Evaluation of the Proactive Recruitment Program Innovation of the Indonesian National Police


The practice of evaluating innovation is conducted with the aim to improve programs so that they are sustainable and able to deal with the complexities of modernization and resource constraints. The evaluation of innovative proactive recruitment programs in the Indonesian National Police, using the concept of innovation evaluation proposed by Westley and Antadze (2012) indicates the program’s success. This can be seen through the rapid development of technology and information that can be utilized to support modern organizational capacity building through recruitment. Proactive members of the Indonesian National Police (POLRI) and the Service Improvement Force (POLRI) then involves and collaborates with all elements. This is because acceleration of service cannot be achieved by one party alone. Following from this, the concept of ’pentahelix’ development, in which elements of government, society or communities, academics, entrepreneurs, and the media unite to build togetherness in the success of proactive recruitment. The last dimension, which is the new approach, emphasizes the modernization of police technology in all regional units. An aspect of this modernization is the improvement of the data-based and information technology-based member recruitment system (POLRI). This system is integrated from the center to the Polres level and includes online system registration applications, proactive recruitment applications, academic potential tests and psychological evaluations. This was previously done using computer answer sheets (LJK), which were changed using a computer aided selection method Computer Assisted Test (PAINT) to obtain a minimum standard of basic competence.

Keywords: innovation evaluation, proactive, police members

[1] Ibrahim T. Integrated quality management (Total Quality Management). Jakarta: Yrama Widya. 2021.

[2] Hood C, Rothstein H. Business risk management in government: Pitfalls and possibilities. London: National Audit Officer Supporting Innovation by the Controller and Auditor General. 2000.

[3] Westley F, Antadze N. Making a difference: Strategies for scaling social innovation for greater impact. The Public Sector Innovation Journal. 2012;15(2):1–19.

[4] Hallie P, Tanya B. Evaluating social innovation. Center for Evaluation Innovation. 2012.

[5] Bradley C, Swee CG, Catherine JE, Isabelle B. Framing the capacity to perform and use evaluations. New Directions for Evaluation. 2014;141:7–23.

[6] Smith and K. Innovation indicator and the knowledge economy: Concepts, result and policy challenges. The Conference on Innovation and Enterprise Creation. 2000.

[7] Patton. Development evaluation exemplars. Principles in Practice. New York: Guilford Press. 2011.

[8] Lam C, Shulha L. Insights on using developmental evaluation for innovation: A case study on the co-creation of an innovative program. American Journal of Evaluation. 2015;36(3):147–69.

[9] Cresswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five approaches. Sage Publications. 2013.

[10] Yin RK. Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage Publications. 1994.