AKATIGA, in collaboration with AIPD, conducted a baseline study for the LANDASAN Papua program to assess the condition of the community (men and women) and village government institutions (village) in improving public services in Papua and West Papua Provinces at the end of 2013. This study explores the availability, accessibility, and quality of public service delivery in the health and education sectors in the provinces of Papua and West Papua, as well as how the processes of participation, transparency, and accountability of village governments as well as basic services (basic education and health) in the budget planning process influence the services provided given.
This study is retroactive in nature (respondents recalled the situation from late 2013) namely conducting an overview of the initial situation and conditions related to public service delivery and management of public finances in the health and education sectors in Papua prior to program implementation. The research was conducted in four districts based on three categories according to the LANDASAN program, namely (1) areas with LANDASAN program initiatives/no intervention from other AIPD programs; (2) areas with LANDASAN program initiatives and other AIPD programs; and (3) areas without LANDASAN or other AIPD program initiatives.
AKATIGA collects secondary data and collects primary data using quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative methods are specifically used to answer key questions relating to public satisfaction with budget management (planning, budgeting, actual use, and accountability) and the availability and quality of education and health services, and village government. While the qualitative method is achieved by conducting in-depth interviews with key informants, observations, and transects.
The planning and budgeting process which is the starting point for village development is still exclusive, at least in three service units (Pemdes, health, and education). Indeed, there are villages that carry out the Musrenbang process, even though it has not been initiated by the village government. The implementation of the Musrenbang is largely due to the intervention of the donor program which is carried out in the villages. Even though the implementation of the Musrenbang has started, marginalized groups are still not involved. This resulted in the planning process in the three service sectors being elitist and exclusive. Similar conditions were found in the administrative processes of primary schools, health centers and their network units.
Furthermore, this study found that planning and budgeting processes for health and education services were less inclusive. Factors that also influence the non-achievement of program objectives are low access to information, weak accountability reports, gender gaps in knowledge, access difficulties, and (low) levels of participation in the program.
Almost none of the respondents knew about the planning and budgeting process at the Puskesmas. The puskesmas has not taken advantage of the opportunity to share planning and budgeting for the puskesmas during its activities in the village. A Puskesmas report on the actual use of the budget is also developed and submitted for administrative purposes only, i.e. for the Health Office or other related parties.
In the education sector, although primary school management is not participatory or accountable and transparent to beneficiaries, overall parents express satisfaction (45%) with local primary school management, which consists of school committee activities, parent teacher meetings, and management of government funds . On the other hand, school principals still think that a series of planning, budgeting, use of funds, and accountability processes are under the authority of the school and the decisions of the school principal. Society also tends to have the same view.
