<![CDATA[Purpose – This study analyzes how three non-formal institutions in Jakarta translate policies and standards into operational curricula at the institutional (meso) level.Methods – A qualitative multiple-case study was conducted in two community learning centers (PKBM) and one provincial vocational training center, which operate under different regulatory systems. Data came from a 30-item semi-structured interview guide and institutional curriculum documents. Data depth was uneven: one PKBM had two informants, while the other two cases had one each. Without classroom observation, practice refers to practice reported by informants or recorded in documents. Data were analyzed within and across cases.Findings – Three provisional orientations were identified, each resting mainly on one case. A compliance orientation treats central policy as the trigger for change. A mission orientation uses parent-organization values to filter content. A market orientation is driven by industry training needs analysis and external competency assessment. Two patterns were shared. First, the development model each institution claimed differed from the documents obtained. Second, no written curriculum evaluation report was obtained from any institution, so no documentary evidence showed evaluation results feeding back into planning.Research Implications – Curricular flexibility does not automatically produce autonomous curriculum making at the institutional level. Improvement should focus on documented evaluation and feedback from implementers to planners. The three orientations are offered as typological propositions for testing in other institutions, not as a generalization. ]]>
