Exploring the Voices and Livelihoods Choices of Villagers with Disability in Indonesia
Final Report Ekawati Liu, Hezti Insriani, Yuhda Wahyu Pradana, Listia Khairunnisa, Nirla Hastari, Santi Setyaningsih, Mohammad Rizal Dhukha Islam, Lyla J. Brown
  This collaborative research is supported by The Asia Foundation’s Peduli Program and SHG Grant from Deakin University. Opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors. TAF and Deakin University do not accept legal liability for materials contained in this document.
CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary
1
Part I: Introduction Research Sites Research Design/ Methods
3 6 9
Part II: Our Findings
14
Part III: Discussion and Recommendation
21
References
24
Appendices
25
Appendix 1. Research Instruments (In-depth Interviews; Focus Group Discussion) Appendix 2. Livelihoods Data Set Appendix 3. Summary of Findings on Village Disability Group Mapping Exercise
Acknowledgements
36
Executive Summary This collaborative research investigates the livelihoods experiences and situations of people with disability in Yogyakarta. In order to gain a better understanding of how people with disability participate in economic activities at the village level, particularly after the implementation of Inclusive Village Initiative (known as Rintisan Desa Inklusi, Indonesian acronym RINDI), the data collected in this research include: 1) type of livelihoods or income-generating activities 2) access and services related to loans 3) social safety nets 4) factors crucial to livelihoods and business success 5) skills developments 6) reasons for working and not working Access to services and participation in village governance, including perceptions and expectations, of the villagers with disability along with those of Village Disability Groups are also explored. This research used a combination of activities: qualitative research training, disability inclusive approach and ethics, and collaborative data analysis. Preliminary research findings generated have been communicated to the general public through plays performed by research participants. A number of key issues identified through the research have been communicated with district and village-level government through two sessions of focused discussion. The sessions also facilitated exchange of ideas and proposed recommendations related to issues of data, livelihoods situations and financial inclusion for villagers with disability.
1
This collaborative research makes three major contributions to disability and knowledge sectors: it engages with SIGAB1, a local disability-led organisation, from design to completion stage; it offers a much-needed insight into dimensions of lived experiences of villagers with disability related to their livelihoods that are locally situated; and it re-enacts those experiences and voices through a cultural approach that is central to on-the-ground knowledge production. This report is organised into three parts. Part One elaborates the impetus for locally-situated livelihoods research and its political context. Part Two draws together themes identified from in-depth interviews and focus group discussions, exploring the interaction of multiple factors influencing livelihoods experiences and choices of villagers with disability. Part Three lay outs recommendations based on insights from the findings. Although this report is confined to participants from 8 villages participating in the RINDI program, the findings provide the key insight that people with disability work to contribute to their community and be accepted by their community.
SIGAB considers itself as civil society organization and advocacy organization rather than as a Disabled Peoples’ Organization (DPOs). It started to engage with the concept of social exclusion and inclusion to rethink, renegotiate and reposition its relationship with the disability groups, wider society and government at both regional and national levels since 2003. The United Nations Development Group’s guidance note (2011) defines DPOs as representative organizations of persons with disabilities established under principles of “self-determination and control by disabled persons, self-advocacy and mutual support, aimed at strengthening the participation of persons with disabilities." Generally, DPOs in Indonesia have strong reliance on a charity-mindset and presumed government funding, which hamper their ability to be proactive in seeking other sources of funding and support (Scoping and Qualitative Needs Assessment of Disabled Persons Organizations in Eastern Indonesia, 2015). What set SIGAB apart from most DPOs in Indonesia is its collaborative approach to better identify and respond to the needs of persons who have a disability, persons whose family members as well as persons who have family member with a disability, as well as local community. 1
2
Introduction The Indonesian government has begun to demonstrate an increased willingness to support better participation of people with disability in the country’s economy and foster inclusive societies. Indonesia has ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), Article 27 of which endorses the dignity and worth of people with disability where it states: the right of persons with disabilities to work, on an equal basis with others‌ includes the right to the opportunity to gain a living by work freely chosen or accepted in a labor market and work environment that is open, inclusive and accessible to persons with disabilities. Indonesia has yet to put this Article fully into operation. Since 1997, it has enacted Law 4/1997 on Disabled People, passed an implementation regulation 43/1998 and set a one percent disability quota on companies employing more than 100 employees (ILO 2013). Two decades later, Indonesia enacted Law 8/2016 which is considered to be a substantial shift from a long-standing paternalistic view to a more contemporary rights-based view towards disability. This law also raised the disability employment quota to two percent. However, the effectiveness of these disability laws, regulations and decrees, and the extent of their impact on labor market participation, employment and engagement in livelihoods production across the diversity of the disability population in national and provincial levels are unknown. The Government of Indonesia (GoI) is one of the key players that negotiates and positions the decent work and employment creation for all agenda2. With regards to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), both the country’s long-term and medium-term development agendas have an overarching aim to promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction. This emphasis on employment creation can be extended towards income generating opportunities for marginalised groups, particularly people with disability, and
2From
Keynote Remarks by M. Hanif Dhakiri, Indonesian Minister of Manpower on the SDGs Conference 2016 in Jakarta http://www.ilo.org/jakarta/info/public/pr/WCMS_452662/lang--en/ index.htm. Accessed 6 July 2018 3
should be seen as an important change in how government perceives the role of people with disability in the country’s economy and society.
Credible Disability Data Is Critical to Improve Economic Opportunities Details on Indonesia’s population with disability are scarce and highly fragmentary, severely constraining effective policy responses. In a general sense, it is known that people with disability are at higher risk of falling into and staying in poverty. Women with disability are even more at risk ie., three times more likely to fall into poverty than men with disability (WHO-WB 2011). The barriers confronting people with disability are universally cited: globally of some 1 billion population with disability, 750 million are of working age, yet their participation in economic life is complicated by less access to skills training, discrimination, low educational attainment or achievement, comparative social isolation, lower earning power particularly if they are women, and working in the unprotected, informal economy. These general features are likely to apply to Indonesian population with disability and dictate how the government and CSOs address disability employment, ie., through selected vocational training and job placement which are often not aligned with work opportunities and interests of individuals with disability. The lack of precise, up to date data hampers both government and donors in designing responses to increasing the economic inclusion of people with disabilities.
Last year, GoI agencies expressed some interest in better understanding the size, scope and dimensions of how people with disability are included in Indonesia’s economic life3. The Ministry of Social Welfare, the Ministry of Manpower and Transmigration and the Ministry of National Development Planning (Bappenas) have identified the needs for better data to support implementation strategies through their inclusive disability employment and economic participation work plans.
Meeting Minutes between Bappenas and DPOs on Disability Law’s regulation dated 11 August 2017. 3
4
Donors have signalled a strong interest in prioritising inclusive economic growth, and have encouraged partner institutions to build capacity in order to better formulate and implement evidence-based policy4 and engage in deeper collaboration with the private sector in partner countries5. As a result, empirical research is needed to inform the development of strategies that will support the GoI in translating its employment policies into reality. Such strategies can be based upon nascent political will, but it will also require further support through additional mechanisms such as: developing an appropriate and functioning legislative framework and encouraging debate, collaboration and contributions of resources from different sectors, groups and organisations. This research project sought to generate evidence from villagers with disability in two Regencies, in order to understand the extent and type of, and facilitators and barriers to, participation in livelihoods and work for people with disability, in order to inform future actions.
See Australia Indonesia Economic Cooperation Partnership (AIECO) Investment Design Document 2017 http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/australia-indonesia-economiccooperation-partnership.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2018. 4
See Mark Green, USAID Administrator’s testimony on the Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request https:// www.usaid.gov/news-information/congressional-testimony/jun-20-2018-administrator-mark-greensfrc-fy19-budget-request. Accessed 1 July 2018. 5
5
Research Sites 
Research was conducted from November 2017 to May 2018 in six villages in Kulon Progo Regency, namely: Bumirejo, Gulurejo, Ngentakrejo, Wahyuharjo, Jatirejo and Sidorejo; as well as in Salmon Regency, namely Sendangadi and Sendangtirto. All eight villages had participated in the Inclusive Village Initiative (Rintisan Desa Inklusi) since 2015. Although both Regencies appear to have similar ethnic groups (predominantly Javanese) and religious affiliation (predominantly Muslim), each experiences poverty and growth differently at macro
(regional) and micro (household and individual) levels. The villages in Sleman Regency have relatively better welfare, upward mobility and movement out of poverty when compared to villages in Kulon Progo Regency (Statistics Indonesia 2015). The proximity of Sleman Regency to Yogyakarta city has considerably improved its public services and infrastructure whereas Kulon Progo is known for its proximity to an active volcanic site and is geographically more isolated with poor infrastructure and experiences water shortages.  
6
The prevalence of Kulon Progo residents living in poverty is higher compared to all regions under the Yogyakarta municipality. According to the latest national poverty data, Sleman Regency contributes the largest regional GDP, while Kulon Progo has the smallest value of regional GDP compared with other regencies under Yogyakarta (Statistics Indonesia 2015). The exact population with disability in Sleman and Kulon Progo Regencies is unknown and the official figures are dubious as there is no dedicated disability census and household survey by either local or national governments. At the time of this research, the eight villages had already implemented the Village Information System (Indonesian acronym SID- Sistem Informasi Desa) to improve the quality and quantity of disability data through better collection and integration of numerous data points such as poverty, assets, village profile, village budgets and monitoring. However, the accuracy of the SID data is questionable. Although the Village Information System has adapted the disability questionnaires from the Washington Group 6, our research team members discovered discrepancies between official disability data and the nature of disability among the majority of our respondents during our data collection exercise. Those with intellectual disability and mental illness are categorised in the SID under a catch-all term - psychotic disorders – when in fact the respondents are slow to respond to questions or are mute or deaf. A handful of individuals are misidentified in the SID as having physical mobility when they actually experienced a bout of illness rendering them immobile in bed and had long been recovered when our researchers visited. Such inaccuracies are most likely due to census-takers being unfamiliar with and untrained about various disability definitions and types. Our research team members who work as village facilitators alluded to a lack of disability sensitization training among census takers, however we have no way to
The Washington Group (WG) disability questionnaires comprised of a set of short questions that can be modified and included in population survey to identify individuals who experience restricted social participation because of diďŹƒculties undertaking basic activities. Indonesia oďŹƒcially adapted and tested the WG short questionnaires in Intercensal Population Survey (SUPAS) in 2015.
6
7
corroborate that assessment. It should be therefore noted that the general lack of reliable data makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the representativeness of any of the villages included in this research study, and therefore confidently generalise conclusions to other regions.
RINTISAN DESA INKLUSI (RINDI) was launched in December 2014, building on the results of a three-day meeting arranged by SIGAB, a local disability-led organisation with a coalition of grassroot DPOs. The meeting happened six months after Indonesia passed a village law signalling a major policy shift guaranteeing high- level autonomy and authority to every village. This Village Law (UU 6/2014) is expected to significantly impact the lives of marginalised groups, including persons with disabilities, for it provides villages with greater autonomy to determine their governance structures, development priorities and natural resources management among other issues at the local level. This legislation also means a substantial increase in both regional and national budgets resulting in greater funds available to villages. Seizing the momentum on the Village Law and availability of Village Fund, RINDI aims to create various village models, each with accessible and inclusive services and resource for everyone that can be easily replicated and adopted by other villages on an ad hoc basis. The proposed strategies include taking on cultural issues, addressing communication and resources access, as well as deliberately forging and facilitating networks among existing marginalised groups.
8
Research Design/ Methods We collected qualitative data related to: 1. the type and diversity of livelihoods or income generating activities 2. access and services to loans 3. social safety nets 4. factors crucial to livelihoods and business success 5. skills developments 6. reasons for working and not working We collected these data through: • In-depth interviews with 157 people with disability between age 20- 65+ (116 adults in Kulon Progo and 41 adults in Sleman); • 4 focus group sessions with women with disability group, male group and deaf only group
The research adopted a collaborative or participatory design, embedded in SIGAB and drawing on a team of researchers with and without disability to engage villagers in both the inquiry and in taking action about research findings. A team of 12 researchers conducted in-depth interviews with 157 respondents with disability from early December 2017 to late January 2018 in 8 villages. Due to the diverse backgrounds and abilities among the researchers in our team, novice researchers were paired with seasoned researchers in the field to allow opportunities for skills and knowledge transfer between researchers, improved communication and to maintain a positive work ethic. To meet the communication needs of two deaf researchers and deaf respondents in the villages, local sign language interpreters and real time captioning were used as well. For respondents identified as having intellectual disability with cognitive limitations and/or communication difficulties, the team utilized paired interviewing where individual respondents were interviewed along with someone they interact and communicate with on a daily basis at home or surroundings. 9
Such approaches are necessary to ensure research information and questions are communicated well and researchers are able to understand information conveyed by respondents.
DISABILITY OR DIFFERENTLY ABLED (DIFFABLE) The definition of disability has evolved from its original and historical interpretation where the source of barriers or impediments was located in the individual to revised and contemporary interpretations where the source of barriers is located in the wider environment. With the change in interpretation, disability is no longer seen as a damaged body, whether physical, sensory, psycho-social or cognitive that limits an individual’s participation in society. Rather, it is seen as result of interactions between individuals with disability and their environment which in turn affects the quality of their participation in all aspects of life and society. Environmental barriers such as lack of access to public facilities and infrastructure, attitudinal barriers that lead to discrimination by family members and others, and communication barriers are all key factors that can be changed. The term diffable (differently abled), initiated by Mansour Fakih (INSIST) and Setya Adi Purwanta (Dria Manunggal) in 1998, is the culmination of efforts to dismantle the views of society about disability. The use of diffable reflects the attitude of disability activists and advocacy movements in Yogyakarta and Solo that seek to position people with disability in more active roles and a more positive light. The terms diffable and disability are both used in this study to illustrate the diversity and complexity of the disability experience.
10
Stages of Collaborative Research Research process that is both collaborative and participatory engages a range of stakeholders and perspectives (Chambers 1997; Ibid. 2007). It also emphasizes continuous reflection and actions where diverse voices, learning insights and findings from every process and stage inform the design of the next process and next stage. By extension, both collaborative and participatory approach enables disability issues to be mainstreamed throughout research process and allows people with disability to shape the research process and outcomes. STAGE ONE (mid-October 2017- February 2018) The recruitment process for researchers started in mid-October and resulted in a team of 12 researchers with diverse backgrounds and abilities. Gender and disability / non-disability composition of the team reflects community demographics with 4 females to 8 males. Four members are disability leaders. We ran briefing and research capacity training sessions from 13 November to 12 December. All members of the team provided input with regards to what types of data to collect and revised the interview instruments prior to actual data collection activities
Santi, Doddy, Pak Sarjiyo and Imam discussed how to map out themes identified from coding exercise. 11
STAGE TWO (January – March 2018) Data collected in Stage One were used as study material for collaborative data analysis. Due to the diverse educational backgrounds among team members, ranging from high school diplomas to masters degrees, our learning approach towards data analysis was experiential and conversational. For nearly 8 weeks, the whole team coded every interview transcript, identified and discussed the themes before conducting a concept mapping of the overall findings. The identified themes are further used as guiding questions for focus group discussions to explore issues related to loans, livelihoods maintenance and production and reasons to participate in economic activities. During the data analysis stage, the research team and SIGAB also coordinated with local theatre activists (Joned Suryatmoko, Budi S. Gemak, Lusia Cahyani, Muhammad Abe) to design training modules in order to facilitate people's theater workshops. The purpose of 5-day theatre workshop session was held in SIGAB’s office to engage twelve research participants in a culturally relevant and accessible method of communicating their experiences to their wider communities, as a mechanism of attitude change and awareness raising. The people’s theatre workshop incorporated the preliminary findings generated from collaborative coding and analysis which enabled the research participants to verify and revise the findings. What we did not anticipate was the level of support and interest expressed by the general public attending the performance. Some of the audiences were involved in the discussion and provided feedback directly to the performers about the themes enacted. Although our productions were performed in inclement weather, the audiences comprised of community members were greater than expected. Unfortunately, the inclement weather also resulted in a handful of government officers attendance. Raising disability awareness through performance art and culture has potential to be effective in delivering messages and engaging the general public in dialogues on locally situated issues. Performers shared the communication skills they learned from the 5-day intensive theatre workshop and exercised their courage to stand in front of the audience to voice their lived experiences, thoughts and memories related to making a living, being rejected and/or accepted by others, and their hopes related to self and society.
12
STAGE THREE (April – mid July 2018) The research team was halved as some researchers had no interest in report writing and data cataloging. The remaining team members shared tasks including: 1. writing up research manual; 2. infographic design; 3. assisting Ethnoreflika team on video-related documentation of theatre workshop and performance sessions. Three of the team members returned to the research sites to document participants’ daily lives and economic activities for a film documentary. SIGAB also conducted two workshop sessions with local government to discuss the research findings. Issues and strategies with regards to findings raised by workshop participants are incorporated into Discussion and Recommendation section.
13
Our Findings 1. People with disability of both sexes in rural and peri-urban areas perform diverse informal work to make ends meet. Our research shows that most male and female villagers with disability work. Seven in ten (69.8%) people with disability in Kulon Progo are working, whereas only five in ten (51%) are working in Sleman.
Table 1. Share of respondents working and not working by village and sex
WORKING
Village Jatirejo
KULON PROGO (N=116) NOT WORKING
Female Male
Total
Female Male
TOTAL
6
7
13
3
3
6
Sidorejo
4
12
16
3
1
4
Wahyuharjo
1
8
9
5
6
11
Ngentakrejo
2
11
13
3
3
6
Gulurejo
3
12
15
1
3
4
Bumirejo
5
10
15
1
3
4
TOTAL
21
60
81 (69.8%)
16
19
35 (30.2%)
SLEMAN (N= 41) WORKING 4 Sendangadi
5
9
NOT WORKING 5 5
10
Sendangtirto
3
9
12
7
3
10
TOTAL
7
14
21 (51%)
8
12
20 (49%)
Almost half of them engage in more than one livelihood activity— 44 do two activities and 7 perform more than two o-farm activities to meet their daily needs. This tendency towards diverse livelihoods among our research participants reflects the findings articulated in mainstream livelihoods literature regarding those who live in small regions and rural areas.
14
Data regarding income is difficult to capture due to participants doing different kinds of work, either for shorter or longer duration. The majority of our respondents were unable to give precise or verifiable information on incomes earned, whether they were able to supplement their income needs through additional activities, and what alternative means are available to support their household’s needs. The majority of villagers with disability participate in the informal economy as tofu factory workers, goat or chicken farmers, mechanics, garbage collectors, home-based food business owner, broom maker, masseuse, shopkeeper, tailor, restaurant clerk, batik maker, carpenter, toy seller, and angkringan (a popular light-bite hawker).
Table 2. Share of respondents accessing loans by village, type of livelihoods, incomes and amount of loans KULON PROGO Village Jatirejo
N 6
Types of Livelihoods Batik maker Wig maker Snack seller and school administrative helper Laundry service
Income (in IDR per month) 700-800,000 1,000,000 500,000 800,000
Tofu factory worker and brick maker
1,000,000 – 1,200,000
Services provider (Driver license application processing) and catfish farmer
600,000
Amount of Loans Obtained (in IDR) 1,000,000 n.d. 2,000,000 7,000,000 (BRI); 4,000,000 (PNPM); 5,000,000 (KUD) 25,000,000 (commercial bank) 500,000
Sidorejo
7
Waste scavenger and sisal rope maker Coconut farmer and casual farm laborer Conical hat seller Village leader Bamboo weaver and goat farmer Auto mechanic and catfish farmer Food stall owner and musician
900,000 200,000 n.d. n.d. 300,000 100,000 n.d.
2,000,000 500,000 5,000,000 30,000,000 250,000 5,000,000 10,000,000
Wahyuharjo
9
(Chicken) Butcher, grocery stall, pre-paid phone cards
n.d.
50,000,000
Noodles seller in market Unemployed Brick maker, goat farmer and waste scavenger Conical hats seller n.d. n.d. peanut cracker maker and goat famer Not working
50,000 (per day) n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. -
10,000,000 1,000,000 in-kind (equipment) (numbers not given) 5,000,000 1,000,000 200,000 -
Traffic worker for sand delivery trucks Farmer Tempeh benguk maker, soy grower, chicken, goat and cow farmer Casual laborer (patchwork craft) Not working Bamboo crafts
800,000 300,000 165,000 (per day)
6,000,000 1,000,000 – 7,000,000 2,000,000
15,000 (per day) n.d. 200,000
30,000,000 500,000 n.d.
Ngentakrejo
6
Gulurejo
4
Care for neighbor’s lawn Not Working Batik Maker Gardener at village hall
50.000 No income 10,000 900,000
3,000,000 200,000 n.d. 1,000,000
Bumirejo
6
Bags maker Not working Occasional laborer (village infrastructure projects) Dumplings maker Catfish and goat farmer, key chain maker Crochet bags and purses business
700,000 (per week) n.d. 150,000 (per day) 660,000 1,000,000 240,000 (per week)
3,500,000 12,000,000 2,000,000 4,000,000 25,000,000 2,000,000
Grocery stall Light bite night hawker (angkringan) and motor bike realtor Carpenter Mushrooms grower and advertising business
450,000 1,400,000
1,500,000 12,000,000
n.d. 200,000 (per day)
2,000,000 4,000,000
Screen printing business Staff at small company
500.000 (per week) 600.000
5,000,000 2,000,000
TOTAL 32 SLEMAN Sendangadi
Sendangtirto
4
2
TOTAL 6
15
Skill set is one of the key determinants of livelihoods choices for people with disability. Those who received skill training aligned with their interests, needs and physical conditions were likely to stay working. They may have acquired such skills from formal training provided by NGOs and village vocational training centers or from informal sources such as families, friends or may even have been self-taught.
Incompatibility between skill sets acquired from training and interests or aspiration is the main reason for those trained to abandon their skills. Instead of using the skill given in training, they develop other skills which they use at their current work.
Social Safety Nets Regardless of their employment situation, the majority of people with disability we interviewed credit informal and formal social safety nets with helping to meet their basic needs and coping with household hardship. Those with irregular monthly incomes are able to meet their basic needs due to financial and/or residential support from their parents or relatives. Other forms of informal social safety support received are food, goats and occasional one-off job offers. Village and national governments also provide rice subsidy (Rastra/ Raskin), direct/ conditional cash transfer (Bansos/ Family Hope Program PKH), as well as health insurance (Jamkesus or Jamkesda).
2. Livelihoods choices, success and failures among people with disability are influenced by interaction of multiple factors. Livelihoods or work success and failure are conditioned by both internal and external factors. Internal factors include strong motivation, possession of marketable skills, the presence or absence of support from family, skills mastery, whereas external factors encompass those such as a life changing event (for example, becoming disabled due to accident or injury as opposed to a congenital disability), availability of capital, networks and market access. Additionally, how well individuals with disability psychologically and physically adapt to their disability/ impairments also plays a role, especially if their disability is recently acquired (e.g. from accidents).
Those who are successful in their current livelihoods are those who persevere with what they have started, are capable of developing their business by optimizing the opportunities available in the market (or are able to anticipate market demand), and are agile in finding solutions when encountering work-related problems or when their livelihoods venture hits unexpected roadblocks.
16
For informants with disabilities who are unemployed or inactive, this research suggests that the following factors might be in play:
• lack of access to information about job opportunities;
• lack of marketable skills and access to job training;
• in the case of self-entrepreneurship, lack of networks and support systems to start a business they want.
Physical condition is the most often cited reason for not working, especially for informants with severe mobility impairments. They perceived that the physical capacity needed to work is beyond their physical and/or health condition.
Interestingly, the focus group sessions with women with disability show some degree of awareness among participants that such physical limitation to labor (work) can be overcome as explained by a woman whose catering business floundered:
Doesn’t matter if I can’t see and can’t go out much, as long I gather others with different disabilities like deaf, amputee, wheelchair or any kind of disability. We can work together, split tasks to each physical abilities. I can plan for catering menu, those stayed home can cook and pack the dish, the deaf can do delivery, others can promote via phone. This way we can sell more and earn more. We actually can hire our own kind [other persons with disability]. My profit is pas-pagan (barely enough). No money to start big or hire worker [with disability]. 3. Access to loans and financial services is influenced by financial literacy and people with disability display low financial knowledge and skills. In the absence of access to the labour market and limited employment opportunities, loans can be considered as a key enabling factor for people with disability to become self-employed or to promote their inclusion in the labour market. Loans, in this context, refer to financial services that include the formal provision of money or capital to people with lower earnings/ limited assets or informal self-organized credit/ saving within a group or community.
Informants who participated in our focus group discussions shared that they obtained money from either formal institutions or informal networks. They do not experience significant barriers in accessing loans and use certificates of land and/or vehicle ownership as collateral.
Although the role of social networks and trust with regard to sponsorship and lending behaviours was left largely unexplored during the focus group discussions, we note that those lacking the minimum to meet asset requirements for loans, but who have viable livelihoods, are able to obtain loans through informal channels (such as by joining group rotating savings and credit in their villages, attending
17
TABLE 3. FORMAL AND INFORMAL LOANS ACCESSED SOURCE OF LOANS
TYPES OF LOANS
LOANS REQUIREMENT
LOANS USAGE
FORMAL Village Microcredit Institutions (LKM Money Desa, KUD, Kelompok Desa- PKK, Saving and Loan from PNPM, BPR) Credit with low or 0% State-owned Banks (BRI, BMT, interest (for Mandiri, credit unions) group lending) Commercial Banks (Adira Finance) Credit for Factory cooperative motorbike
National identity and Family cards Vehicle ownership papers (BPKB Motor)
Seed capital for catfish farming, home business, market food stall, or carpentry
Property or land title deeds or certificates
Celebration/ community giving (wedding, funeral, medical treatment)
MOKASE (market institution that provides credits/ loans for vehicle purchase)- part of Adira Finance
Relatives/ Friends/ Neighbors/ Work Place Info session from Loan and Saving Programs/ Bank Asking the banks directly
School fees Land or house purchase
INFORMAL Family/ relatives, friends, neighbors, Money, community leaders, employers goats, chickens Communal rotating saving and credit (arisan)
NONE
Motorbike or vehicle purchase for work Electricity bills Daily needs
Yasinan (religious meeting)
Renovating or building house
Islamic Microfinance Badan Amil Zakat (Islamic philanthropy)
LOANS INFORMATION
Money
NONE
Fodder purchase for cattle, poultry feed
Ventura Islamic Fund
yasinan7, borrowing from family/ relatives/ friends and village heads) and Islamic microfinance. Under the sponsorship of family members, some research participants who had no and/or low assets were able to access formal loans.
Those who have performed well with their efforts tend to have their loans increased by formal institutions in subsequent years. Interestingly, our findings relating to the usage of loans are consistent with the literature8, where access to credit is Social Capital and Disability Inclusion One unexpected finding from our research is the forging of networks or social capital among all informants through community giving. Many of the participants echoed each other during focus group discussions sharing that donating food, money, labour and time made them part of the community. “Even if I do not have enough to eat or no money to give, I will borrow money to donate my part”, remarked one informant. Others added that they worked in order to be able to donate and be accepted by the community. This finding carries important theoretical and practical implications regarding disability inclusion and merits further exploration. Yasinan derived its name from Yasin, one chapter in the Qur’an. It is one of traditional religious practices common in rural areas and mostly done once a week on Thursday night. It is sort of community gathering with religious purposes where the Yasin chapter is read out loud together. 7
See randomized evaluations on microcredit impacts conducted by Banerjee, Karlan and Zinman (2015) across six countries https://economics.mit.edu/files/10475 8
18
beneficial and has a positive eect on measures of well-being, investment and daily needs. The informants use the loans to improve their housing conditions, such as installing electricity or adding a roof on the house, purchase a motorbike to work or deliver their products, pay for their child’s school uniform and fees, general consumption (food purchases) and community giving.
It is worth noting that the majority of informants with disability display a low level of financial knowledge and understanding. Many do not keep records on their household budget and income. More than half of the respondents we interviewed allow non-disabled family members to hold the saving accounts and make financial decisions on their behalf. Such limited understanding of finances or lack of financial skills has considerable impact on utilization of financial services as well as independence / self-suďŹƒciency.
4. The involvement of women with disability in livelihoods and economic activities is influenced by the dynamics between gender and disability. Although the sample size of females with disability is relatively small (N=37) and does not present the complete picture of the population with disability in the two regions, our study was able to collect data to briefly explore how gender roles and disability interact to influence the participation of women with disability in livelihoods and economic activities. TABLE 4. Share of women with disability working and without work based on status or roles.
KULON PROGO 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Not married/Single
Member of Household
SLEMAN 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Head of Household
Working
3
16
2
Working
Without Work
1
14
1
Without Work
Not married/Single
Member of Household
Head of Household
1
6
0
9
3
0
From women-only focus group discussions, we learned women who worked prior to becoming disabled choose not to work after they became disabled. These women feel that their disability affects their mobility and capacity to work. They also deal with disability-related health issues (i.e., they are easily tired or frequently sick). Interestingly, gender roles are also a factor in women ceasing income-generating activities as some report giving up these roles in order to care for a sick child or parent, even though they may be the primary breadwinner or earn more than their spouse. 19
In accordance with Indonesian Family Law, widowed women, including women with disability, are automatically categorized as heads of household. Women with disability who work to supplement their husbands’ incomes or who are primary breadwinners are categorized as member of households because their names are registered under their husband’s or parents’ name on the family card. The lack of recognition regarding female heads of household also happens to women with disability who work to support their inactive or unemployed disabled husband.
When women with disability were asked about their reasons for engaging in employment or economic activities, some cited working as their obligation to the family. "As long I’m able to work, I will work" is the attitude adopted by those who wish to avoid unemployment. Some mentioned they enjoyed working, feeling useful and not burdening others. Those not participating in employment or income-generating activities tend to do unpaid work around the house like parenting, caretaking of sick family members, housekeeping and cooking for other family members. In addition to (physical) disability, their lack of skills and startup capital, as well as a mismatch between their skills and work opportunities, are reasons why they stay home. Previous failures to maintain livelihoods can result in less motivation to try again also affecting the participation of women with disability in economic activities. 5. Elderly with disability are still actively working to contribute to household’s livelihoods. We also encountered elderly persons with disability (age 65 above) who are still working. Rather than sitting still at home, they spend their time doing work activities such as raising goats and chickens, foraging grasses for their goats and harvesting coconuts. Their skills and tasks are inherited from family and parents, which they have learned and done since childhood. The work done by elderly with disability is usually dependent on the availability of natural resources in their surrounding environment.
20
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION Economic participation is considered a concrete indicator of an inclusive society where people with disability are able to contribute to society and local economic growth. However, as the above research suggests, the majority of people with disability experience barriers to work or livelihoods opportunities and do not earn enough income to improve their household well-being. The proposed recommendations below are informed by our findings and, to some degree, integrate with the GoI and key donors’ strategies and priorities with regards to disability and development. The recommendations aim to offer a multi-pronged approach towards supporting livelihoods among people with disability in order to promote and ensure economic inclusion. As this study focused on the greater Yogyakarta region, our recommendations continue that geographic focus. It is not to say that these recommendations could not be implemented elsewhere in Indonesia, but rather that context matters and what works well in one area may not easily work elsewhere. Bearing that caution in mind, these recommendations are listed in no particular order or priority. Rather, we suggest that prospective funders consider incorporating flexibility and adaptability in their planning and implementation in order to fit with local circumstances when choosing and mixing possible ways to partner with the disability community. One important factor that we wish to emphasize is that the onus for economic inclusion falls on all parties, not simply the disability community. While we appreciate the sentiment that Disabled Persons Organisations (DPOs) are major players when it comes to advocacy, implementation and evaluation, the reality is that DPOs are quite limited in their capacity to implement. This reality reflects that effective economic inclusion ‘takes a village’ and requires the support of the entire community and partners at all levels: international and local funders, local / provincial / national government, private sector, etc.
Recommendation 1: improve data collection and analysis on livelihoods among people with disability. Existing data are insufficient for planning purposes when it comes to initiatives pertaining to disability and livelihoods. Census data have proven to be largely inaccurate and even if census data were approximate or accurate, there are other data that would be significantly helpful for creating effective program design and implementation to improve economic inclusion. Such data include, but are not limited to and are posed with regards to people with disability: 21
Formal / informal income (sources, amounts) Formal / informal expenses (spending; categories, amounts) Frequency and type of unexpected income / expenses Debts (causes, amounts, effects – immediate, mid-term and long-term) Hidden costs that are compounded for persons with disability, both one-off and on-going (transportation, medical, batteries, tune-ups, interpreters, etc.) Account ownership (including savings and credit) Impacts of gender and disability on economic activities of women with disability and household well-being Financial services mobilization and payment behavior among persons with disability Business skills (observed and desired).
Recommendation 2: Provide ‘no strings’ small grants. At the present time, the vast majority of people with disability and DPOs currently have very limited capacity to pursue and secure funding via ordinary channels and mechanisms. Requiring them to meet certain criteria prior to receiving funding can mean continued disenfranchisement and sustains the impossible conundrum of funding required to acquire skills and skills required to acquire funding. Additionally, the technical requirements of creating a Theory of Change, a logframe analysis or other unnecessarily arcane and intricate justification for often small amounts of funds is an undue burden on this population, perpetuating their dependence on others. Alternatives to such an approach have been used by The Edge Fund in the UK (www.edgefund.org.uk/), which has a track record of success with its no-strings grants made to grassroots groups, and by GiveDirectly, which has also demonstrated the success of small nostrings cash transfers to individuals (Lowrey 2018). The provision of small grants (possibly with varying maximum limits to be adjusted to context, such as USD 500 or USD 1,500 over a year) to a disability group, individuals with clear year end accounting of expenditures, but no restrictions, would be valuable in improving livelihood outcomes. If tracked, this initiative would also provide concrete insights as to where and how funds are spent, providing instruction for future large grants to support livelihood initiatives focused on people with disability.
22
Recommendation 3: Provide financial literacy and small business training. People with disability require further skills development in business. Given that DPOs and their staff themselves have limited financial knowledge, skills and networks, some possible options for supporting people with disability include: Accreditation courses ensuring legitimacy of business Business incorporation, registration and compliance; basic accounting skills Mentoring programs between novices and those with more experience Partnership or incubation projects under the umbrella of existing and mainstream businesses Networking, both among disability-owned businesses and among sectoral-interest business (e.g. farmer to farmer) Acquisition of and training in adaptive technology for small businesses Basic organizational leadership skills (e.g. personnel management, team facilitation, planning, etc.)
Recommendation 4: Expand microfinance grants. Microfinance generally has proven successful both throughout Indonesia and elsewhere. However, the majority of microfinance programs have limited or no outreach to people with disability. While several online lending platforms (people to people or group to people) exist in Indonesia, the low literacy and technology usage among those in rural or peri-urban areas, including people with disability, means that such platforms automatically and inadvertently exclude these groups. Our research strongly suggests that there is a niche opportunity for a microfinance program focused on people with disability, particularly if offered in tandem with small business training. The establishment of a microfinance program structured to adapt to the unique circumstances of people with disability would open up opportunities for both lenders and borrowers. There would be, perhaps, space to invest in people with disability beginning a new business, through this initiative, and contingent on success, bridging opportunities to transition into standard existing microfinance programs, increasing their inclusion in the mainstream economy.
23
REFERENCES BAPPENAS (2017) Personal communication
ILO 2013. Decent Work for People with Disabilities ‘Inclusion of People with Disabilities
in Indonesia.
Kulon Progo, B. P. S. K. (2015). Kulon Progo dalam Angka. Kulon Progo (ID): Badan Pusat Statistk. http://kulonprogokab. bps. go. id. Last checked on 7 July 2017.
Lowrey, A. (2018). Give People Money: How a Universal Basic Income Would End Poverty, Revolutionize Work, and Remake the World. New York.
Mont, D. and Nguyen C. (2013) ‘Spatial Variation in the Disability-Poverty Correlation: Evidence from Vietnam’ Working Paper 20: Leonard Cheshire Disability, University College London.
Sleman, B. P. S. K. (2015). Sleman dalam Angka. Sleman (ID): Badan Pusat Statistk. http:// slemankab. bps. go. id. Last checked on 7 July 2017.
Washington Group on Statistics (2014) ‘Washington Group on Disability Statistics.’ http:// www.cdc.gov/nchs/washington_group.htm. Last checked on 15 October 2017.
World Bank (2015) PNPM Special Program on Disability Eastern Indonesia Disabled Persons Organisations Mapping Report.
24
APPENDIX 1. RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS In-depth Interviews Questions
WAWANCARA MATA PENCAHARIAN DIFABEL NAMA CO-PENELITI: Tanggal Wawancara: Durasi Wawancara: Kode Informan:
Lokasi Wawancara: Jenis Kelamin:
Sumber Pendapatan/ Mata Pencaharian Utama: (Jika tidak ada, jelaskan/ berapa lama tanpa mata pencaharian
L / P
Desa: Usia:
Kegiatan Tambahan yang menghasilkan pendapatan hidup? (Catat seberapa sering dan berapa lama kegiatan tersebut telah dilakukan)
Kategori Informan: (1) Difabel usia produktif dengan mata pencaharian tetap (2) Difabel usia produktif dengan mata pencaharian serabutan/ tambahan (3) Difabel usia produktif gagal mencari pekerjaan dan menyerah (4) Difabel usia produktif gagal mencari pekerjaan namun tetap gigih (5) Perempuan difabel yang menafkahi rumah tangga/ ibu yang punya anak difabel
HASIL PENGAMATAN (Tak perlu langsung ditanyakan pada responden) kecuali menggunakan lembaran pertanyaan singkat tambahan Washington Group
DISABILITAS (termasuk alat bantu) KONDISI TEMPAT TINGGAL termasuk bahan dinding, bahan atap, bahan lantai, jendela kaca, dan kondisi keseluruhan hunian: MATA PENCAHARIAN 1a. Sumber pendapatan/ mata pencaharian/ pekerjaan (Alasan memilih atau melakukan kegiatan tersebut)
1b. Jika tidak ada sumber pendapatan, sumber pendapatan/ mata pencaharian/pekerjaan yang dulu (Alasan tidak melakukan kegiatan ini)
BAGI RESPONDEN YANG BERTANI Jika responden menyatakan pertanian sebagai pendapatan utama: 2. Punya tanah/ lahan? Ya/Tidak/ Lainnya 2a. (Jika YA) Berapa luas/ hektar lahan yang dimiliki Jika responden TIDAK memiliki lahan: 3a. Berapa hektar yang sudah sertifikat? 2b. Mengelola lahan milik siapa? 4a. Siapa yang kelola tanah/ lahan? (Sebutkan siapa 3b. Berapa luas lahan yang dikelola? yang bantu kelola tanah) 4b. Siapa saja yang bantu Anda kelola lahan? 5a. Jumlah hektar tanah yang ditanam pada panen 5b. Jumlah hektar tanah yang ditanam pada panen terakhir (12 bulan terakhir)? terakhir (12 bulan terakhir)? 6a. Tanaman apa saja? 6b. Lahan ditanami apa saja? 7a. Berapa banyak hasil panen yang dijual? 7b. Bagaimana sistem pembayarannya? [Bagi hasil 8a. Berapa banyak untuk dimakan sendiri atau atau dibayar atau lainnya] keluarga? JIKA DIBAYAR, dibayar berapa? JIKA BAGI HASIL, berapa bagi hasilnya? 8b. Apakah mencukupi kebutuhan rumah tangga? 10. Berapa jumlah anggota keluarga yang Anda tanggung 11. Selain Anda, adakah anggota keluarga yang juga menghasilkan pendapatan? 12. Jika ada, apakah mereka ikut membiayai keperluan keluarga? (Jelaskan) 13. Dari sumber apa Anda dapatkan informasi tentang pertanian? [Penyuluh spesialis, LSM, anggota keluarga, kelompok agama, lainnya] 14. Ada alat pertanian yang dimodifikasi? Ya/ Tidak/ Tidak Tahu
25
14a. (Jika YA) Siapa yang modifikasi? 14b. (Jika TIDAK) Mengapa? Apakah modifikasi alat membantu Anda kelola lahan? (Jelaskan) 15. Apakah Anda bergabung dengan GAPOKTAN-Gabungan Kelompok Tani atau kelompok semacamnya? (Sebutkan nama kelompok jika bukan GAPOKTAN) 16a. Apa manfaat yang didapat setelah bergabung 16b. Jika tidak bergabung dengan kelompok tani, dengan Gabungan Kelompok Tani (GAPOKTAN) atau apakah Anda ingin ikut? lainnya? MATA PENCAHARIAN TAMBAHAN 17a. Kegiatan lainnya yang menghasilkan pendapatan tambahan [kolam ikan, jual makanan, produk, jasa, lainnya] Seberapa penting kegiatan ini bagi Anda? Hasil pendapatan digunakan untuk apa saja?
17b. Jika TIDAK ada kegiatan yang menghasilkan pendapatan, probing apakah responden melakukan kegiatan yang tidak dibayar
18. Transportasi apa saja yang digunakan? Untuk apa? 19. Jika diantarkan, siapa saja yang antarkan? Seberapa sering diberikan tumpangan? Kemana saja? PEMODALAN ATAU PENGEMBANGAN USAHA 20. Apakah Anda pernah mengikuti program simpan pinjam dan sejenisnya? Jelaskan 21. Apakah Anda pernah mendapatkan pinjaman/kredit? - Jumlahnya berapa? - Dari mana? - Berapa lama? 22. Digunakan untuk apa saja pinjaman tersebut? 23. Apa manfaat yang dirasakan dari pinjaman tersebut? Jika tidak ada manfaat, jelaskan. 24. Dari mana mendapatkan informasi tentang program simpan pinjam? LEMBARAN KHUSUS BAGI RESPONDEN YANG PENGHIDUPAN/ PENDAPATAN UTAMA BUKAN BERTANI (PROBING) Apa pekerjaan utama Anda? Sudah berapa lama melakukan pekerjaan tersebut? Mengapa memilih pekerjaan tersebut? Apakah pendapatan/penghasilan Anda mencukupi? Jelaskan. Mendapatkan ketrampilan tersebut dari mana? Apakah ada kendala dalam melakukan pekerjaan tersebut? Bagaimana cara menghadapi kendala tersebut? Apakah ada pekerjaan lain yang ingin dikerjakan? Mengapa? Jika responden menyatakan belum mendapatkan pekerjaan - Alasan belum mendapatkan pekerjaan - Pekerjaan apa yang ingin dilakukan? - Usaha apa saja yang telah dilakukan untuk mendapatkan pekerjaan tersebut? - Siapa yang bisa membantu untuk mendapatkan tersebut? [keluarga, teman, sodara, kerabat atau instansi lainnya] Sebutkan - Selama ini kebutuhan hidup dipenuhi dengan cara bagaimana?
26
PANDUAN PERTANYAAN WAWANCARA 1:1 BAGI CO-PENELITI 1. Pengalaman terkait kegiatan mata pencaharian atau kegiatan yang menghasilkan pendapatan sekarang (ATAU kegiatan yang dahulu bagi yang tidak melakukan mata pencaharian). 2. Tanyakan seberapa pentingnya kegiatan yang dilakukan sekarang (ATAU dahulu)? Probing tentang pilihan mata pencaharian lain atau kesempatan untuk melakukan mata pencaharian lainnya. 3. Berdasarkan jawaban dari probing no.2 Tanyakan tentang ketrampilan yang dimiliki dan ketrampilan yang ingin dikembangkan. 4. Probing pelatihan ketrampilan apa saja yang telah diikuti (atau ingin diikuti)? Siapa yang berikan? Apakah manfaat yang dirasakan setelah ikut pelatihan. 5. Tanyakan hambatan atau tantangan yang dihadapi terkait mata pencaharian yang dilakukan sekarang (dahulu). Probing apa saja yang dilakukan oleh responden untuk mengatasi tantangan tersebut. Siapa/ program mana yang didekati untuk atasi tantangan tersebut? Atau sumber dukungan yang didapat untuk mengatasi tantangan tsb 6. Apakah Anda pernah mendapatkan simpan pinjam/kredit? Probing sumber pinjaman/ kredit, jumlah yang didapat, jangka waktu dan manfaat yang dirasakan atau tidak dirasakan dari simpan pinjam/kredit 7. Apakah anda pernah ikuti pelatihan wirausaha/binalokakarya/ pelatihan lainnya? Probing siapa yang memberikan, kapan, hasil/ dampak, tahunya informasi terkait pelatihan dari mana/ siapa 8. Jika tidak ikut, kenapa? Apakah Anda ingin ikut? Kalau ya, pelatihan seperti apa yang Anda inginkan? Probing
27
Focus Group Discussion Panduan Diskusi Terarah Mata Pencaharian Bagi Difabel Kecamatan Lendah Kulon Progo
Kelompok Besar: Menonton film bersama (2 film) • Perkenalan singkat fasilitator yang bertugas memandu menontof film dengan peserta FGD (Surono) • Menonton film Bersama (masing2 film durasi 3 menit) • Fasilitator kelompok besar (Surono) membagi peserta menjadi 3 kelompok: o Kelompok tuli: Eka & Mada o Kelompok difabel perempuan: Nirla & Listi o Kelompok difabel laki-laki: Hezti & Yuhda • Peserta diminta untuk masuk ke kelompok kecil
Kelompok kecil: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Perkenalan antara fasilitator dan peserta (nama, alamat, pekerjaan) Penjelasan tujuan diskusi kelompok & aturan dalam diskusi kelompok Minta 2 orang untuk berkomentar singkat terkait film tersebut Mata pencaharian apa saja yang dilakukan oleh peserta saat ini Apa yang dilakukan pertama kali ketika melakukan usaha/pekerjaan Dari mana mendapatkan pekerjaan/ketrampilan tersebut Apakah ada hambatan ketika melakukan pekerjaan/ketrampilan tersebut Apakah pernah mendapatkan pelatihan? Apa saja dan siapa yang melatih Ketika mengalami hambatan/keterpurukan dalam pekerjaan/usaha apa yang dilakukan untuk bangkit kembali 10. Ketika mengalami hambatan/kesulitan uang siapa saja yang dihampiri untuk membantu mengatasi persoalan tersebut 11. Apakah pernah mengakses simpan pinjam (fomal: bank, koperasi, BMT; non formal: saudara, tetangga, rentenir/bank plecit/mendring, arisan: dasawisma, PKK, RT/RW, KWT, berapa jumlahnya, jangka berapa lama, apakah sudah lunas atau belum, apakah ada pengembalian dari bank, apakah dipermudah untuk melakukan peminjaman lagi) 12. Mendapatkan informasi simpan pinjam dari mana saja? 13. Jaminan apa saja yang diberikan ketika melakukan peminjaman 14. Kendala yang dihadapai ketika mengakses simpan pinjam formal dan non formal 15. Selain meminjaman apakah juga melakukan penyimpanan/menabung, dimana menabungnya? 16. Manfaat apa yang didapat ketika mengakses pinjaman formal dan informal Aturan: Peserta harus aktif berpendapat Semua pendapat tidak ada yang salah Menerima telepon dilakukan diluar ruangan Tidak memotong pembicaraan dan menghargai orang yang sedang bicara Hasil diskusi ini akan dipakai untuk penelitian dan mendorong advokasi/kebijakan ke pemerintah 28
Difabel Sendangadi & Sendangtirto Sleman Kelompok Besar: Menonton film bersama (2 film) • Perkenalan singkat fasilitator yang bertugas memandu menonton film dengan peserta FGD (Supri) • Menonton film bersama Fasilitator kelompok besar (Supri) membagi peserta menjadi 3 kelompok: Kelompok tuli: Mada & Santi Kelompok difabel perempuan: Listi & Surono Kelompok difabel laki-laki: Sugeng & Sarjio Peserta diminta untuk masuk ke kelompok kecil (lihat roster pembagian kelompok) 1. Perkenalan antara fasilitator dan peserta (nama, alamat, pekerjaan) 2. Penjelasan tujuan diskusi kelompok & aturan dalam diskusi kelompok 3. Minta 2 orang untuk berkomentar singkat terkait film tersebut 4. Apa yang dilakukan pertama kali ketika melakukan usaha/pekerjaan 5. Keberhasilan usaha yang selama ini dicapai apa saja? --> (peserta diminta untuk menceritakan) 6. Apakah pernah mendapatkan pelatihan? Apa saja dan siapa yang melatih 7. Bagaimana tindak lanjut dari pelatihan tersebut? Apakah masih lanjut, seperti apa? 8. Selama ini apakah memiliki jaringan pemasaran? 9. Bagaimana pemasaran yang dilakukan? ->( Peserta diminta untuk bercerita tentang Teknik pemasaran yang selama ini dilakukan 10. Apakah pernah mengakses simpan pinjam (fomal: bank, koperasi, BMT; non formal: saudara, tetangga, rentenir/bank plecit/mendring, arisan: dasawisma, PKK, RT/RW, KWT, berapa jumlahnya, jangka berapa lama, apakah sudah lunas atau belum, apakah ada pengembalian dari bank, apakah dipermudah untuk melakukan peminjaman lagi) 11. Alasan tidak melakukan simpan pinjam kenapa? 12. Mendapatkan informasi simpan pinjam dari mana saja? 13. Apakah ada kemudahan ketika mengakses simpan pinjam? Apa saja kemudahannya, ceritakan --> kalau tidak ada kemudahan ditanyakan kendalanya 14. Jaminan apa saja yang diberikan ketika melakukan peminjaman 15. Manfaat apa yang didapat ketika mendapatkan pinjaman formal dan informal 16. Selain meminjaman apakah juga melakukan penyimpanan/menabung, dimana menabungnya? Aturan: • Peserta harus aktif berpendapat • Semua pendapat tidak ada yang salah • Menerima telepon dilakukan diluar ruangan • Tidak memotong pembicaraan dan menghargai orang yang sedang bicara • Peserta menunggu orang yang bicara sampai selesai bicara • Hasil diskusi ini akan dipakai untuk penelitian dan mendorong advokasi/kebijakan ke pemerintah
29
APPENDIX 2. LIVELIHOODS DATA SET
Share of respondents and livelihoods diversification KULON PROGO Village
1 livelihood
2 livelihoods
More than 2 livelihoods
Total
Jatirejo
9
3
1
13
Sidorejo
5
11
-
16
Wahyuharjo 3
3
2
8
Ngentakrejo 9
4
-
13
Gulurejo
3
10
2
15
Bumirejo
9
5
1
15
33
6
81
TOTAL 42
SLEMAN Sendangadi
2
7
-
9
Sendangtirto 7
4
1
12
11
1
21
TOTAL 9
Reasons given by respondents during in-depth interviews and focus group discussions REASONS FOR WORKING Survival strategy to meet daily needs; to buy land (for investment); saving for old age
REASONS FOR NOT WORKING Being disabled (from accident); Severe disability; limited mobility, weak body
To anticipate contingency and community giving (kebutuhan sosial/ nyumbang)
Limited networks to market
Financial independence and self-sufficiency
Lack of resources and supports
Primary breadwinner; to support family
Struggling with self-acceptance
While able to work, will keep working; heeding the call (vocation)
Failed and gave up; Tried once and do not want to try again
Do not want to be looked down on by others
Do not have access to work information
Motivated by father (family role model); encouraged by family members; inherited work/ livelihoods
Do not have suitable and desired skills
Opportunities from NGOs; obtained resources (skills training, startup Child rearing; caregiving for ill parent capital) Because of disability; being disabled; have prior work experiences before being disabled
Receiving supports from family/ relatives (negates need to work)
Helping husband; supplementing husband’s income; replacing (disabled) husband as breadwinner
Not allowed by parents
Good salary with permanent position
Got cheated out of pay
To gain experience
30
Factors contributing to livelihoods or work success and failures FACTORS LEADING TO Climate and natural causes Entrepreneurial resilience/ drive/ traits
SUCCESS Favorable climate
FAILURE Unfavorable climate, pest infestation and animal diseases
Actively looking for alternative work; high motivation to work
Not confident, afraid of being cheated; have no desire to work
Consider alternative solutions when facing setbacks; able to read market demands and opportunities; persistent in keeping business going; Open to solicited or unsolicited advice on business development; verbally promoting products
Support from family, relatives and friends Skills/ Trainings/ Education
Supportive
Unsupportive; lack of labor support
Possess work-related skills; have previous work experience
Skills not marketable; limited skills; unfamiliar with technology; poor time management
Networks
Strong networks (relatives, political parties, and non-profit organizations) for promotion
(Financial) Capital
Sufficient capital to maintain production; low or zero interest loans and able to re-invest profit into production
Difficult to obtain poultry feed and fodder; difficult to obtain superior catfish seedlings; raw materials are expensive and in limited supply Limited capital; available capital used to cover daily needs rather than reinvested in business; afraid to take out business loans; consumers pay in installments or do not pay
Physical Barriers/ Infrastructure
Healthy and fit to work
Declining physical/ health condition; limited mobility and transportation access; no communication aids; location between shop and house is quite far away, shop location is not strategic (rarely frequented by people)
Sales/ Production Performance
Good packaging, management and marketing strategy
Slow sales; low demand from consumers; similar competitors within the market stalls; limited marketing through media channel; not familiar with social media or mobile phone Outdated production process; products failure; limited product quantity
Gender Roles
Supporting household as primary breadwinner
Child rearing and caretaking of ill parent
31
APPENDIX 3. SUMMARY OF KDD MAPPING’s FINDINGS AND INSTRUMENT
Introduction Preliminary findings from collaborative livelihoods research has highlighted the unusual niche village disability group Kelompok Difabel Desa (Indonesian acronym KDD). The majority of respondents we interviewed about their livelihoods situations and experiences repeatedly shared their expectation of KDD to facilitate economic participation. Some even mentioned their reasons for joining KDD were to obtain support such as skills training, subsidized materials, funding for self-enterprises and market access. These suggest that KDD is expected to play a role bigger than its current purpose and capacity as a community group9.
In order to better understand the existence of KDD, its purposes, capacity and challenges, the livelihoods research team conducted focus group sessions and organizational mapping exercises with representatives and active members of KDD from two villages in Sleman Regency and six villages in Kulon Progo Regency respectively from 4 to 11 March 2018. Each focus group discussion and mapping exercise lasted between two and three hours.
KDD Overview The emergence of KDD in villages participating in the Inclusive Village Pilot (RINDI) can be considered as social capital formation where individuals with disability and parents of children with disability come together to engage in dialogues and do activities that empower them, raise disability inclusion issues with other villagers and in village meetings. Furthermore, KDD is expected to influence the village development agenda in ways that benefit villagers with disability. Initially, KDD formation was part of intentional design and strategic approach within RINDI program to foster social acceptance and inclusion of people with disability in villages.
Key Findings 1. Incentives as motivation for participation in village disability groups As a community group, KDD holds regular monthly meetings which are mostly social gatherings with occasional training activities, such as cooking, computing, Community group here refers to a social group primarily composed of volunteers and who act as facilitators to mobilize their target population, link their constituents with information and access to available services in villages. The formation of such a community group is usually facilitated by village authority (the state), it is not a fully state entity.
9
32
goat or chicken farming information sessions and dialogues (in reality, lectures rather than discussions) related to disability rights and access to health, education and other social services in the villages. Parents who participated in KDD also mentioned that a counselling session on mental health and behavioral disorders was the initial reason to join KDD.
Those not participating in KDD meetings cited a lack of enthusiasm due to unmet expectations such as tangible economic benefits (specifically access and network to subsidized raw materials and market to sell their products) and no means for members to collaborate on livelihoods activities and issues. Additionally, lack of communication support discourages participation from deaf members. Throughout the mapping sessions, almost all participants mentioned that their attendance and participation in meetings is largely motivated by transportation fee, either from SIGAB or from the villages. Oftentimes, KDD leaders and volunteers find it challenging to sustain participation or increase the quality of involvement among members when the funding stopped.
2. Limited organizational capacity and skills development among KDD leaders Leadership grooming and skills development among members of community groups are essential for the groups to remain sustainable and this applies to KDD as well. There is a glaring gap between the expectations of KDD leadership and members’ expectations. Leadership is currently held by older members (aged 45 and above), female and younger members have yet to be motivated to play active roles in KDD— ‘they cannot be bothered’ (Tidak mau repot) is the oft-given reason for lack of female and youth leadership. During discussion on challenges faced by KDD, participants recounted lack of necessary skills and resources to increase membership base and engagement, improve community outreach and forge networks with other groups such as PKK women-led Family Welfare Movement and Karang Taruna youth organization in the villages. Interestingly, older KDD leaders see PKK as the model of effective community organization, in term of members’ investment and mobilization, solid networking, trust and influence.
Several organizations in villages are successful in tapping the Village Fund (Dana Desa), whereas KDD has experienced setbacks when it has attempted to access the Fund. It is worth noting that disability groups or organizations and individuals with disability tend to say that they want or need money, but have a difficult time expressing why. This ability to argue (as in justify) is a skill that is learnt. But when individuals with disability are excluded from conversations or decision making processes, they inadvertently lose out on the opportunity to learn about how to make a case (argument) for something. Existing challenges may not be due entirely 33
to discrimination or ignorance, but also to the reality that being able to advocate (argue) effectively is key. WHY is it important for the village fund to give to X over Y?
A combination of factors such as weak partnerships between village government and village disability groups, critically low organizational capacity and the marginal space that the disability groups occupy in the village development agenda is clearly at play here. NEXT STEP: LEARNING TO WORK POLITICALLY? KDD leadership and current members are open to develop and foster networks with other village-based organizations. However, they are unsure how and where they can learn about networking and coalition building capabilities. “We attended trainings given by SIGAB and participated in some training events in villages, but these trainings are above our heads, too abstract and hard to relate.” One KDD volunteer added, “I know other village groups give marketable skills trainings we needed but we’re rarely invited.”
The presence and work of SIGAB undoubtedly encouraged a disability inclusion approach to be adopted by local government and other community organizations, along with disability inclusion champions within service providers, however the disability groups in villages feel their advocacy and lobbying efforts are less effective because they have yet to develop necessary skills and networks to do so.
34
LIST OF QUESTIONS ASKED DURING FGD & KDD MAPPING EXERCISE
No 1
Kategori Kegiatan rutin KDD
Pertanyaan Apakah KDD memiliki kegiatan rutin? Kegiatan dan aktivitas apa yang dilakukan? Berapa orang yang terlibat dalam kegiatan tersebut? Apakah anggota KDD memiliki antusiasme? Jika iya maupun tidak apakah alasannya? Upaya apa yang sudah dilakukan oleh KDD untuk meningkatkan antusiasme anggota mengikuti pertemuan rutin? Apa manfaat yang dirasakan oleh anggota melalui kegiatan rutin tersebut?
2
Pemahaman persoalan anggota oleh pengurus KDD
Apakah KDD mengerti apa yang menjadi permasalahan anggotanya?
3
KDD dan Pemerintah Desa
Bagaimana peran KDD di Desa?
Upaya apa saja yang dilakukan KDD atas permasalahan anggotanya?
Apakah ada hambatan dalam melakukan komunikasi dengan Desa? Upaya apa saja yang sudah dilakukan oleh KDD untuk melakukan komunikasi atau kerjasama dengan desa? 4
Peningkatan Kapasitas pengurus KDD
Pelatihan apa yang pernah didapat oleh pengurus KDD?
5
Hambatan dan tantangan KDD
Hambatan apa yang ditemui oleh pengurus KDD dalam mengelola KDD?
6
Program dan keberlanjutannya
Didapatkan darimana and apakah manfaat dari pelatihan tersebut?
Bagaimana cara mengatasi hambatan tersebut? Apakah KDD memiliki program jangka pendek, menengah, maupun panjang? Apakah dari program tersebut ada yang berkaitan dengan mata pencaharian? Bagaimana pengembangan/ regenerasi kepengurusan KDD berlangsung? Apakah ada hambatan berarti dalam melakukan regenerasi tersebut? Upaya apa yang dilakukan untuk mengatasi hambatan yang ada dalam proses regenerasi? 7
Tujuan dan misi KDD
Apakah KDD memiliki AD/ART? Apakah KDD memiliki tujuan –tujuan tertentu? Bagaimana cara mencapai tujuan tersebut?
8.
Suport LSM
Bentuk dukungan yang diberikan LSM atau organisasi lainnya selama ini apa saja? Apakah sesuai dengan kebutuhan KDD? Apakah dukungan tersebut masih berlangsung? Berapa lama dukungan tersebut diberikan? Jika dukungan sudah tidak ada lagi, mengapa? Manfaat apa yang dirasakan ketika didampingi oleh LSM? Saran untuk LSM yang mendampingi KDD
9
Keterlibatan KDD dalam perencanaan desa
Bagaimana keterlibatan KDD dalam perencanaan desa selama ini Siapa saja yang terlibat dalam perencanaan desa? Bagaimana keaktifan KDD ketika mengikuti perencanaan desa? Kendala apa yang dihadapi ketika mengikuti perencanaan desa?
10 Dukungan pemerintah desa
Bentuk dukungan pemdes untuk KDD selama ini apa saja? Apakah sudah ada SK dari desa terkait fungsi dan peranan KDD? Seberapa besar manfaat atau kegunaan SK yang didapati?
11 Cita-cita dan harapan
Apa yang ingin KDD lakukan kedepan agar KDD semakin maju?
12 Jaringan
Selama ini KDD memiliki jaringan dengan pihak mana saja? Apakah jaringan tersebut bermanfaat? Jelaskan. Jika tidak merasakan manfaat dari jaringan, jelaskan Apakah masih ada keinginan untuk mengembangkan jaringan? Ke mana saja jaringan tersebut ingin dikembangkan?
13 Jangkauan KDD
Bagaimana hubungan KDD dengan masyarakat sekitar? Sejauh mana KDD dikenal oleh difabel? Apakah ada difabel desa yang belum tahu KDD? Sejauh mana KDD dikenal oleh masyarakat umum?
35
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To all involved, this collaborative research would not have been possible with you.
The Team After Completing the Last FGD sessions in Kulon Progo. From Left to RightFirst Row: Kuni Fatonah, Listia Khairunnisa, Hezti Insriani, Mada Ramadhany. Second Row: Supriyanto, Nirla Hastari, Thoyib, Ekawati Liu, Rizal, Kang Sarjiyo, Yuhda Wahyu Pradana, Rumiyati, Last Row: Presti Murni Setiati, Surono, Imam Kurniawan. Not pictured: Sugeng Wasita, Doddy Kaliri, Santi Setyaningsih, Ambar Riyadi and Alviah.
36
37
38
