Abstract

Program keluarga harapan (PKH) yang berbasis bantuan tunai bersyarat (conditional cash transfers, CCT) di bidang pendidikan dan kesehatan telah diluncurkan Pemerintah Indonesia sejak Juli 2007 di 348 kecamatan dari 48 kabupaten/kota di 7 provinsi, namun dampaknya dalam mengurangi angka kemiskinan dan meningkatkan kualitas sumber daya manusia warga miskin belum pernah dievaluasi. Studi ini mengevaluasi dampak awal PKH terhadap penggunaan layanan kesehatan preventif. Evaluasi ini menggunakan rancangan eksperimen, intervensi program PKH berbasis rumah tangga dengan pengukuran sebelum dan sesudah intervensi pada kelompok perlakuan dan kontrol yang sebelumnya dipilih acak pada tingkat kecamatan. Data diperoleh dari survei dasar CCT tahun 2007 dan survei lanjutan PKH tahun 2008 yang dikumpulkan di 6 provinsi. Hasil estimasi metode double-difference menunjukkan dampak program intervensi PKH pada kenaikan sejumlah indikator pelayanan kesehatan preventif seperti kunjungan posyandu, pemantauan tumbuh kembang anak, dan imunisasi. Temuan ini penting sebagai dasar pengambilan keputusan untuk melanjutkan program. Namun karena evaluasi awal ini memiliki sejumlah keterbatasan, hasil studi ini harus ditafsirkan hati-hati dan divalidasi lebih lanjut dengan data survei PKH tahun 2009 menggunakan berbagai metode analisis.

Family hope program (PKH), a conditional cash transfers (CCT)-based program in education and health, has been launched by the Government of Indonesia since 2007 in 348 sub-districts of 48 regencies/cities in 7 provinces, but its impact on the reduction of poverty and improvement of poor human resources has not been evaluated. This study valuates initial impact of the PKH on the utilization of preventive healthcare services. This evaluation applies experimental design, a household-based intervention program with measurements prior to and after-intervention in both treatment and control groups that previously were chosen randomly at the sub-district level. The data were obtained from CCT baseline surveys 2007 and PKH follow-up survey 2008 in 6 provinces. Double-difference estimates show the impact of PKH on the increase of preventive health care services indicators such as visit to posyandu, child growth monitoring, and immunization. These findings are important for decision making to continue the program. However, as this initial evaluation has a number of limitations, this study should be interpreted with caution and be validated further by PKH survey 2009 data using different methods of analysis.

References

  1. Fiszbein A, Schady N. Conditional cash transfers: reducing present and future poverty. Washington DC: World Bank Policy Research Report; 2009.
  2. Pemerintah Republik Indonesia. Pedoman umum program keluarga harapan. Jakarta: Pemerintah Republik Indonesia; 2007.
  3. Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Nasional Republik Indonesia. Deteksi dini dampak program keluarga harapan. Jakarta: Direktorat Perlindungan dan Kesejahteraan Masyarakat, Deputi Bidang Kemiskinan, Ketenagakerjaan, dan UKM Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Nasional Republik Indonesia; 2007.
  4. Maluccio JA, Flores R. Impact evaluation of a conditional cash transfer program: the Nicaraguan red de protección social. Washington DC: IFPRI Research Report 141, International Food Policy Research Institute; 2005.
  5. World Bank. Conditional cash transfers in Indonesia: program keluarga harapan and PNPM-generasi baseline survey report. Jakarta: World Bank; 2008.
  6. Castanada T. Laporan stocktaking PKH 2008. Jakarta: World Bank; 2008
  7. Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Nasional Republik Indonesia. Laporan survei lanjutan PKH 2008. Jakarta: Direktorat Perlindungan dan Kesejahteraan Masyarakat, Deputi Bidang Kemiskinan, Ketenagakerjaan dan UKM Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Nasional Republik Indonesia; 2008.
  8. Shahidur RK, Gayatri BK, Hussain AS. Handbook on impact evaluation: quantitative methods and practices. Washington DC: World Bank; 2010.
  9. Pemerintah Republik Indonesia. Pedoman operasional PKH bagi pemberi pelayanan kesehatan. Jakarta: Pemerintah Republik Indonesia; 2007.
  10. Gertler PJ. Do conditional cash transfers improve child health? evidence from PROGRESA’s control randomized experiment. American Economic Review. 2004; 94 (2): 336-41.
  11. Adato, Michelle, Terence R, Natalia S, Elif A, Nurfer C, Sema C. An evaluation of the conditional cash transfer program in Turkey: second qualitative and anthropological study. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute; 2007.
  12. Hidayat B. Penetapan persyaratan kesehatan program bantuan tunai bersyarat di Indonesia. Jakarta: Mimeo; 2006.
  13. Adato M, Hoddinott. Conditional cash transfer programs: a ‘magic bullet’? Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
  14. Behrman JR, Hoddinott J. Programme evaluation with unobserved heterogenity and selective implementation: the mexican progresa impact on child nutrition. Oxf Bull Econ Stat. 2005; 67 (4): 547-569.
  15. Attanasio O, Go´mez LC, Heredia P, Vera HM. The short-term impact of a conditional cash subsidy on child health and nutrition in Colombia. 2005.
  16. Barham, Tania, John M. The effect of conditional cash transfers on vaccination coverage in Nicaragua. Health and Society Working Paper HS2008-01, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder, CO; 2008.
  17. Dehejia R. Practical propensity score matching: a reply to smith and todd. Journal of Econometrics. 2005; 125: 355-364.
  18. Hidayat B, Pokhrel S. The selection of an appropriate count data model for modelling health insurance and health care demand: case of Indonesia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2010; 7: 9-27.

Download

Included in

Health Policy Commons

Share

COinS