OVERALL DISCLOSURE LEVEL RESULT AND REVIEW

1856 Evaluation based on average score of disclosure level for all FS components of PEMDA in each province showed the top 5 are West Sulawesi, North Maluku, Riau, East Kalimantan and Riau. However just like FS components analysis, the number of PEMDA in each province must be calculated to interpret those rankings. For Riau and East Kalimantan, disclosure score were obtained from the average of 6 and 8 PEMDA, so they are valid enough as the provinces with the highest disclosure level. Meanwhile 3 other provinces, West Sulawesi, North Maluku ad Riau, precautions must be taken when concluding that these provinces have the highest score, considering each were affected by less than 3 PEMDA.

3.6 FS DISCLOSURE LEVEL DETERMINANTS

This section will analyze the determinants or factors influencing the disparity of FS disclosure level among PEMDA and the difference among FS components. The analysis is based on the aforementioned disclosure level scores, literature studies and in-depth discussion with regulators, reviewers, standard formulators, consultants and PEMDA staff discussion participants were invited as individuals and were not acting on behalf of any institutions, however opinions were assumed to reflect the institutions where they work. Disclosure score for each component Balance Sheet, LAK, LRA and CaLK tend to be consistent among PEMDA. This is noticeable from the standard deviation of below 5. The same applies for the standard deviation of all FS disclosure at 4. Therefore this research concludes that the influencing factor of PEεDA‘s FS disclosure do not come from the unique characteristics of each PEMDA. In other words this research estimates that the factors influencing PEεDA‘s FS disclosure level are common and experienced by all PEεDA in Indonesia. Moreover, because the disclosure level of Balance Sheet, LAK and LRA are high and consistent enough, then the determinants analysis of disclosure level will be focused on CaLK. 1857 These are the common factors that are assumed to influence PEεDA‘s FS disclosure level specifically CaLK, which were identified in the Focus Group Discussion: 1. Existence and completeness of CaLK preparation guidelines SAP regulates the information required to be disclosed in CaLK as checklist benchmark in this research. However until now no technical guidelines about CaLK presentation and disclosure are present. KSAP have not issued a Technical Bulletin regarding CaLK. A technical guideline for CaLK preparation is necessary for PEMDA in the early stages of FS preparation because CaLK and Balance Sheet are the reports known only after PP SAP was implemented. CaLK is qualitative, thus without technical guidelines PEMDA will face difficulties in preparation. 2. Influence of other regulations Besides to explain the posts in Balance Sheet, LAK and LRA in details, CaLK also conveys qualitative information related to the accountability andor affects decision making. Those information are influenced by other regulation associated with local governments. Changes in regulations which happen frequently in recent years make it difficult for PEMDA to decide which information to disclosure in CaLK. Regulation clashes also cause difficulties for PEMDA in presenting a sufficient CaLK. 3. Socialization of CaLK preparation Related parties such as Finance Department, State Department and KSAP have not conducted sufficient socialization about CaLK. Various trainings that have been conducted only focused on Balance Sheet, LAK and LRA components. Therefore PEMDA staffs do not have adequate comprehension about CaLK. 4. Priorities and concerns of FS formulator and user Generally, both PEMDA and DPRD do not have sufficient concerns about FS except δRA and δAK. DPRD usually does not consider BPK‘s opinion of FS when accepting or rejecting accountability report of head of local government. FS components priority of concern is: 1 LRA; 2 LAK; 3 Balance Sheet; and 4 CaLK. LRA and LAK get primary