INDONESIAN PUBLIC SECTOR INTEGRITY FOR YEAR 2009 CORRUPTION FACTORS IN PUBLIC SERVICES
Corruption Eradication Commission Directorate of Research and Development 2010
Compiled by the Directorate of Research and Development Deputy for Control Measures – Corruption Eradication Commission Issued by the Directorate of Research and Development Corruption Eradication Commission Jakarta, April 2010
ISBN:
.......................................................... Public Sector Integrity Survey Activities funded by State Budget Translation and Printing by the World Bank
INDONESIAN PUBLIC SECTOR INTEGRITY FOR YEAR 2009 CORRUPTION FACTORS IN PULIC SERVICES
Corruption Eradication Commission www.kpk.go.id Jl. H.R. Rasuna Said Kav C-1 South Jakarta-Indonesia Telp. (021) 2557 8300
Fax. (021) 528 2448
INTRODUCTION Thanks be to the One and Only God that the “2009 Indonesian Public Sector Integrity Corruption Factors in Public Services” Survey has been satisfactorily completed by the Directorate of Research and Development, Deputy for Contro Measures, Corruption Eradication Commission. The survey was carried out in 39 center institutions, 10 provincial governments and 49 district / town governments with a total of 371 service units providing services to the public (the public, companies as well as services among institutions). Respondents in this survey are direct service users (not middle men or service bureaus) of services provided by such institutions. The survey was carried out during April – September 2009. All data acquired in this survey report constitutes primary data sourced from results of interviews carried out directly with respondents in the field. We convey our thanks to all concerned parties who have given support as well as contribution to the compilation of the results of this study. Due to the limited time available, we realize that the results of this survey are still far from perfect. Therefore, suggestions and criticism would be most welcome, for further improvement in future surveys.
Jakarta, April 2010
Head Corruption Eradication Commission
LIST OF CONTENTS Introduction List of Contents I. Foreword 1.1. Background 1.2. Objective and Purpose of Survey 1.3. Methodology II. National Integrity 2..1 Total National Level Integrity 2..1.1 National Integrity Value 2..1.2 Service Units and Institutions Assessed 2..2 National Level Integrity Experience 2..2.1 Public Experience of Corruption at National Level Public Services 2..2.2 Public Perception on Corruption at National Level Public Services 2..3. National Potential Integrity 2..3.1 Working Environtment at National Level Public Services 2..3.2 Administration System at National Level Public Services 2..3.3 Personal Attitude at National Level Public Services 2..3.4 Control Measures on Corruption at National Level Public Services 2..4 Efforts Towards Improvement in Value of National Public Integrity Value III. Central Level Public Sector Integrity 3..1 Total Central Level Integrity 3..1.1 Central Integrity Value 3..1.2 Central Level Services Units 3..2 Central Level Integrity Experience 3..2.1 Public Experienced Corruption at Central Level Public Services 3..2.2 Public Perception on Corruption at Central Level Public Services 3..3 Central Level Potential Integrity 3..3.1 Working Environtment at Central Level Public Services 3..3.2 Administration System in Central Level Public Services 3..3.3 Personal Attitude in Central Level Public Services 3..3.4 Control Measures on Corruption Prevention in Central Level Public Services 3..4 Efforts Towards Improvement in Central Level Integrity Value IV. Provincial Level Public Sector Integrity 4..1 Total Provincial Level Integrity 4..1.1 Provincial Government Integrity Value 4..1.2 Provincial Government Service Units 4..2 Provincial Level Integrity Experience 4..2.1 Public Experienced Corruption in Provincial Level Public Services 4..2.2 Public Perception on Corruption in Provincial Level Public Services 4..3 Provincial Level Potential Integrity 4..3.1 Working Environtment in Provincial Level Public Services 4..3.2 Administration System in Provincial Level Public Services 4..3.3 Personal Attitude in Provincial Level Public Services 4..3.4 Contro Measures on Corruption in Provincial Level Public Services 4..4 Efforts Towards Improvement in Provincial Level Integrity Value V. District / Town Level Public Sector Integrity 5..1 Total District / Town Level Integrity 5..1.1 District / Town Government Integrity Value
Iii 1 1
5..1.2 District / Town Government Services Units 5..2 District / Town Level Experienced Integrity 5..2.1 Public Experienced Corruption in District / Town Level Public Services 5..2.2 Public Perception on Corruption in District / Town Level Public Services 5..3 District / Town Level Potential Integrity 5..3.1 Working Environment in District / Town Level Public Services 5..3.2 Administration System in District / Town Level Public Services 5..3.3 Personal Attitude in District / Town Level Public Services 5..3.4 Control Measures on Corruption in District / Town Level Public Services 5..4 Efforts Towards Improvement in District / Town Level Integrity Value VI. Conclusion Attachments 1. Methodology 2. National Public Sector Integrity Value 3. National Experienced Integrity Value 4.. National Potential Integrity Value Ranking 5.. Central Level Service Unit Integrity Ranking 6.. Value and Ranking for Integrity of Central Level Institutions and Service Units 7.. Integrity Value of State Owned Enterprises Year 2009 8.. Integrity Value of Non Department Government Institution for 2009 9.. Integrity Value of Departments/ Ministries for 2009 10.. Ranking and Value on Experienced Integrity at Central Level Institution 11.. Ranking and Value on Potential Integrity at Central Level Service Units 12.. Ranking and Potential Value on Integrity of Central Level Institutions 13.. Ranking and Potential Value on Integrity of Central Level Service Units 14.. Value and Ranking on Integrity of Provincial Governments and Their Service Units for 2009 15.. Value and Ranking on Integrity of Service Units for Between Cities Route Permits at Provincial Level in 2009 16.. Value and Ranking on Integrity of Service Units for Permits for Establishment of Cooperatives /SME at Provincial Level in 2009 17.. Value and Ranking on Integrity of Regional General Hospitals Service Units at Provincial Level in 2009 18.. Value and Ranking on Integrity of Procurement of Goods and Services SKPD Provincial Level in 2009 19 Ranking and Value on Experienced Integrity of Service Units at Provincial Level 20 Ranking and Value on Potential Integrity of District / Town Governments and District/ Town Service Units 19... Value and Ranking on Integrity of Service Units at District / Town Level 20.. Value and Ranking on Integrity of District / Town Governments and District / Trown Service Units 21.. Value and Ranking on Integrity of Service Units for Schools Development Aid / Renovation / Repair from the State Budget II
22.. Value and Ranking on Integrity of Service Units for Birth Certificates at District / Town Level in 2009 23.. Value and Ranking on Integrity of Service Units for Basic Medical Care at Community Health Care Centers / Regional General Hospitals C – Class 24 Ranking and Value on Integrity Experience of District / Town Governments 25 Ranking and Value on Potential Integrity of District/ Town Governments
I. FOREWORD 1.1. Background Government institutions, both at central and regional levels, constitute the public sector with the duty to provide services to the public. In carrying out its job, this public sector uses funds from the State / Regional Budget, a large portion of which is sourced from public funds in form of taxes paid by the public. One of the forms of accountability of utilization of such funds is through providing the best services to the public without the burden of various collections. Recent facts disclosed, show that public sector services comprise one of the sectors wherein corrupt criminal acts mainly in form of bribery, extortion as well as gratification still frequently occur. In fact, these have begun to be carried out systematically and are ever spreading and more advanced in the process of their implementation. In order to effectively prevent the occurrence of corruption, it would be best to avoid the measurement of corruption with the sole purpose of detecting those carrying out corruption and punishing them. It is important to place a strategy of control measures over corruption with the purpose to eliminate factors causing corruption from the very beginning. In determining a corruption control measures strategy, it will be necessary to identify and analyze factors that constitute the root causes contributing to the emergence of corruption in public sectors. Therefore, it is vital to evaluate a public sector integrity level which can systematically illustrate corruption characteristics in such public sector. Evaluation or assessment which is conducted directly by these public services users is expected to be able to change the services perspective from orientation towards supply to be orientation towards demand. The Public Sector Integrity Survey is conducted by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) on a regular basis every year to measure the above. Through active dissemination of the results of the public sector integrity survey to the mass media, the public and services provider institutions, it is hoped this shall drive the public sector to voluntarily carry out efforts to eradicate corruption mainly in its service units. If conducted comprehensively, such efforts will in the end boost up the integrity of the concerned public sector and enhance the trust of the public towards the public sector.
1.2. Objective and Purpose of Survey To obtain primary data information from users of services regarding elements of integrity of the public sector and how such integrity elements are possessed and applied by the public sector in accordance with the evaluation of the service users. The purpose of this survey: a. Mapping of public sector integrity level through routine survey activities every year; b. To provide information concerning the performance of the public sector in Indonesia ; c. To provide information on level of implementation of integrity elements in the public sector in Indonesia; d. To provide input towards improvement in public sector integrity in Indonesia.
1.3 Methodology A brief description regarding the methodology of implementation of survey is laid out in the following table.
1
Table 1.1. Summary of Survey Methodology No 1
Description Duration of Survey
2
Survey Locations
3
Total Institutions and Service Units Surveyed
4
Name of service unit under survey
5
Respondents
6
Tools of Measurement
7
Methods of Measurement
8
Instruments for collecting data and information
9
Index Value
Explanation The survey was conducted from 21 April to 7 September 2009 For Central Government Level Service Units, Surveys were conducted in Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang and Bekasi. For Provincial Government Level Service Units, surveys were conducted in 10 provinces. For District / Town Government Level Service Units, surveys were conducted in 50 districts / towns. Central Level : 136 service units and 39 institutions (19 departments / ministries, non-departmental institutions, 12 State Owned Entities / BLU) Provincial Level : respectively 4 service units in 10 provincial governments, except East Java only 3 services units District / Town level : respectively 4 services units in 49 districts / towns spread out in 10 provinces Central Level : Permits Services, Non-Permits Services and Procurement of Goods and Services Provincial Level 1) inter-city routes in provinces; 2) permit for establishment of cooperatives / SMEs; 3) Regional General Hospital Services B Class Provincial Level; and 4) Procurement of Goods and Services at SKPD within Provincial Government Environment. District / Town Level : 1) Birth Certificates ; 2) Aid for building / renovation / physical repairs of Schools from the State Budget II ; 3) Basic health services at public health centers (Puskesmas) / Regional General Hospitals Class C ; 4) Procurement of goods and services in SKPD District / Town Environment. Criteria: direct users of service units for the past one year, who have completed all procedures for services, individuals or represent companies / institutions, aged above 18 years. Total respondents 11,413 persons consisting of 4,592 at Central, 1,039 at Provincial Level and 5,782 at District / Town Levels. Variables (2): Experienced Integrity and Potential Integrity Indicators (6) : Experienced Corruption, Perceived Corruption, Working Environment, Administration System, Personal Attitude, Control Measures over Corruption Sub-Indicators (18) : Frequency of giving gratification, Amount / Range of gratification, Purpose of giving gratification, Habit of giving gratification, the need for meetings outside procedure, middle man involvement, facilities around the working environment, Atmosphere / condition surrounding services, Practicality of SOP, Transparency of Information, Utilization of Information Technology, Fairness in services, Expectations of officers regarding gratification, Personal attitude of service users, level of efforts towards anti-corruption, public complaint method. Weighing variables, indicators and sub indicators by experts through Focus Group Discussions using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method. Evaluation of questionnaire by respondents Questionnaire Interview Observation Value spread : 1-10 Meaning of value : the closer to 10, the better the integrity
2
Complete explanation in relation to the above methodology, can be seen in the specific explanation concerning methodology in Attachment 1.
3
II. NATIONAL INTEGRITY The National Integrity value is compiled based on values of Experienced Integrity and Potential Integrity both of which are obtained from indicators and sub-indicators in public services service units surveyed at central, provincial and district / town levels. In further detail, the national integrity value originates from (a) 136 service units in 39 central institutions ; (b) 39 service units in 10 provincial governments and (c) 196 service units in 49 district / town Authorities.
2.1. Total National Level Integrity 2.1.1. National Integrity Value The average value of the Indonesian Public Sector Integrity for 2009 is 6.50. Such value is lower when compared to the central and regional levels integrity value for 2008 which averaged at 6.84 and 6.89, however slightly higher than the central level integrity value for 2007 which averaged at 5-53. Such decrease was due to the fact that in 2009, the KPK set a minimum public sector integrity standard at a 6 value as the minimum integrity standard which must be fulfilled by the public services provider institutions. The determination of such minimum integrity standard simultaneously has the objective to limit the variety of answers from respondents on different perceptions due to differing levels of education, age group, domicile, types of work, as well as status of respondents to the questions asked. The integrity value of 6.50 is still considered as quite low, since it is only around 0.5 above the minimum integrity standard determined by the KPK. This value is also much lower when compared to other countries such as Korea that has an integrity value of 9. An overall picture concerning the value of each respective indicator and sub-indicator at national level is explained in the following table: Tabel 2.1. Integrity Value, Variables, Indicators and Sub-Indicators at National Level Public Sector Integrity
Total of 2 Variables
Experienced integrity (0,750)=6,71
6 Indicators Experienced corruption (0,800)= 6,73 Perceived Corruption (0,200)= 6,65
18 Sub-Indicators Frequency of giving gratification (0,333)= 7 Total / range of gratification (0,140)= 6 Time for giving gratification (0,528) = 7 Meaning of Gratification (0,167)= 5 Purpose of Gratification (0,833) = 7 Habit of giving gratification (0,502) = 6
Working Environment (0,357)= 6,54
Total Integrity (1,00): 6,50
the need for meetings outside procedure (0,058) = 8 middle man involvement (0,222) =7 facilities around the working environment (0,107) = 6 Atmosphere / condition surrounding services (0,112) = 7
Integrity Potential (0,250)= 5,87
Administration System (0,394)= 5,53 Personal Attitude (0,156)= 7,02 Control Measures Over Corruption (0,094)= 2,82
Description: (....) = Weight; ..... = Value
Practicality of SOP (0,258)= 6 Transparency of Information (0,637)= 6 Use of information technology (0,105) = 4 Fair services (0,281)= 6 Expectations of officers regarding gratification (0,584)= 7 Personal attitude of service users (0,135) = 7 level of efforts towards anti-corruption (0,800)= 3 public complaint mechanism (0,200)= 3
With an average integrity value of 6.50, it is observed that the integrity potential value is still low at 5.87, below the minimum integrity value set by the KPK at 6.0. From variables of potential integrity, administration system indicators and control measures over corruption constitute the largest contributions which lower the integrity potential value. Meanwhile with control measures over corruption, all sub-indicators (levels of anti corruption efforts and public complaint mechanism) contribute to the low value of control measures over corruption. The total integrity value of 98 institutions at central level has a value range that is not too wide, namely ranging between 7.62 to 4.75. This narrow range is a result of the minimum public sector integrity standard, service users shall answer questions with a uniform standard hence differences in perception can be minimized. The rating of the national public sector integrity is shown in Attachment 2. With an average national integrity value of 6.50 there are 49 institutions / provincial governments / districts/towns below average, and 49 institutions (50%) wherein the minimum standard determined by KPK at 6.0 as a foundation that the concerned institutions can already fulfill the minimum standard of services with integrity as set by the KPK and should continue to improve the quality of their services in order to at least achieve a minimum integrity of 6.0 as shown in the following table. Tabel 2.2. Institutions / District – Town Authorities with Integrity Level below the minimum integrity standard determined by KPK
No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Agencies/Provincial Government/District Government/Town Government Garut District Makasar Town Gowa District Manado Town Deli Serdang District Police Department Maros District Department of Industry DKI Jakarta Province Samarinda Town Bandar Lampung Town Kuningan District South Jakarta Town North Sulawesi Province South Sulawesi Province
Value of Total Integrity below 6,0 5,99 5,89 5,86 5,86 5,84 5,71 5,70 5,66 5,65 5,65 5,59 5,08 4,92 4,80 4,75
Ranking (1-100) 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
Nevertheless 85 percent of institutions / provinces / district-town Authorities are considered as adequately fulfilling minimum integrity standards in services, although when further detailed, from such institutions that already fulfill such minimum integrity standards, many still possess weaknesses in their practices of service. Other interesting information is that there are 2 provincial governments and 1 town Authorities that have a total value below 5.0. This condition shows there are still public services in regional governments that are still shadowed by the red marks in providing their services due to the still thriving corrupt practitioners.
Integrity value derived in each institutions whether at central or regional level, constitutes an accumulation of experienced integrity and integrity potential values with respective weights of 0.750 and 0.250. The said 2009 national level public sector integrity of 6.50 was acquired by the average experienced integrity of 6.71 and the average potential integrity of 5.87. It is observed that the average experienced integrity is higher compared to the potential integrity value. Since the experienced integrity weight is higher, with such high score of experienced integrity, thus the total national integrity value also becomes high. The experienced integrity value which is higher than the potential integrity value can describe the following condition: •
• •
The still low potential integrity value shows that in general there is no system or environment yet with the potential to support the implementation of transparency and professionalism of officials in serving the public. Opportunities for corruption are still open since the service support system has yet to show any inclination towards anticorruption The available system and facilities to support public services are assessed by the public as lacking in support towards the implementation of services in accordance with public expectations. The adequately satisfactory experienced integrity value shows that practices of bribery and illegal retributions have actually decreased.
2.1.2. Service Units and Institutions under evaluation The 2009 national public sector integrity evaluation was conducted towards 371 service units at central, provincial government and district / town Authorities levels. In detail, those service units are described in the following table ; Tabel 2.3. Service Units in the Public Sector in 2009 Agencies Central
Provincial
District/Town
Service Units 1 Program 2 Permit 3 Non – Permit 4 Procurement of goods and services Note : Names of services differ in each institution 1 Regional General Hospital Services at Provincial Level (B Class) 2 Procurement of goods and services at SKPD within the environment 3 Route Permit between towns within Provinces 4 Permit for establishment of Cooperative / SME Note : Names of services are the same for each District / Town 1 Regional General Hospital Services at District . Town Authorities Level (B Class) 2 Procurement of goods and services at SKPD within the District / Town Environment 3 Birth Certificates 4 Aid for Building / Renovation / Repair of Schools with state Budget II Note : Names of services are the same for each District / Town
At Central Level Service Units and since the names of services differ for each institutions, therefore service units selected can be categorized as program, permit services, non – permit services and procurement of goods and services. Meanwhile for provincial and district / town Authorities uniform service units are determined to represent the basic categories of services permit, non – permit, program and for procurement of goods and services.
The average integrity value for each service unit surveyed shows that services for procurement of goods and service whether at central, provincial or district / town level constitute service units with values that are still low. The integrity values achieved relatively well basically were service units and central as well as regional government programs. Meanwhile permit and non–permit services should still be developed and improved upon; observe the following illustration. Graph 2.1. Average Value of Service Units in the 2009 Central Level Integrity Survey
If the service unit integrity value is compared to the national integrity average value, it can be observed that nationally there are 23 institutions at central, provincial and district / town Authorities levels wherein their overall sample services units possess an integrity value at above the national average (6.50). Nevertheless there are still 5 institutions in central and district Authorities where all service units possess an integrity value below the national average. See the following table : Tabel 2.4. Group of National Unit Integrity Value Integrity Value of Service Units (National)
Service Unit Integrity Value at National Level and above average
Number of Agencies at Central / Provincial / District /Town Level
Name of Departments/Ministries /LPND/BUMN/Prov Govt/Dist Govt/Town Govt
23
(1)Department of Agrarian Affairs; (2)PT Pos Indonesia; (3)PT Pertamina; (4)BPOM; (5)PT.Jamsostek; (6)Badan Akreditasi Negara; (7)PT Angkasa Pura II; (8)PT.PELNI; (9)Department of National Education; (10)Perusahaan Gas Negara; (11)Coordinating Minister of Public Welfare; (12)PT KAI; (13)PT Asuransi Jasa Raharja; (14)Ministry of Finance; (15)Department of Health; (16)East Java Provincial Government; (17)South Kalimantan Provincial Governement; (18)Denpasar Town Authorities; (19)Balikpapan Town Authorities; (20) Tanah Bumbu District ; (21)Banjarmasin Town Authorities; (22) Malang Town Authorities; (23) Sampang District Authorities
Integrity values of Service Units at National Level are partially above average and partially below average
70
(1)PT KBN; (2)BNP2TKI; (3)State Ministry of Cooperatives and SME; (4)Department of Manpower and Transmigration; (5)PT Pelindo II; (6)BKKBN; (7)BPN; (8)Department of Transportation; (9)Department of Trade; (10)Department of Forestry; (11)Department of Energy and Mineral Resources; (12)DKP; (13)Supreme Court; (14)Department of Laws and Human Rights; (15)PLN; (16)Department of religious Affairs; (17)Department of Foreign Affairs; (18)Department of Public Works; (19)Ministry of Public Housing; (20)Indonesian State Police; (21)West Java Provincial Government; (22)East Kalimantan Provincial Government ; (23)Bali Provincial Government; (24) Lampung Provincial Government; (25)North Sumatra Provincial Government; (26) DKI Jakarta Provincial Government; (27)North Sulawesi Provincial Government; (28)South Sulawesi Provincial Government; (29)Medan Town Authorities; (30) Langkat District Government; (31)Deli Serdang District Auhorities; (32)Tapsel District Authorities; (33)Bandar Lampung Town Authorities; (34)Pemkab South Lampung District Authorities; (35)Middle Lampung District Authorities; (36)Metro Town Authorities; (37)South Jakarta Town Authorities; (38East Jakarta Town Authorities; (39)West Jakarta Town Authorities; (40)Central Jakarta Town Authorities; (41)North Jakarta Town Authorities; (42)Bandung Town Authorities; (43) Garut Town Authorities; (44) Majalengka Town Authorities; (45)P Cirebon District Authorities; (46) Bekasi District Authorities; (47) Sukabumi District Authorities; (48)Cianjur District Authorities; (49) Bogor Town Authorities; (50) Surabaya Town Authorities; (51) Sumenep District Authorities; (52) Sidoarjo District Authorities; (53) Gresik District Authorities; (54) Lamongan District Authorities; (55) Kediri District Authorities; (56) Bojonegoro District Authorities; (57) Badung District Authorities; (58) Gianyar District Authorities; (59) Kotabaru District Authorities; (60) Banjarbaru Town Authorities; (61) Kutai Kertanegara District Authorities; (62) Samarinda Town Authorities; (63)Bontang Town Authorities; (64)Makassar Town Authorities; (65)Gowa District Authorities; (66)Pangkep District Authorities; (67)Maros District Authorities; (68)Manado Town Authorities ; (69)Tomohon Town Authorities; (70)North Minahasa District Authorities
Integrity Values of Service Units of National Level are all below average
5
(1)General Attorney’s Office; (2)RSCM=Cipto Mangunkusomo General Hospital; (3)Department of Communications & Informatics; (4) Department of Industry; (5)Kuningan District Authorities
The largest portion constitutes institutions where a portion of the integrity values of their service units are above average and the other portion is below average with a total of 70 institutions. From these 70 institutions, 23 institutions with their sample service units mostly ( 4 out of 5 sample services, 3 out of 4 or 2 out of 3 ) possess the same integrity value above average and below average ( 2-2 or 1-1 ), while institutions with more service units with below average integrity value total 18 institutions.
2.2. Experienced Integrity at National Level Experienced integrity constitutes one of the elements in the compilation of public integrity values. Experienced integrity is compiled from experienced corruption indicators with a weight of 0.800 and perceived corruption with a weight of 0.200. Tabel 2.5. Value of Experienced Integrity Variables as well as Their National Indicators and SubIndicators Variables Experienced Integrity (0,750)=6,71
Indicators Experienced Corruption (0,800)= 6,73
Sub Indicators Frequency of Giving Gratification (0,333)= 7 Total / Range of Gratification (0,140)= 6 Time of gratification (0,528) = 7
Perceived Corruption (0,200)= 6,65
The meaning of gratification (0,167)= 5 Purpose of gratification (0,833) = 7
The average value of experienced integrity of 98 central, provincial and district / town government institutions is 6.71. Similar to the total National Integrity, the value of experienced integrity has a value range that is not too wide, namely 7.92 at the Department of Agrarian Affairs until the lowest at 4.55 at the South Sulawesi Provincial Government; a more complete illustration is shown in attachment 3. There are 49 central/provincial/district-town Government institutions with experienced integrity values below the natural experienced integrity average. From the above 49, 12 have experienced integrity below the average minimum standard set by the KPK, as shown in the following table. Table 2.6. Provincial/District-town/Institutions with Experienced Integrity Values below the Minimum Integrity Standard set by The KPK. No
Agencies/Prov Govt/Dist GovtTown Govt
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Manado Town Makassar Town Police Department Maros District Samarinda Town DKI Jakarta Province Department of Industry Bandar Lampung Town Kuningan District South Jakarta, municipality North Sulawesi Province South Sulawesi Province
Value of Experienced Integrity below 6,0
Ranking (1-100)
5.98 5.93
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
5.93 5.79 5.79 5.67 5.64 5.64 5.10 4.79 4.66 4.55
The display data shows that the experienced integrity values below the KPP minimum integrity standard are with Provincial and District/Town Authorities. In fact 3 regional government namely South Jakarta, North Sulawesi and South Sulawesi possess experienced integrity values below 5. Meanwhile central institutions that possess experienced integrity values of less than 6 are the RI Police and The Department of Industry. Further we shall discuss 2 indicators from experienced integrity, namely experienced corruption and perceived corruption.
2.2.1. Public Experience on Corruption at Central Level Public Service Experienced corruption directly felt by the public in arranging or acquiring public service is shown in form of additional cost ( Gratification ) which must be paid by the public users of service in addition to the officially determined costs, how many times the additional costs are paid and the amount as well as when such Gratification are paid. Table 2.7. Value of National Experienced Corruption Indicators and Sub-Indicators. Indicators Experienced Corruption (0,800)=
Sub Indicators Frequency of Giving Gratification (0,333)= 7
6,73
Total, Range of Gratification (0,140)= 6 Time of Giving Gratification (0,528) = 7
The average value of experienced corruption is 6.73. This value is already within the minimum integrity standard determined by the KPK, however in reality the acts of paying gratification in service units are still discovered. As much as 25 percent of respondents from total respondents of 11.413 persons state that they paid additional costs upon arranging for services; out of the 25 percent respondents paying additional costs, it is observed that 30 percent pay additional money more than once. Picture 2.2. Percentage and Frequency of Users of Services Giving Additional Money (Gratification) at National Level
Sub-Indicators on total / value of gratification have the same values as the KPK minimum standard. Such condition shows that nationally, gratification is still found in service units although in not too large amounts. Almost all respondents stating that they paid additional costs said that additional costs were paid to officials in form of money ( 96% ); such additional money was paid at the end of the arrangement / handling ( 44% ). Nevertheless there are also those who paid such additional costs at the beginning or at the time of process of arrangement / handling, or there are even those who paid at stage 2 or stage 3. Picture 2.3. Time at which Users of Services Give Additional Money
2.2.2. Public Perception on Corruption What is meant as perception is how the public perceives corruption in public services institutions, how the public interprets the costs or compensation which they paid out, whether such is categorized as corruption or not? What was their purpose in paying such additional costs, and how far is the level of public tolerance towards additional costs that they have paid?
Table 2.8. National Value of Indicators on Perceived Corruption and Sub-Indicators Indicators Perceived Corruption (0,200)= 6,65
Sub Indicators Meaning of giving gratification (0,167)= 5 Purpose of giving gratification (0,833) = 7
The value of perceived corruption of the Indonesian public is 6.65 and adequately fulfills the minimum integrity standard determined by the KPK. However, when observed from its subindicators. It can be seen that the meaning of giving gratification with a 5 value is considered as still relatively low. Such condition reflects that the general public still interprets gratification as an act that is not yet a shameful and disgraceful act, but is only an action which should not be done. In fact, a part is of the opinion that such acts are still normal. A quite high level of tolerance from the public as having tolerance in perceiving gratification and corruption in public services is shown by 21% of the public that consider giving additional money in arranging for public services in still a normal act. Based on facts discovered in service units, the main purpose respondents pay additional money or gratification is as a gesture of thanks (57%) and to accelerate the time of handling (45%). Picture 2.4. Purpose of Service Users Paying Additional Money?
If we go further into the question concerning reasons for giving additional money, a large portion of respondents (45%) state that they feel they have been helped by the officials, 43% in order to accelerate the handling process and 34% because the officials asked directly or by way of signals, holding back the handling / making it difficult and due to unfulfilled conditions (5%) such as shown in the following graph.
Picture 2.5. Reasons why Service Users Pay Additional Money in the Process of Handling Services
Actually in general (63%) of the public as service users is of the opinion that the existence of additional money in handling services constitute deeds that should not be carried out. Moreover 34% of the public consider that the existence of additonal money in handling of services constitute deeds that are shameful and disgraceful. Observe the following picture. Picture 2.6.Opinions of Users of Services on Payment of Additional Money in Service Arrangement
The facts discovered in experienced integrity reflect the actual condition of service units and institutions based on experience directly felt by service users. Poor assessment on experienced integrity reflects the actual poor condition of services according to evaluation of service users who for the past year have conducted arrangement for services at the concerned service units.
2.3. National Level Potential Integrity Potential Integrity constitutes one of the elements for compiling a public integrity value. There are four indicators used to compile Potential Integrity namely the working environment indicator with a weight of 0.357- The administration system with a weight of 0.394, Personal Attitude with a weight of 0.156 and Corruption Control Measures with a weight of 0.094. Table 2.9. National Value of Potential Integrity Variables as well as their Indicators and SubIndicators
Variables
Indicators
Sub Indicators Habit of giving gratification (0,502) = 6 The need for meetings outside procedure (0,058) = 8 Involvement of middle-men (0,222) =7
Working Environment (0,357)= 6,54
Potential Integrity (0,250)= 5,87
Facilities around the service environment (0,107) = 6 Atmosphere / condition around the services (0,112) 7 Practicality of SOP (0,258)= 6
Administration System (0,394)= 5,53 Personal Attitude (0,156)= 7,02 Control Measures over Corruption (0,094)= 2,82
Transparency of Information (0,637)= 6 Making use of Information Technology (0,105) = 4 Fairness in services (0,281)= 6 Expectation of officials on gratification (0,584)= 7 Behavior of service users (0,135) = 7 Level of Anti Corruption Efforts (0,800)= 3 Mechanism of Public Courts (0,200) = 3
The average value of potential integrity of 98 central, provincial district town government institutions is 5.87. This value is still below the minimum integrity standard set by the KPK. This means that there are still sufficiently many potential integrity indicators mainly the administration system and control measures over corruption values that are still very low (5.53 and 2.82) although actually when observed it can be seen that the values of indicators for work environment and personal attitude are also still unsatisfactory. As in experienced integrity, the value of potential integrity possesses a value span or range that is not too wide, namely from 6.70 at the Department of Agrarian Affairs until the lowest of 5.00 at the Kuningan District Authorities. A more complete picture is shown in Attachment 4. Of the 98 institutons surveyed nationally, 53 institutions or 54 percent are below the national average potential integrity, and in fact 64 percent (63 institutions) are still below the minimum potential integrity standard determined by the KPK. See the following table. This table simultaneously describes that only 35 institutions (36%) have potential integrity fulfilling the minimum standard for integrity set by the KPK. This means that there are still 64% institutions with working environment administration system, personal attitude and efforts on control measures against corruption that should still continue to be improved upon in order to at least be able to fulfill the determined minimum standard of integrity. Table 2.10. Institutions / Provincial Government / District Town Authoritiess with Potential Integrity Values below the minimum standard of Integrity Set by the KPK No 1
Agencies/Prov Govt/Dist Govt – Town Govt Bojonegoro District
2
West Jawa Province
5.97
37
3
BKKBN
5.96
38
4
East Jawa Timur
5.94
39
5
Sidoarjo District
5.94
40
6
Department of Manpower and Transmigration
5.93
41
5.91
42
7
Cianjur District
Value of Potential Integrity below 6,0 5.99
Ranking (1-100) 36
8
PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II
5.90
43
9
Bogor Town
5.89
44
10
Departemen of Religious Affairs
5.89
45
11
Metro Town
5.86
46
12
Central Jakarta Town
5.86
47
13
Department of Foreign Affairs
5.86
48
14
Tomohon Town
5.86
49
15
North Minahasa District
5.85
50
16
Department of Forestry
5.85
51
17
South Lampung District
5.85
52
18
Department of Trade
5.83
53
19
Department of Public Works
5.83
54
20
PT Asuransi Jasa Raharja
5.82
55
21
Malang Town
5.82
56
22
Department of Laws and Human Rights
5.81
57
23
Department of Communications and Informatics
5.80
58
Bekasi Town
5.80
59
25
Sampang District
5.79
60
26
Cirebon District
5.79
61
27
Central Lampung District
5.79
62
28
Lampung Province
5.78
63
29
North Jakarta Town
5.78
64
30
Makasar Town
5.76
65
31
North Sumatera Province
5.72
66
32
Department of Industry
5.71
67
33
PT PLN
5.70
68
34
Badung District
5.70
69
35
Department of Energy and Mineral Resources
5.69
70
Banjarmasin Town
5.68
71
37
Supreme Court
5.68
72
38
Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital
5.67
73
39
East Kalimantan Province
5.64
74
40
Attorney General’s Office
5.62
75
41
Sumenep District
5.61
76
42
DKI Jakarta District
5.61
77
43
Surabaya Town
5.59
78
44
Gresik District
5.59
79
24
36
45
PT Kereta API
5.55
80
46
Ministry of Public Housing
5.55
81
47
Kutai Kartanegara District
5.54
82
48
National Land Agency
5.52
83
49
Manado Town
5.51
84
50
South Kalimantan Province
5.51
85
51
Bandar Lampung Town
5.44
86
52
Maros District
5.44
87
53
Gowa District
5.40
88
54
South Sulawesi Province
5.34
89
55
South Jakarta Town
5.32
90
56
Deli Serdang District
5.32
91
57
Langkat District
5.30
92
58
Garut District
5.26
93
59
South Tapanuli District
5.25
94
60
Samarinda Town
5.23
95
61
North Sulawesi Province
5.23
96
62
Department of Police
5.04
97
63
Kuningan District
5.00
98
Nilai Potensi Integritas Rata-rata Nasional
5.87
The next section shall discuss 4 indicators of potential integrity, namely working environment, administration system, personal attitude and control measures over corruption.
2.3.1. Working Environment The working environment has the potential to drive occurrences of corruption practices, including the working environment in the public services sectors. Table 2.11. National Values of Indicators the working environment and its sub-indicators Indicators Working Environment (0,357)= 6,54
Sub Indicators Habit in giving gratification (0,502) = 6 Need for meetings outside procedure (0,058) = 8 Involvement of Middle-men (0,222) =7 Facilities around the services environment (0,107) = 6 Atmosphere /condition around services (0,112) = 7
Although indicators of the working environment are already able to achieve the minimum KPK integrity element standard value of 6.54 nevertheless several sub-indicators should still be improved upon. The value 6 of sub-indicators for habit of giving gratification shows that such habit still occurs, around 50% of public service users state that the practice of paying additional money in the service environment which they visit still occurs. Picture 2.7. Intensity of Practice of Giving Additional Money in Service Environment
Upon further questioning it is conveyed that according to the personal experience of service users, on how the payment of additional money is carried out in the services environment, a large portion of service users state that such matter is carried out by service users (48%) and accepted by service officials (22%). See the following table. Table 2.12. Paying Additional Money for Public Services Based on the Experience of Service Users Statement
Percentage
Carried out by all service users
6%
Carried out by a large portion of service users
15%
Carried out by a small portion of service users
27%
Never done by service users
36% Statement
Percentage
Accepted by almost all officials
7%
Accepted by a portion of officials
15%
Completely rejected by Officials
13% Statement
Percentage
Tolerated by heads / supervisors in service units
3%
Partly tolerated by heads / supervisors in service units
3%
Not tolerated at all by heads / supervisors in service units
5%
The need for meetings outside procedure in handling services is admitted by a large portion of service users as being non-existent. Only approximately 6% of service users state they have ever conducted meetings outside procedure at the time of arranging for services. Even those who did have meetings, a large portion states that such meetings outside procedure in general were needed only at one stage. The objective of the public in having meetings outside procedure is : a) to accelerate the time of handling (54%) ; to establish a relationship with officials (41%) ; c) to complete a number of conditions (23%), d) to negotiate costs which have to be paid (20%) ; e) to put in a request (16%) ; f) to pick up (documents) handled ; g) to manipulate conditions (3%) and h) others (9%).
The involvement of the middle-man in the working environment also has quite an influence in lowering the value of potential integrity of the public sector. A portion of service users (11%) states having seen middle-men operating at locations where they handle services. Who are these middle-men? The answers received from service users as respondents in fact are quite surprising. The largest portion of middle-men are actually the officials themselves, whether officials directly handing services or officials working at such institution, however not in direct contact with handling services (66%). This total is even higher compared to total companies handling services. Other middle-men who are dominantly in control of permit handling in Indonesia are those who individually indeed operate as middle-men in service units. The existence of such middle-men are in general with the knowledge of the service units as well as service officials. Observe the explanation in the following graph. Picture 2.8. Mediators outside Procedures Operating within Public Service Units
The role of middle-men in the process of services according to respondents is actually quite significant. Forty eight percent respondents state that the existence of middle-men speeds up the time of handling compared to the fixed time. While 33% state that by using middle-men facilitates communications between officials and users in fulfilling procedures, and 20% can negotiate costs. However there are still service users (11%) who state that handling through middle-men is no different from handling on their own, see the following table. Table 2.13. The role of middle-men outside procedure according o the assessment of Service Users based an Experienced Facts Pernyataan To speed up the time for handling compared to the fixed time To facilitate communications between officials and users in fulfilling procedures To be able to negotiate costs To be able to negotiate terms/condition To be able to negotiate in order to by-pass certain terms There is no difference from handling on one’s own To main condition : handling shall be carried out only through them To avoid users being prey to exploitation by officials
Persen 48% 33% 20% 14% 13% 11% 8% 2%
Concerning total middle-men in service locations, 43% service users state that the total is still a high number. In general they operate undercover (46% respondents) and out in the open (47% respondents). The existence of middle-men certainly makes an impact on service users. A large portion of respondents (43%) states that their existence is disturbing, while 32% states such as not disturbing, in fact 24% state such existence is beneficial. Meanwhile, when asked further, a portion of respondents (53%) state that they actually do not need such middle-men, however
those insisting they do need middle-men comprise a large number (47%). Facilities for services provided in the services environment are observed as already within the minimum standard (6). A large portion of respondents (91%) states that the level of available facilities within the environment of service units they visit are in general quite adequate. Only 9% state such as inadequate. Types of facilities stated as available by a major portion of respondents are waiting rooms, chairs / seats, announcement / information boards, toilets, parking areas, trash-can. While facilities still rarely found in service units are toilets, A/C, queue numbering system, loudspeakers, photography machines, and ATM. See the following graph. Picture 2.9. Sufficient and Insufficient Facilities in Service Units in accordance with Experiences of Users of Services
As a consequence of the availability of facilities in service units, a major portion of respondents (91%) also state that the atmosphere / condition of facilities within the environment of service units they visited are generally organized in their services systems.
2.3.2. Administration System of Public Services at National Level Transparency of information and facilitated services or practicality of SOP as well as the use of information technology constitute sub-indicators of the administration systems which should be achieved in order to fulfill the standard of potential integrity of the public sector. Tabel 2.14. Value of Indicators of the Administration System and their sub-indicators at National Level Indicators Administration System (0,394)= 5,53
Sub Indicators Practicality of SOP (0,258)= 6 Transparency of Information (0,637)= 6 Use of Information Technology (0,105) = 4
Results of the survey show that the administration system value is unable to achieve the minimum integrity standard determined by the KPK. The value of 5.53 shows that the subindicators of SOP practicality, transparency of information and mainly the use of information technology should continue to be improved upon. In relation to SOP (Standard Operating Procedures), a large portion of respondents (75%) state that they are familiar with the procedures for handling services. According to them, procedures and terms for handling services are relatively simple, however the duration for completion is still considered tardy by 28% of the respondents and 22% state that the costs are too expensive. Table 2.15. Assessment of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) of Service Units by Service
Users SOP Procedures for handling services Terms for handling services Time / duration for completion of services Costs for handling services
% respondents 88% 12% 89% 11% 39% 33% 28% 78% 22%
Criteria Easy Difficult Easy Difficult Fast Punctual Late Cheap Expensive
The answer that procedures on handling services supported by data that procedures for handling are simple (69%), the participants consisted of only several persons (the receiving official and the service provider) (16%), the location of handling is in one venue (26%). Only 8% declared the procedures as complicated 11% said they were too long, 9% said too many parties had to be met with and 8 % of respondents stated the locations for handling were in separate locations. A large portion of service users state that the terms for handling services are easy. Such is reflected from facts they experienced, where according to them the terms were not too numerous (31%), terms were easy to fulfill (67%). In relation to time, a large portion of service users state that the time for completion is quick and accurate (72%) shown by the fact that the time needed is speedier than the time determined in the SOP (7%), the same/punctual in accordance with such determined by the KPK (62%), nevertheless respondents also say that services are slower than the fixed time with prior notification (15%), longer than the time set by respondents without there being any prior notification (9%), no explanation on time of completion (7%). The costs for handling are considered by a major portion of respondents (78%) as relatively cheap. Evidence shows that respondents state that costs paid are equal to the official costs (62%) and even lower than the official costs since there is a discount (4%). Nevertheless there are still respondents giving information that costs for handling services are higher than the official costs due to there being additional collections (9%), higher than the official costs due to paying additional money as a gesture of appreciation / thanks (15%), a high amount but not worth the type of services being handled (3%) and high because of being unaware how much the official cost really is (8%). Pertaining to the matter of transparency of information, the following table describes the condition of transparency of information in service units visited by service users. Table 2.16. Level of Transparency of Information in Service Units Level of Transparency of INformation a. Announced transparency and explained by officials without being asked b. Announced openly /publicly c. Explained by officials without being asked by service users d. Explained by officials only when asked by service users e. No explanation
% of respondents in favor Procedures Requirements Time 28% 40% 11% 15% 5%
24% 42% 12% 17% 5%
19% 33% 15% 20% 13%
Cost 17% 31% 12% 22% 18%
Based on the table it is apparent that cost and time constitute information that relatively lacks transparency in conveyance compared to procedures and terms/conditions. The use of information technology also is the basis of measurement in the administration system. A large part of respondents (54%) state there is no information technology from service units they visited. Those who replied there was information technology also stated that they never used such technology. Those using technology, in general used such technology to search for information concerning service units (46%), to find out matters needed pertaining to services (47%), others (7%). When further asked whether service users actually need information technology in such services, a major portion (91%) reply that they do need this. Based on facts found in the field, the intensity of the use of information technology is illustrated in the following table.
Table 2.17. Intensily in the Use of Information Technology by Service Users Statements
%
Registration process is still carried out manually Documentation process is still carried out manually Process of checking terms / condition is carried out automatically through information technology In procession of a special website for on-line registration Queue process is carried out automatically on a first come first served basis with the help of information technology Process of documentation check / status already uses information technology Status on handling not yet on record Handling not yet on record Communications between official and service user by email Process of data gathering on users is carried out real time
64% 37% 12% 11% 9% 8% 7% 5% 4% 2%
2.3.3. Personal Attitude in Public Services at National Level Negative personal attitude whether from service officials or from service users is one of the factors that drive the occurrence of corruption in public services. There are three important matters in evaluating personal attitude and its relevance to the value of potential integrity in this survey, namely the fair attitude of service officials towards service users, whether or not there are any expectations of officials towards gratification as well as the personal attitude of the service users themselves at the time of handling and receiving services. Table 2.18. National Value of Personal Attitude Indicators and their sub-indicators Indicators Personal Attitude (0,156)= 7,02
Sub-Indicators Fairness in services (0,281)= 6 Expectations of officials on gratification (0,584)= 7 Attitude of service users (0,135) = 7
The value of personal attitude at 7.02 shows that the minimum standard of integrity determined by the KPK can already be achieved. Such condition is also illustrated by the sub-indicators values of expectations of officials towards service users and the attitude of service users which are adequate. Nevertheless, fairness of officials towards service users appears to be lacking.
A major portion of service users (93%) state that the attitude of officials in serving them is courteous, with an attractive appearance (94%). Such service officials are evaluated by a large part of service users as being experts (92%). The treatment of officials in providing services is also assessed by service users as explained in the following table. Table 2.19. Assessment of Service Users related to attitude of Officials in providing services Attitude of Officials
% Yes 13% 12%
No 87% 88%
8% 9%
92% 91%
14%
86%
Different treatment based on race Different treatment based on religion Different treatment based on gender Different treatment based on completion of terms (completed terms are preferable) Different treatment based on status of handling (Counter and counters for extension and new applications are treated differently)
2% 1% 2% 25%
98% 99% 98% 75%
9%
91%
Treated differently based on urgency (priority given to deadlines with closer due dates/expired) Different treatment based on who are carrying out the handling (old folks and pregnant women are prioritized) Different treatment based on locations of residences of the handling party (residences with further distances are prioritized)
7%
93%
5%
95%
2%
98%
Different treatment according to amount of additional money given Different treatment based on social-political status of service users (public officials are prioritized) Different treatment towards old users and new users Different treatment based on social-economy groups (the richer are more preferable) Different treatment by reason of familiar relationship with officials (family members/neighbors are preferable)
The above table shows the opinion of respondents towards different treatment of officials, a large part are treated differently based on completion of terms/conditions. There is a slight difference in the attitude of officials by reason of familiar relationship, total amount of additional money given, and social status of service users (10-20%). The attitudes of other officials that very much influence the integrity of services constitute the expectations of service officers on gratification. A portion of respondents (12%) states that officials ask for additional money in providing services. Service users who were asked for additional money by officials state that in general officials ask for additional money directly nontransparently (47%), directly transparently (42%) and through other parties (11%).
Picture 2.10. Method with which officials ask for Additional Money from Service Users
The attitude of service users also greatly influences the integrity of services. The public’s permissive attitude towards corruption in public services sometimes drive them to take the initiative in offering additional money to service officials, whether requested or not by officials (7%). Nevertheless there are also others who state that they give additional money if there are signals from officials who want additional money(11%), or only give such money if the official asks directly (15%).
2.3.4. Control Measures towards Corruption at National The level of anti-corruption efforts and servicing complaints on services provided is a factor that could prevent corruption, hence becoming one of the aspects assessed in this survey. Table 2.20. Values of Indicators on Control Measures towards Corruption and their SubIndicators Indicators Control Measures Towards Corruption (0,094)= 2,82
Sub-Indicators Level of anti-corruption(0,800)= 3 Mechanism of public complaint (0,200)= 3
Fact show that compared to other indicators, control measures towards corruption possess the worst value. The value of 2.82 is still far from the minimum integrity determined by the KPK which is 6. Such condition shows the still very weak efforts to fight corruption (3) and public complaint services (3), and service units visited by service users. A large portion of service users state that there are no anti-corruption campaigns from the service units they visited (71%). Only 29% of service users state there are anti-corruption campaigns in the institutions they visited. The forms of campaigns observed by service users are described in the following illustration. Table 2.21. Forms of Anti Corruption Campaign Observed by Service Users Form of Campaign in Service Units Putting up stickers/posters/banners on anti-corruption around the service counters (contribution from other parties e.g. KPK)
Percentage 62%
Putting up stickers /posters/banners on anti corruption around service counters (self-made)
58%
Conducting workshop /seminar activities on anti-corruption for officials
4%
Conducting workshop/seminar activities involving the community
2%
Dissemination of books/modules/comics/etc concerning anti-corruption
1% 1%
Running anti-corruption videos on monitors installed around the locations of service units Dissemination of anti corruption ads Dissemination of anti corruption videos
3% 0.49%
In relation to the facilitation of conveying complaints / grievances, a large portion of the public feels it is easy to convey complaints. They generally convey complaints through the complaint box (3%), go directly to the officials (49%) or go through the complaint hot-line (12%) and texts/sms (9%). Based on the facts experienced by service users, how the officials respond if there are complaints from service users at service units they visited is shown in the following table. Table 2.22. Response from Officials if there are complaints from Service Users at Service Units Visited Statements
Percentage
Official says thank you and apologizes Official re-contacts and asked for complete information Official only listens and does not give any response (and only states that the matter shall be conveyed to another party) Official conveys progress of complaint (status of complaint) within uncertain period of time
33% 20% 19% 12%
Official conveys progress of complaint (status of complaint ) within a certain period of time
12%
Official gets angry / shows irritated demeanor / impression Official does not want to hear complaint Official denies contents of complaint Official gives certain reward for conveying complaint
3% 3% 2% 1%
Others
19%
How about the seriousness of officials in managing the complaints they receive from the community? A large portion of service users state that although 40% of complaints they conveyed are responded to by officials, only 25% are followed up. Thirty one percent of service users also state that complaints they conveyed were only collected by the service units. In fact 4% of complaints were ignored and rejected. Observe the following picture. Picture 2.11. Follow Up/Responses from Officers on Complaints Conveyed by Users of Services
Efforts to enhance the value of potential integrity show the seriousness of service units and institutions in the public services sectors in fighting corruption in a comprehensive manner beside efforts in actions taken. The more intensive the efforts carried out to enhance potential integrity then the more effective the efforts to eradicate corruption can be conducted in relevant service units and institutions.
2.4. Efforts to Enhance the Value of Integrity The value of integrity of service units is very dependant on the value of integrity of the institution controlling them. This means that the characteristics of service units in the same institution shall be relatively more similar than service units from different institutions. Meanwhile the characteristics of each institution compared to another institution could be similar or different. Based on the bi-plot analysis that connects the values of sub-indicators for each institution, a grouping occurs where institutions in one group shall also have similar characteristics. At national level, the group of institutions with a high value of integrity, apparently has a high value for subindicators: •
Frequency of Giving Gratification • Amount / Range of Gratification • Time of Giving Gratification • Meaning of Giving Gratification • Purpose of Giving Gratification • Habit of Giving Gratification • The need for meetings outside procedure • Involvement of middle-men • Practicality of SOP • Expectations of officials towards gratification • Attitude of Service Users
If there is a desire to enhance the value of integrity of service units nationally, then the factors that need to be improved upon and enhanced would be factors related to the above mentioned sub-indicators. If categorized, such factors originate both externally and internally. External factors consist of attitude, perception and behavior of service units as well as the involvement of middle-men; meanwhile 2 (two) sub-indicators originating internally would be SOP practically and expectations of officials towards gratification. Since the internal factors of service units and institutions are factors most easily controlled, therefore efforts towards enhancement of the value of integrity in the early stage could be carried out by simplifying procedures and terms for handling services, accelerating the time for handling services, handling costs that are affordable by all layers of the community. The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in its role as a trigger mechanism very much supports role efforts to fight corruption through improvement in public services. The portrait of the actual condition of public services is related to transparency, bribery, illegal collections, gratifications, the administration system, personal attitude, working environment and these efforts on control measures over corruption are also conducted in efforts to enhance the effectiveness of eradication of corruption carried out by the KPK mainly in the public services sector.
III. INTEGRITY OF PUBLIC SECTORS AT CENTRAL LEVEL Integrity of Public sectors at central level constitutes one of 3 elements on compiled integrity of national level integrity. The integrity of Public Sectors at central level is compiled based on variables of Experienced Integrity and Potential Integrity both of which are acquired from indicators and sub-indicators in public service units surveyed at central level.
3.1.
Total Integrity at Central Level
3.1.1. Value of Central Integrity The assessment of integrity of the public sector at central level for 2009 was conducted towards 136 service units in 39 central institutions. Such central institutions consist of 19 Departments / Ministries, 8 nondepartments, and 12 SOE / BLU. Meanwhile the types of services cover 20 permit services. 22 non-permit services, 10 programs, 18 services for procurement of goods and services. Table 3.1. Total Service Units at Central Level Types of Services Agencies
Total
Permits
Non Permits
PBJ
Program
Departments / Ministries
70
20
22
18
10
Non Departments
29
1
21
4
3
BUMN
37
1
36
0
0
The average value of integrity of the Public Sector at Central Level for 2009 is 6.64. Such value is not too far from the limit of the minimum integrity value of 6 determined by the KPK. However this value is still considered quite low, considering that other countries such as Korea have reached a 9 integrity value. This range also outlines that at central level, acts of gratification have relatively decreased; however several variables of potential integrity mainly for indicators in the administration system and control measures on corruption still appear to be weak. An overall picture pertaining to the value of each respective indicator and sub-indicator at central level is described in the following table. Table 3.2. Value of Integrity, Variables, Indicators and Sub Indicators of the Public Sectors at Central Level Integrity
Total of 2 Variables
Experienced integrity (0.750)=6.85
6 Indicators Experienced corruption (0.800)= 6.89 Perceived Corruption (0.200)= 6.71
18 Sub-Indicators Frequency of giving gratification (0.333)= 7 Total / range of gratification (0.140)= 6 Time for giving gratification (0.528) = 7 Meaning of Gratification (0.167)= 6 Purpose of Gratification (0.833) = 7 Habit of giving gratification (0.502) = 6
Working Environment (0.357)= 6.54
Total Integrity (1.00): 6.64 Integrity Potential (0.250)= 5.99
the need for meetings outside procedure (0.058) = 8 middle man involvement (0.222) =7 facilities around the working environment (0.107) = 6 Atmosphere / condition surrounding services (0.112) = 7 Practicality of SOP (0.258)= 6
Administration System (0.394)= 5.75
Transparency of Information (0.637)= 6
Personal Attitude (0.156)= 7.02
Expectations of officers regarding gratification (0.584)= 7
Use of information technology (0.105) = 4 Fair services (0.281)= 6
Personal attitude of service users (0.135) = 7 Control Measures Over Corruption (0.094)= 3.12
level of efforts towards anti-corruption (0.800)= 2 public complaint mechanism (0.200)= 3
Note: (....) = Weight; ..... = Value
With an average value for central level integrity at 6.64 , the value of potential integrity at 5.99 is still very much lower compared to the value of experienced integrity which is 6.85. Such value is also still lower compared to the minimum integrity standard determined by the KPK. The low value of potential integrity at central level is mainly caused by the low value of indicators in the administration system and control measures over corruption. In the administration system the low use of technology becomes the main reason for the low value of the administration system, on control measures towards corruption efforts and the unsatisfactory mechanism of community complaints. The total value of integrity in 39 institutions at central value has a value span which is not too wide, namely ranging between 7.62 to 5.66. This span is not too wide although the level on variety of services among institutions is quite high in variety. Such narrow span is a result of determination of the minimum integrity standard of public sectors by the KPK. With such determination of standard, service users shall reply to questions with uniform standards hence differences in perception can be minimized. The ranking of integrity at central institutions is shown by the following table.. Table 3.3. Value and Ranking of Integrity of Institutions at Central Level No Agencies
Integrity Value
Ranking (1-39)
1 Department of Agrarian Affairs
7.62
1
2 PT.Pos Indonesia
7.39
2
3 PT Pertamina
7.32
3
4 BPOM
7.32
4
5 PT Jamsostek
7.32
5
6 Badan Akreditasi Negara
7.29
6
7 PT.KBN
7.11
7
8 PT Angkasa Pura II
7.10
8
9 PT.Pelayaran Nasional (PELNI)
7.09
9
10 Department of National Education
7.08
10
11 Perusahaan Gas Negara
7.03
11
12 BNP2TKI
6.97
12
13 Coordinating Minister of Public Welfore
6.91
13
14 PT Kereta API
6.90
14
15 PT Asuransi Jasa Raharja
6.89
15
16 Department of Finance
6.85
16
17 Department of Health
6.83
17
18 State Ministry of Cooperative and SME
6.83
18
19 Department of Manpower and Transmigration
6.70
19
20 PT. Pelabuhan Indonesia II
6.65
20
21 BKKBN
6.42
21
22 National Land Agency
6.40
22
23 Department of Transportation
6.34
23
24 Department of Trade
6.34
24
25 Department of Forestry
6.33
25
26 Department of Energyand Mineral Resources
6.32
26
27 State Prosecutors
6.31
27
28 Department of Marine and Fishery
6.28
28
29 Supreme Court
6.27
29
30 Department of Laws and Human Ritghts
6.26
30
31 PLN
6.24
31
32 Department of Religious
6.23
32
33 Department of Foreign Affairs
6.21
33
34 RSCM
6.14
34
35 Department of Public Works
6.13
35
36 Department of Communications and Informatics
6.05
36
37 Ministry of Public Housing
6.03
37
38 Police
5.71
38
39 Department of Industry
5.66
39
Average
6.64
The table explains that 20 institutions have integrity values above the average value at central and the remainder ( 19 institutions ) still have integrity values below average. Two of such 19 institutions, namely the Police and Department of Industry even have integrity values below the minimum integrity standard determined by the KPK. Picture 3.1. Value of Integrity of Public Sectors in Central Institutions ( the five highest and five lowest )
The picture shows that SOE’s dominate the category of high integrity values, while the low integrity value is dominated by Departments.
3.1.2. Service Units at Central Level The evaluation of public sectors integrity at Central level was conducted towards 136 service units in 39 institutions. The names of service units surveyed in those 39 institutions vary, however they can be grouped into services for Programs, Permits, Non-Permit and Procurement of goods and services. The average integrity value of four such service groups is shown in the following graph. Picture 3.2. Average Value of Central Level Service Units in 2009 Integrity Survey
Although the level of variety is high at central service units, the total value of integrity on 136 service units in 39 institutions at central level has a value range that is not too wide, mainly ranging between 7.75 to 4.66. Such narrow range is a result of the determination of the minimum standard of integrity of the public sector set by the KPK. With such determination of standard, service users shall answer questions with uniform standard hence differences in perception can be minimized. The ranking of the 136 service units surveyed and their institutions are shown in completion in Attachment 5 and Attachment 6 Almost similar service units surveyed at central institutions were services for procurement of goods and services ( PBJ ) .There are 22 in 39 institutions, services for procurement of goods and services are made as samples in the survey. From these 22, 18 among them originate from Departments / Ministries. The results show ( PBJ ) in departments / ministries is still low compared to the integrity in other service units see the following table. Table 3.4. Integrity Value of Procurement of Goods and services at Central Institutions No
Agencies
Integrity Value
1
Dept of Agrarian Affairs
7.68
2
Dept of National Education
7.01
3
National Land Agency
6.96
4
Dept of Marine Affairs and Fishery
6.73
5
Dept of Manpower and Transmigration
6.65
6
Dept of Health
6.62
7
Dept of Finance
6.47
8
General Attorney’s Office
6.47
9
Dept of Industry
6.46
10
Dept of Trade
6.23
11
Dept of Transportation
6.16
12
Supreme Court
6.11
13
Dept of Religious Affairs
6.09
14
Dept of Laws and Human Right
6.07
15
State Ministry of Cooperatives and SME
5.95
16
Dept of Foreign Affairs
5.88
17
Dept of Public Works
5.85
18
Dept of Forestry
5.80
19
Dept of Communication and Informatics
5.66
20
Dept of Energy and Mineral Resources
5.58
21
Ministry of Public Housing
5.10
22
BKKBN
5.05
Only 2 of 22 services for procurement of goods and services possess integrity values reaching 7. In fact, there are still 8 institutions that have integrity values of services for procurement of goods and services
below 6. This condition shows that services for procurement of goods and services are extremely vulnerable towards chances of gratification which lead towards corruption. Such condition is supported by the less than adequate administration system, working environment, personal attitude as well as there being no control measures over or towards corruption actually carried out by the institutions. With an average central integrity value of 6.64 there are still 65 central service units ( 48% ) with below average values. From these 65 service units, there are still 25 service units with values below the minimum integrity standard determined by the KPK, as shown in the following table. Table 3.5. Service Units at Central Level with Integrity Values Below the Minimum KPK Integrity Standard No
Service Units
1
Route permits for land Transportation Between Provinces Services for establishment of work Practice Locations Administration of Marriages ( marriages +reconciliations )
Dept of Transportation
5.99
112
Dept of manpower and Transmigration
5.97
113
Dept of Religious Affairs
5.97
114
Procurement of goods and services
State Ministry of cooperative and SME
5.95
115
5 6 7 8 9
Procurement of goods and services Procurement of goods and services Recommendations from BFLNS TKI, leave Services for handling power cuts
Dept of foreign Affairs Dept of Public Works BNP2TKI PLN
5.88 5.85 5.85 5.82
116 117 118 119
Services for testing concrete and bridges in the field
Dept of Public Works
5.81
120
10 11 12 13
Procurement of goods and services Product Certification Services (SNI) Civil Services
Dept of Forestry Dept of Industry Supreme Court
5.80 5.67 5.67
121 122 123
Procurement of goods and Services
Dept of communication and informatics
5.66
124
Processing Feasibility Certificates
Dept of marine Affairs and Fishery
5.66
125
Services for implementation of regular haj pilgrimage
Dept of Religious Affairs
5.62
126
5.58
127
5.53
128
Dept of Industry
5.51
129
Police Dept
5.47
130
5.34
131
5.29
132
2 3 4
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Procurement of goods and services Hospitalization treatment Program for providing facilities for business in the framework for development of small medium Enterprises( SME ) Services for complaints to the police ( vehicle theft, theft, etc )
Agencies
Dept of Energy and Mineral Resources Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital
Integrity Value
Ranking
21 22
Statement of Police Record (SKCK)
Dept of Laws and Human Rights Police Dept
Procurement of goods and services
Ministry of Public Housing
5.10
133
23 24
Procurement of goods and services
BKKBN
5.05
134
Techniques for testing and calibration in form of technical services (JPT)
Dept of Industry
5.00
135
25
Making and extending driving licenses
Police Dept
4.66
136
Handling of passports / immigration
The above table explains that from 25 service units with values below the KPK minimum integrity standard \, 32 percent ( 8 service units ) are services for procurement of goods and services, non-permit services 52 percent ( 13 service units ), 12 percent ( 3 service units, permit services and the rest ( 1 service unit ) constitutes programs. The comparison of the integrity value of services at central level against the average central integrity value shows there are 10 institutions at central level wherein the sample service units all have integrity values above the central average. ( 6.64 ), however there are still 6 institutions wherein all service units have integrity values below the average central integrity. See the explanation in the following table. Table 3.6. Groups of Central Level Integrity Value Total Integrity Value of Agencies (Central) Integrity Value of Central Level Service Units, all above average
Total Central Agencies 10
Integrity Value of Central Level Service Units, some above average and some below average
23
Integrity Value of Central Level Service Units, all below average
6
of
Name of Departments/Ministries/LPND/BUMN (1)Dept. of Agriculture; (2)PT Pos Indonesia; (3)PT Pertamina; (4)BPOM; (5)PT.Jamsostek; (6)State Acreditation Institution; (7)PT Angkasa Pura II; (8)PT.PELNI; (9)Depdiknas; (10)Perusahaan Gas Negara (1)Menko Kesra; (2)PT KAI; (3)PT Asuransi Jasa Raharja; (4)Depkeu; (5)Depkes;(6)PT KBN; (7)BNP2TKI; (8)Kemeneg Koperasi&UKM; (9)Depnakertrans; (10)PT Pelindo II; (11)BKKBN; (12)BPN; (13)Dephub; (14)Dephut; (15)Dep ESDM; (16)DKP; (17)MA; (18)Depkumham; (19)Depag; (20)Deplu; (21)Dep PU; (22)Kemenpera; (23)POLRI (1)Dep Perdagangan; (2)PLN; (3)Kejaksaan; (4)RSCM; (5)Depkominfo; (6)Dep Perindustrian
The majority of central level agencies (23) have service units with integrity value above and below the average of central integrity. Out of the said 23 agencies, 10 agencies have more service units with integrity value above average and 2 agencies have the same number of service units with integrity value above and below average. Meanwhile, there are 11 agencies, service units of which have integrity value blow average. When categorized based on their agencies, it is evident that in general the service units originated from State Owned Entities have relatively better integrity value compared to those originated from Departments/Ministries and LPND. The average integrity value of BUMN, LPND and Departments/Ministries are shown in the following picture. Picture 3.3. Average Integrity Value of Agencies in BUMN, LPND and Departments/Ministries
When observed further, the agencies included in the group of the 10 with the highest integrity, evidently 6 among them are from BUMN. Meanwhile, out of the 10 agencies with the lowest integrity value, 7 among them are from Departments/Ministries (See Attachments 7,8,9). Such condition is expected to become the trigger for service units and agencies below Departments/Ministries and LPND to improve their integrity value in the following years. The average central level public sectors integrity value for 2009, which amounted to 6.64, was acquired by
calculating the average value of experienced integrity, which was 6.85, and the average value of integrity potential, which was 5.99. The next part shall discuss in more details the Experienced integrity and Potential integrity of Central Level Service Units.
3.2. Central Level Experienced Integrity Provincial Level Experienced integrity is compiled from Experienced corruption indicator with percentage of 0.800 and View of Corruption with percentage of 0.200. With value amounting to 6.35, provincial level service units and agencies must continue to socialize anti corruption, including bribery and illegal collection, to officers or users of services, with expectation of improvement in the experienced integrity value in the following year. Table 3.7. Value of Variables of Central Level Experienced Integrity, along with its Indicators and Sub Indicators Variable Central Level Experienced integrity (0,750)= 6,85
Indicators Experienced corruption (0,800)= 6,89 Perceived corruption (0,200)= 6,71
Sub-Indicators Frequency of giving gratification (0,333)= 7 Total / range of gratification (0,140)= 7 Time for giving gratification (0,528) = 7 Meaning of Gratification (0,167)= 6 Purpose of Gratification (0,833) = 7
Out of 39 central agencies, there are 5 agencies with the highest value of experienced integrity, which are: Department of Agriculture (7.92), PT. Pos Indonesia (7.73), PT. Jamsostek (7.66), PT. Pertamina (7.62), State Acreditation Institution (7.55) and 5 agencies with the lowest value of experienced integrity, which are:Department of Public Works (6.23), Ministry of Public Housing (6.19), Department of Communications and Informatics (6.13), Police (5.93), and Department of Industry (5.64). The majority of the agencies with the lowest value of experienced integrity are agencies from Departments and LPND, meanwhile the agencies with the high value of experienced integrity are generally from BUMN. The ranking of experienced integrity of central level agencies is shown in Attachment 10. When narrowed down to service units, the data shows that the highest value of experienced integrity is 7.97 in 3 service units, namely import and export permit for seeds (Department of Agriculture), Social Aid Program (Coordinating Ministry of People Welfare), and goods cargo transportation between islands (PT.PELNI). The second highest experienced integrity value is 7.94 in 9 service units. While the lowest value of experienced integrity is 4.57. The ten service units with the lowest value of experienced integrity are shown in the following picture. The overall ranking of value of experienced integrity of central level service units is shown in Attachment 11. Picture: 3.4. Ten Central Level Service Units with the Lowest Value of Experienced Integrity
Based on the picture, it is evident that out of the 10 service units with the lowest value of experienced integrity, 2 service units, from the Department of Industry and State Police, respectively, are included in the 10 service units with the lowest value of experienced integrity. Other agencies included in the lowest 10 are BKKBN, Ministry of Public Housing, Department of Law and Human Right, Department of ESDM and Department of Religious Affairs. Other information is theat out of the 10 service units with the lowest experienced integrity, three constitute procurement of goods and services, one program, one permit and five non permit services. The following part shall discuss the 2 indicators of experienced integrity, which are experienced corruptions and public’s perperception on corruption.
3.2.1. Pengalaman Masyarakat terhadap Korupsi di Pelayanan Publik Tingkat Pusat Corruption directly experienced by the public in processing or acquiring public services is shown in the forms of additional money (gratification) that must be paid by the public, users of services, aside from the official fee established, the frequency such additional money is given, and the amount of the gratification and the time such gratification is given. Table 3.8. Value of Experienced corruption at Central Level and Its Sub Indicators Indicators Experienced corruption (0,800)= 6,89
Sub-Indicators Frequency of giving gratification (0,333)= 7 Total / range of gratification (0,140)= 6 Time for giving gratification (0,528) = 7
The average value of central level experienced corruption is 6.89. Such value is already included in the minimum standard for integrity by KPK, however the fact is the act of giving gratification in service units still exists. There are still 23 percent of the total respondents, who are users of services at central level, who stated that they still give additional money when processing services. Gratification is generally in the form of money, and very few in the form of goods, or vouchers. The majority of the respondents who give additional money stated that they only gave once, however some still answered sometimes, frequently, and even always. Even at the Police and Depkominfo, answers of users of services spread on the said 4 types of answers. See the following picture.
Picture 3.5. Frequency of Gratification at Central Level (in 5 agencies with the highest and lowest integrity value)
The said picture describes that there are quite a number of users of services in the group with low integrity value, who answer frequently and always when asked how often they give additional money during processing services. Even at the Passports Administration – Immigration at Depkumham and Vessel Services (demurrage and moor services) at PT Pelindo II, the most dominant answers are frequently and always. Additional Money is usually given at the end of arrangement. However, there are those who give such additional money at the beginning or during the arrangement process, or even in 2 out of the 3 phases, or even at the beginning, during and end of process, as shown in the following picture. Picture 3.6. Time for giving gratification at central level (in 5 agencies with the highest and lowest integrity value)
It is evident in the picture that the majority of gratification is given at the time of arrangement in Department of Public Works and Department of Communication and Information. However, it is also evident that gratification given at the beginning also quite frequently occurs at the Police, Kemenpera, and Depkominfo and deplu. For a more detailed explanation, it is shown in the service units that the number of gratification given at the beginning and during the process still very high. Gratification given at the beginning and during the arrangement process indicates bribery and extortion. In services for issuance and extension of Driver’s License (at the Police), the majority of the users of services admitting that they gave additional money, gave
it at the beginning of the arrangement, while in PBJ services (at Department of Public Works) gratification is mostly given during the process of the services. Other than that, a fact is disclosed that not only do some of the users of services gave additional money at the beginning of, during, or at the end of the process, but also in 2 or 3 phases of the said process, such as what occurs in the Complaint (grand theft auto, theft, etc) (at the Police), , PBJ (KN Perumahan Rakyat), SKCK (Police), Legalization of Documents (Deplu), PBJ (Depkominfo, Inpatient services (RSCM) . See the following picture. Picture 3.7. Time for giving gratification in 10 service units wherein giving gratification occurs most frequently
3.2.2. Public’s Perceived corruption in Central Level Public Services How does the public view corruption in the central level public services institutions? How does the public describe the fee or costs they incur, whether or not it is considered as corruption? What is their purpose in giving such additional money, and how high is the public’s level of tolerance towards the additional money that they had to pay? Table 3.9. Value of the Indicators and Sub Indicators of Perceived corruption at Central Level Indicators Perceived corruption (0,200)= 6,71
Sub Indicators Meaning of Gratification (0,167)= 6 Purpose of Gratification (0,833) = 7
Although the value of the perceived corruption at central level in average has met the minimum standard for integrity, however in general it is still evident that the public has quite high tolerance in their perceived corruption in public services institutions. Such condition is shown from the 41 percent of the public who consider giving additional money in public services arrangement constitutes an act that is allowed to be done once in a while, a normal act, and even an act that must be done in each service. What is the perception of the public, users of services, concerning gratification? The majority of the public using the services at district/town level stated that gratification constitutes an act that should not be done (65%) and 41 percent of the respondents also stated that giving additional money in service arrangement constitutes an act that is both shameful and improper. The following is the description on how the public insinuate the gratification given in public service arrangement in 5 central agencies with the highest and lowest integrity value.
Picture 3.8. Meaning of Gratification at Central Level Agencies (in 5 agencies with the highest and lowest integrity value)
The picture describes that there are different point of views from the users of services in agencies with high and low integrity value. In agencies with high integrity value, it is evident that the majority of the respondents consider gratification in public services as a prohibited and improper act. Meanwhile, in agencies with low integrity value, respondents’ take on gratification in public services is more spread, from improper act to normal act. However, when observed in 10 service units with the most frequent act of giving gratification, it is evident that the number of service units stating that giving additional money in service arrangement constitutes an act that is allowed, and even normal, is still high. Picture 3.9. Meaning of Giving Gratification (Additional Money) in Services Arrangement (in 10 Service Units with High Rate of Gratification) Pemberian Fasilitas Industri Kecil Menengah (Dep. Perindustrian)
14%7%
Pelay anan gangguan (PLN) 10% SIM (Kepolisian) Lay anan Pengaduan (curanmor, pencurian, dll) (Kepolisian) PBJ (Perumahan Raky at)
86%
37%
21%
27%
48%
30% 13%
21% 63%
30%
SKCK (Kepolisian)
34%
Legalisasi Dokumen (Deplu)
31%
50%
63% 59% 53%
PBJ (Dep. PU)
47%
55% 43%
22%
13%
14% 14%
47%
19%
17%
27%
PBJ (Depkominf o)
Rawat Inap (RSCM)
28%
7%
5%
23% 15%
44% 43%
40%
tercela
tidak boleh dilakukan
boleh kalau terpaksa
boleh dilakukan sesekali
lazim terjadi
harus dilakukan dalam setiap pelay anan
Based on the facts seen in service units, the primary purposes a service user gives additional money or gratification in service arrangement is as a token of gratitude (57%), to accelerate time of arrangement (54%), to pass off the arrangement even though requirements are not met (15%), to avoid unfair treatment from officers (7%), and 2% considered it as a token of pity because they perceived officers as having low salary. Out of the agencies with 5 highest and lowest integrity value, it is evident that in agencies with high integrity value the primary purpose is as a token of gratitude, while in agencies with low integrity value, the main
purpose the users of services give additional money is to accelerate the process of service arrangement. See the following picture. Picture 3.10. Purpose of Gratification in 5 Central Level Agencies with Highest and Lowest Integrity Value
When observed from the purposes of respondents in accordance with the service units the visit, in 10 service units with the most frequent act of giving gratification, it is evident that the primary purpose the users of services in the service units is to accelerate service arrangement. Such reason is not too different from the service units in other agencies. See the following picture. Picture 3.11 . Purpose of gratification in 10 Central Level service units with the highest frequency of gratification Pemberian Fasilitas Industri Kecil Menengah (Dep. Perindustrian)
100%
Pelay anan gangguan (PLN)
100%
SIM (Kepolisian)
6% 17% 6%
Lay anan Pengaduan (curanmor, pencurian, dll) (Kepolisian)
33%
PBJ (Perumahan Raky at) 11%
100%
89% 50%
28%
78%
61%
14%18% 27% 32% SKCK (Kepolisian) 14% 14% Legalisasi Dokumen (Deplu) 5%32% 18% PBJ (Depkominf o) PBJ (Dep. PU) Rawat Inap (RSCM) 17%
50% 5%
86% 96% 71%
tidak ada alasan khusus
rasa kasihan petugas gajiny a rendah
ucapan terima kasih
Meluluskan pengurusan walaupun sy arat2 tidak terpenuhi
Mempercepat waktu pengurusan
lainny a
55%
17%
95% 65%
4% 17%
Menghindarkan perlakuan semena mena petugas
When the questions concerning the reason of giving additional money are broaden, the majority of the respondents (51%) stated that they gave the additional money because they felt that they officers have helped them, other respondents (45%) stated that they wish to accelerate the arrangement process from the period of time determined and (14%) stated that they gave it when they are satisfied with the services by the officers and (14%) stated that they gave if the officers signaled that they want additional money.. The reasons of the respondents observed based on the agencies in charge of the service units they visit, in 10 agencies with the highest frequency of act of gratification, are shown in the following picture. Picture 3.12. Reasons Why Users of Services Give Additional Money in Service Arrangement Process
Departemen Perdagangan 9%
57%
Departemen Pekerjaan Umum 5% 34% Departemen Luar Negeri 2%
6%17%6% 3% 29% 9%
10%12% 5%20%
61%
RSCM 2%20%10% 5% 2% 5% Departemen Agama 10% Departemen Komunikasi dan Inf ormatika
40%
23% 5% 2% 7%
Departemen Hukum dan HAM 4% Kepolisian 8% Departemen Perindustrian
59%
40%
19% 70%
2%
55%
2% 5%
11%13%9% 18%
23%2% 13% 2%
64%
14%16%5% 11%
3% 14%
63%
24%
2% 12%
75%
44%
5%
49%
5%19% 12%7% 52%
18%
PLN
80%
7% 5%15%
39%
44%
9%16%
7%17%3% 2%
71%
Mereduksi sebagian persy aratan
Mempercepat proses pengurusan
Pengguna memulai tawarkan uang tambahan
Ada siny al dari petugas
Jika petugas meminta secara langsung
Petugas mempersulit pengurusan
Merasa telah dibantu oleh petugas
Merasa kasihan sama petugas
Puas dengan pelay anan petugas
The facts disclosed in this Experienced integrity reflected the actual condition of the service units and agencies based on the direct experiences of users of services. Bad experienced integrity reflects a bad condition of actual service according to the evaluation by users of services, who for the past year have been arranging services in the concerning service units.
3.3. Central Level Integrity Potential Indicators of Integrity Potential are Working Environment with percentage of 0.357, Administration system with percentage of 0.394, Personal attitude with percentage of 0.156 and Control measures over corruption with percentage of 0.094, as shown in the following table. Table.10. Variables, Indicators dan Sub Indicators of Integrity potential at Central level Variables
Indicators
Working Environment (0,357)= 6,54
Integrity Potential (0,250)= 5,99
Administration System (0,394)= 5,75 Personal Attitude (0,156)= 7,02 Control Measures over Corruption (0,094)= 3,12
Sub-Indicators Habit of giving gratification (0,502) = 6 The need for meetings outside procedure (0,058) = 8 Middle men involvement (0,222) =7 Facilities around the working environment (0,107) = 6 Atmosphere/condition surrounding services (0,112) = 7 Practicality of SOP (0,258)= 6 Transparency of information (0,637)= 6 Use of information technology (0,105) = 4 Fair services (0,281)= 6 Expectation of officers regarding gratification (0,584)= 7 Personal attitude of users of services (0,135) = 7 Level of efforts towards anti-corruption (0,800)= 3 Public complaint mechanism (0,200)= 3
The average value of Integrity Potential of 39 central agencies and 136 service units at central level is 5.99. Such value, although not too far from the minimum standard by KPK, still have indicators of integrity potential, especially administration system and control measures over corruption, with very low value (5.75 and 3.12 respectively). However, as at national level, the working environment indicator is not too satisfactory. Out of the 39 central agencies under surve, there are 5 agencies with the highest integrity potential value, namely: Department of Agriculture (6.70), BPOM (6,68), State Acreditation Institution (6.50), PT Pertamina (6.43) and PT Angkasa Pura II (6.37). Meanwile, 5 central level agencies with the lowest integrity potential
value are:The Police (5.04), National Defense Institution (5.52), Ministry of People Housing (5.55), PT Kereta Api Indonesia (5.55) and the District Attorney Office (5.62). It is evident that there is no special pattern concerning the origin of agencies, whether from Departments, State Owned Entities, or LPND, in relation to the group with high or low integrity potential.Such condition reflects that the high and low of the integrity potential is reflected from the intention and efforts of the agencies in conducting efforts to improve their public services. The ranking and value of integrity potential of all central level agencies are shown in Attachment 12. At service units level, 5 central level service units with the highest integrity potential value are permits to import and export seeds from the Department of Agriculture (7.09), social aid program from Kemenkokesra (6.96), recommendation for visa to Taiwan from BNP2TKI (6.94), procurement of goods and service at the Department of Agriculture (6.91), and export/import permit for goods categorized as food and drugs from BPOM (6.87). Meanwhile, the 5 servce units with the lowest value of integrit potential are complaint services (grand theft auto, theft, etc) from the Police of RI (4.64), SKCK from the Police of RI (4.73), Issuance of land certificates from BPN (4.91), issuance and extension of driver license in the Police (4.95), and incarceration service from the district attorney’s office of RI (5.11). The ranking and value of integrity potential of all central level service units are shown in Attachment 13. The following picture shows 10 service units with the lowest integrity potential value. Picture 3.13. Ten Central Level Service Units with the Lowest Integrity Potential Value
The following section shall discuss the 4 indicators of integrity potential, which are working environment, administration system, personal attitude dan control measures over corruption.
3.3.1. Working Environment at Central Level Public Services Based on the facts, the habit of giving gratification and the involvement of middle men shall decrease the value of Working Environment indicator significantly in Integrity Potential. In service units at provincial level, the involvement of middle men is not too significant, however the habit of giving gratification and the facilities surrounding service environment still need serious improvement. Table 3.11. Value of Indicators and Sub Indicators of Working environment at Central Level Indicators
Working Environment (0.357)= 6.54
Sub Indicators Habit of giving gratification (0.502) = 6 The need for meetings outside procedure (0.058) = 8 Middle men involvement (0.222) =7 Facilities around the working environment (0.107) = 6 Atmosphere/condition surrounding services (0.112) = 7
Value of 6 in sub indicator of habit of giving gratification shows that such habit still occurs. Over than 52% of the public using the services at provincial level stated that the practice of giving additional money within the service environment still exists. The following picture describes the opinion of the concerning respondents in
relation to the practice of giving additional money in service units, majority of whose users of services frequently incur additional costs in service arrangement. Picture 3.14. Intensity of Practice of Giving Additional Money within Services Environment (in 10 service units with high intensity of giving additional money) Kepidanaan (Mahkamah Agung
63%
Keperdataan (Mahkamah Agung) SKCK (Kepolisian RI) SIM (Kepolisian RI)
3%
43%
16%
34% 23%
63%
Penerbitan Sertifikat Tanah (BPN)
10%
43% 23%
53%
Jasa Pelayanan Teknis (JPT)(Dep.Perindustrian) 4%
13%
27% 58%
Pengujian Beton dan Jembatan (Dep.PU) 4%
Kadang-kadang terjadi
13%
48% 30%
Pengukuran dan Pemetaan Bidang Tanah (BPN)
Paspor Keimigrasian (Depkumham)
7%
69%
7%
Pengaduan Kepolisian (Kepolisian RI) 3%
tidak ada
37%
50%
38% 78%
33%
sering terjadi
20%
4% 56%
13% 11%
selalu terjadi
The picture describes that in the ten central level service units stated above, almost all of the users of services stated that the act of giving additional money when arranging services still exists. Even in immigration passport services at Depkumham, complaints and SKCK at the Police and civil services at the Supreme Court, the majority of the users of services stated that the practice of giving additional money for such services frequentl and always happens. For a broaden view concering the intensity of practice of gratification at central level, the following picture describes the intensity of the act of giving additional money in 5 agencies the the highest and lowest integrity. Picture 3.15. Intensity of the Practice of Giving Additional Money in 5 central agencies with the highest and lowest integrity value
It is evident in the picture that in the group with high value of integrity, the practice of giving additional money in service arrangement is mostly “never”, meanwhile the opposite occurs in the group with low integrity value. The majority of the users of services answered ‘sometimes’ or ‘frequently’, or even ‘always’ for the question on the intensity of the practice of giving additional money in the units they visit. The following question asked is that according to the experience of the users of services, how is the giving of additional money in the service environment. The majority of the users of services (49%) stated that users of services still do it (from the point of view of the users of services). From the point of view of the officers, 24% of users of services stated that additional money is still received by officers, and concerning monitoring, 6% of the respondents at provincial level stated that giving additional money is partly tolerated by supervisors / heads at the service units.
Table 3.12. Condition of Giving Additional Money in Services at Central level
Statement Carried out by all service users
Percentage 5%
Carried out by a large portion of service users
16%
Carried out by a small portion of service users
28%
Never done by service users
32%
Statement Tolerated by heads / supervisors in service units
Percentage 3%
Partly tolerated by heads / supervisors in service units
3%
Not tolerated at all by heads / supervisors in service units
7%
Statement Accepted by almost all officials
Percentage 8%
Accepted by a portion of officials
16%
Completely rejected by Officials
15%
The need for meetings outside procedure in service arrangement is acknowledged by the majority of the users of services as no longer exists. Only approximately 5% of the users of services still hold meetings outside the procedures when arranging district/town level services. Such meetings outside procedures are generally held only in one phase (50%). And only 2% answered that it is necessary to be held in each phase. The actual purposes of the public in holding meetings outside procedures are shown by the 10 service units, whose respondents are considered as the ones most frequently holding meetings outside procedures when arranging services. See picture below. Picture 3.16. Purposes of the Public in Holding Meetings outside Procedures Penjualan tiket luar kota (bukan KRL) (Kereta Api)
33%17% 17%
PBJ (MA) 29% PBJ (BKKBN)
57%
PBJ (Dep. Perhubungan) 13% PBJ (Depag) PBJ (Kop. UKM)
PBJ (Depnakertrans)
57%
88%
57%
100%
29% Mengambil dokumen y g diurus
43%
Memasukkan permohonan
13% 75% 13%
Menjalin perkenalan dg petugas
38% 38%13% 63% 67%
PBJ (Kumham) 11% Tower Rusunami dan Rusunawa (Perumahan Raky at)
100%
44%
100%
Menegosiasikan biay a 100%
56%
Mempercepat waktu pengurusan
11% 11% 100%
33%
40%10%40% 60% 30%
PBJ (Depkominf o) 18% 9%
82%
Melengkapi sejumlah persy aratan Memanipulasi sebagian persy aratan
100% 55%
10% 91%
18%
For public holding meetings outside procedures, their main purposes are to accelerate the arrangement time and to be acquainted with the officers. Other purpose is to negotiate costs. The three responses from the public enable the opportunities for corruption in public service activities. Therefore, to accelerate the arrangement time and to be acquainted with the officers The involvement of middle men in district/town level service units, in general, is considered quite low by the public. However, when observed further, a number of service units, in practicing their services, still involve middle men. See the following picture. Picture 3.17. Existence of Mediators outside Procedures (middle men) in Public Service Units (in 10 Service Units with Highest Intensity of Middle Men)
Penjualan tiket luar kota (bukan KRL) (PT. KAI)
71%
29%
SIM (Kepolisian)
69%
31%
Layanan Kapal (Jasa labuh&tambat) (PT. Pelindo II)
62%
Hak Kekayaan Intelektual (Depkumham)
58%
38% 42%
Pelayanan rupa-rupa (PT. Pelindo II)
50%
50%
Paspor Keimigrasian (Depkumham)
48%
52%
PBJ (Kemenpera)
47%
53%
Jasa Pelayanan Teknis (JPT) (Depperin)
46%
54%
Pelayanan cargo (PT. Angkasa Pura II)
41%
59%
Layanan jasa angkutan penumpang DN (di atas kapal)(PT.PELNI)
40%
60% Ya
Tidak
Service activities directly related to the interests of public, including entrepreneurs, are, evidently, viewed by the public as still frequently controlled by middle men. Sales of train tickets to out of town, services for drivers license at the Police, services for ships and miscellaneous by Pelindo II, intellectual property rights, passports to domestic transportation services at PELNI, all constitute services that are directly connected to the public. The opportunities for middle men are wide open due to the frequency of servicesfor such service units that are indeed high. When broaden to the perspective of central agencies, PT Pelindo II, PT KAI, and PT PELNI constitute agencies, which according to the evaluation by users of services, most frequently controlled by middle men. The three agencies constitute agencies serving the basic necessities of the public in terms of transportation. The Department of Law and Human Rights, Police, RSCM, and BNP2TKI constitute the other agencies also considered by the public as controlled by middle men. See the following picture. Picture 3.18. Do You See mediators outside procedures (middle men) in these agencies? PT. Pelabuhan Indonesia II
39%
61%
PT. Kereta Api
34%
66%
PT. Pelayaran Nasional (PELNI)
30%
70%
Departemen Hukum dan HAM
25%
75%
Kementerian Perumahan Rakyat
25%
75%
Kepolisian
18%
82%
Departemen ESDM
17%
83%
RSCM
17%
83%
PT. Angkasa Pura II 17%
83%
BNP2TKI 16%
84% Ya
Tidak
Who are those mediators / middle men? The answers from the respondents in 10 district/town governments with low integrity group are quite surprising. The highest number of mediators / middle men is the officers themselves, whether the ones directly handle the services or officers working in such agencies but are not directly involved in the services. See description of the picture below. Picture 3.19. Mediators Outside Procedures Existing in Service Units Visited by Users of Services (in 10 agencies with high intensity of middle men)
BNP2TKI 14% 24% 14%
71%
Lay anan jasa angkutan penumpang dalam negeri (di atas kapal)(PT.PELNI) 17%
42% 8%17%8%25% 17%
25% 62%
6%Angkasa 81% 19% PT. Angkasa PelayPura ananIIcargo (PT. Pura II)
62%
23%
38%
23%8% Tidak ada bedany a mengurus
Jasa Pelay anan Teknis (Depperin) 27% 9% 10%24% 38%(JPT) 33% RSCM
Departemen ESDM
PBJ (Kemenpera)
6% 39% 6%
61%
21% 21%14%
36%
32%
27%
Pelay anan rupa-rupa (PT. Pelindo II) 14%
Kementerian Perumahan Raky at
21%
45%
54%
petugasdidan pengguna Org y g bekerja sekitar Mempercepat waktu pengurusan unit lay anan (tkg parkir, tawar menawar tidak satpam, Bisa pedagang kantin) melewati prosedur tertentu
31%
64%
21% 21%
28% 17% 17%
86%
6%17% 58% 58% Departemen Hukum HAM Lay anan Kapaldan (Jasa labuh&tambat) (PT. Pelindo47% II) 28% 56% SIM 10% 6%10% 58% 5%20% 14%(Kepolisian) 28% 3%
Org luar eksploitasi petugas (eksternal/perorangan) Mempermudah komunikasi
7%
5%
45%
Hak Kekay aan Intelektual (Depkumham) 7% 7%29%
PT. Pelay aran Nasional (PELNI)
Perusahaan/badan sendiri usaha jasa pengurusanpengguna dari Menghindarkan
18% 64%
39%
Paspor Keimigrasian (Depkumham) 8% 8% 8%
Kepolisian
64%
65%
14%
tawar menawar persy aratan Petugas Bisa tdk mengurus Bisa tawar menawar biay a ttp msh bekerja di unit Lay anan hany a akan diurus jika tsb
33%47% 17% 50%
5% 5%
melalui mereka
Petugas langsung mengurus lay anan
Penjualan tiket luar kota (PT.KAI) 7% 10% 7% 7% 45% 3% 17%
PT. Kereta Api 12%17% PT. Pelabuhan Indonesia II
39%
20% 20%11%
54%
80%
18%
According to the users of services, the role of mediators is indeed still in the process of service management. Such role may be in the form that may accelerate time of administration, facilitate communication with officers, avoid exploitation by officers, up to bargaining conditions. From the respondents witnessing that there are mediators aside from the procedures within the service units they visited, the majority (15%) stated that mediators outside the procedures are usefull in accelerating the time of administration. Other significant roles are to facilitate communication with officers and to bargain costs, conditions, and procedures, as shown in the picture below. Picture 3.20. Roles of Mediators outside Procedures / Middle men
When observed from the service units, the following picture described the roles of middle men / mediators in service units at central level with the highest middle men intensity. Picture 3.21. Roles of Mediators outside Procedures / Middle men (in 10 central service units with highest middle men intensity) How do middle men operate? Generally, they operate secretively (55 %) dan 43% of the respondents stated that middle men operate blatantly. When how middle men operate is observed based on the location of the service units they are operating in, it is visible that HAKI service units at Depkumham, transportation service at Pelni, sales of tickets to out of town at PT KAI, miscellaneous services from Pelindo II, cargo services at Angkasa Pura II, Driving License at the Police, passports service at Depkumham are the service units where most of the middle men operate in blatantly. Meanwhile, generally middle men operate secretively in vessels demurrage and moor services at Pelindo II and JPT at Department of Industry. Please see the following picture. Picture 3.22. How Mediators / Middle men Operate (in 10 service units with highest middle men intensity)
The impact of the existence of middle men / mediators is viewed differently by users of services. In PT.KAI, PT Angkasa Pura II, dan BNP2TKI, middle men are viewed as disturbance by users of services, however in Pelindo II, PELNI, Depkumham,Kemenpera, Kepolisian, Departemen ESDM, and RSCM middle men are not viewed as disturbance. Even in the Police and RSCM middle men are considered to be beneficial. See the following picture. Picture 3.23. Impact of Involvement of Mediators Outside Procedure in Service Management (in 10 agencies with the highest middle men intensity)
Service facilities provided within the service environment seemed to be at minimum standard. The majority of the respondents (94%) stated that the level of availability of facilities within the environment of the service units they came to was generally adequate. Meanwhile, 6% stated the opposite. The types of facilities stated to be available in the service units by the majority of the respondents are waiting room, chairs, announcement / information boards, and the facilities that are rarely seen in a service unit are toilets, Air Conditioners, queue number, and speakers. The majority part of the respondents at the penitentiaries owned by the Police, ticket chekers at the train (Kereta Api), Complaint Services (grand theft auto (curanmor), stealing, etc) (Police), Kridamas (Kop UKM) stated that the atmosphere/condition of the facilities is still inadequate becase they are uncomfortable and noisy. Meanwhile the condition found at the service units for import and export permits for seeds (Department of Agriculture), type testing and issuance of certificates for motor vehicles (Ministry of Transporation), social aid program (Kemenkokesra) is the opposite. Rooms are facilitated with Air Conditioners, quiet, room layout system and service system are well arranged. See the following picture. Picture 3.24. Atmosphere/Condition of Facilities within the Environment of Service units Visited by Users of services
83%
Pengukuran dan Pemetaan Bidang Tanah (BPN)
87% 81%
Pelayanan cargo AP II
84%
97% 93% 94% 97%
Bansos (Kesejahteraan Rakyat)
100% 100% 100% 100%
Izin Pemasukan dan Pengeluaran Benih (Dep. Pertanian)
100% 100% 100% 100%
Uji Tipe dan Penerbitan Sertifikat Kendaraan Bermotor (Dep. Perhubungan)
100% 100% 100% 100% 91% 89% 94%
KRIDAMAS (Kop.UKM) 51% 67%
Layanan pengaduan ke polisi (curanmor, pencurian, dll) (Kepolisian)
73%
47% 70%
Sew a tempat di stasiun kereta api (Kereta Api)
87% 84% 86% 86%
54%
62% 57% 62%
Pemeriksaan tiket di kereta (Kereta Api) Rutan (Kepolisian) Nyaman
Tenang (tidak ribut)
41% 34%
Teratur Penataan Ruang
72%
88%
Teratur Sistem Pelayanannya
3.3.2. Administration System in Central Level Public Services Transparency of information and service facilities or practicality of the Administration System and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), and also information technology utilization constitute sub indicators supporting the establishment of a good administration system.
Table 3.13. Value of Indicators of Administration System of Central Level and Its Indicators Indicators Administration System (0,394)= 5,75
Sub-Indicators Practicality of SOP (0,258)= 6 Information Transparency (0,637)= 6 Information Technology Utilization (0,105) = 4
Results of surveys show that the value of the administration system is not able to achieve the minimum integrity standard set by the KPK. 5.75 show that the sub-indicators, namely the SOP practicality, information transparency, and especially information technology utilization still need improvement. The Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) set are generally known by the majority of the respondents (72%). According to them, in general, the procedures and the requirements for services administration are relatively easy, however only 34% of the respondents claimed short period of settlement and 21% claimed that the cost is still too high. When observed based on the service units visited by users of services, it is visible that the majority of the complaints from the users of services at the service units anywhere are about the high cost of service administration and the long time the service administration takes. See the following the picture. Picture 3.25. Procedures, Requirements, Time and Service Administration Fee at the Service units Visited by Users of services (in 10 central level service units)
Pengukuran dan pemetaan bidang tanah (BPN)
19% Penerbitan sertifikat tanah (BPN) 7%
Pemutihan/kepemilikan sertifikasi tanah (BPN)
47%
65%
26%15%
24%
63%
38%
79%
47%
32%
8% 61% Administrasi Pernikahan (Nikah+Rujuk) (Depag) 8%
SIM (Kepolisian)
57%
Jasa Pelayanan Teknis (JPT) (Depperin) 13% 50% IUIPHHK (Dep.Kehutanan)
50%
Kepulangan TKI di Terminal 4 (BNP2TKI)
57%
Penyidikan (Kejaksaan)
Syarat Sulit
57%
50%
43%
54% 63%
78%
56%
50%
64%
92%
50%
56%
0% Prosedur Sulit
50%
33% 33% 33%
Rutan (Kejaksaan)
55%
22% 35%
100% 150% 200% 250%
Waktu Lama
Biaya Mahal
Concerning issues on information transparency, the following table explains the condition of information transparency in services unit visited by the users of services. Table 3.14. Level of information transparency at Service units in Central Level % respondents who are in favor
Level of Information Transparency a. Announced openly and the officers give explanation without users having to ask b. Announced openly c. Officers give explanation without users of services having to ask d. Officers give explanation only when users of services ask for it e. no explanation
Procedures
Requirements
Time
Fee
31% 40%
25% 43%
18% 32%
17% 32%
12% 13% 4%
14% 15% 3%
19% 21% 11%
14% 24% 13%
% respondents who are in favor
Level of Information Transparency a. Announced openly and the officers give explanation without users having to ask b. Announced openly c. Officers give explanation without users of services having to ask d. Officers give explanation only when users of services ask for it e. no explanation
Procedures
Requirements
Time
Fee
31% 41%
25% 43%
18% 32%
17% 32%
12% 12% 4%
14% 14% 3%
18% 21% 11%
14% 23% 14%
Use of information technology has also become the base for measurement in administration system. Most of the respondents (46%) stated the lack of information technology within the service units they visited. Those who stated that there is information technology never used it (53%). Those who used the technology generally used it to find information about the service units (45%), to find information on matters required (49%), etc. Comparing the level of need and utilization of technology, the following picture explains the condition of level of need and utilization of technology in central agencies with 5 highest and lowest integrity value. Picture 3.26. Level of Need and Utilization of Technology (in agencies with 5 highest and lowest integrity value).
In the group with low level of integrity, it is evident that the level of use of information technology is still very low. This condition is ironic when connected to the fact that in reality the society really needs information technology within the service units in such agencies.
2.3.3. Personal Attitudes in Central Level Public Services There are three important matters in evaluating the personal attitudes and the relation with the potential integrity value in this survey, which are the fairness of treatment of the services officers to users of services, existence of hopes of officers towards gratification and behavior of users of services themselves when organizing and acquiring services. Table 3.15. Indicator of Value of Personal Attitudes and Its Sub-Indicators Indicator Personal attitude (0,156)= 7,02
Sub-Indicators Fair services (0,281)= 6 Expectation of officers towards gratification (0,584)= 7 Behavior of users of services (0,135) = 7
The value of personal attitude of 7.02 is supported by the adequate value of sub-indicators namely expectation of officers towards gratification (7) and behavior of users of services (7). However, the fairness of officers towards users of services is still lacking (6). The behavior of the officers may be reflected from the attitude, appearance, and expertise of the services officers and is evaluated by the users of services. In general, the users of central level services evaluated the attitude of officers as friendly (93%), the appearances of officers as attractive (94%), and the expertise as adequate (93%). The evaluation of users of services towards services officers based on the types of service units they visited provides even more detailed results. See the following picture. Picture 3.27. Evaluation of Officers in Services by Users of services
Officers’ treatment in providing services is also evaluated by the users of services. Based on the service units with the lowest value of fairness in treatment, the following is the treatment by officers that is considered negative by the community using the services. Table 3.16. ............ (next page) Other treatment by users of services with significant impact on the integrity of the services is expectation of services officers towards gratification. There is still 11% respondents at central level who stated that officers asked them for additional fee in providing services. Users of services, who are directly asked for additional fee by the officers, stated that in general the officers ask for the additional fee directly (openly/secretively) (86%) or through other parties (14%). Picture 3.28. Methods of Officers for Asking for Additional Fee (in 10 service units with high expectation towards additional fee) Surat Keterangan Catatan Kepolisian (SKCK) (Kepolisian)
17%
Layanan pengaduan ke polisi (curanmor, pencurian, dll) (Kepolisian)
83%
23%
77%
Layanan Karantina Ikan (DKP)
100%
Layanan Pendirian Balai Latihan Kerja (Depnakertrans)
44%
31%
Pengadaan barang dan jasa (Depkominfo) 7% Pengadaan barang dan jasa (KN Perumahan Rakyat) 11%
56%
Layanan Pemesanan dan pembelian tiket (PT. Pelni)
33%
100%
Pengadaan barang dan jasa (BKKBN)
40%
Penerbitan Sertifikat Tanah (BPN)
40%
30%
Pelayanan pelaksanaan Ibadah haji reguler (Depag)
Langsung tidak terbuka
20%
70% 60%
0% Melalui Pihak Lain
25%
93%
40% 50%
100%
Langsung terbuka
It is explained in the picture that users of services in a number of service units, such as SKCK and complaints service at the Police, ticket reservation and purchase services at PELNI, and issuance of land certificates at BPN stated that the officers asked for additional fee directly and openly, Meanwhile, the officers at fish quarantine services at DKP and procurement of goods and services at Depkominfo mostly asked for additional fee directly and secretively. The behavior of users of services, in the form of a permissive behavior by the community towards corruption in public services, at times encourages them to offer additional fee to users of services, whether the officers asked for it or not (9%). However, some stated that they only gave additional fee if the officers showed signs of wanting additional fee (14%), and some only gave additional fee if the officers directly asked them for it (12%).
Discriminated based on completeness of requirements (complete requirements are prioritized) Discriminated based on arrangement status (different counters for extension and new issuance)
Discriminated based on users (senior citizens and pregnant ladies are prioritized) Discriminated based on residence of the users (those living farther are prioritized)
Service units
thosdeProcurement of goods and services (DKP) 19% 23% 39% 35% 52% 58% 32% 29% 3% -
Criminal Services (MA) 32% 32% 16% 21% 42% 26% 42% 5% -
Procurement of goods and services (Depkominfo) 22% 21% 40% 17% 31% 9% 1% 4% 55% 21% 17% 5% 1%
Services for aid for death (Jasa Raharja)
Procurement of goods and services (Dephut) Procurement of goods and services (Dephub) 36% 38% 41% 38% 41% 33% 33% 36% 67% 72% 59% 38% 33%
32% 45% 65% 45% 61% 10% 6% 6% 68% 39% 26% 10% 10%
Civil services (MA) 28% 42% 44% 42% 75% 3% 3% 3% 81% 50% 25% 8% 3%
Procurement of goods and services (Depag) Procurement of goods and services (MA) 71% 64% 11% 57% 57% 4% 39% 7% 18% 4% -
17% 42% 67% 38% 75% 88% 54% 38% 4% -
35% 32% 56% 41% 56% 6% 62% 50% 59% 6% 6%
Procurement of goods and services (KN Koperasi & UKM) 48% 65% 74% 61% 70% 4% 70% 70% 52% 13% 4%
Discriminated based on urgency (those closer to expiry date are prioritized)
Discriminated based on genders
Discrimination due to religions
Discriminated due to ethnicity
Discriminated due to family relation with officers (family/neighbors are favored)
Discriminated based on social economic groups (the wealthy are favored)
Discrimination between old users and new users
Discriminated based on social politics status of the users of services (public officials are prioritized)
Discriminated based on the additional money given
Table 3.16. Officers’ Behavior in Providing Services Based on Evaluation by Users of services
When observed based on the service units visited by users of services, the following is the behavior of users of services in 10 service units with the lowest value of sub-indicator of behavior of users of services. Picture 3.29. Behavior of Users of services in relation with their Initiative in Giving Additional Fee Rawat Inap (RSCM
8%4%4%
Penerbitan Sertif ikat Tanah (BPN)
6% 18% 25%
Pelay anan pelaksanaan Ibadah haji reguler (Depag) Pengurusan Paspor-Keimigrasian (Kumham)
13%
7%
memberikan jika petugas minta langsung
Pengadaan barang dan jasa (KN Perumahan Raky at) 6% Pengadaan barang dan jasa (Depkominf o)
18%
Lay anan Pendirian Balai Latihan Kerja (Depnakertrans)
17%
23%
memberikan jika ada siny al dari petugas
5%
inisiatif pengguna menawarkan uang tambahan
Pembuatan dan Perpanjangan SIM (Kepolisian) 6%6% Lay anan pengaduan ke polisi (curanmor, pencurian, dll) (Kepolisian) 6% 11% Surat Keterangan Catatan Kepolisian (SKCK) (Kepolisian)
50%
23%
59%
2.3.4. Control Measures Over Corruption in Central Level Public Services Control measures over corruption are measured from the level of efforts in anti corruption campaign and the mechanism of complaints by the users of services conducted by service units. Table 3.17. Value of Indicator of Control measures over corruption and Its Sub-Indicators at Central Indicator Control measures over corruption (0,094)= 3,12
Sub-Indicators Level of Anti Corruption Efforts (0,800)= 3 Mechanism of Complaints by Society (0,200)= 3
Facts show that compared to other indicators, the control measures over corruption at central agencies has the lowest value. 3.12 of value is still far below the minimum integrity standard set by KPK, which is 6. Such condition was shown by the very weak efforts for anti corruption (3) and pecomplaints service masyarakat (3) at thje service units visited by users of services. The majority of the services using community at central level (66%) stated that the service units they visited did not conduct any campaign in the event of taking control measures over corruption. For those who stated that there were campaigns for anti corruption, they generally saw only one activity for anti corruption in the said service unit, as shown by the following service units. Picture 3.30. Intensity of Anti Corruption Campaign Conducted by Central Level Agency
When analyzed further, central level agencies conducting anti corruption campaign conducted such in the
forms as shown in the following picture. Picture 3.31. Forms of Campaigns Seen by Users of services in Service units in the Agencies They Visited BNP2TKI
3%
73%
40%
meny ebarkan v ideo antikorupsi Departemen Tenaga Kerja dan Transmigrasi
PT. Pelay aran Nasional (PELNI)
72%
61%
Mahkamah Agung
79%
Departemen Pertanian
77%
Departemen Kelautan dan Perikanan
PT. Pelabuhan Indonesia II
59%
71%
1%
60%
53%
67%
meny ebarkan buku/ modul/komik dll ttg antikorupsi
melakukan workshop/seminar antikorupsi kpd petugas
1% 1% 1% 1%
6%
82%
80%
memutar v ideo antikorupsi di monitor sktr lokasi lay anan
melakukan workshop/seminar antikorupsi melibatkan masy
2%
77%
Departemen Perhubungan
2% 2% 14% 2%
59%
72%
44%
meny ebarkan iklan antikorupsi
68%
81%
Departemen Kesehatan
Departemen Kehutanan
2% 40% 2%
1%
6%
menempel stiker, poster, spanduk di sktr loket (produksi sendiri) menempel stiker, poster, spanduk di sktr loket (sumbangan pihak lain)
Based on the picture, it is evident that the agencies conducted anti corruption campaign mostly only by affixing stickers, posters, banners around the services counters. The campaign materials may be selfproduced or contributed by other parties (KPK, regional government, dstrict attorneys office). Other tools for campaign, such as workshop, distributing books, videos, or advertisements are rarely conducted. Satisfaction of users of services is the primary goal of the agencies providing public services. As the realization of concern in optimizing customers’ satisfaction, service units generally provide complaints mechanism. In relation to the facilities in conveying complaints, the majority of the society (80%) actually stated that it is easy to file complaints. Complaints are generally conveyed directly and verbally to the officers (40%), through hot line/complaint line (20%), or the officers directly ask the users (18%) or through complaints text messages (15%). However, when observed in the service units, it is evident that there are still a number of users, who have filed complaints, experienced difficulties in conveying their complaints. See the following piture. Picture 3.32.Level of Efforts in Complaining / Filing Complaints (in 10 central level service units)
40% of users in the units with media for complaints stated that they directly conveyed their complaints to the officers. How the officers responded to complaints from users of services in the service units they visited is shown in the following table.
Call back & ask about the completeness of information
71%
50%
7%
17%
10%
2%
3%
3%
32%
29%
19%
-
6%
-
16%
10 %
19 %
10%
48%
35%
10%
23%
6%
-
-
9%
3%
-
46%
26%
6%
14%
17%
-
14 %
-
-
2%
74%
44%
5%
-
7%
-
3%
3%
10%
25%
35%
5%
10%
15%
-
5% 23 %
Others
Offer gratitude and apology
2%
Give reward
Mendengarkan, tidak memberi tanggapan
-
Conveying progress of complaint in certain time
Does not want to listen to complaints
5%
Conveying progress of complaint in uncertain time
Deny the conplaints
Airport property management (PT.Angkasa Pura II) Cargo loading and unloading for vessels (PT.PELNI) Traditional medicine industry (Dep.Kesehatan) Permit to provide telecommunication services (Depkominfo) Procurement of goods and services (Depkominfo) Import permits (Department of Trade) Route permit for land transportation (Department of Transportation)
Angry/showing expression of dislike
Table 3.18. Responses from Officers to Complaints from Users of services (in 10 Central Level service units)
-
-
7%
61%
25%
-
14%
18%
-
7%
K3 Testing (Depnakertrans)
5%
3%
5%
59%
41%
5%
26%
3%
3%
-
Prison (District Attorneys Office)
5%
2%
12%
59%
2%
12%
41%
15%
-
2%
-
-
10%
38%
28%
48%
17%
0%
-
7%
Drivers License (Police)
The seriousness of service units in managing complaints is shown by the responses and follow ups by the concerning service units towards the complaints conveyed by the users of services. In average, complaints are only received, and very few of them are followed up. Efforts to increase the value of integrity potential showed the seriousness of service units and agencies in public services sector in fighting corruption comprehensively aside from the efforts given. The more intensive the efforts taken to increase integrity potential, the more effective the corruption eradication efforts may be conducted in the concerning service units and agencies.
3.4. Effort towards Improvement in Central Level Integrity Value The value of service units integrity highly depends on the integrity value of the agency in charge of them. This means that the characteristics of the service units within the same agency are relatively more similar compared to those of the service units within different agencies. Meanwhile, the characteristics of each agency may be similar to or different from the other agencies. Based on the biplot analysis connecting the value of sub-indicators of each agency, a grouping occurred where agencies within the same group also share the same characteristics. At central level, the group of agencies with high integrity value evidently has high value for the following sub-indicators: 1.Total/range of gratification 2.Time for giving gratification 3.Meaning of gratification 4.Purpose of Gratification 5.Practicality of SOP 6.Information Transparency 7.Fair services
8.Officers’ expectation towards gratification To improve the integrity value of central level service units, the factors that need development and enhancement are the ones related to the sub indicators mentioned above. If grouped, the said factors originate from external and internal. External factor is the society’s perception towards gratification (translated into the meaning and purposes of gratification). Meanwhile, the other 4 sub indicators originating from internal are practicality of SOP, information transparency, fair services, and officers’ expectation towards gratification. Since the internal factors of service units and agencies constitute the easiest ones to control, therefore the efforts to improve the integrity value at the initial phase can be done through intensive socialization concerning gratification, anti corruption campaign, SOP improvement, development in information system, and organization of service officers. Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in its role as trigger mechanism
IV. PROVINCIAL LEVEL PUBLIC SECTOR INTEGRITY Provincial Level Public Sector Integrity constitutes one of the 3 elements of the national level integrity. Provincial Level Public Sector Integrity is compiled based on variables consisting of Experienced integrity and Integrity Potential, both of which are acquired from the indicators and sub-indicators in public service units surveyed at Provincial Level. The provincial level integrity value originates from 39 service units in 10 provincial governments.
4.1. Total Provincial Level Integrity 4.1.1. Provincial Government Integrity Value Evaluation of provincial level public sectors integrity in 2009 was conducted on 4 service units in 10 provinces, except for one province (East Java), wherein there were only 3 service units because one service unit had been evaluated at district level. The four types of services included (1) permit for inter-city transportation route within province in Transportation Working Unit; (2) permit for establishment of cooperatives / SMEs in Perindagkop Working Unit; (3) hospital services for, minimum, B Class in Regional General Hospital (REGIONAL GENERAL HOSPITALS) at Provinces in Health Working Unit / Provincial Government; and (4) procurement of goods and services in Cross Agency / SKPD within Provincial Government environment. The average value for Provincial Level Public Sector Integrity in 2009 was 6.18. Such value is not too far from the minimum limit for integrity value set by KPK, which was 6. Such value also provided information that act of gratification still exists at the provincial level. Meanwhile, the integrity potential variable, especially for indicators such as administration system and control measures over corruption, still seemed weak. An overall picture concerning the value of each indicator and sub-indicator for provincial level is provided in the following table. Table 4.1. Value of Integrity, Variables, Indicators and Sub-Indicators of Public Sectors at Provincial Level Integrity
Total of 2 Variables Experienced integrity (0,750)=6,35
6 Indicators Experienced corruption (0,800)= 6,34 Perceived Corruption (0,200)= 6,37
18 Sub-Indicators Frequency of giving gratification (0,333)= 7 Total / range of gratification (0,140)= 5 Time for giving gratification (0,528) = 6 Meaning of Gratification (0,167)= 5 Purpose of Gratification (0,833) = 7 Habit of giving gratification (0,502) = 6
Working Environment (0,357)= 6,46
Total Integrity (1,00): 6,18
the need for meetings outside procedure (0,058) = 8 middle man involvement (0,222) =7 facilities around the working environment (0,107) = 6 Atmosphere / condition surrounding services (0,112) = 7
Integrity Potential (0,250)= 5,66
Administration System (0,394)= 5,14 Personal Attitude (0,156)= 7,02 Control Measures Over Corruption (0,094)= 2,51
Note: (....) = Percentage; ..... = Value
Practicality of SOP (0,258)= 5 Transparency of Information (0,637)= 5 Use of information technology (0,105) = 4 Fair services (0,281)= 7 Expectations of officers regarding gratification (0,584)= 7 Personal attitude of service users (0,135) = 7 level of efforts towards anti-corruption (0,800)= 2 public complaint mechanism (0,200)= 3
With average value of provincial level integrity of 6.18, the value of integrity potential amounting to 5.66 is still far lower than the value of experienced integrity, which is 6.35. The value amounting to 5.66 is also still lower than the minimum standard for integrity set, which is 6. The low value of integrity potential at the provincial government level is primarily caused by the low value of indicators consisting of administration system and control measures over corruption. In administration system, all sub-indicators, which are practicality of SOP, transparency of information, and use of information technology contributed to the low value of administration system. While in the control measures over corruption indicator, the 2 sub-indicators, which are level of efforts towards anti-corruption and public complaint mechanism contributed to the low
value of control measures over corruption. Different from the service units at central level, which have more agencies and more varied service units, the total integrity value in 10 provincial governments with service units that tend to be uniformed has a wider range, which is between 7.15 to 4.75. The quite wide range shows that public services in each province, despite the uniformed types of services, have different and varied standard, and such difference and variation are shown from such wide range at the time the minimum standard for integrity was set by KPK. The ranking for public sectors integrity in provincial governments are shown in the following table. Table 4.2. Value and Ranking of Provincial Government Integrity
The table described that there are 6 provincial governments, which are East Java, South Kalimantan, West Java, East Kalimantan, Bali, and Lampung, with integrity value above average for provincial governments, and the remaining four, which are North Sumatra, DKI Jakarta, North Sulawesi, and South Sulawesi have integrity value below average. Three out of the 4 with below average value, which are Provincial Government of DKI Jakarta, North Sulawesi, and South Sulawesi, have integrity value that is still below the minimum standard for integrity set by KPK.
4.1.2. Provincial Government Service Units Evaluation of provincial level public sectors integrity is carried out on 39 service units in 10 provincial governments. Out of the 4 types of services under survey, namely services for B Class in Regional General Hospital, permit for inter-city route, permit to establish cooperatives and SMEs, and procurement of goods and services in SKPD, the average integrity value of the four provincial level service units is shown by the following picture. Picture 4.1. Average Value of Provincial Level Service Units in 2009 Integrity Survey
Hospital services for B Class in Provincial Regional General Hospital acquired the highest value out of the 4 provincial service units because in general Regional General Hospitals have standard for health services that is generally applicable in each health service units. Even in a number of regions, hospital services are made regional’s top basic services.
Despite the relatively uniformed types of services and the fewer numbers, the total integrity value of the 39 service units in 10 provincial governments has relatively wider range compared to the service units at central level. The ranking of service units integrity in 10 provincial governments is shown in the following table. The rank and provincial government integrity value, along with the service units are shown in Attachment 14.
Table 4.3. Value and Ranking on Integrity of Provincial Governments and Their Service Units for 2009 With the average value of integrity at provincial level amounting to 6.18, there are still 15 service units (38%) with integrity value below average, even out of the 15, 14 are with value still below the minimum standard for integrity set by the KPK. The value and ranking of integrity based on the types of services are shown in Attachments 15,16,17 and 18.
Comparison between the value of integrity of service units at provincial level and the average value of integrity at provincial level shows that there are 3 provincial governments, whose sample service units have integrity value above the average at central level (6.18), and 7 provincial governments, whose some of service units have integrity value above average, and some below average. The good condition is that there is no provincial government whose all service units have value below average. Table 4.4. Provincial Integrity Value Groups
The majority of the provincial governments (7) have service units with integrity value above and below the average provincial integrity. Out of the said 7 provincial governments, 3 have more service units with integrity value above average, and 4 have more service units with integrity value below average. The average provincial level public sectors integrity value for 2009, which amounted to 6.18, was acquired by calculating the average value of experienced integrity, which was 6.35, and the average value of integrity potential, which was 5.66. The next part shall discuss in more details the Experienced integrity and Potential of Provincial Level Service Units.
4.2. Provincial Level Experienced integrity Provincial Level Experienced integrity is compiled from Experienced corruption indicator with percentage of 0.800 and View of Corruption with percentage of 0.200. With value amounting to 6.35, provincial level service units and agencies must continue to socialize anti corruption, including bribery and illegal collection, to officers or users of services, with expectation of improvement in the experienced integrity value in the following year. Table 4.5. Value of Variables of Provincial Experienced integrity and its Indicators and Sub-Indicators Variable Provincial Experienced integrity (0,750)= 6,35
Indicators Experienced corruption (0,800)= 6,34 Perceived corruption (0,200)= 6,37
Sub-Indicators Frequency of giving gratification (0,333)= 7 Total / range of gratification (0,140)= 5 Time for giving gratification (0,528) = 6 Meaning of Gratification (0,167)= 5 Purpose of Gratification (0,833) = 7
Out of the 10 Provincial Governments, there are 3 with the lowest value of experienced integrity (below 6.00), which are DKI Jakarta, North Sulawesi, and South Sulawesi, and there are 4 Provincial Governments with integrity value above 7.00, namely South Kalimantan, East Java, East Kalimantan, and West Java. The value and ranking of provincial governments experienced integrity are shown in the following picture. Picture 4.2. Experienced integrity Value in 10 Provincial Governments for 2009
Kalimantan Selatan
7,56
Jaw a Timur
7,46
Kalimantan Timur
7,10
Jaw a Barat
7,09
Bali
6,67 6,41
Lampung Sumatera Utara
6,17
DKI Jakarta
5,67
Sulaw esi Utara
4,66
Sulaw esi Selatan
4,55
In more details, 5 provincial government level service units with the highest experienced integrity value are goods and services procurement and services in B Class of Regional General Hospitals in East Java (7.94), services in B Class of REGIONAL GENERAL HOSPITALS, Permit for inter-city routes in West Java, and also permit to establish cooperatives / SMEs in South Kalimantan (7.83). Meanwhile, 5 service units with the lowest experienced integrity value are goods and services procurement in SKPD in North Sulawesi (3.35), goods and services procurement in SKPD in South Sulawesi (3.43), Permit for inter-city routes in North Sulawesi (3.47), Permit for inter-city routes in South Sulawesi (3.48) and permit to establish cooperatives / SMEs in South Sulawesi (3.88). It is evident that East Java and West Java dominated that service units with the highest experienced integrity value, while North Sulawesi and South Sulawesi dominated the lowest experienced integrity value. Picture 4.3. Five Provincial Level Service Units with Highest and Lowest Experienced integrity Value
Based on the picture, it is evident that the REGIONAL GENERAL HOSPITALS service units have high experienced integrity value, while goods and services procurement in SKPDs within provincial governments environment have low experienced integrity value, in average. The picture also showed that the holders of 5 lowest experienced integrity value are from Sulawesi Island, namely North Sulawesi and South Sulawesi. Goods and services procurement and permit for inter-city routes constitute the 2 service units with the lowest value in both of these provinces. The whole ranks for provincial government service units experienced integrity value are shown in Attachment 19. The following part shall discuss the 2 indicators of experienced integrity, which are experienced corruptions and public’s perceived corruption.
4.2.1. Public Experience in Corruption in Provincial Level Public Services Corruption directly experienced by the public in processing or acquiring public services is shown in the forms of additional money (gratification) that must be paid by the public, users of services, aside from the official fee established, the frequency such additional money is given, and the amount of the gratification and the time such gratification is given.
Table 4.6. Value of Experienced corruption at Provincial Level and Its Sub Indicators Indicators Experienced corruption (0,800)= 6,34
Sub-Indicators Frequency of giving gratification (0,333)= 7 Total / range of gratification (0,140)= 5 Time at which the Gratification is Given (0,528) = 6
The average value of provincial level experienced corruption is 6.34. Such value is already included in the minimum standard for integrity by KPK, however the fact is the act of giving gratification in service units still exists. There are still 34 percent of the total respondents, who are users of services at provincial level, who stated that they still give additional money when processing services. Gratification is generally in the form of money, and very few in the form of goods, or vouchers. The majority of the respondents who give additional money stated that they only gave once (29%), however some still answered sometimes (44%), frequently (20%), and even always (7%). In North Sulawesi, 26 people or 38% of the respondents, answered that they frequently and always give additional money. See the following picture. Picture 4.4.Frequency of Giving Gratification at Provincial Level
In the group with the low integrity value, it is evident that the percentage of users of services paying additional money is relatively far higher than the group with high integrity value. In the group with the low integrity value, it is also evident that the frequency that such gratification is given by users of services is spread from once, sometimes, frequently, to always. Meanwhile, in the group with high integrity value, only some of them do. However, there is a need for concern that despite the only few answers, there are still people who stated that they always give additional money included in the group with high integrity value. More details concerning the frequency show that users of provincial level services paying additional money once are 66%, twice are 10%, and more than twice are 24%. The time chosen by users of services to give such additional money is mostly at the end of the process (33%). However, there are some who give such additional money at the beginning or during the process, or there are some who even give such additional money in 2 out of the 3 phases, or even in each phase, as shown in the following picture. Picture 4.5. Time for giving gratification in Provincial Level Agencies
Jaw a Timur 3% Kalimantan Selatan 4%2% 3% Jaw a Barat
7%
9%
7%
Kalimantan Timur 4% Bali 4% 5% 7% Lampung
15%
Sumatera Utara DKI Jakarta
5%
12%
23%
Sulaw esi Utara 4% Sulaw esi Selatan
18%
20%
7%
16%
21% 18%
di akhir
15% 40%
27%
saat pengurusan
31%
di aw al
It is described in the picture that in the low integrity group, other than the large number of users of services giving additional money, generally the said additional money is given at the beginning of, and during, the process of arrangement. Such condition shows efforts of bribery by users or services or illegal collection and extortion by service officers in the event of smoothing the process and completion of the arrangement. In the high integrity group, aside from the small number of users of services giving additional money, generally the said additional money is given at the end, after the whole service process is done, as gratitude. However, it is a cause for concern because despite the small number, there are users of services in the high integrity group who still give additional money at the beginning of, and during, the process in the event of smoothing the completion of arrangement. A more detailed description of service units concerning the time for giving gratification in service units representing the condition of payment of additional money, which still frequently occurs, is shown in the following picture. Picture 4.6. Time for giving gratification in 10 Service Units in which the practice of giving gratification still frequently occurs Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-Sumatera Utara
38%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-Sulaw esi Utara 4%
70%
Izin trayek antar kota-Sulaw esi Utara 10% Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-Sulaw esi Selatan Izin trayek antar kota-Sulaw esi Selatan
22% 25%7%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-Lampung
34%
Izin trayek antar kota-DKI Jakarta di akhir
saat pengurusan
22%
78%
36%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-DKI Jakarta
37%
90%
Izin pendirian koperasi/UKM-Sulaw esi Selatan
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-Jaw a Barat
14%
57%
68% 32%
44%
66%
9% 82%
55% 31%
44%
63%
9%
31% 25%
33%
di awal
The picture shows that goods and services procurement service units of SKPD in provincial government constitute service units, whose large number of users give additional money, majority of which is given during the process, although giving at the beginning or at the end is also quite dominant. Such condition shows the significant opportunity for conducting bribery, illegal collection, giving grease money in goods and services procurement service (and also route permits).
4.2.2. Public Perceived corruption in Provincial Level Public Services
How does the public view corruption in the provincial level public services institutions? How does the public describe the fee or costs they incur, whether or not it is considered as corruption? What is their purpose in giving such additional money, and how high is the public’s level of tolerance towards the additional money that they had to pay? Table 4.7. Value of Perceived corruption at Provincial Level and Its Sub-Indicators Indicators
Sub-Indicators Meaning of Gratification (0,167)= 5 Purpose of gratification (0,833) = 7
Perceived corruption (0,200)= 6,37
Although the value of the perceived corruption at provincial level in average has met the minimum standard for integrity, however in general it is still evident that the public has quite high tolerance in their perceived corruption in public services institutions. Such condition is shown from the 23 percent of the public who consider additional money in public services arrangement constitutes a normal act, and it must even be done in each service. What is the perception of the public, users of services, concerning gratification? The majority of the public using the services at provincial level stated that gratification constitutes an act that should not be done (58%). In provincial governments with low integrity group, it is visible that users of services insinuate giving additional money as an act that is allowed, and even normal, and the minority stated that it must be done. See the following picture. Picture 4.7. Meaning of Gratification (Additional Fee) in 10 Samples of Provincial Governments Jaw a Timur
20%
69%
11% 11%3%
Kalimantan Selatan
34%
66%
Jaw a Barat
34%
68%
Kalimantan Timur
50%
Lampung 11% Sumatera Utara DKI Jakarta Sulaw esi Utara
21% 3% 16% 82%
40%
Bali
6%7% 12%
75%
44%
14%
35% 17%
Sulaw esi Selatan 5%
13% 8% 23%
72% 31%
23%
2%
20% 1%
25% 10%
35%
20%
7%4%12% 38%
27%
49% 49%
19%
11% 9%
26% 26%
26%
tercela
tidak boleh
boleh kalau terpaksa
boleh sesekali
lazim terjadi
harus dilakukan
3% 29%
2%
2%
The picture above describes that in average the users of services in all provincial governments stated that gratification or additional money constitutes an act that is not allowed, and even considered improper if done. Nevertheless, in provincial group with lowest integrity value, it is evident that a quite significant number stated that gratification is allowed if forced, allowed once in a while, and even normal. From observation of 10 service units with the most gratification, it is evident that goods and services procurement service units in SKPD of provincial governments constitute service units whose users stated that giving additional money is allowed, some even stated that such is normal and must be done.
Picture 4.8. Meaning of Giving Gratification (Additional Money) in Services Arrangement (in 10 Service Units with High Rate of Gratification) Rumah Sakit Umum Daerah Provinsi-Sumatera Utara Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-Sulaw esi Utara Izin pendirian koperasi-UKM-Sulaw esi Utara
10%
Izin trayek antar kota-Lampung 3% Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-Jaw a Barat Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-DKI Jakarta Izin pendirian koperasi-UKM-DKI Jakarta
tercela
tidak boleh
6% 9%
19%
boleh sesekali
3%
18%
29%
43%
12% 50%
boleh kalau terpaksa
3%
60%
59% 36%
17%
2%
53%
47%
2%
28% 14%
6%
35%
32% 40%
27%
43%
37%
31%
12%
3% 50%
8%
15%
46%
Izin trayek antar kota-Sulaw esi Selatan 3%10% 13%
1%
24%
70%
57%
13%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-Sulaw esi Selatan 3% 13%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-Lampung
13% 1%
40%
38%
lazim terjadi
23%
52% 11% 37%
harus dilakukan
Generally, the primary purpose a service user gives additional money or gratification in service arrangement is as a token of gratitude (64%), to accelerate time of arrangement (51%), to pass off the arrangement even though requirements are not met (5%), to avoid unfair treatment from officers (4%), and only 4% considered it as a token of pity because they perceived officers as having low salary. Observed from the purposes of respondents in giving additional money, it is evident in the low integrity group at provincial government that the primary purposes are to accelerate time of arrangement and gratitude, however other purposes, such as token of pity towards officers, avoiding unfair treatment from officers, and passing off arrangement even though requirements are not met, even no reasons / purposes, also show up in the answers from users of services. Meanwhile, in the high integrity group at provincial governments, the main purpose is gratitude. However, in West Java, it is evident that the purpose of accelerating time of arrangement is also dominant. Picture 4.9. Purposes of Gratification in 10 Provincial Governments Jawa Timur
3%3%
Kalimantan Selatan 1%6% 2%3% Jawa Barat Kalimantan Timur Bali
10%
DKI Jakarta
15%
4% 5%1% 8% 2%
Lampung 1% Sumatera Utara
3%
4%2%
24%
5%1% 3%3%
Sulawesi Utara
3%3%
Sulawesi Selatan
9%
1% 7% 27%
11% 2% 1% 9%
30%
3%
1% 7%
30%
50% 4%
33%
7% 2% 1%
tidak ada alasan
kasihan petugas
terimakasih
meluluskan pengurusan
mempercepat
lainny a
30% 46%
1% 2%
hindari perlakuan semena-mena
In 10 service units, where the frequency of gratification is still high, it is evident that the main purpose of the users of services in service units / gratification is as gratitude and to accelerate time of arrangement. See picture below.
Picture 4.10. Purposes of Gratification (in 10 Provincial Governments with still high frequency of gratification) Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-Sumatera Utara
71%
29%
16%
100%
Izin tray ek antar kota-Sulawesi Utara 3% 10% Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-Sulawesi Selatan 15% Izin tray ek antar kota-Sulawesi Selatan
5% 10%
11%26%4%
74%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-Sulawesi Utara
7% 4%
78%
39%
55% 74%
43% 4%
36%
92%
Izin pendirian koperasi/UKM-Sulawesi Selatan 4% 32% Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-Lampung 3%
66%
19% 3%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-DKI Jakarta 6%
63%
6%19%
56%
Izin tray ek antar kota-DKI Jakarta 4%
63%
17%
79%
Izin pendirian koperasi/UKM-DKI Jakarta
29% 7%
7% 43%
64%
tidak ada alasan
kasihan petugas
terimakasih
meluluskan pengurusan
mempercepat
lainnya
38%
hindari perlakuan semena-mena
When the questions concerning the reason of giving additional money are broaden, the majority of the respondents (51%) stated that they wish to accelerate the arrangement process from the period of time determined and (50%) stated that they gave the additional money because they felt that they officers have helped them, the officers delayed the arrangement / obstructed the arrangement (10%), other respondents (8%) stated that they gave if the officers signaled that they want additional money, and (5%) stated that they gave when they are satisfied by the services by the officers. When observed based on the provincial governments with high and low integrity value, it is evident that within the high integrity group, the primary reason of giving gratification is more about a token of gratitude because the officers have helped them, except in West Java, where there is the element of accelerating services from the period of time determined, officers delaying / obstructing arrangement, and also the officers signaled that they want additional money. Meanwhile, within the low integrity group, the primary reason is more about the wish to accelerate the arrangement process from the period of time determined, service users’ initiatives to offer additional money, or signals that they officers want additional money. However, the feeling that the officers have helped them is also quite dominant. See the following picture. Picture 4.11. Why do you give additional money? Jawa Timur Kalimantan Selatan
100%
11%
89%
Jawa Barat 5%
82%
Kalimantan Timur 56%
Lampung
DKI Jakarta Sulawesi Utara Sulawesi Selatan
32%
26% 7%
19%
6%
7% 12%
2%
58%
10%
2%12%
62%
40%
18% 35%
81%
50%
6% 11%
50%
64%
13%
14% 5%
50%
100%
Bali
Sumatera Utara
0% 18% 5%
15% 5% 13%
38%
13% 7% 15% 4% 4%7% 12%
2%7%
85% 20%
4%5%
8%2%
Mereduksi sebagian persyaratan
Mempercepat proses pengurusan
Inisiatif pengguna menawarkan uang tambahan
Ada sinyal petugas ingin uang tambahan Merasa telah dibantu petugas
Petugas meminta langsung
Petugas menahan/mempersulit pengurusan
Kasihan pada petugas
Puas dengan pelayanan petugas
The facts disclosed in this Experienced integrity reflected the actual condition of the service units and agencies based on the direct experiences of users of services.
4.3. Provincial Level Integrity Potential
Integrity potential variable is compiled from 4 indicators, namely Working Environment with percentage of 0.357, Administration System with percentage of 0.394, Personal Attitude with percentage of 0.156, and Control Measures over Corruption with percentage of 0.094. Each indicator consists of 2-5 sub-indicators, as shown in the following table. Table 4.8. Variables, Indicators and Sub Indicators of Integrity Potential at Provincial Level Variables
Indicators
Sub-Indicators Habit of giving gratification (0,502) = 6 the need for meetings outside procedure (0,058) = 8 middle man involvement (0,222) =7
Working Environment (0,357)= 6,46
facilities arround the working environment (0,107) = 6 Atmosphere / condition surrounding services (0,112) = 7
Integrity Potential (0,250)= 5,66
Practicality of SOP (0,258)= 5
Administration System (0,394)= 5,14
Transparency of Information (0,637)= 5 Use of information technology (0,105) = 4 Fair services (0,281)= 7
Personal Attitude (0,156)= 7,02
Expectations of officers regarding gratification (0,584)= 7 Personal attitude of service users (0,135) = 7
Control Measures Over Corruption (0,094)= 2,51
level of efforts towards anti-corruption (0,800)= 2 public complaint mechanism (0,200)= 3
The average value of Integrity Potential of 10 provinces and 39 service units at Provincial Level is 5.66. Such value is below the minimum standard set by KPK and the indicators of Integrity Potential, namely Administration System and Control Measures over Corruption still have very low value (5.14 and 2.51 respectively). However, the Personal Attitude indicator looks quite good with value above the minimum standard set by KPK. Out of the 10 provincial governments determined as samples, 3 provinces with the highest value of Integrity Potential are Provincial Government of Bali (6.08), West Java (5.97) and East Java (5.94). Meanwhile, 3 provincial governments with the lowest value of Integrity Potential are Provincial Government of North Sumatra (5.23), South Sulawesi (5.34) and South Kalimantan (5.51). However, there is only one provincial government with value of Integrity Potential above the minimum standard for integrity set by KPK. The following picture described the ranking and value of Integrity Potential of provincial governments in 2009. Picture 4.12. Value of Integrity Potential in 10 Provincial Governments in 2010 Bali
6,08
Jaw a Barat
5,97
Jaw a Timur
5,94
Lampung
5,78
Sumatera Utara
5,72
Kalimantan Timur
5,64
DKI Jakarta
5,61
Kalimantan Selatan Sulaw esi Selatan Sulaw esi Utara
5,51 5,34 5,23
Based on the picture, it is evident that the value of Integrity Potential of the 10 provinces is quite low with the highest value reaching only 6.08, which is Bali Province. Meanwhile, the lowest value of Integrity Potential is by North Sulawesi (5.23). Although West Java, East Java, Lampung, and North Sumatra are included in the category of the highest Integrity Potential, however the value achieved is below the standard set by KPK, which is 6.00. This means that provincial governments are not considered by the users of services as having
implemented actual efforts in improving the Working Environment, Administration System, Personal Attitude and Control Measures Over Corruption, thus with the existing condition in the current public services, there are still opportunities that corruption may occur. . To obtain a more complete description of the value of Integrity Potential at provincial agencies, the following picture describes the 5 highest and lowest value of Integrity Potential. The complete ranking for Integrity Potential of service units at provincial governments is shown in Attachment 20. Picture 4.13. 5 highest and lowest value of Integrity Potential of Service Units at Provincial Governments in 2009 Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Bali
6.64
Pelayanan RSUD Provinsi – Sulaw esi Selatan
6.29
Izin trayek antar kota – Lampung
6.17
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Jaw a Barat
6.11
Izin pendirian koperasi/UKM – Jaw a Barat
6.07
Izin trayek antar kota – Sulaw esi Utara
5.15
Izin trayek antar kota – Kalimantan Selatan
5.14
Izin pendirian koperasi/UKM – Sulaw esi Selatan
5.10
Izin pendirian koperasi/UKM – Sulaw esi Utara
4.56
Izin trayek antar kota – Sulaw esi Selatan
4.43
The following section shall discuss the 4 indicators of Integrity Potential, which are Working Environment, Administration System, Personal Attitude and Control Measures over Corruption.
4.3.1. Working Environment in Provincial Level Public Services The habit of giving gratification and the involvement of middle men shall decrease the value of Working Environment indicator significantly in Integrity Potential. In service units at provincial level, the involvement of middle men is not too significant, however the habit of giving gratification and the facilities surrounding service environment still need improvement. Table 4.9. Value of Indicators and Sub Indicators of Working environment at Provincial Level Indicators
Sub-Indicators Habit of giving gratification (0,502) = 6
Working Environment (0,357)= 6,46
the need for meetings outside procedure (0,058) = 8 middle man involvement (0,222) =7 facilities arround the working environment (0,107) = 6 Atmosphere / condition surrounding services (0,112) = 7
Value of 6 in sub indicator of habit of giving gratification shows that such habit still occurs. Amounting to 34% of the public using the services at provincial level stated that the practice of giving additional money within the service environment still exists. The following picture describes the opinion of the concerning respondents in relation to the practice of giving additional money in service units, majority of whose users of services frequently incur additional costs in service arrangement. Picture 4.14. Intensity of Practice of Giving Additional Money within Services Environment (in 10 service units with high intensity of giving additional money)
Pelay anan RSUD Prov insi-Sumatera Utara
56%
32%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-Sumatera Utara 4%
71%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-Sulawesi Utara
63%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-Sulawesi Selatan
31%
53%
Izin tray ek antar kota-Sulawesi Selatan
53%
7% 12%
30%
49%
25%
Izin tray ek antar kota-DKI Jakarta
10%
63%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-DKI Jakarta 7%
28%
12%
29%
11%
31%
10%
36% 52%
Kadang-kadang terjadi
3%
47%
37%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-Lampung
4%
73%
Izin tray ek antar kota-Sulawesi Utara 3%
tidak ada
21%
27%
Izin pendirian koperasi/UKM-Sulawesi Selatan
6% 6%
sering terjadi
selalu terjadi
The said picture describes that goods and services procurement service units dominate as the service units with the most frequent intensity in giving additional money in a number of provinces. For a more global description, the following is the opinions from users of services in the 10 provinces samples in relation to the intensity of giving additional money in service units in their provincial governments. Picture 4.15. Intensity of the Practice of Giving Additional Money in 10 Provincial Government Samples Jaw a Timur
69%
Kalimantan Selatan Jaw a Barat
18%
Lampung
DKI Jakarta
16% kadang2 terjadi
13%
42%
20%
43%
31% 20%
13%
34%
48% 38%
38% 49% sering terjadi
2% 7%
31%
63%
Sumatera Utara
tidak ada
26%
80%
Bali
Sulaw esi Selatan
1% 4%
74%
Kalimantan Timur
Sulaw esi Utara
9%
23% 37%
58%
37% 33%
4% 7% 6% 5% 3%
selalu terjadi
The picture above describes that in the provincial governments with high integrity group, the majority of the users of services answered “never” and only minority said “sometimes”. The opposite occurs in the low integrity group, wherein the answers of the majority of the respondents concerning the intensity of the practice of giving additional money in the service environment they visit are “sometimes, frequently, or even always”. The following question asked is that according to the experience of the users of services, how is the giving of additional money in the service environment. The majority of the users of services (55%) stated that users of services still do it (from the point of view of the users of services). From the point of view of the officers, 26% of users of services stated that additional money is still received by officers, and concerning monitoring, 3% of the respondents at provincial level stated that giving additional money is partly tolerated by supervisors / heads at the service units. Table 4.11. Condition of Giving Additional Money in Services at Provincial Level
The need for meetings outside procedures in service arrangement is acknowledged by the majority of the users of services as no longer exists. Only approximately 8% of the users of services still hold meetings outside the procedures when arranging services. However, there are still 4 service units, whose more than 20% of the users still hold meetings outside procedures during arrangement of services, which are goods and services procurement services of SKPD in Provincial Government of West Java (52%), Permit for inter-city routes in Provincial Government of North Sulawesi (31%), goods and services procurement services of SKPD in Provincial Government of Lampung (28%) and goods and services procurement services of SKPD in Provincial Government of South Sulawesi (23%). The actual purposes of the public in holding meetings outside procedures are shown by the 10 service units, whose respondents are considered as the ones most frequently holding meetings outside procedures when arranging services. See picture below. Picture 4.16. Purposes of the Public in Holding Meetings Outside Procedures (in 10 Provincial Level Service Units with the highest number of respondents holding meetings outside procedures) Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Jawa Barat
27%
60%
Izin tray ek antar kota – Sulawesi Utara 18% Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Lampung
25%17%25%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Sulawesi Selatan 14%29% Izin tray ek antar kota – Jawa Timur Izin tray ek antar kota – Sumatera Utara Izin pendirian koperasi/UKM – Sulawesi Selatan
67%
53%
91%
91%
100%
58% 100%
43%
57%
100% 50%
50%
40%
Pengadaan barang&jasaSKPD – Sulawesi Utara
100% 100%
Izin pendirian Koperasi/UKM – Kalimantan Selatan Pelay anan RSUD Prov insi – Sumatera Utara
33% 33%
100%
75% 25%
50% 20%
60%
20%
100% 25%
50% 13% 13%
Memanipulasi sebagian persy aratan
Melengkapi persy aratan
Mempercepat waktu pengurusan
Menegosiasikan biay a
Silaturahmi dg petugas
Memasukkan Permohonan
Mengambil (dokumen) y ang diurus
Lainny a
The main purposes why users of services hold meetings outside procedures are to accelerate the arrangement time and to be acquainted with the officers. Other than those, other purposes, such as completing requirements and negotiating costs, also enable the opportunities for bribery and illegal collection in the service process. Therefore, establishment of procedures, costs, and requirements that are transparent is highly necessary to prevent such meetings outside procedures. The involvement of middle men in provincial level service units, in general, is considered quite low by the public. However, when observed further, a number of provincial level service units, in practicing their services, still involve middle men. See picture below. Picture 4.17. Existence of Mediators outside Procedures (middle men) (in 10 Service Units within Provincial Government Environment with High Intensity of Middle Men)
Izin trayek antar kota – Sulaw esi Selatan
65%
35%
Izin pendirian koperasi/UKM – Sulaw esi Utara
50%
50%
Izin trayek antar kota – Kalimantan Selatan
47%
53%
Izin pendirian koperasi/UKM – Kalimantan Selatan
37%
63%
Izin trayek antar kota – Jaw a Barat
35%
65%
Izin trayek antar kota – DKI Jakarta
34%
66%
Izin trayek antar kota – Sulaw esi Utara
29%
71%
Izin trayek antar kota – Kalimantan Timur
25%
75%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Jaw a Barat
24%
76%
Izin trayek antar kota – Jaw a Timur
20%
80%
Ya
Tidak
Service units for permit for inter-city routes from the Provincial Transportation Working Unit dominate 7 out of 10 service units with the highest intensity of middle men. However, the permits for establishment of cooperatives and SMEs and procurement of goods and services must also be observed since middle men still exist in both service units. Who are those mediators / middle men? The answers from the respondents in 5 provincial governments with low integrity group are quite surprising. the highest number of mediators / middle men is the officers themselves, whether the ones directly handle the services or officers working in such agencies but are not directly involved in the services. See description of the picture below. Picture 4.18. Mediators Outside Procedures Existing in Service Units Visited by Users of Services (in 10 provincial governments samples) Jaw a Timur
60%
20%
20%
Kalimantan Selatan 13% 27% 17% Jaw a Barat 16% 16%
47%
Kalimantan Timur Bali Lampung
50% 33%
21%
Orang luar (perantara eksternal)
DKI Jakarta
41%
Org y g bekerja di sekitar unit lay anan (tkg parkir, satpam, pedagang kantin,dll) Petugas tdk langsung mengurus lay anan ttp masih bekerja di unit tsb
50% 13% 20%
40%
Sulaw esi Selatan
Perusahaan/Bdn Usaha Jasa Pengurusan
7%
100%
Sumatera Utara
Sulaw esi Utara
87%
67%
7%
60% 50%
62% 73%
23% 38% 27%
3%21%
41%
27%
Petugas y g langsung mengurus lay anan
31%
27%
According to users of services, the roles of middle men / mediators still exist in the process of service arrangement. Such roles may be to accelerate arrangement time, facilitate communication with officers, avoid exploitation by officers, up to bargaining requirements. The majority part of the respondents at provincial level (49%) stated that arranging through mediators / middle men accelerates arrangement time from the time determined / time it usually takes. Only 15% stated that arranging it through middle men makes no different from arranging it by yourself. See picture below.
Picture 4.19. Roles of Mediators Outside Procedures/Middle Men 49%
Mempercepat waktu pengurusan
31%
Mempermudah komunikasi petugas dg pengguna lay anan
15%
Tidak ada bedany a dg mengurus sendiri
13%
Bisa tawar menawar biay a
9%
Bisa tawar menawar tidak melewati prosedur ttt Bisa tawar menawar persy aratan
6%
Sy arat utama (lay anan hany a diurus jika melalui mereka)
6%
Menghindarkan pengguna dari eksploitasi petugas
1%
When observed based on service units, the following picture describes the roles of middle men / mediators in provincial level service units with highest intensity of middle men. Picture 4.20. Roles of Mediators Outside Procedures/Middle Men (in 10 provincial level service units wherein middle men still operate) Izin tray ek antar kota – Sulawesi Selatan 5%10% Izin pendirian koperasi/UKM – Sulawesi Utara Izin tray ek antar kota – Kalimantan Selatan
30%
8%
35%
29%
64%
45%
27%
Izin tray ek antar kota – Jawa Barat
45%
27%
Izin tray ek antar kota – DKI Jakarta
Lay anan RSUD Prov insi – Lampung
10%
25%
Izin pendirian koperasi/UKM – Kalimantan Selatan
Izin tray ek antar kota – Sulawesi Utara
25%
67%
21% 27% 45% 50%
70%
10%
90%
10% 14% 14%
30%
10%
100%
10%
71%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Jawa Barat
14%
57%
Izin pendirian koperasi/UKM – DKI Jakarta
17%
50%
100%
29%
17%
sy arat utama (lay anan hany a diurus jika melalui mereka)
bisa tawar menawar biay a
bisa tawar menawar persy aratan
bisa tawar menawar tidak melewati prosedur ttt
Mempercepat waktu pengurusan
Mempermudah komunikasi petugas dg pengguna lay anan
Menghindarkan pengguna dari eksploitasi petugas
Tidak ada bedany a dg mengurus sendiri
How do middle men operate? Generally they operate secretively (48%). However, 41% of the respondents stated that the middle men in the service units they visited operate blatantly. When observing how middle men operate based on the location of the service units they operate in, it is evident that the service units for permit for inter-city routes constitutes the service units wherein middle men operate secretively and openly, for permit for establishment of cooperatives / SMEs, the middle men tend to operate blatantly (although some operate secretively). Meanwhile for procurement services of goods and services in SKPD and services of REGIONAL GENERAL HOSPITALS at provincial level, the majority of the middle men operate secretively, although some operate blatantly. See the following picture. Picture 4.21. How Mediators/Middle Men Operate Based On Service Units
The impact of the existence of middle men / mediators are valued differently by users of services. There is no special characteristic difference between the high integrity group and low integrity group in provincial governments. In the provinces of North Sulawesi, DKI Jakarta and West Java, middle men are considered as obstructions, while in provinces of East Kalimantan, South Kalimantan, South Sulawesi, North Sumatra, East Java, and Lampung, they are even considered as beneficial in service arrangement. See the following picture. Picture 4.22. Impact of Involvement of Mediators Outside Procedures in Service Arrangement (in 10 samples of provincial governments) 60%
40%
Jawa Timur
100%
Kalimantan Timur
Sumatera Utara
20%
10%
36%
23% 14%
62% 4%
19%
Sangat mengganggu
20%
50%
27%
Sulawesi Utara
13%
47%
27%
13%
DKI Jakarta
Sulawesi Selatan
50%
50%
Bali Lampung
42%
42%
16%
Jawa Barat
47%
47%
Kalimantan Selatan 3%3%
3%
Tidak mengganggu
21% 12%
65% Mengganggu
14%
Menguntungkan
What is the actual level of need of users of services at Provincial Level towards these mediators / middle men? Some of the respondents (52%) stated that they don’t really need the middle men / mediators, and only 48% stated they do. Service facilities provided within the service environment have met the minimum standard set by KPK. Ninety four percent (94%) of the respondents stated that the level of availability of facilities within the service units environment they visited is generally adequate. Meanwhile 6% stated they are not. The types of facilities stated as available at the service units by the majority of the respondents are parking space, toilets, trash bins, chairs, waiting room, announcement / information boards, front office officers, complaint box. Meanwhile, the facilities rarely seen in service units are Air Conditioners, copier / ATM machines, speakers, and queue numbers. The majority of the respondents at the service units stated also that the atmosphere / condition of the facilities is quite adequate since more than 80 percent of the respondents stated that the atmosphere of the service is quite calm (not noisy), the room lay out and service system are also in order. According to the evaluation by users of services, they lack only in comfort (because there is no Air Conditioner, no television, insufficient chairs in waiting rooms, etc)
4.3.1. Administration System at Provincial Level Public Services Easiness in service facilities or SOP practicality, information transparency, and also use of information technology constitute the sub indicators supporting the establishment of a good administration system. Table 4.11. Value of Indicators of Sub Indicators of Administration System at Provincial Level Indicators Administration System (0,394)= 5,14
Sub-Indicators Practicality of SOP (0,258)= 5 Transparency of information (0,637)= 5 Use of information technology (0,105) = 4
Results of survey show that the value of the Administration System is unable to achieve the minimum standard for integrity set by KPK. 5.14 show that the sub indicators, namely practicality of SOP, transparency of information, and especially use of information technology need to be developed and to be continuously improved.
The Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) determined are generally known by the majority of the respondents (74%). According to them, in general, the procedures and requirements for service arrangement are relatively easy, 41% of the respondents stated that the completion time is quick, and 35% stated that the cost is still too high. When observed based on the service units visited by users of services, it is evident that the majority of the complaints from users of services in any service units are about cost for arranging services and the long time needed. However, complaints about difficult procedures and requirements are still visible, especially for goods and services procurement service units. See the following picture. Picture 4.23. Procedures, Requirements, Time, and Cost of Service Arrangement in Service Units Visited by Users of Services Pelayanan RSUD Provinsi – Lampung Izin trayek antar kota – Sulaw esi Utara Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Lampung
7% 14% 51%
56%
56%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Sulaw esi Selatan
64%
89%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Sulaw esi Utara 7%
83%
14% Izin pendirian koperasi/UKM – Sulaw esi Selatan 4%
Prosedur sulit
Syarat sulit
56%
45%
79%
57% 70%
7% 3% 23%
4% Izin trayek antar kota – Sulaw esi Selatan 4%
Izin trayek antar kota – Bali
20%
10% 19% 10% 12%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Sumatera Utara
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Bali
72%
79%
84%
30%
4% 4%30%
Waktu lama
Biaya mahal
Concerning transparency of information, the following table describes the condition of transparency of information in the service units visited by users of services. Table 4.12. Level of Transparency of Information in Service Units at Provincial Level
The table above describes that the transparency of information through announcements and explanation without the users of services having to ask for it in public services, even though it is already adequate, still needs improvement. In average, less than 70% of the users of services stated that there is transparency of information in the service units they visited. When detailed, it is evident that the information concerning cost is relatively less transparent compared to procedures, requirements, and time. Use of information technology is also the basic for measurement in Administration System. The majority of the respondents (51%) stated that there is no information technology in the service units they visited. Those who claimed that there is information technology stated that they never used such technology (62%). For those using the technology, in general they used the technology to search information on the service units (46%), to search information on requirements (45%), and others (9%). Comparing the level of need and technology utilization, the following picture describes the condition of the level of need for and utilization of technology in provincial government group with low and high integrity value.
Picture 4.24. Level of Need for and Utilization of Technology at Provincial Governments
Tingkat Kebutuhan 57% 49%
Jaw a Timur Kalimantan Selatan Jaw a Barat Kalimantan Timur Bali Lampung Sumatera Utara DKI Jakarta Sulaw esi Utara Sulaw esi Selatan
Pemanfaatan Teknologi
33% 52% 23%
56%
31% 33% 56% 60% 48%
61% 83%
57% 54%
71% 100%
52% 55%
93%
In the provincial government group with low integrity, it is evident that the level of need for technology is very high, however it is not in balance with the level of utilization, which is relatively low. Meanwhile, in provincial government group with high integrity, the opposite occurs, the level of need for it is low, while the level of utilization is relatively high.
4.3.3. Personal Attitude at Provincial Level Public Services Evaluation of Personal Attitude and its relation to the value of Integrity Potential in this survey is measured based on the sub indicators, namely Fair services, Expectation of officers towards gratification, and the attitude of the users of services themselves at the time of arranging and acquiring services. Table 4.13. Value of Indicators and Sub Indicators of Personal Attitude at Provincial Level Indicators Personal Attitude (0,156)= 7,02
Sub-Indicators Fair services (0,281)= 7 Expectation of officers towards gratification (0,584)= 7 Attitude of users of services (0,135) = 7
The value of Personal Attitude, which is 7.02, is supported by a quite good value of sub indicators, namely expectation of officers towards gratification (7), attitude of service users (7) and fairness of the officers towards users of services (7). Attitude, appearances, and expertise of service officers are evaluated by users of services. In general, users of services at Provincial level evaluated the officers as having friendly attitude (95%), attractive appearances (96%) and adequate expertise (95%). Attitude of the officers in providing services is also evaluated by the users of services. Based on the service units with the lowest value of fair services, the following is the attitude of the officers that are considered as negative by the public users of services. Table 4.14. Attitude of the Officers in Providing Services based on Evaluation by Users of Services
Other attitude by officers that also impacts the integrity of services is the expectation of the officers towards gratification. There is still 13% of the respondents at provincial level who stated that officers asked for additional money in providing services. Users of services asked for additional money by officers stated that generally officers asked for additional money directly (openly / not openly) (92%) or through other parties (8%). Picture 4.25. Methods Used by Officers in Asking for Additional Money (in 10 samples for provincial governments) Jaw a Timur
50%
50%
Kalimantan Selatan
33%
Jaw a Barat
22%
78%
Kalimantan Timur Bali
100% 20%
Lampung Sumatera Utara
33%
33%
80%
35%
65%
7%
DKI Jakarta
33%
Sulaw esi Utara Sulaw esi Selatan melalui pihak lain
13%
80% 28%
39%
55%
45% 73%
27%
langsung terbuka
langsung tidak terbuka
The picture describes that there is no special pattern between the provincial government group with high integrity value and the low integrity group in relation to the methods used by the officers in asking for additional money. The direct and open method in asking is conducted mostly in East Kalimantan, Bali, Lampung, and South Sulawesi. Meanwhile in North Sumatra and West Java, direct but not open is more dominant. Request for additional money by officers through other parties is mostly conducted in South Kalimantan and DKI Jakarta. The public’s permissive attitude towards corruption in public services sometimes encourages them to make the initiative in offering additional money to the service officers, whether asked for or not by the service officers (11%). However, there are those who also stated that they give additional money if there are signs from the officers who want additional money (8%), or they give additional money only if the officers directly ask for it (7%). When observed based on the service units visited by users of services, the following is the attitude of users of services in 10 service units with the lowest value of sub indicators of attitude of users of services. Picture 4.26. Attitude of Users of Services In Relation to Initiatives to Give Additional Money Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – DKI Jakarta
31%
31%
6%
Izin tray ek antar kota – DKI Jakarta 4% 8% 8%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Jawa Barat
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Lampung
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Sulawesi Selatan
36%
9%
Izin tray ek antar kota – Sulawesi Utara
13%
Petugas meminta langsung Ada siny al petugas ingin uang tambahan Inisiatif pengguna menawarkan uang tambahan
7% 7%4%
Izin tray ek antar kota – Sulawesi Selatan 4%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Sulawesi Utara
9%
18%
19%
4%
84%
6%3%
It is evident in the picture that based on the reasons used by users of services in giving additional money, in total the services in procurement of goods and services and permit for inter-city routes constitutes services
wherein initiative to give additional money occur frequently. Even for permit for routes in North Sulawesi, the initiatives from users of services seem to stand out. Meanwhile, for procurement of goods and services, initiatives from users are triggered from the signals from the officers who want additional money.
4.3.4. Control Measures over Corruption at Provincial Level Public Services Level of efforts towards anti corruption campaign and methods of complaints of users of services conducted by service units constitute the 2 sub indicators to be measured to acquire the value of Control Measures over Corruption that constitutes a part of Integrity Potential. Table 4.15. Value of Indicators and Sub Indicators of Control Measures over Corruption at Provincial Level Indicators
Sub-Indicators Level of Anti Corruption Efforts (0,800)= 2 Methods of Public Complaints (0,200)= 3
Control Measures Over Corruption (0,094)= 2,51
The fact disclosed that compared to the other indicators, Control Measures over Corruption at provincial governments has the lowest value. 2,51 is still far below the minimum standard for integrity set by KPK, which is 6. Such condition is evident from the very weak efforts towards anti corruption (2) and public complaints services (3) in the service units visited by users of services. The majority of users of services at Provincial level (76%) stated that the service units they visited did not conduct anti-corruption campaign in the event of Control Measures Over Corruption. For those stating that there was anti corruption campaign, they generally saw only one anti-corruption activity in the said service units (48%). When analyzed further, the forms of campaign conducted by provincial level service agencies quite vary. See picture below. Picture 4.27. Forms of Campaign Seen by Users of Services in the Agencies They Visited Jaw a Timur Kalimantan Selatan Jaw a Barat
100% 42%
61%
16%
Video antikorupsi
Kegiatan workshop/seminar antikorupsi melibatkan masy arakat
Iklan antikorupsi
Kegiatan workshop/seminar antikorupsi pd petugas
Memutar v ideo antikorupsi di monitor di sekitar unit lay anan Buku/modul/komik dll
stiker/poster/spanduk antikorupsi di sekitar loket (produksi sendiri)
3%
98%
2%
Kalimantan Timur Bali
38%
Lampung
41%
46%
31%
65%
tentang antikorupsi
Sumatera Utara DKI Jakarta Sulaw esi Utara Sulaw esi Selatan
100% 66% 38% 49%
61%
5% 13%5%
stiker/poster/spanduk antikorupsi di sekitar loket (jika ada sumbangan pihak lain, mis: KPK)
67% 86%
2%
Based on the picture, it is evident that most of the forms of campaign seen by respondents are only stickers / posters / banners of anti-corruption in the area surrounding the service counters (self-produced). However, there are also stickers / posters / banners contributed by other parties. Other types of campaign, such as anti-corruption workshop/seminar, books/modules, and anti-corruption videos, are still rarely seen. Based on the picture, it is also evident that there is no Control Measures Over Corruption in the form of campaign in the provincial government of East Kalimantan. Satisfaction of users of services constitutes the main purpose of the agencies providing public services. As the realization of concern in optimizing satisfaction of customers, service units in general provide methods for complaints. Over than 20 percent of users of services stated that the service units they visited did not provide any media for complaint. In relation to the facilities in conveying complaints, actually the majority of the public (79%) stated that it is easy and very easy to convey complaints. Complaints are usually directly conveyed verbally to officers (55%), or officers usually ask the users directly (11%).
When observed at service units, although not dominant in all types of services, there are still users of services who have conveyed their complaints and experienced difficulties in conveying their complaints. See the description of the following picture. Picture 4.28. Level of Easiness of Complaints / Conveying Complaints at Provincial Level Service Units
Pelayanan RSUD Provinsi – Sumatera Utara
57%
Pelayanan RSUD Provinsi – Sulaw esi Utara
43%
75%
25%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Jaw a Barat
50%
50%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Sulaw esi Selatan
50%
50%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – DKI Jakarta
33%
67%
Izin pendirian koperasi/UKM – DKI Jakarta
34%
66%
mudah
sulit
How officers respond to complaints from users of services in the service units they visited is shown in the picture /Table below. Table 4.15. Respond from Officers towards Complaints from Users of Services (in 10 provincial level service units)
Measuring the seriousness of service units and agencies in managing complaints is shown by the responses and follow up by the concerning service units on the complaints conveyed by users of services. The table above described such matter. In average, complaints are only received, and very few of them are followed up. Efforts to increase the value of Integrity Potential shows the seriousness of service units and agencies in public services sector in fighting corruption comprehensively, other than the follow up efforts conducted. The more intensive the efforts taken to improve the Integrity Potential, the more effective the efforts to eradicate corruption that can be done in the concerning service units and agencies.
4.4. Efforts to Improve Integrity Value at Provincial Level The Integrity Value of provincial level service units is highly influenced by the integrity value of the provincial government in charge of such units. This means that the characteristics of the service units within one provincial government shall be relatively the same as those of the service units within different provincial governments. Meanwhile the characteristics of the provincial governments may be similar or different.
Based on the bi-plot analyses connecting the value of sub-indicators for each provincial government, there is a grouping where agencies in one group have also the same characteristics. At provincial level, the provincial government group with high integrity value evidently has high value for the following sub-indicators: 1.Frequency of giving gratification 2.Total / range of gratification 3.Time at which the Gratification is Given 4.Meaning of Gratification 5.Purpose of Gratification 6.Expectation of officers towards gratification To improve the value of integrity of the provincial level service units, the factors related to the above subindicators must be improved and developed. Five out of the said six sub-indicators are from the external factors of service units, which are Frequency of giving gratification, Total / range of gratification, Time at which the Gratification is Given, Meaning of Gratification, and Purpose of Gratification. While one indicator, which is expectation of officers towards gratification is from the internal factor of service units. The first thing that the service units must do to improve the integrity is to conduct intensive socialization in relation to gratification, to external parties (users of services) and internal parties (service officers). Afterwards, conduct internal improvement on factors having the potential to increase/decrease integrity, especially in relation to Personal Attitude of service officers. In order to provide maximum results, Working Environment, Administration System and Control Measures Over Corruption must also be conducted. The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in its role as the trigger mechanism really encourages efforts to eradicate corruption through improvement in public services. The portrayal of the actual condition of public services in relation to transparency, bribery, illegal collection, gratification, Administration System, Personal Attitude, Working Environment and Control Measures over Corruption is conducted also in efforts to improve the effectiveness of corruption eradication conducted by KPK, especially in public services sector.
V. DISTRICT/TOWN LEVEL PUBLIC SECTOR INTEGRITY District/Town Level Public Sector Integrity constitutes one of the 3 elements of the national level integrity. The same as the rest, District/Town Level Public Sector Integrity is compiled based on variables consisting of Experienced integrity and Integrity Potential, both of which are acquired from the indicators and subindicators in public service units surveyed at district/town level. The district/town level integrity value originates from 196 service units di 49 district/town governments.
5.1. Total District/Town level Integrity 5.1.1. District/Town Government Integrity Value Evaluation of District/Town Level Public Sector Integrity in 2009 was conducted on 4 service units in 49 districts/towns. The four types of services included (1) birth certificates at Population Working Unit; (2) schools development aid / renovation / repair from the State Budget II at the Education Working Unit; (3) basic medical care at Community Health Care Centers / Regional General Hospitals (RSUD) C – Class at the Health Working Unit or District/Town Government; and (4) procurement of goods and services in Cross Agency / SKPD within District/Town Government environment.
The average value of District/Town Level Public Sector Integrity in 2009 was 6.46. Such value is not too far from the minimum limit for integrity value set by KPK, which was 6. Such value also provided information that act of gratification still exists at the district/town level. Meanwhile, the integrity potential variable, especially for indicators such as administration system and control measures over corruption, still seemed weak. An overall picture concerning the value of each indicator and sub-indicator for district/town level is provided in the following table. Table 5.1. Value of Integrity, Variables, Indicators, and Sub-Indicators at District/town level Integrity
Total of 2 Variables Pengalaman Integritas (0.750)=6.68
6 Indicators Experienced corruption (0.800)= 6.68 Perceived corruption (0.200)= 6.66
18 Sub-Indicators Frequency on giving gratification (0.333)= 7 Total / range of gratification (0.140)= 6 Time for giving gratification (0.528) = 7 Meaning of gratification (0.167)= 5 Purpose of gratification (0.833) = 7 Habit of giving gratification (0.502) = 6
Working environment (0.357)= 6.54
Total Integrity (1.00): 6.46
The need for meetings outside procedure (0.058) = 8 Middle men involvement (0.222) =7 Facilities around the working environment (0.107) = 6 Atmosphere/condition surrounding services (0.112) = 6
Integrity Potential (0.250)= 5.82
Practicality of SOP (0.258)= 6
Administration system (0.394)= 5.43
Transparency of information (0.637)= 6
Personal attitude (0.156)= 7.02
Expectation of officers regarding gratification (0.584)= 7
Control measures over corruption (0.094)= 2.64
Level of efforts towards anti-corruption (0.800)= 2 Public complaint mechanism (0.200)= 3
Note: (....) = Percentage; ..... = Value
Use of information technology (0.105) = 3 Fair services (0.281)= 7 Personal attitude of users of services (0.135) = 7
With average value of district/town level integrity of 6.46, as with provincial government, the value of integrity potential amounting to 5.82 is still far lower than the value of experienced integrity, which is 6.68. The value amounting to 5.82 is also still lower than the minimum standard for integrity set, which is 6. The low value of integrity potential at the District/Town Government level is primarily caused by the low value of indicators consisting of administration system (5.43) and control measures over corruption (2.64). In administration system, the primary sub indicator contributing to the low value of administration system is use of information technology, while the value of the other sub indicators, namely practicality of SOP and transparency of information, is also still low (6). As such for the control measures over corruption indicator, its 2 sub indicators, which are level of efforts towards anti-corruption and public complaint mechanism contributed to
the low value of control measures over corruption. Different from the service units at central level, which have more agencies and more varied service units, the total integrity value in 49 District/Town Governments with service units that tend to be uniformed has a wider range, which is between 7.48 and 4.92. As at provincial level, the quite wide range shows that public services in each district/town despite the uniformed types of services, have different and varied standard, and such difference and variation are shown from such wide range at the time the minimum standard for integrity was set by KPK. The ranking for public sectors integrity in District/Town Governments are shown in the following table. Table 5.2. Value and ranking of District/Town Government Integrity
The table described that there are 26 District/Town Governments with integrity value above average for District/Town Governments and the remaining 23 with integrity value below average. Ten out of the 23 with below average value, which are South Jakarta District, Kuningan District, Bandar Lampung Town, Samarinda Town, Maros District, Deli Serdang District, Manado Town, Gowa District, Makassar Town and Garut District have integrity value that is still below the minimum standard for integrity set by KPK. Even one of the districts, which is South Jakarta has integrity value below 5.0.
5.1.2. District/Town Government Service Units Evaluation of District/Town Level Public Sector Integrity is carried out on 196 service units in 10 District/Town Governments. Out of the 4 types of services under survey, namely schools development aid / renovation / repair, basic medical care at Community Health Care Centers / Regional General Hospitals (RSUD) C – Class, birth certificates, and also procurement of goods and services in SKPD, the average integrity value of the four service units at district/town level is shown by the following picture. Picture 5.1. Average Value of District/town level Service units in 2009 Integrity Survey
7,37 7,11
6,01
5,46
Kesehatan Dasar Puskesmas/RSUD Kelas C PBJ Pemkab/Pemkot Bantuan Pembangunan/Perbaikan Fisik Sekolah Akte Kelahiran
Schools development aid / renovation / repair acquired the highest value and rank out of the 4 district/town service units. Meanwhile, as at central and provincial level, procurement of goods and services in Cross Agency / SKPD constitute the service unit with the lowest average value out of the 4 service units. Despite the relatively uniformed types of services and the fewer numbers, the total integrity value of the 196 service units in 49 District/Town Governments has relatively wider range compared to the service units at central level. The ranking of service units integrity in 49 District/Town Governments is shown in Attachments 21 and 22. Out of the said 196 service units, there are 60 service units with integrity value below the minimum standard for integrity set by KPK, as shown in the following table. Table 5.3. District/town level Service Units with Integrity Value below Minimum Standard for Integrity Set by KPK
The majority of the service units for procurement of goods and services in SKPD within the District/Town Government environment has average value below the minimum standard set by KPK. Only 6 District/Town Governments have integrity value of procurement of goods and services above 7.0. More than 70 percent of the District/Town Governments have integrity value of procurement of goods and services below 6.0. Even out of the said 70 percent, more than 50 percent have integrity value below 5.0. A more complete description concerning integrity value of PBJ service units in each district/town is provided in the following table. The value and ranking of integrity of other service units in the District/Town Governments are shown in Attachments 23,24,and 25. Table 5.4. The Value of Integrity of Procurement of Goods and Services in SKPD within District/Town Government Comparison between the value of integrity of service units at district/town level and the average value of integrity at district/town level shows that there are 6 District/Town Governments, whose all of service units have integrity value above the district/town average value (6.46), and 42 district/town governments, whose some of service units have integrity value above average, and some below average. Meanwhile, there is still 1 district government, whose all service units are below average. Table 5.5. District/Town Integrity Value Groups
The majority of the District/Town Governments (42) have service units with integrity value above and below the average district/town integrity value. Out of the said 42 District/Town Governments, 18 District/Town Governments have more service units with integrity value above average, and 18 District/Town Governments have equal number of service units with integrity value above average and below average. Meanwhile, there are 6 District/Town Governments whose most of service units have integrity value below average. The average District/Town Level Public Sector Integrity in 2009, which amounted to 6.46, was acquired by calculating the average value of experienced integrity, which was 6.68, and the average value of integrity potential, which was 5.82. The next part shall discuss in more details the Experienced integrity and Potential of District/town level service units.
5.2. Experienced integrity District/town level District/town level Experienced integrity is compiled from Experienced corruption indicator with percentage of 0.800 and View of Corruption with percentage of 0.200. With value amounting to 6.68, district/town level service units and agencies must continue to socialize anti corruption especially regarding the giving of gratification to officers or users of services with expectation of improvement in the experienced integrity
value in the following year. Table 5.6. Value of Variables of District/Town Experienced integrity and Its Indicators and Sub Indicators Variables Experienced integrity (0.750)=6.68
Indicators Experienced corruption (0.800)= 6.68 Perceived corruption (0.200)= 6.66
Sub-Indicators Frequency on giving gratification (0.333)= 7 Total / range of gratification (0.140)= 6 Time for giving gratification (0.528) = 7 Meaning of gratification (0.167)= 5 Purpose of gratification (0.833) = 7
Out of the 49 District/Town Governments, there are 7 District/Town Governments with the lowest value of Experienced integrity, which is below 6.00, namely Manado Town, Makassar Town, Maros District, Samarinda Town, Bandar Lampung Town, Kuningan District and South Jakarta District. South Jakarta District constitutes the only district, whose value of Experienced integrity is below 5.00. The group with high value of Experienced integrity, which is above 7.00, consists of Denpasar Town, Balikpapan Town, Tanah Bambu District, Badung District, Banjarmasin Town, Medan Town, Kediri District, Gianyar District, Malang Town, Sampang District and West Jakarta Town. The following shows 5 of the highest and the lowest District/Town Government Experienced integrity Value. Value and ranking of District/Town Government Experienced integrity in total are shown in Attachment 26. Picture 5.2. 5 District/Town Governments with the Highest and Lowest Experienced integrity Value in 2009 Kota Denpasar
7,81
Kota Balikpapan
7,76
Kab. Tanah Bumbu
7,68
Kab. Badung
7,50
Kota Banjarmasin
7,49
Kab. Maros
5,79
Kota Samarinda
5,79
Kota Bandar Lampung
5,64
Kab. Kuningan Kota Jakarta Selatan
5,10 4,79
In more details, 5 service units at District/Town Government level with the highest Experienced integrity value are schools development aid / renovation / repair from the State Budget II in 8 district governments and 3 town governments (7.97), basic medical care at Community Health Care Centers / Regional General Hospitals (RSUD) C – Class in South Lampung and Central Lampung District Governments, (7.97), schools development aid / renovation / repair from the State Budget II in 10 district governments and 10 town governments (7.94), procurement of goods and services in Tanah Bambu District Government and Denpasar Town Government (7.94), basic medical care at Community Health Care Centers / Regional General Hospitals (RSUD) C – Class in 5 town governments and 14 district governments (7.94). Meanwhile, the 5 service units with the lowest Experienced integrity value are birth certificates in South Jakarta Town Government (2.44), procurement of goods and services in SKPD within Lampung Tengah District (2.68), Kutai Kertanegara District (2.87), Samarinda Town (2.98) and Maros District (3.38). it is evident that schools development aid / renovation / repair and basic medical care at Community Health Care Centers / Regional General Hospitals (RSUD) C – Class dominate the service units with high Experienced integrity value, while procurement of goods and services in SKPD dominate the low Experienced integrity value. The following picture describes the 5 service units at District/Town Government level with highest and lowest Experienced integrity value. Picture 5.3. District/town level Service units with the Highest and Lowest Experienced integrity Value
7,97
bantuan pembangunan/renov asi/perbaikan f isik sekolah dgn APBD II – di beberapa kabupaten dan kota 1) lay anan kesehatan dasar di puskesmas/RSUD kelas C – Kab Lampung Selatan, Lampung Tengah
7,97
bantuan pembangunan/renov asi/perbaikan f isik sekolah dgn APBD II – dibeberapa kota dan kabupaten 2)
7,94
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kab Tanah Bumbu, Kota Denpasar
7,94
lay anan kesehatan dasar di puskesmas/RSUD kelas C – di beberapa kota dan kabupaten 3)
7,94 7,94
Akte Kelahiran – Kota Bontang Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kab Maros
3,38
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kota Samarinda
2,98
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kab Kutai Kertanegara
2,87
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kab Lampung Tengah
2,68
Akte Kelahiran – Kota Jakarta Selatan
2,44
The following part shall discuss the 2 indicators of experienced integrity, which are experienced corruptions and public’s perceived corruption.
5.2.1. Public Experience in Corruption in District/Town Level Public Services Corruption directly experienced by the public in processing or acquiring public services is shown in the forms of additional money (gratification) that must be paid by the public, users of services, aside from the official fee established, the frequency such additional money is given, and the amount of the gratification and the time such gratification is given. Table 5.7. Value of Experienced corruption at District/Town Level and Its Sub Indicators Indicators Experienced corruption (0,800)= 6,68
Sub-Indicators Frequency on giving gratification (0,333)= 7 Total / range of gratification (0,140)= 6 Time for giving gratification (0,528) = 7
The average value of district/town level Experienced corruption is 6.68. Such value is already included in the minimum standard for integrity by KPK, however the fact is the act of giving gratification in service units still exists. There are still 27 percent of the total respondents, who are users of services at provincial level, who stated that they still give additional money when processing services. Gratification is generally in the form of money, and very few in the form of goods, or vouchers. The majority of the respondents who give additional money stated that they only gave once (29%), however some still answered sometimes (43%), however some still answered sometimes (30%), frequently (16%) and even always (10%). Di South Jakarta, whose integrity value is low, the frequency of gratification is far higher compared to Denpasar Town, whose integrity value is high. See the following picture. Picture 5.4.Frequency on giving gratification in 5 District/Town Governments with the Highest and Lowest Integrity Value
Kota Denpasar 1% Kota Balikpapan 1% 2% Kab Tanah Bumbu 2%1%
Kab Badung
7%
Kota Medan
7%
Kab Maros
3%2% 1% 6% 17%
Kota Samarinda
13%
13%
Kota Bandar Lampung
3%
8%
9%
22%
15%
Kab Kuningan
34%
Kota Jakarta Selatan
35%
Pernah 1 kali
4%
3% 10% 8%
3% 16%
16%
Kadang-kadang
sering
11%
1%
selalu
In the group with the low integrity value, it is evident that the percentage of users of services paying additional money is relatively far higher than the group with high integrity value. In the group with the low integrity value, it is also evident that the frequency that such gratification is given by users of services is spread from once, sometimes, frequently, to always. Meanwhile, in the group with high integrity value, only some of them do. More details concerning the frequency show that users of district/town level services paying additional money once are 72 percent, twice are 7 percent, and more than twice are 21 percent. The time chosen by users of services to give such additional money is mostly at the end of the process (43%). However, there are some who give such additional money at the beginning or during the process, or there are some who even give such additional money in 2 out of the 3 phases, or even in each phase, as shown in the following picture. Picture 5.5. Time for giving gratification in 5 District/Town Governments with the Highest and Lowest Integrity Value. Kota Denpasar 1% Kota Balikpapan 1% 1% 3% Kab Tanah Bumbu 2% Kab Badung 4%3%4% 1% 9% Kota Medan 4% Kab Maros
8%
Kota Samarinda
8%
29% 10% 24%
Kota Bandar Lampung Kab Kuningan
18%
Kota Jakarta Selatan
19%
di akhir
8%
16% 3%
28% 33%
8%
saat pengurusan
9% 43%
di aw al
It is described in the picture that in the low integrity group, other than the large number of users of services giving additional money, generally the said additional money is given at the beginning of, and during, the process of arrangement. Such condition shows efforts of bribery by users or services or illegal collection and extortion by service officers in the event of smoothing the process and completion of the arrangement. In the high integrity group, aside from the small number of users of services giving additional money, generally the said additional money is given at the end, after the whole service process is done, as gratitude. However, it is a cause for concern because despite the small number, there are users of services in the high integrity group who still give additional money at the beginning of, and during, the process in the event of smoothing the completion of arrangement. A more detailed description of service units concerning the time for giving gratification in service units representing the condition of payment of additional money, which still frequently occurs, is shown in the
following picture. Picture 5.6. Time for giving gratification in 10 Service units in which the practice of giving gratification still frequently occurs Akte Kelahiran – Kota Medan
25%0%
83%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kota Tomohon 13% 33%
73%
Akte Kelahiran – Kab Gow a 14% 23% Akte Kelahiran – Kota Bandar Lampung Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kota Bontang 0%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kab Kuningan
67%
100% 44%
Akte Kelahiran – Kota Banjarbaru Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kab Kutai Kertanegara
64%
33% 0%
25%
18%12% 26%
88% 70%
3% Akte Kelahiran – Jakarta Selatan 15%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Jakarta Barat di akhir
saat pengurusan
44%
7%
92% 72%
44%
50%
di awal
In service units, the majority of whose respondents frequently give additional money, it is evident that giving additional money at the beginning of the service arrangement is still quite dominant. Such condition shows the significant opportunity for conducting bribery, illegal collection, giving grease money in goods and services procurement service and birth certificate service.
5.2.2. Public Perceived corruption in District/Town Level Public Services How does the public view corruption in the district/town level public services institutions? How does the public describe the fee or costs they incur, whether or not it is considered as corruption? What is their purpose in giving such additional money, and how high is the public’s level of tolerance towards the additional money that they had to pay? Table 5.8. Value of the Indicators and Sub Indicators of Perceived corruption at District/Town Indicators Perceived corruption
(0.200)= 6.66
Sub-Indicators Meaning of gratification (0.167)= 5 Purpose of gratification (0.833) = 7
Although the value of the perceived corruption at district/town level in average has met the minimum standard for integrity, however in general it is still evident that the public has quite high tolerance in their perceived corruption in public services institutions. Such condition is shown from the 30 percent of the public who consider giving additional money in public services arrangement constitutes an act that is allowed to be done once in a while, a normal act, and even an act that must be done in each service. What is the perception of the public, users of services, concerning gratification? The majority of the public using the services at district/town level stated that gratification constitutes an act that should not be done (62%) and 31 percent of the respondents also stated that giving additional money in service arrangement constitutes an act that is both shameful and improper. However, when such fact is observed in the district/towns within the low integrity value group, it is evident that giving additional money in service arrangement, other than considered as an act that should not be done, it is also considered, by most of the users of services, as an act that is allowed to be done once in a while, and even normal. See the following picture. Picture 5.7. Meaning of gratification (Additional money) in Service Arrangement (in 5 District/Town Governments with the Highest and Lowest Integrity Value).
Kota Balikpapan
6% 2%
84%
37%
Kota Denpasar
3% 3% 3%
65%
27%
Kab Tanah Bumbu
41%
Kab Badung
43%
1% 2% 1% 15%
78%
11% 3% 11%
83%
harus dilakukan lazim terjadi
12%8% 17%2%
58%
48%
Kota Medan
boleh sesekali 33%
50%
Kab Maros 5%
boleh kalau terpaksa
8% 20%
tidak boleh Kota Samarinda Kota Bandar Lampung Kab Kuningan Kota Jakarta Selatan
9% 17% 22% 2%
64%
8%
1%
59%
2% 10%
83%
48% 43%
tercela
16%4% 21% 6%
73%
21%
16% 8% 22% 3%
56%
From observation of 10 service units with the most gratification, it is evident that goods and services procurement service units in SKPD in District/Town Government environment and birth certificates constitute service units, wherein most of the users of services stated that giving additional money in service arrangement is allowed, some even stated that such is normal.
Picture 5.8. Meaning of Giving Gratification (Additional Money) in Services Arrangement (in 10 Service Units with High Rate of Gratification) Pelay anan kesehatan dasar puskesmas/RSUD C – Kota Banjarbaru
Pengadaan barang&jasa – Kab Lamongan 10% Pengadaan barang&jasa – Kab Sukabumi
51%
23%
30%
47%
Akte kelahiran – Kota Samarinda
17%
3% 3%
53%
27% 7%13%
Akte kelahiran – Jakarta Pusat 10% 23% 10% Pengadaan barang&jasa – Jakarta Utara 7% 20%
3% 6% 26%
30%
33%
13%
47%
23%
7%
63%
60%
40%
27% 3%
40%
harus dilakukan 7% 7%
lazim terjadi boleh sesekali boleh kalau terpaksa tidak boleh
Pengadaan barang&jasa – Kota Bandar Lampung 3% 28% Pengadaan barang&jasa – Kab Maros 3%17% Akte kelahiran – Kota Medan Pengadaan barang&jasa – Kab Deli Serdang
17% 43%
55% 7%
tercela
37%
19% 19% 19% 19% 76%
7%
3% 7%
35%
6% 83%
38%
Based on the facts seen in service units, the primary purposes a service user gives additional money or gratification in service arrangement is as a token of gratitude (56%), to accelerate time of arrangement (38%), to pass off the arrangement even though requirements are not met (5%), to avoid unfair treatment from officers (4%), and 3% considered it as a token of pity because they perceived officers as having low salary. Observed from the purposes of respondents in giving additional money, it is evident in the low integrity group
at district/town governments that the primary purposes are to accelerate time of arrangement and gratitude, however other purposes, such as token of pity towards officers, avoiding unfair treatment from officers, and passing off arrangement even though requirements are not met, even no reasons / purposes, also show up in the answers from users of services. Meanwhile, in the high integrity group at district/town governments, the main purpose is gratitude. However, in Medan Town it is evident that the purpose of accelerating time of arrangement still exists. Picture 5.9. Purpose of gratification in 10 District/Town Governments Kota Denpasar 1% 1% Kota Balikpapan 1% Kab Tanah Bumbu 1%6%2% Kab Badung 3%4%2%5% Kota Medan
8%
Kab Maros 3% Kota Samarinda Kota Bandar Lampung
7%1% 12% 1% 1%
30%
11% 2%4% 1% 8%
Kota Jakarta Selatan
16%
22%
Kab Kuningan 1% 3%
6%
1% 1% 9%
24%
39% 17%
1%
2%6%
16%
4% 6%
42%
16%
24%
tidak ada alasan
kasihan petugas
terimakasih
meluluskan pengurusan
mempercepat
lainny a
hindari perlakuan semena-mena
In 10 service units, where the frequency of gratification is still high, it is evident that the main purpose of the users of services in service units / gratification is as gratitude and to accelerate time of arrangement. See picture below. Picture 5.10. Purpose of gratification (in 10 Service units in District/Town Governments with still high frequency of gratification) Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD - Kab Lampung Tengah
31%
10%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD - Kab Minahasa Utara 5% Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD - Kab Maros Akte kelahiran – Kota Makassar
82%
12%
50%
Akte kelahiran – Kab Tapanuli Selatan
14% 21% 47%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Jakarta Barat
11%
Akte kelahiran – Kab Giany ar 4% Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD - Kab Cianjur 4%
62%
5% 23% 5% 73% 83%
29%
21% 7%
18% 18%
22%
3%
4% 4%
13%4% 25%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD - Kab Kutai Kertanegara Akte kelahiran – Kab Gresik
86%
39%
6%11%
39% 58%
44%
56%
48%
kasihan petugas
terimakasih
meluluskan pengurusan
mempercepat
lainny a
17%
6%17%
39%
67%
25%
tidak ada alasan
50% 41%
48%
9%
hindari perlakuan semenamena
When the questions concerning the reason of giving additional money are broaden, the majority of the respondents (40%) stated that they wish to accelerate the arrangement process from the period of time determined and because they felt that they officers have helped them, other respondents (19%) stated that the officers asked them directly and 10 percent stated that they gave if the officers signaled that they want additional money. However, satisfaction due to the services by the officers (6%), feeling pity towards the officers (5%), officers delaying arrangement/making arrangement difficult (5%), users of services themselves offering the additional money (5%) and reducing some of the requirements (5%) also constitute some of the reasons of the users of services in giving additional money to service officers.
When observed based on District/Town Governments with low integrity value group, the primary reason of giving gratification is more about accelerating the arrangement process from the period of time determined, the initiative of the users of services themselves to offer additional money, or the signals given by the officers that they want additional money. However, the feeling that the officers have helped them is also quite dominant. See the following picture. Picture 5.11. Reasons Why Users of services Give Additional Money (in 5 District/Town Governments with the Highest and Lowest Integrity Value) Kota Denpasar
100%
Kota Balikpapan
100% Puas dengan Pelay anan
Kab Tanah Bumbu
14%
Kab Badung
7%
Kota Medan
6%
43% 36%
14%
50%
Kab Maros Kota Samarinda
14%
54%
29%
14%
36% 6%
2% 4%
13% 10%3% 13%
Kasihan pada petugas Merasa telah dibantu petugas
7% 7% 50%
22%
47%
19%
26%
Menahan/mempersulit pengurusan
13%
Petugas meminta langsung Ada siny al petugas ingin uang tambahan
16% 6% 8%
Inisiatif pengguna menawarkan uang tambahan
7% 10%3%
Mempercepat proses Kota Bandar Lampung Kab Kuningan Kota Jakarta Selatan
23%
2% 5%
40%
20% 6%
21%
2%
69% 2%6%
48% 1% 15% 4%6%
65%
Persy aratan tdk bisa dipenuhi
3% 2%
13%
30%
1% 3%
17% 4%6%
The facts disclosed in this Experienced integrity reflected the actual condition of the service units and agencies based on the direct experiences of users of services.
5.3. District/town level Integrity Potential Integrity potential variable is compiled from 4 indicators, namely Working Environment with percentage of 0.357, Administration system with percentage of 0.394, Personal attitude with percentage of 0.156 and Control measures over corruption with percentage of 0.094. Each indicator consists of 2-5 sub-indicators, as shown in the following table. Table 5.9. Variables, Indicators dan Sub Indicators of Integrity potential at District/town level Variables
Indicators
Working environment (0,357)= 6,54
Integrity potential (0,250)= 5,82
Administration system (0,394)= 5,43 Personal attitude (0,156)= 7,02 Control measures over corruption (0,094)= 2,64
Sub-Indicators Habit of giving gratification (0,502) = 6 The need for meetings outside procedure (0,058) = 8 Middle men involvement (0,222) =7 Facilities around the working environment (0,107) = 6 Atmosphere/condition surrounding services (0,112) = 6 Practicality of SOP (0,258)= 6 Transparency of information (0,637)= 6 Use of information technology (0,105) = 3 Fair services (0,281)= 7 Expectation of officers regarding gratification (0,584)= 7 Personal attitude of users of services (0,135) = 7 Level of efforts towards anti-corruption (0,800)= 2 Public complaint mechanism (0,200)= 3
The average value of Integrity Potential of 49 districts/towns and 136 service units at District/town level is 5.82. Such value is below the minimum standard set by KPK and the indicators of Integrity Potential, namely Administration System and Control Measures over Corruption still have very low value (5.43 and 2.64 respectively). However, the Personal Attitude indicator looks quite good with value of 7.02 and above the minimum standard set by KPK. Out of the 49 District/Town Governments determined as samples, 5 districts/towns with the highest value of
Integrity Potential are Denpasar Town (6,48), Tanah Bambu District (6,38), Kota Bontang (6,37), Majalengka District (6,35), and Balikpapan Town (6,26). Meanwhile, 5 District/Town Governments with the lowest integrity potential value are Langkat District (5,30), Garut District (5,26), South Tapanuli District (5,25), Samarinda Town (5,23) and Kuningan District (5,00), as shown in the following picture. The more complete ranking and value concerning the District/Town Government integrity potential value is shown in Attachment 27. Picture 5.12. 5 District/Town Governments with the highest and lowest Value of Integrity potential in 2009 Kota Denpasar
6,48
Kab. Tanah Bumbu
6,38
Kota Bontang
6,37
Kab. Majalengka
6,35
Kota Balikpapan
6,26
Kab. Langkat
5,30
Kab. Garut
5,26
Kab. Tapanuli Selatan
5,25
Kota Samarinda
5,23
Kab. Kuningan
5,00
Regional governments with low integrity potential value shows that District/Town Governments are not considered by the users of services as having implemented actual efforts in improving the Working Environment, Administration System, Personal Attitude and Control Measures Over Corruption, thus with the existing condition in the current public services, there are still opportunities that corruption may occur. To obtain a more complete description of the value of Integrity Potential at district/town agencies, the following picture describes the 5 highest and lowest value of Integrity Potential. Picture 5.13. highest and lowest value of Integrity Potential of Service Units at District/Town Governments in 2009 Bantuan pembangunan/renovasi/perbaikan sekolah dari APBD II – Kab Sukabumi
7,24
Bantuan pembangunan/renovasi/perbaikan sekolah dari APBD II – Jakarta Barat
6,95
Bantuan pembangunan/renovasi/perbaikan sekolah dari APBD II – Kab Maros
6,91
Pengadaan barang dan jasa pada SKPD – Kab Tanah Bumbu
6,88
Bantuan pembangunan/renovasi/perbaikan sekolah dari APBD II – Kota Makassar
6,88
Akte kelahiran – Kab Deli Serdang
4,46
Pengadaan barang dan jasa pada SKPD – Kab Maros
4,41
Akte kelahiran – Kab Tapanuli Selatan
4,4
Akte kelahiran – Kab Garut
4,29
Akte kelahiran – Kota Jakarta Selatan
4,01
The following section shall discuss the 4 indicators of integrity potential, which are working environment, administration system, personal attitude dan control measures over corruption.
5.3.1. Working Environment in District/Town Level Public Services The habit of giving gratification and the middle men involvement akan menurunkan nilai Indicators working environment dalam integrity potential secara signifikan. In service units at district/town level, the involvement of middle men is not too significant, however the habit of giving gratification, facilities around the working environment and the atmosphere/condition surrounding services still need improvement.
Table 5.10. Value of Indicators and Sub Indicators of Working environment in District/Town Indicators
Working environment (0,357)= 6,54
Sub-Indicators Habit of giving gratification (0,502) = 6 The need for meetings outside procedure (0,058) = 8 Middle men involvement (0,222) =7 Facilities around the working environment (0,107) = 6 Atmosphere/condition surrounding services (0,112) = 6
Value of 6 in sub indicator of habit of giving gratification shows that such habit still occurs, more than 19% of the public using the services at district/town level stated that the practice of giving additional money within service environment they visit still exists. The following picture describes the opinion of the concerning respondents in relation to the practice of giving additional money in service units, majority of whose users of services frequently incur additional costs in service arrangement.
Picture 5.14. Intensity of Practice of Giving Additional Money within Services Environment (in 10 service units with high intensity of giving additional money) Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD- Jakarta Pusat
22%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-Kab Kuningan
7% 20%
Akte kelahiran – Kab Sumenep
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-Kota Bandar Lampung Akte kelahiran – Kota Makassar
10% 7% 10%
Pelay anan kesehatan dasar puskesmas/RSUD C – Kota Manado
31%
27%
tidak ada
Kadang-kadang terjadi
sering terjadi
40% 7%
9% 3% 19% 9%
57%
41%
41%
27% 48%
7%
28%
46%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-Kab Deli Serdang 0% 20% Akte kelahiran – Kab Tapanuli Selatan
25% 70%
22%
Akte kelahiran – Kota Banjar Baru 6% Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD-Kota Bontang
44%
57% 10% 19% 56%
37%
10% 7% 23% 24%
37%
19%
selalu terjadi
The said picture describes that goods and services procurement and birth certificate service units dominate as the service units with the most frequent intensity in giving additional money in a number of districts/towns. For a more global description, the following is the opinions from users of services in 5 district/town samples with the highest and lowest integrity value in relation to the intensity of giving additional money in service units in their District/Town Governments. Picture 5.15. Intensity of the Practice of Giving Additional Money in 5 District/Town Governments with the Highest and Lowest Integrity Value Tahun 2009
Kota Denpasar Kota Balikpapan
Kota Medan
tidak ada
17%
50%
Kota Bandar Lampung
25%
33%
39%
Kota Samarinda
12% 1%
40%
47%
Kab Maros
9%
39%
52%
27% 20%
24%
53%
22%
61%
12% 30%
26%
kadang2 terjadi
sering terjadi
1% 2% 2% 1%
31%
67%
Kab Badung
Kab Kuningan
18%
79%
Kab Tanah Bumbu
Kota Jakarta Selatan
10%1%
89%
36%
3% 6% 3% 5% 8%
selalu terjadi
The picture above describes that in the district/town governments with high integrity group, the majority of the users of services answered “never” and only minority said “sometimes” to “always”. Meanwhile, in the low integrity group the answers of the majority of the respondents concerning the intensity of the practice of giving additional money in the service environment they visit are “sometimes, frequently, or even always”. The following question asked is that according to the experience of the users of services, how is the giving of additional money in the service environment. The majority of the users of services (44%) stated that users of services still do it (from the point of view of the users of services). From the point of view of the officers, 19% of users of services stated that additional money is still received by officers, and concerning monitoring, 6% of the respondents at provincial level stated that giving additional money is partly tolerated by supervisors / heads at the service units.
Table 5.11. Condition of Giving Additional Money in Services at District/town level
The need for meetings outside procedure in service arrangement is acknowledged by the majority of the users of services as no longer exists. Only approximately 7% of the users of services still hold meetings outside the procedures when arranging district/town level services. In average, the service unit, which is considered by its respondents as still frequently holding meetings outside procedures is goods and services procurement service unit. It is recorded that over 50% of the users of services in 5 service units for procurement of goods and services in SKPD within District/Town Governments stated that service arrangement still needs meetings outside procedures, and such units are procurement of goods and services in Gowa District (67%), Kuningan District (67%), Garut District (53%), Cianjur District (53%) and Lamongan District (50%). The actual purposes of the public in holding meetings outside procedures are shown by the 10 service units, whose respondents are considered as the ones most frequently holding meetings outside procedures when arranging services. See picture below.
Picture 5.16. Purposes of the Public in Holding Meetings outside Procedures (in 10 District/Town Level Service Units with the highest number of respondents holding meetings outside procedures) Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kab Bandung
56%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kab Lamongan 7%
40%
5% 5% Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kab Gowa 5% Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kab Maros Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Jakarta Pusat
7%
18% 18% 9%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kab Lampung Selatan 7%
23% 17%
20% 20%5%15%
85%
30%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kab Garut
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kota Bontang
25%
75%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kab Cianjur 0% Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kab Kuningan
67%
22% 22%
56%
6%
60%
7%
94%
55% 93%
43% 75% 31%
23%
50%
21% 7%7%
10% 10% 5% 31% 33%
33%
33%
17%
Memanipulasi sebagian persy aratan
Melengkapi persy aratan
Mempercepat waktu pengurusan
Menegosiasikan biay a
Silaturahmi dg petugas
Memasukkan Permohonan
Mengambil (dokumen) y ang diurus
Lainny a
In general, the main purposes why users of services hold meetings outside procedures are to accelerate the arrangement time and to be acquainted with the officers. Other than those, other purposes, such as completing requirements and negotiating costs, also enable the opportunities for bribery and illegal collection in the service process. Therefore, establishment of procedures, costs, and requirements that are transparent is highly necessary to prevent such meetings outside procedures. The involvement of middle men in district/town level service units, in general, is considered quite low by the public. Only 10 percent of users of services at district/town level stated that there are still middle men in the service units they go to. However, when observed further, a number of service units, in practicing their services, still involve middle men. It is proven that 50 persen and more of the users of services still witness and observe that in the service units they go to activities by middle men still exist. See the following picture. Picture 5.17. Existence of Mediators outside Procedures (middle men) in Service units within District/Town Government environment Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kab Gow a
73%
27%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kab Cianjur
60%
40%
Akte kelahiran – Jakarta Pusat
57%
43%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kota Bontang
57%
43%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kab Sumenep
52%
48%
Akte kelahiran – Kab Deli Serdang
52%
48%
Akte kelahiran – Kab Garut
50%
50%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kab Garut
50%
50%
Ya
Tidak
The picture above describes that the service units for procurement of goods and services in SKPD within the District/Town Government environment and birth certificate services from Population Working unit constitute the service units, which according to the evaluation made by their users of services, still significantly involve middle men. Such middle men involvement shows that the service units are considered by the users of services as not yet transparent and their procedures are considered as insufficiently practice, thus middle men are considered necessary in both service units. Who are those mediators / middle men? The answers from the respondents in 10 district/town governments with low integrity group are quite surprising. The highest number of mediators / middle men is the officers themselves, whether the ones directly handle the services or officers working in such agencies but are not
directly involved in the services. See description of the picture below. Picture 5.18. Mediators Outside Procedures Existing in Service Units Visited by Users of Services (in 10 district/town governments with high intensity of middle men) Kota Jakarta Selatan Kab Kuningan
26% 16%
Kota Bandar Lampung Kota Samarinda Kab Maros Kab Deli Serdang Kota Manado
Kota Makassar Kab Garut
44%
18%3%24%
68% 44%
22% 35%
6% 11%
Petugas tdk langsung mengurus lay anan ttp masih bekerja di unit tsb
43%
57%
Kab Gow a
Org y g bekerja di sekitar unit lay anan (tkg parkir, satpam, pedagang kantin,dll)
57%
33%
39%
Orang luar (perantara eksternal)
42%
17% 48%
24%
36%
45%
91% 50%
Perusahaan/Bdn Usaha Jasa Pengurusan
7%
59%
44%
5%
37%
32%
11%
49%
34%
Petugas y g langsung mengurus lay anan
50% 11%
27%
73%
According to users of services, the roles of middle men / mediators still exist in the process of service arrangement. Such roles may be to accelerate arrangement time, facilitate communication with officers, avoid exploitation by officers, up to bargaining requirements. The majority part of the respondents at provincial level (46%) stated that arranging through mediators / middle men accelerates arrangement time from the time determined / time it usually takes. Only 10% stated that arranging it through middle men makes no different from arranging it by yourself. See picture below.
Picture 5.19. Roles of Mediators Outside Procedures/Middle Men 45%
Mempercepat waktu pengurusan
35%
Mempermudah komunikasi petugas dg pengguna lay anan Bisa tawar menawar biay a
18%
Bisa tawar menawar persy aratan
11%
Tidak ada bedany a dg mengurus sendiri
10%
Sy arat utama (lay anan hany a diurus jika melalui mereka)
10%
Bisa tawar menawar tidak melewati prosedur ttt Menghindarkan pengguna dari eksploitasi petugas
9% 1%
How do middle men operate? Evidently, they operate openly (51%). However, 38% of the respondents stated that the middle men in the service units they visited operate secretively. When observing how middle men operate based on the location of the service units they operate in, it is evident that services for birth certificates tend to be done openly (although some are done secretively). Meanwhile, in services for procurement of goods and services in SKPD and schools development aid / renovation / repair from the State Budget II, middle men operate secretively, although some are openly. See the following picture. Picture 5.20. How Mediators/Middle Men Operate Based On Service Units
Pengadaan barang dan jasa pada SKPD
52%
Bantuan pembangunan/renovasi/perbaikan sekolah dari APBD II
58%
Pelayanan kesehatan dasar pada puskesmas/RSUD Kelas C
Akte kelahiran Sembuny i-sembuny i
Terang-terangan
41%
22%
49%
41%
27%
62%
8%
19%
10%
11%
lainny a
The impact of the existence of middle men / mediators are valued differently by users of services. There is no special characteristic difference between the high integrity group and low integrity group in provincial governments. In Badung, Medan and South jakarta middle men are considered as obstructions, while in Tanah Bumbu they are even considered as beneficial in service arrangement. In a number of districts/towns, which are Maros, Denpasar, Bandar Lampung and Kuningan middle men are not considered as obstructions. See the following picture. Picture 5.21. Impact of Involvement of Mediators Outside Procedures in Service Arrangement (in 5 District/Town Governments with the highest and lowest integrity) Kota Denpasar 0%
33%
Kota Balikpapan
33%
Kab Tanah Bumbu
25%
78% 71%
Kota Medan
14%
14%
100% 5%
Kota Samarinda
19%
57% 17%
25%
Kota Bandar Lampung Kab Kuningan
25%
22%
Kab Badung
Kab Maros
33%
25%
25%
36% 11%
Kota Jakarta Selatan Sangat mengganggu
19%
25%
33%
36% 30%
27%
33%
26%
63% Mengganggu
32% Tidak mengganggu
5%
Menguntungkan
What is the actual level of need of users of services at Provincial Level towards these mediators / middle men? Some of the respondents (50%) stated that they don’t really need the middle men / mediators, and only 50% stated they do. Service facilities provided within the service environment have met the minimum standard set by KPK. Eighty eight percent (88%) of the respondents stated that the level of availability of facilities within the service units environment they visited is generally adequate and very adequate. Meanwhile 12% stated they are inadequate and very inadequate. The types of facilities stated as available at the service units by the majority of the respondents are parking space, toilets, trash bins, chairs, waiting room, announcement / information boards, front office officers, complaint box. Meanwhile, the facilities rarely seen in service units are Air Conditioners, copier / ATM machines, speakers, and queue numbers. The majority of the respondents at the service units stated also that the atmosphere / condition of the facilities is quite adequate since more than 80 percent of the respondents stated that the ambiance of the service is quite calm (not noisy), the room lay out and service system are also in order. According to the evaluation by users of services, they lack only in comfort (because there is no Air Conditioner, no television, insufficient chairs in waiting rooms, etc) 5.3.2. Administration System at District/Town level Public Services Easiness in service facilities, practicality of SOP, transparency of information and use of information technology constitute the sub Indicators supporting the establishment of a good administration system. Table 5.12. Value of Indicators of Sub Indicators of Administration System at District/Town
Indicators Administration system (0,394)= 5,43
Sub-Indicators Practicality of SOP (0,258)= 6 Transparency of information (0,637)= 6 Use of information technology (0,105) = 3
Results of survey show that the value of the Administration System in district/town public services is unable to achieve the minimum standard for integrity set by KPK. 5.43 show that the sub indicators, namely practicality of SOP, transparency of information, and especially use of information technology need to be developed and to be continuously improved. The Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) determined are generally known by the majority of the respondents (77%). According to them, in general, the procedures (89%) and requirements for service arrangement are relatively easy (90%), 42% of the respondents stated that the completion time is quick, and 78% stated that the cost is still too high. When observed based on the service units visited by users of services, it is evident that the majority of the complaints from users of services in any service units are about cost for arranging services and the long time needed. However, complaints about difficult procedures and requirements are still visible. Concerning transparency of information, the following table describes the condition of transparency of information in service units visited by users of services. Table 5.13. Level of Transparency of Information in Service Units at District/town level
The table above describes that the transparency of information through announcements and explanation without the users of services having to ask for it in public services, even though it is already adequate, still needs improvement. In average, less than 70% of the users of services stated that there is transparency of information in the service units they visited. When detailed, it is evident that the information concerning cost is relatively less transparent compared to procedures, requirements, and time. Use of information technology is also the basic for measurement in Administration System. The majority of the respondents (61%) stated that there is no information technology in the service units they visited. Those who claimed that there is information technology stated that they never used such technology (67%). For those using the technology, in general they used the technology to search information on the service units (46%), to search information on requirements (46%), and others (8%). Comparing the level of need and technology utilization, the following picture describes the condition of the level of need for and utilization of technology in District/Town Government group with low and high integrity value. Picture 5.22. Level of Need for and Utilization of Technology at District/Town Governments
tingkat pemanf aatan Kota Jakarta Selatan Kab. Kuningan Kota Bandar Lampung
51%
Kota Medan
Kota Balikpapan Kota Denpasar
76%
20%
92%
33%
87%
13%
80%
18%
68% 55%
Kab. Badung Kab. Tanah Bumbu
82%
29%
Kota Samarinda Kab. Maros
tingkat kebutuhan 75%
32% 17% 20%
61% 51% 56%
In the District/Town Government group with low integrity, it is evident that the level of need for technology is very high, however it is not in balance with the level of utilization, which is relatively low. Meanwhile, in District/Town Government group with high integrity, the opposite occurs, the level of need for it is low, while the level of utilization is relatively high.
5.3.3. Personal attitude of individuals Evaluation of Personal Attitude and its relation to the value of Integrity Potential in this survey is measured based on the sub indicators, namely fairness in treatment of service officers to users of services, Expectation of officers towards gratification, and the attitude of the users of services themselves at the time of arranging and acquiring services. Table 5.14. Value of Indicators and Sub Indicators of Personal Attitude at District/town level Indicators Personal attitude (0,156)= 7,02
Sub-Indicators Fair services (0,281)= 7 Expectation of officers regarding gratification (0,584)= 7 Personal attitude of users of services (0,135) = 7
The value of Personal Attitude, which is 7.02, is supported by a quite good value of sub indicators, namely expectation of officers towards gratification (7), attitude of service users (7) and fairness of the officers towards users of services (7). Attitude, appearances, and expertise of service officers are evaluated by users of services. In general, users of services at Provincial level evaluated the officers as having friendly attitude (92%), attractive appearances (94%) and adequate expertise (91%). Attitude of the officers in providing services is also evaluated by the users of services. Difference in treatments at times is still experienced by users of services due to various reasons as shown in the following picture. Picture 5.23. Attitude of the Officers in Providing Services based on Evaluation by Users of Services
Dibedakan berdasarkan kelengkapan persy aratan (persy aratan lengkap lebih didahulukan)
25%
Dibedakan dengan alasan hubungan kekerabatan dengan petugas (keluarga/tetangga lebih disukai)
14%
Dibeda-bedakan berdasarkan jumlah uang tambahan y ang diberikan
13%
Dibedakan berdasarkan status sosial politik pengguna lay anan (pejabat publik lebih diutamakan
12%
Dibedakan berdasarkan kelompok sosial ekonomi (y ang kay a lebih disukai) Dibedakan berdasarkan urgensi (y ang batas waktuny a sudah mendekati/kadaluarsa lebih didahulukan)
9% 7%
Dibedakan berdasarkan status pengurusan (loket perpanjangan dengan pengurusan baru dibedakan)
7%
Dibedakan antara pengguna lama dengan pengguna baru
7%
Dibedakan berdasarkan y ang melakukan pengurusan (orang tua dan ibu hamil didahulukan)
5%
Dibedakan berdasarkan jenis kelamin 2% Dibedakan berdasarkan lokasi tempat tinggal pengurus (rumah y ang lebih jauh didahulukan) 1% Dibedakan karena kesukuan 1% Dibedakan karena agama 1%
Other personal attitude of service officers that significantly impact the integrity of the services is expectation of the officers towards gratification. There is still 13% of the respondents at provincial level who stated that officers asked for additional money in providing services. Users of services asked for additional money by officers stated that generally officers asked for additional money directly (openly / not openly) (90%) or through other parties (10%). Picture 5.24. Methods Used by Officers in Asking for Additional Money (in 5 District/Town Governments with highest and lowest integrity value) Kota Denpasar Kota Balikpapan 1% 1% 1% Kab Tanah Bumbu 1%
Kab Badung 1% Kota Medan 1%2% Kab Maros
14%
Kota Samarinda 1% Kota Bandar Lampung Kab Kuningan Kota Jakarta Selatan
15% 28%
1% 1% 7%
23% 19%
5%
melalui pihak lain
3% 38%
langsung tidak terbuka
langsung terbuka
The picture describes that the in the group with low value of integrity, the officers mostly ask for additional money directly and openly. Such condition is clearly evident in South jakarta, Samarinda Town, and Bandar Lampung Town. In Kuningan District, request for additional money is conveyed by officers through other parties, and most of them are not done openly. While in Maros District, how the officers ask for additional money varies between directly not open and directly open. The public’s permissive attitude towards corruption in public services sometimes encourages them to make the initiative in offering additional money to the service officers, whether asked for or not by the service officers (5%). However, there are those who also stated that they give additional money if there are signs from the officers who want additional money (10%), or they give additional money only if the officers directly ask for it (19%). When observed based on the service units visited by users of services, the following is the personal attitude of users of services in 10 service units, whose users of services tend to be permissive towards corrupton in public services.
Picture 5.25. Personal attitude of Users of services In Relation to Initiatives to Give Additional Money
Akte kelahiran – Kab Minahasa Utara
22%
67%
Akte kelahiran – Jakarta Selatan Akte kelahiran – Kab Langkat
95% 14%7%
Akte kelahiran – Kota Bandar Lampung 4% 4%
64% 67%
Akte kelahiran – Kota Samarinda 5% 5%
30%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kab Gowa
19% 4%12%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kota Metro
38%
Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kab Kutai Kertanegara 6% Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Kab Bojonegoro Pengadaan barang&jasa SKPD – Jakarta Timur
Ada siny al petugas ingin uang tambahan 6% 71%
35% 13%
30%
Petugas meminta langsung
Inisiatif pengguna menawarkan uang tambahan 47%
24% 17%
In the service units with the highest intensity of giving additional money, which are procurement of goods and services and birth certificate services, it is evident that the in the procurement of goods and services, the initiative to give additional money comes from both sides, which are the officers and users of services. Meanwhile, in birth certificate services, the initiative generally comes from service officers, by way of asking directly to the users of services.
5.3.4. Control Measures over Corruption at District/town level Public Services Level of efforts towards anti corruption campaign and methods of complaints of users of services conducted by service units constitute the 2 sub indicators to be measured to acquire the value of Control Measures over Corruption that constitutes a part of Integrity Potential. Table 5.15. Value of Indicators and Sub Indicators of Control Measures over Corruption at District/Town Level Indicators Control measures over corruption (0,094)= 2,64
Sub-Indicators Level of efforts towards anti-corruption (0,800)= 2 Public complaint mechanism (0,200)= 3
The fact disclosed that compared to the other indicators, Control Measures over Corruption at provincial governments has the lowest value. 2.64 is still far below the minimum standard for integrity set by KPK, which is 6. Such condition is evident from the very weak efforts towards anti corruption (2) and public complaints services (3) in the service units visited by users of services. The majority of users of services at Provincial level (75%) stated that the service units they visited did not conduct anti-corruption campaign in the event of Control Measures Over Corruption. However, actually, those stating that there is campaign for anti-corruption generally saw it more than two (46%) and one (42%) anticorruption activity conducted in the said service units. When analyzed further, the forms of campaign conducted by provincial level service agencies quite vary. See picture below.
Picture 5.26. What are the forms of campaign you witness? (in 5 District/Town Government the high and low
integrity groups) Kota Denpasar
50%
39%
Kota Balikpapan Kab Tanah Bumbu Kab Badung
Kota Samarinda
66%
31%
Kota Jakarta Selatan
Kegiatan workshop/seminar antikorupsi melibatkan masy arakat
Iklan antikorupsi
Kegiatan workshop/seminar antikorupsi pd petugas
Memutar v ideo antikorupsi di monitor di sekitar unit lay anan
stiker/poster/spanduk antikorupsi di sekitar loket (produksi sendiri)
Buku/modul/komik dll tentang antikorupsi
stiker/poster/spanduk antikorupsi di sekitar loket (jika ada sumbangan pihak lain, mis: KPK)
6%14%17%
11% 33% 11%
44%
80%
56%
33%
47%
85%
49%
71%
44%
45%
82%
Kota Bandar Lampung Kab Kuningan
Video antikorupsi
100%
Kota Medan Kab Maros
17%
20%
7%
93%
58%
11%
2% 9% 9% 7%
Based on the picture, it is evident that there are no special characteristics concerning the forms of campaign in districts/towns with high or low integrity value. Three regional governments, which are Tanah Bambu District, Badung District and South Jakarta Town are recorded to have the most varied forms of anticorruption campaign compared to other districts/towns. Forms of anti-corruption campaign most general and most frequently seen by the users of services from the service units they visited are in the forms stickers / posters / banners of anti-corruption in the area surrounding the service counters, whether self-produced or contributed by other parties. Other types of campaign, such as anti-corruption workshop/seminar, books/modules, and anti-corruption videos, are still rarely seen. Satisfaction of users of services constitutes the main purpose of the agencies providing public services. As the realization of concern in optimizing satisfaction of customers, service units in general provide methods for complaints. In relation to the facilities in conveying complaints, actually the majority of the public (77%) stated that it is easy and very easy to convey complaints. Complaints are usually directly conveyed verbally to officers (62%), or officers usually ask the users directly (9%). The remaining is through complaint box (3%), complaint text messages (5%), telephone (6%), e-mail (1%). However there are still respondents who stated that there is no media for complaint in the service units they visit (17%). When observed at service units, although not dominant in all types of services, there are still users of services who have conveyed their complaints and experienced difficulties in conveying their complaints. See the description of the following picture. Picture 5.27. Level of Easiness of Complaints / Conveying Complaints at district/town Level Service Units Akte kelahiran – Kab Kota Baru
33%
67%
Pengadaan barang dan jasa pada SKPD – Kab Sumenep
67%
33%
Bantuan pemb/renov/perbkan sekolah dr APBD II – Kab Kutai Kertanegara
64%
36%
Pengadaan barang dan jasa pada SKPD – Kab Kediri
64%
36%
Pengadaan barang dan jasa pada SKPD – Kota Bontang
37%
63%
Pengadaan barang dan jasa pada SKPD – Kab Pangkep
60%
40%
Pengadaan barang dan jasa pada SKPD – Kab Cianjur
32%
68%
Pengadaan barang dan jasa pada SKPD – Kab Garut
32%
68%
Pengadaan barang dan jasa pada SKPD – Kab Gow a
22%
Pengadaan barang dan jasa pada SKPD – Kab Maros 11% mudah
78% 89%
sulit
How officers respond to complaints from users of services in the service units they visited is shown in the
picture /Table below. Table 5.16. Respond from Officers towards Complaints from Users of Services they visit
Measuring the seriousness of service units and agencies in managing complaints is shown by the responses and follow up by the concerning service units on the complaints conveyed by users of services. The table above described such matter. It is evident that the basic medical care at Community Health Care Centers / Regional General Hospitals (RSUD) C – Class and a number of services for procurement of goods and services do not respond adequately to the complaints conveyed by users of their services. Efforts to increase the value of Integrity Potential shows the seriousness of service units and agencies in public services sector in fighting corruption comprehensively, other than the follow up efforts conducted. The more intensive the efforts taken to improve the Integrity Potential, the more effective the efforts to eradicate corruption that can be done in the concerning service units and agencies.
5.4. Efforts to Improve Integrity Value at District/Town Level The Integrity Value of district/town level service units is highly influenced by the integrity value of the district/town government in charge of such units. This means that the characteristics of the service units within one district/town government shall be relatively the same as those of the service units within different district/town governments. Meanwhile the characteristics of the district/town governments may be similar or different. Based on the bi-plot analyses connecting the value of sub-indicators for each district/town government, there is a grouping where agencies in one group have also the same characteristics. At district/town level, the district/town government group with high integrity value evidently has high value for the following subindicators: 1.Total / range of gratification 2.Time for giving gratification 3.Meaning of gratification 4.Purpose of gratification 5.Habit of giving gratification 6.Transparency of information 7.Expectation of officers regarding gratification To improve the value of integrity of the provincial level service units, the factors related to the above subindicators must be improved and developed. Four out of the said seven Indicators are from the external factors of service units, which are total / range of gratification, time for giving gratification, meaning of gratification and purpose of gratification. While the other three Indicators lainnya which are habit of giving gratification, transparency of information and expectation of officers regarding gratification are from the internal factor of service units. Service units must improve the external and internal factors simultaneously to improve the integrity. Such can be carried out by conducting intensive socialization in. Aside from that, it can also be carried out by internally improving the factors having the potential to increase/decrease integrity, especially in relation to working environment, administration system, and personal attitude of the service officers. Control measures over corruption must also be done to obtain maximum results.
The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in its role as the trigger mechanism really encourages efforts to eradicate corruption through improvement in public services. The portrayal of the actual condition of public services in relation to transparency, bribery, illegal collection, gratification, Administration System, Personal Attitude, Working Environment and Control Measures over Corruption is conducted also in efforts to improve the effectiveness of corruption eradication conducted by KPK, especially in public services sector.
VI. CONCLUSION In order to facilitate, conclusion of facts on fields are combined with recommendations in the form of the following matrix: Kesimpulan
Fakta dari Hasil Survei
Rekomendasi
Integrity value of public 1. Average value for national public sector in Indonesia is still integrity is 6.50 low and not too far from 2. Average value for central public integrity is 6.64 a minimum integrity standard determined by 3. Average value for provincial public integrity is 6.18 KPK, namely 6.0 4. Average value for regency public integrity is 6.46
1. The services units and regional institutions or governments which oversee such services improve their services quality in accordance with the determined variables in which integrity is composed of.
There is a quite significant difference in value between Integrity Experience and Integrity Potential
1. Conduct improvement of integrity potential value by improving work environment, improving administrative system, improving personal attitude related to services and additional money in public services 2. Based on biplot analysis, factors to be improved by services units are as set forth in the table below:
1. Average value for national integrity experience is 6.71, whilst value of integrity potential is 5.87 2. Average value for central integrity experience is 6.85 is 6.85, whilst value of integrity potential is 5.99 3. Average value for provincial integrity experience is 6.35, whilst value of integrity potential is 5.66 4. Average value for regency integrity experience is 6.68, whilst value of integrity potential is 5.82
1. Insufficient 1. Administrative system with below 1. Evaluation and improvement of administrative average rank and below minimum administrative system in public system in central, standard determined by KPK: services units by creating a • National : 5.53 provincial and mechanism which ensures that all • Central: 5.75 regency levels equipments, SOP/system/rules and 2. Low level of • Provincial: 5.14 existing facilities are being utilized by • Regency: 5.43 utilization of the services workers and used by 2. Low value of sub indicator for information services users. Utilization of Information Technology , 2. Heads of the services technology available units/institutions/regional namely: in services units • National: 4 governments must instill and • Central: 4 practice the attitude that • Provincial: 4 bureaucrats are public servants. • Regency: 3 3. Arrangement of information technology which is effective and easy to operate Wrong public perception • on gratifications. Public/services users are still permissive/tolerant •
Public has a significant role in initiating granting of additional money to services workers Respondents in central or regional
Institutions which oversee public services units should conduct socialization on gratifications (form, consequences and sanctions) within the institution and to
Kesimpulan
Fakta dari Hasil Survei
of corruptive behavior. •
Rekomendasi
levels generally state that public using such services gratifications are not a favorable act, but it is not considered a wrongful act. A number of main reasons for such granting of additional money is, among others, as an expression of gratitude for the assistance from the workers in facilitating services process.
Compensation/tips/bribe Most respondents stated that 1. Services units must create an granted is generally in compensation/tips/bribe is granted in environment/design/spatial layout form of cash/checks form of cash/checks. Such situation which allows no contact between conveys that bribery is still being practiced services workers and services users. in a simple and practical manner. It is Should a contact is unavoidable, a practical because the transaction process meeting between workers and is relatively easy. services users should be conducted in an open space which enables monitoring by plenty of people, thus it will hinder any attempt of bribe/gratification 2. Instill in services unit workers, to refuse any additional money from services users 3. Impose sanctions on services workers who demand compensation and receive bribes •
•
•
Low level of anti 1. Indicator value for control measures 1. A serious effort is required from corruption effort over corruption is still very low, heads of services which has been namely: units/institutions/regional • National: 2.82 conducted by public governments in order to improve • Central: 3.12 services units or control measures over corruption in • Provincial: 2.51 institutions such services units, in forms of good Low availability of • Regency: 2.64 governance practices, including anti media and 2. Sub indicator value for anti corruption corruption campaign. 2. Eliminate agent (calo) services with mechanism for effort is very low, namely: • National: 3 campaign mottos, such as: public complaints Low level of • Central: 3 • A process should not take long, • Provincial: 2 response from therefore conduct such • Regency: 2 workers towards independently • AGENT?? WE DO NOT NEED ONE complaints delivered 3. Sub indicator value for public • AGENT, NO!! SELF SERVICE, complaint mechanism is very low, by public YES!! namely: • National: 3 3. Improve effectiveness of public • Central: 3 complaint mechanism in terms of • Provincial: 3 quality and quantity. Improvement in • Regency: 3 terms of quality may be conducted by implementing continuous guiding and supervising to the services unit workers. Improvement in terms of quantity may be conducted by increasing number of complaint medias and socialization of its benefits to the public
Kesimpulan The services integrity for procurement of goods and services (PBJ) are still low
Fakta dari Hasil Survei
Rekomendasi
The average services integrity value for the 1. Improvement of goods and services services units of procurement of goods procurement mechanism to become and services in national, provincial and more open and transparent, and regency levels is the lowest compared to reduces direct interaction with other services units: workers • Central: PBJ=6.26, other services 2. Gradually implementing eunits 6.94 (Program), 6.73 Procurement for its goods and (Licensing), and 6.67 (Non Licensing) services procurement system • Provincial: PBJ=5.75, other services 3. Establish one Procurement Services units 7.18(RSUD class B), 6.54 (Trans Unit (ULP) in institutional level, city route permits), 5,89 (License for therefore the goods and services establishment of cooperatives/SMEs) procurement process is centralized • Regency: PBJ=5.46, other services in one place/location units 7.11 (basic health), 7.37 (school aids from APBD II), 6.01 (birth certificate)
Attachment 1. Methodology The 2009 Integrity Survey is one of the efforts to obtain respondents’assessments on variables related to corruption on public services, as set forth in one set of questionnaire. In the 2009 SI, respondents’assessment is directed to obtain direct respondent experience during services process. Therefore, the selected respondents are respondents who directly process their services within the last one year. The order of stages for implementation of the 2009 SI activities commences from determining instruments and variables of measures. In this regard, the 2009 SI adopts a measuring variable utilized by KICAC in measuring similar situation in Korea. However, later on, a sub indicator is developed by KPK in accordance with its needs with no significant changes on the previously existing sub indicator from Korea. In conjunction with determination of instruments and variables, KPK, for the interest of review of public services, selected the services units which shall be surveyed, including the location of such services unit. Determination of value for each Variable, Indicator and Sub Indicator is conducted by a number of Experts from various backgrounds, such as Social Politics, Public Policy, Sociology, Psychology, Social Communications, Practitioner, etc. Such value determination process is conducted by way of Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with AHP method. Such variables, indicators and sub indicators which have been determined, are translated into questions in questionnaire. Before such questionnaire is distributed to all research areas, it is first tested to review its validity and ability. Furthermore, the questionnaire which has been adjusted based on test results are ready to be distributed to the respondents. During the course of April until September 2009, filling in of the questionnaire is conducted in parallel in all survey locations. The enumerator team supervised by a supervisor and a researcher invites respondents based on determined criteria. Results from such questionnaire are then sorted and tabulated using assistance from set data to avoid the smallest of mistake. Such data is then processed and the result is the integrity survey index value between 1-10. Such index value shows that, closer to 10 the services unit integrity quality is better, and vice versa, the closer to 1 then the services unit integrity is poorer. A. Services Units and Locations quality Location for services units at central level is the ones located in central area, including Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, Bekasi. Therefore, the respondents selected to assess this services unit are the respondents located around Jabodetabek. Location of services units in provincial government is located in the province capital with respondents of services users domiciled in the province capital. The respondents selected to assess services units in regional government are services users and located in regency where the units are located. The services units surveyed in central level consist of: a)program; b)licenses; c)non licensing; and d) procurement of goods and services. In provincial level, the services units consist of: a)trans city route permits; b)license for establishment of cooperatives/SMEs; c)Provincial RSUD/Class B services; and d)procurement of goods and services in SKPD in provincial government environment. Meanwhile, the services units surveyed in regency level consist of: a)birth certificate; b)assistance for construction/renovation of schools from APBD II; c)basic health services in community health centers/RSUD class C; and d)procurement of goods and services in SKPD in regency government environment. The following three tables explain names of institutions, provincial governments and regency governments, and their services units which are samples in the Public Sector Integrity Survey Year 2009.
Table 1. Names of Sampled Institutions and Services Units at Central Level in the 2009 Integrity Survey
Table 1. Continued..............
Table 2. Names of Sampled Provincial Governments and Services Units in the 2009 Integrity Survey
Table 3. Names of Sampled Institutions and Services Units in Regency Level in the 2009 Integrity Survey
Table 3. Continued....
At central level, a survey is conducted on 136 services units in 39 institutions, which consist of 19 Departments/Ministries, 8 LNPD, and 12 State Enterprises/BLU. The average number of surveyed services units for each institution is 2-5 services units. At provincial level, a survey is conducted on 39 services units in 10 provincial governments. Meanwhile, at regency level, number of surveyed services units is 196 services units in 49 regency governments. B. Characteristics of Respondent The total number of respondents for the 2009 Public Sector Integrity Survey is 11,143 persons, which consist of: 4,592 respondents at central, 1,039 respondents at provincial level and 5,872 respondents at regency level. The average number of respondents in each services unit is 30 or 120 in each institution/provincial government/regency government. Characteristic of respondent in the 2009 Integrity Survey is set forth in the following table.
Table 4. Characteristic of Respondent for the 2009 Public Sector Integrity Survey
C. Variables, Indicators, Sub Indicators and Question Structure The following table sets forth the variables, indicators, sub indicators of the 2009 Public Sector Integrity Survey. Table 5. Variables, Indicators and Sub Indicators, and its Assessment Value Integritas
Total 2 Variabel
Total Integrity (1.00)
Integrity Experience (0.750)
6 Indikator Corruption Experience (0.800)
18 Sub-Indikator Frequency of Granting of Gratification (0.333) Size/Amount of Gratification (0.140) Timing of Granting of Gratification (0.528)
Perspective on Corruption (0.200)
Work environment (0.357)
Integrity Potential (0.250)
Administrative System (0.394)
Meaning of Granting of Gratification (0.167) Purpose of Granting of Gratification (0.833) Habit of Granting of Gratification (0.502) Requirement for meeting outside procedures (0.058) Involvement of agent (0.222) Facilities surrounding services environment (0.107) Atmosphere/condition surrounding services (0.112) Practicality of SOP (0.258) Transparency of Information (0.637) Application of information technology (0.105) Fairness in services (0.281)
Personal Attitude (0.156)
Officer expectations for gratification (0.584) Services users attitudes (0.135)
Control Measures over Corruption (0,094)
Level of Control Measures over Corruption (0.800) Public Compliant Mechanism (0.200)
The variables, indicators and sub indicators in the above table, are the guidance in composing a questionnaire. In this regard, the questions in the questionnaire are directed to assess such matters. In order to select the right respondents, the initial questions are directed to screen respondents’ status in the process. The question structure in the questionnaire may be observed in the following table. Table 6. Question Structure in 2009 Integrity Survey Questionnaire Indikator dan Pertanyaan Selective Questions
A. 1 2 B 1 2 3 4 B
Respondent’s status as public services users Respondent’s involvement in public services process Respondent Identity Name Occupation Education Household Expenses Corruption Experience
1
Have/have not expended additional money
2
Amount of expended additional money
3 4 5
Frequency of expending additional money When the additional money is expended
C
Form of granted additional expenses Perspective on Corruption
1 2 3 1 2 3
Purpose of Granting Gratification Reason of Granting Gratification How services users perceive granting of gratification Work Environment Intensity of practice of granting additional money in services environment Have/have not conducted meetings outside procedures Frequency of meetings outside procedures
4
Purpose of meeting outside procedures
5
Witness/do not witness a broker outside procedure in the services units
6
Who is the broker outside procedures
7
Roles of broker outside procedures
8
Intensity of existence of broker outside procedure
9
Method of operations for broker outside procedure
10
Impact of involvement of broker outside procedure
D
11
Level of requirements of services users for brokers outside procedures
12
Availability of facility in services units
13
Atmosphere/conditions of facility in services units environment
E
Administrative System 1
Whether or not the services users are aware of services units SOP
2
Assessment of services users toward SOP
3
Assessment of services users toward requirements for services process
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 F 1 2 3 4 5 G 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Assessment of services users toward timing for completion of services Assessment of services users toward cost for services process Assessment of services users relating to transparency of information in services Whether or not there is an information technology in services Whether or not they have used the information technology Purpose of utilization of information technology Intensity of utilization of information technology Personal Attitude Attitude of services workers Workers’ treatment in providing services Whether or not there is a worker who asks for additional money Method of the workers in asking for additional money How often the services user expended additional money Control Measures Over Corruption Whether or not an anti corruption campaign exists in public services Form of campaign media Whether or not they have ever submitted a complaint Level of ease in submitting a complaint Media of complaint owned by services units Workers responses to submitted complaints Follow ups to submitted complaints
D. Data Analysis and Processing Tool The Entry data is conducted twice (double entry) in ASCII Code format to detect error during entry data. Prior to conducting any data analysis, a data validation is first conducted by way of cross tab towards related and connected questions. An error is detected when results of tabulation have been obtained. Data validation process is conducted with SPSS software. In general, the analysis used is a descriptive statistic analysis. This analysis is utilized to summarize display of survey data in order to produce important information in the data in a simpler and shorter form such as tables and graphics. This data analysis aims to obtain the following results: a) Index number (value) to determine ranks for central, provincial and regional governments and services units; b) Descriptive analysis for each question in the questionnaire, based on total number of respondents, services units, regional governments (provincial and regency) and central institutions; c) Descriptive analysis for assessment of criteria based on total number of respondents, services units, regional governments and central institutions; d) Determination of characteristic for each group of regional government institution and services units. The used analysis system is a Biplot analysis, namely a multidimensional data display in a twodimensional graphics. Based on Biplot graphics, a grouping of regional government institution may be determined based on integrity index. In addition, a characteristic for each group may also be known. Results of such data processing is displayed in form of index values from 1-10. The index number displays rank position of the assessed services units.
Attachment 2. Integrity Value for National Public Sector
Attachment 3. National Integrity Experience Value
Attachment 4. National Integrity Potential Value
Attachment 5. Integrity Rank for Services Unit at Central Level
Attachment 6. Integrity Rank and Value for Institutions and Services Units at Central Level
Attachment 7. Integrity Value for State-Owned Enterprises Institutions Year 2009 No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Instansi PT.Pos Indonesia PT Pertamina PT Jamsostek PT.KBN PT Angkasa Pura II PT.Pelayaran Nasional (PELNI) Perusahaan Gas Negara PT Kereta API PT Asuransi Jasa Raharja PT. Pelabuhan Indonesia II PLN RSCM Rata-rata
Nilai Integritas 7.39 7.32 7.32 7.11 7.10 7.09 7.03 6.90 6.89 6.65 6.24 6.14 6.93
Attachment 8. Integrity Value for Non Departmental Government Institution Year 2009 No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Instansi BPOM State Accreditation Institution BNP2TKI BKKBN State Land Affairs Agency District Attorney Supreme Court Police Average
Nilai Integritas 7.32 7.29 6.97 6.42 6.40 6.31 6.27 5.71 6.59
Attachment 9. Integrity Value for Departments/Ministries Year 2009 No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Instansi Department of Agriculture Department of National Education Coordinating Minister for People Welfare Department of Finance Department of Health State Ministry of Cooperatives & SMEs Department of Manpower and Transmigration Department of Transportation Department of Trade Department of Forestry Department of Mineral and Energy Resources Department of Marine Affairs and Fishery Department of Law and Human Rights Department of Religion Department of Foreign Affairs Department of Public Works Department of Communications and Informatics Ministry of People Housing Department of Industrial Affairs Average
Nilai Integritas 7.62 7.08 6.91 6.85 6.83 6.83 6.70 6.34 6.34 6.33 6.32 6.28 6.26 6.23 6.21 6.13 6.05 6.03 5.66 6.47
Attachment 10. Rank and Value of Integrity Experience for Institutions at Central Level
Attachment 11. Rank and Value of Integrity Experience for Services Units at Central Level
Attachment 12. Rank and Value of Integrity Potential for Institutions at Central Level
Attachment 13. Rank and Value of Integrity Potential Value for Services Units at Central Level
Attachment 14. Integrity Value and Rank for Provincial Government and its Services Units in
Year 2009
Attachment 15.Integrity Value and Rank for Trans City Route Permit Services Unit in Provincial Level Year 2009
Attachment 16. Integrity Value and Rank for Licenses for Establishment of Cooperatives/SMEs Services Units in Provincial Level Year 2009
Attachment 17. Integrity Value and Rank for Regional Public Hospital Services Units in Provincial Level Year 2009
Attachment 18. Integrity Value and Rank for Procurement of SKPD Goods and Services in Provincial Level Year 2009
Attachment 19. Rank and Value of Integrity Experiences for Services Units in Provincial Level
Attachment 20. Rank and Value of Integrity Potential for Services Unit in Provincial Level
Attachment 21. Value and Rank of Integrity for Services Units in Regency Level
Attachment 21. Continued...
Attachment 21. Continued ...
Attachment 22. Value and Rank of Integrity for Regency Government and Services Units in Regency
Attachment 22. Continued....
Attachment23.Value and Rank of Integrity for School Construction/Renovation Assistance
Services Units from APBD II in Regional Level Year 2009
Attachment 24. Value and Rank of Integrity for Birth Certificate Services Units in Regency Level
Year 2009
Attachment 25. Value and Rank of Integrity for Basic Health Services Units in Community
Health Centers/RSUD Class C in Regency Level Year 2009
Attachment 26. Rank and Value of Integrity for Regency Government
Attachment 27. Rank and Value of Integrity Potential for Regency Government