DISCLAIMER
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States
Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
April 2015
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It
was prepared independently by Mateusz Pucilowski, Michael Duthie, Amanda Stek, and Nathan Cutler of
Social Impact.
IMPACT EVALUATION OF USAID/INDONESIA’S
KINERJA PROGRAM
ii
CONTENTS
Contents.................................................................................................................................................................................................... ii
Acronyms................................................................................................................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................................................................... v
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................................................ vi
Introduction..............................................................................................................................................................................................1
District-Level Evaluation Design .........................................................................................................................................................4
District-Level Evaluation Limitations..................................................................................................................................................6
District-Level Evaluation Findings.......................................................................................................................................................7
SBM IE Design ........................................................................................................................................................................................13
SBM IE Limitations................................................................................................................................................................................17
SBM IE Findings......................................................................................................................................................................................18
Conclusions............................................................................................................................................................................................28
Recommendations for Programming ...............................................................................................................................................33
Recommendations for Evaluation .....................................................................................................................................................34
Annexes...................................................................................................................................................................................................36
Annex I: IE Consultative Process.................................................................................................................................................36
Annex II: SBM Background and Kinerja Results Chain for SBM Package ..........................................................................38
Annex III: National Surveys and IE Design ................................................................................................................................42
Annex IV: IE Sampling .....................................................................................................................................................................43
Annex V: SBM Implementation Maps..........................................................................................................................................45
Annex VI: Balance Checks.............................................................................................................................................................47
Annex VII: Regression Tables.......................................................................................................................................................51
Annex VIII: Data Collection Instruments...................................................................................................................................70
iii
ACRONYMS
AOR Agreement Officer Representative
BEE
BOS
BOSP
CJ
DEO
DPRD
EDS
FGD
GPS
HDI
IE
IO
Business-Enabling Environment
Bantuan Operasional Sekolah
Educational Unit Operational Cost Analysis
Citizen Journalist
District Education Office
Regional Legislative Body at District/Provincial Level
School Self-Evaluation
Focus Group Discussion
Global Positioning System
Human Development Index
Impact Evaluation
Intermediary Organization
LPKP Lembaga Pengkajian Kemasyarakatan dan Pembangunan
M&E
MNCH
MSF
MSS
NGO
Monitoring and Evaluation
Maternal, Neonatal, and Child Health
Multi Stakeholder Forums
Minimum Service Standards
Non-Governmental Organization
PMP
PTD
Performance Management Plan
Proportional Teacher Distribution
RCT Randomized Control Trial
RISKESDAS National Basic Health Research Survey
RTI Research Triangle Institute International
SBM
SDU
SI
School-Based Management
Service Delivery Unit
Social Impact, Inc.
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SOW Scope of Work
SPB School Plan & Budget
iv
SUSENAS National Socioeconomic Survey
TAF The Asia Foundation
UGM Gadjah Mada University
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Social Impact evaluation team wishes to thank the many organizations and individuals who made this
work possible.
First, SI would like to express its appreciation to USAID/Indonesia for commissioning this impact
evaluation and building the evidence base on governance programming in Indonesia. In particular, the
current and former Agreement Officer’s Represtnative (AOR) of the Kinerja program, Mr. Luthfi Ashari, and Ms. Ketty Kadarwati, Blair King, and Zeric Smith, who have all provided guidance to the team both
regarding the impact evaluation and throughout the life of the program.
The team also thanks the Kinerja’s implementation team at RTI. We are grateful for the guidance and
support of the leadership team, including Elke Rapp, Marcia Soumokil, and Peter Vaz, as well as Kinerja’s
technical specialists.
The team would also like to recognize the work of those who made the evaluation’s fieldwork possible.
Many thanks to the managers, supervisors and enumerators at AC Nielsen and SurveyMeter who made
data collection a success, and SMERU Research Institute’s effort in collecting and compiling qualitative data
to supplement our findings.
The team wishes to thank the staff at SI headquarters who provided crucial ongoing support with data
cleaning and analysis, including Michele Wehle, Gabrielle Plotkin, Julia Benjamin, Sri Andini Handayani,
Jordan Fulp, Emily Gonzales, and Laura Phelan. SI also thanks James Habyarimana, Brian Scholl, and Mark
Fiorello for guiding the design and baseline of the evaluation.
The team also thanks the Government of Indonesia for its commitment to strengthening education
services in the country and in assisting school stakeholders in developing more participatory, accountable, and transparent processes. Finally, the evaluation team would like to express its gratitude
to the survey participants and key informants who graciously provided their time and contributed
invaluable information.
vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROGRAM BACKGROUND
Indonesia has made dramatic progress in
strengthening local governments since its transition
to democracy, greatly increasing local budgetary
resources and service delivery responsibilities.
While local autonomy has expanded, there remain
critical gaps in local government capacity. This is
most evident in the lack of attention to the quality—
or performance—of local service delivery.
USAID/Indonesia’s Kinerja (“Performance”)
initiative, implemented by RTI International (RTI), is
a five-year, approximately $33 million program,
focused on improving service delivery in the areas
of health, education, and business-enabling
environment (BEE) across five provinces.1
Kinerja is predicated on the assumption that better
incentive structures, greater innovation, and more
avenues for replication of improved practices will
lead local governments to deliver higher-quality
services while being more responsive to the needs
and preferences of local constituencies. In
operationalizing this approach, Kinerja was designed
to address both the provision and utilization, or
supply and demand, sides of local public service
delivery. Technical assistance is delivered by way of
five different intervention “packages,”
operationalized by intermediary organizations
(IOs), consultants, and Kinerja staff.
A robust monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system
was integrated into the program, emphasizing
USAID’s commitment to more rigorously tracking
and measuring the effects of democracy and
governance support. Kinerja was designed with an
explicit focus on rigorously evaluating the impact
and effectiveness of its programming. Kinerja’s M&E
was designed, operationalized, and overseen by
RTI’s consortium partner Social Impact, Inc. (SI).
1 The Kinerja Core program covers the sectors of health, education, and business environment in East Java, South
Sulawesi, West Kalimantan, and Aceh. The Kinerja Papua program covers the sector of health in the province of
Papua.
USAID’s Kinerja program was designed to improve
local government service delivery in the health,
education, and business sectors. Two randomized
control trial impact evaluations were conducted to
test (1) district-level impacts of the program as a
whole, and (2) school-level impacts of the school- based management (SBM) subactivity. Whereas the
SBM evaluation provides reliable, attributable
impact estimates, the district-level study was
constrained by a number of factors identified at the
outset and produced findings of limited policy
relevance.
The evaluation team found improvements across
nearly all education and health indicators at the
district level, though there was no evidence that
positive changes were attributable to the program. The SBM study, however, found a number of
significant improvements in intermediate
outcomes:  Better functioning school committees  Key school management documents more
widely available
 More information provided to parents  Parents more satisfied with schools
Conversely, the evaluation did not find evidence of
improvements in higher-level outcomes, including
school facilities, enrollment, attendance, or
parental aspirations for their child’s education. In
summary, the evaluation team found evidence of
positive changes and attributable impacts on
governance outcomes but no clear evidence of
sectoral changes due to Kinerja.
EVALUATION SYNOPSIS
vii
EVALUATION PURPOSE
This report presents summative findings, conclusions, and recommendations for future policy and
programming from the two Kinerja impact evaluations (IEs)—one that examines the impact of Kinerja’s
overall effects at the district level, and one that looks exclusively at the program’s School-Based
Management (SBM) package. The district-level IE was designed to explore whether Kinerja’s work in its
initial four provinces (East Java, South Sulawesi, West Kalimantan, and Aceh) generated sectoral impacts
in socioeconomic, education, and health outcomes.2 The qualitative data collection, completed by
consortium partner SMERU Research Institute (SMERU), was designed to provide additional depth and
exploration of how documented effects in Kinerja’s sectors developed over the course of the program to
further inform future program design decisions. The SBM IE seeks to build on the small but growing body
of SBM literature to provide relevant policy information to USAID and other donors (e.g., the World
Bank and Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade), given its ability to rigorously document
program effects on expected outcomes.
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Both IEs utilized randomized control trial (RCT) designs. While the SBM study utilized a rigorous mixed- methods design with primary data collection and robust sample sizes, the district-level study suffered from
a number of methodological challenges that limited the ability to identify and attribute changes to the
Kinerja program. Chief among these were low statistical power, a demand-driven implementation
approach that generated significant heterogeneity in treatment, and reliance on secondary data that did
not cover the full implementation period. Given this distinction in research designs, findings from the SBM
evaluation have much stronger internal validity and should provide stronger evidence for policy makers.
For the district-level IE, SI worked with Kinerja stakeholders to randomly assign 20 districts to receive
Kinerja assistance (treatment) and 20 districts to serve as a comparison group (control). The team used
two national datasets—the National Socioeconomic Survey (SUSENAS) and the National Basic Health
Research Survey (RISKESDAS)—with district-level representativeness for most indicators, to measure
baseline (2010) and endline (2013) outcomes in treatment and control districts. To examine the overall
effects of the Kinerja program, the evaluation team used two regression models to estimate programmatic
impacts. Both approaches controlled for baseline variation between treatment and control districts.
The qualitative study, conducted by Kinerja consortium member SMERU, focused on the changes
observed at the district and service delivery unit (SDU) levels in the education, health, and business
sectors. Eleven districts were selected for the study and visited during baseline (2011) and endline (2014)
data collection. To complement the SBM IE, qualitative data collection in Bengkayang, Sekadau, and Melawi
focused on changes observed specifically in school participation and performance according to key
respondents. SMERU, together with evaluation stakeholders, selected two partner schools to visit during
baseline and endline data collection. Fieldwork included focus group discussions (FGDs), in-depth
interviews, secondary data collection, and observation.
The SBM IE utilized a mixed-methods RCT design to measure changes in development outcomes
attributable to Kinerja’s SBM intervention in three sampled districts in West Kalimantan. Specifically, the
study focused on the effect of the SBM intervention on four key outcome areas, listed below, in the
districts of Bengkayang, Sekadau, and Melawi:
2 The BEE intervention was not included in the district-level IE considering the lack of available business-related data
in pre-existing national datasets.
viii
1. Role clarification: The lack of clarity and formality among stakeholders about their respective roles
and responsibilities is a barrier to effective school management. SBM removes this barrier by
clarifying working mechanisms and the respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders.
2. Transparency/accountability: SBM increases awareness of school management and finances among
stakeholders, which leads to more effective planning, budgeting, management and spending.
3. Committee participation: SBM enables greater school committee involvement in educational
service delivery, which creates school management that is more responsive to existing needs.
4. Community involvement: By promoting community awareness of school problems and
parent/community participation in school management, SBM encourages increased financial and
non-financial contributions to the school from non-government and government sources.
Evaluation stakeholders randomly assigned schools to the program in accordance with the process
outlined in the sampling section. The study comprised two data collection waves, with baseline data
collected in October 2011 and endline data collected in October 2014. Fieldwork included collection of
survey data from principals, school committee members, and parents, as well as from direct observation
to triangulate data on key outcome areas. The evaluation team utilized a multiple regression model to
estimate school-level average treatment effects of the SBM intervention.
LIMITATIONS
District-Level IE
Despite accessing individual-level data from the secondary RISKESDAS and SUSENAS datasets, the
clustering of this data across only 40 districts greatly reduces power, requiring in some cases up to a 19- percentage-point change in indicators to achieve standard confidence in identifying a statistically significant
difference in treatment and control districts. Moreover, the limited number of districts (n=40) available
for assignment weakens the principal strength of an RCT. In addition, the demand-driven approach of
Kinerja (which means that not all districts will receive a “standardized” treatment) resulted in different
scope and intensity of implementation in each district, with this “heterogeneity of treatment” increasing
expected variation in outcomes and resulting in decreased power to detect statistically significant
outcomes. Last, reliance on secondary data resulted in using baseline, and particularly, endline data that
did not align optimally with the program implementation timeline. The evaluation team attempted to
mitigate these limitations by using as much of the available data, including other secondary sources, as
controls, which is described in more detail in the report.
SBM IE
Although the SBM IE has strong internal validity and attribution, there are a few important limitations that
were considered by the evaluation team. First, the concentrated geographic distribution of schools could
have facilitated spillover (or sharing of program implementation or outcomes between treatment and
control areas) during the life of the Kinerja program. Control schools may also have been “contaminated”
due to replication activities in the final years of the program. Second, the external validity of the evaluation
is limited by the small number of districts and schools where the evaluation was implemented. Results
may be different under different local conditions or if implemented by a different local IO. Nevertheless,
findings from this study are consistent with other SBM studies, suggesting that the external validity threats
may not be so severe.
Qualitative Study
The qualitative study was limited by several factors. Only 11 districts out of 20 were selected for the
endline data collection due to budget constraints. These districts were analyzed regarding their Phase I
package, based on USAID request, which excluded investigation into Phase II packages in Kinerja’s districts
ix
(described in the report). The baseline and endline tools for the qualitative study were not identical,
considering the baseline was conducted before Kinerja’s interventions were finalized. The baseline,
therefore, provides context but not an adequate comparison for endline data. Finally, endline data was
gathered over the course of several months, meaning that some program effects may not have been
captured in those districts visited earlier in the 2014 fiscal year.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Looking at the evaluation as a whole and given the expected limitations in the district-level IE identified
during the design stage, the SBM IE provides much clearer, more actionable information. The process of
integrating these IEs into Kinerja’s design and implementation has also generated important lessons learned
for the conduct of IE in USAID governance programs.
District-Level IE
At the district level, the evaluation team finds little evidence of changes attributable to the program, though
we do see positive changes on nearly all education and health indicators in treatment areas. Additionally,
qualitative data reveals important improvements in intermediate health and education outcomes at the
district and SDU levels, which is consistent with our monitoring data. Progress has been made on the intermediate outcome to improve the health and education regulatory
environment in Kinerja’s districts. All districts passed improved regulations regarding issues ranging from
maternal and child health to the distribution of teachers. Progress was also made in establishing successful
participatory processes regarding education reforms for Proportional Teacher Distribution (PTD) and
Educational Unit Operational Cost Analysis (BOSP). For example, education stakeholders from the
community helped schools and district governments analyze operational needs and plan how to meet gaps
in funding. This inclusive approach ensures transparency and promotes understanding of program
activities.
Improvements in health management and good governance at the SDU level were noted in the qualitative
study, and clients’ behavior (over the long term, affecting district-level outcomes) has changed according
to specific health indicators tracked in monitoring data.3 These indicators have increased from 2012 to
present in most partner units, revealing changed behavior at the unit level but not yet at the district level.
It is likely that client behavior (tracked by district-level indicators) has not yet changed at the district level
due to the limited timeframe for both data collection and programming, which underscores the need to
increase the length of programming to affect behavior. Another issue concerns data accessibility and
reliability, which continues to be a challenge for districts, health clinics, and schools, despite improved data
management systems. This makes it difficult to identify and integrate lessons learned and to refine
programming as needed.
3 The Kinerja PMP tracks the following indicators at the partner puskesmas level, documenting these as “goal-level
indicators”: % of pregnancies assisted by qualified health care workers; % of pregnancies receiving complete antenatal
care (four visits); % exclusively breastfed. This data is reported in PWS KIA reports.
x
School-Based Management
Overall, we find consistently positive program effects from the Kinerja SBM intervention across
respondent types, which are verified through direct observation and qualitative findings:  School committees are functioning better. There are more committee members and meetings,
and members know more about the role of the committees and receive more information
regarding school management. There was some evidence of increased involvement of school
committees in financial management and consistently increased perceptions of committee roles in
Kinerja-supported schools, particularly among principals. At the same time, school management
and committee documents are more widely available, and there is more information on student
activities and opportunities for involvement provided to parents and communities.  Parents are more satisfied with schools and, in particular, with school committees. The evaluation
showed satisfaction with school committees that were active and engaged with the community. However, female parents were more likely than male parents to be unclear about the role of the
school committee. Other studies of SBM around the world have shown that schools with
committees that are more intricately linked to communities also exhibited higher rates of
community and parent satisfaction in education service delivery.  Parents from treatment schools seem to be equally or less likely to be involved in school
management. This might reflect decreased levels of engagement or accountability among parents.
However, our data, particularly in the case where parents are better informed and more satisfied
regarding school management, seem to suggest that school management is more transparent and
that parents are happier with the results and so feel less of a need to engage with the school.
Interestingly, males were more likely than females to visit schools the previous year and this year.
Males were also more likely to have looked at the bulletin board last year.
The evaluation also identified remaining challenges to effective school management, particularly related to
engaging parents and the community directly in school management. We also do not find evidence of
improvement in higher-level outcomes, including school facilities, enrollment, attendance, or parental
aspirations for their child’s education, though we do find evidence of an increased number of books. The
lack of change in higher-level outcomes may have been affected by a relative lack of engagement from
West Kalimantan school principals in the Kinerja program, often due to a lack of understanding about
how technical assistance could ultimately benefit the school in terms of performance and materials.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROGRAMMING
The findings from the two Kinerja IEs suggest a number of recommendations for future government or
donor programs/initiatives on governance in Indonesia.
Sectoral Programming
 Increase the length of governance and/or sectoral programs that incorporate governance
interventions (e.g., Kinerja’s SBM) in order to generate sectoral outcomes. While the evaluation
team is not in a position to specify the exact duration of such programs, it is recommended that
the duration of programming expand alongside the complexity of the intervention. Additionally,
for programs with limitations on treatment intensity (e.g., school breaks, agricultural seasons) or
when long start-up periods are expected (e.g., demand-driven processes, working through local
grantees), additional elapsed time should be taken into account.
xi
Technical Assistance
 When technical assistance is being provided in lieu of funding, it is critical to explain to beneficiaries
the program logic model and expected areas of change to secure their support and buy-in. This
needs to be conducted early in programming, not only to establish buy-in and support, but also
to test program assumptions and to make modifications as necessary.
School-Based Management DesIgn
 Conduct and/or fund research to explore the uncertain causal link between improved school
management and educational performance, as well as other important constraints to performance,
such as teacher quality and lack of resources. The research findings should be used to refine the
SBM theory of change and make appropriate program adjustments.  Educational governance programs should involve members of the entire school community (i.e.,
principal, teachers, parents, students, and village representatives). This is critical in order to obtain
buy-in from a diverse group of stakeholders, to maintain accountability to program promises and
goals, and to ensure the sustainability of programming. It is also necessary in order to address
both demand- and supply-side barriers to adequate education service delivery. More concerted
efforts, such as targeted outreach and meetings, should be made to better involve mothers in
programming.  Provide clear training and capacity building on the unique roles and responsibilities of school
stakeholders involved in SBM so that principals, teachers, and school committee members can
more actively engage in school affairs. To be effective, all training should be ongoing, of adequate
intensity, and appropriately monitored to ensure that skills are integrated into day-to-day work.  Increase district capacity to support SBM in schools through training and peer-to-peer learning.
The district should play the role of both monitor and supporter and should help guide schools to
access the necessary funding to meet identified needs.
School-Based Management Policy
 Clarify the authority provided to schools and districts under the Indonesian SBM Guidelines, and
firmly base all future SBM support programs on government policy, as Kinerja did.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EVALUATION
Kinerja’s focus on rigorous M&E including an IE has generated valuable lessons on the integration of IEs
into USAID governance programming. When considering or conducting an IE of governance programs, it
is recommended that USAID should:  Conduct power analysis, even if based on only rough assumptions, prior to commissioning an IE.
An underpowered evaluation runs an increased risk of not finding program impacts even when
impacts do exist.  Focus IEs on discrete interventions with consistent outcomes within a program when the
evaluation purpose is geared towards learning. IEs of very complex, multi-component programs
may be able to identify impacts from an accountability standpoint, but the learning on what
components generated those impacts will likely be limited.  Measure outcomes at the lowest level of aggregation possible. Even with clustering, power will be
higher when measuring results at the household rather than district level. This does not imply that
only household- or individual-level outcomes should be measured. USAID should, however,
consider the benefits in terms of increased power and the costs of collecting data at lower levels.
xii
 Consider options for increasing power, particularly when changes need to be measured at a higher
level of aggregation. This may include the following:
o Increase the sample size. This will likely be constrained by evaluation or implementation
resources, but the more units in the sample, the more likely the evaluation will identify
effects, if they exist. When units are clustered, power will be increased significantly more
by adding clusters rather than adding units within the same cluster.
o Increase the effect size. Larger program effects are easier to measure and require a smaller
sample size. Increasing the effect size is not straightforward, however, and typically
requires additional resources and time.
o Invest in primary data collection even though it can be costly, particularly when collecting
data over a wide area. Secondary data rarely provide optimal timing, quality, sampling, and
indicators to maximize power. Secondary data should be reviewed at the design stage to
determine the possibility of using them, even as a source of control variables.  Contingent on funding, repeat district-level analysis when subsequent waves of secondary data
become available in 2016.
1
INTRODUCTION
Indonesia has made dramatic progress in strengthening local governments over the past decade, greatly
increasing local budget resources and service delivery responsibilities. Local democracy and autonomy
have been expanded, and capacity for local management and governance has been increasing steadily.
Despite this overall progress, however, there remain some critical gaps in local government capacity, most
notably lack of attention to the quality of local service delivery.4 The United States Agency for International
Development’s (USAID’s) Kinerja (meaning “performance” in Bahasa Indonesia) program, implemented
by RTI International (RTI), is designed to close this “performance gap” by testing and replicating
interventions to improve measurable performance in the three key sectors of education, health services,
and the business-enabling environment (BEE).
Kinerja is a five-year democracy and governance program focused on service delivery across five provinces
and 20 districts in Indonesia. In line with the growing demand for evidence-based decision-making within
USAID, Kinerja was designed with an explicit focus on rigorously evaluating the impact and effectiveness
of its programming. Kinerja’s Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) was designed, operationalized and
overseen by RTI’s consortium partner, Social Impact (SI). To support impartiality and independence in the
evaluation, SI’s relationship with RTI included a “firewall” agreement with a protected budget and
independence in results reporting.
Alongside a host of other M&E activities, the Kinerja Scope of Work (SOW) included explicit
requirements for impact evaluation (IE). Upon agreement award, the SI team worked with evaluation
stakeholders to design an evaluation approach that would yield rigorous and useful information to inform
future programming and policy decisions. The product of these consultations was an agreement on two
complementary IEs and a qualitative study. This report presents summative findings for the two Kinerja
IEs and the qualitative study. Findings from the district-level education and health IE are presented first,
followed by the School-Based Management (SBM) evaluation. Conclusions are presented for the two
studies in tandem, followed by qualitative findings and recommendations for future programming and
evaluations that may be undertaken by USAID, RTI, and/or other stakeholders.
PROGRAM BACKGROUND
Kinerja is a governance program focused on improving public service delivery in Indonesia. RTI, as the
prime implementer, works together with a consortium of five partners, including SI, The Asia Foundation
(TAF), SMERU, Gadjah Mada University (UGM), and Partnership for Governance Reform (Kemitraan).
The original period of implementation was September 30, 2010 to February 28, 2015 and a no-cost
extension was granted to amend the program’s end date to September 30, 2015.
The program works in the five provinces of Aceh, West Kalimantan, South Sulawesi, East Java, and Papua.5
In each of these provinces (excluding Papua), Kinerja works in four districts and one municipality.6 Kinerja
is predicated on the assumption that better incentive structures, greater innovation, and more avenues
4 Blunt, P., Turner, M. and Lindroth, H. (2012), “Patronage's Progress in Post-Soeharto Indonesia.” Public
Administration and Development, 32: 64–81. doi: 10.1002/pad.617. 5 The Kinerja Papua Add-On was awarded on March 16, 2012, increasing the number of provinces to five and the
number of districts to 24. Kinerja’s work in Papua is not measured by the IEs described in this report. 6
In this report, districts and municipalities receiving Kinerja support will be referred to as districts.
2
for replication of improved practices will lead local governments to deliver higher-quality services while
being more responsive to the needs and preferences of local constituencies. In operationalizing this
approach, Kinerja was designed to address both the demand and supply sides of local public service
delivery. This was done to avoid stimulating demand without a subsequent local government response, or
alternatively, providing services that remain unused by the public, while keeping in mind the critical need
to maintain a balance and facilitate successful models of functioning feedback mechanisms.
These supply- and demand-side interventions are captured in the Kinerja results framework, with an
overall program goal of improving public service delivery by Indonesian local governments.
KINERJA EVALUATIONS BACKGROUND
The M&E plan was designed to systematically identify whether or not the project was effective in achieving
its stated goals, with activities including two IEs, a midterm performance evaluation, and tracking of key
public service delivery indicators for each Kinerja package, among other activities. This multifaceted M&E
approach was proposed to maximize the effectiveness of efforts to monitor progress and evaluate the
achievement of Kinerja.
The district-level IE focuses on district-level effects of Kinerja Core’s packages in all provinces excluding
Papua, while the other IE focuses exclusively on the SBM package. Exploring aggregated program effects
was always a priority for USAID; however, implementing a rigorous IE of all programmatic components
presented a number of challenges with regard to design, cost, and policy relevance. Due to the demand- driven and complex nature of Kinerja, especially the limited sample size of 20 districts, the district IE was
noted during the initial design stage as being unlikely to identify statistically significant effects due to low
evaluation power. In light of the limitations, evaluation stakeholders agreed to implement a scaled-down
version of the district-level IE, focusing on pre-existing national health and education datasets rather than
more costly primary data collection.7 A second study was designed to rigorously evaluate a Kinerja
program package by means of the strongest IE design option, randomized control trial (RCT), and ensured
that evaluation findings would provide actionable information for policymakers. The SBM intervention was
selected as the focus of this component IE and covers three districts and 96 schools in the province of
West Kalimantan. For a detailed overview of the consultative process surrounding this IE, see Annex I.
Kinerja monitoring and qualitative data were collected and analyzed to provide information on the
processes and causal connections that lie behind the core observations contained in the IEs. Consortium
partner SMERU conducted qualitative data collection in 11 districts identified by evaluation stakeholders.
The 11 districts were selected after carefully considering district interventions, cost, IE sampling, and input
from evaluation stakeholders with the intention of collecting a representative mix of data regarding the
level of progress achieved across diverse districts.
7 The BEE intervention was not included in the district level IE considering the lack of available business-related data
in pre-existing national datasets.
3
SBM BACKGROUND
SBM is a reform that seeks increased autonomy for schools in decisions about their management, including
use of funds, materials, and human resources. Amidst vast decentralization and education reforms in
earlier years, the School Operational Assistance (Bantuan Operasional Sekolah; BOS) program was
introduced in Indonesia in 2005 as a formal disbursement program of education funds to schools. Under
BOS, school committees were established to run SBM programs. All schools in Indonesia receive block
grants and school committees have control over non-salary operational expenditures. By channeling funds
directly to schools, education stakeholders such as parents, principals, and school committees are enabled
to choose the best way to allocate grants to address unique challenges facing schools. While
decentralization reforms like SBM appear promising, rigorous evaluation of their impact is scarce.8 There
is only one rigorous study to date regarding the impact of the implementation of SBM in Indonesian
schools, which found significant effects on learning and greater engagement by education stakeholders.9
One of the various packages of support offered to local governments by the Kinerja program provides
technical assistance (mentoring and training) for the application of SBM at the school and district levels.10
The SBM activity was designed to assist school stakeholders in developing integrated school development
plans and financial reports in a more participatory, transparent, and accountable manner. Over the long
term, the achievement of these goals is expected to have a positive impact on learning outcomes,
satisfaction with education services, and improved school attendance, completion, and continuation rates.
For further details on SBM in Indonesia and Kinerja’s SBM intervention, see Annex II. LPKP (Lembaga Pengkajian Kemasyarakatan dan Pembangunan) is the IO that implemented Kinerja’s SBM
support in West Kalimantan beginning in October 2011. LPKP utilized eight modules to train principals
and school committee members on topics ranging from school evaluation to complaint surveys. LPKP
voiced difficulties in implementing SBM activities due to an initial lack of understanding of SBM by principals,
school committee members, community leaders, and teachers. Despite these obstacles, with LPKP’s
assistance, schools began to integrate minimum service standards (MSS) as well as the results of a school
complaint survey and a School Self-Evaluation (EDS) into their plans and budgets in 2012. LPKP also
encouraged schools to create a culture of transparency and accountability with the publication of planning
and budgeting documents on the school information board. After the termination of LPKP’s 14-month
grant, this task was continued by Kinerja local staff and consultants through December 2014.
8 Glewwe, P. and M. Kremer. 2006. “Schools, Teachers, and Education Outcomes in Developing Countries,” in E.A.
Hanushek and F. Welch, eds. Handbook of the Economics of Education. New York: Elsevier. 9 Pradhan, Menno, Daniel Suryadarma, Amanda Beatty, Maisy Wong, Arya Gaduh, Armida Alisjahbana, and Rima
Prama Artha. 2014. "Improving Educational Quality through Enhancing Community Participation: Results from a
Randomized Field Experiment in Indonesia." American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(2): 105–26. 10 This approach aimed to increase ownership and reduce the risk of donor dependency. All the improvements made
in schools have been made with local funding and resources.
4
DISTRICT-LEVEL EVALUATION
DESIGN
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The district-level IE employs secondary data to test for evidence of Kinerja’s effects on health and
education. This study was designed to explore whether Kinerja made sectoral impacts on district-level
socioeconomic and health outcomes. The former was measured using National Socioeconomic Survey
(SUSENAS) data and the latter using National Basic Health Research Survey (RISKESDAS) data. It seeks
to inform future governance program design and investment.
DESIGN
SI worked with Kinerja stakeholders to randomly assign 20 districts to receive Kinerja assistance
(treatment) and 20 districts to serve as a comparison group (control). A total of 99 districts were selected
by USAID for potential inclusion in the Kinerja program, with district-level eligibility criteria including
willingness to participate in the program, lack of other projects offering similar support, and lack of a plan
to split for the next four years. From this list, 40 candidate districts were randomly sampled, with
stratification at the province level (ten districts per province). West Kalimantan was also stratified
according to whether a district was considered a border district or non-border district (all eligible border
districts were to be included). Sampled districts were then randomly assigned to treatment and control
(five treatment and five control were assigned in each district), and statistical checks were performed to
ensure that “candidate” districts were representative of the total pool of eligible districts, and treatment
districts were, on average, balanced with control districts. The latter was performed on three district￾level characteristics: population size (2010 population census), economic development (per capita
expenditure from SUSENAS 2009), and human development index (2009 BPS).11
The team used two national datasets, with district-level representativeness for most indicators, to
measure quantitative baseline and endline outcomes in treatment and control districts. SUSENAS is a
national household survey collected by the Central Agency on Statistics (BPS) focusing on socioeconomic
indicators. RISKESDAS is a national household survey conducted by the research arm of the Ministry of
Health focusing mainly on basic health indicators. For both surveys, 2010 data was used as baseline and
2013 was used as endline, as it is the most recent available despite the program’s continuation beyond
2013. More information about survey designs for both SUSENAS and RISKESDAS can be found in Annex
III.
11 District selection in East Java differed from the other three provinces in that the relevant provincial technical
offices produced lists of desired districts as described above. As in other provinces, all of these districts were then
invited to submit letters of commitment (indicating sectoral priorities). Twenty-five of the 36 districts in the province
did, in fact, submit such letters.
5
The qualitative study focused on the changes observed at the district and service delivery unit (SDU) levels
in the education and health sectors. Eleven districts were selected for the study and visited during baseline
(2011) and endline (2014) data collection.12 (See Table 1.)
Table I: Qualitative Sample
Intervention
Baseline
September 2011–February 2012
Endline
June 2014–October 2014
Health
1. Kota Banda Aceh Aceh
2. Kab. Bener Meriah Aceh
3. Kota Singkawang West Kalimantan
4. Kab. Bondowoso East Java
1. Kota Banda Aceh Aceh
2. Kab. Bener Meriah Aceh
3. Kota Singkawang West Kalimantan
4. Kab. Bondowoso East Java
PTD
1. Kab. Luwu South Sulawesi
2. Kab. Barru South Sulawesi
1. Kab. Luwu South Sulawesi
2. Kab. Barru South Sulawesi
SBM
1. Kab. Bengkayang West Kalimantan
2. Kab. Melawi West Kalimantan
3. Kab. Sekadau West Kalimantan
1. Kab. Bengkayang West Kalimantan
2. Kab. Melawi West Kalimantan
3. Kab. Sekadau West Kalimantan
BOSP
1. Kab. Bulukumba South Sulawesi
2. Kab. Aceh Tenggara Aceh
1. Kab. Bulukumba South Sulawesi
BEE 1. Kab. Probolinggo East Java
Total 11 districts 11 districts
Fieldwork was conducted by SMERU staff and regional researchers and included focus group discussions
(FGDs), in-depth interviews, secondary data collection, and direct observation. Baseline tools were
developed to investigate context in each district while the endline tools were slightly edited to better
address changes resulting from the Kinerja intervention. Enumeration protocols and core team members
remained the same across both data collection waves.
BALANCE CHECKS
Balance checks are important for the district-level IE to determine whether or not treatment and control
districts were similar prior to the introduction of the program. Random assignment was used to identify
which districts would receive treatment and which districts would serve as controls. The extent to which
random assignment produced two comparable groups was tested using statistical balance checking. While
no outcome or control variables were statistically significantly different between treatment and control
districts, a number of variables were substantively different in the two groups—especially population
density and human development index (HDI). Balance in this case is more reflective of limited statistical
power than of than true comparability.13 As such, there may be substantial differences between the two
groups across a number of variables, even though the differences are statistically insignificant. While the
evaluation team attempts to control for these potential differences, this remains a limitation of the study,
12 One district was visited to investigate BEE, the findings from which are not included in this report. 13 With a total sample size of 40 districts, average values in the two groups would have to differ by up to one standard
deviation for some variables, which is considered a very large difference, in order to detect statistical significance.
6
as described below. A presentation of balance checking, including a comprehensive table of all variables,
is presented in Annex VI. ANALYSIS
The evaluation team used two regression models to estimate programmatic impacts. Both approaches
controlled for baseline variation between treatment and control districts. The primary model, a variation
of the equation detailed in the SBM section, is presented as Equation 1 below:
(1) Yik1 = β0 + β1*Tk + β2*Yk0 + β3Xi1 + β4*Xk0 + εi1 where Yik1 represents the dependent variable for individual i in district k at endline (time=1), 0 is the
constant (y-intercept), Tk is the treatment status for district k (dummy variable, where 0=control,
1=treatment), Yk0 is the collapsed dependent variable for district k at baseline (time=0), Xi1 is the vector
of control variables for individual i at endline (time=1), Xk0 is the vector of control variables for district k
at baseline (time=0), and εi1 is the error term. Survey weights were applied in the analysis, and standard
errors were clustered at the district level.
A secondary model was included to provide an additional robustness check to Equation 1. This difference￾in-difference approach is presented as Equation 2 below:
(2) Yk1 = β0 + β1Tk + β2E + β3(Tk*E) + β4X + ε
where Y represents the dependent variable in district k at endline (time=1), 0 is the constant
(y-intercept), Tk is the treatment status for district k (dummy variable, where 0=control, 1=treatment), E
is time (baseline=0, endline=1), X is a vector of control variables, and ε is the error term. Since this model
aggregates all data from each district into a district average, the sample size and resultant power from this
approach are much lower.
DISTRICT-LEVEL EVALUATION
LIMITATIONS
DISTRICT-LEVEL QUANTITATIVE LIMITATIONS
The Kinerja district-level IE faced a number of methodological challenges, which contributed to the
decision to also conduct the SBM IE. First, despite accessing individual-level data from the secondary
SUSENAS and RISKESDAS datasets, the clustering of this data across only 40 districts greatly reduces
power, requiring in some cases up to a 19-percentage-point change in indicators to achieve standard
confidence in identifying a statistically significant difference in treatment and control districts. Moreover,
the limited number of districts (n=40) available for assignment weakens the principal strength of an RCT.
That is, with a relatively small sample size, there is increased potential for initial differences between
treatment and control areas, or selection bias. This small sample size means that significant changes
unrelated to the program in a few treatment or control areas could have important effects on the overall
treatment or control averages, potentially biasing results.
7
Second, the demand-driven approach of Kinerja (which means that not all districts will receive a
“standardized” treatment) resulted in different scope and intensity of implementation in different districts,
with this “heterogeneity of treatment” increasing expected variation in outcomes and resulting in
decreased power to detect statistically significant outcomes. Additionally, this implies that the common
set of health and education indicators used to measure change may be less relevant in some districts
where health or education activities were in less demand.
Third, reliance on secondary data resulted in using baseline, and particularly, endline data that did not align
optimally with the program implementation timeline. Data was available in 2010 and again in 2013, but the
Kinerja program began implementation in 2012 and continued through 2015. More than a year of Kinerja’s
implementation, therefore, is not captured in the district-level IE data.
Fourth, using secondary data limits the evaluation team to exploring outcomes already captured in the
survey instruments. As such, no questions tailored to Kinerja’s theory of change are possible.
In summation, the evaluation team had serious reservations about the ability of the district-level evaluation
to attribute changes to the Kinerja program. However, the low cost of such an evaluation paired with the
desires of Kinerja stakeholders to attempt high-level research was grounds for investing in the analysis.
The evaluation team attempted to mitigate these limitations by using as much of the available data, including
other secondary sources, as controls, as described below. However, the limitations, particularly the low
power of this portion of the study along with the misalignment in timing of implementation and data
availability, lead to concerns about attributing results to the Kinerja program.
DISTRICT-LEVEL QUALITATIVE LIMITATIONS
The qualitative study was limited by several factors. Only 11 districts out of 20 were selected for the
endline data collection due to budget constraints. These districts were analyzed regarding their Phase I
package, based on USAID request, which excluded investigation into Phase II packages in Kinerja’s districts.
The baseline and endline tools for the qualitative study were not identical, considering the baseline was
conducted before Kinerja’s interventions were finalized. The baseline, therefore, provides context but not
an adequate comparison for endline data. Lastly, endline data was gathered over the course of several
months, meaning that some program effects may not have been captured in those districts visited earlier
in the 2014 fiscal year.
DISTRICT-LEVEL EVALUATION
FINDINGS
SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS (SUSENAS)
The evaluation team analyzed longitudinal changes between Kinerja-supported and control districts across
two outcome clusters: education and health. We analyzed three educational variables: primary enrollment,
junior enrollment, and dropout rates. Health variables included assisted childbirth (children under two
that had a doctor, nurse, or midwife assist in their birth), breastfeeding (babies aged 0–12 breastfed
8
exclusively for six months, and babies aged 6-12 breastfed exclusively for six months), and use of public
health facilities.
Sampled districts showed improvement between baseline and endline across all seven key outcome
indicators, indicating positive time trends on these variables across treatment and control districts.
Kinerja-supported districts experienced improvements at a faster rate than control districts across all but
one variable (dropout). However, when analyzed following the primary model outlined above, program
participation was not associated with statistically significant improvements in any variable. In fact, Kinerja
districts experienced statistically significant reductions relative to control districts in two key indicators.
First, after controlling for the district and individual control variables, we find that children in treatment
districts were significantly less likely to be enrolled in primary school relative to children in control districts
(p=0.048), though both show endline enrolment rates at 99%. Respondent literacy was strongly predictive
of primary school enrollment, with literate parents being over 100 times more likely to send their children
to school (p<0.001). Second, after applying all aforementioned control variables, individuals in Kinerja
districts were 18% less likely to utilize a public health facility than individuals in control districts (p<0.0001),
though utilization increased by over 40 percentage points between the two data collection waves.
Irrespective of treatment status, urban regions were, on average, 11% less likely to utilize such facilities.
Robustness checks were performed using the alternate model, which generated similar findings, though
none were statistically significant. (See Figures 1 and 2, Table 2.)
Figure 1: SUSENAS Health Outcomes14
14 District-level graphs present aggregated baseline values for treatment and control groups for ease of presentation.
For the purposes of regression anlaysis, however, baselines are assessed separately.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Use of Public
Health Facilities
Babies Breastfed
(0-12 months)
Babies Breastfed
(6-12 months)
Assisted Birth District-Level Percentage
SUSENAS - Health Outcomes
Aggregated Baseline Control Endline Treatment Endline
9
Figure 2: SUSENAS Education Outcomes
Table 2: SUSENAS Key Outcome Indicator Results
Baseline Endline
Model 1 Model 2
Odds
Ratio15 p-value
Odds
Ratio p-value
Primary
enrollment
Control 99.2% 99.3%
0.51 0.048** 0.45 0.809
Treatment 98.5% 98.8%
Junior
enrollment
Control 83.9% 82.7%
0.96 0.638 0.92 0.927
Treatment 82.1% 82.9%
Dropout
Control 4.2% 3.0%
0.95 0.680 0.97 0.987
Treatment 4.1% 3.1%
Use of public
health facilities
Control 21.6% 61.5%
0.82 0.000*** 0.85 0.829
Treatment 20.2% 63.1%
Babies breastfed
(0–12 months)
Control 43.4% 48.7%
1.03 0.829 1.01 0.986
Treatment 43.8% 54.6%
Babies breastfed
(6–12 months)
Control 35.2% 42.3%
1.00 1.000 0.98 0.980
Treatment 36.2% 48.7%
Assisted birth
Control 85.4% 91.9%
0.98 0.873 0.78 0.761
Treatment 80.2% 90.5%
15 Odds ratios are another way to interpret the coefficients of a logistic regression; odds are defined as the ratio of
the probability of success and the probability of failure. For example, an odds ratio greater than 1 indicates that the
odds are more likely that the treatment had a positive effect on a given outcome, whereas an odds ratio less than 1
indicates that the treatment likely had a negative effect on a given outcome.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Primary Enrollment Junior Enrollment Dropout District-Level Percentage
SUSENAS - Education Outcomes
Aggregated Baseline Control Endline Treatment Endline
10
HEALTH FINDINGS (RISKESDAS)
The evaluation team analyzed longitudinal changes between Kinerja-supported and control districts on
four health indicators from the RISKESDAS dataset: children under two breastfed immediately, babies
receiving care at least three times after birth, antenatal care, and postnatal care. Similar to SUSENAS, the
general time trend across all outcomes was positive, though two outcomes from the primary analytical
model exhibited statistically significant, negative associations in Kinerja-supported districts. Relative to
control areas, babies in treatment districts were significantly less likely to receive care at least three times
after birth (p<0.001), and mothers were significantly less likely to receive postnatal care in treatment
districts, when controlling for district- and individual-level variables.
Distinct from treatment status, district-level human development index (HDI, 2009) was predictive of all
four outcomes. Higher human development was associated with a 7% increase in rates of antenatal care
(p=0.006), a 16% increase in rates of postnatal care (p<0.001), an 11% decrease post-birth childcare rate
(p<0.001), and a 4% decrease in breastfeeding rate (p=0.068). Using the second analytical model for
robustness check resulted in statistically insignificant relationships between all outcomes and treatment
status. (See Figure 3 and Table 3.)
Figure 3: RISKESDAS Health Outcomes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Breastfed in First
Hour
Babies Receiving
Care
Antenatal Care Postnatal Care
Percentage receiving service
RISKESDAS - Health Outcomes
Aggregated Baseline Control Endline Treatment Endline
11
Table 3: RISKESDAS Key Outcome Indicator Results
Baseline Endline
Model 1 Model 2
Odds
Ratio p-value
Odds
Ratio
p- value
Breastfed in
first hour
Control 42.4% 47.7%
0.97 0.790 0.88 0.857
Treatment 42.2% 50.5%
Babies receiving
care
Control 23.9% 42.6%
0.41 0.000*** 1.36 0.726
Treatment 27.0% 32.9%
Antenatal care
Control 72.2% 70.1%
0.90 0.434 1.26 0.757
Treatment 66.3% 68.7%
Postnatal care
Control 67.8% 74.2%
0.64 0.001*** 1.36 0.676
Treatment 70.2% 65.3%
Overall, health findings from both SUSENAS and RISKESDAS are consistent with monitoring data
collected throughout the Kinerja program at the unit level. In each Kinerja-supported community health
clinic (puskesmas), clinic annual data revealed improvements in indicators related to antenatal care, care
provided by a qualified professional, and the rate of exclusive breastfeeding.16
QUALITATIVE HEALTH FINDINGS
Though the Kinerja program did not appear to have a significant positive impact on aforementioned health
and education outcomes, improvements in intermediate outcomes were identified through the qualitative
study across all four sampled districts. Kinerja’s health governance interventions were noted as useful by
supply- and demand-side respondents in the qualitative study. At the SDU (puskesmas) level, Kinerja
promoted a menu of existing health interventions supported by the Government of Indonesia: improved
non-technical Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Traditional Birth Attendant and Midwife
Partnerships, and Breastfeeding Education Campaigns. At the district level, the Kinerja program promoted
improved regulations on maternal, neonatal, and child health (MNCH). At both the SDU and the district
levels, Kinerja promoted MSFs to link communities with their service providers and provide health
information.
Progress has been made on improving the health regulatory environment in Kinerja districts. Three of the
four visited districts for the health intervention have successfully passed district-level health regulations
with the help of Kinerja’s IOs.17 The program then supported various innovative dissemination activities
to improve community awareness about MNCH issues.18 Respondents noted that the health regulations
16 The Kinerja M&E team collected PWS KIA (Pedoman Pemantauan Wilayah Setempat Program Kesehatan Ibu dan
Anak) reports from partner clinics on an annual basis and reported these “goal-level outcomes” in quarterly and
annual reports beginning in fiscal year 2014. 17 City of Singkawang, Bener Meriah, and Bondowoso. 18 These local regulations were also used by Kinerja to motivate the district governments to implement programs
that support the uptake of ASI Eksklusif. Kinerja encouraged the local government to provide a lactation corner or
room at public offices. The health office then responded this as their commitment to Kinerja by instructing the
12
improved understanding of MNCH issues among healthcare workers, particularly midwives. Though these
dissemination activities were noted as successful, district respondents identified continued challenges with
ensuring that critical information reached the SDU level. District and puskesmas stakeholders in
Singkawang and Bener Meriah, for example, highlighted the lack of the health regulation’s impact on health
service providers, which is needed to see improvements in district-level health outcomes/indicators noted
in the quantitative section above.
Improvements in health management and good governance at the SDU level were noted, and clients’
behavior (over the long term, affecting district-level outcomes) has changed according to specific health
indicators tracked in monitoring data. From 2012 to the time of the study, these indicators increased in
most partner units, revealing changed behavior at the unit level. Puskesmas staff across districts
acknowledged the benefits of SOPs—for example, promoted through the Kinerja program, as now they
have updated information on how they should be serving clients. A puskesmas staff member in Bener
Meriah reported that before the SOP was promoted, puskesmas staff would prioritize patients they had
relationships with or were connected to (e.g., family, friends, etc.). In general, the impact of these SOPs
on service users, however, was perceived to be minimal. Clients did not report visiting health units more
frequently, for example, because of improved management systems. A puskesmas staff member in the city
of Banda Aceh reported, “I think in terms of service to patients, there was no difference. But after Kinerja
assistance was given, non-technical SOPs gave some benefits. Patients now understand the procedure of
service which they should receive.”
Another intermediate outcome showing improvement at the SDU level was improved communication and
engagement between citizens and their service providers. Respondents noted satisfaction with MSFs and
the role they played in collecting complaints and providing feedback to SDUs. A puskesmas staff member
in Kota Singkawang acknowledged the contribution of MSF members to the dissemination of information
on health issues to the community. The respondent also noted that the MSF helped the puskemas by
informing staff of complaints from the community so that the unit could handle issues more quickly.
Respondents in all districts noted the continued challenge of collecting information regarding exclusive
breastfeeding and immediate breastfeeding, in addition to information on antenatal care. Health clinics
cannot access information on pregnant mothers from private clinics or hospitals and, additionally, private
clinics and hospitals are not required to report to the District Health Office. One of Kinerja’s good
practices, called a maternity pocket (or kantung persalinan), improved information within partner clinics
about pregnant mothers in Kinerja’s service areas. This improved data management system, however, has
not yet impacted the quality or availability of reliable district-level data.
QUALITATIVE EDUCATION FINDINGS
Each of Kinerja’s education interventions aimed to increase enrollment and reduce dropout rates through
improvements in the learning environment. As with the health outcomes discussed above, lack of
significant, positive impact on quantitative education indicators is contrasted with improvements in
intermediate outcomes evidenced by the qualitative study.
creation of lactation rooms from the national or provincial government to Kinerja’s partner puskesmas. Now, some
puskesmas in Bondowoso and Singkawang already provide a lactation corner or room funded by national or
provincial health agencies, which aim to support ASI Ekslusif achievement. However, this facility is not yet fully
utilized, primarily due to a lack of information dissemination.
13
Proportional Distribution of Teachers Intervention
District respondents in Barru at baseline reported that inadequate data prevented them from calculating
which schools had an excess or insufficient number of teachers. Kinerja’s assistance with calculating
teacher distribution from 2012 to 2014 led to improved data management and increased the availability
of data throughout the district. The Kinerja IO and MSF were deeply involved in the calculation and
drafting of a regulation process, which, once adopted, required the redistribution of teachers to better
meet the needs of Barru’s student population. The district has expanded Kinerja's program from three
pilot sub-districts to all seven sub-districts and expanded the coverage from only primary and junior high
schools to include senior high schools.
The evaluation team found a contrasting situation in Luwu district, where success has been limited because
other political interests took precedence and because the proper procedures were not followed. In Luwu,
the local staffing agency should be the one that issues a teacher’s distribution decree. However, teachers
often use a letter from the district. According to a representative from an IO operating in the area, the
“DEO [District Education Office] in Luwu was not interested in the data analysis because the data itself is
not updated. There have been many instances where teachers moved schools through the use of a letter
from the DEO head or subdistrict education office.” Calculation of Operational Costs Intervention
Qualitative data suggested that Kinerja support to Bulukumba district enabled officials to calculate the gap
between grant funds and actual operational needs. The process included education stakeholders from
community and school levels, ensuring transparency and buy-in. The BOSP calculation process did not
only result in a district regulation regarding how to meet gaps in funding, but also provided schools with
a helpful template for developing better school budgets. Additionally, the team found widescale variation
in school budget price standards at baseline; in one sub-district, prices varied between schools. The
introduction of BOSP templates enabled principals to use price standards in developing school budgets.
According to a school-level key informant in Bulukumba, “Now, after the BOSP template has been
distributed to schools, the price of paper is almost the same for all [schools]. Previously, between two
schools located next to each other, the price could have been different. It could be 50,000, 49,000, or
45,000 Rupiah.” SBM IE DESIGN
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The SBM IE seeks to provide policy-relevant information to USAID as well as other donors working in
SBM (e.g., the World Bank and Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade). The SBM package
was selected as the subject of the component RCT due to a number of factors. From a design perspective,
SBM presented a sufficiently large sample size of schools to detect programmatic impacts. Additionally,
according to the package theory of change, intended outcomes were likely to manifest in the three-year
study period.
The SBM IE utilized a mixed-methods RCT design to measure changes in development outcomes
attributable to the Kinerja SBM intervention. Specifically, the quantitative study focused on the effect of
the intervention on the following four key outcome areas:
14
1. Role clarification: The lack of clarity and formality among stakeholders about their respective roles
and responsibilities is a barrier to effective school management. SBM removes this barrier by
clarifying working mechanisms and the respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders.
2. Transparency/accountability: SBM increases awareness of school management and finances among
stakeholders, which leads to more effective planning, budgeting, management and spending.
3. Committee participation: SBM enables greater school committee involvement in educational
service delivery, which creates school management that is more responsive to existing needs.
4. Community involvement: By promoting community awareness of school problems and
parent/community participation in school management, SBM encourages increased financial and
non-financial contributions to the school from non-government and government sources.
Assignment of schools to the program was conducted through a random process by evaluation
stakeholders in accordance with the process outlined in the sampling section below. The study was
comprised of two data collection waves, with baseline data in October 2011 and endline data in October
2014. Enumeration of the former was conducted by data collection partner SurveyMeter, and the latter
was implemented by AC Nielsen. Across both events, core SI team members, survey instruments, and
enumeration protocols remained consistent. Multi-day trainings, pre-testing, in-person oversight from SI
staff, and robust data quality checks were observed in both rounds to maximize quality and comparability
of baseline and endline data. Fieldwork included collection of survey data from principals, school
committee members, and parents, as well as direct observation to triangulate data on key outcome areas. See Annex VIII for the survey instruments.
The qualitative study focused on the changes observed in school participation and performance according
to key respondents including community members—parents, MSF members, and citizen journalists (CJs)—
principals, and school committees. SMERU, together with evaluation stakeholders, selected two partner
schools to visit during baseline (2011–2012) and endline (2014) data collection in the districts of
Bengkayang, Sekadau, and Melawi. Enumeration was conducted by SMERU researchers and regional
researchers. Baseline tools were developed to investigate context in each district where the endline tools
were slightly edited to better address changes resulting from the Kinerja intervention. Enumeration
protocols and core team members, however, remained the same across both waves of data collection.
Field work included FGDs, in-depth interviews, secondary data collection, and observation.
SAMPLING
School Selection
The evaluation team utilized a multi-stage, clustered sampling design to gather data from 96 schools in
West Kalimantan province, which was selected because it had the highest rate of SBM implementation
among the four Kinerja provinces in Phase I of the Kinerja program. Within the province, three districts
(Bengkayang, Sekadau, and Melawi) self-selected the SBM intervention.19 Within each district, two to four
sub-districts were sampled on the basis of SBM participation, socioeconomic comparability, geographic
19 Districts were considered for inclusion in the Kinerja program if they were from USAID priority provinces and
did not meet any exclusion criteria. The districts had to be willing to participate in the program, not have other
projects or donors offering similar support, and not be scheduled to split (a process called pemekaran) for the next
four years.
15
proximity, and size.20 A sampling frame of all eligible primary schools was then constructed.21 These
schools were randomly assigned into either the treatment or control group, resulting in a total sample
size of 96 schools (48 treatment and 48 control). Given the sampling methodology, schools involved in
this study are representative of the pool of eligible “candidate” schools, not all Kinerja-treated schools or
schools in the province. See Annex IV for more detail on sampling and Annex V for maps presenting the
geographic location for each sampled school in the three districts.
Respondent Selection
Within each sampled school, data collection teams surveyed 13 individuals from three distinct respondent
types (Table 3). Across the four districts, a total of 1,243 respondents were interviewed at baseline and
1,246 were interviewed at endline (Table 2).22 While the same schools were surveyed in both data
collection events, new respondents were selected using the same protocol for endline data collection.
Table 4 details the school respondent category and sample size.
Table 4: School Respondent Category and Sample Size
Respondent
Category Sampling
Sample
Size
School principal Purposive 1
School committee
members
Purposive: Chair and treasurer
Random: One other member 3
Parents Random: Three parents from each
grade 2, 3, and 4 9
Although the vast majority of school principals are male, this decreased slightly from baseline to endline.
At baseline, 7 out of 96 principals, or 7.3%, were female. At endline, the number of female principals
increased to 13, resulting in a 6.2% increase in female principals (for a total of 13.5%). Table 5 shows the
number of endline respondents by district and type.
20 Sub-districts had to include urban and rural areas, travel time from office of the Regent (Bupati) to the center of
the sub-district had to be less than three hours, and the total number of public schools in sub-districts had to be
greater than 80. 21 Eligibility criteria were agreed upon between the District Education Office and Kinerja. These included participation
in the SBM intervention (SD and SMP schools identified by the District Education Office as schools that are ready
and willing to “move forward”), public school designation (sekolah umum negri or madrasah negri), accessibility (travel
time from sub-district center to school must be less than two hours), size (90 students or more), and governance
(SMP and SD must be in the same village). 22 At baseline, there were 1,243 respondents (96 principals, 283 school committee members, and 864 parents). At
endline, there were 1246 respondents (96 principals, 286 school committee members, and 864 parents). There were
three more school committee members sampled/interviewed at the endline because there were less formal
committees at baseline and SurveyMeter could not fill the required three respondents per book for all schools.
16
Table 5: Total Number of Endline Respondents Interviewed by District and Type
District Principal
School
Committee Parents Total
Bengkayang 32 96 288 416
Sekadau 32 96 288 416
Melawi 32 94 288 414
Total 96 286 864 1246
In addition to surveying the above respondents, interviewer teams collected a complete roster of all
schoolteachers and all school committee members, copies of various school documents including school
plans and budgets, and global positioning system (GPS) coordinates for each school. Interviewers also
recorded various school conditions based on their direct observation.
Balance Checks
The extent to which an IE is able to accurately estimate treatment effects depends on its ability to derive
a good counterfactual against which to compare changes in treatment group outcomes. The counterfactual
is constructed through the creation of a control group that is as similar to the treatment group as possible.
Although random assignment is expected to balance average baseline values between treatment and
control groups (thus eliminating selection bias), random assignment can, by chance, yield differences
between groups. In comparing the two groups along 106 key baseline characteristics, we found statistically
significant differences between the groups on 11 variables. This relatively low ratio indicates that the
random assignment generated similar groups. Moreover, we see no consistent patterns in the significant
variables, suggesting a lack of systematic differences between treatment and control groups. Even so, the
evaluation team controlled for observed differences in baseline values for the two groups following the
process outlined in the next section. A full presentation of balance checking, including a comprehensive
table of all variables, is presented in Annex IV.
ANALYSIS
The analytical approach is designed to isolate the effect attributable to participation in the Kinerja SBM
intervention. This is accomplished by controlling for school-level baseline differences in the dependent
variable (outcome), school-level baseline differences in key explanatory variables, and respondent-level
endline differences in key explanatory variables believed to be unaffected by the intervention.23 While
RCTs are designed to create treatment and control groups that exhibit similar baseline values, the
analytical approach outlined below further strengthens the ability to isolate programmatic impacts.
The evaluation team utilized the following multiple regression model to estimate school-level average
treatment effects of the SBM intervention. The basic linear regression model used in this report is
presented as Equation 3 below:
(3) Yij1 = β0 + β1*Tj + β2*Yj0 + β3Xi1 + β4*Xj0 + β5*D + εi1
where Yij1 represents the dependent variable for individual i in school j at endline (time=1), 0 is the
constant (y-intercept), Tj is the treatment status for school j (dummy variable, where 0=control,
1=treatment), Yj0 is the collapsed dependent variable for school j at baseline (time=0), Xi1 is the vector of
control variables for individual i at endline (time=1), Xj0 is the vector of collapsed control variables for
23 Explanatory variables used in regression analysis varied across dependent variables in accordance with the survey
instrument from which they were measured. Regression tables in the findings section present the full vector used.
17
school j at baseline (time=0), D are district fixed effects (series of dummy variables for each district), and
εi1 is the error term. For parent and committee member responses, standard errors are clustered at the
school level. For a full list of regression tables, see Annex VII.
Findings that are statistically significant at the 90% level (p=0.1) or above are presented in the report. For
each finding, we provide the associated p-value to inform the confidence in the result.24
SBM IE LIMITATIONS
Although the SBM IE has strong internal validity and attribution, there are a few important limitations that
were considered by the evaluation team. First, the concentrated geographic distribution of schools could
have facilitated spillover (or sharing of program implementation or outcomes between treatment and
control areas) during the life of the Kinerja program. Control schools may have been “contaminated” due
to replication activities in the final years of the program. If control schools derived benefit from spillover
or contamination, this would lead to an underestimate of overall program impacts. Based on monitoring
data during the life of the program, however, spillover was documented in only one district (including five
control schools in total).25
Second, the external validity of the evaluation is limited by the small number of districts where the
evaluation was implemented. Results may be different under different local conditions or if implemented
by a different local implementer/provider. The SBM IE includes three districts in the province of West
Kalimantan. As in Phase I of the Kinerja program, this was the only province that had enough districts that
self-selected the SBM intervention to be considered for the IE. West Kalimantan, compared to other
Kinerja provinces that implemented SBM in Phase I or II, was a challenging province for implementation
considering varying levels of government- and school-level commitment to the program. Similarly, the IE
also only considers the impact of the SBM intervention in primary schools in the three districts in West
Kalimantan. Though Kinerja also assisted with the implementation of SBM in junior schools (approximately
four per district), they were not included in the IE due to the desire to assess homogenous units. The
monitoring system of the Kinerja program made an effort to collect data on primary and junior schools
so as not to lose important learning from junior schools in addition to the primary schools that were
rigorously assessed.
Nevertheless, findings from this study are consistent with other SBM studies suggesting that the external
validity threats may not be so severe.
24 Smaller p-values represent increased confidence that the finding is reflective of true differences in the treatment
versus control populations rather than reflective of sampling error. 25 There is documented spillover for five control schools in Melawi from a workshop held in May 2013, run by the
District Education Office regarding the implementation of SBM. Heads of Schools were invited to attend. Beyond
this spillover directly related to the Kinerja intervention, there was no additional spillover documented by the M&E
team. There may have been spillover independent of Kinerja support in partner districts, however. It is difficult to
know this as it would have been headed/guided by the DEO (for example, reassignment of a partner Head of School
to a control school).
18
SBM IE FINDINGS
ROLE CLARIFICATION
A lack of clarity and formality among various education stakeholders (principals, school committee, and
parents/community members) about their respective roles and responsibilities is a barrier to effective
school management. Kinerja’s SBM support attempted to remove this barrier by clarifying working
mechanisms and the respective roles and responsibilities of the three stakeholder groups.
School Committee Composition and Meeting
Partner schools tended to have more robust and formally created school committees. Kinerja-supported
committees reported having, on average, 1.4 more members than control schools (p=0.017). In addition
to being larger, partner schools had 1.09 more meetings per year (p=0.080). Partner schools were, on
average, 6.4 times more likely to report the committee roster as current (p=0.001), with lists last
authorized, on average, 0.96 fewer years ago than were control schools (p=0.10). Leaders from Kinerja- supported schools were significantly better at listing the roles of committee members. On average, treated
principals had 18% more correct answers (p=0.009), while committee heads had over 50% more correct
answers (p=0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between treatment and control
groups in regards to gender composition or if members were elected to membership (roughly 40% across
the two groups).
School Committee Roles and Responsibilities
A key element of the SBM package involved the clarification of school committee roles and responsibilities
vis-à-vis school management and the broader community. With regard to the latter, parents from partner
schools were, on average, 56% less likely to think the role of the school committee unclear (p=0.027).
Even so, a quarter of respondents from treatment schools reported being unclear about the committee’s
role at endline. In particular, female parents were 38% more likely than male parents to be unclear of the
role of the school committee (p=0.053). Within the school, principals and committee members were
asked about perceptions and actual responsibilities of school committees across six key dimensions:
providing inputs on school operations, making final decisions on school operations, helping to raise funds,
approving school budgets, meeting with community, and representing the community. Across both
respondent groups, we see statistically significant differences in perceived scope and actual role of the
school committee, though changes are not apparent in all areas. Partner school committees tended to
have a more expansive view of their roles and responsibilities, though we did not find significant evidence
that they were performing any of the six duties at a higher rate than committees from control schools.
Members from Kinerja-supported school committees were almost ten times more likely to agree that
they should represent their communities (p=0.020) and three times more likely to think they should help
raise funds (p=0.073). Committee members from supported schools were more likely to agree that they
should provide inputs to and ultimately make final school operations decisions, less likely to agree that
they should be involved in approving the school budget, and equally likely to think they should meet with
the community, though these findings were not significant at the 90% level.
Kinerja-supported principals expressed a more widespread expectation that committees should be
involved with school finance and operations decisions. They were almost 14 times more likely to think
they should help allocate BOS funds (p=0.092). While just below the 90% significance level, principals from
treatment schools were 15 times more likely to think committees should approve the school budget
(p=0.105) and 2.4 times more likely to think they should make final operations decisions (p=0.110). Unlike
19
the committee member data, which did not indicate any significant differences between treatment and
control schools with regard to actual functioning of committee members across the six dimensions,
Kinerja-supported prinicipals reported committees playing a more active role. These respondents were,
on average, 4.4 times more likely to report committees approving school budgets (p=0.020) and there
was some evidence that committees were more likely to help raise funds, though the results were not
significant at the 90% level.26 There were no statistically significant differences between treatment and
control schools across any of the other reported committee role or action outcomes, for either principal
or committee member respondents. (See Figures 4 and 5.)
Figure 4: Principal Perceptions of School Committee Responsibilities
26 p=0.121
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Provide inputs
on school
operations
Make final
operations
decisions
Help raise funds Approve school
budgets
Represent the
community
Meet with
community
Percentage Responding "Yes"
PRINCIPALS:
"The school committee should..."
Aggregated Baseline Control Endline Treatment Endline
20
Figure 5: Committees’ Perceptions of Own Responsibilities
Qualitative Findings
The quantitative findings described above are supported by qualitative findings collected from six partner
schools across the three West Kalimantan districts. At baseline, partner school committees reported that
they were not involved in planning and budgeting processes. The committees would sign the school
documents, but their involvement in the development of these documents was minimal. Parents reported
knowing little about the school committee and also did not understand the committees’ role. Parents
were also not consistently invited to school events or meetings. Parents at baseline reported low
satisfaction with the school committee. In their perspective, the committees only served to collect funds
for the school. Election of committee members was not transparent and information on the use of funds
was not available or transparent.
At endline, school committees were recognized as more active by partner school respondents. Parents in
FGDs in Melawi and Sekadau reported increased satisfaction with school committees in partner schools.
SMERU’s findings identified several examples of school committee actions that may have caused this
improved satisfaction by parents. In Sekadau, a sampled school committee helped build a fence, a toilet,
and a simple dam behind the schoolyard to prevent landslides. In Melawi, a school fence and an additional
classroom were built in a sampled school thanks to the participation of the school committee. When
asked about improvements that were most valuable to them, parents and school respondents noted that
“school committee improvements” were most valuable.
TRANSPARENCY/ACCOUNTABILITY
By promoting community awareness through increased transparency and accountability, schools are
hypothesized to have more effective planning, budgeting, management, and spending. Kinerja’s SBM
intervention aimed to increase awareness of school management and finances among key education
stakeholders.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Provide inputs
on school
operations
Make final
operations
decisions
Help raise funds Approve school
budgets
Represent the
community
Meet with
community
Percentage Responding "yes"
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
"The school committee should..."
Aggregated Baseline Control Endline Treatment Endline
21
Availability of School Documents
The evaluation team measured transparency of school planning and management by performing direct
observation and asking stakeholders about the availability of three key school documents: work plans,
budgets, and financial reports. Documents tended to be more widely available and better disseminated in
Kinerja-supported schools.
Interviews with school principals suggest that participation in Kinerja was associated with an increased
availability of work plans and greater transparency of all three documents. Principals in partner schools
were almost nine times more likely to report availability of work plans (p=0.058) and were over four
times more likely to have reported sharing the document (p=0.025). Treated principals reported higher
levels of access to both medium-term work plans and last year’s annual work plans—9.4 and 4.3 times,
respectively (p=0.002, p=0.036). Male principals were 4.48 times more likely than female principals to
respond that committees should be involved with the work plan (p=0.067). While there was no significant
difference in availability of budgets and financial reports, Kinerja-supported schools were almost ten times
more likely to share the former (p=0.024) and three times more likely to share the latter (p=0.050).
Additionally, whereas control schools tended to disseminate documents primarily upon request, Kinerja- supported schools were much more likely to post them publicly. The proportion of treatment schools
that publicly posted the documents increased by more than 50 percentage points between the two data
collection waves. The associated treatment effect was substantial, with partner schools ranging, on
average, from 16 to 53 times more likely to post documents to bulletin boards than control schools (all
three outcomes, p<=0.001).27
Interviews with parents supported these findings, with financial reports 2.7 times and work plans 98%
more likely to be available in partner schools (p=0.005 and p=0.045, respectively). Male parents were 1.6
times more likely than female parents to say that the school financial report was available (p=0.048).
Conversely, committee member data indicated that budgets were, on average, one third as likely to exist
in partner schools as compared to the control group (p=0.038). Even so, 88% of Kinerja schools had these
documents available. Triangulating self-reported survey data, data collection teams asked to see the
documents during school visits. In performing direct observation, teams noted that work plans were 4.7
times more likely to be available in partner schools (p=0.003). There were no statistically significant
differences in availability of school budgets or financial reports between treatment and control groups.
(See Figures 6 and 7.)
27 The driver of this effect may have been the availability of bulletin boards themselves, which, according to direct
observation, were 33.6 times more likely in treatment schools.
22
Figure 6: Principal Reporting on Public Display of Key School Documents (Bulletin Board)
Figure 7: Parent Reporting on Availability of Key School Documents
School Committee Documentation
Moving from school-level documents, the evaluation explored the transparency of school committee
functioning. Committee members and parents were asked about the availability of various committee
documents, with direct observation performed as a validity check. Across the three data sources, partner
schools were more likely to make committee documentation public. Committee members indicated that
both meeting reports and results were, on average, more than twice as likely to be available in partner
schools (both p=0.037).
Parents from partner schools were 3.1 times more likely to report availability of committee meeting notes
(p=0.026), though they were no more likely to have personally received information from a committee
member. Direct observation indicated increased likelihood of having committee membership, meeting
schedule, or meeting minutes available in partner schools, though none of these results were statistically
significant. Nonetheless, partner schools were, on average, 3.2 times more likely to have committee
contact information displayed in a publicly accessible location (p=0.017).
Availability of Information on School Activities and Student Performance
Another element of school transparency is the provision of student-level information to parents. Having
more information about a child’s performance may foster a greater ability to exercise demand-driven
accountability. Parents from partner schools reported having 47% more access to information on student
activities (p=0.069) as well as 78% more opportunities for parental involvement (p=0.016), as compared
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Percentage Responding "Yes"
Work Plan
Baseline Endline
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Percentage Responding "Yes"
Financial Report
Baseline Endline
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Percentage Responding "Yes"
Budget
Baseline Endline
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Percentage Responding "Yes"
Work Plan
Baseline Endline
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Percentage Responding "Yes"
Financial Report
Baseline Endline
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Percentage Responding "Yes"
Budget
Baseline Endline
23
to parents from control schools. Receipt of student achievement information and children’s reports,
however, were not significantly different between the two groups, though of parents who received reports
(p=0.036), mothers were significantly more likely to report having received their child’s report in partner
schools (p=0.014), while there were no differences for fathers. Minimum Service Standards (MSS)
MSS, established by the Government of Indonesia, ensure that all schools are adequately providing for
students. Standards cover items from the number of teachers per grade to the number of laboratory kits
that should be available for student use. Critical to meeting these standards is increased awareness
regarding the status of each school’s measure against the standards. We find evidence suggesting increased
knowledge and communication around MSS, though this is not consistent across respondent types. While
there was no statistically significant difference between principals who know MSS or have discussed the
MSS strategy in the treatment and control groups, Kinerja-supported school committee members were,
on average, 2.5 times more likely to know MSS (p=0.022), 2.7 times more likely to have received MSS
information (p=0.015), and 2.8 times more likely to have received MSS status (p=0.016) as compared to
control schools. Irrespective of treatment status, there was a strong association between committee
respondent education and the extent to which they were aware of and involved in MSS.
Qualitative Findings
At baseline, parents did not understand how schools used grant money provided by the government. They
reported a lack of transparency regarding information specifically related to the school budget and financial
report. At endline, parent and school respondents noted that Kinerja helped improve transparency in
partner schools. There was higher satisfaction levels among parents in Sekadau regarding “information and
transparency” when compared to baseline satisfaction levels.
Though there is more information available at the school level, information at the district level remains
difficult to collect and access. This was reported by Kinerja’s CJs and MSF members, and involves data
relating to school’s human and material resources. Respondents at the school level also reported both a
reluctance to release data and a challenge with releasing financial and budget information. A Kinerja
program staff member interviewed in Bengkayang reported the following: “One of [the] principals of the
partner school questioned why schools have to be transparent while the government themselves are not.
Transparency seemed to be applied only to the lower level and not to the upper one.” A MSF member in
Bengkayang reported that “publishing the financial reports for the principals is like preparing the rope to
hang oneself.” These responses describe the continued challenges with transparency in schools in West
Kalimantan.
Regarding MSS, district- and school-level respondents at the endline knew more about MSS and reported
integrating MSS into their planning and budgeting documents. School funding, however, remains insufficient
for many partner schools to follow up on these plans. This is a potential explanation for why the
quantitative data revealed increased awareness of MSS but little changes in the actual materials and
resources available at the school level.
COMMITTEE PARTICIPATION
SBM enables greater school committee involvement in educational service delivery, which is believed to
create school management that is more responsive to existing needs.
24
School Committee Information Sharing
In line with their expanded understanding of committee roles, members from partner schools reported
having better access to information relevant to committee functioning. Committees in partner schools
were 88% more likely to have ever seen a school work plan (p=0.065), though they were no more likely
to have received information about the work plan this year. Males were 95% more likely than females to
respond that committees saw the work plan this year (p=0.097). Additionally, respondents from partner
schools were 65% more likely to have received the financial report (p=0.088), and 2.2 times more likely
to have received information about teacher achievement (p=0.010), as compared to committees in control
schools. Educated committee members (secondary school or higher) were significantly more likely to have
seen and received work plans and financial reports. According to principals in partner schools, committees
were 3.6 times more likely to have been involved with work plan development (p=0.090). There was some
evidence of increased engagement of committees in reviewing the BOS quarterly report, though the
results were not significant at the 90% level.28 There were no differences with regard to teacher or
principal involvement in the work plan process.
School Committee Oversight
Moving beyond committee composition and access to information, we investigated the extent to which
the different stakeholders provided school oversight. Parents from partner schools were, on average, two
times more likely to be satisfied with committee oversight of the school (p=0.005). While committee
members in partner schools both monitored more frequently and had a greater percentage increase
between data collection waves, the differences were not sufficiently large to support a statistically
significant conclusion (either last year or this year). Educated committee members (secondary or higher)
were significantly more likely to have monitored school (23 times last year, 13 times this year), irrespective
of treatment group. (See Figure 8.)
Figure 8: Frequency of School Visits by Committee Members
Qualitative Findings
At the baseline, parents reported inactivity in school oversight because they were often not invited to
participate in meetings and events and were not given an avenue through which to provide feedback to
the school. There was also little oversight of school management provided by school committees.
28 p=0.112
0
5
10
15
20
Last Year (p = 0.30) This Year (p = 0.66) Number of Visits
Frequency of School Visits by Committee
Members
Aggregated Baseline Control Endline Treatment Endline
25
One of the types of oversight promoted in the Kinerja program was monitoring of service charters.
Respondents at endline noted the school committee’s and district-level MSF’s involvement in this critical
form of oversight in which education stakeholders hold the school accountable for addressing complaints
received through the complaint survey process.29 All visited schools in the qualitative study had published
the results of the process. School-level respondents reported that the complaint survey (and the resulting
service charter) was one of the most influential improvements made to education service delivery under
Kinerja (second only to strengthening of the school committee noted above). Though this type of
monitoring and oversight did increase during the Kinerja program, several MSF members noted resistance
from schools. One MSF member in Melawi, who also served on the school committee and district-level
MSF, reported challenges he faced when trying to follow up with a school regarding the fulfillment of
promises made in the 2012 service charter. Because the respondent did not have a decree that
documented the legal/formal establishment of the MSF, the principal would not discuss the school’s
progress with him. Despite progress made in providing feedback mechanisms in schools and in setting up
community monitoring, many school leaders remain resistant to accountability to the communities in
which they work.
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Kinerja’s SBM support aimed to enable greater school committee, parent, and community involvement in
educational service delivery in the hopes of creating school management that was more responsive to
existing needs. Community Communication and Engagement
Complementary to support of school committee functioning, the SBM package sought to foster demand- side accountability from the school-serving community. Data suggest small-scale improvements in
community communication in Kinerja partner schools. While there were no statistically significant
differences in the likelihood of parents from treatment and control groups attending school meetings and
communicating with teachers and principals, parents visited treatment schools 71% more often and were
over 1.7 times more likely to look at the bulletin board. Both of these trends held true for last year
(p=0.043 and p=0.026) and this year (p=0.048 and p=0.029). Males and more affluent respondents were
more likely to perform both activities, irrespective of treatment status; males were 1.7 times more likely
than females to have visited schools the previous year, and 1.5 times more likely to have visited schools
this year (p=0.006 and 0.040, respectively). Males were also 1.4 times more likely to have looked at the
bulletin board last year (p=0.077).
Principals from Kinerja-supported schools reported increased interaction with parents. They reported
being, on average, three times more likely to have received pressure from parents to improve students’
performance (p=0.076), and almost 2.5 times more likely to communicate with parents (p=0.083).30
Committee member data did not support any statistically significant differences with regard to extent of
parental feedback to either the school or principal, though respondents from treatment schools were
almost 15 times more likely to state that providing feedback to parents was easy (p=0.017). Although they
were found in only 2% of cases, Kinerja partner schools were almost 19.6 times more likely to have
suggestion boxes available for public use (p=0.006). (See Figure 9.)
29 A complaint survey was conducted in each partner school, with Kinerja support, in 2012. 30 There were no differences with regard to corresponding pressure from or communication with school committees
or the district.
26
Figure 9: School Visits by Parents
Satisfaction
An important subset of community/school communication is the formal airing of grievances. Inclusive of
both survey and direct observation data, we did not find any significant differences in community complaint
behavior. Survey data did not indicate any statistically significant differences between treatment and
control groups with regard to the likelihood that parents filed a formal complaint, what they complained
about (teacher attendance, teacher shortage, or teacher ability) or whether they received a response to
a complaint. Similarly, according to principals, there were no statistically significant differences in receipt
of community complaints, the volume of complaints, or the delivery mechanisms of complaints. Though
the frequency of complaint officers observed by data collection teams increased in treatment schools
(going from 0 at baseline to 8.3% at endline), the difference was not statistically significant.
We asked parents a battery of questions regarding their satisfaction with school committees, village
management, school management, school facilities, quality of education, and quality of teachers. Parents
from partner schools were twice as likely to be satisfied with the school committee (p=0.005) and twice
as likely to report satisfaction with village management (p=0.009). We found slightly higher levels of
parental satisfaction in all other areas, including school management more broadly, school facilities, and
academics (teacher quality, and number), though none of these was statistically significant. Parents from
partner schools were, on average, 42% less likely to perceive a lack of district support for their schools
(p=0.126) and 64% less likely to feel that there was a shortage of textbooks (p=0.079).
Similarly, we administered a similar set of questions to school committees, with items including satisfaction
with village management, school facilities, quality of education, quality of teachers, and quality of principals.
Committee members from Kinerja-supported schools showed higher average satisfaction than their peers
from control schools on all but one of the items (quality of teachers, for which the two scored very
similarly), though only one was statistically significant: members from Kinerja-supported schools were
twice as likely to be satisfied with village management (p=0.011).31 Principals from treatment schools were
three times more likely to be satisfied with school infrastructure (p=0.099). (See Figure 10.)
31 More educated respondents (senior secondary or higher) were 4.7 times more likely to be satisfied with the
principal, irrespective of treatment status.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Control Treatment
Percentage Visited School
Parent Visits to School
Baseline Endline
27
Figure 10: Parent Satisfaction
Community Engagement in School Management
Principal data did not indicate statistically significant differences between treatment and control schools
with regard to community or parent involvement in work planning or school contributions. Conversely,
parent respondents from Kinerja-supported schools were 75% less likely to report being involved in
contributing to school decisions regarding preparation of work plans (p=0.104) and 42% less likely to be
involved with decisions regarding school fees (p=0.007) than parents from control schools.
Qualitative Findings
At baseline, there was low oversight of school management reported by parents in partner schools.
Parents reported this low participation because of the free education campaign in Indonesia. Parents in
2011 explained that because education was free in Indonesia, they did not need to (and in some cases,
should not) contribute funds to the school. The school was believed to be wholly responsible for the
education of children.
At the endline, the same low level of parental participation was observed. Parents identified similar reasons
to the baseline for the limited engagement, namely the free education campaign and their work hours. In
West Kalimantan, many adults work on the rubber plantations and cover two shifts a day (morning and
evening). This makes it difficult for parents to participate in school events or meetings. One of the FGD
participants commented that allowing their children to go to school is already a challenge, let alone being
involved in school management. An MSF member from Melawi reported the following in October 2014:
“Parents are willing to give children Rp 5,000 per day for pocket money, but are not willing to contribute
Rp 5,000 per year to improve school facilities.” An additional factor mediating financial contributions was
parents’ relationship with principals. A key informant at the district level stated that some parents are only
willing to make contributions when they begin trusting the principals, especially as principals disclose
financial information.
Parents from Kinerja-supported schools reported having more information made available to them in the
endline. In Sekadau, for example, respondents mentioned information that was shared by the Kinerja- supported CJs in the district. Journalists held activities in partner schools and disseminated information
about school grants. Though the quantitative findings identified an increased presence of suggestion boxes
and complaint mechanisms, respondents in qualitative FGDs and key informant interviews did not report
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Teacher School
Management
Education
Quality
School
Committee
Education
Facilities
Village
Management
Percentage Satisfied
Parent Satisfaction
Aggregated Baseline Control Endline Treatment Endline
28
actively using these mechanisms to provide feedback to schools regarding school management. A
respondent from a partner school reported the following in September 2014: “We installed a complaint
box in school two years ago. Until now, it remains empty.”
HIGER-LEVEL OUTCOMES
Kinerja-supported schools tended to have more availability of books, as compared to the control group.
Direct observation data indicate that they were 11.36 times more likely to have 200+ books (p=0.006),
principals were over ten times more likely to report availability of supplemental books (p=0.025), and
parents were 64% less likely to report a textbook shortage (p=0.079). While control schools were 70%
more likely to have at least one computer, treatment schools had, on average, an additional 1.4 computers
(p=0.028). Increased availability of teaching and learning materials notwithstanding, there was no evidence
to support SBM impact on a number of higher-level outcomes, including school resources more generally,
child enrollment or absenteeism, or parents’ perception of the likelihood of a child completing senior
secondary or university.
The qualitative study uncovered important findings regarding MSS standards. As noted in the findings
above, though schools are now better informed about MSS and can even plan and budget according to
these national standards, there are still significant barriers to achieving MSS in schools due to lack of funds.
Additionally, even in partner schools where equipment was sufficient (meeting MSS standards), the use of
the equipment and the maintenance of the equipment were questionable. A lot of the equipment was
found in back closets and was kept in disrepair. Parents expressed low satisfaction at endline with materials
and resources at the school level.
Regarding Kinerja’s MSF intervention, the qualitative study found that MSFs at the district level have taken
steps to advocate for increased funding for priority areas for schools. A principal in Sekadau was
documented as having used the results of the complaint survey as a way to call attention to the needs of
his school when meeting with the DEO. The principal was able to highlight areas of need based on the
results of the survey.
CONCLUSIONS
SBM
Overall, we find consistently positive program effects from the Kinerja SBM intervention across
respondent types, which are verified through direct observation and qualitative findings.
SCHOOL COMMITTEE ROLE AND FUNCTIONING
It is evident that school committees in Kinerja-supported schools are better functioning than those in
control schools. The evaluation showed that Kinerja-supported committees hold more meetings, have
more members, and receive more information regarding school management. Parents express higher
levels of clarity on committee roles and satisfaction with the committee. Committee members, particularly
males, tend to have a more expansive understanding of their role, a view shared by principals as well. They
exhibited a higher likelihood of agreeing with five of the six questions, though only two were significant.
Kinerja-supported principals expressed a more widespread expectation that committee members should
29
be involved with school management tasks, including school finance, and indicated greater involvement in
financial responsibilities.
Members from Kinerja-supported school committees were much more likely think of themselves as
community representatives and there was some evidence of increased committee involvement in financial
management. While respondents from treatment schools were more likely to see their role in school
operations and less likely view their role in financial management, the findings were marginally significant.
Furthermore, although Kinerja held workshops with many school stakeholders, the qualitative evaluation
revealed that, at the district and school level, most stakeholders are still confused about the role they are
to play and what SBM actually means. Moreover, we do not find clear evidence that the changes in
perceived scope have translated into increased roles in practice.
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
The evaluation found improved transparency in Kinerja-supported schools. School management and
committee documents are more widely available and more widely disseminated to stakeholders.
Furthermore, more information on student activities and opportunities for involvement is provided to
parents and the communities.
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Parents are more satisfied with schools and, in particular, with school committees. The evaluation showed
satisfaction with school committees that were active and engaged with the community. Other studies of
SBM around the world have shown that schools with committees that were more intricately linked to
communities also exhibited higher rates of community and parent participation in education service
delivery.
The evaluation, however, found a particularly interesting set of results from parents. Parents from
treatment schools seem to be equally or less likely to be involved in school management. This might reflect
a decreased level of engagement or accountability among parents. However, our data, particularly the
evidence that parents are better informed and more satisfied regarding school management, seem to
suggest that the process is more transparent, and parents are happier with the results. Accordingly, they
perhaps feel less of a need to engage with the school. This is also consistent with the observation that we
find more complaint boxes and officers in partner schools yet find no differences in complaints received.
It is also interesting that male parents tended to visit schools more often than female parents both this
year and last, but that female parents are more likely to receive their children’s reports. This may point
to why females are more unclear about the role of school committees, and highlight the need for greater
in-person involvement in school activities. Parents also appear to still be heavily influenced by the free
education campaign, reducing their desire to involve themselves with school matters.
HIGHER-LEVEL OUTCOMES
Similar to the study conducted by Pradhan et al. investigating SBM implementation around the world, the
Kinerja IE confirms that strengthening linkages between communities and their service delivery providers
30
(i.e., schools) improves satisfaction with service delivery and management of the units themselves.32
Kinerja’s results (through an intervention focused mostly on strengthening the role of the school
committee as an MSF that links schools to the community) show no impact on learning and some slight
improvement in variables related to school committee activities and availability of teaching and learning
materials. This may be explained by a combination of factors:  There may be a weak causal link between improved school management and performance. There
may also be other more important constraints, such as teacher quality, to performance.  It may take longer for improvements in management to affect performance. One likely mechanism
for management to influence performance is through increased resources, either directly through
better management or through community contributions. We did not see consistent significant
changes in resources, yet this may take longer to achieve. Interventions that solely focus on
internally strengthening the school committee do not appear to improve education quality in
Indonesia over a two- or three-year period.  The lack of change in higher-level outcomes may have been affected by a relative lack of
engagement from school principals in the Kinerja program, often due to an insufficient
understanding of how technical assistance could ultimately benefit the school in terms of
performance and materials.  Last, we did not focus our data collection as much on measuring higher-level changes within the
school. We did not conduct student testing; instead we relied on enrollment, attendance, and
parents’ educational aspirations for their children to measure indirect outcomes and impact.
Though the quantitative data have not revealed changes in the amount of materials and resources in
schools as a result of Kinerja’s governance intervention, MSF advocacy is a critical step toward securing
adequate funds and materials to affect school-level outcomes in a concrete way.
RISKESDAS AND SUSENAS
At the district level, the evaluation found little evidence of changes attributable to the program, though
qualitative data reveals important improvements in intermediate health and education outcomes. The
evaluation team does see positive changes in nearly all indicators in treatment areas, consistent with our
monitoring data. However, this did not translate into significant positive differences between treatment
and control. In fact, inclusion of control variables into multiple regression analyses resulted in statistically
significant, negative associations between treatment status and a number of key outcomes.33 These
surprising results most likely stem from one of the following factors (presented in order of increasing
likelihood):
Theory 1: Kinerja had a negative impact on district-level educational and health
outcomes
The Kinerja theory of change, particularly considering its governance focus, which is hypothesized
to be indirectly linked to sector outcomes, is highly unlikely to plausibly lead to large-scale negative
changes. Moreover, the Kinerja program primarily worked with a small number of SDUs during
32 Pradhan, Menno, Daniel Suryadarma, Amanda Beatty, Maisy Wong, Arya Gaduh, Armida Alisjahbana, and Rima
Prama Artha. 2014. "Improving Educational Quality through Enhancing Community Participation: Results from a
Randomized Field Experiment in Indonesia." American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(2): 105–26. 33 Primary school enrollment, use of public health facilities, provision of health care to newborns, provision of post- natal care to mothers.
31
the period covered by the secondary data, which makes district-wide results, whether positive or
negative, over that time period unlikely. Indeed, this is supported by performance monitoring data
and findings from district-level qualitative research and the SBM study. Moreover, with one
possible exception, plausible mechanisms for creation of negative changes have not been identified,
even theoretically. The only potential outcome that would feasibly be influenced in this manner is
use of public health facilities. In this scenario, residents could have either (1) improved their health
and, as a result, used health services less frequently, or (2) changed their health-seeking behaviors
in substituting private providers for publicly provided services. In either event, reductions in
aggregated public health services use would not translate directly to decreased health outcomes.
Theory 2: Donor projects in control districts improved outcomes more than Kinerja
An analysis of donor projects in operation during the study period did not produce evidence of
any likely candidates that would have affected sectoral changes.
Theory 3: Demographic or governance changes between the study populations
Over the course of the study period the treatment and control districts may have experienced
divergence unrelated to the project. In turn, these changes may have led to disparities in the
measured health and education outcomes. In speaking with provincial staff and Kinerja technical
specialists, the evaluation team could not identify any large-scale longitudinal sociopolitical
differences that would plausibly explain the negative impacts. There was some evidence of
overreporting of SUSENAS education data. If Kinerja led to improved reporting among
respondents, it is possible that the negative impacts could be the product of more objective data.
Theory 4: Study limitations resulted in spurious conclusions
The reliance of the district-level IE on secondary data and the limited sample size of the study
population hampered the internal validity of evaluation findings. While treatment and control
groups exhibited statistical balance at baseline, lack of significant differences may be more a
product of limited statistical power than of true comparability of the two groups (see district-level
methodology section for a more comprehensive discussion). Substantive, though insignificant,
differences in baseline values were observed for a number of variables, suggesting that the control
group was an imperfect counterfactual estimate. For example, treatment districts were, on
average 33% more densely populated than comparison districts. Higher population densities could
lead to relative underutilization of educational (e.g., larger teacher/pupil ratios result in less
individual attention) and health (more dense population centers could have more private health
providers) services, irrespective of the Kinerja intervention. In addition to observed baseline
differences, there were likely unobserved factors mediating health and education outcomes. In
fact, the percentage of total variation in the independent variable under consideration explained
by the study regression models ranged from only 0.04 to 0.36, meaning that in all cases there was
significant unexplained variation in the outcomes caused by unobserved factors.34
The most likely explanation for negative findings is the limitations of the research design. Not only are the
negative impacts suspect, there may have been improvements that were not captured by the evaluation
due to low statistical power, a demand-driven implementation approach that generated significant
heterogeneity in treatment, focus on a relatively small number of SDUs in each district during the period
covered by secondary data, and reliance on secondary data that did not cover the full implementation
period. This topic is presented in more detail in the evaluation approach conclusions section below.
34 See Annex VII for regression outputs and R2
.
32
Qualitative data suggest improvements were made on intermediate outcomes, particularly management
and good governance at the SDU level. Respondents noted the passage of district-level health and
education regulations, improved dissemination activities regarding district regulations, and improved
understanding of MNCH issues among healthcare workers (especially midwives). Improvements in health
management and good governance at the SDU level were noted, and clients’ behavior (over the long term,
affecting district-level outcomes) has changed according to specific health indicators tracked in monitoring
data. District respondents, however, identified continued challenges with critical information reaching the
SDU level.
Data accessibility and reliability continue to be challenges for districts, health clinics, and schools, despite
improved data management systems. The root of this problem is varied but for health includes a lack of
requirements for all health units throughout Indonesia to report to the District Health Office, which
decreases the transparency of data specifically regarding MNCH.
CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE EVALUATION APPROACH
The district-level IE faced a number of challenges that limits the ability to identify and attribute changes to
the Kinerja program. As mentioned above, the timeframe of data collection was limited to using 2010 and
2013 data even though the program was implemented through 2015. As a result, the evaluation only
captured impacts resulting from two years of support (2011 to 2013) and could not capture the potential
impacts achieved in the final year of implementation, which is often the most productive phase of a
development program. In Kinerja’s case, this was the phase in which it intensified its work with partner
district offices to strengthen their oversight capacity and to scale up good practices. Moreover, as noted
above, during the period covered by the secondary data, the project focused on a relatively small number
of SDUs in each district, with scale-up happening later. Ideally, data is collected prior to program launch
and during the final months of (or after) program implementation. In addition to the limited timeframe,
the district-level IE was statistically underpowered. For some indicators the evaluation was powered to
detect a minimum 19-percentage-point change in indicators, which would be very difficult to achieve over
a two-year time period even for an intensive sector-focused program, particularly when considering the
level of these indicators. The differences we find between treatment and control areas at the district level are likely explained by
sampling errors and exogenous factors. With regard to sampling error, large sample sizes in each district
were negated by clustering into a relatively small number of districts, thus limiting statistical power.
Exogenous factors must also be considered and may help explain changes unrelated to Kinerja. Examples
include outside interventions and macro changes related to economic, social, or political factors. Given
the relatively small sample size of districts, large changes in a few districts could drive results for the
treatment or control groups. The small sample size was exacerbated by the fact that, due to its demand- driven approach, not all districts participated in the same set or intensity of interventions, particularly
when looking at only the subset of health and education activities that would be most likely to influence
the sectoral outcomes tested.
Looking at the evaluation as a whole, given the limitations in the district-level analysis, as expected at the
design stage, the SBM approach provides much clearer, more actionable information. The process of
integrating the IE into Kinerja’s design and implementation has generated important lessons learned for
the execution of IEs in USAID governance programs. The Kinerja IE demonstrates that an IE of governance
programs is possible and that, as seen in the case of SBM, a governance-focused intervention can have
sectoral outcomes (though it is not clear if changes were also seen at the higher level of education
outcomes). However, based on the limitations of the district-level IE, it is clear that an IE may not be
33
appropriate for all programs. Sample size is an important consideration, particularly for governance
programs that focus interventions on government institutions, of which there will often be relatively few.
Moreover, complex, demand-driven programs such as Kinerja typically have heterogeneous treatments.
This variation in treatments can lead to lower levels of overall impact in a core set of sectoral indicators
as well as increased variation in outcomes, both of which reduce evaluative power. In an extreme example,
a district that does not select education governance interventions is unlikely to demonstrate significant
changes in education outcomes. Additionally, in a complex program such as Kinerja with numerous
interventions in multiple sectors happening in the same places, external validity and learning potential may
be limited. That is, even if significant effects are demonstrated, it is difficult to know which interventions
drove the observed change or if it was the combination of interventions that was important.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
PROGRAMMING
The findings from the two Kinerja IEs suggest a number of recommendations for future government or
donor programs/initiatives on governance in Indonesia.
SECTORAL PROGRAMMING
 Increase the length of governance and/or sectoral programs that incorporate governance
interventions (e.g., Kinerja’s SBM) in order to generate sectoral changes. While the evaluation
team is not in a position to specify the exact duration of such programs, it is recommended that
duration of programming expand alongside the complexity of the intervention. Additionally, for
programs with limitations on treatment intensity (e.g., school breaks, agricultural seasons) or
when long start-up periods are expected (e.g., demand-driven processes, working through local
grantees), additional elapsed time should be taken into account.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
 When technical assistance is being provided in lieu of funding, it is critical to explain to beneficiaries
the program’s logic model and expected areas of change to secure their support and buy-in. This
needs to be conducted early in programming, not only to establish buy-in and support, but also
to test program assumptions and to make modifications as necessary.
SBM PROGRAM DESIGN
 Conduct and/or fund research to explore the uncertain causal link between improved school
management and educational performance, as well as other important constraints to performance,
such as teacher quality and lack of resources. The research findings should be used to refine the
SBM theory of change and make appropriate program adjustments.  Educational governance programs should involve members of the entire school community
(district, principal, teachers, staff, parents, and community members). This is critical in order to
obtain buy-in from a diverse group of stakeholders, accountability to program promises and goals,
34
and the sustainability of programming. It is also necessary in order to address both demand- and
supply-side barriers to adequate education service delivery.  Provide clear training and capacity building on the unique roles and responsibilities of school
stakeholders involved in SBM so that principals, teachers, and school committee members can
more actively engage in school affairs. To be effective, all training should be ongoing, of adequate
intensity, and appropriately monitored to ensure that skills are integrated into day-to-day work.
More concerted efforts, such as targeted outreach and meetings, should be made to better involve
mothers in programming.  Increase district capacity to support SBM in schools through training and peer-to-peer learning.
The district should play the role of both monitor and supporter and should help guide schools to
access the necessary funding to meet identified needs.
SBM POLICY
 Clarify the authority provided to schools and districts under the Indonesian SBM Guidelines, and
firmly base all future SBM support programs on government policy, as Kinerja did.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
EVALUATION
Kinerja’s focus on rigorous M&E including IEs has generated valuable lessons on the integration of IEs into
USAID governance programming. When considering or conducting IEs of governance programs, it is
recommended that USAID should:  Conduct power analysis, even if based on only rough assumptions, prior to commissioning an IE.
An underpowered evaluation runs an increased risk of not finding program impacts even when
impacts do exist.  Focus IEs on discrete interventions with consistent outcomes within a program when the
evaluation purpose is geared towards learning. IEs of very complex, multi-component programs
may be able to identify impacts from an accountability standpoint, but the learning on what
components generated that change will likely be limited. The exception to this is when the
program has flexibility in how components are implemented such that the evaluation can
systematically compare similar groups, ideally randomly assigned, participating in different sets of
interventions. This type of multiple-treatment IE can provide very powerful evidence of the
relative effectiveness of different interventions but can be costly and difficult to implement.  Measure outcomes at the lowest level of aggregation possible. Even with clustering, power will be
higher when measuring results at the household rather than district level. This does not imply that
only household- or individual-level outcomes should be measured. Rather, when given an option,
USAID should consider the benefits in terms of increased power and the costs of collecting data
at lower levels.  Consider options for increasing power, particularly when changes need to be measured at a higher
level of aggregation. This may include the following:
o Increase the sample size. This will likely be constrained by evaluation or implementation
resources, but the more units (whether districts, school, or villages) in the sample, the
more likely the evaluation will identify effects, if they exist. When units are clustered, such
35
as students in a school, power will be increased significantly more by adding clusters rather
than adding units within the same cluster.
o Increase the effect size. Larger program effects are easier to measure and require a smaller
sample size. Increasing the effect size is not straightforward, however, and typically
requires additional resources and time. It may be influenced by the intensity of treatment,
coverage in the unit (for example, working with 10% of SDUs in a district is probably
unlikely to generate measureable changes in the whole district), and a clear and focused
link to the outcome of interest.
o Invest in primary data collection. Primary data collection can be costly, particularly when
collecting data over a wide area. However, secondary data rarely provide optimal timing,
quality, sampling, and indicators to maximize power. Secondary data should be reviewed
at the design stage to determine the possibility of using them, even as a source of control
variables.  Contingent on funding, repeat district-level analysis when subsequent waves of secondary data
become available in 2016.
36
ANNEXES
ANNEX I: IE CONSULTATIVE PROCESS
In the first submitted Performance Management Plan (PMP) on December 15, 2010, evaluation
stakeholders identified limitations to the district-level IE. These limitations included the following:
governance project with a sectoral focus, demand-driven approach, evaluation timing, sample size,
balancing costs and benefits of primary and secondary data, and spillovers outside treatment areas.
Considering these limitations to the district level IE approach, an intervention was to be selected for an
RCT. An illustrative example was included in the PMP regarding an IE evaluating a Kinerja education
intervention, highlighting key issues for stakeholders to consider during the final selection of an
intervention for the rigorous IE. These key issues included unit of randomization, sample size, geographic
scope, and threats to internal and external validity.  In May 2011, RTI and SI submitted an ‘M&E Approach Proposal’ to USAID that included detailed
recommendations for the final Kinerja M&E Approach. Two options were included in this
proposal, detailed below:
o Continue with the PMP-proposed M&E approach, including a district level IE comparing 20
treatment and 20 control districts and an IE of a specific intervention. SMERU’s qualitative
research would attempt to compare district level effects in a subset of treatment and control
districts, and would focus on explaining main quantitative indicators and understanding the
effectiveness of Kinerja’s activities which cut across districts and sectors.
o Alter the Kinerja M&E approach to focus on the implementation of Kinerja packages in those
districts where the packages are implemented (maintaining the district level IE and
intervention IE). Quantitative cross-district comparisons of treatment and control districts
remain possible using national datasets, but resources for SMERU’s qualitative research would
be shifted to research in schools (in West Kalimantan) and in more deeper case studies in a
sub-set of districts.
This proposal also detailed possible intervention IE designs, including designs for evaluating the PTD, SBM,
BOSP, Health, and BEE interventions.
Evaluation stakeholders identified option 2 as the ideal M&E approach for the Kinerja program and
ultimately selected SBM as the intervention most suited for a randomized control trial. The M&E team
(including SI and SMERU) would complete quantitative comparisons of “impact” indicators from secondary
datasets (SUSENAS and RISKESDAS) across 20 treatment and 20 control districts. This comparison would
include 10 indicators reflecting distant outcomes and impact at the household level in education and health
sectors. Primary data collection was planned for the rigorous IE at the school level, originally planned for
three districts with approximately 20 treatment and 20 control schools in each district.
Strengths of this RCT approach at the school level were highlighted in the proposal, as well as evaluation
weaknesses:  Focused data collection will provide a strong chance of observing relevant results on a schedule
that matches closely to project activities. Since the IE leverages the use of randomly selected
treatment and control units, any observed results can therefore stand a strong chance of both
identifying specific results and attributing them to Kinerja.  The internal validity of the IE is limited by sample size (which implies a limited ability to detect any
37
important differential effects), the concentrated geographic distribution of schools (which may
facilitate spillover), and possible “contamination” of control schools (replication activities in
subsequent years may mean schools initially identified as control receive assistance).  The external validity of the evaluation is limited by the small number of districts where the IE will
be implemented (results may be different under different local conditions or if implemented by a
different local provider) and the geographic concentration of schools within each district (local
conditions may vary significantly in other areas even within the same district).
38
ANNEX II: SBM BACKGROUND AND KINERJA RESULTS CHAIN FOR SBM
PACKAGE
Background on SBM
SBM is a reform that seeks increased autonomy for schools in decisions about their management, including
their use of funds, materials, and human resources. The World Bank states that moving educational
resources, decision-making, and responsibilities closer to the direct beneficiaries is one approach for the
improvement of schools.35 Local communities are hypothesized to have the best knowledge about the
needs of their children and stronger motivation to monitor the performance of school staff. While these
types of decentralization reforms appear promising and are increasingly being adopted throughout the
world, rigorous evaluation of their impact is scarce.36
By the early 2000s, amidst vast decentralization reform in the country, the Government of Indonesia
wanted to increase accountability and responsiveness to communities and enhance the role of school
committees as a way to improve education outcomes. The Government had been slowly introducing
elements of SBM into the education system by involving school personnel and other education
stakeholders in the management of schools, but there was a lack of a coherent policy or program.37 The
School Operational Assistance (Bantuan Operasional Sekolah; BOS) program was introduced in 2005 as
a formal disbursement program of education funds to schools. Under the program, school committees
were established to run SBM programs. All schools in Indonesia receive block grants based on a per- student formula, and school committees have control over non-salary operational expenditures.
Regulation No. 19/2007 further increased the role of the school committees.38 By channeling funds directly
to schools, education stakeholders like parents, principals, and school committees are enabled to choose
the best way to allocate grants to address unique challenges facing schools.
In 2006, the Ministry of National Education (MoNE) became interested in testing several models being
used throughout the country to improve the application of SBM. This interest led to a pilot study
examining the impact of four improvements to school committees: a block grant, committee training,
democratic election of committee members, and collaboration between the committee and local
government (called linkage).39 This study evaluated four randomized interventions in 520 rural schools in
six districts in Central Java and Yogyakarta, Indonesia, over a two year period starting in 2007. This is the
only rigorous study to date regarding the impact of the implementation of SBM in Indonesian schools. The
study found significant effects on learning and greater engagement by education stakeholders under the
35 World Bank. 2003. World Development Report: Making Services Work for Poor People. Washington DC: World
Bank and Barrera-Osorio, Felipe; Fasih, Tazeen; Patrinos, Harry Anthony; Santibáñez, Lucrecia. 2009. Decentralized
Decision-making in Schools : The Theory and Evidence on School-based Management. World Bank. © World Bank.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/2632 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO. 36 Glewwe, P. and M. Kremer. 2006. “Schools, Teachers, and Education Outcomes in Developing Countries,” in E.A.
Hanushek and F. Welch, eds,. Handbook of the Economics of Education. New York: Elsevier. 37 Some of these regulations include Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 20 Tahun 2003 Tentang Sistem
Pendidikan Nasional. (Chapter XIV, Part One, Article 51) and Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 19
Tahun 2005 Tentang Standar Nasional Pendidikan. (Chapter VIII, Part One, Article 49). 38 Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Republik Indonesia Nomor 19 Tahun 2007 Tentang Standar Pengelolaan
Pendidikan oleh Satuan Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah. 39 Pradhan, Menno, Daniel Suryadarma, Amanda Beatty, Maisy Wong, Arya Gaduh, Armida Alisjahbana, and Rima
Prama Artha. 2014. "Improving Educational Quality through Enhancing Community Participation: Results from a
Randomized Field Experiment in Indonesia." American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(2): 105-26.
39
linkage and election interventions (when combined).
One of the various packages of support offered to local governments by the Kinerja program provides
support for the application of SBM at the school and district level. Kinerja does not provide funds to
schools, but only technical assistance (mentoring and training).40 By increasing the involvement of all
education related-stakeholders (district legislatures, District Education Offices, principals, media, teachers,
school committees, parents, and community leaders), Kinerja aimed to promote a planning and budgeting
process that helped identify the needs and priorities of the respective schools with regard to funding
needs, the availability of qualified teachers, the availability of appropriate educational supplies, and the
physical condition of schools. The SBM activity was designed to assist school stakeholders in developing
integrated school development plans and financial reports in a more participative, transparent, and
accountable manner. Over the long term, the achievement of these goals are expected to have a positive
impact on learning outcomes, satisfaction with education services, and improved school attendance,
completion, and continuation rates. For the SBM results chain for the Kinerja program, see below.
40 This approach aimed to increase ownership and reduce the risk of donor dependency. All the improvements
made in schools have been made with local funding and resources.
40
KINERJA SBM PACKAGE RESULTS CHAIN
ACTIVITIES SUB-INTERMEDIATE RESULTS INTERMEDIATE RESULTS PROGRAM GOAL DISTANT GOAL
SCHOOL LEVEL  Participatory analysis and review of existing
School Plan & Budget (SPB)  Technical assistance for development of school
financial report  Facilitating provision of relevant public
information at school level  facilitation of community participation in
development of SPB
 facilitation of community oversight of school
finances  Introduce mechanisms for regular stakeholder
engagement/feedback
SCHOOL LEVEL  SPB produced with input from all
stakeholders  School financial report produced
 SPB & school financial report made publicly
available
Related indicator: o 15. Number of KINERJA supported service
delivery units where key planning
documents are made available to
stakeholders o 16. Number of KINERJA supported service
delivery units where key budgeting
documents are made available to
stakeholders o 17. Number of KINERJA supported service
delivery units where financial reporting
documents are made available to
stakeholders =============================
 Mechanisms for regular stakeholder
engagement / feedback in place
Related indicator: o 7. Number of service charters agreed
with KINERJA Support o 10. Number of KINERJA-supported
feedback mechanisms at district
government or service delivery units level
used by clients/users o 11. Percentage of complaints about
services received through KINERJA- supported complaint survey process,
 Participatory SPB implemented
 Adoption of other relevant
innovations at school-level  Community actively engaged with &
provides feedback to school
management
Related indicator: o 31. Percentage of all public schools
meeting minimum service
standard for application of
principles of school-based
management o 5. Number of times KINERJA- supported improved service
delivery models or approaches are
adopted by local governments =========================
 Civil society actively engaged with
district govt on issues related to SBM
and other school-level innovations  Sustained media coverage of results
of participatory planning & budgeting,
transparent financial reporting, and
other school-based initiatives
Related indicator: o 9. Number of KINERJA-supported
mechanism that incentivize district
government or service delivery
units based on actual performance
 Planning & budgeting are appropriate
for needs and priorities of individual
schools  Improvements in: - Training of teachers
- Availability of (qualified)
teachers
- Availability of educational
supplies
- Condition of school facilities
Related indicator: o 32. Percentage of KINERJA- supported schools meeting quality
standards for availability of basic
educational supplies*
 Improved learning outcomes  Improved satisfaction with education
services  Improved rate of children attending
school  Decreased rate of children dropping
out of school  Improved rate of children
completing/finishing school  Improved rate of children continuing
on to higher levels of education
Related indicator: o 39. School Enrollment Rate (Net) –
SD (age 7-12) o 40. School Enrollment Rate (Net) - SMP (age 13-15) o 41. School Dropout Rate
41
ACTIVITIES SUB-INTERMEDIATE RESULTS INTERMEDIATE RESULTS PROGRAM GOAL DISTANT GOAL
which are addressed by public service
delivery units
DISTRICT LEVEL  Facilitate increased awareness of importance of
transparent and accountable planning and
budgeting process related to school
management.  Facilitate appointment of a Public Information
Officer (PIO) to provide relevant public
information
 Encourage innovations related to issues
identified at school-level  Facilitation of establishment of multi- stakeholder groups  Facilitation of improved media content on
school-based initiatives
DISTRICT LEVEL  Relevant education information publicly
available
 (Potential) innovations at school-level
documented and socialized
 District govt promotes participatory
planning & budgeting, transparent financial
reporting, and other school-level
innovations =================================
 Multi-stakeholder groups established
 Multi-stakeholder groups trained on
accessing information and providing
oversight relevant issues  Media coverage of results of participatory
planning & budgeting, transparent financial
reporting, and other school-based initiatives
Related indicator: o 12. Number of KINERJA-supported
linkages between CSOs, users, DPRD,
Dinas, etc., which are active in oversight
of service delivery o 13. Number of non-media CSOs that
report on local government performance o 14. Number of KINERJA-supported citizen
journalists actively reporting on local
government performance
42
ANNEX III: NATIONAL SURVEYS AND IE DESIGN
The M&E team used two national datasets with district level representativeness to measure baseline and
endline outcomes in treatment and control districts: the National Socioeconomic Survey (SUSENAS) and
the National Basic Health Research (RISKESDAS).41 SUSENAS is a national household survey collected by
the Central Agency on Statistics (BPS) focusing on socioeconomic indicators. RISKESDAS is a national
household survey conducted by the research arm of the Ministry of Health. RISKESDAS focuses mainly
on basic health indicators. For both surveys, 2010 data was used as baseline, and 2013 was used as the
endline, as it is the most recent available despite the Kinerja project’s continuation beyond 2013.
SUSENAS AND RISKESDAS SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
SUSENAS and RISKESDAS both use a two-stage sampling method:
1. Selecting census blocks
2. Selecting households within each selected census block
The Probability Proportional to Size method is used when selecting census blocks from a Master Sampling
Frame, which can be obtained from population census. Systematical random sampling is then used to select
households within census blocks. There were 16 households per census block selected for the surveys
before 2011 and 10 households per census block after 2011.
The sampling frame for both surveys changed in 2011 because of the release of the 2010 Population
Census (used as the frame for both surveys). Prior to 2011, the 2006 Economic Census was used as the
sampling frame.
TIMING OF DATA COLLECTION
SUSENAS
SUSENAS is an annual national household survey collected by the Central Agency on Statistics (BPS);
however, since 2005, data collection was spread across the year. Since 2011, it has been collected on a
quarterly basis. The 2010 SUSENAS data was collected by BPS in July and March 2010, whereas the 2013
data was collected in March, June, September, and December 2013. In 2010, the March round of SUSENAS
consisted of core and consumption module data collection. The July round consisted of core data collection
and one of the three modules. Since 2011, data collection of all modules is conducted quarterly in March, June,
September, and December.
RISKESDAS
RISKESDAS is collected on a triennial basis. BPS collected 2010 RISKESDAS data in May to August 2010,
whereas the 2013 data was collected in May to June 2013. In 2010, the survey was conducted by 4,000
enumerators in a 440 districts across 33 provinces. The data was not representative at the district level
in Aceh, as noted in the Kinerja PMP. Four of the ten districts sampled for Kinerja were missing. In 2013,
the survey was conducted by 10,000 enumerators in 497 districts across 33 provinces.
41 Though all indicators are set up to be representative at the district level, some are not depending on the sampling
frame and distinct contexts found in each sampled area each survey year.
43
ANNEX IV: IE SAMPLING
The following sections detail the sampling method used for selecting units of observation for both IEs
described in this report.
SCHOOL SELECTION WITHIN SAMPLED DISTRICTS
1. Select sub-districts: Kinerja evaluation stakeholders selected a minimum of two sub-district
partners and a maximum of four within each district, taking into consideration the following
requirements:
a. Represent both urban and rural areas
b. Travel time from office of the regent (bupati) to the center of the sub-district must be
less than three hours
c. The number of public schools in the two to four sub-districts must be greater than 80
2. Select candidate schools in selected sub-districts: Kinerja evaluation stakeholders selected 40
schools, at minimum, within each sampled sub-district. The schools had to meet the following
criteria:
a. Public schools (sekolah umum negri or madrasah negri)
b. Travel time from sub-district center to school must be less than two hours
c. 90 students or more
d. Primary and junior schools must be in the same village
e. Primary and junior schools identified by the District Education Office as schools that are
ready and willing to “move forward”
3. Select treatment and control schools: Kinerja evaluation stakeholders randomly assigned 20
treatment schools and 20 control schools according to the following:
a. One primary school per village, one junior school per sub-district
b. Try to balance quality and location of comparison and treatment schools
DISTRICT SELECTION
1. 99 potential districts selected by USAID for inclusion in the Kinerja program
Province
Kota
(cities)
Kabupaten
(regencies) Total
Aceh 5 18 23
Jawa Timur (East Java) 9 29 38
Kalimantan Barat (West Kalimantan) 2 12 14
Sulawesi Selatan (South Sulawesi) 3 21 24
Total 19 80 99
2. Exclude districts if they are…
44
a. Unwilling to participate in the program
b. If other similar donor projects are already offering support in those areas
c. If the district is scheduled for a split in the next four years
3. Random selection of 40 candidate districts/cities stratified by province (ten per province)42
a. West Kalimantan stratified according to whether a border district or non-border
district (all eligible border districts will be included)
4. Random assignment to treatment and control
a. Five Treatment and five Control in each district
b. Districts self-select a Kinerja intervention through a letter of interest from step 2 above,
attempt to ensure balance across treatment and control
5. Statistical check on the outcome of random assignment
a. Make sure (1) that the “candidate” districts are representative of the total pool of
eligible districts (means and standard deviations not statistically diff), and (2) that
treatment districts are, on average, balanced with control districts
b. These representative checks will be performed on three basic observable district
characteristics:
i. Population size from the 2010 population census
ii. Economic development, proxied by expenditure per capita from SUSENAS 2009
iii. HDI, as published by BPS for 2009
East Java deviation: District selection in East Java only differed from the other three provinces in that the
relevant provincial technical offices produced lists of desired districts as described in this paragraph. As
in other provinces, all of these districts were then invited to submit similar letters of commitment (also
indicating sectoral priorities). 25 of 36 did, in fact, submit such letters.
42 One of the five partner areas selected per province was planned to be a city.
45
ANNEX V: SBM IMPLEMENTATION MAPS
Map 1: Melawi surveyed schools Map 2: Sekadau surveyed schools
46
Map 3: Bengkayang surveyed schools
47
ANNEX VI: BALANCE CHECKS
District-Level IE Balance Checks:
RISKESDAS Balance Checks
* p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
SUSENAS Balance Checks43
* p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
43 Variables denoted with † from the RISKESDAS table are also included in SUSENAS. Means and p-values are the
same in both instances.
Treatment Mean Control Mean p-values
Outcome Variables
Babies Breastfed Immediately 0.429 0.433 0.935
Neonatal Care, 3 Checkups 0.250 0.277 0.521
Antenatal Care, 4 Checkups 0.676 0.668 0.853
Postpartum Mother Checkups 0.612 0.613 0.993
Control Variables
Gender: Male 0.329 0.315 0.787
Age of Child, Months 19.6 20.4 0.717
Literacy Rate of Adult 0.853 0.867 0.271
District Population, 2010† 493564 535447 0.825
District Population Density† 917.2 687.8 0.657
Expenditures per capita† 429810 426013 0.932
District HDI, 2009† 69.6 70.8 0.340
Treatment Mean Control Mean p-values
Outcome Variables
Breastfed First 6 Months, 0-12 Months 0.468 0.462 0.898
Breastfed First 6 Months, 6-12 Months 0.375 0.375 0.987
Primary School Enrollment 0.985 0.992 0.116
Junior Secondary School Enrollment 0.825 0.845 0.514
School Dropout Rate 0.036 0.034 0.810
Public Health Facility Use 0.257 0.280 0.461
Births Assisted by Qualified Worker 0.784 0.807 0.654
Control Variables
Gender of Child: Male 0.501 0.503 0.622
Age of Child 2.76 2.78 0.885
Child Health Complaint Last Month 0.333 0.346 0.583
Child Inpatient Last Month 0.026 0.025 0.817
Gender of Adult: Male 0.501 0.503 0.622
Age of Adult 28.5 28.7 0.891
Literacy Rate of Adult 0.813 0.826 0.293
48
SBM IE Balance Checks:
PRINCIPALS
* p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
ǂ Denotes continuous variables which derived p-values using t-tests. All other checks used a Chi2 test
Treatment Mean Control Mean p-values
Participation
Saw Work Plan 0.292 0.292 1.000
Saw Medium-term Work Plan 0.167 0.063 0.109
Supplemental Books 0.875 0.958 0.140
Committee Reviews BOS Quarterly 0.458 0.438 0.837
Knows About MSS 0.333 0.375 0.670
Committee Pressure on Student Performance 0.792 0.646 0.112
Parent Pressure on Student Performance 0.729 0.646 0.378
Communicate with Parents 0.500 0.458 0.683
Communicate with Committee 0.625 0.396 0.025**
Communicate with Community 0.417 0.375 0.676
Transparency
Work Plan Available 0.500 0.483 0.683
Work Plan Shared 0.271 0.208 0.473
Work Plan on Bulletin Board 0.043 0.064 0.646
Financials Report Shared 0.271 0.25 0.816
Financial Report on Bulletin Board 0.045 0.091 0.398
Budget Shared 0.438 0.375 0.533
Budget on Bulletin Board 0.114 0.143 0.685
Role Participation
Should Committee Represent Community 0.917 0.917 1.000
Should Committee Make Ops Decisions 0.396 0.333 0.525
Should Committee Approve Budget 0.958 0.958 1.000
Should Committee Help Raise Funds 0.958 0.958 1.000
Community Contributions
Complaints Received 0.500 0.628 0.234
Number of Complaints 3.760 4.440 0.572ǂ
Community Contributes to School 0.146 0.104 0.537
Control Variables
Age 51.600 53.300 0.139ǂ
Number of Years Taught 25.500 27.000 0.279ǂ
Has Bachelors 0.333 0.354 0.830
Has a Second Job 0.729 0.792 0.473
Certified Principal 0.354 0.438 0.404
School Easy to Access 0.875 0.979 0.050**
49
SCHOOL COMMITTEE
* p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
ǂ Denotes continuous variables which derived p-values using t-tests. All other variables used a Chi2 test
COMMITTEE ROSTER
* p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
ǂ Denotes continuous variables which derived p-values using t-tests. All other variables used a Chi2 test
Treatment Mean Control Mean p-values
Participation
Teacher Performance 0.201 0.199 0.952
Saw Work Plan 0.172 0.123 0.253
Committee Response to Feedback 0.983 0.978 0.750
Knows About MSS 0.112 0.055 0.082*
Satisfied with Village Management 0.597 0.571 0.676
Transparency
Committee Meeting Reports Available 0.418 0.466 0.421
Budget Available 0.933 0.912 0.629
Financial Records Available 0.871 0.859 0.838
Work Plan Available 0.736 0.857 0.084*
Role Participation
Should Committee Represent Community 0.985 0.951 0.118
Should Committee Make Ops Decisions 0.648 0.657 0.878
Should Committee Approve Budget 0.932 0.910 0.487
Should Committee Help Raise Funds 0.895 0.916 0.544
Community Contributions
Parent Feedback to Principal 0.789 0.750 0.439
Parent Feedback to School 0.845 0.888 0.294
Control Variables
Age 46.900 45.700 0.258ǂ
Gender: Male 0.858 0.849 0.833
Senior Secondary+ Educ 0.284 0.205 0.128
Children Aged 7-15 0.731 0.788 0.270
Food Expenditures 54,872 60,390 0.142ǂ
Other Expenditures 877,466 960,719 0.285ǂ
Wealth Index (PCA) 0.101 -0.006 0.642ǂ
Treatment Mean Control Mean p-values
Participation
Number of Committee Members 8.480 8.830 0.598ǂ
Percentage of Committee Female 0.097 0.124 0.310ǂ
Confirmed by Principal 0.681 0.707 0.757
Confirmed by Committee 0.630 0.678 0.571
Transparency
Roster List Authorized 5.880 6.090 0.747ǂ
Roster is Current 0.771 0.729 0.637
Percent Elected to Committee 0.813 0.815 0.395
50
DIRECT OBSERVATION
* p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
ǂ Denotes continuous variables which derived p-values using t-tests. All other variables used a Chi2 test
Treatment Mean Control Mean p-values
Transparency
Work Plan Available 0.375 0.333 0.670
Bulletin Board Available 0.646 0.771 0.178
Committee Contact Info 0.146 0.146 1.000
Suggestion Box Available 0.021 0.083 0.168
Number of Good Girls’ Toilets 0.229 0.313 0.446ǂ
Budget Available 0.938 0.938 1.000
Committee Minutes Available 0.167 0.167 1.000
Computers Available 0.604 0.563 0.679
Library has 200+ Books 0.828 0.846 0.853
Control Variables
Electricity 46.900 45.700 0.258ǂ
Regular Standard School 0.858 0.849 0.833
51
ANNEX VII: REGRESSION TABLES
DISTRICT-LEVEL IE REGRESSION TABLES
SUSENAS Outcomes: Table 1
Exponentiated coefficients; Standard errors in parentheses; Table excludes provincial dummies and baseline control variables
collapsed by district. * p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
Under 12 months,
breastfed first 6
months
Qualified Medical
Practitioner at Birth
Aged 6-12 months
breastfed first 6
months
Use of Public
Health
Facilities
Treatment (d) 1.028 1.000 0.822*** 0.975
(0.130) (0.169) (0.044) (0.153)
Gender: Male (d) 0.829* 0.960 1.064 1.012
(0.089) (0.138) (0.046) (0.136)
Age of Child 0.952*** 1.119*** 0.999 0.995
(0.014) (0.038) (0.001) (0.010)
Urban Region (d) 0.900 1.000 0.886** 2.637*** (0.126) (0.186) (0.048) (0.522)
Qualified medical practitioner
at birth (d)
1.133
(0.178)
1.035
(0.221)
1.023
(0.060)
Had a health complaint in the
last month (d)
0.723*** (0.084)
0.886
(0.128)
1.000
(.)
Inpatient last month (d) 0.625** 0.557* 0.925 3.788** (0.147) (0.178) (0.076) (2.259)
Expenditures per capita 1.000** 1.000*** 1.000*** 1.000
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
HDI, 2009 1.015 0.967 0.961* 1.043
(0.031) (0.039) (0.020) (0.043)
Observations 1517 841 10868 2678
Pseudo R
2 0.040 0.040 0.044 0.128
52
SUSENAS Outcomes: Table 2
Exponentiated coefficients; Standard errors in parentheses; Table excludes provincial dummies and baseline control variables
collapsed by district. * p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
Primary School
Enrollment
Junior Secondary School
Enrollment
Percentage of School
Dropouts
Treatment (d) 0.506** 0.955 0.949
(0.174) (0.092) (0.121)
Gender: Male (d) 0.731 0.643*** 1.390*** (0.164) (0.052) (0.140)
Age of Child 0.926 1.932*** 2.120*** (0.069) (0.101) (0.074)
Urban Region (d) 0.878 2.123*** 0.464*** (0.291) (0.231) (0.065)
Can read and write (d) 102.574*** 1.000 0.017*** (30.414) (.) (0.005)
Had a health complaint in the last
month (d)
0.690
(0.167)
1.257** (0.143)
0.979
(0.134)
Inpatient last month (d) 0.375 1.400 0.525
(0.305) (0.773) (0.391)
Expenditures per capita 1.000** 1.000 1.000
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
HDI, 2009 0.899 1.015 0.987
(0.112) (0.041) (0.046)
Observations 11188 5273 16363
Pseudo R
2 0.361 0.122 0.237
53
RISKESDAS Outcomes: Table 1
Exponentiated coefficients; Standard errors in parentheses; Table excludes provincial dummies and baseline control variables
collapsed by district. * p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
Percentage of
Babies Breastfed
Immediately
Percentage of
Neonates that
Receive Care
After Birth
Percentage of
Pregnancies that
Receive Antenatal
Care
Percentage of
Postpartum
Mothers that
Receive Care
Treatment (d) 0.969 0.407*** 0.903 0.637*** (0.11) (0.06) (0.12) (0.08)
Gender: Male (d) 0.909 0.993 0.975 1.051
(0.08) (0.10) (0.09) (0.10)
Age in months 0.986** 1.003 1.008 0.988* (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01)
Expenditures per Capita 1.000*** 1.000** 1.000*** 1.000*** (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
HDI, 2009 0.960* 0.898*** 1.070*** 1.160*** (0.02) (0.02) (0.03) (0.03)
Lagged Breastfed Immediately 7.295*** (2.05)
Lagged Neonatal Care 7.805*** (4.25)
Lagged Antenatal Care 0.655
(0.22)
Lagged Postpartum Care 5.453*** (2.21)
Observations 2199 2199 2102 2199
Pseudo R
2 0.053 0.127 0.041 0.141
54
SBM IE REGRESSION TABLES
Commitee Participation: Table 1
Exponentiated coefficients, except for model 4 which is OLS
Standard errors in parentheses; Table excludes baseline control variables collapsed by district
* p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
Saw Work Plan
This Year
Received Financial
Report
Received Teacher
Achievement Info
Frequency of
School Committee
Meetings
Treatment (d) 1.883* 1.645* 2.201*** 0.534
(0.64) (0.47) (0.66) (0.28)
Age 1.016 0.979 0.956** 1.049
(0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.04)
Gender: Male (d) 1.953* 1.366 1.392 1.038
(0.78) (0.48) (0.62) (0.66)
Senior Secondary or
Higher (d)
3.173*** (1.26)
4.952*** (2.07)
1.681
(0.64)
1.674
(1.01)
Children Aged 7-15 (d) 0.765 1.436 0.622 0.882
(0.26) (0.47) (0.19) (0.43)
Wealth Index (pca) 0.790** 0.921 0.733*** 1.086
(0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.18)
Sekadau (d) 0.337** (0.15)
0.528
(0.21)
0.453** (0.18)
0.767
(0.49)
Melawi (10) 0.467* (0.21)
0.860
(0.36)
0.777
(0.29)
0.956
(0.65)
Lagged Work Plan This
Year
2.793
(1.96)
Lagged Financial Report 2.011
(1.05)
Lagged Teacher
Achievement Info
14.504*** (9.03)
Lagged Frequency of
Meetings
17570.548
(130438.07)
Observations 283 283 283 264
Pseudo R
2 0.110 0.101 0.132 0.204
55
Committee Participation: Table 2
Exponentiated coefficients; Standard errors in parentheses; Table excludes baseline control variables collapsed by district * p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Know the Minimum
Service Standards
Received MSS Info Received MSS
Status
Satisfied with
Village Management
Treatment (d) 2.454** 2.708** 2.773** 2.304**
(0.95) (1.09) (1.15) (0.74)
Age 1.051** 1.033 1.057** 1.004
(0.02) (0.02) (0.03) (0.02)
Gender: Male (d) 0.866 1.432 1.395 1.016
(0.42) (0.68) (0.67) (0.37)
Senior Secondary or
Higher (d)
4.287***
(1.91)
3.134**
(1.61)
3.298**
(1.56)
0.721
(0.32)
Children Aged 7-15 (d) 1.805 0.626 1.507 0.814
(1.03) (0.31) (0.71) (0.27)
Wealth Index (pca) 0.795** 0.795* 0.769* 0.907
(0.08) (0.11) (0.12) (0.09)
Sekadau (d) 0.192***
(0.10)
0.194***
(0.10)
0.251**
(0.14)
1.491
(0.69)
Melawi (d) 0.401*
(0.20)
0.267**
(0.15)
0.631
(0.35)
0.549
(0.22)
Lagged MSS 2.383
(3.01)
Lagged Received MSS Info 2.456
(4.07)
Lagged Received MSS
Status
0.706
(1.66)
Lagged Satisfaction with
Village Management
1.340
(0.67)
Observations 283 283 283 268
Psudo-R2 0.190 0.177 0.188 0.074
56
Committee Roles: Table 1
Exponentiated coefficients; Standard errors in parentheses; Table excludes baseline control variables collapsed by district
* p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
Should Approve School
Budget
Should Meet with
Community
Should Make Final Ops
Decisions
Treatment (d) 0.586 1.033 1.682
(0.33) (0.76) (0.53)
Age 1.039 1.038 1.024
(0.04) (0.03) (0.02)
Gender: Male (d) 1.760 0.976 0.637
(1.00) (0.87) (0.23)
Senior Secondary or Higher (d) 0.609
(0.39)
0.562
(0.73)
0.601
(0.21)
Children Aged 7-15 (d) 2.549 2.127 0.904
(1.58) (1.96) (0.31)
Wealth Index (pca) 1.499** 1.183 0.925
(0.27) (0.57) (0.08)
Sekadau (d) 0.655
(0.44)
0.180
(0.19)
1.390
(0.59)
Melawi (d) 2.881* (1.83)
0.270
(0.29)
0.768
(0.36)
Lagged Approve Budget 0.784
(1.20)
Lagged Meet Community 1.000
(.)
Lagged Should Make Final Decision 0.977
(0.44)
Observations 279 277 280
Psuedo-R
2 0.233 0.214 0.041
57
Committee Roles: Table 2
Exponentiated coefficients; Standard errors in parentheses; Table excludes baseline control variables collapsed by district
* p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
(1) (2) (3)
Should Represent the
Community
Should Make Final Ops
Decisions
Should Provide Input
on School Ops
Treatment (d) 9.639** 1.682 1.466
(8.91) (0.53) (1.72)
Age 1.077 1.024 0.952
(0.06) (0.02) (0.04)
Gender: Male (d) 0.471 0.637 0.720
(0.50) (0.23) (1.30)
Senior Secondary or Higher (d) 0.325
(0.38)
0.601
(0.21)
1.212
(1.04)
Children Aged 7-15 (d) 0.199 0.904 0.688
(0.21) (0.31) (0.90)
Wealth Index (pca) 1.825 0.925 1.238
(0.79) (0.08) (0.56)
Sekadau (d) 1.929
(1.53)
1.390
(0.59)
Melawi (d) 16.105*** (13.93)
0.768
(0.36)
Lagged Represent Community 30.308
(153.84)
Lagged Should Make Final
Decision
0.977
(0.44)
Observations 283 280 283
Pseudo R
2 0.378 0.041 0.407
58
Committee Transparency: Table 1
Exponentiated coefficients; Standard errors in parentheses; Table excludes baseline control variables collapsed by district
* p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
Meeting Reports
Available
Committee Meeting
Results Available
Budget Available to
Public
Treatment (d) 2.174** 2.174** 0.341** (0.80) (0.80) (0.17)
Age 0.981 0.981 0.968
(0.02) (0.02) (0.07)
Gender: Male (d) 1.204 1.204 0.575
(0.51) (0.51) (0.50)
Senior Secondary or Higher (d) 2.147 2.147 3.753
(1.05) (1.05) (4.34)
Children Aged 7-15 (d) 0.490* 0.490* 1.301
(0.20) (0.20) (0.63)
Wealth Index (pca) 0.969 0.969 1.427
(0.10) (0.10) (0.32)
Sekadau (d) 1.784 1.784 0.307
(0.86) (0.86) (0.38)
Melawi (d) 5.154*** 5.154*** 0.140* (2.65) (2.65) (0.15)
Lagged Meeting Reports
Available
0.939
(0.52)
Lagged Meeting Results
Available
0.939
(0.52)
Lagged Budget Available 1.187
(1.05)
Observations 254 254 164
Pseudo R
2 0.133 0.133 0.249
59
Parents Participation: Table 1
Exponentiated coefficients; Standard errors in parentheses; Table excludes baseline control variables collapsed by district
* p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
Satisfied with
School Committee
Satisfied with
Village
Management
Shortage of
Textbooks
Unclear Role of
School Committee
Treatment (d) 2.058*** 1.998*** 0.632* 0.300*** (0.52) (0.51) (0.15) (0.10)
Gender: Male (d) 0.801 0.806 0.994 0.616* (0.15) (0.14) (0.19) (0.15)
Duration of residency,
years
1.000
(0.01)
1.005
(0.01)
0.999
(0.01)
0.997
(0.01)
Number of children aged
7 to 15
1.142
(0.16)
0.973
(0.12)
1.106
(0.15)
0.831
(0.12)
Wealth Index (pca) 0.901 0.922 1.006 0.920
(0.06) (0.05) (0.06) (0.07)
Father is a farmer (d) 0.767 0.690* 1.302 1.359
(0.20) (0.15) (0.26) (0.38)
Age of the mother 1.015 1.013 0.998 0.980
(0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01)
Education of the mother 0.935 0.934* 1.068* 1.091
(0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.06)
Sekadau (d) 1.349 1.637 0.370** 1.364
(0.56) (0.70) (0.14) (0.79)
Melawi (d) 1.227 1.003 0.214*** 1.562
(0.71) (0.46) (0.10) (1.28)
Lagged Satisfaction with
Village Management
0.895
(0.48)
Lagged Shortage of
Textbooks
1.629
(0.96)
Lagged Unclear Role of
Committee
2.012
(0.89)
Observations 650 728 706 394
Pseudo R
2 0.086 0.065 0.124 0.112
60
Parent Participation: Table 2
Exponentiated coefficients; Standard errors in parentheses; Table excludes baseline control variables collapsed by district
* p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
Visited School
Previous Year
Visited School This
Year
Look at Bulletin
Board Last Year
Look at Bulletin
Board This Year
Treatment (d) 1.661* 1.579* 1.657** 1.639** (0.45) (0.41) (0.39) (0.40)
Gender: Male (d) 1.760*** 1.491** 1.372* 1.244
(0.35) (0.28) (0.24) (0.21)
Duration of residency in
years
1.000
(0.01)
0.999
(0.01)
0.995
(0.01)
0.995
(0.01)
Number of children aged
7 to 15
0.966
(0.11)
0.879
(0.11)
0.976
(0.11)
0.998
(0.12)
Wealth Index (pca) 1.227*** 1.201*** 1.220*** 1.184*** (0.07) (0.08) (0.07) (0.07)
Father is a farmer (d) 1.414 1.233 1.168 0.866
(0.32) (0.26) (0.23) (0.19)
Age of the mother 1.009 0.997 1.006 0.999
(0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01)
Education of the mother 1.067 1.081** 0.969 0.970
(0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04)
Sekadau (d) 0.739 0.498 0.454* 0.442** (0.32) (0.21) (0.18) (0.18)
Melawi (d) 2.354 0.752 0.749 0.519
(1.24) (0.36) (0.41) (0.28)
Lagged Visit School
Previous Year
0.726
(0.37)
Lagged Visit School This
Year
0.444
(0.25)
Lagged Look at Bulletin
Board Last Year
5.129
(5.12)
Lagged Look at Bulletin
Board This Year
0.274
(0.28)
Observations 767 752 846 846
R
2 0.115 0.080 0.095 0.102
61
Parent Transparency: Table 1
Exponentiated coefficients; Standard errors in parentheses; Table excludes baseline control variables collapsed by district
* p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
Satisfied with
School Committee
Info on School
Plan Available
School Financial
Report Available
Info on Financial
Report Available
Treatment (d) 2.058*** 1.917* 1.819* 2.643*** (0.52) (0.64) (0.60) (0.92)
Gender: Male (d) 0.801 0.867 1.662** 0.951
(0.15) (0.21) (0.41) (0.25)
Duration of residency,
years
1.000
(0.01)
1.020* (0.01)
1.014
(0.01)
1.004
(0.01)
Number of children aged
7 to 15
1.142
(0.16)
0.902
(0.18)
0.729
(0.15)
0.768
(0.20)
Wealth Index (pca) 0.901 1.036 0.926 1.090
(0.06) (0.08) (0.08) (0.10)
Father is a farmer (d) 0.767 0.249*** 0.516** 0.378*** (0.20) (0.08) (0.15) (0.10)
Age of the mother 1.015 1.019 1.008 1.027
(0.01) (0.01) (0.02) (0.02)
Education of the mother 0.935 1.080 1.083 1.155* (0.04) (0.06) (0.07) (0.09)
Sekadau (d) 1.344 2.191 1.033 0.971
(0.56) (1.29) (0.44) (0.43)
Melawi (d) 1.216 5.156** 0.542 0.862
(0.70) (3.25) (0.31) (0.55)
Lagged Availability of Info
for School Plan
0.165
(0.27)
Lagged Financial Report
Available
0.173
(0.44)
Lagged Availability of
Financial Report
1.384
(3.60)
Observations 650 846 846 846
Pseudo R
2 0.086 0.134 0.116 0.116
62
Parent Transparency: Table 2
Exponentiated coefficients; Standard errors in parentheses; Table excludes baseline control variables collapsed by district
* p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
Info on Student
Activities Available
Info on
Opportunities for
Involvement
Mother Received
Child's Report
School Committee
Meeting Notes
Available
Treatment (d) 1.464* 1.723** 1.871** 2.415* (0.31) (0.39) (0.45) (1.09)
Gender: Male (d) 1.150 1.113 0.657** 0.994
(0.19) (0.23) (0.13) (0.43)
Duration of residency, years 1.017*** (0.01)
1.008
(0.01)
0.991
(0.01)
0.997
(0.01)
Number of children aged 7 to 15 0.974
(0.09)
0.908
(0.13)
0.893
(0.12)
0.979
(0.25)
Wealth Index (pca) 1.099* 1.113 1.040 1.529*** (0.06) (0.08) (0.08) (0.20)
Father is a farmer (d) 0.750* 0.985 0.638* 1.701
(0.12) (0.23) (0.15) (0.79)
Age of the mother 0.999 1.022 0.987 1.001
(0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.03)
Education of the mother 0.986 1.035 1.003 0.844* (0.03) (0.05) (0.04) (0.08)
Sekadau (d) 0.616 0.487 1.449 1.489
(0.18) (0.22) (0.55) (1.09)
Melawi (d) 1.063 1.291 2.401** 1.232
(0.44) (0.61) (0.94) (1.13)
Lagged Student Activity Info 1.393
(0.80)
Lagged Involvement Info 0.103* (0.12)
Lagged Mother Report 3.289** (1.66)
Lagged Meeting Notes Available 0.521
(0.28)
Observations 846 846 722 181
R
2 0.090 0.112 0.153 0.228
63
Parents Community Involvement: Table 1
Exponentiated coefficients; Standard errors in parentheses; Table excludes baseline control variables collapsed by district
* p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Satisfied with
School Committee
Involved with
Preparing School
Work Plan
Involved with
Charging Fees to
Students
Info on Financial
Report Available
Treatment (d) 2.045*** 0.236* 0.393*** 2.673*** (0.51) (0.20) (0.12) (0.93)
Gender: Male (d) 0.801 0.439 0.978 0.950
(0.15) (0.28) (0.26) (0.25)
Duration of residency, years 1.000
(0.01)
1.042* (0.02)
1.030*** (0.01)
1.004
(0.01)
Number of children aged 7 to 15 1.140
(0.16)
1.377
(0.56)
1.065
(0.16)
0.768
(0.20)
Wealth Index (pca) 0.901 1.384 1.135 1.089
(0.06) (0.43) (0.10) (0.10)
Father is a farmer (d) 0.767 0.733 0.917 0.381*** (0.20) (0.57) (0.34) (0.11)
Age of the mother 1.015 0.975 0.987 1.027
(0.01) (0.04) (0.01) (0.02)
Education of the mother 0.935 1.271* 1.101* 1.155* (0.04) (0.16) (0.06) (0.09)
Sekadau (d) 1.349 2.715 0.201*** 0.972
(0.56) (2.90) (0.09) (0.43)
Melawi (d) 1.227 1.983 0.446 0.870
(0.71) (2.04) (0.25) (0.55)
Lagged Preparing Work Plan 41616.079* (242698.70)
Lagged Charging Fees 12.525** (13.57)
Lagged Availability of Financial Report 1.416
(3.68)
Observations 650 846 846 846
Pseudo R
2 0.086 0.289 0.146 0.116
64
Principal Participation: Table 1
Exponentiated coefficients; Standard errors in parentheses; Table excludes baseline control variables collapsed by district
* p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
Committee Reviews
BOS Quarterly
Communication with
Parents
Student Performance
Pressure: Parents
Treatment (d) 2.333 2.368* 3.184* (1.23) (1.17) (2.03)
Has Bachelors (d) 0.845 2.397 0.700
(0.52) (1.43) (0.49)
Num. of Years Taught 0.928 0.979 1.046
(0.04) (0.04) (0.05)
Age 1.081 1.038 0.893
(0.08) (0.07) (0.06)
Gender: Male (d) 0.751 1.184 1.448
(0.75) (1.02) (1.53)
Has a Second Job (d) 1.896 1.992 1.347
(1.05) (1.24) (0.97)
Certified Principal (d) 2.278 2.159 8.426** (1.93) (1.83) (7.89)
School Access Easy (d) 1.695 0.600 2.037
(1.39) (0.46) (1.57)
Sekadau (d) 1.782 0.558 2.101
(1.28) (0.41) (1.48)
Melawi (d) 0.382 1.991 4.773** (0.26) (1.39) (3.60)
Lagged Review BOS Quarterly 0.973
(0.53)
Lagged Communication with
Parents
1.487
(0.77)
Lagged Pressure from Parents 0.887
(0.56)
Observations 94 96 96
Pseudo R
2 0.156 0.201 0.198
65
Principal Participation: Table 2
Exponentiated coefficients; Standard errors in parentheses; Table excludes baseline control variables collapsed by district
* p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
Medium-term Work
Plan Last Year
Saw Work Plan Last
Year
Committee Involved
with Work Plan
Treatment (d) 9.386*** 4.305** 3.664** (6.75) (2.95) (2.27)
Has Bachelors (d) 0.964 1.326 2.271
(0.67) (0.93) (1.49)
Num. of Years Taught 0.982 1.033 0.987
(0.04) (0.05) (0.05)
Age 0.946 1.077 1.041
(0.07) (0.08) (0.10)
Gender: Male (d) 0.483 0.169 4.480* (0.56) (0.22) (3.63)
Has a Second Job (d) 0.091*** 0.518 2.307
(0.06) (0.31) (1.62)
Certified Principal (d) 1.738 0.671 1.389
(1.74) (0.58) (1.18)
School Access Easy (d) 6.168*** 3.225* 5.774* (4.16) (2.24) (5.11)
Sekadau (d) 1.206 1.701 0.241* (0.85) (1.16) (0.18)
Melawi (d) 0.976 1.642 0.702
(0.73) (1.20) (0.52)
Lagged Medium-term Work
Plan
7.599
(9.72)
Lagged Work Plan Last Year 1.912
(1.20)
Lagged Committee Involvement 2.185
(1.53)
Observations 96 96 89
Pseudo R
2 0.290 0.233 0.258
66
Principal Roles: Table 1
Exponentiated coefficients; Standard errors in parentheses; Table excludes baseline control variables collapsed by district
* p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
Should Committee
Help Raise Funds
Should Committee
Approve Budget
Committee
Actually Helps
Raise Funds
Committee
Actually Approves
Budget
Treatment (d) 4.869 15.073 2.157 4.419** (7.36) (24.94) (1.06) (2.77)
Has Bachelors (d) 0.884 0.295 1.524 2.759
(1.19) (0.40) (0.82) (1.86)
Num. of Years Taught 1.003 0.810 0.977 0.991
(0.10) (0.14) (0.05) (0.05)
Age 1.037 1.184 1.046 1.052
(0.13) (0.24) (0.07) (0.09)
Has a Second Job (d) 2.793 0.933 1.252 0.859
(4.58) (1.14) (0.61) (0.53)
Certified Principal (d) 1.186 0.729 0.622 0.478
(2.06) (1.84) (0.45) (0.43)
School Access Easy (d) 0.262 14.066* 0.692 5.387** (0.46) (19.46) (0.45) (3.77)
Sekadau (d) 0.123 0.098* 0.296* 0.979
(0.20) (0.13) (0.20) (0.81)
Melawi (d) 2.544 0.419 1.141 0.346
(2.74) (0.50) (0.71) (0.23)
Lagged Raise Funds 59.895** (120.53)
Lagged Approve Budget 18.416
(48.40)
Gender: Male (d) 0.479 0.577
(0.36) (0.51)
Lagged Gender: Male 4.784 0.487
(5.45) (0.52)
Lagged Actually Raise
Funds
2.226
(1.30)
Lagged Actually
Approves Budget
0.695
(0.41)
Observations 89 89 96 96
Pseudo R
2 0.313 0.292 0.148 0.168
67
Principal Roles: Table 2
Exponentiated coefficients; Standard errors in parentheses; Table excludes baseline control variables collapsed by district
* p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
Should Committee
Allocate BOS
Funds
Should Committee
Make Final Ops
Decisions
Should Committee
Provide Input on
School Ops
Should Committee
Represent the
Community
Treatment (d) 13.715* 2.369 2.538 3.235
(21.09) (1.27) (6.61) (3.60)
Has Bachelors (d) 1.768 0.519 0.254 0.154** (1.67) (0.30) (0.69) (0.13)
Num. of Years Taught 0.719** 0.943 0.727*** 1.032
(0.11) (0.04) (0.07) (0.04)
Age 1.128 1.076 1.194 0.802
(0.16) (0.08) (0.17) (0.13)
Gender: Male (d) 5.295 1.527
(5.94) (1.59)
Has a Second Job (d) 0.793 0.755 0.816
(1.10) (0.44) (0.99)
School Access Easy (d) 26.279** 2.461 1.532
(32.62) (1.64) (1.04)
Certified Principal (d) 1.873 2.978
(1.62) (4.61)
Sekadau (d) 0.078* 0.988 1.605
(0.10) (0.62) (1.93)
Melawi (d) 12.726* 1.920 1.024
(16.97) (1.23) (1.51)
Lagged Allocate BOS
Funds
1.192
(1.36)
Lagged Should Make Final
Decision
2.573* (1.37)
Lagged Should Provide
Ops Input
1.000
(.)
Lagged Represent
Community
13.170* (19.72)
Observations 82 96 94 96
Pseudo R
2 0.467 0.119 0.172 0.221
68
Principal Transparency: Table 1
Exponentiated coefficients; Standard errors in parentheses; Table excludes baseline control variables collapsed by district
* p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
Financial Report on
Bulletin Board
Budget Shared Budget Available on
Bulletin Board
Treatment (d) 52.693*** 9.853** 16.349*** (55.68) (9.85) (12.70)
Has Bachelors (d) 0.269 1.697 0.822
(0.28) (1.34) (0.65)
Num. of Years Taught 1.118** 1.130** 1.044
(0.06) (0.07) (0.05)
Age 0.849* 0.896 0.878* (0.08) (0.09) (0.07)
Gender: Male (d) 0.733 3.290 0.384
(0.57) (2.82) (0.29)
Has a Second Job (d) 0.254 0.461 0.639
(0.21) (0.43) (0.38)
Certified Principal (d) 0.918 1.027 1.935
(1.20) (1.12) (1.96)
School Access Easy (d) 0.364 3.358 1.128
(0.36) (3.00) (0.93)
Sekadau (d) 0.529 0.639 0.399
(0.60) (0.49) (0.32)
Melawi (d) 1.906 2.975 0.725
(2.11) (2.16) (0.66)
Lagged Financial Report on
Bulletin Board
0.439
(0.85)
Lagged Budget Shared 6.939*** (4.80)
Lagged Budget on Bulletin
Board
0.207
(0.27)
Observations 87 96 86
Pseudo R
2 0.453 0.380 0.326
69
Principal Transparency: Table 2
Exponentiated coefficients; Standard errors in parentheses; Table excludes baseline control variables collapsed by district
* p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
Work Plan Available Work Plan Shared Work Plan Available
on Bulletin Board
Treatment (d) 8.729* 4.276** 21.323*** (9.84) (2.72) (17.88)
Has Bachelors (d) 0.604 1.535 1.595
(0.57) (1.08) (1.47)
Num. of Years Taught 1.019 1.007 1.033
(0.08) (0.04) (0.05)
Age 0.859* 0.969 0.932
(0.08) (0.08) (0.08)
Gender: Male (d) 2.134 0.651 1.058
(2.31) (0.57) (1.10)
Has a Second Job (d) 0.139* 0.722 0.045** (0.14) (0.50) (0.06)
Certified Principal (d) 8.487* 4.204 0.777
(9.92) (4.01) (0.97)
School Access Easy (d) 11.444** 2.088 4.673
(11.98) (1.56) (6.22)
Sekadau (d) 14.314** 2.698 0.437
(17.07) (1.79) (0.36)
Melawi (d) 1.584 7.235** 2.056
(1.36) (6.21) (1.78)
Lagged Work Plan Available 1.127
(0.88)
Lagged Work Plan Shared 5.329* (5.05)
Lagged Work Plan on
Bulletin Board
0.064** (0.08)
Observations 89 96 93
Pseudo R
2 0.293 0.295 0.515
70
ANNEX VIII: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS
INTERVIEWER : ________________________ └─┴─┴─┘
EDITOR : ________________________ └─┴─┴─┘
SUPERVISOR : ________________________ └─┴─┴─┘
CONFIDENTIAL ID MBS└─┴─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┘└─┘└─┴─┘
SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT SURVEY
BOOK 1
PRINCIPAL BOOK
SECTION: KL,KR,CS,KS,PS,KU,PE,PA,BE,TR,KW,SP,CN,CP
JK. Number of visit └──┘
VISIT INTERVIEW 1 INTERVIEW 2 INTERVIEW 3 INTERVIEW 4
DATE : └─┴─┘/└─┴─┘/└─┴─┴─┴─┘
DATE / MONTH / YEAR
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘/└─┴─┴─┴─┘
DATE / MONTH / YEAR
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘/└─┴─┴─┴─┘
DATE / MONTH / YEAR
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘/└─┴─┴─┴─┘
DATE / MONTH / YEAR
TIME START : └─┴─┘/└─┴─┘
HOUR / MINUTE
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘
HOUR / MINUTE
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘
HOUR / MINUTE
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘
HOUR / MINUTE
TIME END : └─┴─┘/└─┴─┘
HOUR / MINUTE
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘
HOUR / MINUTE
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘
HOUR / MINUTE
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘
HOUR / MINUTE
INTERVIEW RESULT : └─┘ └─┘ └─┘ └─┘
COV1.INTERVIEW RESULT COV2. REASON CODE FOR ANSWER “2” / “3” IN COV1 COV3. REVIEW BY REVIEWER COV4. OBSERVATION BY SUPERVISOR
1. Selesai(Finished COV3
2. Selesai sebagian(Partly finished
3. Tidak Selesai(Unfinished
1. Tidak dapat dihubungi(Cannot be reached)
2. Responden sakit parah(Is very ill)
3. Responden menolok(Refused the interview)
5. lainnya(Others: ______________________
1. Data entered, without mistake
2. Data entered, and edited
3. Manual editing without CAFÉ
Yes No
a. Observed................... 1 3
b. Checked .................... 1 3
c. Verified ...................... 1 3
71
4. Data are entered, without correction:
Persetujuan Untuk Berpartisipasi Dalam Penelitian MANAJEMEN BERBASIS SEKOLAH
Selamat pagi/siang/sore,
Perkenalkan , Nama saya ____________________________________, dan saya adalah tenaga surveyor dari SURVEI MANAJEMEN BERBASIS SEKOLAH. Penelitian
ini dilaksanakan oleh Survey Meter, bekerja sama dengan RTI (Research Triangle Institute) di tiga kabupaten di Kalimantan Barat yaitu, Sekadau, Bengkayang dan
Melawi.Survey ini antara lain akan mencakup pertanyaan-pertanyaan tentang pengetahuan dan partisipasi I/B/S dalam pengelolaan Sekolah Dasar [NAMA SD],
kepuasan I/B/S terhadap sekolah ini dan pemikiran-pemikiran I/B/S tentang permasalahan disekolah ini.
Terkait dengan penelitian tersebut, kami ingin melakukan wawancara dengan I/B/S. Ibu/Bapak/Saudara(i) terpilih untuk diwawancarai berdasarkan hasil pengacakan.
Wawancara ini tidak wajib, dan kalau kita melanjutkan wawancara, I/B/S tidak diwajibkan/diharuskan untuk menjawab setiap pertanyaan yang kami berikan. Semua
jawaban I/B/S akan digunakan untuk tujuan penelitian saja, dan akan dijaga kerahasiaannya. Nama dan jawaban I/B/S tidak akan kami berikan ke siapapun.
Wawancara ini akan memakan waktu kurang lebih satu sampai dua jam. Untuk itu, kami mohon maaf karena akan menyita sebagian waktu I/B/S. Oleh karena itu, kami
akan menyediakan cinderamata, atas kesediaan Ibu/Bapak/Saudara meluangkan waktu untuk menjawab pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang kami ajukan. Sepanjang
pengetahuan kami, tidak ada risiko untuk I/B/S berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini.Partisipasi I/B/S tidak ada kaitannya dengan bantuan yang akan diberikan kepada
sekolah,masyarakat atau rumah tangga diwilayah ini. Selain cinderamata tersebut, tidak ada keuntungan lain untuk I/B/S dengan berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini,
tetapi hasil dari studi ini akan dimanfaatkan untuk kebijakan guna meningkatkan mutu pendidikan Indonesia.
Apakah I/B/S memahami penjelasan ini? Jika ya, apakah kami boleh melanjutkan wawancara ini?
Jika I/B/S merasa diperlakukan tidak adil, atau I/B/S ingin menyampaikan pertanyaan atau permasalahan, I/B/S dapat menghubungi: Dinas Pendidikan, Kantor Camat,
Kantor Bupati atau langsung ke Survey Meter, Jln. Pamularsih 149a,Klaseman, Yogyakarta.
PERSETUJUAN ORAL DARI SUBJEK PENELITIAN ATAU WAKIL RESMI
Saya mengerti prosedur yang dijelaskan diatas. Pertanyaan saya telah dijawab dengan memuaskan, dan saya setuju untuk terlibat dalam penelitian ini. Saya telah
menerima duplikat formulir ini.
______________________________ Persetujuan Oral 1. Ya 2. Tidak (lingkari jawaban yang sesuai)
Nama Responden
TANDA TANGAN PETUGAS
Berdasarkan penilaian saya, responden secara sukarela dan dengan sadar memberikan persetujuan dan memiliki kapasitas legal untuk memberikan persetujuan untuk
berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini.
Tanda Tangan Petugas ______________________________ Tanggal_____________________________________
72
SEKSI KL (KETERANGAN LOKASI) (LOCATION INFORMATION)
ID MBS└─┴─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┘└─┘└─┴─┘
Berikut ini kami ingin menanyakan tentang keterangan lokasi dari sekolah (Next we will ask you about school location)
KL.01. Provinsi / Province ____________________________________________________ Kode └─┴─┘
KL.02. Kabupaten/Kota / District/City ____________________________________________________ Kode └─┴─┘
KL.03. Kecamatan / sub district ____________________________________________________ Kode └─┴─┴─┘
KL.04. Desa/Kelurahan Village/kelurahan ____________________________________________________ Kode └─┴─┴─┘
KL.05 Nama Sekolah / name of school ____________________________________________________ KL.06. Alamat Kantor/sekolah Address __________________________________________________________________________________________________ KL.07. Kode Pos / Zip Code └─┴─┴─┴─┴─┘
KL.08. Telepon Kantor/sekolah Office / School Phone 1. └─┴─┴─┴─┘-└─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┘ 6. TIDAK ADA NA
KL.09 Situs Internet dan/atau Alamat Email
(website and or email)
A. Website _________________________
B .Email_____________________________.
W. TIDAK ADA NA → KL.11
KL.10 Cara apa yang di gunakan?
Type of Internet connection
1.Memakai kabel/ use cable 2.Memakai modem / use modem
KL.11. Fax Kantor / fax 1. └─┴─┴─┴─┘-└─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┘ 6. TIDAK ADA
KL.12. Keterangan Lokasi Sekolah / Information about school location __________________________________________________________________________________________________ KL.13 Rute menuju ke lokasi sekolah
Route to school location
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ SEKSI KR (KARATERISTIK RESPONDEN)Respondent Characteristics
KR.14 Nama Responden /Name of respondent ____________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ KR.17 No. telepon / phone A. Rumah / home 1 └─┴─┴─┴─┘-└─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┘ 6. TIDAK BERLAKU / NA
B. HP. / handphone 1 └─┴─┴─┴─┘-└─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┘_____________ 6. TIDAK BERLAKU
KR.18 Situs Internet dan/atau Alamat Email
Website and or email
A. Website _________________________
73
B .Email_____________________________.
W. TIDAK ADA NA
SEKSI KR (KARATERISTIK RESPONDEN)Respondent Characteristics
Berikut ini kami ingin menanyakan tentang karateristik responden (next we will ask you about your characteristics)
KR.15 Responden adalah? / respondent is 1. Kepala Sekolah /school principal KR01
2. Wakil Kepala Sekolah / vice school principal 3. Guru Senior /senior teacher 5.Lainnya /other________________
KR.16 Alasan penggantian? Reason for replacement 1. Tugas keluar kantor dalam Kab/Kota 3. Sakit
2. Tugas keluar kantor diluar Kab/Kota 5. Lainnya______________________
1. out of office but within district/city 3. sick
2. out of office and outside district/city 5. other______________________
KR.01 Tanggal/Bln/Tahun lahir
Date of Birth └─┴─┘/└─┴─┘/└─┴─┴─┴─┘
TGL(date) / BLN(month) / TAHUN (year)
KR.02 Jenis Kelamin (sex) 1. Laki-laki(male) 3. Perempuan (female)
KR.03 Tingkat Pendidikan Terakhir
(Highest Education)
01. Tidak selesai sekolah dasar (not finished elementary school)
02. Sekolah Dasar (SD) (Elemenary school)
03. Sekolah Lanjutan Tingkat Pertama/SLTP (Junior High school)
04. SMA/SLTA/SMK Sederajat (Senior high school/vocational high school)
05. Diploma I/II Ilmu Pendidikan Keguruan (Teaching Diploma I/II)
06. Diploma I/II Ilmu Pendidikan non Keguruan (Diploma I/II non teaching)
07. Diploma III/Sarjana Muda Keguruan (Teaching Diploma III)
08. Diploma III/Sarjana Muda non Keguruan (Diploma non-teaching)
09. DIV/SI Keguruan (Teaching bachelor)
10. DIV/SI non Keguruan (Bachelor non teaching)
11. Pasca Sarjana/SI/S2 (Post graduate)
KR.04 Suku (Ethnicity) 01. Jawa/javanese 05. Sasak 09. Bugis 13. Sumbawa 17. Manado
02.Sunda/Sundanese 06. Minang 10. Tionghoa 14. Toraja 18. Kutai
03.Bali/balinese 07 Banjar 11. Madura 15. Dayak 19. Melayu
04.Batak 08. Bima-Dompu 12. Makasar 16. Ambon 95. Lainnya/other__________
KR.05 Berapa lama Bapak/Ibu telah mengajar (sebagai guru) di semua
sekolah, termasuk di sekolah sekarang ? (number of years taught
(total for all schools, including the current school))
└─┴─┘Tahun/years
KR.06 Termasuk tahun ajaran sekarang, berapa lama Bapak/Ibu telah
mengajar (sebagai guru) di sekolah sekarang ? (number of years
taught (as a teacher) in this school)
└─┴─┘Tahun /year └─┴─┘Bulan/month
74
KR.07 Berapa lama Bapak/Ibu telah menjadi kepala Sekolah di semua
sekolah termasuk di sekolah ini?(number of years as principal (total
for all schools, including the current school))
└─┴─┘Tahun /year └─┴─┘Bulan/month
KR.08 Termasuk tahun ajaran sekarang, berapa lama Bapak/Ibu telah
menjadi kepala Sekolah di sekolah ini?(number of years as
principal in this school
└─┴─┘Tahun /year └─┴─┘Bulan/month
KR.09 Apakah Bapak/Ibu sudah mendapatkan sertifikasi ?(are you
certified?)
1. Ya /yes 3.TIDAK ADA/ no
KR.10 Apakah kepala sekolah mempunyai pekerjaan lain? (do you have a
side job?) 1. YA/yes 3. TIDAK /no→CS.01
KR.11 Jenis pekerjaan ? (what is your side job) 01.Guru PNS (civil servant teacher) 07. Petani/peternak/nelayan (farmer/fisherman)
02 Guru Non PNS (Non civil servant teacher) 08. Pekerja Pabrik (factory worker)
03. PNS/Pegawai pemerintah non Guru (civil servant non-teacher) 09. Buruh Tani (farm labor)
04. Karyawan swasta (private employee)
05. Polisi/Tentara (Police/armed force) 95.Lainnya(other),_______
KR.12 Berapa jam per minggu I/B/S bekerja di tempat lain tersebut?
How many hours per week do you work in this side job?
└─┴─┘jam/hours
SEKSI CS (KARAKTERISTIK SEKOLAH) (School Characteristics)
Berikut ini kami akan menanyakan karateristik dari sekolah I/B/S
CS.01 Pada tanggal berapa sekolah masuk pertama kali pada tahun ajaran
ini?
When did school begin this school year?
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘/└─┴─┴─┴─┘
TGL(date) / BLN(month) / TAHUN(year)
CS.01a Apakah sekolah ini sudah mendapatkan akreditasi? (has this school
already been accredited?) 1. Ya/yes, tahun/year└─┴─┴─┴─┘
2. Masih dalam proses (still in process)CS.02
3. Tidak(no)CS.02
CS.01b Apakah akreditasi sekolah ini? (what is school’s level of accreditation) 1. A
2. B
3. C
4. Tidak terakreditasi (not accredited)
5. Akreditasi di tunda (accreditation recommended to be delayed)
75
CS02TYPE
CS.02 CS.03 CS.04
Apakah sekolah memiliki […]?(does
school have/)
Berapa jumlah buku […] yang disediakan? How many [..]
provided?
Seberapa besar masalah penyediaan buku […] di
sekolah ini ? How significant is the problem with book
provisión in this school?
A. Buku Paket / package of
textbooks
1. Ya/yes 3. Tidak/no
1. Satu set untuk satu murid (one set for one student)
2. Satu set untuk dua murid (one set for two students)
3. Satu set untuk lebih dari dua murid (one set for more than
two students)
4. Kurang dari satu set untuk satu murid (less than one set
per student
Tidak ada masalah not a problem ......................6
Tidak mencukupi dan
mengganggu proses belajar insufficient and hinders
learning process .................................................1
Tidak mencukupi tetapi tidak
mengganggu proses belajar insufficient but does not
hinder learning process .....................................3
B. Buku Pengayaan
/supplemental book
1. Ya/yes 3. Tidak/no
└─┴─┘Buah/book(s)
C. Buku referensi /
reference books
1. Ya/yes 3. Tidak/no
└─┴─┘Buah/book(s)
CS.05 Apakah di sekolah ada kotak saran untuk menyampaikan saran atau keluhan? (does school
provide suggestion box to file suggestions or complaints?
Ya/yes....................................................... 1
Tidak/no.................................................... 3
CS.05a Apakah ada proses lain untuk menyampaikan saran atau keluhan? Is there another process to
submit suggestions or complaints?
A. Surat/mail
B.Rapat formal/formal meeting
C.Rapat informal/informal meeting
D.Melalu telepon/by phone
E.Melalui SMS/by sms
W. TIDAK ADA CARA LAIN/NO OTHER MECHANISM
V. Lainnya/other__________________________
CS.06 Apakah sekolah mempunyai seseorang yang di tunjuk untuk menjawab pertanyaan, permintaan
informasi, dan keluhan dari orang tua dan masyarakat ?(does school have designated staff to
answer questions, information requests and complaints from parents & community?) 1. Ya /yes 3. Tidak/no CS.08
CS.07 Siapa saja yang di tunjuk? who is assigned? A.Guru sekolah/school teacher
B.Adminitrasi staf sekolah (termasuk TU dan bendahara) school administration staff
including treasurer and administration
76
C.Kepala sekolah/principal V.Lainnya/other_____________________
CS.08 Pada tahun ajaran yang lalu (2010/2011), berapa banyak saran/keluhan yang disampaikan?
In last school year (2010/2011), how many complaints received?
1.└─┴─┘
6. Tidak ada keluhan/saran there were no complaints/suggestions→ KS.01
8.TIDAK TAHU/TIDAK DIHITUNG (DON’T KNOW/UNCOUNTED)
SEKSI KS (KOMITE SEKOLAH) school committee
Berikut kami akan menanyakan tentang komite sekolah (we will ask you about scholl committee in this school)
KS.01 Apakah sekolah memiliki Komite Sekolah? (does this school have a school committee?) Ya/yes ....................................................... 1
Tidak/no .................................................... 3 → PS.01
KS.02 Apakah Bapak/Ibu menjadi anggota komite di sekolah ini? (are you a member of the school
committee)
Ya/yes ....................................................... 1
Tidak/no .................................................... 3 → KS.03
KS.02a Posisi apakah I/B/S di komite sekolah? What is your position in committee? 1.Ketua Komite Sekolah / chairperson of school committee
2.Wakil Ketua Komite Sekolah/ vice chairperson of school committee
3.Sekretaris / secretary
4.Bendahara / treasurer
5.Anggota / member
KS.03 Berapa kali Bapak/Ibu menghadiri pertemuan formal/resmi dengan Komite Sekolah? (how
many times have you attended official meetings of school committee?) A. Tahun ajaran lalu /last school year (2010-2011): └─┴─┘kali/times
B. Tahun ajaran sekarang /current school year(2011-2012):
└─┴─┘kali/times
KS.04 Berapa kali Bapak/Ibu bertemu dengan Komite Sekolah diluar pertemuan formal/resmi
untuk membahas hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan sekolah? (how many times have you met
with the school committee outside official school committee meetings to discuss topics related
to the school?)
A. Tahun ajaran lalu /last school year (2010-2011): └─┴─┘kali/times
B. Tahun ajaran sekarang /current school year(2011-2012):
└─┴─┘kali/times
KS05TYPE
KS.05 KS.06
Menurut ibu/bapak Apakah komite sekolah seharusnya [...] ?in your opinion,
should the role of school committee [...]:
Apakah komite sekolah di sekolah
ini [...] ? Does the school committee
[...] at this school?
A Memberikan masukan mengenai operasional sekolah
(provide input on school operations)
1.Sangat Setuju strongly agree 2 Setuju.agree 3. Tidak Setuju disagree
4. Sangat Tidak Setuju strongly disagree 8.Tidak Tahu don’t know 1.Ya / yes 3.Tidak/no
B Mengambil keputusan akhir yang menyangkut operasional sekolah
(to make final decisions about school operations)
1.Sangat Setuju strongly agree 2 Setuju.agree 3. Tidak Setuju disagree
4. Sangat Tidak Setuju strongly disagree 8.Tidak Tahu don’t know 1.Ya / yes 3.Tidak/no
77
C Membantu penggalangan dana
(To help raise funds)
1.Sangat Setuju strongly agree 2 Setuju.agree 3. Tidak Setuju disagree
4. Sangat Tidak Setuju strongly disagree 8.Tidak Tahu don’t know 1.Ya / yes 3.Tidak/no
D Memberikan masukan tentang alokasi dana BOS
(To provide input about the allocation of BOS funds)
1.Sangat Setuju strongly agree 2 Setuju.agree 3. Tidak Setuju disagree
4. Sangat Tidak Setuju strongly disagree 8.Tidak Tahu don’t know 1.Ya / yes 3.Tidak/no
E Memeriksa dan menyetujui anggaran sekolah
(To verify and approve school budget)
1.Sangat Setuju strongly agree 2 Setuju.agree 3. Tidak Setuju disagree
4. Sangat Tidak Setuju strongly disagree 8.Tidak Tahu don’t know 1.Ya / yes 3.Tidak/no
F
Mengadakan pertemuan rutin / tidak rutin dengan sekolah, orang tua
dan masyarakat.
(To conduct regular or intermittent meetings with school parents and
community)
1.Sangat Setuju strongly agree 2 Setuju.agree 3. Tidak Setuju disagree
4. Sangat Tidak Setuju strongly disagree 8.Tidak Tahu don’t know 1.Ya / yes 3.Tidak/no
G
Mewakili orang tua dan masyarakat dalam proses pengelolaan
sekolah
(to represent parents and the community in the process of school
managementl)
1.Sangat Setuju strongly agree 2 Setuju.agree 3. Tidak Setuju disagree
4. Sangat Tidak Setuju strongly disagree 8.Tidak Tahu don’t know 1.Ya / yes 3.Tidak/no
KS.07 Dari nilai 1 sampai 10 bagaimana I/B/S menilai pengetahuan dan kemampuan komite sekolah
dalam memberikan masukan yang sesuai tentang pengelolaan sekolah? (on scale of 1 to 10,
how would you rate the overall knowledge and skills of school committee to provide input related
to school management?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SEKSI PS (PENGELOLAAN SEKOLAH)school management
Berikut ini kami akan menanyakan tentang pengelolaan sekolah (next we will ask you about school management related to school”financial)
PS.01 Apakah sekolah memiliki rencana kerja sekolah untuk tahun ajaran ini (2011/2012)?( does school
have a school workplan for THIS SCHOOL YEAR?) 1. Ya/yes 3. Tidak/no
PS02TYPE
PS.02 PS.03
Pada tahun ajaran yang lalu (2010/2011) apakah
sekolah ini mempunyai [...]? (did the school have
the following component of a school workplan last
school year)
Pada tahun ajaran sekarang (2011/2012) apakah sekolah ini mempunyai [...]? (does the
school have the following component of a school workplan this school year?
A Rencana Kerja Jarak Menengah (medium-term
plan (RKJM) 1.Ya/yes 3.Tidak/no
B Rencana Kerja Tahunan (RKT)(annual work plan
(RKT)) 1.Ya/yes 3.Tidak/no 1.Ya /yes
3.Tidak/no
78
C Rencana anggaran sekolah (RKAS)/ Dokumen
Perencanaan Anggaran (DPA) (budget plan
(RKAS)
1.Ya/yes 3.Tidak/no 1.Ya /yes
3.Tidak/no
PS.04x PEWAWANCARA PERIKSA; APAKAH SEMUA JAWABAN PS.02=3
INTERVIEWER CHECK: ARE ALL PS.02 ANSWERS=3?
1. Ya /yesPS.05 3. Tidak/no
PS.04TYPE
PS.04
Sejak tahun ajaran lalu (2010/2011) Apakah sekolah Bapak/Ibu menerima bantuan dalam
perumusan Rencana Kerja Sekolah dari [...]? since last school, year, have you received any
assistance in drafting the school work plan from…
A Staf Dinas Pendidikan di tingkat Provinsi (provincial education office staff) 1. Ya/yes 3. Tidak/no
BStafDinas Pendidikan di tingkat Kab/Kota/Kecamatan (UPTD)(district or sub-district education staff
(not school supervisor)
1. Ya/yes 3. Tidak/no
C Pengawas sekolah(school supervisor) 1. Ya/yes 3. Tidak/no
D Yayasan swasta/donor (private foundation / donor) 1. Ya/yes 3. Tidak/no
V Lainnya sebutkan:
(other__________________________________________________________)
1. Ya/yes 3. Tidak/no
PS.05 Tiga kategori yang mana dari pengeluaran sekolah tahun ajaran ini yang mendapatkan
alokasi anggaran sekolah yang terbesar ?(what three categories of expenditure for this
school year receive the largest share of the school budget?)
(CATATAN PEWAWANCARA: PERLIHATKAN GAMBAR , DAN MINTA RESPONDEN
UNTUK MEMILIH 3 TERPENTING DAN MINTA DI RANKING. KALAU TIDAK TERPILIH
ISI DENGAN “6”.)
INTERVIEWER NOTE: SHOW THE PICTURES, ASK TO MENTION 3 MOST
IMPORTANT CATEGORIES AND RANK THEM.IF NOT CHOSEN, FILL IN WITH “6”
a. Perlengkapan Pendidikan/education equipment └─┘
b. Pengajar/ teacher └─┘
c. Prasarana Sekolah yang baru/ new school infrastructure └─┘
d. Memperbaiki sarana yang ada/improve existing infrastructure └─┘
e. Pengeluaran operasional lainnya/other operational expenditure└─┘
PS.06 menurut I/B/S anggaran sekolah sebaiknya dikeluarkan untuk tiga kategori yang mana
supaya bisa memperbaiki kualitas pendidikan di sekolah ini? (in your opinion, in which
category school fund should be best spent in order to improve the quality of education at
this school?) (CATATAN PEWAWANCARA: PERLIHATKAN GAMBAR , DAN MINTA
a. Perlengkapan Pendidikan/education equipment └─┘
f. Pengajar/ teacher └─┘
g. Prasarana Sekolah yang baru/ new school infrastructure └─┘
79
RESPONDEN UNTUK MEMILIH 3 TERPENTING DAN MINTA DI RANKING. KALAU
TIDAK TERPILIH ISI DENGAN “6”.)
NTERVIEWER NOTE: SHOW THE PICTURES, ASK TO MENTION 3 MOST IMPORTANT
CATEGORIES AND RANK THEM.IF NOT CHOSEN, FILL IN WITH “6””
h. Memperbaiki sarana yang ada/improve existing infrastructure └─┘
i. Pengeluaran operasional lainnya/other operational expenditure└─┘
PS.07
menurut I/B/S khusus untuk perlengkapan pendidikan anggaran sekolah sebaiknya
dikeluarkan untuk tiga kategori yang mana supaya bisa memperbaiki kualitas pendidikan
di sekolah ini?
(in your opinion, specifically related to educational equipment,school budget should be
spent on which 3 categories in order to improve the quality of education at this school?)
a. Buku/books └─┘
b. b. Perlengkangkapan ruang kelas/classroom equipment/supplies └─┘
c. Perlengkapan ruang guru/teacher room equipment/supplies └─┘
d. Computer,printer dan proyektor/computer,printer,projector └─┘
e. Alat peraga pengajaran/teaching aids └─┘
f. peralatan olah raga/ sports equipment └─┘
g. Lainnya/other _________ └─┘
PS.08 menurut I/B/S khusus untuk pengajar anggaran sekolah sebaiknya dikeluarkan untuk
tiga kategori yang mana supaya bisa memperbaiki kualitas pendidikan di sekolah ini?
(in your opinion, specifically related to teachers,school budget should be spent on which 3
categories in order to improve the quality of education at this school?)
a. Menambah guru honor ( adding private teachers) └─┘
b. uang tambahan untuk guru yang sudah ada/increased money for existing teachers└─┘
c. Pelatihan untuk Guru (training for teachers) └─┘
d Lainnya (other): ___________ └─┘
PS.09 Apakah I/B/S mengetahui tentang Standart Pelayanan Minimum (SPM)/ do you know about
minimum service standard (MSS)? 1.Ya/yes 3.Tidak /no→KU.01
PS.10 Apakah status pencapaian Standar Pelayanan Minimum di sekolah ini sudah
dinilai/dievaluasikan?
(Has the status of the achievement of minimum service standards at this school ever been
evaluated)
1.Ya /yes 3.Tidak/no PS.13
PS.11 Paling baru pada tahun ajaran berapa? (if yes, when was the most recent year?) └─┴─┴─┴─┘/└─┴─┴─┴─┘
PS.12 Berapa jumlah kriteria Standar Pelayanan Minimum yang telah dicapai? (how many
Minimum Service Standard criteria have been met?) 1.└─┴─┘ 8. TT
PS.13 Apakah pernah dibahas dalam sekolah ini strategi dan pendekatan dalam mencapai
Standar Pelayanan Minimum?
(Has a strategy/approach for achieveing minimum service standards at this school ever
been discussed)
1.Ya/yes 3.Tidak/no KU.01
PS14TYPE
PS.14
Apakah strategi/pendekatan Standar Pelayanan Minimum (SPM) diintegrasikan secara formal
dengan…
(was this strategy/approach formally integrated with:
80
A Rencana Kerja Jangka Menenganh (RKJM) (school medium term plan) 1. Ya /yes 3. Tidak /no 6. Tidak ada Rencana Kerja Jangka Menengah
(RKJM) / no school medium term plan
B Rencana Kerja Tahunan (RKT) untuk tahun ajaran ini (2011/2012) (school annual plan
for this year)
1. Ya /yes 3. Tidak /no 6. Tidak ada Rencana Kerja Tahunan (RKT)untuk
tahun ajaran ini / no annual plan for this year
SEKSI KU (Pengetahuan tentang keuangan sekolah) (Awareness of school finances)
Berikut ini kami akan menanyakan tentang pengetahuan I/B/S mengenai keuangan sekolah (next we will ask about scholl finance)
KU.01 Apakah I/B/S tahu berapa besarnya sumbangan dari masyarakat yang di gunakan
untuk membantu sekolah pada tahun ajaran yang lalu (2010/2011) tidak termasuk
sumbangan dari orang tua / do you know how much contribution from the community to
help school in last school year(2010/2011), excluding contribution from the parent.
1. Ada, Rp.└─┴─┴─┘. └─┴─┴─┘.└─┴─┴─┘. └─┴─┴─┘ (There was..)
2. Ada tidak tahu jumlahnya(There was, but I don’t know the amount)
6. Tidak ada Sumbangan dari masyarakat (No contribution from community)
8. Tidak Tahu (Don’t know)
SEKSI PE (PENGAWASAN)oversight
Berikut ini kami menanyakan peran I/B/S dalam pemantauan sekolah (next we will ask you about your role in school supervison)
PE.02 Seberapa sering komite sekolah memantau penggunaan Dana sekolah termasuk
Dana BOS (how frequentl does the school committee monitor the use of school funds,
including BOS funds?)
01. Tidak pernah 02. Sekali setahun 03. Setiap semester 04. Setiap kuartal 05. Setiap
bulan
06. Setiap minggu 8. TIDAK TAHU 96. TIDAK ADA KOMITE SEKOLAH
1. never 2. Once a year 3. semesterly 4. quarterly 5. monthly
6. weekly 8. DON’T KNOW 96. THERE IS NO SCHOOL COMMITTEE
PE01TYPE
PE.01
Dalam 1 minggu terakhir, berapa banyak waktu yang Bapak/Ibu alokasikan untuk [...] ? in the past 1 week,
how much time have you spent for[...]
A Mengamati ruang kelas, memberikan umpan balik pada guru mengenai
pengajaran dan kurikulum dan melaksanakan pengembangan professional guru
(observing classrooms, providing feedback to teachers about teaching &
curriculum, and conducting professional development for teachers)
└─┴─┘Jam/hours
B Mengerjakan tugas-tugas administrasi termasuk penyusunan anggaran dan
manajemen personalia dan penyusunan laporan (working on administrative
tasks, including budgeting, personnel management, report writing)
└─┴─┘Jam/hours
C Mengajar /teaching
└─┴─┘Jam/hours
81
PE03TYPE
PE.03
Pada tahun ajaran sekarang (2011-2012), berapa kali [.....] berkunjung ke sekolah ? (in this
school year how many times have … visited school?)
A Anggota komite sekolah (school committee members) └─┴─┘kali/times
B Pengawas sekolah (school supervisor) └─┴─┘kali/times
C Staf pendidikan di tingkat Kabupaten/Kota atau Kecamatan (UPTD) (other staff from district
or sub-district education office)
└─┴─┘kali/times
PE.04 Sejak permulaan tahun ajaran ini (2011-2012), seberapa kali Bapak/Ibu memberikan evaluasi
setiap guru tentang kinerja/prestasi mereka (since THE BEGINNING OF THIS SCHOOL
YEAR how frequent have you evaluated each teacher on their performance?)
└─┴─┘ kali/times
PE.05 Selama tahun ajaran ini (2011-2012) Apakah pernah ada guru yang kinerja/prestasinya tidak
baik ?(in this school year (2011-2012) are there any underperforming teachers? 1. Ya, Ada yes, there are 3. Tidak /no there are not PA.01
PE06TYPE
PE.06
Selama tahun ajaran ini (2011-2012), apakah Bapak/Ibu mengambil tindakan di bawah ini,
ketika kinerja/prestasi guru tidak baik?
During this school year, have you take any of the actions below when a teacher
underperforms?
A Memberikan guru pemberitahuan tentang permasalahannya secara lisan/tertulis (give
oral/written notification of problem)
1. Ya/yes 3. Tidak/no
B Mengirimkan guru ke pengembangan profesi/pelatihan (send teacher for professional
development / training)
1. Ya/yes 3. Tidak/no
C Menetapkan seorang guru pembimbing (assign a mentor) 1. Ya/yes 3. Tidak/no
D Melaporkan guru ke Dinas Pendidikan untuk tindak lanjutnya (report teacher to education
office for follow-up)
1. Ya/yes 3. Tidak/no
E Memecat guru (fire the teacher) 1. Ya/yes 3. Tidak/no
V Lainnya (other )_______________ 1. Ya/yes 3. Tidak/no
SEKSI PA (PARTISIPASI )
Berikut ini kami akan menanyakan tentang partisipasi komite sekolah pada kegiatan sekolah (next we will ask you about school committe participation to school”s activities
PA01TYPE PA.01 PA.02
82
siapa terlibat dalam membuat keputusan […] ? (Who is involved in making
decision on …)
Siapa yang membuat keputusan akhir mengenai […] ? (who is
ultimately responsible for…)
A Rencana Kerja Sekolah (school work
plan) A.Kepala Sekolah/principal E. Tokoh Masyarakat/community
leader
B. Guru /teacher F. Pengawas Sekolah/school supervisor
C.Komite Sekolah/school
committee G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
D.Orang tua/parent G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
District/subdistrict education office
V. Lainnya/other___
Y.TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW
A.Kepala Sekolah/principal E. Tokoh Masyarakat/community
leader
B. Guru /teacher F. Pengawas Sekolah/school
supervisor
C.Komite Sekolah/school
committee G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
D.Orang tua/parent G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
District/subdistrict education office
V. Lainnya/other___
Y.TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW
B Pembebanan biaya kepada siswa
(charging fees to students) A.Kepala Sekolah/principal E. Tokoh Masyarakat/community
leader
B. Guru /teacher F. Pengawas Sekolah/school supervisor
C.Komite Sekolah/school
committee G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
D.Orang tua/parent G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
District/subdistrict education office
V. Lainnya/other___
Y.TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW
A.Kepala Sekolah/principal E. Tokoh Masyarakat/community
leader
B. Guru /teacher F. Pengawas Sekolah/school
supervisor
C.Komite Sekolah/school
committee G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
D.Orang tua/parent G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
District/subdistrict education office
V. Lainnya/other___
Y.TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW
C Perencanaan dan Alokasi Anggaran
Sekolah (termasuk dana BOS) (planning
& allocating school budget)
A.Kepala Sekolah/principal E. Tokoh Masyarakat/community
leader
B. Guru /teacher F. Pengawas Sekolah/school supervisor
C.Komite Sekolah/school
committee G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
D.Orang tua/parent G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
District/subdistrict education office
V. Lainnya/other___
Y.TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW
A.Kepala Sekolah/principal E. Tokoh Masyarakat/community
leader
B. Guru /teacher F. Pengawas Sekolah/school
supervisor
C.Komite Sekolah/school
committee G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
D.Orang tua/parent G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
District/subdistrict education office
V. Lainnya/other___
Y.TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW
D Perekrutan, pengangkatan guru non PNS
dan pemberian insentif kepada guru
A.Kepala Sekolah/principal E. Tokoh Masyarakat/community
leader
A.Kepala Sekolah/principal E. Tokoh Masyarakat/community
leader
83
(Recruiting and Hiring Private Teachers,
and Incentivizing Teachers)
B. Guru /teacher F. Pengawas Sekolah/school supervisor
C.Komite Sekolah/school
committee G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
D.Orang tua/parent G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
District/subdistrict education office
V. Lainnya/other___
Y.TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW
B. Guru /teacher F. Pengawas Sekolah/school
supervisor
C.Komite Sekolah/school
committee G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
D.Orang tua/parent G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
District/subdistrict education office
V. Lainnya/other___
Y.TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW
E Perencanaan Fasilitas Sekolah (school
facility planning) A.Kepala Sekolah/principal E. Tokoh Masyarakat/community
leader
B. Guru /teacher F. Pengawas Sekolah/school supervisor
C.Komite Sekolah/school
committee G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
D.Orang tua/parent G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
District/subdistrict education office
V. Lainnya/other___
Y.TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW
A.Kepala Sekolah/principal E. Tokoh Masyarakat/community
leader
B. Guru /teacher F. Pengawas Sekolah/school
supervisor
C.Komite Sekolah/school
committee G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
D.Orang tua/parent G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
District/subdistrict education office
V. Lainnya/other___
Y.TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW
F Memonitor pembelanjaan dana
(monitoring school expenditure) A.Kepala Sekolah/principal E. Tokoh Masyarakat/community
leader
B. Guru /teacher F. Pengawas Sekolah/school supervisor
C.Komite Sekolah/school
committee G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
D.Orang tua/parent G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
District/subdistrict education office
V. Lainnya/other___
Y.TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW
A.Kepala Sekolah/principal E. Tokoh Masyarakat/community
leader
B. Guru /teacher F. Pengawas Sekolah/school
supervisor
C.Komite Sekolah/school
committee G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
D.Orang tua/parent G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
District/subdistrict education office
V. Lainnya/other___
Y.TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW
G Pemantauan kinerja sekolah (monitoring
school performance)
A.Kepala Sekolah/principal E. Tokoh Masyarakat/community
leader
B. Guru /teacher F. Pengawas Sekolah/school supervisor
C.Komite Sekolah/school
committee G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
D.Orang tua/parent G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
District/subdistrict education office
A.Kepala Sekolah/principal E. Tokoh Masyarakat/community
leader
B. Guru /teacher F. Pengawas Sekolah/school
supervisor
C.Komite Sekolah/school
committee G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
D.Orang tua/parent G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD
84
V. Lainnya/other___
Y.TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW
District/subdistrict education office
V. Lainnya/other___
Y.TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW
SEKSI BE (BANTUAN EKSTERNAL)external assistance
Berikut ini kami akan menanyakan pelatihan/sosialisasi yang berkaitan dengan komite sekolah yang pernah diterima I/B/S
(next we will ask you about training/socialization that you received related to the school committee
BE01TYPE
BE.01 BE.02 BE.03
Sejak tahun ajaran lalu sampai
sekarang,apakah I/B/S menerima
pelatihan atau pengembangan
profesi tentang [....] ?.(since the last
school year until now, have you
received any training or
professional development related
to… ? )
Siapa yang memberikan pelatihan/training
tersebut? (who gave the training?)
Seberapa cukup pelatihan atau pengembangan
profesi tersebut? (how sufficient was the training or
professional development?)
A Menyusun / merevisi Rencana Kerja Sekolah
(Develop/revise school’s work plan) 3. Tidak/ no  1. Ya/yes
A. Dinas pendidikan pusat
B. Dinas pendidikan propinsi
C. Dinas pendidikan kab/kota/UPTD
D.Donor dan/atau LSM
V.Lainnya________
A.central education office
B.province educational office
C.district/subdistrict education office
D.Donor and or NGO
V.Other__________
1. Cukup, sesuai kebutuhan
2. Agak cukup, memenuhi kebutuhan
3. Tidak cukup, perlu lebih banyak
sosialisasi/Pelatihan
1. sufficient, meet my needs
2. somewhat sufficient (partially met my needs)
3. not sufficient (need more socialization/training)
B
Merencanakan dan mengatur anggaran dan
keuangan sekolah termasuk dana BOS (Plan
and manage school budgets and finances,
including BOS funds)
3. Tidak/ no  1. Ya/yes
A. Dinas pendidikan pusat
B. Dinas pendidikan propinsi
C. Dinas pendidikan kab/kota/UPTD
D.Donor dan/atau LSM
V.Lainnya________
A.central education office
B.province educational office
C.district/subdistrict education office
D.Donor and or NGO V.Other__________
1. Cukup, sesuai kebutuhan
2. Agak cukup, memenuhi kebutuhan
3. Tidak cukup, perlu lebih banyak
sosialisasi/Pelatihan
1. sufficient, meet my needs
2. somewhat sufficient (partially met my needs)
3. not sufficient (need more socialization/training)
85
C
Menerapkan dan/atau menilai pencapaian
Standar Pelayanan Minimal (apply and/or
evaluate the achievement of mínimum service
standards)
3. Tidak/ no  1. Ya/yes
A. Dinas pendidikan pusat
B. Dinas pendidikan propinsi
C. Dinas pendidikan kab/kota/UPTD
D.Donor dan/atau LSM
V.Lainnya________
A.central education office
C.district/subdistrict education office
D.Donor and or NGO
V.Other__________
1. Cukup, sesuai kebutuhan
2. Agak cukup, memenuhi kebutuhan
3. Tidak cukup, perlu lebih banyak
sosialisasi/Pelatihan
1. sufficient, meet my needs
2. somewhat sufficient (partially met my needs)
3. not sufficient (need more socialization/training)
D Mengawasi dan mengevaluasi guru (Supervise
and evaluate teachers) 3. Tidak/ no  1. Ya/yes
A. Dinas pendidikan pusat
B. Dinas pendidikan propinsi
C. Dinas pendidikan kab/kota/UPTD
D.Donor dan/atau LSM
V.Lainnya________
A.central education office
B.province educational office
C.district/subdistrict education office
D.Donor and or NGO
V.Other__________
1. Cukup, sesuai kebutuhan
2. Agak cukup, memenuhi kebutuhan
3. Tidak cukup, perlu lebih banyak
sosialisasi/Pelatihan
1. sufficient, meet my needs
2. somewhat sufficient (partially met my needs)
3. not sufficient (need more socialization/training)
E
Melibatkan orang tua dan masyarakat untuk
mendukung sekolah (Involve parents and
community members in supporting the school)
3. Tidak  1. Ya
A. Dinas pendidikan pusat
B. Dinas pendidikan propinsi
C. Dinas pendidikan kab/kota/UPTD
D.Donor dan/atau LSM
V.Lainnya________
A.central education office
B.province educational office
C.district/subdistrict education office
D.Donor and or NGO V.Other__________
1. Cukup, sesuai kebutuhan
2. Agak cukup, memenuhi kebutuhan
3. Tidak cukup, perlu lebih banyak
sosialisasi/Pelatihan
1. sufficient, meet my needs
2. somewhat sufficient (partially met my needs)
3. not sufficient (need more socialization/training)
F Bekerjasama dengan Komite Sekolah (Work
with the School Committee) 3. Tidak  1. Ya
A. Dinas pendidikan pusat
B. Dinas pendidikan propinsi
C. Dinas pendidikan kab/kota/UPTD
D.Donor dan/atau LSM
V.Lainnya________
A.central education office
1. Cukup, sesuai kebutuhan
2. Agak cukup, memenuhi kebutuhan
3. Tidak cukup, perlu lebih banyak
sosialisasi/Pelatihan
1. sufficient, meet my needs
2. somewhat sufficient (partially met my needs)
86
B.province educational office
C.district/subdistrict education office
D.Donor and or NGO V.Other__________
3. not sufficient (need more socialization/training)
SEKSI TR (TRANSPARANSI) TRANSPARENCY
Berikut ini kami ingin menanyakan mengenai keterbukaan sekolah kepada masyarakat
(next, we will ask you about school’s transparency to public)
TR.01 Selama tahun ajaran yang lalu (2010/2011) seberapa sering sekolah memberikan
laporan evaluasi yang berisi tentang prestasi/kinerja anak kepada orang tua ? In last
school year, how often has the school provided an evaluation report about children’s
performance to parents
01. Tidak pernah 02. Sekali 03. Setiap semester 4. Setiap Kuartal
05. Setiap Bulan 06. Setiap minggu
1. never 2. Once 3. semesterly 4. quarterly 5. monthly
6. weekly
TR02TYPE
TR.02
Sejak tahun ajaran yang lalu apakah sekolah pernah memberikan informasi kepada
semua orang tua tentang [...], SINCE the last SCHOOL YEAR, has the school provided
information to all parents about…
A
Prestasi murid (student performance) 1. Ya /yes 3. Tidak /
no
B
Kegiatan sekolah dan/atau kegiatan murid (school and/or student activities) 1. Ya /yes 3. Tidak /
no
C
Rencana Kerja Sekolah(school plan) 1. Ya /yes 3. Tidak /
no
D
Anggaran sekolah(school budget) 1. Ya /yes 3. Tidak /
no
E
Laporan keuangan sekolah(school financial report) 1. Ya /yes 3. Tidak /
no
F
kesempatan untuk terlibatan dalam kegiatan sekolah(opportunities for involvement in the school) 1. Ya /yes 3. Tidak /
no
G Jadwal pertemuan sekolah (the schedule of school meetings) 1. Ya /yes 3. Tidak /
no
H
Sosialisi/informasi tentang keberadaan Standar Pelayanan Minimal dari KemDikNas
Socialization/information on minimum service standard from Ministry
1. Ya /yes 3. Tidak /
no
87
I Status pencapaian Standar Pelayanan Minimal di sekolah ini.
Status of school achievement of on minumum standard service
1. Ya /yes 3. Tidak /
no
TR03TYPE
TR.03 TR.04.
Apakah ada […] Is [..] available? Bagaimana masyarakat bisa mendapatkan [...] t? How can public acquire [...]?
A
Rencana Kerja sekolah
School work plan 3. Tidak/no  1. Ya/yes
A. Lihat di Papan pengumuman sekolah B. Bisa diminta dari sekolah C.Dari komite sekolah
V. Lainnya_________________
Y. TIDAK TAHU W. Tidak bisa di dapatkan
A. on school bulletin board B. request from school C. Request from school
committee
V. other_________ Y. DON’T KNOW W. Not acquirable
B
Anggaran Sekolah
School budget 3. Tidak/no  1. Ya/yes
A. Lihat di Papan pengumuman sekolah B. Bisa diminta dari sekolah C. Dari komite
sekolah
V. Lainnya_________________
Y. TIDAK TAHU W. Tidak bisa di dapatkan
A. on school bulletin board B. request from school C. Request from school
committee
V. other_________ Y. DON’T KNOW W. Not
acquirable
C
Laporan keuangan sekolah
terakhir/terbaru
Latest financial report
3. Tidak/no  1. Ya/yes
A. Lihat di Papan pengumuman sekolah B. Bisa diminta dari sekolah C. Dari komite
sekolah
V. Lainnya_________________
Y. TIDAK TAHU W. Tidak bisa di dapatkan
A. on school bulletin board B. request from school C. Request from school
committee
V. other_________ Y. DON’T KNOW W. Not acquirable
D
Laporan terakhir/terbaru
pertemuan komite sekolah
Latest school committee meeting
report
3. Tidak/no  1. Ya/yes
A. Lihat di Papan pengumuman sekolah B. Bisa diminta dari sekolah C. Dari komite
sekolah
V. Lainnya_________________
Y. TIDAK TAHU W. Tidak bisa di dapatkan
88
A. on school bulletin board B. request from school C. Request from school
committee
V. other_________ Y. DON’T KNOW W. Not
acquirable
SEKSI KW (KUALITAS)quality
Berikut ini kami akan menanyakan kualitas dari sekolah (next, we will ask you about school’s quality
KW01TYPE
KW.01
Menurut I/B/S bagaimana [ ......] what do you think of?
A
Kualitas infrastruktur/sarana prasarana sekolah (The quality of school
infrastructure
1.Sangat memadai 2. Memadai 3 .Tidak memadai 4.Sangat Tidak memadai 8.
TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW
1.very sufficient 2. sufficient 3 .insufficient 4.very insuficient 8. Tidak tahu Don’t Know
B Jumlah guru di sekolah (The number of school teachers
1.Sangat memadai 2. Memadai 3 .Tidak memadai 4.Sangat Tidak memadai 8.
TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW
1.very sufficient 2. sufficient 3 .insufficient 4.very insuficient 8. Tidak tahu Don’t Know
C Kualitas guru yang ada di sekolah (The quality of school teachers
1.Sangat memadai 2. Memadai 3 .Tidak memadai 4.Sangat Tidak memadai 8.
TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW
1.very sufficient 2. sufficient 3 .insufficient 4.very insuficient 8. Tidak tahu Don’t Know
D
Pemenuhan kebutuhan akademik siswa ( The fulfillment of students’
academic needs)
1.Sangat memadai 2. Memadai 3 .Tidak memadai 4.Sangat Tidak memadai 8.
TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW
1.very sufficient 2. sufficient 3 .insufficient 4.very insuficient 8. Tidak tahu Don’t Know
KW.02TYPE
KW.02
Menurut I/B/S bagaimana [ ......] in your opinion, how is
A
Proses pemberian masukan dari orangtua kepada kepala sekolah/ process of giving
feedback from parents to principal
a. Sangat mudah 2. Mudah 3. Tidak mudah 4. Sangat tidak mudah
1. very easy 2. easy 3. Not easy 4. Very not easy
B
Proses pemberian masukan dari orangtua kepada komite sekolah / process of giving
feedback from parents to school committee
b. Sangat mudah 2. Mudah 3. Tidak mudah 4. Sangat tidak mudah
1. very easy 2. easy 3. Not easy 4. Very not easy
KW03TYPE
KW.03
Menurut I/B/S bagaimana [ ......] in your opinion, how is
89
KW.04 Lokasi Sekolah
(school location)
1.Sangat mudah dijangkau 2. Mudah dijangkau 3 .Tidak mudah dijangkau 4.Sangat Tidak mudah dijangkau
8. Tidak tahu
1.very easy to reach 2. Easy to reach 3 .difficult to reach 4.very difficult to reach 8. Don’t know
SEKSI SP (PERMASALAHAN SEKOLAH ) school’s problem
Berikut ini kami akan menanyakan tentang kepuasan I/B/S terhadap sekolah (next, we will ask your satisfaction about this school
SP01TYPE
SP.01 SP.02 SP.03
Apakah sekolah mengalami[..] di sekolah
[NAMA ANAK] (Is there any problem
about […] in [child] school)?
Sejauhmana […] menghambat prestasi murid di Sekolah
[NAMA ANAK] ? (To what extent does [...] hinder to improve
student perfromance in [child] school?)
Tiga permasalahan
terbesar? 3 major
problems
CP.TANYAKAN
SETELAH SP02
TERISI SEMUA/ ASK
AFTER SP02
COMPLETELY FILLED
OUT
A Jumlah murid yang terlalu banyak didalam kelas
(Too many students in the class)
3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
1. a.rangking
pertama/first rank____
b.rangking
kedua/second rank____
c. ranking ketiga/third
rank____
2. Tidak ada masalah
(tidak ada nilai 1 di
SP.01 no problem(no
“1” in SP 01)
B Fasilitas sekolah tidak memadai (Inadequate school
facilities)
3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
C Kurangnya buku pelajaran Sekolah dan/atau bahan
pengajaran(Shortage of school text books and/or
instructional materials)
3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
A
Tanggapan dari kepala sekolah dari masukan orangtua
Principal’s response to feedback from parents
1.Sangat Baik 2. Baik 3 .Tidak Baik 4.Sangat Tidak
Baik 8. TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW
1.very good 2. good 3 .bad 4.very bad 8. Don’t Know
B
Tanggapan dari komite sekolah dari masukan orangtua
School committee’s response to feedback from parent
1.Sangat Baik 2. Baik 3 .Tidak Baik 4.Sangat Tidak
Baik 8. TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW
1.very good 2. good 3 .bad 4.very bad 8. Don’t Know
C
Penerapan disiplin di sekolah
(The application of discipline at the school)
1.Sangat Baik 2. Baik 3 .Tidak Baik 4.Sangat Tidak
Baik 8. TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW
1.very good 2. good 3 .bad 4.very bad 8. Don’t Know
90 D Rendahnya angka kehadiran murid (Low rate of
student attendance)
3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders) E Rendahnya angka kehadiran guru (Low rate of
teacher attendance)
3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders) F Kekurangan guru (Shortage of teachers) 3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders) G Tingginya angka pergantian guru(High rate of
teacher turnover)
3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders) H Kurangnya kemampuan guru (lack of teacher
ability)
3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders) I Kurangnya dukungan dari Dinas
Pendidikan/UPTDkepada kepala sekolah/guru
(Lack of district or sub-district support for
principals/teachers)
3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders) J Kekurangan Dana(Inadequate funds) 3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders) K Kurangnya minat orang tua untuk berpartisipasi
dalam kegiatan sekolah (insufficient interest from
parents in participating in school affairs)
3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders) L Tidak jelasnya peran/tanggung jawab komite
sekolah (unclear role/responsibility of school
committee )
3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders) V Lainnya (others) 3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
91
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
SEKSI CN (Kepedulian/dorongan) Concern/encouragement
Berikut ini kami akan menanyakan dorongan dari pemangku kepentingan kepada Kepala sekolah
CN01TYPE
CN.01 CN.02.
Apakah [...] mendorong kepala sekolah untuk
meningkatkan prestasi/kinerja murid di sekolah ini (does
[…] pressure principal to improve students’ performance
in this school ?
Seberapa besar kepedulian/dorongan tersebut ? how strong is the
pressure?
A
Anggota komite sekolah (school committee
members) 3. Tidak /no  1. Ya/yes 1. Sangat besar 2. Besar 3. Kecil 4. Sangat kecil
1. very strong 2. strong 3. weak 4. Very weak
B Orang tua (parents) 3. Tidak /no  1. Ya/yes 1. Sangat besar 2. Besar 3. Kecil 4. Sangat kecil
1. very strong 2. strong 3. weak 4. Very weak
C Tokoh Masyarakat (community leaders) 3. Tidak /no  1. Ya/yes 1. Sangat besar 2. Besar 3. Kecil 4. Sangat kecil
1. very strong 2. strong 3. weak 4. Very weak
D Pengawas Sekolah (school supervisor) 3. Tidak /no  1. Ya/yes 1. Sangat besar 2. Besar 3. Kecil 4. Sangat kecil
1. very strong 2. strong 3. weak 4. Very weak
E
Staf pendidikan di tingkat Kabupaten/Kota atau
Kecamatan (UPTD) (other district or sub-district
education staff)
3. Tidak /no  1. Ya/yes 1. Sangat besar 2. Besar 3. Kecil 4. Sangat kecil
1. very strong 2. strong 3. weak 4. Very weak
CN03TYPE
CN.03
Seberapa banyak [....] berkomunikasi dengan kepala sekolah? (how much does … communicate with
the principal)
A Komite Sekolah / school committee
1.Sangat banyak 2. banyak 3 .Sedikit 4. Tidak ada komunikasi
1.very much 2. much 3 .a little 4. No communication at all
B Guru sekolah / school teacher 1.Sangat banyak 2. banyak 3 .Sedikit 4. Tidak ada komunikasi
1.very much 2. much 3 .a little 4. No communication at all
C Orang tua murid / parent 1.Sangat banyak 2. banyak 3 .Sedikit 4. Tidak ada komunikasi
1.very much 2. much 3 .a little 4. No communication at all
D Tokoh masyarakat / community figure 1.Sangat banyak 2. banyak 3 .Sedikit 4. Tidak ada komunikasi
92
CP. CATATAN PEWAWANCARA INTERVIEW NOTE
CP1. SIAPA LAGI (ORANG LAIN) SELAIN RESPONDEN YANG
HADIR SELAMA WAWANCARA BERLANGSUNG? WHO
ELSE (OTHER PERSONS) BESIDES THE
RESPONDENT WAS PRESENT DURING THE
INTERVIEW?
A. TIDAK ADA NO ONE
B. ORANG DEWASA, GURU/STAF SEKOLAH
ADULT, TEACHER/SCHOOL STAFF
C. ORANG DEWASA, BUKAN GURU/STAF SEKOLAH
ADULT, NON TEACHER/SCHOOL STAFF
CP2.BAGAIMANA PENILAIAN BAPAK/IBU TERHADAP
KETEPATAN JAWABAN DARI RESPONDEN? WHAT
IS YOUR EVALUATION OF THE ACCURACY OF
THE RESPONDENT’S ANSWERS?
1. SANGAT BAIK / EXCELLENT
2. BAIK / GOOD
3. CUKUP BAIK / FAIR
4. TIDAK BAIK / NOT SO GOOD
5. SANGAT TIDAK BAIK / VERY BAD
CP3. BAGAIMANA PENILAIAN BAPAK/IBU
TERHADAP KESUNGGUHAN PERHATIAN
RESPONDEN? WHAT IS YOUR EVALUATION OF
THE SINCERITY AND ATTENTIVENESS OF THE
RESPONDENT?
1. SANGAT BAIK / EXCELLENT
2. BAIK / GOOD
3. CUKUP BAIK / FAIR
4. TIDAK BAIK / NOT SO GOOD
5. SANGAT TIDAK BAIK / VERY BAD
CP4.PERTANYAAN MANAKAH YANG SULIT,MEMALUKAN ATAU
MEMBINGUNGKAN BAGI RESPONDEN? WHAT QUESTIONS
DID THE RESPONDENT FIND DIFFICULT,
EMBARRASSING, OR CONFUSING?
________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
CP5. PERTANYAAN MANAKAH YANG SULIT,
MEMALUKAN ATAU MEMBINGUNGKAN BAGI
PEWAWANCARA? WHAT QUESTIONS DID THE
INTERVIEWER FIND DIFFICULT,
EMBARRASSING, OR CONFUSING?
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
CP6. PERTANYAAN MANAKAH YANG MENARIK BAGI
RESPONDEN? WHAT QUESTIONS DID THE
RESPONDENT SEEM INTERESTED IN?
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
1.very much 2. much 3 .a little 4. No communication at all
E Pengawas sekolah / school supervisor 1.Sangat banyak 2. banyak 3 .Sedikit 4. Tidak ada komunikasi
1.very much 2. much 3 .a little 4. No communication at all
F Dinas pendidikan/UPTD / district/sub-district education office
1.Sangat banyak 2. banyak 3 .Sedikit 4. Tidak ada komunikasi
1.very much 2. much 3 .a little 4. No communication at all
G Dewan pendidikan di tingkat Kabupaten/kota / district education board 1.Sangat banyak 2. banyak 3 .Sedikit 4. Tidak ada komunikasi
1.very much 2. much 3 .a little 4. No communication at all
H LSM / NGO 1.Sangat banyak 2. banyak 3 .Sedikit 4. Tidak ada komunikasi
1.very much 2. much 3 .a little 4. No communication at all
I Media massa / press 1.Sangat banyak 2. banyak 3 .Sedikit 4. Tidak ada komunikasi
1.very much 2. much 3 .a little 4. No communication at all
93
CATATAN NOTE : ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
INTERVIEWER : _________________ └─┴─┴─┘
EDITOR : _________________ └─┴─┴─┘
SUPERVISOR : _________________ └─┴─┴─┘
CONFIDENTIAL ID MBS└─┴─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┘└─┘└─┴─┘
SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT SURVEY
BOOK 2
SCHOOL COMMITTEE BOOK
SECTION: KL, KR, KS, PS ,KU ,PE ,MU ,PA ,BE ,TR ,KW ,KP ,SP ,CN ,KD ,CP
JK. Jumlah kunjungan: └─┘
VISIT INTERVIEW 1 INTERVIEW 2 INTERVIEW 3 INTERVIEW 4
DATE : └─┴─┘/└─┴─┘/└─┴─┴─┴─┘
DATE / MONTH / YEAR
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘/└─┴─┴─┴─┘
DATE / MONTH / YEAR
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘/└─┴─┴─┴─┘
DATE / MONTH / YEAR
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘/└─┴─┴─┴─┘
DATE / MONTH / YEAR
TIME START : └─┴─┘/└─┴─┘
HOUR / MINUTE
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘
HOUR / MINUTE
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘
HOUR / MINUTE
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘
HOUR / MINUTE
TIME END : └─┴─┘/└─┴─┘ └─┴─┘/└─┴─┘ └─┴─┘/└─┴─┘ └─┴─┘/└─┴─┘
94
HOUR / MINUTE HOUR / MINUTE HOUR / MINUTE HOUR / MINUTE
INTERVIEW RESULT : └─┘ └─┘ └─┘ └─┘
COV1.INTERVIEW RESULT BOOK 2 COV2. REASON CODE FOR ANSWER “2” / “3” IN COV1 COV3. REVIEW BY REVIEWER COV4. OBSERVATION BY SUPERVISOR
1. Finished COV3
2. Partly finished
3. Unfinished
1. Cannot be reached
2. Is very ill
3. Refused the interview
5. Others: ______________________
1. Data entered, without mistake
2. Data entered, and edited
3. Manual editing without CAFÉ
4. Data are entered, without correction:
Yes No
a. Observed ...................1 3
b. Checked.....................1 3
c. Verified………………..1 3
95
Persetujuan Untuk Berpartisipasi Dalam Penelitian MANAJEMEN BERBASIS SEKOLAH
Selamat pagi/siang/sore,
Perkenalkan , Nama saya ____________________________________, dan saya adalah tenaga surveyor dari SURVEI MANAJEMEN BERBASIS SEKOLAH. Penelitian ini dilaksanakan oleh Survey Meter, bekerja sama dengan RTI (Research Triangle Institute) di tiga kabupaten di Kalimantan Barat yaitu, Sekadau,
Bengkayang dan Melawi.Survey ini antara lain akan mencakup pertanyaan-pertanyaan tentang pengetahuan dan partisipasi I/B/S dalam pengelolaan Sekolah
Dasar [NAMA SD], kepuasan I/B/S terhadap sekolah ini dan pemikiran-pemikiran I/B/S tentang permasalahan disekolah ini.
Terkait dengan penelitian tersebut, kami ingin melakukan wawancara dengan I/B/S. Ibu/Bapak/Saudara(i) terpilih untuk diwawancarai berdasarkan hasil
pengacakan. Wawancara ini tidak wajib, dan kalau kita melanjutkan wawancara, I/B/S tidak diwajibkan/diharuskan untuk menjawab setiap pertanyaan yang
kami berikan. Semua jawaban I/B/S akan digunakan untuk tujuan penelitian saja, dan akan dijaga kerahasiaannya. Nama dan jawaban I/B/S tidak akan kami
berikan ke siapapun.
Wawancara ini akan memakan waktu kurang lebih satu sampai dua jam. Untuk itu, kami mohon maaf karena akan menyita sebagian waktu I/B/S. Oleh karena itu,
kami akan menyediakan cinderamata, atas kesediaan Ibu/Bapak/Saudara meluangkan waktu untuk menjawab pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang kami ajukan.
Sepanjang pengetahuan kami, tidak ada risiko untuk I/B/S berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini.Partisipasi I/B/S tidak ada kaitannya dengan bantuan yang akan
diberikan kepada sekolah,masyarakat atau rumah tangga diwilayah ini. Selain cinderamata tersebut, tidak ada keuntungan lain untuk I/B/S dengan
berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini, tetapi hasil dari studi ini akan dimanfaatkan untuk kebijakan guna meningkatkan mutu pendidikan Indonesia.
Apakah I/B/S memahami penjelasan ini? Jika ya, apakah kami boleh melanjutkan wawancara ini?
Jika I/B/S merasa diperlakukan tidak adil, atau I/B/S ingin menyampaikan pertanyaan atau permasalahan, I/B/S dapat menghubungi: Dinas Pendidikan, Kantor
Camat, Kantor Bupati atau langsung ke Survey Meter, Jln. Pamularsih 149a,Klaseman, Yogyakarta.
PERSETUJUAN ORAL DARI SUBJEK PENELITIAN ATAU WAKIL RESMI
Saya mengerti prosedur yang dijelaskan diatas. Pertanyaan saya telah dijawab dengan memuaskan, dan saya setuju untuk terlibat dalam penelitian ini. Saya telah
menerima duplikat formulir ini.
______________________________ Persetujuan Oral 1. Ya 2. Tidak (lingkari jawaban yang sesuai)
Nama Responden
TANDA TANGAN PETUGAS
Berdasarkan penilaian saya, responden secara sukarela dan dengan sadar memberikan persetujuan dan memiliki kapasitas legal untuk memberikan persetujuan
untuk berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini.
Tanda Tangan Petugas ______________________________ Tanggal_____________________________________
96
SEKSI KL (KETERANGAN LOKASI) ID MBS└─┴─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┘└─┘└─┴─┘
Berikut ini kami ingin menanyakan tentang keterangan lokasi dari sekolah (Next we will ask you about household location)
KL.00 Nama Sekolah / Name of school ___________________________________________└─┴─┘
KL.01. Provinsi / Province ____________________________________________________ Kode
Code
└─┴─┘
KL.02. Kabupaten/Kota / District/city ____________________________________________________ Kode
Code
└─┴─┘
KL.03. Kecamatan / sub district ____________________________________________________ Kode
Code
└─┴─┴─┘
KL.04. Desa/Kelurahan / Village ____________________________________________________ Kode
Code
└─┴─┴─┘
KL.05. Alamat Rumah / home address _______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________ KL.06 Keterangan lokasi / location information _______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________ KL.07. Kode Pos / Zip code 1. └─┴─┴─┴─┴─┘ 8. TT / DK
KL.08. Telepon / phone a. Rumah / home 1. └─┴─┴─┴─┘-└─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┘ 6. TIDAK ADA / NOT AVAILABLE
b. HP / handphone 1 └─┴─┴─┴─┘-└─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┘_____________ 6. TIDAK ADA/ NOT
AVAILABLE
KL.09 Nama tetangga terdekat / name of nearest neighbor _______________________________________________________________________________________ KL.10 Rute menuju rumah responden (mengacu dari sekolah)
Route to respondent’s house (from school) _______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________ SEKSI KR (KARAKTERISTIK RESPONDEN)
Berikut ini kami akan menanyakan tentang karakteristik I/B/S (next we will ask you about your characteristics)
KR.01 Nama Responden / name of respondent ____________________________________________________ KR.02 Responden adalah? Respondent is 1. Ketua Komite Sekolah / chair of school committee
2. Wakil Ketua Komite Sekolah / vice chair of school committee
3. Sekretaris / secretary
4. Bendahara / treasurer
5. Anggota / member
97
KR.03 Alamat Email / Email Address 1. ____________________________________________________
6. TIDAK ADA / NOT AVAILABLE
SEKSI KR (KARAKTERISTIK RESPONDEN)
KR.04 Tanggal/Bln/Tahun lahir
Date of Birth (date/month/year) └─┴─┘/└─┴─┘/└─┴─┴─┴─┘
TGL / BLN / TAHUN
KR.05 Jenis Kelamin (sex) 1. Laki-laki 3. Perempuan
KR.06 Tingkat Pendidikan Tertinggi yang pernah diikuti?
(Highest level of Education ever attended)
01. Tidak selesai sekolah dasar / never finished elementary school
02. Sekolah Dasar (SD) / elementary school
03. Sekolah Lanjutan Tingkat Pertama (SLTP) / junior secondary school
04. SMA/SLTA/SMK Sederajat / high school / senior high school / vocational
school
05. Diploma I/II Ilmu Pendidikan Keguruan / teaching
college
06. Diploma I/II Ilmu Pendidikan non Keguruan / non-teaching college
07. Diploma III/Sarjana Muda Keguruan / associates’
(teaching)
08. Diploma III/Sarjana Muda non Keguruan / associates’ (non-teaching)
09. DIV/SI Keguruan / bachelors (teaching)
10. DIV/SI non Keguruan / bachelors (non-teaching)
11. Pasca Sarjana: S2/S3 / Post Graduate: Masters/PhD
KR.07 Suku (Ethnicity) 1. Jawa 5. Sasak 9. Bugis 13. Sumbawa 17. Manado
2. Sunda 6. Minang 10. Tionghoa 14. Toraja 18. Kutai
3. Bali 7 Banjar 11. Madura 15. Dayak 19.Melayu
4. Batak 8. Bima-Dompu 12. Makasar 16. Ambon 95.Lainnya_____
KR.08 Pekerjaan utama Bapak/Ibu (Daily Occupation) 01. Guru PNS (civil servant teacher)
02. Guru Non PNS (non-civil servant teacher)
03. PNS/Pegawai pemerintah non Guru (civil servant non-teacher)
04. Karyawan swasta (private employee)
05. Polisi/Tentara (police / military)
06. Wiraswasta (entrepreneur)
07. Petani/peternak/Nelayan (farmer/fisherman)
08. Buruh tani (farm labor)
98
09. Pensiunan Guru (retired (teacher))
10. Pensiunan Non guru (retired (non-teacher))
95. Lainnya ________ (other)
96. Tidak Bekerja (does not work)
KR.09 Dalam sebulan terakhir, berapa total pendapatan RT dari gaji/upah baik dalam bentuk uang
atau barang? (in the past one month, how much was your hosehold’s total revenue either in
form of money or goods?)
Rp.└─┴─┘└─┴─┴─┘ └─┴─┴─┘
KR.10 Dalam setahun terakhir, berapa pendapatan bersih RT dari usaha pertanian (kebun/sawah)?
(in the past one year, how much money have your household earned from agricultural
business?)
Rp.└─┴─┘└─┴─┴─┘ └─┴─┴─┘
KR.11 Dalam tiga bulan terakhir, berapa pendapatan bersih RT dari usaha rumah tangga non- pertanian? (in the past three months, how muchmoney have your household earned from non- agricultural business?)
Rp.└─┴─┘└─┴─┴─┘ └─┴─┴─┘
KR.12 Dalam enam bulan terakhir, berapa pendapatan dari sumber lainnya (seperti
transfer/hibah/pemberian, bunga tabungan/investasi, uang sewa atas aset/harta milik, dll)? (in
the past six months, how much money have your household earned from other sources, e.g.
transfers, gifts, investments, interest from saving, money from rents, etc.)
Rp.└─┴─┘└─┴─┴─┘ └─┴─┴─┘
Berikut ini akan menanyakan tentang pengeluaran rumah tangga (Next, we will ask about household expenditure)
KR12aTYPE
KR.12a
Perhitungan / Calculation
Berapa total pengeluaran rumah tangga
untuk kebutuhan [….]?/ Total household
expenditure for […]
A Pengeluaran untuk makanan termasuk makanan jadi/minuman (per hari)
Expenditure for food including meal/beverage (daily)
Rp.└─┴─┴─┘
└─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┴─┘
B Pengeluaran untuk bukan makanan (per bulan)
Expenditure for non food (monthly)
Rp.└─┴─┴─┘
└─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┴─┘
KR.13 Sudah berapa lama menjadi pengurus/anggota komite
sekolah?(How long have you been serving as school committee
member?)
└─┴─┘ Tahun /years
99
KR.14 Kapan terakhir ada pertemuan untuk penggantian kepengurusan
komite sekolah? (When was the last time there was a meeting to
change/replace the management of the school committee?
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┴─┴─┘
BULAN MONTH/ TAHUN YEAR
KR.15 Berapa lama I/B/S telah menjadi sebagai anggota komite sekolah
di posisi saat ini (how many years have you been serving as
school committee member in your current position)
└─┴─┘ Tahun/years
KR. ROSTER ANAK USIA 7 TAHUN SAMPAI 15TAHUN (ROSTER of CHILDREN AGED 7 YEARS TO 15 YEARS)
Berikut ini kami akan menanyakan jumlah anak yang tinggal di rumah tangga ini (next we will ask you about number of children in this household)
KR16 Berapa jumlah anak usia dibawah 7 tahun yang tinggal dirumah tangga I/B/S
How many children under 7 years old living in your household?
└─┴─┘anak/children
KR17 Berapa jumlah anak usia diatas 15 tahun yang tinggal dirumah tangga I/B/S yang masih bersekolah SMP/SMA/SMK/MA
How many children above 15 years old living in your household who are still attending junior high / senior high /
vocational school
└─┴─┘anak/children
KR18 Apakah mempunyai anak usia 7 sampai 15 tahun yang tinggal diruamah tangga I/B/S
Are there children between 7 – 15 years old living in your household?
1. └─┴─┘ 3. Tidak ada/ noneKR.27
Berikut ini kami akan menanyakan anak yang berumur 7 tahun sampai 15 tahun yang tinggal dirumah tangga ini.
(Next, we will ask question about children aged 7 to 15 who are living in this household)
KR.19 KR.20 KR.21 KR.22 KR.23 KR.24 KR.25 KR.26
No
Nama (Name) Usia (age) Jenis Kelamin
(sex)
Hubungan Responden
dengan anak
Relationship of
Respondent’s with
child
Tingkat Pendidikan
tertinggi yang
pernah/sedang diikuti
(Highest education
ever/currently
attended)
Apakah anak sedang
bersekolah di sekolah
ini? (Is this child
currently studying at
this school)
Kelas berapa
(Current grade)
Apakah anak
pernah
bersekolah di
sekolah ini?
(Did this child
ever study at
this school?)
1 ____________________
1. └─┴─┘
8. Tidak
Tahu/don’t
know
1. Laki / male
3. Perempuan /
female
└─┴─┘
Jika 95 sebutkan/ if 95
specify
└─┴─┘
1. Ya/yes
3.Tidak/noKR.26
1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Ya/yes
3.Tidak/n
o
2 ____________________
1. └─┴─┘
8. Tidak
Tahu/don’t
know
1. Laki / male
3. Perempuan /
female
└─┴─┘
Jika 95 sebutkan/ if 95
specify
└─┴─┘
1. Ya/yes
3.Tidak/noKR.26
1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Ya/yes
3.
Tidak/no ____________________ 1. └─┴─┘ 1. Laki / male
└─┴─┘
└─┴─┘
1. Ya/yes
3.Tidak/noKR.26
1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Ya/yes
100
3 8. Tidak
Tahu/don’t
know
3. Perempuan /
female
Jika 95 sebutkan/ if 95
specify
3.
Tidak/no
4 ____________________
1. └─┴─┘
8. Tidak
Tahu/don’t
know
1. Laki / male
3. Perempuan /
female
└─┴─┘
Jika 95 sebutkan/ if 95
specify
└─┴─┘
1. Ya/yes
3.Tidak/noKR.26
1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Ya/yes
3.
Tidak/no
5 ____________________
1. └─┴─┘
8. Tidak
Tahu/don’t
know
1. Laki / male
3. Perempuan /
female
└─┴─┘
Jika 95 sebutkan/ if 95
specify
└─┴─┘
1. Ya/yes
3.Tidak/noKR.26
1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Ya/yes
3.
Tidak/no
Kode KR22
11. Orang tua/parent
12. Kakek/Nenek (grand father/mother)
13. Paman/bibi (uncle/aunt)
14. Saudara kandung (sibling)
15. Wali / guardian parent)
95. Lainnya(other)______
Kode KR.23
01. Tidak selesai sekolah dasar (didn’t finished elementary school)
02...Sekolah Dasar (SD) elementary school
03. Sekolah Lanjutan Tingkat Pertama (SLTP) junior high school
04. SMA/SLTA/SMK Sederajat /senior high school
Berikut kami ingin menanyakan mengenai kepemilikan dan keadaan rumah yang ditempati (Next we will ask about ownership and condition of your dwelling)
KR.27 Apakah status kepemilikan rumah yang ditempati I/B/S
Ownership status of your current dwelling
01. Milik Sendiri /owned
02. Kontrak / contract
03. Sewa / rent
04. Bebas sewa / rent-free
05. Dinas / official
06. Milik orang tua/sanak saudara / owned by parent’s or relative;s
95 Lainnya / other ___________________
KR.28 JENIS ATAP TERBESAR / MAIN MATERIAL OF ROOF
(OBSERVASI/OBSERVATION)
01. BETON / CONCRETE
02. GENTENG /ROOF TILE
03. SIRAP / SHINGLE
04. SENG / ZINC SHEET
05. ASBES / ASBESTOS
06. IJUK/RUMBIA / THATCH/LEAVES
96 LAINNYA / OTHER ___________________
101
KR.29. JENIS DINDING TERBESAR / MAIN MATERIAL OF WALL
(OBSERVASI/OBSERVATION)
01. TEMBOK / BRICK
02. KAYU /WOOD
03. BAMBU / BAMBOO
95 LAINNYA/ OTHER
KR.30 JENIS LANTAI TERLUAS / MAIN TYPE OF FLOORING
(OBSERVASI/OBSERVATION)
01. BUKAN TANAH/BAMBOO / NOT DIRT/BAMBOO
02. TANAH / DIRT
03. BAMBU / BAMBOO
R.31 Sumber penerangan yang digunakan di rumah tangga
Source of household’s lighting
01. Listrik PLN / PLN electricity
02. Listrik Non PLN / Non PLN electricity
03. Petromak /gas lamp
04. Pelita/Sentir/Obor / oil lamp/torch
95. Lainnya /other ____________________
Berikut ini akan menanyakan tentang asset rumah tangga next we will ask you about household”s asset)
KR32TYPE KR32 KR.33
JENIS Apakah rumah tangga ini memiliki [...]? Berapa jumlah [...] yang dimiliki RT ini?
1. Telepon seluler / handphone 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU / DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah / unit
2. Komputer/ computer 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU / DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah / unit
3. Tabung gas 12 atau lebih / cooking gas container (12 kg or larger) 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU / DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah / unit
4. Kompor minyak atau gas / gas or kerosene stove 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU / DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah / unit
5. Lemari es/kulkas / refrigerator 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU / DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah / unit
6. Kipas angin / fan 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU / DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah / unit
7. Televisi / television 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU / DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah / unit
8 . Parabola /disc antenna 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU / DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah / unit
9. Sepeda / bicycle 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU / DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah / unit
102
KR32TYPE KR32 KR.33
JENIS Apakah rumah tangga ini memiliki [...]? Berapa jumlah [...] yang dimiliki RT ini?
10. Sepeda motor / motorcycle 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU / DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah / unit
11. Sampan/perahu / raft/boat 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU / DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah / unit
12. Motor tempel/perahu motor / motorized boat 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU / DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah / unit
13. Mobil/minibus/truk / car/bus/truck 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU / DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah / unit
14. Kartu pengobatan gratis / free medication card 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU / DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah / unit
SEKSI KS (KOMITE SEKOLAH)
Berikut kami akan menanyakan tentang komite sekolah (we will ask you about scholl committee in this school)
KS.01 Seberapa sering komite sekolah menyelenggarakan pertemuan?
(how often does school hold meetings?)
1. └─┴─┘kali per / times per : a.minggu./ week
b. bulan / month
c. semester / semester
d. tahun / year
v. lainnya/ other: _____________
3. Tidak ada / none
8. Tidak tahu / don’t know
KS.02 Seberapa sering komite sekolah menghadiri pertemuan yang diselenggarakan oleh sekolah, orang tua atau
pihak lain? (how often does school committee attend meetings held by school, parents or other stakeholder?) 1. └─┴─┘kali per .times per : a.minggu./ week
b. bulan / month
c. semester / semester
d. tahun / year
v. lainnya/ other: _____________
3. Tidak ada / none
8. Tidak tahu / don’t know
KS.03 Kapan pertemuan komite terakhir? (When was the last school committee meeting?) └─┴─┘/└─┴─┴─┴─┘
BULAN / TAHUN
KS.04 Pada tahun ajaran lalu (2010/2011) berapa kali I/B/S menghadiri pertemuan komite sekolah?
(in the last school year (2010/2011) how many times did you attend a school committee meeting?
a. Last school year
(2010/2011)
b. Current school year
(2011/2012)
103
1. └─┴─┘kali times
8. Lupa/Tidak tahu
(forget/don’t know)
1. └─┴─┘kali times
6. Belum ada pertemuan / no meeting
KS05TYPE
KS.05 KS.06
Menurut ibu/bapak Apakah komite sekolah seharusnya [...] ?in your opinion,shoudl
the school committee:
Apakah komite
sekolah di sekolah ini
[...]? Has school
commitee played that
role?
A Memberikan masukan mengenai operasional sekolah
(provide input on school operations)
1.Sangat Setuju 2. Setuju 3. Tidak Setuju 4. Sangat Tidak Setuju 8. TT
1.strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 8. DK 1.Ya yes 3.Tidak no
B Mengambil keputusan akhir yang menyangkut operasional sekolah
(to make final decisions about school operations)
1.Sangat Setuju 2. Setuju 3. Tidak Setuju 4. Sangat Tidak Setuju 8. TT
1.strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 8. DK 1.Ya yes 3.Tidak no
C Membantu penggalangan dana
(To help raise funds)
1.Sangat Setuju 2. Setuju 3. Tidak Setuju 4. Sangat Tidak Setuju 8. TT
1.strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 8. DK 1.Ya yes 3.Tidak no
D Memberikan masukan tentang alokasi dana BOS
(To provide input about the allocation of BOS funds)
1.Sangat Setuju 2. Setuju 3. Tidak Setuju 4. Sangat Tidak Setuju 8. TT
1.strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 8. DK 1.Ya yes 3.Tidak no
E Memeriksa dan menyetujui anggaran sekolah
(To verify and approve school budget)
1.Sangat Setuju 2. Setuju 3. Tidak Setuju 4. Sangat Tidak Setuju 8. TT
1.strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 8. DK 1.Ya yes 3.Tidak no
F Mengadakan pertemuan rutin / tidak rutin dengan sekolah, orang tua
dan masyarakat.
(To conduct regular or intermittent meetings with school parents and
community)
1.Sangat Setuju 2. Setuju 3. Tidak Setuju 4. Sangat Tidak Setuju 8. TT
1.strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 8. DK 1.Ya yes 3.Tidak no
KS.04a Apakah ada cacatan hasil setiap pertemuan komite sekolah (are there minutes from every school committee meeting?)
1. Ya / yes 3. Tidak / no
KS.04b Apakah hasil pertemuan komite sekolah tersedia/bisa diakses bagi masyarakat? (Are the results of school committee
meeting available to / accessible by the community?) 2. Ya / yes 3. Tidak / no
104
G Mewakili orang tua dan masyarakat dalam proses pengelolaan
sekolah
(to represent parents and the community in the process of school
managementl)
1.Sangat Setuju 2. Setuju 3. Tidak Setuju 4. Sangat Tidak Setuju 8. TT
1.strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 8. DK 1.Ya yes 3.Tidak no
KS07TYPE
KS.07
Dari Nilai1 sampai 10 , bagaimana I/B/S menilai pengetahuan dan kemampuan […….] dalam
memberikan masukan yang sesuai tentang pengelolaan sekolah (on scale of 1 to 10, how would you
rate the overall knowledge and skills of [...] to provide input related to school management?
A I/B/S sendiri
Yourself
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 96. TB / NA
98.TT / DK
B Anggota komite sekolah yang lain yang berprofesi tenaga pengajar( kepala
sekolah atau guru)
other school committee members who are education professionals (principal or
teachers)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 96. TB/NA
98.TT/DK
C Anggota komite sekolah yang lain yang bukan berasal dari tenaga pengajar
(kepala sekolah atau guru)
other school committee members who are not education professionals (principal or
teachers)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 96. TB/NA
98.TT/DK
SEKSI PS (PENGELOLAAN SEKOLAH) school management
Berikut ini kami akan menanyakan tentang pengelolaan sekolah (next we will ask you about school management related to school management)
PS01TYPE
PS.01 PS.02
Apakah I/B/S pernah melihat
[...] untuk sekolah ini? (have
you ever seen [...] for this
school ):
Bagaimana I/B/S terlibat dalam proses penyusunan [...] how were you involved in the creation of [...]
A Rencana Kerja Tahunan (RKT) tahun lalu
(An annual work plan (RKT) for last year)
1. Ya yes 3. Tidak
no
B Rencana Kerja Tahunan (RKT) tahun ini
(An annual work plan (RKT) for this year)
1. Ya yes 3. Tidak no
1) Diskusi secara informal (informal discussion)
2) Discusi secara formal sebagai Pengurus atau Anggota Kom Sek (misalnya dalam rapat) (formal
discussion as management or member of school committee, for example during a meeting)
3) Menyusun dokumen (creating documents)
4) Menyetujui dokumen secara formal (misalnya menandatangani daftar hadir dokumen) approve
documents formally (ex. Signing the document as a witness)
105
5) Tidak terlibat dalam proses, melihat dokumen saja (not involved in the process, just saw the
document)
C Dokumen anggaran sekolah misalnya:Rencana
anggaran (RKAS), Rencana Anggaran
Pendapatan dan Belanaja sekolah (RAPBS ),
Daftar Pengisian Anggaran (DPA) tahun lalu
(A school budget document for last year)
1. Ya yes 3. Tidak no
D Dokumen anggaran sekolah misalnya:Rencana
anggaran (RKAS), Rencana Anggaran
Pendapatan dan Belanaja sekolah (RAPBS ),
Daftar Pengisian Anggaran (DPA ) tahun ini
(Aschool budget document for this year)
1. Ya yes 3. Tidak no
1) Diskusi secara informal (informal discussion)
2) Discusi secara formal sebagai Pengurus atau Anggota Kom Sek (misalnya dalam rapat) (formal
discussion as management or member of school committee, for example during a meeting)
3) Menyusun dokumen (creating documents)
4) Menyetujui dokumen secara formal (misalnya menandatangani daftar hadir dokumen) approve
documents formally (ex. Signing the document as a witness)
5) Tidak terlibat dalam proses, melihat dokumen saja (not involved in the process, just saw the
document)
E Rencana Kerja Jangka Menengah yang masih
berlaku pada tahun ajaran ini
(A medium- term work plan (RKJM) which is still
valid for this school year)
1. Ya yes 3. Tidak no
PS.03x PEWAWANCARA PERIKSA; APAKAH SEMUA JAWABAN PS.01=3
INTERVIEWER CHECK:ARE ALL PS.01 ANSWERS=3?
2. Ya yesPS.04 3. Tidak no
PS.03TYPE
PS.03
Sejak tahun ajaran lalu (2010/2011) Apakah sekolah Bapak/Ibu menerima bantuan dalam
perumusan Rencana Kerja Sekolah dari [...]? since last school, year, has this school
received any assistance in drafting the school work plan from [...]
A Staf Dinas Pendidikan di tingkat Provinsi (provincial education staff) 1. Ya / yes 3. Tidak / no 8. Tidak Tahu / don’t know
B Staf Dinas Pendidikan di tingkat Kab/Kota/Kecamatan (UPTD)(district or sub-district
education staff
1. Ya / yes 3. Tidak / no 8. Tidak Tahu / don’t know
C Pengawas sekolah (school supervisor) 1. Ya / yes 3. Tidak / no 8. Tidak Tahu / don’t know
D Yayasan swasta/donator (private foundation / donor) 1. Ya / yes 3. Tidak / no 8. Tidak Tahu / don’t know
V Lainnya sebutkan: _______________ (other_______) 1. Ya / yes 3. Tidak / no 8. Tidak Tahu / don’t know
106
PS.04 Apakah sejak tahun ajaran ini I/B/S pernah melihat atau menerima laporan bulanan
sekolah
since THIS SCHOOL YEAR have you seen or received a copy of the school monthly report
1. Ya yes 3. Tidakno
PS.05 Tiga kategori yang mana dari pengeluaran sekolah tahun ajaran ini yang mendapatkan
alokasi anggaran sekolah yang terbesar
(what three categories of expenditure for this school year receive the largest share of the
school budget?)
(CATATAN PEWAWANCARA: PERLIHATKAN GAMBAR , MINTA RESPONDEN UNTUK
MEMILIH 3 TERPENTING DAN MERANGKING. KALAU TIDAK TERPILIH ISI DENGAN “6
INTERVIEWER NOTE: SHOW THE PICTURES, ASK RESPONDENT TO CHOOSE THE 3
MOST IMPORTANT CATEGORIES AND RANK THEM. IF NOT CHOSEN ENTER “6”
1 a. Perlengkapan Pendidikan / educational equipment └─┘
j. Pengajar/ teachers └─┘
k. Prasarana Sekolah yang baru/ new school infrastructure └─┘
l. Memperbaiki sarana yang ada / improve existing infrastructure └─┘
m. Pengeluaran operasional lainnya / other operational expenditure └─┘
8. Tidak bisa/don’t know
PS.06 menurut I/B/S anggaran sekolah sebaiknya dikeluarkan untuk tiga kategori yang mana
supaya bisa memperbaiki kualitas pendidikan di sekolah ini?
(in your opinion, school budget should be spent on which 3 categories in order to improve
the quality of education at this school?)
(CATATAN PEWAWANCARA: PERLIHATKAN GAMBAR , MINTA RESPONDEN UNTUK
MEMILIH 3 TERPENTING DAN MERANGKING. KALAU TIDAK TERPILIH ISI DENGAN “6
INTERVIEWER NOTE: SHOW THE PICTURES, ASK RESPONDENT TO CHOOSE THE 3
MOST IMPORTANT CATEGORIES AND RANK THEM. IF NOT CHOSEN ENTER “6”
1 a. Perlengkapan Pendidikan / educational equipment └─┘
n. Pengajar/ teachers └─┘
o. Prasarana Sekolah yang baru/ new school infrastructure └─┘
p. Memperbaiki sarana yang ada / improve existing infrastructure └─┘
q. Pengeluaran operasional lainnya / other operational expenditure └─┘
8. Tidak bisa/don’t know
PS.07 menurut I/B/S khusus untuk perlengkapan pendidikan anggaran sekolah sebaiknya
dikeluarkan untuk tiga kategori yang mana supaya bisa memperbaiki kualitas pendidikan
di sekolah ini?
(in your opinion, specifically related to educational equipment,school budget should be
spent on which 3 categories in order to improve the quality of education at this school?)
(CATATAN PEWAWANCARA: PERLIHATKAN GAMBAR , MINTA RESPONDEN
UNTUK MEMILIH 3 TERPENTING DAN MERANGKING. KALAU TIDAK TERPILIH ISI
DENGAN “6
INTERVIEWER NOTE: SHOW THE PICTURES, ASK RESPONDENT TO CHOOSE THE
3 MOST IMPORTANT CATEGORIES AND RANK THEM. IF NOT CHOSEN ENTER “6”
1. a. Buku/books └─┘
b. Perlengkangkapan ruang kelas / classroom equipment/supplies └─┘
c. Perlengkapan ruang guru / teacher’s room equipment/supplies └─┘
d. Computer,printer dan proyektor / computer,printer,projector └─┘
e. Alat peraga pengajaran / teaching aids └─┘
f. peralatan olah raga / sports equipment └─┘
v. .Lainnya / other_________ └─┘
8. TIDAK TAHU / DON’T KNOW
PS.08 Menurut I/B/S khusus untuk pengajar anggaran sekolah sebaiknya dikeluarkanuntuk tiga
kategori yang mana supaya bisa memperbaiki kualitas pendidikan di sekolah ini?
(in your opinion, specifically related to teachers,school budget should be spent on which
3 categories in order to improve the quality of education at this school?)
(CATATAN PEWAWANCARA: PERLIHATKAN GAMBAR , MINTA RESPONDEN
UNTUK MEMILIH 3 TERPENTING DAN MERANGKING. KALAU TIDAK TERPILIH ISI
DENGAN “6
1. a. Menambah guru honor / adding private teachers └─┘
b. uang tambahan untuk guru yang sudah ada / increased money for existing teachers
└─┘
c. Pelatihan untuk Guru (training for teachers) └─┘
v Lainnya (other): ___________ └─┘
8. TIDAK TAHU / DON’T KNOW
107
INTERVIEWER NOTE: SHOW THE PICTURES, ASK RESPONDENT TO CHOOSE THE
3 MOST IMPORTANT CATEGORIES AND RANK THEM. IF NOT CHOSEN ENTER “6”
PS.09 Apakah I/B/S mengetahui tentang Standart Pelayanan Minimum / do you know about
minimum service standard (MSS)? 1.Ya yes 3.Tidak no KU.01
PS.10
Apakah status pencapaian Standar Pelayanan Minimum di sekolah ini sudah
dinilai/dievaluasikan?
(Has the status of the achievement of minimum service standards at this school ever
been evaluated)
1.Ya yes 3.Tidak no PS.12
PS.11
Paling baru pada tahun ajaran berapa? (when was the most recent year?) └─┴─┴─┴─┘/└─┴─┴─┴─┘
PS.12 Berapa jumlah kriteria Standar Pelayanan Minimum yang telah dicapai? (how many SPM
criteria have been met?) 1. └─┴─┘ 8. TT DK
PS.13
Apakah pernah dibahas dalam sekolah ini strategi dan pendekatan dalam mencapai
Standar Pelayanan Minimum?
(Has a strategy/approach for reaching minimum service standards ever been discussed
at this school)
1.Ya yes 3.Tidak no KU.01
PS14TYPE
PS.14
Apakah strategi/pendekatan Standar Pelayanan Minimum (SPM) diintegrasikan secara
formal dengan…
(if yes, was this strategy/approach formally integrated with):
A Rencana Kerja Jangka Menengah (RKJM) (school medium term plan) 2. Ya /yes 3. Tidak /no
6. Tidak ada Rencana Kerja Jangka Menengah (RKJM) / no school medium term plan
B Rencana Kerja Tahunan (RKT) untuk tahun ajaran ini (2011/2012) (school annual plan
for this year)
3. Ya /yes 3. Tidak /no
6. Tidak ada Rencana Kerja Jangka Menengah (RKJM) / no school medium term plan
SEKSI KU (Pengetahuan tentang keuangan sekolah) (Awareness of school finances)
Berikut ini kami akan menanyakan tentang pengetahuan I/B/S mengenai keuangan sekolah (next we will ask about scholl finance)
KU.01 Apakah I/B/S tahu berapa besarnya sumbangan dari masyarakat yang di gunakan untuk
membantu sekolah pada tahun ajaran yang lalu (2010/2011) tidak termasuk sumbangan
dari orang tua/
do you know the amount of contributions from the community used to help school last
school year (2010/2011), excluding contributions from parents.
3. Ada, Rp.└─┴─┴─┘. └─┴─┴─┘.└─┴─┴─┘. └─┴─┴─┘ (There
was..)
4. Ada tidak tahu jumlahnya (There was but I don’t know the amount)
7. Tidak ada Sumbangan dari masyarakat (No contribution from community)
9. TIDAK TAHU (DON’T KNOW)
108
KU.02 Pemerintah saat ini mengalokasikan sejumlah dana untuk sekolah yang disebut sebagai
Bantuan Operasional Sekolah (BOS). Apakah Bapak/Ibu pernah mendengar hal
tersebut?
(The Government is currently allocating some funds for schools called Bantuan
Operasional Sekolah (BOS). Have you ever heard of it?)
1. Ya yes 3. Tidak no PE.01 8. TIDAK TAHU DON’T
KNOWPE.01
KU.03 Pada tahun ajaran yang lalu sampai sekarang, Apakah Bapak/Ibu pernah menerima
informasi tentang pemanfaatan BOS di sekolah ini?
From the last school year until now, have you ever received information on how BOS
funds are used in this school?
1. Ya yes 3. Tidak no
KU.04 Berapa dana BOS untuk per siswa?
How much are BOS funds per student?
1. Rp.└─┴─┴─┘. └─┴─┴─┘. per a. Bulan b. Triwulan c. Tahun
a. month b.quarter c. year
8. TIDAK TAHU don’t know
SEKSI PE (PENGAWASAN) MONITORING
Berikut ini kami menanyakan peran I/B/S dalam pemantauan sekolah (next we will ask to you about shool commitee supervison)
PE.01 Pada awal tahun ajaran lalu dan ajaran tahun ini berapa kali I/B/S mengunjungi sekolah
untuk memantau sekolah
(during LAST SCHOOL YEAR and THIS SCHOOL YEAR, how many times have you
visited the school to monitor school?)
a. 2010/2011 └─┴─┘ Kali times
b. 2011/2012 └─┴─┘ Kali times
PE.02TYPE
PE.02
Selama tahun ajaran lalu (2010-2011), apakah Komite Sekolah melakukan kegiatan
pemantauan dan mengevaluasi […..]?
(During the last school year (2010-2011), did School Committee conduct any
monitoring activities and evaluate […]?)
A Prestasi Kepala Sekolah (The performance of the principal) 1. Ya / yes 3. Tidak / no
B Prestasi Guru (the performance of teachers) 1. Ya / yes 3. Tidak / no
C Program Kurikuler dan Pengajaran (Curricular and intructional programs) 1. Ya / yes 3. Tidak / no
D Program non-akademik (Non-academic programs) 1. Ya / yes 3. Tidak / no
E Fasilitas sekolah (School facilities) 1. Ya / yes 3. Tidak / no
F Anggaran atau pengeluaran sekolah termasuk dan BOS (School budget or expenditures,
including BOS funds) 1. Ya / yes 3. Tidak / no
109
SEKSI MU (MEKANISME UMPAN BALIK) feedback mechanisms
Berikut ini kami akan menanyakan tentang mekanisme umpan balik (next we will ask you about feedback mechanism)
MU.01 Apakah Bapak/Ibu mengetahui bahwa sekolah telah menunjuk seorang staf sekolah untuk
menerima keluhan atau menanggapi pertanyaan dari orang tua/wali dan masyarakat?(Do
you that the school has appointed a school staff member to receive complaints or respond
to parent and community’s questions?)
1. Ya yes 3. Tidak noPA.01 8. TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW PA.01
SEKSI PA (PARTISIPASI) participation
Berikut ini kami akan menanyakan tentang partisipasin komite sekolah pada kegiatan sekolah (next we will ask you about the school committe participation in school activities
PA01TYPE
PA.01 PA.02 PA.03
Selama tahun ajaran ini (2011-2012), apakah
komite sekolah terlibat dalam pembahasan(…)i?
(During this school year (2011-2012), has the
School Committee been involved in discussing […])
Seberapa besar pengaruh komite
sekolah terhadap (…)?
(How much influence does the School
Committee have over […]?)
Siapa yang bertanggungjawab terhadap(….)?
who is responsible for […]?
A
Rencana kerja sekolah
(School work plan)
3. Tidak noPA.03 1. Ya yes
1. Tidak ada pengaruh(No
influence)
2. Sedikit pengaruh (A little influence)
3. Cukup pengaruh(Some
influence)
4. Banyak pengaruh(Much influence)
A.Kepala Sekolah/principal
B. Guru /teacher
C.KomiteSekolah/schoolcommittee
D.Orang tua/parents
E. Tokoh Masyarakat/community leaders
F. Pengawas Sekolah/school supervisor
G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD /district/subdistrict education
office
V. Lainnya/other___
Y.TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW
B
Pembebanan biaya kepada
siswa
(charging fees to students)
3. Tidak noPA.03 1. Ya yes 1. Tidak ada pengaruh(No
influence)
2. Sedikit pengaruh (A little influence)
3. Cukup pengaruh(Some
influence)
4. Banyak pengaruh(Much influence)
A.Kepala Sekolah/principal
B. Guru /teacher
C.KomiteSekolah/schoolcommittee
D.Orang tua/parents
E. Tokoh Masyarakat/community leaders
F. Pengawas Sekolah/school supervisor
G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD /district/subdistrict education
office
V. Lainnya/other___
Y.TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW
110
C
Perencanaan dan alokasi
anggaran sekolah termasuk
dana BOS
(planning and allocating
school budget)
3. Tidak noPA.03 1. Ya yes 1. Tidak ada pengaruh(No
influence)
2. Sedikit pengaruh (A little influence)
3. Cukup pengaruh(Some
influence)
4. Banyak pengaruh(Much influence)
A.Kepala Sekolah/principal
B. Guru /teacher
C.KomiteSekolah/schoolcommittee
D.Orang tua/parents
E. Tokoh Masyarakat/community leaders
F. Pengawas Sekolah/school supervisor
G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD /district/subdistrict education
office
V. Lainnya/other___
Y.TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW
D
Perekrutan guru,
memperkerjakan dan insentif
(recruitment, hiring, and
incentivizing teachers)
3. Tidak noPA.03 1. Ya yes
1. Tidak ada pengaruh(No
influence)
2. Sedikit pengaruh (A little influence)
3. Cukup pengaruh(Some
influence)
4. Banyak pengaruh(Much influence)
A.Kepala Sekolah/principal
B. Guru /teacher
C.KomiteSekolah/schoolcommittee
D.Orang tua/parents
E. Tokoh Masyarakat/community leaders
F. Pengawas Sekolah/school supervisor
G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD /district/subdistrict education
office
V. Lainnya/other___
Y.TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW
E
Perencanaan fasilitas
sekolah
(school facility planning)
3. Tidak noPA.03 1. Ya yes
1. Tidak ada pengaruh(No
influence)
2. Sedikit pengaruh (A little influence)
3. Cukup pengaruh(Some
influence)
4. Banyak pengaruh(Much influence)
A.Kepala Sekolah/principal
B. Guru /teacher
C.KomiteSekolah/schoolcommittee
D.Orang tua/parents
E. Tokoh Masyarakat/community leaders
F. Pengawas Sekolah/school supervisor
G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD /district/subdistrict education
office
V. Lainnya/other___
Y.TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW
F
Memantau bagaimana dana
di gunakan termasuk dana
BOS
(monitoring how funds are
spent)
3. Tidak noPA.03 1. Ya yes
1. Tidak ada pengaruh(No
influence)
2. Sedikit pengaruh (A little influence)
3. Cukup pengaruh(Some
influence)
4. Banyak pengaruh(Much influence)
A.Kepala Sekolah/principal
B. Guru /teacher
C.KomiteSekolah/schoolcommittee
D.Orang tua/parents
E. Tokoh Masyarakat/community leaders
F. Pengawas Sekolah/school supervisor
G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD /district/subdistrict education
office
V. Lainnya/other___
Y.TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW
111
G
Pemantauan kinerja sekolah
(monitoring school
performance)
3. Tidak noPA.03 1. Ya yes
1. Tidak ada pengaruh(No
influence)
2. Sedikit pengaruh (A little influence)
3. Cukup pengaruh(Some
influence)
4. Banyak pengaruh(Much influence)
A.Kepala Sekolah/principal
B. Guru /teacher
C.KomiteSekolah/schoolcommittee
D.Orang tua/parents
E. Tokoh Masyarakat/community leaders
F. Pengawas Sekolah/school supervisor
G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD /district/subdistrict education
office
V. Lainnya/other___
Y.TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW
H
Hubungan antara
masyarakat-sekolah
(the relationship between
community and school
relationship)
3. Tidak noPA.03 1. Ya yes 1. Tidak ada pengaruh(No
influence)
2. Sedikit pengaruh (A little influence)
3. Cukup pengaruh(Some
influence)
4. Banyak pengaruh(Much influence)
A.Kepala Sekolah/principal
B. Guru /teacher
C.KomiteSekolah/schoolcommittee
D.Orang tua/parents
E. Tokoh Masyarakat/community leaders
F. Pengawas Sekolah/school supervisor
G.Dinas Pendidikan Kab/Kota/UPTD /district/subdistrict education
office
V. Lainnya/other___
Y.TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW
SEKSI BE (BANTUAN EKSTERNAL) external assistance
Berikut ini kami akan menanyakan pelatihan/sosialisasi yang berkaitan dengan komite sekolah yang pernah diterima I/B/S (next we will ask you about traini that you receive
BE.01 Apakah pernah menerima pelatihan atau sosialissasi yang berkaitan dengan komite
sekolah? Have you ever received training or socialization related to school committee?
1. Ya yes 3. Tidak noTR.01
BE.02 Kapan pelatihan atau sosialisasi yang terakhir
When was the the most recent training or socialization
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┴─┴─┘
BULAN MONTH / TAHUN YEAR
BE.03 Siapa yang memberikan pelatihan/training tersebut?
Who gave the training?
A. Dinas pendidikan pusat / central education office
B. Dinas pendidikan propinsi / province education office
C. Dinas pendidikan kab/kota/UPTD / district/subdistrict education office
D. Donor dan/atau LSM / donor and/or NGO
112
BE04TYPE
BE.04 BE.05
Apakah pelatihan /sosialisasi
tersebut menyangkut?
Was the training/socialization
related to [..]?
Seberapa cukup informasi yang dicakup selama sosialisasi atau pelatihan untuk memastikan Komite
Sekolah menjalankan tugasnya dengan efektif?
(How sufficient was the information covered during the socialization or training in order to make sure
School Committee carries out its duties works effectively?)
A
Peran dan tanggung jawab dari komite
sekolah(The role(s) and responsibilities of the
school committee)
3. Tidak no
1. Ya yes
1. Cukup memenuhi kebutuhan saya (Sufficient, it met my needs)
2. Agak cukup memenuhi sebagian kebutuhan saya (Somewhat sufficient,it partially met my needs)
3. Tidak cukup menginginkan lebih banyak sosialisasi/pelatihan (Not sufficient, I want more
socialization/training)
B
Bagaimana membentuk komite sekolah dan
siapa yang seharusnya duduk sebagai anggota
komite sekolah (How to form a School
Committee and who should serve as members
of the school committee)
3. Tidak no
1. Ya yes
1. Cukup memenuhi kebutuhan saya (Sufficient, it met my needs)
2. Agak cukup memenuhi sebagian kebutuhan saya (Somewhat sufficient,it partially met my needs)
3. Tidak cukup menginginkan lebih banyak sosialisasi/pelatihan (Not sufficient, I want more
socialization/training)
D
Pedoman operasional/SOP untuk komite
sekolah (operating guidelines / SOP for school
committee)
3. Tidak no
1. Ya yes
1. Cukup memenuhi kebutuhan saya (Sufficient, it met my needs)
2. Agak cukup memenuhi sebagian kebutuhan saya (Somewhat sufficient,it partially met my needs)
3. Tidak cukup menginginkan lebih banyak sosialisasi/pelatihan (Not sufficient, I want more
socialization/training)
SEKSI TR (TRANSPARANSI) Transparency
Berikut ini kami ingin menanyakan mengenai keterbukaan sekolah kepada masyarakat (next, we will ask you about school’s transparency to public)
TR01TYPE
TR.01 TR.02
Apakah dokumen-dokumen ini tersedia di
sekolah?are the following documents publicly
available at school?
Bagaimana masyarakat bisa mendapatkan dokumen tersebut?
How can public acquire the document?
A
Rencana Kerja sekolah (school
plan)
1. Ya yes
3. Tidak no
8. TT Dk 
A. Lihat di Papan pengemuman sekolah / can be viewed on the school notice board
B. Bisa diminta dari sekolah/ can be requested from school
C.Bisa diminta darii Komite Sekolah / can be requested from school committee
V. Lainnya / other_________
Y. Tidak Tahu / don’t know
W. Tidak bisa didapatkan / not accessible
113
B Anggaran Sekolah (school budget)
1. Ya yes
3. Tidak no
8. TT Dk 
A. Lihat di Papan pengemuman sekolah / can be viewed on the school notice board
B. Bisa diminta dari sekolah/ can be requested from school
C.Bisa diminta darii Komite Sekolah / can be requested from school committee
V. Lainnya / other_________
Y. Tidak Tahu / don’t know
W. Tidak bisa didapatkan / not accessible
C
Laporan keuangan sekolah
terakhir/terbaru (latest/most recent
school financial report
1. Ya yes
3. Tidak no
8. TT Dk 
A. Lihat di Papan pengemuman sekolah / can be viewed on the school notice board
B. Bisa diminta dari sekolah/ can be requested from school
C.Bisa diminta darii Komite Sekolah / can be requested from school committee
V. Lainnya / other_________
Y. Tidak Tahu / don’t know
W. Tidak bisa didapatkan / not accessible
D
Laporan terakhir/ terbaru
pertemuan komite sekolah
(Latest/recent report of school
committee meeting)
1. Ya yes
3. Tidak no
8. TT Dk 
A. Lihat di Papan pengemuman sekolah / can be viewed on the school notice board
B. Bisa diminta dari sekolah/ can be requested from school
C.Bisa diminta darii Komite Sekolah / can be requested from school committee
V. Lainnya / other_________
Y. Tidak Tahu / don’t know
W. Tidak bisa didapatkan / not accessible
TR03TYPE
TR.03
Sejak tahun ajaran lalu (2010-2011), apakah sekolah pernah memberikan informasi kepada
Bapak/Ibu tentang [...]?
Since last school year (2010-2011), has the school ever given you information about [..]?
A. Prestasi murid secara keseluruhan/individu (Overall or individual student achievment) 1. Ya yes 3. Tidak no
B
Prestasi guru secara keseluruhan atau individu
(Overall or individual teacher performance )
1. Ya yes 3. Tidak no
C Kegiatan sekolah dan/atau kegiatan murid (School and/or student activities) 1. Ya yes 3. Tidak no
D Rencana Kerja sekolah (school work plan) 1. Ya yes 3. Tidak no
E Anggaran sekolah (school budget) 1. Ya yes 3. Tidak no
114
F Laporan keuangan sekolah (school financial report) 1. Ya yes 3. Tidak no
G Peluang untuk terlibat di sekolah (opportunities for being involved at the school) 1. Ya yes 3. Tidak no
I
Sosialisasi/informasi tentang keberadaan Standar Pelayanan Minimal dari
KemDikNas
(Socialization/information on existence of minimum service standards from Ministry of
Education)
1. Ya yes 3. Tidak no
J Status pencapaian Standar Pelayanan Minimal di sekolah ini
(Status of this school’s achievement related to minumum standard services)
1. Ya yes 3. Tidak no
SEKSI KW (KUALITAS) quality
Berikut ini kami akan menanyakan kualitas dari sekolah (next, we will ask you about school’s quality
KW01TYPE
KW.01
Menurut I/B/S bagaimana [ ......]what do you think of [...]
A
Kualitas infrastruktur/sarana prasarana sekolah
(The quality of school infrastructure
1.Sangat memadai 2. Memadai 3 .Tidak memadai 4.Sangat Tidak memadai 8. Tidak tahu
1.very sufficient 2. sufficient 3 .insufficient 4.very insuficient 8. Don’t
Know
B
Jumlah guru di sekolah
(The number of school teachers)
1.Sangat memadai 2. Memadai 3 .Tidak memadai 4.Sangat Tidak memadai 8. Tidak tahu
1.very sufficient 2. sufficient 3 .insufficient 4.very insuficient 8. Don’t
Know
C
Kualitas guru yang ada di sekolah
(The quality of school teachers)
1.Sangat memadai 2. Memadai 3 .Tidak memadai 4.Sangat Tidak memadai 8. Tidak tahu
1.very sufficient 2. sufficient 3 .insufficient 4.very insuficient 8. Don’t
Know
D
Pemenuhan kebutuhan akademik siswa
(The fulfillment of students’ academic needs)
1.Sangat memadai 2. Memadai 3 .Tidak memadai 4.Sangat Tidak memadai 8. Tidak tahu
1.very sufficient 2. sufficient 3 .insufficient 4.very insuficient 8. Don’t
Know
KW.02TYPE
KW.02
Menurut I/B/S bagaimana [ ......] in your opinion, how is
A
Proses pemberian masukan dari orangtua kepada kepala
sekolah/ process of giving feedback from parents to
principal
a. Sangat mudah 2. Mudah 3. Tidak mudah 4. Sangat tidak mudah
1. very easy 2. easy 3. Not easy 4. Very not easy
B
Proses pemberian masukan dari orangtua kepada komite
sekolah / process of giving feedback from parents to
school committee
b. Sangat mudah 2. Mudah 3. Tidak mudah 4. Sangat tidak mudah
1. 1. very easy 2. easy 3. uneasy 4. Very uneasy
115
KW.04 Lokasi Sekolah
(School Location)
1.Sangat mudah dijangkau 2. Mudah dijangkau 3 .Tidak mudah dijangkau 4.Sangat Tidak mudah dijangkau
8. Tidak tahu
1.very easy to reach 2. Easy to reach 3 .difficult to reach 4.very difficult to reach 8. Don’t know
SEKSI KP (KEPUASAN) Satisfaction
Berikut ini kami akan menanyakan tentang kepuasan I/B/S terhadap sekolah (next, we will ask your satisfaction about this school
SEKSI SP (PERMASALAHAN SEKOLAH) SCHOOL PROBLEMS
KW03TYPE
KW.03
Menurut I/B/S bagaimana [ ......] in your opinion, how is
A
Tanggapan dari kepala sekolah dari masukan orangtua
Principal’s response to feedback from parents
1.Sangat Baik 2. Baik 3 .Tidak Baik 4.Sangat Tidak Baik 8. Tidak tahu Don’t
Know
1.very good 2. good 3 .bad 4.very bad 8. Don’t Know
B
Tanggapan dari komite sekolah dari masukan orangtua
School committee’s response to feedback from parent
1.Sangat Baik 2. Baik 3 .Tidak Baik 4.Sangat Tidak Baik 8. Tidak tahu Don’t
Know
1.very good 2. good 3 .bad 4.very bad 8. Don’t Know
C
Penerapan disiplin di sekolah
(The application of discipline at the school)
1.Sangat Baik 2. Baik 3 .Tidak Baik 4.Sangat Tidak Baik 8. Tidak tahu Don’t
Know
1.very good 2. good 3 .bad 4.very bad 8. Don’t Know
KP01TYPE
KP.01
Secara keseluruhan bagaimana tingkat kepuasan I/B/S tentang? (In overall, how satisfied are you with […]?)
A
Kualitas pendidikan di sekolah ini
(The quality of education at this school)
1.Sangat puas (very satisfied) 2.Puas (satisfied) 3.Tidak puas (dissatisfied) 4.Sangat tidak puas (very
dissatisfied)
8. Tidak tahu (don't know)
B
Kualitas dan perilaku guru di sekolah
(The quality and behavior of teachers at school)
1.Sangat puas (very satisfied) 2.Puas (satisfied) 3.Tidak puas (dissatisfied) 4.Sangat tidak puas (very
dissatisfied)
8. Tidak tahu (don't know)
C
Kondisi fisik fasilitas di sekolah
(the physical condition of school facilities)
1.Sangat puas (very satisfied) 2.Puas (satisfied) 3.Tidak puas (dissatisfied) 4.Sangat tidak puas (very
dissatisfied)
8. Tidak tahu (don't know)
D
Pengelolaan di sekolah in oleh kepala sekolah
(The management of this school by the principal)
1.Sangat puas (very satisfied) 2.Puas (satisfied) 3.Tidak puas (dissatisfied) 4.Sangat tidak puas (very
dissatisfied)
8. Tidak tahu (don't know)
E
Pengelola di desa ini secara umu oleh kepala desa an badan
pembangunan desa
(the general management of this village by the Village Head
and Village Development Committee)
1.Sangat puas (very satisfied) 2.Puas (satisfied) 3.Tidak puas (dissatisfied) 4.Sangat tidak puas (very
dissatisfied)
8. Tidak tahu (don't know)
116
Berikut ini kami ingin menanyakan permasalahan yang dialami di sekolah (Next, we will ask you about problems experienced by the school)
SP01TYPE
SP.01 SP.02 SP.03
Apakah sekolah mengalami[..] di
sekolah [NAMA ANAK] (Is there any
problem about […] in this school)?
Sejauhmana […] menghambat prestasi murid di
Sekolah [NAMA ANAK] ? (To what extent does [...]
hinder student perfromance in [child] school?)
Tiga permasalahan terbesar? 3 biggest
problems
CP.TANYAKAN SETELAH SP02 TERISI
SEMUA/
INTERVIEWER NOTE: ASK AFTER SP02
COMPLETELY FILLED OUT
A Jumlah murid yang terlalu banyak didalam kelas
(Too many students in the class)
3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
1. a. rangking pertama└─┘____________ Ranking #1
b. rangking kedua└─┘______________ Ranking #2
c. ranking ketiga└─┘_______________ Ranking #3
3. Tidak ada masalah (tidak ada nilai 1 di
SP01)
There are no problems (no value of 1 for
SP01)
B Fasilitas sekolah tidak memadai (Inadequate
school facilities)
3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
C Kurangnya buku pelajaran Sekolah dan/atau
bahan pengajaran (Shortage of school text books
and/or instructional materials)
3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
D Rendahnya angka kehadiran murid (Low rate of
student attendance)
3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
E Rendahnya angka kehadiran guru (Low rate of
teacher attendance)
3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
F Kekurangan guru (Shortage of teachers) 3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
G Tingginya angka pergantian guru (High rate of
teacher turnover)
3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
H Kurangnya kemampuan guru (Lack of teacher
ability)
3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
117
I Kurangnya dukungan dari Dinas
Pendidikan/UPTDkepada kepala sekolah/guru
(Lack of district or sub-district support for
principals/teachers)
3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
J Kekurangan Dana (Lack of funds) 3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
K Kurangnya minat orang tua untuk berpartisipasi
dalam kegiatan sekolah (lack of interest from
parents in participating to particicapte in school
activities)
3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
L Tidak jelasnya peran/tanggungjawab komite
sekolah (unclear role/responsibility of school
committee)
3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
V Lainnya (others) 3. Tidak/ no 1. Ya/yes 1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
SEKSI CN (KEPEDULIAN/Dorongan) Concern/encouragement
Berikut ini kami akan menanyakan dorongan dari pemangku kepentingan kepada Kepala sekolah
CN.01TYPE
CN.01 CN.02
Apakah [...] mendorong kepala sekolah untuk meningkatkan
prestasi/kinerja murid di sekolah ini (does […] pressure
principal to improve students’ performance in this school ?
Seberapa besar kepedulian/dorongan tersebut ? how strong is the pressure?
A
Anggota komite sekolah(school committee
members) 3. Tidak /no  1. Ya/yes 1. Sangat besar 2. Besar 3. Kecil 4. Sangat kecil
1. very strong 2. strong 3. weak 4. Very weak
B Orang tua (parents) 3. Tidak /no  1. Ya/yes 1. Sangat besar 2. Besar 3. Kecil 4. Sangat kecil
1. very strong 2. strong 3. weak 4. Very weak
C Tokoh Masyarakat (community leaders) 3. Tidak /no  1. Ya/yes 1. Sangat besar 2. Besar 3. Kecil 4. Sangat kecil
1. very strong 2. strong 3. weak 4. Very weak
D Pengawas Sekolah (school supervisor) 3. Tidak /no  1. Ya/yes 1. Sangat besar 2. Besar 3. Kecil 4. Sangat kecil
1. very strong 2. strong 3. weak 4. Very weak
118
E
Staf pendidikan di tingkat Kabupaten/Kota
atau Kecamatan (UPTD) (other district or
sub-district education staff)
3. Tidak /no  1. Ya/yes 1. Sangat besar 2. Besar 3. Kecil 4. Sangat kecil
1. very strong 2. strong 3. weak 4. Very weak
SEKSI KD (KESADARAN (AWARENES)
Berikut ini kami ingin mengetahui bagaimana kesadaran komite sekolah mengenai bebearapa hal yang ada di sekolah ini
(next, we will ask you about school committee awareness toward some issues at school
KD.01 Berapa jumlah Guru di sekolahan ini?
How many teachers are in this school?
1. a. PNS (civil servant) 1.└─┴─┘ 8. TT / DK
b. Non PNS (non-civil servant) 1.└─┴─┘ 8. TT/ DK
2 .Total 1.└─┴─┘ 8. TT/DK 8. Tidak Tahu.
KD.02 Berapa jumlah murid di sekolahan ini?
How many students are in this school
2. 1.Tepat/precise└─┴─┴─┘
3. 2. Sekitar/around└─┴─┴─┘
4. 3. Kurang dari /less than └─┴─┴─┘
CN03TYPE
CN.03
Seberapa banyak [....] berkomunikasi dengan kepala sekolah? (how much does … communicate with the principal)
A Kepala sekolah (School principal) 1.Sangat banyak 2. banyak3 .Sedikit 4. Tidak ada komunikasi
1.very much 2. much 3 .a little 4. No communication at all
B Guru sekolah (School teachers) 1.Sangat banyak 2. banyak3 .Sedikit 4. Tidak ada komunikasi
1.very much 2. much 3 .a little 4. No communication at all
C Orang tua murid (parents) 1.Sangat banyak 2. banyak3 .Sedikit 4. Tidak ada komunikasi
1.very much 2. much 3 .a little 4. No communication at all
D Tokoh masyarakat (community figure) 1.Sangat banyak 2. banyak3 .Sedikit 4. Tidak ada komunikasi
1.very much 2. much 3 .a little 4. No communication at all
E Dewan pendidikan di tingkat Kabupaten/kota (district education
Board)
1.Sangat banyak 2. banyak3 .Sedikit 4. Tidak ada komunikasi
1.very much 2. much 3 .a little 4. No communication at all
F LSM (NGOs) 1.Sangat banyak 2. banyak3 .Sedikit 4. Tidak ada komunikasi
1.very much 2. much 3 .a little 4. No communication at all
V Media massa / press 1.Sangat banyak 2. banyak3 .Sedikit 4. Tidak ada komunikasi
1.very much 2. much 3 .a little 4. No communication at all
119
5. 4. Lebih dari / more than └─┴─┴─┘
6. 8. Tidak tahu / don’t know
KD.03 Apakah ada papan tulis di ruang kelas [Nama Anak]? Is
there a blackboard in [child]’s classroom?
1. YA yes
3. TIDAK no
8. TIDAK TAHU don’t know
KD.04 Secara keseluruhan bagaimana kondisi meja/kursi di
ruang kelas
1. Jumlahnya cukup(sedikitnya satu kursi/meja per setiap siswa) dan kondisi baik
Number is sufficient (at least one chair/desk for each student) and good condition
2. Jumlahnya cukup(sedikitnya satu kursi/meja per setiap siswa) dan kondisi kurang baik
Number is sufficient (at least one chair/desk for each student) but poor condition
3. Jumlahnya kurang(sedikitnya satu kursi/meja per setiap siswa) dan kondisi baik
Number is insufficient (at least one chair/desk for each student) but good condition
4. Jumlahnya kurang(sedikitnya satu kursi/meja per setiap siswa) dan kondisi kurang baik
Number is insufficient (at least one chair/desk for each student) and poor condition
120
CP. CATATAN PEWAWANCARA (INTERVIEWER NOTES)
CP1. SIAPA LAGI (ORANG LAIN) SELAIN RESPONDEN YANG
HADIR SELAMA WAWANCARA BERLANGSUNG? WHO
ELSE (OTHER PERSONS) BESIDES THE
RESPONDENT WAS PRESENT DURING THE
INTERVIEW?
D. TIDAK ADA
E. ANAK BERUMUR 5 TAHUN ATAU KURANG
A CHILD 5 YEARS OLD OR LESS
F. ANAK BERUMUR LEBIH DARI 5 TAHUN
A CHILD OLDER THAN 5 YEARS OLD
G. SUAMI/ISTRI HUSBAND/WIFE
H. ORANG DEWASA, ANGGOTA RUMAH TANGGA
ADULT, HOUSEHOLD MEMBER
I. ORANG DEWASA, BUKAN ANGGOTA RUMAH TANGGA
ADULT, NOT HOUSEHOLD MEMBER
CP2.BAGAIMANA PENILAIAN BAPAK/IBU TERHADAP
KETEPATAN JAWABAN DARI RESPONDEN? WHAT
IS YOUR EVALUATION OF THE ACCURACY OF
THE RESPONDENT’S ANSWERS?
1. SANGAT BAIK / EXCELLENT
2. BAIK / GOOD
3. CUKUP BAIK / FAIR
4. TIDAK BAIK / NOT SO GOOD
5. SANGAT TIDAK BAIK / VERY BAD
CP3. BAGAIMANA PENILAIAN BAPAK/IBU
TERHADAP KESUNGGUHAN PERHATIAN
RESPONDEN? WHAT IS YOUR
EVALUATION OF THE SINCERITY AND
ATTENTIVENESS OF THE
RESPONDENT?
1. SANGAT BAIK / EXCELLENT
2. BAIK / GOOD
3. CUKUP BAIK / FAIR
4. TIDAK BAIK / NOT SO GOOD
5. SANGAT TIDAK BAIK / VERY
BAD
CP4.PERTANYAAN MANAKAH YANG SULIT,MEMALUKAN ATAU
MEMBINGUNGKAN BAGI RESPONDEN? WHAT QUESTIONS
DID THE RESPONDENT FIND DIFFICULT,
EMBARRASSING, OR CONFUSING?
________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
CP5. PERTANYAAN MANAKAH YANG SULIT, MEMALUKAN
ATAU MEMBINGUNGKAN BAGI PEWAWANCARA?
WHAT QUESTIONS DID THE INTERVIEWER FIND
DIFFICULT, EMBARRASSING, OR CONFUSING?
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
CP6. PERTANYAAN MANAKAH YANG MENARIK
BAGI RESPONDEN? WHAT
QUESTIONS DID THE RESPONDENT
SEEM INTERESTED IN?
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
CATATAN / NOTE :
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
121
INTERVIEWER : __________________└─┴─┴─┘
EDITOR : __________________└─┴─┴─┘
SUPERVISOR : __________________└─┴─┴─┘
CONFIDENTIAL ID MBS└─┴─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┘└─┴─┘└─┘
SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT SURVEY
BOOK 4
PARENT BOOK
SECTION: LS,KL, KR,KS,AT, KS, PS, KU, BS, PA, PE, MU,PJ,TR, KW, ,KP,SP, KD, PD,CP
JK. Number of visit: └─┘
VISIT INTERVIEW 1 INTERVIEW 2 INTERVIEW 3 INTERVIEW 4
DATE : └─┴─┘/└─┴─┘/└─┴─┴─┴─┘
DATE / MONTH / YEAR
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘/└─┴─┴─┴─┘
DATE / MONTH / YEAR
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘/└─┴─┴─┴─┘
DATE / MONTH / YEAR
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘/└─┴─┴─┴─┘
DATE / MONTH / YEAR
TIME START : └─┴─┘/└─┴─┘
HOUR / MINUTE
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘
HOUR / MINUTE
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘
HOUR / MINUTE
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘
HOUR / MINUTE
TIME END : └─┴─┘/└─┴─┘
HOUR / MINUTE
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘
HOUR / MINUTE
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘
HOUR / MINUTE
└─┴─┘/└─┴─┘
HOUR / MINUTE
INTERVIEW RESULT : └─┘ └─┘ └─┘ └─┘
COV3.INTERVIEW RESULT COV4. REASON CODE FOR ANSWER “2” / “3” IN COV3 COV5. REVIEW BY REVIEWER COV6. OBSERVATION BY SUPERVISOR
1. Finished COV5
2. Partly finished
3. Unfinished
1. Cannot be reached
2. Is very ill
3. Refused the interview
5. Others: ______________________
1. Data entered, without mistake
2. Data entered, and edited
3. Manual editing without CAFÉ
4. Data are entered, without correction:
Yes No
a. Observed ...................1 3
b. Checked.....................1 3
c. Verified.......................1 3
122
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT SURVEY
Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening
Dear Sir/Madam, my name is ____________________________________, I am an interviewer of School-based Management Survey. The survey is
conducted by SurveyMETER in cooperation with RTI (Research Triangle Indonesia) in three districts of West Kalimantan Province : Sekadau,
Bengkayang and Malawi. The survey will ask questions about your knowledge and participation in [name of school]’ management, your satisfaction to the
school and your feedback on school’s problems.
Related to the survey, we are going to interview you. You are selected for interview randomly. This interview is not compulsory and if we proceed to
interview you are not obliged to answer each questions that we ask. Your answers are only for research purpose and strictly confidential. Your identity is
undisclosed to anyone.
The interview would take approximately one hour of your time. We apologize that we are going to take your time and we will give you a gift to compensate
your time and participation. As far as we know, there is no risk whatsoever for you for participating in this survey. Your participation will have no effect on
any assistance received by this school, community or household in this area. Other than the gift, there is no other benefit for participating in this survey.
However, result of this survey will provide valuable information for policy development in improving quality of education in Indonesia.
Do you understand this explanation? If yes, may we proceed to interview?
If you feel you are unfairly treated, or you want to ask question or problem, you may contact: District Education Office, Sub District Office, District Office or
SurveyMETER office, Jln. Pamularsih 149a,Klaseman, Yogyakarta.
ORAL CONSENT FROM SUBJECT OF RESEARCH OR OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE
I understand the procedure explained above. I have my questions answered comprehensively and I agree to participate in this survey. I have received
duplicate of this form.
______________________________ Oral Consent 1. Yes 2. No (circle where applicable )
Name of Respondent
INTERVIEWER’S SIGNATURE
Based on my observation, respondent gives his/her consent voluntarily and consciously and has legal capacity to consent his/her participation in this survey.
Interviewer’s Signature ______________________________ Date_____________________________________
123
SEKSI LS (LEMBAR SAMPLING) ID MBS└─┴─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┘└─┘└─┴─┘
LS.01 Nama Sekolah / Name of school ___________________________________________└─┴─┘
LS02 Nama anak / Name of child ___________________________________________ LS03 Kelas / grade └─┴─┘
LS04 Nomor random / Random Number └─┴─┘
LS.05 Nama orang tua dari siswa yang diberikan oleh sekolah (Parent’s
name provided by school) ____________________________________________________ SEKSI KL (KETERANGAN LOKASI)
KL.01. Provinsi / Province ____________________________________________________ Kode
Code
└─┴─┘
KL.02. Kabupaten/Kota / District/ city ____________________________________________________ Kode
Code
└─┴─┘
KL.03. Kecamatan / sub district ____________________________________________________ Kode
Code
└─┴─┴─┘
KL.04. Desa/Kelurahan / Village ____________________________________________________ Kode
Code
└─┴─┴─┘
KL.05. Alamat Rumah / home address _____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ KL.06 Keterangan lokasi / location information _____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ KL.07. Kode Pos / Zip code 2. └─┴─┴─┴─┴─┘ 8. TT / DK
KL.08. Telepon / phone a. Rumah / home 1. └─┴─┴─┴─┘-└─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┘ 6. TIDAK ADA / NOT AVAILABLE
b. HP / handphone 1 └─┴─┴─┴─┘-└─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┘_____________ 6. TIDAK ADA/ NOT AVAILABLE
KL.09 Nama tetangga terdekat / name of nearest neighbor _____________________________________________________________________________________________ KL.10 Rute menuju rumah responden (mengacu dari sekolah)
Route to respondent’s house (from school) _____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SEKSI KR (KARAKTERISTIK RESPONDEN) (RESPONDENT CHARATERISTICS)
124
KR.01 Nama Responden / Name of respondent ______________________________________________________ KR.02 Hubungan Responden dengan [NAMA ANAK] adalah
Relation to […]
01. Orang tua / parent
02. Kakek/Nenek / grandfather/grandmother
03. Paman/bibi / uncle/aunt
04. Saudara kandung / sibling
05. Wali / guardian parent
96. Lainnya/other_________
KR.03 Jenis kelamin/sex 1. Laki-laki/male 3. Perempuan/female
KR.04 Berapa lama RT ini tinggal di sini
How Long HH has lived in location
└─┴─┘ Th/yr └─┴─┘ Bulan /month
ROSTER ORANGTUA (PARENT ROSTER)
BARIS C AKAN TERISI JIKA KEDUA ORANGTUA TIDAK TINGGAL DI RT ATAU MENINGGAL ( KR08 BARIS a DAN b TERISI 3 ATAU 5)
ROW CWILL BE FILLED OUT IF BOTH PARENTS ARE NOT LIVING IN HOUSEHOLD OR DIED (KR08 ROW a AND b = 3 or 5)
KR05 KR.06 KR.07 KR.08 KR.09 KR.10 KR.11 KR.12 KR.13 KR.14 KR.15 KR.16
Nama / Name Status (Status) Jenis
kelamin
/ sex
Usia (age) Suku bangsa
(ethnicity)
Pendidikan
tertinggi yang
pernah/
sedang diikuti
(highest level
of education
ever/currently
attended)
Tingkat/kelas
tertinggi yang
telah
ditamatkan
(highest class
completed)
Kemampuan
baca-tulis
Bahasa
Indonesia
(Indonesian
literacy)
Jenis
pekerjaan
utama (main
job)
Berapa hari dalam
seminggu I/B/S
bekerja di pekerjaan
tersebut dalam
seminggu yang lalu
(how many days in a
week working in that
job last week)
Di lembaga
atau
organisasi
mana sajakah
[...] pada saat
ini terlibat
secara aktif?
(which
organization is
[…] currently
actively
involved with?)
(a).Bap
ak
(father) ____________
1.Tinggal di RT (Living
in HH)
3.Tidak tinggal di RT
(Not Living in HH)
5.Meninggal (Dead)
6.Tidak ada (hanya untuk
wali) None (only for
guardian)
1. Laki￾laki /
male
3.Pere
mpuan
/
female
1. └─┴─┘
8. TT / Dk
└─┴─┘
Jika lainnya
(95) sebutkan
/specify for
other (95)
└─┴─┘
Jika lainnya
(95) sebutkan
/specify for
other (95)
00 01
02
03 04
05
06 07
98
96
1. Ya / yes
3. Tidak / No
└─┴─┘
Jika lainnya
(95) sebutkan
/specify for
other (95)
└─┴─┘
Isi 96 jika tidak
bekerja
(fill 96 if not working)
A B C D
E F G H
V W Y
____________
Jika lainnya
(V) sebutkan /
specify for
other (V)
125
(b).Ibu
(mothe
r)
____________
1.Tinggal di RT (Living
in HH)
3.Tidak tinggal di RT
(Not Living in HH)
5.Meninggal (Dead)
6.Tidak ada (hanya untuk
wali) None (only for
guardian)
1. Laki￾laki /
male
3.Pere
mpuan
/
female
1. └─┴─┘
8. TT / Dk
└─┴─┘
Jika lainnya
(95) sebutkan
/specify for
other (95)
└─┴─┘
Jika lainnya
(95) sebutkan
/specify for
other (95)
00 01
02
03 04
05
06 07
98
96
2. Ya / yes
4. Tidak / No
└─┴─┘
Jika lainnya
(95) sebutkan
/specify for
other (95)
└─┴─┘
Isi 96 jika tidak
bekerja
(fill 96 if not working)
A B C D
E F G H
V W Y
____________
Jika lainnya
(V) sebutkan /
specify for
other (V)
(c).
Wali
(guardi
an) ____________
_
1.Tinggal di RT (Living
in HH)
3.Tidak tinggal di RT
(Not Living in HH)
5.Meninggal (Dead)
6.Tidak ada (hanya untuk
wali) None (only for
guardian)
1. Laki￾laki /
male
3.Pere
mpuan
/
female
1. └─┴─┘
8. TT / Dk
└─┴─┘
Jika lainnya
(95) sebutkan
/specify for
other (95)
└─┴─┘
Jika lainnya
(95) sebutkan
/specify for
other (95)
00 01
02
03 04
05
06 07
98
96
3. Ya / yes
5. Tidak / No
└─┴─┘
Jika lainnya
(95) sebutkan
/specify for
other (95)
└─┴─┘
Isi 96 jika tidak
bekerja
(fill 96 if not working)
A B C D
E F G H
V W Y
____________
Jika lainnya
(V) sebutkan /
specify for
other (V)
KR10
1.Jawa/Javanese
2.
Sunda/Sundanes
3. Bali/Balinese
4. Batak
5.Sasak
6. Minang
7. Banjar
8.Bima- Dompu
9.Bugis
10.Tionghoa/Chinese
11. Madura
12. Makasar
13. Sumbawa
14. Toraja
15. Dayak
16. Ambon
17 Manado
18.Kutai
19.Melayu/Malay
95 Lainnya/Other_______
KR11
01. Tidak sekolah (no schooling)
02. SD/MI (elementary school)
03. SMP/MTs (junior high school)
04. SMA/SMK/MA (senior high
school)
05. Diploma I/II
06. Dip III/S. Muda (associate)
07. Dip IV/S1 (bachelor)
08. Pascasarjana (post graduate)
95. Lainnya (other)
98. TIDAK TAHU
KR12
00. Belum menyelesaikan kelas 1
Not finished grade 1
01. 1 (grade 1)
02. 2 (grade 2)
03. 3 (grade 3)
04. 4 (grade 4)
05. 5 (grade 5)
06. 6 (grade 6)
07. Tamat (finished)
96. Tidak sekolah (no schooling)
98. TIDAK TAHU / don’t know
KR14
1. Guru PNS / civil servant teacher
2. Guru Non PNS / Non civil servant
teacher
3. PNS/Pegawai pemerintah non Guru /
civil servant non teacher
4. Karyawan swasta / private employee
5. Polisi/Tentara / police/military
6. Wiraswasta / entepreneur
7. Petani/peternak/nelayan /
farmer/fisherman
8. Pekerja Pabrik / factory worker
9. Buruh Tani / farm labor
10. Pensiunan Guru / retired teacher
11 Pensiunan Non Guru / retired (non
teacher)
95.Lainnya,/other_______
96.TIDAK BEKERJA / NO JOB
KR16
A. Pengurus RT/RW/Dusun* /RT/RW/Dusun
manager
B. Pemerintah Desa/ Kelurahan*
Village/kelurahan official
C. BPD/Dewan Kelurahan/LPM*
Member of village body
D. Ormas/Keagamaan
Community/religious organization
E. Partai Politik/ Political party
F. Tempat ibadah* / place of worship
G. LSM* /NGO
H. Komite Sekolah*/ school committee
I. Dewan Pendidikan/education board
V. Lainnya/other
W. TIDAK ADA/ nothing
Y. TIDAK TAHU/don’t know
126
ROSTER ANAK USIA 7 TAHUN SAMPAI 15TAHUN (ROSTER of CHILDREN 7-15 YEARS OLD)
KR.17 Berapa jumlah anak usia dibawah 7 tahun yang tinggal dirumah tangga I/B/S?
How many children under 7 years old living in your household? └─┴─┘anak / children
KR.18 Berapa jumlah anak usia diatas 15 tahun yang tinggal dirumah tangga I/B/S yang masih bersekolah
SMP/SMA/SMK/MA?
How many children above 15 years old living in your household who are still attending junior high /
senior high / vocational school
└─┴─┘anak / children
KR.19 Apakah mempunyai anak usia 7 sampai 15 tahun yang tinggal dirumah tangga I/B/S?
Are there children between 7 – 15 years old living in your household? 2. └─┴─┘anak / children 3. Tidak ada / no KR.28
Berikut ini kami akan menanyakan anak yang berumur 7 tahun sampai 15 tahun yang tinggal dirumah tangga ini.
(Next, we will ask question about children aged 7 to 15 who are living in this household)
KR.20 KR.21 KR.22 KR23 KR.24 KR.25 KR.26 KR.27
No Nama panggilan
(FIRST NAME)
Usia (age) Jenis Kelamin / sex Hubungan
Responden dengan
anak / relationship of
respondent with child
Tingkat Pendidikan
tertinggi yang
pernah/sedang diikuti
(Highest education
ever/currently
attended)
Apakah anak sedang
bersekolah di sekolah
ini [LS.01]? Is
[…]currently studying
at this school [LS.01])
Kelas berapa
(Current grade)
Apakah anak pernah
bersekolah di sekolah
ini [LS.01]?
(Did […]ever study at
this school[LS.01)
1
1. └─┴─┘
8. TIDAK TAHU
/ DK
1. Laki-laki/male
3.Perempuan/female
└─┴─┘
Jika lainnya (95)
sebutkan /specify for
other (95)
└─┴─┘
1. Ya / yes
3. Tidak / NoKR.27
1 2 3 4 5 6
 1. Ya/ yes
3. Tidak/ no
2
1. └─┴─┘
8. TIDAK TAHU
/ DK
1. Laki-laki/male
3.Perempuan/female
└─┴─┘
Jika lainnya (95)
sebutkan /specify for
other (95)
└─┴─┘
1. Ya / yes
3. Tidak / NoKR.27
1 2 3 4 5 6
 1. Ya/ yes
3. Tidak/ no
3
1. └─┴─┘
8. TIDAK TAHU
/ DK
1. Laki-laki/male
3.Perempuan/female
└─┴─┘
Jika lainnya (95)
sebutkan /specify for
other (95)
└─┴─┘
1. Ya / yes
3. Tidak / NoKR.27
1 2 3 4 5 6
 1. Ya/ yes
3. Tidak/ no
4
1. └─┴─┘
8. TIDAK TAHU
/ DK
1. Laki-laki/male
3.Perempuan/female
└─┴─┘
Jika lainnya (95)
sebutkan /specify for
other (95)
└─┴─┘
1. Ya / yes
3. Tidak / NoKR.27
1 2 3 4 5 6
 1. Ya/ yes
3. Tidak/ no
127
5
1. └─┴─┘
8. TIDAK TAHU
/ DK
1. Laki-laki/male
3.Perempuan/female
└─┴─┘
Jika lainnya (95)
sebutkan /specify for
other (95)
└─┴─┘
1. Ya / yes
3. Tidak / NoKR.27
1 2 3 4 5 6
 1. Ya/ yes
3. Tidak/ no
Kode KR23
16. Orang tua / parent
17. Kakek/Nenek / grandfather/grandmother
18. Paman/bibi / uncle/aunt
19. Saudara kandung / sibling
20. Wali / guardian parent
95 Lainnya/ other______
Kode KR.24
01. Tidak selesai sekolah dasar / didn’t finish elementary school
02...Sekolah Dasar (SD) / elementary school
03. Sekolah Lanjutan Tingkat Pertama (SLTP) / jun ior high school
04. SMA/SLTA/SMK Sederajat / senior high school
Berikut ini akan menanyakan tentang pengeluaran dan asset rumah tangga
(Next, we will ask about household expenditure and assets)
KR28TYPE
KR.28
Perhitungan / calculation Berapa total pengeluaran rumah tangga untuk
kebutuhan [….]?/ Total household expenditure
for […]
A Pengeluaran untuk makanan termasuk makanan jadi/minuman (per hari)
Expenditure for food including meal/beverage (daily)
Rp.└─┴─┴─┘ └─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┴─┘
B Pengeluaran untuk bukan makanan (per bulan)
Expenditure for non food (monthly)
Rp.└─┴─┴─┘ └─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┴─┘
Berikut kami ingin menanyakan mengenai kepemilikan dan keadaan rumah yang ditempati (Next we will ask about ownership and condition of your dwelling)
KR.29 Apakah status kepemilikan rumah yang ditempati I/B/S
Ownership status of your current dwelling
07. Milik Sendiri /owned
08. Kontrak / contract
09. Sewa / rent
10. Bebas sewa / rent-free
11. Dinas / official
12. Milik orang tua/sanak saudara / owned by parent’s or relative;s
96 Lainnya / other ___________________
KR.30 JENIS ATAP TERBESAR / MAIN MATERIAL OF ROOF 07. BETON / CONCRETE
08. GENTENG /ROOF TILE
128
(OBSERVASI/OBSERVATION) 09. SIRAP / SHINGLE
10. SENG / ZINC SHEET
11. ASBES / ASBESTOS
12. IJUK/RUMBIA / THATCH/LEAVES
96 LAINNYA / OTHER ___________________
KR.31. JENIS DINDING TERBESAR / MAIN MATERIAL OF WALL
(OBSERVASI/OBSERVATION)
04. TEMBOK / BRICK
05. KAYU /WOOD
06. BAMBU / BAMBOO
95 LAINNYA/ OTHER
KR.32 JENIS LANTAI TERLUAS / MAIN TYPE OF FLOORING
(OBSERVASI/OBSERVATION)
04. BUKAN TANAH/BAMBOO / NOT DIRT/BAMBOO
05. TANAH / DIRT
06. BAMBU / BAMBOO
KR.33 Sumber penerangan yang digunakan di rumah tangga
Source of household’s lighting
05. Listrik PLN / PLN electricity
06. Listrik Non PLN / Non PLN electricity
07. Petromak /gas lamp
08. Pelita/Sentir/Obor / oil lamp/torch
95. Lainnya /other ____________________
Berikut ini akan menanyakan tentang asset rumah tangga
Next, we will ask you about household’s assets
KR34TYPE KR34 KR.35
TYPE Apakah rumah tangga ini memiliki [...]? Does this household own
[…]?
Berapa jumlah [...] yang dimiliki RT ini? How
many [..] own by this household?
1. Telepon seluler / handphone 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah unit
2. Komputer/ computer 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah unit
3. Tabung gas 12 atau lebih / cooking gas container (12 kg or larger) 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah unit
4. Kompor minyak atau gas / gas or kerosene stove 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah unit
129
KR34TYPE KR34 KR.35
TYPE Apakah rumah tangga ini memiliki [...]? Does this household own
[…]?
Berapa jumlah [...] yang dimiliki RT ini? How
many [..] own by this household?
5. Lemari es/kulkas / refrigerator 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah unit
6. Kipas angin / fan 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah unit
7. Televisi / television 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah unit
8 . Parabola /disc antenna 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah unit
9. Sepeda / bicycle 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah unit
10. Sepeda motor / motorcycle 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah unit
11. Sampan/perahu / raft/boat 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah unit
12. Motor tempel/perahu motor / motorized boat 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah unit
13. Mobil/minibus/truk / car/bus/truck 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘ buah unit
14. Kartu pengobatan gratis / free medication card 1.Ya Yes 3. Tidak No  8. TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW  └─┴─┘buah unit
SEKSI AT (KEHADIRAN ANAK DI SEKOLAH (CHILD’S ATTENDANCE TO SCHOOL )
Berikut kami ingin menanyakan mengenai keterjangkauan sekolah dan kehadiran anak di sekolah
(Next, we will ask you about school’s accessibility and child’s attendance to school)
AT.01 Berapa jarak dari rumah ke sekolah [NAMA ANAK]? (how far is it from your home
to […]’ s school?) 1. |___|___| |___|___|___| meter 8. TIDAK TAHU
AT.02 Sarana transportasi apa yang biasa digunakan [NAMA ANAK] ke sekolah? (what
mean of transportation does [NAMA ANAK] usually use to get to school?)
01. Berjalan kaki(on foot)
02. Bersepeda (bicycle)
03. Menumpang teman/orang lain yang tidak serumah (ride with friend/non household member)
04. Kendaraan umum (angkutan, ojek, taksi) (public transportation) /public transportation (public bus,
ojek, taxi)
05. Diantar dengan kendaraan tidak bermotor (dropped off using non-motorized vehicle)
06. Diantar dengan motor (dropped off using motorcycle)
07. Diantar dengan mobil (dropped off by using car)
95. Lainnya/other__________________
130
98. TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW
AT.03 Berapa waktu yang dibutuhkan anak untuk mencapai sekolah? (how long does it
take […] to get to school?) 1. └─┴─┴─┘ menit/ minute ..........................8. TIDAK TAHU
AT.04 Berapa hari [NAMA ANAK] tidak masuk sekolah dalam dua minggu terakhir?
how many days did [CHILD] not attend school in the past 2 weeks 1. └─┴─┘Hari/day 6. Masuk terus / never absentKS.01
AT.05
Apa alasan [NAMA ANAK] tidak masuk sekolah, (pilih semua yang berlaku)
What was the main reason [CHILD] did not attend school (select all that apply)
B. Sakit / sick
C. Libur / vacation
D. Alasan membantu keluarga / helping family
E. Bencana / disaster/tragedy
F. Anak menolak untuk pergi sekolah / child refused to go to school
G. Bepergian dengan orang tua / travelling with parents
V. Lainnya / other ____________________
SEKSI KS (KOMITE SEKOLAH) SCHOOL COMMITTEE
Berikut kami ingin menanyakan mengenai Komite sekolah yang ada di sekolah ini
(Next, we will ask you about school committee in this school)
KS.01 Apakah sekolah ini ada komite sekolah?
Does this school have a school committee
Ya, tahu ada komite sekolah/ Yes, I know school has school committee ...................1
Ya, tahu tidak ada komite sekolah/Yes, I know school has no school committee
..................................................................3PS.01
TIDAK TAHU/DON’T KNOW..................... 8PS.01
KS.02 Apakah I/B/S terlibat dalam proses pemilihan/penentuan anggota komite sekolah yang terakhir?
(Were you involved in choosing/appointing the current members of the committee)
Ya/yes ....................................................... 1
Tidak/no .................................................... 3
KS.03 Apakah I/B/S anggota komite sekolah ?
(Are you a member of the school committee)
Ya/yes ....................................................... 1
Tidak/no .................................................... 3
KS.04 Berapa banyak anggota komite sekolah yang I/B/S ketahui namanya?
How many school committee’s members can you name?
1. └─┴─┘ 8. TIDAK TAHU / DON”T KNOWKS07
KS.05
(Orig
KD.03)
Siapa nama ketua komite di sekolah ini / Who is the chairperson of this school committee? 1.
8. TIDAK TAHU DON’T KNOW →KS.06 ........
KS.05x CATATAN PEWAWANCARA : APAKAH NAMA YANG DISEBUTKAN SESUAI DENGAN
YANG DI BUKU SEKUNDER
INTERVIEWER CHECK : IS THE NAME CORRECT ACCORDING TO BOOK OF
SECONDARY DATA (BOOK5)?
1. YA / YES
3. TIDAK / NO
131
KS.06 Berapa banyak anggota komite sekolah yang pernah Bapak/Ibu kenal?
How many school committee’s members do you know personally?
1. └─┴─┘ 6. Tidak ada yang dikenal / None
KS.07 Apakah komite sekolah bertemu secara rutin atau secara tidak rutin?
Does school committee meet routinely or intermittently?
1. Secara rutin / routine
2. Secara tidak rutin / intermittently
3. Secara rutin dan tidak rutin / routine and intermittently
6. Tidak pernah ada pertemuan / never have meeting→KS09
8. TIDAK TAHU / DON’T KNOW →KS09
KS08TYPE
KS.08 KS.08b
Pada tahun ajaran lalu (2010/2011)
In the last school year (2010/2011)
Pada tahun ajaran sekarang (2011/2012)
In this school year (2011/2012)
A Seberapa sering komite sekolah bertemu?
(how often did school committee meet?)
1. └─┴─┘kali per:tahun ajaran/times per
school year
6. Tidak pernah / never
8. TIDAK TAHU / DON’T KNOW
1. └─┴─┘kali per:tahun ajaran/times per
school year
6. Tidak pernah / never
8. TIDAK TAHU / DON’T KNOW
B Berapa kali I/B/S menghadiri rapat komite sekolah?
How many times have you attended school committee meetings?
1. └─┴─┘ 8. Lupa/TIDAK TAHU
Forget/DON’T KNOW
1. └─┴─┘ 6. Belum ada pertemuan / no
meeting yet
KS09TYPE
KS.09 KS.10
Menurut ibu/bapak Apakah komite sekolah seharusnya [...] ?
in your opinion, should the school committee [...]?
Apakah komite sekolah di sekolah ini
[...]? Does the school committee [...] at
this school?
A Memberikan masukan mengenai operasional
sekolah
(provide input on school operations)
1.Sangat Setuju 2. Setuju 3. Tidak Setuju 4. Sangat Tidak Setuju 8. TT
1.strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 8. DK 1. YaYes 3.Tidak No 8. TT
B Mengambil keputusan akhir yang menyangkut
operasional sekolah
(to make final decisions about school operations)
1.Sangat Setuju 2. Setuju 3. Tidak Setuju 4. Sangat Tidak Setuju 8. TT
1.strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 8. DK 1.Ya Yes 3.Tidak No 8. TT
C Membantu penggalangan dana
(To help raise funds)
1.Sangat Setuju 2. Setuju 3. Tidak Setuju 4. Sangat Tidak Setuju 8. TT
1.strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 8. DK 1.Ya Yes 3.Tidak No 8. TT
132
D Memberikan masukan tentang alokasi dana BOS
(To provide input about the allocation of BOS
funds)
1.Sangat Setuju 2. Setuju 3. Tidak Setuju 4. Sangat Tidak Setuju 8. TT
1.strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 8. DK 1.Ya Yes 3.Tidak No 8. TT
E Memeriksa dan menyetujui anggaran sekolah
(To verify and approve school budget)
1.Sangat Setuju 2. Setuju 3. Tidak Setuju 4. Sangat Tidak Setuju 8. TT
1.strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 8. DK 1.Ya Yes 3.Tidak No 8. TT
F Mengadakan pertemuan rutin / tidak rutin dengan
sekolah, orang tua dan masyarakat.
(To conduct regular or intermittent meetings with
school parents and community)
1.Sangat Setuju 2. Setuju 3. Tidak Setuju 4. Sangat Tidak Setuju 8. TT
1.strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 8. DK 1.Ya Yes 3.Tidak No 8. TT
G Mewakili orang tua dan masyarakat dalam proses
pengelolaan sekolah
(to represent parents and the community in the
process of school managementl)
1.Sangat Setuju 2. Setuju 3. Tidak Setuju 4. Sangat Tidak Setuju 8. TT
1.strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 8. DK 1.Ya Yes 3.Tidak No 8. TT
KS.11 Apakah hasil pertemuan komite sekolah tersedia/bisa diperoleh masyarakat ?
(Are the reports of school committee meeting available/accessible for the community?) 1. Ya Yes 3. Tidak NoKS.13 8.TT DKKS.13
KS.12 Bagaimana bisa mendapatkan dokumen tersebut?
How can one access the documents?
A. Lihat di Papan pengemuman sekolah / read at school bulletin board
B. Bisa diminta dari sekolah / request from school
C. Bisa diminta dari Komite sekolah / request from school committee
V. Lainnya other_________
Y. TIDAK TAHU DON”T KNOW
W. Tidak bisa didapatkan / cannot be accessed
KS.13 Tahun ajaran lalu (2010/2011 ) Apakah Bapak/Ibu menerima informasi apapun dari komite sekolah? (misanya informasi mengenai
dana BOS, rencana sekolah/anggaran sekolah atau undangan untuk menghadiri pertemuan..
Last school year (2010/2011), did you receive any information from School Committee?(e.g. information on BOS funds, school
plan/budget, or invitation to attend meeting)
1. Ya Yes 3. Tidak No
SEKSI PS (PENGELOLAAN SEKOLAH) School Management
Berikut kami ingin menanyakan tentang pengelolaan sekolah berkaitan dengan pengelolaan keuangan sekolah
(Next, we will ask you about school management related to school’s financial management
PS.01 Tiga kategori yang mana dari pengeluaran sekolah tahun ajaran ini yang mendapatkan alokasi
anggaran sekolah yang terbesar
(what three categories of expenditure for this school year receive the largest share of the school
budget?)
1 a. Perlengkapan Pendidikan / educational equipment └─┘
r. Pengajar/ teachers └─┘
s. Prasarana Sekolah yang baru/ new school infrastructure └─┘
t. Memperbaiki sarana yang ada / improve existing infrastructure └─┘
133
(CATATAN PEWAWANCARA: PERLIHATKAN GAMBAR , MINTA RESPONDEN UNTUK
MEMILIH 3 TERPENTING DAN MERANGKING. KALAU TIDAK TERPILIH ISI DENGAN “6
INTERVIEWER NOTE: SHOW THE PICTURES, ASK RESPONDENT TO CHOOSE THE 3 MOST
IMPORTANT CATEGORIES AND RANK THEM. IF NOT CHOSEN ENTER “6”
u. Pengeluaran operasional lainnya / other operational expenditure └─┘
9. Tidak bisa/don’t know
PS.02 menurut I/B/S anggaran sekolah sebaiknya dikeluarkan untuk tiga kategori yang mana supaya
bisa memperbaiki kualitas pendidikan di sekolah ini?
(in your opinion, school budget should be spent on which 3 categories in order to improve the
quality of education at this school?)
(CATATAN PEWAWANCARA: PERLIHATKAN GAMBAR , MINTA RESPONDEN UNTUK
MEMILIH 3 TERPENTING DAN MERANGKING. KALAU TIDAK TERPILIH ISI DENGAN “6
INTERVIEWER NOTE: SHOW THE PICTURES, ASK RESPONDENT TO CHOOSE THE 3 MOST
IMPORTANT CATEGORIES AND RANK THEM. IF NOT CHOSEN ENTER “6”
1 a. Perlengkapan Pendidikan / educational equipment └─┘
v. Pengajar/ teachers └─┘
w. Prasarana Sekolah yang baru/ new school infrastructure └─┘
x. Memperbaiki sarana yang ada / improve existing infrastructure └─┘
y. Pengeluaran operasional lainnya / other operational expenditure └─┘
8. Tidak bisa/don’t know
PS.03 menurut I/B/S khusus untuk perlengkapan pendidikan anggaran sekolah sebaiknya dikeluarkan
untuk tiga kategori yang mana supaya bisa memperbaiki kualitas pendidikan di sekolah ini?
(in your opinion, specifically related to educational equipment,school budget should be spent on
which 3 categories in order to improve the quality of education at this school?)
(CATATAN PEWAWANCARA: PERLIHATKAN GAMBAR , MINTA RESPONDEN UNTUK
MEMILIH 3 TERPENTING DAN MERANGKING. KALAU TIDAK TERPILIH ISI DENGAN “6
INTERVIEWER NOTE: SHOW THE PICTURES, ASK RESPONDENT TO CHOOSE THE 3 MOST
IMPORTANT CATEGORIES AND RANK THEM. IF NOT CHOSEN ENTER “6”
1. a. Buku/books └─┘
b. Perlengkangkapan ruang kelas / classroom equipment/supplies └─┘
c. Perlengkapan ruang guru / teacher’s room equipment/supplies └─┘
d. Computer,printer dan proyektor / computer,printer,projector └─┘
e. Alat peraga pengajaran / teaching aids └─┘
f. peralatan olah raga / sports equipment └─┘
v. .Lainnya / other_________ └─┘
8. TIDAK TAHU / DON’T KNOW
PS.04 Menurut I/B/S khusus untuk pengajar anggaran sekolah sebaiknya dikeluarkanuntuk tiga kategori
yang mana supaya bisa memperbaiki kualitas pendidikan di sekolah ini?
(in your opinion, specifically related to teachers,school budget should be spent on which 3
categories in order to improve the quality of education at this school?)
(CATATAN PEWAWANCARA: PERLIHATKAN GAMBAR , MINTA RESPONDEN UNTUK
MEMILIH 3 TERPENTING DAN MERANGKING. KALAU TIDAK TERPILIH ISI DENGAN “6
INTERVIEWER NOTE: SHOW THE PICTURES, ASK RESPONDENT TO CHOOSE THE 3 MOST
IMPORTANT CATEGORIES AND RANK THEM. IF NOT CHOSEN ENTER “6”
1. a. Menambah guru honor / adding private teachers └─┘
b. uang tambahan untuk guru yang sudah ada / increased money for existing
teachers └─┘
c. Pelatihan untuk Guru (training for teachers) └─┘
v Lainnya (other): ___________ └─┘
8. TIDAK TAHU / DON’T KNOW
SEKSI KU (PENGETAHUAN TENTANG KEUANGAN SEKOLAH) Awareness of school finances
Berikut kami ingin menanyakan tentang keuangan sekolah (next we will ask about school finances)
KU.01
Apakah I/B/S tahu berapa besarnya sumbangan dari masyarakat yang di gunakan untuk
membantu sekolah pada tahun ajaran yang lalu (2010/2011) tidak termasuk sumbangan dari
orang tua
do you know the amount of contributions from the community used to help the school last school
year (2010/2011), excluding contributions from parents.
5. Ada, Rp.└─┴─┴─┘. └─┴─┴─┘.└─┴─┴─┘. └─┴─┴─┘ (There
was..)
6. Ada tidak tahu jumlahnya (There was, but I don’t know the amount)
8. Tidak ada Sumbangan dari masyarakat (No contribution from community)
134
10. Tidak Tahu (Don’t know)
KU.02 Apakah pernah mendengar tentang BOS?
Have you ever heard of BOS?
1. Ya Yes 3. Tidak NoBS.01
KU.03
Pada tahun ajaran sekarang 2011/2012, apakah pernah menerima informasi bagaimana dana
BOS digunakan di sekolah [NAMA ANAK]?
This school year, have you ever received information on how BOS funds are spent in [CHILD]’s
school?
1. Ya Yes 3. Tidak No
KU.04 Berapa besarnya dana BOS per siswa?
What is the amount of BOS funds per student?
1. Rp.└─┴─┴─┘. └─┴─┴─┘. per a. Bulan b. Triwulan c. Tahun
a. month b.quarter c. annual
8. Don’t know
SEKSI BS (BIAYA SEKOLAH ) SCHOOL EXPENDITURE
Kami ingin menanyakan mengenai biaya sekolah yang dikeluarkan orangtua/wali
(Next, we will ask you about school costs you have spent)
BS.01 TYPE
BS.01
Dalam tahun ajaran ini (2011/2012) berapa jumlah pengeluaran orangtua yang telah dikeluarkan
untuk [NAMA ANAK] di sekolah ini
Inthis school year (2011/2012) how much have you spent on […] for [CHILD] for this school.
A Biaya Sekolah contohnya pendaftaran sekolah, daftar ulang
School fees (e.g. for enrollment, re enrollment fee)
1. Rp └─┴─┘.└─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┴─┘8. TIDAK TAHU / DON”T KNOW 6.tidak
ada/gratis nothing/free of charge
B
Perlengkapan sekolah (termasuk buku )
School equipment (including books )
1. Rp └─┴─┘.└─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┴─┘8. TIDAK TAHU / DON”T KNOW 6.tidak
ada/gratis nothing/free of charge
C
Seragam sekolah (school uniform) 1. Rp └─┴─┘.└─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┴─┘8. TIDAK TAHU / DON”T KNOW 6.tidak
ada/gratis nothing/free of charge
D
Biaya untuk penerimaan hasil evaluasi
(costs to receive evaluation report)
1. Rp └─┴─┘.└─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┴─┘8. TIDAK TAHU / DON”T KNOW 6.tidak
ada/gratis nothing/free of charge
E
uang saku (selain uang transport) anak per hari
daily allowance/pocket money (excluding transport money)
1. Rp └─┴─┘.└─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┴─┘8. TIDAK TAHU / DON”T KNOW 6.tidak
ada/gratis nothing/free of charge
F
uang transportasi per hari
daily transport money
1. Rp └─┴─┘.└─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┴─┘8. TIDAK TAHU / DON”T KNOW 6.tidak
ada/gratis nothing/free of charge
G Sumbangan sukarela sekolah
(voluntary contributions to the school)
1. Rp └─┴─┘.└─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┴─┘8. TIDAK TAHU / DON”T KNOW 6.tidak
ada/gratis nothing/free of charge
V
Biaya Lain-lain______________
(others)
1. Rp └─┴─┘.└─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┴─┘8. TIDAK TAHU / DON”T KNOW 6.tidak
ada/gratis nothing/free of charge
135
BS.02
Sejak mulai tahun ajaran ini berapa sumbangan sukarela sekolah dalam bentuk barang
(bukan berentuk uang)?
Since the beginning of this school year how much voluntary contribution in form of goods (i.e.
non-monetary)?
1. Rp └─┴─┘.└─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┴─┘8. TIDAK TAHU DK 6.tidak ada no
contribution
BS.03
Sejak mulai tahun ajaran ini berapa sumbangan sukarela sekolah dalam bentuk tenaga
(bukan berentuk uang atau barang) ?
Since the beginning of this school year how much voluntary contribution in form of labor (i.e.
not money or goods)
1. └─┴─┘jam /hour 8. TIDAK TAHU DK 6.tidak
ada no contribution
SEKSI PA (PARTISIPASI ) participation
Berikut kami ingin menanyakan mengenai partisipasi orangtua/wali pada kegiatan sekolah
(Next, we will ask you about parent/guardian participation in school activities)
PA01TYPE
PA.01
Pada Tahun ajaran ini(2011/2012), seberapa sering orang tua /wali berpartisipasi
dalam kegiatan sekolah berikut ?
In this school year (2011/2012) how frequently have you participated in the following
school activities?
A Berkomunikasi dengan gurunya di sekolah?
Communicate with teacher at school
└─┴─┘ kali times
B Berkomunikasi dengan kepala sekolah di sekolah?
Communicate with principal at school
└─┴─┘ kali times
C Berpartisipasi dalam rapat/diskusi formal/resmi tentang bagaimana penggalangan dana untuk
sekolah
participate in a formal meeting/discussion on how to raise funds for school
└─┴─┘ kali times
D Menghadiri rapat untuk orang tua/Wali murid
attend school meetings for parents
└─┴─┘ kali times
E Berpartisipasi dalam membahas tentang alokasi dana sekolah?
participate in meetings discussing school budget’s allocation?
└─┴─┘ kali times
PA.02 TYPE
PA.02 PA.03
Apakah orang tua/wali [NAMA ANAK]
terlibat dalam hal berikut?
Are the parents of [CHILD] involved in
[…]?
Seberapa besar pengaruh Orangtua/wali sekolah [NAMA ANAK] dalam[…] ?
how much influence do the parents of [CHILD] have over [...]?
A
Penyusunan rencana kerja sekolah
preparing school work plan 3. Tidak No 1. Ya yes 1. No influence 2. Little influential 3. Somewhat influential 4. Very influential
136
B
Pembebanan biaya kepada siswa
charging fees to students 3. Tidak No 1. Ya yes 1. No influence 2. Little influential 3. Somewhat influential 4. Very influential
C
Perencanaan dan alokasi anggaran sekolah
(termasuk dana BOS)
planning & allocating school budget
3. Tidak No 1. Ya yes 1. No influence 2. Little influential 3. Somewhat influential 4. Very influential
D
Perencanaan fasilitas sekolah
school facility planning 3. Tidak No 1. Ya yes 1. No influence 2. Little influential 3. Somewhat influential 4. Very influential
E Memantau bagaimana dana sekolah
dibelanjakan
monitoring how funds are spent
3. Tidak No 1. Ya yes 1. No influence 2. Little influential 3. Somewhat influential 4. Very influential
F Memantau kinerja sekolah
monitoring school performance 3. Tidak No 1. Ya yes 1. No influence 2. Little influential 3. Somewhat influential 4. Very influential
SEKSI PE (PENGAWASAN) SUPERVISION
Berikut kami ingin menanyakan mengenai pengawasan yang dilakukan orang tua/wali
(Next, we will ask you about parent/guardian oversight
PE.01 PE.02
PE01 TYPE Berapa kali I/B/S atau orangtua/wali mengunjungi sekolah?
how many times have you visited the school?
Apakah melihat papan pengumuman?
Do you look at the school’s bulletin board?
A
selama tahun ajaran lalu(2010-2011)?
During the previous school year (2010-2011)
1. └─┴─┘kali times 6. TIDAK PERNAH NEVER 1. Ya yes 3. Tidak No
B
Selama tahun ajaran in (2011 – 2012)
During this school year (2010-2012)
2. └─┴─┘kali times 6. TIDAK PERNAH NEVER 1. Ya yes 3. Tidak No
SEKSI MU (MEKANISME UMPAN BALIK) FEEDBACK MECHANISM
Berikut kami ingin menanyakan mengenai hal yang berkaitan dengan umpan balik dari orang tua/wali pada sekolah
(Next, we will ask you about feedback from parents to school)
MU.01 Apakah Bapak/Ibu pernah mengajukan keluhan baik lisan maupun tulisan sejak awal tahun ajaran lalu? have you ever filed a
complaint (either written or oral) since the beginning of the last school year? 1. Ya Yes
3. Tidak NoPJ.01
MU.02
Keluhan tersebut disampaikan kepada siapa? Whom you submitted the complaint to?
A. Komite sekolah school committee
B.Guru teacher
C.Kepala sekolah principal
D.Guru BP Counselling teacher
V. Lainnya Other_________
137
MU.03 Apakah I/B/S menerima tanggapan terhadap keluhan tersebut? (did you receive a response to your complaint) 1. Ya Yes 3. Tidak No
SEKSI PJ (PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN) (ACCOUNTABILITY)
Berikut kami ingin menanyakan mengenai pertanggungjawaban sekolah
(Next, we will ask you about school’s accountability)
PJ.01
Tahun ajaran yang lalu seberapa sering Bapak/Ibu menerima laporan evaluasi yang berisi
tentang prestasi [NAMA ANAK] dari sekolah ?
(last school year how often have you received an evaluation report from the school on
[CHILD]’s performance)
(CATATAN PWWCR; APABILA ADA LEMBAR EVALUASI MURID SELAIN RAPORT
MAKA PILIH YANG PALING SERING)
INTERVIEWER NOTE : IF THERE IS EVALUATION SHEET OTHER THAN EVALUATION
REPORT, CHOOSE THE MOST OFTEN)
1. TIDAK PERNAH NEVER SEKSI TR 4. Setiap kuartal quarterly 96. Anak
tidak di
2. Sekali once 5. Setiap bulan monthly sekolah
ini tahun lalu
3. Setiap semester every semester 6. Setiap minggu weekly didn’t go
to school last
year
PJ.02 Siapa yang menerima laporan evaluasi tersebut (Who received the evaluation report?)
A .Bapak (Father) C. Wali (Guardian)
B. Ibu (Mother) D. Anaknya sendiri (child itself)
V.Lainnya (other)_________
PJ.03
Apakah I/B/S atau anggota rumah tangga yang lain mendiskusikan secara khusus tentang
laporan evaluasi anak dengan guru [NAMA ANAK]?
(Did you or another household member specifically discuss the report with [CHILD]’s
teacher?
1. Ya Yes
3. Tidak No
SEKSI TR (TRANSPARANSI) Transparency
Berikut kami ingin menanyakan keterbukaan sekolah pada orang tua/wali
(Next, we will ask you about school’s transparency to parents)
TR01TYPE
TR01 TR02
Apakah dokumen-dokumen ini
tersedia di sekolah?are the
following documents available at
the school?
Bagaimana masyarakat bisa mendapatkan dokumen tersebut? How can public acquire the document?
A
Rencana Kerja sekolah (school
workplan)
3. Tidak no 8. TT Dk 
1. Ya yes
A. Lihat di Papan pengemuman sekolah B. Bisa diminta dari sekolah C.Bisa diminta darii
Komite Sekolah
A. on school bulletin board B. request from school C. Request from school
committee
138
V. Lainnya_________ Y. Tidak Tahu W. Tidak bisa didapatkan
V. other_________ Y. Don’t know W. Not
acquirable
B Anggaran Sekolah (school budget) 3. Tidak no 8. TT Dk 
1. Ya yes
A. Lihat di Papan pengemuman sekolah B. Bisa diminta dari sekolah C.Bisa diminta darii
Komite Sekolah
A. on school bulletin board B. request from school C. Request from school
committee
V. Lainnya_________ Y. Tidak Tahu W. Tidak bisa didapatkan
V. other_________ Y. Don’t know W. Not
acquirable
C
Laporan keuangan sekolah
terakhir/terbaru (latest/most recent
school financial report)
3. Tidak no 8. TT Dk 
1. Ya yes
A. Lihat di Papan pengemuman sekolah B. Bisa diminta dari sekolah C.Bisa diminta darii
Komite Sekolah
A. on school bulletin board B. request from school C. Request from school
committee
V. Lainnya_________ Y. Tidak Tahu W. Tidak bisa didapatkan
V. other_________ Y. Don’t know W. Not
acquirable
TR.03TYPE
TR.03
Sejak tahun ajaran lalu (2010-2011), apakah sekolah pernah memberikan informasi
kepada Bapak/Ibu tentang [...]? Since the last school year (2010-2011), has the school
ever given you information on [...]
A Prestasi murid secara keseluruhan (Overall/individual student achievment) 1. Ya Yes 3. Tidak No
B Kegiatan sekolah dan atau kegiatan murid (school and/or student activities) 1. Ya Yes 3. Tidak No
C Rencana kerja sekolah (school plan) 1. Ya Yes 3. Tidak No
D Anggaran sekolah (school budget) 1. Ya Yes 3. Tidak No
E Laporan Keuangan sekolah (school financial report) 1. Ya Yes 3. Tidak No
F Kesempatan terlibat dalam kegiatan sekolah (opportunities for involvement in the school) 1. Ya Yes 3. Tidak No
G Jadwal pertemuan sekolah (the schedule of school meetings) 1. Ya Yes 3. Tidak No
H prestasi [NAMA ANAK] ([CHILD]'s performance) 1. Ya Yes 3. Tidak No
SEKSI KW (KUALITAS ) QUALITY
Berikut kami ingin menanyakan mengenai beberapa hal yang berkaitan dengan kualitas dari sekolah
(Next, we will ask you about school’s quality)
139
KW.04 Lokasi Sekolah
School location
1.Sangat mudah dijangkau 2. Mudah dijangkau 3 .Tidak mudah dijangkau 4.Sangat Tidak mudah dijangkau 8. Tidak tahu
1.very easy to reach 2. Easy to reach 3 .difficult to reach 4.very difficult to reach 8. Don’t know
KW01TYPE
KW.01
Menurut I/B/S bagaimana [ ......]what do you think of [...]
B
Kualitas infrastruktur/sarana prasarana sekolah
(The quality of school infrastructure
1.Sangat memadai 2. Memadai 3 .Tidak memadai 4.Sangat Tidak memadai 8. Tidak tahu
1.very sufficient 2. sufficient 3 .insufficient 4.very insuficient 8. Don’t Know
C
Jumlah guru di sekolah
(The number of school teachers)
1.Sangat memadai 2. Memadai 3 .Tidak memadai 4.Sangat Tidak memadai 8. Tidak tahu
1.very sufficient 2. sufficient 3 .insufficient 4.very insuficient 8. Don’t Know
D
Kualitas guru yang ada di sekolah
(The quality of school teachers)
1.Sangat memadai 2. Memadai 3 .Tidak memadai 4.Sangat Tidak memadai 8. Tidak tahu
1.very sufficient 2. sufficient 3 .insufficient 4.very insuficient 8. Don’t Know
E
Pemenuhan kebutuhan akademik siswa
(The fulfillment of students’ academic needs)
1.Sangat memadai 2. Memadai 3 .Tidak memadai 4.Sangat Tidak memadai 8. Tidak tahu
1.very sufficient 2. sufficient 3 .insufficient 4.very insuficient 8. Don’t Know
KW.02TYPE
KW.02
Menurut I/B/S bagaimana [ ......]what do you think of [...]
A
Proses pemberian masukan dari orangtua kepada kepala sekolah/ process of
giving feedback from parents to principal
1. Sangat mudah 2. Mudah 3. Tidak mudah 4. Sangat tidak mudah
1. very easy 2. easy 3. Not easy 4. Very not easy
B
Proses pemberian masukan dari orangtua kepada komite sekolah / process of
giving feedback from parents to school committee
1. Sangat mudah 2. Mudah 3. Tidak mudah 4. Sangat tidak mudah
1. very easy 2. easy 3. Not easy 4. Very not easy
KW03TYPE Menurut I/B/S bagaimana [ ......]what do you think of [...]
A
Tanggapan dari kepala sekolah dari masukan orangtua
Principal’s response to feedback from parents
1.Sangat Baik 2. Baik 3 .Tidak Baik 4.Sangat Tidak Baik 8. Tidak tahu
1.very good 2. good 3 .bad 4.very bad 8. Don’t Know
B
Tanggapan dari komite sekolah dari masukan orangtua
School committee’s response to feedback from parent
1.Sangat Baik 2. Baik 3 .Tidak Baik 4.Sangat Tidak Baik 8. Tidak tahu
1.very good 2. good 3 .bad 4.very bad 8. Don’t Know
C
Penerapan disiplin di sekolah
(The application of discipline at the school)
1.Sangat Baik 2. Baik 3 .Tidak Baik 4.Sangat Tidak Baik 8. Tidak tahu
1.very good 2. good 3 .bad 4.very bad 8. Don’t Know
140
KP.00 CATATAN PEWAWANCARA/INTERVIEWER’S NOTE : BACAKAN SCRIPT INI READ THIS SCRIPT
Pada saat ini saya ingin memberikan I/B/S sedikit informasi tentang komite sekolah. Informasi berikut ini diambil dari Keputusan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional:
Now I would like to give you little information about school committee. This information comes from Ministry of National Education decree
Komite Sekolah adalah badan mandiri yang mewadahi peran serta masyarakat dalam rangka meningkatkan mutu, pemerataan, dan efisiensi pengelolaan pendidikan di
sekolah.
The school committee is an independent institution that facilitates community’s participation in order to improve the quality, equality and efficiency of the management
of education in schools
Peran dan fungsi Komite Sekolah mencakup:
The role and function of school committee includes:
1) Memberikan masukan, pertimbangan, dan rekomendasi tentang penyelenggaraan pendidikan di sekolah.
To provide input, consideration and recommendation about the provision of education within the school
2) Mendorong transparansi dan akuntabilitas di sekolah
To encourage transparency and accountability at school
3) Menggalang dana masyarakat dalam rangka pembiayaan penyelenggaraan pendidikan di sekolah
To raise fund from the community to help finance the provision of education within the school
4) Melakukan pengawasan dan evaluasi terhadap kinerja sekolah
To supervise and evaluate the school’s performance
5) Mendorong keterlibatan orangtua dan masyarakat dalam proses pendidikan di sekolah
To encourage parent and community participation in the education process at the school
6) Melakukan kerjasama dengan masyarakat, pemerintah, dan petugas sekolah
To conduct cooperation with community, government and school staff
Informasi tersebut sebagai pemberitahuan saja – sekarang kita akan melenjutkan dengan pertanyaan berikut.
This information is only for your information – now we will continue with the next question
KP.01X CATATAN PEWAWANCARA: “APAKAH SCRIPT DIBACAKAN
INTERVIEWER NOTE : HAVE YOU READ OUT THE SCRIPT?
2. YA YES 3. TIDAK NO
SEKSI KP(KEPUASAN ) SATISFACTION
Berikut kami ingin menanyakan mengenai kepuasan orang tua/wali
(Next, we will ask you about parent/guardian’s satisfaction
KP01TYPE KP01
141
Secara keseluruhan bagaimana tingkat kepuasan I/B/S tentang?
Overall, how satisfied are you with […]?)
A Kualitas pendidikan yang diberikan kepada [NAMA ANAK] di sekolah
ini
The quality of education received by [CHILD] at this school
1.Sangat puas(very satisfied) 2.Puas (satisfied) 3.Tidak puas(dissatisfied) 4.Sangat tidak puas (very
dissatisfied) 8. Tidak tahu (don't know)
B Kualitas dan perilaku Guru [NAMA ANAK]
The quality and behavior of [CHILD]’s teacher
1.Sangat puas(very satisfied) 2.Puas (satisfied) 3.Tidak puas(dissatisfied) 4.Sangat tidak puas (very
dissatisfied) 8. Tidak tahu (don't know)
C Kondisi fisik fasilitas di sekolah anak
the physical condition of school facilities
1.Sangat puas(very satisfied) 2.Puas (satisfied) 3.Tidak puas(dissatisfied) 4.Sangat tidak puas (very
dissatisfied) 8. Tidak tahu (don't know)
D Pengelolaan di sekolah ini oleh Kepala Sekolah
The management of this school by the Principal
1.Sangat puas(very satisfied) 2.Puas (satisfied) 3.Tidak puas(dissatisfied) 4.Sangat tidak puas (very
dissatisfied) 8. Tidak tahu (don't know)
E Pengawasan di sekolah ini oleh Komite Sekolah
The oversight of of this school by the School Committee
1.Sangat puas(very satisfied) 2.Puas (satisfied) 3.Tidak puas(dissatisfied) 4.Sangat tidak puas (very
dissatisfied) 8. Tidak tahu (don't know)
F Pengelolaan di desa ini secara umum oleh Kepala Desa dan Badan
Pembangunan Desa
The general management of this village by the Village Head and
Village Development Committee
1.Sangat puas(very satisfied) 2.Puas (satisfied) 3.Tidak puas(dissatisfied) 4.Sangat tidak puas (very
dissatisfied) 8. Tidak tahu (don't know)
SEKSI SP (PERMASALAHAN SEKOLAH )SCHOOL PROBLEM
Berikut kami ingin menanyakan permasalahan yang dialami sekolah
(Next, we will ask you about problems experienced by the school
SP01TYPE
SP.01 SP.02 SP.03
Apakah sekolah mengalami[..] di
sekolah [NAMA ANAK] (Is there any
problem about […] in this school)?
Sejauhmana […] menghambat prestasi murid di
Sekolah [NAMA ANAK] ? (To what extent does [...]
hinder student performance in [child’s) school?)
Tiga permasalahan terbesar? / 3 biggest
problems
CP.TANYAKAN SETELAH SP02 TERISI
SEMUA.
INTERVIEWER NOTE: ASK AFTER SP02
AND FILL ALL.
A Jumlah murid yang terlalu banyak di
dalam kelas (Too many students in
the class)
3. Tidak /No 8.TT DK 1. Ya
yes
1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
1. a. rangking
pertama└─┘________________ Ranking #1
142
B Fasilitas sekolah tidak memadai
(Inadequate school facilities)
3. Tidak /No 8.TT DK 1. Ya
yes
1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
b. rangking
kedua└─┘__________________ Ranking #2
c. ranking
ketiga└─┘___________________ Ranking #3
3. Tidak ada masalah (tidak ada nilai 1 di
SP01)
There are no problems (no value of 1
for SP01)
C Kurangnya buku pelajaran Sekolah
dan/atau bahan pengajaran(Shortage
of school text books and/or
instructional materials)
3. Tidak /No 8.TT DK 1. Ya
yes
1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
E Rendahnya angka kehadiran guru
(Low rate of teacher attendance)
3. Tidak /No 8.TT DK 1. Ya
yes
1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
F Kekurangan jumlah guru (Shortage of
teachers)
3. Tidak /No 8.TT DK 1. Ya
yes
1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
H Kurangnya kemampuan guru (Lack of
teacher ability)
3. Tidak /No 8.TT DK 1. Ya
yes
1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
I Kurangnya dukungan dari Dinas
Pendidikan/UPTDkepada kepala
sekolah/guru (Lack of district or sub- district support for principals/teachers)
3. Tidak /No 8.TT DK 1. Ya
yes
1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
J Kekurangan Dana (Lack of funds) 3. Tidak /No 8.TT DK 1. Ya
yes
1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
143
L Tidak jelasnya peran/tanggungjawab
komite sekolah (unclear
role/responsibility of school
committee)
3. Tidak /No 8.TT DK 1. Ya
yes
1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
V Lainnya (others) 3. Tidak /No 8.TT DK 1. Ya
yes
1. Tidak menghambat.(Does not hinder)
2. Sedikit menghambat( slightly hinders)
3. Cukup menghambat (moderately hinders)
4. Sangat menghambat (greatly hinders)
SEKSI KD (KESADARAN (AWARENES)
Berikut kami ingin mengetahui bagaimana kesadaran orang tua mengenai beberapa hal yang ada di sekolah (Next, we will ask you about parent’s awareness towards some issues at
school)
KD.01 Siapa nama guru kelas [NAMA ANAK] tahun ini? (What is the name of […]’s
teacher?)
1. Nama(disebutkan responden) Name (given by respondent):________________________
8. TIDAK TAHU DON”T KNOW → KD.02 ....... KD.01x
CATATAN PEWAWANCARA: APAKAH NAMA YANG DISEBUTKAN SESUAI DI
DENGAN YANG DISEBUT DI BUKU SEKUNDER
INTERVIEWER’S NOTE : IS THE NAME CORRECT ACCORDING TO
SECONDARY DATA BOOK (Book5)?
1.YA YES
3. TIDAK NO
KD.02 Siapa nama kepala sekolah [NAMA ANAK] saat ini?
What is the name of [...]’s school principal
1. ....................................................................... 8. TIDAK TAHU DON”T KNOW → KD.03 ....... KD.02x
CATATAN PEWAWANCARA: APAKAH NAMA YANG DISEBUTKAN SESUAI DI
DENGAN YANG DISEBUT DI BUKU SEKUNDER
INTERVIEWER’S NOTE : IS THE NAME CORRECT ACCORDING TO
SECONDARY DATA BOOK(Book5)?
1. YA YES
3. TIDAK NO
KD.03 Apakah ada papan tulis di ruang kelas [NAMA ANAK]? Is there a blackboard in
[…]’s classroom
1. YA YES
3. TIDAK NO
8. TIDAK TAHU DON”T KNOW
KD.04
Apakah [NAMA ANAK] pernah menggunakan komputer yang ada di sekolah
Has [CHILD] ever used a computer at school?
1. YA YES 6.Tidak ada komputer di sekolah. No computer at school
3. TIDAK NO
KD.05
Apakah ada cukup meja/kursi untuk setiap anak di kelas [NAMA ANAK]
Are there enough tables/chairs for every student in […]’s classroom
1. YA YES
3. TIDAK NO
144
KD.06
Berapa jumlah guru PNS dan Non PNS di sekolahan ini?
How many civil service teachers and Non civil-service teachers in this school?
1. a. PNS (civil servant) ............................................ 1.└─┴─┘ 8. TT / DK
b. Non PNS(non-civil servant) .............................. 1. └─┴─┘ 8. TT / DK
2. Total .................................................................... 1. └─┴─┘ 8. TT / DK
8. TT/ DK
KD.07 Berapa jumlah murid di sekolahan ini?
How many students are in this school
1. 1.Tepat/precise└─┴─┴─┘
2. 2. Sekitar/around└─┴─┴─┘
3. 3. Kurang dari /less than └─┴─┴─┘
4. 4. Lebih dari / more than └─┴─┴─┘ 8. Tidak tahu / don’t know
SEKSI PD (PENDAFTARAN) Enrollment
Berikut kami ingin menanyakan pendapat I/B/S mengenai pentingnya pendidikan dan kemungkinan anak menempuh pendidikan
(Next, we will ask you about the importance of education and child’s probability to obtain education)
PD.01 TYPE
PD.01 PD.02
Menurut Bapak/Ibu seberapa penting hal-hal berikut bagi [NAMA ANAK]
bapak/Ibu untuk...
In your opinion, how important is...for [child]
Mengapa jawaban I/B/S adalah [PD.03] dan bukan ‘sangat penting”?
(JIKA PD.01 TERISI SANGAT PENTING MAKA LINGKARI ‘W’ TIDAK BERLAKU)
Why you answer [PD.03] instead of “very important”
(IF PD.01 = 1, CIRCLE “W”, NOT APPLICABLE )
A
Menyelesaikan
SD
Finish
elementary
school
1. Sangat penting 2. Penting 3. Cukup Penting 4. Tidak Penting
1. Very important 2. Important 3. Somewhat important 4. Not important
A.Karena pendidikan tidak wajib / because education is not compulsory
B.Karena kemampuan [NAMA ANAK] / because of [child]’s ability
C.Karena kemampuan keuangan keluarga / because of family’s financial capacity
D.Karena [NAMA ANAK] tidak perlu tingkat sekolah setinggi ini untuk mendapat
pekerjaan. / Because [child] doesn’t need this level of school to get a job
E.Karena bekerja lebih penting / because working is more important
F. Karena [NAMA ANAK] akan dinikahkan / because [..] is going to be wed
G. Karena [NAMA ANAK] akan bekeluarga / because […]will have family
H. JAWABAN SAMA DENGAN BARIS SEBELUMNYA / SAME ANSWER AS
PREVIOUS ROW
V.Lainnya Other__________
W. TIDAK BERLAKU / NOT APPLICABLE
B
Menyelesaikan
SMP
Finish junior high
school
1. Sangat penting 2. Penting 3. Cukup Penting 4. Tidak Penting
1. Very important 2. Important 3. Somewhat important 4. Not
important
A.Karena pendidikan tidak wajib / because education is not compulsory
B.Karena kemampuan [NAMA ANAK] / because of [child]’s ability
C.Karena kemampuan keuangan keluarga / because of family’s financial capacity
D.Karena [NAMA ANAK] tidak perlu tingkat sekolah setinggi ini untuk mendapat
pekerjaan. / Because [child] doesn’t need this level of school to get a job
E.Karena bekerja lebih penting / because working is more important
145
F. Karena [NAMA ANAK] akan dinikahkan / because [..] is going to be wed
G. Karena [NAMA ANAK] akan bekeluarga / because […]will have family
H. JAWABAN SAMA DENGAN BARIS SEBELUMNYA / SAME ANSWER AS
PREVIOUS ROW
V.Lainnya Other__________
W. TIDAK BERLAKU / NOT APPLICABLE
C
Menyelesaikan
SMA
Finish senior high
school
1. Sangat penting 2. Penting 3. Cukup Penting 4. Tidak Penting
1. Very important 2. Important 3. Somewhat important 4. Not
important
A.Karena pendidikan tidak wajib / because education is not compulsory
B.Karena kemampuan [NAMA ANAK] / because of [child]’s ability
C.Karena kemampuan keuangan keluarga / because of family’s financial capacity
D.Karena [NAMA ANAK] tidak perlu tingkat sekolah setinggi ini untuk mendapat
pekerjaan. / Because [child] doesn’t need this level of school to get a job
E.Karena bekerja lebih penting / because working is more important
F. Karena [NAMA ANAK] akan dinikahkan / because [..] is going to be wed
G. Karena [NAMA ANAK] akan bekeluarga / because […]will have family
H. JAWABAN SAMA DENGAN BARIS SEBELUMNYA / SAME ANSWER AS
PREVIOUS ROW
V.Lainnya Other__________
W. TIDAK BERLAKU / NOT APPLICABLE
D
Menyelesaikan
universitas/Kuliah
Finish
university/college
1. Sangat penting 2. Penting 3. Cukup Penting 4. Tidak Penting
1. Very important 2. Important 3. Somewhat important 4. Not
important
A.Karena pendidikan tidak wajib / because education is not compulsory
B.Karena kemampuan [NAMA ANAK] / because of [child]’s ability
C.Karena kemampuan keuangan keluarga / because of family’s financial capacity
D.Karena [NAMA ANAK] tidak perlu tingkat sekolah setinggi ini untuk mendapat
pekerjaan. / Because [child] doesn’t need this level of school to get a job
E.Karena bekerja lebih penting / because working is more important
F. Karena [NAMA ANAK] akan dinikahkan / because [..] is going to be wed
G. Karena [NAMA ANAK] akan bekeluarga / because […]will have family
H. JAWABAN SAMA DENGAN BARIS SEBELUMNYA / SAME ANSWER AS
PREVIOUS ROW
V.Lainnya Other__________
W. TIDAK BERLAKU / NOT APPLICABLE
PD.03TYPE
PD.03 PD.04
Menurut Bapak/Ibu bagaimana kemungkinan [NAMA ANAK] akan[…]
In your opinion, how likely is...to [child]
Mengapa jawaban I/B/S adalah [PD.03] dan bukan ‘sangat mungkin”?
(JIKA PD.01 TERISI SANGAT MUNGKIN MAKA LINGKARI ‘W’ TIDAK
BERLAKU)
Why you answer [PD.03] instead of “very likely”
(IF PD.01 = 1, CIRCLE “W”, NOT APPLICABLE
A Menyelesaikan
SD
1. Sangat mungkin 2. Mungk 3. Tidak mungkin 4. Sangat tidak mungkin
1. very likely 2. Likely 3. Unlikely 4. Very unlikely
A.Karena pendidikan tidak wajib / because education is not compulsory
B.Karena kemampuan [NAMA ANAK] / because of [child]’s ability
C.Karena kemampuan keuangan keluarga / because of family’s financial capacity
146
Finish
elementary
school
D.Karena [NAMA ANAK] tidak perlu tingkat sekolah setinggi ini untuk mendapat
pekerjaan. / Because [child] doesn’t need this level of school to get a job
E.Karena bekerja lebih penting / because working is more important
F. Karena [NAMA ANAK] akan dinikahkan / because [..] is going to be wed
G. Karena [NAMA ANAK] akan bekeluarga / because […]will have family
H. JAWABAN SAMA DENGAN BARIS SEBELUMNYA / SAME ANSWER AS
PREVIOUS ROW
V.Lainnya Other__________
W. TIDAK BERLAKU / NOT APPLICABLE
B
Menyelesaikan
SMP
Finish junior high
school
1. Sangat mungkin 2. Mungk 3. Tidak mungkin 4. Sangat tidak mungkin
1. very likely 2. Likely 3. Unlikely 4. Very unlikely
A.Karena pendidikan tidak wajib / because education is not compulsory
B.Karena kemampuan [NAMA ANAK] / because of [child]’s ability
C.Karena kemampuan keuangan keluarga / because of family’s financial capacity
D.Karena [NAMA ANAK] tidak perlu tingkat sekolah setinggi ini untuk mendapat
pekerjaan. / Because [child] doesn’t need this level of school to get a job
E.Karena bekerja lebih penting / because working is more important
F. Karena [NAMA ANAK] akan dinikahkan / because [..] is going to be wed
G. Karena [NAMA ANAK] akan bekeluarga / because […]will have family
H. JAWABAN SAMA DENGAN BARIS SEBELUMNYA / SAME ANSWER AS
PREVIOUS ROW
V.Lainnya Other__________
W. TIDAK BERLAKU / NOT APPLICABLE
C
Menyelesaikan
SMA
Finish senior high
school
1. Sangat mungkin 2. Mungk 3. Tidak mungkin 4. Sangat tidak mungkin
1. very likely 2. Likely 3. Unlikely 4. Very unlikely
A.Karena pendidikan tidak wajib / because education is not compulsory
B.Karena kemampuan [NAMA ANAK] / because of [child]’s ability
C.Karena kemampuan keuangan keluarga / because of family’s financial capacity
D.Karena [NAMA ANAK] tidak perlu tingkat sekolah setinggi ini untuk mendapat
pekerjaan. / Because [child] doesn’t need this level of school to get a job
E.Karena bekerja lebih penting / because working is more important
F. Karena [NAMA ANAK] akan dinikahkan / because [..] is going to be wed
G. Karena [NAMA ANAK] akan bekeluarga / because […]will have family
H. JAWABAN SAMA DENGAN BARIS SEBELUMNYA / SAME ANSWER AS
PREVIOUS ROW
V.Lainnya Other__________
W. TIDAK BERLAKU / NOT APPLICABLE
D
Menyelesaikan
universitas/Kuliah
Finish
university/college
1. Sangat mungkin 2. Mungk 3. Tidak mungkin 4. Sangat tidak mungkin
1. very likely 2. Likely 3. Unlikely 4. Very unlikely
A.Karena pendidikan tidak wajib / because education is not compulsory
B.Karena kemampuan [NAMA ANAK] / because of [child]’s ability
C.Karena kemampuan keuangan keluarga / because of family’s financial capacity
D.Karena [NAMA ANAK] tidak perlu tingkat sekolah setinggi ini untuk mendapat
pekerjaan. / Because [child] doesn’t need this level of school to get a job
E.Karena bekerja lebih penting / because working is more important
F. Karena [NAMA ANAK] akan dinikahkan / because [..] is going to be wed
G. Karena [NAMA ANAK] akan bekeluarga / because […]will have family
147
H. JAWABAN SAMA DENGAN BARIS SEBELUMNYA / SAME ANSWER AS
PREVIOUS ROW
V.Lainnya Other__________
W. TIDAK BERLAKU / NOT APPLICABLE
PD.05 Rata-rata gaji lulusan Sekolah Dasar (SD) di kabupaten ini berapa?
How much is average salary of an elementary school graduate in this district? 1. └─┴─┘.└─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┴─┘ 8. TIDAK TAHU DON”T KNOW
PD.06 Rata-rata gaji lulusan Sekolah Menengah Umum (SMP) di kabupaten ini berapa?
How much is average salary of a junior-high school graduate in this district? 2. └─┴─┘.└─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┴─┘ 8. TIDAK TAHU DON”T KNOW
PD.07
Rata-rata gaji lulusan Sekolah Menengah Atas (SMA/SMU) di kabupaten ini
berapa?
How much is average salary of a senior-high school graduate in this district?
3. └─┴─┘.└─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┴─┘ 8. TIDAK TAHU DON”T KNOW
PD.08 Rata-rata gaji lulusan uninersitas di kabupaten ini berapa?
How much is average salary of a university graduate in this district? 4. └─┴─┘.└─┴─┴─┘└─┴─┴─┘ 8. TIDAK TAHU DON”T KNOW
148
CP. CATATAN PEWAWANCARA (INTERVIEWER NOTES)
CP1. SIAPA LAGI (ORANG LAIN) SELAIN RESPONDEN YANG
HADIR SELAMA WAWANCARA BERLANGSUNG? WHO
ELSE BESIDES THE RESPONDENT WAS PRESENT
DURING THE INTERVIEW?
J. TIDAK ADA / NOONE
K. ANAK BERUMUR 5 TAHUN ATAU KURANG
A CHILD 5 YEARS OLD OR LESS
L. ANAK BERUMUR LEBIH DARI 5 TAHUN
A CHILD OLDER THAN 5 YEARS OLD
M. SUAMI/ISTRI / HUSBAND/WIFE
N. ORANG DEWASA, ANGGOTA RUMAH TANGGA
ADULT, HOUSEHOLD MEMBER
O. ORANG DEWASA, BUKAN ANGGOTA RUMAH
TANGGA
ADULT, NOT HOUSEHOLD MEMBER
CP2.BAGAIMANA PENILAIAN BAPAK/IBU TERHADAP
KETEPATAN JAWABAN DARI RESPONDEN? WHAT
IS YOUR EVALUATION OF THE ACCURACY OF
THE RESPONDENT’S ANSWERS?
1. SANGAT BAIK / EXCELLENT
2. BAIK / GOOD
3. CUKUP BAIK / FAIR
4. TIDAK BAIK / NOT SO GOOD
5. SANGAT TIDAK BAIK / VERY BAD
CP3. BAGAIMANA PENILAIAN BAPAK/IBU TERHADAP
KESUNGGUHAN PERHATIAN RESPONDEN?
WHAT IS YOUR EVALUATION OF THE
SINCERITY AND ATTENTIVENESS OF THE
RESPONDENT?
1. SANGAT BAIK / EXCELLENT
2. BAIK / GOOD
3. CUKUP BAIK / FAIR
4. TIDAK BAIK / NOT SO GOOD
5. SANGAT TIDAK BAIK / VERY BAD
CP4.PERTANYAAN MANAKAH YANG SULIT,MEMALUKAN ATAU
MEMBINGUNGKAN BAGI RESPONDEN? WHAT QUESTIONS
DID THE RESPONDENT FIND DIFFICULT,
EMBARRASSING, OR CONFUSING?
________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
CP5. PERTANYAAN MANAKAH YANG SULIT,
MEMALUKAN ATAU MEMBINGUNGKAN BAGI
PEWAWANCARA? WHAT QUESTIONS DID THE
INTERVIEWER FIND DIFFICULT,
EMBARRASSING, OR CONFUSING?
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
CP6. PERTANYAAN MANAKAH YANG MENARIK BAGI
RESPONDEN? WHAT QUESTIONS DID THE
RESPONDENT SEEM INTERESTED IN?
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
CATATAN / NOTE : ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
149
U.S. Agency for International Development
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20523