Annual Report 2005-ENG

PATTIRO Annual Report 2005

Pusat Telaah dan Informasi Regional (PATTIRO)Center for Regional Studies and Information

Chief OfficerSyahrir Wahab

Executive DirectorIlham Cendekia

Resource Center DivisionSad Dian Utomo

Society Development DivisionMuhammad Subhan

Finance & AdministrationYusriani Manurung

Advocacy DivisionDanardono Siradjudin

Gender DivisionMaya Rostanty

Media DivisionDini Mentari

PATTIRO TANGERANGMuslih M. Amin

PATTIRO SERANGUjon Sujono

PATTIRO MALANGMuch. Fahazza

PATTIRO GRESIKM. Saifullah

PATTIRO PEKALONGANAminuddin Aziz

PATTIRO SEMARANGSusana Dewi Rohimah

PATTIRO SOLOSetyo Dwi Herwanto

From Marginal Side, Heading for Change

In the beginning of the new millenium, a hope for democratic societybloomed in Indonesia. As social and political changes carried over by1998 Reform and local autonomy policy in 1999, hope for a better lifesprung in the heart of Indonesians. The term “better life” does notrefer to welfare or primary need sufficiency alone, it also refers toacknowledgement of human dignity, the chance to involve in steeringthe course of the country.

Many people want to take active part in developing this country. It isnot only for euphoria or impulsive passion in the midst of long crisisthey endure since 1997. It is because they see that developmentapproach applied by government was a failure. Weak and corruptgovernment, frail economical foundation and social culture of societyat that time proved the failure. Public hoped there would be doors thatlet them participate equally in deciding which course this countryshould take.

When the hope for public participation blew so strong, PATTIRO beganits path. PATTIRO wants to involve actively and contribute to makethis hope come true. PATTIRO sees that there are two approaches toreach it. First approach is approaching the people in order to empower

Executive Summary

3

4

and educate them. Hopefully, it would grow the necessary potential toparticipation inside the people. The second approach is getting intoand attempt to influence the system. To influence means to suggestalternatives to renew public decision-making system. PATTIRO beganwith the first approach in 2000. Two years later, PATTIRO started totake the second approach without leaving the first one. Until today,people capacity strengthening walks along with advocacy effort tochange thew existing public decision-making system.

Year 2004 was a period when PATTIRO moved from “beyond systemadvocacy effort” to “changing system advocacy effort”. PATTIRO triedto strengthen its influence in order to change local puclic decision-making system. In doing so, PATTIRO seeks and provides new alterna-tives of public decision-making system which is open to public partici-pation. PATTIRO offers public decion-makers those alternatives to beapplied. PATTIRO’s effort moves from being civic-forum education andfacilitation providers to stakeholder networking and political advocacyeffort.

There is a reason behind this alter advocacy model. Citizens’ voiceshould be turned into an important part of public decision. There is nopoint of yelling outside the system, it will not change anything. Fromnoise to voice, that is the hope which leads PATTIRO’s effort. Restless-ness, uproar and energy of those who are marginalized fromdevelopment’s priority are useless if they are transferred into angeronly. This noise, if one call mass rally or demonstration, is not enoughto promote change in Indonesia. Experience of previous years proveit. Those who hold power in this country know exactly how to usepeople’s rage for their own interest. PATTIRO attempts to transfer thatrage into a new positive energy, something called: Solution. A voice!Voice that can solve problems.

Based on that idea, in year 2004 PATTIRO carried out some agendasto help assisted community find solution of their problems. There aresome issues to concern, namely: participation in public policy-making(local regulation), women participation in local budgeting, publicservices for the poor, participation room in legislation process, andwomen’s political rights strengthening in General Election 2004.

Agenda of citizen participation in public policy-making was a follow upof previous program, civic forum capacity strengthening program,which has been carried out since 2000. On previous programs,PATTIRO emphasized on process, such as process of assisting civicforums, citizen participation capacity strengthening, and citizens’problem and initiatives observation. While in year 2004, PATTIRO

Executive Summary

5


focused more on aiming the result, which is theratification of citizens’ initiatives into local regula-tion. Unfortunately, there were many obstruction,such as General Election, which delayed ourachievement. However in most of Program’sareas, we have successfully raised some issues ofour advocacy effort to become public issues.Government policies, although not in the form oflocal regulations, also served to solve problemsconcerning those issues.

Agenda of women participation in local budgetingwas a follow up of women participation strength-ening in public policy-making, a program carriedout since 2001. At the beginning, this programwas meant to facilitate and strengthen women/women civic forum involvement in every room ofpublic participation. For instance, women involve-ment in kelurahan discussion forums. In year 2004, Program wasimproved to emphasize gender budget advocacy effort, along withwomen groups in local level.On public services issue, PATTIRO carried out a program to findcomplaint mechanism model on public services which is affordable forpoor consumers, particularly women. PATTIRO wants to strengthenvoice mechanism for poor consumers who find public services dissatis-fying but find no choice but to accept it. In this program, cooperativeapproach between citizens and government was important.

To push the door for public participation in legislation, PATTIROconducted a research on legislation function in national/local Legisla-tive Assembly (DPR/DPRD). PATTIRO conducted this research withLocal and National Legislation Reform Coalition. This research wasmeant to find out whether structure, function and capacity of DPR/DPRD are conducive to public participation in legislation (regulation/law proposal) process. Beside conducting research, PATTIRO alsoencouraged the creation of Legislation Body/Committee that plays asa door to let regulation proposals from public initiatives.Before General Election 2004, PATTIRO also gave political educationspecifically for women. It aimed at letting women reason to maketheir choice. At that time, PATTIRO also encouraged political contractwith many women politicians. The contract stated that they must fightfor women interest when they are elected.

In all of its activities, beside being facilitator of democratizationprocess originated from citizens, PATTIRO often had to be directly


involved as actor. Involvement in various political process, whether in negotiation,cooperation or adversity process, is inevitable when it comes to public empower-ment. New political power emerged in General Election 2004 who came fromeducated youth provide wider room for PATTIRO to develop cooperation approachin its advocacy effort. PATTIRO tries to offer various alternatives of public participa-tion in order to improve the condition of society.

In all of its work, PATTIRO gained support from various sources, such as massorganizations, student organizations, scholars, the press, public figures, politicalparties, local assembly and government. In this occasion, we would like to thankfor all these supports. We would also like to thank Ford Foundation, The AsiaFoundation, Tifa Foundation, Australia Agency for International Development(AusAID) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for their coopera-tion in citizen strengthening in Indonesia. ●

Chief Officer of PATTIRO

Assalamu’alaikum Wrh Wbr,

Praise and gratitude to Allah SWT, the Creator and Protector ofthe Universe. For His mercy gives us motivation, energy andthought to participate in democratization and justice establish-ment in Indonesia, particularly by promoting citizen empower-ment and good governance, as stated in our mission. We,Center for Regional Studies and Information (PATTIRO), arevery thankful to give contribution for citizen participation devel-opment in Indonesia, something that also brings us to exist as anon-government organization.

We would also like to thank our fellow civic organizations, press,students, academics and local figures, particularly those in ourworking areas, namely Serang, Tangerang, Pekalongan,Semarang, Solo, Gresik, Surabaya and Malang. We also thank toour colleagues in Jakarta, who belong to NGOs, donor institu-tions, academics, and international agencies. They all contributeto PATTIRO’s works all this time. And because of their support,we can develop resource center, advocacy center, trainingcenter, as well as continue our work in local level.

In showing our thankfulness, we publish Annual Report 2004,for the first time. It contains all works carried out by PATTIRO in2004. This Annual Report is a form of PATTIRO’s accountabilityof its work for public interest. Hopefully, this brief report mayalso be a study material for other non-government organiza-tions. We hope this report may allow opportunity for everyonewho shares same vision, which is to strengthen Local GoodGovernance, to build cooperation with us.

PATTIRO regards cooperation building important to strengthencitizen participation. Therefore, in the future, PATTIRO will buildpartnership with other important stakeholders, such as national/local Legislative Assemblies (DPR/DPRD), executives, politicalparties, etc.

Introduction

7


Finally, we once again say thanks for everything. Hopefully, all our works may bringIndonesia to be a better place.

Regards,

Introduction Annual Report

Year 2004 was the fifth year of our course. For an organizationin learning age like PATTIRO, five years is a short time to builddemocracy. It is even a short time to build political awarenessamong a small community.

Year 2004 was also a year of political festivity for Indonesianpeople, since there were three huge political events. Startedwith legislative election in April 2004, followed by first stage ofpresidential election in July 2004, and ended with second stageof presidential election in September 2004. Mass media werenever absent publishing democratic discourses, legislative andpresidential candidates, as well as campaign not to vote. Legis-lative and presidential candidates, the new system, and every-thing about election drew people attention. From villagers, thepress, to NGO activists, whether they were enthusiastic orskeptical about it, all attention were drawn by General Election.Perfect festivity!

This note captured PATTIRO’s course in the political festivityyear. Like other NGOs, our attention was also drawn to GeneralElection. We were pretty optimistic that the growing democracyas the political festivity passed may promote social change inIndonesia.

When the series of election were over, we all had to look back toreality, apart from dreams built in General Election. We had tobe realistic. We had to admit that the growing democracy inIndonesia is a procedural or symbolic democracy, not a real one.The building may be called democracy, but its residents cannotyet be called “public”. It is not absolutely wrong with this kind ofdevelopment. After all, we have achieved much in democratiza-tion, although we find that there must be something more.

We are more convinced that what this country need is: talkingto people. Not only in five-year cycle when they are asked tovote for president or legislative members. But rather on everymatter that consumes public money and subjects public to itsresult. We are more convinced that what should be developed is

Introduction Annual Report

9

the system, not festivity of democracy. If its system is devel-oped, democracy must reach everyday-problems faced byIndonesian people. We also hope, even in small tone, thatdirect local chief officer election will not create new festivities.

Democratic model development in various form of needs nowbecomes our focus. In public service sector, we developedcomplaint mechanism to allow poor consumers to complaineasily and cheap. In local budgeting process, we developedparticipatory budgeting model with gender perspective. Inpublic policy-making, we facilitated citizen communities toformulate their initiatives into local regulation proposals. Wealso promoted participatory legislation mechanism in LocalLegislative Assembly (DPRD). We hope that those variousmodels may become seeds of more substantive democracy.

We presents this note to all who wants to learn from us, includ-ing from our failures. We open our journal to you and hope yourcritical feedback. Because we learn from you.

Our long journey is not the work of us alone. There are manypeople who spent their time to live our goals. Our fellow NGOswho provide constructive environment have helped a great dealof our growth. Support from various donors allow us to continueworking on our plans. We sincerely thank for all that contribu-tion.

Regards,

Ilham Cendekia


In 2004, PATTIRO carried out advocacyeffort for citizen participation strength-ening in local regulation proposal. Thiseffort aims at two objectives. Firstly,encouraging citizen participation processin local regulation making. Secondly,solving citizens’ public policy-relatedproblems with local regulation whosesubstance came from those citizens.This advocacy effort was a part ofPATTIRO’s program carried out inSerang, Tangerang, Bandung,Pekalongan, Semarang, Solo, Gresik andMalang. Ford Foundation is an institu-tion that supports this advocacy effort.

This advocacy effort is closely relatedwith PATTIRO’s previous programs, suchas Research on Local InstitutionsReadiness in Local Public Policy Monitor-ing (2000-2001) and StrengtheningPeople Participation Advocacy Effort inLocal Governance (2001-2003). In thoseprograms, PATTIRO identified problemsfaced by citizens and then facilitatethem to find initiatives on how to solvetheir problems. Advocacy effort forcitizen participation strengthening inlocal regulation proposal is a follow-upaction of making their initiatives policysolutions, in the form of local regula-tions.

There are few steps taken by PATTIROto achieve the above goals. These steps

include: community organizing, partici-patory local regulation proposal-making,and political organizing.

Community- organizing involves civicforum assistance, capacity improvementand network building. Communityorganizing proceeded with facilitation oncitizens’ problem and initiative observa-tion. Their problems are grouped into:problems that need public policy assolution and those that don’t. Problemsthat do not concern public policy arebetter to be handled by citizens them-selves. To help solve problems thatconcern public policy, PATTIRO partici-patory facilitated citizens to find initia-tives of solution. Their initiatives werethen formulated into local regulation

Citizen Participation Strengthening Advocacy Effortin Local Regulation Proposal

Report Program FORD FOUNDATION

11

12 proposals. PATTIRO has been carryingout this community organizing since2000 until today. This effort emphasizescitizen capacity improvement to takeadvantages of participation rooms.

It proceeded with participatory localregulation proposal making. Theseproposals originated from citizens’initiatives, result from the previous step.Their initiatives consist of local regula-tion plan and academic script. Prior tobe proposed before Local LegislativeAssembly (DPRD), they were materiallyexamined. PATTIRO held public consul-tation to examine them. After that, theywere delivered to DPRD. Until the endof 2004, PATTIRO has participatoryfacilitated local regulation plans andacademic scripts in all of its Program’sareas.

The next step is political organizing.This step aims at gaining support from

stakeholders to citizens’ initiatives.Support raising may take various forms,such as personal lobbying, rallies,cooperation and political contract. Priorto support-raising, PATTIRO facilitatedcitizens in making stakeholder-mapping.In general, this political organizingsuccessfully improves bargaining powerof citizens’ initiatives. While PATTIROwas raising support from various stake-holders, citizens delivered their propos-als to DPRD. They also asked DPRD toexercise its initiative rights to discusstheir proposals. Until today, PATTIRO isstill focusing on political organizing.

There are various issues to be thesubstance of advocacy effort. Most localregulation proposals are intended toprotect marginal profession (very lowincome and uncertain profession), suchas to protect becak driver (Solo),honorary teacher (Serang), madrasahteacher welfare (Gresik), and employ-

Laporan Program Ford Foundation

13


ment status of transportation labors(Bandung). PATTIRO concentrates oneducation issues in two cities, namelyeducation subsidy for the poor(Semarang), and education systemimprovement (Malang). Other issuestaken by PATTIRO are social responsibil-ity of Soekarno-Hatta Airport manage-ment upon citizens who live in airport’sneighborhood (Tangerang), ex-villageasset management by its citizens(Pekalongan).

In 2004, local regulation proposaladvocacy effort by PATTIRO hasachieved promising improvement. Whenall local regulation plan drafts and theiracademic scripts in the first quarter ofthis year, PATTIRO and its assistedcitizens started to deliver their proposalsto DPRD. PATTIRO suggested DPRD toexercise its rights to make initiative localregulations. The local regulation makingbased on DPRD initiatives is a newmechanism in local level. However, sinceit is more open to citizen participation inlocal regulation making, we are deter-mined to apply this mechanism.

Political organizing allows PATTIRO tobuild cooperation with important localstakeholders. They include politicalparty prominent figures, legislativemembers, informal public figures andlocal government officials. Local regula-tion proposal process got big help withthis cooperation. In almost all ofProgram’s areas, each DPRD agreed todiscuss the local regulation plan pro-posed by PATTIRO.

General and Presidential Election 2004influenced greatly to PATTIRO’s advo-cacy effort. It brought good and badimpact as well to advocacy effort. The

good impact was that the tight politicalcompetition in local level before GeneralElection urged local political figures toactively find alliances. In such situation,PATTIRO found it advantageous to seekfor commitment and political contractfrom political figures and parties.Support for issues brought up byPATTIRO also rose up.

However on the other hand, GeneralElection weakened activities in locallegislative bodies. Consequently, advo-cacy effort could not be optimized.Discussion on local regulation proposalswere at slow pace since legislativemembers were occupied by their Gen-eral Election agendas. All local regula-tion proposals were piled up on thedesk of DPRD Secretariat. Discussion onthese proposals was not started untilGeneral Election was over and newlegislative members were inaugurated.

When new legislative body formationwas set and started to work, aboutOctober 2004, legislation function ofDPRD has not yet actually worked.Some of them were still busy withassembly structure formation andinternal code discussion. Advocacy onlocal regulation proposal was leastpossible to commence at that time.

On the other hand, PATTIRO saw thatdiscussion on internal code of legislativeassembly was an important arena toopen rooms for public participation.Specifically, PATTIRO encouragedopening a room for public to deliverlocal regulation proposals. PATTITOsuggested a tool for it, namely Legisla-tion Committee. Although this commit-tee was not a brand new idea, itsfunction was expected to improve to be

some kind of a door to let public sendlocal regulation proposals. This idea wasaccepted by DPRDs of Malang, Solo,and Pekalongan. Unfortunately, afterDPRD consulted with governor (asobliged by PP 25/2004), this hopedimmed. Executives objected to the

Laporan Program Ford Foundation

Committee for budget reason.

Advocacy effort on local regulationproposals was not continued until endof 2004. Today PATTIRO is still doingpolitical organizing to gain more sup-port. ●

General Election 2004 might mean morethan just a five-year political cycle toIndonesian women. Women of variousprofessions and backgrounds decided toengage in politics. It came as no sur-prise, since General Election Law Article65, Section 1, obliged 30% quota forwomen legislative candidates. Conse-quently, the number of women whoregistered as legislative candidatesincreased in many political parties.

On the other hand, PATTIRO saw thatwomen voters (women who are eligibleto vote) empowerment is an urgentagenda, since General Election 2004applied different system that the previ-ous ones. Women voters need to havecorrect information of the new system.

These conditions drove PATTIRO tocarry out Program of Women Voter RoleStrengthening Toward General Election2004 in four cities, namely: Jakarta,Semarang, Bandung and Surabaya. Thisprogram held various activities, namely:voter education on grass roots level bycarrying out FGDs, serial discussions,and women voter conference. Thisprogram was carried out from Novem-ber 2003 to March 2004 and supportedby United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP).

FGDs were held on 20 women groups inall of Program’s areas, except Jakarta.Women groups participated in FGDsincluded: housewives of poor families,

women who actively engage in PKK(Family Welfare Course), Aisyiyah,Muslimat, Fatayat, IPPNU, Salimah,students, elderly women, prostitutes,domestic violence victims, labors,women of Persis, church congregation,scavengers, teachers, beginner voters,pesantren women, and blind women.Voter education included two aspects:critical and technical aspects. Criticaleducation was to educate women onthe urgency of General Election, roleand function of political parties, andcriteria of good political parties andlegislative candidates.

Facilitators applied participatory methodto encourage participants to expresstheir ideas or opinions of society condi-tion, legislative members behavior andperformance. This process revealed theproblems faced by grass roots womenand performance gap of legislativemembers’ work, that most of them did

Women Voter Conference:An Effort to Empower Women Voter

Report Program GENDER and GENERAL ELECTION

16

not work good enough to representgrass roots women’s aspiration. At theend of this session, participants wereasked to express their expectations onthe would-be legislative members. Theirexpectations were formulated intoproblem-mapping of grass roots womenand issues to be represented by legisla-tive members. Beside critical education,FGD also delivered technical aspect toparticipants. Technical aspect is alsoimportant to make sure that womenvoters know how to vote correctly andtheir votes are claimed eligible. Thisactivity was to deliver learning processto women voters, so that they becameindependent and reasonable voters.Became subject instead of object inpolitics, for they can express what theywant the legislative members to do inthe next five-year period.

Serial Discussion was held in Jakarta.Serial Discussion was held five timesduring January to February 2004. Thepurpose of the events was to observe

concept and vision of political parties onsome issues, namely women represen-tativeness, corruption eradication,migrant workers, children rights andpublic participation. These eventsrevealed that many political partieswere actually not ready to biuld Indone-sia. They do not have clear concept onsolving problems related to thoseissues.

This program was concluded withWomen Voter Conference (end ofFebruary to March 2004), an event togather women voters and womenlegislative candidates. In local level,women voters met women legislativecandidates of DPRD I and II. While inJakarta, women voters met womenlegislative members of DPR. In thisforum, women voters could directlyexpress their expectations on womenissues.

This forum started with explanation ofeach panelist who came from various

Report Program GENDER and GENERAL ELECTION

17


political parties. They explained theireffort to develop women. It is followedby Q&A session with participants. Awarm dialog occurred as bargaining alsotook place. Bargaining took place whenlegislative candidates thought thatexpectations set by participants were

too high or too hard to achieve. It wasan interesting process since directrelation between legislative candidatesand constituents began to grow. It didnot happen in the previous elections forpolitical parties ‘wrapped up’ theircandidates so that voters did not haveany chance to know people who wouldrepresent them.

There is an interesting lesson learnedfrom this program. Grass roots womenwere proven to be political, not apoliti-cal as one would assume. They wereenthusiastic to discuss topics aboutpolitics. They were also capable ofexpressing their problems, needs andexpectations on legislative members. Allthis time they just do not have access tofind information and express their voice.In the future, there should be moreeffort to listen and include grass rootswomen in many aspects. PATTIRO willwelcome any cooperation offer toempower them. ●

18

Basically, this program was designed tosearch solution alternatives on publicservice performance improvement inlocal level. This program encouragedpublic service providers to open a roomfor feedback from their consumers, interms of complaint. Their feedback isimportant since there is no accountableparameter to judge effectiveness,efficiency and public-friendliness ofbureaucratic performance, exceptfeedback from service-users.

A program performed in three cities(Semarang. Malang and Tangerang)was generally aimed at five goals.Firstly, identifying complaint mechanismproblems in public services (education,health and waste management) in theeyes of poor consumers in Program’sareas. Access for poor women tocomplaint mechanism obtained moreattention.

The second was searching the poor’spreference of gender equality perspec-tive complaint mechanism on publicservices. It lead to the third goal, whichis to set suitable complaint mechanismmodel on public services. The modelshould also base on gender equalityperspective. When the model was set, itshould be disseminated and presentedon public consultation. Finally, when allthe four goals achieved, Programencouraged consumer to performproposal advocacy of the complaintmechanism to government and legisla-

tive body.

During August 2004 to January 2005,Program has conducted the followingactivities:

Quantitative Research. This researchwas conducted for a month. It tooksamples of 500 respondents in threecities for three sectors (basic education,health care and waste management).This research was to find out peopleperspective on public services and howthey react on dissatisfying public ser-vices they receive.

Qualitative Research. This researchwas conducted in two domains. The firstwas in grass roots domain. This re-search was to gain more observation ondata of quantitative research, particu-larly on people habits when they filecomplaint and their preference of

Report Program COMPLAINT MECHANISM

Complaint Mechanism Model on Public Servicesin Local Level

19


affordable complaint managementmechanism. Observation took focusgroup discussion method, which washeld five times.

The second domain was service provid-ers. Research method with structuredinterviews was applied to obtain de-scription of policies on services theyprovide, minimum standard of service,and complaint management.

Workshop on model setting. Thisworkshop involved various parties,namely scholars, public figures, legisla-tive members and NGOs. This workshopdiscussed the complaint mechanismmodel proposed by people at grassroots level.

On the other hand, workshop alsocreated commitment to bring complaintmanagement issue into advocacy effort.Thus, in each city, complaint manage-ment issue is no longer PATTIRO’s, itbelongs to all relevant parties. Thosewho were involved in this workshop also

agreed to be steering committee for thenext event, namely seminar in theirlocalities.

Seminar. Seminar was held to collectinputs from various sources on com-plaint mechanism model set in theprevious stage. This seminar was heldin each Program’s areas and Jakarta.

Book publishing. Journals of processand achievement of this program will becompiled in a book. The book will bepublished to share our experience incomplaint management mechanism onpublic services.

After went through all processes men-tioned above, Program managed toachieve:

A team (a kind of city-level coalition) ofNGOs, scholars, public figures, andthose who commit to perform advocacyeffort on complaint managementmechanism to be applied by localgovernment, and

Report Program COMPLAINT MECHANISM

Initial agreement, although not inwriting, with municipality (acting Mayorof Semarang and Mayor of Tangerang)to revise Minimal Standard of Service(Standar Pelayanan Minimal/SPM),which involve people participation, andSOTK when necessary as a conse-quence of SPM revision. Hopefully,complaint management mechanism isapplied in SPM revision.

With achievements mentioned above,we recommend further actions ofadvocacy efforts, such as:

Realization of oral agreement withmunicipalities.

Revise SPM and include complaintmanagement mechanism in it.

Conducting pilot project by applyingcomplaint management mechanism.Perform capacity building for publicofficers who are responsible for manag-ing complaints.

Give pressure to local parliaments inorder that they create independentinstitution that plays as mediator whendispute between citizen (consumers)and service provider occurs. This institu-tion should be able to monitor com-plaint management and proposals ofbureaucracy improvement, whetherconcerns its policies or organizationstructure, in order to create effective,efficient and citizen-friendly bureau-cracy. ●

Local Budget (APBD). This term gainspopularity since decentralization era.APBD is an important issue to reform.Non-transparent process and inaccurateallocation are two major problems ofAPBD. APBD cannot yet give maximumbenefits to people welfare. Peopleremains in spectator seats instead ofplays in the arena, although there is aprocess called people aspiration collec-tion.

All this time, there is an impression thatpeople aspiration collection is merely‘formality’ process. This impressionemerges since people aspiration are lesswelcome and participants who join theprocess are elites. Women (particularly

poor women) attendance is low foraccess and information limitation. Moreover, poor women also face a women-specific problem, that is domestic work.Inspite of those problems, their voiceshould reach the ears of policy-makers.Therefore, PATTIRO, supported by TheAsia Foundation, arranged a program of“Gender-Responsive Program Proposalin Local Budget 2005”. The program wascarried out in Jakarta, Semarang,Tangerang and Surakarta. Activities ofthis program included: need assessmentbasis, Local Budget analysis and politicalorganizing.

Need assessment process appliedinterviews and FGDs. This process

Reforming Budget, Empowering Women

Report Program GENDER BUDGET

21

22

observed problems and solutions, andthen translated them into programproposal to be accomodated in LocalBudget. This process also involvedcommunity-organizing. Women groupswere motivated to express their needsin organized manner. In each city, weheld FGDs in 5 kelurahan. In eachkelurahan we held FGD for five times.This program chose poor kelurahan aslocation of FGD and poor women andlocal prominent women as its partici-pants. One of those locations wasKelurahan Panggung Kidul in Semarangcity. In this location, people find two bigproblems, namely health (related toflood from rain and sea water) andeducation (high cost of education).

The forum concluded to make proposalof Fuel Provision Program. Fuel isimportant to supply flood drainagepump. They agreed to choose thisprogram since they often suffer fromthe flood problem. Moreover, it addsmore burden for women, since theyhave to clean up their houses whenflood is over. Not to mention caring outchildren who are infected by skin germcarried by flood water. Fuel provisionprogram to supply flood drainage pumpwould be very helpful to all citizens,particularly women of Panggung Kidul.This is an example of gender-responsiveprogram, an outcome of participatoryprocess.

At the same time, Local Budget wasanalyzed, both for general and specificanalysis. This analysis was to observegeneral pattern of Local Budget alloca-tion, find over-spending allocation, andcalculate percentage of allocationreceived by citizens, women, street

children, elderlies, and other marginalgroups. The analysis result would serveas an argument basis on programproposal advocacy. Thus, there will beno more excuse, such as budget limita-tion, to reject proposal from citizens.Moreover, analysis result may serve as aground for budget reallocation, cuttingunnecessary budgets and allocate themon programs that directly benefitcitizens, both men and women.

Since 2003, when it reported indicationof corruption in executive and legislativeinstitutions, PATTIRO gains betterbargaining position when deliveringgrass roots’ proposals and giving recom-mendations on Local Budget realloca-tion. Political organizing was applied intwo methods, namely: activities thatinvolve communities, and activitiesperformed by facilitators. Communitieswere involved in hearing session withdinas and DPRD. By joining hearingsession, hopefully communities maydevelop a sense of delivering programproposal. Another organizing activitywas lobbying. Most lobbying targetswere legislative members. Theselegislative members were given RASK.This lobbying activity grew to be techni-cal assistance activity, in which many ofnew legislative members were notfamiliar with details of Local Budget.Another important activity was ap-proaching the media. Mass media isbest friend for shaping public opinionthat related to advocacy issues.

Until December 2004, PATTIRO hasbrought some program proposals torealization. For instance, road repairs inPodhorejo, more allocation for fuelprovision program (related to flood

Report Program GENDER BUDGET

23


drainage) in Semarang, clean waterprovision in Panggung Kidul(Semarang), and investment aid forestablishing a cooperative in kelurahanKarang Timur (Tangerang). Someimportant reallocation were alsoachieved, such as budget for buying carfor camat was reallocated to providingwaste transportation vehicle. Process ofLocal Budget in DPRD become moreopen than it was before.

We can draw an important lesson

learned from this program, that isinvolvement of poor women in earningbudget allocation for their interest wasquite effective. What they propose wasnot far from lessen women’s burden.Poor women spend all of their time towork, whether it is paid or unpaid work.It left them no time just to think abouttheir own needs. Thus, lesseningwomen’s burden is a start to empowerwomen. In the future, PATTIRO inviteeveryone to cooperate in empoweringwomen simultaneously. ●

24

Report Program BALEGDANAS

This program aims at identification ofvarious problems that concern legisla-tion process, both in local and nationallevel, while at the same time trying toformulate potential of public roles inlegislation process. In other words, thisprogram attempts to encourage legisla-tion process that allows more publicparticipation, while observes the capac-ity of people and institutions involved inthis process.

In addition, this program also specifi-cally emphasizes the existence andcapacity of institutions that focus onlegislation in local/national legislativeassembly (DPRD/DPR). LegislationBody, as in national legislative assembly,is regarded as an institution that sup-posed to encourage public participation

in making regulations. Local legislationbodies are supposed to do the samething. Our research attempts to findwhether they play the role well or not.And if not, what kind of problems thathamper them to do so?

This program is conducted in local andnational level. In national level, wefocus on Legislation Body of LegislativeAssembly (Baleg DPR). While in locallevel, program is conducted in twolevels, namely provincial (Central Javaand South Sulawesi provinces) andregent/city (Pekalongan and Malangcities) level. This program is expected tocomplete in 6 months, from October2004 until end of March 2005. Consor-tium of three organizations, namelyPATTIRO, Forum Kajian Hukum (FKH),

Study Of Participatory Legislation Capacity Strengthening

25


Fakultas Hukum Universitas PakuanBogor and Konsorsium ReformasiHukum Nasional (KRHN), carry out thisprogram.

Started with literature search andinterviews with those involved in legisla-tion process, this program proceeds touse this preliminary work as material forproblem mapping. Problem-mappingconcerns any problems with legislationfaced by national legislative and execu-tive bodies, as well as local govern-ments. This step results in problem-mapof legislation process as well as capaci-ties of various actors involved in it.Those problems are thoroughly exam-ined. It results in recommendations ofmaking ideal and participatory legisla-tion system. This system, of course,

involves other stakeholders, namelycitizens, NGOs and scholars.

The recommendations are then dissemi-nated in seminars. In addition to dis-semination effort, seminars are anevent to gain more input, which isuseful to improve the recommendations.Along with various inputs gained inseminars, the recommendations arethen packed in one book and distrib-uted.

Until today, recommendations of idealand participatory legislation process arestill in formulation process. However,responses from various stakeholders areencouraging. In Malang, a number oflocal legislators are even activelyinvolved in this formulation process. ●

2626

Report FINANCE

CURRENT ASSETS 331,480,695

CASH 310,400,495

Cash on Hand 527,500

Cash in Bank

Giro O2 2,235,186

O3 139,146,949

O4 158,958,092

Saving Account 9,532,768

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES 21,080,200

Staff Receivables 21,080,200

Prog. Receivables 0

ADVANCES 0

Program Advances 0

Other Advances 0

NON CURRENT ASSETS 10,600,000

COST OF GOODS 41,841,075

Computer and Accesoris 41,041,075

Furniture 800,000

DEPRECIATION ACCUMULATION (31,241,075)

Computer and Accesoris (31,241,075)

Furniture 0

OTHER FIXED ASSETS 0

Library Books 0

TOTAL ASSETS 342,080,695

*) un-audited

STATEMENT OF FINANCE POSITIONSFor The Years Ended December 2004In Rupiah

CURRENT LIABILITIES 0

Current Liabilities 0

Program Liabilities 0

NET ASSETS 54,677,170

Grant

Unristected 0

Organized Grant 0

Served

Capital Served 54,677,170

FUND BALANCES 287,403,525

TOTAL LIABILITIES

AND NET ASSETS 342,080,695

ASSETS LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS

*)

STATEMENT OF FINANCE POSITIONS

27


27

REVENUES

GRANTS PROGRAM 1,469,945,269

Program Ford Foundation 557,678,800

Program UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) 355,191,469

Program TAF (The Asia Foundation) 250,000,000

Program AusAID (Australian AID) 307,075,000

OTHERS 16,127,291

Bank Interest 5,931,772

Individual Kontribution 8,520,519

LCD Rental 1,000,000

Book Seller 675,000

TOTAL REVENUES 1,486,072,560

EXPENDITURES

EXPENDITURES PROGRAM 1,130,763,804

Program Ford Foundation 508,979,455

Program UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) 356,498,469

Program TAF (The Asia Foundation) 109,262,360

Program AusAID (Australian AID) 156,023,520

EXPENDITURES NON PROGRAM 67,905,231

Staff Variabel 5,170,000

Telepon 16,081,807

Electricty 6,144,818

Water 1,596,900

Linknet 8,698,000

Office Boy 5,600,000

Social 300,000

Tax and Administration Bank 5,419,228

Depreciation Fix Assets 18,894,478

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,198,669,035

FUND BALANCES 287,403,525

Statement Of Activities And Fund BalancesFor The Years Ended December 2004In Rupiah

STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES AND FUND BALANCES


*) un-audited

*)

28

PATTIRO TANGERANGKomp. PengayomanJl. Perdata II No. 9Tangerang – BantenTelepon: (62-21) 55794237

PATTIRO SERANGJl. Sadewa No. 13 AKomp PEMDASerang 42151 – BantenTelepon: (62-254) 206921

PATTIRO MALANGJl. Arief Margono Gg. II No 15Malang - Jawa TimurTelepon: (62-341) 341725

PATTIRO GRESIKJl. Pontianak I/85Gresik - Jawa TimurTelepon: (62-31) 3953304

PATTIRO PEKALONGANJl. Raya HOS Cokroaminoto Gg. 15 No. 24LandungsariPekalongan - Jawa TengahTelepon: (62-285) 7902805

PATTIRO SEMARANGJl. Wonodri Joho II No 1012FRT. 02/RW. 03Semarang – Jawa TengahTelepon: (62-24) 8451650

PATTIRO SOLOSodipan RT 08 RW 05Kel. Panjang. Kec. LaweyanSurakarta 57146Telepon: (62-271) 7023799

PATTIRO’s core networks spreads in

Pusat Telaah dan Informasi Regional (PATTIRO)Center for Regional Studies and Information

Jl. Tebet Utara IIC No. 22, Jakarta SelatanJakarta 12820, IndonesiaTelepon: (62-21) 8297954

Fax.: (62-21) 8297954Website: www.pattiro.org

Email: [email protected]@yahoo.com

Documents

Annual Report 2005-ENG