IHSN Survey Catalog
  • Home
  • Microdata Catalog
  • Citations
  • Login
    Login
    Home / Central Data Catalog / IDN_2017_MCC-GPGF_V01_M
central

Green Prosperity - Grant Facility 2017, Independent Performance Evaluation

Indonesia, 2017
Get Microdata
Reference ID
IDN_2017_MCC-GPGF_v01_M
Producer(s)
Social Impact
Metadata
DDI/XML JSON
Created on
Jan 19, 2021
Last modified
Jan 19, 2021
Page views
495
Downloads
154
  • Study Description
  • Downloads
  • Get Microdata
  • Identification
  • Version
  • Scope
  • Coverage
  • Producers and sponsors
  • Sampling
  • Survey instrument
  • Data collection
  • Data processing
  • Data appraisal
  • Access policy
  • Data Access
  • Contacts
  • Metadata production
  • Identification

    Survey ID number

    IDN_2017_MCC-GPGF_v01_M

    Title

    Green Prosperity - Grant Facility 2017

    Subtitle

    Independent Performance Evaluation

    Country
    Name Country code
    Indonesia IDN
    Abstract

    The evaluation is designed to assess the design and operations of the GP Facility, which consists of Activities 2-3 of the GP Project. It is a performance evaluation that relies on reviews of project data and documents, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, site visits, and an online survey. This evaluation will serve two primary purposes, based on the results of the Evaluability Assessment. Namely, it will:
    · Inform the design of future grant facilities (by MCC) and/or trust fund facilities (by the Indonesian government), based on GPF learnings; and
    · Provide accountability surrounding changes and adaptations made throughout the course of the GPF to a variety of MCC, MCA, and partner organization stakeholders
    MCC currently implements the grant facility model more than ten Compacts, and is interested in better understanding the GPF results and process in order to help inform whether and how to implement this type of model within other MCC/MCA contexts. Similarly, the Indonesian government is considering whether and how to continue to work towards GP objectives following Compact closure, and aligned with their own country priorities and discussions with additional donors. Initial discussions have included conversations around the possibility of using a trust-fund model or something similar to continue this type of work.
    As such, this evaluation is expected to complement existing data surrounding appropriate approaches and models to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Indonesia, and provide key lessons learned for these two audiences.

    Kind of Data

    Other

    Unit of Analysis

    individuals

    Version

    Version Description

    Licensed datasets, accessible under conditions.

    Scope

    Topics
    Topic
    Grants
    Environment
    Greenhouse Gas
    Facility
    Natural Resource Management
    Keywords
    Indonesia Environment GHG Emissions Grant Facility

    Coverage

    Geographic Coverage

    Indonesia - key informant interviews took place in Jakarta, Bogor, Yogyakarta, Mamuju, Makassar, Jambi, Lombok, Pontianak, Bali.

    The survey willl capture all implementation provinces for GP, including Riau, Jambi, West Sumatra, Bengkulu, South Sumatra, West Sulawesi, South Sulawesi, Southeast Sulawesi, Gorontalo, West Kalimantan, East Kalimantan, North Kalimantan, West Nusa Tenggara (NTB), and East Nusa Tenggara (NTT)

    Data were sampled purposively, and thus cannot be considered representative at any level.

    Universe

    The study population includes all grantees, grant applicants, contractors, MCA-I staff involved in GP, MCC staff involved in GP, GOI representatives invovled in GP, and grant administrators for Green Prosperity.

    Producers and sponsors

    Primary investigators
    Name
    Social Impact
    Funding Agency/Sponsor
    Name
    Millennium Challenge Corporation

    Sampling

    Sampling Procedure

    The study sample includes 73 KIIs and 3 FGDs (total of 94 respondents) that were sampled purposively to include a diverse set of program stakeholders. This sample is not meant to be representative, and no power calculations were conducted since the data are mostly qualitative.

    The online survey will be sent to all 528 grant applicants for whom we have contact information. This will include active and terminated grantees, as well as unsuccessful grant applicants.

    Deviations from the Sample Design

    The team originally planned to visit implementation sites of grantees; however, after arrival in the field, it was decided that additional key informant interviews with a greater number of grantees would yield more useful data for the purposes of this evaluation.

    Response Rate

    N/A

    Weighting

    N/A

    Survey instrument

    Questionnaires

    The evaluation made use of key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and an online survey. The data collection instruments included:

    1. KII-MCA I staff: This included staff involved in the management, administration, or operations of GP
    2. KII-MCA I contractors: Including PMC, GPM, GMT, and TOPE
    3. KII-MCC: including all staff involved in GP or the requirements grantees needed to fulfill (SGIP, ESA)
    4. KII-GOI: including Government of Indonesia employees involved in GP
    5. KII-grantee
    6. FGD-grantee
    7. FGD-MCA I
    8. Online survey-grantee: administered to all grant applicants, with skip logic for those that did not receive a grant, that received but did not complete their grant, and that completed a grant

    Data collection

    Dates of Data Collection
    Start End
    2017-10-30 2017-11-17
    2017-12-05 2017-12-13
    Supervision

    The data collection team included five team members - Local Research Manager, Renewable Energy/Economics Expert, Agriculture/NRM Expert, Qualitative Methods Expert, and Local Research Assistant. The LRM, LRA, and Ag/NRM Expert were fluent in Bahasa Indonesia. The team divided into sub-teams for interviews, and alternated responsibility for conducting the interview and note-taking. All sub-teams had at least one Bahasa Indonesia speaker.

    Data Collection Notes

    Each interview team consisted of two or more interviewers, with a Bahasa-Indonesia speaker present at each interview. A total of five interviewers were used for data collection. Data collection took place in two rounds, from October 30-November 17 and December 5-13. The team conducted interviews in Jakarta, Bogor, Yogyakarta, Bali, Jambi, Lobmok, Makassar, and Mamuju. The team conducted focus groups in Jakarta and Bogor. Interviewing took place every day of the week. Interviews averaged 1-1.5 hour for all questionnaires - most all respondents were willing and available to talk for over an hour. Interviews were all conducted in English or Bahasa Indonesia, depending on the respondent's preferred language.

    Data processing

    Data Editing

    Interview notes were cleaned at the end of each day of data collection, and aggregated at the end of each week in the evaluation team's data management system. All data editing was conducted manually based on virtual exchanges between team members to clarify inconsistencies between notes. The team conducted team analysis sessions once per week to help identify emerging themes, trends, and/or findings. After the team completed data collection, cleaned interview notes uploaded to Dedoose for coding.

    Data appraisal

    Estimates of Sampling Error

    N/A

    Access policy

    Archive where study is originally stored

    Millennium Challenge Corporation
    https://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog/203
    Cost: None

    Data Access

    Citation requirements

    Use of the dataset must be acknowledged using a citation which would include:

    • the Identification of the Primary Investigator
    • the title of the survey (including country, acronym and year of implementation)
    • the survey reference number
    • the source and date of download

    Contacts

    Contacts
    Name Email
    Monitoring & Evaluation Division of the Millennium Challenge Corporation Monitoring & Evaluation Division of the Millennium Challenge Corporation impact-eval@mcc.gov

    Metadata production

    DDI Document ID

    DDI_IDN_2017_MCC-GPGF_v01_M

    Producers
    Name Role
    Millennium Challenge Corporation Review of Metadata
    Social Impact Drafting of Metadata
    Date of Metadata Production

    2017-12-22

    Metadata version

    DDI Document version

    Version 1 (2016-10-6): This is the first metadata entry for the GPF evaluation. It has been developed on the basis of the Evaluation Design Report.
    Version 2 (June 2020). Edited version based on the original version (DDI-MCC-IDN-GPF-2017-v01) that was done by the Millennium Challenge Corporation.

    Version notes

    MCA-I selected grantees through open calls for proposals for each of the windows, all of which had different requirements.The portfolio of grants was fully awarded by July 2017, and is organized into five funding windows:
    · Window 1 (Partnership Grants): These grants leverage private sector or other outside funding to promote increased investment in sustainable NRM and improved land-use practices in either targeted landscapes or targeted agricultural value chains. All partnership grants required co-funding by the partner on at least a 1:1 basis, with preference given to Partnerships committing a higher share of co-funding.
    · Window 2 (Community-based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM)): These grants fund smaller-scale, community-based projects that promote enhanced management of watersheds and forests to improve the sustainability of renewable energy (RE) and/or agriculture investments, and support rural livelihoods and economic development that result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
    · Window 3 (RE): These grants fund community-based off-grid (3A) and commercial-scale on-grid (3B) renewable energy projects.
    · Technical Assistance and Project Preparation (TAPP): These grants fund studies (environmental, social, feasibility) and technical assistance to enhance the quality of the projects under the windowsin Windows 1 and 3.
    · GK: These grants build local, provincial, and national capacity to drive forward Indonesia's nation-wide low carbon development strategy within the context of the GP Project.

    Back to Catalog
    IHSN Survey Catalog

    © IHSN Survey Catalog, All Rights Reserved.