Evidence-­‐Based  Monitoring  of  Local  Government  Performance:    Indonesian  

Experience    

Agus  Dwiyanto  NaBonal  InsBtute  of  Public  AdministraBon  

and  Gadjah  Mada  University  

Why  Indonesia  Needs  to  Promote  Evidence  Based-­‐  Monitoring    and  EvaluaBon  System?  

•  CiBzens  and  policy  stakeholders  are  becoming  more  raBonal.    They  demand  more  evidences  for  policy  outputs  and  outcomes  

•  Indonesia  is  moving  into  a  more  democraBc  and  open  country.  Policy  reforms  tend  to  be  more  transparent,  inclusive,  and  raBonal.  Evidence-­‐based  policy  reforms  is  unavoidable.    

•  Indonesia  ha  conducted  comprehensive  decentralizaBon  and  governance  reforms,  quesBons  about  the  effects  of  those    reforms  on  service  delivery  and  governance  pracBces  were  on  the    arise.  

 What  we  do  to  promote  evidence-­‐based  

monitoring  of  LG  performance  in  Indonesia    •  CreaBng  baseline  data  on  decentralizaBon  and  

governance  pracBces  by  conducBng  rigorous  surveys,  such  as  Governance  and  DecentralizaBon  Survey  2002  (GDS1),  GDS1+  2004,  GDS2  2006,  Governance  Assessment  Survey  2007  

•  The  surveys  were  designed  to  measure  comprehensively    service  delivery  (health,  educaBon,  and  infrastructure)  and  governance  performance  

•  Respondents  of  the  survey  were:  government  officials,  service  providers,  households,  and  civil  society  groups  such  as  NGO  acBvist,  journalist,  and  academician.    

Surveys…  

•  Indonesian  Family  Life  Survey    (1997,  2001,  and  2007):  households  social  economic  panel  survey  involving  more  than  40  thousand  individuals  of  137  districts.  

•  Survey  on  New  Autonomous  Regions  (EDOHP  2010).    The  survey  involved  205  newly-­‐created  regions  in  Indonesia.  It  was  designed  to  measure  the  performance  of  the  new  regions.  

Example,  Indicators  of  coverage  and  quality  of  health  services,  GDS  

coverage  •  Number  of  people  served  

by  a  health  clinic  •  Average  Bme  to  reach  the  

nearest  clinic  and  hospital  •  Mean  to  reach  the  nearest  

clinic  and  hospital  •  Average  area  of  coverage  of  

a  clinic  

quality  •  Number  and  quality  of  

medical  staff  •  Available  services  •  Standards  of  services  (MSS)  •  ParBcipaBon  in  planning  •  FaciliBes  available  in  clinic  

Example,  Governance  indicators  of  Health  Services  

•  Accountability:    –  Incidences  of  corrupBon,  briberies,  illegal  levies  

•  Transparency:  –  Public  access  to  budget  plan,  acBviBes  and  report    – Openness  in  procurement  of  drugs  and  equipment  

•  ParBcipaBon  and  service  oriented  –  ParBcipaBon  of  head  of  health  clinic  in  decision  making  in  the  district  health  agency  

–  Roles  of  hamlets  and  head  of  villages    –  Complaint  mechanism  and  follow-­‐up  to  complaints  

Example,    Governance  Indicators…  •  Gender  sensiBve/  no  discriminaBon  

– Occurrence  of  gender  discriminaBon  – Occurrence  of  ethnic  discriminaBon  – Occurrence  of  economic  discriminaBon  

•  Access  of  deprived  group  –  The  percentage  of  populaBon  owning  “Askeskin  Cards”  

–  The  usage  of  Askeskin  Cards  •  Assessment  and  SaBsfacBon  

– Assessment  on  health  faciliBes  –  SaBsfacBon  to  health  services  

Survey  on  Performance  of  Newly-­‐Created  Regions  

•  Involved  205  new  regions:  7  provinces,  164  regencies,  34  municipaliBes.  

•  New  region  performance  are  measured  by  4    variables.  The  variables  are    economic  growth  and  its  distribuBon,  quality  of  governance  pracBces,  service  delivery,  and  business  climates.  

•  The  survey  are  designed  to  collect  Bme-­‐series  data  based  on  regional  staBsBcs  and  records.      

Performance  Indicators  •  Economic  welfare  

–  Growth  in  GDP  per  capita  –  Percentages  of  populaBon  living  below  poverty  line  –  Programs  to  alleviate  poverty  

•  Service  delivery  –  Average  percentage  budget  for  educaBon  –  Average  percentage  budget  for  health  –  School  parBcipaBon  rate  –  MalnutriBon  rate  for  children  below  5  years  old  –  Household  access  to  clean  water  –  Increases  length  of  road  –  Access  to  administraBve  services,  such  as  ID  cards  and  birth  cerBficate  

Performance  Indicators  •  Business  climate  

–  Efficiency  in  issuing  business  permit    –  Growth  rate  of  SMEs  –  Existence  of  head  of  regions  and  business  community  forum  

•  Quality  of  Governance  –  Local  budget  formulated  on  Bme  –  Budget  disbursement  capability  –  Transparency  in  budget  spending  and  procurement  –  Public  accountability  reports  –  Elite  capture  (%  budget  for  head  of  region  and  members  of  council)  –  Public  consultaBon  in  regulatory  processes,  including  budget  planning  

 How  those  surveys  were  used  to  

address  policy  quesBons?      •  Understanding  the  effects  of  “big  bang  

decentralizaBon  policy”  on  service  delivery,  social  conflicts,  governance  performance,  business  climate,  (GDS)  

•  EvaluaBng  governance  performance  across  provinces  and  districts,  e.g.,  governance  indexes,  index  of  percepBon  on  corrupBon,  (GDS,  GAS)  

•  Understanding  the  dynamics  of  poverty  and  its  determinants  (IFLS)  

•  Understanding  the  performance  of  newly-­‐created  regions  and  its  determinants.  

Benefits  of  employing  evidence  based  monitoring  and  evaluaBon  

•  Enable  monitoring  and  evaluaBon  to  provide  “clear-­‐cut”  and  convincing  findings.    – Strong  and  clear  recommendaBon  for  policy  reform,  “what  to  do  and  how  to  do  it”  

•  Make  buy-­‐  in  strategy  becomes  more  effecBve  •  Helps  policy  makers  to  focus  on  problem  •  Increase  public  awareness  to  the  program  

Constraints  in  employing  evidence-­‐based  monev  

•  Limited  staBsBcs  available.  Lack  of  tradiBon  among  government  agencies  to  manage  data  base,  collect  program  records,  and  to  develop  monitoring  and  evaluaBon  system.  

•  Can  be  costly  and  Bme  consuming  •  Wide  gap  between  knowledge  producing  insBtuBon  and  policy  making  body  

•  Lack  of  incenBves  to  demonstrate  performance  

Source:  

Sources:  

Dynamics  of  poverty  and  pce  

IFLS  is  panel  survey  so  we  can  follow  same  households  and  individuals  over  Bme    Is  much  movement  into  and  out  of  poverty.    75%  nonpoor  in  both  1997  and  2000    Over  half  of  poor  in  2000  were  NOT  poor  in  1997,  and  visa  versa  

Correlates  of  Poverty  and  low  pce    

   

EducaBon  of  household  head  strong  posiBve  impact  on  lowering  probabiliBes  of  poverty    Also  strong  posiBve  associaBon  with  being  out  of  poverty  in  both  97  and  00  compared  to  being  in  poverty  in  both  years  

Gambar 3Transisi Kemiskinan Tahun 1997 and 2000

7,2 10,1 8,7

74,0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Miskin pada1997 & 2000

Miskin pada 1997, TdkMiskin pada 2000

Tidak Miskin pada 1997,Miskin pada 2000

Tidak Miskin pada 1997& 2000

Persen

Sumber: IFLS2 dan IFLS3

Tabel 2.3 Sepuluh Urutan Terbaik Faktor Tata Pemerintahan yang Baik Daerah Provinsi Umur* Proses

Pembentukan Nilai F2

Rank Faktor Rank Total

Kota Banjarbaru Kalsel 1 Daerah administratif 83,08 1 1

Kab. Bangka Tengah Babel 1 Inisiatif DPR 77,87 2 4

Kab. Dharmas Raya Sumbar 1 Inisiatif DPR 77,12 3 3

Kota Batam Kep. Riau 1 Inisiatif pemerintah pusat 72,64 4 12

Kab. Boalemo Gorontalo 1 Inisiatif pemerintah pusat 70,27 5 10

Kab. Bangka Selatan Babel 1 Inisiatif DPR 68,55 6 15

Kab. Malinau Kaltim 1 Inisiatif pemerintah pusat 66,77 7 16

Kota Sorong Papua Barat 1 Inisiatif pemerintah pusat 66,05 8 41

Kab. Karimun Kep. Riau 1 Inisiatif pemerintah pusat 65,94 9 26

Kab. Muaro Jambi Jambi 1 Inisiatif pemerintah pusat 64,86 10 17

*Ket : 1 : > 3 tahun 2 : ≤ 3 tahun

Tabel 2.4 Sepuluh Urutan Terburuk Faktor Tata Pemerintahan yang Baik Daerah Provinsi Umur* Proses

Pembentukan Nilai F2

Rank Faktor Rank Total

Kab. Kep. Meranti Riau 2 Inisiatif DPR 10 189 195

Kab. Nias Utara Sumut 2 Inisiatif DPR 10 190 191

Kab. Morotai Malut 2 Inisiatif DPR 10 191 194

Kab. Buru Selatan Maluku 2 Inisiatif DPR 10 192 193

Kab. Tambrauw Papua Barat 2 Inisiatif DPR 10 193 186

Kota Batu Jatim 1 Daerah administratif 10 194 187

Kab. Maybrat Papua Barat 2 Inisiatif DPR 6 195 196

Kab. Sigi Sulteng 2 Inisiatif DPR 0 196 198

Kab. Paniai Papua 1 Daerah administratif 0 197 197

Kab. Puncak Jaya Papua 1 Daerah administratif 0 198 192

*Ket : 1 : > 3 tahun 2 : ≤ 3 tahun

43%

35%

80%

15%

71%

57% 65% 20% 85% 29%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Provinsi Kab > 3 th Kab ≤ 3 th Kota > 3 th Kota ≤ 3 th

Total Faktor

Age of Region and Performance Kurang Memuaskan Memuaskan

Indicators  of  Social  Economic  Welfare  According  To  Age  of  Regions  

62%

18%

58%

35%

31%

17% 20% 7%

1%

65%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.2.1 1.2.2

(%)

Indikator

Indicators of Welfare, Region <3 years

Kurang Memuaskan Memuaskan Sangat Memuaskan

60%

80%

54%

84%

8%

28%

14%

46%

16%

14%

12% 6%

78%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.2.1 1.2.2

(%)

Indikator

Indicators of Welfare, Regions >= 3 years

Kurang Memuaskan Memuaskan Sangat Memuaskan

71%

52% 59% 14%

16%

26%

14% 54% 47%

29% 15%

3%

29% 16%

56%

14% 5% 12%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

Prov. Kab. Kota Prov. Kab. Kota Prov. Kab. Kota

Pertumbuhan PDRB Per Kapita Pengurangan Angka Kemiskinan

Pemberdayaan Penduduk Miskin

Indicators of Socioeconomic Welfare, Province and Regions

Kurang Memuaskan Memuaskan Sangat Memuaskan