perencanaan pembangunan.ppt

KEBIJAKAN SOSIAL(SOCIAL POLICY)

(HAKEKAT-PERUMUSAN-EVALUASI)

Oleh

BAMBANG SUNARYO

PROGRAM STUDI SOSIOLOGIKONSENTRASI KEBIJAKAN DAN

KESEJAHTERAAN SOSIALPROGRAM PASCASARJANA

UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA

Th. 2004

TUJUAN INSTRUKSIONAL:1. MEMPERLUAS DAN MEMPERDALAM WAWASAN MAHASISWA MENGENAI

KONSEP / KONSTRUK KEBIJAKAN SOSIAL 2. MENINGKATKANKEMAMPUAN MAHASISWA DALAM MENGIDENTIFIKASI ISSUE STRATEGIS KEBIJAKAN SOSIAL,

MERUMUSKAN DAN MENGEVALUASI KINERJA PROGRAM/PROYEK (SOSIAL).

SATUAN ACARA PERKULIAHAN:

1. KULIAH 1: OVERVIEW RENCANA KULIAH KEBIJAKAN SOSIAL.2. KULIAH 2: HAKEKAT KONSEP /KONSTRUK KEBIJAKAN SOSIAL.3. KULIAH 3: IDENTIFIKASI ISSUE DAN PERUMUSAN KEBIJAKAN SOSIAL.4. KULIAH 4: PENGUKURAN KINERJA PROYEK DAN PROGRAM SOSIAL5. KULIAH 5: EVALUASI KEBIJAKAN/PROGRAM SOSIAL.6. KULIAH 6: IDENTIFIKASI KEBERHASILAN DAN KEGAGALAN PROGRAM.7. KULIAH 7: DISKUSI PAPER 1.8. KULIAH 8 DST: (DITENTUKAN PENGAMPU BERIKUTNYA)

METODE PEMBELAJARAN:SECARA KESELURUHAN KULIAH AKAN DIBERIKAN DALAM BENTUK

DISKUSI KELAS, PENULISAN PAPER DAN EVALUASI

BUKU WAJIB:

1. MARGARET HARDIMAN; THE SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF DEVELOPMENT(JOHN WILEY&SONS Inc)

2. ALFRED J.KAHN; SOCIAL POLICY AND SOCIAL SERVICES(RANDOM HOUSE:NEW YORK)3. ARNOLD J.MELTSNER; POLICY ANALYSTS IN THE BUREAUCRACY4. CAROL H. WEISS; EVALUATION RESEARCH: METHODS FOR ASSESSING PROGRAM

EFFECTIVENESS (PRENTICE HALL. INC. ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, NEW JERSEY.5. ROGER KAUFMAN AND SUSAN THOMAS: EVALUATION WITHOUT FEAR (NEW VIEW

POINTS, NEW YORK).

KONSEP/KONSTRUK: KONSEP/KONSTRUK: PEMBANGUNANPEMBANGUNAN

• SUATU PROSES PERUBAHAN POKOK PADA MASYARAKAT DARI SUATU KEADAAN NASIONAL TERTENTU MENUJU KE KEADAAN LAIN YANG DIANGGAP LEBIH BERNILAI (KATZ,1971)

• PROSES PERUBAHAN DENGAN TANDA TANDA DARI SESUATU YANG DIANGGAP KURANG DIKEHENDAKI MENUJU KE SESUATU KEADAAN YANG LEBIH DIKEHENDAKI (PHILLIP ROUP,1981)

CATATAN:1. TIME SPESIFIC & CULTURE SPESIFIC2. GROWTH (PERTUMBUHAN) VS DEVELOPMENT (PEMBANGUNAN)

GOALDEVELOPMENTPOLICY

RENCANA PROGRAMS PROJECTS

HAKEKAT PENGERTIANKEBIJAKAN SOSIAL:

APA YANG DILAKUKAN DAN YANG TIDAK DILAKUKAN OLEH OTORITAS ALAM MERESPON

MASALAH DAN KEPENTINGAN SOSIAL YANG ADA DI WILAYAH JURISDIKSINYA

THE SOCIAL PROGRAMMES).

KEY CONCEPTS:

WHATSHOUL BE

(PLANNING)CONTROLLING

(IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS)

INPUTSRESULT

SOCIAL PROGRAMMES: THE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES WHICH IS DESIGNED TO IMPROVE THE LOT OF PEOPLE/ SOCIAL WELL BEING/THE QUALITY OF LIFE

NOTE: THEY CAN DEAL WITH: EDUCATION, SOCIAL WELFARE, HEALTH, HOUSING, DEVELOPMENT, ETC.

HIERARKI KEBIJAKAN SOSIAL

KEBIJAKAN/RENCANASOSIAL

BIDANG

SEKTOR

SUB SEKTOR

PROGRAM

PROYEK

SOSIAL

KESEHATAN

KESEHATANIBU DAN ANAK

PENINGKATAN GIZI BALITA

BANTUAN SUSU

PROGRAM/PROYEK LAINYA

PERGESERAN MODEL PEMBANGUNANPERGESERAN MODEL PEMBANGUNAN

KARAKTERISTIK

MODEL DAN STRATEGI

PERTUMBUHAN BASIC NEEDS SUSTAINABLE

1. FOKUS INDUSTRI PELAYANAN MANUSIA DAN LINGKUNGAN

2. NILAI YG DIKEJARBERPUSAT PADAINDUSTRIALISASI

BERKIBLATPADA MANUSIA

BERPUSAT PADA MANUSIADAN LINGKUNGAN

3. INDIKATOR EKONOMI MAKRO INDIKATOR SOSIAL

HUBUNGAN MANUSIADENGAN LINGKUNGAN

4. PERAN PEMERINTAH ENTERPRENEUR SERVICE PROVIDER

ENABLER/FASILITATOR

5. SUMBER UTAMA MODAL

KEMAMPUANADMINISTRASIDAN ANGGARAN

KREATIVITAS DANKOMITMEN

6. KENDALAKONSENTRASI DANMARGINALISASI

KETERBATASANANGGARAN

STRUKTUR DAN KOMITMENYANG TIDAK MENDUKUNG

REINVENTING GOVERNMENTREINVENTING GOVERNMENT(DAVID OSBORN)(DAVID OSBORN)

1. PEMERINTAHAN KATALIS: Mengarahkan Ketimbang Mengayuh

2. PEMERINTAHAN MILIK MASYARAKAT: Memberi Wewenang Ketimbang Melayani

3. PEMERINTAHAN YANG KOMPETETIF: Menyuntikan Persaingan Dalam Pelayanan

4. PEMERINTAHAN DIGERAKAN OLEH MISI: Bukan Oleh Peraturan

5. PEMERINTAHAN YANG BERORIENTASI HASIL: Membiayai hasil Bukan Masukan

6. PEMERINTAHAN BERORIENTASI PELANGGAN: Memenuhi Kebutuhan Pelanggan Bukan Birokrasi

7. PEMERINTAHAN WIRA USAHA: Menghasilkan Ketimbang Membelanjakan

8. PEMERINTAHAN ANTISIPATIF: Mencegah Ketimbang Mengobati

9. PEMERINTAHAN DESENTRALISASI: (Indonesia=UU No.32/2004 & UU No.23/2004)

10. PEMERINTAHAN BERORIENTASI PASAR: Mendongkrak Pertumbuhan Melalui Pasar

11. MENGUMPULKAN SEMUA MENJADI SATU

PEMBERIAN WEWENANG PADA MASYARAKATPEMBERIAN WEWENANG PADA MASYARAKAT(GREAT SOCIETY(GREAT SOCIETY))

1. KOMUNITAS MEMILIKI KOMITMEN LEBIH BESARTERHADAP ANGGOTANYA KETIMBANG BIROKRASI

2. KOMUNITAS LEBIH MEMAHAMI MASALAHANYASENDIRI KETIMBANG BIROKRASI PELAYANAN

3. BIROKRASI MEMBERIKAN PELAYANAN,MASYARAKAT MEMECAHKAN MASALAHNYA

4. BIROKRASI MENAWARKAN PELAYANAN, MASYARAKAT MENAWARKAN KEPEDULIAN

5. KOMUNITAS LEBIH FLEKSIBEL DAN KREATIFKETIMBANG BIROKRASI PELAYANAN

6. BIAYA KOMUNITAS LEBIH MURAH KETIMBANGBIROKRASI

7. STANNDAR PERILAKU KOMUNITAS LEBIH EFEKTIF KETIMBANG PELAYANAN BIROKRASI

8. KOMUNITAS MEMFOKUSKAN PADA KAPASITASBIROKRASI PELAYANAN PADA KEKURANGAN

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT MODEL

DAYA TANGGAP

TRANSPARAN

AKUNTABILITAS

EFEKTIF &EFISIEN

KEADILAN

SUPREMASIHUKUM

VISI STRATEGIK

BERORIENTASIKONSENSUS

GOOD GOVERNANCE

MASYARAKAT

PEMERINTAH SWASTA

SUMBERDAYAPARIWISATA

MANAJEMEN:

OBYEK & DAYA TARIKAKOMODASIINFRA STRUKTURSDMKELEMBAGAAN

MISI

KUALITASKEPARIWISATAANYANG MEMBAIK:

ECONOMICALLY VIABLEENVIRONMENTALLY

SUSTAINABLESOCIAL AND CULTURALLY

ACCEPTABLETECHNOLOGICALLY

APPROPRIATE

JUMLAH KUNJUNGANLAMA TINGGALPEMBELANJAAN

DAMPAK MULTI GANDA

LATAR BELAKANG MODEL KEBIJAKAN

MODELPEMBANGUNAN

NASIONAL

SISTEMPASAR BEBAS

SISTEM SOSIALIS

MEKANISMEPASAR

(INVISIBLE HAND)

INTERVENSIPEMERINTAH(KEBIJAKAN)

ERA SEBELUMPERANG DUNIA 11

(1920 AN)

ERA SETELAH PERANG DUNIA 11

(1950 AN)

MELAKUKANINTERVENSI KEBIJAKAN

DALAM PEMBANGUNAN NASIONAL

FAKTOR PENDORONG MODEL KEBIJAKAN

1. MARKET IMPREFECTIONS: PRICE DISTORSION

(PRICE)

(QUANTITY)

(SUPPLY)

(DEMAND)

(HARGA)

2. MISS ALLOCATIONS OF RESOURCES: MONOPOLI – OLIGOPOLI - MONOPSONI

3. PERSYARATAN BAGI BANTUAN / HUTANG DARI NEGARA DONOR

DINAMIKA

DINAMIKA

SOSIALISKAPITALIS

DESENTRALIZED CENTRALIZED

DEBIROKRATIS BIROKRATIS

MODEL KEBIJAKAN SOSIAL(MARGARET HARDIMAN MODEL)

1.THE RESIDUAL MODEL (1950an)

TUJUAN PEMBANGUNAN EKONOMI ADALAHMENINGKATKAN PERTUMBUHAN EKONOMI

SECEPAT MUNGKIN, DENGAN DEMIKIANAKAN BERAKIBAT PADA PENINGKATAN

KESEJAHTERAAN SOSIAL SECARA OTOMATIS

NEO CLASSICAL ECONOMIST

INVESTASI KAPITALSEBANYAK MUNGKIN

PENGGUNAAN TEKNOLOGIPRODUKSI MODERN

1.PERTUMBUHAN EKONOMI2.PENINGKATAN UPAH PEKERJA3.PENYERAPAN TENAGA KERJA

DARI PEDESAAN

PENCIPTAANDAYA BELI

MASYARAKAT

PERMINTAANBARANG PRODUKSI

MODEL KEBIJAKAN SOSIAL

KONSEKWENSITHE RESIDUAL MODEL

PENGELUARAN PEMERINTAH UNTUK PROGRAM /PROYEKSOSIAL DIANGGAP TIDAK PRODUKTIF DAN

HARUS DITEKAN SEMINIMAL MUNGKIN

KEBUTUHAN SOSIAL HARUS DIPENUHI SECARA INDIVIDUALMELALUI MEKANISME PASAR

MODEL KEBIJAKAN SOSIAL

2.THE INCCREMENTAL MODEL

KRITIK TERHADAP KEGAGALAN THE RESIDUAL MODEL1.KEBANYAKAN NEGARA BERKEMBANG JUSTRU TIDAK

MAMPU MEMOBILISASI MODAL YANG DIBUTUHKANUNTUK MENCIPTAKAN BASIS INDUSTRI.

2.BANYAK NEGARA BERKEMBANG JUSTRU TERJEBAKDALAM SINDRUM BUDAYA KEMISKINAN:

PERTUMBUHAN PENDUDUK YANG TERLALU CEPAT,KEWIRAUSAHAAN YANG RENDAH, KORUPSI, KOLUSI,DAN NEPOTISME SERTA MARAKNYA IN APPROPRIATE

TECHNOLOGY.3.TIDAK TERJADI PROSES “TRICKLED DOWN” BAHKAN

JUSTRU TERJADI “TRICKLE BACK”

ALHASIL THE RESIDUAL MODEL TIDAK MAMPUMENGHASILKAN PENINGKATAN KESEJAHTERAAN SOSIAL DAN JUSTRU SEBALIKNYA MENIMBULKANMARGINALISASI, URBAN BIAS DAN KETIMPANGAN

PENDAPATAN ANTAR PENDUDUK

REKOMENDASI/SARANTHE INCREMENTAL MODEL

PENANGANAN MASALAH SOSIAL MELALUI FORMULASI DAN IMPLEMENTASIKEBIJAKAN PUBLIK UNTUK MENINGKATKAN TINGKAT HIDUP MASYARAKAT

DAN KESEJAHTERAAN SOSIAL SECARA GRADUAL, UTAMANYA PADA SEKTOR:KESEHATAN-PERUMAHAN-PENDIDIKAN-PELAYANAN SOSIAL

HAKEKAT KEBIJAKAN

SUATU PROSES AKTIVITAS YANG BERKESINAMBUNGANYANG MELIPUTI KEPUTUSAN ATAU PEMILIHAN TENTANGALTERNATIVE CARA PENGGUNAAN SUMBERDAYA YANG

TERSEDIA DENGAN MAKSUD MENCAPAI TUJUAN TERTENTUDI WAKTU YANG AKAN DATANG

1. TO CHOOSE

A. DIANTARA AKTIVITAS YANGDIINGINKAN (SEKTOR PRIORITAS)

B. DIANTARA CARA PENCAPAIAN

2. ALLOCATING OFRESOURCES

A. SUMBERDAYA ALAM

B. SUMBERDAYA MANUSIA

KENDALA: KETERBATASAN SUMBERDAYA, BAIK KUALITAS MAUPUN KUANTITAS, OLEH KARENA ITU PERLU PENAJAMAN DALAM SKALA PRIORITAS.

3.MEANS OF ACHIEVING GOALS

A. THE NATURE OF THE GOAL

B.THE PROCESS OF GOAL FORMULATION

KENDALA: TUJUAN PEMBANGUNAN BERSIFAT VAGUE, OLEH KARENA ITU PER STRATEGI INCREMENTED PLANNING MUDDLING THROUGH APPROACH

4.POLICY FOR THEFUTURE

A. PERLU FORECASTING/PREDICTION

B.SELALU MENGANDUNG RESIKO/KETIDAK PASTIAN

The planning style

PEMERINTAH

PROPINSI

DAERAH(KABUPATEN/KOTA)

TOP- DOWNPLANNING

BOTTOM – UPPLANNING

PELITA IIPELITA 1 PELITA III PELITA IV NATIONALGOAL

MODLING THROUGH APPROACH

COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH

THE TYPE OF POLICY ACTIVITY

DIBEDAKANBERDASARKAN

1.THE NATURE OF PLANNING GOAL

A.WAR – TIME POLICY/CONTIGENCYB.PHISICAL PLANNING/LAND USE PLANNING

C.ANTI CYCLICAL PLANNINGD.DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

2.THE SCOPE OF PLANNING ACTIVITY

A. SOCIAL PLANNINGB. ECONOMIC PLANNING

C. NATURAL RESOURCES PLANNINGD. ETC.

3.THE SPATIAL LEVEL OF PLANNINGACTIVITY

4.THE OPERATIONAL LEVEL OF PLANNING ACTIVITY

5.THE TIME DIMENTION LEVEL OF PLANNING ACTIVITY

LIHAT FIGURE 1

LIHAT FIGURE 2

LIHAT FIGURE 3

SPATIAL LEVEL OF POLICY ACTIVITIES

AREA

SECTORA B C D E F G

AGRICULTURE

INDUSTRY

EDUCATION

HEALTH

HOUSING

TRASPORT

ProyekInter

sektoral

Program/proyekIntersektoral dan

interregional

Proyek proyek industri

THE OPERATIONAL LEVEL OF POLICY ACTIVITIES

NATIONAL POLICY

SECTOR PLAN

1 32

REGIONAL PLAN

4

SECTOR PLAN

REGIONAL PLAN

LOCAL PLAN

PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS OFSECTOR AND REGIONAL PLANS

TARGET GROUPS(BENEFICIARIES)

THE TIME DIMENTION POLICY ACTIVITY

MACRO MESO MICRO

NATIONAL

REGIONAL

LOCAL

LONG TERM

MIDDLE TERM

SHORT TERM

RANGE LEVEL DIMENTION

SPATIAL DIMENTION

TIME DIMENTION

POLICY FRAMWORK

MISSIONVISION VALUEINTERNALANALYSIS

EXTERNALANALYSIS

ASUMTIONSSTRATEGICANALYSIS

AND CHOICE

CRITICALSUCCESFACTOR

CORPORATEOBJECTIVESTRATEGY

GOAL

ESTABLISH ACCONTABILITYIMPLEMENT PLAN

MONITOR IMPLEMENT ANDPROVIDE FEEDBACK

THE POLICY MAKING PROCESS

ASSESMENT OFTHE SITUATION AND

PROBLEM

ANALYSIS OFCAUSES

ACTION BASEDANALYSIS

THE PLANNING PROCESS

DECISION TO ADOPT PLANNING

ESTABLISH ORGANIZATIONALFRAMEWORK FOR PLANNING

SPECIFY OFPLANNING GOAL

FORMULATEOBJECTIVE

COLLECT ANDANALYSE DATA

IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVECOURCES OF ACTION

APPRAISE ALTERNATIVECOURSES OF ACTION

SELLECT PREFFEREDALTERNATIVE

IMPLEMENT

MONITOR AND EVALUATE

THE RATIONAL APPRACH TO POLICY MAKING(CARLEY`S MODEL)

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND DEFENITION

CLASSIFICATION AND ORGANIZATION OF GOAL, VALUESAND OBJECTIVE RELATING TO THE PROBLEM

IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE COURCES OF ACTIONBY WHICH THE PROBLEM MAY BE SOLVED OR OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED

PREDICTION OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF EACH ALTERNATIVECOURSE OF ACTION AND LIKELIHOOD OF THESE OCCURRING

COMPARATION OF THE PREDICTED CONSEQUENCES IN RELATIONTO SPECICIFIED GOAL AND OBJECTIVE

SELECTION OF A COURSE OF ACTION(THE BEST)

THE COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM MODELFOR DEVELOPMENT POLICY MAKING

APPRAISAL OF THE CURRENTSTATE OF AFFAIRS

ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR PROGRESS AND PRELIMINARY PRIORITIES AMONG DIRECTIONS

PRELIMINARY FORMULATION OF OBJECTIVES ANDESTIMATION OF AVAILABLE FUND

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION

SPECIFICATION OF OBJECTIVE PROGRAM, PROJECT AND STRATEGIES

SEARCH FOR THE BEST SOLUTION

DERIVATION OF EVALUATION CRETERIA

APPLICATION OF EVALUATION CRETERIA

DETERMINATION OF ACTION PLAN AND BUDGET

FORMAT RENCANA

RATIONALE

MONITORING DAN EVALUASISEKTOR BERSANGKUTAN

(STRATEGIC ISSUES)

SWOT ANALYSISSEKTOR BERSANGKUTAN

PROYEKSI DAN POSITIONINGSEKTOR BERSANGKUTAN

PROGRAM/PROYEK

GOAL AND OBJECTIVE

VISI DAN MISI

JANGKA PANJANGDAN MENENGAH

SASARANJANGKA PENDEK

A. RATIONALEB. OBJECTIVE

C. BENEFICIARIESD. STRATEGY AND SCOPEE. PROJECT MANAGEMENT

F. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

THE VARIETY OF SOCIAL PROGRAMMES

1. SCOPE; THE PROGRAM BEING EVALUATED MAY COVER: THE NATION, A REGION,STATE, CITY, OR BE LIMITED TO ONE SPECIFIC SITE (EXP: A CLASSROOM)

2. SIZE; THE SOCIAL PROGRAMMES CAN SERVE A FEW PEOPLE OR REACH THOUSANDS OR EVEN MIILLIONS

3. DURATION; A SOCIAL PROGRAM CAN LAST A FEW HOURS, DAY OR WEEKS,A SPECIFIED NUMBER OF MONTHS OR YEARS

4. CLARIFY AND SPECIFICITY OF PROGRAM INPUNT; INPUT PROGRAM ADA YANG BISA DIDEFENISIKAN DAN DIUKUR SECARA JELAS DAN ADA YANG TIDAK (CONTOH: PENINGKATAN PENERANGAN JALAN UNTUK MENURUNKAN KRIMINALITAS/JELAS; PENATARAN P4 UNTUK MEMBRANTAS KORUPSI/TIDAK )

5. COMPLEXITY AND TIME SPAN OF GOALS; BEBERAPA PROGRAM DITUJUKAN UNTUK MENCAPAI TUJUAN YANG SPESIFIK, JELAS DAN TERUKUR, SEPERTI:

MENINGKATKAN KEMAMPUAN MEMBACA/MENULIS; AKAN TETAPI BEBERAPA PROGRAM MEMPUNYAI TUJUAN YANG KOMPLEK DAN VAGUE, SEPERTI:MENINGKATKAN RASA KEBANGSAAN.

6. INOVATIVENESS; BEBERAPA PROGRAM SOSIAL ADA YANG DITUJUKAN UNTUK MERESPONSE KEBUTUHAN AKTUAL YANG SEDANG DIHADAPI, NAMUN DEMIKIAN ADA YANG DI DESIGN LEBIH BERSIFAT SEBAGAI PROGRAM ROUTINE.

POLICIES FOR HEALTHAND MEDICAL CARE

RELATEDINDICATORS

MORTALITYRATE

INFANTMORTALITY RATE

LIFEEXPECTANCY

CAUSES OF DEATH(DISEASES)

RELATED VARIABLESPOVERTY

NUTRITIONENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION

HEALTH POLICIESCURATIVE MEDICINE

MEDICAL TECNOLOGIESETC.

HOUSING POLICIES

RELATEDINDICATORS

THE EXTENTOF OVERCROWDING

SQUARTTERSETTLEMENTS

ACCESS TOAMENITIES

URBAN SLUMS

RELATED VARIABLESPOVERTY

THE COST FACTORSTHE AVAILABILITY OF LAND

HOUSING POLICIESETC.

EVALUASI PROGRAM

A. MENDASARKAN TAHAPAN EVALUASI:

1. PRE – PROGRAMME EVALUATION / FEASIBILITY STUDY (FS)

2. ON – GOING PROGRAMME EVALUATION / MONITORING STUDY (MS)

3. EX – POST PROGRAMME EVALUATION / CONTROLLING STUDY (CS)

B. MENDASARKAN PADA OTORITAS YANG MENGEVALUASI:

PROGRAM INPUTS

PROGRAM OUTPUTS

PROGRAM EFFECTS

PROGRAM IMPACTS

INTERNAL EVALUATION

EXTERNAL EVALUATION

KESULITAN METODOLOGIEVALUASI PROGRAM

1. BERKENAAN DENGAN KENYATAAN BAHWA PROYEK PEMBANGUNAN YANG HARUS DIEVALUASI PADA UMUMNYA DISELENGGARAKAN BERDAMPINGANATAU BERSAMAAN DENGAN PROYEK LAIN, SEDEMIKIAN RUPA SEHINGGASETIAP USAHA UNTUK MENGUKUR KINERJA PROYEK (EFFECT AND IMPACT)YANG BERSIH DARI AKIBAT DAN PENGARUH PROYEK SEKTOR PEMBANGUNANYANG LAIN TIDAK MUDAH DIIDENTIFIKASI.

2. PROYEK DAN PROGRAM PEMBANGUNAN YANG DITURUNKAN DARI KEBIJAKANPEMBANGUNAN SEKTOR YANG AKAN DIEVALUASI PADA UMUMNYA MEMILIKI TUJUAN YANG SANGAT LUAS DAN KOMPLEK, SEHINGGA HASIL DARI SETIAPPENELITIAN EVALUASI SELALU DINILAI TIDAK RELEVAN, KECUALI MELALUIPEMBATASAN TUJUAN OPERASIONAL YANG RESEARCHABLE DAN MEASUREBLE.

3. PROYEK PEMBANGUNAN YANG MENJADI SASARAN MONITORING DAN EVALUASI PADA UMUMNYA TIDAK DIIMPLEMENTASIKAN BERDASARKAN PADA SUATU SETTING EKSPERIMEN YANG TERKENDALI MELALUI KEPEMILIKANKELOMPOK PEMBANDING SECARA RANDOM (RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT), MELAINKAN LEBIH BERDASARKAN PADA PERTIMBANGAN YANGBERHUBUNGAN DENGAN MASALAH YANG AKTUAL (THEMES APPROACH) YANGDIANGGAP MENDESAK OLEH PARA PERENCANA PEMBANGUNAN

4. THE EVALUATION QUESTION AS POSED IGNORE THE ISSUE OF WHY THE PROGRAM SUCCEDS OR FAILS. THE WHY IS OFTEN JUST AS IMPORTANTTO KNOW AS HOW WELL THE PROGRAM WORKS

DESIGN OF THE PROGRAM EVALUATION

EXPERIMENT

CONTROL

A B

DC

IF THE DIFFERENCEBETWEEN A AND B

IS GREATER THAN THEDIFFERENCE BETWEEN

C AND D, THE PROGRAMIS A SUCCESS

SAMPLE BEFORE AFTER KESIMPULAN

PEMBANDINGAN

PEMBANDINGAN

THE ORGANIZATIONALELEMENTS MODEL

INPUTS PROCESSES PRODUCTS OUTPUTS OUTCOMES

IN SCHOOL(INTERNAL)

OUT OFSCHOOL

(EXTERNAL)

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFORTS

ORGANIZATIONALRESULTS

SELF SUFFICIENCYIN SOCIETY

BEBERAPA PERTANYAAN KUNCI UNTUK MENGEVALUASI KEBIJAKAN

1. WHAT ARE THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ORGANIZATION ?

2. WHAT SHOULD BE THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ORGANIZATION ?

3. WHAT RESULTS WERE INTENDED BY THE PROGRAM, PROJECT, ACTIVITIESOR ORGANIZATION ?

4. WHAT RESULTS WERE OBTAINED BY THE PROGRAM, PROJECT, ACTIVITYOR ORGANIZATION ?

5. WHAT WERE THE VALUE AND USEFULNESS OF THE METHODS AND MEANSUSED TO ACHIEVE THE RESULTS ?

6. HOW WELL WAS THE PROGRAM, PROJECT, ACTIVITY OR ORGANOZATIONADMISTERED AND MANAGED ?

7. WHAT; IF ANYTHING ABOUT THE PROGRAM, PROJECT, ACTIVITY ORORGANIZATION SHOULD BE CHANGED ?

8. WHAT; IF ANYTHING ABOUT THE PROGRAM, PROJECT, ACTIVITY ORORGANIZATION SHOULD BE CONTINUED ?

9. SHOULD THE ORGANIZATION, PROJECT, PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY EXIST AT ALL

THE TYPES OF PROJECTS MEASUREMENT

1. MEASURING EFFECTS ON PERSONS SERVE: ie.

TRAINING CHANGE IN JOBATTITUDES

GETTINGA JOB

DOES DOES ?

LEAD TOLEAD TO

2. MEASURING EFFECTS ON AGENCIES:

A. SOME OF THESE CAN BE AGGREGATED FROM DATA ABOUT INDIVIDUAL IN THE ORGANIZATION (FOR EXAMPLE: PERCENTAGE TOURIST WITH DAILYCONTACT WITH LOCAL RESEDENTS

B. SOME CAN BE GLOBAL MEASURES OF THE INSTITUTION (FOR EXAMPLE:TOTAL BUDGET, PROPORTION OF THE BUDGET ALLOCATED TO CHILDRENDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS).

THE TYPES OF PROJECTS MEASUREMENT

3. MEASURING EFFECTS ON LARGER SYSTEMS

THERE ARE OCCASIONAL PROGRAMS WHOSE GOALS ARE TO MAKE CHANGESIN A WHOLE NETWORK OF AGENCIES (FOR EXAMPLE: TO CHANGE A COMMUNITYOR EVEN A NATIONAL SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM, SUCH AS EDUCATION, MENTAL HEALTH ETC.

4. MEASURING EFFECTS ON THE PUBLIC

FOR EXAMPLE: IF A PROGRAM SEEKS TO ALTER PUBLIC VALUES OR ATTITUDES.THE APPROPRIATE INDICATOR OF OUTCOME IS OBVIOUSLY THE PUBLIC VIEWS.

THE CORE ISSUES IN PROGRAM`S EVALUATION

1. FORMULATING THE PROGRAM GOALS THAT THE EVALUATION WILL USE AS CRITERIA.

2. CHOOSING AMONG MULTIPLE GOALS

3. INVESTIGATING UNANTICIPATED CONSEQUENCES

4. MEASURING OUTCOMES

5. SPECIFYING WHAT THE PROGRAM IS

6. MEASURING PROGRAM INPUTS AND INTERVENING PROCESS

7. COLLECTING THE NECESSARY DATA

THE STANDARD FORMULATIONOF THE EVALUATION QUESTION

“ TO WHAT EXTENT IS THE PROGRAM SUCCEEDING IN REACHING IT`S GOAL ? “

VARIATION ARE POSSIBLE:

1. IS PROGRAM A DOING BETTER THAN PROGRAM B IN REACHING THEIR COMMONGOAL ?

2. HOW WELL IS THE PROGRAM ACHIEVING RESULTS X, Y, AND Z WITH GROUPS F,G AND H ?

3. WHICH COMPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM (R, S OR T) ARE HAVING MORE SUCCEES ?

BUT THE BASIC NOTION IS THE SAME:

1. THERE ARE GOALS;

2. THERE IS A PLANNED ACTIVITY (OR SEVERAL ACTIVITIES);

3. THERE IS A MEASURE MADE OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE GOALS ARE ACHIEVED.

THE STANDARD PROCCESSOF THE PROGRAM EVALUATION

1. FIND OUT THE PROGRAM`S GOALS2. TRANSLATE THE GOALS INTO MEASUREABLE INDICATORS

OF GOAL ACHIEVEMENT

3. COLLECT DATA OR THE INDICATORS FOR THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE PROGRAM ( AND FOR AN EQUIVALENT CONTROL GROUP WHO DID NOT)

4. COMPARE THE DATA ON PARTICIPANT`S (AND CONTROLS)WITH THE GOAL CRITERIA

THE PROGRAM`S GOALS(PARTICIPATED PROGRAM)

THE PROGRAM`S GOALS(CONTROLLED PROGRAM)

INDICATORS INDICATORS

COMPARETHE DATACOLLECT THE DATA COLLECT THE DATA

THE USERS OF THE EVALUATION RESULTS

1. A FUNDING ORGANIZATION (GOVERNMENT, PRIVATE, FOUNDATION)

2. A NATIONAL AGENCY (GOVERNMENT, PRIVATE)

3. A LOCAL AGENCY

4. THE DIRECTORS OF THE SPECIFIC PROJECT

5. DIRECT – SERVICE STAFF

6. CLIENTS OF THE PROGRAMS

7. SCHOLARS IN THE DISCIPLINES AND PROFESSIONS

USER DECISION

POLICY MAKERWHETHER TO EXPAND, CONTRACT

OR CHANGE THE PROGRAM

PROGRAM MANAGER WHICH METHODS, STRUCTURE,TECHNIQUES OR STAFF PATTERNS TO USE

COGNITIVE STYLES OF HYPOTHETICAL POLICY ANALYST

PROCESS OFINQUIRY

ELEMENTS OFANALYSIS

ECONOMISTORGANIZATIONAL

ANALYSTPOLITICALANALYST

ILLUSTRATIVE CONSIDERATIONS

SELECTTHE PROBLEM

DEFINE, FORMULATEAND DELIMIT

PROBLEM

DETERMINE ANDSEARCH FOR

RELEVANT DATA

CALCULATEAND EXPLAIN

ALLOCATIONOF RESOURCES

INCREASE SUPPORTFOR EFFECTIVENESS

OF AGENCY

INCREASE SUPPORTFOR EFFECTIVENESS

OF PARTY

OBJECTIVE

CRITERIA MAXIMIZE DIFFERENCECOST AND BENEFIT

NOT AS EXPLICITAGREEMENT WITH PAYMENT

CAN TEND TO STABILITY

ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OFORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

CONFUSIONCONFLICT AND DISAGREEMENT

INSTABILITY

ALTERNATIVES

MAXIMIZE PROBABILITYOF POLITICAL ACCEPTANCE

EXPLICITAGREEMENT

STABLE

COST AND BENEFITS

EXCLUDE THE INFEASIBLEPRESENT SOLUTION/POLICY

PROGRAM RELATEDMIX QUALITATIVE AND

QUANTITATIVE


PROGRAM AND NON PROGRAMRELATED

MOSTLY QUALITATIVE


PROGRAM RELATEDQUANTITATIVE

MODELCLOSED

GENERALOPEN

COMPLEX-CONTEXTUAL

OPENCOMPLEX-CONTEXTUAL

INPUT VARIABLES OF THE SOCIAL PROJECTS

TO MEASURE INPUT VARIABLES; THEY MAY TO DO WITH VARIATIONS IN:

1. PURPOSE

2. PRINCIPLES

3. METHODS

4. STAFFING

5. PERSONS SERVE

6. LENGTH OF SERVICE

7. LOCATION

8. SIZE OF PROGRAM

9. MANAGEMENT

10. CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPANTS:A. AGEB. SEXC. SOCIOECONOMIC STATUSD. LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN COMMUNITYE. ATTITUDE TOWARD THE PROGRAMF. MOTIVATION FOR PARTICIPATIONG. ASPIRATIONH. EXPECTATIONS FROM THE PROGRAMI. ETC.

INTERVENING VARIABLES OF THE SOCIAL PROJECTS

TO MEASURE INTERVENING VARIABLES; THEY MAY TO DO WITH VARIATIONS IN:

A. PROGRAM – OPERATION VARIABLES:

1. HOW THE PROGRAM OPERATES

2. DEGREE OF ACCEPTANCE BY PEERS

B. BRIDGING VARIABLES:

IN ORDER TO REACH THE DESIRED END, CERTAIN SUB GOALS HAVE TOBE ACHIEVED.

TYPES OF PROGRAM FAILURE

SUCCESSFULPROGRAM PROGRAM

CAUSALPROCESS

DESIREDEFFECT

SET IN MOTION

WHICH LED TO

THEORY FAILURE


PROGRAM

CAUSAL PROCESS

DESIREDEFFECT

SET IN MOTION

WHICH DID NOTLEAD TO


PROGRAMFAILURE

PROGRAM

CAUSAL PROCESS

DESIREDEFFECT

DID NOTSET IN MOTION

WHICH WOULDHAVE LED TO

PROJECT DESIGNING

IDENTIFICATION

JUSTIFIEDFEASIBLE

STRATEGICPRIORITY

PREPARATION

APPRAISAL

NEGOSIATION

IMPLEMENTATION

EVALUATION

TECHNICALINSTITUTIONAL

FINANCIAL

TECHNICALINSTITUTIONAL

FINANCIAL

SOURCE OF FUNDINGRECIPIENT

KAITAN PEMUNGKIN

PROGREES REPORTGUIDELINES FOR EFFISIENCY

COMPLETION REPORTPROJECT AUDIT

Documents

perencanaan pembangunan.ppt