The document discusses evidence-based monitoring of local government performance in Indonesia. It describes surveys conducted to collect baseline data on decentralization, governance practices, and service delivery. The surveys measured indicators like health coverage, education spending, and transparency. The data was used to evaluate the effects of decentralization reforms and compare governance performance across regions. It also describes a survey of newly created regions that analyzed economic growth, service quality, business climate, and governance quality to assess regional performance.

1. Evidence-­‐Based
Monitoring
of
Local
Government
Performance:
Indonesian
Experience
Agus
Dwiyanto
NaBonal
InsBtute
of
Public
AdministraBon
and
Gadjah
Mada
University

2. 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.

3.
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.

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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

11.
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.

12. 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

13. 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

14. Source:

15. Sources:

22. 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

23. Gambar 3
Transisi 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 pada
1997 & 2000
Miskin pada 1997, Tdk
Miskin pada 2000
Tidak Miskin pada 1997,
Miskin pada 2000
Tidak Miskin pada 1997
& 2000
Persen
Sumber: IFLS2 dan IFLS3

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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