Summary of Evaluation Results
I. Outline of the ProjectCountry：Republic of Indonesia
Sector：Basic Education
Division in charge:
Human Development Department
Period of
September 2004 –cooperation

Project Title: Regional Educational Development andImprovement Program (REDIP)
Cooperation scheme: Technical Cooperation Project
Total cost: 829,822,000 Japanese Yen

September 2008 Partner Country’s Implementing Organization：
Ministry of National Education、Ministry of Religious
Affairs, Education offices of target provinces andDistricts
Supporting Organizations in Japan： Tokyo Institute ofTechnology and others
Related cooperation: Development Study “REDIP Phase 1 and 2”, Community Participation in Strategic
Education Planning for School Improvement (COPSEP)
1. Background of the Project
The Republic of Indonesia (hereafter referred to as Indonesia) aimed to universalize 9 years of compulsory
education by 2009. However, the net enrollment rate for junior secondary education was 62% in 2004.
Moreover, the government of Indonesia decentralized the entire education administration system in 2001
without sufficient preparation, which resulted in a decrease in the education budget disbursed to schools andineffective school management due to confusion over roles and responsibilities among education
administrators, school principals and teachers.

In accordance with the decentralization process in Indonesia, JICA has been contributing to build a model for
local educational administration improvement through Community Participation in Strategic Education
Planning for School Improvement (COPSEP, 1997-1998) and REDIP phase 1 and 2 (1999-2004), whichdevelop a community/school-based educational development model. The characteristics of the REDIP
approach include (1) the establishment of TPK (sub-district education development team) and (2) school
improvement activities based on proposals 1 . The implementation of the REDIP model intervention at pilot
sub-districts resulted in a rapid increase of students and a decrease in dropouts in terms of access to juniorsecondary education. Regarding education quality, the improvement in school and classroom management by
principals and teachers, as well as student motivation to learn were observed.
The Indonesian government, including Ministry of National Education, highly appreciates the REDIP model
as relevant to the situation of country. However, further efforts need to be made to strengthen administrative
capacity and accumulate experience in order to ensure that regional educational officers implement the
REDIP model in a self-reliant manner. The Indonesian government submitted a request for (1) strengthening
the management capacity of regional educational officers in REDIP 1 and 2, and (2) expanding the REDIP
model to other areas where the enrollment rate of junior secondary schools was low. This Program waslaunched in September 2004 for four years aiming at disseminating community/school-based regional
educational administration.

2. Project Overview(1) Overall Goal
Junior secondary education in the target districts/municipalities is improved both quantitative and qualitatively.
(2) Program Purpose
REDIP model (school-based management with community participation) is established and extended in
the educational administration system at junior secondary level in the target districts/municipalities.
(3) Outputs
1

Schools and communities propose a plan of activities which reflect their own educational needs. The local governments allocate budget
for the proposed activities and have schools and communities to implement their proposals.

1Output 1：Common Output for all target provinces
Tools for dissemination of the REDIP model are developed and used in target and non-target provinces.
Output 2: REDIP 2 target districts
District and sub-district education officers, school personnel, community members and other parties
concerned are trained to manage the REDIP model independently in Brebes and Pekalongan District inCentral Java Province and Bitung Municipality in North Sulawesi Province.
Output 3: New target districts
A REDIP type regional educational administration model that is adapted to the socio-economic conditionsof Serang and Pandeglang Districts in Banten Province is developed.

(4) Inputs (as of February 2008)
Japanese side
Short-tem experts

9 (81.21MM)

Equipment

2.8 million yen

Local cost (block grant)

315 million yen

Trainees received

16 (8MM)Counterparts

23

Equipment

Local cost (block grant)

275 million yen

Land and facilities

Indonesian side

Note: estimated with controlled rate of 1 Indonesia rupiah=0.01159 Japanese yen
II. Evaluation Team
Members of (1) Team Leader: Dr. Hiromitsu Muta, Executive Vice President for Finance Tokyo Institute of
Evaluation
Technology
Team(2) Comparative Analysis: Mr. Naoki NIHEI, Staff, Basic Education Team1, Group1 (Basic
Education), Human Development Department, JICA
(3) Evaluation Analysis: Mr. Takafumi Miyake, Chief, Planning & Research Unit, Shanti
Volunteer Association(4) Cooperation Planning: Mr. Jotaro TATEYAMA, Assistant Resident Representative, Indonesia
Office, JICA
(5) Cooperation Planning: Mr. Hiroyuki MATSUDA, Program Officer, Indonesia Office, JICA
Period of
24 February–15 March, 2008
Type of Evaluation: Terminal Evaluation
Evaluation
III.

Results of Evaluation

21. Project Performance(1)

Achievement of Output

Output 1(Common Output for all target provinces): Tools for dissemination of the REDIP model are developed
and used in target and non-target provinces.
The targeted district governments established “REDIP Mandiri Meeting” (mandiri means independent inIndonesian) which is a committee to prepare for taking over the operation of the REDIP model so that they canmanage and operate the REDIP model independently. Those district governments also developed standard
evaluation sheets for appraisals and now utilize the evaluation sheets for appraising proposals. And theseevaluation sheets will be incorporated into operational guidelines of respective local governments.
As a part of the effort by the project to disseminate the REDIP model to other regions, the project tries to shareknowledge and experience by distributing newsletters to Ministry of National Education (MONE), Ministry of
Religious Affairs (MORA), and local governments which experiment the REDIP model by their own initiative.
The number of these local governments is as many as four (4) provinces and twelve (12) districts.
From these achievements, it can be said that this output was achieved.

Output 2 (REDIP 2 target districts): District and sub-district education officers, school personnel, community
members and other parties concerned are trained to manage the REDIP model independently in Brebes and
Pekalongan District in Central Java Province and Bitung Municipality in North Sulawesi Province.
Trainings for local education administrators were conducted 24 times in the first year of the Project
cooperation period, 8 times in the second year, 25 times in the third year, and 26 times in the fourth year.
Among the proposals submitted from schools and TPKs, 60% of the proposals from Bitung were approved in
the first inspection. Likewise, 95% to 98% in Pekalongan and Brebes. Total amount of block grant 2 for the
proposed activities was secured in accordance with the Minutes of Meetings. Bitung provided 100%.
Pekalongan and Brebes provided 40% in the first year, gradually increased their share, and in the end provided
100%.
From these achievements, it can be said that this output was achieved.

Output 3 (New target districts): A REDIP type regional educational administration model that is adopted tosocio-economic conditions of Serang and Pandeglang Districts in Banten Province is developed.
By establishing TPKs as a part of the Project activities, interaction among schools in sub-districts has
increased. Principal's Working Groups and Subject In-Service Teacher Trainings are now conducted six totwelve times annually at sub-district level whereas before the Project those exist at district level.

(2) Achievement of the Program Purpose“REDIP model (school-based management with community participation) is established and extended in the
educational administration system at junior secondary level in the target districts/municipalities."
Most of the five indicators of the program’s purpose have already been achieved. The percentage of districtbudget allocation to the total block grant budget for REDIP in the continued target sites is 100%, and those in
new target sites are 27% in Serang and 23% in Pandeglang, which are much higher than target figures agreed in
the minutes of meeting with respective districts. Almost 100% of the schools and TPKs implemented
proposal-based activities as planned, which is again higher than the target. TPKs were established in all pilot
sub-districts, and all the schools and pilot sub-districts completed an introduction of the REDIP model forschool management as planned. The only indicator that has not been achieved is the percentage of district
education officers who are capable of managing REDIP related functions without the field consultants who are
deployed by the program. The figure for this indicator is 58% for KIT (sub-district implementation team)members and 50% for supervisors in the continued target sites, which is lower than the target of 60%. On theother hand, in new target sites, the figure is 59% for both KIT and supervisors, which is higher than the target.
2

Block grant is a type of budget to be allocated without specifying usage. It is suitable for a project like REDIP which has a lot of
institutions to allocate budget and whose activities vary depending on proposals from institutions.

3However, it was found that local facilitators as alternative measure for supervisors in Brebes and
Pekalongan, where the target figures for supervisors are unlikely to be achieved, are mobilized locally, andhad almost the same skills capacity as the field consultants.

2. Summary of Evaluation Results(1)

Relevance

The net enrolment rate of junior secondary schools in the new target districts of Serang and Pandeglang was
50% and 43% respectively in 2004, which is much lower than national average of 62%, suggesting a strong
need for assistance. It was also necessary to experiment the REDIP model in new area, in order to seek
possibility to replicate it nationwide. The overall goal of the Program is consistent with the National
Education Development Strategic Plan (2005-2009), which targets achieving a 96.9% gross enrolment rate
and 69.9% net enrolment rate by 2009. The Program purpose was also in line with the national policy topromote school-based management with community participation in the framework of the decentralization
policy. The components of program strategies, which include (1) sub-district level intervention through theestablishment of TPK (sub-district education development team), (2) capacity development of regional
educational authorities, including school supervisors, (3) support to all four types of junior secondary
schools (public/private, regular/religious) equally in the target sub-districts, (4) provision of a block grant
based on a proposal for education quality improvement, and (5) promoting community participation inschool improvement processes, all contribute to its overall goals.
The Program is relevant to Basic Education Growth and Initiatives (BEGIN), which is Japan’s assistanceframework in the education sector. The Program is also relevant to Japan’s ODA policy to Indonesia thatregards the education sector as a key area of assistance and that puts a special focus on improvement oflocal educational administration, improvement of quality education (improvement of teachers’ quality andschool management) and access to basic education.
For these reasons, it has been concluded that the relevance of the program is very high.
(2)

EffectivenessThe program purpose can be said to be achieved based on the following reasons.
There were two reasons for the request on the Program from the Government of Indonesia: (1) enhancementof planning and management capacity for local educational administrators in model sites which continue
from the previous phase, and (2) replication to a region where enrollment rate of junior secondary education
was low. The former point can be said achieved because: all continued sites fully financed the proposed
activities; there exist local educational administrators, school supervisors as well as their substitution who
have capacity to conduct REDIP activities independently; and, as a result, most of schools and TPKs
implement their proposals as it is. The latter can be said achieved because: TPKs were established at all
target sub-districts; all target schools introduced the REDIP model; and the number of local educational
administrators, school supervisors as well as their substitution who have capacity to conduct REDIP
activities independently is increasing. For these reasons, it has been concluded that effectiveness is very
high.
(3)

Efficiency

Inputs were made mostly as planned by both the Japanese and Indonesian sides in terms of timing andvolume, which resulted in the expected outputs. However, there arose a few problems in terms of timing of
inputs although they didn’t hinder production of the outputs. Firstly, due to budgetary constraint by theJapanese side in the second year, disbursement of the block grant to Pekalongan and Brebes Districts
delay, which caused confusion to the counterparts and their activities. Secondly, because of an instruction
from Ministry of Home Affairs to prohibit local governments to provide block grants, disbursement by
Bitung Municipality delayed in 2007.
Measures taken to improve efficiency include the deployment of field consultants at sub-district andschool levels, the gradual delegation of roles and responsibilities from field consultants to local
educational administrators, supervisors and local facilitators, and the trainings of counterparts in Japan
three times, which resulted in the improvement of their commitment and motivation to REDIP
dissemination.
To validate efficiency by comparison to similar programs, the evaluation team estimates the unit cost for4the block grants provision, including training costs and consultant fees. The results of the estimate showthat the unit cost for TPKs of the Program is higher than REDIP-P (a REDIP initiated by the Central Java
Provincial Office of Education) and REDIP-G (a REDIP initiated by MONE). However, the unit cost forthe school of the Program is lower than that of REDIP-G. Therefore, it can be argued that the input levelfor block grants by the Program is appropriate as a reference model. For these reasons, it has beenconcluded that efficiency is high.
(4)ImpactIn terms of the access aspect of the overall goal, although causality between REDIP and these
improvements has not statistically proved 3 , both enrollment and dropout rates have improved. According tointerviews to 18 TPKs, these improvements are effects of REDIP. Regarding the quality aspect of theoverall goal, the scores of the national graduation test in Brebes District drastically improved from the 34th
in 2002 to 8th in 2006 and 13th in 2007 among 35 districts and cities in Central Java whereas those in
Pekalongan district remain constant, indicating that we are unable to conclude that REDIP has contributed
to improvements in learning achievement. However, the results of an interview survey in 18 sub-districts
show that REDIP contributed to an improvement in enrollment and dropout rates, as well as the teachingskills of teachers, and accountability and transparency of schools. It is necessary to continue to monitor
indicators of the overall goal.
Four positive impacts are observed. First, MONE initiated REDIP-G with its own budget in 2005, which
expanded to about 300 schools in 23 sub-districts in 3 districts at the time of terminal evaluation. Second,
REDIP affected government policy on basic education. Strategies employed by REDIP, including
empowerment of schools and communities at the sub-district level, are likely to be integrated into Basic
Education Capacity (BEC) and Education System Improvement through Sector-Wide Approaches (SISWA),
which is currently being formulated by MONE with assistance from other donors including the World Bank.
This means that REDIP also affects other donors’ aid programs for basic education. Third, ensuringtransparency and accountability in the REDIP model improved financial management and accounting
reporting system of other school subsidy programs, including the subsidy for school operational costs
managed by MONE. Fourth, communication and cooperation between the education office and religious
office at the district/municipality level was enhanced. Before REDIP, their interactions were little due tobureaucracy. Therefore, it can be concluded that impact is very high.
(5)

Sustainability

In terms of the institutional aspect, at national level, the REDIP model is likely to be integrated into thenational policy on basic education development. MONE has expanded REDIP-G. Nevertheless, its
management mechanism still needs to be improved. At district level, education offices in the continued sites
was successful in integrating REDIP into their mid-term development plan, and are likely to develop
localized REDIP guidelines authorized by the head of districts by the end of the cooperation period, which
ensures the institutional sustainability of TPKs established by REDIP. In the new target sites, KIT and TPKs
have been established. And REDIP is integrated into the operational plan and budget of the district offices.
In terms of financial sustainability, district/municipality education offices of the continued target sites bear
100% of the block grant budget. However, the disbursement of block grants to schools and TPKs wasdelayed due to effects of a new regulation of the Ministry of Home Affairs, which requires coordination
within district governments. District education offices of new sites bear more cost share than the amountagreed upon with JICA in 2007. Provincial education offices secure the budget for their own initiative,
REDIP-P.
In terms of human resources and technical aspects, according to questionnaire to field consultants,, district
education administrators in the continued target sites have enough capacity to manage REDIP, to facilitate
school and TPKs activities, and to introduce to stakeholders though remaining issues vary from place toplace. Their capacity has improved. But further capacity building efforts are needed to improve activities
and transparent management. At the provincial level, Northern Sulawesi and Central Java have sufficienthuman resources to implement REDIP.
In conclusion, overall sustainability is very high considering that both institutional and financial
sustainability are secure due to strong ownership by the regional education administration at provincial and
3

The Results of TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) which the JICA expert team conducted as a part ofend-line survey show that students’ competence of the schools in the continued targeted sites are significantly higher than that of the control
schools and the schools in the newly-targeted sites. It indicates that an effect of REDIP to scholarship takes a certain period of time to berevealed.

5district levels, even though there is room for capacity development by the end of the cooperation period.

3. Factors promoting better sustainability and impact(1)

Factors concerning the planning process

First, high relevance and necessity of REDIP strategies to the educational and social situations in Indonesia
provided strong motivation for stakeholders’ involvement in education improvement. Second, bothdevelopment processes of localized REDIP Mandiri (independent) guidelines and integration of REDIP
into the mid-term development plan of provincial and district governments have enhanced ownership andcontributed to sustainability. Third, it was effective to set an agreed percentage target for cost share by
districts/municipality and to put this figure in the minutes of the meeting to ensure financial sustainability.
(2)

Factors concerning the implementation process

It should be noted that ownership by counterparts, TPKs, principals, teachers, parents and communities isvery high. These stakeholders have changed their attitudes toward their daily work and theircommunication styles due to REDIP, which transformed REDIP from an ad hoc aid program into daily
practices. For example, education administration officers have changed the communication style within theoffice from vertical to horizontal, and school principals have tried to make their daily work more consistent
to the mid-term school development plan. Local consultants have contributed a lot in this transformation
process of stakeholders.

4. Factors inhibiting better sustainability and impact(1)

Factors concerning the planning process
It was envisaged that supervisors would take over the roles and responsibilities of the field consultants,
which went successful in Bitung, North Sulawesi. However, this plan turned out to be unfeasible in
Pekalongan and Brebes, Central Java in the second year. The factors for this include the vast extent of the
districts and enormous number of schools, which made it difficult for supervisors to provide technicaladvise and facilitation to schools. Then, as a complementary measure, local facilitators were deployed withlocal human resources. It should be noted that Pekalongan District Education Office strengthened KIT
through increasing supervisors.

(2)

Factors concerning the implementation process

The quick and frequent transfer of counterparts undermined institutional sustainability and financial
sustainability as well, though this is an external factor. The Regulation No. 13 of the Ministry of Interiorcaused the delayed disbursement of the block grant in Brebes and Bitung, which affected theimplementation of proposal-based activities by TPKs and schools.

5. Conclusion
It was confirmed that the program is consistent with the national education policy of Indonesia and thatmost of activities, outputs and program purposes, defined in the revised PDM1, have been achieved. It
should be noted that financial, technical and institutional sustainability is very high in the continued target
sites (North Sulawesi and Central Java), ensuring development of local REDIP guideline and necessary
budget for REDIP program. From these findings, it can be said that the regional educational
administrations in the target areas attained the capacity to provide technical and financial support in orderto promote school-based management for addressed local educational needs based on the REDIP model. In
addition to the application of the model in other donor-assisted programs, since the start of REDIP-G,
REDIP-P and districts-funded REDIP the REDIP model has demonstrated the high possibility that thisapproach is effective and sustainable for improving school-based management and capacity development of
the local education administration in the educational context of Indonesia.

6. Recommendations(A) For the remaining period of cooperation (short-term basis)

6

1)

Necessity of development of exist strategy for Banten Province
Until the end of the Program, in Banten Province, a feasible and realistic exit strategy should be developed
to sustain the present program. The exit strategy needs to include financial and institutional plans forindependent implementation by the districts.

2)

Further capacity development of supervisors and local facilitators
Technical transfer from the field consultants to supervisors and local facilitators is an important task for
future continuation with a certain quality for proposal-based school and TPKs activities.

3)

Importance of further facilitation for model dissemination by provincial government
To promote the REDIP model in other districts in the target province, more effort by the provincial
government is necessary and crucial. Especially in North Sulawesi, it is considered feasible and relatively
possible to expand the model in all the districts, as the relative size of the province is not large.

4)

Presentation regarding the effectiveness of the REDIP model to related Indonesian educational
authorities and other development partners.
The achievement and outcomes of the program should be widely shared among the Indonesian educational
authorities concerned and others by holding workshops and seminars or in the form of donor meetings.

(B) For the period after program implementation (long-term basis)
5)

Establishment of REDIP network (REDIP forum)
Various means to share information sharing, to learn from each other as well as to maintain motivation of
the stakeholders to continue REDIP should be explored. These include periodical gatherings by establishinga REDIP forum for networking and further exchange experiences.

6)

Localization and further dissemination with quality assurance
A minimum standard has be set for each cycle of the REDIP model so that stakeholders in each level can
perform effectively at each cycle in improving the quality of education.

7)

Strengthening the monitoring function of the REDIP model at the central level
MONE’s role in the dissemination of the REDIP model would be more important, and its monitoring andevaluation functions need to be strengthened, which requires more technical assistance from development
partners.

7. Lessons learned(A) Effectiveness of the approach1)

The formation and establishment of TPKs at the sub-district level is an effective tool to create a linkage
between district and schools, to promote interaction among target schools. The sub-district is theappropriate unit in terms of scale for community participation and collaborative activity for solving
particular issues.

2)

Simultaneous intervention to both schools and sub-districts make greater impact on community
mobilization and synergy between TPKs and school activities.

3)

Assistance to all the schools (not selection-based pilot assistance) in the target sub-districts provides asense of equality to all schools (under MONE and MORA) and TPKs, promoting frequent interaction andcooperation among them from the viewpoint of beneficiaries.

4)

It is effective to involve multi-layer stakeholders in the program framework with clear roles andresponsibilities as follow:
・MONE to supervise REDIP from the aspect of national policy for school-based management;

・Provincial education office to supervise REDIP districts, support activities, and plan expansion of
the model to other districts;

・District education office to be actively involved in the implementation of the whole process; and7

・

TPKs to coordinate and facilitate all the schools in the assigned areas.

5)

Supporting bottom-up needs leads to a democratic process in school activities, which is really necessary
for students, and community awareness and commitment to school improvement, with contributions of
donations and labor.

6)

The involvement of locally contracted consultants in implementation and collaborative work with thelocal administration office is effective. However, to effectively utilize the consultants as facilitators forcapacity development, their roles need to be clearly defined and understood by the key stakeholders.

7)

Transparency and accountability for school activities and funds are indispensable for building the trust ofparents and the community. The REDIP model shows strong effectiveness in training to write activity
reports and financial reports, making appropriate information disclosure possible.

8)

To realize school planning activities, block grants should be fully utilized with a combination of thematching fund from the community and other school operational funds. However, the socio-economic
situation of the recipient country and the proper amount of grants per school should be carefully
estimated and studied for the sustainability of input by the recipient countries.

(B) Sustainability of the approach1)

To maintain and disseminate the REDIP-type approach which is in line with the national education
policy, the role and responsibility of the central government are important. To continue the current target
areas and further expand them, the central government needs to take necessary actions for the related
stakeholders.

2)

To ensure the sustainability of program, establishing an exit strategy by making independent guidelines
in line with local context for continuous activities and it should be included in the province/district
education development plan for mid-term plan, being acknowledged by the regent of each district.

3)

To ensure and support the bottom-up activities at school and TPKs level, support and assistance by local
education administration are important for effective implementation and improvement of activities. Their
active support will formulate better relationships between schools/TPKs and local education
administration. Furthermore, it is a key factor to obtain a trust from the people of schools, TPKs andcommunity.

4)

To attract the political interest is indispensable to secure and increase the financial commitment of local
governments. Socialization to community leaders and their involvement is TPKs are also effective foradvocacy.

5)

To clarify roles and responsibility of each administrative stakeholder, signing of minutes of meeting
between counterpart districts and JICA is an effective means. It is also effective to draw strong
commitment and ownership by each administrative stakeholder in terms of financial and organizational
aspects.

8