Consolidation of Administrative Services in Indonesia Study on Formation of Sub-District (Urban Area) in Karawang Regency West Java Province

This paper is aimed to provide description on capability level in 2 (two) sub-districts to be formed in West Karawang district, i.e. Karangpawitan and Tanjungpura, and provide description on public aspiration on the plan of formation of sub-districts of Karangpawitan and Tanjungpura, to provide description on the availability and quality of public services provided by Karangpawitan sub-district and Tanjungpura sub-district all this time. This study uses application of regional capacity assessment model, by applying saturated sampling, namely listing all Community Associations (Rukun Warga) (RW) in Karangpawitan sub-district and Tanjungpura sub-district. Conclusion from this study will provide recommendation for Karawang Regency Government to implement formation of both sub-districts with several alternatives of regional reorganization of Community Associations (RWs) systematically, gradually, and continuously.


Introduction
In Government Regulation No. 19 of 2008 on District, it is clearly stated that formation of new district can be dividing of one district into two or more new districts; and/or integration of villages and/or sub-districts from several districts. It does not specify the definition beside condition for its creation by Regional regulation (Article 229 clause (1)).  (1)). c) Lurah implements administrative affairs as delegated by regent/mayor. (Article 2 clause (2)). d) Regent/mayor delegates administrative affairs to lurah in accordance with the needs of sub-district, by considering efficiency and accountability (Article 3). e) Administrative affairs of regency/city delegated by regent/mayor to lurah are mandatory affairs and optional affairs (Article 5 clause (1)). f) Further provision shall be stipulated in Regulation of Regent/Mayor (Article 5 clause (2)). Regency. For that purpose, it is necessary to conduct a study on potential and problems in sub-districts in Karawang Regency, and also to explore public aspiration.
Facts above suggest that in the implementation of regional autonomy, there are many formation/creation of regions, of either province, regency/city, district, sub-district and village. This is understandable, since the essence of formation/creation of region is to bring government agencies' service nearer to community. By formation/creation of region, it is expected that purposes of regional Part of operational area is area that is reachable in improving public service and development, and administrative facilities and infrastructures means: 1) Having land for administrative office; 2) Having proper transportation network; 3) Proper communication facilities; and 4) Proper public facilities [4].
In relation with explanation above, Karawang Regency Government is going to study potential of potential area of 2 (two) sub-districts and Hamlets/RWs in West Karawang District, i.e. Karangpawitan Sub-district and Tanjungpura Sub-district, in order to assess and evaluate variables or reliable criteria of regional potential to determine whether or not formation of sub-district can be implemented in both sub-districts.

Problem Statement
Within the context of formation of new Sub-district in Karawang Regency, the problems can be stated as follows: 1) How is description on capability level of those 2 (two) sub-districts in West Karawang District, i.e. Karangpawitan sub-district and Tanjungpura sub-district, to encourage the success of democratization, development and public service?
2) How is description on public aspiration regarding the plan for formation in 2 (two) sub-districts in West Karawang District, i.e. Karangpawitan sub-district and Tanjungpura sub-district?
3) How is the availability of public services provided by government in those 2 (two) sub-districts in West Karawang District, i.e. Karangpawitan sub-district and Tanjungpura sub-district? 4) How is the quality of public services provided by government in those 2 (two) sub-districts in West Karawang District, i.e. Karangpawitan sub-district and Tanjungpura sub-district?

Theoretical Framework
The purpose of regional autonomy policy as mentioned in Law No. 32 of 2004 is improvement for better public service and welfare, encouragement of democratic life, justice, and equality, and also preservation of harmony relationship be- In line with this, regional autonomy is placed entirely for regency/city, and delegation of authority of regional autonomy to regency/city is based on extensive, real and responsible decentralization principle. The achievement of this purpose would be determined by the capability level of villages/Sub-districts as the smallest unit of government which also the nearest to community that provide public services, implement the development and improvement of democracy [5]. Law No. 32 of 2004 Article 227 clause (1) states that sub-district can be formed in district region by local regulation with reference to Government Regulation. GR No. 73 of 2004 on Sub-district furthermore elaborates that formation of new sub-district should consider population size, area size, sociocultural, potential of the sub-district, and administrative facilities and infrastructures. This regulation provides spaces for formation of new sub-district through subdivision of sub-district as long as it is aspired by the public and it shall achieve the purpose of effective administration of government, public services, development and democratization at the smallest unit of government. For this purpose, it is required to measure and evaluate the potential of the sub-district as the basis of whether it is adequate or not for formation of new sub-district [6].
Result of the measurement considers main factor, consisting of accumulation of population size and total number of head of family, and supporting factors comprising particular total score of potential capability level which serve as basis for evaluation of whether or not a sub-district is adequate for formation. Evaluation of potential capability level for division of sub-district is evaluation of potential of the parent sub-district and the plan for formation of sub-district. Result of evaluation can be categorized into 3 (three) levels, qualified/adequate, qualified with condition/fairly adequate and unqualified/inadequate. Result of evaluation serves as recommendation for policy as follows: 1) If proposed parent sub-district and proposed divided sub-district both meet the requirements according to main factor and are qualified/adequate according to supporting factor, the action taken would be recommended for dividing of sub-district or creation of new sub-district; 2) If proposed parent sub-district and proposed divided sub-district meet the requirements according to main factor and are qualified with condition/fairly adequate or unqualified/inadequate according to supporting factor, the action taken would be to recommend for dividing of sub-district or creation of new sub-district, followed by development of potential into qualified/adequate within certain period of time; 3) If any of proposed parent sub-district and proposed formed sub-district fail to meet the requirements according to main factor and is qualified/adequate or qualified with condition/fairly adequate or unqualified/inadequate according to supporting factor, it is not recommended for dividing of sub-district or creation of new Sub-district [7]. Evaluation method is determined by distribution method using mean to account for data distribution. Score calculation with this method is adjusted by skewness and kurtosis of data distribution curve. Each sub-indicator has the lowest score of 1 and highest score of 6. For scoring, the steps are: 1) Calculate mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of kurtosis/skewness.
2) Calculate limit 2 (value 2 × kurtosis/skewness x standard deviation), and limit 1 (value 1 × kurtosis × standard deviation) and; 3) Determine index class for scoring: a) If indicator value > mean + limit 2, the score is 6; b) If mean + limit 2 ≤ indicator value < mean + limit 1, the score is 5; c) If mean + limit 1 ≤ indicator value < mean, the score is 4; d) If mean ≤ indicator value < mean-limit 1, the score is 3; e) If mean-limit 1 ≤ indicator value < mean-limit 2, the score is 2; f) If indicator value ≤ mean-limit 2, the score is 1.     and socio-culture are 5, value for facilities, religious, sport, public security and order, fishery, livestock, and employment are 3, and value for social condition is 2. Minimum passing score is accumulated total score of sub-indicators in each variable/group of criteria multiplied by score above average for each variable or group of criteria multiplied by value for each group of indicators. Calculation of minimum and maximum total score of each and every variable can be seen in Table 3: Minimum passing score is accumulated score of sub-indicators in each variable/group of criteria multiplied by score above average for each variable or group of criteria multiplied by value for each group of indicators. Assumption used is score above average for each variable is 3.6. For more detail, see Table 4: According to table above, the score above average is 1008. It means that a district is declared to be qualified for creation of new district if the score from measurement is equal to or greater than 1008. On that basis, category for evaluation on potential of district in administration of government, development and  Table 5:

Result
Based on field data, results of evaluation and measurement of potential in 2 (two) sub-districts and their RWs in West Karawang District, Karawang Regency are as follows: 1) Formation of Karangpawitan Sub-district a) Potential of Karangpawitan Sub-district     Table 14: Based on data above, potential of Tanjungpura Sub-district has score of 1011 (96.4%) of minimum passing standard, or potential of Tanjungpura Sub-district has score greater than 1008 (1008 ≤ 1011< 1680) meaning than it is adequate for formation. Based on comparison of potential as shown in Table 20, it can be explained that in alternative 1, comparison between proposed parent sub-district and proposed formed sub-district is by −55, which means that proposed parent sub-district has lower potential than proposed formed sub-district. In alternative 2, comparison between proposed parent sub-district and proposed formed sub-district 1 and 2 are by −25 and −86 respectively, which means that proposed parent sub-district has lower potential than both proposed formed sub-districts.
Therefore, it is clear that alternative 1 is decided to be choice 1. This is based on consideration that formation according to division of governmental operational area is relatively more balanced in terms of potential than formation by alternative 1 regarding the 19 variables. Difference between proposed parent sub-district and proposed formed sub-district in alternative 1 is only -55.

Conclusions
Balance in real and potential capacity of sub-districts, either proposed formed sub-district and proposed parent sub-district, after the formation should be relatively maintained. Therefore, the choice of action is based on the alternative with the smallest difference of total score. Formation should also ensure the improvement of public services, democratization, and social welfare, of both proposed formed sub-district and proposed parent sub-district after the formation.
Priority choice for formation of sub-district should be determined according to criteria on the lowest difference between results of proposed sub-districts, of both proposed created sub-district and proposed formed sub-district/proposed parent sub-district after formation, by considering public aspiration. This criterion is chosen with consideration: 1) Formation of sub-district should not make proposed parent sub-district become weak or incapable to administer its autonomy;