Estamos construyendo un nuevo
Durante algún tiempo nuestras páginas estarán en período de transición. Gracias por tu paciencia. Por favor visita nuestro sitio de nuevo para ver las mejoras.

Base de datos de evaluación

Evaluation report

IDS 1998/012: Evaluation of the Area Based Planning Process Under the Maternal and Child Survival, Development and Protection Program

Author: Prabowo, A.; Solihin, D.; Siadari, M. B.; Rahman, E. A.; Freeman, M.

Executive summary


UNICEF and the Government of Indonesia (GOl) have agreed to undertake a Maternal and Child Survival, Development and Protection program (MCSDP or KHPPIA in local language) in seven provinces. In 1998/99 this will be extended to two more provinces. Provincial KHPPlA activities are governed by agreements established between UNICEF and provincial authorities. KHPPIA is a multi-component, integrated, cross-sectoral program. It has three components and 14 sub-components with primary goals in the reduction of infant, mother and child mortality rates.

Within this overall framework, the Area Proposal Packet and Area Information Packet (PUA/PIA) process acts as the primary planning and budgeting tool for KHPPIA activities in participating provinces. It fits into and augments the existing and extensive P5D (Guidelines for the Compilation of Regional Development Plans and the Control of Regional Development, a bottom-up planning system) government planning and budgeting system for regions.

Purpose / Objective

This evaluation has aimed to provide input to, and make recommendations for, the forthcoming Mid-Term Review of the GOI and the UNICEF joint program for Maternal and Child Survival, Development and Protection (MCSDP or KHPPIA).

More specfically, this evaluation aims to measure the extent to which PUA/PIA, the process of planning utilised by UNICEF and GOI, has been able to achieve its objectives as a management approach for social sector planning in the regions in which KHPPIA is operational. It also aims to ascertain the extent to which PUA/PIA is an integral part of the strategy to strengthen regional capacity to undertake social sector planning.


The evaluation involved document reviews and field visits by the main team members. The document review included study of archives and the examination of numerical data resulting from the PUA/PIA process, with focus on the three sample provinces and the two financial years of PUA/PIA operation to-date. For West Nusa Tenggara, the main team was given access to files and was able to examine data at district level, whereas in the other two provinces, data was only available at the provincial level.

Key Findings and Conclusions

1. The extent to which the PUA/PIA process has been able to mobilise provincial and district funds (APBD1 and 2 respectively Provinical and District Revenue and Expenditure Budgets) for KHPPIA activities:
- KHPPIA funding levels have increased overall. In general terms, the provincially funded proportion of total provincial KHPPIA funding has increased from 1996/97 to 1997/98, but the proportion of district-funded activities in total district activities has dropped. There has been a shift in UNICEF funding from provinces to districts.
- The PUA/PIA approach can be said to have very successfully mobilised regional funds in West Java to the extent that reported KHPPIA allocations have risen threefold.
- The South Sulawesi KHPPIA allocation from provincial government has increased by twofold.
- In NTB, there has been an increase in the mobilisation of district and provincial funds by approximately 340%; however, the proportion of district funding for KHPPIA has remained relatively stable.

2. The extent to which PUA/PIA has been able to improve the capacity of regional government to formulate policy to improve the implementation of KHPPIA:
- West Java has initiated the Setrawan KHPPIA concept, which is bringing valuable and positive innovations in the dissemination of the KHPPIA program to districts.
- The Gerakan Sayang Ibu or Dear Mother Movement in several of the model villages of South Sulawesi has brought the emergence of several innovative activities, such as village ambulances, tabulin (a savings scheme for pregnant women), study tours and cooperation between traditional birth attendants and village midwives.
- In East Lombok, several KHPPIA innovations are apparent. These include the KHPPIA model village, the sanitation clinic, and a local magazine called Kirani.
- The anticipation of the impact of the economic crisis on social welfare has induced a response to feeding problems through KHPPIA in South Sulawesi.

3. The extent to which PUA/PIA has been able to improve social sector planning through the bottom-up (P5D) process:
- The quality of planning in the regions is still low and it is not supported by a full analysis of the development issues.
- Proposed projects are not well focused on the target groups.
- The Musbangdes formats are felt to be too complicated for village use.

4. The extent to which PUA/PIA has been able to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local resource utilisation in support of KHPPIA:
- The Proportion of KHPPIA in the total regional budgets has increased but social development budgets are small.
- APBD allocations for social sector development are "disturbed" and "loaded" by sectoral pressures from the centre.
- Allocations from Inpres [Presidental Instruction grants to regions and villages] for social sector development are very small when compared with other sectoral allocations.

5. The extent to which PUA/PIA has been able to improve coordination between sectoral agencies involved in PUA/PIA:
- PUA/PIA has been able to improve inter-sectoral coordination primarily because it has encouraged informal contact between participating institutions.
- Recent movements of key staff have weakened inter-sectoral coordination.
- Planners do not yet see KHPPIA as a way of thinking or approach to planning, with the result that monitoring and evaluation is still on a sectoral basis.
- The number of late proposals being received from participating institutions indicates a problem with integration of proposals.

6. The extent to which PUA/PIA promotes effective management and control of UNICEF funds:
- The difference in the planning cycles of PSD (March to April) and UNICEF (January to December) reduces the effectiveness of use of UNICEF funds.
- The process for the release of UNICEF funds is considered to be too long, especially the steps between field offices and the central UNICEF office.
-Advocacy and Social Mobilisation could be employed more in the regions.
- The number of UNICEF staff in the provinces is insufficient to disseminate the KHPPIA program either to local governments or to the people.


1. UNICEF should continue to consolidate its involvement in, and support of, the PUA/PlA process at district and provincial levels. It should support the development of village and kecamatan planning systems, but should not comprehensively finance and support PUA/PlA processes at those levels. It should continue and, if appropriate, expand its involvement in the pilot village scheme, and encourage the utilisation of the scheme to find better methods of planning and budgeting for village and kecamatan needs. It should also promote a more integrated approach to sub-components 12, 13 and 14 in the regions to assist in this regard.

2. The status of each KHPPIA proposal in the PSD system needs to be more clearly spelt out, i.e. whether it is refused or accepted. If it is accepted, the funding source should be clearly stated. If refused, this should be stated to those who prepared the proposal. In principle, the PUA/PIA would continue without UNICEF support; but this would depend on disseminating results more to planners, and it will require more commitment from local leaders.

3. The P5D process should be revised to allow greater inclusion of popular aspiration, and PUA/PIA should be formally recognised as a part of the PSD process.

4. The PUA/PIA process must become more outcome-oriented, more linked to the encouragement of activities involving village people and less to the encouragement of planning meetings. This can be achieved through the widespread introduction of a tool similar to the KIPO and the development of an output/outcome/impact monitoring system. UNICEF and GOI should work together to achieve this as a matter of urgency. Development performance indicators need to be oriented more towards social outcomes, not economic.

5. It is further recommended that the output monitoring approach be developed further for the entire KHPPIA program to provide an easily obtainable overview of program progress. Coupled with this, it is recommended that a system for the monitoring of financial disbursements be developed that can readily provide information for UNICEF and GOI participants in KHPPIA.

6. Planners need to be given more training by government in planning models that take the side of the community (like participatory planning or community-based development approaches).

7. The evaluation proposes that a sufficiently upgraded and improved PUA document will be sufficient to justify the flow of a considerable proportion of UNICEF funds for KHPPIA. The PUA document should be upgraded to include accurate costing information, as well as a more accurate definition of outputs. The form for Musbangdes [Village Develoment Consultant] needs to be simplified and made more accommodating of or suitable for social sector proposals. It is recommended that the PIA document be retained to act as a refinement to the budget allocations for the second half of the calendar year.

8. It is recommended that UNICEF and GOI examine, as a matter of urgency, the reduction of the number of proposals received in anyone year by UNICEF. Measures that should be considered should include (but not be limited to) the encouragement of larger (and thus fewer) proposals, the amalgamation of sub-component programs in provinces and districts, the encouragement (particularly at provincial level) of one proposal per sub-component, and the development of single integrated proposals from districts.

9. It is proposed to form a joint GOI-UJNICEF KHPPIA and Social Sector Planning Reform Working Group, to look at a range of related issues including (but not limited to):
- The inclusion of lessons from PUA/PIA experience into the GOI change process for social planning
- Encouragement of improved quality of social sector planning, particularly utilising KHPPIA
- Improvement of bottom-up planning processes for social development purposes, particularly through the model village scheme
- Design of improved formats for social sector planning, particularly for KHPPIA, at the village and kecamatan levels

Full report in PDF

PDF files require Acrobat Reader.



Report information





ECD - Area-based Programme

Government of Indonesia, UNICEF


Follow Up:


Sequence Number: