Kementrian Koordinator Bidang Kesejahteraan Rakyat

SUMMARY SERIES http://pnpm–support.org/marginalized–study–2010

PNPM RURAL:

THE MARGINALIZED AND VULNERABLE GROUPS STUDY

(JUNE 2010)

2

The Marginalized and Vulnerable Groups Study

PNPM RURAL: THE MARGINALIZED AND VULNERABLE GROUPS STUDY

PNPM RURAL: THE MARGINALIZED AND VULNERABLE GROUPS STUDY

Socio–economic Structure and Village Decision Making

THE MARGINALIZED AND VULNERABLE GROUPS STUDY

Java, West Kalimantan, West Nusa Tenggara, South

villages or hamlets negotiate or agree among

ence in the decision–making process. In general,

Sulawesi and Papua) between October and December

themselves which proposals they will support at

people in this category are more informed about

The Marginalized and Vulnerable Groups Study was pre-

2009. Within each sub–district, research sites were

the next stage.

development programs than the marginalized.

pared in response to concerns that some marginalized

selected as follows: one randomly selected village and

segments of society were being left out of the develop-

one village considered to be the poorest.

ment planning process in the PNPM–Rural program.

c. Religious and customary leaders: The report

3

They may attend meetings associated with PNPM

states that religious leaders play a significant role

and other village development processes, but they

in family and community events, but they are

often do not actively participate. Often, their pas-

This study finds that while marginalized groups derive

rarely involved in village meetings. The report

sive participation is encouraged to fulfill formal pro-

Previous studies on KDP have indicated that PNPM–Rural

significant benefit from the program, they are often not

notes that there are exceptions to this rule, such

gram requirements.

provides benefits to poor members of the community,

included in the related decision–making processes. To

as the high level of involvement of Islamic reli-

but that they may not be fully involved in the participa-

varying degrees, decision–making processes are often

gious officials in West Java.

tory processes which form its basis. In particular, exclud-

dominated by elite and activist groups.

ginalized groups are almost always excluded from village meetings and development activities, unless

2. The activists: The report describes “activists” as

ed groups may include women–headed households

4. Marginalized groups: The report states that mar-

they have a special relationship with village officials

SOCIO–ECONOMIC STRUCTURE AND VILLAGE DECISION MAKING

those who possess knowledge of government proj-

or other members of the elite. If they are included

ticularly those who live in isolated or more remote areas

ects and use that knowledge to become involved

in the planning process at all, it is usually only for

surrounding a village. While some studies have found

The report states that, based on discussions with vil-

in these projects. Activists are well informed and

form’s sake and to create the impression of inclusion.

that the rate of participation of women and the poor at

lagers in the study sites, there are generally four major

actively participate in village meetings. They are also

Members of marginalized rural groups are described

PNPM meetings is higher than for other village develop-

groups in village communities, each of which has its

involved in the implementation of development

as having some or all of the following characteristics:

ment programs, other studies have emphasized the low

own characteristics and influence over village affairs:

programs. They include those involved with health

a. They own low–value assets or no assets at all:

and those who have not attended primary school, par-

quality of this participation, with some pointing to passive, pro–forma participation. Considering the problematic quality of excluded

1. The elite: The report further sub–divides this group

care activities, women’s groups, savings groups and

They are landless laborers, share–farmers, fisher-

into three categories, describing the level of partici-

other community groups. While they are not neces-

man without their own boats, and others with-

pation and influence over village affairs as follows:

sarily or usually members of the government civil

a. The wealthy: Most of the time, the wealthy are

service, they often have close social, familial and

out productive assets apart from their own labor; b. They live in outlying areas and have limited

groups’ participation, this study was designed to

well informed about development programs and

other links with members of the elite, particularly

better understand the dynamics of participation in

are invited to attend village meetings, but they

government officials. Some of them participate

PNPM–Rural. This study attempts to answer the follow-

choose not to get involved, unless they believe

directly in PNPM–Rural, serving as the KPMD (village

number of dependents: People in these circum-

ing research questions:

that the program will directly benefit their busi-

community empowerment cadre) or members of

stances may be female heads of households, the

zzWho participates in PNPM Rural and who does not?

ness, as they “generally view the funds the village

the TPK (the implementing team). In these roles,

zzWhy do these groups not participate? What are the

manages as too small to warrant their attention.”

activists are often unable to circumvent the domina-

obstacles to participation?

b. Village government leaders: Village officials,

access to economic and social infrastructure; c. They earn a low income and have a large

disabled, and the elderly; d. They are from an ethnic or religious minority:

tion of the officials or other elites in making decision

The report cites the examples of poor Chinese in

including the village head, have a substantial

over which project to choose in the village. They are

West Kalimantan and members of despised clans

as PNPM Rural or other targeted programs to reach

influence on village decision–making. As gov-

however often highly influential over decisions to

in Papua.

these groups?

ernment officials, they learn of development

invite or encourage members of the community to

zzWhat can be improved in poverty programs such

projects earlier than the rest of the community.

attend village meetings. Hence, they help shape the

Despite the limited participation of most marginal-

This study used qualitative methodology to answer

The report states that involvement of officials

level and quality of participation in the village, for

ized groups, the report states that their members

these research questions. In addition to reviewing

in PNPM–Rural is generally intended to ensure

better or for worse.

benefit from PNPM–Rural projects, particularly public

related documents, data was collected through key

that their agenda or programs are funded,

informant interviews and focus group discussions.

although this does not imply that this agenda is

majority group as those who have small assets or

PNPM–Rural improves their access to basic services, and

Interviews, especially with informants from different

necessarily self–serving. The report states that

have regular income and who make up the major-

provides work to the poor as construction laborers. In

positions and socio–economic backgrounds and with

village officials work both inside and outside

ity of the village’s population. The report states

fact, working as construction laborers is probably the

informants who have different interests, were used to

PNPM–Rural procedures to ensure that certain

that most members of the majority group are not

part of PNPM–Rural, in which marginalized groups “par-

verify answers. Fieldwork was conducted in 24 villages

proposals will be approved. For example, outside

active in village meetings and thus have no influ-

ticipate” to the greatest extent.

in 12 sub–districts in six provinces (West Sumatra, West

the formal procedures, officials from different

3. The majority: The report describes people in the

goods, such as roads, bridges, and public baths/toilets.

4

Barriers to Participation

PNPM RURAL: THE MARGINALIZED AND VULNERABLE GROUPS STUDY

PNPM RURAL: THE MARGINALIZED AND VULNERABLE GROUPS STUDY

Barriers to Participation

Given the dominant role of officials and activists in

processes, although the elite’s role varies within the

STRUCTURAL BARRIERS:

to 61,000 villages in 2010. More than 10,000 district

village development projects, the report sets out

process. In most cases, members of marginalized

Weakly institutionalized democratization process

level facilitators have been recruited, half of whom

groups do not participate in the planning process.

benefits village officials: The report notes that village

are engineers.

a description of their role in PNPM Rural processes,

2. Technical Barriers: Although one of PNPM–Rural’s

as follows:

officials and activists have a high level of knowledge

key components is participatory planning, this study

of PNPM processes and are more able to ‘modify’ or

Specific limitations noted by the report include

BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATION

finds that there are limitations and weaknesses in

‘manipulate’ the process. While they may believe that

the following:

This study examines two factors that hinder participa-

the program design that can limit the program’s

they are acting in the best interests of the village com-

tion of marginalized groups:

capacity to promote marginalized groups. One nota-

munity by doing so, they may also believe that they can

Delays in fund disbursement: The study found that

1. Socio–economic structure of the village commu-

ble component of PNPM–Rural’s design that affects

act more effectively without the “interference” created

delays in the disbursement of both operational funds

nity: The socio–economic structure of the village

the quality of participation is the capacity of facilita-

by broader participation.

and block grants force modifications in the field that

can form a barrier to marginalized groups’ partici-

tors to increase marginalized groups’ participation.

pation. Elite groups dominate decision–making Stage of PNPM Form of “intervention” Note Rural Process Information Deciding who to invite to • KPMD and TPK ask hamlet leaders to invite the villagers for hamlet meetings dissemination meetings, even when there is no intention to get votes for a particular proposal Hamlet Initiating specific proposals • Customary or religious leaders propose activities that are related Meetings to their specific interests, e.g., religious leaders propose renovation of a madrasah. Facilitating proposals from • Activists, usually from non–governmental organizations, facilitate marginalized groups meetings with marginalized groups prior to hamlet meetings and bring the results to the hamlet meetings. In Biak, activists include civil servants who were the rivals of the village officials. Conditioning or steering • Hamlet leaders tell the audience what is considered to be an participants to accept a important project for their hamlet. particular proposal • Activists provide arguments to support proposals coming from

shorten the participatory planning process. Under these Village officials and activists are seen as effective

circumstances, there is neither capacity nor time for the

representatives and develop legitimacy to run the

KPMD and FK to deepen the participation process.

project as the process of decision–making becomes routine: The report states that PNPM–Rural processes

Lack of qualified facilitators: The report states that

have become routine and do not inspire participa-

with the scaling up of PNPM–Rural, demand for large

tion. The time consuming discussions (from hamlet to

numbers of facilitators has driven quality down and that

inter–village) lead to decreasing levels of participation.

it is hard to find candidates with the same qualifications

The low skill–levels of facilitators, high turnover of FKs in

as seen in the early days of KDP. Given this pressure,

some locations, and elite intervention all contribute to

PNPM has to accept facilitators with lower than desirable

decreased levels of enthusiasm and low expectations.

qualifications. Many facilitators in study areas are fresh

Members of the majority and of marginalized groups

graduates without experience in community engage-

may be tempted to believe the village officials and activ-

ment and without the experience necessary to work

ists are best qualified to decide which infrastructure

effectively with village officials and activists to broaden

project will best benefit the community and therefore

participation. The training currently provided to facilita-

are not motivated to participate.

tors focuses to a large extent on program administration rather than on facilitation techniques and PNPM–Rural’s

the group they represent or from themselves.

Village Meetings Directing participants to prioritize a particular proposal Mobilization to vote for or against a particular proposal

MAD (Inter–village meeting)

Lobby and negotiation between villages to win certain proposals

• Village Head attends hamlet meetings to argue for a particular project. • Village Head directs the discussion to prioritize a particular proposal at the village meetings. • TPK directs the discussion to prioritize proposals from certain hamlets (for instance, hamlets that have not won before). • Hamlet leaders mobilize their people to attend village meetings to vote for proposals from their hamlets, or lobby other hamlet leaders to vote for their proposal. • Activists mobilize people from a hamlet to vote for or against a particular proposal at village meetings. • Village heads and TPK conduct meetings with other village heads and TPK to negotiate and coordinate support for their proposal at the Inter–village meeting (MAD). They agree on which village’s proposal will win in what year. • This study also finds cases where village leaders bring their own proposals to MAD. In West Java, the Village Head brought a different proposal that originated from the village’s mid–term plan.

5

Logistical and time considerations may discourage

ultimate objective of reaching the poor. Compound-

marginal groups from involvement: The report notes

ing the problem of limited training in facilitation,

that many members of marginal groups live in outlying

local facilitators do not receive adequate supervision

areas of villages. Often, the cost of transport to attend

and feedback.

village meetings is prohibitive. In addition, the time spent at meetings may result in a loss of vitally impor-

Monitoring & program evaluation focuses solely

tant income.

on administrative procedures: The report notes that monitoring is focused primarily on administration,

LIMITATIONS IN THE PNPM RURAL DESIGN

particularly on whether all stages of PNPM–Rural have

The report identifies a number of technical limitations

been executed. There is no monitoring that examines

in the PNPM–Rural project design and support systems

the quality of participation of marginalized groups or

that limit participation, including a number of limita-

whether PNPM–Rural’s intention to empower margin-

tions resulting from or exacerbated by the PNPM–Rural

alized groups is being consistently applied during all

scale–up, from 26 villages in the pilot project (1997)

stages of the project. There is also little consideration

6

Recommendations

PNPM RURAL: THE MARGINALIZED AND VULNERABLE GROUPS STUDY

PNPM RURAL: THE MARGINALIZED AND VULNERABLE GROUPS STUDY

Recommendations

7

of how to address specific aspects of marginalization or

Strong, pro–poor village institutions: The report

Simplify the PNPM Rural mechanism by decision

are relatively new and created specifically for the pur-

how the next round of PNPM–Rural could deepen the

notes that when such institutions exist in village com-

making through plebiscites, rather than through a

pose of obtaining the PNPM–Rural loans, with the poor

participation process.

munities, participation of members of marginalized

deliberative process:

and marginalized included only to meet PNPM– Rural

groups is generally higher. The report recognizes

The study concludes that district and village facilita-

program requirements, if at all. The study finds only a

Reporting system is complicated and absorbs most

that these institutions can assume a wide variety of

tors are not well prepared for the kind of intensive

few exceptional cases of groups that have yielded signif-

of facilitators’ time: All levels of facilitators are required

forms, citing the examples of a progressive, pro–poor

and skilled facilitation that would enable marginalized

icant benefits to the poor and marginalized, with these

to write up and compile information on all program

pesantren in West Java, an actively pro–poor savings

groups to participate actively in village level deliberative

successes usually due to particularly outstanding facilita-

activities while they are also expected to provide facilita-

group in the same province, and a banjar, or Hindu reli-

processes. In addition, villagers are often exhausted by

tion. It is difficult or impossible to ensure the provision

tion in villages. Interviews with facilitators show general

gious organization, in Bali.

the numerous meetings that these processes involve.

of such facilitation on a broad scale. The study states

The study concludes that the program requires a much

that because the nature of the facilitation required to

agreement that reporting takes up a significant amount of their time and decreases their time for facilitation,

Good facilitation: The report cites examples of out-

simpler mechanism. The study recommends that selec-

support small business activities is very different to that

particularly with marginalized groups in the community.

standing village–level PNPM facilitators with exceptional

tion of village proposals should be made through a

required to support a participatory planning and devel-

interpersonal and communication skills who have been

plebiscite, rather than through a deliberative process.

opment process, savings and loans groups should not

RECOMMENDATIONS

able to convince village officials of the potential benefits

The report concludes that for a program that aims to

of broader participation and to mobilize members of

EMPOWERING MARGINALIZED GROUPS

under a separate program under the PNPM umbrella.

empower communities, dominance by the elite groups

marginalized groups to participate more actively.

Facilitation of marginalized groups to enable them

Given that poor repayment rates are detrimental to the

be managed under the core PNPM–Rural program, but

to voice their needs:

sustainability of the program, the report recommends

tion by both external and internal agents. This facilita-

To develop these elements and to address the bar-

Marginalized groups lack resources, access to informa-

that this program only be implemented in selected

tion is expected to circumvent local elites. The design

riers to participation, the report makes the follow-

tion, and confidence. The main objective of special

areas with a history of good repayment rates.

also assumes that the programs “democratic” processes

ing recommendations:

facilitation for these groups should be to enable them

is a major issue. The PNPM–Rural design includes facilita-

ever, facilitation for empowerment is neither quick nor

SELECTING A SINGLE FOCUS:

activities, including PNPM–Rural and its SPP (women’s

INSTITUTIONAL AND TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENTS

can it be achieved through a repetitive, mechanistic pro-

Capitalize on PNPM Rural’s strength by focusing only

savings and loan groups). Specifically, to level the play-

Facilitation school for facilitators:

cess year in and year out. Empowerment needs time to

on community infrastructure, which is what PNPM

ing field, the facilitation should aim to develop the

The study identifies the lack of facilitation skills as a

deepen or advance gradually. Most facilitators lack the

Rural has done best.

marginalized groups’ organizing capacity, negotiation

major barrier to the inclusion of marginalized groups.

skills for this kind of engagement.

The study found that PNPM–Rural has been able to

skills, networking, and access to information to enable

The new training school that PNPM–Rural is currently

to participate more actively in decision making in village

will lead to the best decisions for the community. How-

provide the essential public goods that benefit margin-

them to voice their needs and demand some response.

developing is the right step to increase and improve

The report states that these barriers can be overcome

alized groups. In some villages, especially the isolated

This kind of facilitation and the related empowerment

the pool of qualified facilitators. At a later point, it will

and the level of participation of marginalized groups

areas, PNPM–Rural has been the only program that

of community groups will take at least two to three

be necessary to evaluate whether the school actually

participation can be improved when the following ele-

responded to villagers’ requests. The quality of infra-

years to develop. For the first phase, pilot activities can

increases facilitators’ competence.

ments are in place:

structure developed under PNPM–Rural is generally

be conducted in a few districts that have shown some

good and cheaper than infrastructure built by regular

degree of organizing capacity.

Special facilitation support for specific marginal-

contractors. Hence, the study recommends that the

ized groups: The report cites the example of PEKKA, the

main PNPM–Rural (or PNPM–Rural Inti) only focus on

Female Headed Households organization, as an effective tool for limiting the power of village officials and activ-

Training and operational costs for KPMD: Limited ability to meet operational costs restrict KPMD (Village Community Empowerment Cadre) from visiting

providing infrastructure. The single focus would help

FACILITATING MORE SUSTAINABLE SAVINGS AND LOANS

ease the burden of facilitation and still bring significant

Focus only where savings and loans work with spe-

re receive only small allowances, as their work is consid-

ists and for broadening participation. PEKKA achieves

benefits. Other activities specifically intended to ben-

cific facilitation:

ered to be mainly voluntary. However, these allowances

this goal by 1) building critical awareness on women’s

efit marginalized groups should be developed through

The study finds that in most places savings and loans

are often insufficient to meet operational costs, includ-

rights as citizens, women, and human beings; 2) capac-

PNPM programs other than PNPM–Rural.

groups do not work to benefit marginalized groups or to

ing transportation costs. These operational costs should

effectively improve their livelihoods. Many of the groups

be paid from the proceeds of the UPK.

ity and institution building; 3) organization and network development; and 4) advocacy.

all hamlets, especially those in isolated areas. These cad-

8

PNPM RURAL: THE MARGINALIZED AND VULNERABLE GROUPS STUDY

Monitor and provide feedback on key participa-

monitoring group, particularly to provide a more ongo-

tion issues:

ing, qualitative evaluation of the PNPM–Rural process.

PNPM needs to ensure that matters that relate to partici-

For quite a few years, PNPM–Rural has previously used

pation and inclusion are reported in sufficient detail to

provincial non–government organizations to do this

inform the evaluation of program design and implemen-

work, but the quality varied. PNPM–Rural should review

tation and to develop systems to ensure that appropri-

the work and select one or two of the best groups to

ate feedback is given to these reports. For example, it

work with a few others to reinstate and improve the

is not enough to report how many people—men and

quality of the monitoring.

women, poor and non–poor—attend a meeting, but also who speaks and influences the decisions that are

Reduce delays in disbursements to the field:

made. Systems to report on these matters and to gener-

As delays have affected the quality of PNPM–Rural

ate feedback on them will send the message that these

implementation significantly, serious efforts have to be

issues matter.

made to minimize these problems.

Use independent monitoring groups: Regular monitoring by the Government and donor agencies should be complemented by an independent Marginalized: Akatiga (2010). “Marginalized Groups on PNPM–Rural”, PNPM Support Facility, Jakarta.

SUMMARY SERIES A major stated goal of the PNPM Support Facility (PSF) is to serve as an objective platform for the review, sharing and application of lessons across poverty programs and for fostering debate on solutions to poverty programs. As such, PSF facilitates the implementation of analytical work and applied research to optimize the design of community–based programs for increased poverty impacts and to better understand social dynamics in Indonesia and their influence on development and poverty reduction. This research and analytical work is intended to provide the Indonesian government with a strong basis for the planning, management, and improvement of the Indonesian government’s

poverty–reduction programs. It may also facilitate south–to–south and other learning exchanges, serving as valuable input for academics, government agencies and development actors who are implementing community driven development programs elsewhere in the world. In order to publicize and propagate the findings, conclusions and recommendations from this research and analytical work amongst wider audiences, including academics, members of the press, parliamentarians and others with an interest in community development, the PSF is publishing a series of summaries of these works.