Grievance Mechanism Performance – How Well Does PKSA Implement Core Program Activities?

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 However, even though this is not foreseen in the guidelines, social workers on their own initiative counsel and assist children and families after termination. Information on the development of their former beneficiaries is obtained through calls and text messages sent by service providers or parents. It adds to their workload, but most social workers considerthisas an appreciation from their former beneficiaries.

4.2.8 Summary of PKSA Implementation Performance

Most LKSAs and the social workers give valuable services to their beneficiaries. They are the backbone of PKSA. To build on these strengths, MoSA should invest more in strengthening their capacity and working conditions see chapters 5.1.4. Socialization and targeting are the weak points. While PKSA has spent IDR 5.598 million on socialization in 2012 see Table 3 local Government structures and other local stakeholders feel uniformed and bypassed. This is one of the main reasons why PKSA failed to synergize and establish effective partnerships with Local Government see chapter 4.1.3. Delegating targeting activities nearly exclusively to LKSAs, who base the selection of beneficiaries on inappropriate data, has lead to an unacceptable low quality of targeting results. LKSAs are unable and partly unwilling to systematically select the most needy children. High inclusion errors have contributed to the fact that PKSA did not succeed in reducing the number of children with severe social problems see chapter 4.1.7. Imposing conditionalities, monitoring their compliance and implementing a graduation strategy form an interlinked complex of issues that need to be redefined. An analysis of costs and benefits may well lead to the conclusion that all three activities do more harm than good and should be phased out. 4. ASSESSMENT OF PKSA EFFECTIVENESS, IMPLEMENTATION PERFORMANCE, EFFICIENCY, RELEVANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY 49 Rapid Assessment of the Child Social Welfare Program PKSA