Data from Indonesian and international agencies as discussed earlier in chapter 3 recommend the importance of developing MSS. For example the Asia Foundation and USAID in their project called IRDA (Indonesia Rapid Decentralization Appraisal, 2002) raises important points related to service delivery:
a. The lack of public service standards makes it very difficult for local governments to define quality services and determine whether they are providing them. This is further aggravated by the bad work ethic of some employees and the fact that there is little funding in the local government budget for public services;
b. In the absence of public service standards from the central government, local governments need to establish their own regulations on these
standards as soon as possible. At the same time, central government needs to start developing national minimum public service standards that local
governments can use as a benchmark. With inputs from donor groups and civil society, these standards for local government performance could be used to develop criteria for identifying best practices.
This report also recommends the importance of using service standards to define DEO quality services and determine whether DEOs are providing them. Even further, the report urges the central government to start developing national minimum public service standards that local governments can use as a benchmark. In turn, the standards could be used as a public service auditing system to measure and assure DEO service quality in providing for school needs.
In relation to this, Rachmadi (2003) argues that in a unitary state like Indonesia, service standards are important because decentralization is not meant to be free from central quality assurance. Local governments are subject to centrally determined and imposed service standards and accountability mechanisms to show that they have exercised their new roles and functions properly. Unfortunately, years after decentralization was begun, service quality weaknesses emerged. Agus Sudrajat (2005) in addition, identifies significant weaknesses related to public service quality as follows;
a. Weaknesses or difficulties in service quality, there are problems in measuring local government service quality;
b. Unclear ‘bottom line’ of local government services. No matter how bad is the service provided, the unit will still exist without fear of bankrupcy;
c. As most government service is characterized by monopoly, they usually lack competitiveness, and there is low attention to quality improvement;
d. Even worse; many officials take opportunities to be bribed;
otherwise they will deliver the service in a more difficult ways. This is why in many occasions; government services create an image of untrustworthiness.
Without MSS it is impossible to determine how well a DEO responds to school needs; no evaluation could be set to establish whether a DEO serves better or worse after decentralization. Without MSS it can’t be known whether decentralization is achieving its goals.
Public or government schools are dependent on DEOs to provide for school needs (for example funding, human resources, facilities, standard, guidelines, and evaluation). Private schools are only dependent on DEOs for regulations, guidelines, standardizations, monitoring and evaluation. These facts suggest that DEOs are the critical point in decentralization service quality improvement efforts. Unless DEOs are functioning properly, they can inhibit the education decentralization process. In order to anticipate this, clear service standards are a necessity.
Unlike in a centralized system where accountability is only a one way (upward/vertical) mechanism, in a decentralized system, local government accountability should also go to citizens as their main customers (downward and horizontal accountability). This is why the IRDA report recommends the use of MSS as an accountability mechanism as below.
a. Priority should be given to institutionalizing mechanisms for citizen feedback about local government performance and services, and for disseminating information about good practices that can be replicated;
b. A public service auditing system, for both central and local government, will facilitate service improvement. This is because the quality of public services is necessarily linked to the accountability of local governments in delivering such services. An accountability mechanism will open
possibilities for feedback, both positive and negative, on public services.
This in turn will stimulate public participation in decentralization.
In this case MSS can be used as a ‘stick and carrot’ mechanism to gear public service quality. Consequences will be experienced, good or bad, depending on a DEOs service quality performance; and MSS are the instrument to measure the performance.
In addition, as suggested by one of respondents during the MSS consultations, legal aspects are critically important factors in developing MSS frameworks. Its implementation should consider the legal aspects carefully, otherwise resistance would emerge
No matter how good is an idea for improving service delivery, but if it is not in line with the current regulations, it would be useless
(Consultation with one of the important respondents in National Planning Bureau, 2009)
The reality is that suggestions for the improvement of MSS they should be proposed for the next regulation revision which will occur in 2010. This, leads to a discussions of the legal aspects related to MSS development. Following are critical parts of some of the laws, regulations or decrees related to the MSS framework particularly as they refer to decentralization, education and service quality issues. These have been as translated by the researcher, see below.
Figure 4-5:
Some Points from of Law 32/2004 on Regional Government
Article 11
(4) the administration of government obligatory functions should be based on Minimum Service Standards, implemented in steps and stipulated by the government.
Article 14
(1) obligatory functions as the local governments authorities become the district’s and municipality’s own responsibility in their respective areas.
f. Education administration
Article 16
(1) The relationship between central and local government concerning public service as mentioned by the article 2 point (4) and (5) covers;
a. authority and responsibility in defining Minimum Service Standard;
Article 167
(3) Local government spending as mentioned in above point (1) shall consider spending analysis, price standards, performance analysis and Minimum Service Standards as stipulated by government regulation
Points in the
ELUCIDATION of Law 32/2004 on Regional Government
- Included within the regulation are spending standard analysis guideline, price list, performance measurement and Minimum Service Standards stipulated by the Ministery of MOHA
Source: GOI, 2004b
Law 32/2004 is the most recent main law relating to decentralization in Indonesia. It explicitly stipulates Standar Pelayanan Minimal or Minimum Service Standard (SPM/MSS). It also states that the most of authorities handed down to local government should be implemented in line with MSS principles. In the education sector for example, planning and budgetting should be formulated based on MSS criteria involving central, provincial and local governments. It is envisage that authorities should therefore be transformed to services and should fullfil their minimal adequacy requirements. The following Government Regulation 38/2007, states this in a more explicit way.
Figure 4-6:
Some Points of Government Regulation 38/2007 on Central and Local Government Authorities
Article 7
(1) Obligatory functions as stated in article 6 point (2) is government authorities that should be administered by provincial and district/municipal local government concerning public basic services
(2) Obligatory function as stated in above point (1) covers:
a. education;
(1) the administration of government obligatory functions as stated in above article 7 point (2) should be based on Minimum Service Standards, stipulated by government and implemented in steps.
Points in the ELUCIDATION of Government Regulation 38/2007 on Central and Local Government Authorities
Article 8 Point (1)
Since the feasibility of local government budgets are limited, therefore the enactment and implementation of Minimum Service Standards concerning the local government obligatory functions should be carried out in steps by prioritizing the most important sub sector of related obligatory functions.
(GOI, 2007a)
Local governments’ mandated obligatory functions cover 26 basic services, to be implemented in the context of local government priorities and according to MSS regulations. In this new regulation 38/2007, the authority of each of the three different tiers of government (central, provincial, and district) are separately specified. The responsibilities of the district and municipal educational authorities are grouped in six categories: Policy, Financing, Curriculum, Facilities, Education Personnel, and Education Quality Assurance (GOI, 2007a). The detail of the different levels and responsibilities, as translated by this researcher, are listed in appendix 5.
Apart from the decentralization and regulation law above, there is also Law 20/2003 on the National Education System, stating explicitly that all education service provisions should be delivered based on the MSS standards.
Figure 4-7:
Important Point of Law 20/2003 on the National Education System Concerning MSS
Article 51
(1) The administration of early, elementary and secondary education institutions should be based on Minimum Service Standards and by considering school based management principles.
In line with the above law Government Regulation 19/2005 also clearly states that all local governments should prioritise the implementation of MSS in planning their education sector’s development. In turn, the implementation of MSS should be
(1) Local government propose annual education planning and budgeting by prioritizing the following programs;
a. compulsory education;
b. increasing primary and junior secondary education participation rates;
c. illiteracy eradication;
d. quality assurance for education institution managed by local government or community private foundations;
e. improving the status of the teaching profession;
f. education accreditation;
g. improving educational relevancy to meet community needs;
h. fullfiling Minimum Service Standards (MSS) in the education sector;
(2) The annual planning as stated in point (1) above should be approved by and be accountable to the Governor or district head as required by current regulation.
Part Three
Governance Standards in Central Government Article 60
Government propose annual education planning and budgeting by prioritizing the following programs;
a. compulsory education;
b. increasing secondary and higher education participation rates;
c. completing illiteracy eradication;
d. quality assurance for education institution managed by local government or community private foundations;
e. improving teachers status as a profession;
f. improving lecturers quality;
g. education standardization;
h. education accreditation;
i. improving educational relevancy to meet local, national and global needs ; j. fullfiling Minimum Service Standards (MSS) in education sector and k. National education quality assurance.
Source: GOI, 2005b
It is clear that the fullfilment of education MSS should be among the eight priorities of local goverments and one of the eleven priorities of the central government education sector priorities. To support all the above articles enshrining MSS in laws and regulations, the Indonesian government even stipulated a specific Government Regulation 65/2005 concerning Minimum Sevice Standards. Although this regulation was described in chapter 3, it is still important to note some of its important points for developing an MSS framework, as seen below.
Figure 4-9:
Important points from the Government Regulation 65/2005 On Minimum Service Standards (MSS)
1. Minimum Service Standard (MSS) is a regulation on what minimal basic services to citizens should be delivered by local government and the standard to which they should be delivered;
2. Obligatory functions are government functions related to the rights and basic services enacted by laws or regulations for local government institution to protect the constitutional, national security, community welfare, and public order rights of the citizen to guarantee national unity and to fulfill the commitments required by national or international conventions;
3. Basic services are all public services needed to fulfill all citizen needs in social, economical, and constitutional life;