SMERU’s POLICY IMPACT ON
SCHOOL OPERATIONAL
ASSISTANCE (BOS) PROGRAM
Nuning Akhmadi
The SMERU Research Institute
Presented at CEPA Symposium
Colombo, 26 –30 November 2007
1

SMERU Research Institute
An independent institution for research and
policy studies, providing accurate and timely
information and objective analysis on various
socio-economic, poverty, decentralization and
vulnerability issues considered most urgent
and relevant for the welfare of the people of
Indonesia
SMERU adopts both quantitative and
qualitative research methods.
2

Outline of Presentation
I. Background of BOS
SMERU’s Research: Objectives &
II.
Methodology
III. Findings & Recommendations
IV. Policy Impacts
V. Challenges
VI. Lessons learnt
3

I. BACKGROUND (1)
School Operational Assistance (BOS)
• One of the programs to reduce the impact of
increased fuel price, started in July 2005
• Distributed to and managed by schools
• Size of budget allocation based on number of
students
- target : 39.6 million students
- budget: Rp5,1136 trillion (Jul – Dec, 2005)
• Administered by the Ministry of Education
4

Background (2)
Objectives:
• Provide assistance to schools so that students
don’t have to pay tuition fees
• Help schools maintaining the quality of
education
• Support universal education (9 year-compulsory
basic education program)
5

II. SMERU’S RESEARCH
Objectives:
 To evaluate the implementation of BOS
 To provide input towards program improvement
and future program planning
Methodology:
 Qualitative approach, in-depth interviews
 Timeline: Feb – March 2005
 Study area: 10 districts/cities in 5 provinces
(Purposive:urban/rural, dispersed, relatively small
and large BOS funds) 6

Locations of Field Research
Kota Pematang Siantar
:
1 SDNegeri
1 SDSwasta (nonpenerima)
1 MISwasta
1 MTs Negeri
1 MTs Swasta
Kab. Taputl
:
1 SDNegeri
1 SDSwasta
1 MINegeri
1 SMP Negeri
1 SMP Swasta
Kota Manado:
1 SD Negeri
1 SD Swasta Kab. Minut :
1 SMP Negeri 1 SD Negeri
1 SMP Swasta 2 SD Swasta
1 SMP Negeri
Kota Mataram:
1 SD Negeri
KotaCilegon: 1 SD Swasta
1 SDNegeri 1 SMP Negeri
1 SDSwasta 1 MTs Swasta
(nonpenerima
)
1 MINegeri
1 SMP Negeri
1 SMP Swasta
1 MTs Swasta
Kab Lebak
. :
1 SD Negeri
2 SDSwasta(1nonpenerima
)
1 MISwasta Kota Pasuruan
: Kab. Lombok Tengah:
1 MTs Negeri 1 SDNegeri
1 SD Negeri
2Salafiyah 1 SDSwasta
1 MI Swasta
1 MISwasta
1 SMP Negeri
1 MTs Negeri
1 Salafiyah
Kab. Malang :
1 MINegeri
1 SMPNegeri
1 SMPSwasta
1 Salafiyah

III. FINDINGS &
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Program achievement and impact indication
• Level of satisfaction with program
implementation
• Data collection and allocation of funds
• Program campaigning
• Channeling and disbursement of funds
8

Findings &
Recommendation (2)
• Utilization of funds
• Reporting, monitoring and evaluation
• Handling of complaints and problems
• Institutional affairs.
9

IV. SMERU’S
POLICY IMPACT (1)
• Ministry of Education conducted similar
evaluation in wider sample areas
• Development and dissemination of new
program guidelines
• Improvement in budget allocation system,
and flexibility for provincial and district
authority to reallocate funds
• Flexibility for schools re: use of funds
10

SMERU’s Policy Impact (2)
• Better program socialization/campaign
• Improvement in disbursement/distribution of
funds
• Higher priority/free tuition for poor students;
less tuition fee for non poor students.
• Improved school transparency and
accountability
• Regular semestral reports by schools
11

SMERU’s Policy Impact (3)
• Establishment of internal (BOS management
Team) and external (NGOs, public entity)
monitoring and evaluation
• Wider public announcement via mass media,
school committees, informal socialization
(village meeting, religious activities, etc)
• Establishment of Complaint Units, toll-free
number
12

SMERU’s Policy Impact (4)
• Improved selection of competent Working Unit
members
• More flexible structure of BOS team,
depending on the competence of Working
Units
• Mechanism from deconcentration budget to
special funds allocation for education is being
explored.
13

V. CHALLENGES (1)
• Making policymakers begin to understand the
value of evidence-based research
• Understanding the political dimensions of specific
policy changes
• Building institutional bridges to improve
communication and effective interaction between
researchers and policymakers, and to strengthen
the integration of policy and evidence.
14

Challenges (2)
• Amplifying research findings and policy
recommendations through publications, policy
briefs, newsletters, website and links, and other
channels/networking
• Establishing convening network to develop
systematic and sustainable linkages between
researchers, national planning board, related high
level policymakers and practitioners
15

Challenges (3)
• Improving public debate to encourage people to
address problems with new perspectives
• Facilitating linkages and cooperation among
CSOs, enhancing capacity and promoting public
accountability
• Providing easy and free access to all SMERU’s
publications, reports, working papers, and NGO
Database through SMERU website:
www.smeru.or.id.
16

VI. LESSONS LEARNT (1)
• Openness of policymakers to accept and accommodate
input from outside is crucial
• Political will from policymakers is essential to have
research findings getting translated into actual policy
change
• Translating/linking research and policy is a not so easy
undertaking,
• Strong evidence and the urgency of the issues/policy/
program may speed up the political process towards the
adoption of research findings and recommendations.
17

Lessons Learnt (2)
• Determining policy options and selecting research
findings that have practical application
• Monitoring and evaluating the policy impact of
SMERU’s findings and recommendations is a
continued challenge.
• Policy impact on decision making is often
restricted by its voluntary nature.
18

Lessons Learnt (3)
• Institutional integrity, objectivity, capacity, and
research quality are paramount.
• The policy capacity of the executive,
legislative, researchers as well as other
stakeholders need to be strengthened.
• Direct participation in policy making is more
effective as it offers the opportunity to
convince policy makers and provide direct
inputs for policy.
19

ON-GOING RESEARCH (1)
1. The Mechanism and Uses of the Specific
Allocation Fund (DAK) in Indonesian
Decentralization Financing
2. Chronic Poverty and Household Dynamics:
The Case of Indonesia
3. Independent Evaluation of Rice Subsidy for
the Poor
20

On-going Research (2)
4. Vision Indonesia 2030: Policy Dimension on
Subsidy, Social Protection System, Income
Distribution Improvement, and Poverty Reduction
5. Vision Indonesia 2030: Policy Dimension on
Labor Market Reform and Productivity
Improvement
6. Study on Strengthening the Poverty Reduction
Capacity of Local Governments through
Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPA) in
Kabupaten Nias and Kabupaten Nias Selatan
21

On-going Research (3)
7. Qualitative Baseline Study for the Conditional
Cash Transfer (CCT) Programs
8. High Maternal Mortality Rates in Indonesia:
Causes and Solutions
9. The Correlates of Poverty in Large and Small
Areas: Evidence from Indonesian Poverty
Map Data
22

FUTURE
RESEARCH PLAN (1)
1. Promoting the Implementation of the
Community-Based Monitoring System (CBMS)
2. Improving the Policy and Regulatory
Environment for Business in NTT
3. Analysis of the Targeting and Effects of Special-
Area Subsidies and Allowances for Primary
School Teachers
23

Future
Research Plan (2)
5. Better Education through Reformed
Management and Universal Teacher
Upgrading (BERMUTU)
6. Improving Local Governance in Indonesia to
Accelerate Economic Growth: The Case of
the Agricultural Sector
24

Thank You