Improving Programme Effectiveness through Targeted Beneficiary Identification - Experiences; Examples.

Moderator’s Note: Dear members, We are proudly posting the Consolidated Reply (CR) of the First Query on Improving Programme Effectiveness through Targeted Beneficiary Identification. We really thank members for sharing their valuable knowledge, experiences and examples. Your active participations, queries, responses, criticisms, and suggestions are welcome for the sake of our progress. We hope this forum gives significant impacts to Indonesian development, particularly to promote the provision of valuable solutions for issues in Economic Development sector. Best regards, Thamrin Simanjuntak

Solution Exchange for the Economic Development Community

Consolidated Reply

Query: Improving Programme Effectiveness through Targeted Beneficiary Identification - Experiences; Examples.

Compiled by Thamrin Simanjuntak, Moderator and Dewi Gayatri, Research Assistant

Issue Date: 09 January 2009

From Said Muhammad. Faculty of Economy, University Syiah Kuala

Banda Aceh, Indonesia

Posted 25 November 2008

Dear members,

I work at the Faculty of Economics, Syiah Kuala University . We are preparing a recommendation for the government and development agencies on how to increase the effectiveness of interventions aiming to reduce poverty and improve livelihood opportunities in the community.

I believe that development interventions conducted so far (in forms, such as material, equipment, soft loans or trainings) was not always based on the specific conditions of targeted beneficiaries. This is, perhaps, one of the main reasons why they were not very effective in improving the economic condition of the beneficiaries. In order to enhance the quality of development interventions, we usually classify the poor people into three target groups and then tailor development interventions to meet the needs of each group. This classification is as given below:

First Group: Most poor; those with no property, occupation, skills or expertise.

Second Group: Those with some property but without any occupation, skills or expertise

Third Group: Those with some property and occupation, but without skills or expertise

I, therefore, request members of the community to help me with the following:

· Methodologies or approaches used for targeting beneficiaries in poverty reduction programmes, and how would such methodologies/approaches compare with the approach suggested above?

· Examples of interventions that have worked for any of these groups in such a targeted approach.

Your experiences and examples will help us provide useful recommendations in the report and shall be duly acknowledged.

Responses were received, with thanks, from

1. Kasru Susilo, Masyarakat Penanggulangan Bencana Indonesia (Community of Disaster Management Indonesia ), Jakarta , Indonesia

2. Tonny Bengu, CARE International Indonesia , Timor, East Nusa Tenggara , Indonesia

3. Johanes Yonerson, Haskoning Nederland BV , Central Java , Indonesia

4. Marthunis Muhammad, BAPPEDA (Regional Planning and Development Board), Banda Aceh , Indonesia

5. Muhammad Jamil, World Vision Indonesia , North Sumatera , Indonesia

6. Akhmad Muharram, International Organization for Migration, Banda Aceh , Indonesia

7. Sabastian Saragih , CIRCLE Indonesia , Yogyakarta , Indonesia

8. Muslim Hasan Birga, Inspiring for Managing People’s Actions (IMPACT), Banda Aceh, Indonesia

9. Job Charles, International Organization for Migration, Banda Aceh , Indonesia

10. Agus Saputra, Center for Community Development and Education, Banda Aceh , Indonesia

11. Sayu Komang, Idep Foundation, Ubud, Bali , Indonesia

Summary of Responses

Comparative Experiences

Related Resources

Responses in Full

Summary of Responses

In response to the query on methodologies and approaches for beneficiary selection and examples of successful interventions members of the Economic Development Community cited several strategies to identify beneficiaries for development programmes. They also inter alia wrote about various factors that are important and be kept in mind while selecting beneficiaries for development programmes.

Members referred to a broad way to categorize beneficiaries:

· Refer to the scale of the service such as individual, couple, family, neighborhood, village, province,

· Refer to the potential of beneficiaries, e.g. (i) people who have some assets, but don’t have knowledge to manage, (ii) people who have no asset; but with resources available in their surroundings they could develop economically through formation of self help groups and (iii) people who have neither assets nor expertise and who can be helped with only religious charity (the concept of Musannif zakat in Sharia might inhibit beneficiaries from misusing loan money).

Members noted that the above mentioned categorization dictated the type of support to each level, such as charity for people who have absolutely nothing, funds and skills training support for those in the second category and management skills training for those in the first category.

On a more specific note, respondents referred to the methods applied in their organizations to assess beneficiaries. These are: 1) Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), 2) Household Economy Approach (HEA), 3) Household Livelihood Security Analysis (HLSA) and 4) Plural Learning for Action (PLA) and 5) Sustainable Livelihood Approach and Welfare Ranking. In addition, members cited an experience in North Sumatra and stated that it was important to begin with an assessment of the needs of the beneficiaries and tailoring a programme on that basis, rather than acquiring funding as the first step, which may just encourage consumption of loan funds in the absence of a credible programme.

Contributors also underlined important factors having a bearing on beneficiary identification. They noted that it was necessary to involve the beneficiaries themselves in the identification process, such as in determining the poorest and the richest in the village, indicator of the level of poverty and the affluence, and also include inputs from economic experts, religious leaders, field workers and team leaders with strong commitment towards the communities. They emphasized on the use of focus group discussions, meetings and evaluations among potential beneficiaries and underlined facilitating personal development among the field workers and team leaders to build a conducive environment for economic development.

Members shared information about developing beneficiaries’ business awareness by exploring internal and external factors that affect their economic conditions including strength of individual resources, weaknesses, environment, market opportunities, policies, regulations, and social systems to arrive at the best business opportunities, after stakeholders had determined the categories of beneficiaries. They mentioned some key issues in beneficiary selection as cultural sensitivity, external and internal capacity of poor people and knowledge of the ways of living and working of the beneficiaries.

Other factors that could result in successful economic development programmes, contributors highlighted that type of support needs to be relevant to the type of beneficiary. For example providing agriculture tools for individuals or families, in-kind support such as cattle for groups or neighborhoods, or cash loans for groups through NGOs. They felt that an appropriate assessment of the beneficiaries could help avoid problems such as recipients selling tools or donated assets or for unutilized assets becoming ‘dead capital’. They underlined the importance and relevance of factors such as leadership among target beneficiaries, skill development, market access and time and location specificity of development programmes.

Members pointed towards some other aspects of development programmes such as the role of government at the macro level and that of different actors in development at the micro level. They also mentioned the importance of social capability and public infrastructure in the implementation of development programmes.

In short, respondents felt that a judicious use and mix of the right approach, strategy and methods through effective identification of beneficiaries will create a holistic development programme.

Comparative Experiences

Banda Aceh

Islamic Charity Mechanism (from Marthunis Muhammad, BAPPEDA, Banda Aceh)

Identification of beneficiaries is complex as many parties feel entitled to receive the grant, especially, if the programme works in an area affected by donor recipient syndrome. One strategy effectively applied is the Musannif Zakat wherein beneficiaries are treated as recipients. Zakat is Sharia terminology, therefore sacred for the Acehnese and thereby inhibits free riders from taking advantage of participatory programs and their offerings.

North Sumatera

Type of Beneficiaries Related to Type of Support/Interventions (from Muhmamad Jamil, World Vision Indonesia , North Sumatera )

Through PLA assessment World Vision Indonesia explored community interests and needs of target beneficiaries and then asked them to identify the potential resources from the village. Upon analyzing these observations support was extended by donors distributing cash loans through NGOs to individual beneficiaries emphasizing their responsibility to pay back which in turn is used for other beneficiaries. In-kind support such as livestock is also extended.

Yogyakarta

Welfare Ranking (from Sabastian Saragih, CIRCLE Indonesia , Yogyakarta )

This tool, part of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) marks the beginning of the Sustainable Livelihood approach and is used for poor people mapping. Through interviews or focus group discussions, people or communities are requested to figure out who are the poorest and the richest in their village. They then, formulate the indicators of the levels of poverty and affluence which is used as their ownership or access to livelihood resources.

Related Resources

Recommended Documentation

From Tonny Bengu, CARE International Indonesia , Timor, East Nusa Tenggara

Household Economy Approach

Document; by Tanya Boudreau and Penny Holzmann; The Practitioners’ Guide to the Household Economy Approach; The Economy Group and Save the Children UK; 2007; English Version available at http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/learning/humanitarian/downloads/hea.pdf (PDF, Size: 174 KB)

Guides the process of identifying livelihood zones, determining wealth groups, household incomes and expenditures, impact and identification of a livelihood deficit.

Household Livelihood Security Assessments

Toolkit; by McCaston M. Katherine, Luther Kristina, Frankerberger Timonthy, Bedit James; Tango International, Tueson; Arizona for CARE USA; Atlanta, Georgia; 2002; English Version available at http://www.chs.ubc.ca/archives/files/Household-Livelihood-Assessment.pdf (PDF, Size: 3.2 MB)

Covers the definition, activity guideline, data gathering and analysis, recommendations for beneficiaries dependent on natural resources conditions.

Participatory Rural Appraisal

Technical Paper; by Philip Townsley; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome , Italy ; 1996; required legal permission; on-line English version available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/w2352e/w2352e00.htm

Reports on fishery cover definition, methods, tools, approach to address specific factors such as environment, socio-cultural, institutional, markets, fishery credit etc.

Sustainable Livelihood (from Sabastian Saragih, CIRCLE Indonesia , Yogyakarta )

Document; by Robert Chambers and Gordon R. Conway; Institute of Development Studies ; 1991; English Version available at http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/dp/dp296.pdf (PDF, Size: 186 KB) and http://www.livelihoods.org/SLdefn.html

Details practical concept of sustainable rural livelihoods, sustainable environment and social aspects, practical analysis of resources, productivity and small scale economics.

Plural Learning of Action (from Muhmamad Jamil, World Vision Indonesia , North Sumatera )

Narration; by World Vision International; Laos ; English Version available at http://laos.wvasiapacific.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95

Explained the PLA method applied by World Vision International, particularly in the project of rural community in Savannakhet Province

From Marthunis Muhammad, BAPPEDA, Banda Aceh

Musannif Zakat

Guideline; Islamic Charity Organization “Rumah Zakat’ (House of Charity); Bahasa Indonesia Version available at http://www.rumahzakat.org/pengenalan_zakat.php?data=5

Brief of “Zakat” as charity in Islamic laws, and covers individual’s obligation to pay a charity, its calculation, process, organization, and criteria to identify beneficiaries.

Dead Capital

Online News; by Hernando de Soto ; Reason Online; May 2001; English Version available at

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28018.htm

Analyses global economy in centuries that affected economies of countries, including marginal issues, private sectors, laws, immigrants, technology and organizations.

Recommended Organizations and Programmes

Inspiring for Managing People’s Actions (IMPACT), Banda Aceh (from Muslim Hasan Birga, Banda Aceh)

Jalan T. Iskandar No. 50 Lambhuk Banda Aceh 23118 Indonesia ; Tel.: + 62 651 28541; Fax: + 62 651 28542; admin@impactaceh.org; http://impactaceh.org/profile2.htm

Provides consultative on improvement of CSO performance, strengthening post Tsunami community rehabilitation and supports acceleration of sustainable livelihood.

Center for Community Development and Education, Banda Aceh (from Agus Saputra, Banda Aceh)

Jalan Tengku chik Lorong E no. 18 Berawe Banda Aceh 23001 Indonesia ; Tel.: + 62 651 742 8446; http://www.ccde.or.id

Empowers Aceh women to overcome poverty financially and intellectually, particularly through the programme of micro finance and micro enterprise.

Universitas Syiah Kuala (UNSYIAH), Banda Aceh (from Said Muhammad)

Jalan T. Nyak Arif Darussalam, Banda Aceh 23111 Indonesia ; Tel.: + 62 651 755 3205, 7553248; Fax: + 62 651 742 8680, 755 1241; http://www.unsyiah.ac.id/

Provides reports of studies, workshops and projects, including information on the economy and agriculture in the province of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam

CIRCLE Indonesia , Yogyakarta (from Sabastian Saragih, Yogyakarta )

Jalan Kaliurang Km 9 Klabanan Sardonoharjo RT 06/RW 46 Sleman Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta Indonesia ; Tel./Fax: + 62 274 884 986; http://circleindonesia.or.id

Has the experience of conducting training programmes and implementing livelihoods projects in the province of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam .

From Marthunis Muhammad, BAPPEDA, Banda Aceh

Pemerintah Propinsi Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam (Government of the Province of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam ), NAD
Jalan T. Cot Plieng No. 48 Banda Aceh Indonesia ; Tel.: + 62 651 755 4635; Fax: + 62 651 755 4636; bpde@nad.go.id; http://www.nad.go.id/index.php

Provides directory and data for public purposes, including regulation, government public services, annual reports, on-line surveys and news of economic development

BAPPEDA Provinsi Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam (Regional Planning and Development Board), Banda Aceh

Jalan Tgk. H. M. Daud Beureu-eh no. 26 Banda Aceh 23121 Indonesia ; Tel.: + 62 651 21440; Fax: + 62 651 33654

Provides information and services of economic activities, such as legal permits, data of economic resources, production, funding and investment.

IDEP Foundation, Bali (from Sayu Komang, Ubud, Bali )

Jalan Hanoman No.42 Ubud, Bali , Indonesia PO BOX 160 Ubud, 80571, Bali Indonesia ; Tel./Fax: + 62 361 981504; info@idepfoundation.org; http://idepfoundation.org

Works with and trains specific beneficiaries to improve their own situations through sustainable living solutions for households, businesses, schools & communities

From Tonny Bengu, CARE International Indonesia , Timor, East Nusa Tenggara

CARE Indonesia, Jakarta

TIFA Building 10th floor Suite 1005 Jalan Kuningan Barat 26 Jakarta 12710 Indonesia ; Tel.: +62 21 529 222 82; Fax: +62 21 529 222 83; info@careind.or.id; http://www.careindonesia.or.id/

Operated the assessment manual which includes selection of beneficiaries particularly through data gathering and analysis (Household Livelihood Security Assessments).

OXFAM GB Indonesia, Jakarta

Jalan Taman Margasatwa 26, Ragunan,

 Jakarta 12550

 Indonesia ; Tel.: + 62 21 7811827; Fax: + 62 21 7812321; Jakarta@oxfam.org.uk; http://www.oxfam.org.uk 

Identified the beneficiaries by applying the manual (Household Economy Approach).

International Organization for Migration (IOM) Indonesia , Banda Aceh (from Akhmad Muharram, Banda Aceh)

Jalan Sudirman no. 32 Banda Aceh 23230 Indonesia ; Tel.: + 62 651 43556; Fax: + 62 651 43554; iomaceh@iom.int; http://www.iom.or.id/

Engages in beneficiaries selection through several type of projects such as Emergency and Post-crisis Migration Management, Regulating Migration, etc.

World Vision Indonesia , Jakarta (from Muhmamad Jamil, North Sumatera )

Jalan Wahid Hasyim No 33 Jakarta 10340; Tel.: + 62 021 327 467; Fax: + 62 21 310 7846; Indonesia@wvi.org; http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/sponsor/sponsor-indonesia

Implemented income-generating projects and education in helping families to stay in their own communities

Masyarakat Penanggulangan Bencana Indonesia (Community of Disaster Management Indonesia ) MPBI, Jakarta (from Kasru Susilo, Jakarta )

Jalan Kebon Sirih No. 5G Kebon Sirih Jakarta Pusat 10340 Indonesia ; Tel.: +62 21 3103535; Fax: + 62 21 3147321; Hotline: +62-21-93220102; sekretariat@mpbi.org; http://www.mpbi.org/

Is experienced in selecting specific beneficiaries that live with disaster risks, and involving specific beneficiaries in the workshop and training.

Recommended Communities and Networks

Forum Koordinasi Percepatan Pembangunan Ekonomi Aceh - Aceh Partnerships for Economic Development, Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam , Indonesia (from Thamrin Simanjuntak, Moderator)

Jalan Tgk Daud Beureueh No 26. Banda Aceh, Province of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam , Indonesia ; Tel.: + 62 651 21064; aped@aped-project.org; http://www.aped-project.org/diskusi/forumdisplay.php?f=5

Facilitates discussion regarding accelerated economic development in the province of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam.

CGIAR - Post Tsunami Initiatives Mailing-List Based Discussion Forum, Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor , Indonesia (from Dewi Gayatri, Research Assistant)

Jalan CIFOR Situ Gede Bogor Barat 16115 Indonesia P.O. Box 0113 BOCBD Bogor 16000;
Tel.: + 62 251 862 2622; Fax: + 62 251 862 2100; cifor@cgiar.org; http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cgiar_tsunami/

Serves information on restoring livelihoods and on integrated natural resources management in areas directly and indirectly affected by the tsunami and earthquake

Responses in Full

Kasru Susilo Masyarakat Penanggulangan Bencana Indonesia /MPBI (Community of Disaster Management Indonesia ), Jakarta , Indonesia

Targeted Beneficiaries Identification:

Programme beneficiaries could be classified (in the context of poverty reduction) related to the scales:

a. Individual – one body

b. Couples – one bed

c. Family – one kitchen

d. Neighborhood – one well / source of water

e. Village – one working area and others such as one Governor.

The size of beneficiary groups will define the type of programme, i.e. the system we use for different groups will differ.

Moreover, if we see from the socio-political-economy side, then according to me, specific programme “to help them” is needed for specific instance and specific location, which is strategic and which can be sustained, and therefore programme cannot be generalized.

There are other aspects too:

At Macro level: it is the government domain and responsibility.

At Micro level: interest, willingness, capacity of the actors (which could be developed) and is unique for each related actor.

At the Meta level: social capability and social cultural (need long term programme/strategy, and become community commitment or competency).

At Meso level: social and technical infrastructure (public infrastructure) as public issues and become the responsibility of the community/private sector and government to create good governance in order to implement the local economic development programme.

It will be a different situation and condition for the different scales (from one kitchen to one complete province). Moreover, the analysis of the capacity of each community member within their own group where he belongs is also required.

That’s my instant response to the query from Pak Said.

Tonny Bengu, CARE International Indonesia , Timor, East Nusa Tenggara , Indonesia

There are many approaches that we could apply. In CARE we use HLSA (Household Livelihood Security Analysis). You may type HLSA in google and will find the steps. In practice we need:

1. Assessment or survey process which applying pentagon HLS

2. Applying PRA method

3. Applying scoring system

4. Local criteria that normally different

Then, if we asked about community income, we could use a strategically questioning as below:

How much spend do they·per month and in which items? People are more open about their expenditure rather than about their income.

We should also observe carefully their assets and properties. The method actually involves multiple steps. You also could use Household Economy Approach (HEA) which is being used by friends from OXFAM. That’s all for awhile, we could share more information on this subject.

Johanes Yonerson , Haskoning Nederland BV , Central Java , Indonesia

I would like to share my experience as staff of community development of an international mining company in east Kalimantan .

Community as target programme can be divided into three categories:

1. There are people who have some assets, but don’t have knowledge to manage, therefore they look poor. They need training and management skill.

2. People who have no asset, only place to live, however resources are available in their surroundings which they could use. They need training and fund support, for example through group formation.

We have people who have been trained, and who have established self help groups (1998 – 2002). Their own performance, as well as that the of group has improved.

3. People who have nothing, the only possible way/programme is through charity to help them. These people need life saving to programmes.

The three categories need different programmes, implementing the same programme might leave out certain communities.

Another reason that causes failure is when personnel look for funds first and develop the programme later. It happens with the first category of people. Funds or money is available but they don’t have any plan of productive activities, hence they utilize the funds for consumption.

The key personnel in this empowerment model are the field worker who has a strong commitment and the leader who leads the programme. The programme implementation needs a long term, starting from group formation, personal development until the group became self reliant (and they can function without guidance of field worker).

Hope it will useful. Thank you.

Marthunis Muhammad , BAPPEDA (Regional Planning and Development Board), Banda Aceh , Indonesia

Identification of beneficiaries is complex as many parties feel they are entitled to receive the grant, especially, if the programme works in an area that is affected by a donor recipient syndrome. There is a strategy that could be applied in the context of Aceh: the beneficiaries are treated as recipients of musannif Zakat (charity). Why would this be good to try? Zakat is Sharia terminology and is therefore sacred for the people of Aceh which might inhibit free riders taking advantage of the "invisible hand".

Practically, it will be better to implement the identification process of beneficiaries in a participatory manner, involving all stakeholders, experts of economy and religious leaders, to ensure the people receive an alternative "informed choice". Informed choice is important to cover the weaknesses of participatory methods (in broader terms relating to democracy) – giving an extreme example: among the bad people, bad ideas could be approved.

Regarding poverty alleviation, there is a frame work such as Household Livelihood Security Analysis (HLSA), as mentioned by Pak Tonny link http://www.solex-un.net/repository/id/ecdv/cr1-res1-bahasa.doc previously, and also Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF), http://www.livelihoods.org. All the frameworks implicitly explain that poverty is not only a lack of ownership of assets, but also of an environment conducive to prosperity (institutions, culture, processes, etc).

The term of “dead capital”, of Hernando de Soto might reflect this phenomena. The assets become dead capital that cannot be used to their fullest. The institutions that give life to capital that allow one to secure the interests of third parties with work and assets. Read more at http://www.reason.com/news/show/28018.htm

This is my input and I hope it is helpful to the Community.

Muhammad Jamil , World Vision Indonesia , North Sumatera , Indonesia

To identify beneficiaries, we need an assessment and we can do that through PLA (Plural Learning for Action) in which we gathered the community to conduct:

1. Meetings

2. Discussions

3. Evaluation

In the PLA implementation, we explored the community interests and needs of the target beneficiaries, and then asked them to identify the potential resources from the village. We observed and made analysis. Our support will be based on the findings and will better suit the targeted beneficiaries than many past experiences for NGOs during the emergency period.

Suggestions for types of support/interventions for these beneficiaries:

In the form of a cash loan, usually a Donor Institution will select a reputable and experience local NGO to distribute the funds. This strategy is also applied when Donors want the community to realize that the fund is not a grant, and beneficiaries have responsibility to pay the loan back. The funds collected then will be utilized for other beneficiaries.

In-kind support such as livestock: cow, buffalo, goat, etc. Donors can provide resources in a revolving system. Example: A group member gets a water buffalo, after the buffalo produces one offspring and it grows then the first buffalo is handed over to another member to be taken care and produce the next offspring and this process is repeated.

Hope this is a valuable addition to the discussion.

Akhmad Muharram, International Organization for Migration, Banda Aceh , Indonesia

Regarding the challenges noted by Pak Said about the implementation of programs to alleviate poverty and to improve quality of life, I would like to share few experiences while working at the grass roots. The following is my experience during three years living with the refugees of conflict.

First; I think the approaches and strategies of intervention previously explained by other members are appropriate to be applied to your program. I would add that it is important to consider the culture sensitivities of beneficiaries to make modifications as necessary.

Regarding your strategy, I have difficulty understanding the process of how beneficiaries are clustered. Are beneficiaries involved in determining the levels? If beneficiaries determine their levels, or they are involved in the process, then you don’t have to doubt the authenticity. There are several approaches and tools to identify beneficiaries that emphasize involving beneficiaries’ and understanding their expectations to strengthen the programs.

PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal) is one of the tools for this process, and I like to think PRA stands for Participatory, Reflection and Action. The program is about how to involve beneficiaries in the program implementation, regularly ensuring the reflection of their expectations, and then implementation through action plans which explore beneficiaries potential resources without neglecting their culture.

See also: http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/w2352e/w2352e00.htm

Second; Answering the question about an effective intervention, I believe that appreciation of the local culture and upholding humanity is necessary in the program strategy. Training, coaching, and TOT (training of trainers) must encourage potency of beneficiaries, instead of just creating a new skill that will demand a long process and resulting as only an indicator or written program achievement.

Again I would point out that for effective interventions is necessary to align programs with beneficiaries’ culture to strengthen their confidence and sustain the activities. For example, staff should avoid something that goes against local culture and beneficiaries’ existence (dialect, dress, etc) - the point is, live and work the way the beneficiaries do.

Sabastian Saragih , CIRCLE INDONESIA , Yogyakarta , Indonesia

Before we talk about the technical aspects of beneficiary selection, I want to share my view on using the Sustainable Livelihood approach to address factors that cause poverty. In my explanation below, I will refer to terms that were used in a group facilitation in the designing of a Sustainable Livelihood programme. I use the term “Continuous Wheel of Livelihood” to introduce the Sustainable Livelihood Framework. I also refer to the saying “Life is a caravan wheel, turning up and down” used in daily life in Indonesia . This shows that people understand life goes up and down, however, we all know that people prefer the upside rather than the downside.

The concept ‘sustainable livelihood’ was first used by Chambers and Conway in the 1990’s and is simply translated as “penghidupan berkelanjutan” or ‘continuous livelihood’ 10 years ago. In essence, our livelihood will continue as long as we reach our objectives, although when undesired changes happened and reduce livelihood opportunities we must aim to ensure sustainable objectives so as not to risk future generations. For more information please read http://www.livelihoods.org/SLdefn.html

There is a similar logic between Chambers and Indonesian thought, viewing that the wheel of life is not static; it is sometime up and sometime down.

What are the factors that could turn human livelihoods down or up?

When people can not face or manage the undesired circumstances that bring disadvantages, then their wheel of life is turning down. On other side, when their capacity is stronger than the influencing factors, then they keep their wheel of life turning up.

Therefore, talking about poverty and how to alleviate it, is talking about the influencing factors that threaten the people (external factors) and the capacity or strength that is owned by the people (internal factors).

The external factors which threaten and influence poor people could be put into two types:

1. Changes that increase the vulnerability, those are:

a. Trends or gradual changes

b. Shocks or sudden changes

c. Seasonal changes

2. Policy, rules, traditional customs, and their institutions and processes.

Then, the factors included in the internal capacity of the poor people are:

1. Livelihood resources that are owned or useable by the poor people, which are:

a. Human resources

b. Natural resources

c. Financial resources

d. Social resources

e. Physical or infrastructure resources

2. Strategy on current livelihoods

3. Life objectives, priorities and the people’s achievements

In Sustainable Livelihood, when we are talking about poverty, we could not stop in the statement that poverty is about resource ownership, but we have to consider the external factors. External factors, especially policies, can be influenced by the poor people but the decision on policy predominately remains in the hands of the policy makers.

The Sustainable Livelihood approach begins with poor people mapping with a tool called Welfare Ranking, part of the PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal). People or communities, through interviews or Focus Group Discussion, are requested to figure out who are the poorest and the richest in their village. Then, they are requested to formulate the indicators of the level of poverty and the affluence; those indicators could be their ownership or access to livelihood resources. Then, the same process to figure out the middle level or majority of people’s welfare level.

The poorest and the poor are the groups that are most probable to be severely affected by the undesired changes that bring difficulties. Fishermen that have no savings and are without landlords (capital keepers) will be severely affected when the weather is bad and they can not go to sea. Moreover, those fishermen may not have farming space or live in a village with social mechanisms to help them in these difficult times. Those who work with landlords could ask for temporary loans while the others can’t satisfy their daily needs. However, the landlords then become external factors themselves, though supportive ones, that can affect the fishermen’s livelihoods.

If we want to talk about what kind of intervention, we must understand about the ‘wheel of life’ of the poor and the poorest people. In this context, we must understand their capacity and their threatening external factors as well as the supportive ones. Only in this way, can the objective to support the poor in building their sustainable wheel of life be achieved.

We have a practical guide using this approach to sustainable livelihoods in soft copy that can be used for project or programme design. We would like to share it with members so please contact me to request the document.

Muslim Hasan Birga , Inspiring for Managing People’s Actions (IMPACT), Banda Aceh, Indonesia

As would be expected, some programmes are effective while others could be improved. In my opinion, it is not classification of poor but understanding people and the causes of poverty that will help tailor projects to better suit them

Let me give one case where a programme is designed to help poor people - it provides capital to the beneficiaries but after the programme, there is no improvement in the beneficiaries’ condition. The level of poverty remains the same. Lack of capital could be a variable of poverty, but we should also consider other variables such as lack of leadership, which includes the component of vision, mission, principles, goals, personnel, etc. Many trainings, workshops and discussions have mentioned these variables.

My suggestion is that intervention could start with programmes that strengthen the leadership among the targeted beneficiaries. This will build hope or eagerness towards reaching objectives since it doesn’t target just individuals but the entire community through the effective leadership of key individuals.

Therefore, to improve the effectiveness of the intervention, we need to collect qualitative and quantitative data regarding leadership within the beneficiaries’ community.

It would very interesting if UNSYIAH could conduct further research on this thought.

Hope this was useful.

Job Charles , International Organization for Migration, Banda Aceh , Indonesia

We have learned from many organizations (governmental and non-governmental) that there are two categories in determining beneficiaries - direct individuals and groups.

Direct support for individual:

If this is conducted in a group setting, certain individuals might dominate the discussion and influence those who are not confident enough.

Experience shows that many have difficulty in determining their business goals. A facilitator could explore an individual’s potential and weaknesses and determine specific opportunities available to the individual. This way, they become confident and are able to choose a business for themselves.

Types of support:

In-kind Grant,

Beneficiaries receive support in the form of material, tool or equipment.

The advantage of this system is that beneficiaries can start the business immediately.

The disadvantage of this system is that it needs additional time and staff to conduct effectively. An example: if there is a mistake in the procurement of specific tools, beneficiaries could sell the tools received because it was inappropriate for their business.

Cash Grant,

Some colleagues’ experiences show that cash grant were often misused - especially if there is intervention from family members.

Support to group:

This is about giving holistic support to beneficiaries - developing their mission and vision collectively. There are many instruments and methods available to develop the capacity of beginner groups, groups in a developmental stage, and self-sufficient groups.

Agus Saputra , Center for Community Development and Education (CCDE), Banda Aceh , Indonesia

In additional to what Pak Muslim previously mentioned in his response to this query, we should put more stress on skill development, and especially on leadership skill, there is another problem. For the communities which have started business and start the production with the funding support, they are facing the lack of a sufficient market.

Although the productivity has been significantly improved, the marketing is still problematic and the sales are not maximum, this will result in declining profit. Thus, it can be said that poverty is caused by the problem of market access. It would be good, if the donors and the implementers could arrange such a comprehensive program that included the business planning, business implementation and marketing of products in their program.

A possibility would be to create a specific “traditional market” that becomes a shopping center with food and drink, clothes, handicrafts, souvenirs and an art performance venue as tourist destination in Aceh. For example, manage and organize Queen Safiatuddin Garden to become tourist destination in Banda Aceh, a cultural center and a marketing center. It has been proposed by many people but so far there is no realization plan in place.

Sayu Komang , IDEP Foundation, Ubud, Bali , Indonesia

Nowadays, it seems that the accuracy of aid distribution is an urgent matter as Donor or public become more aware and make objection to support the program that could not clearly specify its beneficiaries.

Actually, the most thorough assessment mechanism is to gather data directly from the field (primary data) as well as from government offices or other organizations (secondary data).

If the data is relevant and complete, distribution and evaluation activities will be easily conducted. The accuracy of aid distribution will be derived from the quality of assessment findings and its utilization.

Each organization uses different method of course; however this process could enhance the assessment.

Many Thanks to all who contributed to this Query!

If you have further information to share on this topic, please send it to Solution Exchange for the Economic Development Community at se-ecdv-id@solex-un.net with the subject heading “Re: [se-ecdv-id] Query: Improving Programme Effectiveness through Targeted Beneficiary Identification - Experiences; Examples. Additional Reply.”

Disclaimer: In posting messages or incorporating these messages into synthesized responses, the Solution Exchange accepts no responsibility for their veracity or authenticity. Members intending to use or transmit the information contained in these messages should be aware that they are relying on their own judgment.