TOWARDS BETTER EDUCATION IN
RURAL INDONESIA: LESSON LEARNED
FROM INDONESIA MENGAJAR’S
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
PROGRAM
Policy Analysis Exercise (PAE)
Conducted by: Raisa Annisa (A0109494X)
Chenhong Peng (A0109488R)
Salwa Izani Kamarzaman (A0109630M)

2ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A very thank you to Dr Suzaina Kadir from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy for being
our supervisor. Despite your hectic schedule, you have spared your time to guide and provide us
with invaluable insights and knowledge on the PAE report. Thank you for being very
approachable and so encouraging. This report would not have come to fruition without your
assistance and supervision.
We would like to thank Ibu Nia Kurnianingtyas and Yunita Fransisca from Gerakan Indonesia
Mengajar for giving us the opportunity and great collaboration throughout the completion of this
report. A heartfelt thank you to the Management Team, Operation Team and the Alumni of
Gerakan Indonesia Mengajar for their time, patience and incredible support for our research. Not
forgetting the Pengajar Muda Cohort 1-Cohort 7 for sharing your valuable feedback in the self-
evaluation form as well as all the participants from the 13 Districts all over Indonesia whom
tirelessly participating in the discussions and surveys. Without them, we will not be able to
complete our analysis of the responses and observations gathered throughout this journey.
Indeed, this year long journey has been the most amazing one. Exploring Jakarta and Purwakarta
to understand the life of the NGOs in the education field, the continuous effort of the
Government of Indonesia to reform the education system and each and every layer of the society
whom zestfully driving the education movement in the rural areas. Yes, some efforts were
fruitful but some are not without hindrance. Yet, they keep striving to deliver the best. Hence,
this experience was priceless, especially when we return to our home country. The networking,
the friendships, and many more we do not have the space to write it down.
Last but not least, to Ivy Chan for your constructive feedback on the report structure, language,
coherence and readability of this report. We will definitely miss your technical support and
mentorship.
Thank you again and enjoy your reading!
Chenhong Peng, Raisa Annisa, Salwa Izani Kamarzaman

3Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Policy Analysis Exercise (PAE) seeks to analyze the policy problem of lack of synergy
among education policy stakeholders, in rural area in Indonesia. The case generated from the
Indonesia Mengajar (IM) for its Pengajar Muda (PM) Program. Policymakers from the
following bureaucracies may find the report particularly relevant: Education Council in District
Government, District Government, and Directorate General of Elementary Education Ministry of
Education and Culture, The Republic of Indonesia.
Policy Issue: Lack of Synergy among Education Stakeholders
Indonesia, the world’s 10th
largest economy, ranked 64 out of 120 countries in education quality
(UNESCO 2011). The low performance in education has its root in the inequality between
Greater Jakarta area and rural area (USAID, 2013). Government of Indonesia has implemented
several policies to address the low quality of education in rural area. Most of the program
tailored specifically for particular policy stakeholders for instance the teacher certification for
teacher, the Operational Aid Assistance (BOS), and the School Based Management (SBM) for
principals and community. However, most of these policies do not improve the quality of
education in rural area due to the lack of synergy among the education stakeholders in school
(student, teacher, principal and school committee), village community as well as local
government.
Indonesia Mengajar (IM), as a non-governmental organization is taking part to help the
government to improve education quality in rural Indonesia through community participation
approach. Over the past five years, IM has been sending 1,724 Pengajar Muda (young teacher) to
17 districts and teaching 22,808 primary school students. Besides teaching, the Pengajar Muda
(PM) also engaged with education stakeholders through participation approach to generate the
synergy among them to improve education quality in their area.
Research Focus: Five Pioneer Districts of PM Program
To have specific focus of research, as well as the impact on the PM Community participation
program, five districts were selected as a research focus in this report. These five districts consist
of Bengkalis (Riau), Tulang Bawang Barat (Lampung), Paser (East Kalimantan), Majene (West

4Executive Summary
Sulawesi), and Halmahera Selatan (North Maluku), have been received PM community
participation program for almost five years. These districts would also be the pilot project of how
IM establish the strategy to leave the districts and sustain the impact on education quality
improvement.
Findings
This study finds that PM Community Participation Program has generated synergy and created
positive behavior changes among the stakeholders with a relatively low social cost and high
benefit. Despite these positive impacts, the program has its own weaknesses which are failure to
implement program that suits local context and culture, weak policy communication between IM
and stakeholders, and failure to integrate the role of stakeholders and national policy into
component and material of training. In addition, the implementation of the program is also
constrained by the lack of capacity and resource in district level as well as geographic obstacles.
Despite the weaknesses and limitations, the restructuring of local education council, the rising of
local community group and the growing trust from community are shedding the light of
opportunities to PM Community Participation Approach. All the findings summarized in matrix
below:

5Executive Summary
Recommendations
According to our findings, we have formulated four policy options for IM and relevant
government institution to better improve education in rural Indonesia. Four policy
recommendations are as follow, in the order of implementation priority:
1. IM to Improve Program Implementation
IM is advised to improve three (3) implementation mechanisms that deemed crucial in the
operation of their community participation program; particularly in 1) Supporting and Transition
Mechanism; 2) Policy Communication with stakeholders in rural area, and 3) Training Content
Improvement.
2. Towards Community Driven Approach
As IM intended to end their program after five (5) years in operation at these districts, it is
crucial that IM needs to initiate the community driven model for the districts in the long term. In
this community development approach, local communities and local education councils are
encouraged to participate in choosing development priorities and designing project, as well as
engaged in co-financing and technical support provision.
3. Empower Local Education Governance
The need to empower local education governance is vital to improve education performance
particularly in rural area. To improve the education performance, we recommend local
government to have better management regarding resources, governance, transparency and
accountability of the system.
4. Grassroots’ Model Approach.
To address the teacher deployment issue in rural Indonesia, government is advised to adopt the
grassroots’ model which consists of 1) centralized and market model of teacher recruitment, 2)
incentive for locals to be teacher, and 3) peer system of teacher deployed in rural. By assessing
these four policy options in terms of utility, feasibility and equity, we suggested a timeline to
implement these four policy options step by step and take into account the possible barriers and
enablers in policy implementation.

6TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..........................................................................................................................2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................3
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................................6
LIST OF FIGURES....................................................................................................................................8
LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................................8
LIST OF APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................8
1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................9
1.1 Client Information.........................................................................................................................9
1.2 Structure of the PAE .....................................................................................................................9
2 BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................................10
2.1 Country Profile: Indonesia..........................................................................................................10
2.2 Indonesia Basic Education Policy...............................................................................................10
2.3 Indonesia’s education poor quality: the urban vs rural area .......................................................12
2.4 Review on Education Policy to Address Problem in Rural Area................................................14
2.5 The role of Indonesia Mengajar Community Participation Program..........................................16
3 PROBLEM DEFINITION..............................................................................................................17
3.1 Lack of Synergy amidst Stakeholders.........................................................................................17
4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE.............................................................................................................18
4.1 Research Questions.....................................................................................................................18
5 LITERATURE REVIEW ...............................................................................................................19
5.1 Literature on Theoretical Framework Components ....................................................................19
5.2 Limitation of Literature...............................................................................................................22
5.3 Analytical Framework on This Research....................................................................................22
6 METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................................23
6.1 Focus of Research.......................................................................................................................23
6.2 Primary and Secondary Research ...............................................................................................25
7 FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................26
7.1 The Level of Collaboration among Stakeholders........................................................................26
7.2 The Behavioral Change among Stakeholders .............................................................................30
7.3 Weakness of the Program ...........................................................................................................33
7.4 Limitation of Local Government ................................................................................................36

7TABLE OF CONTENTS
7.5 The Opportunity to Sustain the Community Participation Program...........................................37
7.6 Viability Studies..........................................................................................................................39
7.7 Summary of Findings: SWOT Matrix ........................................................................................43
8 POLICY OPTIONS.........................................................................................................................44
8.1 IM to Improve Program Implementation....................................................................................44
8.2 Towards Community Driven Approach......................................................................................46
8.3 Empower Local Education Governance .....................................................................................48
8.4 The Grassroots’ Model Approach...............................................................................................51
9 POLICY ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................54
9.1 Assessment Criteria ....................................................................................................................54
9.2 Assessment of Policy Options.....................................................................................................54
9.2.1 IM to Improve Program Implementation............................................................................55
9.2.2 Towards Community Driven Approach..............................................................................55
9.2.3 Empower Local Education Governance..............................................................................56
9.2.4 The Grassroots’ Model Approach.......................................................................................57
9.3 Policy Assessment Summary......................................................................................................58
9.4 Key trade-offs .............................................................................................................................58
10 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................................................59
11 IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................................60
11.1 Implementation Priority..............................................................................................................60
11.2 Possible Barrier and Enablers in Policy Implementation............................................................62
12 REPORT LIMITATIONS..........................................................................................................63
12.1 Validity .......................................................................................................................................63
12.2 Generalizability...........................................................................................................................63
13 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................64
14 APPENDIX....................................................................................................................................66
15 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................101

8LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Education Level of Primary School Teacher in Indonesia by Location .............. 13
Figure 2 - Pengajar Muda (PM) Community Participation Program................................... 17
Figure 3 - Framework on PAE Report ..................................................................................... 23
Figure 4: The Level of Collaboration among Stakeholders.................................................... 27
Figure 5: The Form of Collaboration between Stakeholders ................................................. 28
Figure 6: The Challenges in Collaboration among Stakeholders........................................... 29
Figure 7: Weaknesses of IM Program ...................................................................................... 33
Figure 8: Limitation of the Local Education Governance ...................................................... 36
Figure 9: Limitation of Local Education Governance............................................................. 37
Figure 10: The Opportunity to Sustain IM Program.............................................................. 38
Figure 11: Breakdown of Cost (in Percentage) ....................................................................... 41
Figure 12: Breakdown of Benefit (in Percentage).................................................................... 42
Figure 13: Rate of Return of IM’s PM Program for student and PM................................... 42
Figure 14: The SWOT Matrix of PM Program ....................................................................... 43
Figure 15: Roadmap towards Community Driven Approach................................................ 46
Figure 16: The link between intermediate outcomes and district education performance . 49
Figure 17: Road Map of Policy Implementation...................................................................... 61
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1- Compulsory Education in Indonesia.......................................................................... 11
Table 2 - Summary of Type of Community Involvement Program ....................................... 21
Table 3 - Summary of Five Pioneer Districts of IM Program ................................................ 24
Table 4: The Behavioral Change of Stakeholders and Its Causes.......................................... 30
Table 5: The Summary of Method for CBA Items .................................................................. 39
Table 6: Summary of Cost and Benefit Analysis (in billions)................................................ 40
Table 7: Policy Assessment Criteria.......................................................................................... 54
Table 8: Summary of Policy Assessment .................................................................................. 58
Table 9: Summary of Policy Recommendations ...................................................................... 59
LIST OF APPENDIX
Appendix 1: List of Participants in Interview, Survey, and Observations............................ 66
Appendix 2: Interview and Survey Questions.......................................................................... 69
Appendix 3: IM Outcome Mapping.......................................................................................... 71
Appendix 4: Qualitative Analysis (Self-evaluation report and Survey Form)...................... 73
Appendix 5: Cost and Benefit Analysis..................................................................................... 89

9Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION
Education is vital for the intellectual and professional development of the Indonesians. It
plays an essential role in building a stronger and competitive Indonesia in the world.
Indonesia would be the 7th
economy in the world by 2030, as predicted by Mckinsey.
However, education in Indonesia still faces several problems such as quality, equal
accessibility, and well-trained teachers. Indonesia ranked 64 of 120 countries in education
quality (UNESCO, 2012) and 69th out of 127 countries in Education Development Index
(UNESCO, 2011). The complex education problems had its roots in the limited access to
education in rural areas due to disproportionate number of education facilities, primarily the
number of teachers, between Greater Jakarta area (Jabodetabek) and the rural areas (USAID,
2013). Indonesia Mengajar (IM), as an NGO, is taking part to help the government to address
the problem in the rural area through community participation approach to improve education
quality.
1.1 Client Information
Starting in 2010, IM as a civil society, takes part to help the government in improving
education quality in rural area through Pengajar Muda (PM) community participation
program. IM mission is to create the behavioral change in education stakeholders, and
prepare the future leaders to have global competence with grass-root understanding.
1.2 Structure of the PAE
This PAE will evaluate the community participation approach delivered by IM to improve
education quality in rural Indonesia. It attempts to analyze the impact of Pengajar Muda
(PM) community participation program within four years, and identify this program’s
feasibility at the local government level. Finally, this PAE will present policy options and
provide final recommendations.
Recommendations in this PAE are mainly targeted at four major stakeholders: 1) Indonesia
Mengajar (IM) as an NGO, 2) Education Council in District Government, 3) District
Government (including Mayor), and 4) Directorate General of Elementary Education
Ministry of Education and Culture the Republic of Indonesia.

10BACKGROUND
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Country Profile: Indonesia
Indonesia is an emerging country, categorized as lower-middle income towards middle
income group according to the World Bank per 2014. The GDP per capita is US $3,475 in
2013, occupied by more than 250 million people population making Indonesia as the most
populous country in ASEAN with 39% of GDP share in the district. In term of demographic,
Indonesia has enjoyed the window of opportunity with 66.5 per cent of Productive age in
2012, and predicted to have the peak point of demographic bonus in 2025.
As a nation, Indonesia is a very culturally diverse country with more than 300 ethnicities
and local languages. It stands as unitary democratic country and has implemented
decentralization for seventeen years to the 34 provinces and 544 municipalities.
2.2 Indonesia Basic Education Policy
In order to accomplish the universal primary education, Suharto (second president of
Indonesia) has instructed the Nine Years Compulsory Education (Wajar 9 Tahun) program.
Responding to the instruction, Government through Minister of Education and Minister of
Religious affair formulated the education system through two dimensions based on track and
level. This scheme comprised public school (Sekolah Negeri) and Islamic Religious Based
School (Madrasah). For the track point of view, it consists of Formal, Non-formal and
informal tracks. Meanwhile in the level based, it consists of basic education, secondary
education and higher education, as summarized in Table 1.

11BACKGROUND
Since new-order regime (1966-1998) until the reform era (1998-2013), a Wajar 9 Tahun
program has been vigorously implemented. During the implementation of compulsory
education, Indonesia has been successful in expanding education sector to serve wider
population. Government has implemented two significant policies in order to make the
universal primary education achievable. First policy was SD Instruksi Presiden (SD Inpres)
school construction program which consist of building around 60,000 primary schools.
Second policy was the National Compulsory Nine Year Education Program that has been
explained above. As a result of these policies, the literacy rate has increased significantly
from 67.31% in 1980 to 92.58% in 2009, with 99.6% of the children went to primary school
and this made Indonesia achieved the universal primary education since 1988 (World Bank,
2013). This condition drifts Indonesia’s primary enrolment rates in par with those of most
developing countries in East Asia and the Pacific (Suryadarma, 2011).
To support the basic education provision, public schools and religious based schools had
two types of teachers: civil servant teachers and contract teachers. After the enactment of
decentralization law, the civil servant teachers were supervised under district government
Table 1- Compulsory Education in Indonesia
No table of figures
entries found.
Track School Age Supervisor
Basic Education
(9-year compulsory
education) Formal Primary
(6 Years)
1. Primary School 7-12 Years Old Ministry of National
Education
2. Islamic Primary
School (Madrasah
Ibtidaiyah)
Ministry of
Religious Affairs
Formal Junior
Secondary
(3 Years)
1. Junior Secondary
School
12-15 years old
Ministry of National
Education
2. Islamic Junior
Secondary School
(Madrasah
Tsawaniwiyah)
Ministry of
Religious Affairs
Non Formal
Package A
(same level as primary
school)
7 – 12 years old Ministry of National
Education
Package B 13-15 years old Ministry of National
Education
Informal
Community based
activity
Unlimited Ministry of National
Education

12BACKGROUND
but received the salary from the central government on par with other civil servants’ benefit
package, including a pension plan. On the other hand, contract teachers are usually
employed on a short-term basis by school or district government to fill the gap of teacher
shortages. The salary for the contract teachers would be settled by the principal, or the
district education authority. Contract teachers would not receive such benefit provided to
civil servants teachers.
2.3 Indonesia’s education poor quality: the urban vs rural area
To achieve significant higher literacy and enrollment rate in the nation, massive physical
school development and large teacher recruitment (including those with minimum
qualifications) were taken during 1970-1990s. These actions have led to the condition of
oversupplied teachers and brought Indonesia to be one of the lowest student-teacher ratios in
Southeast Asia (Chang, et. al 2013). Nonetheless, it does not necessarily lead Indonesia to
have better education quality. The latest result on the Trends in International Mathematics
and Science Study (TIMSS) in 2011 showed that more than half of year 8 Indonesian
students are deficient in basic mathematics skills (Suryadarma and Sumarto, 2011:166) with
overall score are below the international average, and was positioned below the neighboring
countries especially Thailand and Malaysia. Furthermore, there has been no significant
improvement in learning outcomes over the decades, except in reading. Both teachers and
students are still scrambling in the uncertain policy and low quality of learning process. It is
getting worst with the imbalance of socio-economic, demographic and geographical
condition to deliver the education.
Furthermore, as an archipelago, Indonesia is facing the issue of supplying and distributing
teachers. Before 2000s Indonesia has no attempt to match the teacher education institutions’
intake with demand for teachers (World Bank, 2013). Ragatz (2010) showed that only 53
percent of graduating students from teaching institution could be employed as teachers.
Moreover, albeit Indonesia has faced the over-hire and low student-teacher ratios, the
distribution of teachers remains uneven. A study by World Bank (2008) showed that in
2004, the primary student-teacher ratio can be varied ranging from 10 to 1 in some districts
to more than 30 to 1 in others. A survey conducted by World Bank in 2005 showed that 55

13BACKGROUND
percent of primary schools in Indonesia were overstaffed and 34 understaffed. In this
regards, rural and remote areas tended to become less fortunate by facing greater shortage of
teachers particularly in primary school.
Even worse, the quality of teachers particularly in primary school is facing a problem with
the degree qualification imbalance. As shown by Figure 1 below, a study by The World
Bank in 2008 showed that less than 10 percent of primary school teachers in remote areas
had a four year degree compared to 27 percent of urban primary school teachers. Hence,
there has been an imbalance, both in quality and quantity for distribution of teachers in
Indonesia.
Figure 1 - Education Level of Primary School Teacher in Indonesia by Location
Source: The World Bank, 2008
Furthermore, a research by SMERU in 2010 showed that half of the country’s teachers do
not meet qualification to teach properly with absenteeism hovers at around 15 per cents in
2008. As observed by this research, many teachers in the public school system, especially in
the rural area were working outside the classroom to improve their income. Hence, it is no
doubt that quality in the classroom was affected because of the high absenteeism eminently
to the student performance.
Lastly, the imbalance of education quality can be seen through the survival school
probability indicated by years of schooling. Despite the fact that the gross primary

14BACKGROUND
enrollment rate for rural and urban has almost on a par in 90 percent, the continuity of
higher education between them still matters (UNICEF, 2012). Furthermore, the average year
of schooling in urban areas is 8 years, while in rural areas, it capped only in 6 years (Center
of Economic Development Studies, Univeristy Padjajaran, 2012).
2.4 Review on Education Policy to Address Problem in Rural Area
To address the low quality of education that is more prevalent in rural area, Government of
Indonesia through the Ministry of Education has implemented several policies. Four key
policies were highlighted to identify the effort of Indonesia’s government to improve
education in rural area.
#1: Education and School Assistance: BOS and BSM
Through the enactment of Law No 20/20031
Government of Indonesia has increased the
commitment to improve education quality. To deliver more equitable education access,
Ministry of Education committed to provide school assistance through School Operational
Assistance (Bantuan Operasional Sekolah, BOS). According to the official document from
the Ministry of Education and Culture, the objective of this program is to provide free
tuition for the students to access primary and secondary education, with the subsidy for non-
salary operational expenditures pegged at IDR 580,000/students/year for primary students
and IDR 710,000/students/year. The school will manage the BOS administration under
certain criteria related to curricular and extracurricular activities, in the periodic distribution.
Additional assistance for poor students provided through the cash transfer for poor students
(Bantuan Siswa Miskin, BSM). This is the non-merit cash transfer provided directly to
students pegged at IDR 450,000/students/year for primary schools, and
750,000/students/year.
#2: Greater Authority of School Policy: School Based Management
Following other developing countries, School Based Management (SBM) has been
implemented in Indonesia in tandem with decentralization of education. Schools were given
more authority to design, implement, and manage their educational programs and classroom
1
Law No. 20/2003 about National Education System to allocate 20% of National Budget for education

15BACKGROUND
instruction in accordance with local norms and culture (RAND, 2012). The objective was to
create more conducive learning process in school by letting school management to formulate
vision, mission, goals, and more importantly to have authority to organize the Operational
School Assistance (BOS). This program allows schools, including those located in remote
area, to have a chance to develop their own school management design. Additionally, the
implementation of SBM has encouraged more participation from teachers, principals, and
steering committee (parents, village authority) to be involved in formulating strategy at
school.
#3: Remote area allowance
To support more equitable distribution to the rural area, Ministry of Education and Culture
provided additional allowance to support teachers on service in rural-remote area. Teachers
under civil servants scheme received the particular benefit, which the number determined by
District Education Council according to criteria under Minister Decree number 34/20122
. In
this program, Government allocated IDR 1.5 million/month/teachers by 2012 (SMERU,
2011). The objectives of this allowance are to attract teachers to be deployed and retained in
the remote area.
#4: Teacher Certification Program
In order to attract teachers’ candidate and incentivize qualified teacher, Government
launched teacher certification program since 2006. Under the certification program, certified
teachers are eligible to get doubled the base salaries, plus the additional remote allowance
for those who served in remote area. There are three ways for teachers to obtain
certification: 1) direct certification for teachers who had master and doctorate degree, and
have IV-b civil servants rank; 2) portfolio assessment for teachers who hold supervisory
positions; 3) teacher profession retraining for teachers who has qualified by certain criteria
and based on district quota.
2
About Special Criteria for Special Teacher Additional Allowance (Minister of Culture and Education, Republic of
Indonesia)

16BACKGROUND
Government has committed to put big investment in this policy, with estimated around total
IDR 250 trillion (in constant 2006 prices) will be spent for this program. The objectives of
this program are to make big improvement to learning quality and raise the standard of
education as a whole (SMERU, 2011). Through this program, it is expected that universal
qualified teachers can be achieved and decrease the gap of education outcome between rural
and urban area in Indonesia.
2.5 The role of Indonesia Mengajar Community Participation Program
To support the government’s effort, starting in 2011, IM has stepped in to help improving
the education problem in rural area, with focus on primary school education. IM as an
independent NGO sent the best university graduates to teach as Pengajar Muda (PM.
Literally translated as “Young Teachers”) for one year in the primary schools located in
some of Indonesia’s remote areas. Since 2011, more than 19,000 young Indonesians have
applied this program and 127 of them3
have been selected periodically as Pengajar Muda
(PM) to serve 19,234 students in 134 villages in 17 districts4
all over Indonesia.
As depicted in Figure 2, to deliver the program, PM have been sent to respective village in
the district. One district can have four (4) to ten (10) PM, with each of them distributed to
one village. PM will permanently teach in selected primary school for one year. Besides
teaching, PM is also engaged with stakeholders in school (students, teachers, principals,
school committee) as well as involve in the village community, and local government where
they live. The engagement with community attempts to create the synergy among all
stakeholders in education so that it can create the positive behavioral changes in order to
improve the education quality, in the village and district level. The PM community
participation program is to be implemented in each district within 5 years.
3
PM in service. Using the data as the report is written (October 2014).
4
According to last update from Indonesia Mengajar Profile (www.indonesiamengajar.org)

17PROBLEM DEFINITION
Figure 2 - Pengajar Muda (PM) Community Participation Program
3 PROBLEM DEFINITION
3.1 Lack of Synergy amidst Stakeholders
The importance of parents and community engagement is significant in supporting student
performance (Fraser et. al, 1987; Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1993). Furthermore, parental
engagement, community participation, families support and participation, community and
agencies positively affect student outcomes (Chrispeels, 1996). Nonetheless in rural
Indonesia, the supporting system to create conducive environment for education has not
existed yet. Even though the government has enforced policy to improve education quality
in rural area (as mentioned in previous section), the impediments in the respective policy
recipient hampered the progress of education improvement.
Furthermore, a study conducted by Pradhan et.al (2011) showed that the designated school
committee participation (School Based Management Program) made little improvement and
have not successfully bring the synergy amidst all of education stakeholders. Lack of
coordination, communication, and awareness about significant role of respective
stakeholders has been perceived to hamper the process towards better education quality,

18RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
particularly in rural area. Considering all these factors, it leads us to our policy problem that
is stated below:
Lack of Synergy amidst stakeholders to improve
education quality in rural area
4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
4.1 Research Questions
The lack of synergy among stakeholders has hampered the effort to improve education
quality in rural area. Policies that have been taken by the government have not met the
expected result (as mentioned in previous section). Considering the urgency to address the
lack of synergy amidst policy actors, this study focuses on community participation
approach as a solution to improve education quality in rural area.
This Policy Analysis Excersie (PAE) aims to evaluate the Pengajar Muda community
participation program, initiated by Indonesia Mengajar as a part to improve education
quality in rural area. To achieve this objective, this paper attempt to address these questions:
1. Would community participation approach taken by IM address the lack of synergy
among education stakeholders in rural area? This question is to evaluate the program
of PM implemented in district level including challenges and opportunity of this
approach
2. Is the community participation approach viable to be adopted at the local government
level? This question is to assess the viability of community participation program at
district level under cost and benefit analysis
3. How the community participation program in education can be implemented in the
local government level? This question is to provide policy options, assessment,
recommendation, as well as implementation priorities.

19LITERATURE REVIEW
5 LITERATURE REVIEW
5.1 Literature on Theoretical Framework Components
Young Teachers Program
Sending young graduates to the disadvantaged areas as teachers has become a trend to
address education inequality in the past decades. European countries, Latin America,
Australia, China, India and Southeast Asian countries have such similar young teacher
schemes (Economist, 2015). Teach for America (TFA), an American nonprofit organization,
was the leader among these young teacher schemes. Their mission is to "eliminate
educational inequity by enlisting high-achieving recent college graduates and professionals
to teach" for at least two years in low-income communities throughout the United States.
Since its first establishment, several impact evaluations have been conducted to gauge the
effectiveness of TFA corps members relative to other teachers. MATHEMATICA Policy
Research (2012) has conducted a national evaluation of Teach for America and found that
TFA teachers had a positive impact on students' math achievement. Average math scores
were higher in classes taught by TFA teachers than in classes taught by non-TFA teachers.5
A recent evaluation done by Tennessee Higher Education Commission, State Board of
Education (2012) also found that there is no case where TFA teachers found to do worse
than other teachers.6
Pengajar Muda Community Participation Program
Despite adopting the same method of sending the high profile graduates to the
disadvantaged area, Pengajar Muda community participation program is taking a different
approach to achieve its mission. PM was sent to involve and engage with the students, local
teachers, principals, parents and other education stakeholders to participate in the education
activities and create positive changes. This program is unique among other young teacher
schemes because it is not purely aiming to improve the student’s test score and education
stakeholders are actively involved in the education improvement activities.
5
Mathematica-mpr.com, 2012. 'National Evaluation Of Teach For America'. http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/our-
publications-and-findings/projects/teach-for-america.
6
Raymond, Margaret, Stephen Fletcher, and Javier Luque. 2001. An Evaluation of Teacher Differences And Student
Outcomes In Houston, Texas. Standford: Credo, Hoover Institution.

20LITERATURE REVIEW
Definition and History of Community Participation Approach in Development
Program
The community participation approach adopted by IM has been widely adopted in the
development program. The definition of community participation approach is varied
depending on the context in which it occurs. The most popular definition of community
participation is by Oakley and Marsden (1987) who defined community participation as the
process by which individuals, families, or communities assume responsibility for their own
welfare and develop a capacity to contribute to their own and the community’s development.
In the context of development, community participation refers to an active process whereby
beneficiaries influence the direction and execution of development projects rather than
merely receive a share of project benefits (Paul, in Bamberger, 1986)
Community participation approach is a part of the evolution to involve community in the
development program, which can be traced back to 60 years ago. From the late 1940s to the
mid-1960s, South Asian countries such as Bangladesh, India and other developing countries
were already implementing initiatives that advanced the role of the community. The role of
community in the development program evolved from minimal consultation, participation,
and empowerment. Table 2 summarizes the evolution of community role in development
program which has been implemented mainly by the multilateral institution such as The
World Bank.

21LITERATURE REVIEW
Table 2 - Summary of Type of Community Involvement Program
Type of
Community
Involvement
Program
Framework
By
Key method of
implementation
Policy Actors
Involved
Area
Community’s
Consultation
Role
Community
development
program since
1960s in South
Asian
 Managed by
central
government
 Group is only
being consulted
to determine the
program
(minimal role)
 Central
government
 Local
government
 Several citizen
representing by
group
 Using mix of grants
and subsidized
credit to help poor
communities
 Poverty
Community
Participation
The World
Bank
 Inclusive
participation
 Stronger
accountability
mechanism
 Government
 Citizen
 Civil societies
 Improvement of
governance process
 Infrastructure
development
 Education
 Sanitation
Community
Based
Development
(CBD)
The World
Bank in 1990s
 Include
Beneficiaries in
design and
management
 Donors
 Government or
Institutions
Authority
 Program
Recipients
 Education
 sanitation
Community
Driven
Development
(CDD)
The World
Bank in 1990s
 Community
have direct
controls for key
project
decisions
 Community
manage the
funds
 Idea of program
comes from
community
 Donors
 Government or
Institutions
Authority
 Program
Recipients
 School construction
 Water supply and
sewer rehabilitation

22LITERATURE REVIEW
Community Participation Approach in Education Program in Indonesia
Community participation in education sector has been implemented in Indonesia particularly
since decentralization era around 2000s. School Based Management program and School
Committee are the examples of community participation approach that have influenced the
learning process. A study conducted by Pradhan et. al (2014) showed that role of school
committee through involving independent election7
on the leader of the committee has
significant impact in increasing student’s score. Furthermore, as explored by this study, the
school committee was able to encourage the improvement on school management including
facilities, as well as motivate the parents to be more supportive to the children’s
performance in school.
5.2 Limitation of Literature
Though past literatures have discussed about the impact of community participation
approach in improving education quality, no specific research has been done to assess how
this approach has synergized the education stakeholders and whether this community
participation approach is socially viable in terms of cost and benefit analysis. Furthermore,
the weakness and options to tackle the challenges of community participation approach in
education programs have hardly been examined in many literatures.
5.3 Analytical Framework on This Research
This report addresses the limitations of literature by highlighting the evaluation of Pengajar
Muda (PM) community participation program, with other evidences to highlight the
involvement among stakeholders as a way to improve education in rural area. The research
process is divided into five (5) steps. It starts with the evaluation of PM community
participation program through PM Self-Evaluation report, combined with interview, survey,
and observation that was executed during the field trip. Then we conduct a viability studies
using additional secondary data from Indonesian Statistical Bureau to examine the cost and
benefit analysis of PM program. Through the evaluation and viability studies, we synthesize
all findings into Strength, Weakness, Opportunities, Threat (SWOT) Matrix.
7
School Committee was elected by all committee members, not appointed by Principal, Teachers, or Education
Council (Pradhan, 2014).

23METHODOLOGY
Figure 3 - Framework on PAE Report
Using the SWOT matrix, we determine the policy options and assessment. Finally, the last
stage of this research will highlight policy recommendation according to the assessment and
provide implementation priorities.
6 METHODOLOGY
6.1 Focus of Research
Focus of research on the district level helps to identify the implementation of the community
participation program. It helps to understand the perspective of local stakeholders as well as
to determine the capacity and challenges that may occur. This research thus focuses on the
five pioneer areas that have been receiving PM Program for almost five years. They are
Bengkalis (Riau), Tulang Bawang Barat (Lampung), Paser (East Kalimantan), Majene (West
Sulawesi), and Halmahera Selatan (North Maluku). These five districts are the pioneer of
PM existence and would be the pilot project of how IM establish the strategy to leave the
districts and sustain the impact on education improvement. These five districts have
different characteristics in terms of social, economic, and geographic. To formulate the
strategy for final recommendation in this paper, all of the factors that may affect its
implementation at the districts level would be considered. The summary of these five
pioneer districts are tabulated in the Table 3 below.

24METHODOLOGY
Table 3 - Summary of Five Pioneer Districts of IM Program
Indicators Bengkalis Tulang
Bawang Barat
Paser Majene Halmahera
Selatan
Stakeholders
outreach
Students: 4,294
Teachers: 273
School: 20
Village: 18
Sub-district: 6
Students: 2,688
Teachers: 150
School: 14
Village: 9
Sub-district: 4
Students: 1,795
Teachers: 132
School: 13
Village: 12
Sub-district: 4
Students:
1,132
Teachers: 94
School:10
Village: 10
Sub-district: 4
Students: 1,704
Teachers: 82
School: 12
Village: 11
Sub-district: 6
Economic
Condition
GDRP without
oil and gas
(in Million):
IDR 3,963,460
GDRP without
oil and gas
(in Million):
IDR 1,277,650
GDRP without
oil and gas
(in Million):
IDR 6,827,140
GDRP without
oil and gas
(in Million):
IDR 703,890
GDRP without
oil and gas
(in Million):
IDR 635,080
Most economic
activity:
1. Oil
exploration
2. Fishery
3. Agriculture
Most economic
activity:
1. Agriculture
2. Plantation
Most economic
activity:
1. Mining &
Exploration
2. Agriculture
& Plantation
Most
economic
activity:
1. Agriculture
2. Mining and
exploration
Most economic
activity:
1. Services
2. Agriculture
Education Indicators
Net
enrollment
Primary
School
93.16% 95.07% 96.4% 90.15% 95.32%
Secondary
School
77.6% 71.58% 73.74% 61.15% 60.38%
Geographica
l condition
Low-land
area.
low land
area
coastal
rivers
Hill and
coastal area
Coastal
area

25METHODOLOGY
6.2 Primary and Secondary Research
The existing data obtained from IM self-evaluation report and the supporting studies are
used for qualitative method in this research. Supporting quantitative data will be applied for
the cost-benefit analysis to assess the viability of the program. This report combines both
primary and secondary research to obtain the findings. Two field trips were conducted
during this research. First trip was held on 16-18 May 2014 in IM Office in Jakarta and IM
training Camp in Bogor, the second trip was on 19-23 December 2014 during the District
Education Progress Forum (FKPD) in Purwakarta, Indonesia.
For the primary research, we have conducted interview, survey, and observation. For the
secondary research, we analyze the self-evaluation report and conduct cost-benefit analysis.
In addition, we refer to the existing literature review and studies, the researches by
government institutions, think-tanks, multilateral donor and agency, as well as official
government documents to gain comprehensive understanding on education policy in
Indonesia and community participation best practices.
Interview, Survey and Observation
We have conducted interviews with PM, IM officers, and participants of FKPD (Appendix
1). The purpose of the interview is to gain understanding about PM Program, as well as the
perception about PM Program deliverables. This interview is to complement the information
from PM Self-Evaluation report. Interview was conducted twice during first trip in May
2014 in Jakarta and Bogor, and the second field trip held on 13 to 23 of December 2014, in
Jatiluhur, Purwakarta, Indonesia. The second field trip held during the District Education
Progress Forum (FKPD)8
. During this forum, we also managed to do the observation,
involved in discussion, and conducted survey regarding their evaluation of PM Program,
and their readiness in long-term education improvement program without PM existence in
their districts. The objective of observation in this research is to supplement non-verbal data
which can help the accumulation of data interpretation (Hult, 1996).
8
Aim of FKPD Forum for IM was to recap the progress in each district of their deployment area, and formulate the
strategy to sustain the positive education progress in the respective district in the post deployment of PM.

26FINDINGS
Analysis of progress report (self-evaluation form)
To grasp the evaluation of PM program, this research analyzes the self-evaluation report
prepared by the PM and compiled by the IM officers. Analysis was done by compiling the
self-evaluation report and process into the qualitative research software Nvivo, to find the
key progresses and challenges among the stakeholders during the PM community
participation program. The self-evaluation report from PM applied the outcome mapping
method (appendix 2)
Cost and Benefit Analysis
To evaluate the PM community participation program, this section covered independent
study using cost-benefit analysis framework. The data for cost component are generated
from IM Financial Report (Audited by Price Waterhouse Coopers), and for the benefit refers
to the data from Indonesian Statistical Bureau. This is to assess the viability of PM
community participation program and further to recommend its social viability at the district
level.
7 FINDINGS
We analyze the data collected (mentioned in previous section) to determine the impact of the
IM program in addressing the synergy issue among stakeholders. The findings show that
positive synergy has been forged during the PM program implementation. In light of the
positive synergy, some positive behavioral changes were observed among the stakeholders.
This section highlights the impact of PM program in addressing lack of synergy among
education stakeholders as well as explanatory factors that influence the impact. The order of
the findings section would be sequenced as follow: the evaluation of PM Program (Strength,
Weakness, Limitation, and Opportunity); the viability studies, and the synthesis in SWOT
Matrix.
7.1 The Level of Collaboration among Stakeholders
Synergy is important to ensure that any policy formulated could be understood by respective
stakeholders before collaboratively implemented on the ground. Hence, the indicator used to
measure the synergy is the level of collaboration among stakeholders. In general, the result

27FINDINGS
shows a mixed finding on the level of collaboration among stakeholders as depicted in
Figure 4. Among all the stakeholders involved in the collaboration with PM, only local
education council has shown full participation in the collaboration. The local education
council has the highest level of good collaboration followed by the society during the
implementation of PM program. According to the self-evaluation report, 82% to 90% of the
respondents perceived good collaboration for these two stakeholders while only 33% of the
respondents perceived good collaboration with the Local Government (Mayor).
Astonishingly, 57% of respondents stated that the Local Government has shown no interest
in the collaboration with IM. These results highlight that there is a need for PM to address
the collaboration issue with the Local Government.
Figure 4: The Level of Collaboration among Stakeholders
Note: Society = Parents, Teacher, School Principal and Local Community; Local Government=Mayor
The level of collaboration is further explained by the activities involved in the PM
program implementation. Figure 5 shows that the form of collaboration varies between
stakeholders, depending on the objective of the collaboration as well as level of trust. The
bar chart shows that Local Government, tend to collaborate with the Pengajar Muda in
the socialization, sponsorship and education discussion activities. The society shows that
they are willing to collaborate with Pengajar Muda in operational, promotion,
sponsorship, discussion and socialization while the Local Education Council shows
preference in all activities initiated by the Pengajar Muda. In sum, the Local Education
Council is the most involved stakeholder in PM activities followed by the society and the
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Local Government
Society
Local Education Council
Stakeholder
Local Government Society Local Education Council
No Collaboration 57% 18% 0%
Poor Collaboration 10% 0% 10%
Good Collaboration 33% 82% 90%

28FINDINGS
Local Government. However, it is common to see that all stakeholders prefer to
collaborate in non-burdensome activities such as education discussion and socialization
event. Therefore, this finding could guide IM in beefing up the training for future
Pengajar Muda in the aspect of effective negotiation and communication with the local
government.
Figure 5: The Form of Collaboration between Stakeholders
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Local Government
Society
Local Education Council
Stakeholder
Local Government Society Local Education Council
Education Discussion 42% 15% 11%
Proposal Disposition 0% 0% 24%
Material and Sponsorship 42% 15% 0%
Promotion and Information 0% 31% 13%
Sosialization 17% 4% 13%
Facilititation 0% 0% 24%
Operational 0% 35% 11%
Administration 0% 0% 5%

29FINDINGS
Figure 6: The Challenges in Collaboration among Stakeholders
In the process of forging the collaboration, it is observed that there are many challenges
posed by the respective stakeholders before collaboration taking form, as depicted in Figure
6. According to the self-evaluation report, majority of the respondents cited hectic schedule
of stakeholders as the common challenges in forging the collaboration. Bureaucracy, local
election, demographic factors as well as unprofessionalism are also cited as the common
challenges posed by the local education council. Hectic schedule, the lack of knowledge of
PM program and objectives, bad perception and upcoming local election are observed as the
challenges for collaborating with Local Government, while education commercialization9
perception, bureaucracy and demographic are the challenges spilled by the society. In sum,
IM should take into consideration these challenges to devise their approach before forming
the collaboration with these stakeholders.
9
Education commercialization refers to commercialization of PM service. Some local government perceived that
PM Program is the same as other paid service and business.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Local Governmnent
Society
Local Education Council
Stakeholder
Local Governmnent Society Local Education Council
Hectic Schedule 73% 50% 0%
Unprofessional 0% 0% 47%
Local Election 9% 0% 18%
Demographic 0% 14% 18%
Bureucracy 0% 21% 18%
Bad Perception 9% 0% 0%
No Knowledge of IM 9% 0% 0%
Commercialization Issue 0% 14% 0%

30FINDINGS
7.2 The Behavioral Change among Stakeholders
As the level of collaboration shows positive results in addressing synergy issue among the
stakeholders, the positive behavior changes are also observed. Table 4 summarizes the
behavioral changes of stakeholders and its causes. The table shows that students have shown
significant changes in active and independent learning in the classroom while the teachers
have shown commitment to full school attendance and involvement in the student’s
development program. In line with these two observations, the school principals have shown
high commitment in facilitating student’s development program as well as teacher’s capacity
building. Aside from school level stakeholders, the local community has demonstrated
higher level of participation in education and learning activities during the IM program
implementation period. For more detailed in findings, please refer to the appendix 4.
Table 4: The Behavioral Change of Stakeholders and Its Causes
Stakeholders Most Behavioral
Change
Causes Least Behavioral
Change
Causes
Student  Actively participate in
learning activities in
the classroom,
including asking,
discussion, work
together, and finish the
job
 Intrinsic motivation
of students
 Role of teacher and
Pengajar Muda as a
form of extrinsic
motivation to
students
 Mastering the material
presented in
accordance with the
standards of
completeness
 Student’s learning
ability and
socioeconomic
background play a
role
Teacher  Engage in activities
that encourage
increased student
achievement and
potential, such as
additional lessons,
OSK, and UASBN
 Full class attendance
 Intrinsic motivation
of teacher
 Role of school
principal and
Pengajar Muda as a
form of extrinsic
motivation to
teachers
 Involving parents to
participate actively in
monitoring the
progress of students
 Teacher is too
complacent.
 Social norm.
 Geographical factors
School Principal  Facilitating the
improvement of
students' achievements
and development
potential
 Facilitate capacity
building of teachers in
school
 Full school attendance
 Supervision from
Local Education
Council
 Role of Pengajar
Muda and Teacher
 Intrinsic motivation
and personal value
 Developing an active
school committee and
accountable support
for school
development
 Enabling school
communication forum
with parents
 Authority or
‘blessing’ from the
parents in terms of
their child’s
education thus is least
likely to involve
parents in education
matters.
 Geographical factors
are often cited as the
causes in the survey
form. Besides that,
social gap between
parents
 Attitude
Society (Parents,
Local Education
Council and
 Local communities to
actively participate in
educational activities
in the community
 Young local
graduates initiate
local education
movement
 Parents provide a good
appreciation of the
positive development
of achievement,
 Lack of active
participation
promoted by the
teachers and the

31FINDINGS
Local
Community)
potential and behavior
of their children
school principals
 People are starting to
initiate learning
activities required to
support the Young
Teachers
 Parents actively
participate in
educational activities
in schools
 People are actively
improving the
advancement of
education in the region
with the initiation and
the resources at their
disposal
 Parents communicate
intensively with the
school about the
child's learning
process
 Parents actively
supervise the provision
of education in schools
Ultimately, these positive behavioral changes could be explained by the roles played by
respective stakeholders and how mutual roles of these stakeholders are pertinent during
the PM program implementation. Table 4 above shows that each stakeholder need some
level of collaboration (synergy) in order to demonstrate some influence towards the
student, teacher, school principal and society.
Students According to the self-evaluation report, 30% of the respondents perceived that
student’s self-motivation is the largest influence towards various positive behavioral
changes particularly towards active and independent learning in the classroom.
Interestingly, Teacher and Pengajar Muda were perceived as the largest influence to the
positive behavioral changes of the students as compared to School Principal, Parents,
Local Education Council and the Community. This finding demonstrates the important
role of teachers towards positive outcome of the students. Meanwhile, students have been
observed to show least progress in mastering the learning material presented based on the
standards of competency. This result could be influenced by many factors such as
teaching ability, students’ learning ability, as well as socioeconomic status.
Teachers According to the self-evaluation report, 41% of the respondents perceived that
teacher’s self-motivation led to positive behavioral changes particularly towards full
attendance in school and involvement in student’s development program. Teacher’s self-
motivation could be explained from the role and support from the school principal

32FINDINGS
especially in higher involvement in teacher’s capacity building as well as peer learning
projected by the Pengajar Muda. These findings demonstrate the important role of
School Principal and Pengajar Muda towards positive outcome of the teachers. However,
the self-evaluation report shows that teachers demonstrate least progress in involving
parents to participate actively in monitoring the progress of students. This result is
expected as teachers are too complacent due to social norm issues where teachers have
been regarded as higher authority by the parents. On top of that, geographical factors
such as in farming or fishery area are often cited as one of the causes to involve parents.
Hence, it is normal in these districts that monitoring of child’s education is least likely to
involve parents.
School Principals According to the self-evaluation report, the most positive behavioral
changes have been observed in facilitating student development program and teacher’s
capacity building. School Principals were observed to improve their attendance in school
which influenced the teacher’s attendance rate as mentioned above. However, the school
principals were observed to show least progress in the aspect of developing active and
accountable school committee to support school development and enabling
communication with parents. This finding could be explained from the fact that school
principals and teachers seemed to have an authority or ‘blessing’ from the parents in
terms of their child’s education. Therefore, parents are least likely to involve in child’s
education matters. Besides that, social gap between parents whom are likely farmers or
fishermen and the well-educated school principals may also explain the failure in
enhancing active participation among parents. In sum, currently there is no platform for
two-way communication between parents which results in no check and balance
mechanism for school principals. Therefore, the active and accountable school committee
is hard to materialize in these districts.
Society (Parents, Local Education Council and Local Community) According to the
self-evaluation report, local community has shown the most positive behavioral changes
while parents’ behavior is least likely to change. Local community has been observed to
initiate learning activities to support Pengajar Muda for example by setting up local

33FINDINGS
education movement such as Majene Mengajar, Paser Mengajar and etc. These local
movements have been led by the local young community and local education council
who were inspired by this program. Meanwhile, parents are least likely to involve in
supervision, development and communication of their children’s education due to the
lack of active participation promoted by the teachers and the school principals, social
norm and geographical matters as discussed above.
In sum, all stakeholders need to collaborate to produce positive behavioral change of
respective stakeholders. This finding shows that only mutual roles or combined positive
behavior of each stakeholder could reinforce the synergy and positive changes in
education program. As for IM, the five years program is sufficient and effective to
influence positive behaviour change in most, if not all, of the outcome mapping. On top
of that, it is sufficient and effective to raise positive collaboration levels among
stakeholders. However, the least changed indicator and its causes should be emphasized
and monitored.
7.3 Weakness of the Program
Despite the positive impact observed in the level of collaboration and behavioral changes
among the stakeholders, PM program demonstrates some weaknesses in the implementation.
Figure 7 summarized the findings from the self-evaluation report.
Figure 7: Weaknesses of IM Program
Local Context and
Culture
• No smooth transition
• Ignore real context
and culture of district
Policy Communication
• No formal progress
report
• No knowledge transfer
• No intense
communication
between IM top
management and
stakeholders
Component and
Material of PM Training
• Lack of training on the
function and structure
of education policy
makers and
stakeholders

34FINDINGS
According to the self-evaluation report and survey form, majority of the respondents raised
concern over three (3) weaknesses of IM program implementation in these districts as follow:
1) Failure to implement program that suits local context and culture
Local stakeholders are clueless on how IM will carry its transition mechanism when they
ended their five (5) years program in these districts. This concern is highlighted as local
stakeholders especially the local education council and local community are incapable in
sustaining the initiated education program especially in human resources, financial,
infrastructure and geographical matters. As a matter of fact, they are not ready to move
on their own. On top of that, there are some concerns regarding Pengajar Muda activities
that emphasize more on the Western culture but not the local culture or tradition. For
instance, activities which involve games, art and musical. Local stakeholders are worried
that younger generation may not uphold their own culture and identity.
2) Weak policy communication between IM and Local Stakeholders
According to the self-evaluation report, the respondents raised concern from local
education council that after five (5) years program, IM has yet to produce formal
periodical report on the progress of the PM Program to the local education council. The
periodical progress report is important to the local stakeholders so that they could see the
intended result, improve area that least progressed and devise new mechanism in
education approach. This report is also beneficial for education budget planning of the
districts. In light of this matter, the local stakeholders expected more and intense
communication with IM top management to happen. As for now, intense communication
is only initiated by the Pengajar Muda which explains why some collaboration between
stakeholders is difficult to form especially with the local government whom authority and
bureaucracy are highly regarded. Furthermore, local stakeholders especially school level
stakeholders (teacher and School Principal) as well as local community movement has
raised concern regarding the need of knowledge-sharing platform among all districts
under PM program. This platform, either in the form of social media or seminar, is
beneficial for networking and sharing knowledge of the best practices in local education
movement.

35FINDINGS
3) Failure to integrate the role of stakeholders and national policy into component and
material of training
According to the self-evaluation report, the Pengajar Muda has raised concern on their
inability to understand the role and function of some local education stakeholders which
hinder their ability to form collaboration with the respective stakeholders. The Pengajar
Muda raised some issues regarding the unknown protocol and bureaucracy especially
when dealing with government agencies. In addition, some of the Pengajar Muda have
raised concern over lack of knowledge on current national and local education policies
for example on latest curriculum reform (K13), RPP (Lesson Plan), BOS as well as
teacher’s management and development system in the districts. Lacking knowledge in
these matters is proven to be a big problem for Pengajar Muda to exercise the role of
change agent in the districts.
In sum, this finding could guide IM in its approach to implement its activities at districts
level. Firstly, it is crucial for all stakeholders to have adequate time to reinforce current
activities after one cycle of program implementation in order to maintain the level of their
performance. Given the adequate time, IM could integrate new activities into next
program cycle. New activities may include support and transition mechanism i.e
attendance in refresher training workshops; policy communication i.e inclusion in radio
programs and social media and interactions with other local stakeholders as well as
revamp Pengajar Muda training according to current policies, need and context.
Secondly, continued analysis of what works and what doesn’t work as well as intense
policy communication and feedback system are necessary to increase the likelihood of
success for more communities. Hence, activities and communication devices need to be
tailored to districts’ particular situation. Lastly, the presence and effectiveness of local
change agents which in this case the Pengajar Muda is one of the key elements of
stakeholders’ changes. This indicates that it is necessary to equip Pengajar Muda with
sufficient knowledge and skills that is context and time relevant. In the wake of PM
program discontinuation, it is pertinent to identify potential local leaders in each

36FINDINGS
stakeholder and to nurture and support them in their efforts to influence positive change
in community participation program.
7.4 Limitation of Local Government
The data from self-evaluation report and survey has also captured some limitation faced by
the local education governance to support and adopt the program. According to our survey,
each district has voiced out their concern about continuing the PM community participation
program. Figure 8 summarizes the limitation faced by each district under this study. Detail
of this finding could be referred in appendix 4. In general, each district has voiced their
concern over the lack of capacity especially in Teacher Management and Development as
well as lack of resources particularly in human capital, financial and infrastructure.
Figure 8: Limitation of the Local Education Governance
This qualitative finding is in line with the findings from the World Bank’s Local
Governance and Education Performance: a Survey of the Quality of Local Education
Governance in 50 Indonesian Districts. Figure 9 reveals that Management Control
System (including teacher’s management and development indicator), scored the lowest.
Hence, the validity of our survey on the capacity in teacher’s management and
development is further strengthened by the World Bank survey on Local Education
Governance.

37FINDINGS
Figure 9: Limitation of Local Education Governance
Source: The World Bank 2012
In regards to our findings on the lack of resources, the World Bank survey also helps to
explain the finding. The World Bank survey found that despite relatively good planning and
budgeting processes, most sampled districts demonstrate large differences between budgeted
and actual spending which frequently a sign that the original planning process is weak and
does not provide an effective mechanism to allocate resources to priority areas. However,
this is likely to be driven in part by factors outside of local government control. In particular,
the constitutional obligation to devote 20 percent of the total government budget to
education makes the overall education budget sensitive to revisions in the overall budget.
For example, large energy subsidies and the fluctuating price of oil has meant that budget
revisions in recent years have been large and have had a significant impact in planning and
budgeting processes in the education sector as a whole (World Bank 2013). Hence, the
report helped us to hypothesize that the claim of lack of resources by these districts under
study could be explained by either budget sensitivity or the weak and ineffective mechanism
to allocate resources, where both cause the lack of local government capacity.
7.5 The Opportunity to Sustain the Community Participation Program
Despite weaknesses of the program and the incapacity of local education governance as
discussed in the previous section, there is room for IM program to be sustained. According
to the survey data, IM program has three (3) points that could be leveraged for further
expansion at the local government level namely; 1) Restructured Local Education Council

38FINDINGS
ready to embrace new ideas and change; 2) Local community group is on the rise and 3)
Higher trust from the local community towards Pengajar Muda. The evidence and
explanation of the findings could be referred in the Appendix 4.
Figure 10: The Opportunity to Sustain IM Program
According to the self-evaluation report, the respondents highlighted that these districts have
very open local education council whom show higher level of collaboration with the
Pengajar Muda in respective activities. The openness has been due to current changes in the
top management and restructuring of local education council. With this restructuring, IM
could leverage the openness to influence further change at district level. On top of that, the
period of five years of program implementation has shown the growing trust from local
community whom regard IM as par as the donor agencies. With growing trust and influence
of IM, the young local graduates have initiated their own education movement in these
districts as exemplified in Paser Mengajar, Majene Mengajar, Bengkalis Mengajar and
many more. In sum, these opportunities demonstrate the likeability of PM program through
its community participation approach to sustain and even evolve into community driven
approach.
Restructuring of Local Education Council
Open new window for Change
Local Community Group Rising Concern
Growing Trust from Community

39FINDINGS
7.6 Viability Studies
Furthermore, to assess the impact of IM in generating synergy among the education
stakeholders, we have conducted an independent cost and benefit analysis (CBA) of PM
Program. The following stakeholders hold the standing in the CBA: the Indonesia Mengajar
(IM), the Pengajar Muda (PM), students and other stakeholders (local teachers, principals,
parents and school committee, education department). The inflation rate is 9.09% and the
social discount rate is 7.5%.
In CBA, we primarily look at the three actors involved: Indonesia Mengajar, Pengajar Muda
and students. There are four components of cost items: IM's program expense, PM’s cost of
forgone earning, student's direct cost of education expense, and student’s opportunity cost of
foregone earning. There are two components of benefit items: PM’s increased job prospects
and students’ increased job prospects. The method for estimation for all these cost and
benefit items is provided in the Table 5.
The assumption and calculation about the cost and benefit items will be provided in the
Appendix 5 as an independent CBA report. This section will only present the result of CBA
as well as its implication for IM.
Table 5: The Summary of Method for CBA Items
Items of CBA Method for Estimation
IM’s Pengajar Muda Program
Expense
Sum of all expenses
PM’s Cost of Forgone Earning Difference between Salary paid by IM
and paid at market rate
PM’s Benefit of Increased Job
Prospect
10% higher than market rate during life-
long working years
Student’s Direct Cost of Increased
Schooling
Increased years of schooling times the
education-expense in different education
levels
Student’s Opportunity Cost of
Foregone Earning
Increased years of schooling times the
education-expense in different education
levels
Student’s Benefit of Increased Job
Prospect
Increased number of people in different
education attainment times the according
salary

40FINDINGS
1) Positive Net Benefit: Socially Viable
Overall, the total cost is 404 billion and the total benefit is 6,398 billion. The net benefit
is 5,994 billion with a high Internal Rate of Return (IRR) which is 24%. This means the
5-year Pengajar Muda Program, which involved 22,808 students and 1,724 teachers, is
socially viable and beneficial with a high value of net benefit and IRR.
Table 6: Summary of Cost and Benefit Analysis (in billions)
Cost and Benefit Items Net Present Value (NPV)
IM's Program Expense 61
Student's Direct Cost of Education Expense 125
Student's Opportunity Cost of Foregone Earning 218
Total Cost 404
PM's Increased Job Prospect 1
Student's Increased Job Prospect 6396
Total Benefit 6398
Net Benefit 5994
2) Relative Low Cost: Affordable for Local Government
The monetary cost for operating PM program is relatively low. First, we look at the
aggregate level. Among the three cost components: IM’s PM program expense, student’s
cost of education expense and student’s cost of foregone earning, the only monetary cost
is IM’s PM program expense, which only accounts for 15.04% of the total cost as
depicted in the Figure 11.

41FINDINGS
Figure 11: Breakdown of Cost (in Percentage)
Second, we look at unit level. IM’s PM program expense per year per district is 0.72
billion, which is less 1% of the total governmental education expense of the poorest
district. The monetary cost for operating PM program is relatively low and affordable for
most of the districts.
3) High Rate of Return for Student
Majority of the benefit goes to students instead of the PM and the net benefit for students
is exceptionally high. First, we look at aggregate level. The student’s increased job
prospect accounts for 99.98% of the overall benefit. Presumably due to the number of the
students is almost 15 times the number of the PMs.
15.04%
30.98%53.98%
IM's Program Expense Student's Cost of Education Expense
Student's Cost of Foregone Earning

42FINDINGS
Figure 12: Breakdown of Benefit (in Percentage)
Second, we look at unit level. The net benefit per student is 265 million and the net
benefit per PM is 0.84 million. One rupiah invested in IM’s PM program will get IDR
4,362 return for student and IDR 14 return for PM. Though investment in IM is both
beneficial for students and PM, the rate of return for student is higher than PM as
depicted in Figure 13.
0.00%
50.00%
100.00%
PM's Increased Job
Prospect
Student's Increased
Job Prospect
0.02%
99.98%
1 Indonesia Rp
Return of 4362
Rp
per Student
Return of
14 Rp
Per PM
Figure 13: Rate of Return of IM’s PM Program for student and PM

43FINDINGS
In conclusion, the result of the CBA shows first, IM’s PM Program is socially viable and
beneficial with high net benefit of return and high internal rate of return. Second, the
monetary cost of operating PM program is relatively low and affordable to most of the
district government. Last, PM program is beneficial for both PMs and students with higher
rate of return for students.
7.7 Summary of Findings: SWOT Matrix
In sum, the quantitative and qualitative findings of the study discussed in previous section
are summarized in the SWOT Matrix as depicted in Figure 14. The SWOT Matrix is used to
guide us to the next section; for formulating policy options, policy assessment and the policy
recommendation.
Figure 14: The SWOT Matrix of PM Program
S
GOOD COLLABORATION
POSITIVE BEHAVIORAL CHANGE
LOW COST HIGH RETURN
W
LOCAL CONTEXT
POLICY COMMUNICATION
TRAINING MATERIAL
O
NEW GOVERNMENT READY TO
CHANGE
GROWING TRUST
RISING LOCAL COMMUNITY GROUP
T
LACK OF LOCAL CAPACITY
LACK OF RESOURCES
GEOGRAPHICAL
PM community
participation program
evaluation

44POLICY OPTIONS
8 POLICY OPTIONS
Based on the SWOT Matrix tabulated in the previous section, we recognized the strengths,
the weaknesses, the opportunity and the limitation in the program implementation as well as
the sustainability at district level. As a preliminary conclusion, the PM community
participation program is proven to address the policy problem highlighted in the study, with
its strengths and potential of adoptability at district level through the opportunities outlined
above. Taken into account the weaknesses and the limitations in the implementation, we
formulate four (4) policy options that will address the weaknesses and limitations mentioned
below.
8.1 IM to Improve Program Implementation
Weakness to be
addressed
 Failure to Suit
Local Context
 Weak Policy
Communication
 Failure to
Integrate Role
and National
Policy in
Training
Limitation
Lack of Local
Capacity
Lack of
Resources
Geographical
In this policy option, IM is advised to improve three (3) implementation mechanisms that
deemed crucial in the operation of their community participation program; particularly in 1)
Support and Transition Mechanism; 2) Policy Communication and 3) Training.
1) Support and Transition Mechanism In the context of this study, IM has decided to
end their five year program in the five (5) districts under study which raised concern
among the local stakeholders, especially local education council and local
community’s ability to sustain the program. In addition, these stakeholders in the
survey had responded that IM program did not cater the local context and
characteristics. Hence, to enable smooth transition from IM led to local community
driven program, IM need to tailor the level and type of capacity building support to
district characteristics. The report by the World Bank has shown that the level and
type of support that local governments need to strengthen education governance
varies considerably. For example, in the case of five districts under study where

45POLICY OPTIONS
teacher’s management particularly recruitment and training are abysmal, IM has to
strategize the capacity building support mechanism for smoother transition and
sustainable implementation. To be successful, future capacity building programs
need to take into account of the specific constraints that districts face and provide
appropriate levels of training or funding.
2) Ramp up Policy Communication In this study, the survey often cited that policy
communication between stakeholders has often been established by the Pengajar
Muda rather than the management official of the IM. This practice is the main
concern among local education government officials whom cited that as of five years
of program implementation, there was no formal progress report or feedback of the
program implementation or education problems issued to them. On top of that, there
were concerns regarding the difficulty to publicize and disseminate information to the
local population when there is no local media and communication is hampered by
limited infrastructure and geographical obstacles. To be successful and well trusted,
future communication mechanisms need to take into account of the specific
constraints that districts face and provide platform for feedback and knowledge-
sharing among stakeholders.
3) Improve Pengajar Muda Training According to the study of self-evaluation report,
there is a need to integrate national policy and role of local education policy in
Pengajar Muda training. Besides leadership and pedagogical training for Pengajar
Muda, it is important to fortify the future Pengajar Muda with knowledge of local
education policy and role of various local education actors. As politics and
administration change in Indonesia, the jurisdiction of agencies/ministries/local
Government and national education policies may change. Inculcating the knowledge
on Indonesia’s education system is important to help Pengajar Muda to better fit in
the local education system and community, building trust and respect from various
stakeholders and becoming the change agent for the nation.

46POLICY OPTIONS
8.2 Towards Community Driven Approach
Weakness to be
addressed
 Failure to Suit
Local Context
 Weak Policy
Communication
 Failure to
Integrate Role
and National
Policy in
Training
Limitation
 Lack of Local
Capacity
 Lack of
Resources
 Geographical
In this policy option, IM is advised to evolve their approach of community participation
program based on the capacity and readiness of the local education stakeholders in the
respective districts. As for now, IM approach in these five (5) districts under study are more
likely as community consultation model where NGOs consulted communities, but operated
as direct service providers using their own staff and Pengajar Muda. As IM intended to end
their program after five (5) years in operation at these districts, it is crucial for IM to initiate
the community participation model where local communities and local education council are
encouraged to participate in choosing development priorities and project design, co-
financing or providing any kind of support for the operation. The road map for program
evolvement is as follow:
Figure 15: Roadmap towards Community Driven Approach
Source: Asian Development Bank, 2006

47POLICY OPTIONS
From the roadmap in Figure 15, PM program has reached positive level of community
participation during the collaboration stage among local stakeholders. As there are growing
trust and rising local community movement in place, the support from IM only to be phased
out slowly when the entire community reach the highest community participation where they
are in full capacity to initiate and implement their own program with the funds from other
donors or Government. At this stage of community empowerment, it is hope to see that
integrated local education development which is a co-production of communities, local
governments, government sectors and private organizations bloom and spread to other
districts. At this stage, respective roles need to be properly defined and stakeholders need to
be fully empowered to execute their roles, in particular with finances.
Case Box 1: Example of Best Practice for Community Driven Approach in Education
Program
Cambodia: Education Quality Improvement Program (1999–2004).
EQIP aims to develop a model for a participatory approach to improving school quality and
pursuing performance-based management of resources. The project has two main
components. The first finances grants to provincial committees, quality improvement grants
to school clusters, and monitoring and evaluation activities. The second component supports
the National Committee on Effective Schooling, policy studies, and provincial and district
education offices. It entails a deep transformation of political and administrative structures
that aims to empower communities with powers, resources, and authority to use them
flexibly and sustainably. (Asian Development Bank, 2006)

48POLICY OPTIONS
8.3 Empower Local Education Governance
Weakness
Failure to Suit
Local Context
Weak Policy
Communication
Failure to
Integrate Role
and National
Policy in
Training
Limitation to be
addressed
 Lack of Local
Capacity
 Lack of
Resources
 Geographical
In this policy option, the need to empower local education governance is vital to improve
education performance. Decentralization has put local governments, particularly district
administrations, at the heart of basic education service delivery. District responsibilities
include the overall management of the education system, the licensing of schools and the
planning and supervision of the teaching force. Districts also provide the bulk of public
financing for primary and junior secondary schools. Since district local governments play a
central role in delivering basic services, their capacity to manage their education systems
effectively is a key determinant of performance. In particular, studies have shown that
education outcomes are better in districts that have more effective planning and budgeting
systems and have lower levels of perceived corruption (The World Bank, 2013). These
findings suggest that efforts to improve education outcomes will need to address weaknesses
in local governance to be successful. The Figure 16 explains the step to empower local
governance to better deliver education outcome.

49POLICY OPTIONS
Figure 16: The link between intermediate outcomes and district education performance
Source: The World Bank, 2013
1) Managing Limited Resources In general, decisions that districts make on education
financing, the mix of education inputs to use and their distribution appear to be
strongly associated with education outcomes (The World Bank, 2013). With the
exception of the measure of the teacher distribution efficiency, better intermediate
outcome indicators are associated with better district education performance. For
example, districts that prioritize education services and devote a greater share of their
budget to education tend to have better education outcomes.
2) Managing Quality of Governance The overall quality of local governance is
associated with better intermediate education outcomes. Districts with better assessed
governance are also districts that prioritize education more in their budgets, have a
greater proportion of teachers with bachelor’s degrees and have a more equitable
distribution of teachers. With better quality of governance, limitation in the capacity
of teacher’s management and development would be addressed. The World Bank

50POLICY OPTIONS
survey shows that the distribution of teachers also appears to be better in districts
with better governance quality (The World Bank, 2013). This means that in better
governed districts, a larger proportion of schools have the right number of teachers
which in turn is likely to improve overall levels of education quality.
3) Managing Transparency and Accountability Transparency and accountability
come out as having a particularly strong and statistically significant association with
the intermediate measures of district education performance. Districts with better
levels of transparency and accountability tend to prioritize education more and have
a higher proportion of qualified teachers compared to other districts. These results
suggest that education performance is higher in districts where greater effort is made
to produce and disseminate information about the use of public resources. The results
also suggest that performance is better in districts that encourage greater
participation of key stakeholders in the education decision making process.
4) Managing Control System Management control systems are also important in
explaining differences in district education performance. Management control
system explains the way districts manage and use their education resources. This
component attempts to assess whether the systems are in place to incorporate
decisions made by local and school level planning processes into annual education
work plans. When these systems are absent, annual work plans developed by the
local administration are unlikely to reflect the real needs of local communities and
weaken the effectiveness of district planning. The dimension involved in this system
are 1) incentives for key professional staff (e.g. teachers, school principals and
supervisors) and 2) record and disseminate local examples of education innovation
and good practice. Higher management control system is proven to have better
education outcome of the districts (The World Bank, 2013).

51POLICY OPTIONS
Case Box 2: Example of Best Practice for Empowered Local Governance
The Philippines manage to empower the local governance through Local Government Code.
In contrast to Indonesia, where central governments are still formulating decentralization
reforms and regulations, the Philippines local governments are already well established. One
of the cases was the KALAHI-CIDSS project which worked within the decentralization law
and engaged with formal institutions such as the Barangay Development Council and the
Municipal Development Council to make the process for planning and allocating local
development resources more participatory. Furthermore, to strengthen coordination with
local governments and enhance sustainability, the Philippines project works with municipal
committees chaired by the mayor and composed of the heads of all local departments. Local
representatives of national agencies, NGOs, and donor institutions also participate. These
multiagency committees meet every two weeks to discuss progress and determine needed
contributions to KALAHI projects, including staff, salaries, and other recurrent costs (The
World Bank, 2005).
8.4 The Grassroots’ Model Approach
Weakness
Failure to Suit
Local Context
Weak Policy
Communication
Failure to
Integrate Role
and National
Policy in
Training
Limitation to be
addressed
 Lack of Local
Capacity
 Lack of
Resources
 Geographical
In this policy option, it is important for the central government and local education
governance to diversify the model of teacher management and development to cater various
issues and district’s concern regarding capacity, resources and geographical obstacle. As in
the case of Indonesia, managing teachers in remote areas presents additional difficulties.
Concerns vary from teacher absenteeism to lack of monitoring in rural areas due to issues
such as having private work to supplement income, physical remoteness of the school, cost
of travel to collect pay check, medical problem. Hence, it is important to explore some

52POLICY OPTIONS
possibilities in teacher’s deployment system, targeted recruitment plus incentive and peer
system.
A) Diversify Teacher Deployment Systems based on Geographical Issue
In this policy option, the teacher deployment system has been proposed into three (3)
category based on the need and respective problem. Specifically, we are focusing on the
rural area which could be categorized into two (2) systems: 1) Accessible and Developed
Rural and 2) Isolated and Underdeveloped Rural. Therefore, the current teacher deployment
system has to be reviewed to cater the need and problem of the rural area. The explanation
of the respective teacher deployment systems are as follow:
1) Urban Centralized deployment which has been a long-standing model in Indonesia
could be implemented only for urban posting. Central planning has the advantage of
distance from local pressures and can be more easily made fair and transparent.
However, highly centralized systems are dependent on the quality of information they
receive from schools and tend to suffer from congested decision making and inattention
to the individual needs of education staff (Mulkeen, 2005).
2) Accessible and Developed Rural Centralized deployment which has been a long-
standing model in Indonesia could be implemented for accessible and developed rural
posting. However, improved systems of ‘checks and balances’ are needed to ensure
equity, justice and efficiency in teacher deployment in these kind of districts. This check
and balance system is needed to prevent greater possibility of undue influence being
exerted by powerful individuals on deployment decisions, especially in countries with a
weak administrative capacity at district and local levels (Mulkeen, 2005).
3) Isolated and Underdeveloped Rural Area As for the case of poor and isolated rural
area, it is recommended to adopt the market system. In the market system, potential
teachers apply for posts in specific schools. This system removes the burden of
deploying teachers from the central authorities. In effect, teachers deploy themselves by
searching for jobs. It gives each school more autonomy in selecting their teachers.
Schools are more likely to select teachers who will accept the position and often recruit

53POLICY OPTIONS
local people. For these five (5) districts under study, this model is viable as there are
pools of young graduates who are currently driving the local community group.
However, this model is also susceptible to low qualified teacher.
B) Targeted recruitment (Putra Daerah and Incentive)
An alternative strategy may be to seek to recruit teachers from within each region or Putra
Daerah in the hope that personal history and family connections will entice them to return to
teach in their home area after they attain their teacher certification. The presumption is that
those individuals will have family roots in these rural areas and be more willing to return
and remain in these rural settings (Mulkeen, 2005). One of the attractions of this approach is
that if teachers become established within their own community, they may gain extra
benefits from the proximity of relatives, which may help to ensure long term stability.
However, educated Putra Daerah may view their education as a means of social mobility
and may have no desire to remain in the community once qualified. Hence, the targeted
recruitment strategy is to be supplement with higher incentive such as financial bonus as
well as non-monetary incentive. On top of that, it may also be possible to focus teacher
recruitment on teachers from lower socio-economic background as study shows that teachers
from poorer backgrounds were more likely to value the relative security of the teaching
profession and take up their postings (Mulkeen, 2005).
C) Peer System
Lesson could be learned from PM program where Pengajar Muda was deployed in groups
and involvement in teacher education outreach program in rural area seems to work as the
peer support system. Mulkeen (2005) has written that those posted with another teacher,
were found to draw strength from the readymade friendship, especially in hostile
communities, even if they had not known each other before hand.
In sum, the best practice of Grassroots Model Approach particularly in teacher’s deployment
and targeted recruitment are explained in the Appendix 4.

54POLICY ASSESSMENT
9 POLICY ASSESSMENT
The complex policy problem as shown by the previous section cannot be addressed by
stand-alone policy option. It requires further assessment to evaluate and determine the
implementation of the respective policy options.
9.1 Assessment Criteria
The evaluation criteria are synthesized from the OECD policy evaluation guidelines, the
International community-developed standards for effective evaluation, and the UNESCAP.
Table 7: Policy Assessment Criteria
Utility  Meeting the needs of users/stakeholders
 Effectiveness of the proposed policy
 Efficiency of the proposed policy
Feasibility  How realistic is the policy option
 Political viability
 Institutional capacity constraints
 Economic cost effectiveness
 Community acceptance
Equity  Who take advantages and disadvantages from the policy (IM and
community)
 Reduction of disparities (among communities)
9.2 Assessment of Policy Options
Policy options in this section will be measured by the following scale:
Low High