3 4 SCOTT Australian government
Inclusive Development: Can We improve
Service Delivery to the Poor?!
Hotel Grand Hya-, Nusa Dua - Bali
10-11 December 2015
Presented by:!
Scott Guggenheim!
Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade!
Indonesia has a good story
to tell!
•
Top-level commitment!
•
Long history of innovative, positive action!
•
Significant poverty investments through social
protection and insurance, block grants for health
and education, and Village Law!
•
Strong social capital and levels of trust!
But this should not gloss
over real world problems:!
•
Rising inequality (a top government concern)!
•
Poor line agency performance/misaligned
incentives for delivery!
•
Low quality services!
•
High rates of perceived and real official corruption!
•
Stagnating (absolute or relative) poor regions!
Kondisi Saat Ini: Nasional
40% Masyarakat Termiskin
Iden%tas hukum
Kesehatan
Pendidikan
Air, sanitasi,
perumahan
Perlindungan
sosial
SELARAS piloted
in 5 districts
61%
60% Fully
69%
56%
Birth
registration
immunized
SD with Baccreditation
Adequate
water
Births in
facilities
63%
20%
SMP with Baccreditation
Adequate
sanitation
62%
74%
n/a
Contraceptive
prevalence
SMA with Baccreditation
HH with
adequate
housing
69%
4
Total transfers to villages are becoming very large
180!
135!
Trends (trillion rupiah) !
90!
45!
0!
2014! 2015! 2016! 2017! 2018! 2019!
cf: R Wrobel, 2015!
Potential for Villages to
Manage Basic Services is High
National Cost as % of
National Cost as %
DD
of DD (2018)
(2016)
Village Servce
National Cost
Estimates
((IDR)trillion)
Village
Infrastructure
(new+repair)
18.6!
40!
18!
Early Childhood
development
4.5!
20!
9!
Teacher’s
Allowances
6.6!
14!
6!
Community
Hea;th Workers
3.9!
8!
4!
Totals
38.6!
82!
39!
And there is a track record
of innovative uses!
•
TNP2K community targeting RCT found low cost,
high legitimacy when combining community
verification of targeting for HH poverty transfers.!
•
Village-built infrastructure costs up to 50% less.!
•
Community participation in service delivery
reduces costs, increases utilization, and improves
provider performance.!
But the institutional capacities to spend
funds well are still underdeveloped!
•
Fragmentation in Jakarta (MOHA, MoV, Bappenas,
MoF)!
•
Unclear spending responsibilities!
•
Questionable targeting and allocations !
Fragmentation in Jakarta!
•
Despite vast sums, nobody obviously in charge!
•
Dysfunctional divisions between MOHA, MOV, and
Bappenas.!
•
Ongoing lack of oversight or credible reporting!
•
Unclear guidance or preparation for village
governments!
And local level rigidities!
•
Funding goes to districts but spending is at
facilities.!
•
Unclear status and roles for kecamatans and
village governments.!
•
Lack of quality assurance systems and oversight.!
What to fix: short-term!
•
Who is in charge (if anyone) — role of MoF?!
•
Allocation criteria!
•
Clarifying roles and building capacities for districts,
provinces, village governments!
•
Focusing on Facilities!
Frontline service delivery
mechanism
Responsive
government
Feedback,
analysis, ac/on
Feedback,
analysis, ac/on
Community
empowerment
FRONTLINE
Empowered
communiCes
Governance
Account
ability
Responsive
service
providers
FRONTLINE
Access and quality
Feedback, analysis, ac/on
12
What to fix: longer-term!
•
The Frontline Model: enabling facility level
performance management.!
•
Increasing competition and choice in service
provision.!
•
Promoting labour mobility.!
CONCLUSIONS
• Local service delivery for poverty reduction is
increasingly bimodal
• Experiences with community partnerships is
positive
• Availability of resources is not the primary
constraint
• Potential for improvement is high, but
• Managerial fragmentation is a key challenge
Service Delivery to the Poor?!
Hotel Grand Hya-, Nusa Dua - Bali
10-11 December 2015
Presented by:!
Scott Guggenheim!
Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade!
Indonesia has a good story
to tell!
•
Top-level commitment!
•
Long history of innovative, positive action!
•
Significant poverty investments through social
protection and insurance, block grants for health
and education, and Village Law!
•
Strong social capital and levels of trust!
But this should not gloss
over real world problems:!
•
Rising inequality (a top government concern)!
•
Poor line agency performance/misaligned
incentives for delivery!
•
Low quality services!
•
High rates of perceived and real official corruption!
•
Stagnating (absolute or relative) poor regions!
Kondisi Saat Ini: Nasional
40% Masyarakat Termiskin
Iden%tas hukum
Kesehatan
Pendidikan
Air, sanitasi,
perumahan
Perlindungan
sosial
SELARAS piloted
in 5 districts
61%
60% Fully
69%
56%
Birth
registration
immunized
SD with Baccreditation
Adequate
water
Births in
facilities
63%
20%
SMP with Baccreditation
Adequate
sanitation
62%
74%
n/a
Contraceptive
prevalence
SMA with Baccreditation
HH with
adequate
housing
69%
4
Total transfers to villages are becoming very large
180!
135!
Trends (trillion rupiah) !
90!
45!
0!
2014! 2015! 2016! 2017! 2018! 2019!
cf: R Wrobel, 2015!
Potential for Villages to
Manage Basic Services is High
National Cost as % of
National Cost as %
DD
of DD (2018)
(2016)
Village Servce
National Cost
Estimates
((IDR)trillion)
Village
Infrastructure
(new+repair)
18.6!
40!
18!
Early Childhood
development
4.5!
20!
9!
Teacher’s
Allowances
6.6!
14!
6!
Community
Hea;th Workers
3.9!
8!
4!
Totals
38.6!
82!
39!
And there is a track record
of innovative uses!
•
TNP2K community targeting RCT found low cost,
high legitimacy when combining community
verification of targeting for HH poverty transfers.!
•
Village-built infrastructure costs up to 50% less.!
•
Community participation in service delivery
reduces costs, increases utilization, and improves
provider performance.!
But the institutional capacities to spend
funds well are still underdeveloped!
•
Fragmentation in Jakarta (MOHA, MoV, Bappenas,
MoF)!
•
Unclear spending responsibilities!
•
Questionable targeting and allocations !
Fragmentation in Jakarta!
•
Despite vast sums, nobody obviously in charge!
•
Dysfunctional divisions between MOHA, MOV, and
Bappenas.!
•
Ongoing lack of oversight or credible reporting!
•
Unclear guidance or preparation for village
governments!
And local level rigidities!
•
Funding goes to districts but spending is at
facilities.!
•
Unclear status and roles for kecamatans and
village governments.!
•
Lack of quality assurance systems and oversight.!
What to fix: short-term!
•
Who is in charge (if anyone) — role of MoF?!
•
Allocation criteria!
•
Clarifying roles and building capacities for districts,
provinces, village governments!
•
Focusing on Facilities!
Frontline service delivery
mechanism
Responsive
government
Feedback,
analysis, ac/on
Feedback,
analysis, ac/on
Community
empowerment
FRONTLINE
Empowered
communiCes
Governance
Account
ability
Responsive
service
providers
FRONTLINE
Access and quality
Feedback, analysis, ac/on
12
What to fix: longer-term!
•
The Frontline Model: enabling facility level
performance management.!
•
Increasing competition and choice in service
provision.!
•
Promoting labour mobility.!
CONCLUSIONS
• Local service delivery for poverty reduction is
increasingly bimodal
• Experiences with community partnerships is
positive
• Availability of resources is not the primary
constraint
• Potential for improvement is high, but
• Managerial fragmentation is a key challenge