Model Evaluasi Perencanaan Pembangunan di Sumatera Utara
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24114/jupiis.v13i1.23658Keywords:
Evaluation, Development Planning, DevelopmentAbstract
The purpose of this study is the realization of the performance achievements of program plans and regional priority activities that have been targeted in the North Sumatra Province Regional Work Plan (RKPD) 2019. To evaluate public policies, it is necessary to measure the success of public programs and policies (effectiveness, efficiency, adequacy, equity, responsiveness, and accuracy) Accuracy indicators are the most successful to be used in measuring the level of consistency. Meanwhile, the success of the Equity indicator is very difficult to measure, considering that the amount of the budget for programs and activities is not the same. The research design used in this study is a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches with a dominant-less dominant design model. The results of the data obtained were carried out using descriptive-analytical methods. The results of the study showed that by looking at some of the standards used to evaluate the results of the North Sumatra province's RKPD Implementation in 2019 it showed a very good value. Evaluation of the results of regional development plans aims to achieve conformity between regional development achievements and established performance indicators. The performance indicators in question are performance indicators determined at the national, provincial, and district/city levels. So far, the measurement used by BAPPEDA of North Sumatra Province in evaluating development planning is only based on budget realization.References
Arsad, L, (2002), Pengantar Perencanaan Pembangunan Ekonomi Daerah, BPFE Yogyakarta, 2002
Conyers, D. (1991). œAn Introduction To Social Planning In The Third World. By Jhon Wiley & sons Ltd, 1994, Terjemahan Drs. Susetiawan. SU : œ Perencanaan Sosial di Dunia Ketiga : Suatu Pengantar. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press. (xi, 335 hal.)
Joint Committee, (1981), Standards for Evaluation Of Educational Programs, Project, and Material. New york: Mc-Graw-Hill,
Moleong, L.J. (2009), Metode Penelitian Kualitatif, Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya, 2009.
Muluk, K, (2009). œDesentralisasi Pemerintah dan Daerah. Malang: Bayumedia Publishing
Peraturan Menteri Dalam Negeri Nomor 54 Tahun 2010 tentang Pelaksanaan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 8 Tahun 2008 tentang Tahapan, Tatacara Penyusunan, Pengendalian, dan Evaluasi Pelaksanaan Rencana Pembangunan Daerah.
Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 8 Tahun 2008 tentang Tahapan, Tatacara Penyusunan, Pengendalian, dan Evaluasi Pelaksanaan Rencana Pembangunan Daerah
Sembiring, J. Sihombing, M. & Suriadi, A. (2018). Analisis Perencanaan Pembangunan Lahan Tempat Pembuangan Akhir Sampah. Jurnal Administrasi Publik : Public Administration Journal : Public Admnistration Journal. 8 (1): 39-46.
Soekartawi. (1990). Teori Ekonomi Produksi: Dengan Pokok Bahasan AnalisisCobb Douglas. Rajawali Pers: Jakarta
Stufflebeam, D.L. (2002). œThe CIPP Model For Evaluation, dalam Daniel L. Stufflebeam, dkk. (eds), Evaluation in Education and Human Service, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Subarsono, A, (2003), Analisis Kebijakan Publik, Modul Kuliah, MAP-UGM, Yogyakarta.
Tjokrowinoto. (1996). Manajemen Kepegawaian. Ghalia Indonesia. Jakarta
Winaya, I.K. & Yudartha, I.P.D. (2018). Desa Membangun: Analisis Perencanaan dan Penyusunan Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Desa Tahun 2017. JPPUMA: JPPUMA: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan dan Sosial Politik UMA (Journal of Governance and Political UMA), 6 (1): 1-13
Undang “ Undang dan Peraturan
Undang-Undang Nomor 23 tahun 2014 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah.
Undang-Undang Nomor 25 Tahun 2005 tentang Sistem Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 JUPIIS: JURNAL PENDIDIKAN ILMU-ILMU SOSIAL
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
