FACTORS DETERMINING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

PROGRAM IN EAST TANETE RIATTANG, BONE, INDONESIA.

by
A.Abu Bakar1), Murtir Jeddawi 2), Darman Manda3), Anwar Ramli4)
1)

Doctoral Student of Public Administration, Makassar State University,

Professor of Public Administration, University of Makassar. (Indonesia),

2)3)4)

Email: 1)abu_andi_12@yahoo.com 2)murtirbappeda@yahoo.com

3)

darmanmanda.ppsunm@yahoo.co.id 4)anwar288347@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
This study aimed to analyze the determinant factor-factor in the implementation
of community empowerment policy in Bone regency, Indonesia. Policy National
Program for Community Empowerment, (PNPM) rural area experienced various
obstacles in its implementation which is characterized by the involvement of the
community is not optimal in its implementation pf development in rural area as well as
the objectives of the program have not been realized as public expectations. Therefore,
this study examined interesting to analyze the factors determining the PNPM Rural
policy implementation in Bone County.
The results showed that community involvement in the implementation of the
program is still low because the public has not been actively involved in every process
of planning, decision-making, and implementation of the program. The factors
supporting the program are: (1) active community involvement in the process of
identifying and fixing problems; (2) the effectiveness of the achievement of: (a) the
benefits of the activity; (B) the benefits of participation RTM; and (c) the benefits of
evaluation. The factors inhibiting the program are: (1) non-involvement in the
community: (a) the planning and establishment of training; (B) the planning and
establishment of socialization; (C) planning needs; and (d) the evaluation plan; (2) lack
of community involvement in: (a) the planning, establishment, and implementation of
activities; (B) implementation of the training; (C) address the problem; (D) the
implementation of socialization; (E) planning, determination, and participation RTM; (F)
the establishment and provision of programs; (G) the establishment and implementation
of the evaluation; (3) lack of effective achievement of: (a) the results of the
implementation of activities; (B) the results and benefits of the implementation of the

training; (C) the results and benefits of overcoming the problem; (D) the results and
benefits of socialization; (E) the results of participation RTM; (F) the results and benefits
of the provision of needs; and (g) the results of the evaluation.
Keywords: Community involvement and Empowerment Program Effectiveness.
Introduction
The purpose of the PNPM Mandiri project in rural area is the increase in
income and employment opportunities of society which, has not met the expectations of
public and there are still serious problems in its implementation in rural area. This facts
shows the trend has not been successful in community development. This is supported
by data on poverty by BPS through Social Services Data Collection Program (PPLSBPS) shows data on poverty in the Eastern District of Tanete Riattang in 2008, there
were 1,502 poor households (RTM) and in 2011 as many as 3,013 or 1,511 increased by
RTM. Based on these data, it is known that in the Eastern District of Tanete Riattang the
addition of RTM as much as 100.59%.
Referring to the data-BPS PPLS such, it can be said that the empowerment of
communities through PNPM Rural implemented in order to accelerate poverty reduction
in Sub Tanete East Riattang with a budget allocation of Rp.8.250.000.000, - since the
2009 s, d 2011, has not been achieved in accordance with the objectives of the program.
Based on these data it would require an analysis of the process of implementation of the
PNPM Mandiri, to menganaisis what factors that determine the success of PNPM Rural
in District Tanete East Riattang.

Research Methods
This study is a qualitative study using qualitative descriptive analysis approach.
Researchers would like to present a true picture (naturalistic) in the field by comparing
an event, activity, and standard products and programs PNPM Mandiri.

The research instrument used CIPPO evaluation model that becomes a tool for
policy analysis PNPM Rural represented by a seven-dimensional model of
empowerment empowerment (7E), as illustrated below:
Hubungan Model CIPPO dan Model Seven Empowerment (7E)

This type of research is qualitative research, using qualitative descriptive analysis

approach. The data obtained through observation, interviews, and literature. Informants
consisted of Operational Responsibility (PJOK), Kegiatana Management Unit (UPK),
community

leaders,

Project

Management

Team

(TPK),

Kader

Community

Empowerment (KPMD), and beneficiaries of women's savings groups (SPP)

Based on the research findings, the PPLS-BPS Data is Inaccurate Because
PNPM Rural in District Tanete East Riattang not fail, Although the level of achievement
is not in accordance with what is expected. PNPM Mandiri has, contributing in the form
of increased prosperity and employment, Although its contribution is low Because its
benefits have not been felt by the entire RTM.
This study can serve as a reference for all the relevant components, primarily for
the poverty data providers to enhance the data collection system and mechanisms of
poverty, so that in the future can be presented poverty data accurate and up to date.
Presentation of data on poverty is a barometer of sustainability and sustainability of the

program (sustainable), because if poverty inaccurate data presentation it will have an

impact on the policy to continue or stop the program, while at the grass root level of the
community is in desperate need of this program.
Research Result
Furthermore, the results showed that the determinant factors that determine
community development are as follows:
1. Factors supporting
Factors supporting the implementation of PNPM Rural in the Eastern District of
Tanete Riattang are as follows:

Based on the above table, the factors supporting PNPM Rural in District Tanete
East Riattang are as follows:
a. Indicators (C-E3) or the identification of the problem, namely the evaluation of the
relationship between variables contex with variable Eliminate empowerment, that
the people involved in the identification of problems that hinder the empowerment of
communities;
b. Indicators (I-E3) or the setting of the problem, namely the relationship between
variables inpit evaluation with variable Eliminate empowerment, that the community
has been involved in establishing the problems that hinder the empowerment of
communities;

c. Indicators (O-E1) or benefit the implementation of activities, namely the relationship

between the variables with the outcome evaluation envision empowerment variables,
that community development activities beneficial to the achievement of program
objectives;
d. Indicators (O-E5) or RTM participation benefits, namely the relationship between
the variables with the outcome evaluation enthuse empowerment variables, that
participation in community empowerment RTM useful in achieving program
objectives;
e. Indicators (O-E7) or benefit evaluation, namely the relationship between the
variables with the outcome evaluation Evaluate empowerment variables, that the
evaluation of community empowerment beneficial in achieving the program
objectives;
2. Limiting Factors
Factors inhibiting the implementation of PNPM Rural in District Tanete East
Riattang are as follows:

Based on the table above, the limiting factors in the district PNPM Rural East Riattang
Tanete is as follows:
a. Indicator C-E1 or planning activities, namely the relationship between variables
contex with variable empowerment evaluation envision that public participation in
the planning of activities is still lacking, low, or limited;

b. Indikator (C-E2) atau perencanaan pelatihan, yaitu hubungan antara variabel

evaluasi contex dengan variabel pemberdayaan educate, bahwa masyarakat tidak
terlibat dalam perencanaan pelatihan;
c. Indicators (C-E4) or planning socialization, ie the evaluation of the relationship
between variables contex with express empowerment variables, that the community
is not involved in the planning of socialization;
d. Indicators (C-E5) or RTM participation planning, ie the evaluation of the
relationship between variables contex with variable entheus empowerment, that
community involvement in planning RTM participation is still lacking, low, or
limited;
e. Indicators (C-E6) or planning kebutukan planning, namely the relationship between
variables contex evaluation with variable equip empowerment, that the community
is not involved in the planning of the program requirements;
f. Indicators (C-E7) or planning evaluation, ie the evaluation of the relationship
between variables contex with variable Evaluate empowerment, that the community
is not involved in the planning of the evaluation;
g. Indicators (I-E1) or the determination of activity, namely the relationship between
the variable input with variable empowerment evaluation envision that public
participation in decision-making in the determination of activity is still lacking, low,
or limited;
h. Indicators (I-E2) or training establishment, namely the relationship between the
variable input with variable empowerment evaluation educate, that the community
is not involved in the decision to establish training;
i. Indicators (I-E2) or the determination of socialization, ie the evaluation of the
relationship between the variable input with express empowerment variables, that
the community is not involved in decision-making in determining socialization;
j. Indicator I-E5 or determination RTM participation, namely the relationship between
variables inpit evaluation with variable enthuse empowerment, that public
participation in the decision-making of the determination of the RTM participation
is still lacking, low, or limited;
k. Indicator I-E6 or program needs fixing, namely the relationship between variables
inpit evaluation with variable equip empowerment, that community involvement in

decision-making in determining the needs of the program is still lacking, low, or

limited;
l. Indicator I-E7 or the determination of evaluation, ie the evaluation of the
relationship between variables inpit with variable Evaluate empowerment, that
community involvement in decision-making in determining the evaluation is still
lacking, low, or limited;
m. Indicators P1-E1 or implementation of activities, namely the relationship between
the variables empowerment evaluation process with variable envision that public
participation in the implementation of activities is still lacking, low, or limited;
n. Indicators P1-E2 or training, namely the relationship between the variables
empowerment evaluation process with variable educate, that community
involvement in the implementation of the training, still less, low, or limited;
o. Indicators P1-E3 or fix the problem, namely the relationship between the variables
empowerment evaluation process with variable Eliminate, that community
involvement in addressing problems that hamper the program is still lacking, low, or
limited;
p. Indicators P1-E4 or socialization, namely the relationship between the variables
empowerment evaluation process with variable express that public participation in
the implementation of socialization is still lacking, low, or limited;
q. Indicators P1-E5 or participation RTM, namely the relationship between the
variables empowerment evaluation process with variable express, that the RTM
participation in program activities is still lacking, low, or limited;
r. Indicators P1-E6 or provision of needs, namely the relationship between the
variables empowerment evaluation process with variable equip, that public
participation in the program is still lacking peyediaan needs, low, or limited;
s. Indicators P1-E7 or evaluation, namely the relationship between the variables
empowerment evaluation process with variable Evaluate, that community
involvement in evaluation is still lacking, low, or limited;
t. Indicators P2-E1 or results of the implementation of activities, namely the
relationship between the variable product with variable empowerment evaluation
envision, that the results are less effective implementation of activities towards the
achievement of program objectives;

u. Indicators P2-E2 or results of the implementation of training, namely the

relationship between variables with variable product evaluation educate
empowerment, that the results of the implementation is less effective training to the
achievement of program objectives;
v. P2-E3 indicator or a result of overcoming the problem, namely the relationship
between variables with a variable product evaluation Eliminate empowerment, that
problems are resolved inhibitor program was less effective against the achievement
of program objectives;
w. Indicators P2-E4 or results of the implementation of socialization, namely the
relationship between the variable product evaluation with express empowerment
variables, that the results are less effective socialization to the achievement of
program objectives;
x. Indicators P2-E5 or results RTM participation, namely the relationship between
variables with a variable product evaluation Enthus empowerment, that the results
of the RTM is still less effective participation to the achievement of program
objectives;
y. Indicators P2-E6 or availability requirements, namely the relationship between
variables with a variable product evaluation equip empowerment, that the
availability requirements are less effective programs to the achievement of program
objectives;
z. Indicators P2-E7 or outcome evaluation, the evaluation of the relationship between
the variable product with variable Evaluate empowerment, that the results of the
evaluation are less effective against the achievement of program objectives;
aa. Indicators O-E2 or benefits training, namely the relationship between the variables
with the outcome evaluation educate empowerment variables, that the training
conducted is less useful to the achievement of program objectives;
ab. Indicators O-E3 or benefit of overcoming the problem, namely the relationship
between variables with variable outcome evaluation Eliminate empowerment, that
of overcoming the problems that hamper the program is less useful to the
achievement of program objectives;
ac. Indicators O-E4 or benefits of socialization, namely the relationship between the
variables with the outcome evaluation express empowerment variables, that
socialization conducted still less useful to the achievement of program objectives;

ad. Indicators O-E6 or benefit availability requirements, namely the relationship

between the variables with the outcome evaluation equip empowerment variables,
that the availability of the program needs is less useful to the achievement of
program objectives.
Discussion
Community involvement in the PNPM Rural in District Tanete East Riattang can be
classified as follows: first, the people involved in the process of identifying problems that hinder
the program and decision-making in determining the problems hindering the program; second,
people are less involved in the process of planning activities, determination of activities,
implementation activities, training, troubleshooting, socialization, participation planning RTM,
RTM-setting participation, participation RTM, the determination of the need for programs,
supplying the needs of the program, the determination of the evaluation, and implementation of
the evaluation ; and third, the community is not involved in the planning process of training, the
establishment of training, planning socialization, socialization determination, demand planning
program and evaluation planning.
Effectiveness of goal achievement in the district PNPM Rural East Riattang Tanete can
be classified as follows: first, the process of empowerment effective in achieving program
objectives that benefit activities, RTM participation benefits, and benefits of the evaluation; and
the empowerment process is less effective in achieving the objectives of the program are the
result of the activities, the results of the training, the benefits of training, the results of
addressing the problem, maanfaat overcome the problem, the result of socialization,
socialization benefits, results RTM participation, the results of supplying the needs of the
program, the benefits of supplying the needs of the program, and the results of the evaluation.

Referring to the opinion quoted by Adi Watson (2003) on two groups of

obstacles, namely "individual personalities" and "social system" and then Watson
recommends three (3) the question, namely: (1) who is making changes; (2) changes
shape as what will be done; and (3) what is the procedure to make such changes, the
Watson recommendations are then answered by the findings of the study, as follows:
1. Who do change: Missed through research findings on the extent of public
involvement in the implementation of the program;
2. The shape changes such as what to do: missed by the findings of a study of how the
effectiveness of the achievement of program objectives; and

3. What is the procedure to make changes: Missed through research findings to the
achievement of each variable empowerment.
Research Findings and refer to recommendation Waston cited by Adi (2003), it is
recommended strategies for achieving program objectives PNPM Rural in District
Riattang Tanete East, as follows.
1. Maintain the empowerment indicators supporting factors, namely empowerment
indicators that have given space to the widest mainly poor communities to get
involved in the program, as well as indicators that have had effectiveness in
achieving program objectives;
2. Optimization of the empowerment indicators are still lacking, low, or limited, the
indicators related to community involvement in planning, decision-making, and
implementation of the program, as well as indicators related to the effectiveness of
the results and benefits of the program to improve the welfare and employment
opportunities for the community poor people groups independently;
3. Community involvement poor people groups active in the entire process of
empowerment, especially for indicators of empowerment that is apparently not or do
not involve the community, which is in the process of planning and decision-making.
This means that the people are agents of change, so that the dominance of the
executive or actors increasingly minimized programs and more focused on
mentoring activities;
4. Dissemination to create understanding and a common perception of the program and
objectives of the program should be carried out continuously on the entire process of
empowerment by encouraging and promoting leboh society as a more active role and
widest in the dissemination of information; and
5. Identify and resolve problems in konfrehensif in order to sustainability,
development, and improvement of community development programs in the future.
Conclusion
Therefore it can be concluded that the first: supporting factor is the empowerment process
in accordance with the objectives and basic principles of PNPM Rural, thus the PNPM Rural
contributing factor in the Eastern District of Tanete Riattang namely the identification of
problems that hinder the program, decision-making in define problems hindering the program,
the benefits of activity, RTM participation benefits, and benefits of the evaluation; The second:

the inhibiting factors empowerment is a process that is still lacking or not in accordance with the
objectives and basic principles of PNPM Mandiri, so the limiting factor demikianmaka PNPM
Rural in District Tanete East Riattang is planning activities, determination of activities,
implementation activities, training plan, training establishment, training, troubleshooting,
socialization planning, determination of socialization, socialization, participation planning RTM,
RTM-setting participation, participation RTM, the planning needs of the program, the
determination of the needs of the program, providing the needs of the program, the
establishment of evaluation, planning, evaluation, and implementation of the evaluation

REFERENCE
1. Adi, Isbandi Rukminto, 2003. Pemberdayaan, Pengembangan Masyarakat dan
Intervensi Komunitas. Jakarta. Lembaga Penerbit FE UI.
2. Burhan, Bungin. 2007. Penelitian Kualitatif : Komunikasi, Ekonomi, Kebijakan
Publik, dan Ilmu Sosial Linnya, Jakarta : Kencana Prenada Media Group
3. Dunn, William, 1999. Analisis kebijakan Publik. Yogyakarta, Gajah Mada Universty
Press.
4. Dye, Thomas R. Understanding Public Policy, Tenth Edition. Prentice-Hall, New
Jersey.2002
5. Indiahono, Dwiyanto, 2009. Kebijakan Publik Berbasis Dinamic Policy Analisys,
Yogyakarta: Gava Media
6. Jeddawi, Murtir, 2008. Implementasi kebijakan Ekonomi Daerah (Analisis
Kewenangan,
Kelembagaan, Manajemen Kepegawaian, dan Peraturan
Daerah), Yogyakarta: Kreasi Total Media
7. Ndraha, Taliziduhu. 1990. Pembangunan Masyarakat, Mempersiapkan Masyarakat
Tinggal Landas, Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
8. Nugroho, Riant, 2009. Public Policy. Jakarta. Elex Media Komputindu, Kelompok
Gramedia.
9. Sugiono, 2011. Metode Penelitian Kombinasi (Mixed Methods), Bandung: Alfabeta
10. Rist, Ray C., 1995. Policy Evalution. Cambridge. Great Britain: University Press,
Cambridge
11. Sadish, William R. et.al, 1991. Foundations of Program Evaluations Theory of
Practice. London. Sage Publication.
12. Stewart, Aileen Mitchell, 1994. Empowering People (Pemberdayaan Sumberdaya
Manusia). Yogyakarta. Kanisius
13. Tayibnapis, Farida Yusuf, 2008. Evaluasi Program dan Instrumen Evaluasi.Jaklarta:
Penerbit Rineka Cipta