Document of The World Bankdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/629391468040552244/pdf/ICR15470...CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective July 15, 2010) Currency Unit = IDR 1.00

Document of The World Bank

Report No: ICR00001547

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (TF-93613)

ON A

DUTCH EDUCATION SUPPORT PROGRAM GRANT (P115725)

IN THE AMOUNT OF USD8.5 MILLION

TO THE

REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA

FOR A

BOS-KITA CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT AND CAMPAIGN PROJECT

December 6, 2010 Human Development Sector Unit East Asia & Pacific Region

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective July 15, 2010) Currency Unit =

IDR 1.00 = US$ 0.0001105 US$ 1.00 = IDR 9,048

FISCAL YEAR

January 1 – December 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AAA Analytic and Advisory ActivitiesADB Asian Development BankAIBEP Australia Indonesia Basic Education ProgramAPL Adaptable Program LoanAusAID Australian Agency for International DevelopmentBALITBANG Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan (National Centre for Research and

Development, MoNE)BAN Badan Akreditasi NasionalBAPPENAS Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Nasional (National

Development Planning Agency)BAWASDA Badan Pengawasan Daerah (Regional Supervision Agency) BEC-TF Basic Education Capacity - Trust FundBOS Bantuan Operasional Sekolah (School Operational Assistance) BOS-KITA Bantuan Operasional Sekolah- Knowledge Improvement for

Transparency and AccountabilityBPK Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan (State Audit Agency)BPKP Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan (Financial and

Development Supervisory Board)CAS Country Assistance Strategy CDD Community Driven DevelopmentCLCC Creating Learning Communities for ChildrenCPIU Central Project Implementation UnitCPS Country Partnership StrategyCTT Central Training TeamDBE Decentralized Basic EducationDBEP Decentralized Basic Education ProgramDEO District Education OfficeDESP Dutch Education Support ProgramDGSPE Directorate General of Primary and Secondary Education (MoNE) DIPA Daftar Isian Pelaksaan Anggaran (Government Annual Budget) DTT District Training TeamDVD Digital Versatile DiscESSP Education Sector Support Programme (AusAID)FBE Free Basic EducationFM Financial ManagementGDS Governance and Decentralization SurveyGFC Global Financial CrisisGoI Government of Indonesia

IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ICW Indonesian Corruption WatchID Inspectorate Daerah (District Audit Agency (formerly BAWASDA)IDR Indonesian RupiahIG Inspectorate General MONEIMU Independent Monitoring UnitISR Implementation Status and Results ReportIT Information TechnologyJICA Japan International Cooperation AgencyKPK Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (Anti-Corruption Commission) KKKS Kelompok Kerja Kepala Sekolah (Principals’ Working Group) LPMP Lembaga Penjamin Mutu Pendidikan (Education Quality Assurance

Institution - at Provincial level)MBE Managing Basic EducationMIC Middle Income CountriesMIS Management Information SystemMoF Ministry of Finance (Departemen Keuangan)MoHA Ministry of Home AffairsMoNE Ministry of National Education (Departemen Pendidikan Nasional)Monev Monitoring and EvaluationMoRA Ministry of Religious AffairsMSS Minimum Service Standards (Standar Pelayanan Minimal) MTR Mid-Term ReviewNER Net Enrolment Rates NOL No Objection LetterPNPM National Program for Community EmpowermentPDO Project Development ObjectivesPOM Program Operations ManualPTT Provincial Training Team RAPBS Rencana Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Sekolah (School Revenue,

Expenditure and Budget Plan)RIM Regional Independent MonitoringREDIP Regional Education Development and Improvement Program RIM Regional Independent Monitoring RKS Rencana Kerja Sekolah (School Plan)RKAS Rencana Kegiatan dan Anggaran Sekolah (School Activity Plan and

Budget) SBM School Based ManagementSC School CommitteeSD Sekolah Dasar (Primary School)SIGP School Improvement Grant ProgramSIP School Improvement PlanSMIC Social Marketing and Information CampaignSMERU Social Monitoring and Early Response Unit Research Institute SMP Sekolah Menengah Pertama (Junior Secondary School) SISWA System Improvement through Sector Wide Approaches SMIC Social Marketing Information CampaignSSE School Self EvaluationSSNP School Safety Net ProgramSUSENAS Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional ( National Social and Economic

Survey)

SY School Year (July- June)TA Technical Assistance/AdvisorTKBM Tempat Kegiatan Belajar Mandiri (Independent Study Center Forum for

Underprivileged Students)TOT Training of the TrainerTRIMS Tool for Reporting and Information Management by Schools UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNICEF The United Nations Children’s FundUSAID United States for International DevelopmentWB World BankWBOJ World Bank Office Jakarta

Vice President: James W. Adams

Country Director: Stefan G. Koeberle

Sector Manager: Eduardo Velez Bustillo

Project Team Leader: Mae Chu Chang/Ratna Kesuma

ICR Team Leader: Yvonne Trethewey

INDONESIA BOS-KITA CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT AND CAMPAIGN PROJECT

CONTENTS

Data Sheet A. Basic Information B. Key Dates C. Ratings Summary D. Sector and Theme Codes E. Bank Staff F. Results Framework Analysis G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs H. Restructuring I. Disbursement Graph 1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design .......................................................... 1 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes ......................................................... 3 3. Assessment of Outcomes ....................................................................................................... 9 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome.................................................................... 12 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ................................................................ 12 6. Lessons Learned .................................................................................................................. 13 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Grantee/Implementing Agencies/Donors.......................... 14 Annex 1. BOS-KITA PDO Indicators and Intermediate Outcome Indicators ....................... 15 Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing ..................................................................................... 17 Annex 3. Outputs by Component ............................................................................................ 18 Annex 4. Economic and Financial Analyses ........................................................................... 28 Annex 5. Grant Preparation and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes .................. 30 Annex 6. Beneficiary Survey Results ...................................................................................... 31 Annex 7. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results .............................................................. 32 Annex 8. Summary of Grantee's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ................................... 35 Annex 9. Comments of Co-financiers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ................................. 36 Annex 10. Lessons Learned ..................................................................................................... 37 MAP IBRD 33420R2 .............................................................................................................. 49

i

A. Basic Information

Country: Indonesia Project Name: Education TF Support Program BOS-KITA

Project ID: P115725 L/C/TF Number(s): TF-93613

ICR Date: 12/06/2010 ICR Type: Core ICR

Lending Instrument: TAL Grantee: GOVERNMENT OF INDONESIA

Original Total Commitment:

USD 8.5M Disbursed Amount: USD 8.5M

Revised Amount: USD 8.5M

Environmental Category: C

Implementing Agencies: Ministry of National Education

Cofinanciers and Other External Partners: B. Key Dates

Process Date Process Original Date Revised / Actual

Date(s)

Concept Review: 10/27/2008 Effectiveness: 04/17/2009

Appraisal: Restructuring(s):

Approval: 01/15/2009 Mid-term Review:

Closing: 06/30/2010 06/30/2010 C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR

Outcomes: Satisfactory

Risk to Development Outcome: Low or Negligible

Bank Performance: Satisfactory

Grantee Performance: Satisfactory

C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings

Quality at Entry: Satisfactory Government: Satisfactory

Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Implementing Agency/Agencies:

Satisfactory

Overall Bank Performance:

Satisfactory Overall Borrower Performance:

Satisfactory

ii

C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance IndicatorsImplementation

Performance Indicators

QAG Assessments (if any)

Rating

Potential Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

No Quality at Entry (QEA):

None

Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

No Quality of Supervision (QSA):

None

DO rating before Closing/Inactive status:

D. Sector and Theme Codes

Original Actual

Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing)

Public administration- Education 100 100

Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing)

Education for all 100 100 E. Bank Staff

Positions At ICR At Approval

Vice President: James W. Adams James W. Adams

Country Director: Stefan G. Koeberle Stefan G. Koeberle

Sector Manager: Eduardo Velez Bustillo Eduardo Velez Bustillo

Project Team Leader: Mae Chu Chang Mae Chu Chang

ICR Team Leader: Ratna Kesuma

ICR Primary Author: Yvonne Trethewey F. Results Framework Analysis

Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) The objectives of the Grant are to increase the awareness of the Recipient’s School Operational Assistance program (Bantuan Operasional Sekolah (BOS)) and to increase the capacity and change the behavior of key stakeholders, particularly at the school and community levels, in order to support the BOS program in achieving greater transparency, accountability and efficiency in the use of BOS funds. It supports the BOS-KITA PDO to improve access to quality education for all children aged 7 to 15 by strengthening school-based management and community participation, improving fiduciary arrangements for greater transparency and accountability of the BOS program, and consequently bringing about better utilization of BOS funds.

iii

Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) PDO's were not revised. (a) PDO Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target Values (from

approval documents)

Formally Revised Target Values

Actual Value Achieved at

Completion or Target Years

Indicator 1 : Grant Agreement indicators were comprised of the following BOS-KITA Intermediate Outcome Indicators.

Value quantitative or Qualitative)

Primary Net Enrolment Rates (NER): Total: 93.8% Male: 93.9% Female: 93.6% Poorest quintile: 91.9%


Not revised

Primary Net Enrolment Rates (NER): Total: 94.36% Male:94.48% Female: 94.23 Poorest quintile:93.81%

Date achieved Comments (incl. % achievement)

Indicator 2 : Total Junior Secondary


Junior Secondary NER: Total: 66.6% Male: 66.0% Female: 67.3% Poorest quintile: 52.4%


Not revised



Indicator 3 : % net drop-out rates Value quantitative or Qualitative)

Primary: 2.37% Jr. Secondary: 2.88%

Primary: 2.32% Jr. Secondary: 2.62%

Not revised Primary: 1.79% Jr. Secondary: 3.96%


Indicator 4 : % transition rates


Total Primary: 82% Total Jr. Secondary: 89.2%

Total Primary: 82.5% Total Jr. Secondary:

Total Primary: 79.4 % Total Jr. Secondary: 95.42%

iv

89.5% Date achieved Comments (incl. % achievement)

Indicator 5 : Average monthly household expenditure per child on education by poorest quintile


Primary: IDR18,276 Jr. Secondary: IDR41,601




(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value


approval documents)

Formally Revised

Target Values



Indicator 1 : Improved Management of BOS Funds: - % of school committees that approve annual budget plans.

Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

92% 92% Not revised 94.5%


Indicator 2 : - % of school committees that receive expenditure reports. Value (quantitative or Qualitative)



Indicator 3 : - % of schools that disclose BOS expenditure by category on the notice board. Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

20% Increase Not revised 20%


Increased Public Information and Dissemination regarding BOS: - Number/type of socialization materials distributed.

Indicator 4 : Increased Public Information and Dissemination regarding BOS:

v

- Number/type of socialization materials distributed. Local paper announcement: % parents knowledgeable on BOS, its uses and school budgets.

Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

? n/a Not revised 49 Local paper announcements 2.4%


G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs

No. Date ISR Archived

DO IP Actual

Disbursements (USD millions)

H. Restructuring (if any) Not Applicable

I. Disbursement Profile

1

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design 1.1 Context at Appraisal Indonesia, with its population of over 220 million and a lower MIC economy has restored its macroeconomic and financial stability with prudent economic policies and low budget deficits. Economic growth was expected to reach 6% in 2008 -- sufficient to reduce poverty to 16.6% and unemployment to 9.1% (before the GFC). Indonesia is the fourth largest education system in the world with over 46 million students; 2.9 million teachers; and 227,000 schools managed by two major ministries -- 82% of schools are under MoNE and 18% under MoRA. 34% of households in the poorest quintile have children enrolled in SD; 44% of households with SMP-aged children reported that school fees significantly limit access to education. The most important challenges are: - Increasing access to junior secondary education for low income families. Only 55% of

access SMP education despite almost universal primary enrolment and increased SMP enrolment since BOS was introduced.

- A FBE policy which does not fully fund the operational costs borne by schools. Additional school operational charges represent a significant obstacle for the poor and limit the achievement of higher rates of secondary enrolment.

- Low student learning achievement rates – Indonesia continues to rank low in international standardized test of student performance. In 2003 it ranked 34 out of 45 countries in the Trends in International Mathematics Science Study TIMSS1. In the 2006 Program for International Student Assessment - PISA2 which works out how well 15 year old students are prepared for life, Indonesia ranked 50 out of 57 countries in Science, Reading and Mathematics.

Education sector reform has sought to address structural problems in the legal and legislative framework governing education. Elements of SBM were introduced over the past decade and in 2005 Bantuan Operasional Sekolah (BOS) was introduced by GoI -- institutionalizing SBM and parental involvement with Regulation No. 19/2007. The general objective of BOS3 is “to reduce the public’s financial burden on education in the framework of quality 9-year compulsory education.” BOS disburses block grants to all schools on a per-student formula aimed at providing incentives to headmasters and teachers to focus on maintaining and increasing student enrolment. The government, Balitbang, SMERU and the World Bank4 have regularly assessed the BOS program since its inception. In terms of BOS implementation, these studies found that there was a need to: (i) improve the disbursement of funds to schools; (ii) improve financial management and reporting of the use of funds; (iii) increase the public’s knowledge of how BOS funds could be used and; (iv) strengthen the oversight role of the school committee. The BOS-KITA project was designed by the GoI and the World Bank to address some of the challenges associated with BOS implementation.

1 International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, 2005. 2 ACER, 2006. 3 MoNE. 2009a:2. 4 World Bank. 2010a:2.

2

1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators To increase the awareness of the recipients’ School Operational Assistance program (Bantuan Operasional Sekolah (BOS)) in Indonesia and to increase the capacity and change the behavior of key stakeholders, particularly at the school and community levels, in order to support the BOS program in achieving greater transparency, accountability and efficiency in the use of BOS funds. 1.3 Revised PDO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification PDOs were not revised. 1.4 Main Beneficiaries The beneficiaries of the Grant were: - MoNE BOS Management Teams: Central, Provincial and District Levels; - MoNE School Management Teams: Principal/Head Teacher; School Treasurer; a parent

nominated by the School Committee; - Parents and community groups.

1.5 Original Components The project consisted of the following parts:

Part 1: Capacity Building on School Based Management (SBM): o Providing capacity building for the development of integrated and

participatory school planning; planning-based budgeting; cash, asset and resource management systems; procurement procedures and controls; public reporting; and ethics and code of conduct through support for materials development, dissemination and workshops at provincial and district level; and

o Management and delivery of orientation workshops at community and school level for approximately 190,000 primary and secondary schools on the use of BOS funds; and

Part 2: Support to the BOS Campaign: o Providing a national information media campaign focused on public service

announcements in parallel with the BOS social information campaign (SMIC).

1.6 Revised Components Components were not revised. 1.7 Other significant changes No significant changes were made.

3

2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes 2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry Project identification and design components were based on lessons learned from previous BOS5 and SBM training and reflected the necessary capacity development and awareness raising activities required to provide support to the overall BOS-KITA program. MoNE agreed to carry out large-scale dissemination of the revisions to BOS in 2009 and conduct additional training programs for BOS Management Teams in Schools, Districts and Provinces on financial management, procurement and reporting. Local government auditors (BAWASDA) participated in IG-MoNE6 2009 training aimed at improving internal audits. The fiduciary training for school committees, schools, district and provincial teams was conducted from April-June 2009, in anticipation of the revised BOS manual’s implementation in July 2009. This timing was in line with the proposed Bank disbursement for FY 2009. The BEC TF supported the MoNE BOS Core Team during the design and preparation of training materials. 2.2 Critical Risks and Possible Controversies Risk Level Mitigation Action taken Component 1: Capacity Building on SBM Procurement processes would take longer than predicted, and activities start late as a result.

High

Streamlined

processes were used as far as possible.

TORs were prepared in advance of funding.

MoNE Core BOS team: Included BOS training

implementation, monitoring and reporting activities during regular quarterly provincial BOS management meetings.

Employed an additional BOS Educational Management Consultant for each province.

Requested training design and SBM and BOS module development support from the Bank-managed TF.

Task Team, World Bank: Contracted an international

(one month) and two national STC’s (two months) as training and module development experts to support the Core Team to develop materials.

5 When introducing BOS in 2005, the Government conducted fiduciary training for school committees, education officials and auditors, as well as district and provincial teams. These training sessions were repeated in conjunction with the updates to the BOS operations manual. 6 The program was offered five times by IG-MoNE in 2009. It ended in April 2009.

4

Risk Level Mitigation Action taken There would be resistance to change at different levels (school, district, national) which could reduce the absorption of the key messages of the support program.

Medium

Evidence- based approaches were used as far as possible to ensure that messages were relevant and acceptable.

MoNE Core BOS Team: Integrated relevant evidence-

based approaches linked to BOS manual revisions TOTs and School and Community Orientation and Awareness raising activities, where possible.

Political and financial changes could have impact on the BOS making some elements of the program less directly relevant.

Low

The Bank maintained dialog with the Government to ensure that responses to external factors did not affect the BOS program during the lifetime of the project.

Task Team World Bank: Worked in partnership with

MoNE, DGSPE, ensuring close consultation with the Core Team so as to support the achievement of Grant PDOs.

2.3 Implementation Grant implementation activities aimed to increase SBM capacity and result in changed behavior by increasing awareness about the transparent, accountable and effective use of BOS funds. They are described below. Activity 1: Capacity Building on School Based Management (SBM) (a) Provided support to materials development, dissemination and workshops at provincial

and district level: materials were based on the implementation of BOS manual policies and procedures and integrated relevant materials from capacity development modules completed under MoNE’s Mainstreaming Good Practices in Basic Education Program and BEC. BOS manual dissemination delays meant that some training was conducted without manuals. In these situations DTTs reinforced the main revisions (higher unit costs, tuition fee exemptions, new eligibility expenditures) as detailed in training materials.

(b) Managed, delivered and monitored a cascade of TOT training to Central, Provincial and District Training Teams. 298 persons participated in Central and Provincial TOTs; 486 DTTs (± 2,798 persons) participated in District TOTs.

5

(c) Managed, delivered and monitored orientation and awareness training to 180 – 181,000 School BOS Management Teams (± 534,372 persons) and 1,733 Community Groups (± 93,465 persons) 7 . The training for School BOS Management Teams increased awareness about revisions to the 2009 BOS manual particularly with regard to the development of integrated school plans and budgets; the sharing of school reports at school level and with the public; school reporting responsibilities to Districts to facilitate the aggregation of school data so as to contribute to the establishment of performance-based school resource allocations. Delivery of training to some remote areas was delayed and, in some instances, where unit costs were insufficient, only one member of the School Management Team participated.8

Activity 2: Support to the BOS Campaign Provided BOS public service announcements in parallel with the BOS social information campaign (SMIC). MoNE released the announcement over a ten-day period (29 November until 8 December 2009) which detailed information about the 9-Year compulsory education program and BOS specifics (definition; objectives; 2009 unit costs; beneficiary schools and the community complaint handling process). Each province announced the BOS Program in one local newspaper. Additional announcements were made in: West Java - 5 local newspapers; East Java - 11 local newspapers; Central Java - 5 local newspapers. 49 advertisements appeared in local and national press. (a) Partnership Arrangements

The BOS-KITA Support Grant was managed by the Government, funded out of the Dutch Education Support Program.

(a) Institutional and Implementation Arrangements9

The support Grant was managed by the BOS CPIU established for the BOS-KITA program according to implementation arrangements set out in Section IA of Schedule 2 of the BOS-KITA Grant Agreement. It was under the responsibility of MoNE’s Directorate General of Primary and Secondary Education (DGSPE). The CPIU Core Team: - Supported and monitored Central, Provincial, District Training Teams to facilitate

orientation and awareness raising activities, through the decentralized MoNE system, with BOS School Teams and Community Groups.

- Developed a Project Operations Manual according to BOS-KITA Loan Agreement provisions which provided: Details of materials and workshop management and delivery, the training

structure and the BOS campaign. Implementation arrangements. Procurement procedures.

7 ± 660,983 participants were trained in total. 8 In Central Kalimantan, Papua, Maluku, Kepulauan Riau only one member of the School Management Team was able to participate. 9 World Bank, 2009a.

6

Reporting requirements, financial management procedures and audit procedures. Anticorruption Guidelines and the Transparency and Accountability Plan. Details of materials and workshop management and delivery, the training

structure and the BOS Campaign. Designed and developed the training program and training materials. The

Bank-managed TF provided short- term technical assistance (international Capacity Building and Training Adviser: one month; national SBM and Financial Management expert: two months; and a BOS Program expert: two months). The Team consulted with stakeholder10 reviewed existing resources produced by MoNE and other donor projects; and, identified needs at each level of the training cascade. Stakeholders shared lessons learned and materials from other SBM and financial management training initiatives.

Three stand-alone modules 11 were produced -- a TOT for Central and Provincial Training Teams; A TOT for District Training Teams and Orientation and Awareness-Raising Workshop materials for School BOS Management Teams and Community Groups were developed to facilitate training. Each module included SBM and financial management materials and relevant good practice examples of BOS fund planning and use. Content included examples of completed BOS reports to support standardization in reporting and, to encourage a consistent approach to the management of funds at all levels.

BOS Management Team Structure: The established decentralized BOS Management Team structure facilitated the national roll-out of the cascade of training. The table below provides an overview of roles within that structure.

Management Team

Role

Core Team BOS team members and consultants

To provide design, consultation, implementation, management and monitoring support for BOS-KITA activities.

Central (DGSPE) 12 people (4 Program; 4 Financial Management; 4 Procurement)

To design the program; compile a national aggregate of school data; set provincial fund allocations and targets; plan and conduct dissemination of the program; train provincial BOS management teams; develop and distribute the BOS operations manual; plan and conduct national monitoring and evaluation; complaint- handling and monitoring complaint settlement by provincial and district BOS management teams; consolidate provincial reports

10 Refer Annex 6: Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results. 11 Refer Annex 2a: Component 1 (a) Overview of Training Materials

7

Management Team

Role

into a comprehensive national report on BOS activities.

Provincial (Provincial Education Offices) 12 per Province(±):4 Provincial Representatives; 4 District Representatives; 2 Consultants

To establish district and municipality allocations; distribute funds to schools; conduct provincial level program dissemination; train district BOS management teams; monitor and manage complaint handling.

District (District Education Offices) 10 per District (±):2 District Education Official; 4 Supervisors;2 SD Teachers (Principal/Head Teacher, Treasurer); 2 SMP Teachers (Principal/Head Teacher, Treasurer)

To compile and verify enrolment data; disseminate and train BOS teams at school level; investigate and handle complaints; conduct monitoring and evaluation at school level.

School 3 per school: Principal/Head-teacher; Teacher as treasurer; Community/parent representative)

To work in conjunction with the School Committee (SC) to:

- plan and ensure the accountable use of funds12

- identify poor students to be exempted or receive support from BOS funds

- notify parents and the community about fund use by placing the report on an accessible school notice board

- report to the district team.

2.4 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization Grant monitoring, reporting and evaluation mechanisms were determined according to BOS-KITA Loan Agreement Standard Conditions. In MoNE,13 grant components were monitored through the BOS Management Team structure at Central and Provincial levels and during joint supervisory missions with the World Bank team. Recommendations were that future training should emphasize financial reporting, taxation and the preparation of the RKAS; and, funding for training in remote locations should be increased. Joint MoNE and Bank monitoring of a small sample of training locations 14 recommended improving access to

12 The Chair of the SC is a joint signatory to the budget plan and signs off on the report for the use of funds to be placed on school notice boards. 13 MoNE, 2009 b and c. 14 PTT in Jakarta; DTT in Manado; DTT and Schools: Yogyakarta City, Kulonprogo.

8

relevant documents (RAPBS, BOS account details, reporting information, BOS manual and stress requirements with regard to displaying the school plan, fund withdrawal, use of funds, taxes and complaint handling. Integrated monitoring, implementation support and supervision occurred as part of overall BOS-KITA monitoring activities during the First World Bank Review and Implementation Support Mission15 the Mid-term Review of the DESP; and, a separate Regional Independent Monitoring (RIM) 16 survey conducted by the Bank-executed portion of the BOS-KITA support program. Grant specific recommendations included: setting RAPBS and RAKS priorities that are school-specific; providing detailed information about eligible expenditure; BOS expenditure public notifications and reporting requirements as disclosure on the use of BOS funds remained limited; providing practical examples and activities in the training directly related to school challenges; using trainers with relevant field experience and greater involvement by the School Committee in the financial management of BOS; improving socialization for remote schools. Findings are integrated in Sections 3 and 5 and informed the lessons learned and considerations described in Section 6. Monitoring activities and recommendations are summarized below. 2.5 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance The project received an unqualified audit opinion from BPKP17 in the 2009 audit. The World Bank financial management review conducted in May 201018 rated the project satisfactory. Review findings indicated that BOS training and socialization went well but the change from a centralized project to one implemented at provincial and district levels caused several budget delays. Recommendations for improvement were:

Plan and agree budget arrangements prior to implementation to avoid budget delays. Provide training in project financial management to facilitate effective financial

management and the production of audit reports to the required standards. Ensure that audit findings about internal controls in the areas of project management

and payment verifications relating to overpayments, insufficient supporting information and unaccounted use of funds are acted upon and provided to the Bank before 31 October 2010.

Ensure that return travel tickets are submitted by participants as support documentation for future training activities.

2.6 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase The next phase of BOS training will support the transition of BOS-KITA from a project that strengthens fiduciary requirements to one which, in addition, directly helps schools and

15 World Bank, 2009d. 16 World Bank, 2009g. 17 BPKP, 2010. 18 World Bank, 2010.e.

9

districts19 make the critical link between assessing school performance, planning, monitoring and using funds for needed improvements. MoNE has prepared the BOS Training Plan for the 2010-2011 roll-out to MoNE and MoRA BOS Management Teams at all levels and School Management Team training to reflect this transition. To address monitoring and evaluation findings and stakeholder concerns about the role of the School Committee a member of the SC will participate in the 2011 BOS training20. To facilitate the training cascade the cadre of BOS trainers from 2009 will be reviewed on the basis of additional selection criteria (IT capability; previous BOS knowledge; experience in the field). Additional trainers will be identified from current and past SBM initiatives (MoNE, MoRA and donor projects). Districts have been advised to integrate BOS supervision within regular supervision of schools, and to allocate adequate resources for monitoring BOS. As a separate initiative, MoNE is exploring ways to strengthen the capacity of School Supervisors to conduct integrated monitoring at schools to improve capacity in BOS fund use and management.

3. Assessment of Outcomes 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation The objectives were highly relevant to the ongoing capacity development needs of BOS Management Teams throughout the decentralized MoNE system. They were specifically designed to support BOS-KITA PDOs and to socialize revisions to the 2009 BOS manual. The dissemination of information through the socialization and awareness raising activities was intended to lead to increased capacity, better understanding of BOS and changed behavior so that BOS fund management was transparent, accountable and effective. The intended outcome from raising the awareness of parents and the community was intensive oversight of BOS fund use in schools. 3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives The PDO’s were partly achieved21. Awareness was increased at School Management Team and Community levels as a result of orientation and awareness raising workshops. Increased capacity in School Management Team fund management did not occur to the level inferred in the PDOs. However changed behavior was demonstrated by the increase of 2.5% in the number of school committees that approve annual budget plans; an increase of 3.5% in the number of school committees that received expenditure reports. However the % of schools

19 There are indications that the government is inclined towards formal decentralization of the BOS program e.g. earmarked BOS funds to be sent to district government budgets for onward disbursement to schools, in order to increase district ownership for managing, monitoring and auditing the use of BOS funds (World Bank, 2010b:2). 20 SC members will participate in two days training (Module 1: BOS introduction and revisions; Module 2: School Self Evaluation and Module 3: School Planning). 21 Note: other factors outside the DESP funded BOS training are likely to have influenced the achievement of PDOs, for example Provincial and District level training interventions for Principals/Head Teachers and Treasurers.

10

that disclosed BOS expenditure by category on the notice board remained at 20%. Media releases in national and local press increased awareness about BOS generally but the % of parents knowledgeable about BOS, its uses and school budgets was estimated at only 2.4% at completion. Outcomes are discussed in more detail in the following sections. (a) Component 1: Capacity Building on SBM

Institutional strengthening of BOS Management Teams at central, provincial and district levels occurred during cascades of TOTs to 298 persons in Central and Provincial Training Teams and 2,798 persons in District Training Teams. PTTs scheduled school and community training in consultation with DTTs. DTTs conducted School Team training to between 180,000 – 181,000 School Management Teams (SMT) with approximately 534,372 persons participating. DTTs also conducted 1-day awareness raising meetings in sub-districts22 with 6197 parent/community groups with a total of 93,465 participants. It is estimated that approximately 660,983 persons participated in the 2009 BOS training overall. SMT training was at orientation and awareness level. Participants indicated that their understanding about BOS was increased but financial management training was at overview level only due to the limited time available during a one-day workshop and varying trainer capability which impacted on training delivery. In some instance the syllabus was not followed; some principals decided that they should attend only part of the training and left the treasurers to attend the remainder; content was delivered in a ‘top-down’ manner; some trainers emphasized particular school concerns (taxation, auditing, and procurement) or the policy or BOS topic with which they had the most experience; and/or focused on fiduciary requirements and did not engage participants in the group activities designed to facilitate active learning.

(b) Component 2: Support to the BOS Campaign

MoNE released a BOS announcement for the national and local press which provided information about BOS: its definition; objectives; 2009 Unit Costs; 9-year compulsory education requirements; beneficiary schools and the community complaint handling process. All Provinces made the announcement over a ten-day period between 29th November and 8th December 200923 in at least one local newspaper (with the exception of Central and West Java where 5 local newspapers carried the announcement and East Java where 11 local newspapers carried the announcement). 49 announcements were made in total.

3.3 Efficiency

22 World Bank, 2009d: 12; MONE. 2010b 23 Refer MoNE, 2010b:30 for listing of 2009 Newspaper Announcements.

11

3. 4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating The Actual Value increase of the BOS-KITA outcome indicators specified in the Grant Agreement over the short duration of the Grant combined with the achievement of targets for the development of materials, delivery of training to target audiences and newspaper BOS announcements nationwide contributed to the Grant’s overall performance rating of satisfactory. Rating: Satisfactory Section 3.2. provides additional information about the achievement of objectives under each component which led to this rating. 3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development

Not evaluated as part of this grant. (b) Institutional Change/Strengthening

Activities supported by this grant were intended to meet institutional needs identified in 2009 at design stage. They were not perceived to be ongoing. Implementation findings highlighted that the program should be extended and expanded to cater for lack of capacity in fiduciary management at the school and district level, as well as to respond to capacity development needs as a result of high staff turnover at the district level. Findings also reinforced that nation-wide improvement in institutional practices and capacity development would more likely occur over the medium to long term if: - the capacity of schools and districts is increased to make the critical link between

assessing school performance, planning for needed improvement and using funds (including BOS funds from central and local governments);

- school improvement planning is introduced that incorporates consideration of requirements to meet minimum education standards;

- schools redirect resources (including BOS funds) from largely financing teachers’ remuneration and honoraria towards student needs and school operational requirements;

- ongoing capacity development and training is provided that is targeted at strengthening district management teams to manage, monitor and, provide gap-financing – particularly given the expected decentralization of BOS funds to Districts and the high rotation/turnover of district Education office staff which limits sustainability;

- the role of the School Supervisor is clarified and expanded to include BOS monitoring and supervision within regular school supervisory activities;

- School Committee and community oversight is strengthened. (c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative) 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops Findings of beneficiary discussions are integrated into 6: Lessons Learned.

12

4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Low The design of Grant activities highlighted the responsiveness of the TF as a flexible and efficient mechanism which facilitated the GoI executed training program for BOS.24 TF support for this was considered to be especially timely with the funds available for major revisions to the 2009 BOS manual and the preparation of training materials just when this major training effort was being planned and designed. Implementation was monitored by the Core, Central and Provincial Management Teams to reduce the potential for risks to development outcomes.

5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance 5.1 Bank Performance (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Satisfactory The program is a part of DESP support to improve the BOS-KITA program. (b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Satisfactory All supervisory activities were conducted in close consultation with the Government team. These activities included frequent consultation (in scheduled meetings, by telephone and email). Supervisory activities are discussed in Section 2.4: Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E) Design, Implementation and Utilization. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance Rating: Satisfactory The Bank worked in partnership with MoNE, responding promptly and effectively to Grantee support requirements. World Bank staff facilitated MoNE to shepherd through fund disbursement to support the timely delivery of the training program.25 5.2 Borrower Performance (a) Government Performance Rating: Satisfactory The Government processed the BOS training budget allocation within Provincial DIPAs. Some delays occurred as a result of insufficient planning for budget arrangements. (b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance Rating: Satisfactory The MONE team developed the training approach, design, materials and supported Provincial BOS Management Teams in the implementation of the training. Local administration requirements delayed training in two provinces.

24 World Bank. 2010b: 4, 15. 25 World Bank. 2010b: 4, 15.

13

(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance Rating: Satisfactory Government commitment to implement the training and the campaign was especially successful – MoNE needed funds urgently for the programmed training – funds were disbursed immediately.26

6. Lessons Learned Lessons learned, issues raised and considerations for the 2010 – 2011MoNE and MoRA BOS training program were identified in review, implementation, supervisory missions, financial management reviewing and stakeholder consultations.27 These are discussed in more detail in Section 2.4: Monitoring and Evaluation Design, Implementation and Utilization and 2.5 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance. These lessons learned28 informed the policy dialogue with GoI under BOS-KITA Additional Financing and, the design of the 2010 and 2011 MoNE and MoRA Training Plan. In particular they provided input about:

- Planning and agreeing budget arrangements prior to implementation to avoid budget delays and the flow of funds to provincial DIPAs.

- Providing training in project financial management to facilitate effective financial management and the production of audit reports to the necessary required standards.

- Ensuring that audit findings related to internal controls in the areas of project management and payment verifications relating to overpayments, insufficient supporting information and unaccounted use of funds are acted upon and reported.

- Implementation improvements to ensure training delivers a consistent BOS message. - Improvements to the BOS manual to make it more accessible and reduce ambiguity. - Unit cost allocations which reflect realistic costs, particularly for schools in remote

locations. - Trainer recruitment which targets trainers from other SBM initiatives (MoNE and

donor). - School Supervisor participation in District TOTs, BOS supervision and monitoring. - Strategies to make the role of School Committees more explicit and to involve them

in BOS 2011 training. - Training design which:

o Caters for participant and school diversity by grouping schools into 3 clusters based on BAN-SD and SMP classifications and uses appropriate methodology for each level.

o Provides a short course of training in School Self-Evaluation, Reporting, Financial Management, RKS, RKAS and BOS updates.

o Provides supplementary information to parents and other stakeholders to support the transparent, accountable and effective use of BOS funds.

26 World Bank. 2010b: 4. 27 World Bank. 2009c. World Bank. 2009g. World Bank. 2009h. MoNE. 2010a. MoNE. 2010b. 28 Refer Annex 9: Lessons Learned.

14

7. Comments on Issues Raised by Grantee/Implementing Agencies/Donors (a) Grantee/Implementing agencies Refer Lessons learned. (b) Cofinanciers/Donors (c) Other partners and stakeholders A feature of the planning and implementation process was ongoing consultation with key stakeholders and donors working on SBM activities at District, Sub-District and School levels. As a result the 2010/11 program is being supported with parallel co-financing from: ADB for institutional strengthening and capacity development of provincial and district management teams (US$600,000); AusAID co-financing for MoNE and MoRA School BOS Management Teams(AU$20,000,000); BEC-TF technical advisory and other support to develop BOS Training modules and support materials; and, additional AusAID and USAID technical advisory input into module design for the School Management Team modules.

15

Annex 1. BOS-KITA PDO Indicators and Intermediate Outcome Indicators (a) PDO Indicators

29 Central Bureau of Statistics, 2007; 2009.

Indicator Baseline Value (SUSENAS29 2007)


approval documents)

Formally Revised Target Values



(SUSENAS 2009)For Indonesian primary and junior secondary schools (disaggregated by gender, region and income quintile): % net enrolment rates % dropout rates % transition rates Average monthly

household expenditure per child on education by the poorest quintile.



Not revised Primary Net Enrolment Rates (NER): Total: 94.36% Male:94.48% Female: 94.23 Poorest quintile:93.81%

Total Junior Secondary Junior Secondary NER: Total: 66.6% Male: 66.0% Female: 67.3% Poorest quintile: 52.4%


Not revised Junior Secondary NER: Total: 67.4% Male: 66.75%Female: 68.09%Poorest quintile: 58.55%

% net drop-out rates Primary: 2.37%Jr. Secondary: 2.88%

Primary: 2.32%Jr. Secondary: 2.62%

Not revised Primary: 1.79% Jr. Secondary: 3.96%

% transition rates Total Primary: 82% Total Jr. Secondary: 89.2%

Total Primary: 82.5% Total Jr. Secondary: 89.5%

Total Primary: 79.4 %Total Jr. Secondary: 95.42%

Average monthly household expenditure per child on education by poorest quintile




16

(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)

Indicator30 Baseline Value Original Target Values

(from approval documents)

Formally Revised

Target Values



% of schools receiving

funds on time

n/a 68.5 Not revised 69%

% of schools receiving full allocation of funds based on student numbers

n/a 84.5% Not revised 93.5%

% of school committees that approve annual budget plans. 92% 96.2% Not revised 94.5%

% of schools that receive annual expenditure reports


% of schools that disclose BOS expenditure by category on the notice board

20% Increase Not revised 20%

Increased Public Information and

Dissemination regarding BOS:

Number/type of

socialization materials distributed

Local paper announcements

BOS Manual and local newspaper

distribution

Wider distribution

Leaflets and BOS Manual distributed

to journalists, NGOs and

Parliamentarians

% of parents knowledgeable on BOS its uses and school budgets

n/a n/a Not revised 2.4%

30 World Bank, 2009a:5 Section 2.04 (b).

17

Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing (a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent)

Components Appraisal

Estimate (USD millions)

Actual/Latest Estimate (USD

millions)

Percentage of Appraisal

1 Capacity Building on SBM 1.a) Support to materials

development, dissemination, workshops at provincial and district level

1.779

1.b) Management and delivery of orientation workshops at community and school level

6,268

2 Support to the BOS Campaign .453 Total Baseline Cost 8.500 8,490.339.48 98.5%

Physical Contingencies 0.00

0.00

0.00

Price Contingencies 0.00

0.00

0.00

Total Project Costs 0.00 0.00 Project Preparation Costs 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 0.00 .00 Total Financing Required 0.00 0.00

(b) Financing

Source of Funds Type of Financing

Appraisal Estimate

(USD millions)

Actual/Latest Estimate

(USD millions)

Percentage of Appraisal

Trust Funds 0.00 0.00

Indonesia - Free-standing Trust Fund Program: DESP

WB administered TF

8.50 0.00 .00

18

Annex 3. Outputs by Component The following table summarizes outputs by components. It is followed by detailed Component Overviews reproduced from the Grantee ICR. Project Component Outputs 1. Capacity Building on SBM (a) Support to materials

development, dissemination and workshops at provincial and district level.

(i) Workshops for strategy and material development, strengthening the Central Training Team: - Development of training strategy, training materials

design, development and reproduction: TOT Modules developed for Provincial, District

awareness raising. Orientation Modules developed for School and

Community Teams. (ii) Program socialization, printing of training materials,

program supervision: - Socialization workshops: MoNE, MoRA,

BAPPENAS, MoF, Donors (±70 people trained); - Training workshops: Central Training Team; - Monitoring workshop: Provincial Training Team

and Consultants Training (±228 persons trained), 486 District Training Team Training (± 2798 persons trained).

(b) Management and delivery of orientation workshops at community and school level.

(i) Orientation for ±534,372 persons representing ± 180,000 – 181,000 School Teams in clusters, at District level – by DTT (9119 Groups);

(ii) Orientation for ± 93,465 persons comprising ± 6,197 Parent/Community groups at Sub-District level – by DTT (1733 Groups).

2. Support to the BOS campaign

Implementation of nationwide campaign

(i) Support to the SMIC through MoNE released BOS announcement to provinces for local newspaper dissemination over the period 29 November until 8 December 200931. 49 BOS advertisements appeared: one/province with the exceptions of West Java – 5 advertisements; East Java – 11 advertisements.

31 Refer MoNE, 2010b: Annex 6: Media Plan and Annex 7: BOS Beneficiary Schools 2009 Newspaper Announcements (Socialization Campaign).

19

Annex 3a. Component 1(a): Overview of Training Materials

TOT PROVINCIAL TRAINING TEAM (PTT)

A. OBJECTIVES After completion of this training session, participants are expected to be able to:

1. Understand the legal grounds for the BOS program; 2. Identify the background of BOS program development; 3. Formulate BOS objectives; 4. Explain program targets and amount of assistance; 5. Describe the time for fund distribution; 6. Describe operational costs: non-personnel; 7. Define the BOS Program; 8. Identify BOS Recipient Schools; 9. Explain the BOS Program and Good Quality 9-Year Compulsory Education

Program; 10. Relate the BOS Program to the School Based Management (MBS); 11. Describe the Responsibilities of Students, Parents and/or Guardians; 12. Understand the concept of School Based Management (MBS).

B. MATERIAL AND TOOLS

1. 2009 School Operational Assistance (BOS) Manual; 2. Group Work Sheet (LKK); 3. Training Media: Computer and LCD/OHP, Whiteboard; 4. Stationery: Scratch paper, Pencil and Ballpoint; 5. Individual Work Sheet (school data form).

C. ACTIVITY STEPS

The training scenario in this session is as follows:

Reading and Description

70 minutes

Group Work Plenary Group

Results Closing

30 minutes 10 minutes 5 minutes

Introduction

5 minutes

20

D. TRAINING SCHEDULE

Topics/Agenda Duration Description

Opening and Orientation 60 Minutes By Central Officer

Explanation of Training Mechanism 60 Minutes By Central Training Team

Session 1: Definition, Objectives and Targets of BOS

120 Minutes

BOS Manual: Chapters I and II + Sisdiknas Law + Government Regulation 48 year 2008

Session 2: Organization, Mechanism and Procedure for BOS Fund Management

120 Minutes

BOS Manual: Chapter III, Chapter IV and Chapter V (outside the Chapter on Use of BOS Funds)

Session 3: BOS fund use and Preparation of School Plans

120 Minutes

Chapter IV (Use of BOS Funds) + Chapter VI + materials on School Based Management (MBS)

Session 4: Transparency and Community Participation

75 Minutes Chapter IV + Improved perspective

Session 5: Tax and Financial Reporting 120 Minutes

Part 2 of BOS Manual

Session 6: Monitoring, Reporting and Control

90 Minutes Chapter VII and Chapter VIII

Session 7: Simulations and Review of Training Materials for Districts/Cities, Schools and Communities

120 Minutes

Look at and Learn Modules for districts/cities, schools and communities

Session 8: Development of Plans and Strategies for District-Level Training

120 Minutes

Discussion per province

Session 9: Plan for providing and funding school and community training

120 Minutes

Plenary

Session 10: Plenary: Training plan discussion

120 Minutes

Plenary Discussion

Total 20 Hours,45 Minutes

21

TOT DISTRICT/CITY TRAINING TEAM (DTT) A. OBJECTIVES After completion of this training session, participants are expected to be able to:

1. Identify the background of BOS program development; 2. Formulate BOS objectives; 3. Explain program targets and amount of assistance; 4. Describe the time for fund distribution; 5. Describe operational costs: non-personnel; 6. Define the BOS Program; 7. Identify BOS Recipient Schools; 8. Explain the BOS Program and Good Quality 9-Year Compulsory Education Program; 9. Relate the BOS Program to the School Based Management (MBS); 10. Describe the Responsibilities of Students, Parents and/or Guardians; 11. Understand the concept of School Based Management (MBS).

B. MATERIAL AND TOOLS


C. ACTIVITY STEPS The training scenario in this session is as follows:

`

Description

40 minutes

Group Work Plenary Group Results Closing


Introduction

5 minutes

22

D. TRAINING SCHEDULE

Topics/Agenda Duration Description

Opening and Orientation 60 Minutes By Provincial Officer

Explanation of Training Mechanism 30 Minutes By Provincial Training Team

Session 1: Definition, Objectives and Targets of BOS

90 Minutes BOS Manual: Chapters I and II

Session 2: Organization, Mechanism and Procedure for BOS Fund Management

120 Minutes BOS Manual: Chapter III, Chapter IV and Chapter V (outside the Chapter on Use of BOS Funds)

Session 3: BOS fund use and Preparation of School Plans

120 Minutes Chapter IV (Use of BOS Funds) + Chapter VI + materials on School Based Management (MBS)

Session 4: Transparency and Community Participation

75 Minutes Chapter IV + Improved perspective

Session 5: Tax and Financial Reporting 120 Minutes Part 2 of BOS Manual

Session 6: Monitoring, Reporting and Control

60 Minutes Chapter VII and Chapter VIII

Session 7: Simulations and Review of Training Materials for Schools and Communities

90 Minutes Look at and Learn Modules for schools and communities

Session 8: Development of Plans and Strategies for School and Community-Level Training each District

120 Minutes Discussion per district

Session 9: Plenary: Training plan discussion

75 Minutes Plenary Discussion

Total 16 Hours

23

TOT School TEAM ORIENTATION

A. OBJECTIVES After completion of this training session, participants are expected to be able to:

1. Identify the background of BOS program development; 2. Formulate BOS objectives; 3. Explain program targets and amount of assistance; 4. Describe the time for fund distribution; 5. Describe operational costs: non-personnel; 6. Define the BOS Program; 7. Identify BOS Recipient Schools; 8. Give a presentation on the BOS Program and Good Quality 9-Year Compulsory

Education Program; 9. Relate the BOS Program to the School Based Management (MBS); 10. Describe the Responsibilities of Students, Parents and/or Guardians.

B. TRAINING SCHEDULE Time Duration Description 07:30 – 08:00 30 minutes Opening 08:00 – 09:45 75 minutes Session 1: BOS Program Definition,

Objectives and Targets 09:45 – 10:45 60 minutes Session 2: Organization, Mechanism and

Procedure for fund management 10:45 – 11:00 15 minutes Break 11:00 – 13:00 120 minutes Session 3: BOS Fund Use Plan 13:00 – 14:00 60 minutes Ishoma 14:00 – 14:45 45 minutes Session 4: Transparency and Community

Role 14:45 – 16:35 110 minutes Session 5: Tax, Reporting and Financial

Accountability 16.35 - 16.45 10 minutes Session 6: Individual school data

collection by tutors 16.45 – 17:00 15 minutes Closing C. MATERIAL AND TOOLS


24

D. ACTIVITY STEPS

The training scenario in this session is as follows:

Description

35 minutes

Group Work Plenary Group Results Closing


Introduction

5 minutes

25

Annex 3b. Component 1(b) Training Delivery Workshops were conducted in cascades at Central, Provincial and District levels. The following table provides an overview of the type of training conducted, participant details, length of training and training content. Participants Total

Location and Length

Content

Central BOS Management Team members from the Directorate of Primary Education and Directorate of Junior Secondary Education.

12 Jakarta 23- 26 March 2009, Hotel Sahid. 2 days

TOT for CTT: BOS update: 2009

revisions. Central mechanisms. Provincial training. Monitoring and

evaluation (all levels). Analysis and input

requirements. Central level socialization: BAPPENAS, MoF, MoNE, MoRA

70 (±)

February 2009, Jakarta

Overview of Grant activities.

2009 BOS manual launch and updates.

Delivery mechanisms for national training activities.

Strategies for sustainability and BOS management team strengthening.

33 PTTs (6-18 people/Province) Provincial and District Representatives). Jakarta: 13 Provinces (DKI, West Java, Banten, Sumatera) Makassar: 11 Provinces (Sulawesi, Maluku, Maluku Utara, Papua and Papua Barat) Bali: 9 Provinces (Kalimantan, Bali, East Java, Central Java, NT B and NTT)

216 (±)

Jakarta 15-18 April 2009, Hotel Jayakarta. Makassar 19-22 April 2009, Hotel Celebes. Bali 23-26 April 2009, Hotel Ramada. 3 days (+ travel)

TOT for PTT, conducted by CTT: BOS update:

description; objectives; goals; 2009 revisions.

Provincial DIPA allocation for BOS.

District training planning, implementation and administration.

District Training – use of BOS funds; school plan development; transparency and accountability; taxation and financial reporting.

Monitoring, reporting

26

Participants Total

Location and Length

Content

and evaluation for Districts, Schools, Sub-Districts.

486 DTTs (4 -24 people/District) District Education Officials: Supervisors, Primary Teachers (Head and Treasurer); Junior Secondary Teachers (Head and Treasurer).

2,798 (±)

Provincial capitals 2 days (+ travel)

TOT for DTT, conducted by PTT: BOS update:

description; objectives; goals; 2009 revisions.

School training planning, administration, implementation.

School training. Community awareness

raising planning, administration, implementation.

Monitoring and evaluation.

180,000 – 181,000 School BOS Management Teams (3 people/School): Head Teacher, Treasurer, nominated Parent Representative (nominated by School Committee but not a member). Number of groups: 9,118

534,372 (±)

Districts 1 day (+ travel)

Orientation for School Teams, conducted by DTT: BOS update: 2009

revisions. Accountability and

reporting requirements.

6,197 Sub-Districts (15 people/sub-district): Community members/parents. Number of groups: 1,733

93,465 (±)

Sub-Districts 1 day

Community awareness raising meeting, conducted by DTT.

TOTAL

660,983 (±) participants

Annexes 4 – 6 of the Grantee ICR provide detailed scheduling and statistical information.

27

Annex 3c. Component 2: Support to the BOS Socialization Campaign Component 2 of the project was aimed at providing support to the BOS Campaign by increasing parental and community understanding about BOS through increased information dissemination in the media. A national information media campaign focusing on public service announcements ran in parallel to the BOS social information campaign. The BOS announcement was released by MoNE over a ten day period commencing 29 November ran until 8 December 2009. It included information about BOS: definition; objectives; 2009 unit costs; 9-Year compulsory education requirements; beneficiary schools and the community complaint handling process. Each province announced the BOS Program in one local newspaper with the following exceptions: West Java - 5 local newspapers; East Java - 11 local newspapers; Central Java - 5 local newspapers. A total of 49 advertisements appeared in local and national press. Annex 6: Media Plan provides a breakdown of provincial newspaper advertisements used during the campaign. Annex 7 of the Grantee ICR: BOS Beneficiary Schools 2009 Newspaper Announcements (Socialization Campaign) lists the announcement dates by province. 2010 funding by MoNE to conduct a similar campaign includes several types of activities to increase parental knowledge about BOS and to create the necessary positive environment for their involvement in BOS management. District based activities are supported by a media relations program which includes national advertising and awareness raising in the press, radio and television.

28

Annex 4. Economic and Financial Analyses An economic and financial analysis for the grant was not conducted given it was a support program for BOS-KITA. Relevant excerpts from the PAD32 are provided below. Economic Analysis “52. The economic analysis shows that the BOS program has brought important improvements to the education sector (see Annex 9). First, in almost all schools BOS funds have substantially increased school revenues. In more than 40 percent of schools included in the second Governance and Decentralization Survey (GDS2), the amount of funds received through the BOS program exceeded the total funds from other sources. Second, since the introduction of BOS, increased enrolment was observed at both primary and junior secondary levels in most provinces. The increase in the enrolment rate at the junior secondary school level is particularly significant — evidence that the high cost of education to households was constraining access”. “54. Certain features of the BOS program make it particularly well equipped to counter corruption. Pre-BOS, a comparison of service level data from 94 schools in 16 districts participating in the first Governance and Decentralization Survey module indicates that as much as one third of the allocated resources may have failed to reach schools. The BOS program provides assurances by using a very simple and transparent formula and providing mechanisms for scrutiny both from the top, through the internal audit, and from the bottom, through community mobilization and oversight. Under the BOS program, where operational funds are received directly by schools and allocated independently, opportunities for greater SBM are created. 55. In 95 percent of the cases, these schools further claimed to have experienced positive benefits from SBM, and mostly observed improvements in students’ grades (66 percent of schools surveyed), their attendance (29 percent of schools surveyed) and discipline (43 percent of schools surveyed). 56. These improved sector outcomes and processes brought about by the BOS program are expected to generate important gains in economic terms. The first source of these gains is through increasing lifetime earnings of those children who pursue their education to higher levels. It is estimated that an increase in enrolment of half of a percentage point would generate a gain of close to US$14.5 million annually for Indonesia’s households (see Annex 9). Additional benefits include savings to the education system obtained from lowering repetition rates. Using a simple estimate of per-pupil cost of public provision at each level of education, it is estimated that even a modest decrease in repetition rates by half of a percentage point would translate into yearly savings of over US$36 million at the primary level and US$20 million at the junior secondary level. Further savings are realized through reduced leakage and corruption.

32 World Bank, 2008b.

29

57. There is strong justification for public investment in a program such as BOS. The BOS program first addresses equity concerns in education. Although education constitutes an attractive option for households to invest in, the inability of a large number of households to meet the present costs of a complete basic education despite the existence of significant future returns provides a strong rationale for a public subsidy. Without appropriate funding, Indonesian society as a whole may under-invest in basic education, not only because the poorest households face financial constraints but also because private investment decisions fail to take into account the social returns and externalities of basic education. These additional social returns, including society’s value for equity and externalities brought about by the BOS program, cannot be measured but nonetheless constitute a significant component of the total benefits of the program”.

30

Annex 5. Grant Preparation and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes (a) Task Team members

Names Title Unit Responsibility/

Specialty Lending/Grant Preparation (from Task Team in PAD Data Sheet)

Supervision/ICR (from Task Team members in all archived ISRs) Ratna Kesuma Operations Officer EASHE Team leader Yogana Prasta Operations Adviser EACIF Operations advice Imad Saleh Lead Procurement Specialist EAPPR Procurement advice

Novira Kusdarti Asra Sr. Financial Management Specialist

EAPFM FM advice

Dandan Chen Sr. Economist EASHE Technical adviser Mae Chu Chang Lead Education Specialist EASHD Supervisor

Susie Sugiarti Operations Analyst EASHE Operations Assistant

Yvonne Trethewey STC Capacity Building and Training (1 month)

EASHE Training development support

Gomer Liufeto

STC BOS Program Expert for Strengthening of BOS Teams at School Level and School Committees (2 months)

EASHE Module development

Wahyu Daryono

STC SBM Expert for Strengthening of BOS Teams at School Level and School Committees (2 months)

EASHE Module development

Benedicta Ridati Sembodo Program Assistant EACIF Program Assistant Irene Bouwmeester Program Assistant EACIF Program Assistant (b) Staff Time and Cost

Stage of Project Cycle

Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only)

No. of staff weeks USD Thousands

(including travel and consultant costs)

Grant Total: 0.00 Supervision/ICR

Total: 0.00

31

Annex 6. Beneficiary Survey Results The table below provides an overview of Grant relevant RIM survey findings and a summary of reaction level evaluations completed by participants. Beneficiaries Survey Type Results Provincial and District/City BOS Management Teams

BOS-KITA Regional Independent Monitoring33: to monitor and

evaluate BOS program implementation at all levels;

to provide data and information on program’s success and failures;

to indicate possible next steps in resolving identified problems.

Fund allocation process has been in accordance with the guidelines in terms of the availability of MOU; there is a relatively small discrepancy with actual student numbers.

Disclosure on the use of BOS funds to parents and the public at large remains limited.

The management skills of schools in financial reporting still need improvement, particularly for primary schools in rural areas and in terms of format for K5 and K6.

There is a need to explore mechanisms to improve socialization for remote schools.

School BOS Management Teams School Committees

Provincial and District Training Teams34

TOT Reaction level evaluation

Reaction level evaluation conducted at the end of training rated training organization, methodology and content as good to very good in achieving the objectives stated. Participant recommendations for future training indicated a need to expand and improve the training by: Increasing the time spent on group work

and discussions. Increasing the time allocation for difficult

topics and consider using specialists for topics such as taxation.

Conducting the training earlier in the year. Ensuring the quality of delivery and

consistency of training by trainers.

33 World Bank, 2009g. 34 MoNE, 2010a: 31-32.

32

Annex 7. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results MoNE convened stakeholder workshops pre and post 2009 training. Discussions during these workshops informed the design of the 2009 training and provided additional information to guide the design of 2010 – 2011 training. Details are provided below. Stakeholder Workshop Details Results MoNE; SBM Secretariat: ADB; AusAID; JICA; UNICEF/UNESCO; USAID; World Bank.

December 2008 Sharing Experiences Workshop To share experiences, lessons learned

and resources from other SBM and financial management training initiatives.

To develop a resource library. To enable materials developers to

‘mine’ and integrate already developed good practice materials.

Focus groups discussed: How has it been possible for some

schools to be successful in the management of funds? What are the key ingredients for success?

What training approaches have generated examples of good practice in SBM financial management? What behaviors changed in achieving greater transparency, accountability and efficiency? How?

Given the constraints of a one-day Orientation at school and community levels: What lessons learned about SBM financial management capability development and training can be transferred to the 2009 Strengthening BOS teams training initiative.

Discussions35 provided valuable guidance to the BOS Core Team which shaped the development of the 2009 training, in particular: Develop standard operating

procedures and guidelines. Standardize reporting. Ensure regular reviews by

stakeholders. Provide a Help-Desk at Sub-

District level. Reduce number of cascades. Create a pool of quality

trainers and facilitators. Allocate responsibility for

training with supervisors. Establish the role structurally

so its importance is recognized.

Preserve training time by dispensing with opening ceremony.

Provide separate training for treasurer.

Cater for strong potential for distortion of training message.

35 Recommendations are detailed in MoNE, 2010b:18.

33

Stakeholder Workshop Details Results MoNE; SBM Secretariat: ADB; AusAID; JICA; UNICEF/UNESCO; USAID; World Bank.

December 2009 Strengthening BOS Training 2010/2011 Workshop To identify lessons learned from the

2009 BOS-KITA orientation and training program with regard to the management and use of BOS funds.

To make recommendations for its improvement and modification.

To identify the knowledge and skills (short, medium and long-term) needed to effectively implement and monitor BOS fund use at school level which contribute to integrated school plans, budgets and reports.

To identify the resources available from development partners to support MoNE with the development of training materials which cater for the diversity of participant needs and locations.

Focus groups discussed: What is needed now to assure success

of BOS at school level? What modifications are needed to the existing training/orientation program?

What knowledge, skills and attributes are required to meet the diverse needs of BOS School Teams? What are Must knows? Should knows? Could knows?

What delivery approaches would ensure effective and cost efficient training given expected constraints with the training budget? Consider participant diversity, varying BOS training needs and physical location?

What resources (human, physical, material) can be accessed from existing/planned SBM/Basic Education initiatives to support MoNE with the materials development process?

Discussions provided valuable guidance to the BOS Core Team which shaped the development of the 2010/11 training plan, in particular: Ensure linkages to integrated

school planning and budgeting.

Provide interactive training to develop the necessary knowledge and skills. Materials need to be straightforward to reduce the risk of misunderstanding.

Involve recipients of training in materials design and development.

Separate modules to cater for diversity.

Ensure focus on data collection, BOS mechanisms, role of supervisor, school development plans, linking budget priorities.

Mobilize trainers with experience from other SBM activities – this will reduce procurement challenges as the majority are civil servants. Consider developing a cadre of BOS trainers.

Provide additional support materials e.g. FAQs; Special BOS Manual for School Teams.

Clarify and expand the role of the School Supervisors to provide ongoing guidance and monitor BOS fund use.

Monitor the impact of training.

Involve the SC actively so it is aware of the financial situation and participate in planning.

Provide information to parents to clarify

34

Stakeholder Workshop Details Results misunderstandings about

FBE. Link BOS training to ongoing

professional development. Review locations for delivery

to reduce training costs e.g. provide training at sub-district level using existing training centers where available.

Involve the sub-district in school management, training and monitoring.

35

Annex 8. Summary of Grantee's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR The Grantee ICR was developed by the BOS Core Team in close consultation with WB Task Team members. It includes stakeholder input and is a reference document for this ICR. It provides details about: (i) Planning, consultation and implementation activities; (ii) Budget; (iii) Reaction level evaluation findings; (iv) Lessons learned; (v) Recommendations to guide the 2010 -11 BOS Training Program and Resource and

Training Materials design and development process; (vi) Recommendations to guide 2010 – 11 training program implementation.

36

Annex 9. Comments of Co-financiers and Other Partners/Stakeholders A feature of the planning and implementation process has been ongoing consultation with key stakeholders and donors working on SBM activities at District, Sub-District and School levels. During late 2009 and early 2010, MoNE held consultations with MoNE and MoRA stakeholders and with a range of donors, including Dutch ESP and Dutch EC/BEC-TF (World Bank), AusAID’s Australia-Indonesia Basic Education Programme (AIBEP), ADB’s Minimum Service Standards Project and USAID’s Decentralized Basic Education (BDE1) among others on school assessment, school standards, school planning and training methodologies. MoNE has used the opportunity for the redesign of the BOS training to engage relevant development partners in the process and, to mainstream piloted tools in the training materials for School BOS Management Teams generating AusAID and ADB parallel-co financing and World Bank technical advisory support. Cofinanciers and other partners and stakeholders have been actively involved and informed the materials development process. School Management Team training will integrate good practice SBM tools and materials adopted by MoNE e.g. School Self Evaluation; the School Plan (RKS), the School Activity Plan and Budget (RKAS), School Improvement Planning (incorporating expected education standards); School Financial Management; Reporting skills using the Tool for Reporting and Information Management by Schools (TRIMS) and knowledge development – as well as BOS revisions for 2011.

37

Annex 10. Lessons Learned Lessons learned, issues raised and considerations for the 2010 – 2011MoNE and MoRA BOS training program were identified in review, implementation and supervisory missions and stakeholder consultations36 with MoNE and MoRA. They have been used to design the additional activities and inform the policy dialogue with GoI under BOS-KITA Additional Financing. The table below provides a detailed summary. Item Lesson learned Consideration 2010-11 1 Donor funding 1.1 Timing

The significant delays occur with fund distribution due to the time required to formalize GoI and donor agreements.

Plan and agree budget arrangements prior to implementation to avoid budget delays.

Cater for expected timings of fund release by: - accessing BEC-TF support for

the development of a BOS training and resource materials by August 2010;

- schedule DTT level training to commence in September 2010 when ESSP funds are available;

- schedule school level training to commence January 2011 when remainder of ESSP grant is available.

That capacity building and reaching agreement with various levels of government is time-consuming and impacted by delayed fund release into provincial DIPAs.

Review systems and establish strategies to reduce risk by integrating lessons learned from previous experience.

2 Project implementation 2.1 POM

That the POM provided clear guidelines at all levels which facilitated more transparent and accountable use of the grant funds.

Ensure that all components are clearly described and build on lessons learned.

2.2 SMIC That the involvement of MoNE’s public information unit and the BOS team was limited to key messages in the SMIC. Various stakeholders and beneficiaries were not empowered

Provide support to the BOS Core team to develop BOS Training Modules and supplementary resources (FAQs, posters) on relevant topics for stakeholders.

36 World Bank. 2009c. World Bank. 2009g. World Bank. 2009h. MoNE. 2010a. MoNE. 2010b.

38

Item Lesson learned Consideration 2010-11 sufficiently to actively oversight the use of BOS.

3 BOS Operational Guidelines 3.1 BOS Manual That the BOS manual is ‘text-dense’

without index making information difficult to find.

Continue ongoing refinements to the manual, in particular, revise manual layout and consider the addition of an index and flow-charts.

That the BOS manual should separate out the instructions for District offices, Head-teachers/ Treasurers and School Committees (and Sub-Districts if their role is enhanced)37.

Cleary indicate in the revised manual changes from earlier versions (e.g. through bold type or shading).

Separate sections for each level of responsibility.

That the 2009 revised manual was not received by some schools until after the training. Some provinces were not aware38 of changed procedure with regard to dissemination of the manual. In these cases, DTTs provided an overview of the main revisions: higher unit costs; tuition fee exemption for primary, junior secondary and poor students; new eligible expenditures.

Provide the revised BOS manual during training.

That there is confusion about guidelines relating to taxation, procurement and interest.

Incorporate revisions to clarify ambiguous items in the 2011 manual. For 2010 TOT training prepare FAQs which clarify guidelines. We are waiting an MoF letter that will cut the tax at source.

That variation exists between schools about how poor students are determined39.

Include additional criterion to guide schools which takes into account situation specific needs.

That although transparency and accountability requirements are clearly specified in the BOS manual and training materials only 20% of schools display BOS information on notice boards.

Ensure that important messages about BOS policy and procedure detailed in the manual is integrated into training materials and stressed during training.

4 Training Unit Costs 4.1 Cascade training Unit

The unit costs for training implementation vary significantly

Calculate unit costs based on location specific realities e.g. transport in remote

37 World Bank. 2010b:16. 38 World Bank 2009g: 22. 39 World Bank 2009g: 17.

39

Item Lesson learned Consideration 2010-11 Costs depending on geographical location,

travel costs and the length of the training program. For example, the time required to manage the impact of this delayed July scheduled training to October - December in Papua and West Papua.

locations can increase cost by up to 15 times due to additional travel time, transport and venue hire costs.

Note: the increased budget to accommodate the scope of this training is expected to be ± four times that of 2009. Additional funding sources may be required.

That confusion existed about the amount of the participant training allowance (uang harian). In 2009, this was a set amount which included costs for food and materials reproduction which were deducted before giving participants’ their allowance. This caused confusion in some community groups as they did not understand the calculation.

Pay daily per-diem to cover transport, accommodation and meals only. Material printing will be done separately.

5 Logistics 5.1 Venue and accommodation

That suitable training venues and accommodation are not readily available in some districts/sub-districts.

Review 2009 deliveries Encourage districts to use MoNE and

MoRA appropriate facilities where possible.

Procure (using GoI procurement procedures) in advance of training.

Conduct training in venues that are not noisy and crowded40.

Explore options to deliver some training through the 300+ videoconferencing resource centers.

Prepare checklists for DTTs to ensure venues are appropriate for the delivery of the School Short Course in RKS, RKAS and School Reporting.

That venues used in some locations were not conducive to adult learning. In some districts classrooms were crowded (50 – 108 participants) and group activities not conducted.

6 Training Design 6.1 BOS Training and Resource Materials

That inconsistency in trainer approaches, capacity and interpretation of roles and responsibilities and, training materials highlight the need to develop more comprehensive

Design and develop a suite of training materials and supporting resource materials to meet training needs identified and to mitigate the risks associated with skills and knowledge gaps due to high staff turnover at

40 World Bank, 2009d: 12.

40

Item Lesson learned Consideration 2010-11 materials so as to provide a consistent BOS message.

District level. The materials should comprise: - TOTs for Training Teams - Short Course Module for School

Teams (2 days for Advanced Schools; 3 days for Intermediate Schools; 4 days for Basic schools) – with supporting DVD.

- BOS supplementary information. 6.2 Length of School Team Training

That a one-day orientation program at school level is insufficient to meet the knowledge and skill requirements necessary for School BOS Management Teams to produce integrated school plans, budgets and reports and limit the effective use of BOS funds.

Consider the diverse needs of Advanced Schools, Intermediate Schools and Basic Schools. Design 2, 3 and 4 day versions of the School Team Training to meet needs for each cluster.

6.3 Methodology, logistics

That training methodology needs to cater for diverse participant needs and provide opportunities for activities and participant discussions that address practical challenges in BOS management faced by schools41.

Increase the number of days for school team training (refer 6.2).

Recruit trainers from the cadre identified by other SBM programs so as to ensure trainers have the capability to train as specified in materials developed.

That the program design must take into account the strong potential for cascade training to distort the training message42; logistical issues affecting training delivery such as: electricity, access to computers, availability of hotels, and procurement delays with venue hire.

Incorporate risk identification and management strategies in the TOT for District BOS Management Teams.

Ensure balance of training time enables capacity to be built at the School level.

Ensure training materials are designed for use with and without a computer or LCD projector.

6.4 School reporting

That multiple school report formats lead to excessive, redundant reporting and a drain on time-poor staff at schools and in Districts43.

Consider consolidating reports to streamline reporting: school-district-province-central e.g. BEC-TF will pilot ‘TRIMS’ a simplified EMIS tool in schools in 8 districts for inclusion in the

41 World Bank, 2009g: 23. 42 MTR findings indicated that the message was frequently “distorted from the top of the system (where more hours are devoted to the training) to the bottom. Supervision from the top all the way to the bottom is essential as is the availability of training materials and handbook but this must be reinforced. Spending more training time at the bottom (where BOS implementation takes place) and less at the top would also be useful” (World Bank. 2009e:15). 43 In the sample schools visited fund allocation and distribution was not informed by standardized processes causing delayed arrival of BOS funds; allocations that were inaccurate; and, irregular borrowing and postponing of payments to suppliers to cover operational costs (World Bank, 2009g: 28-34).

41

Item Lesson learned Consideration 2010-11 School Team short course.

6.5 FAQs That there are a number of items described in the BOS manual which require further clarification e.g. FBE; different ‘forms’ of fraud and corruption – intentional and unintentional; taxation; role of the school committee; information disclosure on BOS requirements; disaster risk reduction; purchasing guidelines for computers and internet plans etc.

Develop straightforward FAQs information sheets to supplement TOTs and School Team training.

7 Training Needs 7.1 District BOS Management Teams

That high staff turnover at district level limits the sustainability of training.

Expand DTT training materials to accommodate increased skills and knowledge requirements for District Teams with regard to BOS management, support and monitoring and the achievement of Minimum Service Standards44.

That the role and responsibilities of local governments with regard to financing and managing the BOS program are expected to increase indicating the need for structured training at District and possibly Sub-District levels. Currently Sub-Districts have weakened ability to deal with much more than system administration.45

Clarify the role of the Sub-District and involve Pengawas in District training.

That there are inconsistencies in how procurement guidelines are interpreted by Districts and School BOS Management Teams with incidents that may be perceived as outside BOS regulatory guidelines.

Ensure training includes an additional focus on procurement guidelines to strengthen the capacity of school purchasing teams and reduce incidents of irregular procurement practices.

7.2 School Supervisors

That the role of the school supervisor is not clear with regard to BOS management and supervision. BOS 2010 encourages School Supervisors to include integrated BOS

Clarify the role of the School Supervisor as responsible for assessing the eight national education standards including school management and school financing – as well as providing

44 A key challenge for local governments is to provide differentiated support to schools to assist them to meet Minimum Service Standards (World Bank, 2010c). 45 World Bank. 2009e:22.

42

Item Lesson learned Consideration 2010-11 monitoring and supervision in school supervisory activities.

educational guidance with the learning process. Note: one of the four supervisor competencies is the ability to supervise school financing.46

Consider dedicated School Supervisor training to build the necessary capacity o support schools to achieve the Minimum Service Standards.

That in some districts School Supervisor training in BOS supervision facilitated district monitoring and reporting requirements.

Ensure District Management teams are aware of the rationale for the increased role of School Supervisors with regard to integrated BOS monitoring and supervisory activities.

Provide training for School Supervisors as part of the 2010 capacity building training program.

7.3 Audit agencies

That difference in audit findings and guidance between government agencies such as BPK, BPKP and Inspectorate Daerah on BOS fund usage caused several delays with disbursement. Inconsistent interpretation of local policy with regard to training fund allocations created delays to delivery indicating additional training needs for targeted Audit agency personnel.

Include audit agency staff in provincial and district level training to mitigate the risk of misinterpreting the BOS manual disseminating incorrect information.

7.4 School Committees

That School Committees are generally perceived as not having the capacity to fulfill governance responsibilities with regard to school improvement planning and financial management.

Replace parent representative in 2011 School Team training with a School Committee member.

Develop a FAQs which provides

guidance to the School Committee and supports the trained School Committee member to orient the full SC so that they can review the RKS/SIP and ensure that BOS allocations and expenditures are in line with priorities outlined in the RKS/SIP.

That while the Chair of the SC is generally trained to sign off BOS

Support the SC member nominated to participate in the school training to

46 Government Regulation No. 19 (PP19) 2005 and Ministerial Decree No 12. 2007.

43

Item Lesson learned Consideration 2010-11 expenditure reports, there is a need for BOS plans and actual expenditure to be reviewed by the full SC so as to ensure effective oversight and accurate and regular disclosure of information to parents and the community.

discuss new learning and its implications with the full committee by providing additional resource materials, FAQs and school chair and SC guidelines.

7.5 School BOS Management Teams

That there is significant diversity in capacity and capability at school level in planning, budgeting, reporting and computer literacy.

Cluster schools according to capacity indicated by mapping process: Basic School level training will be 5

days duration (incl. transport) Intermediate School level training will

be 4 days duration (incl. transport) Advanced School level training will be

2 or 3 days duration (incl. transport) That schools have only limited understanding of the requirements for School Improvement Plans, financial management of BOS, complaint handling and information disclosure. That full School Team participation rates were inconsistent.

Design and conduct a mandatory and targeted RKS, RKAS, SIP and school reporting short course for School Management Teams. It should meet diverse participant needs and focus on financial and educational management and interpersonal knowledge and skills requirements, providing opportunity for practical application and discussion. The course should include: - SIPs which indicate how BOS

(along with other sources of funding) will be used to attain school improvement goals guided by school upgrading and local needs and National Education Standards;

- strategies to ensure that BOS fund use is linked to school operational needs; student specific access or learning needs rather than to predominantly finance teachers through temporary teacher honoraria and or activities related to testing/assessments /clarification;

- additional guidelines about conducting procurement.

Review existing materials (MoNE, DBE1, AIBEP and World Bank) with key MoNE and MoRA stakeholders. Customize and integrate into more in-depth training.

44

Item Lesson learned Consideration 2010-11 That the empowerment of parents, the community and the oversight of the SC emphasizes the need to build Principal/Head Teacher leadership and management capacity to respond effectively to the financial, political and interpersonal challenges of BOS47.

Integrate activities/discussions that generate suggestions to strengthen relationships/consultations with parents, SC and community about BOS usage plans, actual expenditures and outcomes.

That disclosure about BOS fund use to parents and the community is inconsistent and limited.

Stress Freedom of Information Act48 mandated requirements and BOS policy and procedure with regard to access public information.

7.6 Parents and community

That socialization activities were not conducted in all targeted sub-districts and there is ongoing confusion about Free Basic Education49.

Incorporate information FAQs and information posters (which describe BOS objectives; BOS Unit Costs; the role of the School Committee) in training materials.

8 Training and sustainability of Training Teams8.1 Trainer selection and sustainability

That the selection and recruitment of trainers needs to consider past experience with BOS. District level trainer capacity varied significantly reduced the effectiveness of training.

Identify potential trainers from existing and past SBM MoNE, MoRA and donor training initiatives.

Recruit and develop a cadre of BOS Trainers.

Revise selection criteria to include: ‐ Previous BOS/SBM expertise ‐ Computer literacy ‐ MS Word and MS Excel knowledge

and skills. Ensure trainers are aware of the

importance of and need for consistency in training so that the training is delivered as designed.

Explore ways to accredit/institutionalize the position and provide support to School Teams post- training.

That trainers holding senior positions tended to follow their own agenda rather than that of the TOT training materials.

9 Training schedule

47 MTR findings findings indicate that “a further more systemic problem is that the empowerment of parents, the community and the SC will place even great pressures on head teachers – already stressed by BOS’s financial and audit requirements – for transparency and democracy. Since most head teachers were promoted from senior teachers (not necessarily based on merit) when the post was a much more autocratic one and now, with little additional training, faced with the challenges of BOS, many of them end up being both inadequate for the job and de-motivated” (World Bank. 2009 e:14). 48 Freedom of Information Act, No. 14, 2008: Articles 4, 5, 6. 49 Of 27 districts/cities monitored only 5 conducted socialization activities (World Bank, 2009g: 27, 28).

45

Item Lesson learned Consideration 2010-11 9.1 Timing That school team training should be

scheduled to avoid the busiest times of the school year.

Schedule training at times to ensure full participation by School Teams and School Committee. Consider January 2011 start for the School Short Course training roll-out.

9.2 2-3 person schools

That the small size of some schools limits participation. Full attendance may result in school closure.

Consider scheduling training during holiday periods for small schools to facilitate full School Team attendance.

10 Transparency and Accountability

10.1 Timely financial reporting: Central, Provincial and District levels.

That the Core BOS Team’s instigation of quarterly meetings with Provincial BOS Teams facilitated improved communication, opportunities to collect financial management and program implementation information, and was conducive to establishing more effective working relationships. This reduced some of the usual delays in obtaining information from the provinces.

Provide training in project management to facilitate effective financial management and the production of audit reports to the necessary required standards.

Ensure that audit findings related to internal controls in the areas of project management and payment verifications relating to overpayments, insufficient supporting information and unaccounted use of funds are acted upon and provided in a timely manner

Ensure that participants’ return travel ticket is also submitted as support documentation for future training activities.

Maintain quarterly meetings with Provincial BOS Teams.

That donor support is needed to facilitate the recipient with project reports, plans. A WB Operations Assistant provided additional help to MoNE to meet requirements.

Allocate an Operations Assistant to support MoNE’s Core Team to develop timely project papers and reports.

That an additional Financial Management Consultant was needed to mitigate the risks associated with poor information flows to meet MoF and donor financial reporting requirements.

Employ 3 full-time Financial Management Consultants and 2 Procurement Consultants for a 3-4 month period – to manage the expanded scope of the 2010-11 program.

10.2 Monitoring and evaluation

That anecdotal, qualitative results derived from the training and monitoring exercise should be combined with the results of the independent monitoring team.

Integrate recommendations into 2010/11 BOS training materials and revisions.

46

Annex 11. List of Supporting Documents ACER, 2006. OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The PISA International Database. PISA 2006 Data Set. http://pisa2006.acer.edu.au AusAID. 2010. Education Sector Support Programme Results Framework: Guide to Rationale, Indicators, Targets and Monitoring. Indonesia. May 2010. Badan Pengawasan Keuangan Dan Pembangunan (BPKP). 2010. Laporan Auditor Independen atas Laporan Keuangan Konsolidasi. Dutch Education Support Program Bantuan Operasional Sekolah Knowledge Improvement for Transparency and Accountability (BOS-KITA). Grant Number 93613. Untuk Tahun Anggaran Yang Berakhir 31 Desember 2009. Nomor: LHA-32/D104/02/2010. Tanggal: 28 Juni 2010. Indonesia. Central Bureau of Statistics. Survey Sosial Ekonomi Nasional (SUSENAS) - 2007 and 2009. Jakarta Indonesia. http://www.rand.org/labor/bps/susenas/ International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). 2005. TIMSS 2003. International Mathematics Report by Ina V.S. Mullis, I. Michael O. Martin, Pierre Foy. International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College. MoNE. 2009a. BOS Manual for Free Education in the Framework of Quality 9-year Compulsory Education. Directorate General for the Management of Primary and Secondary Education, Ministry of National Education, Indonesia. MoNE 2009b. Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Socialization in 33 Provinces Bantuan Operasional Sekolah (BOS) Program. Year 2009. Directorate of Junior High School. Directorate General of Basic Education Management. The Ministry of National Education. 2009. MoNE 2009c. Supervision Report Teacher and Community Training at School Level Year 2009. Directorate of Junior High School. Directorate General of Basic Education Management. The Ministry of National Education. 2009. MoNE. 2010a. Draft MoNE and MoRA Training Plan and Budget 2010 and 2011. March 2010. Directorate General for the Management of Primary and Secondary Education, Ministry of National Education, Indonesia. MONE. 2010b. Draft Implementation and Completion and Results Report on a Dutch Education Support Program Grant TF093613 in the amount of US8.5 million to the Republic of Indonesia for the school Operational Assistance – Knowledge Improvement for Transparency and Accountability. BOS-KITA Capacity Development and Campaigns, 2009. Directorate General for the Management of Primary and Secondary Education, Ministry of National Education, Indonesia. World Bank. 2008b. Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Loan in the Amount of Six Hundred Million (US$600,000,000) to the Republic of Indonesia for a School Operational

47

Assistance – Knowledge Improvement for Transparency and Accountability Project (BOS-KITA). September 18, 2008. Indonesia. World Bank. 2008c. Grant Appraisal Document (GAD) Dutch Basic Education Support Program. Grant Agreements for BOS-KITA Capacity Development and Campaigns $8,500,000. Version 1.2. December 5, 2008. Indonesia. World Bank. 2009a. Grant Agreement: Grant Number TF093613 – Dutch Education Support Program – BOS-KITA. Indonesia. World Bank. 2009b. Implementation Status and Results Report for Investment Projects Indonesia, ID-BOS KITA Project (Project ID: P107661 – Loan/Credit No: IBRD75910. 11/02/2009. Indonesia. World Bank. 2009c. Draft GRM Internal Bank Report TF 093613 07/01/2008 – 06/30/2009. Indonesia. World Bank, 2009d. Indonesia School Operational Assistance – Knowledge Improvement for Transparency and Accountability (BOS-KITA). First World Bank Review and Implementation Support Mission (July 2 – August 28 2009). Aide Memoire. Indonesia. World Bank. 2009e. Mid-Term Review: TF057272 (Pir 14499) – Dutch Basic Education Support Program. August 2009. Indonesia. World Bank, 2009f. Presentation: Independent Monitoring Report BOS 2008. Regional Independent Monitoring Team. September 2009. Indonesia. World Bank, 2009g. Independent Monitoring Report: The Summary of the Monitoring Result. Regional Independent Monitoring Team. 4 November 2009. Indonesia. World Bank. 2009h. Background Paper MoNE/MoRA Socialisation and Training for School Principals and other School and Community Members. Dec. 2009. Jakarta. World Bank. 2010a. Project Paper on a Proposed Additional Financing in the amount of US$500 million to the Republic of Indonesia for the School Operational Assistance – Knowledge Improvement for Transparency and Accountability Project (BOS-KITA). April 23 2010. Human Development Sector Unit, East Asia and Pacific Region. World Bank. 2010b. Draft Implementation Status and Results Report for Investment Projects Indonesia, ID-BOS KITA Project (Project ID: P107661 – Loan/Credit No: IBRD75910. 06/0402010. Indonesia. World Bank, 2010c. Transforming Indonesia’s Teaching Force. Policy Brief. April 2010. Human Development Sector, Indonesia. World Bank, 2010d. Loan Agreement (Additional Financing for the BOS-KITA School Operational Assistance- Knowledge Improvement for Transparency and Accountability Project (Loan Number 7906-ID) between the Republic of Indonesia and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Indonesia. June 23, 2010.

48

World Bank, 2010e. Project Supervision – Financial Management Datasheet for FM Rating of Projects. Indonesia. June 2010.

Puncak JayaPuncak Jaya(5030 m)(5030 m)

ObiObi

CeramCeram

BuruBuru

SULAWESISULAWESISUMATERASUMATERA

BaliBali

KALIMANTANKALIMANTAN

RabaRaba

PematangsiantarPematangsiantar

SorongSorong

TimikaTimika

FakfakFakfakAmahaiAmahai

PaluPaluJambiJambi

MataramMataram

BandungBandungSurabayaSurabaya

SemarangSemarang

PalembangPalembang

PekanbaruPekanbaru

PalangkarayaPalangkaraya

Bandar Bandar LampungLampung

SerangSerang

PAPUAPAPUA

1919

2121

2222

2626

2929

2020

2323

2525

2424

28282727

3030

3232

3131

3333

1212

1111

1313

14141515

8

67

3

54

2

1

1616

1717 1818

1010

9

PAPU

APA

PUA

NEW

GU

INEA

NEW

GU

INEA

A U S T R A L I AA U S T R A L I A

THAILANDTHAILAND

MYANMARMYANMAR

19

21

22

26

29

20

23

25

24

2827

30

32

31

33

12

11

13

1415

8

67

3

54

2

1

16

17 18

10

9

Balikpapan

Parepare

Baubau

Tarakan

Raba

Ende

Waingapu

Pematangsiantar

Sorong

Merauke

Timika

FakfakAmahai

Palu

Ambon

Gorontalo

Jambi

Medan

Kupang

Padang

Manado

Mataram

Bandung

Kendari

Denpasar

Surabaya

Semarang

Bengkulu

Jayapura

Palembang

SamarindaPontianak

Pekanbaru

Yogyakarta

Banda Aceh

Bandjarmasin

PalangkarayaPangkalpinang

Makassar

Ternate

Bandar Lampung

Serang

Manokwari

Mamuju

Tanjungpinang

JAKARTA

PAPU

AN

EW G

UIN

EA

A U S T R A L I A

SINGAPORE

VIETNAM

THAILAND

MYANMAR

TIMOR-LESTE

BRUNEI

PHILIPPINES

MA L A Y

SI

A

CelebesSea

Java Sea BandaSea

Arafura Sea

SuluSea

PACIFIC OCEAN

I N D I A N O C E A N

PAPUA

AruIs.

KaiIs.

TanimbarIs.

Halmahera

Biak

Yapen

Morotai

Misool

Waigeo

Peleng Obi

Muna

Ceram

Buru

SULAWESI Sula Is.

Timor

FloresAlor

WetarMoa

Babar

Sumba

SumbawaLombokJAWA

NatunaBesar

Belitung

Madura

SUMATERABangka

Lingga

Nias

Siberut

Enggano

Simeulue

TalaudIs.

Bali

KALIMANTAN

Men t a w

a i I s .

Puncak Jaya(5030 m)

0°

5°

5°

10°

10°

15°

0°

5°

10°

15°

15°

10°

95° 100° 105°

115° 120° 125°

95° 100° 105° 110° 115° 120° 125°

130° 135° 140°

135° 140°

INDONESIA

NANGGROE ACEH DARUSSALAMSUMATERA UTARARIAUSUMATERA BARATJAMBIBENGKULUSUMATERA SELATANLAMPUNGBANGKA-BELITUNGBANTEND.K.I. JAKARTA

123456789

1011

PROVINCES:

1213141516171819202122

JAWA BARATJAWA TENGAHD.I. YOGYAKARTAJAWA TIMURBALINUSA TENGGARA BARATNUSA TENGGARA TIMURRIAU KEPULAUANKALIMANTAN BARATKALIMANTAN TENGAHKALIMANTAN SELATAN

KALIMANTAN TIMURSULAWESI UTARAGORONTALOSULAWESI TENGAHSULAWESI BARATSULAWESI SELATANSULAWESI TENGGARAMALUKU UTARAMALUKUPAPUA BARATPAPUA

2324252627282930313233

0 200

0 100 200 300 400 Miles

400 Kilometers

IBRD 33420R2

AU

GU

ST 2008

INDONESIASELECTED CITIES AND TOWNS

PROVINCE CAPITALS

NATIONAL CAPITAL

RIVERS

MAIN ROADS

RAILROADS

PROVINCE BOUNDARIES

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES

This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, o r any endo r s emen t o r a c c e p t a n c e o f s u c h boundaries.