BALANCE SHEET DISCLOSURE LEVEL

1850 deviation standard was very low at 5, which showed that the balance sheet disclosure level among PEMDA was relatively consistent. The highest score of 96 were the Pekanbaru, Ogan Komering Ulu, East Ogan Komering Ulu, Pagar Alam, Prabumulih, Batang, Landak, South Halmahera, Jayapura, Bau- bau, Jayapura and Nunukan; whereas the lowest at 60 was DKI Jakarta. The information disclosed by most local governments but not found in DKI Jakarta were: 1 inventory details; 2 receivables details; and 3 equity funds classification. As for the ranks based on the average score per province, PEMDA from eastern Indonesia dominated the top 5: Papua, North Maluku, West Papua, West Sulawesi and East Kalimantan average above 90. However four of the five provinces had very low ratio of balance sheet issued and reviewed by BPK to total number of PEMDA in the province. Papua, for instance, although it had the highest score of 96, there were only 2 provinces in Papua that had issued the 2007 balance sheets which had been audited by BPK, compared to the total 30 PEMDA in Papua province. Based on the ratio of number of PEMDA with issued FS to number of PEMDA in a province, then East Java, DI Yogyakarta, West Java, Bali and Gorontalo were placed on the top 5. Meanwhile the analysis of the information component in the Balance Sheet showed 5 information with the lowest disclosure: 1. Name of reporting entity or other identification visible on every page; 2. Scope of FS entity, whether it was a sole entity or a consolidation of several reporting entities; 3. Scope of FS entity, whether it was a sole entity or a consolidation of several reporting entities, on every page; 4. Date of reporting or the period included in the FS in accordance with other components of the FS visible on every page; and 5. Reporting currency and quantifier visible on every page. 1851 Of the abovementioned information, four did not have significance for decision making although this had better be included in PEMDA financial reporting. The low disclosure level of point 2 is something substantial because it affects the readers of the FS greatly. The absence of this information may result in an error in comparing and an alyzing PEεDA‘s performance.

3.2 LAK DISCLOSURE LEVEL

Research sample for LAK component was 269 PEMDA or 50.8 of total population. Like Balance Sheet, the average LAK disclosure level was high at 83. This showed that the information presented in LAK had included most of the information required by PP SAP. The deviation standard was very low at 4 which showed that the LAK disclosure levels tend to be consistent. The highest score of 96 was Landak, Rokan Hulu, Natuna, Malinau, Belitung and Tidore. Landak consistently showed high disclosure level, both Balance Sheet and LAK. The lowest score of 74 was Banten. Some information disclosed by most PEMDA but not by Banten was: 1 reporting currency and quantifier used; and 2 presented as comparative statement. The top 5 provinces based on average score were West Sulawesi, North Maluku, West Papua, DKI and Riau average score above 89. Top 3 were North Sulawesi, North Maluku and West Papua, consistent with Balance Sheet disclosure. East Kalimantan and Papua were still in Top 10 at 6 and 8. Riau was in fact consistent because it was number 6 in Balance Sheet disclosure. The contrary was DKI‘s δAK disclosure level at number 4, when its Balance Sheet disclosure level was at the lowest. As with Balance Sheet, the top 4 provinces‘ ratio of number of PEεDA issuing δAK that had been audited by BPK to total number of PEMDA in the province was very low. West Sulawesi, although with the highest score at 95, there was only 1 PEMDA issuing 2007 LAK that had been audited by BPK, compared to the total of 6 PEMDA in that province. 1852 Consistent with the Balance Sheet result, the ratio of number of PEMDA with issued FS to number of PEMDA in a province showed DIY, Bali, East Java, West Java and Gorontalo at the top 5 with a high ratio at above 80. The analysis result of δAK‘s information components showed 4 points with the lowest disclosure: 1. Name of reporting entity or other identification visible on every page; 2. Scope of FS entity, whether it was a sole entity or a consolidation of several reporting entities; 3. Scope of FS entity, whether it was a sole entity or a consolidation of several reporting entities, on every page; and 4. Reporting currency and quantifier visible on every page. This result is consistent with the Balance Sheet result and of those 4 points the low disclosure level of point 2 is substantial because it affects the readers of the FS greatly. The absence of this information may result in an error in comparing and analyzing PEεDA‘s performance.

3.3 LRA DISCLOSURE LEVEL

Sample number for LRA component was 267 PEMDA or 50.6 of PEMDA population. Unlike Balance Sheet and δAK, δAR‘s average is quite high at 78. This showed that the information presented in PEεDA‘s δRA had included most of the information required by PP SAP. The deviation standard was very low at 5, and showed that the LRA disclosure levels tend to be consistent. The highest score of 90 was Pekanbaru, Natuna, DKI, Ketapang, Bulungan, Kendari, Bau-bau, South Halmahera, Jayapura, Manokwari and Bengkulu. The lowest at 60 was North Hulu Sungai. Information disclosed by most PEMDA but not by North Hulu Sungai was: 1 transfer; 2 surplusdeficit; and 3 net financing.