EVALUATION OF THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM (SAKIP) IN NORTH MINAHASA REGENCY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59733/jishup.v4i2.256Keywords:
Evaluation, Government Agency Performance Accountability System, Accountability, Planning, Reporting, North Minahasa.Abstract
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the implementation of the Government Agency Performance Accountability System (SAKIP) in the Organizational Section of the Regional Secretariat of North Minahasa Regency, analyze the causes of its suboptimality, and identify supporting and inhibiting factors in the implementation of SAKIP. The research method used is a qualitative approach with a descriptive research type. Data collection was carried out through in-depth interviews, observation, and documentation. Data analysis refers to the Miles, Huberman, and Saldana model, including data collection, data condensation, data presentation, and conclusion drawing. Data validity was tested using source and technique triangulation. The results of the study indicate that the implementation of SAKIP is not optimal. This is due to several problems, namely: 1) Performance Planning, there is a lack of synchronization between strategic and annual planning documents and the less than optimal alignment of Key Performance Indicators with the RPJMD, 2) Performance Measurement still faces problems in the validity of achievement data, differences in OPD understanding in distinguishing output and outcome indicators, and limitations of the performance information system 3) Performance Reporting is hampered by delays in submitting LKjIP, non-uniformity in understanding reporting standards, and low quality of performance achievement analysis 4) Internal Evaluation and Follow-up show that OPD understanding of evaluation results is still low, follow-up is not consistent between OPDs, and coordination has not been effective. The supporting factors for SAKIP implementation include the commitment of regional leaders and regulatory support. The main inhibiting factors are limited human resource capacity, weak coordination between regional devices, and the less than optimal use of information technology.
Downloads
References
Behn, R. D. (2014). The performanceStat potential: A leadership strategy for producing results. Brookings Institution Press.
Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, *13*(4), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x
Bryson, J. M. (2018). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dalensang, A. (2025). Penerapan sistem merit pada aspek manajemen kinerja pegawai negeri sipil Kabupaten Minahasa Utara [Skripsi, Institut Pemerintahan Dalam Negeri].
Dunn, W. N. (2018). Public policy analysis: An integrated approach (6th ed.). Routledge.
Dwiyanto, A. (2021). Mewujudkan good governance melalui pelayanan publik (Edisi Revisi). Gadjah Mada University Press.
Edward III, G. C. (1980). Implementing public policy. Congressional Quarterly Press.
Haryati, D. S. (2019). Evaluasi implementasi Sistem Akuntabilitas Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah (SAKIP) di Biro Hukum Pemerintah Provinsi Kepulauan Riau. Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi Negara, *7*(2), 112–125.
Inspektorat Kabupaten Minahasa Utara. (2021). Laporan hasil evaluasi SAKIP Kabupaten Minahasa Utara Tahun 2021. Inspektorat Kabupaten Minahasa Utara.
Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi. (2021). Peraturan Menteri Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi Nomor 88 Tahun 2021 tentang Evaluasi Akuntabilitas Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah.
Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi. (2022). Laporan evaluasi akuntabilitas kinerja instansi pemerintah tahun 2022. Kementerian PANRB.
Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi. (2025). Lembar hasil evaluasi SAKIP Pemerintah Kabupaten Minahasa Utara Tahun 2025. Kementerian PANRB.
Liwutang, V. A., Kairupan, S. B., & Mokat, J. E. H. (2024). Implementation of the internal auditor policy of the North Sulawesi Regional Police. Technium Social Sciences Journal, *66*(1), 26–36
Mahmudi. (2019). Manajemen kinerja sektor publik (Edisi Ketiga). UPP STIM YKPN.
Mardiasmo. (2018). Akuntansi sektor publik (Edisi Terbaru). Penerbit Andi.
Mayuntu, U. (2017, December 8). Dapat nilai CC, Inspektorat Minut siap perbaiki SAKIP. BeritaManado.com. https://www.beritamanado.com
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Moleong, L. J. (2019). Metodologi penelitian kualitatif (Edisi Revisi). Remaja Rosdakarya.
Murdi, H., & Putri, A. (2020). Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi efektivitas penerapan Sistem Akuntabilitas Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah (SAKIP) di Pemerintah Kota Payakumbuh. Jurnal Manajemen dan Administrasi Publik, *3*(1), 45–60.
Nafai, C. O. (2026). Evaluasi Sistem Akuntabilitas Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah (SAKIP) di Kabupaten Minahasa Utara [Tesis, Universitas Negeri Manado].
Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (2005). Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, *25*(12), 1228–1263. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570510633694
Nugroho, A., & Sari, D. P. (2024). Uncovering the key factors behind the decline in SAKIP performance: A case study of BPS Kabupaten Bantul. In Proceeding ISBEST 2024 (pp. 145–158). Universitas Terbuka.
Pemerintah Kabupaten Jayapura. (2025). OPD di Kabupaten Jayapura diminta perbaiki penyusunan laporan SAKIP. Pemerintah Kabupaten Jayapura.
Peraturan Menteri Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi Nomor 88 Tahun 2021 tentang Evaluasi Akuntabilitas Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah.
Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 29 Tahun 2014 tentang Sistem Akuntabilitas Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah.
Presiden Republik Indonesia. (2014). Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 29 Tahun 2014 tentang Sistem Akuntabilitas Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah.
Rantung, Margareth I. R. Evaluasi Kebijakan Publik (Konsep dan Model). Tahta Media Group. Retrieved from http://tahtamedia.co.id/index.php/issj/article/view/733
Riantional, R., & Azlina, N. (2011). Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi akuntabilitas kinerja instansi pemerintah: Studi pada Satuan Kerja Perangkat Daerah Kabupaten Rokan Hulu. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan, *3*(2), 88–104.
Rosliyati, A. (2014). Pengaruh implementasi Sistem Akuntabilitas Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah (SAKIP) terhadap penerapan good governance pada BKPLD Kabupaten Tasikmalaya. Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi, *11*(2), 156–170.
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2019). Evaluation: A systematic approach (8th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Sarese, D., Mokat, J., & Kairupan, S. B. (2022). Implementation of policies to improve discipline and law enforcement of health protocols. Technium Social Sciences Journal, *38*(1), 75–86.
https://econpapers.repec.org/article/tecjournl/v_3a38_3ay_3a2022_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a75-86.htm
Sugiyono. (2017). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D. Alfabeta.
Suparno, Harsoyo, & Pradana, B. (2023). Penerapan SAKIP di lingkungan Pemerintah Provinsi Jawa Tengah. Jurnal Magister Administrasi, *6*(2), 87–102.
Yusrianti, H., & Safitri, R. H. (2015). Implementasi Sistem Akuntabilitas Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah (SAKIP) di lingkungan Pemerintah Kota Palembang. Jurnal Akuntabilitas Manajemen Pendidikan, *3*(1), 45–58.
