Latar Belakang Background
Latar Belakang
In 2012, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia issued Chief Justice Decree Number 026/KMA/SK/II/2012 on Judicial Service Standards to improve public service delivery by the court. This SK 026/2012 was also the follow-up to the ratification of law number 25 years 2009 on public services, which obliges state institutions to establish their own public service standards. In order to be able to implement such a civil service decree in a measurable way, there must be a clearer picture of the public service practice of the court.
So the most important step to take first is to map out the court's existing public services. An instrument that can be used to measure current public services at the courts is the satisfaction survey among court users. The measurement of this satisfaction survey is intended to look at the public perception of public services provided by the court.
Satisfaction survey is a standard method of measuring public service quality that has been used by government institutions in many countries. Secondly, related to traffic ticket hearing, as information, out of three million cases in the Supreme Court, almost 2/3 of them are traffic ticket/speeding cases, so the majority of court public service users are traffic offenders.1 This survey involves 1546 respondents spread over four areas of supervision .
Maksud dan Tujuan Survey Survey Purpose and Objective
Maksud dan Tujuan Survey
Such a blueprint is implemented through a series of technical policies; one of them is in government service. This policy reform in public service delivery is being achieved by introducing reforms in technical functions and case management, such as the implementation of SOP for administrative processes at the Supreme. In the field of public service, the Supreme Court has issued a number of general standard guidelines that can be used as guidelines for the Supreme Court in the conduct of public service activities.
The main purpose of this survey is not to evaluate the courts, but more to carry out the mapping of public service in courts. The reason why we chose satisfaction survey for court users is to listen to the voice of court service users about the quality of court public service. In addition, it is expected that this survey will also be used to understand comprehensively about public service given by the court to court users.
The satisfaction survey is one of the instruments that is often used to evaluate the implementation of public services in the field. One of them is to listen to the voice of service users through a public service user satisfaction survey.2 The final result of this survey is not only limited to obtaining a map of the existing state of court public services, but the result is expected. to provide practical recommendations to promote the improvement of the court's public service.
Metodologi Methodology
Metodologi
- Pendekatan Kualitatif
- Kuesioner
- Analisis Data
The interview structure follows the questionnaire flow created to extract information about the quantitative approach. Finally, a cross-analysis will be carried out on the final result of the information analysis obtained from a quantitative and qualitative approach in order to formulate conclusions and recommendations based on the survey result. In addition, the city where a court is located is randomized based on the cumulative value calculated from the number of cases per year in each district court, multiplied by a random number obtained from the Microsoft Excel table.
In Formula 1, the data sufficiency number is the number that should be collected as a standard of validity of the statistical analysis given the scope of the control area. In formula 2, the number of sufficient data is the number that needs to be collected to meet the validity of the analysis at the national level. Penempatan media informasi Location of information media Akurasi informasi yang sistema Accuracy of information provided Kualitas media informasi Quality of information media Jumlah media informasi Number of information media Permohonan Informasi.
Number of counters for the collection of confiscation evidence Ruang tunggu antrian retunan bukti sitaan Waiting room in the queue for the collection of confiscation evidence. Even if analysis by area is indicated, this will be treated as a non-probability survey (convenience survey). The indicator will be given to the composition aspect of the survey in question.
Responden
Pengguna Layanan Pengadilan
Responden Pengguna Layanan Pengadilan
- Jumlah Responden dan Lokasi Sampel
Below you will find the data on the number of respondents based on the type of court and the area of supervision. There are enough respondents to form the basis for the analysis, except in PTUN, which did not reach enough respondents. The location for court samples is selected from courts with an average caseload of more than 250 cases per year.
This section describes the general profile of the respondents participating in this study for better understanding. In terms of educational background, the majority of respondents are college graduates (51%), followed by Senior/Junior High School (42%), Primary School (6%) and others (1. The number of male respondents (82 %) and female respondents (18%) in PN has a significant difference compared to the proportion of male respondents (59%) and female respondents (41%) in PA.
The location selection procedure is based on the calculation of a random number multiplied by the average number of cases per year. The change was made to optimize the number of respondents in order to meet the set number of data sufficiency.
Kepuasan Pelayanan Publik Pengadilan
Kepuasan Pelayanan Publik Pengadilan Negeri dan Agama
- Kepuasan Fasilitas Pengadilan Aspek kepuasan fasilitas pengadilan
- Akses Ke Pengadilan
- Fasilitas Informasi
- Total Kepuasan Keseluruhan Fasilitas Pengadilan
- Kesimpulan Fasilitas Pengadilan Beberapa kesimpulan yang dapat ditarik
- Kepuasan Pelayanan Administrasi Pengadilan
- Pendaftaran
- Persiapan Persidangan
- Persidangan
- Pemberian Putusan 5
- Pengembalian Sisa Panjar
- Permohonan Eksekusi
- Petugas/Personel Pengadilan Pada bagian ini terdapat 3 aspek
- Total Kepuasan Administrasi Pengadilan
- Kesimpulan Pelayanan Administrasi Peradilan
- Pelayanan Publik Bantuan Hukum 6 Terdapat 4 aspek komposisi kepuasan
- Informasi Bantuan Hukum
- Pos Bantuan Hukum (Posbakum) Pada bagian pos bantuan hukum,
- Pembebasan Biaya Perkara 7 Pada bagian pembebasan biaya
- Total Kepuasan Bantuan Hukum Setelah menguraikan aspek-aspek
- Kesimpulan Pelayanan Bantuan Hukum
- Pelayanan Informasi Pengadilan 8 Pada bagian ini, terdapat beberapa
- Media Informasi
- Permohonan Informasi
- Keberatan 9
- Petugas Informasi
- Kesimpulan Pelayanan Informasi Beberapa kesimpulan yang dapat ditarik
- Pelayanan Publik Pelayanan Tilang 10 Bagian ini terdiri dari beberapa aspek
- Informasi Penyelenggaraan Tilang
- Waktu Tunggu
- Pembayaran Denda
In terms of lighting and lighting, the majority of respondents (55 %) said lighting and lighting were good, followed by respondents who stated that they were adequate (36 %) and poor (9. Most respondents rated appropriate (48 %) for the time frame of the hearing, while others rated it good (46 %), and poor (6. Most respondents were satisfied with the hearing process (48 %), while others were sufficiently satisfied (38 %), and dissatisfied (14.
Sedangkan dari segi preferensi terhadap tingkat pendidikan, mayoritas responden yang merasa puas adalah mereka yang berpendidikan menengah. Mayoritas responden menyatakan puas (52%) terhadap proses pelayanan yang ada, diikuti responden yang menyatakan puas (34%), dan sisanya responden menyatakan tidak puas (10). merasa puas (52%) terhadap proses tersebut, diikuti oleh responden yang puas (34%) dan responden yang tidak puas (10%).
Regarding educational level preferences, the majority of satisfied respondents are from the secondary education level. In terms of reliability in terms of the overall administration process, most respondents said it was good (43%), while others said it was adequate (42%) and poor (15%). Regarding court staff satisfaction, the majority of respondents (47%) said they were satisfied with court staff, while the rest said they were moderately satisfied (41%) and dissatisfied (12.
The majority of respondents in PN said that they are sufficiently satisfied (51 %), while sufficiently satisfied in PA is in second position (31 %), after satisfied. The majority of respondents are satisfied with court administration (50 %), while the rest are sufficiently satisfied (40 %), and dissatisfied (11. Regarding the composition of trial preparation, the majority of respondents (72 %) expect that the trial process can be completed in less than 2 weeks, while most hearings (60 %) actually take place between 2 – 4 weeks.
Regarding the legal service composition aspect, the majority of respondents are sufficiently satisfied (46%), followed by satisfied (42%) and dissatisfied (12. The majority of respondents said they were sufficiently satisfied (50%), some satisfied (38%) , and the rest unsatisfied (12. In terms of overall satisfaction, the majority of respondents said they were satisfied (52%), with the rest saying they were adequate (25%) and unsatisfied (22).
Overall, the majority of respondents said they were satisfied (52%), while others said they were sufficiently satisfied (34%) and dissatisfied (14%). In terms of educational level preference, the majority of satisfied respondents are from primary education (60%), followed by secondary education (57%), tertiary education (44%) and others (50). In terms of overall satisfaction, the majority of respondents said they were sufficiently satisfied (47%), and the others were dissatisfied (28%), and satisfied (25.
Regarding waiting time satisfaction, most respondents said they were fairly satisfied (46%), while others were satisfied (26%) and dissatisfied (28).
