EVALUATION OF THE VILLAGE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (BANTUAN KEUANGAN PEUMAKMU GAMPONG, BKPG) IN ACEH PROVINCE Background and rationale The province of Aceh has made impressive strides towards recovery In the period of 2007– 2012, BKPG disbursed over 1.5 trillion and rehabilitation in the past decade. The devastating tsunami of rupiah (around $120 million USD) for a wide variety of activities, 2004 and the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with a focus on village infrastructure improvements, savings between the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and the Indonesian and loans activities for women’s groups, education and health government capped decades of violence and unrest that left Aceh as programs, and the strengthening of village government. In 2013, one of the poorest provinces in Indonesia. The post-conflict period 70 million rupiah were allocated for each of 6,464 villages in the has seen the political space open under the special autonomy province. Unlike the national version of PNPM, BKPG provides the granted to Aceh to combat long-running economic problems same financial allocation for each village in Aceh. and high rates of poverty. The province’s rates of poverty and unemployment nevertheless remain above the national average. In order to evaluate the performance of BKPG, SurveyMeter in In particular, the poor in Aceh’s villages (known in Acehnese as collaboration with PSF/CPDA conducted a survey in 2013. The gampong) have been relatively left behind, even as economic survey was conducted with the aim of assessing program utilization, growth has reduced poverty rates in the province’s urban areas. the overall effectiveness of the program, and the perceptions of Acehnese villagers of the program. 600 households were selected The Government of Aceh has implemented its own version of the using a cluster sampling method from twenty households in 30 National Program for Community Empowerment (PNPM), the villages in Aceh. nationwide program aimed at poverty reduction and community- driven development. The Village Financial Assistance Program This report presents results from the survey that highlight (Bantuan Keuangan Peumakmu Gampong, BKPG) began in 2009. awareness of BKPG, utilization of the program, and perceptions of Through the BKPG program, the Government of Aceh intends to the program, among different groups in society. accelerate development and poverty reduction while strengthening the capacity of village governments to deliver needed services. The Awareness of BKPG and program meeting program is financed through the Special Autonomy fund granted attendance to Aceh as part of the 2005 peace agreement; since 2007, Aceh has received additional revenue from special autonomy funds and Survey respondents were first asked about their awareness of the revenues from the oil and gas sector in the province. BKPG program. Among the 600 survey respondents, 63% had heard of BKPG while 5% had heard of the program but weren’t sure of what it was. These results are in line with findings on PNPM outside Aceh, such as the World Bank 2011 Household Social Economic Study, which found that 67% of survey respondents were aware of PNPM. However, there were significant gender differences in awareness of Meeting attendance and quality of the program: 51% of female respondents had heard of BKPG and participation 7% had heard of it but not where sure what it was, while 76% of male respondents had heard of BKPG and 3% had heard of the Although a majority of respondents were aware of BKPG, program but weren’t sure what it was. attendance of BKPG meetings was lower than other forms of community participation in local villages. 32% of the total sample Given the various activities funded through BKPG, responses to reported attending a BKPG meeting in the last year. Among those survey questions about what type of program BKPG was (among who had heard of BKPG, half (51%) had attended at least one those who reported knowing about BKPG) showed greater variety. BKPG-related meeting in their village. Other forms of community Figure 1 shows the different perceptions about the role of BKPG; participation were much higher; 75% of all survey respondents while the figure shows individual percentages of BKPG’s role, reported participating in collective village work (gotong royong) many respondents identified more than one role for the program. in the last three months. The survey does not report whether participants were directly involved in the construction or provision Figure 1: Perceptions of the role of BKPG of BKPG projects themselves. 11% Don’t know 50% As shown in Figure 3 below, even among those who reported Infrastructure Program having attended BKPG meetings, a large majority (71%) attended 1% only one or two meetings. Gender differences were also apparent Other in meeting attendance: 45% of male respondents had attended at 4% least one meeting of BKPG, while 18% of female respondents had Poverty Eradication attended at least one meeting of BKPG. Program 7% 26% Empowerment Credit union Figure 3: Number of BKPG meetings attended program 37% 34% Out of 180 respondents The survey also reports on how individuals came to learn about 12% BKPG. Dissemination of information about the program appears 6% 6% 2% 3% 1% to have been successful: of the 408 respondents who had heard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 of BKPG, almost half (49%) reported hearing about the program through more than one source, and 25% had heard about the program through three or more sources. As Figure 2 below Among who had not attended BKPG meetings, the most common shows, the most common way that respondents heard about the reason for not attending was lacking an invitation or not being program was through social networks, including friends, family and told about the meeting. Figure 4 shows the reasons given by the neighbours (68% of respondents). 215 respondents for never attending a meeting. Figure 2: Where respondents heard about BKPG Figure 4: Reasons for not attending BKPG meetings 68% Friends, family, neighbours Quality of participation 47% Local leaders (hamlet/village chief) A. Not invited/not told about meeting B. Busy 28% Hamlet/gampong meetings 57% C. Already represented by other members D. This meeting is only for men 23% Announcement in house of worship F. This meeting is only for village officers 33% V. Other 16% Project information board 16% 13% Facilitator 9% 4% 3% A B C D F V The quality of participation by respondents in BKPG meetings was In BKPG meetings attended by survey respondents, community slightly higher than has been reported in other PNPM contexts. members were seen as comprising the most important group While 53% of respondents who had attended a BKPG meeting of decision makers. Community members were seen as most reported their activity during the meeting was “only listening,” influential in deciding on types of project activity, beneficiaries, 30% reported asking a question and 38% that they had provided cost calculations, and plans for BKPG projects, as shown in Figure an opinion (the latter two including respondents who had reported 7 below. engaging in more than one type of activity in the meeting). However, active participation was not distributed equally across Figure 7: Decision makers in BKPG meetings respondents. This variation is apparent across levels of education, PNPM/BKPG as seen in Figure 5 below: Village head facilitator Figure 5: Percentage who report “only listening” 53% 25% 3% 12% 8% during BKPG meeting, by education Community Community Other members leaders 69% 50% Elementary school 46% No Junior high/ Reported benefits from BKPG projects Schooling High school Respondents were asked whether they had received direct or indirect assistance from community assistance programs, including Note: The one respondent with a university degree who reported “only listening” is omitted from the graph. BKPG, but also of direct cash transfers (BLT), PNPM, subsidized health care (Jamkesmas), and other government programs. The most common response was that they had received assistance As noted earlier in this section, gender differences were apparent from the government (48%). Both the question of assistance and in the number of men versus women who attended meetings. These where the respondent thought the assistance came from allowed differences are also apparent in how attendants participated: 65% multiple answers; the second-most commonly reported assistance of women who attended BKPG meetings reported “only listening” came from a combination of the government and BKPG (21%). compared with 47% of men. Only 3% of respondents reported that the assistance they received was solely from BKPG; this result is perhaps not surprising given Figure 6: Percentage who report “only listening” that multiple programs, including BKPG,operate at the village level. during BKPG meeting, by gender The survey also asked respondents about particular BKPG projects located in their hamlet and whether their household had benefited fromthem. Of those who were aware of the projects, an average of 73% of respondents reported that the BKPG project/activity was 65% 47% Female Male beneficial to their household. However, if only considering the first BKPG project asked about, households reported benefits of 82%. The number of respondents reporting awareness of projects drops significantly after the first two to three projects on the list; this could mean that the best known or most prominent BKPG projects in that hamlet were listed first. Respondents reported direct benefits to their households at roughly equal rates between female and male-headed households. Table 1 below shows that the perception of direct household benefits did not differ significantly across male- and female-headed households. Table 1: Benefits to respondents’ household from particular BKPG projects, by gender of household head BKPG and female-headed households Female- Male- In Aceh, the situation for female-headed households headed headed has particular historical resonance: while concrete households households numbers are difficult to come by, the 30-year conflict Opening/facilitating access to between GAM and the Indonesian military led to one 59% 54% estimate of 100,000 “war widows” by the period of transportation Protecting village from flooding/ 1994-1998. 36% 31% landslides Sixty survey respondents in this survey, or 10% of Better/cleaner environment 29% 31% all the survey respondents, were from female-headed households. Of this group, the vast majority (95%) Facilitating business 16% 21% reported receiving aid or using an aid program, such as BKPG, PNPM, subsidized rice (Raskin), or using Increasing business capital 8% 13% Indonesia’s subsidized healthcare program for the poor (Jamkesmas). Aceh was one of the first regions Other 8% 9% targeted by the World Bank-funded program PEKKA (The Female-Headed Household Empowerment Healthier community 4% 5% Program), which aimed to address poverty and social empowerment among war widows in Indonesia’s Better sanitation 2% 7% conflict regions. However, the survey did not ask specifically about aid from or involvement with Reducing daily workload 1% 3% PEKKA activities. Providing clean water 1% 1% Female-headed households in the survey were Reducing daily workload to characterized by lower levels of education than male- 0% 2% obtain basic needs headed households: while 6% of male household Reducing conflict with heads reported never having been educated and neighbouring household or 0% 0% 43% reported an elementary school education, 20% village of female household heads reported never receiving education, and 62% had education up to elementary However, when respondents are stratified by the education level school. of the household head, some divergence can be seen. The majority of respondent households are headed by an individual with an 30% of this group reported receiving assistance from elementary school education (45%), followed by household heads BKPG, and 21% received assistance from PNPM. with a high school education (20%). Households headed by an Awareness of BKPG among all female-headed individual with high school and post secondary education were households, however, was slightly lower than that of more likely than those without any education to report better the full sample; 50% had heard of BKPG, while 8% transportation access, better protection from flooding/landslides, had heard of BKPG but weren’t too sure about it. and a better/cleaner environment as a result of BKPG programs. 18% had attended a BKPG meeting, and the median Household heads without any education and household heads with number of meetings attended by this group was two. postsecondary education comprise 8% and 9% of the respondent pool, respectively. 1 Davies, Matt. 2006. Indonesia’s War Over Aceh: Last Stand on Mecca’s Porch. New York: Routledge. p. 25 Table 2: Benefits to respondents’ household from Figure 8: Are the programs run by BKPG aligned with particular BKPG projects, by education level of villagers’ needs and interests in this gampong? household head No Elemen- Post edu- tary High secon- school cation school dary 6% NO 94 % YES Opening/ facilitating access to 49% 54% 65% 64% transportation However, knowledge of the extent of BKPG activities is limited. Protecting village from When read a list of BKPG-funded projects in their hamlet, 77% 19% 34% 32% 42% flooding/landslides of survey respondents knew about those projects. However, when queried whether they knew that the projects were in fact funded Better/cleaner 16% 32% 33% 42% by BKPG, only around half (49%) of respondents reported being environment aware of BKPG funding, as Figure 9 shows. Facilitating business 30% 20% 12% 20% Figure 9: Awareness of BKPG funding for particular Increasing business projects reported by respondents 13% 8% 12% 16% capital Other 10% 7% 7% 6% 49 % 77 % 44 % Healthier community 0% 5% 5% 10% Yes No Don’t (Aware) (Unaware) Know Better sanitation 7% 10% 6% 9% Despite this, BKPG projects are seen as having widely dispersed benefits. As Figure 10 shows, more than one third of survey Reducing daily 0% 3% 0% 3% respondents (36%) perceived that BKPG projects benefited the workload entire village, rather than any particular group. 29% saw projects as only benefiting those near the project. Finally, 44% of these Providing clean water 0% 2% 1% 0% respondents saw the BKPG project in their village as benefiting Reducing daily more than one group in their community. workload to obtain 4% 1% 2% 8% basic needs Figure 10: Perceptions of who enjoys the most benefit Reducing conflict with of particular BKPG projects neighboring household 0% 0% 0% 0% or village All people Residents Nearby Note: These results reflect the first three BKPG projects about which in the have a Women residents respondents were asked a series of questions. village business 36% 29% 15% 11% Perception of benefits from BKPG projects Residents The survey found very high levels of respondents reporting that from Poor Don’t Other neighbouring House- know the BKPG is aligned with their village’s needs, with 94% of villages holds respondents who are aware of BKPG answering in the affirmative. 5% 3% 3% 2% Conclusion and recommendations The main findings from this report are summarized below, followed In considering how the new village law will be implemented, this by three recommendations for the implementation of the new note makes three recommendations: village law: •• The survey found that participation rates fall sharply for most •• BKPG has been successful in producing infrastructure and villagers beyond one or two BKPG-related meetings. While the projects that are perceived to benefit villages in Aceh as a reasons for drop-offs in participation cannot be deduced from whole and those living in close proximity to the project. survey data, it suggests that many villagers face strong incentives •• While respondents held favourable views of BKPG, 49% of (due to opportunity costs, societal norms, or other factors) respondents did not know that particular projects in their to pursue limited engagement with participatory projects. In villages were funded by BKPG, suggesting that the program’s considering how to design the participatory aspects of the functioning on a day-to-day basis is less well known. village law, the plebiscite model proposed by Olken (2010) may ·· The finding in this survey that respondents perceive villagers be appropriate to ensure that broad-based participation takes living in proximity to projects as the second largest group place. In this model, villagers vote on which projects to fund, most benefiting from BKPG should explored more. It is ensuring that burdens on villagers for intensive participation possible, as suggested by Olken (2010), that the location are not increased, while expanding the opportunity for less of infrastructure provision through CDD processes is just as time-intensive engagement. important as its type. •• Relatedly, the survey results point to the importance of •• Community engagement with BKPG has been lower than other community leaders in Aceh as a key source of information forms of village-level participation. While 32% of respondents about community programs, and as being a significant player had attended a BKPG meeting in the last year, 75% reported in making decisions within meetings about project priorities. participating in collective village work (gotong royong) in the These results point to a need to target community leaders last three months. This finding suggests that BKPG program (hamlet/village heads) for training in budgeting and responding activities remain outside “ordinary” community engagement by to village needs, as well as further research that illuminates the villagers. types of incentives community leaders face in deciding how to •• In line with other findings from PNPM studies and the larger allocate funding and respond to different village needs. literature, the survey results illustrate the tension in CDD •• The findings from the survey, consonant with findings on programs in providing benefits for the whole village while being PNPM in other contexts, is that BKPG is perceived as a general attentive to the needs of marginalized groups in the village: infrastructure development project. Given the social pressures ·· Survey respondents perceive the benefits of BKPG to operating on more marginalized households, it is not clear that be targeted to the village as a whole, and do not see inducing greater amounts of participation among those groups marginalized groups or poor households as the beneficiaries within the existing framework of BKPG/PNPM will necessarily of the program; lead to better outcomes. Evidence suggests that the outcomes ·· Female-headed households are less likely to be aware of, from these programs target the particular priorities or needs of and participate in, BKPG projects; marginalized communities. Implementation of the new village ·· Education and gender disparities condition the quality law may benefit from programs (similar to PEKKA) that target of participation, leading to more passive attendance of those communities, while being sensitive to the social dynamics meetings for female-headed households and community and opportunity costs faced by poor and female-headed members with less education. households to directly participate.