Indonesia Long-Term Generasi Qualitative Study THE WORLD BANK OFFICE JAKARTA Indonesia Stock Exchange Building Tower II/12th Floor Jl. Jend. Sudirman Kav. 52-53 Jakarta 12910 Tel: (6221) 5299-3000 Fax: (6221) 5299-3111 Website: www.worldbank.org/id THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street NW Washington, DC 20433, USA Tel: (202) 458-1876 Fax: (202) 522-1557/1560 Website: www.worldbank.org Printed in November 2018 The Long-Term Generasi Qualitative Study is a product of the staff of the World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank or the Government they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. For any questions regarding this report, please contact Audrey Sacks (asacks@worldbank.org). Copyright Statement: The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470, http://www.copyright.com/. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax 202-522-2422, e-mail pubrights@worldbank.org. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Long-Term Generasi Qualitative Study was prepared by a core team led by Audrey Sacks (World Bank). Jesse Hession Grayman (University of Auckland) was the lead researcher for the study. The authors thank the World Bank’s Generasi Sehat Cerdas Team, including Samuel Clark, Gerda Gulo, Sadwanto Purnomo, Ali Subandoro, Inge Tan, Budi Wijoyo, Rob Wrobel, and Fazla Zain. Special thanks to the research team consisting of Marzi Afriko, Nelti Anggraini, Kelik Endarso, Hestu Prahara, Agung Prabowo, and Lina Rozana for their excellent work. This report was edited by Kelley Friel. The Government of Indonesia—National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas), Coordinating Ministry of Human Development and Cultural Affairs, Ministry of Villages, Disadvantaged Areas and Transmigration, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education and Culture, and Ministry of Home Affairs—provided support and input through the Generasi Impact Evaluation Steering Committee. Special thanks to Ibu Vivi Yulaswati (Bappenas), who has supported this impact evaluation from the beginning. This report was produced under the overall guidance of Kevin Tomlinson and Susan Wong. Key comments were provided by Andrew Beath and Andrea Woodhouse. The study is a product of the Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience Global Practice’s team in the World Bank Office, Jakarta. Support for this report has been generously provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Australian Embassy. LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY i LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AIPMNH Australia Indonesia Partnership for Maternal and Neonatal Health BPMD Village Community Empowerment Agency, Badan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Desa CDD Community-Driven Development FGD Focus Group Discussion GoI Government of Indonesia ICT Information and Communication Technology MoV Ministry of Villages, Disadvantaged Areas and Transmigration NTT Nusa Tenggara Timur Province P3MD Development and Empowerment of Village Communities Program (Village Funds) PAUD Early Child Education and Development, Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini PNPM National Community Empowerment Program, Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat PONED Basic Emergency Obstetric Care, Pelayanan Obstetri Neonatus Essensial Dasar TA-PSD Technical Assistants for Basic Social Services at the District Level, Tenaga Ahli Pelayanan Sosial Dasar TBA Traditional Birth Attendant LIST OF TERMS Kabupaten District Kecamatan Subdistrict Posyandu Community Health Post ii INDONESIA TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 4 METHODOLOGY 7 GENERASI PROGRAM 11 FACILITATION 13 Facilitation: Three Understandings 14 Role of Facilitators 15 Facilitator Workload Distribution 20 Information Sharing and Learning among Facilitators 22 Perceptions of (and Interactions with) Village Law Facilitators 24 Facilitators’ Independence from Government 25 PARTICIPATION 27 Perceptions of Participation 28 Encouraging Participation 29 Community Monitoring of Basic Social Services and Village Governance 30 Community Contributions toward Stimulating Basic Social Service Utilization 31 LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Are Health and Education Shared Concerns in the Community? 33 Participatory Budgeting Processes (Including for Generasi Block Grants) 34 Beneficiaries’ Motivation to Participate 35 Impact on Village Law Implementation 35 TARGETS AND PERFORMANCE BONUSES 37 Awareness and Understanding of Generasi’s 12 Target Indicators 38 Do Targets Induce Learning and/or Competition? 39 “Gaming” the Target System 41 Understanding and Effectiveness of Generasi’s Performance Bonus System 42 GENERASI’S IMPACT ON VILLAGE GOVERNANCE AND BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES 45 Many Generasi Actors Have Entered Village (or Higher) Government 46 Generasi’s Influence on the Allocation of Non-Generasi Village Funds 47 Perceived Barriers to Using Non-Generasi Funds for Health and Education 49 Generasi’s Impact on Local Regulations 53 Generasi’s Impact on Basic Social Services 57 CONCLUSIONS 58 RECOMMENDATIONS 60 ANNEX A: DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE SITES 62 Descriptive Statistics 63 Subdistrict and Village Profiles 64 iv INDONESIA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2007, the government of Indonesia (GoI) introduced PNPM Generasi (National Community Empowerment Program—Healthy and Smart Generation, Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat—Generasi Sehat dan Cerdas) to address key policy priorities and the Millennium Development Goals—reducing poverty, maternal mortality, and child mortality, as well as ensuring universal coverage of basic education. Generasi provides over 5,400 villages with an annual block grant, which each village can allocate to any activity that supports one of 12 indicators of health and education service delivery. Each village’s success in meeting these 12 targets helps determine the size of the next year’s grant. Trained facilitators recruited from within the communities help implement the program. To facilitate a rigorous evaluation of the program, GoI (working with the World Bank and the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab) randomly assigned Generasi locations for the pilot phase (2007–09). A randomized evaluation of two different versions of the program (with and without performance bonuses) was conducted in three rounds (Wave I at baseline, Wave II 18 months after implementation, and Wave III 30 months after implementation). In 2016/17, the impact evaluation (IE) team fielded a follow-up survey in the same subdistricts as the first three waves. A separate report analyzes the quantitative findings of this final survey. During the final survey round, the IE team also collected qualitative data in geographically distinct treatment and control communities to explore two questions. First, are Generasi’s three components—facilitation, community participation, and the target and performance bonus system—functioning as intended? Second, what is the program’s long-term impact on village governance and service delivery, and how can it influence Village Law implementation? The qualitative findings related to the first question can be summarized as follows. First, Generasi facilitators were found to have technical knowledge about health and education issues, experience in mobilizing communities around basic social LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY service delivery, and creative problem-solving skills. training in basic social services to allow them to They maintain communication and cooperation with a effectively advocate for village governments to use variety of actors in the community and at different levels funds for health and education services once Generasi of government to assess community needs and address ends. For training materials, the Ministry of Villages, problems. Generasi facilitators were found to be better Disadvantaged Areas and Transmigration (MoV) informed than Village Law facilitators about their roles and could draw on curriculum developed under Generasi. responsibilities, as well as the technical aspects of their jobs, 77 Community health post (posyandu) volunteers and were better integrated into the areas in which they and other community-based volunteers should work. Second, the fieldwork revealed that many facilitators receive training in health service delivery. Subdistrict and beneficiaries interpret community participation as community health center staff could deliver complete attending meetings and utilizing services, which fails to and routine training for health clinic cadres and all advance the program’s goal of empowering communities community-based health volunteers starting with to plan, implement, and monitor the delivery of basic curriculum the Ministry of Health has developed for services and influence village governance. Third, the study this purpose. Village governments could help to pay found that although facilitators at all levels were aware of for these training costs. the 12 health-and-education–related targeted indicators, few understood how they related to the performance 77 Although it is important for Village Law facilitators bonuses. Public accountability appears to serve as a more to continue collecting health, education, and other important motivation to achieve the targets: village leaders basic indicators, MoV should reduce their data wish to avoid the embarrassment of reporting at intervillage collection burden. MoV and other community- meetings that they failed to meet them. based programs should consider training and paying community volunteers, such as former With regard to the second question, the study found Generasi village community empowerment cadres that Generasi has had a significant impact on village (also known as Generasi village facilitators) governance but not on the delivery of sector-based to collect routine data, which would free up service providers, such as subdistrict community facilitators’ time for outreach and enlarge the health centers. Several program actors have taken on network of community volunteers. important roles in their communities, which has helped embed Generasi-style consultation and implementation 77 Subdistricts should continue coordinating intervillage approaches in village planning processes and encouraged meetings post-Generasi, in which village actors discuss villages to allocate funds for health and education in community problems and exchange advice. These their budgets. Yet there have been fewer contacts with meetings can also be adapted and used to motivate (or advocacy efforts targeted at) service providers, and incentivize village governments’ performance. which may explain the program’s uneven impact. Subdistricts should build on the locally developed innovations that contribute to village governance Based on the qualitative findings, the following practices, which this report highlights. recommendations can be made in three main areas. PARTICIPATION FACILITATION 77 Community-driven development projects should 77 Village Law facilitators should be recruited from encourage equal participation in the full project the local communities they serve. Both Village Law cycle from both village-level elites and community facilitators and all village facilitators should receive members, including posyandu volunteers and 2 INDONESIA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY community facilitators. Although ordinary such a system should ensure that there is a forum community members may not participate in like the intervillage meetings that puts pressure on village-level planning meetings in large numbers, Village Law facilitators, village heads, and village Generasi village facilitators are actively in touch with governments to ensure their villages meet their them and are thus able to present their diverse needs targets. at the planning meetings and follow up with outreach activities. If community-level facilitators are selected 77 Programs that adopt a Generasi-style performance from the communities they serve, they can provide bonus may want to consider simplifying the system ongoing support and help to bring community and ensure high levels of awareness of the process members’ complaints and needs to higher levels. among program actors and community beneficiaries throughout the project cycle. The monetary rewards 77 Given the important role that posyandu play in associated with the bonus should also be more providing maternal and infant health services, village substantial. governments should invest more in the posyandu, continue to ensure that they are sufficiently staffed 77 MoV should consider putting in place a (at least five per village and one per hamlet), and are simple set of performance targets for village compensated appropriately. Performance targets governments. The mentioned intervillage can help village governments monitor posyandu meetings or Reporting Day meetings could activities and ensure continued investment in them. incentivize village governments to collect data needed to report back and put pressure on 77 The analysis highlights many examples of how local service providers to deliver more and better culture continues to influence health and education to make the village head’s performance behaviors and modes of accountability. Under the Village Law, service providers, village governments, stand out. and facilitators should consider how to tailor 77 Future programs should consider rewarding health and education activities to local cultures to individual facilitators with nonmonetary influence behaviors. bonuses (for example, a package of household supplies) as a possible alternative or complement to a community-level performance bonus. TARGETS AND INCENTIVES Evidence from the qualitative study suggests that 77 Generasi’s target system was effective at motivating informal rewards help Generasi village facilitators Generasi facilitators to mobilize communities around and other village actors feel appreciated and the targets. Future programs that consider adopting motivated. LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 3 INTRODUCTION In 2007, the government of Indonesia (GoI) introduced PNPM Generasi (National Community Empowerment Program—Healthy and Smart Generation) to address key policy priorities and the Millennium Development Goals— reducing poverty, maternal mortality, and child mortality, as well as ensuring universal coverage of basic education. In 2014, the Generasi program was renamed Bright Healthy Generation, when it transferred administration from the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Ministry of Villages, Disadvantaged Areas and Transmigration (MoV). Under Generasi, over 5,400 villages receive an annual block grant. With the assistance of trained facilitators, each village can allocate these grants to any activity that supports one of 12 indicators of health and education service delivery. Generasi employs unique performance incentives: the size of a village’s block grant depends in part on its performance on the 12 targeted indicators during the previous year. Although 80% of a subdistrict’s funds are divided among villages in proportion to the number of target beneficiaries, the remaining 20% forms a bonus pool that is distributed to villages in the subsequent year based on their performance on the 12 indicators. To facilitate a rigorous evaluation of the program, GoI (working with the World Bank and the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab) randomly assigned Generasi locations for the pilot phase (2007–09). A randomized evaluation of two different versions of the program (with and without performance bonuses) was conducted in three rounds (Wave I at baseline, Wave II 18 months after implementation, and Wave III 30 months after implementation). Based on the 2009 impact evaluation (IE), which found that performance incentives accelerated improvement in preventative health and malnutrition, the performance bonuses were scaled up and the program was expanded beyond the pilot locations. Because the expansion took 4 INDONESIA INTRODUCTION place almost entirely in new provinces, the original 2009 IE. There are four possible reasons for this. First, the randomization remained intact. overall substantial improvements in stunting in NTT that occurred in both control and treatment areas may have Nine years after the program began, of the 181 subdistricts exhausted the “low-hanging fruit” that Generasi was able that were originally randomized to receive the program, to address in earlier periods. Second, Generasi funding 156 continue to receive it; of the 83 subdistricts originally produced crowd-in/crowd-out effects on other program randomized to the control group, 80 remain as controls. resources that undercut the efficacy of the intervention. This creates a virtually unprecedented opportunity to Third, implementation issues and delays in the maternal study the long-term effects of community mobilization health and parenting classes may have weakened any on improving health and education and to understand potentially positive impacts this intervention may have the long-term impacts of nutritional improvements. had on behavioral change and malnutrition. Fourth, Between September 2016 and January 2017, the IE Generasi’s effects on stunting were limited because the team fielded a survey of households, service providers, full suite of complementary demand- and supply-side program facilitators, and government officials in the same interventions needed to address stunting were not fully subdistricts as the first three waves. A separate report implemented. analyzes the quantitative findings of this final survey. At the same time as the final survey round, the IE team The final quantitative IE has two primary objectives. First, it estimates the impact of community block grants on also collected qualitative data in geographically distinct maternal and child health-seeking behavior and health treatment and control communities. The research for new cohorts. Using data from direct observations and methodology is described in greater detail in the next interviews with health providers and households, the IE section. The main objective of the qualitative study assesses how the community block grants and performance (reported here) is to examine the relationships between incentives increase the use of prenatal care, childbirths Generasi’s three components—facilitation, community assisted by trained personnel, postnatal care, immunizations, participation, and the target and performance bonus and participation in growth monitoring for newly born system—and the achievement of outcomes. cohorts. Second, it assesses how maternal and infant health The qualitative findings in these three areas can be improvements translate into better child outcomes later summarized as follows. First, Generasi facilitators were in life. Specifically, the IE examines how cohorts that have found to have technical knowledge about health and been exposed to the program for most of their lives are education issues, experience in mobilizing communities faring now in terms of health outcomes (such as height around basic social service delivery, and creative and weight), as well as enrollment and performance at the problem-solving skills. They maintain communication and primary and junior/secondary school levels. cooperation with a variety of actors in the community and The quantitative results of the IE can be summarized as at different levels of government to assess community follows. Overall, Generasi has continued to be effective at needs and address problems. Generasi facilitators were mobilizing community members to attend the posyandu found to be better informed than Village Law1 facilitators for infant weighing and to attend maternal health and about their roles and responsibilities, as well as the parenting classes. In the lowest-performing districts, Generasi continues to encourage community members 1 The Village Law, passed in 2014, is a massive decentralization effort to attend the village posyandu and increase immunization that substantially increases direct transfers to villages. Village transfers rates and vitamin A distribution. Its initial impact on will be scaled up over time. The national government allocated Rp 280 million (US$20,000) in 2015, and district governments are stunting, which was concentrated in Nusa Tenggara estimated to allocate around Rp 500 million (US$40,000). Each village will Timur (NTT) province, was not sustained beyond the receive approximately Rp 1.4 billion (US$122,000) on average each year. LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 5 INTRODUCTION technical aspects of their jobs, and were better integrated to avoid the embarrassment of reporting at intervillage into the areas in which they work. Second, the fieldwork meetings that they failed to meet them. revealed that many facilitators and beneficiaries interpret community participation as attending meetings and The study found that Generasi has had a significant impact utilizing services, which fails to advance the program’s on village governance but not on the delivery of sector- goal of empowering communities to plan, implement, based service providers. Several program actors have taken and monitor the delivery of basic services and influence on important roles in their communities, which has helped village governance. Third, the study found that although embed Generasi-style consultation and implementation facilitators at all levels were aware of the 12 health and approaches in village planning processes and encouraged education related targeted indicators, few understood villages to allocate funds for health and education in how they related to the performance bonuses. Public their budgets. Yet there have been fewer contacts with accountability appears to serve as a more important (or advocacy efforts targeted at) service providers, motivation to achieve the targets: village leaders wish which may explain the program’s uneven impact. 6 INDONESIA METHODOLOGY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS The Long-Term Generasi Qualitative Study employed the following research methods to identify pathways and processes that determine the levels and quality of facilitation, participation, and use of performance bonuses: 1. Focus group discussions (FGDs) 2. Semistructured interviews 3. Observation and description 4. Document collection 5. Mobile information and communication technologies (ICTs) 6. Videography The first three methods were the primary tools for addressing the research questions. FGDs and semistructured interviews were based on questions and discussion guides developed during the research staff training and refined after the pilot phase. Questions were adapted to the different types of stakeholders (described in more detail below). FGDs solicit normative, agreed- upon master narratives of how facilitation, participation, and incentives work within a small group of similar stakeholders in a community, such as village facilitators or mothers of young children. Semistructured interviews follow the FGDs to solicit specific detailed examples, individual variations in practice, and contested ideas that may veer from the normative FGD responses. Observations validate and add contextual depth to FGD and interview reports. Observations include detailed descriptions of interview settings; sites visited, including government offices, health facilities, and respondent households; village geography; public resources; and most importantly, Generasi and Village Law activities, such as village consultation and planning meetings, health clinics, and subdistrict intervillage meetings. LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 7 METHODOLOGY Site-specific documents collected from government line 77 District level: Offices of education, finance, agencies and programs provide reference and background health, and Village Community Empowerment material for each district, subdistrict, and village, and Agency (Badan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat allow comparisons of the quality of record keeping in Desa/BPMD), and the Generasi district each location. ICTs were used to communicate with facilitator. stakeholder-informants throughout the program cycle even 77 Subdistrict level: Subdistrict implementation after researchers left the field. ICTs were also useful for unit staff; subdistrict community health center clarifying and cross-checking data during the analysis and staff (including the director and the midwife write-up phases. Generasi stakeholders maintain informal coordinator); teachers or the head of school; professional networks by using ICTs such as Facebook and health forum members, heads and staff of the WhatsApp; research staff occasionally asked permission to Subdistrict Technical Implementation Unit observe or participate in these online communities to learn education offices; the Generasi subdistrict more about how facilitators talk about their work, which facilitator; Generasi support staff; and Village adds significant insight and depth to the research questions Law staff and facilitators. about facilitation. Videography provided a visual archive to supplement narrative descriptions and has been used to 77 Village level: Formal village leadership (including report research findings in multimedia formats to partner the village head and village secretary), Generasi stakeholders in Jakarta and elsewhere, showing what village community empowerment cadres (village facilitation meetings and other Generasi stakeholder events facilitators), and Generasi activity implementers, look like in the sampled communities. Village Law facilitators, posyandu volunteers, health forum members, village clinic staff (especially village midwives), traditional birth attendants, school STAKEHOLDER SAMPLING committee members, early childhood and education Interviews, FGDs, observations, document collection, and development teachers, and parents of young and digital conversations with and among stakeholder- children. informants proceeded hierarchically downward through a snowballing network of officials, facilitators, and (eventually) beneficiaries, moving from districts, to SITE SAMPLING CRITERIA subdistricts, to villages. Data collection proceeded in this The three provinces selected for inclusion in the study fashion because access to village communities required were based on the 2009 levels of high, medium, and consultations and permissions at every level. It typically low levels of stunting—NTT, Gorontalo, and East Java, required at least two days of fieldwork at the district and respectively. One district was randomly selected subdistrict levels before a team of researchers could begin within each of these provinces for the study. Within talking to informants at the village level. The stakeholders the selected district, two subdistricts (one treatment involved at each level of government include: and one control) were randomly chosen. Within the 77 Province level: Offices of education, health, finance treatment subdistrict, all villages were ranked based on and community empowerment and the Generasi two variables using the 2005 Village Potential Statistics: provincial coordinator.2 distance to the subdistrict seat and the number of households receiving the national health insurance 2 Meetings at the provincial level were not a required component of scheme per capita. Once ranked, two villages were the sampling, but as the research teams passed through the provincial randomly selected: one average village and one poor capitals in Gorontalo and NTT provinces, the team opportunistically met with several provincial-level officials in these two provinces only. village (high density of poor households and far away 8 INDONESIA METHODOLOGY from the subdistrict seat). A similar ranking of the control DOCUMENTATION OF subdistricts was completed, and then one average- PRIMARY DATA scoring village was randomly selected for inclusion. The A team of five or six researchers conducted the fieldwork. results of this sampling procedure are shown in Table 1. All interviews, FGDs, descriptive observations, and visual Sampled subdistricts and villages have been assigned media were documented in comprehensible, legible, pseudonyms in compliance with qualitative research best and well-organized field notes. Interview and FGD field ethical practice. notes address a detailed research question guide, with a Before fieldwork in the locations listed, the research team separate narrative summary of interviewer observations spent four days piloting the instruments and familiarizing (household descriptions, interview dynamics, etc.). itself with Generasi program dynamics on the ground Each interview or FGD participant is documented in in the West Java district of Garut, in two Generasi an informant list mentioning the date of the interview, villages in Lebak Siwur subdistrict: Cikereteg and Pasir the interviewer’s name, and the name and position of Ucing. Some relevant data from these pilot sites appears each informant. Field observations were compiled into in this report. The fieldwork schedule proceeded as district, subdistrict, and village profiles. Field notes were follows, with the weeks in between fieldwork spent transcribed and expanded from shorthand to narrative writing up field notes before traveling to the next within a few days of completing the fieldwork in each destination: province. When permissible and ethically appropriate, Garut, West Java: 31 August–3 September 2016 (pilot phase) researchers documented interview settings and field observations with audio and/or visual recording devices. Gorontalo, Gorontalo: 7–25 September 2016 The analyses began with the documentation of the primary Lembata, NTT: 16 October–7 November 2016 data described in the form of individual researchers’ margin Pamekasan, East Java: 6–27 December 2016 notes: themes were noted, patterns were identified, TABLE 1:  Generasi Long-Term Qualitative Impact Evaluation Site Selection Results Province District Subdistrict Village West Java (pilot) Garut Lebak Siwur (treatment) Pasir Ucing (pilot) Cikereteg (pilot) Gorontalo Gorontalo Tarengge (treatment) Mangkawani (weak) Maroangin (average) Telogojoyo (control) Jaton (average) NTT Lembata Nelle (treatment) Rampe (weak) Ilekora (average) Tanabola (control) Mogiye (average) East Java Pamekasan Petis (treatment) Lelaok (weak) Sogiyan (average) Sambingan (control) Tespates (average) LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 9 METHODOLOGY and new questions were posed. Interim comparative using NVivo.3 Interesting case studies were pursued analyses proceeded with routine communication by referring to complete interview transcripts and among researchers, at scheduled times, via WhatsApp, triangulating data across local sources, sometimes with for example. These conversations included the lead follow-up phone calls with informants to cross-check and researcher, regardless of whether he or she was present elaborate on the findings. The sources of many quotes are in the field. This facilitated early and iterative insights attributed to a position rather than an individual to protect that developed over time. After fieldwork in each location, confidentiality. Personal names in the case studies are all researchers performed a preliminary analysis of the pseudonyms. data by excerpting sections from their transcripts that addressed specific research questions. These 3 After identifying patterns in the data, discussions were held with the excerpts were inserted into a database to facilitate an research team to establish the validity of the analysis by elaborating organized thematic analysis for each research question on specific examples in the data. 10 INDONESIA GENERASI PROGRAM4 Generasi began in mid-2007 in 164 pilot subdistricts spread across five provinces selected by GoI: West Java, East Java, North Sulawesi, Gorontalo, and NTT. By the time of the first IE in 2009, the program was operating in 264 subdistricts across these five provinces. It currently operates across 499 subdistricts in 11 provinces. The current report and analysis focuses on districts considered in the Wave III IE, which took place in 2009/10. The Generasi project focuses on 12 indicators of maternal/child health and educational behavior. These indicators are in line with Ministry of Health priorities and protocols and GoI’s constitutional obligation to ensure nine years of basic education for all Indonesian children. These 12 indicators relate to seeking health and educational services that are within the direct control of villagers—such as the number of children who receive immunizations and pre- and postnatal care, and the number of children enrolled in and attending school—rather than long- term outcomes, such as test scores or infant mortality. As school enrollment rates improved significantly across control and treatment areas over the past decade, in 2014 Generasi revised its education targets to better focus investments on the neediest populations. The new education targets include participation rates for children with disabilities and transition rates from primary to junior secondary school. In addition, Generasi introduced indicators to measure community participation in enhanced nutrition counseling sessions delivered through the posyandu. 4 Portions of the description of the Generasi program in this section, as well as the experimental and evaluation design sections, draw directly from B.A. Olken, J. Onishi, and S. Wong. 2011. Indonesia PNPM Generasi Program Final Impact Evaluation Report. Washington, DC: World Bank. LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 11 GENERASI PROGRAM Under the Generasi program, all participating villages receive depends in part on its performance on the 12 targeted a block grant each year to improve education and maternal indicators during the previous year. The performance and child health. These grants can be used for a wide variety bonus is structured as a relative competition among of purposes, including hiring extra midwives for the village, villages within the same subdistrict. A fixed allocation subsidizing the costs of pre- and postnatal care, providing to each subdistrict also ensures that the bonus system supplementary feeding, hiring extra teachers, opening a does not result in the unequal geographic distribution branch school in the village, providing scholarships or school of funds. The incentive is designed to facilitate a more supplies, providing transportation funds for health care or effective allocation of Generasi funds and stimulate village school attendance, improving health or school buildings, outreach efforts to encourage mothers and children to or rehabilitating a road to improve access to health and obtain appropriate health care and increase educational education facilities (see Figure 1). enrollment and attendance. Trained facilitators help each village elect an 11-member The Generasi project design built on GoI’s PNPM Rural village management team and select local facilitators and program, which along with its predecessor program volunteers to decide how to allocate the block grants (see funded over US$2 billion in local infrastructure and Table 2 on p. 39 for a description of the target indicators). microcredit programs in approximately 61,000 Through social mapping and in-depth discussion groups, Indonesian villages from 1998 through 2014.4 MoV villagers identify problems and bottlenecks in reaching implements Generasi, which is funded through GoI the indicators. Intervillage meetings and consultation resources and in part by loans from the World Bank workshops with local health and education service providers and grants from several bilateral donors. Technical allow community leaders to obtain information, technical assistance and evaluations have been supported by assistance, and support from the local health and education offices and coordinate the use of Generasi funds with other a multidonor trust fund with contributions from health and education interventions in the area. Following the World Bank, embassies of the Netherlands, Australia, these discussions, the elected management team makes the United Kingdom, and Denmark, and the World Bank– final Generasi budget allocation. managed Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund. The 2016 IE and qualitative study was supported by the Australian Performance incentives are a central element of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Generasi approach. The size of a village’s block grant 5 For more than 15 years, Indonesia has been pioneering and implementing various community-driven development (CDD) projects and programs. Since 1997, when the Kecamatan Development Project was piloted in 25 villages, Indonesia has pioneered the design, management, and expansion of projects that give communities more control over the plans and resources that shape their towns and villages. In 2007, the government scaled up the program nationwide, combined it with other community-based poverty programs, and renamed it the National Program for Community Empowerment (PNPM Mandiri). PNPM Rural and PNPM Urban ultimately reached more than 70,000 villages and urban wards across Indonesia. As part of the PNPM umbrella, the government developed several pilot projects to expand PNPM to vulnerable groups and new activities. These projects included Generasi, PNPM Respek, PNPM Green, and PNPM Peduli. For more information about PNPM and these pilot projects, see J. Friedman. FIGURE 1:  Generasi funded this 2012. Expanding and Diversifying Indonesia’s Program for Community posyandu building Empowerment, 2007–2012. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. 12 INDONESIA FACILITATION Generasi hires full-time facilitators to work at the district and subdistrict levels and recruits semivolunteers at the village level (Figure 2). These facilitators mobilize community members, especially the poor and marginalized, to utilize mother and child health services for the first 1,000 days of life.6 They also ensure that communities access primary education services, including those for children with special needs, and encourage out-of-school children to return to school. At the district level, the Generasi district facilitator’s responsibilities include overseeing the work of subdistrict facilitators and intervening at the village level when an issue arises that the subdistrict facilitator cannot solve. Other Generasi district facilitator responsibilities include explaining Generasi to the district government head, the district assembly, and the health and education agencies, and coordinating Generasi activities with the health and education offices. At the subdistrict level, subdistrict facilitators support communities with implementing each program stage, including socialization, training, social mapping, planning, implementation, and maintenance. Subdistrict facilitators also conduct financial audits of Generasi accounts and activities, and collect monthly performance data on the 12 targets. At the village level, community members select Generasi village facilitators to help prepare, plan, and implement activities. The Village Deliberation Advisory Team mainly supports communities at the subvillage (hamlet) level with developing and prioritizing proposals for Generasi to fund. The qualitative analysis explores what aspects of facilitation are the most effective and how facilitation helps communities achieve their main targets. The analysis reveals that effective subdistrict- and village-level facilitators have technical knowledge about health and education issues, experience in mobilizing 6 Generasi introduced this nutrition-focused, 1,000 days of life paradigm in 2013/14. LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 13 FACILITATION The qualitative analysis also compares Generasi and Village Law facilitation, which both emphasize participation, transparency, and accountability. Although this is a somewhat unequal comparison, because Village Law facilitators were deployed only a few months before the qualitative fieldwork and lacked a general understanding of their roles and responsibilities, the differences may have implications for the implementation of the new law; these implications are discussed in more detail below. The deployment of Village Law facilitators has increased stakeholders’ appreciation of PNPM Rural/ Generasi-style facilitation as a tool for community-driven FIGURE 2:  Generasi facilitators meet development (CDD) work. with cadre posyandu communities around basic social service delivery, and FACILITATION: THREE creative problem-solving skills. Effective Generasi UNDERSTANDINGS district facilitators proactively address community-level issues by reaching out to (and maintaining frequent In every interview, field researchers asked all Generasi communication with) government actors outside the stakeholders about their understanding of the word Generasi program, including the district head, Village “facilitation.” The responses can be grouped into three Community Empowerment Agency, Community and overlapping types. Village Government Empowerment Agency, and the health I. To push, move, or stimulate communities to and education agencies. Similarly, effective subdistrict make proper use of basic social services: This facilitators coordinate closely with the subdistrict head’s is a vertical, or top-down, understanding of office and service providers; when service delivery what it means to facilitate communities in their problems emerge, they reach out to government partners social development. Descriptions of this style to help resolve the issues. At all government levels, the of facilitation suggest that communities need coordination between facilitators and service providers encouragement to access available services. was cooperative, especially with respect to data validation Policy prescriptions focus on incentives or and case referral. disincentives to entice communities to use government social services by changing the mind- Recruiting and retaining facilitators remains a problem set that prevails in rural communities. Incentives for Generasi. High-quality Generasi village facilitators are often described as assistance to poor are often recruited into the village government or to households. In many ways, this is a traditional other jobs, and new recruits face steep learning curves; view of rural development that is not in accord facilitators require at least a year of participation in the with core CDD principles. program cycle before they are experienced enough to take on leadership and decision-making roles. In II. To link communities with basic social services: addition, the heavy burden placed on facilitators to This is a more horizontal understanding of collect Generasi-related (and more recently, Village facilitation that seeks to build bridges between Law-related) data often comes at the expense of communities and basic social services. These advocacy and outreach. responses describe facilitators as engaging in 14 INDONESIA FACILITATION advocacy and empowerment activities that involve There are no significant differences in responses between figuring out, relaying, and sharing communities’ treatment and control communities, likely because control needs and aspirations (see Case Study 2: Generasi communities gained an understanding of facilitation from District Facilitator Advocacy in Pamekasan and the PNPM Rural program and are now encountering new the contrasting Case Study 1: Facilitators Struggle Village Law facilitators. to Solve the Problem of One Child Forced to Drop Out of School in Gorontalo). Rather than assuming there is a problem with a community’s mind-set, ROLE OF FACILITATORS this approach to facilitation serves communities by identifying and meeting their needs. Facilitators perform a bridging or linking role between multiple levels of government, as well as with efforts to III. To help correctly and efficiently administer implement the Village Law. At each level of government, government programs: Many respondents facilitators have a variety of coordination, advocacy, and described facilitation as working to improve the socialization tasks with the line agencies at their level performance of village governance, government of government and below that familiarize stakeholders programs, service provision, and monitoring with the Generasi program and support government activities. These responses describe technical, capacity building. At the provincial level, Generasi management, training, and data-oriented coordinators primarily engage in managerial tasks, approaches to facilitation. troubleshooting problems and program gaps with In all four regions of this study (including the pilot study), staff across the province to find solutions. At all levels, respondents most frequently described types I and III data collection, administration, and reporting are the (the ratio of response types I:II:III was roughly 3:2:3). most important priorities and take the most time. Facilitators Struggle to Solve the Problem of One Child Forced CASE STUDY 1  to Drop Out of School in Gorontalo After completing elementary school, Hayat wanted to continue to middle school but was forced to drop out to work odd jobs (such as gathering grass for livestock or picking and drying corn) to provide for his family. His mother is a single parent with four children, the youngest of whom is an infant. The Generasi subdistrict facilitator argues that Hayat’s case is an individual household problem that is beyond the program’s authority because it is designed to help only those who attend school, and that Generasi’s role is not to facilitate the education of young people. Village officials have refused to use government funds to cover Hayat’s education costs or household expenses. His right to education continues to be overlooked. Hayat’s aunt is a new Generasi village facilitator with insufficient skills and experience to advocate his case beyond the village—particularly to the District Education Office—to find an alternative solution, such as home schooling or private classes. The village’s other facilitator resigned in 2017. This case highlights the importance of enhancing advocacy skills. It also illustrates the subdistrict facilitator’s misunderstanding of Generasi’s role and purpose. Hayat is precisely the type of child the project is supposed to target. LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 15 FACILITATION CASE STUDY 2 Generasi District Facilitator Advocacy in Pamekasan Ida Nurbaya served as a subdistrict facilitator in the PNPM Rural program before working as a finance facilitator at the district level in the Generasi program. In 2016, during her annual internal audit of the subdistricts where the program operates in Pamekasan, which includes village visits and beneficiary visits with district facilitators, she learned about the case of Nia. Nia had to quit school in the 6th grade just before her graduation exam after missing several months of school because of a stomach tumor. The Larangan subdistrict facilitator shared Nia’s story during the routine coordination meeting with district facilitators. Ida shared the case via Facebook to raise money for the treatment. A donor offered to cover the surgery costs, and the Generasi facilitators paid for the transportation costs to the hospital. After a successful surgery, subdistrict facilitators convinced the Education Office to allow Nia to take the National Exam even though she missed the exam date because of illness. She passed the final exam and graduated from elementary school. Nia’s story was shared at the National Generasi Coordination Meeting as an example of successful facilitation. Such stories are not always shared because of poor documentation and exchange of information between levels and across sectors. Less time is generally devoted to empowerment and District-level facilitators coordinate with district outreach activities. community empowerment agencies7 and the district health and education offices to ensure access for Generasi Although many development programs have facilitators actors and raise awareness of health and education issues. (including the Village Law), the Generasi model is Stakeholders at this level reported frequent interactions unique because it employs two facilitators (Generasi with the Generasi district facilitators and other Generasi village facilitators) for each village who are chosen staff in Garut, Gorontalo, and Pamekasan but not in from within the community. Since facilitators are Lembata. The Education Office secretary in Pamekasan recruited from within the village and can focus their reported that facilitators keep officials at the district level efforts on a single village, they are very responsive to informed of conditions in rural villages. A health officer in community needs, and able to mobilize community Pamekasan appreciated the district facilitator’s efforts to members. By comparison, Village Law facilitators find out what activities the District Health Office covers are responsible for more than one village at a in its budgets so that Generasi does not overlap in its time and are not necessarily recruited from those allocations. villages. Consequently, they may be less responsive to community needs and less effective at mobilizing Ideally, the Generasi district facilitator should spend at community members to participate in planning least 15 days each month in the subdistrict providing and oversight of the Village Law. Generasi’s end support to the subdistrict facilitators and their teams, has triggered a desire to implement Generasi-style facilitation mechanisms to organize and implement village development projects, which presents an 7 Some districts have a Community and Village Government Empowerment Agency, and others have a Village Community opportunity to extend the program’s long-term Empowerment Agency (BPMD). Other district governments have outreach. merged these two community empowerment agencies. 16 INDONESIA FACILITATION including overseeing phases of the program cycle, ensuring adequately staffed. The wide range of stakeholders targets are met, and reviewing planning documents. interviewed for the study knew the names of at least one, Pamekasan and Gorontalo Generasi district facilitators if not all, of the Generasi actors in their village, but not all engaged in productive coordination and advocacy knew the name of the program. efforts. For example, the Pamekasan district facilitator One of their most important administrative tasks is developed good relations and coordination with the head validating reports from Generasi village facilitators because of the district Family Welfare Movement, who is the wife of these relate to Generasi’s scoring system and achievement the district head, to raise her awareness about nutrition in of targets. Subdistrict facilitator supervision requires routine Pamekasan (see Case Study 3: Cross-Sectoral Coordination visits to the villages to ensure that the program cycle is on to Solve Malnutrition Issues in Pamekasan). The district schedule. The subdistrict facilitator also prepares follow-up facilitator also found strategic opportunities to lobby the planning documents with the Generasi village facilitator and head of the district to issue a regulation on the allocation monitors the extent to which these plans are carried out. of village funds for health and education. In Gorontalo, because of the Generasi district facilitator’s routine As part of the rollout of the new Village Law, MoV has communication and advocacy work, the secretary of assigned subdistrict facilitators work that was previously the District Health Office promoted the allocation of done by Village Law facilitators, who experience a high Village Law budgets for health at subdistrict community turnover rate. This work involves reporting the village health centers and stakeholder workshops, which development index and village profiles. The facilitator village heads typically attend. The district facilitator in the subdistrict of Nelle (Lembata) reported that also coordinates closely with Gorontalo’s district-level he/she spends more time filling in development index technical consultant for basic social services in Village Law forms than supervising and facilitating Generasi activities implementation (known as Tenaga Ahli Pelayanan Sosial in the villages and sometimes is unable to attend Dasar/TA-PSD); the consultant also strongly advocates important village planning meetings. The subdistrict the inclusion of health and education in village budgets. facilitator in Pamekasan reported managing this extra However, the Lembata district facilitator engaged in little workload with data collection help from Generasi village outreach, which he attributed to a heavy workload in his facilitators. district office and difficulties accessing the subdistricts in Subdistrict-level coordination succeeds when Generasi his district. actors coordinate closely with health and education Subdistrict-level facilitators report that they focus on five agencies and the activity operations superintendent, main activities: administration, supervision, coordination, who is responsible for running general activities in the advocacy, and mediation. At this level, respondents subdistrict. The subdistrict facilitator attends coordination reported frequent and productive coordination with meetings held by other agencies, such as trimonthly Generasi staff. The heads of subdistrict community health stakeholder workshops held at the subdistrict community centers—for example in Petis subdistrict (Pamekasan health centers. The subdistrict facilitator also convenes district) and Tarengge subdistrict (Gorontalo)—coordinate monthly coordination meetings with all Generasi village extensively with Generasi on health services, primarily facilitators, as well as three intervillage meetings. These through village midwives, including efforts to cross-check intervillage meetings are considered more prestigious and and validate health data and prevent overlap. are attended by village leaders (who send delegates to the workshops).8 Generasi also frequently hires subdistrict community health center staff to administer training sessions in 8 For more information about these meetings, see Case Study 10: A the villages and helps ensure that the health clinics are Generasi Intervillage Meeting and Improving Access to Health Services. LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 17 FACILITATION CASE STUDY 3 Cross-Sectoral Coordination to Solve Malnutrition Issues in Pamekasan Two Generasi village facilitators in the Pamekasan district of Jawa Timur province conducted an internal audit by visiting the subdistrict implementation unit and the homes of selected beneficiaries. In April 2016, they visited Larangan Luar village to see Sahlan, a five-month-old baby with malnutrition living in an unhealthy and abusive environment. Sahlan is the youngest of three children; his father has an intellectual disability and abuses his wife, who has depression as a result. Sahlan was brought to the attention of the program after a neighbor witnessed him being thrown forcefully into a bucket by his elder sister; the neighbor brought Sahlan to the subdistrict community health center. The Generasi program provided Sahlan with supplementary food, which was administered by his neighbor, a posyandu volunteer; there were concerns that the mother was not sterilizing bottles and that the sisters might drink the milk. The Generasi village facilitator and village midwife performed the initial intervention, but cross-sectoral advocacy at the district level was required to deal with the poor housing conditions and the risk of neglect and abuse. The two Generasi village facilitators maintained excellent communication with staff in the community empowerment agency, the section head of which had a close relationship with the head of the district Family Welfare Movement (Ibu Ani), who was also the wife of the district head. Through the formal coordination process, Ibu Ani learned of Sahlan’s case and personally donated funds for his family’s short-term treatment. Shortly afterward, in August 2016, Ibu Umi, from the district’s Women Protection and Family Planning Body, visited the family with the facilitators. Ibu Umi suggested placing the children in a shelter or foster home, which would require the parents’ consent. A proposal was also submitted to the Social Office to renovate Sahlan’s house; this proposal was under assessment at the time of writing. Although coordination with the head of the district Family Welfare Movement is not a regular occurrence, the Generasi facilitator usually tries to encourage the district head’s wife to attend program activities to promote them within the community. A good relationship with the movement’s chairwoman has indirectly helped speed the handling of nutrition issues in Pamekasan, which may help extend Generasi’s influence after the program ends. Attempts to involve the Family Welfare Movement have begun to show some positive results. The Pamekasan district Family Welfare Movement has encouraged the subdistrict branch of the movement to pay more attention to malnutrition issues. In turn, the head of the subdistrict branch in the Sambingan subdistrict community health center persuaded the village branch to provide supplementary food at the posyandu. Ibu Dian, the wife of the village head and the head of Tespates (Sambingan subdistrict) Family Welfare Movement, coordinates with the posyandu volunteers and midwives regarding the types of food supplied. She also runs a monthly session on the importance of children’s nutrition for kindergarten students and their parents. Although district-level coordination in Pamekasan has not fully resolved the malnutrition problem, facilitation by Generasi actors has at least encouraged the district to promote multisectoral engagement on malnutrition, particularly for related issues. Through coordinated facilitation, in this case with the Family Welfare Movement, there are hopes that the movement will reprise its former role in family welfare development. The Family Welfare Movement can encourage governments at all levels to pay more attention to malnutrition. Thus far, the emphasis has been limited to allocating funds for supplementary food, which is considered an important motivator for communities to participate in and access health services at the posyandu. 18 INDONESIA FACILITATION In addition to routine supervision and coordination three or four of them showed a good understanding of work, the subdistrict facilitators assist with outreach the health and education situations in their villages. This and empowerment in the villages. In Pamekasan, they subset generally had prior active experience in village report on efforts to make village posyandu more self- affairs, such as volunteering for a posyandu, working as a reliant, without depending on external sources of funding, teacher in the local schools, or serving in some capacity in such as Generasi or village budgets. For example, the village governance. subdistrict facilitators have worked on demonstrations of This variation in knowledge of health and education banana gardens and catfish ponds, which are managed greatly affects village facilitators’ performance. For by posyandu volunteers. The subdistrict facilitator example, in a treatment village in Gorontalo, the hopes these agricultural activities might provide a small facilitator had only a cursory understanding of the income to support posyandu activities in each village. village’s health and education issues, and their funded The subdistrict facilitators in the treatment subdistricts activities were standard items, such as school uniforms of Gorontalo and Garut have also provided support and food supplements (for a specific example that points in the villages, such as assisting with the writing of to insufficient facilitator knowledge that resulted in village budget plans and monitoring posyandu services. limited solutions from this village, see Case Study 1: Facilitators at this level may play a mediating role if there Facilitators Struggle to Solve the Problem of One Child is a conflict. For example, in Pamekasan, the subdistrict Forced to Drop Out of School in Gorontalo). Yet the facilitator intervened with the village head on a specific Generasi village facilitator in a Pamekasan treatment nutrition issue on behalf of a village midwife. village found innovative solutions to problems solicited Generasi village facilitators focus on four main from target beneficiaries, such as a sturdy tripod for the activities: data collection, coordination, outreach, and posyandu scale because mothers feared that their infants advocacy. Data collection includes maintaining tallies would fall out of the normal scale, and a megaphone of the total number of pregnant women, infants, and to announce posyandu schedules so that more distant elementary and middle school children to conduct households could hear. Generasi training of village outreach to these groups so they are included in facilitators appears to be more focused on completing planning and participation in Generasi activities, with reports and validating data than improving their the goal of raising awareness of health and education understanding of health and education issues. issues and services. Village facilitators reported that Importance of understanding targets: The their success relies on their ability to collect data on Generasi village facilitator in Lelaok (Petis subdistrict, Generasi’s indicators and meet targets, and that these Pamekasan) understands that achieving complete immu- and other administrative tasks take up most of their nization is one of Generasi’s targets and that a full battery time, leaving insufficient time for outreach. A focus on of immunizations must occur on a schedule according to maintaining accurate data can stimulate direct outreach to the infant’s age. The facilitator helps young mothers find beneficiaries through home visits as facilitators attempt to alternate immunization clinics if they are unable to attend collect or verify data. For example, in Gorontalo, the village the local clinic because the mothers are often reluctant to facilitator visits beneficiaries to let them know about communicate directly with the midwife. The facilitator’s upcoming activities. During these visits, the facilitator knowledge and understanding of how immunizations work gently applies pressure to participate in program activities. also reassures and educates mothers. In a treatment vil- The 12 Generasi village facilitators interviewed for this lage in Lembata, the village facilitator looks out for newly study all had high school diplomas and were of at least pregnant women to encourage them to visit the midwife middle-class status relative to their community, but only so they can meet the Generasi prenatal exam target. LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 19 FACILITATION Facilitator outreach increases basic social convene activities with posyandu volunteers and local service utilization: As integrated members of the schools; collect and share data from posyandu, village community, Generasi village facilitators work on the front midwives, and teachers; secure permission from and line of program implementation and serve as a bridge report results to village leaders on all Generasi activities; between target beneficiaries and service providers such and attend coordination meetings at the subdistrict level. as midwives, who are often considered “outsiders” even Researchers found that village facilitator coordination if they live in the community. At the village level, stake- with service providers is cooperative in most sampled holders such as village midwives, teachers, leaders, and treatment villages. administrators report frequent interactions with Generasi There are a few exceptions. A teacher from a treatment village facilitators, Generasi activity implementers, and village in Lembata pointedly remarked that only the often the subdistrict facilitator. school has the authority and right to distribute assistance All Generasi village facilitators encourage and remind to communities because school officials know better families to bring their young children to posyandu, than Generasi facilitators who should be the beneficiaries sometimes leveraging collaborative support from formal of educational assistance. The head of the Education village leaders. Likewise, in a treatment village in Lembata, Office in Petis subdistrict (Pamekasan district) reported the village facilitator conducts outreach to children at risk that he knows little about Generasi: “I’ve only heard that of dropping out of school. The facilitator usually receives PNPM [Generasi] provides assistance to students. PNPM information from community members if particular coordinated with me when they had an activity for special students are frequently absent from school, and often needs children. They wanted to coordinate with the School visits the parents to find out why to try to prevent the Committee, so I came.” He then complained that “Generasi student from dropping out. In a few cases, the facilitator only asks for data, total number of students, but there is has discovered that students are dropping out of school never any follow-up . . . we never find out what they do with because they are ashamed that they cannot pay school it.” He could not describe Generasi’s targets or aims and fees. The facilitator also speaks with school officials could recall only that students received school uniforms to find a way for students to continue their education. from the program. Such critiques may be the result of School officials may also try to contact the households poor communication and coordination with Generasi, but of students who drop out, but usually this occurs after they also suggest there are misunderstandings about how several months have passed, when the chances of finding CDD programs work (from the bottom up), which involves a solution have diminished. holding service providers accountable. By comparison, in the control village in Lembata, researchers found that many students drop out of school. The village government readily admitted that it was a FACILITATOR WORKLOAD problem, but it does not know how exactly many children DISTRIBUTION have dropped out. Although village residents recognize At the village level, the village facilitators from the two the signs of children who are at risk of dropping out, treatment villages in the subdistrict of Petis (Pamekasan the prevailing opinion in the community is that it is the district) gave contrasting views of their workload parents’ responsibility to ensure their children stay in distribution. In one village, the facilitator reported that school, rather than a shared public responsibility. few people want to work as a facilitator because the work Coordination is an important aspect of a Generasi village is too difficult and time consuming (see Case Study 4: facilitator’s work. Facilitators must organize consultation Exceptional Administration Burden in Lembata District). meetings with target beneficiaries in each village hamlet; Filling in forms and taking notes takes up most of her time, 20 INDONESIA FACILITATION CASE STUDY 4 Exceptional Administration Burden in Lembata District In Lembata, Generasi actors at all levels complained about the new MoV administrative requirements, which involve submitting at least 50 village development index reports each month. The former Generasi district facilitator for Lembata said most of his work involved making sure that every subdistrict completed its administrative and planning documents. The current district facilitator agreed and said that all his time is spent completing administrative duties, leaving no time to coordinate with line agencies or the district head’s office. The former facilitator for the subdistrict of Nelle believes that many of the reporting requirements are unnecessary; the current subdistrict facilitator spends time in the villages but mainly to ensure the Generasi village facilitators are completing their administrative tasks. Although the hiring of an assistant subdistrict facilitator and a mentor to the facilitator to provide support is appreciated, the assistant subdistrict facilitator for Nelle asked: “How can we do our coordination and facilitation work if we are too busy delivering a variety of data requests?” The Generasi village facilitators in both treatment villages said they focus on collecting and reporting data during and immediately after the posyandu and hamlet consultations and conduct few home visits with beneficiaries. The administrative burden appears to be heavier in Lembata in part because of weaker administrative capacities and the remote island geography, which prevents the provincial team from completing site visits as frequently as is done in other provinces. Facilitators also tend to be responsible for more villages than are facilitators in other subdistricts. The assignment of a mentor and assistant subdistrict facilitator has been helpful but reportedly not enough to meet this burden. Local politics resulted in the turnover of the Generasi district and subdistrict facilitators in Lembata in 2016. Research staff also detected poor working relationships among Generasi program actors at different administrative levels, particularly between the district and province. In addition, administrative capacities may be weaker in NTT than in other provinces. leaving little time for outreach and advocacy. Meanwhile, Subdistrict-level informants also report a higher the facilitator in the other treatment village, who served percentage of administrative work compared with as a posyandu volunteer for more than 20 years, said it outreach and empowerment activities. Researchers takes her only about two days each month to complete her observed monthly coordination meetings, led by the Generasi reports. Her prior data recording and reporting subdistrict facilitator and attended by nearly all Generasi experience and knowledge of the posyandu and how the village facilitators, that involved teaching the village data matters were of tremendous benefit to her current facilitators how to fill in the forms that were due soon in job. She also said that a good learning and collaborative the annual program cycle. The former subdistrict facilitator relationship with the village midwife makes her job easier. for the Nelle subdistrict (Lembata) reported that he visits villages 15 days each month, but that the work usually Some proactive village facilitators manage to combine involves checking the administration and bookkeeping of their data collection with advocacy, primarily through the Generasi village facilitators and activity implementers home visits with Generasi beneficiaries. Such visits allow rather than planning and monitoring village activities them to complete their data collection or meet their (see Case Study 4: Exceptional Administration Burden in targets—for example, when parents skip posyandu visits Lembata District). The subdistrict facilitator in Tarengge or their children are missing school. subdistrict described a lot of administrative work as well LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 21 FACILITATION but did not complain because she said her team members When Village Law facilitators were asked how their workload (including the Generasi mentor to the subdistrict facilitator is allocated between administrative and empowerment and working group staff, the subdistrict implementation tasks, it was clear that the district-level TA-PSDs are far more unit staff, and the Generasi village facilitators) each concerned with advocacy and outreach than are the village- completed and delivered their tasks, which makes her job level facilitators (see Case Study 5: A Village Law Facilitator much easier. in Rampe Village, Lembata District). The TA-PSDs described various socialization activities with village leaders and Each treatment subdistrict had a mentor to the subdistrict district officials regarding the importance of including health facilitator on the Generasi team, and only the subdistrict and education activities in village budgets. Pamekasan’s of Nelle (Lembata) had an assistant subdistrict facilitator. TA-PSD described how difficult it is to persuade village Each Generasi subdistrict team described different leaders to allocate their budgets to basic social services when divisions of labor, but every subdistrict facilitator they prefer physical infrastructure that serves as a tangible expressed gratitude for the support. For example, in signal of their contribution to the village. He also lobbies Nelle, the former subdistrict facilitator described dividing the district head and other district officials to implement a up the villages among the subdistrict facilitator, mentor mandate to include basic social services in village budgets. to the subdistrict facilitator, and an assistant subdistrict facilitator (but with final supervisory authority with the A Village Law facilitator9 in Tarengge subdistrict admitted subdistrict facilitator), whereas in Tarengge subdistrict the that “compared with the Generasi [village facilitator], the subdistrict facilitator tracked the finances and the mentor work of the [Village Law facilitator] is much lighter, not to the subdistrict facilitator tracked the program cycle. complicated . . . we only have to ask for data.” All village In each subdistrict, researchers observed good working facilitators and Village Law facilitators in all three districts relationships among the subdistrict facilitator, mentor to conceded that they work with the village governments but the subdistrict facilitator, assistant subdistrict facilitator, not the beneficiaries of government services; they deliver and subdistrict implementation unit staff. documents and remind village governments to complete their paperwork but do not get actively involved in the At the district level, the Generasi district facilitator for planning process. Lembata reported that he had no time for coordination or empowerment work and spent all his time on administrative matters (see Case Study 4: Exceptional Administration Burden in Lembata District). In Pamekasan INFORMATION SHARING AND and Gorontalo, respondents were less absolute but also LEARNING AMONG FACILITATORS unwilling to estimate how much time was spent on various Formal Generasi program mechanisms include a variety tasks. The district facilitators play an important role of opportunities for facilitators at all levels to share performing outreach and coordination with district-level information and learn from each other, including monthly leaders and officials, which can result in significant political coordination meetings and routine training activities buy-in for the program (see Case Study 3: Cross-Sectoral (Figure 3). Many Generasi stakeholders referred to the Coordination to Solve Malnutrition Issues in Pamekasan). program’s annual training activities as an example of the The Pamekasan district facilitator and finance facilitator mutual learning among facilitators, especially Generasi described how they incorporate empowerment and village facilitators. advocacy work into their administrative work routines by conducting site visits as part of their internal audit 9 Village facilitators and Village Law facilitators are facilitators recruited procedures, which allows them to observe program and funded by MoV. They are not Generasi program actors. The former activities and meet beneficiaries. works at the subdistrict level, while the latter works at the village level. 22 INDONESIA FACILITATION CASE STUDY 5 A Village Law Facilitator in Rampe Village, Lembata District Almost all village heads in Nelle subdistrict complained about the ill-defined, minimum role of Village Law facilitators in the Development and Empowerment of Village Communities Program (P3MD), also known as Village Funds. The village heads expect Village Law facilitators to be familiar with the technical aspects of planning as well as the legal and administrative requirements of utilizing the village funds. However, P3MD facilitators do not yet have technical regulations to guide their work in the villages. Over the past year, they have been left to define their own tasks by interpreting Village Law No. 6/2014. Many cannot name the program they are working on. In multiple villages in Nelle, Generasi village facilitators are covering the Village Law facilitator roles in supporting their respective village governments. Generasi facilitators are generally acknowledged in the villages as experts on education and health issues. The village governments allow them to influence the dynamics of village development policy, which could help promote the integration of Generasi basic social services issues into regular village planning, which now falls under the P3MD program. Generasi Facilitator and Village Head Hold Health Service CASE STUDY 6  Provider Accountable The treatment village of Sogiyan (Petis subdistrict, Pamekasan district) held its midwife accountable after she charged a national health insurance cardholder for delivery fees. Midwife Intan charged Ibu Lalan for her treatment at the village maternity post, which was supposed to be free. Her family complained to the Generasi village facilitator, who privately conveyed these concerns to the village head, a former posyandu volunteer, who followed up with the head of the subdistrict community health center. Intan was asked to return the money to Ibu Lalan’s family. The incident eventually led to her replacement by Midwife Wiwid, who previously served as a midwife in the subdistrict community health center. The Generasi village facilitator, traditional birth attendant, village head, and Generasi beneficiaries all reported that Wiwid’s work is better than that of the previous midwife. The community members prefer Wiwid because she is more patient, friendlier, more polite, and charges less for medicines. Unlike Intan, Wiwid is available to her patients: she always attends every posyandu and otherwise stands by at the village maternity post (where she lives with her husband) except for her weekly visits home. The village head monitors the new midwife’s performance to ensure the community receives quality service and will request a replacement if it does not. LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 23 FACILITATION Generasi facilitators at the subdistrict and district levels use social media tools such as WhatsApp and Facebook. There is little social media use in Lembata because of limited data access and user capacity, whereas Generasi actors in Gorontalo and Pamekasan frequently use social media to access a variety of information in different ways. In Gorontalo, Generasi actors use a closed Facebook group to coordinate activities, share invitations to meetings, and inform facilitators about the payment of their salaries. In Pamekasan, Generasi facilitators run a Facebook account (not a group) that links Generasi actors with the community to share news about program activities, build a FIGURE 3:  Generasi village facilitators network with target beneficiaries, and provide widespread at a monthly coordination meeting support. Generasi actors in Pamekasan use WhatsApp to internally coordinate activities and meeting invitations. Generasi actors in the villages, especially village facilitators, agree that their administration and data collection Village-level actors mainly share information through the provide the best learning opportunities. For example, the subdistrict facilitator’s routine coordination work as well two village facilitators in Mangkawani village (Tarengge as text messaging and telephone calls. The subdistrict subdistrict, Gorontalo) described how the longer-serving, implementation unit office is frequently used as a meeting more experienced village facilitator teaches the newer place for Generasi village facilitators and subdistrict facilitator about data collection and administration on facilitators or even village facilitators from different the job. The more often a facilitator convenes meetings villages working to coordinate and share information. and works with the community to access health and education services, the more he or she will improve their public speaking and meeting management skills, as well PERCEPTIONS OF (AND as the capacity to deliver the program. For example, INTERACTIONS WITH) when a Generasi village facilitator makes a home visit, VILLAGE LAW FACILITATORS he or she hears stories about whether and how Generasi Although most residents knew their Generasi facilitators, beneficiaries access basic social services, including their at the time of this data collection, which occurred in 2016, barriers to access as well as their suggestions. few respondents knew who the Village Law facilitators were in their communities. This is likely because of two reasons. Learning also occurs on both sides through coordination First, the Village Law had been passed only recently, and and collaboration among Generasi actors and service the terms and scale of facilitators’ work were still being providers. For example, Generasi facilitators in Pamekasan finalized. Second, Village Law facilitators must cover at least learned about the nutritional values of various foods when three villages, and they are not typically members of the they asked the nutrition officer at the subdistrict community communities in which they work. Generasi has facilitators health center for advice about food supplements. Generasi at the village, subdistrict, and district levels, so respondents facilitators also organize and support health classes and are far more likely to interact with Generasi actors than counseling sessions (typically at a posyandu or special Village Law actors and to know them personally. pregnancy classes), working to deliver the training with service providers, such as the nutrition officer from the Village Law facilitators may struggle to understand a subdistrict community health center. community’s challenges and gain the trust of its members, 24 INDONESIA FACILITATION which is essential for effective facilitation. They are more government officials provide recommendations about focused than their Generasi counterparts on collecting what activities they think need support, but they do not village-level data for MoV. intervene directly. For example, the Generasi provincial coordinator for NTT has refused requests from various There is also significant coordination between Village line agencies to disburse Generasi funds through the Law and Generasi facilitators at the district level. TA-PSDs Community and Village Government Empowerment often coordinate with Generasi district facilitators and Agency, explaining that fulfilling their requests would are sometimes former Generasi facilitators. For example, violate Generasi’s standard operating procedures and the the TA-PSD for Gorontalo attends Generasi coordination program’s independence from the government. meetings, and the Gorontalo district facilitator attends Village Law coordination meetings at the district level. In Gorontalo and especially Pamekasan, facilitator dynamics Likewise, in Pamekasan the TA-PSD and district facilitator depend on local village politics. Rather than selecting coordinate their efforts to introduce health and education Generasi village facilitators through the formal consultation into village budgets; such overlap extends Generasi’s mechanisms prescribed by Generasi procedures, in reach into nonparticipating villages. Pamekasan they are in practice chosen by the village head. These village facilitators represent the village head rather At the subdistrict and village levels, there was significantly than Generasi beneficiaries, and view their facilitation less coordination and uneven interactions with Village Law work for Generasi as an extension of the head’s governing facilitators. Residents often complained about the absence mandate, which reinforces the perception that Generasi is of Village Law facilitators and their lack of qualifications and a top-down assistance program associated with the village skills. Most stakeholders, including some village officials, head’s personal prestige: do not have a clear sense of the role and responsibilities of Village Law facilitators. Many local residents believe The village head also requested that the recruitment of such facilitators is a tool of political [Generasi’s] assistance does not cause a patronage. Village heads in Lembata’s treatment and disturbance, nor any bad words directed control villages found Generasi village facilitators to be towards him. He asked that if possible, better trained and more informative than their counterparts everyone should receive assistance because it in Village Law implementation. In Gorontalo, although the will have an impact on his electoral success. Generasi subdistrict facilitator shares office space with Generasi Activity Implementer in a Generasi — Village Law facilitators and communicates with them a few treatment village, Pamekasan district times per month (usually by telephone, text messaging, or However, Generasi facilitators have more bargaining power Facebook), she rarely meets them in person. than do TA-PSDs, who are subordinate to the village head in Pamekasan. Generasi village facilitators can still advocate to convene consultation sessions in keeping with FACILITATORS’ INDEPENDENCE Generasi’s operating procedures. The village head cannot FROM GOVERNMENT intervene too much in the selection of Generasi activities. The level of the facilitators’ independence from By contrast, Village Law facilitators there see themselves as government varied by location. In Lembata, informants information providers and collectors, who are constrained to reported that facilitator independence is maintained at all administering activities. According to a district TA-PSD, “We levels of government. From the subdistrict to provincial have to be proactive, but when it comes to implementation levels, facilitators characterize their relationships with in the villages we can’t fully deliver the programs that the the government as involving limited coordination. At agencies asked us to bring because the village head has the coordination meetings with government agencies, authority to decide whether or not to include it.” LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 25 CASE STUDY 7 Replacing a Generasi Facilitator in Lelaok Village, Pamekasan In the treatment village of Lelaok (Petis subdistrict), the new village head elected in 2015 replaced the long-serving Generasi village facilitator with her own daughter without following proper community consultation and deliberation procedures. Political dynamics in the village were the primary factor behind the replacement: the new head wanted to appoint someone loyal to her. The Generasi program was thus forced to accept the village government’s decision to replace the facilitator with someone much less qualified for the role. The previous village facilitator, Hajjah Danisa, has been a posyandu volunteer since 2006, and she continues to serve in this role. The community members trust her, and the village midwife acknowledged her initiative in organizing health- related activities in the village (such as immunizations, weighing, and pregnant mother visits to the village health post) and supported keeping her staffed as a Generasi village facilitator. The new village head has demonstrated a narrow interpretation of the Generasi program in general and the role of village facilitators in particular. The new village facilitator does not perform the tasks that Hajjah Danisa usually performed, such as hamlet-level consultations to identify new ideas. Subairi, the other new village facilitator (also a relative of the village head) is rarely present because he works in Java. Therefore, the village head is running village facilitator tasks. The main Generasi village facilitator, who also serves as the village secretary, has been tasked with preparing supplementary food for the posyandu. Her husband is the new Generasi activity implementer. Although supplementary food is a vital incentive for encouraging villagers’ participation in the posyandu, its provision represents only one part of the village facilitator’s tasks in the village. Other tasks include socialization and data collection. The program seems to have failed at informing the village government, especially the village head, of its scope. According to the village head, the process of selecting activities for 2016 was quite simple: the villagers told the posyandu volunteers what kinds of supplementary food to provide, such as types of juices and snacks, and she was to prepare and deliver them. At the time of the fieldwork, Hajjah Danisa’s absence had not directly affected village health services. The midwife and four nurses have been able to cover the implementation of health services, and the four posyandu were still running. This case demonstrates how village government capacity and local politics may influence facilitators’ performance. The presence of the village head at the posyandu may indeed encourage villagers’ participation, but rather than perform the tasks of the volunteers, she should be supporting the overall progress of the program in the village. Village governments seem to value social prestige over development outcomes: a village head is deemed successful when he or she helps an individual villager, not necessarily when he or she aims to develop the entire community. Village heads also prefer to perform such tasks themselves, as a matter of pride. The village government under this new leadership was not able to articulate its vision for strengthening health services, particularly by allocating village funds to this area. Although the village head vaguely praised Generasi’s provision of supplementary food, she has made no effort to use Generasi village facilitator instruments, such as the recording forms, working steps, or even considering how the role of the village facilitator can be developed to support access to basic social services. Instead, she is waiting for instructions from the district government. For facilitation in villages like Lelaok, Generasi must pay attention to local political dynamics, such as village head elections, which have proven to have a great impact on the Generasi village facilitator role. Although Generasi actors at the subdistrict level have urged the Lelaok village government to maintain Hajjah Danisa as a village facilitator, the program must prepare alternative facilitators in case such events happen in the future. 26 INDONESIA PARTICIPATION Generasi promotes community participation, especially of the poor and women, in the planning and implementation of Generasi activities, monitoring of service providers, and the utilization of health and education services. This section addresses three questions related to participation. First, to what extent do communities meaningfully participate in the planning and prioritization of Generasi activities and the monitoring of service providers? Second, in what ways do the 12 targets stimulate or constrain community participation? Third, has participation helped achieve the program’s outcomes? The qualitative data point to a gap between the policy and practice of participation. For example, the Generasi activity implementer in Desa Maroangin (Tarengge subdistrict, Gorontalo) described participation as datang, duduk, dengar (come, sit, listen). By understanding participation as simply attendance, local elites, program actors, and beneficiaries perceive Generasi’s work as a form of assistance for the poor, which is contrary to its stated goal of empowerment. All villages surveyed in this research have formal and informal participatory mechanisms for a variety of village activities. Control villages rely more on consultations with formal and informal leaders in community planning meetings, whereas treatment villages are required to include program beneficiaries and stakeholders in these meetings (Figure 4). Outside the formal participation mechanisms, all communities, including those in the control group, have different ways of providing oversight of service delivery, although these are not always effective. Generasi beneficiaries are more likely to attend program activities when village leaders invite and encourage them to attend. They attend as a sign of respect for their leaders and/or to ensure their leaders’ support when they require assistance. In most treatment villages, community participation was higher in hamlet-level LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 27 PARTICIPATION feeding at posyandu, and nutrition classes), and monitoring the implementation of the activities. Project socialization is conducted in subdistrict, village, and hamlet-level meetings and small discussion groups. Throughout this stage, facilitators introduce the project objectives, the 12 indicators, the welfare benefits of achieving these indicators, and project rules and principles. More ordinary community members participate in meetings at the hamlet and village levels compared with the subdistrict level. At the village planning stage, Generasi village facilitators FIGURE 4:  Villagers participate in a invite all target beneficiaries to a hamlet-level meeting Generasi-organized village meeting for a brainstorming session or visit target beneficiaries’ held in a classroom houses if attendance of such sessions is low. Respondents cited this phase as the most effective in eliciting community participation in the program cycle. These meetings than in village ones, partly because of the time ideas form the basis of the village-level planning phase: and costs involved in traveling to villages’ headquarters. the village facilitator opens the consultation meeting Further, participants said they had a more direct impact with the results of these brainstorming sessions. Yet on decision making at the hamlet than at the village level, higher-level officials, such as subdistrict facilitators or which is discussed in more detail later. their mentors, often usurp the communities’ power to define the program’s concrete activities. For example, the Generasi actors and beneficiaries consistently describe nutrition officer in Petis subdistrict decides Generasi’s participation as attendance at activities, especially supplementary food menu for the entire subdistrict. planning meetings, and utilization of services including Likewise, the village facilitator for Maroangin village the posyandu. In some cases, village governments (Tarengge subdistrict, Gorontalo) reported that Generasi used sanctions to ensure that community members actors cross-check proposed program activities against utilized Generasi-funded services. Although facilitators’ health and education service providers’ plans before encouragement of community members to participate in finalizing program plans to avoid overlap. Generasi activities contributed to achieving the 12 targets, the program did little to empower community members to Generasi actors and beneficiaries appear to reinforce the influence village governance and service delivery beyond notion that participation is a formality that entails mere prioritizing Generasi block grants.10 attendance. For instance, a program beneficiary from the treatment village of Ilekora (Nelle subdistrict, Lembata) interprets his obligation to participate as attending all PERCEPTIONS OF PARTICIPATION Generasi meetings and using the program funds as instructed (to pay for his children’s school transportation Participatory processes are used in all four phases of costs), and feels it would violate a social norm to speak Generasi’s annual program cycle: socialization, planning, out at these meetings. implementation of activities (for example, supplementary In some places, speaking up directly would be interpreted as a lack of confidence in the village leadership because The quantitative IE analysis did not find any spillover effects of 10 Generasi on participation in community meetings. Generasi assistance is understood to come from them. 28 INDONESIA PARTICIPATION A mentor to the subdistrict facilitator in the subdistrict of the problems, and community members who are not Sambingan explains: “People here believe that to criticize benefiting from the activities. After the announcement village government is an act of rebellion, disturbance, of block grant allocations for each village at the intervillage treachery, and other negative connotations. . . . Instead, meeting, a village-level public consultation is held to community members share their concerns or requests with establish and decide on a list of activities and activity the hamlet leader, and they do not directly object or criticize implementers to be funded by Generasi. Public village-level the village government.” In Sogiyan (Petis subdistrict, accountability meetings occur at least twice a year; during Pamekasan), beneficiaries could recall participating only those meetings the outcomes and financial reports of all in meetings at which they collectively decide who will be Generasi activities are discussed. added to the list of Generasi beneficiaries for that year’s Similarly, Village Law facilitators check whether the village program cycle; they did not know they had an opportunity governments are organizing their planning activities in line to participate more generally. with participatory principles. For example, the Village Law It is possible that Generasi facilitators do not actively try facilitator in Mangkawani village (Tarengge subdistrict, to elicit participation through project meetings because Pamekasan district) provides guidance to the village they are aware that social norms constrain that type of government and translates the Village Law’s planning interaction. Community participation and engagement guidelines into technical requirements, such as including occur in other ways. Village leaders, program volunteers, all elements of the community in all planning phases. and frontline service providers (such as teachers or Community leaders such as religious leaders and village village midwives) usually share ordinary citizens’ ideas, heads help stimulate community participation in Generasi suggestions, or questions on their behalf at program activities, particularly if they understand the community’s meetings. Program actors in some areas have developed health and education issues and how Generasi and workaround solutions to gather community input—for other CDD programs work. The two treatment villages in example, by interviewing target beneficiaries individually Pamekasan provide contrasting examples. Sogiyan’s village at the posyandu or exchanging information through head actively encourages the community to participate in social media. The program may thus be inadvertently Generasi activities because he understands health issues; he contributing to the perception that its activities represent previously served as a posyandu volunteer. His counterpart assistance rather than attempts to empower communities in Lelaok (Petis subdistrict, Pamekasan) does far less to to take charge of their own planning and monitoring of encourage participation because she knows little about service provision. health issues; she replaced the long-serving village facilitator with her daughter, as described in Case Study 7: Replacing a Generasi Facilitator in Lelaok Village, Pamekasan. ENCOURAGING PARTICIPATION Generasi village facilitators invite beneficiaries to meetings Communities play a central role in deciding how to or activities either through personal interactions or by allocate their block grants. Trained facilitators help making announcements via text message, loudspeaker, each village select an 11-member Community and or letters. In Gorontalo, villagers prefer to be directly Village Government Empowerment Agency and village invited by their leaders because it is considered a sign of facilitators, who then organize participatory decision- respect. In Lembata and Pamekasan, it is usually enough making meetings at the hamlet (subvillage) and village to publicize activities to the community by loudspeaker. levels. At the hamlet level, the facilitators hold FGDs with target groups to identify the main problems in the Rampe village (Nelle subdistrict, Lembata) fines residents community, the types of activities that can help to address who do not come (or come late) to the posyandu based LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 29 PARTICIPATION on an agreement between posyandu volunteers and the By contrast, the Lembata control village of Mogiye village government. In Gorontalo, fines are also used (Tanabola subdistrict) has never evaluated its posyandu to compel pregnant women to use health facilities for volunteers’ performance. Only six of its 21 volunteers were prenatal exams and deliveries. The midwife in the control active; inactive volunteers still receive incentives from the village of Jaton (Telogojoyo subdistrict, Gorontalo) village and have not been replaced. reported that the threat of fines is effective at persuading Outside the posyandu, there is little community pregnant women to use accredited health facilities. She monitoring and evaluation of health services (see Case also threatens to report to the village head any mothers Study 6: Generasi Facilitator and Village Head Hold Health who refuse to deliver their infants at the subdistrict Service Provider Accountable for a positive example of community health center. community monitoring of a health service provider). Even if Leaders sometimes discourage participation. For example, they receive poor service, citizens often choose not to report religious leaders in Petis subdistrict, in Pamekasan, it, sometimes because of fears that their family will suffer: prohibited their followers from immunizing infants after I am afraid that reporting will come back to they heard an untrue rumor that vaccines contain pig haunt us. We might face difficulties when products. As a result, many members of the community we complain; everything will become more refused to immunize their children. The head of the complicated for us. That is why we remain subdistrict community health center in Petis subdistrict silent. If they only give me complications, now recommends conducting outreach to religious that’s fine, but what about my kids and family? leaders before introducing a health program into the I am afraid they would be ‘marked.’ community. Generasi Beneficiary, Cikereteg village, — Lebak Siwur subdistrict, Garut district COMMUNITY MONITORING One young mother in Maroangin Village (Tarengge OF BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES subdistrict, Gorontalo) uses the more-expensive private AND VILLAGE GOVERNANCE clinic instead of the subdistrict community health center rather than complain about slow service. Community The program guidelines hold community members members often feel they cannot communicate their responsible for monitoring program activities. In the health concerns to the staff of such centers because of village consultation forum, the community may choose administrative and technical language barriers. to form special groups to voluntarily monitor activities in the interest of the village community. Facilitators are I don’t want to waste my time on administrative also tasked with encouraging community members to forms. Registering this and that, I have a lot of actively participate in and benefit from the activities, work at home; apart from that I feel clumsy to which should help ensure that the village meets the communicate with them . . . that’s what makes 12 targets. me unable to complain, what I have been through with those people (health employees), This research yielded several examples of ways that they are so stiff. communities monitor basic social services in their villages. Generasi Beneficiary, Maroangin Village, — In a Generasi treatment village in Lembata, village and Tarengge subdistrict, Gorontalo district community authorities hold annual evaluation meetings for posyandu volunteers that beneficiaries also attend. In the Sambingan subdistrict in Pamekasan, residents The volunteers’ performance is assessed, and inactive of control villages heard about Generasi activities in volunteers are usually replaced. treatment areas and demanded similar activities in their 30 INDONESIA PARTICIPATION villages, which were implemented on a cost-sharing officials conduct immunizations or pregnancy exams, they basis between village governments and the Community ask whether there is anyone else in the neighborhood who and Village Government Empowerment Agency at the might not have immunized their infant or had a prenatal district level. exam. They report these results to the Generasi facilitator, posyandu volunteer, or village midwife. There is some evidence of communities monitoring education services in treatment villages. In Ilekora village (Nelle subdistrict, Lembata), the community complained to the Generasi village facilitator about COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS increased school committee fees. The village facilitator TOWARD STIMULATING BASIC conveyed this concern to the school and Generasi SOCIAL SERVICE UTILIZATION subdistrict coordinator, but there was no response Posyandu volunteers play an important role in from the education subdistrict office. The community encouraging communities to use health services. They then suggested covering the cost of these fees from interact with and link other actors, such as the village the Generasi block grants. Communities also monitor midwife, Generasi facilitators, government officials, education in their village by reporting truant students community leaders, and families with young children. The to schoolteachers, as researchers found in Mangkawani head of the subdistrict community health center in Petis village (Gorontalo). subdistrict, Pamekasan, explained that although the village midwife is the knowledgeable health official in a village, One legacy of the PNPM Rural program is the use of she is still often seen as an outsider without a strong social public information signboards that document agreed- position in the community. Because posyandu volunteers upon projects, their progress, and budgets. In Village are from (and live in) the village where they work, their Law implementation, this remains an important tool that collaboration with the midwife is a crucial link for conducting helps communities monitor activities and ensure that the outreach to and monitoring of beneficiary households. implementation matches the original plans, as illustrated in Case Study 8: Community-Based ‘Pressure Groups’ The volunteers also help the village midwife mobilize Monitor Village-Level Development. In the Lembata participation in the monthly posyandu activities. treatment village of Rampe (Nelle subdistrict), Village Law The volunteers publicize the clinic’s schedule and funds were used to build a concrete road, but the result encourage families with children under five to attend. was not consistent with the specifications in the planning In turn, Generasi supports the posyandu volunteers— documents. The community protested by refusing to for example, by providing transportation support to participate in village labor activities to build it. volunteers who meet the first trimester exam target. If the community is not involved in a meeting, Treatment villages have many more active volunteers it would be difficult to mobilize them to work; involved in posyandu activities than do control villages. they will say do it yourself, because you For example, in the treatment village of Ilekora in chose this activity, not us. It is very hard to Lembata, 16 of 20 registered volunteers were active at invite them to work. the time of the fieldwork, compared with five of 20 in the Head of the village council, Rampe village, — control village of Mogiye (Tanabola subdistrict, Lembata) Nelle subdistrict, Lembata district in the same district. Similar differences between treatment In Lembata, Generasi facilitators posted lists of all the and control villages were also found in Pamekasan and pregnant women in the village along with their progress Gorontalo, which had only two to five active volunteers in and health status. Likewise, when health and Generasi control villages. LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 31 PARTICIPATION CASE STUDY 8 Community-Based ‘Pressure Groups’ Monitor Village-Level Development The control village of Mogiye (Tanabola subdistrict, Lembata) has multiple community “pressure groups” that have formed a local civil society organization to monitor whether the village government is fulfilling its development agreements with the community. The members of this group are young, unemployed adults who have completed their higher education and returned home to their village to search for employment. They direct their protests directly to the village head. For example, when the village government supported the construction of a concrete road, the members of this group requested a picture of the project design to monitor whether it was proceeding according to the specifications and to ensure no stakeholders were siphoning off personal profits. The village head was pressured to agree that all infrastructure projects in the village must be accompanied by publicly posted project design images. So now I request designs for all our development projects. That seems fair. So that if there is ever a suspicion from the community, we have a shared reference point. It’s actually not that hard, does not require advanced technical skills. We just need to know, for example, the width of the road, how high, etc., to include in the design. —Village head, Mogiye Village, Tanabola subdistrict, Lembata district The village head does not automatically see these groups as a threat to his government; he has tried to get to know them better and include them in village planning. Now these groups no longer spontaneously protest, and there are spaces for dialogues organized by the village government. Sogiyan, a treatment village in Petis subdistrict, Pamekasan, has also experienced the formation of pressure groups. An organized group that explicitly referred to itself as a nongovernmental organization has monitored the village’s development activities. But unlike the village head in Mogiye (Tanabola subdistrict, Lembata), Sogiyan’s village head sees these groups as a nuisance. In his opinion, when the group asks questions about village development, it is looking for opportunities to threaten village programs. He worries this information will create suspicion and cause problems in the community. Some people are frightened of these LSM [nongovernmental organizations], but I’m not, as long as we continue to follow the regulations. What matters is that we continue to share information with the public. If we don’t, then it means we are not following the regulations! —Village head, Sogiyan Village, Petis subdistrict, Pamekasan district This difference can be explained by two main factors. with support from the subdistrict community health First, the incentive payments that Generasi offers to center. The same volunteers generally attend every posyandu volunteers are not seen as a wage but year and hold a higher status than those who have rather as a sign of appreciation from the government. not been invited. In the treatment villages, Generasi Second, there are more training opportunities available provides support for a variety of trainings for all for posyandu cadres in treatment villages. Control posyandu volunteers in addition to the routine annual villages have more limited funds for training, so trainings provided by the subdistrict community usually only one or two volunteers can attend each year, health centers. 32 INDONESIA PARTICIPATION Many posyandu volunteers say there has been increased pregnant women to attend pregnancy exams if they have awareness among target beneficiaries about using health any complaints that the TBA is unable to handle. The TBA will services, as indicated by an increased participation in often accompany laboring mothers to the midwife and stay posyandu activities and a reduction in home visits. with them during the delivery; the midwife often gives the The Generasi village facilitator in Sogiyan village (Petis TBA a small cash incentive for these referrals and support. subdistrict, Pamekasan district) observed, “There are a lot who come to posyandu on their own, and I no longer have to invite them.” Many informants credit Generasi with ARE HEALTH AND EDUCATION increasing participation in health services, particularly SHARED CONCERNS IN posyandu, because of the provision of food supplements. THE COMMUNITY? Food supplements are really important Most respondents reported that health and education because without them community are shared concerns in the community that require participation in posyandu would decrease shared attention—for example via district and subdistrict drastically. The participants always ask about programs to increase community utilization of basic the snacks. That’s why I feel that Generasi has services. In Gorontalo, the district head formed a greatly assisted me through its provision of cross-sectoral “rapid response” team coordinated via a food supplements at posyandu. WhatsApp group to ensure that pregnant women receive —Village Midwife, Sogiyan Village, health care at accredited health facilities. Petis subdistrict, Pamekasan district There were conflicting accounts of the extent to which Informants did not offer criteria to measure “increased village governments promote basic services both awareness” other than their increased attendance at informally and in their village development plans, which program meetings, activities, and school. Because the compete with infrastructure projects for resources. In number of children who drop out of school in a village Sogiyan village (Petis subdistrict, Pamekasan), the village reflects Generasi’s failure to reach its school attendance government has not included health and education targets, village facilitators require parents to “participate” activities in its planning budgets, but the village head in the program by ensuring their children attend school. (a former posyandu volunteer) encourages residents Markers of increased awareness may also correlate with to access health services. decreased participation in other activities, such as using Health appears to be more of a shared concern in the traditional birth attendants (TBAs). villages than is education. This can be seen in the high In Lembata and Pamekasan, in addition to using public levels of concern shown among neighbors when health health facilities, some members of the community use concerns arise. In Pamekasan, the village head of Sogiyan the services of TBAs, typically for massage during and (Petis subdistrict) proudly explained how residents visit immediately after pregnancy. TBAs also often occupy a the hospital in large groups when a neighbor falls sick or respected social position in the community, so midwives, gives birth. In the control village of Tespates (Sambingan who may be young or newly placed in the village, rely on subdistrict, Pamekasan), the village head’s wife reported them to encourage community members to use health that neighbors often remind one another to attend facilities for pregnancy exams and deliveries. upcoming posyandu activities; the village midwife agreed that it is not too difficult to reach her target beneficiaries. In Pamekasan, a TBA in Lelaok village (Petis subdistrict) reported that she is frequently called to the homes of In Gorontalo, in Mangkawani village, many respondents pregnant women to give massages, and she advises described a case in which a neighbor used his motorized LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 33 PARTICIPATION pedicab to bring a laboring woman to the city hospital. education as an individual household responsibility. When When the woman miscarried during the trip to the children skip school in Mangkawani village (Gorontalo), hospital, it focused the community’s attention on it is not considered a serious problem (for two examples, Mangkawani’s difficult access to adequate health see Case Study 9: The Limits of Generasi’s Facilitation services, triggering demands to reopen the village and Participation Mechanisms in Preventing School clinic and bring a midwife to live in the community. Dropouts and Case Study 1: Facilitators Struggle to Solve the Problem of One Child Forced to Drop Out of School In Lembata, in the control village of Mogiye (Tanabola in Gorontalo). Many neighbors might not even realize if subdistrict), a mother who recently gave birth reported children in their community are skipping school, much less that the shared savings for childbirth organized by understand the reasons why. the village worked well for her. Having borrowed from the fund, she is slowly paying back the small loan by taking on additional farm work. She feels that it is her obligation to return the funding because she knows PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING that another mother will use the money for childbirth PROCESSES (INCLUDING FOR expenses. GENERASI BLOCK GRANTS) In Lembata, education has become a shared concern. The The Village Deliberation Advisory Team analyzes the head of the Ilekora (Lembata) village council reported list of proposals at the village level, taking into account that children rarely skip school in the village; residents input from service providers, and at the intervillage immediately report truant children to their parents. Yet in meetings, where the budget is allocated to the top- Gorontalo, residents in the sampled villages tended to see ranked activity proposals. The number of beneficiaries The Limits of Generasi’s Facilitation and Participation Mechanisms CASE STUDY 9  in Preventing School Dropouts Ihsan, a 16-year-old Generasi beneficiary in Maroangin village (Tarengge subdistrict, Gorontalo), was still registered as a student in grade 6 but has dropped out. He appears to be malnourished, and his family lives in poverty. He is the oldest of four children and often works to gather coconuts to sell and takes care of his siblings while his parents are away working as farm laborers. The village Generasi activity implementer said Ihsan wants to work and that attempts to help him return to school have been unsuccessful. Ihsan said he does not like going to school because his peers often insult, bully, and beat him. His family is not supportive: his father would prefer him to quit school. The research team asked him several times if he wanted to go back to school, and he consistently answered that he wants to continue his education. Although more comprehensive outreach may be required, Generasi educational assistance in this area is limited to providing uniforms and transport assistance. Maroangin’s only active village facilitator also works as the village secretary, so he engages in limited Generasi outreach. Generasi actors in Maroangin reported that the community is motivated to participate based on a desire to receive tangible benefits, such as uniforms, rather than to identify and analyze deeper social and educational problems. 34 INDONESIA PARTICIPATION is used to determine how much to allocate for each she is invited to them and receives incentive support activity: from Generasi for her work. She said she does not attend village government planning meetings because she is When we recap our figures in the village, we never invited, which suggests the importance of personal cross-check against the actual number of recognition from village leaders for some participants. beneficiaries. If they [village facilitators and village head] realize—‘Hey, wait! We have In the control village of Mogiye (Tanabola subdistrict), in another pregnancy here. It’s not three, but Lembata, despite the village head’s efforts to maintain the four!’—we can fix it right then and there. PNPM program’s legacy of participation and inclusion after — Generasi subdistrict facilitator, Tarengge its completion in 2015, posyandu volunteers no longer felt subdistrict, Gorontalo district the need to participate in the planning, monitoring, and evaluation of village development because these roles had Purchases that relate to Generasi’s targets and can be been taken over by the village government. directly used by the community are prioritized. Apart from the monitoring of posyandu and distribution Once the village midwife asked for a of Generasi assistance, there is little community oversight stethoscope, however, Generasi rejected of service delivery, especially outside the villages. Direct that one because budget allocations for contact with service providers seems to depend on the instruments must be for use by the posyandu level and quality of interaction between service providers volunteers and not just the midwife . . . she and Generasi actors. Problems with service providers are also requested a tool for doing hemoglobin more likely to occur with schools. This may be because tests, but this was also rejected because the 10 of 12 target indicators are health related, and Generasi volunteers can’t use it. village facilitators spend more of their time coordinating — Generasi village facilitator, Cikereteg village, with the health sector (mostly village midwives) than with Lebak Siwur subdistrict, Garut district the schools. In addition, midwives are frequently based in the village posyandu, and clinics are sometimes based in the village, whereas teachers and schools (apart from early child education and development educators) have BENEFICIARIES’ MOTIVATION few opportunities to coordinate directly with village actors TO PARTICIPATE or residents. Generasi beneficiaries’ motivation to participate in the planning, supervision, and evaluation of village development activities varied. Seasonal sugarcane IMPACT ON VILLAGE LAW workers and factory workers in Tarengge subdistrict IMPLEMENTATION (Gorontalo) are unable to attend meetings because of their work schedules. Respondents in Pamekasan The Village Law increased villages’ authority in both complained about the time commitment involved in village governance and the allocation of greatly increased village funds. This study found that, as with Generasi, attending Generasi meetings, and leaders acknowledged participatory processes in village fund allocation are the difficulties of securing attendance. most effective in the planning stages (that is, soliciting In Lembata, an early child education and development proposals from the hamlets, prioritizing them at the village teacher in one of the treatment villages in Nelle subdistrict level, and ranking the proposals for inclusion in midterm who is a Generasi beneficiary reported that she is and annual village development plans). According to motivated to participate in Generasi meetings because the mentor to the subdistrict facilitator for Sogiyan LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 35 PARTICIPATION (Petis subdistrict, Pamekasan district), community Politics influence the village planning meetings in participation in Village Law-funded projects is most visible every region (see Case Study 7: Replacing a Generasi in infrastructure development activities, such as roads Facilitator in Lelaok Village, Pamekasan). For example, and irrigation canals. The head of the control village of two village facilitators from the control subdistrict of Mogiye (Tanabola subdistrict, Lembata) said he relies on Sambingan (Pamekasan) reported that everyone in village labor to implement Village Law projects because such meetings supports the village head, who invited it guarantees faster results, but acknowledged that “If the them; supporters of the head’s political opponents are project does not meet their needs, the community will not not included, which precludes dynamic debates and participate.” exchanges of ideas. 36 INDONESIA TARGETS AND  PERFORMANCE BONUSES Generasi focuses on 12 indicators of maternal and child health behavior and educational behavior. These indicators apply to those seeking health and educational services that are within the direct control of villagers—such as the number of children who receive immunizations, pre- and postnatal care, and the number of children enrolled in and attending school—rather than long-term outcomes, such as test scores or infant mortality. As school enrollment rates improved significantly in Indonesia over the past decade, in 2014 Generasi revised its education targets to focus investments on the neediest populations. The new education targets include participation rates for children with disabilities and transition rates from primary to junior secondary school. In addition, Generasi introduced indicators to measure community participation in enhanced nutrition counseling sessions delivered through the posyandu. The size of a village’s block grant depends in part on its performance on the 12 target indicators. If villages exceed the targets, they are eligible for a performance bonus, which is structured as a relative competition among villages within the same subdistrict. This section addresses three main questions related to how the target and performance bonus system works in practice. First, to what extent are Generasi stakeholders knowledgeable about the bonus system? Second, what are the main strategies for achieving the targets, and do the performance bonuses stimulate competition? Third, how does the bonus system contribute to overall outcomes? This study’s findings point to a widespread understanding and awareness of the 12 targets among facilitators at all levels, but little awareness of how the performance bonuses work among village facilitators. The target system— specifically, the public announcement of villages’ progress in achieving the indicators and the desire to avoid embarrassment at meetings—motivates LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 37 TARGETS AND PERFORMANCE BONUSES Generasi village facilitators to mobilize communities learn that not all users attend the posyandu; they around achieving the targets. At the same time, the receive their health services through a variety of target system has led facilitators to spend too much time channels. Only through home visits and meeting with and focus on collecting data at the expense of outreach users directly can Generasi village facilitators encourage with communities. The amount of time facilitators spend beneficiaries to attend the posyandu, motivate children collecting program-related data has been compounded by to attend school, and keep their own records accurate requests from MoV to collect additional data. and complete. Few actors believe that performance bonuses motivate facilitators to exceed the health and education targets. AWARENESS AND Respondents offered two possible explanations for why UNDERSTANDING OF GENERASI’S this is the case. First, because the bonuses are added 12 TARGET INDICATORS to the subsequent year’s grant allocation, by the time communities receive the allocations, most facilitators have Yes, I’ve heard about the indicators, but they forgotten that they received a bonus. Second, performance are confusing because of so many terms and bonuses do not “feel” like a bonus because almost all abbreviations. villages earn them. There is some evidence to suggest that Village head, Maroangin, Tarengge subdistrict, — Gorontalo district individual rewards (even small rewards such as a meal or a small package of household supplies) for successful, Knowledge of Generasi’s 12 target indicators (see Table 2) high-performing village facilitators are more effective. decreases at lower levels of government: Generasi stakeholders at the district and subdistrict levels have Monthly coordination intervillage meetings, convened by all the annual indicators memorized; village-level actors subdistrict facilitators at the subdistrict level, are most such as facilitators and activity implementers know frequently reported as the best way for Generasi village about the targets but do not always have them all facilitators to learn about the targets and how to achieve memorized; Generasi’s immediate partners in the subdistrict them, through the subdistrict facilitator’s instructions implementation unit offices, subdistrict community health and by sharing information among facilitators. Village centers, education offices, village midwives, and village leaders attend these meetings to hear about the villages’ government leaders understand that the targets exist achievements, the ranking of villages, and the awarding of but may not know what they are or how they work; and bonuses. The competitive nature of these meetings, and program beneficiaries generally do not know about them. facilitators’ embarrassment if their village fails to meet its targets, stimulate facilitator effort. Although the Generasi target system is designed to inform communities about how best to allocate their block grant In the villages, Generasi actors and stakeholders report resources, there is no evidence that this is taking place in the two main strategies for achieving their targets: ensuring treatment communities. Only the Generasi village facilitators community members attend the posyandu, and Generasi monitor progress through targets, and many view them as village facilitator “sweeping” (going door to door to administrative requirements; other village-based actors do ensure that pregnant women and mothers attend the not know about the target system or how it works. posyandu). As a community-based health institution, the posyandu represents the best opportunity for beneficiaries Generasi village facilitators’ knowledge of the 12 targets, to convene, service providers to achieve various health goals, which have changed several times over the years, varies and the Generasi village facilitator to collect data on a considerably depending on their length of service range of indicators. Through experience, village facilitators in the program. Some facilitators memorize them all 38 INDONESIA TARGETS AND PERFORMANCE BONUSES TABLE 2:  Generasi Program and child health and education outcomes, improving Target Indicators community participation in village governance and performance monitoring, and enhancing the quality Health Indicators 1. Four prenatal care visits of health and education services in their communities. 2. Taking iron tablets during pregnancy Slightly more informants in Garut and Pamekasan 3. Delivery assisted by a trained professional reported understanding the targets and their 4. Two postnatal care visits purpose compared with informants in Gorontalo and 5. Complete childhood immunizations 6. Adequate monthly weight increases for infants Lembata. 7. Monthly weighing tor children under three and biannually for children under five When Generasi stakeholders were asked whether the 8. Vitamin A twice a year for children under five target indicators achieved their intended purposes, most Education Indicators respondents reported a summary of their annual results, 9. Primary school enrollment of children 6 to 12 years old such as which targets their village achieved or failed to 10.  Minimum attendance rate of 85% for primary school- achieve. At higher levels of government, respondents aged children mentioned which targets the subdistrict or district 11. Junior secondary school enrollment of children 13 to 15 years old typically achieve easily and which remain a challenge. 12. Minimum attendance rate of 85% for junior secondary The head of the Ilekora village council (Nelle subdistrict, school-aged children Lembata) was dissatisfied with the Generasi village Indicators 9–12 have been revised to (post-2014) facilitator’s explanation of how the target system works Participation of pregnant women and male partner in 1.  (it was reported that the procurement of food supplements nutrition counseling of­fered through maternal health had already been decided by the program and could not classes 2.  Participation of parents (and/or caregivers) in nutrition be changed) and questioned whether Generasi’s support counseling offered through classes for infants for providing food supplements achieves those targets. Enrollment of all primary and junior secondary school- 3.  The Generasi village facilitator’s explanation foreclosed aged children who have not enrolled in school or have further discussion, and the village council leader wondered dropped out, including children with disabilities 4.  All children who graduate from primary school, whether Generasi’s reported achievements each year including children with disabilities, enroll in junior were only “success on paper” that was used to guarantee secondary school additional funding support. and can recite which targets were achieved (or not), DO TARGETS INDUCE LEARNING whereas others cannot list even one and have only AND/OR COMPETITION? a vague understanding that Generasi is a health and Targets lead directly to outreach, which indirectly education program. Those who know about the 12 targets contributes to beneficiary learning. The head of the generally report that they are “a tool [or benchmark] for subdistrict implementation unit office in Tarengge measuring Generasi’s success.” Only a few knowledgeable subdistrict (Gorontalo) reported that the annual system stakeholders, usually at the subdistrict level or above, “makes it easier for [Generasi] actors to measure their mention that the targets help villages identify areas performance.” Some Generasi actors explained that for improvement and allocate their resources more targets encourage more direct interaction with individual strategically. beneficiaries to collect more accurate and complete data, A few mentioned that the purpose of the targets is to which gives beneficiaries more opportunities to access meet Generasi’s overall goals of improving maternal government services. LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 39 TARGETS AND PERFORMANCE BONUSES The Generasi activity implementer in Desa Rampe (Nelle to attract higher attendance. Generasi officials from the subdistrict, Lembata) mentioned that the data collection subdistricts of Lebak Siwur (Garut) and Petis subdistrict process (which was described as “direct monitoring (Pamekasan district) also noted the utility of such of individuals in the field”) enabled Generasi actors in information exchanges at monthly coordination meetings. the village to identify individual cases that health and The annual Generasi program cycle features three education service providers might not be able to find intervillage meetings, held in the subdistrict seat, where otherwise. Likewise, the activity implementer in Cikereteg all facilitators gather to agree upon the allocation of funds, village (Lebak Siwur subdistrict, Garut) described how discuss activity plans, and compare results (see Case data collection served as an impetus for home visits. Study 10: A Generasi Intervillage Meeting and Improving When the village did not reach its immunization Access to Health Services). Village heads and village target, the Generasi village facilitator discovered some midwives attend, as do the subdistrict head, subdistrict beneficiaries had taken their infants for shots at a implementation unit team, and head of the subdistrict private clinic. The facilitator visited to check the health community health center, particularly when targets are cards of beneficiaries and inform them about program announced and ranked. At their best, intervillage meetings services. Other actors described making home visits are festive and good humored in the public presentation to ensure pregnant mothers take their iron pills or to of achievements from each village, with lively discussions encourage parents of children at risk of dropping out and explanations. The subdistrict facilitator in the Petis of school to improve their attendance. A Generasi subdistrict (Pamekasan district) described an intervillage village facilitator in Pasir Ucing village (Lebak Siwur meeting in 2014, at which one village was teased for failing district, Garut) indirectly connected the performance to achieve six of its annual targets; the following year, the targets with behavior changes in service utilization. village reached its targets. She stated that the targets have prevented maternal and child mortality cases during her tenure as a village Villages can be removed from the program if they facilitator by stimulating monitoring and advocacy, and “cannot manage the program well, for instance: violating focusing the community’s attention on maternal health principles and provisions of the program, misuse of funds (for example, routine prenatal exams with midwives, or authority. Funding for the subdistrict or village in consumption of iron pills). question will either be postponed or removed altogether the following year.” Researchers found only one example Sharing progress on meeting targets appears to serve of this: the control village of Kolipadan in the treatment as a more important motivation than the bonus system. subdistrict of Nelle (Lembata), where disincentives are Generasi actors at all levels (particularly village facilitators) a more accepted method of compelling participation. seek to avoid the embarrassment of having to report All the villages in Nelle had agreed that only those incomplete or negative results. The subdistrict facilitator that successfully completed all phases of the annual for the subdistrict of Tarengge (Gorontalo) reports that program cycle would be eligible to receive block grants four months into the annual program cycle, she presents the following year. Kolipadan was removed from the list the interim results for each village’s targets at their of beneficiaries after it had insufficient attendees at a monthly coordination meeting. This allows the village village-level socialization meeting. facilitator from each village to measure progress and share ideas about how to improve outcomes. For example, Although interviewers used the word “competition” to ask the village facilitator from one village was not meeting about targets, Generasi stakeholders typically described the posyandu attendance targets, and the village facilitator the target system as a motivational tool. According to the from another village advised using food supplements Generasi activity implementer from Sogiyan village (Petis 40 INDONESIA TARGETS AND PERFORMANCE BONUSES CASE STUDY 10 A Generasi Intervillage Meeting and Improving Access to Health Services Intervillage meetings attract cross-sectoral stakeholders, including village heads and village community empowerment agency representatives, because villages receive their block grants at these meetings. Interviews with intervillage meeting attendees in Petis demonstrated that the meetings encourage Generasi village facilitators, village governments, and service providers to play a more active role in achieving their targets and increasing access to services. The intervillage meetings can also encourage service providers to identify service gaps and address problems. For example, the 2013 intervillage meeting in Petis subdistrict (Pamekasan district) revealed a discrepancy in data collection between the Generasi village facilitator and midwife from Sumber Petis village because of access problems. Although the midwife said that all targets had been covered regularly, according to the village facilitator, the indicator for weighing children under five was not achieved. The midwife had collected only the data of those who attended the posyandu; beneficiaries who never attended were not included. Soon after the intervillage meeting, the village midwife established a new posyandu in the other hamlet. The head of one of the two subdistrict community health centers in Petis admitted that he feels ashamed if the villages under his administration fail to reach their targets. Usually, after the intervillage meeting he organizes follow-up meetings at the subdistrict community health center to discuss the underperforming targets in the villages under his administration. subdistrict, Pamekasan district), “there is a desire among “GAMING” THE TARGET SYSTEM the facilitators from each village to improve the indicators When asked if they used any tricks to reach their targets, they have not achieved yet. When their data is announced most Generasi facilitators answered by sharing their tips at the coordination meetings, they will be embarrassed if for success, such as their “sweeping” activities to collect they haven’t reached their targets.” complete and accurate data. Generasi village facilitators This emphasis on motivation rather than competition in Pamekasan and Garut described going door to door to appears to be attributable to two factors. First, a weigh children who failed to show up at the posyandu or competition suggests a prize, but because the potential to deliver vitamins and ensure that infants receive their bonuses earned for the best-performing villages are immunizations. The second-most common response from awarded to next year’s village budgets, rather than village-level Generasi actors was to describe how they to individual Generasi village facilitators, there is little coordinated and copied data from posyandu volunteers. incentive to “win.” Second, the motivation to avoid shame Two respondents mentioned providing transportation and embarrassment at the public forums was repeatedly money (to young mothers or midwives) for postnatal care mentioned. visits. Another two respondents reported routine liaising with the village midwife (such as letting her know when The head of the subdistrict implementation unit office women show signs of early pregnancy) to achieve targets in Petis subdistrict (Pamekasan district) reported that in such as prenatal exams. 2015 and earlier, Generasi village facilitators more actively checked on their target performance. He assumes this is The only reported suggestion of cheating was from a because of the withdrawal of Generasi community block Generasi village facilitator who mentioned keeping in grants in 2017 as Generasi ends. touch (via phone or text messages) with mothers who LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 41 TARGETS AND PERFORMANCE BONUSES came home to their village to deliver their babies and then that if they are unable to attend the posyandu, they returned to the city where they live. This village facilitator usually send their children with a neighbor: one wanted to would continue collecting data from such mothers on avoid a fine, whereas the other wanted to stay up to date their weight, immunizations, and exams to boost the with her child’s growth and for her child to receive the total number of beneficiaries in her village. Given the supplementary food. disincentives to report such practices during the research Generasi actors are thus motivated to meet their targets interviews, it is difficult to determine how widespread and have devised a variety of ways to do so. There is they are. Yet because of the potential benefits of inflated still no consensus on whether targets help communities numbers of beneficiaries to increase their village’s budget meet their needs: opinions range from the skeptical for Generasi activities, this is unlikely to be the only case village council head in Ilekora (cited previously) to the of cheating. former subdistrict community health center head in In the subdistrict of Nelle (Lembata), the head of the Petis subdistrict (Pamekasan district), who praised the village council in one of the treatment villages had Generasi program in Lelaok for using a block grant to extensive knowledge of the Generasi program even buy a loudspeaker, which has been used to publicize though he has never been directly involved in it. He posyandu, boost attendance, and more easily meet strongly criticized the purchase of food supplements, targets. questioning whether they addressed actual needs in the village, and accused the Generasi actors of gaming the program with the same activities every year because UNDERSTANDING AND it guaranteed their targets would be met even if the EFFECTIVENESS OF GENERASI’S supplements did not improve maternal and child health. PERFORMANCE BONUS SYSTEM He also critiqued the allocation of annual block grants, Only Generasi actors at the subdistrict level and above which he argued funded the same activities every year, knew about the performance bonus system. Even at the without community consultation to find out what the subdistrict level, Generasi staff refer to the subdistrict people need. facilitator to give a detailed explanation. Indirect Generasi Generasi actors at the subdistrict and district levels stakeholders such as subdistrict implementation unit reported other ways for the villages to meet their targets. officials or village leaders may be aware that such a The subdistrict facilitator in Petis subdistrict (Pamekasan system exists, particularly if they had direct experience district) reported prioritizing training and other outreach in the PNPM Rural program, but they believe it is an opportunities for underachieving villages, whereas the internal Generasi matter and do not understand how it Generasi district facilitator in Lembata detailed the works. All subdistrict facilitators in sampled treatment benefits of combining the Early Child Education and areas understand the performance bonus system; they all Development program and the posyandu in one building correctly described how it is supposed to work and how because it made coordination easier and more efficient. it is calculated. All Generasi actors at the district level also Lembata’s former district facilitator said advocacy for understand the system, including one former Generasi village-level regulations had been an effective way to facilitator in Gorontalo who is now the TA-PSD for Village guarantee that certain targets were achieved. Law implementation. Generasi beneficiaries generally did not have any tips In the villages, there is no guarantee that even the for maximizing their benefits from, or the targets for, the Generasi village facilitators know about performance Generasi program, except two mothers who mentioned bonuses (see Case Study 11: Generasi Village Facilitators 42 INDONESIA TARGETS AND PERFORMANCE BONUSES CASE STUDY 11 Generasi Village Facilitators and the Performance Bonus System in Rampe Generasi’s bonus system is designed to stimulate competition among treatment villages over achieving health and education indicators. Yet many communities do not fully understand (or even know about) the system, which is mainly discussed at the subdistrict-level intervillage meetings attended by the Generasi village facilitator and Village Deliberation Advisory Team and key figures in the village. If these attendees do not actively disseminate the information to all community members, they will not know about it. Generasi actors in Rampe village do not attribute their achievements to a competition for the bonus, which the village receives every year despite lingering data collection problems. One of the Generasi village facilitators in Rampe reported that she is aware of Generasi’s bonus system and that it encourages her to meet the program’s targets. The village’s senior Generasi village facilitator is Fransiska Kewa, known as Mama Kewa, who has served as a volunteer in the health sector for many years. Even she demonstrated an incomplete understanding of the bonus system and made no connection to achieving Generasi’s targets. Mama Kewa recited Generasi’s efforts to reduce the number of children under five experiencing undernutrition and malnutrition. For her, Generasi’s success in identifying and treating the target group was due to the provision of supplementary food rather than the bonus. Although the number of malnourished in Tanjung Baru decreased from nine to six cases from 2014 to 2015, the total bonus did not increase. Likewise, the health personnel and posyandu volunteers attributed their success in increasing the number of attendees every month to the villagers being required to pay a fine if they do not bring their children to the posyandu, rather than to the bonus. and the Performance Bonus System in Rampe). Some activity implementer in Desa Rampe (Nelle subdistrict, such village facilitators have heard of it but know little Lembata) had never heard of the bonus system, but all about how it works. One former village facilitator in Petis of them had started within the past year. Bonuses are not subdistrict (Pamekasan district) had limited, but correct, a consideration in 2016 because Generasi removed the knowledge about the system; however, she described it community block grant budgets in anticipation of disparagingly as merely a supplement to the community the transition. block grant budget. A former Generasi village facilitator Higher-level Generasi staff (mainly at the subdistrict and in Lebak Siwur subdistrict (Garut) made a similar remark. district levels) explain the purpose of the performance An important exception is Lebak Siwur subdistrict (Garut), bonuses in terms that reflect Generasi’s reason for offering the pilot research area in West Java, where most of the them: to motivate village facilitators (and the communities Generasi village facilitators and other Generasi staff in the they work in) to achieve their targets. However, most (but villages were knowledgeable about performance bonuses not all) stated that the bonuses do not achieve this stated and how they work. goal for various reasons. Some reported that the bonuses High village-level staff turnover may partially explain why are too small to make a difference once they are absorbed Generasi staff in the villages are so unfamiliar with the into the following year’s general operational budget. Their bonus system. The entire Generasi team in Desa Lelaok impact is also decreased by the fact that almost all villages (Petis subdistrict, Pamekasan district) and the Generasi earn them. LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 43 TARGETS AND PERFORMANCE BONUSES officials. Provincial-level meetings in Gorontalo are also convened once every three months. District-level actors in Lembata, Gorontalo, and Garut also mentioned these coordination meetings; some noted that these data reach Jakarta. The thoughtful and knowledgeable subdistrict facilitator for Tarengge subdistrict felt strongly that posyandu are the key to improving the target and performance bonus system. She recommended increasing funding for this community-based institution and introducing a process indicator to incentivize participation. In keeping FIGURE 5:  Discussion in district office with Generasi’s community-driven approach, she also about village fund use for community suggested making the posyandu a purely village-based empowerment and basic service delivery institution without relying on resources from higher levels of government. Village-based Generasi actors generally have a less- This study has shown that targets are motivating, comprehensive understanding of the program than especially when publicized in a well-attended public forum do higher-level actors. For example, those below the (such as the intervillage meetings) that provides a level subdistrict level are unaware of coordination meetings of public accountability to motivate target achievement. at the district level, where performance results are Performance bonuses, as currently conceived, are discussed (Figure 5). In Gorontalo, Generasi activities confusing and do not work as intended. The evidence are reported at the district level every three months and suggests that individual rewards for village facilitators are shared with health, education, Family Welfare Movement, more effective than community-based rewards, such as religion, social affairs, and regional development board the performance bonus system. 44 INDONESIA GENERASI’S IMPACT  ON VILLAGE GOVERNANCE  AND BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES After nine years, Generasi is ending and handing over its goals and mechanisms to village governments, which are implementing the Village Law, which also aims to increase village communities’ access to basic infrastructure and social services. This section analyzes the program’s impacts on village governance and the delivery of basic social services. The findings suggest that Generasi (and the larger PNPM family of programs it is associated with) has had an impact on village governance but not on basic social service delivery. There are a few possible explanations for this finding. Generasi and other PNPM programs are village-based CDD programs that encourage community members to frequently interact with village governments and influence village government practices. By comparison, within Generasi and other PNPM programs, there is less day-to-day contact between community members and service providers. Several Generasi facilitators have joined village governments, bringing with them their value of participatory decision-making processes and knowledge of health and education issues. There is no evidence of Generasi facilitators joining the health and education departments. Based on instructions issued by the Generasi department within MoV, Generasi facilitators are actively advocating for village governments to allocate portions of their budgets to health and education activities that Generasi has historically funded. There are no such advocacy efforts targeted at service providers. The qualitative study uncovered a few different examples of the program’s spillover effects on village governance. In some treatment subdistricts, village governments have adopted participatory planning mechanisms based on the Generasi experience (and PNPM Rural experience in the control areas). Some treatment villages plan to retain Generasi village facilitators to facilitate village activities related to health and education. Several village governments in treatment LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 45 GENERASI’S IMPACT ON VILLAGE GOVERNANCE ANd BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES areas, and some in control areas, spend part of their village charged with carrying out approved activities in the budgets on routine activities that were formerly covered PNPM program. Likewise, in Ilekora village (Nelle by Generasi grant allocations, such as food supplements at subdistrict, Lembata), the village head is a former posyandu and incentives for posyandu volunteers. Given activity implementer for Generasi and a former village the usefulness of Generasi data for planning activities, there implementation team member for PNPM Rural. are also cases of Village Law facilitators utilizing Generasi This transfer of experience to village governments data; some control areas use Generasi forms to collect data encourages the carry-over and implementation of on target beneficiaries and the condition of basic services. Generasi mechanisms into village governance in two Nonetheless, there are a few different challenges related ways. First, these actors bring firsthand knowledge to integrating Generasi activities into the Village Law and understanding of the Generasi program to their implementation process. Several village administrations new positions. Second, it ensures the new leader expressed concerns about allocating their own village is supportive of Generasi goals and principles. For budgets for health and education activities because they example, a former Generasi village facilitator in a say no regulations have been issued on this. Also, although pilot study village in Lebak Siwur subdistrict (Garut) Generasi village facilitators have held socialization was appointed head of tax administration and plans activities with village government leaders on how to to implement an incentive mechanism to increase use the village budget for community service delivery, tax revenues from each neighborhood in her village. that knowledge gets lost with turnovers in government Researchers also observed the Generasi village administration. facilitator/village secretary in Maroangin Tarengge subdistrict, Gorontalo, using a Generasi-style ranking system to define village planning priorities at a MANY GENERASI ACTORS consultative village planning event (see Case Study 12: HAVE ENTERED VILLAGE Generasi Process Mechanisms Used in a Village (OR HIGHER) GOVERNMENT Planning Meeting). The program’s most significant and obvious impact on In Tarengge subdistrict, Gorontalo, the subdistrict local governance is the recruitment of Generasi facilitators head appointed the subdistrict facilitator to the and other actors into formal structures of village (and monitoring team related to the Annual Village higher) governance. In all research locations, there were Development Plan that should be discussed in a examples of former Generasi and PNPM Rural actors village-wide meeting before deciding on the annual who have become village actors. For example, the village budget.11 He also issued a decree to make all head of the Village Community Empowerment Agency Generasi village facilitators members of the Midterm in Gorontalo reports that in Tibawa subdistrict (one Village Development Plan drafting team. This allows of the Generasi intervention subdistricts in Gorontalo Generasi actors to incorporate health and education but not included in this research sample), five of six services into the village planning process. Meanwhile, village heads previously were involved in the Generasi the head of the community empowerment board in or PNPM Rural programs. In the sampled research Pamekasan district encourages village heads through sites, the research team also found similar examples. information dissemination meetings to utilize PNPM or The current village secretary of Maroangin village (Tarengge subdistrict, Gorontalo) is also a Generasi Annual Village Development Plans should refer to, and be in line with, 11 the Midterm Village Development Plan, which describes the village village facilitator, whereas the village head previously development plan for the next 5–6 years. Any changes to the midterm was a member of the village implementation team plan should be discussed at a village-level meeting. 46 INDONESIA GENERASI’S IMPACT ON VILLAGE GOVERNANCE ANd BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES CASE STUDY 12 Generasi Process Mechanisms Used in a Village Planning Meeting Generasi concepts and mechanisms have become embedded in village government development activities in Gorontalo. During a visit to Maroangin village (Tarengge subdistrict, Gorontalo), researchers observed that Generasi actors directly influenced the village development planning meeting. The village head assigned Pak Sulaiman, the Generasi village facilitator/village secretary, to facilitate the meeting with the cooperation of the village council chairman, Pak Arifin. Pak Sulaiman prepared the Annual Village Development Plan and other documents to distribute to the participants. He also talked with the head of the village council and the Generasi activity implementer, Pak Abjan, about how to effectively discuss the community’s proposals. When a hamlet representative wanted to submit a new proposal that was not listed in the Annual Development Plan as the basis for further discussion, Pak Sulaiman responded that any new proposal could still be included, but the main priorities were those already listed in the annual plan. To rank the proposals, Pak Sulaiman divided the meeting participants into three groups based on their hamlet, and each group prioritized three proposals. After a discussion, it was decided that the proposals would be ranked according to three criteria: (1) the proposed activity can be useful to many people, (2) it targets the poor, and (3) the community agrees it is urgent. Posyandu cadres also had active roles in the planning meeting. When ranking the proposed activities, a group of posyandu volunteers demanded the prioritization of supplementary food for children under five and pregnant women and provided information on the target number of children under five and pregnant women in budget discussions. Generasi actors in village governance because they are GENERASI’S INFLUENCE ON THE considered to be well trained. However, this is difficult ALLOCATION OF NON-GENERASI to achieve because of the district’s political dynamics; VILLAGE FUNDS members of village governments usually have personal There is significant coordination at the district level connections to the village head. By contrast, village between the Generasi district facilitators and TA-PSDs, heads in Lembata prioritize competence over politics: who both have prior experience in PNPM/Generasi, one of the Generasi village facilitators is even a political working on Village Law implementation in Pamekasan opponent. and Gorontalo. This regular coordination, which includes In the control villages in this study, village government data sharing, briefings, and progress reports, has actors also have a history of involvement in the PNPM influenced non-Generasi villages in both districts program, such as the head of Jaton village (Telogojoyo to allocate village funds for health and education in subdistrict, Gorontalo). The Mogiye (Tanabola subdistrict, their village budgets. The two officials described their Lembata) village head was not directly involved in relationship as mutually beneficial; they both advocate PNPM but has held his position since 2008 (when including health and education in village plans and PNPM first arrived) and became familiar with the budgets. Gorontalo’s Generasi district facilitator program mechanisms. He said the village still uses perceives this coordination as a strategic way to participatory planning tools introduced by the PNPM integrate Generasi’s planning mechanisms into regular program, such as calendars and organizational diagrams, village planning processes, which the TA-PSDs facilitate. to help ensure that development plans reflect the The Pamekasan district TA-PSD noted that it is crucial community’s needs. to coordinate with Generasi facilitators because those LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 47 GENERASI’S IMPACT ON VILLAGE GOVERNANCE ANd BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES from his own program do not understand education and Gorontalo, the TA-PSD is a former Generasi subdistrict health issues. facilitator, who recognizes the importance of coordinating with Generasi actors to make sure that basic social In both districts, routine meetings helped them identify services, including health and education, have been problems and discuss possible solutions. One of the covered in village planning and budget processes. problems identified in the meetings was a lack of health and education data in non-Generasi villages. For example, Especially in Pamekasan and Gorontalo, the BPMD, the control village of Tespates (Sambingan subdistrict) in Generasi, and P3MD facilitators held coordination Pamekasan district lacks reliable data on the total number meetings at least once a month to discuss their progress of infants and pregnant women in the village because the and provide updates on their activities. The Pamekasan posyandu volunteers record only the number of visitors Generasi district facilitator acknowledged that BPMD was who come to the posyandu or access health services. This helping them solve problems in the field—for instance, by was also the case in the control village of Mogiye (Tanabola sending district heads “advice letters” to ensure villages subdistrict, Lembata); the village secretary reported prioritize health and education in their allocation of village that some children had dropped out of school, but he funds after the end of the Generasi program. Similarly, did not know the exact number. The Pamekasan TA-PSD the head of Gorontalo’s BPMD issued appeal letters to thus collaborated with the Generasi district facilitator to village heads emphasizing that villages should involve collect data using Generasi Forms 6A and 6B (targeted Generasi actors in the planning process and allocate data and mapping service) and Form 8 (proposed activities funds for health and education activities in their budgets. form) in non-Generasi villages. TA-PSDs in Pamekasan and Gorontalo have gathered data using those forms to In Lembata district government agencies, the high staff help non-Generasi villages conduct Midterm Village turnover, including in the BPMD, inhibits the performance Development Plan reviews so that health and education of the Generasi working group, which is based in BPMD. issues can be accommodated in the village planning During 2016 and 2017, the head of the BPMD and its and budget processes. In 2016, the Gorontalo TA-PSD working group were replaced four times. For example, encouraged seven non-Generasi villages to serve as a at the beginning of 2016, the BPMD planned to publish a model for the allocation of village funds for education decree that Generasi village facilitators should be absorbed and health activities. In 2017, 32 villages (50% of the into village planning staff to perform a similar role. However, district’s non-Generasi villages) allocated their village there was no follow-up because Lembata’s new district funds for basic social services in Gorontalo. In Lembata, head replaced the BPMD head, which led to another staff there was no such coordination because no district-level turnover (including a new Generasi district facilitator). facilitators had been deployed when the fieldwork was Differences between treatment and control carried out. villages: All villages have allocated some of their The importance of Village Community budgets to health and education activities, including the Empowerment Agency (BPMD) support:  control villages in this study. In Pamekasan district, the There is a correlation between BPMD support, in terms activities that are supported by village funds in non- of bridging coordination between Generasi and P3MD Generasi villages generally duplicate activities funded by facilitators, and village governments’ interest (particularly Generasi, such as nutrition posts, pregnancy and nutrition in non-Generasi villages) in funding education and classes, and supplementary food. Although the budget health activities. In Pamekasan district, the BPMD has allocations and activities are nearly the same, they are encouraged the underqualified TA-PSD to learn from implemented differently because Generasi villages have the more-experienced Generasi district facilitator. In had complete, detailed, and targeted planning with data 48 INDONESIA GENERASI’S IMPACT ON VILLAGE GOVERNANCE ANd BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES collected by trained posyandu volunteers and established thing from their village heads, who then coordination with service providers. pass it to the head of the subdistrict and the community empowerment agency. In control villages in Gorontalo and Lembata, health issues Head Section of Government — are included in the village budgets partly because both Empowerment of Sambingan subdistrict benefited from previous facilitation from PNPM Rural and other health-related programs. The village head in Mogiye In response to demands from village heads, since 2011 the (Tanabola subdistrict), the control village in Lembata, Pamekasan Village Community Empowerment Agency revealed that facilitation mechanisms from PNPM Rural has proposed budget allocation for supplementary food helped them identify village problems, including health and pays honoraria to posyandu volunteers in five non- issues. The village head still uses PNPM-style participatory Generasi subdistricts from the Pamekasan district assembly. planning tools that involve community members in village The proposal was approved by the assembly, but only for planning to ensure all priority issues in the village are six months each year; village governments must cover accommodated. the remaining six months. The head of the control village of Tespates (Sambingan subdistrict, Pamekasan) said Facilitation processes also help connect village he must sometimes spend personal funds to cover the communities with service providers, particularly the shortage or get assistance from the midwife in the village/ local subdistrict community health centers. Although subdistrict community health center. He does not there was coordination, researchers observed that the know if the activity could be paid for out of the village control villages have limited data, which makes it hard to budget. In 2017, the honoraria and supplementary food prioritize activities and allocate funds. Village officials in were included in Tespates’s (Sambingan subdistrict, control areas sometimes merely consider what the service Pamekasan) annual village development plan because providers told them to do. the village head was informed by village funding staff and The treatment villages have more active and trained the Village Community Empowerment Agency that such posyandu volunteers than do the control villages, in part activities can be budgeted from village funds. Based on because of the program’s training and incentives for interviews with the Village Community Empowerment Agency in Pamekasan, almost all non-Generasi villages in volunteers. In control villages, not all volunteers have Pamekasan did this. Researchers also heard that almost access to training because of subdistrict community all control villages included posyandu activities in their health center budget limitations: in Tespates village village budgets. (Sambingan, Pamekasan district), only one of 10 posyandu volunteers attended a training session, and the same volunteer (usually the most senior) attends each session. PERCEIVED BARRIERS TO USING NON-GENERASI FUNDS FOR Village-level dynamics: Activities funded by HEALTH AND EDUCATION Generasi, such as supplementary food, posyandu, and Perceptions about using village funds for volunteer honorarium, have caused jealousy in non- health and education: District- and subdistrict- Generasi villages in Pamekasan district. One informant level governments generally perceive the main obstacle from the control subdistrict of Sambingan said: to using village funds for health and education to be Looking at the neighboring subdistrict get village governments’ preferences for infrastructure support, such as posyandu from Generasi, development activities, which are easier to implement, communities here also demanded the same show tangible signs of “development,” and offer LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 49 GENERASI’S IMPACT ON VILLAGE GOVERNANCE ANd BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES Management and Utilization of the Siaga Program in Mogiye CASE STUDY 13  Village, Lembata The control village of Mogiye (Tanabola subdistrict) is running Desa Siaga, a community health empowerment program, more effectively than most of the neighboring villages. The village government reports that the Siaga program targets maternal and child health issues because the infant mortality rates in Tanabola remain high, partly because of the persistence of home deliveries, which carry a high risk of infection and death for both mothers and babies. The program was established in 2008 under the instruction of the subdistrict community health center, yet it did not start actively functioning until 2012, after the strengthening intervention from the Australia Indonesia Partnership for Maternal and Neonatal Health (AIPMNH): The Desa Siaga was merely a government instruction, where each village must establish their own committee. But there was no follow up after it was being formed. In addition, there was no supporting fund for the committee. Only after 2012 did the program actually start; it is still running today. —Village Secretary and Chairman of Desa Siaga program in Mogiye In addition to AIPMNH funding, this program relies on village governments, health volunteers, and village budget allocations, as well as reinforcement from the subdistrict government. These factors also contribute to Generasi’s success outside Lembata; Generasi’s absence from the Lembata treatment villages may explain why the program is less effective there. The AIPMNH funded many interventions throughout NTT province. The sampled treatment villages in Lembata did not receive AIPMNH intervention, but in the control village of Mogiye, AIPMNH provided active support until 2015. AIPMNH successfully promoted village government involvement in managing the Desa Siaga program. The villagers also remain actively involved. Each posyandu area coordinator plays a role in the Siaga program. Funding networks help villagers pay for transportation and delivery costs. The village government and village council raised awareness among community members to encourage them to contribute to the funding network. It was agreed that all villagers would contribute Rp 1,000/household/month. The heads of neighborhood associations were assigned to collect contributions to the birth solidarity fund from all villagers; pregnant mothers collected birth savings to support their delivery costs. The Panama government manages the birth solidarity fund: the villagers’ annual fees (about Rp 4 million) are collected like village taxes, considered village income, and expended as part of the village’s expenses. According to the village secretary, the fund is currently valued at about Rp 25 million; villagers can request an interest-free loan from this fund and repay it in installments within three months. Those who fail to repay their loan on time will have their Family Hope Program fund payment or their “working days”12 incentives cut. The birth savings fund is managed separately because it depends on how many pregnant women contribute to it; they receive the funds when they deliver. (case study continues on next page) 12 This term refers to daily wage labor on village infrastructure projects. 50 INDONESIA GENERASI’S IMPACT ON VILLAGE GOVERNANCE ANd BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES Management and Utilization of the Siaga Program in Mogiye CASE STUDY 13  Village, Lembata (Continued ) This lending mechanism fosters collective responsibility within the community and helps the village government ensure that villagers can access short-term funding when they need it. The mothers generally welcome this lending system. One said, “Paying the [birth solidarity fund] for our good, as we know we might be the one in need of a loan in the future.” One villager remarked that she was requesting a birth solidarity fund loan to cover her delivery costs in the Lembata district capital. The village midwives also benefit from the program because their performance assessments depend on improved health services. For example, the Siaga program’s transportation network helps pregnant women get to their prenatal exams and deliveries, which helps meet the target for prenatal exams and early detection of at-risk births. Midwives can gradually increase the number of facilities-based births in Mogiye. As of August 2016, there were no home births; 100% of deliveries took place in health facilities. In 2015 there was one birth at home, whereas in 2014 there were two. The success of the Siaga program in Mogiye is also attributable to the role of the subdistrict. According to the subdistrict secretary, at the time of the fieldwork only five of 20 villages in Tanabola had active Siaga programs, but they were committed to promoting it to other villages: We will not tolerate excuses like difficulty in transportation, I constantly emphasize this to village heads. Please take more active roles, and avoid making the village being commanded, I am asking for their support, not as an instruction. Besides, the money will eventually be paid back, because the Siaga program has some saving, that the villagers will pay back, the village government just needs to cover it in advance. That’s what the birth savings are for. —Secretary, Tanabola subdistrict office, Lembata district The secretary also mentioned the importance of strong village government involvement in the program’s success. The subdistrict government and the subdistrict community health center acknowledged the limitations of health services in Tanabola villages; for example, the availability of health workers in the village is still low. Although the number of births at the health centers is increasing, Tanabola is still classified as a “red area,” with high maternal and infant deaths. Mogiye’s experience with the Desa Siaga program is an important reference point for Generasi, especially with respect to how the village government followed up earlier processes of routine facilitation by AIPMNH. Generasi has not strengthened the Desa Siaga program because Generasi has its own mechanism to work through its village facilitators. The treatment village of Ilekora (Nelle subdistrict, Lembata) held a meeting during the field visit to reactivate the Siaga program. In that meeting, the Village Community Empowerment Agency (BPMD) and subdistrict community health center encouraged the village government to re-establish the Siaga committee. The Ilekora village head responded that he had issued a decree on new management of Desa Siaga and encouraged the posyandu volunteers to play a more active role by allocating monthly incentives from the village budget. The decree did not specifically involve Generasi volunteers or a new working strategy as lessons learned for Generasi, yet the head of Generasi’s village implementation team was appointed chairperson of the Desa Siaga program because of his active role in village affairs. (case study continues on next page) LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 51 GENERASI’S IMPACT ON VILLAGE GOVERNANCE ANd BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES Management and Utilization of the Siaga Program CASE STUDY 13  in Mogiye Village, Lembata (Continued ) The two villages had similar levels of health performance. Ilekora, despite having an inactive Siaga program and a rather ineffective Generasi program, benefited from its proximity to health services in the district capital. Even though Mogiye is remote and isolated, its health outcomes appear relatively similar thanks to its commitment to sustaining the Siaga program. Other non-Generasi villages with poor health facilities and difficult access will be more disadvantaged. Activating the Siaga program can be useful for villages such as Mogiye, although it requires active management by the village government. At least the village head of Ilekora admitted that he already knew from the Village Community Empowerment Agency that a portion of the village budget could be allocated to support Siaga. The attempt to reactivate Siaga in Ilekora also demonstrated the role of district and subdistrict governments in encouraging village governments to improve village-level services. In such cases, it would be easier for the program and the government to encourage the sustainability of the basic services in the villages. opportunities for kickbacks. Dr. Ina, Head of the Health If we allocate village fund budgets for Promotion and Public Health sections in the provincial something like the transportation costs of health office, noted: the posyandu volunteers, but there has not been a regulation statement issued yet, then Since village funds have been made, the village we will have audit problems from [the Finance heads are required to understand everything, and Development Supervisory Agency], while their capacity is limited. The village say the village chiefs. head needs to understand health affairs, —Community Empowerment Board Secretary, education, and administration, so all the Pamekasan District ministries are in the village. The village head acts as if he is the small president of the village. . . . In addition, almost all village heads reported that the They then make a simple activity, build water rules from Jakarta change frequently and are still unclear. storage and road for instance, while they have According to the Gorontalo district facilitator and Village limited knowledge of health. Community Empowerment Agency, central regulations prioritize infrastructure development for economic From the village-level perspective, village heads choose livelihoods during the first year of the program. The to take on infrastructure projects not because they are district officer also has the authority to cut budget items “easy” but rather because they are “safe” to implement that are not in line with the technical guidelines, which administratively. Village officers in Pamekasan district deters some villages in Gorontalo from including health use the village finance system application developed and education proposals in their budgets. The head of by the Finance and Development Supervisory Agency Rampe village (Nelle subdistrict, Lembata) is willing to to manage village-funded activities. Because village distribute Generasi village facilitator incentives from financial reports are required to correspond to the menu village funds so that facilitators can still help villages with of approved activities in the application, the village their education and health services, but he is concerned heads worry about allocating village funds for health and that central regulations may not allow this. The village education. heads from Pamekasan district asked their district head 52 INDONESIA GENERASI’S IMPACT ON VILLAGE GOVERNANCE ANd BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES to produce guidance on allocating village funds for health development plans before village funds were available. and education activities. Village planning documents are created by the subdistrict and tend to be similar among the constituent villages. The health and education proposals included in Village fund facilitators are not trained to help the the midterm village development plans are still villages in this process. According to TA-PSDs in the so general that they cannot be included in annual control subdistrict of Sambingan, they usually use village development plans. For example, one of the health and education service models from Generasi health service proposals in a Petis subdistrict village’s (Pamekasan district) midterm development plan refers villages as a template. to “improving maternal health” without defining specific activities. The Generasi facilitator encouraged the I have joined the annual village development villages to review midterm village development plans plan consultation meetings several times; most to accommodate more detailed health and education village heads are afraid and confused, firstly proposals (for example, pregnancy classes or transport about how to design activities to eradicate incentives) so they could be put into the annual malnutrition, and secondly about how to development plans and the village budget. allocate for that in the budget. In the end, they focus only on routine activities, or items for Although almost all the villages visited in this study have which they previously allocated. allocated funds for health and education in their village Subdistrict facilitator of Larangan subdistrict, — budgets, some of them duplicate the activities undertaken during a focus group discussion with all by Generasi from their prior budget plan design. Villages subdistrict facilitators in Pamekasan district in the control subdistricts in Gorontalo and Pamekasan districts generally duplicate activities funded by Generasi, whereas the treatment villages have slight variations in GENERASI’S IMPACT ON their proposed education and health activities. Generasi LOCAL REGULATIONS villages in Pamekasan proposed more varied activities The program’s impact on local rules and regulations than did those in Lembata, mainly because of the ability varies by region, often depending on cultural factors. and intensity of Generasi facilitation from the subdistrict In Lembata, Generasi facilitators encourage the and district facilitators in helping villages design their formulation of village regulations (often fines) to help plans. The Generasi subdistrict facilitator and his assistant achieve program targets. Lembata’s former Generasi in Nelle subdistrict (Lembata) said they did not have time to facilitate the planning process in 2016 because district facilitator explains: of complicated administration, such as filling out When we see the indicators do not work, such reports requested by MoV. In contrast, Generasi as pregnant women do not want to attend facilitators in Petis subdistrict (Pamekasan) are actively prenatal exams, how do we make her and involved in fostering village planning and discussion; her family aware? Then we make the perdes the district facilitator’s team occasionally attends village (village regulation). In perdes, there are planning activities. sanctions . . . and these perdes are effective, Generasi facilitation is crucial in designing village they serve as a deterrent, because life should plans because many village governments lack detailed have rules. The development ‘cakes’ are information about the budget plan. According to a plenty, but if they are not bound by the rules, Petis subdistrict government report, few village heads everything becomes more difficult. had dealt with budget plans and midterm village —Former Generasi district facilitator in Lembata LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 53 GENERASI’S IMPACT ON VILLAGE GOVERNANCE ANd BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES Efforts to Integrate Generasi and Increase Demand for Basic CASE STUDY 14  Social Services in Pamekasan District In Pamekasan, village heads play a significant role in determining the direction of village development; they rely on an elite group of community and religious elders to sustain their political power. Elite interests are often disguised as a representation of community member interests. The village government staff usually consists of people with family ties or other close relationships with the village head. A new village head may replace all village government personnel, including Generasi actors. District and subdistrict facilitators in Pamekasan acknowledge that the sustainability of Generasi activities after the program ends depends on individual village heads. If they believe Generasi activities need to be continued, they will integrate them into the village development plan. The program appears to have achieved its goal of cultivating community demand for basic social services: there has been an increased use of health services in Pamekasan. The extent to which this increasing demand can encourage village governments to prioritize basic social services in their village development plans, however, remains unclear. In the treatment village of Sogiyan (Petis subdistrict), the village head has demonstrated a strong commitment to basic social services and intends to ensure that the programs Generasi implemented can be financed through the village fund. The village midwife noted that awareness of health services has been increasing and that Generasi (particularly supplementary food and milk distribution) played a vital role in increasing villagers’ enthusiasm to attend posyandu. Generasi subdistrict facilitators shared a similar assessment, noting that community involvement decreased drastically when the supplementary food was temporarily suspended because of the reduction of the community block grant fund in early 2015. The sudden drop in participation levels convinced the village government to support the resumption of supplementary food to restore posyandu attendance. Aside from whether community awareness of the importance of health services has grown, posyandu participants now consider supplementary food a norm, and removing it raises questions. Because Generasi was seen as responsible for providing (or not) the supplementary food, it is perceived as an aid program. The village head seemed to be aware of this perception, as he regularly received information about Generasi activities from the Generasi village facilitator and village midwife, especially if there were complaints from the community. Although the village head exercises considerable control over Sogiyan’s development, he seemed quite sensitive to the villagers’ complaints, especially those related to what people perceive as government assistance programs. This sensitivity is closely related to protecting his electoral advantage: “If the community keeps complaining, they will not vote for me any longer.” A hamlet leader in Tengangser Laok told researchers that villagers assessed the performance of the village head based on (1) his or her ability to easily provide civil administration documents, especially regarding statements of households living in poverty for education and health care purposes; (2) village infrastructure development, especially roads; and (3) ensuring the distribution of government assistance to the poor. Thus, the supply of supplementary food is associated with the village head’s efforts to maintain his reputation. In this case, Generasi created a condition in the community in which supplementary food became the expected norm; this ultimately encouraged village governments to continue implementing Generasi programs using the new village funds. (case study continues on next page) 54 INDONESIA GENERASI’S IMPACT ON VILLAGE GOVERNANCE ANd BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES Efforts to Integrate Generasi and Increase Demand for Basic CASE STUDY 14  Social Services in Pamekasan District (Continued ) The facilitators repeatedly mentioned that supplementary food was intended to serve as a stimulant to generate public interest in health services in the village and raise awareness of the importance of basic social services; however, beneficiaries perceive it as the main activity. Because the number of participants at health clinics is highly dependent on the supply of supplementary food, it is hard to say that the community has gained an understanding of the importance of basic social services. The public in all areas visited for this study equates supplementary food with other government assistance such as “rice for the poor.” Before the Generasi program intervention, the village head had no idea what basic social services could be included in the village development plan. After several years of Generasi, supplementary food has proven to be necessary and widely appreciated by the community. ‘Reporting Day’ Forum and Allocation of Village Funds for Basic CASE STUDY 15  Social Services in Tarengge Subdistrict, Gorontalo District Villages can continue basic social services provision activities like those supported by Generasi in two ways—either village governments are compelled to do so by their experiences receiving several support programs, or they receive instructions from the subdistrict level (or higher). The “Reporting Day” forum, which is now regularly conducted in all subdistricts in Gorontalo, encourages villages to continue supporting basic social services activities. Village heads gather each week at the subdistrict office to discuss progress and problems in their villages. According to the Tarengge subdistrict head, they frequently discuss efforts to continue improving the health and education sectors because in 2016 some villages in Tarengge had cases of malnutrition, deliveries without health personnel attending, chronic energy deficiency pregnancies, and school dropouts. According to the subdistrict head, the subdistrict government was considering the sustainability of Generasi-supported activities in the villages at the end of the program. He believes the availability of increased village funds has given villages more opportunities to pursue their own development plans. Although there have been some general technical guidelines on the utilization of village funds, more specific guidance on basic social services is still needed. Reporting Day meetings always discuss the use of village funds, including the administrative complexities of fund management. We are worried that after Generasi has ended, the quality of health services will decrease. It is indeed possible to use village funds to budget for these activities, but it depends on the village government whether they budget for it or not. In addition, it also depends on the technical guidance. —Tarengge subdistrict head, Gorontalo district (case study continues on next page) LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 55 GENERASI’S IMPACT ON VILLAGE GOVERNANCE ANd BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES ‘Reporting Day’ Forum and Allocation of Village Funds for Basic CASE STUDY 15  Social Services in Tarengge Subdistrict, Gorontalo District (Continued ) Other subdistrict-level forums are less effective in Gorontalo. The subdistrict community health center convenes a coordination forum or miniworkshop once every three months; the workshop includes many stakeholders, yet many health issues remain unresolved at these meetings. Although final health-related policy decisions in the village rest primarily with health service providers, because the subdistrict head has no formal authority over health and education services at the village level, the subdistrict and village governments can play a monitoring role in village-level service delivery. The experiences of PNPM Rural and Generasi were different: officials in the subdistrict were mandated to oversee the operational activities and maintain the programs’ village development processes. Under the Village Law, the villages are more responsible to the Community and Village Government Empowerment Agency at the district level, which evaluates them. Therefore, the agency should play a larger role, but this is generally not the case yet, perhaps because of the large areas that district-level offices must monitor. Through routine and more local forums, such as Reporting Day, the subdistrict head can learn more about village issues and encourage the mutual exchange of ideas. The subdistrict head can also directly monitor the mechanisms and progress of village development, even though his or her invested authority is still relatively weak. At the very least, Reporting Day meetings represent a useful way for bureaucratic structures to facilitate empowerment initiatives. If implemented in other places, such a forum may help over the longer term, particularly to give the subdistrict government a strategic role in the context of Village Law implementation. Pamekasan district, for instance, uses a different model—the Village Head Association, a subdistrict forum attended by the village heads and the subdistrict head and led by one of the village heads. In Gorontalo, Reporting Day meetings are useful for discussing development issues in the villages. The Reporting Day structure can be improved and scaled up to other places to encourage villages to address basic social services in their planning and budgeting processes. When the head of the Tarengge subdistrict community health centers realized that village funds could be used to support health development in the villages, she began attending the Reporting Day meetings. They may have also influenced the villages of Mangkawani and Maroangin to include the purchase of health and education items in their budgets. Reporting Day can become a consultative forum, not unlike Generasi’s intervillage meetings, that involves more parties to improve stakeholder coordination, especially to overcome village government concerns about how to use village funds effectively. The village head of Maroangin, for instance, worried about budget overlap with activities implemented directly by the health and education services. An important generalized finding of this research is that intervillage forums at the subdistrict level that require and incentivize the participation of village leaders and other stakeholders—such as Reporting Day in Gorontalo, Village Head Association meetings in Pamekasan, and Generasi’s own intervillage meetings— ensure that village-level concerns are shared and addressed jointly. 56 INDONESIA GENERASI’S IMPACT ON VILLAGE GOVERNANCE ANd BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES Pamekasan district, by contrast, has a tradition of Service providers are also not deeply involved in Generasi authoritative decrees from a single leader, such as processes, which are more intensely implemented at the the district head or village head, so many informants village than the subdistrict level; they usually attend Generasi there said they hoped for guidance through executive meetings at the subdistrict level, such as the intervillage decrees. Generasi facilitators in that area encouraged meeting. One exception may be Generasi data collection the district head to write to all village heads to processes: the program encouraged health service encourage them to allocate funds for health and providers in the villages and subdistrict community health education activities in their budgets. centers in Gorontalo and Pamekasan districts to improve the quality of their own data collection. According to the midwife coordinator at the Tarengge subdistrict community GENERASI’S IMPACT ON BASIC health center, when Generasi data presented at an SOCIAL SERVICES intervillage meeting revealed a high-risk pregnancy that the village midwife was unaware of, this pushed the coordinator This field study did not reveal strong evidence that to increase the number of village midwives throughout Generasi processes affected the provision of basic health Tarengge subdistrict to ensure more careful monitoring and education services, perhaps because village-level of potential service users. In Lebak Siwur subdistrict, the Generasi actors consider service providers to be more subdistrict community health center nutrition officer knowledgeable about service provision. For example, coordinates with subdistrict facilitators to gather data on Generasi actors often consult with subdistrict community children and pregnant mothers with nutritional risk, and health center staff about nutrition or what activities the determine which cases should receive food supplements. program should support in the villages. The head of the subdistrict community health center in the subdistrict of Generasi data appear to have had little impact on education service providers, perhaps because the education Tarengge (Gorontalo) explained: department collects data at the school (rather than I advised the Generasi subdistrict facilitator village) level. However, Generasi has encouraged to use the posyandu volunteers trained by our valuable connections between service providers and subdistrict community health center . . . Generasi village communities, which will be useful during the has their own volunteers, but I told them to implementation of the Village Law. For example, the use our volunteers, who have already received secretary of Pamekasan’s District Education Office reported training, because they already understand that Generasi meetings raised awareness of the importance what food is appropriate for infants, toddlers, of education for disabled children, which resulted in a and pregnant women. They already have the proposed budget allocation in 2016 for teacher training in health knowledge. schools that educate special needs children. LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 57 CONCLUSIONS The qualitative fieldwork yielded findings in four main areas: facilitation, participation, targets and incentives, and village governance. FACILITATION Village-level Generasi facilitators were effective at mobilizing communities to achieve program targets for three main reasons. First, the participatory processes through which community members selected the facilitators helped to ensure that they were representative of the community and responsive to its needs. Second, the facilitators invested substantial time into maintaining relationships with their communities, facilitators in other villages, and service providers. Third, their knowledge of health and education issues enabled them to fulfill their core tasks of mobilizing mothers to attend the monthly posyandu and encouraging students to attend school. Ensuring that data on beneficiaries’ progress toward achieving the 12 health and education targets is complete is a core responsibility of Generasi village facilitators and subdistrict facilitators. Yet the time required to collect these data gives facilitators less time for outreach and advocacy. This burden has been compounded during the Village Law implementation process by additional requests from MoV for monthly village reports. PARTICIPATION Ensuring widespread participation in planning meetings requires significant investment from facilitators. Beneficiary participation in Generasi planning activities was found to decline after the hamlet-level meetings, in part because of the widespread understanding of participation as attending (but not necessarily speaking up at) meetings. Some respondents reported that they did not feel they 58 INDONESIA CONCLUSIONS had the knowledge or the right to speak at such meetings actors demonstrated an in-depth understanding of or that it might be interpreted as disrespectful to village the program’s performance bonuses. Because the leaders. Therefore, the program’s goal of empowering bonuses are added to subsequent years’ budgets, are communities to plan, implement, and monitor the delivery quite small, and are awarded to almost all villages, they of basic services and influence village governance was not do not stimulate competition and motivate greater entirely met. facilitator effort. TARGETS AND INCENTIVES VILLAGE GOVERNANCE Generasi’s 12 health and education targets serve an Generasi was found to have had a significant impact important role in motivating facilitators to mobilize on village governance. Generasi-style consultation and communities around meeting the targets. There is implementation mechanisms are becoming important a widespread understanding and awareness of the elements of village planning processes, and Generasi 12 targets among facilitators at all levels. Pressure actors are serving as important resources during the on facilitators to report at intervillage meetings that Village Law implementation phase. Generasi village their village met its targets serves as an important facilitators are beginning to advocate the inclusion of motivation. By comparison, few frontline program health and education activities in village budgets. LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 59 RECOMMENDATIONS The study yielded recommendations in four main areas: facilitation, participation, targets and incentives, and village governance. FACILITATION 77 Village Law facilitators should be recruited from the local communities they serve. Both Village Law facilitators and Generasi village facilitators should receive training in basic social services to allow them to effectively advocate for village governments to utilize funds for health and education services once Generasi ends. MoV could draw on Generasi training materials. 77 Posyandu volunteers and other community-based volunteers should receive training in health service delivery. Subdistrict community health center staff could deliver complete and routine training for posyandu cadres and all community-based health volunteers starting with curriculum the Ministry of Home Affairs has already developed for this purpose. Village governments could help to pay for these training costs. 77 Although it is important for Village Law facilitators to continue collecting health, education, and other basic data, MoV should reduce their data collection burden. MoV should consider training and paying community volunteers, such as former Generasi village facilitators, to collect routine data, which would free up facilitators’ time for outreach and enlarge the network of community volunteers. 77 Subdistricts should continue coordinating intervillage meetings after Generasi ends; in the meetings, village actors would discuss community problems and exchange advice. These meetings can also be adapted and used to motivate and incentivize village governments’ performance. 60 INDONESIA RECOMMENDATIONS Subdistricts should build on the locally developed TARGETS AND INCENTIVES innovations that contribute to village governance 77 Generasi’s target system was effective at practices, which this report highlights. motivating Generasi village- and subdistrict-level facilitators to mobilize communities around the targets. Future programs that consider adopting PARTICIPATION such a system should ensure that there is a 77 CDD projects should encourage equal participation forum, such as the intervillage meetings, that in the full project cycle from both village-level elites puts pressure on Village Law facilitators, village and community members, including posyandu heads, and village governments to ensure villages volunteers and community facilitators. Although meet their targets. ordinary community members may not participate 77 Programs that adopt a Generasi-style performance in village-level planning meetings in large numbers, bonus may want to consider simplifying the system Generasi village facilitators are actively in touch and ensuring high levels of awareness of the process with them and are thus able to present their diverse among program actors and community beneficiaries needs at the planning meetings and follow up with throughout the project cycle. The monetary rewards outreach activities. If community-level facilitators are associated with the bonus should also be more selected from the communities they serve, they can substantial. provide ongoing support and help to bring community members’ complaints and needs to higher levels. 77 MoV should consider putting in place a simple set of performance targets for village governments. The 77 Given the important role that posyandu volunteers intervillage and Reporting Day meetings (see Case play in providing maternal and infant health Study 15: ‘Reporting Day’ Forum and Allocation of services, village governments should invest more Village Funds for Basic Social Services in Tarengge in the posyandu and continue to ensure that they Subdistrict, Gorontalo District) could incentivize are sufficiently staffed (at least five per village and village governments to collect the data needed to one per hamlet) and that they are compensated report back and put pressure on service providers to appropriately. Performance targets can help village deliver more and better services to make the village governments monitor posyandu activities and heads’ performance stand out. ensure continued investment in them. 77 Future programs should consider rewarding 77 The analysis highlights many examples of how individual facilitators with nonmonetary bonuses local culture continues to influence health and (for example, a package of household supplies) as a education behaviors and modes of accountability. possible alternative or complement to a community- Under the Village Law, service providers and village level performance bonus. Evidence from the governments and facilitators should consider how to qualitative study suggests that informal rewards tailor health and education activities to local cultures help Generasi village facilitators and other village to influence behaviors. actors feel appreciated and motivated. LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 61 ANNEX A: DESCRIPTION  OF SAMPLE SITES 62 INDONESIA DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS Village Characteristics (Source: Village Potential Survey (PODES)) Receiving National Distance to Health Government Offices No. of Education Location Population Insurance (km) Facilities No. of Health Facilities Village No. of Junior Midwife Maternity Health District Subdistrict Village Male Female All Households Subdistrict District Elementary High Practice Post Clinic Year 2005 Pamekasan Sambingan Tespates 815 887 1,702 320 1 9 3 0 0 0 2 Pamekasan Petis Sogiyan 1,466 1,561 3,027 253 18 33 4 1 0 1 2 Pamekasan Petis Lelaok 1,760 2,223 3,983 620 4 38 7 2 1 0 3 Lembata Nelle Ilekora 250 269 519 125 4 13 1 0 0 0 4 Lembata Nelle Rampe 128 295 423 103 8 20 0 0 0 1 0 Lembata Tanabola Mogiye 557 676 1,233 179 9 65 2 0 0 1 3 Gorontalo Tarengge Mangkawani 520 526 1,046 121 5 49 1 0 0 0 3 Gorontalo Telogojoyo Jaton 1,017 1,032 2,049 134 2 4 2 1 0 0 1 Year 2014 Pamekasan Sambingan Tespates 876 962 1,838 306 1 9 3 1 1 1 3 Pamekasan Petis Sogiyan 1,258 1,415 2,673 288 12 25 4 1 0 1 3 Pamekasan Petis Lelaok 1,916 2,030 3,946 793 2 37 4 1 1 1 5 Lembata Nelle Ilekora 292 305 597 1 15 24 1 1 0 1 1 Lembata Nelle Rampe 197 238 435 2 9 15 0 0 0 1 1 Lembata Tanabola Mogiye 728 811 1,539 0 7 65 2 0 0 1 3 Gorontalo Tarengge Mangkawani 575 615 1,190 219 7 51 1 0 1 0 3 Gorontalo Tarengge Maroangin 527 526 1,053 0 5 64 1 1 0 0 3 Gorontalo Telogojoyo Jaton 1,184 1,174 2,358 283 3 7 2 1 0 0 0 ANNEX A: DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE SITES SUBDISTRICT AND VILLAGE PROFILES District Subdistrict Village Description Gorontalo Tarengge The total population of Tarengge is 16,764 in 4,866 households. The main livelihoods are agriculture, particularly rice and corn, and factory work. Tarengge subdistrict has one subdistrict community health center with basic emergency obstetric care (PONED) status, which means it can provide emergency services for women with pregnancy complications and newborns with health complications. Yet currently only the midwife coordinator has PONED training; the other 13 midwives are mainly temporary staff or volunteers. Most of the midwives do not live in the villages where they are assigned, both because they are needed at the subdistrict community health centers and due to a lack of housing. Maroangin Most of the village’s 1,096 residents work in agriculture. More than half of the 303 house­ holds (165) are categorized as poor based on 2015 rice subsidy data. Maroangin has good road access to and from the village, and it has an elementary school and a middle school; two nearby high schools are easily reached. Maroangin is assigned a volunteer midwife who works at the subdistrict community health center in Tarengge (two hours away) and visits the village twice a month for posyandu activities (there is no clinic with housing in the village). Generasi began in Tarengge in 2007, before Maroangin was split from the neighboring village of Diloniyohu. Since then the program has supported activities such as food supplements and volunteer incentives for posyandu, school uniforms, food supplements for undernourished infants, transportation for high-risk pregnant women, and transportation to school for poor students. Maroangin has two posyandu, one for each hamlet. Each has five volunteers: one receives incentive payments from the subdistrict community health center, whereas the other four receive payments from Generasi and the village government. Before Generasi, the subdistrict community health center could provide for only two volunteers. Posyandu activities usually take place in the Early Childhood Education and Development (PAUD) building or the village head’s office. Each posyandu has a full set of supplies; village funds recently purchased new tools and supplies (height measuring tool and a blood pressure tool). The volunteers frequently fail to fill in the register books for the posyandu. Mangkawani Mangkawani’s five hamlets are home to 1,101 residents and 283 households, 105 of which are categorized as poor. Most residents work in agriculture or in the village’s coconut flour processing factory. It has good road access to the district (48 km) and subdistrict (5 km) capitals. It has a PAUD and an elementary school. The nearest middle and high schools are 3 km away. Generasi has supported the following activities in Mangkawani since 2007: incentives for posyandu volunteers, provision of posyandu supplies, food supplements, school uniforms, and transportation to school. (table continues on next page) 64 INDONESIA ANNEX A: DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE SITES District Subdistrict Village Description Mangkawani has a satellite subdistrict community health center with one midwife and one nurse, which had reportedly been inactive for the past year. The two staff work at the subdistrict community health center and come to Mangkawani only for posyandu activities. The midwife does not want to stay at the satellite clinic in Mangkawani because she is single and has concerns about living there alone. Village officials have conveyed their concerns to the subdistrict community health center but have received no response. The three posyandu are usually held in the volunteer’s house and the PAUD building. Telogojoyo Telogojoyo (also called Limbar) has 10 villages with 25,005 residents in 7,306 households. The poverty rate is 39.9%. Most of the population works in agriculture, and the farthest village is only 3 km from the subdistrict seat, with good road access. It has one subdistrict community health center (A-class status, with 24-hour service) in charge of seven satellite clinics. In the villages, there are 20 posyandu and three village health posts that should be staffed by a village midwife and two village cadres. There are six general practitioners and one dentist at the subdistrict community health center. All the villages in Limbar have a midwife (although not all of them live there), seven of whom are permanent civil servants. The subdistrict community health center and the subdistrict government have an “Integrity Pact” with the Gorontalo district head to reduce the number of maternal and child mortalities. Limbar has sufficient education facilities, and enrollments are high. Almost all the PAUD buildings in the villages were built by PNPM Rural. Although it has not participated in Generasi, it has taken part in other programs, such as the 2015 Pekan Sayang Ibu Anak program and the Gegas Program that encourages pregnant women to deliver their infants at health facilities with a certified health service provider. It also received maternal and child health service improvement programs from 2012 until 2015 from the international nongovernmental organization (NGO) Adventist International Relief Agency. Jaton Jaton’s population of 2,500 is spread among four hamlets and 738 households, 102 of which are considered poor. Although approximately 100 residents are civil servants in the nearby subdistrict capital, most work in agriculture. The village hosts the subdistrict community health center. There is one village midwife for Jaton, as well as two posyandu but only five volunteers to staff them. Jaton has two PAUD schools, two elementary schools, and one middle school. The subdistrict seat (2 km away) has a high school and a school for special needs children. (table continues on next page) LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 65 ANNEX A: DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE SITES District Subdistrict Village Description Lembata Nelle Ilekora Ilekora’s four hamlets contain 635 people living in 166 households. Most residents work in agriculture or fishing. It has good road access to the subdistrict (15 minutes) and district (30 minutes) capitals. The village has one elementary school, and middle and high schools are relatively close and easily reached. Ilekora has four posyandu and 14 volunteers to staff them, as well as one village maternity post clinic with one village midwife, who provides medication and pregnancy exams; all mothers in the province are required to deliver in subdistrict community health centers or hospitals. Nelle Rampe Rampe has three hamlets. Its 467 residents mainly work in agriculture or fishing, although some work abroad as laborers. Of the 134 households, 50 are categorized as poor. It is 30 minutes from the subdistrict seat. Rampe has a preschool; elementary, middle, and high schools are located in neighboring villages. It has one village midwife, one nutrition nurse, and one posyandu with ten volunteers. Villagers also use a satellite posyandu in a neighboring village, which is only 500 m from the village head’s office. Generasi has been active in Rampe since 2007, and the budgets are generally used to support the posyandu and pay the school committee fees for poor families. Tanabola Tanabola has 20,135 residents, living in roughly 5,387 households. The main sources of income are fishing and agriculture. Access to its 20 villages is difficult, with hilly terrain and poor roads. Nearly all villages have elementary schools and PAUDs; however, the availability of teachers is uneven: some schools have only two or three. Tanabola has an isolated, basic subdistrict community health center, five satellite subdistrict community health centers, two village health posts, and one village maternity post. The subdistrict community health center has one general practitioner and 36 midwives, 26 of whom are village midwives who stay in village-based clinics, most of which were built with funds from PNPM Rural. Every village has one or two midwives, most of whom are not permanent civil servants. Although it has not participated in the Generasi program, it has received support from PNPM Rural, AIPMNH, the NGO Plan International, Desa Siaga, and the provincewide Revolusi KIA (maternal and child health revolution) program. Mogiye Mogiye has 1,625 people in 417 households, 315 of which are categorized as poor. Most residents within the four hamlets work in agriculture. It takes three hours on poor roads to reach the district capital, and limited transportation options impede access to the district hospital. (table continues on next page) 66 INDONESIA ANNEX A: DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE SITES District Subdistrict Village Description Mogiye has a preschool and an elementary school, but the middle and high schools are an hour’s walk away. It has one village maternity post and one village midwife, as well as 20 traditional healers used by many residents. There are four posyandu staffed by 21 volunteers, half of whom are inactive (but receive incentives from the village head, who is a relative). A dedicated posyandu building was built in 2009 with funds from the PNPM Rural program. Each hamlet’s posyandu takes turns using it on different days. Mogiye has received support from recently completed programs such as PNPM Rural (phased out in 2014), AIPMNH (2012–15), and Plan International. Pamekasan Petis Petis’s population of 63,989 is located in 16,273 households across 12 villages. Most residents work in the agricultural sector or overseas in Malaysia. Although most roads provide good access, three villages have difficult access because of the hilly terrain. The subdistrict has a new Type-D hospital as well as two subdistrict community health centers, one in Petis (with PONED status) and another in Tampujong (with overnight inpatient status). Most villages in Petis have a midwife; however, because of large populations or difficult access, this is not always enough. One of the subdistrict community health centers has a “waiting house” near the clinic paid for by the district government for patients who come from distant villages. Education facilities from elementary through high school are generally easy to access, although there is insufficient access for students with special needs. Lelaok Lelaok has a population of 3,896 in 1,616 households, spread across five hamlets; 784 of these households are registered as poor. Most work in agriculture, but some work abroad. The village is 3 km from the subdistrict seat and 2.5 hours from the district capital. There are education facilities in the village from PAUD through tertiary education. It has one village maternity post with a village midwife and a nurse. Lelaok also has five posyandu with 25 volunteers. All babies in the village are delivered with assistance from accredited health service providers. Generasi has been active in Lelaok since 2007, supporting posyandu-related activities, such as supplies, incentives for volunteers, and food supplements, as well as providing school uniforms. Sogiyan Sogiyan has 3,005 inhabitants in 879 households, 470 of which are classified as poor. Most residents are farmers, but some work in Surabaya as laborers. It is 45 minutes from the district capital but 75 minutes from the subdistrict seat. The village has private religious schools from PAUD through high school; not all teachers have proper qualifications. The secular government elementary school closed in 2013 because of low enrollment. (table continues on next page) LONG-TERM GENERASI QUALITATIVE STUDY 67 ANNEX A: DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE SITES District Subdistrict Village Description Sogiyan has one village maternity post staffed by one village midwife, as well as three posyandu with six volunteers. Each posyandu is held in a different location: the village maternity post, the village head’s house, and a volunteer’s home. The nearest subdistrict community health center is 4 km away. Sambingan Sambingan subdistrict has 27 villages, all with flat and low topography and good roads. Its population is 80,388 in 18,646 households. Most residents work in agriculture and forestry, whereas many others work outside the district. Sambingan subdistrict has education facilities under the authority of the Education or Religion ministries, from the PAUD and elementary level through high school as well as several religious boarding schools in Sambingan. Sambingan subdistrict has two subdistrict community health centers and five satellite clinics. It has three general practitioners, 13 nurses, and 41 midwives who are based in clinics and villages. The main subdistrict community health center is in the process of upgrading to PONED status by building a delivery room and nutrition section. At the village level there are village maternity posts or village health posts and monthly posyandu. The village maternity and health posts were built using health department funds supplemented with village budgets and PNPM Rural support. PNPM Rural built 17 village maternity posts in Sambingan subdistrict, some of which are difficult to access. The subdistrict community health center assists with funding food supplements for posyandu. Tespates Tespates’s 1,932 residents live in 450 households within five hamlets. It is the subdistrict seat. Although the village has elementary, middle, and high schools, families prefer to send their children to religious boarding schools; the village thus has one of the lowest school enrollments for elementary and middle schools in the district. In addition to the subdistrict community health center, Tespates has a village midwife and three posyandu with 15 volunteers, although only nine are currently active. Posyandu are typically held in the house of the village head or a volunteer. Tespates has a village maternity post, which was built with PNPM Rural funds, but it remains unused because it is considered too far away. 68 INDONESIA