THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN IN INDONESIA 2000-2010 124
THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN IN INDONESIA 2000-2010 125
environment for project implementation. The challenge for projects is to correctly interpret this complexity to address the needs and conditions in schools, which are often
relatively simple in nature.
• Change: The policy environment within which projects operate is constantly changing. This is illustrated by the implications of the Law No. 92009 on Education Legal Entities,
which was repealed on 31 March 2010. That law had profound implications for school- based management, among others, by creating schools as separate legal entities, no
longer ‘owned’ by government agencies or private providers. The overall objective of the law was to guarantee true autonomy at the school level.
• Uncertainty: As of mid-May 2010, there has been considerable uncertainty around changes in the national governance of education that are in process. This means,
for example, that planning proposals in the present Renstra may not be actionable when there is uncertainty about important administrative and technical arrangements
in organisational structures and responsibilities. Uncertainty implies that donors and projects need to very closely monitor developments in the areas of their special
interest to manage the risk of implementing strategies that are possibly out-of-date or inconsistent with the regulations.
• Balance: The ‘Education Policy and Practice’ report reveals an imbalance in the content of the regulatory environment between an emphasis on educational administrative,
legal, financial and decentralization matters on the one hand, and child, teacher and curricular
243
matters on the other. The implication is that education and child protection specialists must work hard to ensure that learning and teaching matters - and the
interests of children - are not neglected at each stage of the development assistance cycle. The importance of balance is also noted in the conclusions of the 2007 review of
EFA. That review concluded that it is essential to ensure an effective balance between quality of teaching and learning and efficiency improvements.
The current development of standards and quality assurance and improvement systems in education comes with risks that have been identified in the Good Practices for Mainstreaming in
Basic Education 2009 report released by UNICEF:
244
• The approaches to quality improvement and the burdens they introduce, may overwhelm schools and districts.
• Quality improvement approaches may be poorly aligned with Renstra, and particularly with the educational purposes of schools. They may also be poorly integrated with other
quality assurance requirements leading to duplication and waste, as happens now with multiple data collection in districts.
• Quality improvement systems risk leading to over-regulation of schools, with a focus on inputs and outputs at the expense of the more complex, and ultimately more important,
learning processes. • Educational lessons learned about the detrimental impact of ‘teaching to the test’ and
‘what gets rewarded gets done’ are at risk of being ignored in the design of quality improvement systems, leading to potential distortions in the learning process.
• There is a risk of resistance. Schools and teachers committed to supporting children’s learning may begin to resist these well-intentioned quality improvement strategies when
they see them diverting their time and resources away from learning and teaching.
243 ‘Curricular’ is used in the broad sense to refer to concepts that are generally integral components of the whole ‘curriculum process’: educational aims and objectives, curriculum and lesson planning, learning and teaching methods, assessment of student learning and
curriculum evaluation. 244 UNICEF 2009 Good practices for mainstreaming in basic education, 3rd revised ed., UNICEF: Jakarta
In spite of these ongoing challenges, a number of initiatives of the GoI and the Ministry of National EducationMinistry of Religious Affairs are underway with the support of international donors.
For example, the World Bank is assisting the Ministry of National Education with initiatives to improve education and teacher quality, and to improve monitoring and evaluation systems.
245
Furthermore, the Asian Development Bank ADB has worked with the GoI to develop Minimum Service Standards to better ‘equip schools’, which in theory will increase funding to schools.
246
AusAID, through the Australia-Indonesia Partnership AIP also supports the GoI in its commitment to achieving nine years compulsory free schooling through the Basic Education Project BEP,
which commenced in 2006 to increase equitable access to basic education, improve quality and standards, and strengthen education governance and accountability mechanisms. The programme
especially targets disadvantaged areas in Indonesia.
247
Other initiatives, such as the AusAID- funded Communities and Education Project in Aceh CEPA, have sought to improve access to
schools in poor and isolated conflict-affected areas in Aceh. The aims are to: rehabilitate schools; assist with improvements in curriculum in line with national standards; and improve schools-
based management, accountability and community participation in education. CEPA used conflict- sensitive approaches to development through a high level of programme-provided facilitation and
negotiation with communities to support joint ownership of education initiatives.
248
Based on many of the findings discussed above on what is needed to achieve quality education, UNICEF, together with a number of other international donors and organisations, have supported
Ministry of National Education through the Mainstreaming Good Practices in Basic Education MGP-BE project which aims to enhance district, municipal, sub-district and school capacity to
govern, manage and implement basic education services, following the national regulations, strategies and guidelines.
249
This is just one example of the many joint programmes between the GoI and other international agencies operating in Indonesia to improve education outreach, quality,
and management. A brief examination of the changes slowly being achieved through this project is illustrative of the returns on programmes aiming to improve education quality.
MGP-BE began in 2006, and was designed to work with 12 districts in six provinces. It has target areas where capacity development assistance is provided with the ultimate aim that good
practices will be replicated in non-target areas. Capacity development assistance is provided at three institutional levels individual, organisational and regulatory, for schools, government
and for education practitioners and sector managers at these respective levels. Areas covered include: schools-based management SBM and community participation and oversight of schools;
supporting Active, Creative, Effective and Joyful Learning PAKEM, Pembelajaran Aktif, Kreatif, Efektif dan Menyenangkan; understanding, enacting and implementing government regulations
and many of the principles of the national strategies and standards outlined above; and working towards improving the quality of education at the sub-national level.
250
Moreover, the MGP-BE includes strengthening the regulatory environment between different levels of government and
between related line ministries and government agencies, between practitionersmanagers, and creating successful ‘models of change’ upon which to base future dissemination and replication
of good practices. It also endeavours to work with sub-national governments to incorporate good practice approaches into budgeting processes and strategic development plans at district,
provincial and national levels.
251 245 The World Bank 2010, Indonesia - projects and programs, available at: http:web.worldbank.org Last accessed 1 November 2010
246 Asian Development Bank 2010, Indonesia - Project, available at: http:www.adb.orgindonesia Last accessed 1 November 2010 247 The Australia-Indonesia Basic Education Programme, available at: http:www.bep.or.id Last accessed 1 November 2010
248 AusAID 2010 Communities and Education Project in Aceh CEPA, available at: http:www.indo.ausaid.gov.au Last accessed 1 November 2010
249 UNICEFGoI 2007 Basic education sector capacity support programme in Indonesia: Mapping good practices for mainstreaming in basic education
, UNICEF: Jakarta 250 Ibid.
251 Ibid.
THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN IN INDONESIA 2000-2010 126
THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN IN INDONESIA 2000-2010 127
Figure 3.4.21 below shows the overall level of good practice replication to non-target schools in all the project’s target sub-districts two per district, i.e., 24 sub-districts, levels of replication
for all non-target sub-districts across all 12 partner districts, and a combined level of replication to non-target schools across all the 12 MGP-BE target districts.
252
The data demonstrate that by the end of 2009, the overall level of replication of good practice is 25.25 per cent of all schools.
Compared to a baseline figure of 5.98 per cent, this is a 19.27 per cent increase in the number of schools that have adopted good practice. However, there is a striking difference in the levels of
replication between target and non-target sub-districts. Overall, 81.4 per cent of schools in target sub-districts have adopted good practice compared to only 17.2 per cent of schools in non-target
sub-districts. The speed at which schools are adopting good practice in target versus non-target areas is also markedly different, as indicated by year-to-year changes 33.6 per cent compared to
10.4 per cent. Yet, the igure indicates that there can be spillover effects of targeted assistance to other districts and sub-districts not participating in this or similar programmes to improve
education quality.
Figure 3.4.21: MGP-BE good practice replication in non-target schools, Indonesia 2008-2009
Source: UNICEF 2010, Preliminary Result Replicating Good Practices, Trends from 2008-2009, UNICEF: Jakarta
One of the good practices that the MGP-BE partner schools promote is having active, functioning school committees and community support for schools, which has increased consistently since
the baseline of the project.
253
Under decentralisation, improving schools management will be an important part of improving education quality. By 2010, in the MGP-BE project, it was evident that
there has been consistent improvement in schools management since the baseline conducted in 2009
254
, particularly for school planning and budgeting. This indicates that the programmes working in improving education quality would benefit from working with government and
schools to improve school management processes.
In terms of learning and teaching in schools, particularly at the primary school level, the results related to early school leaving dropout and transition rates at primary school and junior
secondary school levels were positive from MGP-BE studies. Data gathered jointly by UNICEF and the Ministry of National Education show that student early school leaving rates have decreased
by 9.09 per cent at primary school and by 20.21 per cent at junior secondary school level.
255
252 UNICEF 2010 Preliminary result replicating good practices, Trends from 2008-2009, UNICEF: Jakarta 253 Ibid.
354 Based on a representative sample of 180 or 39 per cent of the project’s target schools 255 UNICEFGoI 15 July 2009 News note: Quality of basic education improved due to good practices, UNICEFGoI: Jakarta
3.5 CHILD SPECIAL PROTECTION IN INDONESIA
Child protection is essential for the fulfilments of rights enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child CRC. Indonesia, a signatory of the CRC since 1990
256
, has taken some important steps towards fulfilling its obligations, most noticeably with the introduction of
important instruments relating to child rights and child protection, including the improvement of legal frameworks ratification of international treaties, legislation and guidelines, see Section 1:
Introduction, through key aspects of development policies i.e., key rights to health and education, see preceding sections, and with the drafting of specific National Action Plans to tackle the worst
forms of child labour, trafficking, commercial exploitation of children, and on the prevention and response to violence against children see subheadings below for details of the National Action
Plans.
However, working towards child protection in Indonesia is a vast undertaking that entails a profound commitment to normative and institutional change, both across the stategovernance apparatus and
within the wider society, without the support of which child protection is unlikely to be effective. Initial steps have been taken in Indonesia towards child protection, but those steps are incipient and
challenges remain. This subsection first provides of general overview of specific child protection issues, including: citizenship and birth registration; protection from violence, abuse and exploitation;
inappropriate alternative care systems; and, lastly, child freedom and participation. In many cases there is very little information on the socio-economic features of the most vulnerable populations,
such analysis by wealth quintile, age group or gender is not always possible, which seriously inhibits efforts to determine where the greatest needs lie. Furthermore, the general overview shows uneven
responses and progress, and indicates that whilst moving in the right direction, much remains to be done with regards to child protection in Indonesia. This general message is further underlined
in the second part of this subsection, which focuses on the child protection system in Indonesia, highlighting how some of the key challenges of child protection might best be met by the GoI in the
future. Before beginning however, it is important to reiterate that child protection as defined by UNICEF
and other agencies under the Indonesian Law on Child Protection ILCP and its consequent treatment in the 2010-2014 RPJMN, views child protection holistically as protection of children’s
rights beyond the rights to protection from abuse, violence, neglect and exploitation, and inclusive of rights to health, education and other services. Child protection as it is understood by UNICEF and
other agencies is described as ‘special protection’ in Indonesia.
257
The 2000 UNICEF SITAN dedicated a chapter to the issue of ‘Children in Need of Special Protection’. That chapter focused on key vulnerable groups children living on the streets, children with special
needs, children in armed conflict or emergencies, exploited children, abused children and children in conflict with the law and key sources of vulnerability weak legislative framework, birth registration
and harmful social and cultural practices.
258
Some of these themes and issues are revisited in this SITAN and there are descriptions of a number of positive steps that have been taken, but most of
the previously identified issues remain salient issues in urgent need of coordinated responses. In addition, new issues have emerged or gained visibility since the last SITAN, notably those relating
to trafficking. Finally, whilst the issues considered in this section are treated individually, there are many important cross-cutting aspects notably in the nexus between abuse and migration,
trafficking, violence and exploitation which are considered throughout the subsection.
256 Also, the CRC was ratified through Presidential Decree rather than through legislation enacted by parliament. 257 Government of Indonesia 2010 RPJMN 2010-2014
258 UNICEF 2000 Challenges for a new generation: The situation of children and women in Indonesia, UNICEF: Jakarta, pp139-159
All schools 12 districts n=8448 Year-to-year Change
19.3 25.2
6.0 10.4
17.2 6.8
33.6 81.4
47.8 20
40 60
80 100
Schools Adopting GP 2009 Baseline n=505
Schools in target sub-districts n=982
Schools in non-target sub-districts n=7466
THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN IN INDONESIA 2000-2010 128
THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN IN INDONESIA 2000-2010 129
3.5.1 CITIZENSHIP AND THE RIGHT TO IDENTITY: BIRTH REGISTRATION
Birth registration is a legal acknowledgement of existence, name and nationality, and it is essential for the full realisation of citizenship. Birth registration plays a key role in ensuring
adequate access to and provision of key services such as health care, including immunization. In addition, birth registration provides an important record of age, which is central to some aspects
of child protection, such as timely enrolment in schools, and the enforcement of minimum age of employment or eligibility for marriage.
The GoI recognizes the importance of birth registration, which by itself is a substantial improvement over the situation at the time of the 2000 SITAN.
259
The GoI has set ambitious targets for ensuring that all children are in possession of a birth certificate by 2011 and a national
target of 100 per cent birth registration for the whole population by 2015.
260
A number of provisions seeking to facilitate the process have been introduced in the past decade. Officially,
birth registration was made free of charge with the adoption the ILCP, and new guidelines on the process and requirements of birth registration were issued by the Indonesian Ministry of Home
Affairs in 2005.
261
On one hand, the number of local governments that issue birth certificates for free has increased substantially, from 16 districts in 2005 to more than 300 districts in 2009.
262
Yet, decentralisation has posed new challenges and free birth certificates are not available uniformly
throughout Indonesia - some districts and provinces prioritise the revenue-making potential of birth registration and still charge a fee.
263
Birth registration rules also vary substantially from district to district, notably with age limits ranging from 60 days to 18 years old.
In addition, according to a review conducted in 2010 by Save the Children, obtaining a birth certificate as underlined in Presidential Regulation No. 252008 remains a cumbersome process
that requires presenting a certificate by a birth attendant doctor, midwife, etc., the name and identity of a witness to the birth, the family registration card, the identity cards of the parents and
a copy of their marriage certificate.
264
There are no clear provisions as to what might happen if one of these documents is lacking.
265
Finally, there are some key weaknesses in the capacity of some local governments to compile statistics on birth registration, as well with the integration of the various birth registration
systems. Few district governments have birth registration systems that are coordinated with hospitals, health centres or village midwives, which would make the service more simple
and accessible.
266
A key weakness at the national level is the lack of integration between the registration system of the Ministry of Home Affairs and other key registrations systems,
notably those recording marriage and death or issuing family cards and identity cards.
267
The lack of integration between the systems for identity cards and birth certificates has important
consequences in terms of child protection as it facilitates the falsification of identity cards, which in turn are used to mask the actual age of children to circumvent crucial minimum age
requirements.
268 259 UNICEF 2000 The situation of children 2000
260 Save the Children 2010 Review report: The implementation of the convention on the rights of the child, Indonesia 1997-2009, Save the Children: Jakarta, p42
261 UNICEF June 2010 Children in Indonesia: Birth registration, UNICEF: Jakarta, available at: http:www.unicef.orgindonesiaUNICEF_ Indonesia_Birth_Registration_Fact_Sheet_-_June_2010.pdf Last accessed 7 October 2010
262 Save the Children 2010 Review report Indonesia 263 Ibid.
264 Ibid. 265 Ibid.
266 Plan International website onUniversal birth registration, available at: http:plan-international.orgbirthregistrationresourcescountry- case-studiesindonesia Last accessed 9 October 2010
267 Save the Children 2010 Review report Indonesia 268 Ibid., pp42-43
Reliable data relating to birth registration and the issuance of birth certificates is still hard to find and the data presented here are derived from national surveys. The National Socio-Economic
Survey data are based solely on birth certiicates whereas data from the IDHS data are based on collection of a range of official documentation relating to births both sets of data are presented in
Figure 3.5.1 below. The broader deinition of birth registration used by the IDHS accounts for the higher figures presented below.
Figure 3.5.1: Percentage of children aged 0-59 months whose births have been registered, Indonesia 2001-2007
Source: BPS - Statistics Indonesia, based on the National Socio-Economic Surveys 2001-2007; Indonesia Demographic Health Survey IDHS 2007. Note: The IDHS data are based on collection of a range of official
documentation about births including letters from hospitals, letters reporting births at the village level, as well as birth certificates; the National Socio-Economic Survey data refer solely to birth certificate data.
Figure 3.5.1 shows that birth registration in Indonesia in 2007 was just above 42 per cent, with a marginal improvement from 40 per cent in 2001, and that the target of achieving a record of
100 per cent registration of children by 2011 is unlikely to be achieved. The majority of children in Indonesia therefore have no legal identity. Indonesia currently ranks among the bottom 20
countries in the world in its registration of children.
269
Figure 3.5.2: Percentage of children aged 0-59 months who have birth certificates by province, Indonesia 2007
Source: BPS - Statistics Indonesia, based on the National Socio-Economic Survey 2007
269 UNICEF 2010 Children in Indonesia: Birth registration
Per cent
55.00 50.00
45.00
Percentage of birth reg istered IDHS
Percentage of children age 0-59 months who birth certificate National Socio-Economic Survey 40.00
35.00 30.00
40.00
2001 2002-2003
2006 2007
44.6 42.4
53.4 53.5
W est Java
Lampung Central Sulawesi
D.I. Y ogyakarta
Central Java Jambi
Papua W
est Papua W
est Sumatra W
est Kalimantan Riau
Riau Islands East kalimantan
Banten Bangka Belitung
Central Kalimantan Bali
Maluku Gorontal
o
East Nusa T enggar
a
W est Nusa T
enggar a
Nanggroe Aceh D
Southeast Sulawesi Bengkul
u East Java
South Sumatra South Kalimantan
D.K.I Jakarta North Sumatra
North Maluku North Sulawesi
South Sulawesi W
est Sulawesi Indonesi
a 0.00
10.00 20.00
30.00 40.00
50.00 60.00
70.00 80.00
90.00
Per cent
14. 4
28. 5
31. 2
32. 1
42. 4
81. 55.
4
THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN IN INDONESIA 2000-2010 130
THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN IN INDONESIA 2000-2010 131
Figure 3.5.2 breaks down the data on possession of birth certificates by province, indicating significant disparities across provinces, ranging from just 14.4 per cent of children under 60
months old being in possession of a birth certiicate, up to 81 per cent in the capital city Jakarta. Twelve of Indonesia’s 33 provinces achieved a better record than the national average, but the
majority of the provinces underperformed. Additional data both from the IDHS and the National Socio-Economic Survey indicate that there are no significant gender-based disparities in issuing
birth certificates based on the 2009 National Socio-Economic Survey 42.61 per cent of male children and 42.12 per cent of females possess a birth certiicate. However, more detailed data
from the IDHS show signiicant disparities according to wealth, and between rural and urban areas.
Figure 3.5.3: Percentage of births registered by wealth quintile, Indonesia 2007
Source: IDHS 2007
Figure 3.5.3 shows a very strong association between wealth and birth registration, with the majority of children in the two poorest quintiles remaining without legal identity. Finally, Figure
3.5.4, which details the registration of birth according to area, shows that the rural population are at a clear disadvantage. The disparity between rural and urban birth registration in
Indonesia is among the highest in the world.
270
These data further indicate that no changes in the birth registration figures occurred in rural areas between 2002-2003 and 2007, and the little
improvement that took place was concentrated in urban areas.
Figure 3.5.4: Percentage of births registered by area, Indonesia 2007
Source: IDHS 2007
The inal two igures Figures 3.5.5 and 3.5.6, also derived from IDHS data, summarize the reasons given for not registering a birth. Unfortunately, information about the procedural aspect
of birth registration notably with lack of supporting documentation was not listed in the dataset.
270 UNICEF 2010 Children in Indonesia: Birth registration
The data from the IDHS indicates that cost remains overwhelmingly the most commonly cited reason for failing to register birth, both in rural and urban areas and regardless of economic
status including among the wealthiest quintile of the population. The shift towards free birth registration has not entirely addressed the issue of cost. In part this is because some districts
continue to charge a fee, but indirect costs are also involved in the process e.g., cost of transport, needing to take time off work to register the birth, etc..
The second and third most cited reasons reflect a lack of information; the respondents reported either not knowing they had to register the birth or not knowing where the registration could be
done. However, information about birth registration clearly reached urban populations better than it did rural ones. Between 2002-2003 and 2007, the number of urban respondents who cited not
knowing that a child had to be registered fell almost by half from 10.2 to 5.9 per cent, whereas it slightly increased over the same period for rural dwellers, from 14.2 to 14.5 per cent. The
proportion of respondents reporting that birth registration facilities were ‘too far’ also increased between 2002-2003 and 2007, this time for both rural and urban dwellers. Not knowing about the
need to register birth was also the second most reported reason across wealth groups, bar the wealthiest quintile where it was the third most common reason. Lack of knowledge about where
to register birth was the third most commonly cited reason among the three poorest quintiles, but not the wealthier two. Finally, the introduction of a fine for not registering a birth appears to
have had little impact. Fine avoidance is the least cited reason for not registering a birth and this reason is more commonly reported amongst urban dwellers i.e., when already late to register,
the existence of a fine for late registration deters some from registering. Counter-intuitively, fine avoidance is also more common amongst wealthier groups than amongst the poorest quintiles of
the population 1.7 per cent amongst the lower quintile and 4.8 per cent amongst the wealthiest, see Figure 3.5.6.
Figure 3.5.5: Reason for not registering birth by area, Indonesia 2007
Source: IDHS 2007
Per cent
0.0 10.0
20.0 30.0
40.0 50.0
60.0 70.0
80.0 67.3
41. 4 41. 4
70.5
Urban Rural
IDHS 2002-2003 IDHS 2007
Per cent
100.0
Lowest Second
Middle
Wealth Quintile
Fourth Highest
80.0 60.0
40.0 20.0
0.0 22.9
44.1 56.2
67.3 83.8
IDHS 2002-2003
Per cent
Costs too much Too far
Late, did not want to pay fine
Did not know child has to be
registered Did not know
where to register
IDHS 2007 IDHS 2002-2003
IDHS 2007 IDHS 2002-2003
IDHS 2007 IDHS 2002-2003
IDHS 2007 IDHS 2002-2003
IDHS 2007 Urban
Rural 0.0
5.0 10.0
15.0 20.0
25.0 30.0
35.0 29.
4 26.
9 27.
4 25.
4
3.3 8.8
4.6 9.5
10. 2
14. 2
5.9 14.
5 4.0 2.1
3.4 2.2 9.4
10. 5
3.9 10.
1
