Village Law: Technical Evaluation of Infrastructure Built with Village Funds 2018

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.