Introduction

The government as a representation of the state, civil/civil society, and the private sector has a high interest and involvement in the realm of public services. Quality and appropriate public services in this decade, has become a demand of the community along with the development of a more democratic public awareness (Reyes & Paulus, 2017; Braithwaite et al.,2020; Loeffler, 2020; Cantarero, 2020; Crowther & Shaw, 2020; López-Roca et al., 2020; Morton et al., 2021). But lately public services have become a central issue that has forced state, private, and community institutions to make improvements in their administration. Although the provision of public services is an obligation that must be carried out by the government as the organizer of the state, but the obligation to provide public services is still unable to provide satisfaction for the user community.

At the age of Indonesia's independence which is already 73 years old, some people still do not have basic rights as citizens, namely the right to live a dignified life. One violation of the right to live a dignified life is violence against women and children (KtP/A) committed by a husband against his wife and by parents/adults against children. KtP/A is often found in various regions in Indonesia, including Surabaya which is the 6th highest city in Indonesia in the case of KtP/A by showing an upward trend of 10% every year. The complexity of KtP/A problems in pre-event, protection and post-assistance services requires partnerships from the government, private sector, and civil society in person and community.

Basically, service institutions for victims of violence against women and children involve different disciplines, namely medical, legal and psycho-social, and also involve different professions and institutions. Based on observations and data obtained from research and media, there are several problems in handling cases of KtP/A victims in the Integrated Services for Victims of Violence against Women and Children (PTK2PA) in Indonesia in general and in the Center for Integrated Services for the Protection of Women and Children (PPTP2A) Surabaya City in particular.

Literature Review

Public management is often identified with the management of government agencies (Eriksson et al., 2020; Kim, 2020; Towry et al., 2020; Lapuente et al., 2020). Management is an interdisciplinary study of general aspects of the organization and is a combination of management functions such as planning, organizing, and controling on the one hand while on the other hand is HR, financial, physical, information and politics (Safroni, 2012). Public service according to Thoha (2003) as an attempt by a person or group or certain institution through the provision of goods and services aimed at providing convenience to the community in order to achieve goals. Substantially public administration approaches develop in various schools of thought or paradigms, such as: Old Public Administration (OPA), New Public Administration (NPA), New Public Management (NPM), entrepreneurial bureaucracy, bureaucratic transformation, good governance and New Public Service (NPS). These approaches contribute academically as well as practice in the administration of public administration, including shifts that are used as public service approaches in the context of the development paradigm of state/public administration science itself.

State administration must be based on scientific management principles and be separate from the hustle and bustle of political interests. This is known as the concept of political and administrative dichotomy. State administration is the implementation of public law in detail and detail, because it becomes the field of technical bureaucrats, while politics becomes the field of politicians. Public administration in the OPA perspective is formal, hierarchical and legal, and remains the most familiar model for reviewing current public administration. In this perspective also administrators who are responsible are those who have and are grounded in neutral expertise and competencies that uphold the value of efficiency, effectiveness, and economics that are always pursued.

The success of public services is determined by aspects of good management (good governance) and the perspective of good governance itself is influenced by the development of a paradigm shift from a state perspective to governance (Simpson et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Wang, 2020; Kirch et al., 2020; Bertilsson & Thörn, 2020). Characteristics in good governance, namely: first, the legitimacy in terms of the acceptance of the authority of public power, including all existing rules, processes and procedures. Second, public accountability for power and legitimacy by taking into account the process of power holders and the procedures of policy making. Third, effective management in the technical dimension. Effectiveness becomes important by referring to a powerful and efficient public bureaucracy in determining public priorities and resources. Fourth, the availability of information between all lines including civil society groups and the government to assess the effectiveness of power and bureaucracy.

Civil society organizations are organizations or associations that exist outside the country, are free, and independent. Civil society organizations are usually organizations that are more secondary than primary (Suharko, 2005). If civil society refers to an area where citizens jointly pursue their collective interests, then social capital refers to the glue that binds citizens together, becoming a collection of social networks and institutions, social norms ( like cooperation) and social values or attributes (especially trust). Public services actually involve many parties. Based on Figure 1, if seen from the ownership of its resources, public service is a straight line that has two points. At one end of the line, there are public services whose resources come from pure private public. At the other end of the line are public services whose resources come from the public directly or through government institutions that represent the public. Whereas the dashed line that intersects the straight line represents the boundary between pure private and pure public. This is an area of public-private partnership (public private partnership) in the management of public services. However, in the logic of Christensen and Pallesen (2008), this dashed line can also be translated as the domain of civil society. The origin of these resources determines who owns and manages these public services. All forms of public services can be mapped in a straight line based on the proportion of resource ownership.

Service integration (integrated services) can be delivered in various forms, depending on the level of interaction, and scope of support. Service integration can occur through collaboration or communication between service providers, collaboration between professionals in various sectors, physical or virtual co-location complementary services, or a mix of all. integrated services refer to the example of joined-up social services, and emphasize connectivity, alignment and collaboration among sectors in the funding, administration, organization, service, and clinical level in providing social services for the community. Parental alienating behaviors as a form of family violence with serious consequences for children and families. Professional recognition of parental alienation and the alienating behaviors that cause it is a necessary first step toward stimulating much needed research in this area and in the development and testing of effective clinical, educational, and legal interventions to prevent and mitigate the damaging effects (Harman et al., 2018).

Method

This type of discrete analytic research with this qualitative approach is to analyze the focus of research on partnership patterns in the delivery of services in PPTP2A Surabaya which covers descriptions of: the duties and functions of the stakeholders involved, human & financial resources in each service, stakeholder complaints involved in each - each service, monitoring and evaluation of the case sustainability. Data analysis techniques in this study used the interactive model of Miles and Hubberman & Saldana (2014) which included four stages from data collection, data condensation, data presentation, verification, and conclusion drawing as described in Figure 2 below; Milles, Huberman & Saldana (2014)

Results and Discussion

Integrated service delivery mechanism for victims of violence against women and children in the Integrated Service Center for Protection of Women and Children (PPTP2A) Surabaya City. The implementation of integrated services for KtP/A victims in PPTP2A Surabaya is seen from the aspect of the stages in each service and the access of the target group in each service. Based on the mechanism of integrated service delivery, obtained research results include:

a) The process of KtP/A victim protection services includes pre-incident, protection, and post-assistance stages. The process carried out in PPTP2A Kota Surabaya is still limited to protection during the service process stages and a little at the pre-incident and post- assistance stages.

b) Protection services which include complaints/reports, medical services, social rehabilitation services, law enforcement and legal assistance services, and social return and reintegration services are carried out in a rigid and gradual yet flexible parallel manner, where each service institution works independently according to discipline or his area of expertise.

c) Each stage of the protection service also has internal problems. Namely the quantity and quality of human resources, financial and regulatory strengthening.

d) Access to complaints/reporting services is directly affordable, but reporting to the police is constrained by the system. Medical services are constrained by HR competencies and infrastructure. Social rehabilitation services are inaccessible, due to informal networks. Enforcement and legal aid services are inaccessible, due to HR competencies. Repatriation and social reintegration services can be accessed, because of the support of the private sector.

On integration in the delivery of public services at the Integrated Service Center for Protection of Women and Children (PPTP2A) in the handling of victims of violence against women and children, the City of Surabaya can be assessed in the delivery of services at PPTP2A Surabaya covering a description of the duties and functions of the stakeholders involved, human resources and financial for each service, complaints from stakeholders involved in each service, and monitoring and evaluation of the case sustainability. Based on the assessment of cohesiveness in the delivery of services, duties and functions of the stakeholders of KtP/A victims protection service providers in PPTP2A, Surabaya, covering;

a) Police complaints service (PPA, community complaints service center), NGOs and organizations caring for victims of violence.

b) Health rehabilitation services (Surabaya City Health Service, Dr. Suwandhi District Hospital, Puskesmas).

c) Social rehabilitation services (Surabaya City Social Service, NGOs, Psychology Institutions, Shleters, Trauma Centers, Orphanages, Shelter Houses)

d) Legal aid services (Police, LBH, Prosecutors, NGOs)

e) Repatriation services (Surabaya City Social Service, NGOs, community, Manpower office, transportation).

f) Social reintegration (Surabaya City Social Service, NGOs, communities).

Coordination between institutions involved in the delivery of services in PPTP2A Surabaya is not optimal. Inequality of perceptions among Stakeholders to be able to support each other, so that misunderstandings in the implementation of protection for VAW/A victims are still found. Provision of infrastructure, implementing officers or functional officers, support officers, and the community involved in organizing KtP/A victims protection is funded by the Surabaya City Regional Budget and support from the public and private sector. Integrated services in PPTP2A Surabaya City are integrated within the internal boundaries of the Surabaya city administrative area, not yet integrated between regencies/cities outside Surabaya. The PPTP2A working area in Surabaya is in accordance with the victim's domicile as a citizen of Surabaya, not where the case occurred. The monitoring and evaluation mechanism of network work does not involve external parties from community groups or social institutions. The reporting process is controlled from the internal side of the Surabaya City Government and is timely, but it has an impact on the integration of the organizers and victims' access to the Surabaya PPTP2A activities continuously.

The integrated service model in the Integrated Service Center for the Protection of Women and Children (PPTP2A) in Surabaya in the perspective of the new public service in the NPS perspective includes:

a) Identify regulations for the protection and handling of victims of violence as citizens' rights

b) The role of government facilitation and negotiation on problem solving for victims of violence in each service.

c) Space for public participation in each of the available services.

d) Decision making in each service that shows shared leadership

e) Actions on each service that show concern for victims based on human dignity.

Based on the service model, it has been stated in Mayor Decree No. 188.45/300/436.1.2/2013 concerning the Integrated Service Center for the Protection of Women and Children in the City of Surabaya. In addition, PerMen 01/2010 concerning minimum standards in integrated services for women and children victims of violence which includes complaints/report handling services, health services, social rehabilitation, law enforcement and assistance and social return and reintegration. If during this time the assistance of women and children victims of violence is more emphasized in the legal process. So the implementation of PPTP2A Surabaya in the process of handling victims. The strength of the Surabaya City PPTP2A network lies in the internal and external forces that are attached by its protector, the Mayor of Surabaya as a democratic figure. The service mechanism is not only due to the strengthening in Surabaya City PPTP2A, but also the strengthening of its supporting network as an implication of the Mayor's leadership figure which is respected in terms of exemplary work culture and service to the community.

Decision making influenced by the Mayor as a coach in the PPTP2A Surabaya City Organizational Structure is more or less 'forced' to involve interactive and information-based exchanges between service providers with the private sector and the community. Siding with the interests of victims. Often the interests of victims are complex and different from service providers. But PPTP2A Surabaya is obliged to fulfill, in the sense of not throwing responsibility to other parties. Financial fulfillment in social reintegration services shows the dominance of the Mayor in collaboration with the private sector. Protection of KtP/A victims in P2TP2A Surabaya city is carried out comprehensively and is networked with the involvement of many parties. Integrated services for victims of VAW/A can not be done alone, it requires network work with the division of roles in each field. Protection of KtP/A victims places the victim as the main focus. The pressure point of service to victims of VAW/A lies with the victim as the subject. It does not require the government to be only selfish. Therefore what is done by the government is driven by factors of human dignity (human dignity), a sense of belonging and belonging (belongingness), attention to others, service, and public interests. The atmosphere of providing services to KtP/A victims organized by PPTP2A Surabaya is very humanistic between KB Bapemas with civil society and the private sector as financial supporters.

Based on the results of research on the mechanism of service delivery and integrated service models, obtained several proposition findings as follows:

a) Major Proposition 1, namely that the process of protection for KtP/A victims covers pre- incident, protection and post-mentoring stages. The process carried out in PPTP2A Kota Surabaya is still limited to protection during the service process stage while the pre- incident and post-mentoring stages have not been the main focus. The implementation of KtP/A victim protection services which includes complaints/reports, medical services, social rehabilitation services, enforcement services and legal assistance, as well as social repatriation and reintegration services, are carried out in phases per service. Each service stage has internal problems, namely the quantity and quality of human resources, finance, and regulatory strengthening. This causes disruption of victim access to the implementation of PPTP2A Surabaya. The current service for KtP/A victims in PPTP2A in Surabaya has a complexity of problems, especially in the rigid tiered stages and issues of technical integration in services. This is as Richardson & Patana (2012) argues that 'integration' includes collocation, collaboration, and collaboration.

b) Proposition Major 2, the problem of Collocation in PPTP2A Surabaya can reduce the cost of providing services and the time associated with the handling mechanism (Sloper, 2004). Collocation also makes accessibility between service providers and professional collaboration easier. Whereas collaboration according to Richardson & Patana (2012) requires a higher level of integration than collocation. Collaboration refers to institutions that work together through information that creates a network of institutions to improve services and reduce gaps for service users. The highest level of integration according to Richardson & Patana (2012) is through the collaboration of professionals, for example in a team with the same disciplines or from several different disciplines (Hofrenning et al., 2020; Ely et al., 2020; O’Connor et al., 2020). In the case of the success of service providers (Rosenheck et al, 2003) through effective collaboration and good communication. When professionals work well together, costs can be reduced, services are not made public, and identification and response to service needs for victims can occur more quickly.

c) Major Proposition 3, the dynamics of service integration in the perspective of the new public service, in accordance with the ideas carried by King & Stivers (1998) in Muluk (2009) "government is us: public administration in the anti-government era". Where the government views citizens as citizens not just as customers, because the government is the property of the community. The phrase "Government is Us is a democratic public administration that involves active citizenship and active administration". Active administration itself is not merely increasing administrative power, but strengthening collaborative work with citizens. Therefore, public administrators should share power with the community and reduce control over the community and increase trust in the community through collaborative public service delivery. Government is an integrative participation between active people and active administrators to meet the needs, goals, and common goals. This opinion is increasingly emphasized for the author, that KtP/A victims services cannot be handled sectorally, but must be cross-sectoral, institutional and especially open space for public participation as in the perspective of the new public service.

Conclusion

In the mechanism of providing integrated services for KtP/A victims in PPTP2A Surabaya City, the protection stage is through a series of mechanisms for complaints/report services, medical services, social rehabilitation services, enforcement services and legal assistance, as well as social repatriation and reintegration services that are carried out in stages by related agencies or institutions. Where each stage of service has internal problems, namely the quantity and quality of human resources, finance, and regulatory strengthening. Integration of the implementation of KtP/A victims protection services in PPTP2A Surabaya in funding, administration, and service organizations. Integrated service model in PPTP2A Surabaya in NPS perspective, when viewed from the core business (main activity) with NPS perspective.

Suggestion

An elitist approach to community leaders through a number of activities that have been scheduled by KB Bapemas in strategic places in the city center. Approaching these strategic figures, due to the role of financial support and bonafitas in managing educational/socialization events of KtP/A. Through cooperation between networks that are built, makes it easy to create appropriate strategies for solving problems, especially limited funds. However, it is not easy to build network cooperation between service providers, due to a number of internal and external obstacles in PPTP2A Surabaya.

References

1. Bertilsson, J., & Thörn, H. (2020). Discourses on transformational change and paradigm shift in the Green Climate Fund: The divide over financialization and country ownership. Environmental Politics, 1-19.
2. Braithwaite, J., Vincent, C., Garcia-Elorrio, E., Imanaka, Y., Nicklin, W., Sodzi-Tettey, S., & Bates, D.W. (2020). Transformational improvement in quality care and health systems: the next decade. BMC medicine, 18(1), 1-17.
3. Cantarero, M.M.V. (2020). Of renewable energy, energy democracy, and sustainable development: A roadmap to accelerate the energy transition in developing countries. Energy Research & Social Science, 70, 101716.
4. Christensen, J.G., & Pallesen, T. (2001). The political benefits of corporatization and privatization. Journal of Public Policy, 283-309.
5. Crowther, J., & Shaw, M. (2020). Community engagement: Cultivating critical awareness. Public Sociology as Educational Practice: Challenges, Dialogues and Counter-Publics, 287.
6. Ely, A., Marin, A., Charli-Joseph, L., Abrol, D., Apgar, M., Atela, J., ... & Yang, L. (2020). Structured collaboration across a transformative knowledge network—learning across disciplines, cultures and contexts? Sustainability, 12(6), 2499.
7. Eriksson, E., Andersson, T., Hellström, A., Gadolin, C., & Lifvergren, S. (2020). Collaborative public management: Coordinated value propositions among public service organizations. Public Management Review, 22(6), 791-812.
8. Harman, J.J., Kruk, E., & Hines, D.A. (2018). Parental alienating behaviors: An unacknowledged form of family violence. Psychological Bulletin, 144(12), 1275.
9. Hofrenning, S.K., Hargraves, R.H., Chen, T., Filippas, A.V., Fitzgerald, R., Hearn, J., ... & Segal, R. (2020). Fishbowl discussions: Promoting collaboration between mathematics and partner disciplines. Journal of Mathematics and Science: Collaborative Explorations, 16(1), 3.
10. Kim, P.S. (2020). South Korea’s fast response to coronavirus disease: Implications on public policy and public management theory. Public Management Review, 1-12.
11. King, C.S., Stivers, C., & Box, R.C. (1998). Government is us: Strategies for an anti- government era. Sage.
12. Kirch Kirkegaard, J., Cronin, T., Nyborg, S., & Karnøe, P. (2021). Paradigm shift in Danish wind power: The (un) sustainable transformation of a sector. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 23(1), 97-113.
13. Lapuente, V., & Van de Walle, S. (2020). The effects of new public management on the quality of public services. Governance, 33(3), 461-475.
14. Li, G., Koomson, D.A., Huang, J., Amponsah, E.I., Darkwah, W.K., Miwornunyuie, N., ... & Dong, X. (2020). A review from environmental management to environmental governance: paradigm shift for sustainable mining practice in Ghana. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-15.
15. Loeffler, E. (2020). Co-production of public services and outcomes. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
16. López-Roca, A., & Traver-Martí, J.A. (2020). Leadership in a democratic school: A case study examining the perceptions and aspirations of an educational community. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1-19.
17. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, Edition 3. USA: Sage Publications.
18. Matthew B.M., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Analisa data kualitatif. Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia Press.
19. Morton, E., Murray, G., Yatham, L.N., Lam, R.W., & Michalak, E.E. (2021). The quality of life in bipolar disorder (QOL. BD) questionnaire a decade on–a systematic review of the measurement of condition-specific aspects of quality of life in bipolar-disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 278, 33-45.
20. O’Connor, A.M., Glasziou, P., Taylor, M., Thomas, J., Spijker, R., & Wolfe, M.S. (2020). A focus on cross-purpose tools, automated recognition of study design in multiple disciplines, and evaluation of automation tools: A summary of significant discussions at the fourth meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR). Systematic reviews, 9(1), 1-6.
21. Reyes, M.A., & Paulus, E. (2017). The landscape of quality measures and quality improvement for the care of hospitalized children in the United States: Efforts over the last decade. Hospital pediatrics, 7(12), 739-747.
22. Rosenheck, R.A., Resnick, S.G., & Morrissey, J.P. (2003). Closing service system gaps for homeless clients with dual diagnosis: Integrated teams and interagency cooperation. The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, (6).
23. Safroni, L. (2012). Manajemen dan Reformasi Pelayanan Publik dalam Konteks Birokrasi Indonesia. Surabaya: Aditya Media Publishing.
24. Simpson, H.C., & De Loe, R.C. (2020). Challenges and opportunities from a paradigm shift in groundwater governance. Hydrogeology Journal, 28(2), 467-476.
25. Sloper, P. (2004). Facilitators and barriers for co? ordinated multi? agency services. Child: care, health and development, 30(6), 571-580.
26. Suharko, S. (2005). Masyarakat sipil, modal sosial dan tata pemerintahan yang demokratis. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, 8(3), 263-289.
27. Thoha, M. (2003). Perilaku organisasi: Konsep dasar dan aplikasinya. Jakarta: PT. Raya Grafindo Persada.
28. Towry, R.K., & Cheng, A.S. (2020). Tensions between fiscal accountability policy and collaborative management implementation in state wildlife agencies. Environmental management, 1-17.
29. Wang, H. (2020). Selective reshaping: China’s paradigm shift in international economic governance. Journal of International Economic Law, 23(3), 583-606.