156
American Journal of Economic and
Management Business
e-ISSN: 2835-5199
Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2023
IMPLEMENTATION OF FAMILY HOPE PROGRAM
IN SELUMA SUB-DISTRICT, YOUR TEAM, SELUMA REGENCY
IN 2021
Suci Kusuma Ningrum, Achmad Aminudin, Kahar Hakim
Universitas Bengkulu, Bengkulu, Indonesia
Email: Kusumasuci851@Gmail.Com, achmadaminudin.unib@gmail.com,
drs.kahar.msi@gmail.com
Abstract
This study aims to know, obtain data, and describe the implementation of the Family
Hope Program in East Seluma District, Seluma Regency, this study uses a descriptive
qualitative method, which clearly describes the data and facts found in the field, when
this research was carried out from November 1 to December 30, 2022, the data collection
technique used in this study adopted Tachjan's theory based on implementation guidelines
Family Hope Program in 2021 which refers to the Regulation of the Minister of Social
Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia No. 1 of 2018. This study found that the
implementation of the family hope program in East Seluma District has not been
successful, because there are still some PKH recipients in the use of PKH assistance for
daily needs by several recipients, there is no awareness of PKH recipients to get out of
assistance, PKH assistants do not communicate with village and village government
officials, there is no communication and socialization carried out to village and village
governments In terms of data collection, then there are still poor people who have not
received PKH assistance.
Keywords: Program implementation, PKH, East Seluma District
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0
International
INTRODUCTION
The problem of poverty is a national concern and its handling needs to be carried
out in an integrated manner involving various sectors both at the central and regional
levels. That makes the government need to make efforts to overcome these problems into
the Government Work Plan program. According to Parnamian, (2010) the problem of
poverty occurs where people experience a low quality of life such as problems with
education, health, nutrition and other sources of life.
Important topics that are of concern to the government in an effort to improve the
Indonesian economy, one of which is poverty (Moeliodihardjo et al., 2012). This is
because one of the goals of development is to create welfare for the people of Indonesia.
As the result of the declaration of The Sustainable Development Goals (SDG's) in 2015
on sustainability from the declaration of The Mikkenium Development Goals (MDG's)
Suci Kusuma Ningrum
157
in 2000 at the world level. So to achieve this goal, the Indonesian government needs to
allocate expenditures to finance various development programs and activities every year
in poverty alleviation.
The 2021 PKH implementation guidelines state that PKH recipients can be divided
into health, education, and social welfare components. Health is one of the components
in PKH (KHARISMA, 2021). Health problems are so complex, which is one of the effects
of poverty. Low income causes poor families to be unable to meet health and education
needs, even to a minimal level. If pregnant women do not get adequate health services,
then this will result in poor health conditions and nutritional intake of the baby in the
mother's womb and of course affect the health of the baby at birth (McGushin et al.,
2023).
Health services during pregnancy. Childbirth and postpartum are very important
for the survival of mothers and babies. The existence of PKH assistance to encourage
mothers to access health facilities, involving professional medical personnel in labor and
postpartum is very important to continue to reduce maternal and infant mortality.
Based on the 2021 PKH guidelines, the health of toddlers is also a special concern
in PKH (Hia et al., 2021). Based on Riskesdas data conducted in 2007. In 2013 and 2018
there was an improvement in the nutritional status of children aged toddlers (0-59 months)
in several indicators related to nutrition. However, there was also a decline in several
other indicators. Such as toddlers with malnutrition and short toddlers. The results of the
2018 Riskesdas monitoring showed that undernourished and undernourished toddlers in
2018 amounted to 17.7% nationally. while the 2019 RPJMN targets this figure to be
reduced to 17%. In addition, the problem of stunting (toddlers with short and very short
nutritional status) is currently also a national concern. From the explanation in the 2021
PKH Guidelines, the early childhood health component is also one of the important
focuses to be achieved in PKH policy (Sitti Patimah, 2021).
Education is a component of PKH, based on data from the Center for Data and
Information Technology (Pusdatin) of the Ministry of Education and Culture and
Technology, the dropout rate is still relatively high. The number of school dropouts in
2019/2020 was 157,166 , consisting of 59,443 elementary levels, 38,464 junior high
schools and 26,864 high schools, and 32,395 vocational schools. Then in the 2020/2021
school year, the dropout rate was only 4,916 children, consisting of 2,790 elementary
schools, 976 junior high schools, 541 high schools and 609 vocational schools. The
largest number was in the 2018/2019 school year with a total of 301,127. They consist of
57,426 elementary levels, 85,545 junior high schools, 52,142 high schools and 106,014
vocational schools (Hakim, 2020).
Similarly, statistical data released by BPS, that at the provincial and district levels
show that there are certain groups of children who are most vulnerable, most of whom
come from poor families so they are unable to continue their education to the next level
(Handayani & Shomedran, 2022)
In addition to health and education components, social protection must be able to
cover the entire life cycle, including the elderly (elderly) and people with disabilities.
PKH assistance is also provided to people with disabilities and the elderly in the family.
PKH helps ease the burden on beneficiary families who care for the elderly and disabled
Not all people can get PKH assistance, the selection of PKH participants is carried
out in several stages including, surveys at the program location to obtain data on poor
households, selection of Poor Households (RTM) from all households surveyed as
prospective PKH participants, then prospective participants sign commitments as PKH
American Journal of Economic and Management Business
Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2023
158
participants, the survey is conducted by BPS with basic data taken from the list data of
BLT recipients in the Very Poor and Poor categories, and other supporting data and in
conducting surveys, officers consist of BPS and Supervisory elements (PKH
Implementation Guidelines 2021).
After the data is available, it is then filtered again based on the requirements for
PKH membership which must have criteria, namely in the health component of having
pregnant, postpartum, breastfeeding and toddler women, having children aged 0-6 years
who have not entered basic education. Furthermore, the education component is for
children aged SD/MI/package A/SDLB (aged 7-12 years), junior high school / MTS /
Package B children (aged 12-15 years), high school / MA children (18-21 years), children
7-21 years who have not completed 12 years of education. Finally, for the social welfare
component, people with severe disabilities, and the elderly aged 70 years and over (PKH
Implementation Guidelines 2021).
If 6 consecutive months do not fulfill the commitment to attend health and
education service facilities in accordance with the protocols applicable in each service
facility, they will be permanently excluded from PKH membership, even though they still
meet the PKH criteria (PKH Implementation Guidelines 2021) (Utami et al., 2021).
PKH in 2021 is allocated to 10 million beneficiary families. Assistance is carried
out within a year. Meanwhile, assistance is carried out quarterly, namely January, April,
July, and October. MOSA limits PKH assistance if there are pregnant women, students,
the elderly, or disabilities in a family (Li & Hua, 2023). The calculation of PKH social
assistance is limited to a maximum of four people in one family. This limitation of
calculation is contained in the Decree of the Director of Family Social Security on the
Social Assistance Index. (Indonesiabaik.id, 2021)
Furthermore, the poor recipients of Family Hope Program (PKH) funds in
Bengkulu Province, in 2021 were 78,172 people or equivalent to a nominal value of IDR
56 billion. Of these, spread in North Bengkulu Regency as many as 14,072 people,
Bengkulu City 10,728 people, Rejang Lebong 10,668 people, Seluma 8,650 people, South
Bengkulu 6,953 people, Mukomuko 6,482 people, Kaur 5,945 people, Central Bengkulu
5,181 people, Kepahiang 5,003 people and Lebong 4,490 people. (Ewartaco, 2021).
The problem in the field of education is that there are still PKH participants who
get reprimands for the lack of activeness/participation of children in schools and the lack
of early childhood education. Educational facilities can be said to spread in almost every
village although there are still some villages that do not have educational facilities. PKH
participants are also less active in participating in monthly meetings.
Furthermore, a number of lists of PKH beneficiaries in 2019 in Talang Tinggi
Village, West Seluma District, this triggered social jealousy. This is after being judged
not right on target from a number of recipients using old data. He hopes that the Social
Service and related parties in the future can distribute PKH assistance on target with valid
data collection and involving the community. Don't just shoot and use old data, verify the
data every year so that PKH recipients are really right on target (Algo News, 2019)
(McGushin et al., 2023).
Then a similar case occurred based on data (Bengkulu Ekspres, 2019) of a number
of names of recipients of the Family Hope Program (PKH) in Napalan Village, Talo
District, according to PKH recipient residents are the village head's family, the village
secretary's family and the village apparatus family, even though there are still many
residents who really need it than them. In addition, BPS has never been involved in PKH
programs and BPS itself does not know which residents can get PKH and other social
Suci Kusuma Ningrum
159
assistance programs. Furthermore, Social Service officials said that the beneficiaries were
proposed and then verified by the National Team for the Acceleration of Poverty
Reduction (TNP2K). Furthermore, the Social Service only receives notification letters
from residents who get PKH.
Based on the data above, the Family Hope Program is one of the programs aimed
at the welfare of the community. The program is intended for RTSMs that meet
predetermined requirements. But besides that, the implementation of the program still has
various kinds of problems
Table 1
PKH Beneficiary Families
East Seluma District in 2021
NO
Vilage
Total KPM PKH
1.
Kelurahan Bungamas
56
2.
Kelurahan Sembayat
57
3.
Kelurahan Selebar
25
4.
Desa Kota Agung
60
5.
Desa Talang Sali
97
6.
Desa Tenangan
49
7.
Desa Kunduran
33
8.
Desa Rawa Sari
29
Total
406
One of the sub-districts in Seluma Regency is East Seluma District. In East Seluma
District there are 8 villages and sub-districts including, Bungamas, Selebar, Sembayat,
Kota Agung, Kunduran, Talang Sali and Rawa Sari and Tenangan. Based on the results
of the pre-research, the number of PKH recipients based on BPS 2021 data is 406
Beneficiary Families.
The data is also supported by the statement of the East Seluma District Coordinator,
who conveyed a total of 406 PKH KPMs.
"PKH recipients in East Seluma sub-district are 406 KPM based on BPS data
divided into 8 villages/kelurahan. If for the village of bungamas in lakuka in
September 2013." (Pre-Research Results, May 2022)
In addition to PKH KPM data, the pre-research results also found data on PKH
recipient components in East Seluma District, Seluma Regency. These components are
based on the 2021 PKH Implementation Guidelines, namely, the health component and
the education component, as well as the social welfare component.
Meanwhile, the Family Hope Program in East Seluma District still has several
problems such as poor people who cannot get assistance, as expressed by Budi, PKH
Coordinator of East Seluma District.
"Masiah ado People who have to get PKH assistance but in fact yo nido can, we as
coordinators and companions of PKH nido pacag make dio-dio kareno data tu lah jak
central." (Pre-Research Results, May 2022)
Meanwhile, for Tenangan Village, which is one of the villages in East Seluma
District, there is also a similar problem. This was revealed by Adis, a companion of PKH
Tenangan Village.
"Kalu in Tenangan ru, still ado whose standard of living o lah improved but the
enlisted yo nido endak let go of the aid." (Pre-Research Results, May 2022)
American Journal of Economic and Management Business
Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2023
160
Statement by the PKH Coordinator of East Seluma District, precisely in Bungamas
Village, there are still people who are classified as entitled but have not received
assistance from the Family Hope Program. Meanwhile, still in the exact same sub-district
of Tenangan Village, another problem arises. For example, recipients who already have
an improved standard of living, but do not want to give up PKH assistance. Interestingly,
the Bungamas Village in East Seluma District expressed the same opinion, as expressed
by the Head of the Bunga Mas Village Subdistrict.
"Nyo, we know, there is still ado nyo community has not received assistance even
though in our opinion nyo ru is entitled to the assistance, udim tu jak jugo nido nian
village is involved and nido ado socialization about PKH assistance, so we nido tau
menau" (Pre-Research Results, May 2022)
The statement of Bunga Mas Village Head is that there are still people who are
entitled to assistance but have not received Family Hope Program assistance, and the
Village does not know about the Family Hope Program due to the lack of socialization
about the program. The purpose of this study is to know, obtain data and describe the
Implementation of the Family Hope Program in East Seluma District, Seluma Regency
RESEARCH METHODS
This study does not test / use hypotheses, but only describes the information as it is
in accordance with aspects of the study (Ahmadi & Rose, 2014). Descriptive research
methods are used to obtain a picture of a situation that is unfolding at the present moment.
The implementation of descriptive research is more structured, systematic, and controlled
because the research starts with a clear subject and conducts research on the population
or sample of existing subjects to describe it accurately. This research method was carried
out using data collection steps, data classification and making conclusions with the aim
of making a real and objective picture of a situation regarding the implementation of the
Family Hope Program in East Seluma District, Seluma Regency. The focus of this study
is on the Implementation of the Family Hope Program in East Seluma District, Seluma
Regency.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Based on Makinde's theory in Erwan Agus (2015: 85) failure in the implementation
process is based on the cause among them, the target group is not involved in program
implementation, the program implemented does not consider social, economic and
political environmental conditions, the existence of corruption, human resources with low
capacity and the absence of coordination and monitoring.
Based on this theory after conducting field research, researchers concluded that the
implementation of the family hope program in East Seluma District was still
unsuccessful. This is evidenced by the information data obtained by researchers from
interviews related to the three existing aspects. For more details, it will be presented one
by one based on aspects that have been previously determined.
First, it is seen from the aspect of implementing policies. PKH assistants in East
Seluma District have not fully carried out their duties and obligations in accordance with
the provisions. This is marked by one of the PKH companion duties contained in the PKH
Institutional Operational Guidelines and reported on the sdmpkh.kemensos.go.id website,
Suci Kusuma Ningrum
161
namely coordinating with local village / village government officials. Based on the results
of the study, one of these tasks has not been carried out properly. In addition, according
to Makinde's implementation theory in Erwan & Dyah, (2015) failure in the
implementation process is based on causes, one of which is the absence of coordination.
Based on the theory and Operational Guidelines of PKH Institutions, researchers see that
the implementation of PKH in East Seluma District has not been successful because most
village/village governments feel that there is no good coordination between program
implementers and local government officials.
The next aspect is the program implemented, when viewed from the perspective of
PKH recipients, an initial meeting has been held in the form of sosailization, but
according to five Village and Village Governments in East Seluma District, socialization
has not been carried out. The five village and village governments in East Seluma sub-
district stated that they were not involved in the community data collection process and
were completely ignorant of the program, the amount of funding received, the target
groups and others. Even though the local government knows best how the condition of
the community.
Furthermore, based on the Regulation of the Minister of Social Affairs of the
Republic of Indonesia No. 1 of 2018 article 62 that the community can supervise the
implementation of PKH. The community here, can be called the local government, as one
of the components that play an active role in the implementation of the Village / Village.
From the findings of the researchers that five villages and villages in East Seluma District
did not know or take part in the family hope program. It can be seen that there is no good
coordination in the PKH implementation process in East Seluma District (Li & Hua,
2023).
The majority of beneficiaries do not know how to determine the target group.
Especially from the point of view of the village or village government and poor people
who do not receive assistance, consider that there are still people who deserve assistance
but do not receive. Based on the findings of the researcher that the data collection process
of PKH recipients has not been fully successful or on target of the program, due to lack
of coordination with the local government.
Furthermore, in terms of fund distribution, beneficiaries do not know the
mechanism of fund distribution, they only wait for information from the companion when
the aid has been disbursed. Then the PKH companion in East Seluma District said that
currently the aid distribution process is carried out at the POS which previously could be
taken at BRI Link. This is because there was fraud by the BRI Link provider
According to Tachjan's theory in the previous theoretical foundation chapter in
analyzing PKH implementation to see aspects of the program implemented. That the
program is a comprehensive plan that already describes the resources to be used and
integrated in one unit. In addition, Suliatini et al., (2021) explained that the success of a
policy to be implemented must be clear and to obtain this clarity, it is important for all
parties involved to directly or indirectly know about the program.
Based on these two theories, the researcher then concluded that for the aspects of
the program implemented related, the implementation of the Family Hope Program in
East Seluma District could not be said to be successful. This is because not all parties, be
it community elements or most Village and Village Governments in East Seluma District
where the program is held, know about the program. This shows that communication and
coordination between the parties involved directly or indirectly have not run well,
American Journal of Economic and Management Business
Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2023
162
resulting in the implementation of the family hope program ultimately cannot succeed as
expected.
Finally, the target group. The results of research on the amount of assistance are in
accordance with applicable regulations. However, KPM complained that the
disbursement was hampered in several stages. Evidenced by the statement of WI as a
recipient of PKH assistance in Kota Agung Village, as follows:
"If we in this family get o 600 thousand kareno ado children after elementary and
junior high school every four months, biaso yo companion o who carry out the ruani amo
that's the liquid. But ado the events of the duo stages are put together. For example, stage
3 liquid nido, mengko pas liquid in stage four kelo can o 1,200,000. Amun used to be
gambiak at BRI Link, but finally at the POS Office," (Research Results, December 2022).
In Indonesian the results of interviews with WI as PKH beneficiaries, the assistance
received was six hundred thousand rupiah every three months with four stages for one
year. However, WI when late disbursement will usually get the amount of assistance for
two stages.
When viewed from the suitability of the use of assistance, KPM usually uses funds
to meet the needs in accordance with each component. However, most PKH recipients
are still used to meet daily needs or urgent circumstances, but still prioritize the needs of
the listed components.
In terms of benefits, the PKH program has been felt to help the burden of the poor
but has not been able to make PKH recipients out of the poverty chain. Based on the
results of interviews with PKH assistants, it was said that most PKH recipients in East
Seluma District felt comfortable getting assistance, so that the purpose of PKH contained
in the Regulation of the Minister of Social Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia No. 1 of
2018 article 2 has not succeeded in implementing the program in East Seluma District.
This is marked by a slight change in behavior and independence of PKH recipients.
CONCLUSION
Based on the purpose of the study, namely knowing and describing how the
implementation of the Family Hope Program in East Seluma, as well as seeing the results
of research and discussion that have been discussed in the previous chapter V, the author
concludes that:
In terms of policy implementers, out of eight villages/kelurahan, five
village/kelurahan governments argued that PKH assistants did not coordinate with local
government officials. This is evidenced by several opinions from the village and village
that there is not the slightest information obtained regarding the implementation of the
family hope program. Regarding the targets and objectives of the program, the majority
of informants, namely PKH assistants, assume that those who receive assistance are those
contained in the components in the regulations or guidelines on PKH.
In terms of the program implemented, almost all stages carried out by the
implementing party, both in determining the target group and the mechanism in
distributing aid are unknown to PKH recipients and government apartments in the five
villages and villages where the program is implemented. According to the Lurah and
Village Head consisting of Bunga Mas Village, Sembayat Village, Selebar Village, Kota
Agung Village and Talang Sali Village, the lack of coordination and communication
makes it difficult to achieve the implementation of PKH. In addition, according to five
village/village governments and the poor that the process of collecting PKH recipients is
still not good, because there are still poor people who are entitled to the PKH program
Suci Kusuma Ningrum
163
but do not get it. Then in terms of disbursement of funds, several PKH recipients claimed
to experience delays in disbursement, as well as admin fees from BRI Link providers that
were quite large. However, currently the disbursement process will be carried out by PT
Pos Indonesia.
In the case of target groups or target groups, PKH beneficiaries argue that they are
helped by the PKH assistance . However, according to them, PKH assistance has not been
able to optimally achieve its goals as contained in the Decree of the Minister of Social
Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia No. 1 of 2018. According to PKH recipients, the aid
has not been able to improve their standard of living. Furthermore, according to PKH
assistants, beneficiaries do not have the awareness to get out of the poverty chain, such
as the program objectives contained in the Decree of the Minister of Social Affairs of the
Republic of Indonesia No. 1 of 2018 article 2, namely creating behavior change and
independence of Beneficiary Families. Then in terms of the use of assistance, some
recipients who already feel they have met the needs of each component use the funds to
meet their daily needs.
REFERENCES
Ahmadi, R., & Rose, K. R. (2014). Metodologi penelitian kualitatif.
Erwan, A. P., & Dyah, S. R. (2015). Implementasi Kebijakan Publik. Yogyakarta:
Penerbit Gava Media.
Hakim, A. (2020). Faktor Penyebab Anak Putus Sekolah. Jurnal Pendidikan, 21(2), 122–
132.
Handayani, W., & Shomedran, S. (2022). Drop-Out School Phenomenon from Social
Perspective at Gunung Batu Village, Pulau Beringin Sub-District, South Oku
District. SPEKTRUM: Jurnal Pendidikan Luar Sekolah (PLS), 10(3), 373–378.
Hia, E. N., Siagian, M., & Achmad, N. (2021). Implementasi Family Development
Session Program Keluarga Harapan. PERSPEKTIF, 10(1), 128–139.
KHARISMA, E. K. A. (2021). Peran Program Keluarga Harapan (PKH) dalam
Mengentaskan Kemiskinan di Nagari Balimbing.
Li, W., & Hua, X. (2023). The value of family social capital in informal financial markets:
Evidence from China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 77, 101922.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2022.101922
McGushin, A., de Barros, E. F., Floss, M., Mohammad, Y., Ndikum, A. E., Ngendahayo,
C., Oduor, P. A., Sultana, S., Wong, R., & Abelsohn, A. (2023). The World
Organization of Family Doctors Air Health Train the Trainer Program: lessons
learned and implications for planetary health education. The Lancet Planetary
Health, 7(1), e55–e63. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-
5196(22)00218-2
Moeliodihardjo, B. Y., Soemardi, B. W., Brodjonegoro, S. S., & Hatakenaka, S. (2012).
University, industry, and government partnership: Its present and future challenges
in Indonesia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 52, 307–316.
Parnamian, J. (2010). Efektivitas Komunikasi antara Rumah Tangga Sangat Miskin
Penerima Bantuan Tunai dan Pendamping Program Keluarga Harapan. Institut
Pertanian Bogor, Bogor.
Sitti Patimah, S. K. M. (2021). Stunting Mengancam Human Capital. Deepublish.
Suliatini, N. M. S., Wirata, G., & Sriwidnyani, I. A. P. (2021). Implementasi Peraturan
Bupati Gianyar Nomor 50 Tahun 2018 Tentang Gerakan Masyarakat Hidup Sehat
Di Kabupaten Gianyar. Jurnal Widya Publika, 9(2), 126–137.
American Journal of Economic and Management Business
Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2023
164
Utami, I. P., Rangga, K. K., Yanfika, H., & Mutolib, A. (2021). Kinerja Pendamping
Program Keluarga Harapan (PKH) Di Kota Bandar Lampung. JSHP: Jurnal Sosial
Humaniora Dan Pendidikan, 5(1), 19–25.
Copyright holders:
Suci Kusuma Ningrum (2023)
First publication right:
AJEMB – American Journal of Economic and Management Business
