b63185c7 00af 434b b0ab 4a08b996c3ee
Final Report
Study on Sustainable Innovations and Good Practices of
District/City Governments Winning Autonomy Awards in East
Java (2004-2013)
The Jawa Pos Institute of Pro Otonomi
Graha Pena Lt. 8, Ruang 801
Jl. A. Yani 88 Surabaya
Phone: 031 8202038
Fax: 031 8202081
E-Mail: [email protected]
Web: www.jpip.or.id
INTRODUCTION
Decentralization, better known as regional autonomy, in Indonesia provides room
for innovation to regional governments to develop their regions. Of course, the final
purpose of an innovation is to improve public service delivery and public welfare.
Regional autonomy, which was officially introduced on January 1, 2001, is an
antithesis of the failure of the centralistic regime having been in power for 32 years.
The policy has been a rational choice after the 1998 reform that demanded equal
economic distribution from Sabang to Merauke. If decentralization policy were not
taken, disintegration threats would be widespread in regions, particularly outside
Java. The centralistic regime proved to only develop Jakarta as government center.
Regional autonomy offers a way to Indonesia to develop not only its center but also
all parts of the country. Therefore, since 2001, the central government has delegated
the largest part of its political, administrative and fiscal authority to districts across
the country. Receiving the great authority, regional governments have the freedom
to manage themselves. The closer-is-better principle was really inspiring President
(abibie s political policy. (owever, the relatively new policy on regional autonomy
certainly has some limitations. Therefore, it is crucial to monitor the process of this
governance transformation.
Three months after the introduction of regional autonomy, April 1, 2001 to be exact,
Jawa Pos Group voluntarily established the Jawa Pos Institute of Pro Otonomi (JPIP).
The purpose is to oversee and promote regional autonomy to benefit the public.
Using a unique approach, JPIP has introduced an Autonomy Award Program in East
Java.
The Autonomy Award Program is functioning as an instrument to motivate local
governments to perform better in the economic, public service and local political
sectors (participation and accountability). The program will be an annual tradition
to award district/city governments for their best performance in the three sectors.
Competition among local governments to develop their regions and improve public
service delivery has been reverberating around East Java. Tens of innovative
programs have been recorded by JPIP and were presented Autonomy Awards.
The purpose of this study on sustainable innovations of autonomy award winners is
to identify ongoing innovative programs/services provided by districts/cities, which
won the awards in public service and local political categories. It means that JPIP
will only collect data and reevaluate the achievements of Autonomy Award winners
2
from 2004 to 2013 in public service delivery and governance. The locus of this study
is the Province of East Java.
This Sustainable Autonomy Award Study is significant to monitor the sustainability
of winning programs from the time those regions won the awards until May 2014. It
will evaluate whether such winning innovations still exist and develop to present.
Or, on the contrary, they just existed in the early years but then wilted or even died
in the following years.
3
METHODOLOGY
In line with its purpose, this study is conducted to identify the sustainability of
innovations that won the Autonomy Awards 2004-2013. One research question is:
how have the innovative programs that won the Autonomy Awards 2004-2013
progressed?
This underlying question is the starting point to gather supporting information. For
example, what lessons can be learned from wilting and stagnant innovations. And,
from blooming innovations, what good practices can be replicated to support their
growth. In addition, the role of stakeholders and implications for the development of
such innovative programs can be mapped with this study.
Technically, the research starts from a desk study to guide a field study. The desk
study is the first part of the research. At this point, JPIP re-identifies innovations and
good practices that won Autonomy Awards. In addition to the re-identification from
the JPIP data center, the desk study includes data crosschecks with JPIP researchers
annually going down to regions and observations by journalists of Jawa Pos News
Network (JPNN) across districts/cities in East Java.
Further, initial information is also gathered through direct correspondence with key
persons from district/city governments directly dealing with such innovative
programs. The correspondence includes telephone calls and short message services
(SMS). With the help of these technologies, initial information is sought on the
status of innovative programs and good practices that won Autonomy Awards.
Results of the desk study provide initial guidance for the JPIP Team to conduct a
field study.
The purpose of a field study is to verify the initial information gathered from a desk
study. It is also done to get the whole picture of factors contributing to and
inhibiting the sustainability of innovative public services achieved by districts/cities
over the past 10 years.
JPIP fully uses a qualitative method (see Chart 1). The objective is to collect more indepth case-by-case information. Therefore, an in-depth interview is the main tool
for gathering information. JPIP researches carefully interview key informants who
well know about the progress of the innovations in question. These key informants
include regional government officials and other non-government parties who
master the information needed.
4
Secondary data related to the study topics is treated as interview-supporting data.
Such data includes APBD documents, regional regulations, accountability reports,
program brochures/leaflets, etc. In addition, direct observations of local innovative
service units contribute to the qualitative study. They are needed to verify and
validate information as well as support researchers complete descriptions.
Therefore, researchers who go down to regions should have skills in gathering
information through interviews and should be trained observers.
Chart 1. Design of Research on Sustainable Innovations Winning Autonomy Award (OA) 2004-2013
Research Question:
How have the
innovative programs
that won the Autonomy
Awards 2004-2013
progressed?
Data Collection:
1. Desk Study
- JPIP Data Center
- Initial data triangulation
2. Field Study
In-depth interviews
Direct observations
Analysis of secondary
data
Desk Study Report
Final Report
Qualitative
Analysis
Locus
21 Districts
Focus:
1. Public services (education,
health, administration)
2. Local politics (participation,
accountability,
political
institutionalization)
Results &
Various
Possible
Findings
Further, based on its research findings, JPIP classifies the development of
innovative programs/services that won Autonomy Awards in East Java into three
categories. The categories include the following:
a. Blooming: this means that the innovations achieved by districts/cities are
ongoing and continue to proliferate from their first form. The blooming
includes area coverage or service quality. For example, when an Autonomy
Award was won several years ago, the innovation was applied in one
subdistrict (kecamatan). But when this research was conducted, the
innovation has been replicated in other subdistricts. Thus, the beneficiaries
of the program increase in number.
Quality improvement refers to management improvement. For example, if
services were provided manually in the past, they are computerized now or
adopt ISO management standards. Likewise, in the past, the innovation was
managed only by SKPD or one entity but now it is managed by a multistakeholder forum.
An innovative service/program may also be categorized as blooming if the
innovation that won an Autonomy Award guides the development of other
5
innovations. In other words, the innovative service/program has
metamorphosed into a sophisticated one.
b. Stagnant or continuing without blooming: The innovation that won an
Autonomy Award is maintained by the district/city concerned. However, the
program has not progressed significantly or proliferated. The recent
conditions of the innovative service/program remain the same as when it
won the Autonomy Award several years ago.
c. Wilting: The innovation that received an award from JPIP survives for one or
two years only. After that, the program disappears and is not sustainable.
Illustration 1. Three Possible Developments of Innovative Programs that Won Autonomy
Awards 2004-2013
Stagnant:
Innovation
is
sustainable
and does
not grow
Blooming:
Innovation
continues to
proliferate, in
coverage and
quality
Wilting:
Innovation
does
not
survive
Ilustrasi: Redhi Setiadi
6
MAP OF AUTONOMY AWARD WINNERS
The assessment parameters and methodology used by JPIP were first introduced to
the public on August 23, 2001. The complete set of these assessment tools and
explanations were posted in the Jawa Pos Daily on that day in four full pages. The
research design 2002 was the basis on which the first Autonomy Award was
assessed. This first year event of parameter and methodology tests received positive
appreciation from the public.
Significant lessons could be learned from the JPIP Autonomy Awards 2002 on how
to objectively, effectively and efficiently measure the performance of district/city
governments. The methodology and parameters were improved to conduct a
research in the following year. These two years were the initiation phase for JPIP
when some research designs and instruments were improved.
JP)P s initiation phase took place in
and
. The ensuing phase was
stabilization when research designs and instruments were tested for reliability.
District/city governments being the focus of research were relatively better aware
of the assessments adopted. In the third year, the competitive spirit among regions
within the parameters was raised. In the phase, the main mission of JPIP to drive the
progress in regions achieved its
(2002-2003)
optimum
point.
The InitiationAutonomy
Awards have been presented to
methodology and Autonomy districts/cities in East Java since 2002. During this initiation
Award categories which have phase, the methodology adopted by the Jawa Pos Pro(JPIP) progressed by trial and error. It means that
been used since 2003 were not Otonomi
JPIP was looking for the best methodology to measure the
significantly changed until 2013.
performance of local governments in East Java.
(2004-2013)
From its inception in 2002 until Stabilization
The stabilization phase started in 2004. In that year, JPIP
2013, the Autonomy Awards used three research methods to measure the performance of
program has been updated regional governments, including in-depth interview, public
and secondary data analysis. The three research
according to existing conditions. survey
methods were taken to produce objective ratings. They have
For example, three standard been implemented consistently from 2004 to the last
methods were established in Autonomy Award event (2013).
2004
and
the
political
institutionalization category was removed in 2009 because minimum innovations
were found.
For the purpose of this research, JPIP decides to use only data from the stabilization
phase of 2004-2013. There are two reasons for the decision. First, in the phase,
regional governments innovations could be compared fairly between one and
another. This is possible because JPIP used a methodology in 2004 for the first time.
7
The assessment methodology is the combination of qualitative and quantitative
researches.
Second, a public survey is a capacity that JPIP has to assess the performance of
regional governments. It directly involves beneficiaries in the regions to verify the
existence and benefits of the program. JPIP is a media-based organization fully
aware that involving local communities to assess local governance progress will
make the Autonomy Awards more credible.
The starting point of methodological stabilization was in 2004 when JPIP
collaborated with the Local Potential Resources Research and Development Unit
(UP3D) of Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS) in Surabaya to conduct public
surveys. For JPIP, public surveys will also confirm that regional government
innovations really benefit the public.
Table 1 shows a map of winners of Autonomy Awards 2004-2013 for the
parameters of public services and local politics. From 2004 to 2013, JPIP has
summarized 55 winners into two categories. 30 won Awards for public service
category and 25 for politics across 15 districts and 6 cities in East Java. This is
because some regions won more than one Autonomy Award. Frequently, these
regions won more than one award in the same year of for several consecutive years.
8
Table 1 List of Autonomy Awards Winners and Program Innovations 2004-2013
PARAMETERS
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
EDUCATION
PUBLIC SERVICES
HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION
ACCOUNTABILITY
LOCAL POLITICS
PARTICIPATION
POLITICAL
INSTITUTIONALIZATION
Probolinggo District
Program:
One-Roof
Elementary and
Junior High School
Education
Jombang District
Program:
Public Dialog on
Education Council
Siduarjo District
Program:
Free Medical Treatment
with Modified Healthcare
Security (JPKM)
Malang District
Program:
Administrative
Management under ISO
Standards 9001-2000
Surabaya City
Program:
Simultaneous Auction
Pacitan District
Program:
Participatory Pilot Project in
8 Villages
Probolinggo City
Program:
Three Local Regulations that
Strengthen Democracy
Siduarjo District
Program:
Replication of Modified
JPKM
Siduarjo District
Program:
One-Stop Licensing
Services
Surabaya City
Program:
Three E’s (E-Budgeting, EControlling, EProcurement)
Madiun District
Program: Integrated Social
Work (BST)
Pasuruan District
Program:
Cheap School
Transport and OneRoof Elementary and
Junior High School
Education
Bondowoso District
Program:
Illiteracy Eradication
and One-Roof
Elementary and
Junior High Schools
Pamekasan District
Program
Participatory
admission of new
students (PSB)
Batu City
Program:
One Year NonDegree Education
Program equivalent
to D-1 in Agriculture
Bondowoso District
Program:
Regional Regulation
No. 6/2009 on
Education
Blitar City
Program:
Citizen Charters (CC),
Standard Procedures and
Health Services
Madiun District
Program:
Easy Licensing and
transparent license fees
Sidoarjo District
Program:
Public Complaint Handling
Center (P3M)
Blitar City
Program:
Kelurahan Block Grant,
P2MK, and Improvement of
Slum Houses.
Magetan District
Program:
Political Capacity Building
for Local Communities
aware of laws, politics,
human rights and
citizenship.
Pasuruan District
Program:
Joint Decree between
District Head and
Legislature on Task Division
Jombang District
Program:
My Favorite Puskesmas
and My Beloved Hospital
Lumajang District
Program:
One-Stop Shop (KPT)
Pamekasan District
Program:
Production of APBD
Handbook and Bupati’s
Circular Prayers
Lamongan District
Program:
Participatory Poverty
management
Pasuruan District
Program:
Gemerlap Bersama (Clean
and Healthy Behavior
Initiative)
Surabaya City
Program:
Low-Cost Specialist
Puskesmas
Malang City
Program:
Single Window (e-Malana)
Jombang District
Program:
Public Surveys by
Regional Governments
Lumajang District
Program:
Movement to build a healthy
community (Gerbangmas)
Ponorogo District
Program:
Village Administration
Management Information
System (Simades)
Sidoarjo District
Program:
Romantic Network every
Friday morning and Block
Grants
No Winner
Mojokerto City
Program:
Shining Friday Movement
to Eradicate Mosquito
Breeding Sites
Probolinggo City
Program:
Adoption of Quality
Management System ISO
9001.2000
Bojonegoro District
Program:
Public Dialog between
District Heand and
Community Members
every Friday at a Marquee
Malang District
Program:
Access to Information,
Transparency and Public
Complaints
Probolinggo City
Program:
Promoting Participation
through four ways
No Winner
Pacitan District
Program:
Provision of School
Buses and One-Roof
Schools
Malang City
Program:
School Education
Posts under 4 M’s:
Mutu (Quality),
Murah (Cheap),
Mudah (Easy) and
Merata (Equal)
Jombang District
Program:
Education Radio
Lumajang District
Program:
Paperless Health
Administration Services
Ponorogo District
Program:
Cheap Birth Certificate
Services at Sub-District
Office
Ponorogo District
Program:
Civil Registry
Administration in
partnership with PT Pos &
Hospitals
Surabaya City
Program:
Government Resources
Management System
(SiMaSDap)
Malang District
Program:
Integrated Complaint
Handling System
Probolinggo District
Program:
Participatory Development
of Public Facilities
No winners
Probolinggo City
Program:
Pedicab Drivers Congress
(Abang Becak) in support of
City Musrenbang
No winners
Siodarjo District
Program:
Online Licensing and
Package Licensing
Surabaya City
Program:
Government Resources
Management System
(GRMS)
Banyuwangi District
Program:
Musrembangdes
No winners.
Pamekasan District
Program:
Doctors Go Down to Rural
Areas (Terkesan)
Malang District
Program:
Community-Based
Integrated Epidemiologic
Surveillance (Sutra Emas)
Madiun District
Program:
Distribution of Authority
between District Head, Vice
District Head and District
Secretary
Batu City
Program:
Layar Pilkades
Source: Data Center/JPIP documentation
9
The innovations that brought these regions to win Autonomy Awards are presented
in brief. The brief summary can be found in Annex 1 hereto.
In quantity (see Chart 1), Sidoarjo District won the most Autonomy Awards. From
2004 to 2013, this smallest district in East Java won six Autonomy Awards. It can be
said that Sidoarjo was the richest in innovations across East Java because the
innovations were relatively diverse, ranging from health, administration,
accountability to public participation.
The study shows that no regions had so diverse innovations other than Sidoarjo
District. Unfortunately, the innovative spirit of this buffer district of Surabaya City
has become weak when the Lapindo mud disaster emerged on May 29, 2006 and
has buried four villages in Porong Sub-district. For two years, all technical working
units (SKPDs) had fully concentrated their efforts on mitigating the impacts of such
hot mudflows. For two years its ranking had also dropped in the Autonomy Award
events in East Java. The District woke up again when it received Autonomy Awards
in 2009 for Public Participation Category and in 2013 for Public Administration
Category.
Chart 1. Map of Autonomy Awards Winners 2004-2013
6
5
4
3
Pelembagaan
Partisipasi
Akuntabilitas
2
1
Administrasi
Kesehatan
Pendidikan
0
The second winner of Autonomy Award was Surabaya City. Five trophies were
collected by the city using the slogan Sparkling Surabaya. As described in Chart 1,
this capital of East Java was also winner in the public accountability category. Out of
the five Autonomy Award trophies, four were contributed by government
accountability programs. The programs include Simultaneous Auction and Adoption
of Three E’s in City Government E-Procurement, E-Budgeting and E-Controlling).
10
Another interesting thing in the Autonomy Award winners map is Ponorogo District.
The district well known with its folk dance Reog Ponorogo is a specialist in
administrative services. Three awards received in 2009, 2011 and 2012 were all for
basic administration innovations. The innovations include Village Administrative
Management Information System (SIMADES), Cheap Birth Certificate Services at Subdistricts and Civil Registration Administration in partnership with PT Pos Indonesia
and Hospitals.
Treatment of Initial Information
From the above initial information, researchers conducted a field study through
interviewing district/city stakeholders. The activity aimed to examine the
sustainability of innovations that won the awards. In the field study, these
researchers thoroughly investigated the innovations by reviewing:
Type of services delivered by district/city
Innovation initiators (sources), whether innovations originate from the
regional head (local leadership), higher levels of government
(provincial/national), bureaucracy (SKPD), civil society or donors.
Environment, either conducive or not conducive to causing such innovative
programs and good practices to wilt, stagnate or bloom. The environment
includes leadership type, local political dynamics, civil society s role and
existence of incentives for innovation.
The field study results were analyzed qualitatively to measure to what extent such
innovative programs and good practices that won Autonomy Awards from JPIP had
progressed. In addition, the qualitative analysis also revealed factors that
contributed to and inhibited the development of innovations and good practices.
11
STUDY FINDINGS
The study shows that of the 55 good practices winning Autonomy Awards during
the period of 2004-2013, most (44%) continued and progressed in quality and area.
Or, in this research, they are referred to as Blooming. Then, 42% of the programs
and good practices stagnated. This was a condition in which the programs/services
winning the Autonomy Awards were still continued by district/city governments
but did not proliferate further.
The remaining 14 percent were wilting. Such programs or good practices might
stand for only two or three years, after which they would not be continued by
regional governments due to some factors.
Chart 2. Status of Innovative Public Services Winning
Autonomy Awards 2004-2013
23
24
8
Layu/Wilting
Stagnan/Stagnant
Berkembang/Blooming
By area distribution (Chart 3), Sidoarjo District stays recorded as having the
greatest number of innovative programs in the public services and local politics
sectors. During the period of 2004 to 2013, Sidoarjo District won six Autonomy
Award trophies for public service delivery and local politics. Unfortunately, three of
the six good practices wilted and even disappeared. Among the wilting programs
was Free Medical Treatment with Modified JPKM that was discontinued in 2006.
The data on innovation area distribution shows that Surabaya City was relatively
consistent to develop its innovative programs. During the period of 2004 to 2013,
the so-called City of (eroes won four Autonomy Awards. Of the four awards, three
12
innovative programs bloomed. The remaining two were consistently implemented
though stagnant. The blooming programs include Simultaneous Auction, the Triple
E’s e-budgeting, e-controlling, and e-procurement), and Government Resources
Management System (SIMASDAP).
Chart 3. Status of Innovative Programs Winning Autonomy
Awards 2004-2013
1
Blooming
3
3
Stagnant
2
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
Wilting
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
Among 21 regions who won Autonomy Awards in public services and local politics,
Magetan District performed relatively poorly. Located at the foot of Mount Lawu, the
district only once won the Autonomy Award in 2005 for the Political
institutionalization Category. But the innovative program wilted over time.
Relatively similar situations happened to Pacitan District and Batu City. Of the two
innovative programs they won, one wilted. However, the other one continued and
progressed well.
Malang District, Probolinggo City and Lumajang District seemed to be specialists in
developing their innovative programs. Malang District, for example, successfully
collected four Autonomy Award trophies during the period of 2004-2013. Out of the
four awards, only one stagnated. The other programs progressed well.
In Malang District, the stagnant program actually did not stop. The innovative
program is Community-Based Integrated Epidemiologic Surveillance, or abbreviated
to Sutera Emas. The program won Autonomy Award 2013 for the category of health
services.
When this research was being conducted in mid-2014, the program that had taken
place for one year did not show further development in quality and area coverage.
However, the future development of the innovative program seems an exciting
13
prospect. This is indicated by the entry of some international development agencies
such as AusAid, USAID and WHO into the further development.
14
ANALYSIS OF STUDY FINDINGS
This section considers factors contributing to and inhibiting the sustainability of
innovative public services in East Java. The analysis is divided into three parts:
innovative services delivered by district/city governments, innovation sources or
initiators of such innovative programs and environments conducive and not
conducive to the development of such innovations.
Type of Services
This research highlights six types of innovative services: education, health, basic
administration, public participation, public accountability and local political
institutionalization. The six types of public services should be monitored and
evaluated consistently by JPIP in addition to the three economic indicators:
economic growth, economic distribution, and local economic empowerment.
Of the six innovative types of services delivered by district/city governments, the
politically nuanced programs (public participation, public accountability and local
political institutionalization) would not last long if compared to other innovative
basic public services such as education, health and administration.
Chart 4. Innovative Types of Services/Programs
3
5
3
5
6
5
1
6
3
4
2
4
2
2
1
1
Berkembang/Blooming
Stagnan/Stagnant
Layu/Wilting
2
During the period of 2004-2013, JPIP presented 25 Autonomy Awards for
innovations in political services. However, five of the 25 innovative programs lasted
for one to two years only. 12 were stagnant. The rest were blooming. Even, one won
the Autonomy Award again in 2012.
15
The innovation that won the award back was Promoting Public Participation in Four
Ways, initiated by Probolinggo City. The program was first initiated in 2004. In the
year, Probolinggo City enacted three political district regulations (Perda), i.e. Perda
No. 3/2003 on Transparency, Perda No. 4/2003 on Participation and Perda No.
5/2003 on how to voice opinions. Over time, the three Perdas have been improved
in implementation. One innovation that reflected the implementation was Pedicab
Drivers Congress (Abang Becak) in support of City Musrenbang. This innovation
contributed to Probolinggo City the Autonomy Award 2012 for Public Participation.
As shown in Chart 4, innovations in political institutionalization programs are
recorded as least found. These innovations may include efforts or breakthroughs in
conflict management, human rights enforcement, political communication between
political elites, etc. Even, on the account of poor findings of the innovations, there
was no winner for that category during the period of 2009-2013. As a result, the
innovations found in the period of 2004-2013 were relatively insignificant if
compared to other sectors. JPIP found only five innovations in the ten-year period.
Of the five innovations, only one was blooming.
Of the six types of services/programs examined, most innovative programs in the
administration, education and public accountability sectors were blooming. In the
accountability sector, for example, more programs were implemented by local
governments to promote transparency.
In Surabaya City, e-procurement, e-budgeting, e-controlling and e-planning
innovations have been put in place. The city has also developed a Government
Resource Management System (GRMS). Malang Regency has provided wide public
disclosures on its official website: www.malangkab.go.id. On the website, citizens
easily download a very thick book of its local budget (APBD), with nothing being
concealed. This initiative of Malang Regency has been copied by other districts in
East Java.
Innovation Sources (Initiators)
It is interesting to see innovative services provided by winners of Autonomy Awards
2004-2013. From the field research, answers from key respondents about who
initiated innovative programs may be classified into five groups. The five innovation
initiator groups include regional heads, national government, provincial
government, SKPD/UPT (government implementing agencies), donors and nonbureaucracy agencies (see Chart 5).
16
Chart 5. Innovation Initiators
33
15
1
Pemerintah
pusat
1
Pemerintah
provinsi
2
Non
Birokrasi
3
Donor
Kepala
daerah
SKPD/UPT
SKPD/UPT
Chart 5 shows that the majority of initiatives to create innovations come from
SKPDs (Regional Working Units) and UPT (implementing agencies). 33 of the 55
innovative services examined, or 60 percent, were initiated by SKPDs. The SKPDs
herein refer to dinas, agencies, offices, including Puskesmas (one UPT under SKPD),
and villages. Within the SKPD/UPT scope, innovative ideas may come from heads of
dinas/agencies/offices/UPT and ordinary staff.
Innovative services of Pasuruan District on Cheap School Transportation and OneRoof Elementary and Junior High Schools are one innovation initiated by district
office (dinas) head. When visiting one remote district, the dinas head felt sympathy
for students who were struggling to go to school early in the morning. The difficult
access to school was then addressed by an innovation of creating a one-roof
elementary and junior high school. In addition, the dinas head also requested that
the district government modify a former ambulance car to make it suitable for a
school bus. These innovative programs at the time of this research were still
ongoing and blooming well. In addition to the former ambulance car, an ex-camat
car was also modified to be a school bus.
If in Pasuruan District, the idea of innovation came from the education office (dinas)
head, in Malang District a brilliant idea in the health sector came from a puskesmas
(community health center) head. The district currently led by Rendra Kresna won
17
an Autonomy Award for Health in 2013. The innovation appreciated by JPIP was
entitled Sutra Emas (Community-Based Integrated Epidemiologic Surveillance).
Based on the results of interviews with some SKPD/UPT heads and staff, there seem
to be a mutually supportive relationship between the leadership style of a regional
head and the creativity of SKPD to produce program innovations. Some regional
heads make awards from other parties such as JPIP Autonomy Awards as a tool for
competition among SKPD/UPTs within the regional government. This was done by
District Heads of Sidoarjo, Lamongan, Probolinggo dan Pasuruan. They challenged
their SKPDs/UPTs to innovate and submit such innovations to JPIP for Autonomy
Awards in the following year.
In addition to creating an atmosphere of competition among SKPDs/UPTs, some
district heads launched special challenges to particular SKPDs/UPTs. For example, if
this year an autonomy award was achieved for an innovation of the Health Office,
then next year the regional head sets a special target for the Education Office to win
an award in the education sector. If an award can be achieved, the regional head will
earn a good reputation and the innovation initiator will usually be promoted.
Regional Head
The second supplier of innovative ideas is the regional head. District heads/mayors
contributed to 27 percent of the total 55 innovations winning the Autonomy Awards
2004. JP)P s researches during early implementation of regional autonomy
indicate that the advancement of a region heavily depends on the capacity and
leadership style of its head (bupati/mayor). A creative regional head will make his
region quickly advanced and developed in terms of economic sector and public
services. In East Java, this is reflected by Lamongan District.
Under the leadership of Bupati Masfuk (2000-2010), the north coastal district of
Java was developed so fast, particularly in the economic sector. In the period of ten
years, Lamongan was changed drastically from an underdeveloped region to a
tourist and business destination in East Java. The District Head (Bupati) was an
entrepreneur who successfully attracted some investments in Lamongan. His
leadership style is also responsive and thus acceptable to many circles of society.
Similar to Bupati Masfuk, other regional heads who may be called idea makers
include Bupati Rendra Kresna (Malang District), Walikota Djarot Saiful Hidayat
(2000-2010) of Blitar, Bupati Junaedi Mahendra (1998-2008) of Madiun, Bupati
Suyoto of Bojonegoro and Bupati Achmad Fauzi (1998-2008) of Lumajang.
Admittedly, the capacity and leadership style of these idea-makers are of personal
nature or inherent in such individuals. Consequently, this puts regions at a critical
18
point where the replacement of a regional head will affect the sustainability of
ongoing innovations. This may be worse when there is a political friction between
the old district head and the new one. As a consequence, the innovations created by
the previous district head may be discontinued fully or partly by the current district
head.
In East Java, such conditions are prominent in Blitar City. In the city, some
innovations produced by the previous mayor are all stagnant and even weaker due
to the mayoral replacement. One of the innovations that was the pride of the city
was Citizen Charter in some Puskesmas. The innovation received a positive
response from beneficiaries.
Some awards from a number of agencies were received for the adoption of such
citizen charters. After successful introduction to puskesmas, the citizen charters
were applied to public schools. However, according to information from some local
NGOs leaders, the innovation that required some regional governments to conduct
a comparative study has an unclear fate. The replacement of the mayor followed by
a bureaucratic overhaul has caused the spirit to continue the innovation to be weak.
Donor Organizations
International development organizations or donor organizations are in the third
position as contributors to innovations of districts/cities in East Java. Three of the
55 innovative programs examined were initiated by donor organizations. They
include the issuance of Regional Regulation on Transparency in Probolinggo City,
Public Participation Pilot Project in Eight Villages in Pacitan District and Annual
Survey of Public Services in Jombang District.
The issuance of Regional Regulation on Transparency, Participation and Procedures
for Submitting Opinions in Probolinggo City in
was iniated by USA)D s Local
Government Support Program (LGSP). The innovation won a JPIP Autonomy Award
for the Category of Local Politics Institutionalization in 2004. Interestingly, the
innovation was still ongoing and blooming at the time of this research. Even, based
on the innovation introduced ten years ago the mango-producer city in East Java
again won the Autonomy Award for the Category of Public Participation in 2012.
In Jombang District, German development agency GTZ, in cooperation with
Bappeda, conducts public surveys to identify public complaints about services
delivered by SKPD/service units. The surveys are conducted annually in different
themes. For example, in 2008 the public survey was entitled transport services. In
the previous year, the survey was entitled agricultural services. However, it is now
unclear whether these public complaint surveys will continue upon expiry of the
assistance contract with the donor organization.
19
The exit strategy from donor organizations is important to ensure that the ongoing
program can be continued by the regional government. Donor organizations should
convince decision-makers at the working unit level (technocratic) and regional
leadership level such as bupati/mayors and regional legislature level (political) that
it is important to continue the good practices. However, again, political frictions
between the previous bupati and his successor sometimes make such a wellprepared exit strategy meaningless and eventually make the innovation inactive.
Non-Bureaucracy
The next innovation contributor is non-bureaucratic entities. Only two of the 55
innovative programs examined were initiated by non-bureaucracy entities. They
were found in Jombang District and Blitar City. In Jombang District, the nonbureaucratic entity is District Education Council.
At that time, the Education Council composed of community leaders actively
campaigned for improving the quality of education in Jombang. To raise public
awareness, the Council held weekly public dialogs on a radio to identify public
aspirations and complaints about education services in Jombang. The results of
these public dialogs provided input for Bupati and the District Education Office to
improve service delivery. Unfortunately, upon replacement of members of the
Education Council, the excellent program was not continued.
Another non-bureaucratic actor contributing innovative ideas is universities. The
application of an innovative Citizen Charter (CC) to Blitar City was initiated by the
Gadjah Mada University (UGM) supported by the Ford Foundation in 2004. The then
Mayor of Blitar, Djarot Saiful Hidayat, was interested in an idea offered by a team
from the UGM s Demographic and Policy Study Center PSKK . Cooperation was
established and started with training some persons from the civil society and civil
service (PNS) on citizen charter (CC). The charter was finally implemented in three
puskesmas in three sub-districts in 2005. Further, CC was also implemented in
schools ranging from public elementary schools (SDN), public junior high schools
(SMPN) to public senior high schools (SMAN) in Blitar City.
Admittedly, the background of the Blitar Mayor as an academic contributed to his
acceptance of such a creative idea from the UGM PSKK Team. In addition to Blitar
City, the UGM PSKK also piloted CC in several regions. Among these were Jogjakarta
City, Semarang District and Bogor City. But the focus of services varied among
regions. Blitar City focused on puskesmas services, Jogjakarta City focused on birth
certificate services, Semarang District focused on licensing services at subdistricts,
and Bogor City focused on population administration.
20
National Government
Less innovations in East Java were initiated by the national government. The only
innovation found is Community Healthcare Security (JPKM) of Sidoarjo District. This
mass and cheap health insurance is the implementation of Law Number 23 Year
1992 on Health. The Law stipulates that local governments may manage JPKM
independently. JPKM is a model of prepaid health security with controllable quality
and at reasonable costs.
JPKM is managed by an implementing agency (Bapel) adopting quality control and
cost control. People who want to be members will register themselves in groups
with Bapel by paying contributions in advance. Members will receive full and graded
health services, spearheading the first level of services to meet primary health needs
with controllable quality and at reasonable costs.
Health service providers (PPKs) are part of healthcare networks hired and paid on
a pre-effort basis or in advance by Bapel and thus stimulated to provide complete
health services with controllable quality and at reasonable costs.
Based on the national government regulation, any change to the regulation will
significantly affect the sustainability of this innovation. This occurred in 2004 upon
issuance of Decree of the Health Minister 1241/2004 that appointed four private
companies (PT Askes, PT Taspen, PT ASABRI, and PT Jamsostek) as sole
administrators
of
JPKM
previously
managed
independently
by
provincial/district/city governments. In December 2006, the innovative program of
JPKM in Sidoarjo was officially terminated.
The situation behind the issuance of the ministerial decree was not conducive. The
mass media often reported on misappropriation of funds and mismanagement by
Bapel JPKM in almost all parts of the country. The bad news seemed to generalize all
JPKM practices in the country so the good management of JPKM as in Sidoarjo
District was adversely affected by the ministerial decree. At that time, the issue of
re-centralization emerged strongly after four years of regional autonomy.
Provincial Government
Out of the 55 district innovative programs in East Java, the provincial government
contributed one idea. This was found in Bondowoso District with an innovation
entitled Illiteracy Eradication by Involving a Multi-Stakeholder Forum.
The presence of the provincial government to participate in addressing educational
issues in the Tape-producing district in East Java is reasonable. In East Java,
Bondowoso was ranked the highest in Latin illiteracy. Therefore, to release the
21
Province of East Java from being ranked the highest in illiteracy across the country
(BPS 2010), special treatment should be given to Bondowoso District. If illiteracy in
Bondowoso was reduced, this would directly contribute to reducing provincial
illiteracy.
The Provincial Government of East Java and the District Government of Bondowoso
intensively cooperate in formulating policies and mobilizing funds and human
resources to increase Latin literacy in Bondowoso. One of the policy taken is to
establish a Learning Center (PKBM) involving volunteers from the civil society,
military, religious leaders, students, civil service, etc. These volunteers serve as
impromptu teachers for illiterate members of local communities in some parts of
Bondowoso.
After three years of implementation, illiteracy eradication efforts bear fruit. The
number of illiterate people in 2011 (in the 15-59 age group) was 73,904 but it is
now 20,964 in early 2014.
The successful innovative program in Bondowoso District has been attributed to the
high participation of community members voluntarily serving as tutors. In addition,
the continuous support of the province and the district head s high commitment
have contributed to removing the stigma from Bondowoso as an illiteracy enclave
within East Java.
Environmental Conditions
The environment referred to in this research is a situation, including contributing or
inhibiting factors that cause innovative programs and good practices to be wilting,
stagnant or blooming. Therefore, the environment will be closely related to
leadership styles, local political dynamics, civil society s role and incentives for
innovation. However, other factors found in the qualitative research will also be
described in order to improve the comprehension of issues that affect the
development of an innovation.
As earlier described in the methodology section, there are three development
possibilities of innovative programs that won Autonomy Awards 2004-2013. The
three possibilities are wilting, stagnant and blooming innovations.
Wilting
Wilting/layu:'
Inovasi'tidak'
berlanjut'
(wilting)'
Under this category, the innovation winning an Autonomy Award
only lasts for one or two years and is then terminated. Some factors
are indicated to cause the discontinuance of an innovation that won
an award from JPIP.
22
Of the 55 innovative programs that won Autonomy Awards 2004-2013 in East Java,
this research found that 8 were discontinued or wilting. The 8 wilting innovations
are shown in the following table:
Table 2. List of Wilting Innovations
Regions
Programs
Sidoarjo District
JPKM (Community Healthcare
Security)
Modified JPKM
Pamekasan District
Jombang District
Participatory PSB
Annual Public Services Survey
Public Dialogs by Jobang
Educational Council
Layar Pilkades
Public Participation Pilot Projects
in 8 villages
Capacity Building in Political,
Legal, Human Rights and Civic
Sectors for the Community
Batu City
Pacitan District
Magetan District
The field research on the eight wilting innovations found five factors that caused
their discontinuation. The first inhibiting factor was weaker enthusiasm of the
bureaucracy to provide innovative services. This category also includes
mismanagement of innovative services, e.g. corruption and inefficient management
of budget.
The weaker enthusiasm for guarding the innovation may be caused by some factors.
One factor is the replacement of SKPD/UPT Head as a consequence of local
leadership succession. The leadership replacement usually changes the existing
priority programs and thus affects the sustainability of innovative services. This
may be worse if such innovative services are not protected by strong legal
frameworks such as regional regulations or regional head regulations. Although the
ideal form of bureaucracy is public service, obeying the leader is the basic nature
inherent in it.
23
Chart 6. Factors that Cause Discontinuation of
Innovations
Donor pulang
15%
Terhambat
peraturan pusat
23%
Respons
masyarakat rendah
15%
Antusiasme
birokrasi
menurun/Managem
en buruk
31%
Pergantian kepala
daerah
16%
The second inhibiting factor is the replacement of a regional head contributing to the
termination of innovations. Politically and psychologically, the new regional head
has factors different from the previous head. Properly ongoing innovative services
will be at stake, especially in the case of political frictions between the current and
former regional heads. Frictions may occur as a result of competition between
political parties or between political elites within one party. If such a condition
occurs, good practices introduced by the former regional head will be thrown away.
The replacement of a regional head also means a change of development priorities
because each regional head has his/her own mission and vision to develop the
region. If the missions and vision of a new regional head are in parallel with ones of
the former head, the ongoing innovations will continue well. But, if the new head has
different development priorities from the former, the ongoing innovations will not
be the main focus.
The third inhibiting factor is the issuance of a national regulation that terminates the
ongoing innovations being implemented by regional governments. One finding in
East Java is the dissolution of Community Healthcare Security (JPKM) in Sidoarjo
District. The issuance of Health Minister Decree 1241/2004 withdrawing the
authority of regional governments to establish JPKM Implementing Agency (Bapel)
completely terminated the typical Sidoarjo JPKM innovation in 2006.
The fourth inhibiting factor is the expiry of assistance contracts with donor
organizations potentially terminating the ongoing innovations. On the one hand, the
presence of donor organizations to initiate innovative programs is very beneficial
24
for regional governments because they usually have significant references about
best practices from both local and international sources. However, if their exit
strategies are not internalized well in bureaucracy and political elites (district
heads/mayors/ legislatures), their departure from regions may also mean
termination of such innovations.
The fifth inhibiting factor is the low responses of the community to innovative
services that shorten the period of such innovations. This is reflected by the results
of some interviews with key respondents/informants in each region. If an
innovation does not directly benefit the community, it will fade away and disappear.
In East Java, the community made an unfavorable response to the innovation
Participatory Admission of New Students (PSB) in Pamekasan District.
The program won the Autonomy Award 2008 for Education. Over time, the program
initiated by the district education office (Dinas) was widely criticized by the
community. There were allegedly commercialized admissions of new students
under the Participatory PSB program. Consequently, the community lost its trust in
the educational innovation. Finally, in the academic year 2014/2015 the innovative
program was officially terminated.
Stagnant
Out of the total 55 innovative programs examined, 23 (42%) were
stagnant where they continued but did not bloom. The blooming
means improved quality of services and expanded coverage of
services. The stagnant status means that the innovations were
relatively similar to the status when they won Autonomy Awards
several years ago. There were no improvements in management nor increases in
beneficiaries.
Stagnant:'
Inovasi'
berlanjut'
namun'tidak'
berkembang'
Of the 23 innovations, inhibiting and contributing factors causing them to be
stagnant were identified. As shown in Chart 7, some inhibiting and contributing
factors that caused the innovations to be stagnant were found. This report will not
address them one by one but review strategic factors and commonalities of the
findings.
Chart 7. Contributing and Inhibiting Factors Causing Innovations to be Stagnant
25
Inhibiting Factors for Not
Developing Innovations
Anggaran Terhambat
terbatas peraturan
Respons
pusat
masyarakat 9%
13%
rendah
9%
Antusiasme
birokrasi
menurun/Ma
nagemen
buruk
39%
Pergantian
kepala
daerah
30%
Contributing Factors for Not
Terminating Innovations
Penghargaan
dari luar
4%
Pendampinga
n lembaga
Keberlangsun
donor
gan kebijakan
6%
Antusiasme
13%
kepala daerah
Anggaran
baru
meningkat
23%
6%
Respons
masyarakat
tinggi
27%
Birokrasi
relatif stabil
21%
Inhibiting Factors
First inhibiting factor. Most of the innovations (39%) winning the Autonomy Awards
2004-2013 were stagnant as a result of the declining enthusiasm of the bureaucrats
to manage the programs. In addition, poor management of the programs was also
among the inhibiting factors. There were some factors causing the enthusiasm to
drop.
One crucial issue is the replacement of SKPD/UPT heads where the innovations
were being implemented. The replacement may occur naturally such as retirement,
job transfer and promotion. It may also occur as a result of the replacement of a
Study on Sustainable Innovations and Good Practices of
District/City Governments Winning Autonomy Awards in East
Java (2004-2013)
The Jawa Pos Institute of Pro Otonomi
Graha Pena Lt. 8, Ruang 801
Jl. A. Yani 88 Surabaya
Phone: 031 8202038
Fax: 031 8202081
E-Mail: [email protected]
Web: www.jpip.or.id
INTRODUCTION
Decentralization, better known as regional autonomy, in Indonesia provides room
for innovation to regional governments to develop their regions. Of course, the final
purpose of an innovation is to improve public service delivery and public welfare.
Regional autonomy, which was officially introduced on January 1, 2001, is an
antithesis of the failure of the centralistic regime having been in power for 32 years.
The policy has been a rational choice after the 1998 reform that demanded equal
economic distribution from Sabang to Merauke. If decentralization policy were not
taken, disintegration threats would be widespread in regions, particularly outside
Java. The centralistic regime proved to only develop Jakarta as government center.
Regional autonomy offers a way to Indonesia to develop not only its center but also
all parts of the country. Therefore, since 2001, the central government has delegated
the largest part of its political, administrative and fiscal authority to districts across
the country. Receiving the great authority, regional governments have the freedom
to manage themselves. The closer-is-better principle was really inspiring President
(abibie s political policy. (owever, the relatively new policy on regional autonomy
certainly has some limitations. Therefore, it is crucial to monitor the process of this
governance transformation.
Three months after the introduction of regional autonomy, April 1, 2001 to be exact,
Jawa Pos Group voluntarily established the Jawa Pos Institute of Pro Otonomi (JPIP).
The purpose is to oversee and promote regional autonomy to benefit the public.
Using a unique approach, JPIP has introduced an Autonomy Award Program in East
Java.
The Autonomy Award Program is functioning as an instrument to motivate local
governments to perform better in the economic, public service and local political
sectors (participation and accountability). The program will be an annual tradition
to award district/city governments for their best performance in the three sectors.
Competition among local governments to develop their regions and improve public
service delivery has been reverberating around East Java. Tens of innovative
programs have been recorded by JPIP and were presented Autonomy Awards.
The purpose of this study on sustainable innovations of autonomy award winners is
to identify ongoing innovative programs/services provided by districts/cities, which
won the awards in public service and local political categories. It means that JPIP
will only collect data and reevaluate the achievements of Autonomy Award winners
2
from 2004 to 2013 in public service delivery and governance. The locus of this study
is the Province of East Java.
This Sustainable Autonomy Award Study is significant to monitor the sustainability
of winning programs from the time those regions won the awards until May 2014. It
will evaluate whether such winning innovations still exist and develop to present.
Or, on the contrary, they just existed in the early years but then wilted or even died
in the following years.
3
METHODOLOGY
In line with its purpose, this study is conducted to identify the sustainability of
innovations that won the Autonomy Awards 2004-2013. One research question is:
how have the innovative programs that won the Autonomy Awards 2004-2013
progressed?
This underlying question is the starting point to gather supporting information. For
example, what lessons can be learned from wilting and stagnant innovations. And,
from blooming innovations, what good practices can be replicated to support their
growth. In addition, the role of stakeholders and implications for the development of
such innovative programs can be mapped with this study.
Technically, the research starts from a desk study to guide a field study. The desk
study is the first part of the research. At this point, JPIP re-identifies innovations and
good practices that won Autonomy Awards. In addition to the re-identification from
the JPIP data center, the desk study includes data crosschecks with JPIP researchers
annually going down to regions and observations by journalists of Jawa Pos News
Network (JPNN) across districts/cities in East Java.
Further, initial information is also gathered through direct correspondence with key
persons from district/city governments directly dealing with such innovative
programs. The correspondence includes telephone calls and short message services
(SMS). With the help of these technologies, initial information is sought on the
status of innovative programs and good practices that won Autonomy Awards.
Results of the desk study provide initial guidance for the JPIP Team to conduct a
field study.
The purpose of a field study is to verify the initial information gathered from a desk
study. It is also done to get the whole picture of factors contributing to and
inhibiting the sustainability of innovative public services achieved by districts/cities
over the past 10 years.
JPIP fully uses a qualitative method (see Chart 1). The objective is to collect more indepth case-by-case information. Therefore, an in-depth interview is the main tool
for gathering information. JPIP researches carefully interview key informants who
well know about the progress of the innovations in question. These key informants
include regional government officials and other non-government parties who
master the information needed.
4
Secondary data related to the study topics is treated as interview-supporting data.
Such data includes APBD documents, regional regulations, accountability reports,
program brochures/leaflets, etc. In addition, direct observations of local innovative
service units contribute to the qualitative study. They are needed to verify and
validate information as well as support researchers complete descriptions.
Therefore, researchers who go down to regions should have skills in gathering
information through interviews and should be trained observers.
Chart 1. Design of Research on Sustainable Innovations Winning Autonomy Award (OA) 2004-2013
Research Question:
How have the
innovative programs
that won the Autonomy
Awards 2004-2013
progressed?
Data Collection:
1. Desk Study
- JPIP Data Center
- Initial data triangulation
2. Field Study
In-depth interviews
Direct observations
Analysis of secondary
data
Desk Study Report
Final Report
Qualitative
Analysis
Locus
21 Districts
Focus:
1. Public services (education,
health, administration)
2. Local politics (participation,
accountability,
political
institutionalization)
Results &
Various
Possible
Findings
Further, based on its research findings, JPIP classifies the development of
innovative programs/services that won Autonomy Awards in East Java into three
categories. The categories include the following:
a. Blooming: this means that the innovations achieved by districts/cities are
ongoing and continue to proliferate from their first form. The blooming
includes area coverage or service quality. For example, when an Autonomy
Award was won several years ago, the innovation was applied in one
subdistrict (kecamatan). But when this research was conducted, the
innovation has been replicated in other subdistricts. Thus, the beneficiaries
of the program increase in number.
Quality improvement refers to management improvement. For example, if
services were provided manually in the past, they are computerized now or
adopt ISO management standards. Likewise, in the past, the innovation was
managed only by SKPD or one entity but now it is managed by a multistakeholder forum.
An innovative service/program may also be categorized as blooming if the
innovation that won an Autonomy Award guides the development of other
5
innovations. In other words, the innovative service/program has
metamorphosed into a sophisticated one.
b. Stagnant or continuing without blooming: The innovation that won an
Autonomy Award is maintained by the district/city concerned. However, the
program has not progressed significantly or proliferated. The recent
conditions of the innovative service/program remain the same as when it
won the Autonomy Award several years ago.
c. Wilting: The innovation that received an award from JPIP survives for one or
two years only. After that, the program disappears and is not sustainable.
Illustration 1. Three Possible Developments of Innovative Programs that Won Autonomy
Awards 2004-2013
Stagnant:
Innovation
is
sustainable
and does
not grow
Blooming:
Innovation
continues to
proliferate, in
coverage and
quality
Wilting:
Innovation
does
not
survive
Ilustrasi: Redhi Setiadi
6
MAP OF AUTONOMY AWARD WINNERS
The assessment parameters and methodology used by JPIP were first introduced to
the public on August 23, 2001. The complete set of these assessment tools and
explanations were posted in the Jawa Pos Daily on that day in four full pages. The
research design 2002 was the basis on which the first Autonomy Award was
assessed. This first year event of parameter and methodology tests received positive
appreciation from the public.
Significant lessons could be learned from the JPIP Autonomy Awards 2002 on how
to objectively, effectively and efficiently measure the performance of district/city
governments. The methodology and parameters were improved to conduct a
research in the following year. These two years were the initiation phase for JPIP
when some research designs and instruments were improved.
JP)P s initiation phase took place in
and
. The ensuing phase was
stabilization when research designs and instruments were tested for reliability.
District/city governments being the focus of research were relatively better aware
of the assessments adopted. In the third year, the competitive spirit among regions
within the parameters was raised. In the phase, the main mission of JPIP to drive the
progress in regions achieved its
(2002-2003)
optimum
point.
The InitiationAutonomy
Awards have been presented to
methodology and Autonomy districts/cities in East Java since 2002. During this initiation
Award categories which have phase, the methodology adopted by the Jawa Pos Pro(JPIP) progressed by trial and error. It means that
been used since 2003 were not Otonomi
JPIP was looking for the best methodology to measure the
significantly changed until 2013.
performance of local governments in East Java.
(2004-2013)
From its inception in 2002 until Stabilization
The stabilization phase started in 2004. In that year, JPIP
2013, the Autonomy Awards used three research methods to measure the performance of
program has been updated regional governments, including in-depth interview, public
and secondary data analysis. The three research
according to existing conditions. survey
methods were taken to produce objective ratings. They have
For example, three standard been implemented consistently from 2004 to the last
methods were established in Autonomy Award event (2013).
2004
and
the
political
institutionalization category was removed in 2009 because minimum innovations
were found.
For the purpose of this research, JPIP decides to use only data from the stabilization
phase of 2004-2013. There are two reasons for the decision. First, in the phase,
regional governments innovations could be compared fairly between one and
another. This is possible because JPIP used a methodology in 2004 for the first time.
7
The assessment methodology is the combination of qualitative and quantitative
researches.
Second, a public survey is a capacity that JPIP has to assess the performance of
regional governments. It directly involves beneficiaries in the regions to verify the
existence and benefits of the program. JPIP is a media-based organization fully
aware that involving local communities to assess local governance progress will
make the Autonomy Awards more credible.
The starting point of methodological stabilization was in 2004 when JPIP
collaborated with the Local Potential Resources Research and Development Unit
(UP3D) of Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS) in Surabaya to conduct public
surveys. For JPIP, public surveys will also confirm that regional government
innovations really benefit the public.
Table 1 shows a map of winners of Autonomy Awards 2004-2013 for the
parameters of public services and local politics. From 2004 to 2013, JPIP has
summarized 55 winners into two categories. 30 won Awards for public service
category and 25 for politics across 15 districts and 6 cities in East Java. This is
because some regions won more than one Autonomy Award. Frequently, these
regions won more than one award in the same year of for several consecutive years.
8
Table 1 List of Autonomy Awards Winners and Program Innovations 2004-2013
PARAMETERS
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
EDUCATION
PUBLIC SERVICES
HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION
ACCOUNTABILITY
LOCAL POLITICS
PARTICIPATION
POLITICAL
INSTITUTIONALIZATION
Probolinggo District
Program:
One-Roof
Elementary and
Junior High School
Education
Jombang District
Program:
Public Dialog on
Education Council
Siduarjo District
Program:
Free Medical Treatment
with Modified Healthcare
Security (JPKM)
Malang District
Program:
Administrative
Management under ISO
Standards 9001-2000
Surabaya City
Program:
Simultaneous Auction
Pacitan District
Program:
Participatory Pilot Project in
8 Villages
Probolinggo City
Program:
Three Local Regulations that
Strengthen Democracy
Siduarjo District
Program:
Replication of Modified
JPKM
Siduarjo District
Program:
One-Stop Licensing
Services
Surabaya City
Program:
Three E’s (E-Budgeting, EControlling, EProcurement)
Madiun District
Program: Integrated Social
Work (BST)
Pasuruan District
Program:
Cheap School
Transport and OneRoof Elementary and
Junior High School
Education
Bondowoso District
Program:
Illiteracy Eradication
and One-Roof
Elementary and
Junior High Schools
Pamekasan District
Program
Participatory
admission of new
students (PSB)
Batu City
Program:
One Year NonDegree Education
Program equivalent
to D-1 in Agriculture
Bondowoso District
Program:
Regional Regulation
No. 6/2009 on
Education
Blitar City
Program:
Citizen Charters (CC),
Standard Procedures and
Health Services
Madiun District
Program:
Easy Licensing and
transparent license fees
Sidoarjo District
Program:
Public Complaint Handling
Center (P3M)
Blitar City
Program:
Kelurahan Block Grant,
P2MK, and Improvement of
Slum Houses.
Magetan District
Program:
Political Capacity Building
for Local Communities
aware of laws, politics,
human rights and
citizenship.
Pasuruan District
Program:
Joint Decree between
District Head and
Legislature on Task Division
Jombang District
Program:
My Favorite Puskesmas
and My Beloved Hospital
Lumajang District
Program:
One-Stop Shop (KPT)
Pamekasan District
Program:
Production of APBD
Handbook and Bupati’s
Circular Prayers
Lamongan District
Program:
Participatory Poverty
management
Pasuruan District
Program:
Gemerlap Bersama (Clean
and Healthy Behavior
Initiative)
Surabaya City
Program:
Low-Cost Specialist
Puskesmas
Malang City
Program:
Single Window (e-Malana)
Jombang District
Program:
Public Surveys by
Regional Governments
Lumajang District
Program:
Movement to build a healthy
community (Gerbangmas)
Ponorogo District
Program:
Village Administration
Management Information
System (Simades)
Sidoarjo District
Program:
Romantic Network every
Friday morning and Block
Grants
No Winner
Mojokerto City
Program:
Shining Friday Movement
to Eradicate Mosquito
Breeding Sites
Probolinggo City
Program:
Adoption of Quality
Management System ISO
9001.2000
Bojonegoro District
Program:
Public Dialog between
District Heand and
Community Members
every Friday at a Marquee
Malang District
Program:
Access to Information,
Transparency and Public
Complaints
Probolinggo City
Program:
Promoting Participation
through four ways
No Winner
Pacitan District
Program:
Provision of School
Buses and One-Roof
Schools
Malang City
Program:
School Education
Posts under 4 M’s:
Mutu (Quality),
Murah (Cheap),
Mudah (Easy) and
Merata (Equal)
Jombang District
Program:
Education Radio
Lumajang District
Program:
Paperless Health
Administration Services
Ponorogo District
Program:
Cheap Birth Certificate
Services at Sub-District
Office
Ponorogo District
Program:
Civil Registry
Administration in
partnership with PT Pos &
Hospitals
Surabaya City
Program:
Government Resources
Management System
(SiMaSDap)
Malang District
Program:
Integrated Complaint
Handling System
Probolinggo District
Program:
Participatory Development
of Public Facilities
No winners
Probolinggo City
Program:
Pedicab Drivers Congress
(Abang Becak) in support of
City Musrenbang
No winners
Siodarjo District
Program:
Online Licensing and
Package Licensing
Surabaya City
Program:
Government Resources
Management System
(GRMS)
Banyuwangi District
Program:
Musrembangdes
No winners.
Pamekasan District
Program:
Doctors Go Down to Rural
Areas (Terkesan)
Malang District
Program:
Community-Based
Integrated Epidemiologic
Surveillance (Sutra Emas)
Madiun District
Program:
Distribution of Authority
between District Head, Vice
District Head and District
Secretary
Batu City
Program:
Layar Pilkades
Source: Data Center/JPIP documentation
9
The innovations that brought these regions to win Autonomy Awards are presented
in brief. The brief summary can be found in Annex 1 hereto.
In quantity (see Chart 1), Sidoarjo District won the most Autonomy Awards. From
2004 to 2013, this smallest district in East Java won six Autonomy Awards. It can be
said that Sidoarjo was the richest in innovations across East Java because the
innovations were relatively diverse, ranging from health, administration,
accountability to public participation.
The study shows that no regions had so diverse innovations other than Sidoarjo
District. Unfortunately, the innovative spirit of this buffer district of Surabaya City
has become weak when the Lapindo mud disaster emerged on May 29, 2006 and
has buried four villages in Porong Sub-district. For two years, all technical working
units (SKPDs) had fully concentrated their efforts on mitigating the impacts of such
hot mudflows. For two years its ranking had also dropped in the Autonomy Award
events in East Java. The District woke up again when it received Autonomy Awards
in 2009 for Public Participation Category and in 2013 for Public Administration
Category.
Chart 1. Map of Autonomy Awards Winners 2004-2013
6
5
4
3
Pelembagaan
Partisipasi
Akuntabilitas
2
1
Administrasi
Kesehatan
Pendidikan
0
The second winner of Autonomy Award was Surabaya City. Five trophies were
collected by the city using the slogan Sparkling Surabaya. As described in Chart 1,
this capital of East Java was also winner in the public accountability category. Out of
the five Autonomy Award trophies, four were contributed by government
accountability programs. The programs include Simultaneous Auction and Adoption
of Three E’s in City Government E-Procurement, E-Budgeting and E-Controlling).
10
Another interesting thing in the Autonomy Award winners map is Ponorogo District.
The district well known with its folk dance Reog Ponorogo is a specialist in
administrative services. Three awards received in 2009, 2011 and 2012 were all for
basic administration innovations. The innovations include Village Administrative
Management Information System (SIMADES), Cheap Birth Certificate Services at Subdistricts and Civil Registration Administration in partnership with PT Pos Indonesia
and Hospitals.
Treatment of Initial Information
From the above initial information, researchers conducted a field study through
interviewing district/city stakeholders. The activity aimed to examine the
sustainability of innovations that won the awards. In the field study, these
researchers thoroughly investigated the innovations by reviewing:
Type of services delivered by district/city
Innovation initiators (sources), whether innovations originate from the
regional head (local leadership), higher levels of government
(provincial/national), bureaucracy (SKPD), civil society or donors.
Environment, either conducive or not conducive to causing such innovative
programs and good practices to wilt, stagnate or bloom. The environment
includes leadership type, local political dynamics, civil society s role and
existence of incentives for innovation.
The field study results were analyzed qualitatively to measure to what extent such
innovative programs and good practices that won Autonomy Awards from JPIP had
progressed. In addition, the qualitative analysis also revealed factors that
contributed to and inhibited the development of innovations and good practices.
11
STUDY FINDINGS
The study shows that of the 55 good practices winning Autonomy Awards during
the period of 2004-2013, most (44%) continued and progressed in quality and area.
Or, in this research, they are referred to as Blooming. Then, 42% of the programs
and good practices stagnated. This was a condition in which the programs/services
winning the Autonomy Awards were still continued by district/city governments
but did not proliferate further.
The remaining 14 percent were wilting. Such programs or good practices might
stand for only two or three years, after which they would not be continued by
regional governments due to some factors.
Chart 2. Status of Innovative Public Services Winning
Autonomy Awards 2004-2013
23
24
8
Layu/Wilting
Stagnan/Stagnant
Berkembang/Blooming
By area distribution (Chart 3), Sidoarjo District stays recorded as having the
greatest number of innovative programs in the public services and local politics
sectors. During the period of 2004 to 2013, Sidoarjo District won six Autonomy
Award trophies for public service delivery and local politics. Unfortunately, three of
the six good practices wilted and even disappeared. Among the wilting programs
was Free Medical Treatment with Modified JPKM that was discontinued in 2006.
The data on innovation area distribution shows that Surabaya City was relatively
consistent to develop its innovative programs. During the period of 2004 to 2013,
the so-called City of (eroes won four Autonomy Awards. Of the four awards, three
12
innovative programs bloomed. The remaining two were consistently implemented
though stagnant. The blooming programs include Simultaneous Auction, the Triple
E’s e-budgeting, e-controlling, and e-procurement), and Government Resources
Management System (SIMASDAP).
Chart 3. Status of Innovative Programs Winning Autonomy
Awards 2004-2013
1
Blooming
3
3
Stagnant
2
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
Wilting
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
Among 21 regions who won Autonomy Awards in public services and local politics,
Magetan District performed relatively poorly. Located at the foot of Mount Lawu, the
district only once won the Autonomy Award in 2005 for the Political
institutionalization Category. But the innovative program wilted over time.
Relatively similar situations happened to Pacitan District and Batu City. Of the two
innovative programs they won, one wilted. However, the other one continued and
progressed well.
Malang District, Probolinggo City and Lumajang District seemed to be specialists in
developing their innovative programs. Malang District, for example, successfully
collected four Autonomy Award trophies during the period of 2004-2013. Out of the
four awards, only one stagnated. The other programs progressed well.
In Malang District, the stagnant program actually did not stop. The innovative
program is Community-Based Integrated Epidemiologic Surveillance, or abbreviated
to Sutera Emas. The program won Autonomy Award 2013 for the category of health
services.
When this research was being conducted in mid-2014, the program that had taken
place for one year did not show further development in quality and area coverage.
However, the future development of the innovative program seems an exciting
13
prospect. This is indicated by the entry of some international development agencies
such as AusAid, USAID and WHO into the further development.
14
ANALYSIS OF STUDY FINDINGS
This section considers factors contributing to and inhibiting the sustainability of
innovative public services in East Java. The analysis is divided into three parts:
innovative services delivered by district/city governments, innovation sources or
initiators of such innovative programs and environments conducive and not
conducive to the development of such innovations.
Type of Services
This research highlights six types of innovative services: education, health, basic
administration, public participation, public accountability and local political
institutionalization. The six types of public services should be monitored and
evaluated consistently by JPIP in addition to the three economic indicators:
economic growth, economic distribution, and local economic empowerment.
Of the six innovative types of services delivered by district/city governments, the
politically nuanced programs (public participation, public accountability and local
political institutionalization) would not last long if compared to other innovative
basic public services such as education, health and administration.
Chart 4. Innovative Types of Services/Programs
3
5
3
5
6
5
1
6
3
4
2
4
2
2
1
1
Berkembang/Blooming
Stagnan/Stagnant
Layu/Wilting
2
During the period of 2004-2013, JPIP presented 25 Autonomy Awards for
innovations in political services. However, five of the 25 innovative programs lasted
for one to two years only. 12 were stagnant. The rest were blooming. Even, one won
the Autonomy Award again in 2012.
15
The innovation that won the award back was Promoting Public Participation in Four
Ways, initiated by Probolinggo City. The program was first initiated in 2004. In the
year, Probolinggo City enacted three political district regulations (Perda), i.e. Perda
No. 3/2003 on Transparency, Perda No. 4/2003 on Participation and Perda No.
5/2003 on how to voice opinions. Over time, the three Perdas have been improved
in implementation. One innovation that reflected the implementation was Pedicab
Drivers Congress (Abang Becak) in support of City Musrenbang. This innovation
contributed to Probolinggo City the Autonomy Award 2012 for Public Participation.
As shown in Chart 4, innovations in political institutionalization programs are
recorded as least found. These innovations may include efforts or breakthroughs in
conflict management, human rights enforcement, political communication between
political elites, etc. Even, on the account of poor findings of the innovations, there
was no winner for that category during the period of 2009-2013. As a result, the
innovations found in the period of 2004-2013 were relatively insignificant if
compared to other sectors. JPIP found only five innovations in the ten-year period.
Of the five innovations, only one was blooming.
Of the six types of services/programs examined, most innovative programs in the
administration, education and public accountability sectors were blooming. In the
accountability sector, for example, more programs were implemented by local
governments to promote transparency.
In Surabaya City, e-procurement, e-budgeting, e-controlling and e-planning
innovations have been put in place. The city has also developed a Government
Resource Management System (GRMS). Malang Regency has provided wide public
disclosures on its official website: www.malangkab.go.id. On the website, citizens
easily download a very thick book of its local budget (APBD), with nothing being
concealed. This initiative of Malang Regency has been copied by other districts in
East Java.
Innovation Sources (Initiators)
It is interesting to see innovative services provided by winners of Autonomy Awards
2004-2013. From the field research, answers from key respondents about who
initiated innovative programs may be classified into five groups. The five innovation
initiator groups include regional heads, national government, provincial
government, SKPD/UPT (government implementing agencies), donors and nonbureaucracy agencies (see Chart 5).
16
Chart 5. Innovation Initiators
33
15
1
Pemerintah
pusat
1
Pemerintah
provinsi
2
Non
Birokrasi
3
Donor
Kepala
daerah
SKPD/UPT
SKPD/UPT
Chart 5 shows that the majority of initiatives to create innovations come from
SKPDs (Regional Working Units) and UPT (implementing agencies). 33 of the 55
innovative services examined, or 60 percent, were initiated by SKPDs. The SKPDs
herein refer to dinas, agencies, offices, including Puskesmas (one UPT under SKPD),
and villages. Within the SKPD/UPT scope, innovative ideas may come from heads of
dinas/agencies/offices/UPT and ordinary staff.
Innovative services of Pasuruan District on Cheap School Transportation and OneRoof Elementary and Junior High Schools are one innovation initiated by district
office (dinas) head. When visiting one remote district, the dinas head felt sympathy
for students who were struggling to go to school early in the morning. The difficult
access to school was then addressed by an innovation of creating a one-roof
elementary and junior high school. In addition, the dinas head also requested that
the district government modify a former ambulance car to make it suitable for a
school bus. These innovative programs at the time of this research were still
ongoing and blooming well. In addition to the former ambulance car, an ex-camat
car was also modified to be a school bus.
If in Pasuruan District, the idea of innovation came from the education office (dinas)
head, in Malang District a brilliant idea in the health sector came from a puskesmas
(community health center) head. The district currently led by Rendra Kresna won
17
an Autonomy Award for Health in 2013. The innovation appreciated by JPIP was
entitled Sutra Emas (Community-Based Integrated Epidemiologic Surveillance).
Based on the results of interviews with some SKPD/UPT heads and staff, there seem
to be a mutually supportive relationship between the leadership style of a regional
head and the creativity of SKPD to produce program innovations. Some regional
heads make awards from other parties such as JPIP Autonomy Awards as a tool for
competition among SKPD/UPTs within the regional government. This was done by
District Heads of Sidoarjo, Lamongan, Probolinggo dan Pasuruan. They challenged
their SKPDs/UPTs to innovate and submit such innovations to JPIP for Autonomy
Awards in the following year.
In addition to creating an atmosphere of competition among SKPDs/UPTs, some
district heads launched special challenges to particular SKPDs/UPTs. For example, if
this year an autonomy award was achieved for an innovation of the Health Office,
then next year the regional head sets a special target for the Education Office to win
an award in the education sector. If an award can be achieved, the regional head will
earn a good reputation and the innovation initiator will usually be promoted.
Regional Head
The second supplier of innovative ideas is the regional head. District heads/mayors
contributed to 27 percent of the total 55 innovations winning the Autonomy Awards
2004. JP)P s researches during early implementation of regional autonomy
indicate that the advancement of a region heavily depends on the capacity and
leadership style of its head (bupati/mayor). A creative regional head will make his
region quickly advanced and developed in terms of economic sector and public
services. In East Java, this is reflected by Lamongan District.
Under the leadership of Bupati Masfuk (2000-2010), the north coastal district of
Java was developed so fast, particularly in the economic sector. In the period of ten
years, Lamongan was changed drastically from an underdeveloped region to a
tourist and business destination in East Java. The District Head (Bupati) was an
entrepreneur who successfully attracted some investments in Lamongan. His
leadership style is also responsive and thus acceptable to many circles of society.
Similar to Bupati Masfuk, other regional heads who may be called idea makers
include Bupati Rendra Kresna (Malang District), Walikota Djarot Saiful Hidayat
(2000-2010) of Blitar, Bupati Junaedi Mahendra (1998-2008) of Madiun, Bupati
Suyoto of Bojonegoro and Bupati Achmad Fauzi (1998-2008) of Lumajang.
Admittedly, the capacity and leadership style of these idea-makers are of personal
nature or inherent in such individuals. Consequently, this puts regions at a critical
18
point where the replacement of a regional head will affect the sustainability of
ongoing innovations. This may be worse when there is a political friction between
the old district head and the new one. As a consequence, the innovations created by
the previous district head may be discontinued fully or partly by the current district
head.
In East Java, such conditions are prominent in Blitar City. In the city, some
innovations produced by the previous mayor are all stagnant and even weaker due
to the mayoral replacement. One of the innovations that was the pride of the city
was Citizen Charter in some Puskesmas. The innovation received a positive
response from beneficiaries.
Some awards from a number of agencies were received for the adoption of such
citizen charters. After successful introduction to puskesmas, the citizen charters
were applied to public schools. However, according to information from some local
NGOs leaders, the innovation that required some regional governments to conduct
a comparative study has an unclear fate. The replacement of the mayor followed by
a bureaucratic overhaul has caused the spirit to continue the innovation to be weak.
Donor Organizations
International development organizations or donor organizations are in the third
position as contributors to innovations of districts/cities in East Java. Three of the
55 innovative programs examined were initiated by donor organizations. They
include the issuance of Regional Regulation on Transparency in Probolinggo City,
Public Participation Pilot Project in Eight Villages in Pacitan District and Annual
Survey of Public Services in Jombang District.
The issuance of Regional Regulation on Transparency, Participation and Procedures
for Submitting Opinions in Probolinggo City in
was iniated by USA)D s Local
Government Support Program (LGSP). The innovation won a JPIP Autonomy Award
for the Category of Local Politics Institutionalization in 2004. Interestingly, the
innovation was still ongoing and blooming at the time of this research. Even, based
on the innovation introduced ten years ago the mango-producer city in East Java
again won the Autonomy Award for the Category of Public Participation in 2012.
In Jombang District, German development agency GTZ, in cooperation with
Bappeda, conducts public surveys to identify public complaints about services
delivered by SKPD/service units. The surveys are conducted annually in different
themes. For example, in 2008 the public survey was entitled transport services. In
the previous year, the survey was entitled agricultural services. However, it is now
unclear whether these public complaint surveys will continue upon expiry of the
assistance contract with the donor organization.
19
The exit strategy from donor organizations is important to ensure that the ongoing
program can be continued by the regional government. Donor organizations should
convince decision-makers at the working unit level (technocratic) and regional
leadership level such as bupati/mayors and regional legislature level (political) that
it is important to continue the good practices. However, again, political frictions
between the previous bupati and his successor sometimes make such a wellprepared exit strategy meaningless and eventually make the innovation inactive.
Non-Bureaucracy
The next innovation contributor is non-bureaucratic entities. Only two of the 55
innovative programs examined were initiated by non-bureaucracy entities. They
were found in Jombang District and Blitar City. In Jombang District, the nonbureaucratic entity is District Education Council.
At that time, the Education Council composed of community leaders actively
campaigned for improving the quality of education in Jombang. To raise public
awareness, the Council held weekly public dialogs on a radio to identify public
aspirations and complaints about education services in Jombang. The results of
these public dialogs provided input for Bupati and the District Education Office to
improve service delivery. Unfortunately, upon replacement of members of the
Education Council, the excellent program was not continued.
Another non-bureaucratic actor contributing innovative ideas is universities. The
application of an innovative Citizen Charter (CC) to Blitar City was initiated by the
Gadjah Mada University (UGM) supported by the Ford Foundation in 2004. The then
Mayor of Blitar, Djarot Saiful Hidayat, was interested in an idea offered by a team
from the UGM s Demographic and Policy Study Center PSKK . Cooperation was
established and started with training some persons from the civil society and civil
service (PNS) on citizen charter (CC). The charter was finally implemented in three
puskesmas in three sub-districts in 2005. Further, CC was also implemented in
schools ranging from public elementary schools (SDN), public junior high schools
(SMPN) to public senior high schools (SMAN) in Blitar City.
Admittedly, the background of the Blitar Mayor as an academic contributed to his
acceptance of such a creative idea from the UGM PSKK Team. In addition to Blitar
City, the UGM PSKK also piloted CC in several regions. Among these were Jogjakarta
City, Semarang District and Bogor City. But the focus of services varied among
regions. Blitar City focused on puskesmas services, Jogjakarta City focused on birth
certificate services, Semarang District focused on licensing services at subdistricts,
and Bogor City focused on population administration.
20
National Government
Less innovations in East Java were initiated by the national government. The only
innovation found is Community Healthcare Security (JPKM) of Sidoarjo District. This
mass and cheap health insurance is the implementation of Law Number 23 Year
1992 on Health. The Law stipulates that local governments may manage JPKM
independently. JPKM is a model of prepaid health security with controllable quality
and at reasonable costs.
JPKM is managed by an implementing agency (Bapel) adopting quality control and
cost control. People who want to be members will register themselves in groups
with Bapel by paying contributions in advance. Members will receive full and graded
health services, spearheading the first level of services to meet primary health needs
with controllable quality and at reasonable costs.
Health service providers (PPKs) are part of healthcare networks hired and paid on
a pre-effort basis or in advance by Bapel and thus stimulated to provide complete
health services with controllable quality and at reasonable costs.
Based on the national government regulation, any change to the regulation will
significantly affect the sustainability of this innovation. This occurred in 2004 upon
issuance of Decree of the Health Minister 1241/2004 that appointed four private
companies (PT Askes, PT Taspen, PT ASABRI, and PT Jamsostek) as sole
administrators
of
JPKM
previously
managed
independently
by
provincial/district/city governments. In December 2006, the innovative program of
JPKM in Sidoarjo was officially terminated.
The situation behind the issuance of the ministerial decree was not conducive. The
mass media often reported on misappropriation of funds and mismanagement by
Bapel JPKM in almost all parts of the country. The bad news seemed to generalize all
JPKM practices in the country so the good management of JPKM as in Sidoarjo
District was adversely affected by the ministerial decree. At that time, the issue of
re-centralization emerged strongly after four years of regional autonomy.
Provincial Government
Out of the 55 district innovative programs in East Java, the provincial government
contributed one idea. This was found in Bondowoso District with an innovation
entitled Illiteracy Eradication by Involving a Multi-Stakeholder Forum.
The presence of the provincial government to participate in addressing educational
issues in the Tape-producing district in East Java is reasonable. In East Java,
Bondowoso was ranked the highest in Latin illiteracy. Therefore, to release the
21
Province of East Java from being ranked the highest in illiteracy across the country
(BPS 2010), special treatment should be given to Bondowoso District. If illiteracy in
Bondowoso was reduced, this would directly contribute to reducing provincial
illiteracy.
The Provincial Government of East Java and the District Government of Bondowoso
intensively cooperate in formulating policies and mobilizing funds and human
resources to increase Latin literacy in Bondowoso. One of the policy taken is to
establish a Learning Center (PKBM) involving volunteers from the civil society,
military, religious leaders, students, civil service, etc. These volunteers serve as
impromptu teachers for illiterate members of local communities in some parts of
Bondowoso.
After three years of implementation, illiteracy eradication efforts bear fruit. The
number of illiterate people in 2011 (in the 15-59 age group) was 73,904 but it is
now 20,964 in early 2014.
The successful innovative program in Bondowoso District has been attributed to the
high participation of community members voluntarily serving as tutors. In addition,
the continuous support of the province and the district head s high commitment
have contributed to removing the stigma from Bondowoso as an illiteracy enclave
within East Java.
Environmental Conditions
The environment referred to in this research is a situation, including contributing or
inhibiting factors that cause innovative programs and good practices to be wilting,
stagnant or blooming. Therefore, the environment will be closely related to
leadership styles, local political dynamics, civil society s role and incentives for
innovation. However, other factors found in the qualitative research will also be
described in order to improve the comprehension of issues that affect the
development of an innovation.
As earlier described in the methodology section, there are three development
possibilities of innovative programs that won Autonomy Awards 2004-2013. The
three possibilities are wilting, stagnant and blooming innovations.
Wilting
Wilting/layu:'
Inovasi'tidak'
berlanjut'
(wilting)'
Under this category, the innovation winning an Autonomy Award
only lasts for one or two years and is then terminated. Some factors
are indicated to cause the discontinuance of an innovation that won
an award from JPIP.
22
Of the 55 innovative programs that won Autonomy Awards 2004-2013 in East Java,
this research found that 8 were discontinued or wilting. The 8 wilting innovations
are shown in the following table:
Table 2. List of Wilting Innovations
Regions
Programs
Sidoarjo District
JPKM (Community Healthcare
Security)
Modified JPKM
Pamekasan District
Jombang District
Participatory PSB
Annual Public Services Survey
Public Dialogs by Jobang
Educational Council
Layar Pilkades
Public Participation Pilot Projects
in 8 villages
Capacity Building in Political,
Legal, Human Rights and Civic
Sectors for the Community
Batu City
Pacitan District
Magetan District
The field research on the eight wilting innovations found five factors that caused
their discontinuation. The first inhibiting factor was weaker enthusiasm of the
bureaucracy to provide innovative services. This category also includes
mismanagement of innovative services, e.g. corruption and inefficient management
of budget.
The weaker enthusiasm for guarding the innovation may be caused by some factors.
One factor is the replacement of SKPD/UPT Head as a consequence of local
leadership succession. The leadership replacement usually changes the existing
priority programs and thus affects the sustainability of innovative services. This
may be worse if such innovative services are not protected by strong legal
frameworks such as regional regulations or regional head regulations. Although the
ideal form of bureaucracy is public service, obeying the leader is the basic nature
inherent in it.
23
Chart 6. Factors that Cause Discontinuation of
Innovations
Donor pulang
15%
Terhambat
peraturan pusat
23%
Respons
masyarakat rendah
15%
Antusiasme
birokrasi
menurun/Managem
en buruk
31%
Pergantian kepala
daerah
16%
The second inhibiting factor is the replacement of a regional head contributing to the
termination of innovations. Politically and psychologically, the new regional head
has factors different from the previous head. Properly ongoing innovative services
will be at stake, especially in the case of political frictions between the current and
former regional heads. Frictions may occur as a result of competition between
political parties or between political elites within one party. If such a condition
occurs, good practices introduced by the former regional head will be thrown away.
The replacement of a regional head also means a change of development priorities
because each regional head has his/her own mission and vision to develop the
region. If the missions and vision of a new regional head are in parallel with ones of
the former head, the ongoing innovations will continue well. But, if the new head has
different development priorities from the former, the ongoing innovations will not
be the main focus.
The third inhibiting factor is the issuance of a national regulation that terminates the
ongoing innovations being implemented by regional governments. One finding in
East Java is the dissolution of Community Healthcare Security (JPKM) in Sidoarjo
District. The issuance of Health Minister Decree 1241/2004 withdrawing the
authority of regional governments to establish JPKM Implementing Agency (Bapel)
completely terminated the typical Sidoarjo JPKM innovation in 2006.
The fourth inhibiting factor is the expiry of assistance contracts with donor
organizations potentially terminating the ongoing innovations. On the one hand, the
presence of donor organizations to initiate innovative programs is very beneficial
24
for regional governments because they usually have significant references about
best practices from both local and international sources. However, if their exit
strategies are not internalized well in bureaucracy and political elites (district
heads/mayors/ legislatures), their departure from regions may also mean
termination of such innovations.
The fifth inhibiting factor is the low responses of the community to innovative
services that shorten the period of such innovations. This is reflected by the results
of some interviews with key respondents/informants in each region. If an
innovation does not directly benefit the community, it will fade away and disappear.
In East Java, the community made an unfavorable response to the innovation
Participatory Admission of New Students (PSB) in Pamekasan District.
The program won the Autonomy Award 2008 for Education. Over time, the program
initiated by the district education office (Dinas) was widely criticized by the
community. There were allegedly commercialized admissions of new students
under the Participatory PSB program. Consequently, the community lost its trust in
the educational innovation. Finally, in the academic year 2014/2015 the innovative
program was officially terminated.
Stagnant
Out of the total 55 innovative programs examined, 23 (42%) were
stagnant where they continued but did not bloom. The blooming
means improved quality of services and expanded coverage of
services. The stagnant status means that the innovations were
relatively similar to the status when they won Autonomy Awards
several years ago. There were no improvements in management nor increases in
beneficiaries.
Stagnant:'
Inovasi'
berlanjut'
namun'tidak'
berkembang'
Of the 23 innovations, inhibiting and contributing factors causing them to be
stagnant were identified. As shown in Chart 7, some inhibiting and contributing
factors that caused the innovations to be stagnant were found. This report will not
address them one by one but review strategic factors and commonalities of the
findings.
Chart 7. Contributing and Inhibiting Factors Causing Innovations to be Stagnant
25
Inhibiting Factors for Not
Developing Innovations
Anggaran Terhambat
terbatas peraturan
Respons
pusat
masyarakat 9%
13%
rendah
9%
Antusiasme
birokrasi
menurun/Ma
nagemen
buruk
39%
Pergantian
kepala
daerah
30%
Contributing Factors for Not
Terminating Innovations
Penghargaan
dari luar
4%
Pendampinga
n lembaga
Keberlangsun
donor
gan kebijakan
6%
Antusiasme
13%
kepala daerah
Anggaran
baru
meningkat
23%
6%
Respons
masyarakat
tinggi
27%
Birokrasi
relatif stabil
21%
Inhibiting Factors
First inhibiting factor. Most of the innovations (39%) winning the Autonomy Awards
2004-2013 were stagnant as a result of the declining enthusiasm of the bureaucrats
to manage the programs. In addition, poor management of the programs was also
among the inhibiting factors. There were some factors causing the enthusiasm to
drop.
One crucial issue is the replacement of SKPD/UPT heads where the innovations
were being implemented. The replacement may occur naturally such as retirement,
job transfer and promotion. It may also occur as a result of the replacement of a