{"id":7616,"date":"2026-10-23T10:44:43","date_gmt":"2026-10-23T03:44:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/audithink.com\/?p=7616"},"modified":"2026-10-23T10:44:43","modified_gmt":"2026-10-23T03:44:43","slug":"inspectorate-sakip-evaluation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/audithink.com\/en\/blog\/evaluasi-sakip-inspektorat\/","title":{"rendered":"SAKIP Evaluation by the Inspectorate: Components, Weights, and Predicates"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"SAKIP<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Photo by 1981 Digital on Unsplash<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The SAKIP score is often used as a measure of a regional government's accountability, and the Inspectorate sits at the center of the process: reviewing performance reports before they are submitted, then evaluating SAKIP implementation in the regional apparatus. For the evaluation results to be more than just filling in a worksheet, assessors need to understand the components, weights, and score scale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article summarizes the legal basis, the division of roles, the assessment components and weights, the score scale, the predicates, and the practical steps of SAKIP evaluation based on PANRB Ministerial Regulation 88\/2021. References checked as of 23 October 2026. An overview of public sector oversight is in the article public sector internal audit<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Are SAKIP and AKIP Evaluation?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

SAKIP is the Government Agency Performance Accountability System, regulated by Presidential Regulation 29\/2014. AKIP evaluation (government agency performance accountability) under PANRB Ministerial Regulation 88\/2021 aims to determine the extent to which AKIP is implemented in driving the achievement of targeted and results-oriented performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are five specific objectives: obtaining information on SAKIP implementation, assessing the level of SAKIP implementation, assessing the level of performance accountability, providing recommendations for improvement, and monitoring the follow-up of the previous period's evaluation recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Are the Legal Basis and the Role of the APIP?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Basis<\/th>Relevant content<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
Presidential Regulation 29\/2014 Article 28<\/td>The APIP at ministries\/agencies and regional governments reviews performance reports to ensure the reliability of the information before they are submitted. The review result is set out in a statement of having been reviewed signed by the APIP<\/td><\/tr>
Presidential Regulation 29\/2014 Article 29<\/td>The APIP evaluates the implementation of SAKIP and\/or performance according to its needs and authority, then reports it to the agency head. The Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (PANRB) coordinates the conduct of evaluations<\/td><\/tr>
PANRB Ministerial Regulation 88\/2021 Article 4<\/td>The Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (PANRB) carries out AKIP evaluation (Berita Negara 2021 Number 1569)<\/td><\/tr>
PANRB Ministerial Regulation 88\/2021 Articles 5 and 6<\/td>Each agency head carries out AKIP evaluation in their agency every year through an evaluator team formed by that agency, with technical policy guided by this regulation<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This regulation replaces PANRB Ministerial Regulation 12\/2015. At the time this article was written, the 2025 and 2026 evaluations still referred to PANRB Ministerial Regulation 88\/2021, but check the JDIH of the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (PANRB) for updates before drafting technical policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Who Evaluates: National or Internal?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Type of Evaluation<\/th>Executor<\/th>Target<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
National evaluation<\/td>National Assessment Team formed by the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (PANRB)<\/td>Ministries, agencies, and provincial, district, and city governments that have submitted performance reports through the electronic SAKIP Reviu application<\/td><\/tr>
Internal evaluation<\/td>Internal Evaluator Team formed in each ministry\/agency and regional government<\/td>Work units or subordinate work units<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The regulation states that the internal evaluator team is formed by the agency. In practice, many regional governments involve the Inspectorate in it or place it as the main implementer, but the team composition follows each region's technical policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Are the Assessment Components and Weights?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Evaluation Worksheet (LKE) contains four components, each divided into three sub-components: existence (20%), quality (30%), and utilization (50%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Components<\/th>Existence<\/th>Quality<\/th>Utilization<\/th>Total weight<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
Performance Planning<\/td>6<\/td>9<\/td>15<\/td>30<\/td><\/tr>
Performance Measurement<\/td>6<\/td>9<\/td>15<\/td>30<\/td><\/tr>
Performance Reporting<\/td>3<\/td>4,5<\/td>7,5<\/td>15<\/td><\/tr>
Internal Performance Accountability Evaluation<\/td>5<\/td>7,5<\/td>12,5<\/td>25<\/td><\/tr>
Performance Accountability Score<\/td>20<\/td>30<\/td>50<\/td>100<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Note that utilization carries half of the weight. Documents that exist and are of good quality are still not enough if they are not used to make decisions, for example performance measurement results that never influence next year's planning.<\/p>\n\n\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"cta\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n\n\n\n

What Is the Score Scale for Each Sub-Component?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Score<\/th>Weight<\/th>Criteria condition<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
AA<\/td>100<\/td>All criteria are met (100%) and there are innovative efforts worthy of becoming a national model<\/td><\/tr>
A<\/td>90<\/td>All criteria are met (100%) and there are several efforts worth recognizing<\/td><\/tr>
BB<\/td>80<\/td>All criteria are met (100%) in line with the policy mandate<\/td><\/tr>
N<\/td>70<\/td>Most criteria are met (above 75% up to 100%)<\/td><\/tr>
CC<\/td>60<\/td>Most criteria are met (above 50% up to 75%)<\/td><\/tr>
C<\/td>50<\/td>A small portion of the criteria is met (above 25% up to 50%)<\/td><\/tr>
D<\/td>30<\/td>The performance accountability assessment criteria are starting to be met<\/td><\/tr>
E<\/td>0<\/td>There is no effort at all to meet the criteria<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Every score on a sub-component must be accompanied by notes consisting of an explanation and a list of supporting, relevant document evidence. Sub-component scores accumulate into the score of each component, then the total score.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Are the Evaluation Result Predicates?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Predicate<\/th>Score<\/th>Designation<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
AA<\/td>above 90 up to 100<\/td>Highly Satisfactory<\/td><\/tr>
A<\/td>above 80 up to 90<\/td>Satisfactory<\/td><\/tr>
BB<\/td>above 70 up to 80<\/td>Very Good<\/td><\/tr>
N<\/td>above 60 up to 70<\/td>Good<\/td><\/tr>
CC<\/td>above 50 up to 60<\/td>Fair (Adequate)<\/td><\/tr>
C<\/td>above 30 up to 50<\/td>Not enough<\/td><\/tr>
D<\/td>above 0 up to 30<\/td>Very Poor<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

For evaluations with a specific target predicate, the annex regulates work unit sampling: target predicates C and D do not need sampling, while higher targets require work unit sampling. For the AA target, the average sampling score across all work unit clusters must be at least equivalent to Satisfactory (average A).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Are the Practical Steps for an Internal Evaluator?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The following steps are an example of a working approach in line with the annex, not a standard provision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Plan the evaluation.<\/strong> Determine the users of the results, the evaluation questions, the work units to be sampled, and the evaluators needed. Include them in the annual plan as discussed in the Inspectorate PKPT article<\/a>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Collect the documents.<\/strong> Strategic plan, performance agreements, performance indicators, performance reports, and evidence of the use of performance measurement results.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Fill in the LKE per sub-component<\/strong> with notes and evidence, not just a score selection.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Tiered review.<\/strong> The annex regulates a level 1 review by the team supervisor and a level 2 review through a panel forum of all evaluator teams to standardize scores and determine categories.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Prepare and submit the Evaluation Result Report (LHE)<\/strong> based on the LKE, with a joint discussion with the work unit being assessed.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. Monitor follow-up.<\/strong> One of the purposes of the evaluation is to monitor the follow-up of recommendations from the previous period, so the status of recommendations must be recorded.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    What Are Common Mistakes?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n