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

Universitas Bengkulu, Bengkulu, Indonesia

Email: Kusumasuci851@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)

in 2000 at the world level. So to achieve this goal, the Indonesian government needs to

Suci Kusuma Ningrum

157

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

participants, the survey is conducted by BPS with basic data taken from the list data of

American Journal of Economic and Management Business

Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2023

158

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

assistance programs. Furthermore, Social Service officials said that the beneficiaries were

Suci Kusuma Ningrum

159

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

Vilage

Total KPM PKH

Kelurahan Bungamas

Kelurahan Sembayat

Kelurahan Selebar

Desa Kota Agung

Desa Talang Sali

Desa Tenangan

Desa Kunduran

Desa Rawa Sari

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,

namely coordinating with local village / village government officials. Based on the results

Suci Kusuma Ningrum

161

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,

resulting in the implementation of the family hope program ultimately cannot succeed as

expected.

American Journal of Economic and Management Business

Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2023

162

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

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

Suci Kusuma Ningrum

163

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.

Utami, I. P., Rangga, K. K., Yanfika, H., & Mutolib, A. (2021). Kinerja Pendamping

Program Keluarga Harapan (PKH) Di Kota Bandar Lampung. JSHP: Jurnal Sosial

American Journal of Economic and Management Business

Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2023

164

Humaniora Dan Pendidikan, 5(1), 19–25.

Suci Kusuma Ningrum (2023)

First publication right:

AJEMB – American Journal of Economic and Management Business