RTI ppt template

1
The Impacts of Proposed Education Minimum
Service Standards on a Sample of Districts in
Indonesia Stephen Dunn January 13, 2005
2
Overview

• Snapshot of Indonesia and Districts
• Pre-History of Decentralization in Indonesia
• The Era of Decentralization
• Motivation for Minimum Service Standards
• Overview of Proposed Minimum Service Standards
• Study and Results
• Conclusions, Issues, Looking Forward

3
Snapshot of Indonesia

• Population 214.5 million (WB, 2003)
• 14,000 islands
• 3,000 miles east-to-west
• 43 urban (WB, 2002)
• Life expectancy at birth 66.7 Years, (WB, 2002)
• GDP per capita 971 (WB, 2003)
• Poverty Headcount Index 16 (WB, 2002)

4
Snapshot of Districts

• 420 Districts
• District Populations from lt25,000 to Over 4
  Million
• Environments from Metro to isolated,
  agricultural
• Poverty Headcount Index from gt90 to lt2
  (SUSENAS, 2002)
• Annual Per Capita Own-Source Revenues from nearly
  Rp 1 million to below Rp 5,000 (WB, 2001)

5
Snapshot of District Education

• Primary NER 91 for lowest-income districts
  91 for
  highest-income districts
• Sen. Sec. NER 18 for lowest-income districts
  62 for
  highest-income districts
• (WB, 2002)
• Per-Student APBD Education Expenditure Range
  minimum lt Rp 50,000 maximum gt Rp
  300,000
• (authors data)

6
Pre-History of Decentralization in Indonesia

• Prior to 1999 Laws, Highly Centralized Government
• Low Control of Own-Resources
• Deconcentrated Sectoral Offices in Districts
• Limited District Autonomy
• Little Scope for Local Choice in Service Delivery

7
The Era of DecentralizationOverview

• Motivations for Decentralization
• Decentralization to District Level
• Laws 22, 25 of 1999 and Big Bang in 2001
• Assets Transferred to Districts
• Local Planning and Budgeting
• New Revenue Streams DAU and DAK
• Share of Sub-National Spending Doubled

8
The Era of DecentralizationFinance and
Management of Education

• Education managed at district and school level
• DAU is primary source of district funds
• Education competes for district resources with
  other sectors
• There are numerous other funding streams
• Large amount of district autonomy, emerging
  school autonomy

9
Motivation forEducation Minimum Service Standards

• Education is a national concern
• Desire to increase equity across districts
• Indonesia has low achievement relative to peers
• Political-Economic Aspects

10
Overview of ProposedEducation Minimum Service
Standards

• SPM cover
• formal education (grades 1-12)
• equivalent out-of-school education
• pre-school
• sports
• youth participation / social participation
• special education
• teacher/school development and management

11
Overview of ProposedEducation Minimum Service
Standards

• Large number of SPM (297)
• Some SPM are conflicting or internally
  inconsistent
• Education SPM cover many non-education areas
• Districts do not collect much of the data needed

12
PERFORM StudyOverview

• Goal understand expenditure implications of SPM
• Team PERFORM staff, MOF, RTI
• SPM focus formal education (grades 1-12)
• Districts 15 districts from 10 provinces
• Model policy options projection model
• Results projections from 2002-2017, lower
  bound

13
PERFORM StudyDistricts
14
PERFORM Studypolicy options projection model

• User can set policy/functional parameters (SPM)
  and examine impacts
• A what if? model to examine policy impacts
• Single district focus, output for 15 districts
• District base data
• Projections over 2002-2017
• Results for many variables/indicators

15
ResultsOverview

• Interpretation of Results
• Total Expenditure
• Expenditure by Level
• Expenditure by Type
• Enrollment Indicators, Teachers, Classrooms,
  Books, Teacher and Classroom Upgrading

16
ResultsExpenditure

• Proposed SPM result in a 54 increase in district
  expenditure on education by the year 2007
  (lower bound estimate of SPM impact)
• Expenditure impact varies significantly across
  districts
• Within districts, expenditure impact varies
  dramatically for different levels of education

17
ResultsExpenditure
District Total Education Expenditure (base case) 2002 Total Education Expenditure (SPM-implied) 2007 Difference (2007-2002)
Kab. Probolinggo 122,752,000,000 151,102,565,528 23
Kab. Batang 102,377,837,970 197,195,090,673 93
Kab. Pati 149,207,000,000 224,659,939,789 51
Kab. Banyuwangi 185,661,000,000 212,301,335,884 14
Kab. Badung 101,122,289,895 144,902,914,201 43
Kota Jayapura 74,440,544,100 133,860,163,672 80
Kab. Kupang 74,936,298,168 116,248,371,089 55
Kab. Solok 27,605,015,555 32,039,358,546 20
Kab. Lombok Timur 181,724,956,236 348,186,081,662 92
Kab. Maros 39,741,218,532 86,371,462,551 117
Kab. Sleman 207,587,848,558 342,713,028,721 65
Kota Pangkal Pinang 43,272,567,000 60,123,203,441 39
Kota Banjarmasin 113,830,723,000 234,181,568,246 106
Kab. Gowa 120,061,272,688 291,091,309,546 157
TOTAL 1,610,753,101,209 2,475,614,366,237 54
18
ResultsTotal Education Expenditure Kab. Batang
19
ResultsSD/MI Expenditure Kab. Batang
20
ResultsSMA/MA Expenditure Kab. Batang
21
ResultsSD/MI Enrollment Kab. Batang
22
ResultsSMA/MA Enrollment Kab. Batang
23
ResultsSD/MI and SMA/MA Teacher Demand Kab.
Batang
24
Conclusions

• If implemented, the proposed SPM would result in
  large expenditure increases for many districts
• Achievement of SPM would require substantial
  level-specific actions/changes for each district
• Time as well as money will be required

25
Issues/Questions

• Are the proposed SPM Affordable?
• Are the SPM really minimum service standards?
• Should all districts be subject to the same SPM?
• Should SPM apply to all of education or to
  particular aspects?
• What about empowerment of schools, school
  committees, and district education boards?
• Why are the enrollment SPM not met?
• How to finance SPM?
• How to hold districts accountable for meeting
  SPM?

26
Looking Forward

• Before promulgation, more analysis financial and
  educationist perspectives
• Definition of obligatory functions within
  education
• Tsunami Impacts? focus, spending priorities,
  timeframe