IMPLEMENTASI INDIKATOR KINERJA PROPENAS DI PROVINSI = IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPENAS PERFORMANCE INDICATORSIN THE PROVINCES

• Main Author: Perpustakaan UGM, i-lib
• Format: Article NonPeerReviewed
• Published: [Yogyakarta] : Universitas Gadjah Mada 2004
• Subjects: Jurnal i-lib UGM
• Online Access: https://repository.ugm.ac.id/25846/; http://i-lib.ugm.ac.id/jurnal/download.php?dataId=8853
• Institution: Universitas Gadjah Mada

Background: Performance indicators are used to assess the program achievement. The government used national development program (propenas) indicators to evaluate the outcome of health program every 5 years. Before decentralization, the collection of data never became a problem. After decentralization, regional do not have the responsibility to report to the central any more. As a result department of health finds itself difficulty to collect data needed for benchmark. In contrast, as its rote moves toward guidance and control, the need to have performance indicators is bigger. Therefore, it is crucial to assess how in reality collection of propenas indicators in the province. Objective: To assess how far the provinces achieved the target as specified by Propenas Indicators, and which province collected most of the indicators, which can be used to decide what kind of incentives needed in the future. In addition we would like to know which indicators were collected most, and which were difficult. This information is important for simplifying indicators, reduce data collection burden, which in return more likely to be collected Methods: This was a post test study, conducted in 15 provinces selected based on its rank in term of health manpower indicator and geographical location. We collected available data on Propenas indicators in samples provinces. In addition we asked difficulties to collect each indicators and what their suggestion. Conclusion: Out of 15 provinces, only Jambi, Kalimantan Selatan and Bangka-Belitung who relatively had complete Propenas Indicators. Only 8 provinces had health profiles, and only 2 of them complete. Out of 61 performance indicators specified in Propenas, only 16 of them are easily to collect. We suggest that central government should takes this issue more seriously by providing special funds for data collection for health performance indicators, and giving province benchmarking and socio economic determinant analysis to produce useful information for province decision making. In addition, central government should refine performance indicators by simplifying data that proven difficult to be collected in the field, and takes roles of further validity, reliability and feasibility analysis Keywords: decentralization, performance indicators, propenas