd
ayaa
naf
ford
able
for
all
peop
le,
purc
hasi
ng p
ower
ow
ing
mai
ze &
soy
bean
.m
aize
& s
oybe
an t
oM
asya
raka
t Pe
tani
thro
ugh
impr
ovem
ent
into
cri
sis
impa
cts
•E
xten
sify
ing
culti
vatio
n52
mill
ion
tons
,(P
KPN
- M
PMP)
food
cro
p pr
oduc
tion,
area
of
rice
, m
aize
and
12 m
illio
n to
ns a
ndN
atio
nal
food
sec
urity
poul
try
and
fish
soyb
ean
2 m
illio
n to
nsim
prov
emen
t th
roug
hpr
oduc
ts•
Prov
idin
g ad
voca
cyre
spec
tivel
y, i
n 10
.6em
pow
erm
ent
of f
arm
ers
•To
int
ensi
fy t
heas
sist
ance
, in
volv
ing
mill
ion
hect
ares
By
Dep
artm
ent
ofpr
oduc
tion
and
qual
ity5,
500
unde
rgra
duat
e•
Dev
elop
men
t of
Agr
icul
ture
of f
ood
cash
cro
psst
uden
tsfi
shpo
nd c
ultu
re•
Peri
od:
FY 1
998/
1999
culti
vatio
n, l
ives
tock
and
•E
stab
lishi
ng a
spe
cial
cove
ring
an
area
of
•So
urce
of
fund
: St
ate
fish
ery
prod
ucts
effo
rt t
o de
velo
p98
6 he
ctar
esbu
dget
•To
enc
oura
ge t
heag
robu
sine
ss-o
rien
ted
•D
evel
opm
ent
of•
Cov
erag
e: a
ll pr
ovin
ces
effe
ctiv
e us
e of
app
lied
lives
tock
, po
ultr
y, a
ndhu
sban
dry
culti
vatio
n,ag
ricu
ltura
l te
chno
logy
/fi
sher
y cu
lture
acco
untin
g fo
rm
echa
niza
tion
270,
000
loc
al•
To o
ptim
ize
the
chic
kens
/duc
ks,
dist
ribu
tion
of c
redi
ts16
,500
goa
ts/la
mbs
for
farm
ing
busi
ness
,an
d 3,
900
cow
s/da
iry
incl
udin
g tim
ely
supp
lies
cow
sof
fer
tiliz
ers
and
othe
rpr
oduc
tion
inpu
ts•
To s
uppo
rt p
est
cont
rol
and
to m
axim
ize
pasc
a-ha
rves
ting
prod
ucti
onpr
oces
sing
(con
tinu
ed)
192
AN
NE
X I
(c
ontin
ued)
PR
OG
RA
MM
EA
IMS
TAR
GE
T G
RO
UP
SA
CT
IVIT
IES
TAR
GE
TA
LL
OC
AT
ION
3.B
easi
swa
dan
DB
O•
The
sch
olar
ship
•Sc
hola
rshi
p re
cipi
ents
•D
istr
ibut
ing
scho
lars
hips
•Fi
scal
yea
r 19
98/1
999:
Pend
idik
an D
asar
dan
prog
ram
me
is t
o he
lpar
e st
uden
ts f
rom
poo
rto
sch
ool
child
ren
from
Tota
l bu
dget
: R
p 1,
138
Men
enga
hsc
hool
chi
ldre
n at
fam
ilies
(PK
S an
d K
SI)
poor
fam
ilies
billi
on T
arge
t: 1.
8(D
IKD
ASM
EN
)pr
imar
y, j
unio
r an
d se
nior
with
cri
teri
a: a
t G
rade
•Pr
ovid
ing
oper
atio
nal
mill
ion
prim
ary
stud
ent,
Scho
lars
hip
and
bloc
khi
gh l
evel
s fr
om p
oor
4, 5
, 6
of p
rim
ary
scho
olas
sist
ance
fun
d bl
ock
1.65
mill
ion
juni
or h
igh
gran
t fo
r pr
imar
y an
dfa
mili
es f
inan
ce t
heir
and
at a
ll gr
ades
of
juni
orgr
ants
to
scho
ols
that
stud
ent,
and
500.
000
juni
or e
duca
tion
educ
atio
nal
cost
s, i
n or
der
and
seni
or h
igh
scho
ol;
mos
tly n
eed
the
seni
or h
igh
stud
ent.
By
Dep
artm
ent
ofto
avo
id t
he i
ncid
ence
of
drop
-out
stu
dent
s, n
on-
assi
stan
ceTa
rget
for
ope
ratio
nal
Nat
iona
l E
duca
tion
drop
-out
cau
sed
byre
cipi
ents
of
othe
ras
sist
ance
fun
d bl
ock
•Pe
riod
: FY
199
8/19
99,
econ
omic
pro
blem
s, t
osc
hola
rshi
psgr
ant:
104,
000
prim
ary
1999
/200
0 an
d 20
00ha
ve t
he o
ppor
tuni
ty t
o•
Blo
ck g
rant
s of
DB
Osc
hool
, 18
,000
jun
ior
•So
urce
of
fund
: st
ate
cont
inue
to
high
erar
e al
loca
ted
to b
oth
stat
ehi
gh s
choo
l, an
d 9.
5bu
dget
& f
orei
gn l
oan
educ
atio
nal
leve
ls,
and
toan
d pr
ivat
e sc
hool
s th
atse
nior
hig
h sc
hool
.(W
orld
Ban
k an
d A
DB
)en
cour
age
all
scho
ol-a
ged
mos
tly n
eed
assi
stan
ce,
Rea
lizat
ion:
98
per
cent
•C
over
age:
all
prov
ince
sch
ildre
n, n
otab
ly w
omen
,w
ith c
rite
ria:
not
for
scho
lars
hip
to c
ompl
ete
a m
inim
umex
pens
ive
scho
ols,
prog
ram
me
and
100
juni
or h
igh
leve
lre
gist
ered
sch
ools
per
cent
for
•To
hel
p sc
hool
s m
aint
ain
DB
O B
lock
Gra
nted
ucat
iona
l se
rvic
es t
o•
Fisc
al y
ear
1999
/200
0:th
e co
mm
unity
for
Tota
l bu
dget
: R
p 1,
251
over
com
ing
the
incr
ease
dbi
llion
Tar
get:
sam
e as
cost
s of
edu
catio
nal
need
sFY
199
8/19
99 R
ealiz
a-tio
n: 1
00 p
er c
ent
for
scho
lars
hip
prog
ram
me
and
the
bloc
k gr
ant
•Fi
scal
yea
r 20
00:
Tota
l bu
dget
: R
p 66
7bi
llio
nTa
rget
: sa
me
as F
Y19
99/2
000
Rea
lizat
ion:
100
per
cen
tfo
r sc
hola
rshi
ppr
ogra
mm
e an
d th
ebl
ock
gran
t
(con
tinu
ed)
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
193
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
AN
NE
X I
(c
ontin
ued)
PR
OG
RA
MM
EA
IMS
TAR
GE
T G
RO
UP
SA
CT
IVIT
IES
TAR
GE
TA
LL
OC
AT
ION
4.B
easi
swa
dan
DB
O•
To i
mpr
ove
the
equa
lity
Scho
lars
hip
is g
iven
to:
Bot
h Sc
hola
rshi
p an
d B
lock
•Fi
scal
yea
r 19
98/1
999:
Pend
idik
an T
ingg
iof
acc
ess
for
stud
ents
Stud
ents
in
a vu
lner
able
Gra
nt i
s di
rect
ly g
iven
or
Targ
et:
322,
000
(DIK
TI)
at h
ighe
r ed
ucat
ion
with
posi
tion
of
poss
ibly
tran
sfer
red
to h
ighe
run
iver
sity
stu
dent
s an
dSc
hola
rshi
p an
d bl
ock
fina
ncia
l pr
oble
ms
disc
ontin
uing
stu
dy a
sin
stitu
tions
(un
iver
sitie
s, a
nd20
0 un
iver
sitie
sgr
ant
high
er e
duca
tion
•To
sup
port
and
to
a re
sult
of
fina
ncia
l cr
isis
othe
r hi
gher
edu
catio
nal
•Fi
scal
yea
r 19
99/2
000:
By:
Dep
artm
ent
ofm
aint
ain
the
spir
it to
of t
heir
fam
ily;
par
ticul
arly
inst
itutio
ns)
Targ
et:
180,
000
Nat
iona
l E
duca
tion
stud
y an
d fi
nish
the
irhi
gh a
chie
ver
stud
ents
univ
ersi
ty s
tude
nts
and
•Pe
riod
: FY
199
8/19
99de
gree
s1,
000
univ
ersi
ties
and
1999
/200
0•
To i
mpr
ove
stud
ent
scor
esO
pera
tiona
l as
sist
ance
fun
dSe
lect
ed s
tude
nt t
o re
ceiv
e•
Sour
ce o
f fu
nd:
stat
e•
To g
ive
stud
ents
bloc
k gr
ant
is g
iven
to:
the
scho
lars
hip
is f
ully
budg
etw
orki
ng e
xper
ienc
eal
l un
iver
sitie
s an
d hi
gher
auth
oriz
ed t
o un
iver
sity
•C
over
age:
all
prov
ince
s•
To s
ave
the
natio
nin
stitu
tions
in
Indo
nesi
aba
sed
on g
ener
alas
set
on p
oten
tial
and
requ
irem
ents
prod
uctiv
e hu
man
reso
urce
s•
To s
uppo
rt o
pera
tiona
led
ucat
ion
serv
ices
and
faci
lity
mai
nten
ance
5.P
rogr
amm
e O
pera
sion
al•
To k
eep
and
mai
ntai
nE
duca
tiona
l in
stitu
tions
The
wor
k of
sch
ool
Bud
get:
dan
Pera
wat
an F
asili
tas
qual
ity f
acili
ties
with
inPr
imar
y/Ju
nior
H
igh/
Seni
orm
aint
enan
ce
is f
or s
mal
l41
7.65
bill
ion
rupi
ah(O
PF
) D
IKD
ASM
EN
prim
ary
and
juni
or h
igh
Hig
h an
d V
ocat
iona
lca
tego
ry a
nd i
ts o
pera
tion
Ope
ratio
nal
and
faci
litie
ssc
hool
, bo
th s
tate
and
mai
nten
ance
pro
gram
me.
priv
ate
By:
Dep
artm
ent
of•
To s
uppo
rt l
earn
ing
Cul
tura
l an
d E
duca
tion
proc
ess
to i
ts m
axim
um•
Per
iod
of a
ctiv
ity:
FYca
paci
ty19
98/1
999
•So
urce
of
fund
: st
ate
budg
et•
Cov
erag
e: a
ll pr
ovin
ces
(con
tinu
ed)
194
AN
NE
X I
(c
ontin
ued)
PR
OG
RA
MM
EA
IMS
TAR
GE
T G
RO
UP
SA
CT
IVIT
IES
TAR
GE
TA
LL
OC
AT
ION
6. P
rogr
amm
e R
ehab
ilita
si•
To i
mpr
ove
the
qual
itySc
hool
s w
ith s
erio
usT
he w
ork
for
scho
ols
Tota
l bu
dget
:SD
/MI
of p
rim
ary
educ
atio
nal
dam
age
and
urge
nt n
eed
reha
bilit
atio
n is
giv
en85
5.6
billi
on r
upia
h
Reh
abili
tatio
n pr
ogra
mm
ein
stitu
tions
, in
clud
ing
to b
e re
habi
litat
edto
loc
al s
ocie
ty a
ndfo
r pr
imar
y sc
hool
relig
ious
sch
ools
cons
truc
tion
wor
kers
B
y: D
epar
tmen
t of
•To
pro
vide
job
Nat
iona
l E
duca
tion
oppo
rtun
ities
at
villa
ge•
Per
iod
of a
ctiv
ity:
FYle
vel
1998
/199
9•
To a
ssis
t sc
hool
s in
•So
urce
of
fund
: st
ate
keep
ing
the
lear
ning
budg
etpr
oces
s to
it
best
•C
over
age:
all
prov
ince
s
7.B
antu
an P
emba
ngun
anPr
imar
y ac
tivity
:•
Prim
ary
educ
atio
nal
Mai
n ac
tiviti
es:
Tota
l bu
dget
:(S
D)
To i
mpr
ove
qual
ity,
equa
lity
inst
itut
ions
•bu
ild s
choo
l pr
emis
es59
4,97
8 m
illio
n ru
piah
Prim
ary
educ
atio
nan
d ef
fici
ency
as
wel
l as
that
ful
fil
the
•bu
ild a
dditi
onal
assi
stan
cefa
cilit
ies
for
lear
ning
pro
cess
requ
irem
ents
and
sch
ools
clas
sroo
ms
By:
Dep
artm
ent
ofof
pri
mar
y ed
ucat
ion,
that
hav
e a
Scho
ol•
prim
ary
and
relig
ious
Fund
dis
trib
utio
n:E
duca
tion
and
Cul
ture
incl
udin
g Is
lam
ic p
rim
ary
Stat
istic
al N
umbe
r an
d a
scho
ols
The
pro
gram
me
for
•P
erio
d of
act
ivity
: FY
scho
ols
Bui
ldin
g St
atis
tical
•bu
ild v
ario
us r
oom
Pres
iden
tial
assi
stan
ce19
98/1
999
Supp
ortin
g ac
tiviti
es,
Num
ber
such
as
libra
ries
,fu
nd f
or p
rim
ary
scho
ols
•So
urce
of
fund
: st
ate
prov
idin
g:•
New
pri
mar
y sc
hool
at
mul
ti-fu
nctio
n ro
oms
budg
et•
mat
eria
ls a
nd b
ooks
for
mig
rant
rem
ote/
isol
ated
and
wor
ksho
ps f
or•
Cov
erag
e: a
ll pr
ovin
ces
the
curr
icul
umar
eas,
Per
umna
s, a
ndte
ache
rs o
f m
ain
•de
mon
stra
tive
tool
s fo
rbo
rder
are
aspr
imar
y sc
hool
sle
arni
ng p
roce
ss•
Bui
ld t
each
er’s
sta
te•
tool
s fo
r sc
hool
resi
dent
ial
hous
ead
min
istr
atio
n•
Bui
ld d
orm
itory
for
•tr
aini
ng f
or e
lem
enta
ryst
uden
tste
ache
rs a
nd i
ts s
trat
a(D
4) a
nd t
rain
ing
for
teac
hers
and
allo
catio
nfo
r re
mot
e ar
eas
(con
tinu
ed)
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
195
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
AN
NE
X I
(c
ontin
ued)
PR
OG
RA
MM
EA
IMS
TAR
GE
T G
RO
UP
SA
CT
IVIT
IES
TAR
GE
TA
LL
OC
AT
ION
8. J
arin
g Pe
ngam
an S
osia
lG
ener
al a
im:
•Po
or f
amily
and
its
Prim
ary
activ
ities
:Fi
scal
Yea
r 19
98/1
999:
Bid
ang
Kes
ehat
anTo
im
prov
e an
d m
aint
ain
mem
bers
for
bas
ic h
ealth
Prov
idin
g ba
sic
heal
thTa
rget
gro
up:
18 m
illio
n(J
PS-
BK
)th
e he
alth
and
nut
ritio
nse
rvic
es.
The
sel
ectio
nse
rvic
es a
t co
mm
unity
HH
s
Soc
ial
safe
ty n
et f
or t
heof
poo
r fa
mili
esof
poo
r fa
mili
es i
s ba
sed
heal
th c
entr
es a
ndR
ealiz
atio
n: 1
5.3
mill
ion
heal
th s
ecto
ron
tw
o cr
iteri
are
ferr
alH
Hs
B
y: D
epar
tmen
t of
Spec
ific
aim
s:•
Pre-
pros
pero
us a
nd•
Prov
idin
g m
idw
ifer
yB
udge
t: 1,
043
billi
onH
ealth
•To
pro
vide
hea
lthpr
ospe
rous
I o
win
gse
rvic
es a
nd r
efer
ral
rupi
ah•
Per
iod
of a
ctiv
ity:
FYse
rvic
es a
nd m
etho
ds f
orto
eco
nom
ic r
easo
ns•
Prov
idin
g re
ferr
al19
98/1
999,
19
99/2
000,
poor
fam
ilies
by
•O
ther
poo
r fa
mili
esse
rvic
es a
t to
wn/
Fisc
al Y
ear
1999
/200
0:an
d 20
00co
mm
unity
hea
lth c
entr
essu
gges
ted
by l
ocal
lea
ders
prov
inci
al h
ospi
tals
Targ
et g
roup
: 8
mill
ion
•So
urce
of
fund
: st
ate
and
othe
r pu
blic
hea
lth•
Preg
nant
wom
en,
•Pr
even
ting
and
HH
sbu
dget
and
ext
erna
l lo
ance
ntre
spo
st-n
atal
mot
hers
, an
dal
levi
atin
g an
yR
ealiz
atio
n: 7
.3 m
illio
n(A
DB
)•
Prov
ide
mid
wif
ery
heal
thba
bies
to
have
mid
wif
ery
epid
emic
/dis
ease
sH
Hs
•C
over
age:
all
prov
ince
sse
rvic
eshe
alth
ser
vice
svi
a pr
ovid
ing
vacc
ines
Bud
get:
1,03
0 bi
llion
•Pr
ovid
e he
alth
and
•Pr
egna
nt w
omen
,fo
r im
mun
izat
ion
rupi
ahnu
triti
on i
mpr
ovem
ent
for
post
-nat
al m
othe
rs,
and
•Im
prov
ing
nutr
ition
alpr
egna
nt a
nd p
ost-
nata
lba
bies
(ag
e 6-
11 m
onth
s)st
atus
Fisc
al Y
ear
2000
:w
omen
, in
fant
s an
dan
d ch
ildre
n (a
ge 1
2 -2
3Ta
rget
gro
up:
10.3
mill
ion
babi
esm
onth
s) t
o ha
veSu
ppor
ting
activ
ities
:H
Hs
nutr
itiou
s fo
od•
Con
duct
ing
Soci
ety
Rea
lizat
ion:
9.3
mill
ion
supp
lem
ents
Hea
lth B
ond
(Jam
inan
HH
sPe
mel
ihar
aan
Bud
get:
867
billi
onK
eseh
atan
Mas
yara
kat,
rupi
ahJP
KM
)•
Food
and
Nut
ritio
nsSu
rvei
llanc
e Sy
stem
(SK
PG)
•R
evita
lizat
ion
ofin
tegr
ated
hea
lthse
rvic
e po
sts
(con
tinu
ed)
196
AN
NE
X I
(c
ontin
ued)
PR
OG
RA
MM
EA
IMS
TAR
GE
T G
RO
UP
SA
CT
IVIT
IES
TAR
GE
TA
LL
OC
AT
ION
9.Ja
ring
Pen
gam
an S
osia
l•
To s
uppo
rt s
ocia
lSt
reet
chi
ldre
n:M
ain
activ
ities
:B
udge
t:B
idan
gw
elfa
re o
f ch
ildre
n•
thos
e ch
ildre
n w
ithPr
ovid
ing
scho
lars
hip
toFY
199
8/19
99:
92.1
bill
ion
Kes
ejah
tera
an S
osia
lan
d te
enag
ers
at h
igh
mos
t of
the
ir t
ime
stre
et c
hild
ren
rupi
ahSo
cial
sec
urity
net
for
risk
of
beco
min
gliv
ing
on s
tree
ts•
To g
ive
scho
lars
hips
FY 1
999/
2000
: 10
2 bi
llion
soci
al w
elfa
rest
reet
chi
ldre
n be
caus
e•
Chi
ldre
n liv
ing
on•
To g
ive
tuto
rial
and
rupi
ah
By:
D
epar
tmen
t of
of e
cono
mic
cri
sis
the
stre
et (
hom
eles
sco
unse
lling
to
stud
ents
FY 2
000:
68
billi
onSo
cial
Aff
airs
•To
pro
vide
sch
olar
ship
sch
ildre
n)an
d th
eir
pare
nts
rupi
ah•
Per
iod
of a
ctiv
ity:
FY
for
stre
et c
hild
ren
•C
hild
ren
at h
igh
•Pr
ovid
e sc
hola
rshi
p19
98/1
999,
199
9/20
00,
to s
uppo
rt t
heir
stu
dyri
sk o
f be
com
ing
to a
ny s
tude
nt a
tR
ealiz
atio
n:20
00•
To p
rovi
de s
chol
arsh
ips
stre
et c
hild
ren
prim
ary,
jun
ior
and
Var
ious
act
iviti
es•
Sour
ce o
f fu
nd :
sta
tefo
r ho
mel
ess
child
ren
Hom
eles
s ch
ildre
n:se
nior
hig
h sc
hool
sre
late
d to
str
eet
budg
et a
nd e
xter
nal
loan
for
thei
r sc
hool
•ch
ildre
n w
ith n
o pa
rent
•Fi
nanc
ial
supp
ort
toch
ildre
n an
d ho
mel
ess
(AD
B)
•To
pro
vide
fun
d•
thos
e ch
ildre
n liv
ing
shel
tere
d ho
uses
for
child
ren
•C
over
age:
12
prov
ince
sas
sist
ance
tra
inin
gin
she
ltere
d ho
uses
/st
reet
chi
ldre
n•
To p
rovi
de f
ood
for
soci
al h
omec
are
•To
pro
vide
foo
dSu
ppor
ting
activ
ities
:st
reet
chi
ldre
n to
for
stud
ents
and
Soci
al c
hari
ty f
orm
aint
ain
thei
r he
alth
thos
e at
ris
k of
poor
fam
ily,
and
and
nutr
ition
al s
tatu
sdr
oppi
ng o
ut f
rom
mea
ls f
or s
tree
tsc
hool
chil
dren
10.
Pro
gram
me
Mak
anan
•To
im
prov
e st
uden
tA
ll st
uden
ts a
t pr
imar
yT
he p
rogr
amm
e pr
epar
atio
n:Fi
scal
yea
r 19
98/1
999:
Tam
baha
n A
nak
nutr
ition
al s
tatu
sle
vel
incl
udin
g th
ose
atU
sing
loc
al a
gric
ultu
ral
Bud
get:
414.
46 b
illio
nSe
kola
h (P
TM -
AS)
•To
str
engt
hen
and
Isla
mic
rel
igio
us s
choo
l an
dpr
oduc
tsru
piah
Supp
lem
enta
ry f
ood
for
prev
ent
stud
ents
fro
mth
ose
stud
ents
liv
ing
inTa
rget
: 8.
2 m
illio
n pr
imar
ypr
imar
y sc
hool
stu
dent
san
y in
fect
ious
dis
ease
sba
ckw
ard
villa
ges
(eas
tern
The
pro
gram
me
stud
ents
By:
Int
erse
ctor
al•
To s
uppo
rt t
heIn
done
sia)
.im
plem
enta
tion;
Rea
lizat
ion:
8.2
mill
ion
•Pe
riod
of
activ
ity:
prog
ram
me
for
usin
gFo
od s
uppl
emen
t is
prim
ary
stud
ents
FY 1
996/
1997
to
2000
scho
ol g
arde
ns t
opr
epar
ed a
nd o
rgan
ized
by
•So
urce
of
fund
: st
ate
impr
ove:
stu
dent
’sho
useh
olds
and
wom
en’s
Fisc
al y
ear
1999
/200
0:bu
dget
nutr
ition
al s
tatu
s;gr
oup
asso
ciat
ions
(PK
K)
Bud
get:
532
billi
on r
upia
h•
Cov
erag
e: a
ll pr
ovin
ces
food
div
ersi
fica
tion;
and
Targ
et:
9.8
mill
ion
prim
ary
the
agri
cultu
ral
prog
ram
me
stud
ents
of ‘
com
pact
soc
iety
’ or
Rea
lizat
ion:
9.5
mill
ion
mas
yara
kat
terp
adu
prim
ary
stud
ents (c
onti
nued
)
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
197
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
AN
NE
X I
(c
ontin
ued)
PR
OG
RA
MM
EA
IMS
TAR
GE
T G
RO
UP
SA
CT
IVIT
IES
TAR
GE
TA
LL
OC
AT
ION
•To
sup
port
gro
wth
of
Not
es:
Thi
s pr
ogra
mm
eFi
scal
yea
r 20
00:
rura
l ba
se e
cono
my
atac
tual
ly s
tart
ed i
n 19
96 i
nB
udge
t: 34
5 bi
llion
the
IDT
vill
ages
line
with
the
pro
gram
me
rupi
ah•
To b
uild
the
sen
se o
ffo
r te
enag
ers.
It
is e
xpec
ted
Targ
et:
9.6
mill
ion
prim
ary
“I l
ove
Indo
nesi
an F
ood”
that
thi
s pr
ogra
mm
e w
illst
uden
tssu
ppor
t th
e na
tiona
lR
ealiz
atio
n: 9
.5 m
illio
ned
ucat
iona
l co
mpu
lsor
ypr
imar
y st
uden
tspr
ogra
mm
e of
9 y
ears
of
The
bud
get
allo
cate
d fo
rpr
imar
y ed
ucat
ion
Food
this
pro
gram
me
is d
irec
tlysu
pple
men
t is
giv
en 3
tim
estr
ansf
erre
d to
the
acc
ount
per
day
over
a
9-m
onth
of t
he s
choo
l he
adm
aste
rpe
riod
via
the
post
off
ice
11.
Ban
tuan
Pra
sara
na•
To r
educ
e fl
ood
dam
age
•L
ocal
con
trac
tors
•C
lean
ing
up/
dred
ging
Tota
l bu
dget
:D
asar
Pem
ukim
anfo
r th
e pe
ople
of
Jaka
rta.
regi
ster
ed /
lic
ense
dla
rge
cana
ls a
nd83
,136
mill
ion
rupi
ahP
rogr
amm
e•
To c
reat
e em
ploy
men
tat
DK
Ise
wer
ages
usi
ng
heav
yPe
nang
gula
ngan
Ban
jiran
d w
ork
in f
lood
are
as•
Con
stru
ctio
n la
bour
ers
cons
truc
tion
tool
sPe
riod
of
wor
k:D
KI
Jaka
rta
part
ly f
or d
ism
isse
d an
dan
d co
nstr
uctio
n w
orke
rs•
Wat
er p
ump
inst
alla
tions
2-3
mon
ths
for
unsk
illed
Blo
ck g
rant
for
unem
ploy
ed p
erso
nsat
man
ager
ial
leve
l.fo
r hi
gh r
isk
area
sw
orke
rs a
nd v
ario
us f
orba
sic
settl
emen
t•
If t
he w
ork
is l
ess
than
of f
lood
thos
e us
ing
heav
y lo
adin
fras
truc
ture
and
50 m
illio
n ru
piah
, th
e•
Wid
enin
g th
e ar
eas
equi
pmen
tfl
oodi
ng c
ontr
olco
ntra
ctor
s ha
ve t
o be
for
wat
er r
eser
voir
s,pr
ogra
mm
e in
Jak
arta
sele
cted
fro
m l
ow l
evel
for
floo
d co
ntro
lB
y :
Dep
artm
ent
ofco
ntra
ctor
s.
If t
he w
ork
•Pr
ovid
ing
floo
d co
ntro
lPu
blic
Wor
ksis
mor
e th
an 5
0 m
illio
neq
uipm
ent
•Pe
riod
of
activ
ity:
rupi
ah,
free
sel
ectio
n ca
nFY
199
8/19
99ta
ke p
lace
•So
urce
of
fund
:st
ate
budg
et•
Cov
erag
e: J
akar
ta(c
onti
nued
)
198
AN
NE
X I
(c
ontin
ued)
PR
OG
RA
MM
EA
IMS
TAR
GE
T G
RO
UP
SA
CT
IVIT
IES
TAR
GE
TA
LL
OC
AT
ION
12.
Pro
gram
me
•To
pro
vide
hou
sing
for
•R
egis
tere
d co
ntra
ctor
s at
Man
agin
g sl
um a
reas
Tota
l bu
dget
:Pe
mba
ngun
an R
SSpe
ople
suf
feri
ng f
rom
the
Nat
iona
l H
ousi
ng B
oard
alle
viat
ion
prog
ram
me
14,5
21 m
illio
n ru
piah
Dilo
kasi
Sam
arin
dare
loca
tion
prog
ram
me
of(P
erum
nas)
and
loc
alal
ong
the
stre
am o
f th
eB
engk
uria
ng d
anth
e K
aran
gmum
us r
iver
adm
inis
trat
ive
offi
ces
Kar
angm
umus
riv
er.
Sam
buta
nin
Sam
arin
da•
The
sel
ectio
n of
cho
sen
Smal
l-si
zed
hous
ing
•To
cre
ate
empl
oym
ent
cont
ract
or i
s do
ne u
sing
deve
lopm
ent
prog
ram
me
and
job
oppo
rtun
ity f
orth
e st
anda
rd o
fin
Sam
arin
daw
orke
rs i
n th
e ar
eas
Peru
mna
s’s
requ
irem
ents
.B
y: D
epar
tmen
t of
of p
ublic
wor
kPu
blic
Wor
ks•
To p
rovi
de a
chie
vabl
e•
Peri
od o
f ac
tivity
:pr
ice
of h
ousi
ng f
orFY
199
8/19
99pe
ople
of
low
pur
chas
ing
•So
urce
of
fund
: st
ate
pow
er /
eco
nom
ical
lybu
dget
inca
pabl
e•
Cov
erag
e: 1
tow
n(
Sam
arin
da )
13.
Pro
gram
me
•To
pro
vide
hou
sing
for
•T
he p
oor
livin
g at
•It
is
esse
ntia
l th
at t
heTo
tal
budg
et p
repa
red
pem
bang
unan
peop
le l
ivin
g in
slu
mJa
kart
a’s
rive
r si
dew
ork
of t
he p
rogr
amm
efo
r th
e pr
ogra
mm
e:ru
suna
wa
Di
loka
siar
eas
alon
g th
e ri
ver
•C
ontr
acto
rs,
regi
ster
ed a
tus
es l
ocal
and
dom
estic
18,7
71 m
illio
n ru
piah
Sind
ang
Koj
a Ja
kart
asi
de o
f Ja
kart
a;
thos
e‘P
erum
per
umna
s’,
loca
lm
ater
ials
.U
tara
suff
erin
g fr
om t
hego
vern
men
t in
stru
men
ts•
Thi
s ty
pe o
f w
ork
isA
vera
ge p
erio
d of
Hou
sing
dev
elop
men
tre
loca
tion
prog
ram
me
and
rela
ted
pers
on t
ous
ually
don
e in
big
citi
esw
ork:
9 m
onth
spr
ogra
mm
e fo
r pe
ople
•To
cre
ate
empl
oym
ent
the
prog
ram
me
and
met
ropo
litan
citi
es.
at S
inda
ng K
oja
–an
d jo
b op
port
unity
for
deve
lopm
ent
•M
anag
ing
slum
are
asN
orth
Jak
arta
.w
orke
rs i
n th
e ar
eas
alle
viat
ion
prog
ram
me
By
: D
epar
tmen
t of
of p
ublic
wor
k.al
ong
the
stre
am o
fPu
blic
Wor
ks•
To p
rovi
de a
chie
vabl
eSu
nter
can
al.
•Pe
riod
of
activ
ity:
pric
e of
hou
sing
for
FY 1
998/
1999
peop
le o
f lo
w p
urch
asin
g•
Sour
ce o
f fu
nd:
pow
er /
eco
nom
ical
lyst
ate
budg
etin
capa
ble
(con
tinu
ed)
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
199
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
AN
NE
X I
(c
ontin
ued)
PR
OG
RA
MM
EA
IMS
TAR
GE
T G
RO
UP
SA
CT
IVIT
IES
TAR
GE
TA
LL
OC
AT
ION
14.
Pro
gram
me
Perb
aika
n•
To c
reat
e em
ploy
men
t•
Loc
al c
ontr
acto
rs,
•C
lean
ing
up s
lum
are
asTo
tal
budg
et:
Kam
pung
Kum
uh d
anan
d jo
b op
port
unity
regi
ster
ed a
t se
cond
ary
at f
ishe
rman
vill
ages
442.
5 bi
llion
rup
iah
Nel
ayan
Pad
at K
arya
part
ly f
or w
orke
rs i
nle
vel
of a
dmin
istr
ativ
e –
•R
educ
ing
swam
p ar
eas
Sekt
or P
eker
jaan
the
cons
truc
tion
indu
stry
‘DA
TI
II’,
alo
ng w
ith i
tsin
the
city
and
fix
ing
Targ
et:
56 m
illio
nU
mum
(P
KSP
U-C
K•
Rel
ease
peo
ple’
s bu
rden
sw
orke
rs a
nd p
erso
n in
sew
erag
e pi
pes
man
-day
sC
ipta
Kar
ya)
for
fixi
ng t
he h
ouse
char
ge f
or t
he p
rogr
amm
e•
Fix
ing
publ
ic f
acili
ties
Rea
lizat
ion:
52
mill
ion
Urb
an s
lum
and
and
thei
r en
viro
nmen
tde
velo
pmen
tm
ainl
y tr
aditi
onal
mar
kets
man
-day
sco
asta
l ar
eare
latin
g to
les
s•
Loc
al u
nem
ploy
ed•
Oth
er a
chie
vabl
e pu
blic
impr
ovem
ent
and
purc
hasi
ng p
ower
of
cons
truc
tion
labo
ur a
ndw
ork
in c
olla
bora
tion
Ave
rage
per
iod
of w
ork:
publ
ic w
ork
(PK
PS-
loca
l so
ciet
ype
ople
dea
ling
with
with
loc
al a
dmin
istr
ativ
e3
mon
ths
usin
g w
ell-
cipt
a ka
rya
prog
ram
me)
supp
ly o
f m
ater
ials
for
peop
le (
PEM
DA
)tr
aine
d co
nstr
uctio
n la
bour
By:
D
epar
tmen
t of
vari
ous
type
s of
Publ
ic W
orks
cons
truc
tion
wor
kA
vera
ge f
ee p
er w
orke
r•
Peri
od o
f ac
tivity
:pe
r da
y:FY
199
8/19
99R
angi
ng b
etw
een:
7,5
00 –
•So
urce
of
fund
:10
,000
rup
iah
depe
ndin
gst
ate
budg
eton
wor
k lo
catio
n•
Cov
erag
e: 1
3 pr
ovin
ces
15.
Pro
yek
pena
nggu
lang
an•
To p
rovi
de p
rodu
ctiv
e•
Une
mpl
oyed
per
sons
of
Bui
ldin
g an
d re
pair
ing
Tota
l bu
dget
:D
ampa
k ke
keri
ngan
and
cont
inue
dec
onom
ic c
risi
s an
dva
riou
s ty
pes
of p
ublic
317,
174
mill
ion
rupi
ahda
n m
asal
ahem
ploy
men
t fo
r th
e le
ssdr
ough
t vi
ctim
s in
bot
hw
ork
as f
ollo
ws:
kete
naga
kerj
aan
educ
ated
une
mpl
oyed
urba
n an
d ru
ral
area
s•
Dra
inag
e to
sup
port
the
Targ
et:
22 m
illio
n(P
DK
MK
) ta
hap
Ibo
th r
ural
and
urb
an•
Loc
al c
omm
unity
as
aag
ricu
ltura
l pr
oduc
tion
man
-day
sPr
ojec
t fo
r ov
erco
min
g•
To e
mpo
wer
loc
alw
hole
, pa
rtly
tho
se•
Vill
age
road
s, t
o su
ppor
tR
ealiz
atio
n: 2
1 m
illio
nth
e im
pact
s of
dro
ught
soci
ety
econ
omic
ally
suff
erin
g fr
om c
risi
str
ansp
orta
tion
and
man
-day
san
d em
ploy
men
t-re
late
d•
To s
uppo
rt l
ocal
and
drou
ght
pro
duct
ion
mar
ketin
gpr
oble
ms,
Sta
ge I
econ
omic
ins
titut
ions
via
•L
ocal
and
tra
ditio
nal
Ave
rage
wor
king
day
sB
y: D
epar
tmen
t of
man
agin
g va
riou
s pu
blic
mar
kets
per
prog
ram
me:
Man
pow
erw
orks
pro
gram
mes
•M
akin
g w
ater
res
ervo
irs
10 d
ays
usin
g ro
tatio
n•
Peri
od o
f ac
tivity
:•
To s
uppo
rt l
ocal
to s
uppo
rt w
et l
and
syst
em f
or a
ll av
aila
ble
FY 1
998/
1999
deve
lopm
ent
prog
ram
mes
irri
gatio
nsw
orke
rs a
t lo
catio
n
(con
tinu
ed)
200
AN
NE
X I
(c
ontin
ued)
PR
OG
RA
MM
EA
IMS
TAR
GE
T G
RO
UP
SA
CT
IVIT
IES
TAR
GE
TA
LL
OC
AT
ION
•So
urce
of
fund
: st
ate
•B
reed
ing
econ
omic
albu
dget
plan
ts–i
nten
sify
loc
al•
Cov
erag
e: 7
pro
vinc
espo
nds
and
dyke
for
(215
mun
icip
aliti
es)
prof
it-or
ient
ed a
ctiv
ities
•To
cre
ate
vari
ous
alte
rnat
ive
wor
k to
prod
uce
mat
eria
ls f
orco
nstr
ucti
on.
•To
bui
ld s
impl
e m
arke
tan
d ki
osk,
etc
16.
Pro
yek
pena
nggu
lang
an•
To p
rovi
de n
ew•
Une
mpl
oyed
per
sons
of
•B
uild
ing
and
repa
irin
gTo
tal
budg
et:
Dam
pak
keke
ring
anpr
oduc
tive
and
cont
inue
dec
onom
ic c
risi
s an
dva
riou
s ty
pes
of p
ublic
279.
43 b
illio
n ru
piah
dan
mas
alah
empl
oym
ent
for
the
less
drou
ght
vict
ims
in b
oth
wor
k re
latin
g to
the
kete
naga
kerj
aan
educ
ated
une
mpl
oyed
,ur
ban
and
rura
l ar
eas
aim
s of
the
pro
ject
Targ
et m
an-d
ays:
(PD
KM
K)
taha
p II
both
rur
al a
nd u
rban
•L
ocal
com
mun
ity a
s a
•Pr
ovid
ing
new
pro
duct
ive
23 m
illio
nPr
ojec
t fo
r ov
erco
min
g•
To e
mpo
wer
loc
alw
hole
, pa
rtly
tho
sean
d co
ntin
ued
empl
oym
ent
the
impa
cts
of d
roug
htso
ciet
y ec
onom
ical
lysu
ffer
ing
from
cri
sis
and
for
less
edu
cate
dR
ealiz
atio
n:an
d em
ploy
men
t-re
late
d•
To c
reat
e in
vest
men
tdr
ough
tun
empl
oyed
, bo
th r
ural
22 m
illio
n m
an-d
ays
prob
lem
s, S
tage
II
for
the
loca
l ec
onom
yan
d ur
ban
By:
Dep
artm
ent
of•
To c
reat
e co
mm
unity
•E
mpo
wer
ing
loca
lA
vera
ge w
ork
per
Man
pow
ersa
ving
pro
gram
me
soci
ety
econ
omic
ally
prog
ram
me:
•Pe
riod
of
activ
ity:
FY•
To u
se a
nd i
mpr
ove
•C
reat
ing
inve
stm
ent
for
1 m
onth
1998
/199
9te
chno
logy
im
plem
enta
tion
the
loca
l ec
onom
y•
Sour
ce o
f fu
nd:
stat
efo
r lo
cal
deve
lopm
ent
•C
reat
ing
com
mun
itybu
dget
savi
ng p
rogr
amm
e•
Cov
erag
e: 2
20 d
istr
icts
•Im
plem
entin
g ne
win
27
prov
ince
tech
nolo
gy f
or l
ocal
deve
lopm
ent
drai
nage
to
supp
ort
agri
cultu
ral
prod
ucti
on
(con
tinu
ed)
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
201
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
AN
NE
X I
(c
ontin
ued)
PR
OG
RA
MM
EA
IMS
TAR
GE
T G
RO
UP
SA
CT
IVIT
IES
TAR
GE
TA
LL
OC
AT
ION
•Su
ppor
ting
loca
l an
dtr
aditi
onal
mar
kets
•B
reed
ing
econ
omic
alpl
ants
–int
ensi
fy l
ocal
pond
s an
d dy
kes
for
prof
it-or
ient
ed a
ctiv
ities
•Im
prov
ing
vari
ous
alte
rnat
ive
wor
k to
prod
uce
mat
eria
ls f
orco
nstr
ucti
on
17.
Pro
yek
pada
t K
arya
•To
ove
rcom
e•
Gro
ups
of f
arm
ers
Dev
elop
men
t ac
tiviti
es c
over
:Tot
al b
udge
t:Se
ktor
Keh
utan
anun
empl
oym
ent
and
•U
nem
ploy
ed w
orke
rs•
Civ
il fo
rest
pro
gram
me
490.
52 b
illio
n ru
piah
Lab
our
inte
nsiv
edi
sgui
sed
unem
ploy
men
t•
Full
degr
ee g
radu
ate
for
50,9
00 h
ecta
res
proj
ect
in t
he f
ores
try
by c
reat
ing
vari
ous
jobs
with
for
estr
y ba
ckgr
ound
•In
dust
ry p
lant
for
est
Targ
et:
30 m
illio
nse
ctor
in t
he f
ores
try
and
51,3
40 h
a.m
an-d
ays
By:
Dep
artm
ent
ofpl
anta
tion
sect
or•
Bak
au F
ores
tR
ealiz
atio
n: 1
3.4
mill
ion
Fore
stry
•To
hel
p th
ose
fam
ilies
reha
bilit
atio
n, 2
110
ha.
man
-day
s•
Peri
od o
f ac
tivity
:at
hig
h ri
sk o
f hu
nger
•G
reen
lin
e fo
rest
FY 1
998/
1999
•To
pre
vent
for
est
prog
ram
me,
9,7
40A
vera
ge p
erio
d of
wor
k:•
Sour
ce o
f fu
nd:
dest
ruct
ion
hect
ares
Ran
ging
acc
ordi
ng t
ost
ate
budg
et•
To c
onso
lidat
e lo
cal
•Pr
otec
t fo
rest
pro
gram
me,
seas
on:
3–6
mon
ths
•C
over
age:
155
inst
itutio
ns i
n th
e vi
llage
4, 6
70 h
ecta
res
mun
icip
aliti
es•
To e
mpl
oy p
oten
tial
•Fo
rest
for
silk
(810
vill
ages
) in
wor
kers
and
fre
shpr
oduc
tion,
680
ha.
19 p
rovi
nces
grad
uate
s•
Wat
er r
eser
voir
and
abso
rptio
n di
g, 4
.330
hect
ares
.•
Mul
tifun
ctio
n la
nd,
105,
770
hec
tare
s
(con
tinu
ed)
202
AN
NE
X I
(c
ontin
ued)
PR
OG
RA
MM
EA
IMS
TAR
GE
T G
RO
UP
SA
CT
IVIT
IES
TAR
GE
TA
LL
OC
AT
ION
18.
Pro
yek
The
pro
gram
me
is•
Une
mpl
oyed
wor
kers
•U
nem
ploy
ed w
orke
rsTo
tal
budg
et:
Pena
nggu
lang
ande
velo
ped
by 2
mod
els:
with
spe
cifi
c sk
ills
supp
ort
by g
ivin
g liv
ing
399,
185
billi
on r
upia
hPe
ngan
ggur
an P
eker
ja•
Prod
uctiv
e ec
onom
ican
d ex
peri
ence
ince
ntiv
e fo
r 7
mon
ths
Tera
mpi
l (P
3T)
inst
itut
ion
•V
ictim
s of
eco
nom
icpe
riod
dur
ing
the
trai
ning
Targ
et:
Lab
our-
inte
nsiv
e fo
r•
New
sel
f-em
ploy
men
tcr
isis
(di
smis
sed
wor
kers
)•
For
the
new
-sel
f69
, 32
0 pe
rson
for
3.4
66sk
illed
lab
oure
rsbu
sine
ss•
Form
al w
orke
rs w
ithem
ploy
ed,
supp
ort
ispa
ckag
esB
y: D
epar
tmen
t of
lette
r of
dis
mis
sal
from
give
n in
ter
ms
of a
mou
ntM
anpo
wer
The
se a
im a
t pr
ovid
ing
form
al e
nter
pris
e or
of c
apita
l to
act
ivat
eM
inim
um i
ncen
tive
is•
Peri
od o
f ac
tivity
:in
depe
nden
t in
stitu
tions
com
pany
thei
r bu
sine
ss30
0.00
0 ru
piah
dur
ing
FY 1
998/
1999
:to
sup
port
ski
lled
7 m
onth
s of
tra
inin
g.•
Sour
ce o
f fu
nd:
unem
ploy
men
tst
ate
budg
et•
Cov
erag
e: 2
6 pr
ovin
ces
19.
Pem
berd
ayaa
n D
aera
h•
To i
mpr
ove
purc
hasi
ng•
Poor
peo
ple
in b
oth
•K
eepi
ng a
nd b
uild
ing
Fisc
al Y
ear
1998
/199
9:da
lam
Men
gata
sipo
wer
of
the
poor
in
urba
n an
d ru
ral
area
sva
riou
s in
fras
truc
ture
Bud
get:
1,70
1 bi
llion
Dam
pak
Kri
sis
both
rur
al a
nd u
rban
incl
udin
g th
ose
suff
erin
gfa
cilit
ies:
roa
ds,
irri
gatio
nru
piah
Eko
nom
i (P
DM
-DK
E)
area
s by
cre
atin
gfr
om a
los
s of
job
s an
dne
twor
k, w
aste
dis
posa
lB
enef
icia
ries
: 8
mill
ion
Em
pow
erm
ent
ofem
ploy
men
t an
d jo
bso
urce
of
inco
me,
tho
sepl
ace,
wat
er r
eser
voir
,H
Hs
regi
ons
to o
verc
ome
oppo
rtun
ities
who
can
not
ful
fil
floo
d co
ntro
l ar
eas,
and
the
impa
ct o
f th
e•
To i
nten
sify
the
thei
r ba
sic
need
sal
tern
ativ
e w
ork
for
Fisc
al y
ear
2000
:ec
onom
ic c
risi
sfu
nctio
n of
loc
al e
cono
my•
Vill
ages
with
hig
hest
unem
ploy
ed p
erso
nsB
udge
t: 43
5 bi
llion
By:
Bap
pena
s an
dby
reb
uild
ing
the
soci
alpo
pula
tion
of t
hose
•Fu
nds
for
mic
roru
piah
Min
istr
y of
Hom
eec
onom
y in
fras
truc
ture
to
men
tione
d ab
ove,
vill
ages
ente
rpri
ses
impl
emen
ted
Targ
et g
roup
: 1.
3 m
illio
nA
ffai
rssu
ppor
t th
e lo
cal
with
a h
igh
num
ber
by t
he p
oor
HH
s•
Peri
od o
f ac
tivity
: F
Ypr
oduc
tion
sys
tem
of t
otal
une
mpl
oym
ent
•B
enef
icia
ries
, ac
tiviti
es,
1998
/199
9 an
d FY
200
0an
d bu
dget
allo
catio
n•
Sour
ce o
f fu
nd:
stat
ear
e de
term
ined
by
budg
etth
e co
mm
unity
thr
ough
•C
over
age:
all
prov
ince
svi
llage
dis
cuss
ion
(con
tinu
ed)
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
203
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
AN
NE
X I
(c
ontin
ued)
PR
OG
RA
MM
EA
IMS
TAR
GE
T G
RO
UP
SA
CT
IVIT
IES
TAR
GE
TA
LL
OC
AT
ION
20.
Peng
emba
ngan
•To
inc
reas
e th
e•
Tho
se r
egis
tere
d in
2 co
mpo
nent
s in
Tota
l bu
dget
allo
cate
d:Pe
rbib
itan
dan
prod
uctiv
ity o
f lo
cal
farm
er a
ssoc
iatio
nspr
ogra
mm
e ac
tiviti
es:
57.3
bill
ion
rupi
ahB
udid
aya
Ayam
Bur
aspo
ultr
y ac
tiviti
es i
nse
ekin
g ca
pita
l su
ppor
t1)
Bui
lt-op
erat
e-tr
ansf
erTa
rget
:di
Per
desa
anru
ral
area
san
d ha
ving
pot
entia
lco
mpo
nent
s, i
nclu
ding
•E
stab
lishm
ent
of 6
2L
ocal
pou
ltry
rura
l•
To g
ener
ate
job
to i
mpr
ove
thei
rco
nstr
uctio
n/bu
ildin
gs,
loca
l po
ultr
y R
RM
Cre
arin
g m
ultip
licat
ion
oppo
rtun
ities
in
rura
lbu
sine
ss p
erfo
rman
ce.
mac
hine
ry,
othe
run
its,
cons
istin
g of
cent
re (
RR
MC
)ar
eas
thro
ugh
the
infr
astr
uctu
rem
ultip
licat
ion
cent
res,
By:
Dep
artm
ent
ofde
velo
pmen
t of
loc
al2)
Com
pone
nt o
f di
rect
poul
try
food
pro
cess
ing
Agr
icul
ture
.po
ultr
y ag
robu
sine
ssas
sist
ance
by
prov
idin
gun
its,
vete
rina
ry s
ervi
ce•
Peri
od o
f ac
tivity
:•
To i
mpr
ove
inco
me
and
a po
ultr
y pr
oduc
tion
cent
res
and
busi
ness
FY 1
999/
2000
wel
fare
lev
el o
f ru
ral
inpu
tsce
ntre
s, a
nd i
nvol
ving
•So
urce
of
fund
:fa
rmer
s24
8 fa
rmer
ass
ocia
tions
Fore
ign
loan
OE
CF
•Pr
oduc
tion
of 1
,875
(JB
IC)
for
soci
alch
icks
for
rea
ring
per
safe
ty n
ets
mon
th f
or e
ach
•C
over
age:
62
dist
rict
sR
RM
C u
nit
in 1
6 pr
ovin
ces
•Fa
rmer
s w
ill e
arn
150,
000
rupi
ah f
rom
this
bus
ines
s ac
tivity
21.
Peng
emba
ngan
Tam
bak
•To
inc
reas
e sh
rim
p•
Tho
se r
egis
tere
d in
•R
ehab
ilita
tion
of i
rrig
atio
nTo
tal
budg
et a
lloca
ted:
Rak
yat/
Inte
nsif
icat
ion
prod
uctio
n an
d th
ebr
acki
sh w
ater
far
mer
syst
em t
o su
ppor
t54
.974
bill
ion
rupi
ahof
bra
ckis
h w
ater
prod
uctiv
ity o
f br
acki
shas
soci
atio
ns f
acin
gbr
acki
sh w
ater
cul
tivat
ion,
Targ
et:
inte
nsif
icat
ion
ofcu
ltiva
tion
wat
er c
ultu
refi
nanc
ial
diff
icul
ty i
nco
veri
ng 5
,350
hec
tare
sbr
acki
sh w
ater
cul
tivat
ion
By:
Dep
artm
ent
of•
To g
ener
ate
job
and
runn
ing
thei
r bu
sine
sssp
read
ove
r 10
pro
vinc
esco
veri
ng a
tot
al a
rea
ofA
gric
ultu
rebu
sine
ss o
ppor
tuni
ties
and
havi
ng p
oten
tial
to•
Dis
trib
utio
n of
rol
l-ov
er5,
350
hect
ares
•Pe
riod
of
activ
ity:
•To
im
prov
e in
com
e an
dim
prov
e th
eir
busi
ness
fund
s fo
r pr
oduc
tion
Rea
lizat
ion:
2,0
40 h
ecta
res
FY 1
999/
2000
wel
fare
lev
el o
f fa
rmer
spe
rfor
man
ce,
and
they
inpu
ts f
or b
rack
ish
•So
urce
of
fund
:•
To i
ncre
ase
fore
ign
are
not
expe
cted
to
wat
er f
arm
ers
Fore
ign
loan
OE
CF
exch
ange
thr
ough
be n
ewco
mer
s.(J
BIC
) fo
r ag
ricu
ltura
lex
port
ing
of s
hrim
psan
d fo
rest
ry s
ecto
r•
Cov
erag
e: 1
4 di
stri
cts
in 1
0 pr
ovin
ces
(con
tinu
ed)
204
AN
NE
X I
(c
ontin
ued)
PR
OG
RA
MM
EA
IMS
TAR
GE
T G
RO
UP
SA
CT
IVIT
IES
TAR
GE
TA
LL
OC
AT
ION
22.
Pra
kars
a K
husu
sTo
pro
vide
em
ploy
men
tW
omen
fro
m p
oor
•G
ener
atin
g jo
bTo
tal
budg
et a
lloca
ted:
Bag
i Pe
ngan
ggur
oppo
rtun
ities
for
poo
rho
useh
olds
with
out
oppo
rtun
ities
and
75 b
illio
n ru
piah
Pere
mpu
an (
PK
PP
)un
empl
oyed
in
urba
npe
rman
ent
jobs
and
liv
ing
incr
easi
ng i
ncom
e fo
rTa
rget
: ov
er 7
0,00
0Sp
ecia
l in
itiat
ives
for
area
s, t
hrou
gh p
rogr
amm
esin
urb
an c
entr
es,
aged
unem
ploy
ed w
omen
,po
or u
nem
ploy
ed,
wom
en u
nem
ploy
men
tth
ey t
hem
selv
es p
ropo
se15
-60
year
s, m
axim
umth
roug
h co
nstr
uctio
nco
nsis
ting
of 8
0 pe
rB
y: D
ept.o
f Se
ttlem
ent
acco
rdin
g to
the
ir n
eed,
high
sch
ool
grad
uate
wor
k an
d ot
her
cent
fem
ales
and
20
and
Reg
iona
lth
us s
tren
gthe
ning
wom
en’s
The
se u
nem
ploy
ed w
omen
activ
ities
per
cent
mal
esD
evel
opm
ent
part
icip
atio
n in
are
requ
ired
in
grou
ps•
Incr
easi
ng w
omen
’s•
Peri
od o
f ac
tivity
:de
velo
pmen
t ac
tiviti
esto
set
leg
al s
mal
l-sc
ale
role
in
mai
ntai
ning
FY 2
000
firm
s to
be
elig
ible
to
publ
ic a
nd s
ocia
l•
Sour
ce o
f fu
nd:
stat
ere
ceiv
e fi
nanc
ial
assi
stan
cefa
cilit
ies
budg
etfo
r pr
ojec
ts/a
ctiv
ities
•E
mpo
wer
ing
wom
en•
Cov
erag
e: i
n m
ediu
m,
the
y pr
opos
ein
com
mun
ityla
rge
and
met
ropo
litan
deve
lopm
ent
activ
ities
citie
s in
6 p
rovi
nces
•In
crea
sing
eco
nom
ic(N
orth
Sum
ater
a,po
tent
ial
of f
emal
eJa
kart
a, W
est,
Cen
tral
wor
kers
, su
ch a
s th
roug
han
d E
ast
Java
, an
dth
e de
velo
pmen
t of
Sout
h Su
law
esi)
prod
uctiv
e ac
tiviti
es f
orw
omen
22Pa
dat
Kar
yaTo
pro
vide
em
ploy
men
tM
en a
nd w
omen
fro
m•
Con
stru
ctio
n an
dTo
tal
budg
et a
lloca
ted:
Perk
otaa
n (P
KP
)op
port
uniti
es f
or p
oor
poor
hou
seho
lds
with
out
impr
ovem
ent
of36
6 bi
llion
rup
iah
Urb
an l
abou
r-in
tens
ive
unem
ploy
ed i
n ur
ban
area
spe
rman
ent
jobs
and
liv
ing
urba
n in
fras
truc
ture
Targ
et:
400,
000
poor
By:
Dep
t. of
in u
rban
are
as,
aged
•O
pera
tion
and
unem
ploy
ed,
cons
istin
g of
Settl
emen
t an
d15
-55
year
s, m
axim
umm
aint
enan
ce o
f ex
istin
g20
per
cen
t fe
mal
es a
ndR
egio
nal
Dev
elop
men
thi
gh s
choo
l gr
adua
teur
ban
infr
astr
uctu
re80
per
cen
t m
ales
•Pe
riod
of
activ
ity:
and
regi
ster
ed a
t jo
b-FY
200
0se
eker
s re
gist
ratio
n un
its•
Sour
ce o
f fu
nd:
(at
sub-
dist
rict
lev
el)
stat
e bu
dget
(con
tinu
ed)
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
205
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
AN
NE
X I
(c
ontin
ued)
PR
OG
RA
MM
EA
IMS
TAR
GE
T G
RO
UP
SA
CT
IVIT
IES
TAR
GE
TA
LL
OC
AT
ION
•C
over
age:
59
dist
rict
s/•
Gen
erat
ing
job
mun
icip
aliti
es i
n al
lop
port
uniti
es a
ndpr
ovin
ces
incr
easi
ng i
ncom
e fo
run
empl
oyed
wom
en,
thro
ugh
cons
truc
tion
wor
k an
d ot
her
activ
ities
•In
crea
sing
wom
en’s
rol
ein
mai
ntai
ning
pub
lic a
ndso
cial
fac
ilitie
s•
Em
pow
erin
g w
omen
in
com
mun
ity d
evel
opm
ent
activ
ities
•In
crea
sing
eco
nom
icpo
tent
ial
of f
emal
ew
orke
rs,
such
as
thro
ugh
the
deve
lopm
ent
ofpr
oduc
tive
activ
ities
for
wom
en)
206
ANNEX II
Criteria of poor families categorized as Pre-prosperous family (PKS)and Prosperous I (KS I) according to the National Family
Planning Coordinating Agency
A family is defined as pre-prosperous if it does not meet a minimum of one of thefollowing five criteria:
1. All family members are able to practise their religious principles;
2. All family members are able to eat at least twice a day;
3. All family members have different sets of clothing for home, work, school andvisits;
4. The largest floor area of house is not made of dirt; and
5. The family is able to seek modern medical assistance and family planningservices for sick children and contraceptive users.
A family is classified as prosperous I if it does not fulfil any of the followingcriteria:
1. All family members are able to practise their religious principles;
2. The family is able to consume meat, fish or chicken at least once a week;
3. Each family member has at least one new pair of clothing every year;
4. Per capita house space area is a minimum 8 square metres;
5. All family members have been healthy for the last three months;
6. At least one family member aged 15 years or over has a fixed job/income;
7. All family members aged 10-60 years old are able to read and write;
8. All children aged 7-15 years are enrolled in school;
9. If the family has 2 or more living children and are still of the reproductive agegroup, then the couple uses contraceptive;
10. The family has the ability to improve its religious knowledge;
11. The family is able to save part of their earnings;
12. The family is able to eat together with all members at least once per day, tocommunicate among family members;
13. The family takes part in local community activities;
14. The family undertakes recreational activities outside home at least once every sixmonths;
15. The family is able to get access to information from newspapers, radio,television or magazines; and
16. All family members are able to use local transportation facilities.
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
207
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
REFERENCES
Alatas, V., 1998. “How robust is Indonesia’s poverty profile?”, unpublished manuscript,Princeton University.
Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Secretariat, August 2000. “The imple-mentation of social safety net programmes and future agenda in reducing poverty inIndonesia” in the report of the Second Meeting of the Third ASEAN Task Force onSocial Safety Nets, Jakarta.
CEFNAS, 2000. “Ringkasan Eksekutif Studi Evaluasi OPK Beras di Daerah Perkotaan”.
INFO JPS, 2000. Mengawasi JPS: Tanggung Jawab Siapa Saja, Edisi 3, Tahun 2000.
Irawan, P.B. and H. Romdiati, 2000. “Dampak Krisis Ekonomi terhadap Kemiskinan danBeberapa Implikasinya untuk Strategi Pembangunan” (Impact of the economic crisison poverty and its implications for development strategies), in A.K. Seta, M.Atmowidjojo, S. M. Atmojo, A. B. Jahari, P. B. Irawan and T. Sudaryanto, eds.,Prosiding Widyakarya Nasional Pangan dan Gizi VII (Proceedings of the SeventhNational Workshop on Food and Nutrition), Jakarta, 29 February-2 March 2000(Jakarta, LIPI).
Lewis, Blane D., 1999. “The social impact of and policy responses to the regionaleconomic crisis: lessons from Indonesia”, paper presented at the United NationsWorkshops on Social Implications of the Regional Economic Crisis, Bangkok, Thai-land, 25-27 May 1999.
Manning, Chris, 1999. “Poverty decline and labour market change in Indonesia: lessonsfrom the Soeharto era”, The Indonesian Quarterly, Volume XXVII (2): 122-145.
Molyneaux, J. and Paul Gertler, 1999. “Applying a simple method to measure programmeimpact: an evaluation of large-scale micro-credit/poverty alleviation programmes inIndonesia”, Rand Working Paper.
PIN-JPS, July 2000. Government issued financial document of three social safety netprogrammes, Jakarta, press release.
PIN-JPS, 2000. “Program-Program Jaring Pengaman sosial” (Social safety netprogrammes), Jakarta.
Sekretariat TKPP-JPS, September 2000. “Review on the performance of TKPP-JPS in fiscalyear 1999/2000”, Jakarta.
208
SMERU, 1998. “Implementation of special market operation (OPK) programme in fiveprovinces”, special report, Jakarta.
Tabor, Steven, R. and M. Husein Sawit, 1999. “The OPK programme: economy-wideimpacts”, prepared for the State Ministry for Food and Horticulture, EconomicManagement Service International.
Tim Kerja Persiapan FLP, TKPP-JS and GTP-JPS, 2000. Forum Lintas Pelaku (Stake-holders’ Forum), revised edition.
Tim Kerja Persiapan FLP and others, 2000. “Review on the development of district/muncipal stakeholders’ forums”, March-September.
TKPP-JPS, October 1999. Kebijaksanaan Pokok dan Penyempurnaan Program-ProgramJaring Pengaman Sosial Tahun Anggaran 1999/2000 (General policy and improvementof social safety net programmes in fiscal year 1999/2000), Jakarta.
TKPP-JPS, December 2000. “Social safety net performance report and monitoring report ofOctober 2000”, unpublished.
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
209
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Central Bureau of Statistics, Indonesia and the United Nations Development Programme,1999. Crisis, Poverty and Human Development in Indonesia 1998 (Jakarta).
Centre for Food, Nutrition and Agricultural Studies and Services (CEFNASS), 2000. “StudiEvaluasi OPK Beras di Daerah Perkotaan” (Study on evaluation of implementation ofthe food subsidy-OPK programme in urban areas) (Jakarta).
CIMU, 2000. “A closer look at how school use SPG grand funds”, Warta CIMU, March(Jakarta).
CIMU, 2000. “History and overview of the scholarship and grants programme: a specialissue”, Warta CIMU, September, (Jakarta).
Daimon, T. and E. Thorbecke, 1999. “Mitigating the social impacts of the Indonesiancrisis: lessons from the IDT experience”, unpublished, World Bank.
Dillon, H.S, Sawit, M.H., Simatupang, P. and S.R. Tabor, 1999. “Rice policy: a frameworkfor the next millenium”, unpublished.
Directorate General of Primary and Secondary Education, 1998. Programme ImplementationPlan: Scholarship and Block Grant Programme for Primary and Secondary Schools,(Jakarta, Department of Education and Culture).
Djohan, E., Widayatun, Ade Latifa, Sri Sunarti and Tri Handayani, 1998. “Jaring PengamanSosial Bidang Kesehatan: Penanggulangan Kesehatan di Masa Krisis di Jawa Baratdan Jawa Tengah” (Social safety net in health: overcoming health problems during thecrisis in West Java and Central Java), Laporan Penelitian, PPT-LIPI (Study Report bythe Research Centre for Population and Labour Force, Indonesian Institute ofScience).
Gardiner and Irawan, 2000. “A poverty profile for Indonesia”, paper.
Irawan, P. B., A. Raharto, E. Rumanitha and H. Romdiati, 2000. Analisis Studi EvaluasiPenentuan Kriteria Rumahtangga Miskin Tahun 2000 (Analysis of the Results ofEvaluation Study on Determining Criteria of Poor Households) (Jakarta,CentralBureau of Statistics, LIPI and UNICEF).
Irawan, P. B. and A. Sutanto, 1999. “Impact of the economic crisis on the number ofpoor people”, in P. Simatupang, S. Pasaribu, S. Bahri and R. Stringer, eds., Indone-sia’s Economic Crisis: Effects on Agriculture and Policy Responses (Adelaide,published for CASER by the Centre for International Economic Studies, Universityof Adelaide).
210
Jalan, J. and M. Ravallion, 1997. “Spatial poverty traps?”, unpublished, World Bank.
Junadi, Purnawarman, 2000. “The study on the problem and improvement of theinstitutional capacity of social safety net service delivery: six case studies of socialsafety nets in health”, paper presented at JICA-Bappenas Discussion in Jakarta.
Kompas, 28 November 1998. Pelaksanaan JPS Banyak Kendala (Various constraints in theimplementation of social safety net programmes).
Koordinator studi, 1999. “Hasil Studi Longitudinal Multisenter JPS-BK”, Medika, EdisiKhusus, September.
Lembaga Demografi, FE-UI and Tim Pengendali Gugus Tugas Peningkatan Jaring PengamanSosial (GTP-JPS), 2000. “Laporan Verifikasi Programme JPS Bidang Pendidikan(Beasiswa dan DBO)”, report on the verification of the social safety net in education),Laporan Bulan Desember 1999, (Jakarta, LD-FEUI dan GTP-JPS).
Lembaga Penelitian-IPB, 2000. “Pengembangan Programme-Programme Jaringan PengamanSosial Menuju Masyarakat Sejahtera, Membangun Sistem Ketahanan SosialIndonesia”, (Laporan Akhir, Bogor).
Mubyarto, 1997. IDT dan programme Menghapus Kemiskinan, (Jakarta, Aditya Media).
Oey-Gardiner, Mayling, 2000. “Mempertanyakan Keabsahan Pengukuran KemiskinanBKKBN” (Querying the reliability of BKKBN’s poverty measurement), in the dailySuara Pembaruan, Saturday, 30 December 2000.
PPT-LIPI team, 1998. Kajian Kinerja Programme Makanan tambahan Anak Sekolah diLima Contoh Pelaksanaan PMT-AS: NTT, Lampung, West Java, South Sulawesi andEast Kalimantan, (Seri Penelitian PPT-LIPI).
Proyek Pembinaan Bantuan Pembangunan Desa Tertinggal (PBPDT)-Badan PerencaanPembangunan Nasional, 2000. ‘Hasil Pelaksanaan Pembangunan PrasaranaPendukung Desa Tertinggal (P3DT) Tahun Anggaran 1995/1996 s.d. 2000’, Laporantidak dipublikasikan.
Purwoko, B., 1999. “Towards a social security reform: the Indonesian case of Jamsostek”,unpublished.
Raharto, Aswatini and Haning Romdiati, 2000. Identifikasi Rumah tangga Miskin.Prosiding Widyakarya Nasional Pangan dan Gizi VII (Proceedings of the SeventhNational Workshop on Food and Nutrition), Jakarta, 29 February-2 March 2000,(Jakarta, LIPI).
Rahman, Latief, Umi Pujihastuti, Sabaribah, S. Dadang Sukandar, 1999. Dekripsi HasilEvaluasi Pelaksanaan Operasi Pasar Khusus Beras, Ministry of Food and HorticultureAffairs, Jakarta.
Social Safety Nets in Indonesia: Analysis and Prospects
211
Strengthening Policies and Programmes on Social Safety Nets
Sanjur, Diva and Jajah K. Husaini, 1999. “PMT-AS: a community programme to empowerIndonesian villages to improve their nutrition and health”, report from a consultancyto the Government of Indonesia.
Satoto dan Widayanto, 2000. “Problem Pengelolaan Pelayanan JPS-BK di RSUDBanyumas”, unpublished paper.
SMERU, 2000. “Design and implementation of the Indonesian social safety netprogrammes: evidence from the 1999 JPS module of Susenas”.
Sudiro, 1999. “Pelayanan Kesehatan Puskesmas Dalam Jaring Pengaman Sosial”, Medika.Edisi Khusus, September 1999.
Sugiarto and P.B. Irawan, 1995. “Identification of people affected by poverty”, paperpresented at the meeting on Expert Consultation on Use and Analysis of Food andAgricultural Data, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Bangkok,Thailand, 5-9 June 1995.
Supriadi, Dedi, 2000. “In search of the best practices on the implementation of socialsafety net programmes for education (block grants and scholarship): a study inCentral Java, Jambi, West Sumatra and North Sulawesi”, paper presented in JICA-Bappenas Presentation in Jakarta.
Susilowati, Baskoro, Imam, 2000. “Tantangan Pendataan Sasaran Dalam Programme JaringPerlindungan Sosial Bidang Kesehatan di Indonesia dan Alternatif Pemecahannya”,Medika, Edisi Khusus, September 1999.
Tim dampak Krisis SMERU, 2000. “Studi Kualitatif Pelaksanaan Programme Beasiswa danDBO”, paper presented at the Workshop on the future direction of primary andsecondary education: scholarship and block grant programme in Jakarta, 10 August2000.
TKPP-JPS, 2000. “Informasi JPS: dikompilasi dari berbagai sumber”, (Jakarta, Bappenas).
TKPP-JPS, 2000. “Pelaksanaan Programme-Programme Jaring Pengaman Sosial TahunAnggaran 2000”, Laporan Bulanan, Edisi Mei 2000.
World Bank, “Loan and programme summary of social safety net adjustment loan, Republicof Indonesia, 2000”.
Yogaswara, Herry, Yulfita Raharjo and Suko Bandiyono, 1998. “Kajian Kinerja ProgrammeMakanan tambahan Anak Sekolah di Lima Contoh Pelaksanaan PMT-AS: Studi KasusPropinsi jawa Barat”, Seri Penelitian PPT-LIPI.
212