LAK DISCLOSURE LEVEL RESULT AND REVIEW

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. 1853 The top 5 provinces based on average score were DKI, West Sulawesi, NAD, North Maluku and Papua average score above 84. Other than NAD and DKI, 3 other provinces were consistent enough with high scores in Balance Sheet and LAK. DKI was consistent at LAK and LRA, while NAD, although not in the top 5 in Balance Sheet and LAK, but its score was consistently high, at above 80. Further analysis revealed that the top 5 provinces‘ ratio of number of PEεDA with δRA that had been reviewed by BPK to the total number of PEMDA in that province is very low. DKI, although with the highest score at 90, had only 1 PEMDA with 2007 LRA that had been audited by BPK, compared with the total 7 PEMDA in that province. Consistent with the result in Balance Sheet and LAK, 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 85. The analysis result of δRA‘s information components showed 6 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; 4. Reporting currency and quantifier; 5. Reporting currency and quantifier visible on every page; and 6. Presentation of disbursement qualifications based on organizations. This result is consistent with the Balance Sheet and LAK results. Point 6 needs particular notice because this information is needed by LRA users to evaluate the efficiency of organization unit, by comparing the realization and the budget.

3.4 CaLK DISCLOSURE LEVEL