Published on

Nuning Akhmadi's presentation for the 3rd Annual ebpdn Partners Meeting held 26-27 November 2007 in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Published in: Business, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. Findings & Recommendation (2) • Utilization of funds • Reporting, monitoring and evaluation • Handling of complaints and problems • Institutional affairs. 9
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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: 16
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. 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
  22. 22. 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
  23. 23. 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
  24. 24. 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
  25. 25. Thank You