Meta Case Study of Public Services Based Sub-district Organization Models _ Context of Indonesia (Haris Faozan 2011)

International Journal of Policy StudiesVol.2, No.1, 2011

Meta Case Study of Public Services Based Sub-District Organization Models:

Context of Indonesia

Haris FaozanThe National Institute of Public Administration, Republic of Indonesia

AbstractSub-district is one of the organization peripheral area that has a crucial role in public services. Law number 32, year

2004, states that in addition from having attributive duties, sub-district is also devolved in delegated authorities.

However, both main tasks can not be performed optimally.The policies concerned with sub-district organization

indicates complicated issues, and the public services of the sub-district remain low-performed. This paper presents

models of sub-district organization that anticipate the needs and priorities of public services.

This research is a meta applied case study. This study used research data about sub-district organizations in

Indonesia. The analytical methodology was in-depth qualitative analysis based on the findings of the previous case

studies.

This study resulted in important findings. The design of sub-district organizations remained to have low

performance based on the dimensions of its organizational structure. This internal drawback led to poor public

service delivery. Based on these findings, this study recommends three sub-district organization models. One of

these models can be selected by local government to redesign its sub-district organization, in accordance with

organizational capacity and public service demands and priorities.

Key Words: sub-district, organization peripheral of area, local government, public services

BACKGROUND

Nowadays, in the era of the autonomy, it is observable that the existence of organization peripheral of area indeed has become the concern of the central government, but ironically its establishment rarely draws serious attention by the local government itself. The terminology of organization peripheral of area for the local government side generally remains to be perceived merely a shape. Therefore, in the effort of organizational redesign, it only goes as far as adding or reducing position boxes. Because of this, it is surprising if the organization peripheral of area is not yet able to show optimum performance from the design or organizational redesign that they develop. Meanwhile from the perspective of the congruence model according to Nadler

& Tushman (1992, 1997), organization possesses various important aspects and as a whole it requires attention, and its alignment requires adequate strokes from all level of management. For the local government, understanding and applying total management of government is a necessity. There are important pillars of the management of local government that must be paid through attention which is the understanding of bureaucratic organization, policy, and public services. These three pillars are a series of the management of local government where it shows an interface and connectivity that are inter-related and very important for the existence and sustainability of organization peripheral of the area.

In relation with the series of the management of local government above, it is important to look back to the function of local government civil servants. The core

84 International Journal of Policy Studies

function of the existence of local government civil servants is to provide protection for the society, deliver public services and implement development. The product outputs of local government are goods and regulation for the benefit of the public (public interest). “Goods” here is defined as materials or public facilities that are produced by the government such as schools, hospitals, roads, and bridges; whereas in the regulation category products are generally in a form of regulatory or regulations such as birth certificate, citizen ID card and building permit.

Public demands towards the services of local government nowadays are increasingly high both in terms of quality and quantity. This requires immediate anticipation. In relation to the position of local government as an institution that obtains legitimacy from the people to produce goods and regulations therefore becomes very crucial for the local government along with its organization peripheral of the area to meet their demands, that is, to deliver high quality services as a form of public accountability. One of the peripheral of the area that is perceived to have an important role in public services is sub-district. Apart from that the head of sub-district is the stimulator for society empowerment and stabilizer of the socio-political condition of their region. Therefore, the existence of sub-district in the management of state government possesses very important meaning in the improvement of the public service quality that becomes the main mission of the management of the state government.

Nevertheless, in the last two years, the issue of abolishing sub-districts from the regional governance in Indonesia was heated. It started from the perception that the sub-districts in Indonesia are performing far from the expectations, and the fact that they spend a big proportion of their budget. This is, of course, unfair since the majority of the organizations of the peripheral of the area and even the central government institutions are generally not yet able to perform optimally. If the sub-districts are abolished, so are most government institutions. Abolishing sub-districts do not solve the problems but, in fact, it creates a bigger new problem considering that there are more than 6,000 sub-districts all over Indonesia. It is, therefore, important to find the solution of the problems rather than abolishing the organization itself.

The important role of sub-district in public services can be studied in law number 32, year 2004. Besides from

having attributive duties, sub-district is also devolved in delegated authorities. The duties are general governmental duties that are attached to the sub-district, whereas delegated duties are authorities that are devolved by regent/mayor to the head of sub-district. The issues that are often raised related with sub-district institution are concerned with delegated duties. The sub-district perceives that they are still confined in getting the available devolved authorities. The delegated authorities that are devolved by regent/mayor to the head of sub- district are perceived to be not yet optimum according to the needs of the society within the sub-district. According to the research team of the center for civil service research and education and training III – the National Institute of Public Administration (PKP2A III LAN 2007) there are at least two obstacles that are encountered in devolving authorities to the sub-district/village unit. First, the sub-district/village unit has been long accustomed to implement attributive authorities. That is authorities that are attached when it is established. Because of such custom, the work pattern of sub-district becomes rigid, mechanistic and tends to be less dynamic. Second, the objective condition of sub-district can be said to be less supportive to the policy of government authorities devolved to the sub-district. This is based on the quality and quantity of the civil service that are not adequate, limited work facilities, and inadequate fund resources. Such condition is a real fact that needs to be strengthened prior to the realization of authorities delegation.

From the other perspective, Sadu Wasistiono (2009) sees that basically sub-district possessed important role in public services, so that the sub-district organization should be designed as an organization of service provider in the framework of optimizing its existence. The research findings of Anwar Sanusi (2010) showed that there are several strategies that can be done in increasing the effectiveness of sub-district institution, amongst others, are the presence of grand design that clearly directs the sub-district restructuring in the future and there is a clarity in regulating devolution of authorities from regent/mayor to the sub-district and other organization peripheral of the area, and the relation pattern between the two.

The glimpse of the above elaboration gives some pictures that basically shows sub-district organization or institution is not yet able to optimize its role and

Meta Case Study of Public Services Based Sub-District Organization Models: Context of Indonesia 85

existence, so it requires redesigning in order to be able to provide public services optimally based on the mandated tasks and functions.

In principle, the organizational issue of sub-districts that triggers low performing is quite fundamental. In fact, this is due to inappropriate organizational structures of the sub-districts that are stipulated by their mandated tasks (either structure too big but less functional or otherwise be the case). The absence of clear criteria in determining the size of the organization of sub-district will impact on the amount of budget required. No clear definitions of the attributive and delegated tasks of the sub-district will significantly impact on low performing head of sub-district particularly and the sub-district organization generally. Therefore, the size and the structure of sub-district must be based on clear criteria and clear definitions of attributive and delegated tasks of the head of sub-district. By considering the two arguments above, part of the fundamental issues of sub-district organization can be minimized; subsequently the performance of the head of sub-district can periodically be improved. This must immediately be anticipated considering the important roles of sub-district organization in providing public services in Indonesia.

Based on the above elaboration, this research is important in the framework of providing a way out to the problems encountered by the sub-district organizations that are concerned with increasing demands on the quality of public services. This solution is smarter than abolishing the sub-district organization.

Purpose and Research Question

This research aims at obtaining organizational model of sub-district that enables the realization of public service quality of sub-district. Based on the purpose, the research question raised is “how the development model of sub-district organization enables to boost optimum performance of the sub-district as the representation of sub-district public services?”

LITERATURE REVIEW

Government organization in a state administration system is a public organization that is formed by the government based on rules of law in order to function

optimally to the life of society. The main function of government institution is essentially to deliver services to the society. The government organization in a norm system is formed in the effort to meet societies demand. But if you look at the folk ways and mores, government institution is a structured process in the establishment as well as management. Based on that sub-district as part of organization peripheral of the area can be perceived as norms and regulation system within it there is a structured process in the management of government in order to achieve the objective, i.e., to fulfill the needs of the society.

The clear division of task is badly needed in sub- district organization. With this clear task division, who does the job and who is responsible and who to report to will be clear. Apart from that this clear division of task will simplify the coordination mechanism both vertically and horizontally. The main issue in sub-district organization particularly and organization peripheral of the area generally, is the lack of clarity in task division. If this is the case, the possibility to coordinate, integrate and synchronize is hard to be achieved optimally.

Another character of bureaucracy that remains necessary is promotion based on competency. Since the early development of bureaucracy model by Weber, this character is already attached to and it is indispensable. Therefore, competency becomes an absolute requirement for each member of sub-district organization that will seat in certain position. However, the problem is that competency requirement and job achievement are often neglected. This is highly risky for the existence of sub-district organization particularly for organization peripheral of the area generally in the future.

There are relatively many portraits that describe the organization peripheral of the area that are not yet able to give concrete contribution to public empowerment widely. This requires a solution so that the organization peripheral of the area can better serve the local. To realize this, it requires strong collected commitment from the whole lines of government peripheral of area. This accumulative commitment will become a valuable resource to achieve the expected goals.

In the management perspective, modern bureaucracy that is required at present is the compact bureaucracy, i.e., in terms of physical organization, it is relatively slim and dense (compact), but its qualitative capacity is big, or


known as slim structure but rich functions (Faozan and Mansoer 2008). Looking at the composition of the sub-district organization in particular and the organization peripheral of the area in general, it can be observed that the designed structure has not yet referred to adequate research findings. It is, therefore, understandable if the designed structure of the organization peripheral of the area is labeled as merely built by common sense.

The following elaboration attempts to elaborate several limitations of the bureaucratic structure in the organization peripheral of the area based on the structural dimensions (Faozan 2005, 2007). In the complexity dimension, vertical and horizontal differentiation complexity needs to be adjusted with development of strategic issues. In relation to that, the hierarchy that is designed between one service unit with the others is not necessarily the same. Also is the case with the number of echelons II, III, and IV (Director level, Manager level, Supervisor Level). Their presence heavily depends upon the strategic issues that they have to deal with.

In the formalization dimension, the formalization of the harmonization of regulation, policy, procedure and others is rigidly designed so that it makes it hard to give creative response towards most recent challenges. Looking at the progressive environmental changes, it is necessary to give some freedom to the widespread service units to respond to the encountered challenges by still sticking to the objectives and targets of its parent institution. This also impacts positively for the middle and lower managers, functional (professional) officials and even for the staff to have the courage to take the risks to the challenges ahead of them.

In the centralization dimension, the authorities of the bureaucratic structure are on the top management. The tradition of centralized decision-making and authorities that has been deeply rooted in the organization peripheral of the area brings about negative impacts to the subordinate level in making decisions. The authorities and decision-making should be decentralized proportionally, both in the context of the organization peripheral of the area, organizational unit, as well as service unit. With clear and comprehensive framework, decentralization of authorities will run in line with the scenario. With this adjustment, the widespread units will feel more challenging in performing optimally.

If it is related with the authorities of the head of sub- district, the organizational structure, and the tasks and functions of the sub-district, the elaboration above becomes increasingly interesting and important to be further discussed. The authorities of the head of sub- district based on Law Number 32, year 2004 regarding Regional Government are not only concerned with delegated authorities, but also the attributive ones. In article 126 paragraph (2) it stipulates that a sub-district is led by the head of sub-district that during their term of office receives devolution of some authorities of the regent/mayor to deal with certain affairs of the local autonomy. As for the attributive authorities of the head of sub-district, it can be found in paragraph (3) that stipulates a head of sub-district implements general governmental tasks.

In year 2008 the government issued the Government Regulation Number 19, year 2008 regarding Sub- District, which regulates detailed tasks and authorities of the head of sub-district, both of attributive and delegative. In relation to the implementation of the attributive tasks, the head of sub-district conducts the following general governmental tasks:

1. coordinating society empowerment activities; 2. coordinating efforts to create peace and order; 3. coordinating compliance and enforcement of rules

of laws; 4. coordinating maintenance of public infrastructures

and facilities; 5. coordinating the management of governmental

activities at sub-district level; 6. fostering the management of village government

and/or village unit; and 7. delivering public services to the society within

their scope of duties and/or that of unable to be delivered by the village government or village unit.

Regarding the delegated duties, the Government Regulation Number 19, year 2008 also stipulates that the head of sub-district implements governmental authorities devolved by regent/mayor to deal with certain affairs of local autonomy as follows:

1. permit; 2. recommendation;


3. coordination; 4. fostering; 5. supervision; 6. facilitation; 7. decision; 8. management; and 9. other devolved authorities

A sub-district organization is led by the head of sub-district. In implementing their duties, the head of sub-district is assisted by civil servants of the sub-district, and is responsible to regent/mayor through secretary of regency/city. The composition of the sub-district organization consists of head of sub-district, secretary to the head of sub-district, and maximum five sections, and functional (professional) positions. Secretariat leads maximum three sub-divisions. They are government reforms section, society empowerment and village unit section, and public peace and order section.

As the organization peripheral of regency/city area, the relationship between head of sub-district and regent/ mayor is hierarchical. This can be seen in Article 14 paragraph (2) of the Government Regulation Number 19, year 2008 that stipulates the head of sub-district is under and responsible to regent/mayor through the coordination of regional secretary. In the mean time the relationship of the head of sub-district with the regional service units, regional technical units, and available vertical institution within the sub-district is functionally technical coordination. Whereas the relationship between the head of sub-district and village government is coordinative and facilitative, the relationship between the head of sub-district and the head of village unit is coordinative. This is because the delegated authorities implemented by the head of village unit comes from regent/mayor, thus the head of village unit is also responsible to regent/ mayor through the coordination of the head of sub- district.

Looking at the bureaucratic organizational structure within the sub-district organization in particular, and the organization peripheral of the area in general, the existence of the former needs to be modified in line with the latest condition to enable the sub-district to improve their service performance significantly (Faozan 2005). In the efforts to optimize the sub-district performance, the local government must be able to manage all important

components of their organization adequately. In relation to that, the congruence model offered by Nadler & Tushman (1992, 1997) can be used as a reference. The foundation of the congruence model is, in fact, an open system where the sub-systems of the organization are influenced by external environment. The organizational sub-system as a system consists of: inputs into the system that covers environment, organizational resources, and history; transformation process or business strategy; and output that covers organizational activity pattern, behavior and performance.

In the congruence model, input includes elements related with quality that is needed by an organization, including materials with which the organization should work with. There are several types of contextual factors where each shows a unit of specific matters for the organization, namely environment, organization’s resources, and organization’s history. After the three contextual factors are analysed, the strategy is then decided, namely decisions on allocating limited resources to anticipate limitations and opportunities caused by environment both long-term decision and shorter-term objective and tactics (supporting strategies). With decent strategy and targets that are internally consistent, the challenge of the management is to increase organizational intensity to achieve the strategic targets. Therefore the strategy determines form, quality, and character of work, and critical organizational output.

The transformation mechanism in the context of congruence model is organizational operation that comprises of four organizational components, namely: the work, the people who perform the work, the formal arrangements that provide structure and direction to their work, and the informal arrangements that reflect their values, beliefs, and patterns of behavior. The organizational operation as “heart of the congruence model” stated by Nadler (1997) uses their business strategy to produce outputs, all things related with environmental context, resources and organizational history. Nadler confirms that an effective organization is characterized by as how well the organizational components are all integrated. The main issue for the managers involved in organizational design is how to find the best way to form organizational components to be able to produce expected output in line with strategic objective. It is, therefore, very improtant to understand


each organizational component and their relationship with one another.

METHODOLOGY

The method used in this study is Meta applied case study, that is, applied research based on case studies that had been conducted previously on sub-districts in Indonesia. The Meta case study is conducted in the framework of optimizing valuable existing data that were obtained from the fields by the previous researchers. It is used as an improved methodology where generally the analysis of the sub-district case cannot be done sharply, so that it cannot provide adequate recommendations. In this context, the approach of the methodology emphasizes on qualitative analysis using both quantitative and qualitative data. The qualitative analysis analyses the existing data more comprehensively. Through this Meta case study, the chance of giving expected policy recommendations on sub-district organization model is bigger.

In relation to that, the data that are collected, processed, and analyzed in this study are extracted from the findings of the case studies concerned with sub-districts, particularly the data about sub-districts' public services and components of sub-district organizations. Both data are then classified into four typology areas, namely mountainous, beach, island and regency/city border areas. Sub-districts in the mountainous area are represented by Lubuk Basung sub-district and Ampek Angkek sub-district (Agam regency, West Sumatera Province). Sub-districts in the beach area are represented by Bantul and Kretek sub-districts (Bantul regency, Special Province of Yogyakarta). Sub-districts in island area are represented by Tanjung Pandan and Selat Nasik sub-districts (Belitung regency, Bangka Belitung Province). Sub- districts in border area of regency/city are represented by Labuapi and Gunungsari sub-districts (West Lombok regency, West Nusa Tenggara Province). The data is then analysed to answer the research question raised to be further used as the solution for the formulated issue.

In this study the attributive duties of the head of sub-district is confirmed as obligatory duties that must be done by them, whereas their delegative duties are

determined by the policy of the regent. This implies that the devolution of the regent’s authorities can be different between one regency and the others. In the model context developed here, the devolution of part of the regent’s authorities to the head of sub-district is perceived as prioritized types of public services in the sub-district. The assumption is that the devolution of part of the regent’s authorities to the head of sub-district has considered two fundamental matters, namely services that are required by the society within the sub-district, and services that are considered important due to the current demands. Those two things in this study is called “sub-district prioritized public services”. Prioritized Services (PS) are a number of sub-district services determined based on the delegated services by the regent to the head of sub-district and the services that are required by the society within the sub-district.

Although the priority of the sub-district public services serves as an important factor to be considered, that does not mean that it becomes the main factor. Another thing to be considered is related with the object and the accessibility of services. The former is sub-district workloads based on the number of population in the sub-district and the number of village/village unit. The latter is public accessibility in obtaining services based on the farthest village to regency/city and sub-district, availability of transportation facilities, time to reach it and cost required by the society. The object and accessibility of services in this study is called “complexity of sub-district public services”. It is this Complexity and Priority of Sub-District Publik Services (CPSDPS) that will determine the model of the sub-district organization. Thus the model of sub-district organization developed in this study is “organization- based public service priority and complexity”. The quantitative analysis concerning the complexity and priorities of public services within a sub-district refers to the research findings of Sub-district Institutional Development (Safitri et al. 2010), which was later analyzed sharply to determine the size model and the organizational structure of sub-district.

Next, the components of the sub-district organization are categorized into four main organizational components, namely tasks and functions, organizational structure, civil service apparatus, and business process. The classification of organizational components in this


study adapted 4 organizational components in congruence model offered by Nadler (1997). Certain adaptation of the organizational components as written in congruence model is made to simplify the process in analyzing the following indicators of each component sharply:

1) Main tasks and functions component is analyzed based on consistency level of the tasks and functions that are stipulated in the prevailing rules and regulations, as to whether both have accommodated all aspects concerned with the policy and have been proportionally distributed to the available positions.

2) The organizational structure is analyzed based on the complexity and centralization dimensions. The formulation of the organizational structure must fit in with the organizational needs and environmental demands, and decision-making should be decentralized until the lowest layer.

3) Government apparatus in this study are divided into two, namely civil service apparatus, and tools/ facilities that support the jobs. The analysis towards the civil service apparatus is emphasized on the appropriate quantity and quality of its human resources with organizational needs. Whereas the analysis towards the tools and facilities that support the jobs emphasizes on their availability in performing an activity.

4) As for the business process, it is emphasized on the availability or the absence of work system and procedure to support the implementation of organizational tasks.

The analysis construction in this study starts with gap analysis between complexity and priority of sub-district public services and the availability of public services delivered by the sub-district. This gap analysis is useful to identify the size of the established sub-district organization. Next step is to analyze alignment between the four components of sub-district organization that include tasks and functions of the head of sub-district, organizational structure, civil service apparatus, and business process of sub-district. This analysis is required to describe the alignment among the components within the sub-district organization.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

Basically the complexity and priority of sub-district public services in each territorial typology (mountains, beaches, islands, and regent/city borders) indicates variety. In fact, the variety also takes place in the sub-districts within the same territorial typology. In relation with the first statement, this gives a signal that the local policies between one territorial typology and the others show varieties. As for the second statement, this shows that they use different strategies in implementing their duties within one territorial typology.

This study found that the head of sub-district in the mountainuous area (Ampek Angkek and Lubuk Basung sub-districts) conducts attributive and delegative duties simultaneously. In the Regional Regulation of Agam Regency Number 5, year 2008 regarding Establishment of Organization and Work Procedures of a Sub-District stipulates that head of sub-district has main duties to implement authorities of local government devolved by regent to deal with part of local autonomy affairs. To implement the main tasks, the head of sub-district has the following functions:

1) coordinating society empowerment activities; 2) coordinating efforts to create peace and order; 3) coordinating compliance and enforcement of rules

of laws; 4) coordinating maintenance of public infrastructures

and facilities; 5) coordinating the management of governmental

activities at sub-district level; 6) fostering the management of village government

and/or village unit; 7) coordinating the activities of Technical Service

Units/Government Institution 8) delivering public services to the society within

their scope of duties and/or that of unable to be delivered by the village government or village unit; and

9) conducting other duties assigned by their superior(s)

If their main tasks and functions are compared with that of the results of identified required public services in the sub-district and current demands within Ampek Angkek sub-district (covers 11 administrative services and 5 non-administrative services) and Lubuk Basung (covers 9


administrative services and 5 non-administrative services), it is understandable that the tasks and functions of the sub-districts have not yet been able to accommodate all the demands.

However, in this case, the heads of sub-district in the mountanuous area (Ampek Angkek and Lubuk Basung sub-districts) have implemented attributive and delegative duties simultaneously in a relatively bigger portion that includes 19 authorities, amongst others, are: workshop/ garage permit, trade industry permit, letter of poverty, recommendation for building mosque assistance, permit to enter and exit livestock, research recommendation (particularly for personal interest, unpublished and located in the concerned sub-district), and private vocational course permit.

By looking at the devolution of authorities, Ampek Angkek and Lubuk Basung sub-districts could be predicted to have high complexity and priority of sub-district public services. Nevertheless, the level of complexity and priority of sub-district public services are maybe different, this is because each sub-district has different potencials. In this case Ampek Angkek sub-district has greater potentials as compared with that of Lubuk Basung sub-district. With the greater complexity and priority of public services in the two sub-districts, it could be understood why the size of their organizations were established with maximum pattern with the following structures:

1) Head of Sub-District2) Secretary:

a. General Affairs and Personnel Sub-Divisionb. Finance Sub-Divisionc. Planning and Reporting Sub-Division

3) Sections:a. Governmentb. Peace and Orderc. General and Revenue Services d. Economy and Developmente. Welfare

If it is related with the results of analysis calculation, the components of the sub-district organization achieved average scores of approximately 77% (with sufficient/ consistent category) for Ampek Angkek and Lubuk Basung sub-districts (Safitri et al. 2010). This was not

surprising because it was normal that it happened. The crucial matter that deserved to be paid attention to by Agam regency government was the need to pay more serious attention to civil service apparatus and formulation of main tasks and functions of the sub- district.

This study also found that the heads of sub-district in the beach area (Bantul and Kretek sub-districts) performed their attributive and delegative duties simultaneously. This was relatively similar with that of the mountaneous sub-districts. Regional Government Number 18 Year 2007 regarding Establishment of Sub- District Organization within Bantul Regency stipulated that the duties of the head of sub-district were as follows:

1) Implementation of general governmental affairs included the following:a. coordinating society empowerment activities; b. coordinating efforts to create peace and order; c. coordinating compliance and enforcement of

rules of laws; d. coordinating maintenance of public infrastructures

and facilities; e. coordinating the management of governmental

activities at sub-district level; f. fostering the management of village government

and/or village unit; g. delivering public services to the society within

their scope of duties and/or that of unable to be delivered by the village government or village unit; and

h. conducting other duties assigned by their superior(s)

2) Implementation of governmental authorities devolved by Regent to deal with part of local autonomy affairs;

3) Implementation of other duties assigned by Regent in accordance with their tasks and functions.

The difference between the two previous sub-districts was that Bantul and Kretek sub-districts had not received the authorities as great as Ampek Angkek and Lubuk Basung sub-districts. The devolution of the authorities of the regent to the head of sub-district only covered ID card services, family card services, and recommendations for various permits applications in regency permit service unit. Whereas the needs of the society in public services


and current demands in Bantul and Kretek sub-districts, each covered 7 administrative services and 5 non- administrative services. The policy of devolution of authorities needed to be reviewed to adjust or to accommodate the needs of the society.

If compared between the public services delivered by the sub-districts and the needs of the society and the current demands, it could obviously find out that there were very wide gaps. This condition triggered more unaccommodated needs of the public services in the sub-districts. In fact, we knew that the existence of sub- district served as the frontline of the local government services. Therefore, this policy was not consistent with the spirit of the local autonomy itself.

Although the devolution of authorities by the regent to the head of the sub-districts was not significant, the size and structure of their organizations were relatively big as follows:

1) Head of Sub-District2) Secretary:

a. General Affairs Sub-Divisionb. Program and Finance Sub-Divisionc. Planning and Reporting Sub-Division

3) Sections:a. Government Orderb. Peace and Orderc. Services d. Economy, Development and Living Environmente. Society

Based on that, it could be predicted that the decision of the size and structure of the sub-district organization in Bantul regency were not yet based on sufficient research. This was strengthened by the calculation analysis of the components of the sub-district organization that showed insufficient or inconsistent category with the average scores of 75% for Bantul sub-district and 65% for Kretek sub-districts (Safitri et al. 2010).

Other findings of this study was that the head of sub-district in island area (Tanjung Pandan and Selat Nasik sub-districts) and the head of sub-district in regency/city border areas (Labuapi and Gunungsari sub- districts) only implemented attributive duties, whereas the delegative duties were not devolved to the heads of sub-districts. In this study it was confirmed that “whether

or not there was the delegative tasks of the head of sub-district” it should be based on the prevailing policies and/or in harmony with the higher policies above it. It other words, the delivery of public services –related with the devolution of authorities from regent o the head of sub-district – that was not based on written policy was considered incorrect.

Although the typology of the areas was different, the tasks of the heads of sub-districts of Tanjung Pandan and Selat Nasik (Belitung regency-island area), Labuapi and Gunungsari (West Lombok regency-regency/city border area) almost showed similarity (see Table 1).

Based on the identificiation of the needs of the society towards public services and current demands, actually there were relatively many public services that should be provided by the sub-district. The data showed that the society’s needs towards public services and current demands in Tanjung Pandan sub-district covered 18 administrative services and 5 non-administrative services, and Selat Nasik sub-district covered 11 administrative services and 7 non-administrative services, whereas in Labuapi and Gunungsari sub- districts, each covered 7 administrative services and 5 non-administrative services. The data underlined that the sub-districts in island area (Tanjung Pandan and Selat Nasik sub-districts) and the sub-districts in regency/city borders area (Labuapi and Gunungsari sub-districts) actually had great potentials to be able to provide public services more maximumly.

If the society’s needs and the current demands were compared with public services delivered in the sub- districts, it could be clearly seen here that there were amazingly big gaps, and this was a fatal mistake. Such condition closed the opportunity of the sub-districts to be able to provide public services optimally. If it was further observed, this condition showed non-compliance of the local government towards the prevailing rules of law.

Although the heads of sub-district only implemented attributive tasks, the size and structure of sub-district organization in 2 typologies of area were decided with maximum pattern (see Table 2). Looking at it, it could be ensured that the decision for the size and organization structure of sub-districts in Belitung and Lombok Barat regency were not based on sufficient research. This was strengthened by the calculation results analysis of the components of the sub-district organizations that showed


Duties of Head of Sub-district in Belitung Regency Duties of Head of Sub-district in West Lombok Regency

The head of sub-district has main duties to implement the governmental authorities devolved by regent to deal with part of local autonomy affairs. To perform their main duties, they had the following functions: 1. coordinating society empowerment activities; 2. coordinating efforts to create peace and order; 3. coordinating compliance and enforcement of rules of laws; 4. coordinating maintenance of public infrastructures and facilities; 5. coordinating the management of governmental activities at

sub-district level; 6. fostering the management of village government and/or

village unit; and 7. delivering public services to the society within their scope of

duties and/or that of unable to be delivered by the village government or village unit.

8. Implementing governmental authorities that were devolved by regent to deal with part of local autonomy affairs that covered permit aspect, recommendations, coordination, fostering, supervision, facilities, decision, management and other devolved authorities.

The head of sub-district has main duties to implement the governmental authorities devolved by regent to deal with part of local autonomy affairs. To perform their main duties, they had the following functions: 1. coordinating society empowerment activities; 2. coordinating efforts to create peace and order; 3. coordinating compliance and enforcement of rules of laws; 4. coordinating maintenance of public infrastructures and facilities; 5. coordinating the management of governmental activities at

sub-district level; 6. fostering the management of village government and/or

village unit; and 7. delivering public services to the society within their scope of

duties and/or that of unable to be delivered by the village government or village unit.

8. Implementing governmental authorities that were devolved by regent to deal with part of local autonomy affairs that covered permit aspect, recommendations, coordination, fostering, supervision, facilities, decision, management and other devolved authorities.

Source: Local Government Regulation of Belitung Regency Number 22 Year 2007 regarding Organization and Work Procedures of Sub-District and Village Unit

Source: Local Government Regulation of West Lombok Regency Number 8 Year 2009 regarding the Amendment upon Local Government Regulation of West Lombok Regency Number 9 Year 2008 regarding Establishment of Structure of Organization Peripheral of Area

Table 1. Duties of Head of Sub-district in Belitung and West Lombok Regency

insufficient or inconsistent category in 4 (four) sub-districts in the 2 (two) regencies (Safitri et al. 2010).

The development of the sub-district organizations, in principle, was an integration between the attached duties and/or obligatory duties that had to be done by the head of sub-district or the sub-district, the organizational structure of the sub-district was perceived in order to implement those duties, business process was perceived for the organizational structure to achieve their tasks, and availability of adequate civil service apparatus for the realization of the organizational objectives of the concerned sub-districts.

The existence of sub-district institution initially had to be oriented to the work that had to be done. Next, such work had to be closely looked into to be later decided on the organizational structure that was considered right in implementing the work optimally. Because the overall duties of the head of sub-district covered attributive and delegative duties, the size and the institutional design of the sub-district had to be able to accommodate all their duties.

Because the institutional development of the sub- district was based on the complexity and priority of

public services, the development of business process was oriented or emphasized on public service delivery that was increasingly better quality at the sub-district level. In relation to that the development of business process in such context was a new approach or innovation that had to be developed in the framework of realizing public services at the sub-district level that were increasingly better quality. Considering the existence of the sub- district organization –as organization peripheral of the area – decided by local regulation, in this case it was necessary to have an umbrella policy that enabled the manifestation of sub-district capacity that was able and competent in delivering public services of the concerned sub-district.

Civil service apparatus that covered civil servants and other resources were needed in the framework of fulfilling tasks and functions that were mandated by the head of sub-district, which in the implementation they were types of public services. In relation to the civil servants, sub-district required the qualifications that was in line with the orientation or emphasis of the prioritized public services. As for the number of civil servants that were required in delivering the prioritized public


Duties of the Head of Belitung Sub-District Duties of the Head of Lombok Barat Sub-District

1. Head of Sub-District2. Secretary:

a. Planning and Reporting Sub-Divisionb. Finance Sub-Divisionc. General Affairs and Personnel Sub-Division

3. Sections:a. Governmentb. Peace and Orderc. Economy and Development d. Society’s Welfaree. Society’s empowerment

1. Head of Sub-District2. Secretary:

a. Program Sub-Divisionb. Finance Sub-Divisionc. General Affairs and Personnel Sub-Division

3. Sections:a. Governmentb. Peace and Orderc. Society’s empowermentd. Public Services

Source: Local Government Regulation of Belitung Regency Number 22 Year 2007 regarding Organization and Work Procedures of Sub-District and Village Unit

Source: Local Government Regulation of West Lombok Regency Number 8 Year 2009 regarding the Amendment upon Local Government Regulation of West Lombok Regency Number 9 Year 2008 regarding Establishment of Structure of Organization Peripheral of Area

Table 2. Size and Structure of Sub-District Organization in Belitung and Lombok Barat Sub-Districts

services, they had to be refered to the available workload analysis study.

Apart from the civil servants, the availability of infrastructures and facilities also needed to be paid more sensistive attention to policy makers. This was because it would be very difficult to deliver better quality public services without the support of adequate infrastructures and facilities.

CONCLUSION

This study concluded that the head of sub-district held a very important role in the management of government. Sub-district was organization peripheral of the the area and concomitantly the frontline for the government services to the society. In this context the head of sub- district was the liason between society and government in terms of government policy dissemination to the socity and in terms of submitting the society’s aspirations to the government.

The model that was developed perceived that devolution of part of the regent’s/mayor’s authorities to the head of sub-district was the types of prioritized public services at sub-district level. Apart from that this model also looked at the complexity of public services as one of the aspects that must be paid attention to so that the institutional model of sub district that was developed “based on complexity and priority of sub-district public services” (organization-based public service priority and

complexity). The model remained limited to the main tasks and functions as well as the number of structures required in the sub-district, whereas for work relations with other units they were in a form of general description and had to be adjusted with geographical conditions and the civil service apparatus, supporting materials and facilities, and budget allocated for the sub-district. The institutional model of sub-district that was developed in this study was illustrated in the organigram of the sub-district.

RECOMMENDATION

This study recommended three models for sub-district organization, namely Large Size Sub-District Organization Model, Middle Size Sub-District Organization Model, and Small Size Sub-District Organization Model. These three models could be described briefly as follows:

1. Large Size Sub-District Organization Model: an organizational structure with the biggest organization size because the mandated main tasks and functions were perceived complex (apart from attributive duties attached, delegative duties devolved were in big proportions). The structure of the sub-district included: Head of Sub-District, Secretariat supervising 3 Sub-Divisions, and 5 Sections as the core units in the sub-district, and a


Figure 1. Large Size Sub-District Organization Model

group of functional (professional) positions.2. Middle Size Sub-District Organization Model: The

organizational structure with medium organizational size in line with the main tasks and functions that generally implemented attributive duties augmented by delegative duties in relatively big portion. The organizational structure of the sub-disrict included: Head of Sub-district, Secretariat supervising 2 Sub-Divisions, and 4 Sections as the core unit of the sub-district, and a group of functional (professional) positions.

3. Small Size Sub-District Organization Model: The organizational structure with small organizational size. This reflected that the main tasks and functions of the sub-district tended to implement attributive duties of the head of sub-district, whereas the proportion of delegative tasks were relatively small, thus they were seen adequate to be accommodated in one section. The organizational structure of the sub-district included: Head of Sub-District, Secretariat supervising 2 Sub-Divisions, and 3 Sections as the core units of the sub-district, and the group of functional (professional) positions.

1. Large Size Sub-District Organization Model: Organizational Structure of Sub-District with High Complexity and Priority of Public Service Duties (see figure 1)

Main Tasks and Functions of Head of Sub-DistrictThe main tasks of Head of Sub-District are to

implement attributive tasks or general governmental tasks in accordance with the prevailing rules of laws, and performing delegative tasks devolution of part of Regent/ Mayor authorities in local autonomy affairs. (In this model context, the proportion of delegative tasks includes most or almost all division affairs). In the framework of achieving those tasks, the head of sub-district conducts the following functions, namely:

1) Secretariat (covering coordination functions and internal services)

2) Government Order (covering governmental service functions)

3) Peace, order, and society empowerment (covering public service functions, utility services, food, clothing, and housing services)


Figure 2. Middle Size Sub-District Organization Model

4) Education and health (covering such functions as development services, public services, and utility services)

5) Economy (covering such functions as governmental services, public services, and utility services)

6) Development (covering such functions as development services, public services, utility services, and food, clothing and housing services)

2. Middle Size Sub-District Organization Model: The Organizational Structure of Sub-District with Medium complexity and Priority of Public Services Tasks (see Figure 2)


implement attributive tasks or general governmental tasks in accordance with the prevailing rules of laws, and performing delegative tasks, devolution of part of Regent/Mayor authorities in local autonomy affairs. (In this model context, the proportion of delegative tasks includes medium or only covering part of available

division affairs). In the framework of achieving those tasks, the head of sub-district conducts the following functions, namely:




4) Education and health (covering such functions as development services, public services, and utility services)

5) Economy and Development (covering such functions as governmental services, development services, public services, utility services, and food, clothing and housing services)

3. Small Size Sub-District Organization Model: The Organizational Structure with Low Complexity and Priority (see Figure 3)


Figure 3. Small Size Sub-District Organization Model


implement attributive tasks or general governmental tasks in accordance with the prevailing rules of laws, and performing delegative tasks, devolution of part of Regent/Mayor authorities in local autonomy affairs. (In this model context, the proportion of delegative tasks includes few or only covers some available division affairs). In the framework of achieving those tasks, the head of sub-district conducts the following functions, namely:




4) Education, health, economy, and development (covering such functions as development services,

public services, and utility services)

Each sub-district in Indonesia can decide the alternative model offered in accordance with the complexity and priority of public service within their respective sub-districts.

In relation to the above mentioned issues, the size of the sub-district organization in a regency or city does not have to be the same. This will be adjusted with –one of them – devolution of part of Regent/Mayor authorities to the head of sub-district. Part of the Regent/Mayor authorities devolved to the head of district in this study is called prioritized public services (with the assumption that the devolution of part of public services [administrative or non administrative] that are considered prioritized to be delivered by the sub-district). Therefore it can be affirmed here that the prioritized public services in the sub-district serve as one of the determinant main factors in the organizational design of a sub-district to be developed.


REFERENCES

Faozan, Haris, and Muzani M. Mansoer. 2008. Local Government Organization. In Management of Local Government. Edited by Adi Suryanto. Jakarta: The Centre for Performance Evaluation of Local Autonomy – National Institute of Public Administration. (in Indonesian language)

Faozan, Haris. 2005. Perestroika of Bureaucratic Structure: Renewing Space for the Growth of Government Institution Performance. Journal of Administrative Science Vol 2 (4):335-46. (in Indonesian language)

Faozan, Haris. 2007. Responding Institutional Issue of Cooperation Between Regions in the Midst of Global Strategic Collaboration Jump: An Initial Prognosa. Journal of Administrative Science Vol. 4 (1): 1-15. (in Indonesian language)

Nadler, David A., Marc. S. Gerstein, Robert B. Shaw, and Associates. 1992. Organizational Architecture: Designs for Changing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nadler, David A., and Michale L. Tushman. 1997. Competing by Design: The power of organizational architecture. New York: Oxford University Press.

Research Team of the Centre for Research and Education and Training for the Government Apparatus III- the National Institute of Public Administration. 2007. Devolution of Part of Regent/Mayor Authorities to Head of Sub-District/Village Unit according to Law Number 32 Year 2004. Edited by Tri Widodo W. Utomo. Samarinda: The Centre for Research and Education and Training for the Government Apparatus III- The National Institute of Public Administration. (in Indonesian language)

Safitri, Yudiantarti, RR. Harida Indraswari, Rosita N. Andari, Shafiera Amalia, Joni Dawud, Zulpikar, Haris Faozan, and Gering Supriyadi. 2010. Sub-district Institutional Development. Sumedang: The Centre for Research and Education and Training for the Government Apparatus I- The National Institute of Public Administration. (in Indonesian language)

Sanusi, Anwar. 2010. Bunga Rampai Quo Vadis Sub-District Institution in the Local Autonomy Era: Institutional Effectiveness Analysis. Jakarta: The

Centre for Institutional Performance Studies - The National Institute of Public Administration. (in Indonesian language)

Wasistiono, Sadu, Ismail Nurdin, and M. Fahrurozi. 2009. Milestones of Sub-District Organization from Time to Time. Bandung: Penerbit Fokusmedia. (in Indonesian language)

Rules of Laws:Law Number 32 Year 2004 regarding Regional Government

Government Regulation Number 19 Year 2008 regarding Sub-District

Local Regulation of Agam Regency Number 5 Year 2008 regarding Organizational Establishment and Sub- istrict Work Procedures

Local Regulation of Bantul Regency Number 18 Year 2007 regarding Organizational Establishment of Sub- istrict in Bantul Regency

Local Regulation of Belitung Regency Number 22 Year 2007 regarding Organization and Work Procedures of Sub-istrict and Village Unit

Local Regulation of Lombok Barat Regency Number 8 Year 2009 regarding Amendment upon Local Government of Lombok Barat Regency Numbert 9 Year 2008 regarding Establishment of Structure Organization Peripheral of Area

Haris Faozan is a senior researcher in Public Administration at the Center for Institutional Performance Evaluation Studies in the National Institute of Public Administration, the Republic of Indonesia. Since 1999, apart from his commitment to serve in research and development within the National Institute of Public Administration, he also serves actively as a consultant, designer, and facilitator in institutional capacity building for several local governments in Indonesia. He has publicized more than 60 papers both in manuscript and book formats([email protected]).

Received: June 17, 2011

Accepted with one revision: July 26, 2011