Implementing the National Single Socioeconomic Data (DTSEN) for Social Assistance Targeting in Bogor City, Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59890/ijarss.v4i9.46Keywords:
Policy Implementation, Social Assistance Targeting, Single Socioeconomic Registry, Street-Level Bureaucracy, Data GovernanceAbstract
Indonesia replaced its long-standing integrated welfare registry with the National Single Socioeconomic Data system (DTSEN) through Presidential Instruction Number 4 of 2025, ranking the entire population across ten welfare deciles to determine assistance eligibility. This study examines how that policy is implemented in social assistance delivery in Bogor City, which subnational factors support or obstruct it, and what optimisation strategies follow. A qualitative descriptive-analytical design was applied across two purposively selected sub-districts recording the widest coverage deficits, drawing on semi-structured interviews with fifteen informants spanning agency officials, sub-district personnel, system operators, neighbourhood heads, and residents, supplemented by field observation and documentation, and analysed through the Edwards III implementation model with street-level bureaucracy and data governance as supporting perspectives. Aggregate figures show 168,781 of 463,466 residents in Deciles 1–5, or 36.42 per cent, remain outside all assistance schemes, a figure representing a coverage gap rather than a measured inclusion or exclusion error since the study did not independently audit programme eligibility at household level. Communication channels operate but comprehension of the transition remains uneven; technical facilities are adequate while operator staffing is not; local commitment is strong, yet determination authority is centralised; and written verification procedures remain undeveloped. Discretion has migrated from final determination toward initial eligibility assessment, contrasting with earlier findings under the previous registry. The central implication is that building a technically sophisticated registry does not automatically produce responsive service delivery; conventional implementation factors, particularly procedural standardisation and human resource adequacy, continue to govern whether data integration translates into protection coverage.
References
Anhar, R., Kariem, MQ, & Febriyanti, D. (2023). Implementation of cash social assistance policy during the Covid-19 pandemic at the Palembang City Social Service. JISIP UNJA , 7 (1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.22437/jisipunja.v7i1.24246
Ardiansyah, F. (2020). Discretionary analysis on the role of street-level bureaucracy in food policy implementation for the poor in Bone District. Scientific Journal of Public Administration , 6 (3).
Bogor City Central Statistics Agency. (2024). Bogor City in Figures 2024. BPS Bogor City. https://bogorkota.bps.go.id
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
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2023). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dencik, L., Redden, J., Hintz, A., & Warne, H. (2022). The datafied welfare state: A framework for analysing predictive data infrastructures in public services. New Media & Society, 24(6), 1331–1350. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221079031
Edwards, G. C., III. (1980). Implementing public policy. Congressional Quarterly Press.
Hadna, A. H., Listyaningsih, U., & Ihwanudin, I. (2022). To what extent have street-level bureaucrats used their discretionary powers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 35(7), 806–820. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-12-2021-0272
Haikal, M., & Fitriati, R. (2023). The policy implementation of DKI Jakarta Provincial Government social cash assistance during COVID-19 pandemic. Monas: Jurnal Inovasi Aparatur, 5(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.54849/monas.v5i1.139
Henman, P. (2022). Digital social policy: Past, present, future. Journal of Social Policy, 51(3), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279422000137
Presidential Instruction of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4 of 2025 concerning the National Single Social and Economic Data. (2025). https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/314649/inpres-no-4-tahun-2025
Janssen, M., Brous, P., Estevez, E., Barbosa, L.S., & Janowski, T. (2022). Data governance: Organizing data for trustworthy artificial intelligence. Government Information Quarterly , 39 (2), 101625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101625
Ministry of Social Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia. (2025). The Presidential Instruction on the National Disaster Mitigation Program (DTSEN) has been signed by the President. The Ministry of Social Affairs will conduct random sampling and data analysis. https://kemensos.go.id
Decree of the Minister of Social Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia Number 262/HUK/2022 concerning the Criteria for the Poor. (2022).
Decree of the Minister of Social Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia Number 79/HUK/2025 concerning Determination of Family Welfare Rankings for the Distribution of Social Assistance. (2025).
Kidd, S., Athias, D., & Tran, A. (2024). Assessing the accuracy of proxy means testing in low- and middle-income countries. World Development , 173 , 106422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106422
Kuhn, R., & Stillman, S. (2023). Registry transitions and social protection gaps: Evidence from post-Soviet welfare reform. Journal of European Social Policy , 33 (2), 178–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287221143265
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.
Manoppo, EV, & Laoh, NA (2022). Strategy for utilizing Integrated Social Welfare Data (DTKS) in the distribution of social assistance for RS-RTLH by the North Sulawesi Provincial Social Service. Jurnal Konstituen , 4 (1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.33701/jk.v4i1.2598
Masiero, S., & Das, S. (2019). Datafying anti-poverty programs: Implications for data justice. Information, Communication & Society , 22 (7), 916–933. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1575448
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Regulation of the Minister of Home Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5 of 2024 concerning Single Data for Domestic Government. (2024). https://peraturan.bpk.go.id
Regulation of the Minister of National Development Planning/Head of Bappenas Number 7 of 2025 concerning Guidelines for Sharing National Single Social and Economic Data. (2025).
Regulation of the Minister of Social Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia Number 3 of 2025 concerning the Updating and Use of National Social and Economic Single Data. (2025).
Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 17 of 2018 concerning Districts. (2018).
Presidential Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 39 of 2019 concerning One Data Indonesia. (2019).
Poel, M., van der Torre, L., & Dignum, V. (2023). Government data quality and the challenge of distributed stewardship. Information Polity , 28 (2), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-220069
SKALA. (2025). Policy brief: DTSEN update. https://www.skala.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/160425-PB-Pemutakhiran-DTSEN-ID.pdf
Sugiyono. (2022). Quantitative, qualitative, and R&D research methods . Alfabeta.
The World Bank. (2022). Revisiting targeting in social assistance: A new look at old dilemmas . World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1814-1
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 11 of 2009 concerning Social Welfare. (2009).
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 13 of 2011 concerning Handling of the Poor. (2011).
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 23 of 2014 concerning Regional Government. (2014).
Widyaningsih, D., Toyamah, N., & Ruhmaniyati. (2023). The urgency of updating integrated data: Lessons from case studies in six regions of Indonesia. Journal of Economics and Development , 31 (2).
Wijayanti, CD, Soegianto, S., Sudarmanto, K., & Arifin, Z. (2025). Implementation of DTKS-based social assistance for recipient accuracy in Semarang City. Journal Juridisch , 3 (3), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.26623/jj.v3i3.12886
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Yusup, SA, Mubarok, A., Hafiz, RI, Fatkhuri, & Adrian, MM (2026). Public accountability in the implementation of the digitalization of Integrated Social Welfare Data (DTKS) in DKI Jakarta. Journal of Village Government Administration , 7 (2), 134–147. https://doi.org/10.47134/villages.v7i2.481
Zuiderwijk, A., & Janssen, M. (2014). Open data policies, their implementation and impact: A framework for comparison. Government Information Quarterly , 31 (1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.04.003
