81002 Local Governance Matters: Exploring Changes in District Education Governance and Management Knowledge Brief March 2013 BEC TF BASIC EDUCATION CAPACITY-TRUST FUND KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN DAN KEBUDAYAAN REPUBLIK INDONESIA THE WORLD BANK Introduction Decentralization reforms introduced in the early 2000s have enrolment rate in Nusa Tenggara Timur was 51% compared to shifted the responsibility for education service provision to lo- 75% in Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam. And differences between cal governments. In 2003, the Government of Indonesia’s Edu- these provinces in UN national examination scores are also cation Law outlined the roles and functions in the education large; the average score in the junior secondary national ex- sector of each level of government. Districts were responsible amination was 75% in Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam compared for the overall organization of primary and secondary educa- to only 65% in Nusa Tenggara Timur. tion and the hiring and deployment of teachers. Districts also had the authority to establish new schools, maintain the regis- While many factors explain differences in education perfor- tration of existing schools and issue their own regulations on mance a key driver is the quality of local governance. Though education standards. Provincial governments were also made levels of poverty, geographical characteristics and the rel- responsible for the overall coordination and supervision of pri- evance of education for the local economy all play a role, the mary and secondary education. quality of local governance is also important. It affects a dis- trict’s ability to hire the most competent teachers, allocate Education performance across districts in Indonesia varies them to schools in a fair and effective way and provide the enormously. While disparities in the quality of education ser- pedagogical support required to raise learning levels. It also vices between districts have been narrowing there are still sig- influences the effectiveness of local governments to allocate nificant differences. For example, the 2010 junior secondary resources in an efficient and effective way. 1 The local education governance survey set out to assess the of technical assistance and capacity building grants to dis- quality of governance in 50 districts across Indonesia. The sur- trict education offices. The survey provided an assessment vey was conducted in 50 districts of 9 Indonesian provinces that helped identify weaknesses in local capacity that could in 2009 and 2012 (see Box 1). The districts participating in the be strengthened through support from the BEC program. The survey were part of the Basic Education Capacity Trust Fund follow-up survey in 2012 was intended to assess how local (BEC-TF). Through the BEC-TF the Ministry of Education and governance had changed as well as to see if capacity had been Culture (MoEC) supports the Government of Indonesia’s ef- strengthened in the areas supported by the BEC program. This forts to improve the delivery of decentralized basic education brief provides a description of the preliminary findings from services. The BEC-TF was led by MoEC, supported by the World the survey and highlights the main changes in education gov- Bank and funded by the European Union and the Kingdom ernance that have occurred between 2009 and 2012. A fuller of the Netherlands. The program aimed to support capacity report looking in detail at how governance changes have af- development in the education sector through the provision fected education performance is also under preparation. Box 1: A brief introduction to the local education governance survey The local education governance survey aims to assess the quality of education governance in 5 key areas: 1. Transparency and Accountability. The practices and regulatory efforts made by local governments to enable transparent, ac- countable and participatory governance of the education sector. 2. Education Service Provision Standards. The level and quality of existing basic education provision. 3. Management Control Systems. The systems in place to effectively manage assets, goods procurement, incentives for key profes- sional staff and good practice dissemination. 4. Management Information Systems. Systems for data collection, management, storage and analysis that enable effective deci- sion making on the basis of good quality information. 5. Efficient Resource Use. Systems in place to effectively plan, budget and monitor resource use. The information collected in the survey was used to construct a set of indicators to measure the effectiveness of each local govern- ment in these 5 areas. For each area, a sub-index is constructed which is a weighted average of a set of individual indicators. Weights are based on whether the underlying indicators are measures of regulation, process or performance.1 The overall Indonesian Local Education Governance Indicator (ILEGI) is a simple average of these 5 sub-indices and ranges from zero to one. Districts are catego- rized as having high performance if the ILEGI (or a sub-index) is greater than 60%, medium performance if the index falls between 45% and 60% and low performance if the index value is 45% or below. There are some differences in the indicators selected and the sources of information used when compared with the original report in 2010. For example, the Susenas household survey was used to calculate education enrolment rates for the ILEGI rather than using district level indicators that had only limited coverage. In each district, key respondents were interviewed in all relevant district departments and heads of key accountability institutions (e.g. BAPPEDA, finance office, education office, head of the education council etc.). Information was collected from different respondents to triangulate the responses received and efforts were made to verify the information through reviews of documentation and through observation. The survey was conducted in the 50 districts participating in the BEC program located in 9 provinces across Indonesia. An analysis of these districts shows that they have education indicators similar to the national average but have higher poverty rates. Table 2 at the end of the brief provides a district ranking based on an average of a district’s score in 2009 and 2012. This average pro- vides the best measure of a district’s overall level of education governance measured by the survey. 1 See World Bank (2010). Governance matters to education outcomes. The Indonesia local education governance index (ILEGI): A report card of 50 local governments. Jakarta, World Bank. 2 The state of education governance in 2012 The overall ILEGI masks differences across the specific areas of governance measured by the survey (see Figure 1). Local The results of the 2012 survey found that the overall quality governments appear to perform strongly in terms of the edu- of local governance in the 50 participating districts was in cation service provision standards the survey measured. This the middle of the performance range. In 2012, the average predominantly reflects the high level of access to primary and Indonesian Local Education Governance Index (ILEGI) score junior secondary schools in the surveyed districts. For exam- was 56%. This implies that, on average, districts were ap- ple, the average primary and junior secondary enrolment rate proximately half way towards the conditions associated with for the participating districts was 84% in 2010, the latest year good quality governance and management in the education for which reliable information is available. However, a signifi- sector. cant proportion of the districts had not achieved some of the other standards by 2012. For example, 43% of districts had not The quality of local governance varies across provinces and achieved the assessed standard associated with the minimum districts in Indonesia. While it is not possible to assess gover- qualification levels of primary school principals. nance conditions in all districts in Indonesia it is clear from the surveyed provinces and districts that the quality of local District performance in terms of the effectiveness of manage- governance varies considerably. Surveyed districts in Jawa ment control systems was also relatively weak. The average Timur province were categorized as high performing com- score across all districts for the management control sub-in- pared to districts in the provinces of Papua and Papua Barat dex was only 40% (Figure 1). Less than 20% of the surveyed that were assessed to be low performing on average. Tak- districts were classified as high performing and over 40% were ing the average ILEGI score between 2009 and 2012, Table assessed to be low performing. The survey found that very few 2 shows that 14 districts are categorized as high performing districts incorporated school development plans into their an- in terms of the overall ILEGI. Bondowoso and Pacitan in Jawa nual work plans and few had incentive systems in place for Timur, Kebumen in Jawa Tengah and Sleman in Yogyakarta key education personnel. The documenting of innovative and all have ILEGI scores in excess of 65% and are districts where best practice in order to disseminate these experiences to oth- the governance environment has the potential to support er schools was also weak in many districts and accounted for good education performance. Districts with the lowest levels the relatively low assessment of the quality of management of governance include Jayawijaya and Paniai in Papua and control systems. Manokwari in Papua Barat. In these districts the challenging governance environment in combination with higher rates Changes in governance between 2009 and 2012 of poverty and remoteness are likely to drive lower educa- tion performance. Education governance has improved between 2009 and 2012 but overall these improvements have been small. It is possible Figure 1: Education governance indicators for 50 districts to explore how governance has changed in recent times us- in Indonesia, 2012 ing the 2009 and 2012 rounds of the Indonesian local educa- tion governance survey. Overall performance has increased by 3 percentage points but performance remains firmly in the Transparency and Accountability 100% middle of the range (Figure 2). While the overall change in the 80% ILEGI is small there have been significant changes in the sub- 60% components of the index. Education Service Provision Standards 40% 20% In the 50 participating districts, education service provision standards have improved significantly. This has been the result 0% of general improvements in access as well as the qualification levels of key personnel in the education system. For example, Efficient Resource Use Management Control Systems the proportion of supervisors, school principals and teachers with a four-year university degree has increased dramatically over the three years. This is largely the result of the continued implementation of the national teacher certification program. Management and Information Systems The program has motivated teachers to obtain a university de- gree in order to be certified and obtain a professional allow- Source: Indonesian Local Education Governance Survey, 2012. ance equivalent to their basic pay. 3 Figure 2: Changes in education governance between 2009 had fallen to less than half of all participating districts. This is and 2012 of particular concern given the importance that local solu- tions play in improving the quality of education and the large number of well documented innovations that are taking place Education Service Provision Standards*** across Indonesia. Efficient Resource Use** The efficient resource use component of the index also regis- Management Control Systems** tered a decline but the factors underlying this shift are more Management Information mixed. In 2012, fewer districts involved their education coun- Systems** cils in drafting the education strategic plan than in 2009. In Transparency and Accountability*** terms of budget planning, the number of districts reporting gaps between planned and realized spending of less than 10% in the last three years also fell from 46% to 32%. This suggests ILEGI* that the effectiveness of the planning and budgeting process 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 has deteriorated. However, the large adjustments in revised 2009 Index Score (%) budgets due to revisions to intergovernmental transfers sug- 2012 gest that this may be the result of central government action rather than a reflection of local planning and budgeting pro- Note: Asterisks indicate the level of statistical significance of a test between the 2009 and 2012 indices - *** - significant at the 1% level, ** - significant at the 5% cesses.2 level, * - significant at the 1% level. Source: Indonesian Local Education Governance Survey, 2009 and 2012. Local governments have also registered some important gains in the processes which determine how public resources are Improvements in transparency and accountability are also used. Some indicators in the efficient resource use component evident between 2009 and 2012. On average, participating dis- of the ILEGI have shown significant progress. For example, the tricts are now performing in the middle instead of the bottom proportion of districts that include measurable outcome indi- of the range. Underlying this positive trend are a number of cators as part of their annual budgets increased from 72% to important factors. Improvements are seen most strikingly in ef- 92%. Improvements to the functioning of local planning and forts by local governments to encourage greater community budgeting processes are also evident. Between 2009 and 2012 participation in decision making and oversight activities. For the proportion of districts that set budget priorities and ceil- example, between 2009 and 2012 the proportion of districts ings before sector offices (e.g. the education office) start their that allowed public participation in parliamentary accountabil- own planning exercises increased from 44% to 74%. These im- ity and audit reporting sessions increased from 14% to 52%. provements reflect, in part, efforts by the central government Similar improvements in access were seen in the number of to introduce performance based budgeting and medium term districts allowing public access to budget sessions in local par- expenditure frameworks. liaments. Improvements were also seen in the reporting proce- dures of local education offices. In 2012, nearly all of the district The Basic Education Capacity Program education offices were producing and making available prog- ress reports on planned activities and budget disbursements. While the ILEGI provides a comprehensive assessment of the overall local governance environment, it can also shed light on While service standards and measures of transparency and ac- district progress on the BEC program. A small subset of the 56 countability have been improving, the management control indicators used by the ILEGI was also included as part of the systems component of the ILEGI has declined. Efforts by lo- key performance indicators used to monitor progress on the cal governments to systematically document and catalogue BEC program. While the ILEGI does not measure all of the key good practice seem to have weakened between 2009 and performance indicators it is useful to see how these indicators 2012. For example, in 2009 two-thirds of districts made efforts have changed during the period the BEC program supported to identify and document good practice whereas in 2012 this capacity building efforts. 2 See for example the Wahana Aplikasi Pendidikan dan Informasi yang Baik (WAPIK) website that documents good practice in schools across Indonesia (http://www.wapikweb.org/). 4 Table 1: Progress on Selected BEC Key Performance Indicators Performance (% districts) BEC key performance indicator ILEGI area ILEGI proxy indicators 2009 2012 KPI 2: Publicly available information Transparency and accountability Financial reports are publicized in the local mass media 28 29 on education budget KPI 6: Community based Transparency and accountability Community is able to attend local parliament session 14 52 accountability reviews take place discussing accountability and audit reports KPI 3: Budget & expenditures are Efficient resource use Education medium term and annual plans include indicative 76 88 well defined, cost-based, linked to budget ceilings performance indicators Efficient resource use Planning and budgeting documents easily accessed by public 39 43 KPI 4: education budget execution Efficient resource use Difference between planned and realized expenditure is less 46 32 rates than 10% in last 3 financial years KPI 5: effective internal information, Management control systems Procurement of goods and services carried out with a bidding 54 46 audit and control systems in place process Management control systems Goods users carry out a yearly stock inventory 49 56 Source: Indonesian Local Education Governance Survey, 2009 and 2012. Preliminary analysis of the BEC key performance indicators of basic education services it is crucial that the capacity and ef- shows similar trends to the overall ILEGI. While the ILEGI in- fectiveness of local governance is monitored on a periodic ba- dicators are close proxies it should be noted that they do not sis. The ILEGI is ideally suited to assess local education capacity measure the KPIs directly. Table 1 provides a summary of the and monitor the success of policies and programs that target ILEGI indicators most closely associated with 5 of the 7 BEC Key improvements in local governance. As new programs are devel- Performance Indicators. Trends in the KPI proxy indicators fol- oped they should consider adopting the Indonesian Local Gov- low a similar pattern to the overall sub-index of the ILEGI they ernance Survey as a way of monitoring progress. are most closely associated with. For example, BEC key perfor- mance indicators on transparency and accountability (KPIs 2 The preliminary findings show that the quality of local gover- and 6) generally show progress. However, indicators of efficient nance has improved between 2009 and 2012 but overall per- resource use show a more mixed picture. BEC key performance formance remains in the middle of the range. However, there indicators associated with management control systems have has been progress in some important areas. For example, ef- moved in opposite directions; a greater proportion of districts forts to introduce greater transparency, accountability and carry out a bidding process for procurement whereas fewer dis- public participation into local decision making processes have tricts appear to carry out yearly stock inventories (see Table 1). led to improvements in the overall governance environment However, weakened good practice systems which factor in the between 2009 and 2012. In other areas of governance the sur- decline of the overall ILEGI index on management control sys- vey has revealed that local governments are slipping back. In tems do not appear in the BEC key performance indicators. particular, the effectiveness of management control systems and systems around the planning and budgeting processes A more detailed analysis of the effect that BEC capacity build- appear to have weakened. Given the importance of these ar- ing efforts have had on local governance is currently under- eas of local governance to the efficient and effective use of way. The ILEGI survey collected information on the use of public resources it is important that the policy and capacity BEC grants as well as other local and donor initiatives to build building efforts focus on these areas so that these declines are government capacity. It is therefore possible to explore more reversed in the future. closely the effect of capacity building efforts in particular ar- eas on local governance. Further work is currently underway to explore in more detail these preliminary findings. A fuller report looking more closely Conclusions at the factors driving these findings is currently being prepared. The more comprehensive report will provide further insights The Indonesian Local Education Governance Survey provides a into the status of local governance and contribute to efforts by comprehensive tool to measure the quality of local governance. local governments to raise the quality and narrow inequality in Given the important role local governments play in the delivery their education systems. 5 Table 2: Indonesian Local Education Governance Index, average district scores (2009 and 2012) Transparency and Education Service Management Control Management District/Municipality Efficient Resource Use ILEGI Accountability Provision Standards Systems Information Systems Bondowoso 62.1 84.5 72.9 69.4 72.6 72.3 Kebumen 71.7 78.7 52.4 68.1 72.3 68.6 Sleman 57.2 77.7 28.7 80.6 87.1 66.2 Pacitan 58.0 82.1 76.3 44.4 65.3 65.2 Sampang 51.2 63.7 55.4 77.8 72.9 64.2 Trenggalek 54.8 85.5 56.9 68.1 54.2 63.9 Bojonegoro 55.1 81.2 49.1 73.6 59.2 63.6 Probolinggo (Kota) 52.6 82.3 49.8 61.1 64.8 62.1 Polewali Mandar 59.9 68.6 52.6 65.3 61.6 61.6 Aceh Utara 47.5 76.9 54.7 69.4 58.0 61.3 Wonogiri 58.8 82.0 22.4 59.7 83.2 61.2 Purworejo 42.0 74.5 70.5 59.7 58.9 61.1 Wonosobo 53.6 64.4 73.0 52.8 61.3 61.0 Sragen 49.6 79.6 46.5 65.3 63.3 60.9 Bangkalan 51.8 80.8 49.3 50.0 64.6 59.3 Demak 71.1 76.7 28.1 58.3 60.6 59.0 Jayapura 46.8 77.4 48.3 61.4 58.9 58.6 Brebes 48.5 75.7 55.0 33.3 80.1 58.5 Blora 51.8 70.7 31.2 56.9 78.4 57.8 Banjarnegara 47.6 66.5 61.7 54.2 56.8 57.4 Probolinggo 53.3 79.7 62.6 36.1 51.8 56.7 Aceh Besar 46.6 69.2 70.9 47.2 46.3 56.0 Nganjuk 47.6 81.5 48.7 45.8 55.2 55.8 Ternate 51.3 72.0 38.6 58.3 58.1 55.7 Rembang 53.0 89.5 21.7 45.8 64.2 54.8 Lhokseumawe 56.1 78.7 45.2 40.3 51.8 54.4 Majene 55.1 64.4 67.9 16.7 65.8 54.0 Aceh Tenggara 56.8 64.6 34.9 38.9 74.5 53.9 Ngawi 54.5 77.2 48.7 45.8 41.0 53.5 Seruyan 45.5 74.3 26.6 51.4 63.9 52.3 Nagan Raya 45.5 70.8 31.2 43.1 69.4 52.0 Jombang 44.4 78.5 50.5 27.8 58.5 52.0 Halmahera Selatan 48.0 62.3 50.3 44.4 53.0 51.6 Purbalingga 39.9 73.2 69.0 12.5 62.3 51.4 Aceh Barat 64.3 63.5 15.6 44.4 67.8 51.1 Kaimana 30.4 55.4 39.3 61.1 66.7 50.6 Kulon Progo 41.0 68.9 34.2 51.4 56.7 50.4 Bireuen 44.0 75.6 56.8 18.1 50.9 49.1 Teluk Wondama 51.4 50.4 33.9 59.7 49.4 49.0 Kepulauan Sula 25.5 41.0 48.2 52.8 75.6 48.6 Palangka Raya 34.6 79.4 45.8 33.3 43.7 47.4 Aceh Barat Daya 37.4 79.9 21.7 23.6 71.3 46.8 Kotawaringin Timur 27.9 77.1 8.9 51.4 59.2 44.9 Sorong Selatan 30.2 52.6 45.6 37.5 51.7 43.5 Nabire 46.2 48.6 42.2 27.8 42.3 41.4 Pegunungan Bintang 42.0 47.3 37.7 25.0 53.1 41.0 Mamasa 49.3 61.9 30.3 4.2 58.9 40.9 Jayawijaya 20.2 53.8 17.7 48.6 40.7 36.2 Manokwari 35.9 67.2 16.7 4.2 52.7 35.3 Paniai 13.7 37.2 35.4 19.4 30.6 27.3 Source: Indonesian Local Education Governance Survey, 2009 and 2012. Researched and prepared by Samer Al-Samarrai and Jessica Ludwig-Maaroof, World Bank. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Union have provided grants for the Basic Education Capacity Trust Fund (BEC-TF) with the purpose of supporting the Government of Indonesia in improving the delivery of decentralized basic education. Managed by the World Bank, the BEC-TF supports analytical work and thematic dialog in education between the Government and development partners at the national level. At local government level, it supports capacity development and strengthening of systems for planning, budgeting, financial and information management in the education sector. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the Government of Indonesia, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, or the European Union. For more information, please contact Mae Chu Chang, mchang@worldbank.org or Megha Kapoor, mkapoor1@worldbank.org. Human Development Sector World Bank Office Indonesia Stock Exchange Building Tower 2, 12th Floor Jl. Jenderal Sudirman Kav. 52 - 53 Phone: (021) 5299 3000 Fax: (021) 5299 3111 Website: www.worldbank.org/id/education Printed on recycled paper