Lack of info on safety net fund<\/p>\n
The social safety net fund, with the support of multilateral
\nloans, is designed to help people start helping themselves during
\nthe economic crisis. Following demands to postpone further
\ndisbursement of the fund because of a lack of transparency in the
\nprocess, the government pledged better distribution and
\nsupervision. The Jakarta Post correspondent Agus Maryono went to
\none neighborhood in Central Java last month to see how the fund
\nwas being implemented by officials and how the fund was affecting
\nresidents.<\/p>\n
PURWOKERTO, Central Java (JP): A villager in the Kedungwuluh
\nsubdistrict in Banyumas, West Purwokerto, looked very happy to
\nhear that he was among the recipients of the social safety net
\nfund in his village. Sarman (not his real name) was told by the
\nneighborhood chief that he would get Rp 50,000 (about US$5.60).<\/p>\n
"Because I'm in the bird business, I'll buy a bird," he told
\nThe Jakarta Post recently. "But I don't know what kind of bird
\nbecause it's only Rp 50,000."<\/p>\n
However, when Sarman signed the receipt for the money he was
\nsurprised to see that he was receiving only Rp 45,000 instead of
\nthe Rp 50,000 stated on the receipt.<\/p>\n
"But I signed anyway because the deducted Rp 5,000 was said to
\nbe for administrative costs."<\/p>\n
Sarman is supposed to pay back the money in monthly
\ninstallments of Rp 10,000. However, he says, "Well, people say
\nit's okay if we don't give the money back. If I can I will, if
\nnot, what can I do?"<\/p>\n
Efforts to trace the fund from the neighborhood level up to
\nthe regional level reveal a lack of information among recipients
\nof the fund and those entrusted with the fund's distribution.<\/p>\n
The project chief of the social safety extension program in
\nBanyumas, Djoko Wikanto, explained the money was repaid at the
\nvillage level, not the state level.<\/p>\n
Another issue which is unclear is the deductions in the money
\nreceived by participants in the program. While Sarman was told
\nthe missing Rp 5,000 was for administrative costs, the
\nneighborhood chief told the Post that this money would be
\n"circulated to other villagers".<\/p>\n
The head of the neighborhood cluster, Karsim, said
\ndistribution of the fund was up to neighborhoods. The aid for
\nKedungwuluh was part of Rp 1.79 million destined for six
\nneighborhoods.<\/p>\n
All administrative costs are included in the money from the
\nstate treasury, but a researcher looking into the social safety
\nnet fund said further cuts at the levels of the neighborhood
\ncluster and the neighborhood were allowed -- but only with the
\nconsensus of residents.<\/p>\n
The chairman of the Community Resilience Institution in the
\narea, Suhadi, told The Jakarta Post he received Rp 22.37 million
\nfor Banyumas. The institution comprises formal and informal
\nleaders and is entrusted with the management of the social safety
\nnet fund in most areas.<\/p>\n
Suhadi said the fund included operational costs for the
\nvillage, which were Rp 1.75 million, and fees for facilitators,
\nwhich reached Rp 750,000 for around four months.<\/p>\n
He added that one person was employed as a facilitator, his
\nyounger sibling. Employing a family member as a facilitator is
\nnot a problem unless villagers are not consulted; the guideline
\nfor the social safety net fund states that facilitators must be
\napproved by residents.<\/p>\n
Djoko said the money from the social safety net fund was
\nintended for the needy and that it was not necessary to repay it.<\/p>\n
"The disbursement and method of repaying the money are up to
\nthe villages. The principle is that residents should not be
\nburdened."<\/p>\n
Residents, including Sarman, are not aware of this. Sarman's
\nneighbor Titien said, "I'd sooner join the village cooperative."
\nShe heard that while Sarman and the others signed a receipt for
\nRp 50,000 and received only Rp 45,000, they would still be
\nrequired to repay Rp 50,000.<\/p>\n
For the Banyumas region, Djoko said the social safety net
\nextension program reached Rp 10.56 billion, which included Rp 200
\nmillion for operational costs and Rp 490 million for management
\nconsultants across 27 districts.<\/p>\n
In Kedungwuluh village, Karsim said he did not receive money
\nfor operational costs, so from the Rp 1.79 million intended for
\nsix neighborhoods he deducted Rp 110,000.<\/p>\n
Residents were left with a some thousands of rupiah per person
\nto try to start a business. The cuts were largely justified,
\nexcept for those which had not been approved by residents.<\/p>\n
In Kedungwuluh, Sarman said he had eventually given up trying
\nto buy a bird with his Rp 45,000.<\/p>\n
Dodo, a researcher at the Jakarta-based Social Monitoring and
\nEarly Response institution, said while Rp 45,000 was not a lot,
\nin other areas residents only received Rp 29,000.<\/p>\n
"This is because the funds are distributed to a group, say, of
\n10 people," he said. The people can then work together to set up
\na small business. This has proven successful in a few areas, he
\nsaid.<\/p>\n
Again, Sarman did not know about this. Instead of buying a
\nbird, Sarman bought a badminton racket, but he did not say
\nwhether the purchase could be the beginning of a business. At
\nleast his child can play with it, he said.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/lack-of-info-on-safety-net-fund-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}