KEBIJAKAN SOSIAL

(SOCIAL POLICY)
(HAKEKAT-PERUMUSAN-EVALUASI)

Oleh

BAMBANG SUNARYO
PROGRAM STUDI SOSIOLOGI KONSENTRASI KEBIJAKAN DAN KESEJAHTERAAN SOSIAL PROGRAM PASCASARJANA UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA

Th. 2004

MEMPERLUAS DAN MEMPERDALAM WAWASAN MAHASISWA MENGENAI KONSEP / KONSTRUK KEBIJAKAN SOSIAL 2. MENINGKATKAN KEMAMPUAN MAHASISWA DALAM MENGIDENTIFIKASI ISSUE STRATEGIS KEBIJAKAN SOSIAL, MERUMUSKAN DAN MENGEVALUASI KINERJA PROGRAM/PROYEK (SOSIAL).

1.

TUJUAN INSTRUKSIONAL:

SECARA KESELURUHAN KULIAH AKAN DIBERIKAN DALAM BENTUK DISKUSI KELAS, PENULISAN PAPER DAN EVALUASI

METODE PEMBELAJARAN:

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

BUKU WAJIB: MARGARET HARDIMAN; THE SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF DEVELOPMENT(JOHN WILEY &SONS Inc) ALFRED J.KAHN; SOCIAL POLICY AND SOCIAL SERVICES(RANDOM HOUSE:NEW YORK) ARNOLD J.MELTSNER; POLICY ANALYSTS IN THE BUREAUCRACY CAROL H. WEISS; EVALUATION RESEARCH: METHODS FOR ASSESSING PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS (PRENTICE HALL. INC. ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, NEW JERSEY. ROGER KAUFMAN AND SUSAN THOMAS: EVALUATION WITHOUT FEAR (NEW VIEW POINTS, NEW YORK).

KONSEP/KONSTRUK: PEMBANGUNAN
SUATU PROSES PERUBAHAN POKOK PADA MASYARAKAT DARI SUATU KEADAAN NASIONAL TERTENTU MENUJU KE KEADAAN LAIN YANG DIANGGAP LEBIH BERNILAI (KATZ,1971) PROSES PERUBAHAN DENGAN TANDA TANDA DARI SESUATU YANG DIANGGAP KURANG DIKEHENDAKI MENUJU KE SESUATU KEADAAN YANG LEBIH DIKEHENDAKI (PHILLIP ROUP,1981)
CATATAN: 1. TIME SPESIFIC & CULTURE SPESIFIC 2. GROWTH (PERTUMBUHAN) VS DEVELOPMENT (PEMBANGUNAN)

POLICY

RENCANA

PROGRAMS

PROJECTS

GOAL DEVELOPMENT

APA YANG DILAKUKAN DAN YANG TIDAK DILAKUKAN OLEH OTORITAS ALAM MERESPON MASALAH DAN KEPENTINGAN SOSIAL YANG ADA DI WILAYAH JURISDIKSINYA
KEY CONCEPTS: THE SOCIAL PROGRAMMES).

HAKEKAT PENGERTIAN KEBIJAKAN SOSIAL:

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

NOTE:

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

INPUTS WHAT SHOUL BE (PLANNING) (IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS)

CONTROLLING

HIERARKI KEBIJAKAN SOSIAL

KEBIJAKAN/ RENCANA SOSIAL

PROGRAM/ PROYEK LAINYA

BIDANG

SOSIAL

SEKTOR

KESEHATAN

SUB SEKTOR

KESEHATAN IBU DAN ANAK

PROGRAM

PENINGKATAN GIZI BALITA

PROYEK

BANTUAN SUSU

PERGESERAN MODEL PEMBANGUNAN

MODEL DAN STRATEGI

KARAKTERISTIK
1. FOKUS 2. NILAI YG DIKEJAR 3. INDIKATOR

PERTUMBUHAN

BASIC NEEDS

SUSTAINABLE

INDUSTRI

PELAYANAN

MANUSIA DAN LINGKUNGAN BERPUSAT PADA MANUSIA DAN LINGKUNGAN HUBUNGAN MANUSIA DENGAN LINGKUNGAN

BERPUSAT PADA BERKIBLAT INDUSTRIALISASI PADA MANUSIA EKONOMI MAKRO INDIKATOR SOSIAL

4. PERAN PEMERINTAH ENTERPRENEUR 5. SUMBER UTAMA MODAL

SERVICE PRO ENABLER/FASILITATOR VIDER KEMAMPUAN KREATIVITAS DAN ADMINISTRASI DAN ANGGARAN KOMITMEN

6. KENDALA

KONSENTRASI DAN KETERBATASAN STRUKTUR DAN KOMITMEN MARGINALISASI ANGGARAN YANG TIDAK MENDUKUNG

REINVENTING GOVERNMENT (DAVID OSBORN)

1. 2. 3. PEMERINTAHAN KATALIS: Mengarahkan Ketimbang Mengayuh PEMERINTAHAN MILIK MASYARAKAT: Memberi Wewenang Ketimbang Melayani PEMERINTAHAN YANG KOMPETETIF: Menyuntikan Persaingan Dalam Pelayanan

4.
5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

PEMERINTAHAN DIGERAKAN OLEH MISI: Bukan Oleh Peraturan

PEMERINTAHAN YANG BERORIENTASI HASIL: Membiayai hasil Bukan Masukan PEMERINTAHAN BERORIENTASI PELANGGAN: Memenuhi Kebutuhan Pelanggan Bukan Birokrasi PEMERINTAHAN WIRA USAHA: Menghasilkan Ketimbang Membelanjakan PEMERINTAHAN ANTISIPATIF: Mencegah Ketimbang Mengobati PEMERINTAHAN DESENTRALISASI: (Indonesia=UU No.32/2004 & UU No.23/2004) PEMERINTAHAN BERORIENTASI PASAR: Mendongkrak Pertumbuhan Melalui Pasar

11.

MENGUMPULKAN SEMUA MENJADI SATU

PEMBERIAN WEWENANG PADA MASYARAKAT (GREAT SOCIETY)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. KOMUNITAS MEMILIKI KOMITMEN LEBIH BESAR TERHADAP ANGGOTANYA KETIMBANG BIROKRASI KOMUNITAS LEBIH MEMAHAMI MASALAHANYA SENDIRI KETIMBANG BIROKRASI PELAYANAN BIROKRASI MEMBERIKAN PELAYANAN, MASYARAKAT MEMECAHKAN MASALAHNYA BIROKRASI MENAWARKAN PELAYANAN, MASYARAKAT MENAWARKAN KEPEDULIAN KOMUNITAS LEBIH FLEKSIBEL DAN KREATIF KETIMBANG BIROKRASI PELAYANAN BIAYA KOMUNITAS LEBIH MURAH KETIMBANG BIROKRASI STANNDAR PERILAKU KOMUNITAS LEBIH EFEKTIF KETIMBANG PELAYANAN BIROKRASI

8.

KOMUNITAS MEMFOKUSKAN PADA KAPASITAS BIROKRASI PELAYANAN PADA KEKURANGAN

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT MODEL

TRANSPARAN SUMBERDAYA PARIWISATA MISI

EFEKTIF &EFISIEN

KEADILAN SUPREMASI HUKUM

GOOD GOVERNANCE

MASYARAKAT

MANAJEMEN:
OBYEK & DAYA TARIK AKOMODASI INFRA STRUKTUR SDM KELEMBAGAAN

KUALITAS KEPARIWISATAAN YANG MEMBAIK:

ECONOMICALLY VIABLE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL AND CULTURALLY ACCEPTABLE TECHNOLOGICALLY APPROPRIATE JUMLAH KUNJUNGAN LAMA TINGGAL PEMBELANJAAN DAMPAK MULTI GANDA

VISI STRATEGIK
PEMERINTAH SWASTA

BERORIENTASI KONSENSUS

AKUNTABILITAS

DAYA TANGGAP

LATAR BELAKANG MODEL KEBIJAKAN

MODEL PEMBANGUNAN NASIONAL

SISTEM PASAR BEBAS

SISTEM SOSIALIS

MEKANISME PASAR (INVISIBLE HAND)

ERA SEBELUM PERANG DUNIA 11 (1920 AN)

INTERVENSI PEMERINTAH (KEBIJAKAN)

ERA SETELAH PERANG DUNIA 11 (1950 AN)

MELAKUKAN INTERVENSI KEBIJAKAN DALAM PEMBANGUNAN NASIONAL

FAKTOR PENDORONG MODEL KEBIJAKAN

1. MARKET IMPREFECTIONS: PRICE DISTORSION

(PRICE)

(DEMAND) (HARGA)

(SUPPLY) (QUANTITY)

2. MISS ALLOCATIONS OF RESOURCES: MONOPOLI OLIGOPOLI - MONOPSONI 3. PERSYARATAN BAGI BANTUAN / HUTANG DARI NEGARA DONOR

KAPITALIS

SOSIALIS

DESENTRALIZED

DINAMIKA

CENTRALIZED

DEBIROKRATIS

DINAMIKA

BIROKRATIS

MODEL KEBIJAKAN SOSIAL

(MARGARET HARDIMAN MODEL) TUJUAN PEMBANGUNAN EKONOMI ADALAH MENINGKATKAN PERTUMBUHAN EKONOMI SECEPAT MUNGKIN, DENGAN DEMIKIAN AKAN BERAKIBAT PADA PENINGKATAN KESEJAHTERAAN SOSIAL SECARA OTOMATIS

1.THE RESIDUAL MODEL (1950an)

NEO CLASSICAL ECONOMIST

INVESTASI KAPITAL SEBANYAK MUNGKIN

1.PERTUMBUHAN EKONOMI 2.PENINGKATAN UPAH PEKERJA 3.PENYERAPAN TENAGA KERJA DARI PEDESAAN
PENGGUNAAN TEKNOLOGI PRODUKSI MODERN

PERMINTAAN BARANG PRODUKSI

PENCIPTAAN DAYA BELI MASYARAKAT

MODEL KEBIJAKAN SOSIAL

KONSEKWENSI THE RESIDUAL MODEL

PENGELUARAN PEMERINTAH UNTUK PROGRAM /PROYEK SOSIAL DIANGGAP TIDAK PRODUKTIF DAN HARUS DITEKAN SEMINIMAL MUNGKIN

KEBUTUHAN SOSIAL HARUS DIPENUHI SECARA INDIVIDUAL MELALUI MEKANISME PASAR

MODEL KEBIJAKAN SOSIAL

KRITIK TERHADAP KEGAGALAN THE RESIDUAL MODEL 1.KEBANYAKAN NEGARA BERKEMBANG JUSTRU TIDAK MAMPU MEMOBILISASI MODAL YANG DIBUTUHKAN UNTUK MENCIPTAKAN BASIS INDUSTRI. 2.BANYAK NEGARA BERKEMBANG JUSTRU TERJEBAK DALAM SINDRUM BUDAYA KEMISKINAN: PERTUMBUHAN PENDUDUK YANG TERLALU CEPAT, KEWIRAUSAHAAN YANG RENDAH, KORUPSI, KOLUSI, DAN NEPOTISME SERTA MARAKNYA IN APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY. 3.TIDAK TERJADI PROSES TRICKLED DOWN BAHKAN JUSTRU TERJADI TRICKLE BACK ALHASIL THE RESIDUAL MODEL TIDAK MAMPU MENGHASILKAN PENINGKATAN KESEJAHTERAAN SOSIAL DAN JUSTRU SEBALIKNYA MENIMBULKAN MARGINALISASI, URBAN BIAS DAN KETIMPANGAN PENDAPATAN ANTAR PENDUDUK

2.THE INCCREMENTAL MODEL

REKOMENDASI/SARAN THE INCREMENTAL MODEL

PENANGANAN MASALAH SOSIAL MELALUI FORMULASI DAN IMPLEMENTASI KEBIJAKAN PUBLIK UNTUK MENINGKATKAN TINGKAT HIDUP MASYARAKAT DAN KESEJAHTERAAN SOSIAL SECARA GRADUAL, UTAMANYA PADA SEKTOR: KESEHATAN-PERUMAHAN-PENDIDIKAN-PELAYANAN SOSIAL

HAKEKAT KEBIJAKAN
SUATU PROSES AKTIVITAS YANG BERKESINAMBUNGAN YANG MELIPUTI KEPUTUSAN ATAU PEMILIHAN TENTANG ALTERNATIVE CARA PENGGUNAAN SUMBERDAYA YANG TERSEDIA DENGAN MAKSUD MENCAPAI TUJUAN TERTENTU DI WAKTU YANG AKAN DATANG

A. DIANTARA AKTIVITAS YANG DIINGINKAN (SEKTOR PRIORITAS) 1. TO CHOOSE B. DIANTARA CARA PENCAPAIAN A. SUMBERDAYA ALAM B. SUMBERDAYA MANUSIA
KENDALA: KETERBATASAN SUMBERDAYA, BAIK KUALITAS MAUPUN KUANTITAS, OLEH KARENA ITU PERLU PENAJAMAN DALAM SKALA PRIORITAS. 3.MEANS OF ACHIEVING GOALS

2. ALLOCATING OF RESOURCES

A. THE NATURE OF THE GOAL B.THE PROCESS OF GOAL FORMULATION

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

4.POLICY FOR THE FUTURE

A. PERLU FORECASTING/PREDICTION B.SELALU MENGANDUNG RESIKO/KETI DAK PASTIAN

The planning style

PEMERINTAH

PROPINSI TOP- DOWN PLANNING BOTTOM UP PLANNING

DAERAH (KABUPATEN/KOTA)

MODLING THROUGH APPROACH PELITA 1 PELITA II PELITA III PELITA IV NATIONAL GOAL

COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH

THE TYPE OF POLICY ACTIVITY

DIBEDAKAN BERDASARKAN

1.THE NATURE OF PLANNING GOAL

A.WAR TIME POLICY/CONTIGENCY B.PHISICAL PLANNING/LAND USE PLANNING C.ANTI CYCLICAL PLANNING D.DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

2.THE SCOPE OF PLANNING ACTIVITY

C.

A. SOCIAL PLANNING B. ECONOMIC PLANNING NATURAL RESOURCES PLANNING D. ETC.

3.THE SPATIAL LEVEL OF PLANNING ACTIVITY

LIHAT FIGURE 1

4.THE OPERATIONAL LEVEL OF PLANNING ACTIVITY

LIHAT FIGURE 2

5.THE TIME DIMENTION LEVEL OF PLANNING ACTIVITY

LIHAT FIGURE 3

SPATIAL LEVEL OF POLICY ACTIVITIES

AREA SECTOR
AGRICULTURE

INDUSTRY EDUCATION HEALTH HOUSING TRASPORT

Proyek proyek industri

Proyek Inter sektoral

Program/proyek Intersektoral dan interregional

THE OPERATIONAL LEVEL OF POLICY ACTIVITIES

NATIONAL POLICY SECTOR PLAN SECTOR PLAN

REGIONAL PLAN

REGIONAL PLAN

LOCAL PLAN PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS OF SECTOR AND REGIONAL PLANS

TARGET GROUPS (BENEFICIARIES)

THE TIME DIMENTION POLICY ACTIVITY

RANGE LEVEL DIMENTION

MACRO

MESO

MICRO

SPATIAL DIMENTION

NATIONAL

LONG TERM

REGIONAL

MIDDLE TERM

LOCAL

SHORT TERM

TIME DIMENTION

POLICY FRAMWORK

VISION

MISSION

VALUE

INTERNAL ANALYSIS

EXTERNAL ANALYSIS

CORPORATE OBJECTIVE STRATEGY

GOAL

CRITICAL SUCCES FACTOR

STRATEGIC ANALYSIS AND CHOICE

ASUMTIONS

ESTABLISH ACCONTABILITY IMPLEMENT PLAN

MONITOR IMPLEMENT AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK

THE POLICY MAKING PROCESS

ASSESMENT OF THE SITUATION AND PROBLEM

ACTION BASED ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS OF CAUSES

THE PLANNING PROCESS

DECISION TO ADOPT PLANNING

ESTABLISH ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNING

MONITOR AND EVALUATE SPECIFY OF PLANNING GOAL

IMPLEMENT

FORMULATE OBJECTIVE

SELLECT PREFFERED ALTERNATIVE

COLLECT AND ANALYSE DATA

APPRAISE ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION

IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE COURCES OF ACTION

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

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND DEFENITION

CLASSIFICATION AND ORGANIZATION OF GOAL, VALUES AND OBJECTIVE RELATING TO THE PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE COURCES OF ACTION BY WHICH THE PROBLEM MAY BE SOLVED OR OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED

PREDICTION OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF EACH ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION AND LIKELIHOOD OF THESE OCCURRING COMPARATION OF THE PREDICTED CONSEQUENCES IN RELATION TO SPECICIFIED GOAL AND OBJECTIVE SELECTION OF A COURSE OF ACTION (THE BEST)

THE COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM MODEL FOR DEVELOPMENT POLICY MAKING

APPRAISAL OF THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS

ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR PROGRESS AND PRELIMINARY PRIORITIES AMONG DIRECTIONS
PRELIMINARY FORMULATION OF OBJECTIVES AND ESTIMATION OF AVAILABLE FUND CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION SPECIFICATION OF OBJECTIVE PROGRAM, PROJECT AND STRATEGIES SEARCH FOR THE BEST SOLUTION

DERIVATION OF EVALUATION CRETERIA

APPLICATION OF EVALUATION CRETERIA DETERMINATION OF ACTION PLAN AND BUDGET

FORMAT RENCANA
MONITORING DAN EVALUASI SEKTOR BERSANGKUTAN (STRATEGIC ISSUES) SWOT ANALYSIS SEKTOR BERSANGKUTAN PROYEKSI DAN POSITIONING SEKTOR BERSANGKUTAN

RATIONALE

GOAL AND OBJECTIVE

VISI DAN MISI

JANGKA PANJANG DAN MENENGAH SASARAN JANGKA PENDEK

PROGRAM/PROYEK

RATIONALE OBJECTIVE C. BENEFICIARIES D. STRATEGY AND SCOPE E. PROJECT MANAGEMENT F. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

A. B.

THE VARIETY OF SOCIAL PROGRAMMES

1. 2. 3. 4. SCOPE; THE PROGRAM BEING EVALUATED MAY COVER: THE NATION, A REGION,
STATE, CITY, OR BE LIMITED TO ONE SPECIFIC SITE (EXP: A CLASSROOM)

SIZE; THE SOCIAL PROGRAMMES CAN SERVE A FEW PEOPLE OR REACH

THOUSANDS OR EVEN MIILLIONS

DURATION; A SOCIAL PROGRAM CAN LAST A FEW HOURS, DAY OR WEEKS,

A SPECIFIED NUMBER OF MONTHS OR YEARS

CLARIFY AND SPECIFICITY OF PROGRAM INPUNT; INPUT PROGRAM ADA

YANG BISA DIDEFENISIKAN DAN DIUKUR SECARA JELAS DAN ADA YANG TIDAK (CONTOH: PENINGKATAN PENERANGAN JALAN UNTUK MENURUNKAN KRIMINALITAS/JELAS; PENATARAN P4 UNTUK MEMBRANTAS KORUPSI/TIDAK ) COMPLEXITY AND TIME SPAN OF GOALS; BEBERAPA PROGRAM DITUJUKAN UNTUK MENCAPAI TUJUAN YANG SPESIFIK, JELAS DAN TERUKUR, SEPERTI: MENINGKATKAN KEMAMPUAN MEMBACA/MENULIS; AKAN TETAPI BEBERAPA PROGRAM MEMPUNYAI TUJUAN YANG KOMPLEK DAN VAGUE, SEPERTI: MENINGKATKAN RASA KEBANGSAAN. INOVATIVENESS; BEBERAPA PROGRAM SOSIAL ADA YANG DITUJUKAN UNTUK MERESPONSE KEBUTUHAN AKTUAL YANG SEDANG DIHADAPI, NAMUN DEMIKIAN ADA YANG DI DESIGN LEBIH BERSIFAT SEBAGAI PROGRAM ROUTINE.

5.

6.

POLICIES FOR HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE

RELATED INDICATORS

MORTALITY RATE

LIFE EXPECTANCY

INFANT CAUSES OF DEATH MORTALITY RATE (DISEASES)

RELATED VARIABLES POVERTY NUTRITION ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION HEALTH POLICIES CURATIVE MEDICINE MEDICAL TECNOLOGIES ETC.

HOUSING POLICIES
RELATED INDICATORS

THE EXTENT OF OVERCROWDING

URBAN SLUMS

ACCESS TO AMENITIES

SQUARTTER SETTLEMENTS

RELATED VARIABLES POVERTY THE COST FACTORS THE AVAILABILITY OF LAND HOUSING POLICIES ETC.

EVALUASI PROGRAM
A. MENDASARKAN TAHAPAN EVALUASI:
1. PRE PROGRAMME EVALUATION / FEASIBILITY STUDY (FS) 2. ON GOING PROGRAMME EVALUATION / MONITORING STUDY (MS)

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

B. MENDASARKAN PADA OTORITAS YANG MENGEVALUASI:

PROGRAM INPUTS
INTERNAL EVALUATION

PROGRAM OUTPUTS

PROGRAM EFFECTS

EXTERNAL EVALUATION

PROGRAM IMPACTS

KESULITAN METODOLOGI EVALUASI PROGRAM

1. BERKENAAN DENGAN KENYATAAN BAHWA PROYEK PEMBANGUNAN YANG HARUS DIEVALUASI PADA UMUMNYA DISELENGGARAKAN BERDAMPINGAN ATAU BERSAMAAN DENGAN PROYEK LAIN, SEDEMIKIAN RUPA SEHINGGA SETIAP USAHA UNTUK MENGUKUR KINERJA PROYEK (EFFECT AND IMPACT) YANG BERSIH DARI AKIBAT DAN PENGARUH PROYEK SEKTOR PEMBANGUNAN YANG LAIN TIDAK MUDAH DIIDENTIFIKASI. PROYEK DAN PROGRAM PEMBANGUNAN YANG DITURUNKAN DARI KEBIJAKAN PEMBANGUNAN SEKTOR YANG AKAN DIEVALUASI PADA UMUMNYA MEMILIKI TUJUAN YANG SANGAT LUAS DAN KOMPLEK, SEHINGGA HASIL DARI SETIAP PENELITIAN EVALUASI SELALU DINILAI TIDAK RELEVAN, KECUALI MELALUI PEMBATASAN TUJUAN OPERASIONAL YANG RESEARCHABLE DAN MEASUREBLE. PROYEK PEMBANGUNAN YANG MENJADI SASARAN MONITORING DAN EVALUASI PADA UMUMNYA TIDAK DIIMPLEMENTASIKAN BERDASARKAN PADA SUATU SETTING EKSPERIMEN YANG TERKENDALI MELALUI KEPEMILIKAN KELOMPOK PEMBANDING SECARA RANDOM (RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT), MELAINKAN LEBIH BERDASARKAN PADA PERTIMBANGAN YANG BERHUBUNGAN DENGAN MASALAH YANG AKTUAL (THEMES APPROACH) YANG DIANGGAP MENDESAK OLEH PARA PERENCANA PEMBANGUNAN THE EVALUATION QUESTION AS POSED IGNORE THE ISSUE OF WHY THE PROGRAM SUCCEDS OR FAILS. THE WHY IS OFTEN JUST AS IMPORTANT TO KNOW AS HOW WELL THE PROGRAM WORKS

2.

3.

4.

DESIGN OF THE PROGRAM EVALUATION

SAMPLE

BEFORE

AFTER

KESIMPULAN

EXPERIMENT

PEMBAN DINGAN

CONTROL

IF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A AND B IS GREATER THAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN C AND D, THE PROGRAM IS A SUCCESS

PEMBANDINGAN

THE ORGANIZATIONAL ELEMENTS MODEL

INPUTS

PROCESSES

PRODUCTS

OUTPUTS

OUTCOMES

IN SCHOOL (INTERNAL)

OUT OF SCHOOL (EXTERNAL)

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFORTS

ORGANIZATIONAL RESULTS

SELF SUFFICIENCY IN SOCIETY

BEBERAPA PERTANYAAN KUNCI UNTUK MENGEVALUASI KEBIJAKAN

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

THE TYPES OF PROJECTS MEASUREMENT

1. MEASURING EFFECTS ON PERSONS SERVE: ie. DOES DOES
CHANGE IN JOB ATTITUDES

?
LEAD TO

TRAINING

LEAD TO

GETTING A JOB

2. MEASURING EFFECTS ON AGENCIES: A. SOME OF THESE CAN BE AGGREGATED FROM DATA ABOUT INDIVIDUAL IN THE ORGANIZATION (FOR EXAMPLE: PERCENTAGE TOURIST WITH DAILY CONTACT WITH LOCAL RESEDENTS SOME CAN BE GLOBAL MEASURES OF THE INSTITUTION (FOR EXAMPLE: TOTAL BUDGET, PROPORTION OF THE BUDGET ALLOCATED TO CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS).

B.

THE TYPES OF PROJECTS MEASUREMENT

3.

MEASURING EFFECTS ON LARGER SYSTEMS THERE ARE OCCASIONAL PROGRAMS WHOSE GOALS ARE TO MAKE CHANGES IN A WHOLE NETWORK OF AGENCIES (FOR EXAMPLE: TO CHANGE A COMMUNITY OR EVEN A NATIONAL SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM, SUCH AS EDUCATION, MENTAL HEALTH ETC.

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

THE CORE ISSUES IN PROGRAM`S EVALUATION

1.

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

2.
3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

CHOOSING AMONG MULTIPLE GOALS

INVESTIGATING UNANTICIPATED CONSEQUENCES MEASURING OUTCOMES SPECIFYING WHAT THE PROGRAM IS MEASURING PROGRAM INPUTS AND INTERVENING PROCESS COLLECTING THE NECESSARY DATA

THE STANDARD FORMULATION OF THE EVALUATION QUESTION

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

VARIATION ARE POSSIBLE:

IS PROGRAM A DOING BETTER THAN PROGRAM B IN REACHING THEIR COMMON GOAL ? HOW WELL IS THE PROGRAM ACHIEVING RESULTS X, Y, AND Z WITH GROUPS F, G AND H ? WHICH COMPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM (R, S OR T) ARE HAVING MORE SUCCEES ?

1.

2.

3.

BUT THE BASIC NOTION IS THE SAME:

THERE ARE GOALS;
THERE IS A PLANNED ACTIVITY (OR SEVERAL ACTIVITIES); THERE IS A MEASURE MADE OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE GOALS ARE ACHIEVED.

1.

2.

3.

THE STANDARD PROCCESS OF THE PROGRAM EVALUATION

1. 2. 3. FIND OUT THE PROGRAM`S GOALS TRANSLATE THE GOALS INTO MEASUREABLE INDICATORS OF GOAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLECT DATA OR THE INDICATORS FOR THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE PROGRAM ( AND FOR AN EQUIVALENT CONTROL GROUP WHO DID NOT) COMPARE THE DATA ON PARTICIPANT`S (AND CONTROLS) WITH THE GOAL CRITERIA

4.

THE PROGRAM`S GOALS (PARTICIPATED PROGRAM)

THE PROGRAM`S GOALS (CONTROLLED PROGRAM)

INDICATORS

INDICATORS

COLLECT THE DATA

COMPARE THE DATA

COLLECT THE DATA

THE USERS OF THE EVALUATION RESULTS

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. A FUNDING ORGANIZATION (GOVERNMENT, PRIVATE, FOUNDATION) A NATIONAL AGENCY (GOVERNMENT, PRIVATE) A LOCAL AGENCY THE DIRECTORS OF THE SPECIFIC PROJECT DIRECT SERVICE STAFF CLIENTS OF THE PROGRAMS SCHOLARS IN THE DISCIPLINES AND PROFESSIONS

USER

DECISION

POLICY MAKER

WHETHER TO EXPAND, CONTRACT OR CHANGE THE PROGRAM

PROGRAM MANAGER

WHICH METHODS, STRUCTURE, TECHNIQUES OR STAFF PATTERNS TO USE

COGNITIVE STYLES OF HYPOTHETICAL POLICY ANALYST

PROCESS OF INQUIRY

ELEMENTS OF ANALYSIS

ILLUSTRATIVE CONSIDERATIONS ECONOMIST ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYST POLITICAL ANALYST

SELECT THE PROBLEM

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES

INCREASE SUPPORT FOR EFFECTIVENESS OF AGENCY

INCREASE SUPPORT FOR EFFECTIVENESS OF PARTY

DEFINE, FORMULATE AND DELIMIT PROBLEM

OBJECTIVE CRITERIA

EXPLICIT AGREEMENT STABLE MAXIMIZE DIFFERENCE COST AND BENEFIT

AGREEMENT WITH PAYMENT CONFLICT AND DISAGREEMENT CAN TEND TO STABILITY INSTABILITY

NOT AS EXPLICIT

CONFUSION

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF

MAXIMIZE PROBABILITY OF POLITICAL ACCEPTANCE

DETERMINE AND SEARCH FOR RELEVANT DATA

ALTERNATIVES

EXCLUDE THE INFEASIBLE EXCLUDE THE INFEASIBLE PRESENT SOLUTION/POLICY PRESENT SOLUTION/POLICY PROGRAM RELATED QUANTITATIVE PROGRAM RELATED MIX QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE

EXCLUDE THE INFEASIBLE PRESENT SOLUTION/POLICY PROGRAM AND NON PROGRAM RELATED MOSTLY QUALITATIVE

COST AND BENEFITS

CALCULATE AND EXPLAIN

MODEL

CLOSED GENERAL

OPEN COMPLEX-CONTEXTUAL

OPEN COMPLEX-CONTEXTUAL

INPUT VARIABLES OF THE SOCIAL PROJECTS

TO MEASURE INPUT VARIABLES; THEY MAY TO DO WITH VARIATIONS IN: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. PURPOSE PRINCIPLES METHODS STAFFING PERSONS SERVE 6. 7. 8. 9. LENGTH OF SERVICE LOCATION SIZE OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

10. CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPANTS: A. AGE B. SEX C. SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS D. LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN COMMUNITY E. ATTITUDE TOWARD THE PROGRAM F. MOTIVATION FOR PARTICIPATION G. ASPIRATION H. EXPECTATIONS FROM THE PROGRAM I. ETC.

INTERVENING VARIABLES OF THE SOCIAL PROJECTS

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

A.

PROGRAM OPERATION VARIABLES: 1. HOW THE PROGRAM OPERATES 2. DEGREE OF ACCEPTANCE BY PEERS

B.

BRIDGING VARIABLES: IN ORDER TO REACH THE DESIRED END, CERTAIN SUB GOALS HAVE TO BE ACHIEVED.

TYPES OF PROGRAM FAILURE

SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM

PROGRAM

CAUSAL PROCESS SET IN MOTION

WHICH LED TO

DESIRED EFFECT

TYPES OF PROGRAM FAILURE

THEORY FAILURE

PROGRAM

SET IN MOTION

CAUSAL PROCESS

WHICH DID NOT LEAD TO

DESIRED EFFECT

TYPES OF PROGRAM FAILURE

PROGRAM FAILURE

PROGRAM

DID NOT SET IN MOTION

CAUSAL PROCESS

WHICH WOULD HAVE LED TO

DESIRED EFFECT

PROJECT DESIGNING
JUSTIFIED FEASIBLE STRATEGIC PRIORITY TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONAL FINANCIAL TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONAL FINANCIAL

IDENTIFICATION

PREPARATION

APPRAISAL

NEGOSIATION

SOURCE OF FUNDING RECIPIENT KAITAN PEMUNGKIN

IMPLEMENTATION

PROGREES REPORT GUIDELINES FOR EFFISIENCY

EVALUATION

COMPLETION REPORT PROJECT AUDIT