Performance Evaluation of New Local Institutions: Case study on Kemantren in Yogyakarta City
Abstract
This study evaluates the institutional performance of Kemantren in Yogyakarta City. Changing the nomenclature of the subdistrict to Kemantren as a new local institution in Yogyakarta has some implications. This condition requires the development of a performance evaluation tool for Kemantren, which has yet to be available. A qualitative analysis was conducted to evaluate the performance of Kemantren as a new local institution. Primary data were obtained via in-depth interviews and FGDs, while secondary data were derived from official government documents. The study evaluated the performance of Kemantren by adjusting two Regulations of the Minister of State Apparatus Empowerment and Bureaucratic Reform to assess the performance of policies and public services, namely (a) The Regulation of the Minister of State Apparatus Empowerment and Bureaucratic Reform of the Republic of Indonesia Number 88 of 2021 concerning Evaluation of Accountability for the Performance of Government Agencies and (b) The Regulation of the Ministry of State Apparatus Empowerment and Bureaucratic Reform of the Republic of Indonesia Number 17 of 2017 concerning Guidelines for Performance Assessment of Public Service Delivery Units. The assessment results show a significant impact from changing the nomenclature of subdistricts to Kemantren as a new local institution in the form of special funds. Although the Kemantren program has been funded through special funds from the Yogyakarta Special Region, the policy process starting from policy formulation, implementation, and policy reporting has no difference. In public service performance, Kemantren has done well, although it has not changed much after the change in the nomenclature.
Keywords: institutional Assessment, local institution, Kemantren, Yogyakarta
References
[1] Sidiq MA. Special Autonomy of Yogyakarta in the Context of Local Autonomy Law. Law Research Review Quarterly. 2021;7(4):515–24.
[2] Harsono D, Yuanjaya P. (2020, November). Special autonomy and poverty in special region of Yogyakarta. In The Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of Social Science and Education, ICSSED 2020, August 4-5 2020, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.27-11-2020.167286.
[3] Tanjung, L. N., Mutiarin, D., & Purnomo, E. P. (2018). Monitoring Dan Evaluasi Pemanfaatan Dana Keistimewaan Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta Tahun 2013-2017. Jurnal Agregasi: Aksi Reformasi Government dalam Demokrasi, 6(1).
[4] Zaenuri M, Iqbal M, Elianda Y. Tata Kelembagaan dan Nomenklatur Istimewa Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. MODERAT: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Pemerintahan. 2021;7(1):112–26.
[5] Egugbo CC, Osifo KO. Public service delivery in Nigeria’s fourth republic: issues, challenges, and prospects for socio-economic development. KIU Journal of Humanities. 2020;5(2):15–24.
[6] Link AN, Scott JT. Public accountability: Evaluating technology-based institutions. Springer Science & Business Media; 2012.
[7] Valeriani E, Peluso S. The impact of institutional quality on economic growth and development: an empirical study. Journal of Knowledge Management. Economics and Information Technology. 2011;1(6):1–25.
[8] Immergut EM. (2008). Institutional constraints on policy. The Oxford Handbook of public policy. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548453.003.0027.
[9] Andersen LB, Boesen AA, Pedersen LH. Performance in Public Organizations: Clarifying the Conceptual Space. Public Adm Rev. 2016;7(6):852–62.
[10] Gerrish E. Th e Impact of Performance Management on Performance in Public Organizations: A Meta-Analysis. Public Adm Rev. 2016;76(1):48–66.
[11] Tomaževic, Nina, Metka Tekavcic and Darja Peljhan. 2015. “Towards Excellence in Public Administration: Organisation Th eory-Based Performance Management Model.” Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 28(5 – 6), 578 – 599.
[12] Borg RW, Gall MD. Educational Researchand Introduction The Eight Edition. Sydney: Pearson Education,Inc.; 2007.
[13] Creswell JW. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2014.
[14] Pasulu, I., & Pali, E. (2021). Pengukuran Kualitas Pelayanan Publik Berdasarkan Permenpan No 14 Tahun 2017 pada Puskemas Sanggalangi’Kabupaten Toraja Utara. Jurnal Ekonomi, Bisnis dan Terapan ( JESIT), 2(1), 33-42.
[15] Hanif K. Transformasi Organisasi Kecamatan di Kabupaten Kulonprogo Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. Jurnal Sosial Sains. 2021;1(8):769–85.
[16] Kurniawan RC. Tantangan kualitas pelayanan publik pada pemerintah daerah. Jurnal Ilmiah Administrasi Publik Dan Pembangunan. 2016;7(1):15–26.
[17] Pramusinto A. Building a Democratic Public Service through Citizen’s Charter: Lessons Learnt from Yogyakarta City. Asian Review of Public Administration. 2012;23(1-2):4–16.
[18] Permadi, R. N., Arieyasmieta, W. L., & Amarullah, R. (2021). Pemenuhan Sarana dan Prasarana bagi Masyarakat Berkebutuhan Khusus untuk Meningkatkan Kualitas Pelayanan Publik di Daerah JPSI ( Journal of Public Sector Innovations), 6(1), 28-38.
[19] Thomas P, Palfrey C. Evaluation: stakeholder-focused Criteria. Soc Policy Adm. 1996;30(2):125–42.
[20] Crane A, Matten D, Moon J. Stakeholders as Citizens? Rethinking Rights, Participation, and Democracy. J Bus Ethics. 2004;53(1/2):107–22.
[21] Otsuki K. Infrastructure in informal settlements: co-production of public services for inclusive Governance. Local Environ. 2016;21(12):1557–72.
[22] Rahayu, S., & Dewi, U. (2013). Pelayanan publik bagi pemenuhan hak-hak disabilitas di Kota Yogyakarta. NATAPRAJA, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.21831/jnp.v1i1.3194.
[23] Mystery M. The Right to Complain in Albanian Civil Service and Its Effects. Mediterr J Soc Sci. 2013;4(11):656.
[24] Osborne SP, Brown L. Innovation in public services: engaging with risk. Public Money Manag. 2011;31(1):4–6.