Village Law: Technical Evaluation of Infrastructure Built with Village Funds 2018
Indonesia, 2018
Get Microdata
Reference ID
IDN_2018_TEIBVF_v01_M
Producer(s)
World Bank
Metadata
Created on
Nov 20, 2019
Last modified
Nov 25, 2019
Page views
14869
Downloads
833
Identification
Survey ID Number
IDN_2018_TEIBVF_v01_M
Title
Village Law: Technical Evaluation of Infrastructure Built with Village Funds 2018
Country/Economy
| Name | Country code |
|---|---|
| Indonesia | IDN |
Study type
Other Household Health Survey [hh/hea]
Abstract
The Village Law, enacted in 2014, mandated the transfer of funds to villages with the goals of reducing poverty and improving living standards in villages through village-led development and community empowerment. Village Law (VL) builds on Indonesia’s 17-year history of participatory and community-driven development (CDD) approaches such as under the Kecamatan Development Project (KDP) and Program Nasional Permberdayaan Masyarakat (PNPM). The changes consequent upon the closing down of PNPM and its replacement by Village Law transfers (Dana Desa and Alokasi Dana Desa) and implementation arrangements, form a critical backdrop to the report titled: Indonesia Village Law: Technical Evaluation of Infrastructure Built with Village Funds.
The Technical Evaluation of Village Infrastructure evaluates the development process, quality, costs, and operations and maintenance (O&M) of 168 village infrastructure projects (VIPs) with budgets greater than USD 10,000, from 39 villages in six provinces. The five types of projects assessed were: A) buildings (33); B) bridges (15); C) water supply (14); D) roads and drainage (94); and E) irrigation (12). Assessors evaluated the physical structures and related files (budgets, design, approvals, etc.) implementation methods, and operations and maintenance (O&M) procedures. The technical evaluation covers VIPs in the same provinces as in 2012 under the PMPN program.
This collection of data is comprised of audit results from seven field tools, plus one administrative data file. The technical evaluation team collected data on five types of infrastructure projects, with total observations at 168, as described above. The seven field tools are included in this data deposit, for reference. Data were originally collected and assembled as eight data files; one for administrative data and one for each of the seven field tools. The technical evaluation team stored data primarily in binary format, using hundreds of variables per field tool to accommodate the options available for each question within each of the field tools. These data were reorganized into five data sets, one for each infrastructure type (compare to one for each field tool). The data were also consolidated from many sets of binary variables to encoded numeric variables, where applicable, for efficiency. Responses to open-ended questions were left as string variables. Responses to simple yes/no questions were left as binary numeric variables. The public versions of the datasets included here exclude variables containing PII, including: (1) name of infrastructure project inspector; (2) name or firm of infrastructure project design consultant; (3) narrative description of infrastructure project, in Indonesian; and (4) narrative description of infrastructure project, in English. Total infrastructure variables sum to 736 across all five datasets. All variables are named logically and include descriptions in their labels.
The Technical Evaluation of Village Infrastructure evaluates the development process, quality, costs, and operations and maintenance (O&M) of 168 village infrastructure projects (VIPs) with budgets greater than USD 10,000, from 39 villages in six provinces. The five types of projects assessed were: A) buildings (33); B) bridges (15); C) water supply (14); D) roads and drainage (94); and E) irrigation (12). Assessors evaluated the physical structures and related files (budgets, design, approvals, etc.) implementation methods, and operations and maintenance (O&M) procedures. The technical evaluation covers VIPs in the same provinces as in 2012 under the PMPN program.
This collection of data is comprised of audit results from seven field tools, plus one administrative data file. The technical evaluation team collected data on five types of infrastructure projects, with total observations at 168, as described above. The seven field tools are included in this data deposit, for reference. Data were originally collected and assembled as eight data files; one for administrative data and one for each of the seven field tools. The technical evaluation team stored data primarily in binary format, using hundreds of variables per field tool to accommodate the options available for each question within each of the field tools. These data were reorganized into five data sets, one for each infrastructure type (compare to one for each field tool). The data were also consolidated from many sets of binary variables to encoded numeric variables, where applicable, for efficiency. Responses to open-ended questions were left as string variables. Responses to simple yes/no questions were left as binary numeric variables. The public versions of the datasets included here exclude variables containing PII, including: (1) name of infrastructure project inspector; (2) name or firm of infrastructure project design consultant; (3) narrative description of infrastructure project, in Indonesian; and (4) narrative description of infrastructure project, in English. Total infrastructure variables sum to 736 across all five datasets. All variables are named logically and include descriptions in their labels.
Kind of Data
Sample survey data [ssd]
Unit of Analysis
Across the datasets, an observation represents one piece of infrastructure located fully within one village according to the Indonesia Statistical Agency (BPS) definition for village. Often more than one piece of infrastructure of the same type within the same village was evaluated.
Version
Version Description
Version 2.0: Edited, anonymous dataset for public distribution
Version Notes
This version of the dataset does not include PII found in four variables, including: (1) name of infrastructure project inspector; (2) name or firm of infrastructure project design consultant; (3) narrative description of infrastructure project, in Indonesian; and (4) narrative description of infrastructure project, in English.
Scope
Notes
The scope of the Indonesia Village Law: Technical Evaluation of Infrastructure Built with Village Funds survey includes:
BUILDINGS (A): Administrative information, indicators for physical quality (evaluation results), beneficiaries (individuals and households), overall project assessment, file inspection and evaluation, environmental and social safeguards, key information and dimensions for unit cost calculations, operation and maintenance/sustainability, process assessment
BRIDGES (B): Administrative information, indicators for physical quality (evaluation results), beneficiaries (individuals and households), overall project assessment, file inspection and evaluation, environmental and social safeguards, key information and dimensions for unit cost calculations, operation and maintenance/sustainability, process assessment
WATER SUPPLY (C): Administrative information, indicators for physical quality (evaluation results), beneficiaries (individuals and households), overall project assessment, file inspection and evaluation, environmental and social safeguards, key information and dimensions for unit cost calculations, operation and maintenance/sustainability, process assessment
ROADS AND DRAINAGE (D): Administrative information, indicators for physical quality (evaluation results) by road segment, total length of road, beneficiaries (individuals and households), overall project assessment, file inspection and evaluation, environmental and social safeguards, key information and dimensions for unit cost calculations, operation and maintenance/sustainability, process assessment
IRRIGATION (E): Administrative information, indicators for physical quality (evaluation results), beneficiaries (individuals and households), overall project assessment, file inspection and evaluation, environmental and social safeguards, key information and dimensions for unit cost calculations, operation and maintenance/sustainability, process assessment.
BUILDINGS (A): Administrative information, indicators for physical quality (evaluation results), beneficiaries (individuals and households), overall project assessment, file inspection and evaluation, environmental and social safeguards, key information and dimensions for unit cost calculations, operation and maintenance/sustainability, process assessment
BRIDGES (B): Administrative information, indicators for physical quality (evaluation results), beneficiaries (individuals and households), overall project assessment, file inspection and evaluation, environmental and social safeguards, key information and dimensions for unit cost calculations, operation and maintenance/sustainability, process assessment
WATER SUPPLY (C): Administrative information, indicators for physical quality (evaluation results), beneficiaries (individuals and households), overall project assessment, file inspection and evaluation, environmental and social safeguards, key information and dimensions for unit cost calculations, operation and maintenance/sustainability, process assessment
ROADS AND DRAINAGE (D): Administrative information, indicators for physical quality (evaluation results) by road segment, total length of road, beneficiaries (individuals and households), overall project assessment, file inspection and evaluation, environmental and social safeguards, key information and dimensions for unit cost calculations, operation and maintenance/sustainability, process assessment
IRRIGATION (E): Administrative information, indicators for physical quality (evaluation results), beneficiaries (individuals and households), overall project assessment, file inspection and evaluation, environmental and social safeguards, key information and dimensions for unit cost calculations, operation and maintenance/sustainability, process assessment.
Coverage
Geographic Coverage
This sample includes observations (projects) from the following provinces: Aceh, West Kalimantan, West Java, East Nusa Tenggara, Maluku, West Sulawesi.
Universe
The population of interest in this survey includes infrastructure projects built using Village Funds in Indonesia.
Producers and sponsors
Primary investigators
| Name |
|---|
| World Bank |
Funding Agency/Sponsor
| Name |
|---|
| World Bank IDN TA On Village Transfers (P155783) |
Other Identifications/Acknowledgments
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Laura Ralston | World Bank | Village Law PASA Program Lead |
| Kathleen A.Whimp | World Bank | Task Team Leader |
| Ihsan Haerudin | World Bank | Task Team Leader |
| Octaviera Ratna Herawati | World Bank | Co-technical Lead |
| Nick Menzies | World Bank | Initial Evaluation Design and Write-up |
| Vick Bottini | World Bank | Technical Input During Design, Execution and Write-up |
| Nil Neate | Consultant to the World Bank | Leading the Technical Evaluation |
| Su’udi Noor | Indonesian Rural Development Engineers | Field Assessment and Data Collection |
| Saleh Siregar | Indonesian Rural Development Engineers | Field Assessment and Data Collection |
| Ghufron Efendi | Indonesian Rural Development Engineers | Field Assessment and Data Collection |
| Wawan Munawar | Indonesian Rural Development Engineers | Field Assessment and Data Collection |
| Chiaril Latief | Indonesian Rural Development Engineers | Field Assessment and Data Collection |
| Bambang Warsito | Indonesian Rural Development Engineers | Field Assessment and Data Collection |
| Matthew Borden | Consultant to the World Bank | Data Preparation for Dissemination |
Sampling
Sampling Procedure
The 2018 technical evaluation assessed 165 VIPs infrastructure built from 2015-2017 with village funds in six of the provinces surveyed in the 2012 study. The evaluation team visited six of the provinces surveyed in 2012 (spread across the archipelago) and included a random selection of the same villages, aiming for a mix of villages considered Remote vs. Not Remote.
The VIPs were randomly chosen with an intention to spread the evaluation sample through the years of Village Law (2015, 2016, 2017). In other words, during the VIP selection process in the villages, the evaluation team made sure to choose a diverse range of VIPs in both type and year of construction. For this evaluation's results to be compared with the 2012 PNPM evaluation, the same classification system for VIP types was used. The VIP types identified for the study are as follows: building, bridge, water supply, road and drainage, and irrigation.
The approach used to identify the sample villages and infrastructure projects for this 2018 evaluation is similar to the approached used in the 2012 study. The assessors (many of whom also participated in the 2012 study) refined their techniques for the current evaluation. The application of a similar methodology in 2018 allows for, in some cases, comparing findings and results. There are some instances where comparison was meaningful and stark. To understand the approach used in 2018 it is helpful to understand the methodology employed in 2012. Instances where the 2018 approach differed from 2012 are noted in the body and relevant
section.
PNPM 2012 Sampling vs. Village Law Sampling
The sampling of villages in the 2012 technical evaluation of PNPM was performed randomly within 12 provinces. In total, 1,765 VIPs were assessed in that study. The methodology used included the following steps:
A. A total of 12 provinces were selected ensuring that they would span Indonesia from west
to east and north to south;
B. Both rich and poor provinces were included;
C. Sampling of districts (kabupaten) within provinces depended upon the total number of districts within each province;
D. A sampling of three districts was taken for those provinces having ten or more districts. Two districts were selected from those with less than 10 districts. The sole exception to this is Central Java which had four districts selected;
E. Four sub-districts (kecamatan) were sampled within each district. Sub-districts are rated in the BPS system as to level of difficulty of access - normal, hard, very hard and extreme. The random selection process ensured that all levels were represented;
F. The selection of the villages within each of these sub-districts was left to the technical evaluation team to determine at each UPK office in the sub-district.
The 2012 methodology is fully described in that report (Section 4: Site Selection Procedure for Technical Evaluation).
At the villages the evaluators were generally greeted by the Village Head and provided with a list of infrastructure projects financed under the Village Law. From the lists, evaluators chose a variety of VIPs to more closely examine, up to three in each village. Road improvement VIPs tended make up the majority of village lists, followed by buildings. For a more diverse sample, evaluators selected bridges, water supply and irrigation VIPs when they did appear on village lists.
This study did not have access to a master database of all Village Law VIPs and cannot state that this evaluation's relative percentages of infrastructure types is representative.
For additional sampling information, see the report titled Indonesia Village Law: Technical Evaluation of Infrastructure Built with Village Funds, Section 2: Technical evaluation methodology provided under Documentation.
The VIPs were randomly chosen with an intention to spread the evaluation sample through the years of Village Law (2015, 2016, 2017). In other words, during the VIP selection process in the villages, the evaluation team made sure to choose a diverse range of VIPs in both type and year of construction. For this evaluation's results to be compared with the 2012 PNPM evaluation, the same classification system for VIP types was used. The VIP types identified for the study are as follows: building, bridge, water supply, road and drainage, and irrigation.
The approach used to identify the sample villages and infrastructure projects for this 2018 evaluation is similar to the approached used in the 2012 study. The assessors (many of whom also participated in the 2012 study) refined their techniques for the current evaluation. The application of a similar methodology in 2018 allows for, in some cases, comparing findings and results. There are some instances where comparison was meaningful and stark. To understand the approach used in 2018 it is helpful to understand the methodology employed in 2012. Instances where the 2018 approach differed from 2012 are noted in the body and relevant
section.
PNPM 2012 Sampling vs. Village Law Sampling
The sampling of villages in the 2012 technical evaluation of PNPM was performed randomly within 12 provinces. In total, 1,765 VIPs were assessed in that study. The methodology used included the following steps:
A. A total of 12 provinces were selected ensuring that they would span Indonesia from west
to east and north to south;
B. Both rich and poor provinces were included;
C. Sampling of districts (kabupaten) within provinces depended upon the total number of districts within each province;
D. A sampling of three districts was taken for those provinces having ten or more districts. Two districts were selected from those with less than 10 districts. The sole exception to this is Central Java which had four districts selected;
E. Four sub-districts (kecamatan) were sampled within each district. Sub-districts are rated in the BPS system as to level of difficulty of access - normal, hard, very hard and extreme. The random selection process ensured that all levels were represented;
F. The selection of the villages within each of these sub-districts was left to the technical evaluation team to determine at each UPK office in the sub-district.
The 2012 methodology is fully described in that report (Section 4: Site Selection Procedure for Technical Evaluation).
At the villages the evaluators were generally greeted by the Village Head and provided with a list of infrastructure projects financed under the Village Law. From the lists, evaluators chose a variety of VIPs to more closely examine, up to three in each village. Road improvement VIPs tended make up the majority of village lists, followed by buildings. For a more diverse sample, evaluators selected bridges, water supply and irrigation VIPs when they did appear on village lists.
This study did not have access to a master database of all Village Law VIPs and cannot state that this evaluation's relative percentages of infrastructure types is representative.
For additional sampling information, see the report titled Indonesia Village Law: Technical Evaluation of Infrastructure Built with Village Funds, Section 2: Technical evaluation methodology provided under Documentation.
Data Collection
Dates of Data Collection
| Start | End |
|---|---|
| 2018-06-04 | 2018-08-15 |
Data Collection Mode
Other [oth]
Supervision
Neil Neate, professional engineer and consultant to the World Bank, led the technical evaluation and supervised the Indonesian rural development engineer team. As the lead engineer, Neal designed the field tools, led testing in the field, and supervised data collection during multiple visits.
Data Collectors
| Name | Affiliation |
|---|---|
| Su’udi Noor | Indonesia Rural Development Engineer |
| Saleh Siregar | Indonesia Rural Development Engineer |
| Ghufron Efendi | Indonesia Rural Development Engineer |
| Wawan Munawar | Indonesia Rural Development Engineer |
| Chiaril Latief | Indonesia Rural Development Engineer |
| Bambang Warsito | Indonesia Rural Development Engineer |
Questionnaires
Questionnaires
The field tools for the 2018 Village Law Technical Evaluation were structured questionnaires based on the 2012 PNPM questionnaires with some modifications and additions.
A series of field tools was administered for each infrastructure project, which collected for the following: administrative information, indicators for physical quality (evaluation results), beneficiaries (individuals and households), overall project assessment, file inspection and evaluation, environmental and social safeguards, key information and dimensions for unit cost calculations, operation and maintenance/sustainability, and process assessment.
A series of field tools was administered for each infrastructure project, which collected for the following: administrative information, indicators for physical quality (evaluation results), beneficiaries (individuals and households), overall project assessment, file inspection and evaluation, environmental and social safeguards, key information and dimensions for unit cost calculations, operation and maintenance/sustainability, and process assessment.
Data Processing
Data Editing
Data editing took place at a number of stages throughout the processing, including:
• Office editing and coding
• During data entry
• Structure checking and completeness
• Secondary editing
• Structural checking of STATA data files
• Office editing and coding
• During data entry
• Structure checking and completeness
• Secondary editing
• Structural checking of STATA data files
Access policy
Contacts
| Name | |
|---|---|
| Local Solutions to Poverty, Rural Poverty Analytics Team | lsp_rural_poverty_analytics_team@worldbank.org |
Access conditions
Public Use Files (PUFs)
Citation requirements
Neil Neate, consultant to the World Bank, Kathy Whimp, Ihsan Haerudin, Nick Menzies, Laura Ralston, Vic Bottini, the World Bank. Technical Evaluation of Infrastructure Built with Village Law - Technical Evaluation Data. Dataset downloaded from [URL] on [date]
Access authority
| Name | Affiliation | URL |
|---|---|---|
| Laura Ralston | World Bank | |
| World Bank Microdata Library | World Bank | microdata.worldbank.org |
Disclaimer and copyrights
Disclaimer
The user of the data acknowledges that the original collector of the data, the authorized distributor of the data, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.
Copyright
(c) 2019, The World Bank
Metadata production
DDI Document ID
DDI_IDN_2018_TEIBVF_v01_M_WB
Producers
| Name | Abbreviation | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| Development Economics Data Group | DECDG | The World Bank | Documentation of the DDI |
Date of Metadata Production
2019-11-11
DDI Document version
Version 01 (November 2019)