The Measurement of Public Policy Assessment of North Sumatra Province, Indonesia

Regional autonomy can be defined as the desire to create a more self-sufficient regional administration, both politically and financially. The award of this authority is designed to boost local governments’ capacity to improve regional development and foster a competitive spirit with other areas in the context of regional development. The existence of a good agency or work unit is a crucial factor in the success of regional development planning. A Regional Development Planning Agency was established to ensure that the development planning process ran smoothly. According to Sukartawi [1], the importance of planning factors associated to development may be divided into two categories: (1) planning as a development tool; and (2) planning as a benchmark for the development success or failure.

Targeted development based on development planning documents will have a bigger impact on efforts to meet development goals and targets for bettering community welfare and regional advancement. Law Number 22 of 1999 concerning Regional Government, which has been perfected by Law Number 32 of 2004 and Law Number 23 of 2014, then operational regulations related to technical implementation of regional development planning, such as Government Regulation Number 8 of 2008 and Minister of Home Affairs Regulation Number 54 of 2010.

Regional development must be evaluated in order to determine whether it has met the planned goals/targets and whether the community has benefited from it. The evaluation will also give crucial data that can be used as a tool to help development stakeholders and policymakers understand, manage, and improve what has already been done.

The process of creating, implementing, and evaluating development planning papers is still in need of improvement. Government Regulation Number 8 of 2008 concerning Stages, Procedures for Preparation, Control, and Evaluation of the Implementation of Regional Development Plans regulates local governments’ responsibility to control and analyze regional development plans. The Regent/Mayor is required to examine regional development planning within the regency/scope, city’s including: (1) regional development planning policies; (2) regional development plan execution; and (3) regional development plan results [2].

A strategy is defined as a method for achieving long-term objectives. Geographic expansion, diversification, acquisition, product development, market penetration, employee rationalization, divestment, liquidation, and joint ventures are all examples of business strategy [3]. The relevance of development planning may be seen in the uneven development of the archipelago’s areas. This, of course, causes public envy, leading to the so-called “back wash effect,” in which the rise in labor and capital is not dispersed equitably [4]. Marginal areas will become increasingly backward (the poor will become poorer, and the wealthy will become wealthier), necessitating the implementation of a “speed effect,” in this instance rising and extending activities, i.e. “even distribution of development.”

The description of development planning goals and objectives should be explored as a tool for establishing a clear path for constructive cooperation between the government and its citizens. As a result, as previously said, the purpose and objective of development planning is to examine systematically arranging activities to be carried out in order to attain a mutually desired goal.

The goal of most evaluations is to determine how responsible government policies are to their constituents. The degree to which the objectives are met, as well as the extent to which expectations differ from reality. In general, policy evaluation, according to Winarno [5], can be defined as an activity that involves the estimating or assessment of policies, including their substance, execution, and impact.

According to Winarno [5], policy evaluation can be divided into two different duties. The first duty is to describe the impact of a policy in order to establish the implications. The second duty is to decide if a policy is successful or unsuccessful using predetermined standards or criteria. Policy assessment is the process of determining the measures that can be made in the future by evaluating and reviewing both the policy implementation stage and the outcome or impact of the operation of a policy or program.

Winarno [5] divides policy evaluation into three types; each type of evaluation introduced is based on the evaluators’ understanding of evaluation, as follows:

1. The first type of policy evaluation is regarded as a functional activity. If policy evaluation is viewed as a functional activity, it is viewed as a task that is just as significant as the policy itself.
2. The second type of policy evaluation focuses on the effectiveness of specific policies or programs. This form of evaluation focuses on the honesty or efficiency in the program implementation.
3. The third type is systematic policy evaluation, which examines policy programs objectively in order to assess their impact on the community and determine how far the stated objectives have been met. According to the study of Suharto [6], social public policy is a method, mechanism, and system that may guide and translate development goals in the context of social development. Social policy is always aimed at accomplishing social objectives. Solving social problems and satisfying social needs are two linked meanings of this social purpose. The models typically employed in public policy analysis, according to the study of Suharto [6], are:

1. Prospective model is a type of policy that focuses on the consequences of a policy prior to its implementation. This model is also known as a forecasting model.
2. Retrospective model is a policy analysis of the policy consequences after it has been implemented. Because it involves an evaluation approach to the impacts of policies that are currently or have been enacted, this model is commonly referred to as the evaluative model.
3. The integrative model is a hybrid of the two models mentioned above. Because the study is carried out on the repercussions of policies that may develop, both before and after a policy is put into effect, this model is often referred to as a comprehensive or holistic model.

According to Samudra et al. [7], public policy evaluation serves four purposes:

1. Explanation. Through evaluation, the reality of program implementation can be shown and generalizations about the patterns of interactions between the many elements of reality can be developed. The evaluator can identify problems, conditions, and actors that contribute to the program’s success or failure based on this assessment.
2. Compliance. Through evaluation, it is possible to determine whether the activities made by the players, both the bureaucracy and other actors, are consistent with the standards and procedures established by the policy.
3. Audits. Through evaluation, it can be determined whether the outputs reach the intended policy group, or whether there are leaks or deviations.
4. Accounting. With evaluation, socioeconomic implications of the policy will be revealed.

The availability of a criterion to measure the success of a program or public policy is required when evaluating it. According to Willian N. Dunn, various indicators must be devised to assess the performance of a policy, including effectivity, adequacy, equity, responsivity, and accuracy [8, 9].

There are several planning documents according to hierarchies and stages of the year in regional development planning; at the regional level, there is a Regional Long-Term Development Plan for 20 years, a Regional Medium-Term Development Plan for 5 years, and a Regional Development Work Plan for 1 year; and at the regional government organizational unit level, there is a Strategic Plan for Regional Apparatus Work Units for 5 years and a Regional Work Units Strategic Plan for 5 years.

It is vital to measure the success of governmental policies and initiatives in order to evaluate them (effectiveness, efficiency, adequacy, equity, responsiveness, and accuracy). In the meanwhile, measuring the success of the Equity indicator is challenging due to the fact that the budget for programs and activities is not the same. The innovations offered in this study are North Sumatra Province Development Priorities such as (a) improving the quality and fulfillment of access to education; (b) improving the degree of public health; (c) increasing employment and business opportunities through provision jobs; (d) Increased competitiveness through the agricultural sector; (e) increasing competitiveness through the tourism sector; (f) improving the quality of bureaucratic reform; (g) social and sports improvement; and (h) good and environmentally sound infrastructure development. So, this study attempts to explore the measurement model of the development of North Sumatra province, Indonesia.

The practice of assessing the performance of local government administration is known as regional development performance evaluation. Performance information will be provided as a result of the performance evaluation of development implementation, which may be utilized as input for the planning and budgeting process, aided by the availability of more precise information and data. As a result, the development program becomes more efficient and effective, and its implementation is held to a higher standard. At all levels of development implementers, the success of reaching targets will be monitored using performance indicators that have been properly set in advance. According to William N. Dunn, a program or public policy must have a criterion that can be used to assess its performance. Several indicators, such as effectiveness, adequacy, equity, responsiveness, and accuracy, must be devised to assess the success of a policy [8, 12].

3.1 Dimensions of effectivity in the regional apparatus work plan of North Sumatra Province 2019

According to Winarno [5], the term “effectivity” comes from the word “effective,” which denotes “success” in achieving objectives that have been assigned. Usability is another term for effectiveness. The link between expected and actual results is always a factor in determining effectiveness. According to the previous viewpoint, the more the goals of the organization are achieved, the more effective the organization will be. As a result of this understanding, it may be concluded that the higher the organization aims, the greater the results to be obtained from these goals. If the impact of public policy activities is not able to solve the problems that the community is facing, then the policy action is considered to have failed. However, sometimes the consequences of public policy are not instantly effective in the short term, but only after going through a particular process.

Table 1. The realization of the advanced, safe, and dignified Vision of North Sumatra

Table 2. Completing mission 1: Creating a dignified North Sumatran society in life

The larger the contribution of the output to the attainment of goals, the more effective the organization, program, or activity is. When it comes to determining the effectiveness of a company, it can be defined as the amount to which it is able to meet its objectives on time in carrying out primary activities, such as product quality and development. The ability of messages to persuade or the strength of messages to affect is referred to as effectivity. In relation to the foregoing, the measure of effectivity is a standard that will be met in terms of the aims and objectives to be met. Furthermore, it demonstrates how well the organization, program, or activity performs its functions [13]. It can be seen from the response of the community to the effectiveness of development planning in North Sumatra may be observed in the achievement of numerous targets/targets based on the result of questionnaires as presented in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4.

Table 3. Completing mission 2: Creating a dignified North Sumatran society in politics

Table 4. Completing mission 3: Creating a dignified North Sumatran Society in education

3.2 Dimensions of efficiency in the regional apparatus work plan of North Sumatra Province 2019

Winarno [5] defines efficiency as the amount of work required to achieve a specific degree of effectiveness. Efficiency, which is a synonym for economic rationality, is the relationship between efficacy and effort, which is typically quantified in monetary terms. The unit cost of a product or service is typically used to measure efficiency. Efficient policies are those that achieve the most efficacy at the lowest expense. If the goals of a public policy are straightforward, but the expenses of implementing it are excessively high in comparison to the results obtained, policy efforts have been wasteful and are not possible to implement [14]. The public’s assessment of the efficiency of development planning in North Sumatra can be seen in Table 5, and Table 6.

Table 5. Efficiency of the regional revenues and expenditures budget preparation

Table 6. Efficiency of the regional revenues and expenditures budget use

3.3 Dimensions of adequacy in the regional apparatus work plan of North Sumatra Province 2019

According to Winarno [5], adequacy in public policy means that the goals attained have been deemed adequate in various ways. The degree to which a level of effectiveness satisfies a need, value, or opportunity that causes a problem is referred to as adequacy. Adequacy is still linked to effectiveness since it measures or predicts how well existing alternatives can meet needs, values, or opportunities in the context of resolving problems. These numerous problems are problems that arise as a result of a policy, allowing the problem to be classified into one of these categories. This means that before a policy product is ratified and implemented, an assessment of the method compatibility for achieving the goal, whether the method is correct or violates the rules, and whether the method is technically correct must be conducted. The result of the questionnaire is presented in Table 7.

Table 7. The fulfilment of community needs in development planning in North Sumatra

3.4 Dimensions of equity in the regional apparatus work plan of North Sumatra Province 2019

According to Winarno [5], equity in public policy has meaning when justice is served and the goals of public policy are met. The equity criteria are strongly tied to legal and social rationality, and it refers to how outcomes and efforts are distributed among different groups in society. An equalization-oriented policy is a policy in which the outcomes or effort are divided equitably. If the expenses and benefits are distributed equitably, a program may be successful, efficient, and sufficient. According to Winarno [5], there are numerous techniques to determine how far a policy may maximize social welfare, including:

1. Maximizing individual well-being. Analysts may attempt to enhance individual well-being at the same time. This necessitates the creation of a single transitive preference rank based on the scores of all individuals.
2. Protecting minimum welfare. In this case, the analyst is attempting to improve the well-being of some people while also safeguarding the interests of those who are disadvantaged (worst off). This strategy is based on the Pareto criterion, which argues that a social arrangement is better than another if at least one individual gain or suffers harm.
3. Maximizing net welfare. In this case, the analyst aims to boost net welfare while assuming that the gain will be enough to compensate for the lost share. This strategy is based on the Kaldor-Hicks criterion, which states that a social situation is better than another if there is a net gain in efficiency and those who win can compensate for those who lose. This criterion does not demand that the real losers be paid, which ignores the equity issue.
4. Maximizing redistributive welfare. In this case, the analyst aims to maximize redistributive advantages for specific groups, such as racial minorities, the impoverished, and the sick. One of the redistributive criteria proposed by philosopher John Rawls: A social condition is deemed to be better than others if it results in the welfare of disadvantaged individuals in society.

The result of the questionnaire for this category is presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Equity aspects in the regional apparatus work plan of North Sumatra province

3.5 Dimensions of responsiveness in the regional apparatus work plan of North Sumatra Province 2019

Winarno [5] defines responsiveness in public policy as a reaction to an activity. This refers to how public policy targets react to a policy execution. The degree to which a policy can satisfy the needs, preferences, or values of specific community groups is referred to as responsiveness. The public response to the policy execution after first predicting the impact that will occur if the policy is executed, as well as the community response after the policy impact has begun to be felt in the form of support/refusal, can both be seen as indicators of the success of a policy.

The responsivity criterion is significant because even if an analysis meets all other criteria (effectivity, efficiency, adequacy, and equity), it will still fail if it does not address the actual needs of the groups who should benefit from the policy. As a result, the responsivity criteria are a true portrayal of particular group needs, preferences, and values in comparison to the effectivity, efficiency, adequacy, and equity criteria. The result can be seen Table 9.

Table 9. Responsiveness in the regional apparatus work plan of North Sumatra province

3.6 Dimensions of accuracy in the regional apparatus work plan of North Sumatra Province 2019

According to Winarno [5], accuracy refers to the worth or cost of the program objectives as well as the strength of the assumptions that underpin them. The criteria used to pick a number of alternatives to be utilized as recommendations by determining if the recommended alternative results are a feasible goal choice. Because eligibility criteria are concerned with the substance of the aim rather than the means or instruments to achieve that goal, they are related to substantive rationality. Based on the definition above, evaluation of the impact of the policy referred to in this study refers to an assessment of the implementation of policies that have been implemented by the organization or government, by evaluating aspects of the impact of policies such as effectiveness, efficiency, adequacy, equity, responsiveness, and the accuracy of the policy implementation from the perspective of the community as the target of the policy. The following factors can be used to gauge public opinion about the accuracy of development planning in North Sumatra as seen in Table 10, and Table 11.

Table 10. Accuracy in the regional apparatus work plan towards the development target of North Sumatra province

Table 11. The benefits of the development to the community in North Sumatra

3.7 Development planning evaluation model in North Sumatra

The goal of evaluating the outcomes of regional development plans is to ensure that they are in line with stated performance indicators. The performance indicators in question are those calculated at the national, provincial, and district/city levels. The results of this evaluation will then be used as feedback for the formulation of Governor/Regent/Mayor policies in realizing consistency between policies and implementation and results of regional development plans in the Provinces, regencies/municipalities; Consistency between the Regency/Municipal Government Work Plans and the Provincial and Regency/Municipal Medium-Term Development Plans; and Conformity between regional development achievements and performance indicators that have been determined at the national, provincial, and district/city levels [15].

The gradation of the value (intensity scale) of the performance of an indicator in the performance assessment through the evaluation of the planning results can be interpreted into several results, including; first, Very Good and Good results, where this gradation indicates that the achievement/realization of the performance achievement has met the target and is above the minimum requirement for passing the performance appraisal. Second, Average result, in which the grading is adequate to demonstrate achievement/realization of the performance that meets the minimum requirements. Third, there are Bad and Very Bad results, which indicate that the achievement/realization of performance has not met/is still falling short of the minimum standards for reaching the desired performance.

Based on the regulation of the Minister of Home Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia Number 86 of 2017 concerning Planning Procedures, Regional Development Control and Evaluation, Procedure for Evaluation of Draft Regional Regulations on Regional Long-Term Development Plans and Regional Medium-Term Development Plans, as well as Procedures for Amending Regional Long Term Development Plans, Regional Medium Term Development Plans, and Regional Government Work Plans. Article 262 paragraph (1) states that the Head of the Provincial Government Planning Agency shall evaluate the results of the Provincial Government Work Plan; paragraph (3) states that the results of the evaluation of the provincial government’s work plan are used as material for the preparation of the provincial government’s work plan for the following year; Paragraph (4) states that the Head of the Provincial Development Planning Agency reports the evaluation of the results of the Provincial Government Work Plan to the Governor. Furthermore, in paragraph (5) it is stated that the Governor submits the report as referred to in paragraph (3) to the Minister.

3.8 Legal basis for implementation of local government work plan evaluation

The following are the provisions relating to the obligation to conduct development evaluations on the North Sumatra Provincial Government Work Plan implementation:

1. Law No. 25 of 2004 concerning the National Development Planning System
   • Article 8 letters c and d explain that the Control and the Evaluation of planning implementation are part of the Stages of the National Development Planning.
   • Article 29 paragraph (4) states that the results of the evaluation as referred to in paragraph (3) are the material for the preparation of national/regional development plans for the next period.
2. Government Regulation No. 8 of 2008 concerning Stages, Procedures for Preparation, Control and Evaluation of the Implementation of Regional Development Plans:
   • Article 48 paragraph (3) states that the Evaluation Results become material for the preparation of regional development plans for the next period.
   • Article 48 paragraph (1) states that the evaluation by the Governor, Regent/Mayor in its implementation is carried out by the regional development planning agency for the overall regional development planning and by the Head of the Regional Apparatus Work Unit for the achievement of the performance of the program implementation and activities of the previous Regional Apparatus Work Unit.
3. Regional Regulation of North Sumatra Province Number 9 of 2008 concerning Organization and Work Procedure of Regional Technical Institutions of North Sumatra Province (Regional Gazette of North Sumatra Province of 2008 Number 9);
4. Regulation of the Minister of Home Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia Number 86 of 2017 concerning Procedures for Planning, Controlling and Evaluation of Regional Development, Procedures for Evaluation of Draft Regional Regulations concerning Regional Long-Term Development Plans and Regional Medium-Term Development Plans, and Procedures for Amendment to Long-Term Development Plans Regions, Regional Medium-Term Development Plans, and Regional Government Work Plans.

- Article 262 paragraph (1) states that the Head of the Provincial Development Planning Agency conducts an evaluation of the results of the Provincial Regional Development Work Plan; paragraph (3) it is stated that the results of the evaluation of the provincial Regional Development Work Plan are used as material for the preparation of the provincial Regional Development Work Plan for the following year; Paragraph (4) states that the Head of the Provincial Development Planning Agency reports the evaluation of the results of the Provincial Regional Development Work Plan to the Governor. Furthermore, in paragraph (5) it is stated that the Governor submits the report as referred to in paragraph (3) to the Minister.

3.9 The evaluation objectives of development planning in North Sumatra

The purpose of evaluating development planning in North Sumatra is mapping the conditions of development achievement as reflected in the achievement of the annual development targets of the North Sumatra Province, assessing the achievement of development indicators and targets in each Regional Apparatus Organization of North Sumatra Province, evaluating the Implementation of the North Sumatra Province Annual Development Planning to assess the achievement of targets and the realization of the development performance of the Province of North Sumatra through priority programs/activities set out in the 2019 North Sumatra Province Regional Development Work Plan, strengthening the role of evaluation as a reference material for carrying out regional annual development planning in the next period, as well as providing strategic direction for all Regional Apparatus Organizations of North Sumatra Province in achieving the vision and mission of the Regional Head of North Sumatra Province.