2012年-世界发展银行全球_Consolidated_Assessment_of_UPK_Revolving_Loan_Funds_in_Indonesia_for_their_Financial_Performance_and_Capacity_Building_Needs_84页_1mb

Summary of PNPM Mandiri: Consolidated Assessment of UPK Revolving Loan Funds in Indonesia (May 2012)

Core Content

This report presents a consolidated assessment of the financial performance and capacity building needs of UPK Revolving Loan Funds (UPK RLFs) and urban UPKs under the PNPM Mandiri project in Indonesia, focusing on four provinces: Central Java, Yogyakarta, Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT), and West Sumatra. The assessment aimed to evaluate the operational and financial sustainability of these institutions and identify areas for improvement.

Main Objectives

• Assess the financial performance of UPK RLFs and urban UPKs.
• Identify capacity building needs to enhance service delivery to low-income families.
• Determine the conditions under which UPKs can become self-sustainable without continued direct government support.

Key Findings

1. Operational Performance

• Loans per borrower are small, ranging from Rp0.86 million (Yogyakarta) to Rp1.86 billion (Central Java).
• Rural UPK RLFs have a larger number of borrowers and higher portfolio sizes compared to urban UPKs.
• The average number of borrowers per UPK RLF is 1,233 across the four provinces, with urban UPKs serving fewer people (average of 206 per UPK).
• In Yogyakarta, urban UPKs have a higher average loan outstanding per borrower than rural RLFs.

2. Quality Assessment

• Only 28% of rural UPK RLFs and 9% of urban UPKs were found to operate at a level comparable to independent microfinance institutions (MFIs).
• Governance performance was generally weaker than management and financial performance across all provinces.
• In NTT, financial performance was significantly worse than in other provinces, and governance was weaker than management and financial performance.

3. Financial Performance

• Reported profitability (RoA) was good, but this does not account for loan loss provisioning, facilitation costs, or community inputs.
• After incorporating loan loss provisioning in accordance with PNPM guidelines, the estimated RoA for rural UPK RLFs was 3.5%, which is below the best practice range of 1-3% for microfinance institutions.
• The liquidity ratio was relatively high at nearly 20%, exceeding the typical 10-15% range for small community finance institutions.
• Urban UPKs had an overall loss of 0.2% of assets before accounting for financial expenses and other costs.

4. Data and Accounting Issues

• Data accuracy depends on staff and facilitator commitment and understanding.
• Rural UPK RLFs generally do not include loan loss provisioning in their financial statements, leading to an overestimation of profitability.
• Management Information Systems (MIS) and data reliability were identified as critical areas needing improvement.

5. Institutional Capacity

• Staff qualifications and training were found to be inadequate in many UPKs, especially in NTT.
• Loan appraisal and approval processes lacked standardization and efficiency.
• Handling delinquency and misappropriation was inconsistent, with some institutions failing to enforce penalties.
• Facilitation and programme structure were found to be areas of concern, particularly in the absence of adequate support and training.

6. Capacity Building Needs

• Leaders (28% of total): 18 rural UPK RLFs and 6 urban UPKs with "very good" performance. These could be encouraged to become independent community financial institutions.
• Progressives (28% of total): 57 rural and 15 urban UPKs that require support to raise lending resources and improve functioning.
• Possibles (39 rural, 14 urban): Institutions with reasonable or moderate performance that need extensive support, training, and handholding over two years.
• Laggards (119 rural, 125 urban): Too weak under current institutional conditions to warrant additional support.
• Ungraded (3 rural, 40 urban): Too new to be graded or non-functional.

Key Recommendations

• Strengthen governance structures to improve transparency and accountability.
• Improve internal control and accounting systems to ensure accurate data and reporting.
• Enhance staff training and facilitator support to improve operational efficiency.
• Implement better loan loss provisioning and financial expense tracking.
• Promote financial sustainability through better access to bank funding and improved financial management practices.
• Develop robust Management Information Systems (MIS) to support better decision-making and performance tracking.

Future Directions

• Institutional improvements should focus on capacity building and standardization of procedures.
• Financial performance should be enhanced through better bank linkage and financial management.
• The assessment highlights the need for a more systematic approach to data collection and reporting.

Conclusion

The overall performance of UPK RLFs and urban UPKs is good in Central Java and Yogyakarta, moderate in West Sumatra, and weak in NTT. While some UPKs have the potential to become self-sustainable, many require significant support and capacity building. The report serves as a foundation for developing an action plan to improve the financial and operational performance of these institutions.