Losdiy Laporan Penelitian English

1

YYOOGGYYAAKKAARRTTAA PPRRIIVVAATTEE SSEECCTTOORR OOMMBBUUDDSSMMAANN

Survey Report A Survey on Target Accuracy of Java Reconstruction Fund ‐Community‐Based Settlement Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Project (JRF‐CSRRP) in Bantul Regency, Yogyakarta Special Region Province Jl. Tentara Zeni Pelajar No. 1B, Yogyakarta Phone: +62‐274‐552245 Fax: +62‐274‐552276 Email: [email protected]

Director: Budi Wahyuni Chairperson of Yogyakarta Private Sector Ombudsman Coordinator: Sri Haryani Chief of R & D Dept. Yogyakarta Private Sector Ombudsman Researcher: Imam Subkhan December, 2007

R&D PSO, December 2007

2

A Survey on Target Accuracy of Java Reconstruction Fund ‐

Community‐Based Settlement Rehabilitation and

Reconstruction Project (JRF‐CSRRP) in Bantul Regency,

Yogyakarta Special Region Province


3

ABSTRACT

This is the report of survey conducted Yogyakarta Private Sector Ombudsman in attempt to identify if the house reconstruction fund provided by JRF‐CSRRP were accurately targeted to the eligible recipients in Bantul Regency, Yogyakarta Special Region Province. JRF‐CSRPP is a settlement reconstruction project that provides house reconstruction fund for the casualties of earthquake and tsunami in Yogyakarta Special Region, Central Java and West Java in 2006. The survey that was conducted in December 2007 took 550 respondents as the sample with the sampling error of 5 %; CI of 95 %; design effect of 1.5. The survey used multistage random sampling combined with stratified and cluster techniques. Based on the disbursement schedule, there were two strata: stratum of phase I and phase II. The number of the elected village cluster consists of 5 for phase I and 11 for phase II. The results of the survey suggested that the rate of target accuracy of house reconstruction fund from JRF‐CSRRP was relatively low (only 60 %). The rest (40 %) of JRF‐CSRRP fund was not accurately targeted. Such this inaccurate targeting was caused by the inconsistent application of the criteria determined by the management of JRF‐CSRRP. In descending percentage, the following criteria were not met: reconstruction at the original site (62%); families/households becoming the casualties of earthquake (26%); totally destroyed or severely damaged houses (11%) and other criteria (1%).


4

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

CONTENTS

TABLES

FIGURES

GRAPHS

ABBREVIATIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Problem Formulation

1.2. Objective of Survey

1.3. Benefit of Survey

1.4. Method of Survey

II. OVERVIEW OF JRF‐CSRRP PROJECT

III. SURVEY FINDINGS

3.1. Description and Profile of Respondents

3.2. Criterion inconsistence and Rate of Target Accuracy

IV. CONCLUSION

REFERENCE

3

4

5

5

5

6

7

8

9

9

15

21

21

24

31

32


5

TABLES

Table 1 Population of JRF‐CSRRP Fund Recipients

Table 2 Population and Sample per Strata

Table 3 Distribution of Samples Per Cluster

Table 4 Criteria of Recipients Eligible for House Reconstruction Fund from

JRF‐CSRRP

10

12

13

18

FIGURES

Figure 1 Sample Design

Figures 2 Project Implementation Structure of JRF‐CSRRP

12

17

GRAPHS

Graph 1 Respondents’ Sex

Graph 2 Respondents’ Age

Graph 3 Respondents’ Job

Graph 4 Respondents’ Income Rate

Graph 5 Respondents’ Income Rate per Village

Graph 6 Rate of Target Accuracy

Graph 7 Rate of Target Accuracy per Village

Graph 8 Criteria Deviation of JRF‐CSRRP Aid Recipient

Graph 9 Reasons for Deviation of Requirement to Reconstruct House in

Original Place Criterion

Graph 10 Deviation of the Household/Family characteristic criterion

Graph 11 Deviation of House Condition Criterion

21

21

22

23

23

24

25

26

27

29

30


6

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BAPPENAS

BKM

CSP

YSR

DMC

JRF

KP

PSO

MDF

NMC

UPP

PPK

POKMAS

CSRRP

RR

TPK

National Development Planning Agency

Badan Keswadayaan Masyarakat (Community Board of Trustees)

Community Settlement Plan

Yogyakarta Special Region

District Management Consultant

Java Reconstruction Fund

Kelompok Pemukim (Resident Group)

Private‐Sector Ombudsman

Multi Donor Fund

National Management Consultant

The Urban Poverty Project

The Kecamatan Development Program

Kelompok Masyarakat (House Reconstruction Fund Recipient

Group)

Community‐Based Settlement Reconstruction and Rehabilitation

Project

Rehabilitation and Reconstruction

Tim Pelaksana Kegiatan (Village‐Level Project Implementation

Team)


7

I. INTRODUCTION

The earthquake disaster on 27 May 2006 in Yogyakarta Province and Klaten,

Central Java caused serious damage and destruction, especially on people’s

settlements and houses. The results of rapid assessment coordinated by

BAPPENAS (2006) showed that 388,758 units of houses were damaged, including

187,474 units of destroyed houses. The damage has caused an estimated loss of

totally Rp. 29.1 trillion or approximately 3.1 US $ billion.

Because their houses were destroyed, hundreds of thousand people in Yogyakarta

Province lived in tents or temporary shelters that they made by themselves. The

government, private sector, developed countries, and donors maximally

participated in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the settlements and houses

of the casualties of the earthquake. One of the initiators and contributors to such

reconstruction and rehabilitation was Java Reconstruction Fund (JRF) through

Community‐Based Settlement Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Project (CSRRP).

CSRRP is a project of settlement reconstruction after the earthquake in Yogyakarta

& Central Java on 27 May 2006 by empowering the people as the main executive

of the development.

One of the fundamental problems in the process of distribution and management

of disaster‐mitigation fund is target accuracy. Therefore, to ensure the target

accuracy, the process of management and distribution of fund has to be

continuously monitored by all stakeholders in such a way to be accurately

targeted to the eligible recipients. The elementary measure of the accuracy is the

extent to which the fund can reach the eligible recipients. Thus, in implementing

the monitoring function, Yogyakarta Private Sector Ombudsman had a survey on

the accuracy of target of house reconstruction fund provided by JRF‐CSRRP.


8

1.1. PROBLEM FORMULATION

One of the primary concerns in the management of aid is that the fund was not

accurately targeted to the eligible recipients in the disaster sites. Many people

intentionally manipulated the criteria and took the benefits from the distributed

fund. Many people deceitfully claimed that they were the casualties of the

disaster. They used the momentum to get aid. Even worse, the truly damaged

people meeting the criteria of house reconstruction aid were missed. This is one of

the reasons of why there were horizontal conflicts due to the unfair process and

inconsistent application of criteria of reconstruction fund receipt.

Conflicts resulting from the unfair process and inconsistent criteria of fund for the

reconstruction of houses of the casualties of the earthquake were closely related to

the inconsistent application of criteria of eligible recipients of house reconstruction

fund. This problem derived from the unclearly specified criteria indicator of

target, inadequate socialization of criteria and inconsistent specification of criteria.

It has to be admitted that the determination of criteria was not as simple work as

what has been formulated behind the desk. Therefore, it is undeniable that there

was bias between the specified criteria and the factual condition.

The inconsistent application of the criteria usually resulted from two causes. The

first cause was the different interpretation and comprehension between the people

and the executives. In this case, there was no intention to manipulate the criteria.

Such different interpretation might result from different capacities among the

executives that some of them made unilateral different interpretation. Another

cause might be incompetent executives, unclearly specified criteria, and multiple

interpretations. Unclearly specified and detailed criteria were suspected to have

caused different interpretations. The second cause was intentionally manipulated

data. The criteria were manipulated in such a way that enabled particular people

to meet the specified criteria. Inconsistent application included many stakeholders

such as the potential recipients and the executives.


9

In the context of JRF‐CSRRP fund, it was strongly indicated that some of the

recipients did not meet the criteria. Deceitfully, they received the house

reconstruction fund from JRF‐CSRRP. If this is proven true, it implies that the

distribution of the house reconstruction fund by JRF‐CSRRP was not accurately

targeted. Unfortunately, only qualitative and casuistic data on such this inaccurate

targeting was available. No specific survey measured the rate of accurate targeting

of the house reconstruction fund from JRF‐CSRRP. So far, the internal

management of JRF‐CSRRP including the World Bank, NMC, DMC and BKM only

made verification of criteria. This was the main problem proposed in this survey.

The problem was then formulated in the main question: what is the rate of target

accuracy of the house reconstruction fund provided by JRF‐CSRRP? The accuracy

of target was based on the meeting of the criteria of house reconstruction fund

recipients specified by the management of JRF‐CSRRP.

1.2. OBJECTIVE OF STUDY

The objectives of this survey were to identify if the house reconstruction fund of

JRF‐CSRRP in Bantul Regency, Yogyakarta Special Region Province has met the

intended target.

1.3. BENEFIT OF STUDY

This study was expected to give benefits to the decision makers, especially those

directly or indirectly involved in the project of JRF‐CSRRP in order that we can

evaluate and improve the implementation of the project so that the fund can be

appropriately distributed to the intended target.

1.4. METHOD OF STUDY

Scope of Study

The scope of the study was the resident groups of families/households who

received house reconstruction fund from JRF‐CSRRP in Bantul Regency,

Yogyakarta Special Region Province for phase 1, and phase 2.


10

Variable/Focus of Study

The variables of the study referred to the criteria of recipients of house

reconstruction fund from JRF‐CSRRP specified by NMC. The variables/focuses of

this study were as follows:

[1] Characteristic of household/family

[2] Condition of house after the earthquake

[3] Status of house ownership

[4] Status of land ownership

[5] Other relevant aid

[6] Social and economic condition

[7] Commitment to reconstruct and live in original place

[8] Obedience to the prevailing rule

Population and Sample

The population of the survey was the members of resident groups who received

the house reconstruction fund from JRF‐CSRRP in phases 1 and 2. Actually, there

was phase 3, but it was not included in the population because there was no

sample framework for it. The total population for phase 1 and phase 2 was 13,227

households / families. Data on the number of the population receiving the house

reconstruction fund from JRF was obtained from the web site of

www.rekompakjrf.org accessed on 21 November 2007. The number was a not

verified final recipient. According to the data from DMC, the number of verified

recipients of house reconstruction fund in phase 1 was 4970; while for phase 2 was

6296. Totally, the number of verified recipients for phase 1 and 2 was 11.256.

Detailed data on the number of population is presented in table 1:

Table 1 Number of Populations of JRF‐CSRRP Fund Recipients

Phase Number of Village

Number of Fund Recipient (Household/Family)

I 16 5,417 II 34 7,810

Total 50 13,227


http://www.rekompakjrf.org/

11

Sampling Technique

The study used multistage random sampling by combining the techniques of

stratification and cluster. The combination of the two techniques was intended to

ensure the representation of the collected sample. In addition, it was done because

of the limited human resource and allocated time. The stages of sampling were as

follows:

1. Population was divided into strata based on the characteristics. In this case,

the population of resident groups were stratified and based on the phases

(phase 1 and phase 2) of disbursement schedule.

2. Each stratum was clustered based on the administrative areas of the

villages. When the village population in each stratum was already known,

village cluster sample was taken. In this survey, the cluster sample for each

stratum was determined 30% of total cluster. Therefore, in stratum 1 there

were 5 clusters, and in stratum 2 there were 11 clusters. Thus, there were

totally 16 clusters.

3. Cluster was taken by the cluster technique with equal probability to size /

EPS in each stratum to meet the desired cluster.

4. Proportion of respondent sample for each cluster was adjusted to the

number of population in each cluster by multiplying the fraction of sample

to the population in each cluster. The fraction of sample was obtained by

dividing the number of sample in each stratum by the total population of

all clusters chosen in the same strata. Therefore, the cluster with large

number of population has more number of samples.

5. Framework of sample for each cluster was taken from the web site of JRF‐

CSRRP, http//:www.rekompakjrf.org (accessed on 21 November 2007). The

status of the data based on the information in the site was per 15

November 2007

6. Sample was taken in random for each cluster in amount of the required

number of sample.


12

Figure 1 Stages of Sample Design

Target of Population

Sample

Framework of Sample

Population

Topic of Survey To identify if the fund donated by JRF‐CSRRP reached the

intended target

Households / Families of JRF‐CSRRP

Members of Resident groups of JRF‐CSRRP in Bantul Regency

List of members of Resident groups in Phase I and Phase II in the selected clusters in Bantul

Names of Resident groups Members Selected to be Sample

Number of Sample

Number of sample was determined by sampling error that is the intended

proportion of population and confidence interval. In addition, because the

sampling technique used stratified sampling, then component of design effect had

to be included. Design effect is the effect resulting from the particular design made

by the researcher in the sampling stage. The number of sample determined by

sampling error of 5 %; confidence interval of 95 %; design effect of 1.5 was 550

respondents. This number was then proportionally divided into two strata based

on the number of population in each stratum.

Table 2 Number of Population and Sample per Stratum

Stratum Population Fraction of

Sample

Sample

N % N % Phase 1 5,417 41 0.41 225 41Phase 2 7,810 59 0.59 325 59Total 13,227 100 550 100


13

Clustering

Clustering used in the survey was equal probability to size (EPS). The technique was

chosen because the measure of each cluster was relatively equal. Number of

population in all clusters was not far different and was not significant. From this

technique, the selected clusters for each cluster were obtained as follows:

Table 3 Distribution of Number of Sample per Cluster

Phase I Phase II Village Population Sample Village Population Sample Banguntapan 133 19 Srihardono 485 60Sriharjo 298 43 Bangunharjo 365 45Sumber Agung 319 45 Pendowoharjo 260 33Sumbermulyo 401 57 Karangtengah 102 13Trirenggo 430 61 Selopamioro 91 11Total 5417 225 Caturharjo 279 35 Potorono 168 21 Srimartani 412 51 Wonolelo 35 4 Segoroyoso 196 24 Bangunjiwo 222 28 Total 7810 325

Time and Site of Survey

The survey was conducted in December 2007 in Bantul Regency, Yogyakarta

Special Region Province

Technique of Data Collection and Analysis

There were two types of data collected in the analysis:

a. Primary Data taken by the survey using questionnaires distributed to the

selected respondents

b. Secondary Data was collected from the mass media, archives, document and

reference relevant to the survey. The data was obtained from the relevant

offices and / or institutions related to the study.


14

The quantitative data collected in the survey was then tabulated and

explained descriptively. The qualitative information obtained by the surveyor

during the survey served as the supporting data that was valuable to obtain

comprehensive explanation relevant to the topic of survey.


15

II. OVERVIEW OF JAVA RECONSTRUCTION FUND –

COMMUNITY BASED SETTLEMENT REHABILITATION

AND RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT (JRF‐CSRRP)

JRF reflects a response from international community and other countries to help

the casualties of the earthquake in Yogyakarta Special Region Province and

Central Java Province on 27 May 2006 and tsunami that affected some regions in

the southern coast of Java. JRF used the model developed by Multi Donor Fund

like the one used to finance the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Aceh and

Nias. The objective of this strategy was to develop positive experience and to

obtain comparative benefits of MDF such as abilities to develop quickly, finance

and implement projects, coordinate international financial sources for similar

purposes, create synergy and reduce transactional cost for donors and recipients.

After holding some meetings, six donors (European Commission, the

Governments of the Netherlands, England, Canada, Denmark, and Finland agreed

to donate fund of totally US$ 75 million to rehabilitate and reconstruct the regions

suffering from the earthquake and tsunami in Yogyakarta, Central Java and West

Java through JRF. The detailed data on the fund consolidated to JRF deriving from

the foreign governments is presented in the followings:

1. The Government of England /DFID : GBP 5 million,

2. The government of Denmark : Dkk 9 million,

3. The government of Canada/CIDA : CAN 7.4 million,

4. The government of the Netherlands : Euro 10 million,

5. European Community : Euro 35 million, and

6. The government of Finland : Euro 1.5 million.

In October 2006, JRF started to implement the mandate to support livelihood

rehabilitation and reconstruction of settlements for the casualties of the


16

earthquake. Structurally JRF is controlled by a steering committee (SC). The SC

serves as the forum for policy dialogue with the government related to the issues

on development and reconstruction. The members of the SC consist of National

Coordinating Team that coordinates and implements reconstruction in Yogyakarta

and Central Java, World Bank as the trustee, donor countries that provide JRF. The

representative of the government of Indonesia becomes the co‐chairs of SC with

the European commission being the largest donor and World Bank.

In the management of JRF, World Bank is appointed as the trustee, to manage the

secretariat of JRF. World Bank does not hold any authority in making decision

about the use of the fund. Decision is made by the Steering Committee that

consists of the government of Indonesia (BAPPENAS and Coordinating Minister

for Economic Affairs) and 3 largest donors. The executive agency is Ditjen Cipta

Karya, Department of Public Works based on the Grant Agreement between The

government of Indonesia and JRF signed on 6 February 2007 with the number of

TF090014‐IND.

JRF provided US$ 76 million, allocated for the followings sectors:

1. US$ 60 million for permanent houses using the scheme / model of P2KP

2. US$ 16 million for livelihoods (recovery of public economy) the allocation

of which is not clearly regulated. Of this allocated fund, US$ 6 million was

used to construct T‐Shelter/Roof Structure given to IOM and CHF. USD 1.5

million has been cashed and currently the Secretariat of JRF/World Bank is

evaluating the real needs for temporary houses.

As much as USD 60 million used for the development of permanent houses is

managed by JRF‐CSRRP. CSRRP itself is actually a project that previously has

been performed by the government supported by the World Bank to have

community‐based reconstruction of settlements by optimizing the UPP in the

affected regions. Initially, this model was developed in Aceh and Nias after the


17

disaster of earthquake and tsunami in 2004. After the earthquake in 2006 in

Central Java and Yogyakarta Special Region, this project was made the model for

reconstruction of earthquake‐proof houses. Initially, the fund were allocated by

the project of UPP that this project is popularly known as UPP‐CSRRP. Because it

was relatively successful, the model is adopted and financed by JRF. Therefore,

this project is named JRF‐CSRRP. The implementation structure of JRF‐CSRRP is

shown in the following figure:

Figure 2 Implementation Structure of JRF‐CSRRP


18

Technically, this project is executed by District Management Consultant (DMC)

and is controlled by National Management Consultant (NMC) at national level. In

JRF‐CSRRP, there are two DMCs: one in Yogyakarta and the other comprises the

regions of Central Java (Klaten) and West Java (Pengandaran).

To implement the project of permanent house construction, the fund were

allocated for the following reconstruction of houses:

1. 12.000 units for Bantul Regency – Yogyakarta Special Region

2. 5.000 units for Klaten Regency‐ Central Java

3. 1000 units for Pangandaran, Ciamis Regency‐ West Java

The JRF‐CSRRP used the institutions and regulation of UPP: BKM and the

Kecamatan Development Program (PPK) being the Tim Pelaksana Kegiatan (TPK)

supported by DMC. The potential recipients form Kelompok Pemukim (KP) or

Resident Groups.

The objective of CSRRP is to perform community‐based reconstruction of the

houses destroyed by the earthquake in Yogyakarta and Central Java. The expected

results are: (1) development of community settlement and the environment; (2)

reconstruction of houses and basic environmental infrastructure meeting the

earthquake‐proof requirement; (3) organized residential environment meeting the

specified disaster mitigation requirement.

In providing fund for house reconstruction, JRF‐CSRRP set some criteria to meet

by the potential recipients of JRF‐CSRRP. Based on the results of the discussion of

National Management Consultant (NMC) on 11 January 2007 there are 8 (eight)

criteria:


19

Table 4 Criteria of Recipients of JRF‐CSRRP

No. Criteria Notes

1. Households/families having lost their house due to the earthquake on 27 May 2006

The recipients of house reconstruction fund are households / families. It means that even when there are many people living in one household, only one household will receive the fund. On the contrary, although only one person (single or living alone) lives in one household, he or she will receive the fund. Household refers to a unit of family or individual dwelling a house and take care of him/herself before the earthquake

2. Destroyed house or severely damaged by the earthquake, unfeasible for living, and receiving no aid at all from any donor.

Totally demolished house means all parts or majority (80%) of the building has been demolished. Severely damaged means that the building might stand but technically it is not feasible for living or it is dangerous for dwelling

3. Legally owning the house Clear 4. Holding the right to use the

land Legal ownership is proven by certificate of ownership or letter c or other relevant document or witness (surrounding adjacent neighbors) Legal permit of use is proven by certificate of heir or permit of use for minimally 5 years signed by witnesses

5. Not in the process of receiving any other fund from other donors

Clear

6. Priority is given to poor households unable to reconstruct their house because of the limited resources

Clear

7. Willing to reconstruct and live in the original place

Original place means the initial place where the house was located

8. Willing to obey the prevailing regulations and rules

Clear


20

III. SURVEY FINDINGS

Description and Profile of Respondents

Most of the respondents were male (N=352 or approximately 64 % of total

respondents). The remaining respondents were female (N=198 or 36 % of total

respondents). Data on the sexes of the respondents is presented in graph 1:

Graph 1 Respondents’ Sex Distribution

Male352, 64%

Female , 198, 36%

About the distribution of respondents’age, most respondents aged between

31‐45 years (N= 145 or 47.8 % of total respondents. The next largest

proportion was those aged between 40 and 60 years (16.4%). It implied that

majority of recipients of JRF‐CSRRP was those in productive age. In

addition, the survey also revealed that two respondents or recipients of

JRF‐CSRRP aged more than 80 years (see graph 2)

Graph 2 Respondents’ Age

26.4

47.8

16.49.1

0.40

20

40

60

80

100

17-30 31-45 46-60 61-80 >80

Age Category (Years)

Per

cent

age


21

With regard to the job, most respondents said they worked as laborers (45.3

%). Averagely they work as incidental laborers in construction, farming,

and handicraft industry. They work only when there was job vacancy.

Graph 3 Respondents’ Job

16.9

45.3

15.69.8

5.6 3.5 2.90

20

40

60

80

100

self-e

mploye

dlabo

r

hous

ewife

farmer

unem

ploye

d

priva

te-em

ploye

r

gove

rnmen

t emplo

yer

Jobs

Perc

enta

ge

Most respondents had relatively low level of income. It means that the economic

capacity of the recipients of JRF‐CSRRP was also low that they did not have the

required resources to reconstruct their house themselves. Moreover, the

earthquake has deprived them of their livelihood, either temporarily or

permanently. Thus JRF‐CSRRP is very significant for the casualties of earthquake

of 27 May 2006. Of 550 respondents, it was identified that only 16 people (3 %)

admitted to have earned less than 1 million and there were 175 people (32 %) with

income between 500 thousand rupiahs and 1 million rupiahs. The most

predominant segment was those with income below 500 thousand rupiahs (N=359

people or 65 % of total respondents (see graph 4).


22

Graph 4 Respondents’ Income Level

359. 65%

175. 32% 16. 3%

< 500 ths 500 – 1 ml > 1 m

When elaborated further, it was found that the largest percentage of respondents

with income less than 500 thousand rupiah was in Desa Bangunjiwo (86 % of total

respondents in Desa Bangun Jiwo). Meanwhile the largest percentage of

respondents with income more than 1 million was in Desa Wonolelo (25 %) (see

graph 5 )

Graph 5 Distribution of Respondents’ Income per Village

0

0

25

2

5

0

9

0

6

0

0

8

4

2

2

5

14

21

75

33

52

20

9

15

24

31

37

52

30

36

21

37

86

79

0

65

43

80

82

85

70

69

63

39

66

62

77

58

0 20 40 60 80 100

Bangunjiw o

Segoroyoso

Wonolelo

Srimartani

Potorono

Caturharjo

Selopamioro

Karangtengah

Pendow oharjo

Bangunharjo

Srihardono

Trirenggo

Sumbermulyo

Sumber Agung

Sriharjo

Banguntapan

Villa

ge

Percentage

> 1 m 500 th - 1 m < 500 th


23

Criteria Deviation and Rate of Target Accuracy

What is meant by criteria deviation is that the criteria are not consistently and

appropriately adopted in identifying the potential recipients of JRF‐CSRRP.

Therefore, the house reconstruction fund provided by JRF‐CSRRP did not meet

the intended target. Based on the survey, the accuracy rate of targeting of potential

recipients of JRF‐CSRRP in Bantul Regency was 60%. In other words, there were

40 % of house reconstruction fund provided by JRF‐CSRRP was not accurately

targeted to the eligible target because of the inconstant application of criteria (see

graph 6).

The high rate of inaccurate targeting to potential recipients of house

reconstruction (40%) was caused by the inconstant application of inclusion criteria

set by JRF‐CSRRP by the respondents. Although toleration was given in particular

criteria, such as in the criteria of priority for poor households/families, the

recipients had to meet all of the specified criteria. It means that although only one

criterion was not met, the person was not authorized to get the house

reconstruction fund of JRF‐CSRRP.

Graph 6 Rate of Target Accuracy

Accurate, 330, 60%

Inaccurate

220, 40%

Viewed from the cluster of the selected villages, the highest rate of accuracy was

found in Desa Potorono (90 %), meaning that only 10 % of the recipients of house

reconstruction of JRF‐CSRRP in Desa Potorono did not meet the criteria.


24

Meanwhile, the location with the lowest rate of accuracy was Desa Bangunjiwo

(only 32 %), meaning that there were approximately 68 % of respondents in Desa

Bangunjiwo did not meet the criterion. Graph 7 shows information that there were

three villages with higher rate of inaccurate targeting than accurate targeting.

They were Desa Sumbermulyo, Pendowoharjo and Bangunjiwo.

Graph 7 Distribution of Target Accuracy per Village

68

25

50

43

10

26

45

31

52

13

42

3639

60

42 42

32

75

50

57

90

74

55

69

48

87

58

6461

40

58 58

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Bangunjiwo

Segoroyoso

Wonolelo

Srimartani

Potorono

Caturharjo

Selopamioro

Karangtengah

Pendowoharjo

Bangunharjo

Srihardono

Trirenggo

Sumberm

ulyo

Sumber Agung

Sriharjo

Banguntapan

Village

Prec

enta

ge

Inaccurate Accurate


25

The survey also identified that the criterion mostly manipulated was the

commitment to reconstruct house in the original place (N=153 respondents or

approximately 62.4 %). The next mostly manipulated criterion was that the

households/families were the casualties of the earthquake of 27 May 2006 (N=63

respondents or approximately 26 %). The third mostly manipulated criterion was

the criterion of totally destroyed house (N=27 respondents or approximately 11

%). The least manipulated criterion was criterion of double aid. It was found that

one house resided by a number of families/households received 2 house

reconstruction funds from JRF‐CSRRP. It was also found that one respondent

receiving JRF‐CSRRP did not live in Bantul before the earthquake on 27 May 2006.

Graph 8 Criteria Deviation of JRF‐CSRRP Aid Recipient

153; 62%

63; 26%

27; 11% 2; 1%

Requirement to reconstruct in original place

Households/families becoming the casualties of the

Destroyed or severely damaged house

Others

Details of criteria deviation can be explained as follows:

Requirement to Reconstruct in Original Place

This criterion required that the received fund of JRF‐CSRRP had to be used to

reconstruct the damaged house in the original place. Based on the

recommendation from the coordinating meeting of NMC on 3 March 2007, in

special circumstance, fund recipients were allowed to reconstruct house beyond


26

the original place as long as it is located in the same village. Special circumstance

meant that on the original place public facilities supported by community

settlement plan (CSP) would be built. There were 153 respondents or

approximately 62 % of total respondents who reconstruct house beyond the

original place with various reasons (see graph 9).

Graph 9 Reasons for Deviation of Requirement to Reconstruct House in

Original Place Criterion

47; 32%

42; 27%19; 12%

14; 9%

31; 20%

Not the referred inherited land Already reconstructed by RR-POKMAS

A house still stood Narrow land

Others

The most frequent reasons were that after the division of the inherited land, the

respondents inherited the land on which the house was developed. In other

words, they might not build on the original place because it was no longer their

land. There were 47 respondents (approximately 32 %) gave such this reason.

Interestingly, the division of the inherited land was not legally documented in

inheritance certificate. Averagely, the division was made by”acungan”1.

The second reason was that on the foundation of the original place, a house

donated by RR‐Pokmas was already developed. The respondents stating this

reason amounted to 42 (27%). Most respondents stating this reason originally

1 Acungan lexically means appointment. In this context, the inherited land was divided only by showing which part goes to a heir, and which other part goes to another heir, without any legal document.


27

lived in a house consisting of many households/families before the earthquake. In

this case, other households/families previously living in the same house already

got aid through RR‐Pokmas.

The third reason was that at the original place there was a house dwelled by the

recipient of JRF‐CSRRP. This was the case because the original house was not

demolished or severely damaged. The number of respondents giving such this

reason was 19 (12 % of total respondents). The fourth reason was that the original

land was too narrow. There were 14 people stating this reason (9%). Other reasons

were closeness to parents’ house, laziness to demolish the old foundation, extra

costs of old foundation demolition, or discomfort location.

Household/Family Characteristics

As mandated by the discussion held by NMC on 11 January 2007, it was

mentioned that one of the criterions to be eligible to receive JRF‐CSRRP was that

the households/families had lost their house due to the earthquake of 27 May

2006. Household refers to a unit of family or individual dwelling the house and

taking care of him/herself before the earthquake 27 May 2006.

However, based on the survey results, many recipients did not meet the criterion.

The most prevalent inconsistent application of criteria was because some

households/families dwelled in a single house. This enabled them to get multiple

aids from different donors including JRF‐CSRRP. For example, Household A and

Household B dwelled in the same house although with separate household

activities. Household A already received aid from RR‐Pokmas, but Household B

also received aid from JRF‐CSRRP. Based on the criterion, Household B was not

eligible to receive similar aid from JRF‐CSRRP. Household B would only be

eligible to receive the fund from JRF‐CSRRP when before the earthquake of 27

May 2006 had physically lived separately and independently from Household A,

although it was still under one roof.


28

This fact indicated that the distribution of fund was not accurately targeted. The

number of cases of multiple aids for multiple households living in one house was

58 or 92% of the total inconsistence of criterion of being the household / family

disadvantaged by the earthquake of 27 May 2006. This case constituted the largest

inconsistence of criterion application. Such this inconsistent application of criteria

was found evenly in nearly all villages, except Desa Banguntapan. The largest

proportion of case was found in Desa Srihardono.

Graph 10 Deviation of the Household/Family characteristic criterion

58; 92%

4; 6% 1; 2%

Multiple Households/Families in a House ih tSingle, living together with parents

Got married after the earthquake

In addition to the two aforementioned patterns, the criterion of being the

family/household disadvantaged by the earthquake was inconsistently applied.

Those were single persons living together with parents and those people getting

married after the earthquake (6% and 2% respectively). The case of unmarried

persons living together with parents was found in Desa Trirenggo for Phase I and

Desa Pendowoharjo, Bangunharjo for Phase II. Actually, these single persons

could get aid for house reconstruction from JRF‐CSRRP if they had separate house

before the earthquake as specified by the criterion made by NMC. Meanwhile,

new households/families resulting from the marriage after the earthquake were

found in Desa Sumber Agung.


29

House Condition Because of the Earthquake

One of the objectives of the project of JRF‐CSRRP was to give aid for house

reconstruction for the casualties of the earthquake of 27 May 2006. One of the

fundamental reasons of whey they were helped was because their houses were

destroyed or severely damaged (more than 80%) by the earthquake. On the other

hand, they were economically unable to reconstruct their own house at their own

cost. Therefore, criterion of demolished house or severely damaged house by the

earthquake was relevant.

Graph 11 Deviation of House Condition Criterion

6; 22%

21; 78%

Masonry wall, not demolished, not severly damaged Woven-bamboo house, not demolished

The results of the survey showed that not all houses of the recipients of the fund

were destroyed or severely damaged by the earthquake. There were two models

of inconstant applications in this case. The first was that the houses had masonry

wall and was not demolished nor severely damaged (6 persons, 22%). The second

was that the houses were made of woven bamboo, and they were not demolished

(21 persons, 78%). The largest proportion was found in Desa Bangunjiwo. Other

than that, only few villages had this kind of inconsistent application of criteria.

Other criteria

There were two kinds of inconstant application of this criterion. The first was the

case in which all households/families in a single house respectively received fund


30

from JRF‐CSRRP. Based on the specified criterion, in case that many

households/families dwelled together in a single house, only one household

would be eligible to receive one aid from JRF‐CSRRP. The second was the case in

which the recipients of JRF‐CSRRP lived outside of Bantul before the earthquake

of 27 May 2006. They returned and lived in Bantul after the earthquake. These two

kinds of criteria inconsistence constituted the least proportion to the criterion

inconsistence.


31

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the results of the survey the following conclusion can be made:

1. The target accuracy of house reconstruction aid from JRF‐CSRRP was

relatively low (only 60 %), whereas the rest (40%) was inaccurate.

2. The inaccurate target was caused by inconsistent application of the critera

made by the management of JRF‐CSRRP. In order of percentage, the

manipulated criteria were requirement to reconstruct on the original place

(62%); Earthquake affected family/households (26%); Earthquake affected

houses condition (11%) and other criteria (1%).


32

REFERENCE

Anonym. 2007. One Year After the Java Earthquake and Tsunami: Reconstruction

Achievements and the Result of the Java Reconstruction Fund. Jakarta: Java

Reconstruction Fund

________. 2006. Preliminary Damage and Loss Assessment, Yogyakarta and Central Java

Natural Disaster, A joint report of BAPPENAS, the Provincial and Local

Governments of D.I. Yogyakarta, the Provincial and Local Governments of

Central Java, and international partners, June 2006.

______. 2007. Appraisal Report For A Java Reconstruction Fund (Jrf) Grant In The

Amount Of Us$60 Million To The Republic Of Indonesia For A Community‐

Based Settlement Rehabilitation And Reconstruction Project October 9, 2007.

Jakarta: The World Bank

______. 2007. Community–Based Settlement Rehabilitation And Reconstruction Project

For Yogyakarta Special Region, Central And West Java (Project Management

Guidelines) November 6, 2006

Eriyanto.2007.Teknik Sampling: Analisis Opini Publik. Yogyakarta: LKiS

_______. 1999. Metodologi Polling: Memberdayakan Suara Rakyat. Bandung: PT.

Remaja Rosda Karya

Singarimbun, Masri and Sofian Effendi (ed.).1995. Metode Penelitian Survey.

Jakarta: LP3ES

Subkhan, Imam and Sri haryani. 2007. ”Studi Efektifitas Pelaksanaan Proyek

Penanggulangan Kemiskinan Perkotaan‐Rehabilitasi and Rekonstruksi

Masyarakat and Permukiman Berbasis Komunitas (P2KP‐

REKOMPAK) in Bantul Regency, Yogyakarta” dalam Jurnal Ekonomi &

Bisnis Indonesia, Volume 22, No. 1, Januari 2007. Yogyakarta: Fakultas

Ekonomi UGM


Documents

Losdiy Laporan Penelitian English