Indonesia: Decentralized Basic Education Project

Performance
Evaluation Report
Indonesia: Decentralized Basic

Education Project
Independent
Evaluation
Performance Evaluation Report

November 2014
Indonesia:
Indonesia: Decentralized Basic Education Project
This document is being disclosed to the public in accordance with ADB's Public Communications Policy 2011.
Reference Number: PPE:INO 2014-15

Loan and Grant Numbers: 1863-INO and 0047-INO
Independent Evaluation: PE-774
NOTES
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
The fiscal year of the government ends on 31 December.

In this report, $ refers to US dollars.
For an explanation of rating descriptions used in ADB evaluation reports, see
Independent Evaluation Department. 2006. Guidelines for Preparing
Performance Evaluation Reports for Public Sector Operations. Manila: ADB (as
well as its amendment effective from March 2013).
Director General
Director
V. Thomas, Independent Evaluation Department (IED)

W. Kolkma, Independent Evaluation Division 1, IED
Team leader
Team member
H. Son, Principal Evaluation Specialist, IED

S. Labayen, Associate Evaluation Analyst, IED
The guidelines formally adopted by the Independent Evaluation Department on avoiding conflict of
interest in its independent evaluations were observed in the preparation of this report. To the
knowledge of the management of the Independent Evaluation Department, there were no conflicts of
interest of the persons preparing, reviewing, or approving this report.
In preparing any evaluation report, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular
territory or geographic area in this document, the Independent Evaluation Department does not intend
to make any judgment as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.
Abbreviations
ADB
BOS
DBEP
MONE
MORA
NTB
NTT
PCR
TA
Asian Development Bank

Bantuan Operational Sekolah
(School Operational Assistance Program)
Decentralized Basic Education Project
Ministry of National Education
Ministry of Religious Affairs
Nusa Tenggara Barat (West Nusa Tenggara)
Nusa Tenggara Timur (East Nusa Tenggara)
project completion report
technical assistance
Currency Equivalents
Currency Unit rupiah (Rp)
Rp1.00
$1.00
=
=
At Appraisal
(15 October 2001)
$0.0001
Rp9,935
At Project
Completion
(15 June 2012)
$0.0002
Rp9,420
At Independent Evaluation
(31 August 2014)
$0.0001
Rp11,705
Contents
Acknowledgments
vii
Basic Data
ix
Executive Summary
xi
Chapter 1: Introduction
Evaluation Purpose and Process

Expected Results
Evaluation Method
1
2
2
Chapter 2: Design and Implementation
A.
B.
C.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Formulation
Rationale
Cost, Financing, and Executing Arrangements
Procurement, Construction, and Scheduling
Outputs
Consultants
Covenants
Policy Framework
4
5
6
8
8
9
10
10
Chapter 3: Performance Assessment
12
Overall Assessment
Relevance
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Sustainability
12
12
19
27
28
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Chapter 4: Other Assessment

A.
B.
Impact
ADB and Executing Agency Performance
Chapter 5: Issues, Lessons, and Follow-up Actions

A.
B.
C.
Issues
Lessons
Follow-up Actions
30
30
30
32
32
33
34
APPENDIXES
1
Summary Design and Monitoring Framework
36
2
3
4
5
6
7
41
44
50
51
53
55
List of Interviewees
Questionnaire for Schools
Number and Type of Project Schools
Rating Matrix for Core Evaluation Criteria
Education Statistics
Poverty Statistics
Acknowledgments
A team of staff and consultants from the Independent Evaluation Department (IED)
contributed to this study by conducting data gathering and analysis, desk reviews,
interviews, research, and surveys. Hyun H. Son (team leader) prepared this report and
Stella Labayen (associate evaluation analyst) formatted it. The report benefited from
the overall guidance of Vinod Thomas and Walter Kolkma. The team acknowledges the
valuable inputs of Rizza Leonzon and Ekki Syamsulhakim, the consultants who worked
on this evaluation.
The team also thanks Wolfgang Kubitzki, Ferny Suhandi, and Imelda Marquez for their
assistance in organizing meetings with central and district government officials,
development partners, and project schools. The team is grateful to Asian Development
Bank (ADB) staff, school representatives, and the Government of Indonesia for their
hospitality, as well as assistance and participation in the interviews. Their insights into
the decentralized basic education sector were most helpful in writing the report.
The report was peer reviewed by Tu Chi Nguyen of the World Bank and Farzana Ahmed
of IED. Valuable comments were received on an earlier draft from ADBs Southeast Asia
Department and Indonesia Resident Mission. The report was also shared with the
Government of Indonesia, which welcomed the findings and recommendations of the
study.
Basic Data
Decentralized Basic Education Project (Loan 1863-INO; Grant 0047-INO)
Key Project Data
($ million)
Total Loan Cost
Foreign Exchange Cost
Local Currency Cost
As per ADB Loan/Grant

Documents
125.0
21.1
103.9
ADB Financed
Borrower Financed
Actual
138.4
26.3
112.1
100.0
25.0
112.1
26.3
Total Grant Cost

Foreign Exchange Cost
36.3
36.3
29.5
29.5
Borrower Financed
Government of the Netherlands
8.3
28.0
1.5
28.0
Key Dates
Appraisal
Loan Negotiations
Board Approval
- Loan
- Grant
Loan Agreement
Loan Effectiveness
Closing Date
- Loan
- Grant
Closing Extensions
Loan Effectiveness to Closing (months)
Project Completion
Borrower
Executing Agency
Mission Data
Type of Mission
Inception
Handover
Review
Special project administration
Midterm
Final
Project completion review
Independent evaluation
Expected
20 May 2002
31 December 2008
31 December 2008
81
Actual
626 July 2001
310 October 2001
29 November 2001
14 March 2006
20 February 2002
20 May 2002
30 June 2009
30 September 2011
2 (Grant)
87
June 2012
Government of Indonesia
Ministry of National Education
No. of Missions
1
1
12
2
1
1
1
1
No. of Person-Days
138
14
309
82
75
10
20
9
Executive Summary
Decentralization is a policy option that has been adopted by many countries to improve
access to basic services, including education. Since 2001, the Government of Indonesia
has embarked on a program to decentralize delivery of basic education. By making the
education system more attuned to local needs, decentralizationthe process of
delegating authority or functions from central government to local government units
will be able to play a crucial role in improving the access to and quality of basic
education in Indonesia.
To help Indonesia roll out its decentralized basic education program, the Asian
Development Bank (ADB) supported a project to improve the participation in and
completion of 9 years of basic education, particularly among the poor. The project
included primary and junior secondary levels in the provinces of Bali, East Nusa
Tenggara (NTT), and West Nusa Tenggara (NTB). It supported three outcomes: (i)
improved participation, transition, completion, and performance in basic education
among poor children in Bali, NTB, and NTT; (ii) implementation of school-based
management in project schools; and (iii) effective district education management in the
three provinces. To achieve these objectives, the project had three components: school
development; district basic education development; and monitoring, evaluation, and
reporting.
The project was financed by a combination of loan and grant. Of the $138.4 million
loan component, $112.1 million was financed by ADB and $26.3 million by the
Government of Indonesia. The grant component totaled $29.5 million, of which $28.0
million was funded by the Government of the Netherlands and $1.5 million by the
Government of Indonesia.
This report presents performance evaluation findings of the Decentralized Basic
Education Project based on four core evaluation criteria (relevance, effectiveness,
efficiency, and sustainability) and two additional criteria (institutional development and
impact). Overall, the project performance is rated successful.
The project is rated highly relevant. The timing of its implementation was responsive to
addressing insufficient capacity during Indonesias transition to a decentralized basic
education system. The project is also aligned with the education policies and strategies
of both the government and ADB. Changes in the project coverage involving
withdrawal of five Jakarta districts and redirection of this funding to two districts in
impoverished NTT improved its relevance. Modifications in project design during the
early phase of implementation, as well as weak coordination between the Ministry of
National Education (MONE) and the Ministry of Religious Affairs (MORA), the projects
executing and co-executing agencies, respectively, posed challenges to implementation
but did not compromise relevance either in terms of targeting schools and districts or
in achieving the objective of improving access of the poor to basic education.
The project is effective. Analysis of primary time-series data obtained during the
evaluation indicates that statistically significant improvements in education outcomes
xii
Indonesia: Decentralized Basic Education Project

including enrollment, completion, transition, and performance were observed in
selected project districts after the project was implemented. The project also helped to
improve school capacity by promoting an evidence-based approach to formulating
school development plans; encouraging community involvement in education matters;
and improving district capacity for basic education, particularly in teacher development
and the evaluation of school development plans.
The project is efficient. Despite the limited size of grants, the project supported notable
achievements in improving school and district capacity for managing basic education
and enhancing school infrastructure. The progress of its loan component was initially
slow, but this picked up throughout project execution. The grant component was twice
extended, as the implementation period of only 2.5 years proved too short for severely
poor and often inaccessible districts.
The project is likely sustainable. The formulation of school development plans, which
was pioneered by the project, has become standard practice among schools. School
committees continue to participate in creating school strategies and budget plans.
School and district officials who received training under the project continue to impart
knowledge to their counterparts who were not part of the project. The central and
district governments provide the primary source of funding to help project schools
deliver continued support for poor students through scholarships, transport
allowances, remedial and catch-up programs, and tutoring for students missing school.
The project is rated as having a significant impact on enhancing local capacity for basic
education management, improving education outcomes, and shaping government
policies related to decentralized basic education services. ADBs performance is rated
less than satisfactory, given that high turnover of its project officers constrained
effective and continued supervision and management of the project. MONEs
performance is rated satisfactory, since it eventually gained sufficient capacity after
initial difficulties.
The evaluation draws the following lessons:
i.
Decentralization of basic education can be reinforced through strong

collaboration between MONE and MORA. Structural misalignment hampers the
coordination of these ministries in managing basic education because MORA
remains centralized while MONE has been decentralized. Although both
ministries may have misaligned structures and varying levels of resources and
expertise, they are nevertheless jointly tasked with providing basic education. A
more collaborative effort is needed for its successful delivery and management.
ii.
Good technological infrastructure at the school and district levels is imperative

for data management. Although there is an online database for school
indicators, called Dapodik, schools have yet to fully maximize this medium
because many lack internet access. Capacity building of school staff is also
necessary for the online system to work effectively.
iii.
High staff turnover impedes capacity building and disrupts efforts to promote
decentralized basic education management. Frequent staff changes among
ADBs project officers and district governments hampered the transfer and
sharing of knowledge, as it did communication and rapport-building among
stakeholders.
Executive Summary xiii

Given these lessons, the project performance evaluation report makes these
recommendations:
i.
Coordination between MORA and MONE, which is crucial for decentralized

basic education, requires improvement. Best practices in education
management need to be shared with officials of both ministries. Moreover, the
role of provincial governments in decentralized basic education should be
strengthened, particularly in monitoring and evaluation. This is because
MORAs provincial offices are primarily tasked with providing madrasah
education, while responsibility for general education lies with district
governments and district MONE offices.
ii.
Endeavors to enhance the delivery of basic education in Indonesia should be

tied in with continued investments in enhancing transport and technological
infrastructure and school facilities. Improving the access of the poor to
transport is a priority everywhere, but particularly in remote areas. In these
areas, improving access to junior secondary schools, which are normally located
in subdistrict capital cities, is especially needed. Improvements in technological
infrastructure in schools and districts are necessary to facilitate continuous data
updates on the Dapodik system. Continued rehabilitation of classrooms in
remote areas in Bali, NTB, and NTT is also necessary.
iii.
More than a decade since it was first implemented, decentralized basic

education in Indonesia remains beset with challenges. These include its impact
on teacher policy, given the considerable district authority in staffing (including
over transfer of teachers) and the perceived politicization of education
appointments made by district governments. Should ADB choose to continue
providing support in this area, it should consider how such challenges could be
best addressed.
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
A.
Evaluation Purpose and Process
1.
This project performance evaluation report assesses the Decentralized Basic
Education Project, which was designed to support decentralized planning,
management, and delivery of basic education services in Indonesia. The project aimed
to enhance participation in and completion of 9 years of basic education, particularly
among the poor in Bali, West Nusa Tenggara (NTB), and East Nusa Tenggara (NTT). The
project was evaluated based on four core criteria (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency,
and sustainability) and two additional criteria (institutional development and impact),
as specified under Asian Development Bank (ADB) guidelines. 1 The evaluation also
assesses the projects impact on student performance in beneficiary districts, analyzes
the roles of its stakeholders, and reviews other factors that may have affected project
performance. This evaluations findings will feed into the forthcoming validation of
Indonesias County Partnership Strategy 20122014 final review.
2.
The project completion report (PCR) was prepared in June 2012. Overall, the
project was rated successful based on the four core evaluation criteria. It was rated
highly relevant to the poverty reduction priorities of ADB and the Government of
Indonesia. Changes in the projects scopewhich included adding districts in
impoverished NTTfurther improved its relevance. The project was rated effective,
based on (i) improvements in net enrollment, completion, and transition rates and
examination scores (although no targets had been specified); (ii) implementation of
school-based management in 3,000 schools and the establishment of effective
community-school partnerships; (iii) increased district education funding over 2001
levels; (iv) development of data-based district education development plans; and (v)
implementation of plans for quality and equity improvement. It was rated efficient
because progress under the loan component picked up during implementation despite
initial delays. It was rated partly sustainable. The project helped to mainstream school
and district planning and school-based management through national policies. As
noted in the PCR, however, some stakeholders took the view that activities financed
under the project would not be sustainable without project support.
3.
The project was assessed to have a likely significant impact on project districts
and provinces given improved school management that involved both school officials
and communities. The PCR noted, however, that it was difficult to assess the projects
impact on district capacity.
Independent Evaluation Department. 2006. Guidelines for Preparing Performance Evaluation Reports for
Public Sector Operations. Manila: ADB (as well as its amendment effective from March 2013).
2 Indonesia: Decentralized Basic Education Project

B.
Expected Results
4.
The project sought to support the decentralized planning, management, and
delivery of basic education services to improve participation in and completion of 9
years of basic education. It was implemented in 26 districts across 3 provinces (Bali,
NTB, and NTT).2 The project targeted 5,238 schools in poor villages, of which 4,329
were primary and 909 were junior secondary schools. It supported three outcomes: (i)
improved participation, transition, completion, and performance in basic education
among poor children in the three provinces; (ii) implementation of school-based
management in project schools; and (iii) effective district education management in the
three provinces.
5.
To achieve its objectives, the project had three components: school
development; district basic education development; and monitoring, evaluation, and
reporting. It supported the following major outputs: (i) implementation of schoolbased management, (ii) improved school quality with School Development Fund
assistance, (iii) improved capacity of districts to plan and manage decentralized basic
education as reflected in their 5-year district education development plans, (iv)
improved district education with District Education Development Fund assistance, and
(v) effective program and financial monitoring compliance. The projects design and
monitoring framework is presented in Appendix 1.
C.
Evaluation Method
6.
The evaluation used qualitative and quantitative techniques in examining the
projects performance. The qualitative approach was used for in-depth interviews with
officers from the Ministry of National Education and district education offices, as well
as school principals, teachers, and staff involved in the project. Appendix 2 provides a
complete list of government and school officials interviewed during the evaluation
mission. Appendix 3 presents the questionnaire for school officials.
7.
The quantitative approach was particularly useful for examining education
outcomes and poverty status. Various secondary data were used in analyzing education
outcomes, including those for enrollment, transition, and completion rates; national
exam scores; and poverty status in selected provinces and districts. The evaluation also
used the findings of a survey conducted during the mission that provided primary timeseries data on education indicators and other information related to the project. Survey
questionnaires were distributed to selected project schools. The quantitative approach
used in this evaluation study makes before-and-after comparisons. For some
quantitative outcomes, such as enrollment, completion, and transition rates as well as
exam scores, the analysis involved mean-difference testing to check robustness of the
comparison analysis.
8.
The surveys sample of project schools was selected using a mixture of
probabilistic and non-probabilistic approaches to ensure that each school in each
province had an equal opportunity to be selected as part of the sample. The sample for
this survey covered 56 schools, which are representative in terms of districts and types
of schools.
Jakarta was initially included as one of the three target provinces. However, it was withdrawn from the
project because its income was sufficient to achieve objectives similar to those of the project. The funds
previously allocated to Jakarta were then redirected to NTT.
Introduction 3
9.
Although not the case of Bali, schools in NTB and NTT are scattered on various
islands within the two provinces. Hence, the study purposively selected the islands
within these provinces. Lombok Island in NTB and Timor Island in NTT were chosen. The
numbers of districts within the islands was then calculated proportionately, resulting in
two districts each for Bali and NTT and three districts for NTB. A simple random
sampling mechanism was used to select the districts on each of the islands. On that
basis, the selected districts were Bangli and Buleleng in Bali; Lombok Barat, Lombok
Timur, and Mataram in NTB; and Timor Tengah and Timor Tengah Utara in NTT. Taking
into account differences in the local education policies, as well as socioeconomic
characteristics in each of the provinces and districts, this study calculated
proportionately the number of project schools to be surveyed for each district. This
calculation was based on the number and types of schools covered by the project as
presented in the PCR (Appendix 4). A stratified random sampling mechanism based on
the level of school was then used to decide which project schools were selected as part
of the sample.
CHAPTER 2
Design and Implementation

A.
Formulation
10.
The Government of Indonesia has implemented numerous measures to improve
the access to and quality of basic education, including decentralizing the management
and delivery of basic education following the passage of Law No. 22/1999 on Regional
Governance and Law No. 25/1999 on Fiscal Decentralization. To this end, district
governments have been tasked with providing financing for basic education.
11.
In 1997, the government requested ADB support for improving the delivery of
basic education in the provinces of Bali and West Nusa Tenggara (NTB) and the Special
Capital Region Jakarta (footnote 2). The government selected these provinces because
of their gaps in basic education and the regional demarcation between ADB and the
World Bank.3 Jakarta withdrew from the project, however, and was replaced by East
Nusa Tenggara (NTT).
12.
ADB in 1998 approved small-scale project preparatory technical assistance (TA),
but the Asian financial crisis caused project preparation to be suspended.4 This was
resumed in 2000. The government requested that the project support the
decentralization of basic education management to build on achievements of the ADBfunded Social Protection Sector Development Program. ADB subsequently approved
small-scale TA to redesign the project.5 A loan appraisal mission was fielded during July
2001.
13.
The project had no attached TA, but two related TA projects and a small project
funded by the Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction complemented project
implementation. Bridging TA providing support for decentralized education
management commenced implementation in March 2002 and supported the initial
steps in decentralizing the management of basic education to improve service delivery.
This included capacity building for a special decentralization unit in the Ministry of
National Education (MONE).6 Additional TA on integrating poverty considerations into
decentralized education management began implementation in April 2003, shortly
after project consultants were fielded. The TA supported poverty mapping for 16
districts covered by the project and 50 participatory poverty studies. 7 The project,
3
ADB. 2001. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on a Proposed Loan to
the Republic of Indonesia for the Decentralized Basic Education Project. Manila.
ADB. 1998. Technical Assistance to the Republic of Indonesia for Basic Education in Bali and Nusa Tengara
Barat Project. Manila (TA 3007-INO, $150,000, approved 16 April 1998).
ADB. 2000. Technical Assistance to the Republic of Indonesia for the Preparation of Decentralized Basic
Education Project. Manila. (TA 3456-INO, $150,000, approved 14 June 2000).
ADB. 2006. Technical Assistance Completion Report: Support for Decentralized Education Management in
Indonesia. Manila (TA 3701-INO).
ADB. 2007. Technical Assistance Completion Report: Integration of Poverty Considerations in Decentralized
Education Management in Indonesia. Manila (TA 3957-INO).
Design and Implementation 5

backed by Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction, was approved in May 2002 and
consultants were fielded 12 months later.8 It pilot tested school-based management
and community-based education as a pro-poor service delivery scheme in particularly
underserved schools.
14.
The project was funded by a $100.0 million loan from ADB and grant
cofinancing of $28.0 million from the Government of the Netherlands. The loan was
approved on 29 November 2001 and closed on 31 December 2008. The grant was
approved on 14 March 2006 and extended for 1 year, to 31 December 2009, to allow
for project completion in NTT, and later to 31 December 2010 to cover emergency
reconstruction work in Sumatra. Some $10.0 million was reallocated from the loan to
rebuild schools after an earthquake and tsunami struck Aceh and North Sumatra in
December 2004. Similarly, grant savings of $1.3 million were used in reconstructing 9
schools in West Sumatra after a 2009 earthquake.
B.
Rationale
15.
The project provided crucial support during Indonesias transition to a
decentralized system of basic education. Its commencement coincided with the initial
implementation of Law No. 22/1999 on Regional Governance and Law No. 25/1999 on
Fiscal Decentralization in 2001, during which a lack of technical guidance for provincial
and district governments in executing the laws, especially for the education sector,
posed a challenge. The project therefore supported pioneering efforts in implementing
a decentralized education system.9
16.
Per the governments request, the project supported the process of
decentralizing basic education management, in accordance with the laws on regional
governance and fiscal decentralization (footnote 3). Prior to implementation of these
laws, the education system was highly centralized. Basic education was managed
centrally through complex and compartmentalized structures in three ministries: the
Ministry of Home Affairs, MONE, and the Ministry of Religious Affairs (MORA). MONE
was responsible for overall planning, coordination, and regulation for education at all
levels and it directly administered and financed public junior secondary education. The
Ministry of Home Affairs administered and delivered public primary education,
overseeing teacher management, establishment and maintenance of primary schools,
and provision of subsidies to private primary schools. MORA administered and financed
public primary and junior secondary madrasah schooling and supervised and provided
financial assistance to private madrasahs. This system had been replicated at provincial
and district levels, where all three ministries were represented in parallel by local
offices. Similar to this complex management structure, budgeting and financing for
basic education involved five ministries: the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Home
Affairs, MONE, MORA, and the National Development Planning Agency, with a mix of
financing arrangements and funds sources for each school type and level.
17.
Under Indonesias decentralized basic education system, district governments
are now responsible for planning, financing, managing, and delivering basic education.
Their responsibilities also cover school staff appointments and transfers and school
location planning. The central government sets policies, the national curriculum, and a
national examination and assessment system. It also sets standards for (i) achievement
at each age; (ii) learning materials; (iii) acceptance, transfer, and certification of
8
ADB. 2007. Implementation Completion Memorandum for INO: Supporting Community-Based Basic
Education (JFPR 9016). Manila.
Study teams interviews with stakeholders during evaluation mission.
The project
provided crucial
support during
Indonesias
transition to a
decentralized
system of basic
education

students; and (iv) learning times for basic education and fixing the educational
calendar. The central government establishes procedures and standards for staff
appointments and dismissals; determines pensions, salaries, benefits, and rights and
obligations; and establishes the legal status of civil servants and regional civil servants,
including teachers and principals.
18.
Provincial governments (i) define policy on student selection and acceptance,
including equity for minority students and students from poor families and remote
areas; (ii) provide instructional materials for basic education; (iii) assist in higher
education management, curriculum production, accreditation, staff appointments, and
opening and closing of colleges; and (iv) manage special institutions, including training
centers, teacher training institutions, and special education. Provincial governments
may also decide on the transfer between districts of civil servants, including school
principals and teachers, and their transfer between cities and provinces (footnote 3).
19.
By supporting the decentralized system, the project also responded to
challenges in improving the equity in and quality of delivering basic education
services.10 The proportion of primary school-age children enrolled at this levelthe net
enrollment ratewas 93.0% at the start of project implementation in 2001, while the
ratio of female-to-male primary enrollment was 98.0%. Nearly 660,000 primary schoolaged children were out of school in that year, more than 60.0% of them girls.11
20.
ADBs development agenda for Indonesia also prioritizes basic education. Until
1990, ADB support for Indonesias education sector was channeled mainly to the
vocational, technical, and higher education subsectors. Since then, however, ADB has
increased support for basic education to improve poor childrens access to basic
education and enhance learning outcomes at this level. Among ADBs basic education
investments in Indonesia is the Social Protection Sector Development Program, which
supported a scholarship and school block grant program. The Social Protection Sector
Development Program was introduced in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis. It
helped maintain stability in primary and junior secondary school enrollment and
supported policy dialogue for improving social safety nets mechanisms.
C.
Cost, Financing, and Executing Arrangements
21.
At appraisal, the total cost of the loan component was $125.0 million. At loan
closing, the actual project cost was $138.4 million, of which $112.1 million was
financed by ADB and $26.3 million by the government. The appreciation of special
drawing rights versus the dollar caused the 11.0% increase in the loan amount. There
were no cost overruns or underruns since project expenditures were linked to school
and district development plans.
22.
In terms of cost categories, the PCR noted that expenditure on research,
surveys, and studies (42.0% of the appraisal estimate) was low because the project had
not carried out baseline and midterm evaluation surveys and other studies. 12 The
evaluation team reviewed two impact evaluation documents produced under the
project: (i) Decentralized Basic Education Project: Consulting Services for Baseline and
Benefit Impact/Evaluation Studies, Initial Findings (2006); and (ii) Benefit, Monitoring,
10
11
12
Indonesias education system consists of preschool, primary education (grades 1 to 6), junior secondary
education (grades 79), senior secondary education (grades 1012), and tertiary education. Basic
education covers 9 years of compulsory primary and junior secondary education.
ADB. 2013. Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific. Manila.
ADB. 2012. Completion Report: Indonesia: Decentralized Basic Education Project. Manila (p. 7).

and Evaluation Studies of the Decentralized Basic Education Project (Baseline and
Midterm Evaluation Studies): Final Report (2008).13 However, these impact evaluation
studies did not clearly identify the type of impact measurement being calculated.
Moreover, only baseline and midline evaluations were conducted. The baseline study
did not incorporate the appropriate control group as the respondents at the school
level only included principals, teachers, students, and school committees from 55
project schools. While the midterm report stated that it included non-project schools, it
did not sufficiently discuss how the non-project schools were selected. Moreover, the
baseline report used the district minimum service standard as the comparison
benchmark, which may result in misleading findings since the minimum service
standard may also include project schools. Given the different sampling methods and
questionnaires used by the baseline and midterm evaluation studies, the study team
assumed there to be no connection between the two. The study team also had no
access to the data used in the studies. As the PCR had noted, due to the absence of
data, information for measuring project benefits also relied on the memories of the
stakeholders.14
23.
The estimated cost of the grant component was $36.3 million, of which $28.0
million was to be funded by the Government of the Netherlands and $8.3 million by
the Government of Indonesia. The actual cost was $29.5 million, of which the
Netherlands funded $28.0 million and Indonesia $1.5 million.
24.
At loan closing, the project had disbursed $112.1 million, about 112% of the
original loan amount and 97.0% of the current loan value, which included an initial
advance of $2.6 million (25 June 2002) to finance the cost of various small contracts.
The project disbursed $28.0 million in grant funds, including the ADB administration
cost of $0.5 million. The loan account was financially closed on 30 June 2009 and the
grant on 30 September 2011.
25.
MONE was the projects executing agency. MORA was the coexecuting agency
and assigned staff to project management offices at the different levels of government.
At national level, a project steering committee provided policy guidance. District
coordination committees, education boards, and school committees assisted the
steering committee. Meanwhile, the central technical committee assumed technical and
programmatic functions and the central facilitation unit managed overall financial and
administrative coordination. The facilitation unit was supported by provincial and
district project management units. Although complex, this implementation structure
was appropriate given the projects large size and constant changes in administrative
context (footnote 3).
13
14
The projects baseline and midterm evaluations can be accessed in ADBs Archives Section. See Insan
Hitawasana Sejahtera. 2008. Decentralized Basic Education Project: Consulting Services for Baseline and
Benefit Impact/Evaluation Studies, Initial Findings. Jakarta; and Indonesia Ministry of National Education
and Indonesia University of Education. 2006. Benefit, Monitoring and Evaluation Studies of the
Decentralized Basic Education Project (Baseline and Midterm Evaluation Studies) Final Report. Jakarta.
Proper impact evaluations should include appropriate design and identification of control and treatment
groups. The design of an impact evaluation should be specified at the beginning of a program and include
the type of measurement impact (e.g., average treatment effect, average treatment on the treated,
spillover), sampling method of both treatment and control groups, and the evaluation method. The
selection of treatment and control groups should also be adequately discussed. Impact evaluations should
be done also at the baseline and endline of a project.

D.
Procurement, Construction, and Scheduling
26.
The loan component was approved in 2001, took effect in 2002, and closed on
schedule in 2008. Although there were initial delays, the pace of implementation
picked up. Some variations in project implementation procedures were adopted.
Phased implementation was originally identified at the planning stage, whereby the
batches were based on schools within districts rather than on the districts themselves.
Phased implementation was abandoned, however, because districts wanted to
commence project activities immediately. Given this change, all original districts
commenced project activities in mid-2003 and all districts continued to receive support
over the next 5 years. Within these districts, three different batches of schools also
received support for 3 years. Challenges were also encountered in use of the School
Development Fund, which was released a year before consultants were mobilized and
before schools had formulated their school development plans.
27.
The grant was approved in 2006 and extended twice before it was closed in
2010 due to (i) a 1-year extension to make sure that the programs benefited NTT, and
(ii) a second 1-year extension to allow grant savings to be used for reconstructing
schools in Padang Pariaman.
28.
Civil works involved rehabilitation of existing facilities as well as construction of
earthquake-resistant schools on the remote island of Simeulue and rehabilitation of
earthquake-ravaged schools in Padang Pariaman.
29.
Schools and districts carried out most of the procurement for items eligible
under the District Education Development Fund and the School Development Fund.
District project management units procured eligible items under the district education
fund through direct purchases using limited local tenders. On the other hand, schools
procured eligible items under the School Development Fund through direct purchase
and school committees managed procurements for the rehabilitation of schools. Cash
expenditures used direct purchase and were supplemented by such in-kind
contributions from the community as materials and labor. Training and workshops
were provided by facilitators and trainers according to ADB and government guidelines.
30.
Several procurement problems were uncovered by the external auditor, most of
which were related to overpayment for workshops and training. As noted in the PCR,
the findings of the external audit indicate that community monitoring of school
activities and finances is a viable method of ensuring compliance.
E.
Outputs
31.
The project supported three major components: (i) school development; (ii)
district basic education development; and (iii) monitoring, evaluation, and reporting.
These components were supported by the following outputs.
32.
Implementation of school-based management. The project improved the
schools capacity in developing and implementing school development plans. Project
schools were required to develop these plans to access project funds for scholarships
for the poor, rehabilitation of classrooms and other facilities, and other activities
identified in their plans. About 97% of the 4,244 project schools drew up these plans,

according to the baseline study.15 However, project schools were not required to report
their achievements against their plans. The project also helped to strengthen
community involvement in schools through the formation of school committees.
33.
Improved school quality with School Development Fund support. This was the
projects funding mechanism to support activities identified in school development
plans. To ensure transparency and accountability of the School Development Fund, its
accounts were audited annually by external auditors. Public accountability systems
were also established to monitor the projects operation. As noted in the PCR, 95% of
schools reported on the School Development Fund, program and budget plans, and
program and budget implementation. Moreover, 85% of schools were reported to have
established complaint mechanisms, though only 10% of school principals were seen as
willing to receive complaints.
34.
Improved capacity of districts as reflected in a 5-year district education
development plan. The project established district education boards in compliance with
Ministerial Regulation No. 044/2002. These were tasked with monitoring district
education programs, as well as school development plans. The boards were provided
training on education management, including budget analysis. The legal framework for
the boards was revised in 2010 by a new regulation on the management of education
(PP 17/2010). As a result, funding of the boards by districts became discretionary and
the number of board members was reduced. Although board members work in a
voluntary capacity, they nevertheless require funding for their operations. The project
also required all districts to publish their education statistics annually and to complete
their district education development plans. During the project, all districts published
statistics annually and completed their district education development plans. Some
districts continue to update their plans and publish their statistics, but weaknesses in
information systems make it difficult to keep the data current and for them to be able
to publish the statistics on time.
35.
Improved district education with District Education Development Fund support.
To improve district education, the project supported the preparation, implementation,
and monitoring of strategic 5-year district education development plans and 5-year
annual action plans by all districts. Under the plans, districts developed systems for
planning, managing, financing, staffing, and monitoring teacher development; school
supervision; recruitment, training, and performance review of school principals;
facilities expansion; and district financing of education. The fund supported the
implementation of priority district education development programs and capacity
building activities.
36.
Effective program and financial monitoring compliance. The project helped
promote transparency and accountability as part of school-based management. Schools
inform communities of their school development plans, programs, and budget plans,
as well as their School Development Fund and District Education Development Fund
accounts.
F.
Consultants
37.
Under the loan component, three packages of consulting services were
envisaged during appraisal: (i) school-based management; (ii) district capacity building
15
Insan Hitawasana Sejahtera. 2008. Decentralized Basic Education Project: Consulting Services for Baseline
and Benefit Impact/Evaluation Studies, Initial Findings. Jakarta.

and project implementation support; and (iii) independent monitoring, evaluation, and
reporting. Some 82 person-months of international consultant inputs (compared with
78 person-months at appraisal) and 8,403 person-months of national consulting inputs
(compared with 7,782 person-months at appraisal) were used. The consultants for the
loan component were mobilized a year after project activities commenced.
38.
Under the grant component, two additional packages were planned: (i) school
and district building and project implementation support, and (ii) independent
monitoring and evaluation. The grant packages mobilized only national consultants,
using 1,288 person-months of national consulting inputs (against the planned 960
person-months). All consultants were recruited in accordance with ADBs Guidelines on
the Use of Consultants. Several changes requested by the consulting firm led to
considerably greater person-months and cost. A university research institute was
contracted in 2006 to conduct the baseline and midterm evaluation study, but it
performed poorly. The institute was replaced by a social survey firm in 2007, which
conducted the required baseline and impact studies.
39.
District project and school personnel considered package (i) and (ii) consultants
under the loan component helpful or very helpful, but they found package (iii)
consultants too focused on monitoring schools utilization of the School Development
Fund. The consultants for package (iii) only monitored financial compliance in the
schools and districts. They did not conduct program monitoring and evaluation after
this activity was removed from their contract. The monitoring and evaluation activities
for the loan project did not refer to the design and monitoring framework indicators.
Meanwhile, as noted by the PCR, the consultants under the grant component
performed well and achieved good results.
G.
Covenants
40.
Twenty-five of 27 covenants were complied with. The loan covenants on the
role of the provincial project monitoring units and gender were only partially complied
with. These units were envisaged to monitor or evaluate project activities and impact
but failed to do so. As a result, only progress and performance were monitored, not
the achievement of indicators and targets. The provinces were originally assigned to
conduct performance monitoring and evaluation, but this was not carried out. An
independent contractor was hired to conduct an impact study on beneficiary schools
under the loan project and baseline and impact studies on beneficiary schools in NTT
under the grant. Meanwhile, the covenant on gender required two women members
per school committee. In NTT, almost 70% reached this target, but results in Bali and
NTB were poor.
H.
Policy Framework
41.
The project influenced national government policy and procedures, and most
notably the School Operational Assistance Program (BOS), which was launched in 2005.
BOS partly adopted the projects block grant system, and it provides block grants to all
schools to enhance the implementation of school-based management and lower the
cost of providing basic education. While compulsory fees from parents may not be
retained, the central government permits local governments and parents to financially

support schools if BOS funds are insufficient. 16 The disbursement of BOS funding is
decided by school committees in a similar procedure established by the project.
42.
The project also influenced legally binding national education standards
introduced from 2006 to 2008 and minimum service standards for districts introduced
in 2010. Moreover, school-based management is now official policy and implemented
in all schools nationwide. However, the school-managed model for rehabilitation under
the project has been discontinued under new legislation requiring a return to district
contracting. Moreover, many districts now restrict parental and community financial
support for schools, which was one of the projects achievements.
16
J. Tobias et al. 2014. Towards Better Education Quality: Indonesias Promising Path. London: Overseas
Development Institute.
CHAPTER 3
Performance Assessment
A.
Overall Assessment
43.
Overall, the project is rated successful. The overall assessment is based on
equally weighted individual assessment criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and
sustainability (Table 1), which is in accordance with the Guidelines for Preparing
Performance Evaluation Reports for Public Sector Operations. This rating is generally
consistent with that of the PCR, but the rating for sustainability differs somewhat
(Appendix 5). Other criteria, such as impact and ADB and borrower performance, are
discussed, but not formally assessed because of difficulties in precise attribution and
quantification.
Table 1: Assessment of Project Performance
Criterion
Relevance
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Sustainability
Impact
Institutional Development
ADB Performance
Borrower Performance
Overall Rating
Weight
(%)
25
25
25
25
100
Assessment
Highly relevant
Effective
Efficient
Likely sustainable
Significant
Satisfactory
Partly satisfactory
Satisfactory
Successful
Rating
Value
3
2
2
2
Weighted
Rating
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.50
2.25
ADB = Asian Development Bank.

Note: Highly Successful (>2.7), Successful (2.7 S > 1.6), Less than Successful (1.6 LS > 0.8),
Unsuccessful (<0.8).
Source: Study team.
B.
Relevance
44.
The project is rated highly relevant. As stated in the rationale section, the
project and the timing of its implementation responded to challenges Indonesia faced
during its transition to a decentralized basic education system, including weak
institutional capacity; limited human and financial resources; and unclear delineation of
roles, functions, and authority of central and local government agencies. The projects
components are therefore deemed appropriate to help address these gaps by
empowering schools and district governments in identifying and addressing education
needs in their communities.
45.
The project also remained relevant despite legislative changes. Fiscal and
administrative decentralization took effect on 1 January 2001. The government passed
the National Education System Law in 2003 and the National Development Planning
Performance Assessment 13
System Law in 2004. Between 2002 and 2004, it passed other laws relevant to
decentralization, such as those on regional government and centralregional financial
balance, the national planning and financial system (budgeting), and the national
treasury (payments mechanism).
46.
The projects objective of improving basic education outcomes, including
participation, transition, completion, and performance, was also relevant to Indonesias
education challenges at the time of project implementation. Although Indonesia has
nearly achieved universal access to primary education, participation in secondary
education remains a concern. The average net enrollment rate of children aged 715
years was 94% in primary school and 59% at the secondary level at around the time of
project implementation in 19982002. 17 Figures 1 and 2 indicate that average net
enrollment in Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT) was generally lower than the national
average for both primary and secondary levels during 20032013, while net enrollment
in Bali and Nusa Tenggara Barat (NTB) was slightly higher for much of the period. Low
average enrollment in NTT may be attributed to the poor quality of basic infrastructure
and school facilities, which restrict childrens access to education services. The slump in
Indonesias net enrollment rate from 2010 to 2011 coincides with a decrease in public
spending on education. Public spending on education reached 3.5% of GDP in 2009
but decreased to 3.0% and 2.8% of GDP in 2010 and 2011, respectively.18 As discussed,
the government selected the provinces based on education gaps and the regional
demarcation between the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the World Bank.19
Figure 1: Primary Net Enrollment in Selected Provinces, 20032013

100
96.6
95.5
94.3
93.6
Percent
95
90
Bali
Nusa Tenggara Barat
Nusa Tenggara Timur
Indonesia
85
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Note: Since 2007, the net enrollment rate includes nonformal education (Package A, which
is primary school, and Package B, which is junior secondary).
Source: Study team calculations based on Indonesian Statistics Office data.
17
18
19
National Development Planning Agency. 2002. National Program for Indonesian Children: Education.
Jakarta.
Figures are World Bank estimates accessed at data.worldbank.org on 6 October 2014.
The World Bank at the time supported basic education projects in the provinces of Central Java, East Java,
Kalimantan, Nusa Tenggara Timur, Sulawesi, Sumatra, and West Java, and was preparing a new basic
education project covering East Java and South and West Sumatra. See ADB. 2001. Report and
Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on a Proposed Loan to the Republic of
Indonesia for the Decentralized Basic Education Project. Manila.

47.
Improving enrollment at junior secondary level is also an area of concern in
Indonesia (Figure 2). Several factors influence low enrollment at the junior secondary
level, including household welfare, gender, religious background, childs performance,
supply-side readiness, and employment opportunity. Children from poor households
are less likely to enroll in junior secondary school, as are girls and children from Muslim
backgrounds. Children with higher national exam scores in primary school are more
likely to enroll in junior secondary school. Enrollment at junior secondary level is also
found to be positively affected by the number of schools built in those areas where the
children live. Finally, children tend to continue their school through junior secondary
level if there are few employment opportunities in the community.20
Figure 2: Junior Secondary Net Enrollment in Selected Provinces,
20032013
90
80.2
Percent
60
80.7
73.7
59.2
30
Bali
Nusa Tenggara Timur
Nusa Tenggara Barat

Indonesia
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Note: Since 2007, the net enrollment rate includes nonformal education (Package A, which
is primary school, and Package B, which is junior secondary).
Source: Study team calculations based on Indonesian Statistics Office data.
48.
Children dropping out of school also undermined efforts to improve
Indonesias basic education system. About 600,000 Indonesian children dropped out of
primary school in 2001, at the start of project implementation, putting the dropout
rate at 2.7%.21 Among junior secondary school students in 2001, the dropout rate was
3.5%, meaning that about 300,000 students left junior secondary school in that year.
NTB and NTT had higher dropout rates in 2001 than the national average, at 3.2% and
5.4%, respectively, while Bali had a lower rate of 2.1% (Table 2). In Indonesia, poor
children tend to give up schooling for working. Some evidence nevertheless suggests
that banning children from working could worsen their school attendance since they
will not have sufficient financial resources to continue studying.22
20
21
22
Suryadarma et al. 2006. Causes of Low Secondary School Enrollment in Indonesia. SMERU.
National Office for Research and Development. 2002. Education Statistics. Ministry of National Education.
Jakarta.
A. Suryahadi, A Priyambada, and S. Sumarto. 2005. Poverty, School, and Work: Children during the
Economic Crisis in Indonesia. Development and Change. 36 (2). pp. 351373.
Table 2: Dropout rate of Primary and Junior Secondary Students
in Selected Provinces, 2001/2002 (%)
Province
Bali
Nusa Tenggara Barat
Nusa Tenggara Timur
Indonesia
Primary
2.1
3.2
5.4
2.7
Junior Secondary
1.9
2.9
3.4
3.5
Source: National Office for Research and Development. 2002.
49.
The project was particularly relevant to improving the transition rate of junior
secondary school-aged children in NTT. Some of the poorest villages are located near
the border of Timor-Leste. According to interviews with stakeholders, the nearest junior
secondary school was about 15 kilometers from these villages. In addition, the roads
leading to the subdistrict capital, where junior secondary schools are normally located,
were in very poor condition, making parents reluctant to send their children to junior
secondary schools. Through the project, these districts received assistance to build
junior secondary schools, such as those in Biboki Utara and Bikome Utara, allowing
children to continue their studies at the junior secondary level.
50.
The project was also relevant to the need at the time of implementation for
rehabilitating school infrastructure. During 2001/2002, 24% of primary school buildings
in Indonesia, including classrooms, showed signs of severe damage and 33% of slight
damage (Appendix 6, Table A6.3). About 4% of junior secondary buildings were badly
damaged and 10% slightly damaged (footnote 17). In NTT, Bali, and NTB, respectively,
66%, 55%, and 50% of primary classrooms were damaged. It was difficult to ascertain
the projects contribution to improving school facilities at the time of the evaluation
mission because other sources of funding were made available for school building
rehabilitation after the projects life. Interviews with Ministry of National Education
(MONE), school, and district officials revealed that the government has been
rehabilitating schools since 2012, allocating as much as Rp17.5 trillion (equivalent to
$1.5 billion) for this endeavor.
51.
The project was also relevant to government and ADB education policies and
strategies. As discussed earlier, it was highly aligned with the countrys decentralization
strategy, which serves as a means for improving the quality of and access to basic
education by building a more integrated education system at local level that can
effectively respond to local needs and conditions. ADBs Country Assistance Plan, 2001
2003 for Indonesia acknowledged decentralization of basic education as a major area
of ADB support, particularly in addressing the need to develop local management
capacity and to ensure better provision of basic education for the poor. The ADB
strategy also recognized that although decentralization could improve transparency,
accountability, and community participation, there were risks, particularly during the
transition period. These included inadequate technical capacity and human and
financial resource constraints that could hamper the efficient delivery of basic services,
including education. The strategy stated that ADB will help redefine the role and
support the reorganization of MONE in line with the decentralization law that was
being newly implemented at that time.23
52.
Decentralization in Indonesia has attracted support from many donors. These
include, among others, ADB, United Nations agencies, and the World Bank. Alongside
the government, these three launched a partnership in April 2000 to support
governance reforms, including decentralization. ADB assumed a major role in
23
ADB. 2000. Country Assistance Plan: Indonesia, 20012003. Manila.
The projects
scope was
relevant to the
objective of
improving the
quality of and
access to basic
education,
particularly
among the poor
decentralization and various anticorruption initiatives. The project has been the model
after which other donor-funded projects on decentralized basic education in Indonesia
were patterned. The United States Agency for International Development implemented
a similar project which was patterned after the project. ADBs Country Assistance Plan,
20012003 for Indonesia also stated that ADB, UNICEF, and the World Bank shared
sector support in education on a geographic basis (footnote 3). For instance, the
project excluded Flores Island in NTT because the Australian government was already
implementing a primary education project in that area at the time.
53.
The projects scope was relevant to the objective of improving the quality of
and access to basic education, particularly among the poor. The changes in scope,
which saw five districts in Jakarta withdraw and the corresponding funding reallocated
to two districts in NTT, made the project even more relevant. NTT and NTB are among
the poorest provinces in Indonesia (Table 3).
Table 3: Poverty Incidence and Annual Changes in Poverty Rates in Indonesia (%)
Poverty Incidence
Province
Jakarta
Bali
South Kalimantan
Bangka Belitung
Banten
Central Kalimantan
East Kalimantan
Riau Islands
Riau
North Sulawesi
West Kalimantan
Jambi
West Sumatra
North Maluku
South Sulawesi
West Java
North Sumatra
Indonesia
West Sulawesi
East Java
South Sumatra
Southeast Sulawesi
Central Java
Central Sulawesi
DI Yogyakarta
Lampung
Bengkulu
Gorontalo
Aceh
Nusa Tenggara Barat
Nusa Tenggara Timur
Maluku
West Papua
Papua
1996
(%)
Rank
2.4
1
7.8
2
8.5
3
13.5
9.7
4
6
12.6
17.9
24.2
14.6
9.8
8
7
13
5
9
16.7
11.1
13.2
17.6
11
10
12
22.1
15.9
29.2
21.6
22.3
18.4
25.6
16.7
16
15
20
17
21
14
18
19
12.7
32.0
38.9
44.6
23
22
24
25
42.3
26
2006
(%)
Rank
4.6
1
7.1
2
8.3
3
10.9
5
9.8
4
11.0
6
11.4
8
12.2
11
11.9
10
11.5
9
15.2
17
11.4
7
12.5
12
12.7
13
14.6
15
14.5
14
15.0
16
17.8
20.7
19
21.1
21
21.0
20
23.4
25
22.2
22
23.6
26
19.2
18
22.8
23
23.0
24
29.1
29
28.3
28
27.2
27
29.3
30
33.0
31
41.3
32
41.5
33
2011
(%)
Rank
3.8
1
4.2
2
5.3
3
5.8
4
6.3
5
6.6
6
6.8
7
7.4
8
8.5
9
8.5
10
8.6
11
8.7
12
9.0
13
9.2
14
10.3
15
10.7
16
11.3
17
12.5
13.9
18
14.2
19
14.2
20
14.6
21
15.8
22
15.8
23
16.1
24
16.9
25
17.5
26
18.8
27
19.6
28
19.7
29
21.2
30
23.0
31
31.9
32
32.0
33
Average Annual
Change (2006
2011)
(%)
Rank
3.6
32
8.1
3
7.3
8
9.5
1
7.1
10
8.1
5
8.1
4
7.8
6
5.7
19
5.3
25
8.7
2
4.8
28
5.5
21
5.6
20
5.9
17
5.3
24
4.9
27
5.9
6.6
11
6.5
13
6.4
14
7.5
7
5.8
18
6.6
12
3.2
33
5.1
26
4.8
29
7.1
9
6.2
15
5.5
23
5.5
22
6.1
16
4.6
31
4.6
30
Sources: United States Agency for International Development and DAI/Nathan Group. 2013. Provincial Poverty
Rates in Indonesia, 20062011. Jakarta.
54.
Although Bali may have lower poverty compared to other Indonesian provinces,
some of its districts and villages continue to face rampant poverty.24 In the district of
Buleleng, for example, some 37,644 people remained poor in 2010. Similarly, the
percentage of poor in the district of Jembrana was 8.1% in 2010, compared to Balis
4.9% average in the same year. Meanwhile, 21.6% of NTB and 23.5% of NTT were
deemed poor in 2010 (Figures 3, 4 and 5).
% of poor
Figure 3: Percentage of Poor in Balis Districts, 2010

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
8.1
7.9
7.6
7.4
6.9
6.7
6.4
4.9
3.2
2.2
District
Source: Secretariat of the National Team for the Acceleration of Poverty Reduction, Office of the Vice
President of the Republic of Indonesia. 2011.
% of poor
Figure 4: Percentage of Poor

in Nusa Tenggara Barat Districts, 2010
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
43.1
23.8
21.8
21.7
21.6
19.9
19.8
21.6
19.4
14.4
12.8
District
Note: North Lombok is a new district, gaining its autonomy in 2008. It was previously part of the district
of West Lombok.
24
Secretariat of the Acceleration of Poverty Reduction. 2011. Regional Welfare Indicator: Province of Bali.
Jakarta (Office of the Vice President of the Republic of Indonesia).
45.0
Figure 5: Percentage of Poor

in Nusa Tenggara Timur Districts, 2010
41.1
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
34.0
32.8 32.4
31.7
29.9
28.7
26.7 25.9
22.9 22.7
23.5
21.6 21.2 20.8

20.4
15.5
13.4 12.7
12.1
10.6
9.6
5.0
0.0
55.
Although the projects design was modified in the early stages of
implementation, it remained relevant to the projects objective of improving poor
peoples access to basic education. The four-tier criteria for school selection (for
primary and junior secondary schools and madrasah) were simplified to three tiers, in
which subdistricts, villages, and schools were ranked. The targeting criteria were
eventually simplified further for both the loan and grant to a one-tier procedure based
on the poverty ranking of schools within each district. Similarly, demand-led financing
was modified, and all schools were given standard amounts of block grant for
rehabilitation and quality improvement.
56.
These changes in design did not appear to compromise project relevance,
particularly in targeting. MONE first selected the poorest districts and then the poorest
subdistricts within these impoverished districts. In selecting schools, district education
officials conducted site visits to check the actual conditions on the ground and the level
of community involvement. Interviews with MONE, school, and district officials
indicated that schools in areas where community involvement needs improvement were
often considered candidates as project schools. MONE pointed out that the Ministry of
Religious Affairs (MORAs) weak regulation of madrasah posed challenges during
project implementation, noting MORAs lack of clear guidelines for the establishment
of new madrasah. 25 According to interviews with stakeholders, since the project
provided grants that a school could use depending on its need, some new schools were
25
During the study teams interviews, MONE said it follows certain criteria in establishing public schools,
examining first the number of prospective students and the number of students already absorbed by
existing schools. For example, there should be at least three primary schools in an area to allow for the
construction of a junior secondary school. Moreover, the distance between the new and existing junior
secondary school should be 5 kilometers. Unless existing schools do not meet minimum service standards
or cannot accommodate the number of students, the request for a new school is rejected. In contrast,
according to interviews with MONE officials, Islamic schools were built even if they were just 100 meters
away from an existing one.
built in order to access the block grant. In Lombok, anecdotal evidence reveals that one
primary Islamic school split into two. To address this problem, MONE issued a policy
that only schools already existing for 5 years can access the block grant.
57.
In selecting poor students, schools usually obtained student socioeconomic
data during enrollment, including household income and parents employment status.
Students who are orphans are often accorded priority, according to interviews with
stakeholders. School officials also conducted house visits to verify students living
conditions. Since the grants provided under the project are relatively small, it was
imperative to be highly selective of the project districts and schools, as the interviews
reveal.
58.
The projects design was also able to accommodate emergency needs for
school infrastructure rehabilitation in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami
that hit Aceh and North Sumatra in December 2004. As discussed in Chapter 2, loan
and grant savings were used to rebuild damaged schools. About 42 schools were
reconstructed in the affected areas and a model for earthquake-resistant school
buildings was developed.
C.
Effectiveness
59.
The project is assessed as effective. This evaluation found evidence that
education outcomes, including enrollment, completion, transition, and performance in
selected beneficiary districts, improved after project implementation. Interviewed
stakeholders deemed enhanced school capacity to formulate school development plans
and greater community involvement in education concerns to be the projects most
important contributions.
60.
Improved education outcomes. Access to basic education improved in the
beneficiary provinces (Table 4). Between 2001 and 2011, net enrollment rates at
primary level increased in NTB and NTT but slightly decreased in Bali. Primary net
enrollment in NTT and Bali remained slightly below the national average in 2011. Net
enrollment at the secondary level increased in all three provinces during 20012011.
NTTs secondary net enrollment increased from 38.0% in 2001 to 60.9% in 2011 but
remained below the national average over the last decade.
61.
Completion rates have also improved. NTT saw a notable increase in the
secondary completion rate from 92.8% in 2001 to 97.7% in 2011. However, both
primary and secondary completion rates in NTT and NTB remained below the national
average in 2011, while Balis were higher than the national average in that same year
(Table 5).
Item
2001
Bali
Primary
93.02
Secondary
69.19
Nusa Tenggara Barat
Primary
91.74
Secondary
56.95
Nusa Tenggara Timur
Primary
88.52
Secondary
38.00
Indonesia
Primary
92.88
Secondary
60.47
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
92.68
67.97
91.73
69.12
93.67
70.75
93.36
69.75
93.33
70.15
94.02
73.97
94.78
67.63
92.18
75.54
90.91
77.10
91.07
73.27
92.65
60.28
92.20
61.21
91.58
61.08
93.32
69.38
94.50
69.62
95.47
67.00
94.50
71.66
94.71
77.84
95.65
79.49
94.15
75.29
87.44
40.89
88.88
41.16
90.68
44.22
92.16
43.30
91.58
47.23
91.57
38.68
92.01
49.71
89.61
51.20
91.34
52.15
91.58
60.89
92.70
61.69
92.55
63.49
93.04
65.24
93.25
65.37
93.54
66.52
93.66
66.13
94.15
67.26
91.76
67.97
91.55
69.67
92.00
69.83
Source: Study teams calculations based on national socioeconomic survey data.
Table 5: Completion Rates in Selected Provinces, 20012011

(%)
Item
2001
Bali
Primary
98.61
Secondary
97.83
Nusa Tenggara Barat
Primary
98.35
Secondary
92.62
Nusa Tenggara Timur
Primary
97.70
Secondary
92.77
Indonesia
Primary
98.54
Secondary
96.16
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
98.56
97.57
98.77
98.16
98.94
97.77
98.94
97.32
98.83
96.90
99.12
99.14
99.28
93.12
99.01
99.07
99.26
99.27
99.49
98.90
98.26
94.79
97.59
94.89
97.90
95.48
98.77
97.01
98.57
97.22
98.76
97.29
99.16
95.60
99.91
96.94
99.20
97.79
98.89
96.81
97.52
97.11
97.74
96.40
98.19
97.30
98.62
97.31
98.38
97.17
97.82
97.88
98.88
95.37
98.00
95.98
98.46
98.00
98.72
97.73
98.27
97.09
98.54
97.18
98.68
97.50
98.92
96.92
98.70
97.11
99.04
97.08
99.18
95.66
98.97
97.01
98.84
97.50
99.05
96.96
Source: Study teams calculations based on national socioeconomic survey data.
Table 4: Net Enrollment Rates in Selected Provinces, 20012011

(%)
62.
National exam scores also improved, indicating better student performance.26
Although average scores in Bali and NTB were lower than the national average in 2001,
they were higher than that average in 2012. NTTs average exam scores were lower
than the national average in 2012 (Table 6).
Table 6: National Exam Scores in Selected Provinces
Average
(2001)
6.48
Average
(2012)
8.06
Percentage
Increase
24.38
Nusa Tenggara Barat
6.32
7.87
24.52
Nusa Tenggara Timur
6.83
7.48
14.37
Province
Bali
Indonesia
6.54
Sources: Study teams calculations based on data from Indonesian Family

and Life Survey and Ministry of National Education.
63.
Improvements in enrollment, primary completion, junior secondary transition,
and exam scores were observed in selected project districts after the project was
implemented. Tables 7 and 8 present the education outcomes in 56 surveyed project
schools located in six districts before and after project implementation. These
improvements were observed both for poor students as a group and for all students.
According to stakeholder interviews, the project addressed constraints on access to
basic education, such as the poor condition of basic infrastructure and school facilities
that largely prevented children from going to school or held down their national exam
scores.
26
For primary school, the national examination consists of 3 subjects: mathematics, Indonesian language,
and science. Each has a maximum score of 10, hence a students maximum score on the national
examination will be 30. For junior secondary school, there are 4 subjects, namely mathematics, Indonesian
language, science, and English (maximum of 40). Prior to 2003, the subjects examined at national level
were 5 for primary school (moral education, Indonesian language, mathematics, social science, and
science), and 6 for secondary school (moral education, Indonesian language, mathematics, social science,
science, and English).
Province
Bali
Bali
Nusa Tenggara
Barat
Nusa Tenggara
Barat
Nusa Tenggara
Barat
Nusa Tenggara
Timur
Selected
Districts
Bangli
Buleleng
Enrollment (District Average:

children/year/school)
Before DBEP
After DBEP
30
32
39
46
Completion (District
Average: children/year)
Before DBEP
After DBEP
38
43
42
52
Transition (District
Before DBEP
After DBEP
26
29
34
38
National Exam Score (District

Before DBEP
After DBEP
6.85
6.78
6.7
7.14
West Lombok
50
45
43
51
34
36
6.46
7.28
East Lombok
45
45
50
56
38
39
6.54
7.23
Mataram
Timor Tengah
Utara
49
49
63
55
45
47
6.84
6.54
43
44
26
55
11
33
6.4
7.32
DBEP = Decentralized Basic Education Project.

Note: Enrollment estimates refer to the average number of children enrolled in a primary school in the district in the given periods. Completion estimates are for the primary level,
while transition estimates are for junior secondary level. For the national exam score, the average score all of the subjects covered under the examination was used, with 10 being
the maximum score. See footnote 26 for the description of Indonesias national exam.
Source: Study teams calculations based on a survey done by the team for 56 randomly selected project schools in the six districts.
Table 8: Changes in Education Outcomes before and after Project Implementation for Poor Students in Selected Districts
Province
Bali
Bali
Nusa
Tenggara
Barat
Nusa
Tenggara
Barat
Nusa
Tenggara
Barat
Nusa
Tenggara
Timur
Selected
Districts
Bangli
Buleleng
West Lombok
East Lombok
Mataram
Timor Tengah
Utara
Enrollment (District Average:

children/year/school)
Before DBEP
After DBEP
26
26
23
26
Completion (District
Before DBEP
After DBEP
30
25
25
30
Transition (District
Before DBEP After DBEP
23
24
19
21
National Exam Score (District

Before DBEP
After DBEP
6.88
6.70
5.95
6.84
24
28
23
31
16
21
5.93
6.82
23
28
23
26
17
21
6.28
7.07
35
36
25
25
25
25
6.63
6.70
26
29
17
30
28
6.98
7.23

Note: Enrollment estimates refer to the average number of children enrolled in a primary school in the district in the given periods. Completion estimates are for the primary level,
while transition estimates are for junior secondary level. For the national exam score, the average score all of the subjects covered under the examination was used, with 10 being
the maximum score. See footnote 26 for the description of Indonesias national exam.
Source: Study teams calculations based on a survey done by the team for 56 randomly selected project schools in the six districts.
Table 7: Changes in Education Outcomes before and after Project Implementation for All Students in Selected Districts
64.
A paired t-test analysis was made to determine whether the changes in the
education outcomes of the surveyed districts were statistically significant. The statistical
analysis was used to determine whether the mean education outcomes improved after
the project was implemented. It was carried out using data from 56 project schools
selected using both probabilistic and non-probabilistic approaches to ensure that each
school in each province had an equal opportunity to be selected as part of the sample.
The impact of the project on education outcomes was examined in the selected
schools, doing so for all students and for poor students as a group.27
65.
The findings suggest that the project had an impact on education outcomes for
all students in those districts examined (Table 9). Specifically, there is sufficient
evidence that average education outcomes in the selected districts were significantly
higher after the project was implemented than before it was carried out.28 Increased
enrollment indicates that students had greater access to basic education, while
increased transition and completion indicate greater opportunities for these students to
finish basic education. Improved performance can also be observed in a rise in national
exam scores. Among school participation outcomes, the highest average difference was
observed on completion, followed by transition.
Table 9: Paired t-test for All Students at District Level
Variable
Enrollment
Completion
Transition
National exam score
Average
Before
DBEP
41.75
42.18
30.03
6.65
Average
After
DBEP
43.29
51.54
36.79
7.04
Difference
-1.54a
-9.36a
-6.76a
-0.39a
Standard
Error
0.44
1.55
1.06
0.06
tstatistic
-3.52
-6.03
-6.39
-6.48
Probability
(T<t)
0.0004
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

Notes: H0: outcomes before DBEP = 0; Ha: outcomes after DBEP <0; degrees of freedom = 55.
a
Estimates are statistically highly significant at 1% significance level.
Source: Study teams calculations based on a survey done by the team for 56 randomly selected project
schools in six districts: Bangli, Buleleng, East Lombok, Mataram, Timor Tengah Utara, and West Lombok.
66.
The findings of the paired t-test analysis also show that the project helped
increase access of the poor to basic education in the selected districts (Table 10). The
increase in transition indicates greater opportunities for these poor students to
complete basic education. The project also helped improve the performance of poor
students in the national exam. Improvements in transition and completion were most
notable among the enhanced education outcomes for poor students.
Table 10: Paired t-test for Poor Students at District Level
Variable
Enrollment
Completion
Transition
National exam score
Average
Before
DBEP
26.45
23.92
18.20
6.45
Average
After
DBEP
28.75
28.06
23.50
6.88
Difference
-2.30a
-4.14a
-5.30a
-0.43a
Standard
Error
0.19
0.81
0.92
0.06
tstatistic
-12.23
-5.11
-5.73
-7.41
Probability
(T<t)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

Note: H0: outcomes before DBEP = 0; Ha: outcomes after DBEP< 0; degrees of freedom = 55.
a
Estimates are highly statistically significant at 1% significance level.
Source: Study teams calculations based on a survey done by the team for 56 randomly selected project
schools in six districts: Bangli, Buleleng, East Lombok, Mataram, Timor Tengah Utara, and West Lombok.
27
28
During the mission, the study team gathered data on education outcomes in the 56 selected schools for
20002013.
The statistical analysis was conducted using STATA version 13.1.
Specifically, there
is sufficient
evidence that
average
education
outcomes in the
selected districts
were significantly
higher after the
project was
implemented
than before it
was carried out

67.
School development. The project developed the schools capacity in
determining priority education challenges and identifying corresponding strategies to
address them. It provided school officials with training on how to formulate school
development plans, involve communities in preparation of the plans, and monitor
progress of the schools development. The interviewed principals noted that some ADB
consultants were easily accessible for consultation and queries even beyond working
hours. Given these contributions, the project effectively paved the way for
implementation of school-based management in Bali, NTB, and NTT. Just 2 years into
project implementation, such management was made official national policy in 2003.
68.
The project has also effectively changed the mind-set of both school- and
district-level officials in implementing school-based management. The projects
condition requiring schools to develop school development plans before they could
access block grants bolstered the capacity and decision-making skills at school level.
School development plans have become the most important consideration when
selecting priority school programs, according to the interviews. School development
plans examined by the evaluation team were deemed comprehensive. Their content
covered the identified education problems, corresponding strategies to address these
problems, work schedule, budget, and monitoring schedule.
69.
The flexibility in the use of the block grants helped enhance the capacity of
schools in basic education management. Such flexibility allowed project schools to
determine priority needs and design innovative activities to address them, as interviews
with stakeholders revealed. In contrast, such other transfers from the central
government to schools as School Operational Assistance Program (BOS) grants employ
more rigid regulations regarding those activities they can be used to fund.
While the
projects block
grants were
mostly used for
rehabilitation of
school facilities,
some schools
adopted
innovative
approaches for
school
improvement
70.
While the projects block grants were mostly used for rehabilitation of school
facilities, some schools adopted innovative approaches for school improvement.
Anecdotal evidence gathered by the evaluation team reveals that a school in Anjani,
East Lombok used the block grant to address malnutrition among its students, 30.0%
of whom were found to be malnourished following medical checkups. The school
therefore used the block grant in conducting a lunch-feeding program to address this
problem. Some schools in Bangli, Bali used their block grants to send teachers to
remote communities. Since these communities had no schools and children had to walk
several miles to reach the nearest school, these schools used the grants to dispatch
teachers who went to and taught children in these remote areas. According to the
World Banks school-based management national survey in Indonesia from 2010,
budget allocation is one of those areas where school principals perceived they have
high autonomy in decision making. On average, 90.0% of principals said they had
decision-making authority in allocating the school budget, recruiting teachers, setting
the school vision and curriculum, and selecting textbooks and teaching materials.29
71.
The project was also effective in inducing communities to participate actively in
school development through the formation of school committees. School committees
usually are comprised of community leaders, local entrepreneurs, teachers, parents,
and heads of villages or districts. According to the World Bank survey, parents account
for roughly 75.0% of school committee members, followed by council representatives
at 20.0% and teachers at 4.0%. The representation of the stakeholders is even more
29
The World Bank school-based management national survey used data from a nationally representative
survey of about 400 public primary schools in Indonesia. The World Bank commissioned the RAND
Corporation to conduct the survey. See Karam, K., Marshall, J., and Vernez, G. 2012. Implementation of
School-based Management in Indonesia. RAND Corporation.
varied, as parents also serve in such other functions as religious leaders or
representatives of nongovernment organizations (footnote 29).
72.
School committees were actively engaged in the formulation and subsequent
revisions, if necessary, of school development plans. Although schools were not
required to report on achievements against their school development plans, according
to interviews with stakeholders, school committees, along with principals, local
government officials, and ADB staff and consultants, contributed to the formulation
and subsequent revisions, if necessary, of the plans.
73.
Local ownership of the project as fostered by community participation in school
development also increased the communities commitment to contribute to the project
voluntarily. Through the school committees, community members contributed labor
and other in-kind assistance to support school projects. Stakeholders also deemed
community involvement as having a significant effect on education quality. With the
introduction of BOS, however, schools have been expected to eliminate tuition fees or
other compulsory payments from parents.30 To some extent, this might have inhibited
some parents who would like to assist the school financially. Nevertheless, the central
government still permits schools to receive voluntary contributions from community
members for school development.
74.
District basic education development. Interviewed stakeholders reported that
district education offices primary role under the project dealt with the provision of
training, particularly in teacher development and evaluation of school development
plans. The district education offices were much involved in evaluating school
development plans and accordingly provided feedback to schools. Monitoring duties by
supervisors and district staff also included providing feedback on principal and teacher
performance, checking on the conditions of school facilities, monitoring or observing
classrooms and instruction, assessing teacher training needs, and reviewing and
approving the school budget (footnote 29).
75.
The District Education Development Fund had been used to finance activities
related to the district education officers capacity building such as trainings or
seminars. The fund had also been used to assist teachers and school principals in
improving the quality of education. Its support for training teachers, school principals,
and supervisors included contextual teaching and learning, in-service training,
competency-based training, mastery of teaching and learning materials, evaluation,
and classroom management, among others. The training was provided to both project
and non-project schools in a district, expanding capacity in both. Interviews with
stakeholders revealed that district education boards are still in place as they are
mandated under Ministerial Regulation No. 044/2002. As noted in the PCR, however, a
new regulation on the management of education (PP 17/2010) made funding of the
district education boards by districts discretionary and reduced the number of board
members.
76.
The projects impact on capacitating district education offices to produce 5year district education development plans and 5-year annual action plans was less
notable than that of other outputs. As noted in the PCR, the district education
development plans were supposed to be revised annually, but this was not done in all
districts. Instead, districts base their annual implementation on the governments
annual work plan, in line with government procedures. Moreover, only a few districts
30
World Bank. 2010. Supporting the BOS Program. Education Update. Issue No. 01. Jakarta

integrate school development plans into their annual work plans. In 2012, just 12.0%
of districts consolidated school development plans for use in their district education
planning process. 31 Despite this, those district officials interviewed said the training
they received in formulating development plans proved useful, as district education
offices are required by law since 2004 to create development plans.
77.
Challenges at the district level on decentralizing basic education have been
observed. One of thesehigh staff turnover at the district levelhas hampered the
projects capacity building efforts. Local district leaders, including mayors or heads of
district education offices, have full authority to move officers in various units or
departments, including principals and district education staff. In some districts, there
was insufficient knowledge transfer. However, in some districts in which the project
was supported by a team of district education staff, the remaining staff members were
able to keep up with progress.
78.
Second, some districts have too many teachers and others too few since
teacher deployment and mobilization have also come under the authority of every
district government. Moreover, education appointments are perceived to be politicized
in that they are made by district heads. According to interviewees, some staff
appointments are based on political ties.
79.
Third, district governments have yet to maximize their education budgets and a
huge portion is spent on personnel. District governments allocate some 30%40% of
their budgets to education. Because around 85% of their education budgets is spent on
personnel costs, limited funds are left for education development.32
80.
Fourth, there are flaws in information systems that project districts use to track
and publish statistics. Data-keeping has been a problem, as documents are discarded or
deleted after 5 years due to storage issues. Stakeholders reported that no soft copies of
data are available.
31
32
The figure is based on a World Bank survey of 50 Indonesian districts on the quality of local education
governance. See World Bank. 2013. Local Governance and Education Performance: A Survey of the Quality
of Local Education Governance in 50 Indonesian Districts. Jakarta.
Ministry of Education and Culture. 2013. Overview of the Education Sector in Indonesia 2012:
Achievements and Challenges. Jakarta.
D.
Efficiency
81.
The project is rated efficient. Despite the limited amount of grants, the project
achieved notable results in enhancing local capacity for education governance and
improving school infrastructure. Especially considering that the grants provided under
the project were spread over a 3-year period, some stakeholders noted these to be
quite small. Interviews with Ministry of National Education, school, and district officials
revealed that some Rp20 million to Rp25 million is usually required to rehabilitate one
classroom in an elementary school (measuring 8 x 7 meters) and Rp30 million to Rp35
million for one classroom in a junior secondary school (measuring 9 x 7 meters). Since a
block grant amounted to around Rp90 million rupiah, three to four classrooms could
be rehabilitated. The PCR nevertheless pointed out that junior secondary school
facilities improved, in particular within NTT, with 80% of junior secondary schools
having administrative offices and 60% having libraries and science laboratories.
Moreover, community support helped lower the costs of rehabilitating facilities, as
some parents or school committee members offered in-kind assistance such as free
labor. In addition to contributing to school infrastructure, the project made huge
contributions in improving schools and districts capacity for local education delivery.
82.
Indeed, it is impossible for the project to address all the education-related
infrastructure requirements in Bali, NTB, and NTT. Continued rehabilitation of school
facilities is imperative, and particularly for those in impoverished areas such as a school
in the city of Kefamenanu, district of Timor Tenga Utara, in NTT, which the evaluation
team visited and found to have some classrooms that were badly damaged (Figure 6).
As stated, the government has recently scaled up its efforts to rehabilitate schools in
the country.
Figure 6: Condition of Classrooms in Timor Tengah Utara,
Nusa Tenggara Timur, 2014
Source: Study team, taken during the evaluation mission.
Despite the
limited amount
of grants, the
project achieved
notable results in
enhancing local
capacity for
education
governance and
improving school
infrastructure

83.
The PCR pointed out that progress under the loan was initially slow, but the
pace did pick up throughout execution. On the other hand, the grant project required
two extensions to achieve project objectives. The grants shorter implementation period
of only 2.5 years proved inadequate for severely poor and often inaccessible districts.
As noted in the PCR, funds were generally disbursed on time and the full budget
allocation, as well as most of the additional funds made available by the rising
exchange rate, was used each year. There had been an 11.0% increase from the
appraisal amount of the project.33 The increase was actually 29.6% of the base cost of
the project, the largest share of which was attributed to the payment for international
consultants that was 127.0% of the appraisal amount. The person-months of the
consultants, on the other hand, increased by only 12.8% (from 78 person-months at
appraisal to an actual 88 person-months).
84.
The external auditor found a few problems with procurement. Most of those
problems identified related to overpayment for workshops and training. Under the loan
component, 57 audit casesrelating mostly to fund misuse due to overpayment,
unclaimed penalties, and undeposited bank interestwere identified. Under the grant
component, 18 cases were identified. All 75 identified cases (involving less than 1.5%
of schools) were resolved.
E.
The projects
spillover effects
are particularly
notable in school
development plan
formulation,
which has been
assimilated even
by non-project
schools and has
become standard
practice among
schools in the
country
Sustainability
85.
The project is rated likely sustainable. Its contributions to improving capacity
for local education governance are reinforced by continued transfer of knowledge
between school and district officials who received training and their counterparts who
were not beneficiaries of the project. According to interviews, teachers from project
schools often serve as trainers in a forum called Teacher Networks or MGMP
(Musyawarah Guru Mata Pelajaran). MGMP is a non-structural organization established
in accordance with 1991 guidelines issued by the Directorate General of Primary and
Secondary Education, and it seeks to promote teacher professionalism.
86.
Moreover, the projects spillover effects are particularly notable in school
development plan formulation, which has been assimilated even by non-project schools
and has become standard practice among schools in the country. Continued
community involvement in school development through the school committees also
constitutes an important aspect of the project outputs sustainability. School
committees remain part of the formulation process of school activity and budget plans,
which are similar to school development plans. School committees also take part in
decision making on the use of BOS grants, which, according to interviews with
stakeholders, must be based on agreement between the BOS management team in the
school, teachers council, and school committee.
87.
In contrast to the PCRs finding that some stakeholders had deemed the project
activities unsustainable without project support, certain activities funded by the block
grants are still being implemented. In particular, support for poor students through
scholarships, transport allowances, remedial programs, catch-up programs, and
tutoring for students missing school are still being provided by some schools.34 The
central and district governments provide the bulk of funding to support continued
33
34
In the PCR (Appendix 4), the subtotal of the actual foreign base cost was reported to be $23.399 million.
When the evaluation team recalculated the reported table, however, the actual foreign base cost was
supposed to have been $23.401 million. This $2,000 difference was equal to Rp 18,840,000.
The study team surveyed 56 selected schools. Some 64% indicated that activities for poor students are still
being implemented even after project completion.
implementation of activities targeting poor students (Figure 7). District governments,
donor agencies, or local communities also provide funding to such initiatives.
Figure 7: Project Schools Sources of Funding for
Continued Assistance to Poor Students (%)
4%
Ministry of Education
13%
35%
District government
17%
Donor agencies
Local communities and parents
31%
Other sources
Source: Study teams calculations based on a survey of 56 schools.
88.
The maintenance and rehabilitation of school facilities does not appear to be a
priority of schools. Primary schools use about 8.0% of BOS grants for the maintenance
of school facilities compared to 19.0% for examination activities and 13.0% for teacher
honoraria. BOS grants can be utilized only for facility maintenance and small repairs
such as painting or repairing a leaky roof.35 As already mentioned, however, the central
government recently scaled up its efforts to rehabilitate school infrastructure.
35
World Bank. 2011. Independent Monitoring Report: BOS Program Implementation 20082009. Jakarta
(World Bank Office in Indonesia).
CHAPTER 4
Other Assessment
A.
Impact
89.
The projects impact is rated significant. As discussed in Chapter 3, improved
education outcomes have been observed in the provinces of Bali, NTB, and NTT.
Improvements in enrollment, transition, completion, and exam scores indicate students
enhanced access to and greater opportunities to complete basic education, as well as
their better learning performance.
90.
Moreover, the project made pioneering contributions in improving local
education governance capacity. At the start of project implementation in 2001, very
few school officials were knowledgeable about decentralization of basic education,
according to interviews with stakeholders. At the time, the project was the only
available platform where schools were invited to discuss and suggest their needs to the
government. Moreover, the projects contributions to enhancing local capacity for
decentralized basic education have been extended to non-project schools and districts.
91.
Most importantly, the project has influenced government policies related to
decentralizing basic education. The project piloted the concept of school-based
management in Bali, NTB, and NTT by improving schools capacity to formulate school
development plans and encouraging community involvement in school development
prior to enactment of the National Education System Law in 2003. That law stipulates
the promotion of school-based management. Similarly, BOS partly adopted the
projects block grant system. Also, Regulation Number 101 for 2013 of the Ministry of
Education and Culture (Chapter 3, section E, Number 3) states schools must provide
school activity and budget plans, which are essentially similar to school development
plans, for liquidation of the BOS. While those plans formats may different from that of
school development plans, the project has helped develop school officials capacity in
preparing such plans.
B.
ADB and Executing Agency Performance
The Asian Development Banks (ADB) performance is rated less than

satisfactory. High turnover of ADBs project officersseven in totalhampered
92.
effective and continued project supervision and management. Such frequent changes
in ADB project officers also caused difficulties in communication between ADB and
MONE. As the project was managed directly from ADB headquarters in Manila, the
Indonesia Resident Missions role largely was to facilitate communication between
MONE and ADB staff at headquarters. The resident missions responsibilities and
contributions could have been maximized by tapping resident mission staff for project
management and monitoring tasks.
Other Assessment 31
93.
The performance of MONE, the executing agency, is rated satisfactory. MONE
initially encountered difficulties in managing consultants and gathering data, but
eventually it gained sufficient capacity as project implementation progressed. MONE
reported facing challenges, particularly in coordinating with MORA, the projects coexecuting agency. Since MORA is one of five state ministries not decentralized under
the law, structural misalignment limits the capacity of MONE and MORA to coordinate
their functions relating to decentralized basic education. MORAs provincial offices are
largely responsible for madrasah, while MONEs district-level officials are responsible to
manage schools under their jurisdictions. MORAs district offices can play only an
operational role in implementing education policies developed by its central and
provincial offices.
94.
Coordination between MONE and MORA in involving provincial MORA officials
in local educational development planning exercises is contingent on the attitude and
relationships of individuals in the respective offices.36 Contact between madrasah and
MONEs district education offices is also generally limited. Moreover, while MONE is
focused solely on the delivery of education services, MORA performs multiple religionrelated functions and only oversees Islamic education through a single directorate
general. As such, MORA has relatively less resources, expertise, and institutional
structure to ensure the same level of government service provision for Islamic schools
that general schools receive from MONE (footnote 36).
36
United States Agency for International Development. 2007. Analysis of the Current Situation of Islamic
Formal Junior Secondary Education in Indonesia. Washington, DC.
Since MORA is
one of five state
ministries not
decentralized
under the law,
structural
misalignment
limits the
capacity of
MONE and
MORA to
coordinate their
functions relating
to decentralized
basic education
CHAPTER 5
Issues, Lessons, and

Follow-up Actions
A.
Issues
95.
The project sought to promote decentralization of basic education in Indonesia
primarily by improving local capacity at the school and district levels for basic
education management. This evaluation found that the implementation of
decentralized basic education in Indonesia continues to face challenges.
96.
First, coordinating the functions and authority over basic education services
between local and central governments is an area of concern. District governments
now wield the greatest authority in basic education, as interviews with stakeholders
revealed. How to coordinate central and district governments authority and
responsibilities in managing basic education services is a concern. This problem is
clearly highlighted in decentralizations impact on teacher policy and student mobility.
Although decentralization has made it easier for teachers to be redeployed within a
district, transferring teachers between districts has reportedly become more difficult
after decentralization. 37 Even if one district has many teachers and a neighboring
district lacks teachers, teachers cannot be moved because they are under district
authority. Similarly, student mobility is hampered. Students cannot move from one
district to another, because each district usually has a quota for students coming from
other districts.
97.
Second, the election of district officials in Indonesia has somewhat affected the
decentralization of basic education services. Although electing district officials supports
the participation of local communities in democratic processes and ensures they have a
voice in decision making, interviews with stakeholders highlighted that some district
officials try to drum up support at election time through promises of free education.
Given the notion of free education, some community members are reluctant to
contribute toward school development. Furthermore, interviews with stakeholders
revealed that some district officials appoint staff based on political ties, including of
those involved in delivering basic education.
98.
Third, interviews with stakeholders revealed that schools appear to be more
compliant with the district governments than the central government. Although district
authorities are now responsible for managing basic education services, the central
government maintains certain responsibilities in decentralized basic education
management, particularly in monitoring the delivery and quality of education services.
37
J. Tobias et al. 2014. Toward Improving Education Quality: Indonesias Promising Path. Working Papers in
Economics and Development Studies No. 201412. Bandung: Department of Economics, Padjadjaran
University.
Issues, Lessons, and Follow-up Actions 33

Prior to decentralization, the central government sent local governments
questionnaires, which the latter would send to schools. Today, it is often much more
difficult for the central government to request data from schools, such as on school
profile. The central government through MONE has established the online school
database Dapodik (Data Pokok Pendidikan), but it is still not easy to obtain data from
schools.
B.
Lessons
99.
The project provides some important lessons for promoting decentralized basic
education management in Indonesia. The PCR identified key lessons, including the
importance of (i) flexible management by ADB and the government, coupled with good
communication from the project team that enabled the project to maintain its rationale
and objectives despite changing legal and administrative environments; (ii) systematic
record keeping, given the poor documentation and recording of data on project
activities, outputs, and outcomes at the central and district levels; (iii) improving data
quality and the use of data in planning and management in districts; (iv) clearly
explaining project objectives to stakeholders, as the project was primarily regarded as a
funding mechanism and the goal of district capacity development was deemphasized;
and (v) integrating project funds and activities into government processes, which could
have further improved district capacity building.
100.
In addition to these, this evaluation has identified the following lessons. One,
decentralization of basic education can be bolstered through strong collaboration
between MORA and MONE. To address the structural misalignment between MONE
and MORA, the role of provincial governments in decentralized basic education should
be strengthened, particularly in monitoring and evaluation. The Indonesian government
appears to be moving toward intensifying the delegation of authority to provincial
governments in basic education. From 2014, provincial governments have full authority
in preparing the materials for the primary school final examination and oversee the
district governments implementation of this examination, as stipulated in Ministerial
Regulation No. 102/2013 and another regulation of the head of the MONE Research
and Development Center.
101.
Two, good technological infrastructure at the school and district levels can help
address concerns about data management. MONE has implemented the Dapodik
online school database system. Schools are required regularly to submit data to this
system. However, many schools do not have access to the internet to accomplish this
task. School staff must also be capacitated to utilize this online database effectively.
102.
Three, effective capacity building efforts are contingent on consistent
supervision and support. High staff turnover among ADBs project officers and district
governments tended to hamper effective communication and rapport-building among
stakeholders. Consequently, this disrupted efforts to promote decentralized basic
education management. Means of effective transfer and sharing of knowledge
through, for instance, continued training are imperative. For ADBs part, increasing the
role of the Indonesia Resident Mission to include project management and monitoring
responsibilities could have helped address project implementation issues. As discussed
earlier, the project was managed directly from ADBs headquarters in Manila.
Moreover, ADB could have exerted greater efforts in disseminating knowledge products
to further promote the sharing of lessons learned and best practices in decentralized
basic management to other Indonesian provinces or countries similarly endeavoring to
decentralize basic education delivery and management.

C.
Follow-up Actions
103.
The evaluation proposes the three follow-up actions for ADB to pursue given its
continuing support for education-oriented projects in Indonesia. Effective
decentralization of basic education largely hinges on collaboration between MONE and
MORA, which needs to be improved. MORA remains centralized, while MONE has
already been decentralized. ADB should support measures to improve the coordination
between the two ministries. When implementing education interventions, ADB should
help strengthen the role of provincial governments in decentralized basic education,
particularly in monitoring and evaluation. Sharing more information regarding the best
practices of national education management between the two ministries can help
improve their coordination.
104.
ADBs efforts to further improve access to basic education in Indonesia should
be complemented with continued investments in enhancing transport and
technological infrastructure and school facilities. Improving transport infrastructure
such as roads, and particularly in remote areas, would allow more students to continue
their studies to junior secondary schools, which are normally located in the subdistrict
capital city. The technological infrastructure of schools should also be enhanced to
improve their access to and utilization of the online Dapodik system so that school data
are regularly updated. Moreover, support is necessary for continued school
rehabilitation work, including in such remote areas as those in Bali, NTB, and NTT. ADB
should align its education interventions with programs by the government or other
development partners in these areas.
105.
If ADBs Human and Social Development Division of the Southeast Asia
Department will examine whether future ADB support is still required toward
decentralization of basic education in Indonesia, it should consider the challenges
which the decentralized system continues to face. These include the impact of
decentralization on teacher policy and perceived politicization of appointments made
by district governments in the education area.
Appendixes
APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY DESIGN AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK

Design Summary
1. Impact
To support the
governments goal of
achieving universal basic
education that serves the
needs of poor and
marginalized people and
is responsive to local
needs
Performance Indicators and Targets

Improved indicators for gross
enrollment rates of 120.7% for
primary education and 78.9% for
junior secondary education
PCR/PPER Update
Gross Enrollment Rate, by Province and School Type
Province
2010 2011 2012
Primary
Bali
95.53 90.39 91.06
Nusa Tenggara Barat
95.16 92.69 94.56
Nusa Tenggara Timur
93.03 92.13 92.28
Indonesia
94.76 91.03 92.49
Junior Secondary
Bali
67.83 69.16 75.07
Nusa Tenggara Barat
71.73 76.70 77.81
Nusa Tenggara Timur
51.03 56.74 55.89
Indonesia
67.73 68.12 70.84
2013
94.28
96.63
93.60
95.53
80.69
80.18
59.24
73.72
Source: Indonesian Statistics Office.
Improved human development

indicators in targeted provinces and
districts
Human Development Indicators, by Province

Province
2010
Bali
72.28
Nusa Tenggara Barat
65.20
Nusa Tenggara Timur
67.26
Indonesia
72.27
2011
72.84
66.23
67.75
72.77
Sustainability
While targets for gross
enrollment rate may
not have been
achieved, the impact
is sustainable,
especially considering
the long-term effects
of these
improvements on
education outcomes
in terms of, for
instance,
employability.
2012
73.49
66.89
68.28
73.29
2. Outcome
Poor childrens
participation, transition,
completion, and
performance in basic
education in Bali, Nusa
Tengarra Barat (NTB), and
Nusa Tengarra Timor
(NTT) improved
In each project district:

increased net enrollment rates;
improved primary completion rates
and junior secondary graduation
rates;
improved primary to junior
secondary transition rates; and
improved 6th- and 9th-grade
national examination scores
Net Enrollment Rate, by Province and School Type

Province
2010
2011
Primary
Bali
95.53
90.39
Nusa Tenggara Barat
95.16
92.69
Nusa Tenggara Timur
93.03
92.13
Indonesia
94.76
91.03
Bali
Nusa Tenggara Barat
Nusa Tenggara Timur
Indonesia
Junior Secondary
67.83
69.16
71.73
76.70
51.03
56.74
67.73
68.12
2012
2013
91.06
93.56
92.28
92.49
94.28
96.63
93.60
95.53
75.07
77.81
55.89
70.84
80.69
80.18
59.24
73.72
2010
2011
99.26
99.49
Completion Rates, by Province and School Type

Province
2008
2009
Primary
Bali
98.28 99.01
Improvements in
education outcomes
among the poor are
expected to have
long-term impacts, for
instance on
employability and
inequality.
Design Summary

Nusa Tenggara Barat
Nusa Tenggara Timur
Indonesia
Bali
Nusa Tenggara Barat
Nusa Tenggara Timur
Indonesia
PCR/PPER Update
99.16 99.91
98.88 98.00
99.18 98.97
Junior Secondary
93.12 99.07
95.60 96.94
95.37 95.98
95.66 97.01
Sustainability
99.20
98.46
98.84
98.89
98.72
99.05
99.27
97.79
98.00
97.50
98.90
96.81
97.73
96.96
Source: Study teams calculations based on national socioeconomic survey

data.
National Exam Scores, by Province

Province
Bali
Nusa Tenggara Barat
Nusa Tenggara Timur
Indonesia
Average
(2000)
6.48
6.32
6.54
Average
(2012)
8.06
7.87
6.83
7.48
Source: Study teams calculations based on national socioeconomic survey

data.
Net Enrollment Rate for Poorest 40% of Students, by Province and

School Type
Province
2000
2003
2006
Primary
Bali
92
92
93
Nusa Tenggara Barat
89
92
94
Nusa Tenggara Timur
89
88
92
Indonesia
92
93
94
Junior Secondary
Bali
58
54
51
Nusa Tenggara Barat
53
51
66
Nusa Tenggara Timur
27
34
41
Indonesia
51
55
59
Source: ADB. 2012. Completion Report: Indonesia: Decentralized Basic
Education Project. Manila.
Examination Scores and Transition Rates for Poor Students in NTT,

by School Year and School type
05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09
Examination Score
Primary
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.9
Junior Secondary
5.7
5.7
5.0
5.7
Summary Design and Monitoring Framework 37
Among children from the poorest

40% of families:
increased net enrollment rates;
improved primary completion rates
and junior secondary graduation
rates;
improved primary to junior
secondary transition rates; and
improved 6th- and 9th-grade
national examination scores
PCR/PPER Update
Transition Rate
Primary
94
96
96
Junior Secondary
88
91
87
Sustainability
97
94
Source: ADB. 2012. Completion Report: Indonesia: Decentralized Basic

Education Project. Manila.
School-based
management (SBM)
implemented in project
schools
Districts in Bali, NTB, and

NTT manage
decentralized basic
education effectively
SBM implemented in about 3,000

primary and junior secondary
schools and madrasah in project
districts
SBM was implemented in 5,240 project schools.
Project schools meet minimum

conditions for learning
Small rehabilitation grants were distributed to 3,522 schools (67%)

and quality improvement grants to all schools.
Effective communityschool
partnerships
Increased funding for basic
education over 2001 levels
There was high community involvement in schools, leading to

stronger schoolcommunity partnerships.
National Education Law (2003) requires national and local
governments to allocate at least 20% of their budgets, thereby
considerably increasing district funding for education since 2001.
Data-based and goal-oriented

5-year development plans for basic
education developed
Plans for equity and quality
improvement in project districts
implemented
School development plans (SDPs) were developed by all project

schools.
All districts developed district education development plans under

the project, although the use of data was limited. Some districts
now produce annual plans in line with district budget processes
rather than district education development plans.
SBM is now a national

policy supported by
the National
Education Law
(20/2003).
Districts are mainly

focused on
monitoring and
evaluating schools
improvement plans.
There is weak capacity
at the district level for
gathering and
updating data.
Plans for equity and quality improvement in districts were

implemented.
Districts meet goals for achieving

equitable access to basic education
3. Outputs
3.1. School-based
management
implemented in schools
School baseline analysis
and needs assessment
carried out and school
development plans (SDPs)
developed
SBM implemented
Community involvement
All SDPs contain baseline analysis

and needs assessment, realistic
targets and strategies for school
improvement.
SBM implemented in schools
through:
functioning and active school
committees;
integrated school budgets;
increased decision making at school
level;
annual school staff performance
Participatory baseline studies and needs assessments were carried

out before SDPs were developed.
All schools established school committees and held regular
meetings.
In all provinces, 95% of stakeholders interviewed had attended
meetings.
Community contributions were mainly in the form of labor, while
monetary contributions were made by only 35%40% of the school
community in NTB and Bali and 25% in NTT.
SBM is now a national

policy supported by
the National
Education Law
(20/2003). The
formation of school
committees is also
stipulated under this
law. Moreover, the
practice of SDP
formulation has been
assimilated even by
non-project schools.
38 Appendix 1
Design Summary
Design Summary
in schools strengthened
3.2 School quality

improved with School
Development Fund
assistance
Improved school
effectiveness

review;
and
school-initiated innovations for
improving effectiveness
Project schools meet SDP targets for
(i) education outcomes including
enrollment, completion, transition,
exam scores, and teacher discipline;
and (ii) classroom improvement,
including classroom number,
teaching aids, and other facilities
and materials
Increased number of poor

children completing basic
education
More schools meet
minimum conditions of
learning
Education boards established with

community representation,
according to decree
District education
leadership strengthened
Project districts revise 5-year plans

regularly on the basis of up-to-date
information
5-year district basic

education development
plan completed
Information systems in
place
Timely and accurate district annual

statistics produced
See education outcomes above.

The attendance of teachers and students increased steadily every
year in the NTT districts, from an average of 83%88% to 90%
95% (not measured in loan districts).
For NTB and Bali: 90% of stakeholders reported that the conditions
of the schools, classrooms, furniture, and toilets improved. There
was less improvement in libraries and laboratories (only a
requirement for junior secondary schools). At the end of the
project, 71% of classrooms were in good condition and furniture
was available in 60%70% of schools. Availability of teaching and
learning materials improved moderately, but the needs remain
large.
For NTT: only 60% of primary and 47% of junior secondary schools
classrooms were in good condition at the end of the project, but
almost all schools had adequate furniture. The proportion of
primary schools with libraries increased from 23% to 40%, and
junior secondary schools with laboratories from 50% to 60%. Only
39% of toilets were in good condition by the end of the project.
Schools received teaching and learning materials (generally
textbooks) and science kits, but the need for other kinds of
materials remains high.
Education boards in all districts received training during the
project, including training in budget analysis. The boards work in
partnership with the district education offices to improve district
education while reporting directly to the head of the district
government. The major work of the boards revolves around
monitoring and evaluation of education programs and education
financing (School Operational Assistance Program and national
special allocation fund); capacity building and supervision of school
committees; and mediation among parents, schools, and district
education offices.
All districts prepared education development plans during the
Sustainability
Given knowledge
sharing and transfer
among school
officials, training and
capacity building
efforts are expected to
be more sustainable.
Improvements in
school facilities such
as classrooms are less
evident and
sustainable, however,
inasmuch as the block
grants provided may
be too small to
accommodate
rehabilitation and
maintenance of these
facilities.
High turnover of staff

at the district level
poses challenges on
proper transfer of
knowledge and
continued capacity
building in basic
education
management.
Summary Design and Monitoring Framework 39
3.3. District capacity to

plan and manage basic
education increased
PCR/PPER Update
3.4. District education

improved with District
Education Development
Fund assistance
Management of basic
education provision
strengthened
3.5. Effective program

and financial compliance
monitoring
Independent and internal
monitoring of
financial management
and program procedures
In district education offices, systems

in place for planning, managing,
financing, staffing, and monitoring
of:
teacher development;
school supervision;
principal recruitment, training, and
performance review;
facilities expansion and
improvement; and
district financing of education
The School Development Fund and
District Education Development
Fund are managed in compliance
with government and Asian
Development Bank requirements.
PCR/PPER Update
project, but not all districts have continued the practice after the
project.
Annual education statistics are produced in districts, albeit with a
time lag (sometimes of several years). The failure of schools to
submit information is blamed. In addition, capacity is lacking in this
area in many district education offices.
All districts have generally developed systematic approaches in all
these areas, with the weakest being teacher development.
The effectiveness of the Decentralized Basic Education Projects
programs in building the capacity of district staff was
acknowledged. All districts reported that project-trained staff are
highly regarded and keenly sought after to fill positions.
Financial compliance systems were successful. Only a small number

of cases of funds misuse were identified and all were resolved.
Sustainability
High staff turnover at

the district level poses
challenges for proper
transfer of knowledge
and continued
capacity building in
basic education
management.
Proper budgeting and

monitoring is part of
training provided
under SDP and the
projects formulation.
Note: Presentation of updates to indicators cited in the project completion report was made depending on data availability.
Sources: Study teams calculations using Indonesian Statistics Office data; ADB. 2012. Completion Report: Indonesia: Decentralized Basic Education Project. Manila.
40 Appendix 1
Design Summary
APPENDIX 2: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES

A.1
Ministry of Education
1. Mr. Hamid Muhammad, Director General, Directorate General Office for Basic Education
(formerly Manager of the Decentralized Basic Education Project [DBEP])
2. Mr. Didik Suhardi, Director, Junior Secondary Education (formerly a member of the DBEP
Central Technical Committee)
3. Mr. Dedi Karyana, Head, Section for Education Infrastructure (formerly a member of the DBEP
Central Technical Committee)
4. Mr. Budi Susetyo, Asian Development Bank consultant
A.2
District Education Offices
Bali Province
Buleleng District
1. Mr. Ketut Arjana, Head, Basic Education Affairs, District of Buleleng (formerly DBEP District
Manager)
2. Ms. Ni Ketut Santrini, Section Head, Basic Education Affairs District of Buleleng (formerly DBEP
Treasurer, District of Buleleng)
Bangli District
1. Mr. I Nyoman Sumantra, Head of the District Education Office, District of Bangli
2. Mr. Wayan Sudiarsa, Secretary of the District Education Office, District of Bangli (formerly DBEP
Manager, Bangli)
3. Mr. I Made Artana Yasa, Head of Finance, District Education Office, District of Bangli (formerly
DBEP Manager, Bangli)
4. Mr. Ketut Punia, Staff, District Education Office, District of Bangli (formerly DBEP officer)
West Nusa Tenggara Province
Lombok Barat (West Lombok) District
1. Mr. Iswarta, Section Head for Teacher and Administration Staff, District of West Lombok
(formerly DBEP District Manager)
2. Ms. Dini, District Education Officer, West Lombok
Lombok Timur (East Lombok) District
1. Mr. Supriyadi, Head, Basic Education Affairs, District of East Lombok (formerly DBEP District
Manager)
2. Mr. Abdul Muin, Officer, District of East Lombok (formerly DBEP District officer)
Mataram City
1. Mr. Zaenal Arifin, Head of the Basic Education Affairs, District Education Office, Mataram City
42 Appendix 2
East Nusa Tenggara Province
Timor Tengah Utara District
1. Mr. Emanuel Anunu, District Crops Plantation Officer, former DBEP project manager
2. Mr. Thimateus Timo, District Education Officer, former DBEP officer
Project Schools1
A.3
Bali Province
Buleleng District
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Mr. Pande Ketut Remawa (Principal, Junior Secondary School #3 KBT)

Mr. Made Imawan (Principal, Junior Secondary School #1 Tejakula)
Mr. Gede Suastika (Principal, Junior Secondary School #45 Sukasada)
Mr. Gede Sumatra Jaya (Principal, Junior Secondary School #4 Sukasada)
Mr. Nyoman Purnayasa (Principal, Junior Secondary School #2 Singaraja)
Mr. I Made Sutarjana (Principal, Junior Secondary School #1 Seririt)
Mr. Nyoman Suyasa (Principal, Junior Secondary School #2 Seririt)
Mr. Ketut Suardika (Principal, Junior Secondary School #1 Sawan)
Mr. I Wayan Kantun Toni (Principal, Primary School #1 Astina)
Ms. Gusti N. Reniasih (Principal, Primary School #1 Br Tegal)
Ms. Ketut Sudarmini (Principal, Primary School #5 Br Jawa)
Ms. Ni Wayan Resmi (Teacher, Primary School #1 Br Bali)
Mr. Made Ketu Raja (Principal, Primary School #2 Br Tegal)
Mr. Nyoman Sudiarsa (Principal, Junior Secondary School #5 Singaraja)
Bangli District
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Mr. I Putu Jati (Principal, Primary School #3 Peninjoan)

Mr. I Nengah Sudana (Principal, Primary School #2 Abuan)
Mr. I Nyoman Wardana (Principal, Primary School #6 Tiga)
Mr. I Nengah Suara (Teacher, Primary School #3 Tiga)
Mr. I Ketut Disna (Teacher, Junior Secondary School #2 Bangli)
Mr. I Nengah Sulatra (Principal, Junior Secondary School #2 Kintamani)
Mr. Wayan Bukahan (Principal, Primary School #2 Selat)
Ms. Dayu KM Suastini (Teacher, Primary School #2 Selat)
Mr. I Nengah Genah (Principal, Primary School #4 Taman Bali)
West Nusa Tenggara Province

Lombok Barat (West Lombok) District
1.
2.
3.
4.
1
Mr. Syahrudin Saat (Principal, Primary School #7 Lambuak)

Ms. Raodah (Principal, Junior Secondary School #4 Gerung)
Mr. Abdul Haris (Principal, Junior Secondary School #1 Lempau)
Mr. Akhmad S. (Principal, Primary School #1 Kediri)
The study team collected information from representatives of 56 project schools. Some principals and teachers were not able
personally to participate in the interviews held at the district education offices but were given questionnaires, which they
completed and returned to the study team.
List of Interviewees 43
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Mr. Abdul Gani (Principal, Junior Secondary School #1 Gunung Sari)

Mr. Apudin (Principal, Primary School #4 Gerung Utara)
Mr. Saringin (Principal, Junior Secondary School #3 Lingsar)
Mr. M Rusman (Principal, Primary School #1 Gelogor)
Mr. Tajudin (Principal, Junior Secondary School #5 Lingsar)
Ms. Sabariah (Principal, Primary School #1 Labuapi)
Lombok Timur (East Lombok) District

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Mr. Agus Gunarto (Vice Principal, Junior Secondary School #1 Suralaga)

Mr. Abdul Mantif (Principal, Primary School #1 Anjani)
Ms. Hj. Seripa Fatimah (Principal, Primary School #2 Sandubaya)
Mr. M. Tohran (Principal, Primary School #1 Dusun Lekong)
Mr. Bambang Subagyo (Principal, Junior Secondary School #1 Masbagik)
Mr. Nursalim, Section Head for Curriculum Affairs, District of East Lombok (formerly DBEP
school principal, Primary School #3 Sehket)
East Nusa Tenggara Province

Timor Tengah Utara District
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Ms. Matilda K Bano (Principal, Primary School Baki)

Mr. Petrus Obe (Principal, Junior Secondary School Napan)
Mr. Fransiskus Meko (Teacher, Primary School Nunpene)
Mr. Marselinus Kolise (Principal, Junior Secondary School Biboki Utara)
Mr. Benekdiktus Falo (Principal, Primary School Koko)
Mr. Dominikus Tasoeb (Principal, Christian Secondary School St. Ga)
Mr. Benekdiktus Seo (Principal, Christian Secondary School St. Paulus)
Mr. Alexander Pilis (Principal, Secondary School Oeluele)
Mr. Yoseph Sila (Principal, Secondary School Teflasi)
Mr. Raymundus Fallo (Principal, Junior Secondary School #2 Kefa)
Mr. Nikolas Neonnub (Principal, Junior Secondary School #2 Muotire)
Mr. Gustaf Maf (Vice Principal, Christian Secondary School Kefa)
APPENDIX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SCHOOLS

KUESIONER SEKOLAH
Informasi Responden
Nama Responden:
Nama Sekolah:
Posisi di Sekolah:
Alamat Sekolah:
Nomor Telepon:
Sekolah anda terpilih sebagai salah satu penerima bantuan dari proyek ADB, Desentralisasi Pendidikan Dasar (DBEP)
Pada kuesioner ini, kami ingin menanyakan hal-hal yang terkait dengan pelaksanaan proyek tersebut
Pada khususnya, kami ingin mengetahui bagaimana sekolah ini mengambil manfaat dari proyek tersebut
Bagaimana proyek ini membantu sekolah dalam mengimplementasikan rencana pengembangan sekolah
Bagaimana proyek ini membantu aktifitas sekolah dan bagaimana dana dari proyek ini dialokasikan ke berbagai aktifitas tersebut
PERTANYAAN 1: Berapa total dana ADB yang diterima oleh sekolah antara tahun 2001-2010, apabila ada?
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Kami akan bertanya mengenai berbagai kegiatan di sekolah Anda yang dibayai oleh dana ADB antara periode 2001 dan 2010.
PERTANYAAN 2: Berapa besar bantuan dari ADB yang digunakan untuk berbagai aktivitas berikut?
i.
Bantuan sekolah kepada siswa miskin
ii.
Program alternatif untuk siswa yang tidak dapat mengikuti kelas reguler
iii.
Segala jenis perbaikan fasilitas sekolah
iv.
Pembangunan ruang kelas
v.
Pembangunan fasilitas air bersih dan sanitasi
vi.
Pembelian buku ajar dan buku lainnya untuk perpustakaan
vii.
Penyediaan alat bantu ajar
viii.
Peningkatan kapasitas guru
ix.
Aktifitas lainnya, sebutkan..
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Kami akan bertanya mengenai dukungan sekolah untuk siswa miskin

Tujuan kami menanyakan hal ini adalah untuk mengetahui proporsi dari siswa yang mendapatkan manfaat dari dana ADB dan besaran bantuan yang mereka terima.
Pertanyaan 3: Seberapa besar dana ADB digunakan untuk berbagai kegiatan berikut
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
diantara tahun 2001 dan 2010?

i.
Beasiswa
ii.
Bantuan uang transport
iii.
Program remedial
iv.
Kegiatan kelas akselerasi
v.
Kelas tambahan bagi siswa yang absen di kelas
vi.
Bentuk bantuan lainnya, sebutkan.
PERTANYAAN 4: Berapa banyak siswa di sekolah Anda yang
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
menerima bantuan sesuai dengan kegiatan yang tercantum di pertanyaan 3
PERTANYAAN 5: Berapa banyak siswa miskin di sekolah Anda
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
yang menerima bantuan sesuai dengan kegiatan yang tercantum di pertanyaan 3?

Kami akan bertanya mengenai proses penentuan berbagai aktivitas di sekolah Anda.
PERTANYAAN 6 : Dari berbagai aktivitas yang disebutkan diatas, faktor apakah yang menjadi pertimbangan untuk menentukan suatu kegiatan?
Pilih faktor berikut
Rencana pembangunan sekolah
Permintaan orang tua siswa
iii.
Permintaan dari dinas pendidikan setempat
iv.
Permintaan dari guru

Permintaan dari kepala sekolah
Permintaan dari siswa
vii.
Permintaan dari lembaga donor
viii.
Lainnya, sebutkan.
45
v.
vi.
Questionnaires for School
i.
ii.
i.
Kepala Sekolah / Wakil Kepala Sekolah
ii.
Komite Sekolah
iii.
Pemerintah lokal
iv.
Donor (ADB)
v.
Lainnya, sebutkan
PERTANYAAN 8: Siapa yang terlibat dalam pembuatan dokumen perencanaan sekolah? Pilih jawaban berikut
i.
Kepala Sekolah / Wakil Kepala

Sekolah
ii.
Komite Sekolah
iii.
Pemerintah lokal
iv.
Donor (ADB)
v.
Lainnya, sebutkan
PERTANYAAN 9: Apakah dokumen perencanaan sekolah ini pernah dievaluasi oleh Dinas Pendidikan
i.
Ya (ke pertanyaan 10)
ii.
Tidak
PERTANYAAN 10: Apakah rekomendasi yang diberikan oleh Dinas Pendidikan bermanfaat?
i.
Ya
ii.
Tidak
46 Appendix 3
PERTANYAAN 7: Siapa yang menginiasi pembuatan dokumen perencanan sekolah? Pilih jawaban berikut
Kami ingin bertanya apakah kegiatan yang pernah dibiayai oleh proyek ini masih berlangsung (sustainabel)
PERTANYAAN 11: Apakah aktifitas pada pertanyaan 3 di atas masih dilakukan setelah proyek selesai ?
i.
Ya (Ke pertanyaan 12)
ii.
Tidak
PERTANYAAN 12: Kementerian (Dinas) dan/atau lembaga swasta mana yang membantu membiayai aktifitas tersebut?
Pilih jawaban berikut
i.
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan
ii.
Dinas Pendidikan
iii.
Lembaga Donor, yaitu .
iv.
Komunitas lokal atau orang tua siswa
v.
Lainnya , sebutkan
Sekarang kami akan bertanya mengenai bagaimana siswa mengambil manfaat dari proyek ini dalam hal tingkat pendidikannya
PERTANYAAN 13: Apakah proyek ini meningkatkan pendaftar ke sekolah ini? Mohon berikan jumlah pendaftar tahun 2000 - 2013
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
PERTANYAAN 14: Apakah proyek ini meningkatkan jumlah siswa yang diterima di jenjang yang lebih tinggi (SD ke SMP, atau SMP ke SMA)? Mohon berikan data tersebut dari
2000 - 2013.
47
PERTANYAAN 16: Apakah proyek ini meningkatkan nilai Ujian Nasional (untuk siswa kelas 6 atau kelas 9) di sekolah ini? Mohon berikan data rata-rata nilai UN tersebut dari 2000
2013
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
PERTANYAAN 17: Apakah proyek ini meningkatkan pendaftar dari siswa miskin di sekolah anda? Berikan data siswa miskin yang mendaftarkan diri tahun 2000 2013
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
PERTANYAAN 18: Apakah proyek ini meningkatkan jumlah siswa miskin yang diterima di jenjang yang lebih tinggi (SD ke SMP, atau SMP ke SMA)? Mohon berikan data tersebut
dari 2000 2013.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
PERTANYAAN 19: Apakah proyek ini meningkatkan tingkat kelulusan siswa miskin di sekolah ini? Mohon berikan data siswa miskin yang berhasil lulus dari tahun 2000 2013.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
PERTANYAAN 20: Apakah proyek ini meningkatkan nilai Ujian Nasional siswa miskin (kelas 6 atau kelas 9) di sekolah ini? Mohon berikan data rata-rata nilai UN siswa miskin
tersebut dari 20002013
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
48 Appendix 3
PERTANYAAN 15: Apakah proyek ini meningkatkan tingkat kelulusan di sekolah ini? Mohon berikan data siswa yang berhasil lulus dari tahun 20002013.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Kami ingin meminta pendapat mengenai kesuksesan proyek ini
PERTANYAAN 21: Bagaimana proyek ini memberi manfaat untuk sekolah ini? Apakah proyek ini meningkatkan kualitas pendidikan di sekolah ini?
PERTANYAAN 22: Apakah anda menginginkan sekolah anda untuk terus menerima bantuan ADB di masa yang akan datang?
Note: The English version of this questionnaire will be available upon request.
49
APPENDIX 4: NUMBER AND TYPE OF PROJECT SCHOOLS

Table A4: Number and Types of Schools Covered by the Decentralized Basic Education Project
Item
Loan
Bali
Nusa Tenggara
Barat
Nusa Tenggara
Timur
Subtotal
Grant
Nusa Tenggara
Timur
Total
Number of
Districts
Primary
School
Public
Private
Primary
Madrasah
Public
Private
Junior Secondary
School
Public
Private
Junior Secondary
Madrasah
Public
Private
Total
715
15
16
114
58
926
1,946
55
319
303
35
167
2,834
2
20
308
2,969
94
95
0
70
7
342
57
474
16
109
0
13
0
170
482
4,242
6
26
468
3,437
363
458
3
73
19
361
96
570
44
153
1
14
2
172
996
5,238
Source: ADB. 2012. Completion Report: Indonesia: Decentralized Basic Education Project. Manila.
APPENDIX 5: RATING MATRIX FOR CORE EVALUATION CRITERIA

Table A5.1: Rating Matrix for Core Evaluation Criteria
Ratings
Relevance
PCR
Highly
Relevant
PPER
Highly
Relevant
Effectiveness
Effective
Effective
Efficiency
Sustainability
Efficient
Efficient
Partly
Likely
Impact
Significant
Significant
Institutional
Development
a
Not Rated
Significant
Reasons for Disagreements/Comments

The Decentralized Basic Education Project (DBEP) was implemented
during the start of the decentralization era in Indonesia and helped
to fill gaps in technical capacity.
The project aimed to improve access to and quality of basic
education, especially for the poor.
The project is aligned with the priorities of ADB and the Indonesian
government.
Based on questionnaires sent to schools and mean-difference testing,
beneficiaries on average had seen statistically significant
improvements in terms of students enrollment, transition,
completion, and exam scores. a This is also true for poor students.
The project made a significant contribution to lowering dropout rates
of poor children in such poor districts as Bangli, East Lombok, and
Timor Tengah Utara, either by sending teachers to remote areas or
providing facilities for poor children.
High turnover of trained officers at the district level may have
hindered the projects effectiveness. For some districts in which DBEP
personnel were organized in teams, however, the remaining staff
were able to keep up with the turnover.
Despite the limited size of grants, the project achieved notable results
in improving local capacity for basic education delivery and
rehabilitating some school infrastructure.
Some of the projects outputs are still implemented under current
government programs, such as creating the proposal for a program
or project similar to school development plans even though the
format of such reports may not be exactly the same.
School committees, which were pioneered by the project, are still
functioning.
It was difficult, however, to determine the projects impact on the
rehabilitation of school facilities since other sources of funding for
school repairs and rehabilitation have been made available after the
projects life.
Though difficult to measure because of the differences in method
and sampling frame used between baseline survey (2006, 2008) and
the study teams analysis, DBEP was found to have a significant
impact on school-based management and community involvement.
The project had a positive spillover impact or peer effect on
nonbeneficiary schools. As some training funded by the District
Education Development Fund was attended by all teachers and
principals of both beneficiary and nonbeneficiary schools, DBEP had
an effective impact on changing the behavior of teachers and
principals toward school-based management and on improving
education quality in their schools.
The project had made a significant contribution toward institutional
development, in particular through the establishment of school
committees and education boards at district level. Community
involvement had also improved.
With an exception of the District of West Lombok, where the average student enrollment for the selected schools decreased
after DBEP was implemented.
Source: Study teams assessment.
52 Appendix 5
Table A5.2: Core Evaluation Criteria Rating Values
Rating Value
3
2
1
Relevance
Highly relevant
Relevant
Less than relevant
Irrelevant
Effectiveness
Highly effective
Effective
Less than
effective
Ineffective
Efficiency
Highly efficient
Efficient
Less than
efficient
Inefficient
Sustainability
Most likely
Likely
Less likely
Unlikely
Source: Independent Evaluation Department. 2006. Guidelines for Preparing Performance Evaluation Reports for
Public Sector Operations. Manila: ADB (as well as its amendment effective from March 2013).
APPENDIX 6: EDUCATION STATISTICS

Table A6.1: Net Enrollment in Primary School by Beneficiary Provinces, 20032013
(%)
Province
Bali
Nusa
Tenggara
Barat
Nusa
Tenggara
Timur
Indonesia
2003
91.58
2004
93.48
2005
93.26
2006
93.33
2007
94.49
2008
94.93
2009
94.99
2010
95.53
2011
90.39
2012
91.06
2013
94.28
92.48
92.42
92.99
94.50
94.20
94.20
94.75
95.16
92.69
93.56
96.63
88.27
92.55
90.79
93.04
92.00
93.25
91.58
93.54
91.61
93.78
91.72
93.99
92.46
94.37
93.03
94.76
92.13
91.03
92.28
92.49
93.60
95.53
Note: Since 2007, the net enrollment rate includes nonformal education (Package A, which is primary school; Package B,
which is junior secondary).
Table A6.2: Net Enrollment in Junior Secondary School by Beneficiary Provinces,

20032013
(%)
Province
Bali
Nusa
Tenggara
Barat
Nusa
Tenggara
Timur
Indonesia
2003
68.63
2004
69.37
2005
70.03
2006
70.15
2007
66.69
2008
67.34
2009
67.38
2010
67.83
2011
69.16
2012
75.07
2013
80.69
57.19
61.70
67.53
69.62
70.79
71.44
71.32
71.73
76.70
77.81
80.18
39.10
63.49
43.26
65.24
43.00
65.37
47.23
66.52
49.75
66.90
49.87
67.39
50.21
67.43
51.03
67.73
56.74
68.12
55.89
70.84
59.24
73.72
Note: Since 2007 the net enrollment rate includes nonformal education (Package A, which is primary school; Package B, which
is junior secondary).
Table A6.3: Classroom Conditions by Province, 2002

(%)
Province
DKI Jakarta
Jawa Barat
Banten
Jawa Tengah
DI Yogyakarta
Jawa Timur
N Aceh Darussalam
Sumatera Utara
Sumatera Barat
Riau
Jambi
Sumatera Selatan
Bangka Belitung
Bengkulu
Lampung
Kalimantan Barat
Kalimantan Tengah
Kalimantan Selatan
Kalimantan Timur
Heavily
Damaged
4.48
32.40
25.74
18.94
14.13
17.55
23.25
20.22
18.24
30.54
22.26
21.74
13.26
31.56
28.70
28.39
30.92
27.52
22.31
Primary School
Lightly
Damaged
14.64
36.45
28.25
38.37
40.70
36.87
34.91
38.64
38.88
28.62
25.61
33.17
29.93
35.66
45.60
33.32
31.47
33.18
36.00
Good
80.88
31.15
46.00
42.69
45.17
45.58
41.84
41.14
42.89
40.84
52.12
45.09
56.81
32.78
25.70
38.29
37.61
39.30
41.70
Junior Secondary School

Heavily
Lightly
Damaged
Damaged
Good
2.26
9.76
87.98
5.20
10.92
83.88
4.93
10.59
84.48
1.49
7.76
90.74
2.38
8.40
89.21
1.96
6.37
91.67
4.21
10.93
84.86
3.74
9.65
86.61
4.47
10.99
84.54
0.92
4.20
94.88
3.48
9.14
87.38
1.90
6.50
91.60
1.95
6.56
91.50
6.61
14.08
79.32
2.86
8.83
88.31
2.87
9.67
87.46
1.83
3.48
94.69
3.40
11.01
85.58
3.42
9.29
87.29
54 Appendix 6
Province
Sulawesi Utara
Gorontalo
Sulawesi Tengah
Sulawesi Selatan
Sulawesi Tenggara
Maluku
Maluku Utara
Bali
Nusa Tenggara Barat
Nusa Tenggara Timur
Papua
National Average
Heavily
Damaged
17.16
21.86
34.03
19.69
31.99
36.24
38.07
20.08
16.64
36.68
23.42
24.27
Primary School
Lightly
Damaged
33.04
32.95
33.00
31.52
33.12
30.98
29.50
35.33
32.97
29.37
25.49
32.92
Good
49.79
45.19
32.97
48.78
34.89
32.78
32.43
44.59
50.39
33.96
51.09
42.82
Junior Secondary School

Heavily
Lightly
Damaged
Damaged
Good
7.23
17.40
75.37
7.54
12.87
79.59
3.53
6.85
89.62
4.08
11.08
84.83
3.74
9.01
87.25
9.57
13.74
76.69
9.46
18.72
71.82
4.79
10.33
84.88
1.68
9.63
88.69
7.40
11.94
80.66
9.47
8.38
82.15
4.28
9.94
85.78
Source: National Development Planning Agency. 2002. National Program for Indonesian Children: Education. Jakarta.
APPENDIX 7: POVERTY STATISTICS

Table A7: Percentage of Poor People by Province, 20072012
Province
Papua
Papua Barat
Maluku
Nusa Tenggara Timur
Gorontalo
Nusa Tenggara Barat
Aceh
Lampung
Sulawesi Tengah
Bengkulu
Sulawesi Tenggara
Jawa Tengah
Jawa Timur
DI Yogyakarta
Sumatera Selatan
Sulawesi Barat
Sulawesi Selatan
Jawa Barat
Sumatera Utara
Maluku Utara
Kalimantan Barat
Sumatera Barat
Riau
Sulawesi Utara
Kalimantan Timur
Jambi
Kepulauan Riau
Kalimantan Tengah
Kepulauan Bangka Belitung
Banten
Kalimantan selatan
Bali
DKI Jakarta
Indonesia
2007
37.08
35.12
29.66
25.65
24.88
23.81
23.53
20.98
20.75
20.64
19.53
19.23
18.51
18.32
17.73
16.73
13.34
13.01
12.55
11.28
11.07
10.67
10.63
10.10
9.51
9.32
9.18
8.71
8.58
8.15
6.48
6.17
4.29
15.42
Source: Indonesian Statistics Office. 2014.
2008
37.53
35.71
28.23
23.31
25.01
22.78
21.80
20.22
18.98
18.59
18.93
17.72
16.68
17.23
16.28
15.29
12.31
11.96
11.51
10.36
9.30
9.54
9.48
9.79
7.73
8.77
8.27
7.02
7.46
7.64
5.12
5.13
3.62
14.15
2009
36.80
34.88
27.74
23.03
23.19
21.55
20.98
18.94
18.07
18.30
17.05
16.56
15.26
16.83
15.47
13.58
11.60
11.27
11.31
9.42
9.02
9.50
8.65
9.10
7.66
8.34
8.05
6.77
6.51
7.16
5.21
4.88
3.48
13.33
2010
31.98
31.92
23.00
21.23
18.75
19.73
19.57
16.93
15.83
17.50
14.56
15.76
14.23
16.08
14.24
13.89
10.29
10.65
11.33
9.18
8.60
9.04
8.47
8.51
6.77
8.65
7.40
6.56
5.75
6.32
5.29
4.20
3.75
12.49
2011
31.11
28.20
21.78
20.88
17.33
18.63
19.46
16.18
15.40
17.70
13.71
15.34
13.40
16.05
13.78
13.24
10.11
10.09
10.67
8.47
8.17
8.19
8.22
8.18
6.68
8.42
7.11
6.51
5.53
5.85
5.06
4.18
3.69
11.96
2012
30.66
27.04
20.76
20.41
17.22
18.02
18.58
15.65
14.94
17.51
13.06
14.98
13.08
15.88
13.48
13.01
9.82
9.89
10.41
8.06
7.96
8.00
8.05
7.64
6.38
8.28
6.83
6.19
5.37
5.71
5.01
3.95
3.70
11.66

Indonesia: Decentralized Basic Education Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indonesia: Decentralized Basic Education Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance

Indonesia: Decentralized Basic

Performance Evaluation Report

Reference Number: PPE:INO 2014-15

The fiscal year of the government ends on 31 December.

V. Thomas, Independent Evaluation Department (IED)

H. Son, Principal Evaluation Specialist, IED

Asian Development Bank

Evaluation Purpose and Process

Chapter 2: Design and Implementation

Chapter 3: Performance Assessment

Chapter 4: Other Assessment

Chapter 5: Issues, Lessons, and Follow-up Actions

As per ADB Loan/Grant

Total Grant Cost

Indonesia: Decentralized Basic Education Project

Decentralization of basic education can be reinforced through strong

Good technological infrastructure at the school and district levels is imperative

Executive Summary xiii

Coordination between MORA and MONE, which is crucial for decentralized

Endeavors to enhance the delivery of basic education in Indonesia should be

More than a decade since it was first implemented, decentralized basic

Evaluation Purpose and Process

2 Indonesia: Decentralized Basic Education Project

Design and Implementation

Design and Implementation 5

6 Indonesia: Decentralized Basic Education Project

Cost, Financing, and Executing Arrangements

Design and Implementation 7

8 Indonesia: Decentralized Basic Education Project

Procurement, Construction, and Scheduling

Design and Implementation 9

10 Indonesia: Decentralized Basic Education Project

Design and Implementation 11

ADB = Asian Development Bank.

Figure 1: Primary Net Enrollment in Selected Provinces, 20032013

Nusa Tenggara Barat

Nusa Tenggara Timur

14 Indonesia: Decentralized Basic Education Project

Nusa Tenggara Barat

Source: National Office for Research and Development. 2002.

ADB. 2000. Country Assistance Plan: Indonesia, 20012003. Manila.

16 Indonesia: Decentralized Basic Education Project

Figure 3: Percentage of Poor in Balis Districts, 2010

Figure 4: Percentage of Poor

18 Indonesia: Decentralized Basic Education Project

Figure 5: Percentage of Poor

21.6 21.2 20.8

Source: Study teams calculations based on national socioeconomic survey data.

Table 5: Completion Rates in Selected Provinces, 20012011

Source: Study teams calculations based on national socioeconomic survey data.

20 Indonesia: Decentralized Basic Education Project

Table 4: Net Enrollment Rates in Selected Provinces, 20012011

Nusa Tenggara Barat

Nusa Tenggara Timur

Sources: Study teams calculations based on data from Indonesian Family

Enrollment (District Average:

National Exam Score (District

DBEP = Decentralized Basic Education Project.

Enrollment (District Average:

National Exam Score (District

DBEP = Decentralized Basic Education Project.

22 Indonesia: Decentralized Basic Education Project

DBEP = Decentralized Basic Education Project.