Monitoring Progress and Compliance to Conditionalities

4.2.6 Grievance Mechanism

A grievance mechanism offers channels to beneficiaries or stakeholders through which they can provide feedback and raise complaints about the implementation of a program. The PKSA guidelines do not include a grievance mechanism. They only give indirect and unspecific’ section, stating ‘the form of monitoring and evaluation in each sub-program, basically includes monitoring, facilitating and problem solving, carried out by central and local governments together with LKSAs’. Social workers reported that the lack of information on grievance mechanism leads to confusion over responsibilities for resolving the complaints that are voiced by the beneficiaries as well as by implementing agencies. When urgent and fast responses are needed, most of social workers will contact officers at MoSA to find clarification or solutions. However, since there are no specialized officers appointed to handle complaints and grievances, most of the responses from MoSA are inconsistent and depend on how the respective MoSA officer understands the problem. The absence of a clearly defined complaint mechanism leads in practice to a system, where most complaints are handled unsystematically. Because there is no ‘complaints form’ or ‘complaints box’, most complaints are verbally voiced through informal meetings or calls. Beneficiaries claimed that home visits and parents-children meetings have been utilized to express their disappointments or doubts regarding the implementation of PKSA. The reports on complaints produced by social workers have not resulted in appropriate responses by MoSA. The study recorded that most complaints relate to targeting issues, lack of information about the role and mandate of social workers, unreliable delivery of assistance and to the reduction of the volume of cash transfers. Social workers and LKSAs argued that they received complaints from non-beneficiaries, asking why their children are not approved by the program. Response to the complaints was generally the explanation that the quota of beneficiaries provided by Central Government was limited. Government was limited.

4. ASSESSMENT OF PKSA EFFECTIVENESS, IMPLEMENTATION PERFORMANCE, EFFICIENCY,

RELEVANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY 47 Rapid Assessment of the Child Social Welfare Program PKSA

4.2.7 Graduation and Follow-Up

Levinger and McLeod 2002 identify three approaches to exit: phase down, phase over and phase out. They point out that phase down, the gradual reduction of program inputs, is the preliminary stage to both phase over and phase out. Phase out refers to the withdrawal of program inputs without making explicit arrangements for the inputs or activities to be continued by any other entity, because the program itself resulted in changes that are likely to be sustainable without these. Phase over refers to the transfer of responsibility for activities aimed at accomplishing program goals current activities, or other activities aimed at achieving the same outcomes to another entity. Phase over may also involve the transfer of responsibility for achieving program outcomes to another organization – e.g., a branch of local, regional or national government or a local or indigenous national NGO. According to PKSA Guidelines of 2014, the assistance of PKSA will be ended if one of the following criteria has been fulfilled: 1 Beneficiaries are above 18 years of age, 2 move to another area, 3 their existence remains unknown for the period of 3 months, 4 deceased, 5 receiving more than one similar programs at one time, 6 parents are considered to be able fulfilling the rights of their children, 7 beneficiaries are married, 8 parents missed 3 FDS meetings in one year, 9 the participation of children in accessing services of care, health, education and self-development is below 75, and 10 beneficiaries are accessing STILA Strategi Tindak Lanjut – follow-up strategy of PKSA As STILA only exists on paper, this is a phase out strategy without follow-up. Parents expressed concerns on the unclear and sudden procedures of termination – a practice, which left them feeling worried and unsecure about the future of their children. Criteria 7, 8 and 9 could signal that children need more assistance instead of less. It could lead to terminating assistance to the most disadvantaged children, who are unable to meet conditionalities for reasons that are out of their control. 4. ASSESSMENT OF PKSA EFFECTIVENESS, IMPLEMENTATION PERFORMANCE, EFFICIENCY, RELEVANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY 48 Rapid Assessment of the Child Social Welfare Program PKSA