Management performance and its impact analysis on the beneficiary community

For most community engagement in universities, the beneficiary self-help impact as considered as CO-CD principle has been disregarded. The critical issues of this research were to respond whether the UT community-engagement management had been executed properly? and Whether UT community-engagement had been capable of giving positive impacts on the beneficiary communities? This research-design covered 2 clusters. The first was the managerial performance issues, and the second was the impact factors on the beneficiary communities. The method used was a Survey, and the data were collected using composite sampling between Purposive Judgment and ‘Census’. The data analysis was also a combination among The Performance Analysis, The Context-Input-Process-Product, and the CO-CD concept. The findings were: First, less-credible (64%) for quantitative achievement, and poor on the qualitative targeting. The “Gap” was due to the absennce of ‘CO-CD base’ on the UT community-engagement grand-policy; Second, good-mode on short term impacts. However, ‘Self-help’ creation in the beneficiary communities could not be achieved. From the findings, it can be concluded that there was no direct-correlation between the weakmanagerial-performance and the relatively good-impact on its beneficiary communities.


Introduction
Community empowerment is an effort to improve people's "life skills", and that empowerment-effort would be beneficially effective when it is managed accordingly towards people self-help. Indonesia Open University (UT) as a state higher educational institution bears some social responsibilities. It appeared to be that UT community engagement programs management executed so far had been hardly effective due to several factors, including program planning inconsistency, limited-skilled managers, poor technical guidelines and programs-designing incompatibility. Moreover, among other problems were unsatisfactory absorption of the programs budget and the non-existing empowering parameters and principles in achieving the community engagement goals. In short, the programs implementation was still far off the mark. Various problems emerged from the community empowerment managerial execution had been so far indicated 'trial-error' in managing style. It was very Ad hoc and partial, not integrated in one chain of direction in achieving the goals (no-road map). CO-CD (Community Organization -Community Development) principles as commonly adopted and practiced by many social-work agent/institutions was not indicated inexistence at UT community engagement management.
There were two main problem statements in this study, namely: 1. What profile and lesson-learnt could possibly be developed and extrapolated from the analysis of UT community engagement programs management performance of 2012? 2. What would the profile from the impacts analysis of UT Social-Aid programs on the beneficiary communities of 2012 look like?
The aims were to supply a far-reaching knowledge improvement about community engagement management performance to UT stakeholders, that later could reasonably be utilized as an effective instrument for policy making based on 'CO-CD' distinctive ruling. Specifically, the study objectives were to conduct a profiling of an extensive performance on UT community engagement management of 2012.
This study result may be replicated upon singular or plural performance analysis approaches to the community engagement programs management run by any lecturers that use Social-Aid scheme (State-budgeted Charity).
The study covered two scopes of profiling, namely the accomplishment of management of UT social engagement programs and its effect on UT social engagement programs on the beneficiary community.
The ever-high growth of population, malnutrition, and high illiteracy rate are enough to show that Indonesia is still facing poverty problem (Samhadi, 2008). In 2015 Indonesia's position on the aspects of human development index (HDI) ranked at 113 (Yuliyanna F., 2017). A great extent in economic growth and equiMatrix development were once stated as a real form of success during the Indonesia New Order (Adi, I. R., 2002: 23), which were not accurate. It is because economic growth and equiMatrix development did not solely guarantee the economic improvement of society equally (Ismawan, B., 2013: 41). Some scholars in social works said that a new development can be said to be successful when all existing community members could make significant improvements for themselves. This new development model is presented as a shape of social-equality and participative development in living conditions (Ife, J., & Tesoriero, F., 2006) 1 . The key principles here in social-welfare improvement are assuring the creation of a public access and a community self-help factor. This improvement effort is so-called "Community Development" or 'CD' (Ife, J., 1995: 182). CD conceptual basis for the betterment of social welfare is a crucial paradigm for assuring the successful creation of self-help based social-welfare (Ife, J., & Tesoriero, F., 2006).
Community Development as a concept of capacity-building (empowerment) is commonly connected to the concept of independence by network-participation and justice, and that of capacity building should be contextualized on the existing marginal power-capacity of the individual as well as the social or communal extents (Effendi, K., 2008). The logic is that capacity-building of the individuals can be achieved when supported by the social or communal structure (Effendi, K., 2008). However, the share of the community itself should be more dominant and independent, by playing active roles in creating and achieving its own betterment of living condition. Thus, community plays a pivotal part in the community capacity building that must be put at the center of attention as the subject of an active role in doing 'Community-Interventions' to bring about full benefits to all parties involved (Hadiyanti, P., 2006). In par with the term CD, the executional success of the CD program is strongly correlated with Community Organization (CO). The successfulness of the 'Self-help' creation in the beneficiary community is a matter of how-good the administration and management of the project organized executed in such manner with CD principles (Ife, J., 1995).
Since the commencement of UT community engagement program in 2011, there have been major indications that the UT community engagement programs management applied seems far off the mark (poor program design and execution), when seen from the CO-CD perspective 2 . Managerial achievements of community engagement indicated nominally formalistic in its basic accountability, instead of efficaciousness. The major documents being reviewed such as Strategic-Plan, Annual-Plan, Functional-Plan and standard operating procedure turned out to be not designed based on a CO-CD framework of principles. This management effectuation indicates inability to deliver effective and efficient impact on the beneficiary communities. Therefore, to bring about good-impact on the beneficiary communities, then every agenda of UT community engagement program should be designed simultaneously and thoroughly between aspects of CO and CD at the same time.
Considering the above theoretical foundation, thus the basic assumption was that the successful creation of community self-help on beneficiary community that had 1 . See also at Tesoriero, F., Samuel, M., and Annadurai, P. (2006) been empowered is highly correlated with the merits of consistent implementation of CO-CD principles. UT community engagement program is considered a program belonging to community development framework and its efficaciousness should be referred to that of CO-CD principles.

Program Design
In designing the community capacity-development program, the perspective should be laid upon a collaborative process among the parties involved (Wibowo, A., 2009). The benefactors, the enablers, the agents (counterparts) and the communities must work hand in hand as equal partners in the whole process of community development programs which are going to be executed. The determinant factor of developing community engagement programs among other things is phasing or staging the programs execution in such a manner to be executed (Effendi, K., 2008). Figure-1 below is describing that of community empowerment stages.

Fig. 1 Stages of Community Empowerment Procedure
Source : Effendi K (2008: 66) In relevance with the UT community engagement program design, then the whole set of UT management system down to its terms of reference (TOR) needs to be comparatively evaluated and possibly redesigned to have a maximum good impact to the beneficiary communities and the benefactor itself.

Study Model
This study used evaluation model approach to analyze the problematics of UT social-engagement management performance.
In a broad sense, 'Evaluation' is executed to improve performance that include the planning and the work being performed (Purwanto & Suparman, A., 1999). There are numerous variety of evaluation models, and this study utilized a combination of those of two models of evaluation, namely Performance Analysis (Irawan, P., 1995) and CIPP (Context, Input, Process, Product) (Stuffelbeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J., 1985).
The concept of Performance Analysis requires seven elements as objects of analysis, namely (1) identification of standard performance, (2) formulation of actual performances, (3) identification of performance gaps, (4) identification of problematic gaps, (5) identification of evidence of problematic gaps, (6) identification of causes of problematic gaps, and (7) identification of alternative solutions (Irawan, P., 1995). Meanwhile CIPP model requires the domain of context, input, process, and product of objects being analyzed (Stuffelbeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J., 1985). Diagram 1 illustrates the flow of thought of two (2) clusters research question. The first cluster includes the program management problems, and the second cluster includes the direct impact of the implementation of the program of community engagement. In term of the locus, this study covered 3 (three) out of 7 (seven) loci beneficiary communities situated in the Greater Jakarta. This study was quantitative-descriptive using the obtained data quantification technique (Irawan, P., 1999). The main method used was Survey, supported by Document Review, Questionnaire and Interview.
The research model depicted in Figure-2 illustrates the flow of thinking in the sorting of the research problem, i.e. into 2 (two) large clusters. The first cluster encompasses the performance issues of the Abdimas-Bansos UT program management, and a second set of issues includes the direct impact of the results of the Abdimas-Bansos UT program implementation on the beneficiary community.
The analysis of the substance component of program management performance of Abdimas Bansos UT is measured according to CO-CD concept, which includes Program-Socialization, Program-Organizing, Program Needs Analysis, Program Implementation, Program Maintenance, and Program Disengagement. While the model of analysis on the management performance of Abdimas-Bansos UT program used a combination of 2 models between Performance Analysis (AK) and CIPP (Context-Input-Process-Product). The integration of the two analytical models between AK and CIPP brings logical consequences to the rigidity of the analytical cells used as the measuring grid (28 cells), thus the results of the analyzes and solutions obtained were more detailed and comprehensive. For the analysis of the impact of the Abdimas-Bansos UT program management, an actual impact analysis was measured according to HDI component standards, namely: education, health, and welfare components, both psychological and physiological. In addition, a simple analysis that links the values of previously known performance analysis results to the values of the impact of the Abdimas-Bansos UT program management on beneficiary communities was also made to confirm the findings (extrapolation-technique of analysis, Irawan, P., 2002).

Socialization of Programs Policy
Organization of Programs

Population -Sample
The population of the study covered all stakeholders, who comprised of PPM-UT managers, counterparts as agent of the communities, community members, and all documents related to UT community engagement program management performance of 2012.
Purposive judgment sampling (Singarimbun, M., & Effendi., 1989) was applied to this study, in which 3 samples with 67 community members had been chosen from the total 7 communities available. Purposive judgment sampling was also used to the representation of the Social-Aid scheme of budgeting (Bansos: educationhealth-welfare). On the other hand, a 'Census' was also utilized to all PPM-UT managers, the purposively selected counterparts (6 community-agentmanagers), and the previous purposively selected community members (67 respondents).

Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis
The methods to achieve the desired data, including the data collection, processing, and analysis, are described below. The conceptual framework of data collection was illustrated as follows. The process of data collection portrayed in Figure-3 illustrates the flow of data gathering process according to the two (2) research problems classification, namely the problem of the management performance and the problem of the direct impact of the program implementation on the beneficiary communities. The first issue of collecting data objects (K-1) was related to primary and secondary data concerning the performance management of Abdimas-Bansos UT Th 2012. The primary and secondary data sources in this first group were obtained from program managers, secretarial or filing divisions at PPM-LPPM UT, and the coordinators of the UT community engagement program counterparts. Next, the second group of data collection objects (K-2) that include the primary and secondary data of the direct impact issues of the UT community engagement program implementation were acquired from the beneficiary communities in 3 different intervention sites of UT community engagement program 2012. These 3 beneficiary communities were: KSU-Cipta Boga-Keranggan-Tangsel, PAUD-Anyelir-Semanan-Jakbar, and Posbindu-BKM Amanah-Pondok Betung-Tangsel. Thus, the data on the impact that had been collected include 3 (three) components of HDI, namely: components of education, health, and welfare both psychologically and physiologically. The data processing was accomplished comprehensively covering qualitative and quantitative data that were treated proportionally. Qualitative data processing techniques that belong the K-1 such as the results of interviews and self-observation involving the managers of the PPM-LPPM UT community engagement program and the coordinator of partners had been executed through systematic-transcribing stage (Patilima H, 2005). Systematic transcribing was accomplished deriving from recording and coded based on the determined variables and indicators of community engagement management performance analysis that are in line with preprepared matrix, i.e., a cell-integration between AK and CIPP matrices. The principle of integrating cells of AK Matrix and CIPP was intended to facilitate the analysis steps in portraying UT community development management performance and its impact, all of them were displayed in Matrix-1a, 1b, 2, 3, and 4. Proportionally, the quantitative data processing technique that belong to K-2 was also executed by creating several sets of data coding and programming for specific purpose deriving from statistical tool of calculation, namely 'Descriptive Multivariate' with the formula of central tendency, distribution frequency (Sugiyono, 2006), and Forced-Interval (ordinal data made interval, Irawan P., 2002) as well as percentage to facilitate analysis of the UT community development program impact on beneficiary communities. SPSS Ver-15.0 and Excel computing programs had been utilized for this statistical calculation (Gaur A.S & Gaur S.S, 2006), and the results were presented in Matrix-3 and 4.
Consequently, the data analysis was performed in sequence as follows: a. Model of performance analysis covering stages of socialization, organization, needs analysis, implementation, maintenance, and disengagement (Irawan, P. 1995) and model CIPP analysis (Stuffelbeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J., 1985) covering input, process, output had been utilized to analyze the PPM-UT managers performance; b. Qualitative data analysis (K-1) was performed through systematiccoding-profiling (Patilima, H., 2005) and multiple verification (Bogdan, R. C., & Biglen, S. K., 1992). Matrix-1a, 1b and 2 present the data processing results for further analysis on the management performance of UT community engagement program; c. Quantitative data analysis (K-2), was executed through the use 'Descriptive Multivariate' statistical calculation that covered central tendency, frequency distribution (Sugiyono, 2006), and Forced-Interval (ordinal data were made interval) as well as percentage (Irawan, P., 1999) to analyze the impact of program management on the beneficiary communities. Matrix-3 and 4 present the data processing results for further analysis on the impact of UT community engagement program.

Result and Discussion
Overall, there had been major indications that UT community engagement management model performed in 2012 seemed far away from what being labeled 'Good-Enough'. When CO-CD perspective was used for analysis, managerial results including the financial performance were found to be nominally formalistic and generic-oriented in its accountability. In addition to the CO-CD principles not being considered for UT community engagement management accountability, the self-help principle as basic issue was also not utilized for final management accountability. UT community engagement management performance found to be far from CO-CD base of framework. Program-Planning and its realizationstill missed by a mile, only 64% achieved, with a long-time delay of program effectuation, which was in planning basis supposed to be executed in May but could only be implemented in September 2012. The overall data discussed can be seen on the Interview Results on Matrix-1, the Document Review Results on Matrix-2, the Impact of UT Community Engagement Program on Beneficiary Community on Matrix-3 and Matrix-4 below.
Matrix-1a is the analytical results of the interview output taken from the view of PPM-UT managers that indicated PPM-UT management performance of 2012. The display of management performance was rendered into six CO-CD factors and sub-split into two factors of analysis (Performance Analysis and CIPP). The main point of the analytical results of the interview showed in Matrix-1a is indicating the unsatisfactory management performance due to the lack of CO-CD perspective from UT policy-holders and managers. Here is Matrix-1a. Matrix-1a shows the interview results with PPM-UT managers portraying various matters of managerial performance on community engagement programs, that covered six stages, namely Socialization, Coordination, Needs Analysis, Implementation, Maintenance, and Disengagement. There were seven key informants who hold various job-positions committed to the interview. They were asked rigidly to express their opinion regarding their actual job-performance condition. Matrix-1a signifies cross-tabulation between one main variable, namely CO-CD performance factors and CIPP -PA responded analysis factors. For CIPP responded analysis factors, the content-substance justification was broken down into three interval scale categories (Good -Moderate -Poor). To better understand the interval scale categories that represent its qualitative data, an arbitrary numerical function was created as shown in the matrix. It was said that basically the UT community engagement program management did not follow the principles of CO-CD, thus the results were considered not maximum and not measured properly. Starting from the initial stage of 'Program Socialization', mentioned by PPM-UT managers that this component was not executed because the management does not have Terms of Reference or even other forms of managerial guidelines. The next stages namely 'Program Organizing', 'Needs Analysis', and 'Program Implementation' were shown as hasty activities due to the limited time available they had executed, i.e. there were only 3 months (October -November-December) of 2012 to complete the overall program of community engagement activities. Upon organizing component, the scheduling and its execution were indicated as weak, and that caused various crucial issues such as inadequate programs implementation. Of the 11 (eleven) community engagement programs, only 7 (seven) program packages can be completely accomplished. Subject to 'Intervention Needs Assessment' component, the finding showed any difficulty for both PPM-UT managers themselves and NGO counterparts in satisfying the standard requirements of the needs analysis parameters, specifically written in the guidelines for the selection criteria to the NGO counterpart's proposals. The tighter tolerance the PPM-UT managers would give, the smaller the chances of NGO counterparts receiving UT charities. Similarly, at the 'Program Implementation' stage, there was an overuse of the PPM UT programming timeframe to the NGO counterparts to complete the given programs within 3 (three) months at the end of year. Some other crucial issues found from the interviews were that the 'Program Maintenance' and 'Program Disengagement' did not exist in stages in UT community engagement program management.
The main cause of the average absence of the various components of CO-CD in the UT community engagement management was the lack of a CO-CD perspective by PPM-UT managers. This condition had had an impact on the absence of UT's strategic plan in its community engagement implementation program policies. The main point of alternative solution was to improve CO-CD competencies for the PPM-UT managers and staffs, and to developing a comprehensive Community Engagement Grand-Policy down to SOP on the bases of CO-CD principles.
Similarly, Matrix-1b below also displays the analytical results of the interview that show the view of community agent-counterparts on PPM-UT management performance of 2012.
Matrix-1b shows indication of unsatisfactory management performance due to the absence of CO-CD base guideline and lack of CO-CD perspective in part of the community agentcounterparts. Below is Matrix-1b. ▪ The implementation of the community engagement programs is not optimal. Of the 11 (eleven) UT community engagement programs in 2012, only 6 (six) program packages were able to be completed.
• Given a fairly loose program deadline to counterpart coordinators by PPM-UT to implementing the program, commencing in January/February.

Difficulty in finding appropriate variables and indicators of community needs with parameters selection for socialaids provision.
▪ Several changes have been made to the Counterparts' proposal adjustment to match the needs analysis parameters for the social-aids provision.
▪ Given an appropriate tolerance which is not principle for the application of social-aids provision parameters. ▪ Given a sufficient timeframe in the selection process of socialaids provision and analysis of intervention needs. Matrix-1b shows similar condition portraying various matters of managerial performance on community engagement programs. There were nine key informants representing three different community agentcounterparts who hold various job-position. They had indicated that the principles of CO-CD were not part of UT management they must comply. The six CO-CD factors has not been an issue for them to accomplish the community engagement contract given to them. Starting from the absence of CO-CD base Terms of Reference, hasty activities to executing the program, poor managerial consistency between planning and implementation, and lack of CO-CD perspective in part of the counterparts brought about poor performance.

Res
The main cause of the average absence of the various components of CO-CD in the UT community engagement management was the lack of a CO-CD perspective by PPM-UT managers. This condition had impacted on the absence of UT's strategic plan in its community engagement implementation program policies. The alternative solution relevant to them was to develop a comprehensive Community Engagement Grand-Policy down to SOP on the bases of CO-CD principles.
Matrix-2 below is also the document review results taken from the office of PPM-UT archive unit-section and a few from the agent-counterparts office that indicated PPM-UT management performance in 2012. The display of management performance derived from the reviewed authentic documents was presented into CO-CD substantial components. The main point of the analytical results of the reviewed documents showed in Matrix-2 indicates the absence of CO-CD content. For this, through interview it had been assured that the missing CO-CD content on the authentic documents was due to the lack of CO-CD perspective from the policy-holders and managers. Here is Matrix-2.

Data Source
: PPM-UT Secretariat and Archive Unit-Section Document Type * : (1) Program Report Manuscript (3)  Matrix-2 signifies condition that UT community engagement management in its operation did not adopt the CO-CD principles at all. The various types of documents related to the management of the Abdimas UT program have been reviewed using the benchmark CO-CD principles. Document review guidelines have been developed to find out how comprehensive or severely poor the substance in the document manuscript has been prepared to govern the community engagement management program. There was no single document that in its content substantially indicates a set of CO principles. Only a few of CD principles had been practiced, such as poor Targeting-Strategizing-Empowering-Self help Creating. The detail results and discussion are described as follows:

Discussion of UT Community Engagement Programs Management
Performance.
The analysis results portrayed that UT community engagement programs management of 2012 was not utilizing CO-CD principles, and therefore the managerial achievement was unsatisfactory, and the achievement was unmeasurable. Various official documents related to the community engagement programs were found containing no description of CO-CD based community development policy, not even at UT Strategic Plan manuscript, UT Operational Planning or at UT Functional Planning. The more specific and detail findings on CO-CD procedure are described as follows: 1) On the Socialization Stage _ Socialization of each community development programs was not executed by the PPM-UT managers including the Counterparts implementing partners. This component was not adopted due to the no-CD CO perspectives by the stakeholders at UT. The lack of Terms of Reference (TOR) socialization by the program managers resulted in flaws in the program preparation. When it is connected to the program impact on the beneficiary community, there were no understanding of the importance of self help on the part of the beneficiary community; 2) On the Organization Stage _ Weak programs scheduling had led the programs implementation to be not optimal. The success rate was only 64%, because it was done on a very tight deadline (three months) at the end of fiscal year 2012 (October-November-December). So that the entire schedule should have been adjusted to the remaining fiscal year. The adjustment ranges from a cooperative agreement between UT management with its Counterparts, reissuing the revised the legal foundation for Executing-Team, and extra completion of administrative requirements, adjusted-disbursement, intervention design redials expressed in the proposal between Executing-Team Leader and PPM-UT managers, to doing extra work on reporting of the implementation activities. With regard to the impact, the direct positive impact on the implementation of the program was only limited at the time of the intervention process, so that its impact on sustainable self-help was not known. All organizing activities were 'Ad hoc' in its execution (see Reviewed Document_Tabel-2); 3) On the Needs Analysis Stage _ The high-rigid assessment criteria used by PPM-UT managers to the candidates of beneficiary community, such as the criteria of 'Marginal Communities', 'Human Development Index', and 'Installment-Payment' had caused difficulties for PPM-UT managers themselves in assessing and judging the proposals delivered by the community agent-counterparts. These high-rigid criteria bring also difficulty to the community agent-counterparts who were assisted by UT enablers (lecturers) in developing the intended proposal 3 . Another crucial assessment issue was the way to 'find the degree of tolerance of acceptability' in giving social-aids. The judgement analysis between the high-rigid parameters of giving the Social-Aid and the real mismatched needs to the criteria of the eligible beneficiary communities was a troubling factor for both parties. The tighter the assessment parameters used by PPM-UT managers, then the smaller the chance of eligible community agent-counterparts in getting the social-aid ('see Reviewed Document _Tabel-5). In relation with the impact, there was little known about the validity and consistency between the original communities needs and the adjusted needs to meet the management parameters; 4) On the Execution Stage _ It was found that the program planning execution was characterized by the accumulation of heavy workload at the end of national budgeting year. This year-end heavy workload was caused by programs scheduling inconsistency in its implementation. Such short time frame for programs implementation brought about accumulated heavy work-load and unsatisfactory performance executed by PPM-UT and the community agent-counterparts. The absence of CO-CD principles as perspective on the UT community engagement program management caused too little time allocation for the enabler-team in completing their job perfectly. Despite such tight time frame, formally the entire empowerment project can be completed nominally (see Reviewed Document_Tabel-2). Thus, in correlation with the impact, the results of the intervention process were noticed as nominal instead of optimal upgraded capacity; 5) On the Maintenance Stage _The finding showed that the program maintenance was not utilized by UT community engagement program management model. Maintenance stage as an integrated part of community intervention design was not acquainted by all UT managers.
The programs Term of Reference as intervention standard operating for UT managers, lecturer-enablers and community agent-counterparts was found having no maintenance phase as part of the intervention operating criteria. Thus, the impact factor of this maintenance phase was not in existence in the beneficiary communities. The absence of maintenance stage as important component in community intervention then accounted for risks of failure in achieving the intended outcome. The study also found that the absence of CO-CD principles as perspective from UT stakeholders' view indicates the main cause of problem of not adopting CO-CD intervention model at UT system. PPM-UT as managing unit so far has never addressed an empowering policy to build its managers' capacity as well as its entire lecturers' competency, enriched with the best practices of CO-CD (see Reviewed Document _Tabel-2); 6) On the Disengagement Stage _ It was confirmed from the finding, that the disengagement stage as part of the CO-CD base intervention model was also not utilized by PPM-UT as managing unit in its community engagement program of 2012. The stage of disengagement mechanism was not in existence whether at UT "TOR" or also at other texts of UT community engagement management policy (see Interview Results Matrix-1a, Matrix-1b and Reviewed Document Matrix-2). The impact factor in relation with this phase was also not in existence to the beneficiary communities, so that no managerial mechanism could guarantee the successful creation of self-help. The hiatus of CO-CD perspective at UT community engagement management policy also brought long term negative implications on UT managerial goals achievement.

Discussion of Attitudinal Impact of UT Community Engagement Programs on the Beneficiary Community.
In its entirety, UT community engagement programs in short time frame had considerably been able to give good direct impacts to the beneficiary community in all three HDI variables (Health-Education-Welfare) is 95.5%, or at the scale of forced-interval (f-i) is Σx ̅ . 1.5, see Matrix-3. Specific figure of general impact of UT community engagement program on the beneficiary community showed in Matrix-3 indicates an increase concern and participation on the quality of life, with analysis comparing the impact before and after intervention (97% improved). This result was considered qiute good when represented in score of forced-interval Σx ̅ . 1.5 (see Matrix-3 Code 3.1). The other positive impact indicators of UT community engagement program were as follows (see Matrix-3 Code 3.2 respectively): 1) the community awareness on health, education and welfare was significantly improved (91%). This improvement was considered satisfactorily good when represented in score of forced-interval Σx ̅ . 1.6; 2) the attitude on infrastructures maintenance of health, education and welfare facilities which had been donated was significantly improved (85.1%). This improvement was considered satisfactory when represented in score of forced-interval of Σx ̅ . 1.4; and 3) the institutional management on health, education, and welfare affairs, was improved (88%). This improvement was considered satisfactory when represented in score of forced-interval Σx ̅ . 1.4. Another profile of impact is shown in Matrix-4, which portrays the impact of UT community engagement program on the beneficiary community competency. The overall impact figure indicates much benefit received by the community beneficiary members in a form of knowledge, skills and behaviour. The members of the beneficiary community were mostly women as housewives who earn ≤ Rp 816.000,-per month. They expressed that the development of UT welfare, health, and education programs have given 'a lot' of benefits to them (85%). This good expression was indicated with a forcedinterval score of Σx ̅ 2.2 (see Matrix-4 below).

Matrix-3. Attitudinal Impact of UT Community Engagement Program
Increased knowledge gained from training programs to improve health/education/welfare that the community members felt had given many benefits to them (x ̅ i-f 2 or 88%, see Matrix-4 Column-No. 1). Impact of Health-Wellness, Quality-Education, and Better-Welfare was felt among community members after obtaining Community Development programs from UT (x ̅ i-f 2.1 or 85%, see ). The greater impact was indicated on their feeling upon better attitude of interest in committing to the better training results for the sake of their own personal development (x ̅ i-f 1.9 or 86%, see Matrix-4 Column-No. 6). However, these good impacts were considered taking place in a short period of time, soon after the community engagement programs were completely executed. However, these programs design did not have phases of maintenance and disengagement period that guarantee the sustainability of the community upgraded capacity to gain better competency in day to day life as a form of self help capacity.
The short term successful impact of the UT community engagement programs on the community, when connected to its UT management performance, showed that there was non-linier correlation between them. On one side it showed that UT community engagement programs management performance was poor in terms of CO-CD parameters, but on the other side it showed relatively successful impact on its beneficiary communities, even in a short term of period. These facts were understandable due to the communities' psychological and physiological moments of showing gratitude politeness in receiving social-aids, without any further concern about the *Scale of Forced upgraded capacity effectuation to the day after the project. The issues of long term successful impacts of the UT social engagement program were mainly due to the absence of CO-CD principles, starting from its UT grand policy of adopting the CO-CD principles down to its standard operating procedure in running the programs.

Conclusion
The overall analysis of the study concluded two scopes of profiling, namely the accomplishment of management of UT social engagement programs and the its effect of UT social engagement programs on the beneficiary community. UT community engagement management of 2012 was proven to be weak in performance, and its final effect on the beneficiary communities was only giving good impact in a short time scale. There was no noticeable correlation in terms of influence between weak UT management performance and short-term good impact on the beneficiary communities. Thus, UT stakeholders should adopt CO-CD principles in its community engagement programs management system if sustainable worth-creating self-help impact is to be achieved. More descriptive conclusion portrayed in the order of the CO-CD components were as follows: The study concluded that UT management did not utilize CO-CD principles on its community engagement programs. The findings showed that none of the entire documents being reviewed mentioned CO-CD principles as policy for implementation. By large, the overall analysis showed that UT community engagement managerial performance was unsatisfactory, as concisely described below: 1) In Programs Socialization: PPM-UT as executing management unit did not have a written document of Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) that sets out socialization program, let alone containing CO-CD principles. Thus 'Socialization Program' was not part of the management design. The study concluded that it was because PPM-UT managers did not have any perspective of CO-CD; 2) In Programs Organization: The related UT legal policy of community engagement and the terms of reference for program implementation were only utilized by the executing parties as an official foundation for financial accountability and cooperative-contract establishment among the executing parties. Programs scheduling, and its execution were performed rather poorly. Programs organization was not designed systemically based on CO-CD principles; 3) In Programs Needs Analysis: The stage of needs analysis in assessing and verifying the eligible community's proposal was utilized by PPM-UT managers, but implicates difficulty in implementation due to having no suiMatrix indicators' parameter in its needs analysis instrument. This troubling situation inflicted frequent adjustment (frequently 'softer') to accommodate the needs of the eligible beneficiary communities; 4) In Programs Execution: The execution of community engagement programs planning by PPM-UT managers was considered quite weak in performance, resulting in managerial deficiency; 5) In Programs Maintenance: The maintenance stage as the fifth CO-CD intervention component was not found at any of UT community engagement standard operating policy and procedures. This situation assured no guarantee for creating sustainable self-help in part of the beneficiary community, so that it might induce failure risk of the programs. This shortcoming was due to the PPM-UT manager's lack of perspective to CO-CD principles; 6) In Programs Disengagement: In this study, the disengagement stage as the sixth CO-CD intervention was also found not employed in UT community engagement programs management. UT managers were found not to understand the disengagement principles. The absence of the disengagement stage also assured that there is no guaranteeing mechanism for successful sustainable self-help creation in part of the beneficiary community.
The attitudinal impact on the beneficiary communities had been considered as giving good direct impact for improvement to the beneficiary community, as much as 95.5%, or at the scale of forced-interval (f-i) is Σx ̅ . 1.5. Also, the programs impact on the beneficiary communities' competency was deemed to give 'many' benefits to the community members, as strong as Σχ ̅ i-f 2.2.
However, the findings showed that even the attitudinal and competency impacts on the beneficiary communities were quite successful in improving commitment and capacity, these were only valid in short term at the time the programs were taking place. This fact indicated that there was no positive relationship between the short term good impact on the beneficiary community and the poor management performance of UT community engagement of 2012.
Based on the findings about the problematic management performance issues and CO-CD principles, the recommendations for UT management were as follows: 1) 5.2.1.1. On the Socialization Component _ the alternative solutions were necessary to conduct CO-CD programs socialization to all stakeholders, build CO-CD-base Technical Guidelines for community engagement programs management, and design a visible CO-CD-base time Matrix for community engagement programs. 2) On the Organization Component _ Alternative solutions were necessary to strengthen the community engagement programs sanctioning in the beginning of each fiscal year for 1-year full time programs implementation; Conducting CO-CD training for PPM-UT managers. 3) On the Needs Analysis Component _ Alternative solutions were to give larger discretion to the parameters implementation in executing needs assessment and enough time allocation of around 3 months needs analysis process for the managers. 4) On the Execution Component _ Alternative solutions were necessary to formulate a CO-CD competency standard applied to the PPM-UT program managers; Constructing CO-CD-based technical guidelines for Program Monitoring-Evaluation implementation. 5) On the Maintenance Component_ Alternative solutions were necessary to construct a complete set implementation guide line, started from CO-CD-base UT Community Engagement Grand-design downs to Standard Operating Procedure, that assures the Maintenance Component is inclusive in that guideline. 6) On the Disengagement Component_ Alternative solutions was necessary to assure that the Disengagement Component is also inclusive at UT community engagement management guideline.
Additionally, the recommendations on having better impacts from UT Community Engagement Programs Implementation as follows: 1) To have beneficial impact of intervention on the community, it is necessary to socialize UT programs policy and technical guideline to the community agent-counterparts. 2) To have positive attitudinal impact of intervention on the community, it is necessary to build CO-CD-base terms of reference and technical guideline for all parties to execute programs in creating sustainable self-help, and provide direct community accessibility for consultation, advocation and mediation to PPM-UT management. 3) To have better feedback of intervention from the beneficiary community to PPM-UT management, it is necessary to redesign the intervention approaches and strategy based on CO-CD principles; 4) To have broader feedback of intervention on cost-efficiency from the beneficiary community to PPM-UT management, it is necessary to conduct more comprehensive study on the cost-effectiveness of management performance in multi years scheme setting.