The effect of enterprise risk management on prevention and detection fraud in Indonesia’s local government

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research design.

Table 1. Details of questionnaire distribution and response rate

No	Local Area Government	Questionnaire Distribution	Questionnaire Return	Response Rate	Incomplete Questionnaire and outlier	Questionnaire Used
1	Sumenep (District)	20	19	95%	10	9
2	Pamekasan (District)	20	16	80%	8	8
3	Blitar (City)	18	15	83%	3	12
4	Blitar (District)	15	11	73%	2	9
5	Nganjuk (District)	25	23	92%	10	13
6	Madiun (City)	20	15	75%	2	13
7	Madiun (District)	15	13	87%	3	10
8	Sidoarjo (District)	25	24	96%	8	16
9	Lamongan (District)	20	18	90%	2	16
10	Bojonegoro (District)	24	21	88%	4	17
11	Gresik (District)	25	23	92%	7	16
12	Workshop Fraud Audit	20	14	70%	2	12
	TOTAL	247	212	86%	61	151

Figure 2. Research Framework.

Table 2. Reliability test

Variables	Items	Cronbach’s Alpha
Environment	6	0.856
Risk assessment	6	0.843
Control activities	6	0.823
Information and Communication	6	0.832
Monitoring	5	0.806
Prevention	7	0.809
Detection	6	0.822

Table 3. Descriptive statistic

Variable	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. Deviation
Control environment	151	21	25	23.30	0.800
Risk assessment	151	17	30	24.70	2.138
Control activities	151	22	30	23.74	1.615
Information and Communication	151	16	30	23.52	2.023
Monitoring	151	14	25	19.94	1.923
Prevention	151	22	35	28.33	2.558
Detection	151	20	30	25.94	2.214

Table 4. Correlation matrix

Variable	Environment	Risk assessment	Control Activities	Information and communication	Monitoring	Prevention	Detection
Environment		,213**	,367**	,148	,406**	,462**	,407**
Risk assessment	,213**		,419**	,274**	,445**	,522**	,442**
Control Activities	,367**	,419**		,500**	,587**	,559**	,508**
Information and Communication	,148	,274**	,500**		,627**	,527**	,467**
Monitoring	,406**	,445**	,587**	,627**		,643**	,567**
Prevention	,462**	,522**	,559**	,527**	,643**		,534**
Detection	,407**	,442**	,508**	,467**	,567**	,534**

Table 5. Model 1 (Fraud Prevention as Dependent Variable)

Variables	Beta	t-Stats	p Value	Note
Constant	−14.255	−3.217	.002
Control environment	.767	3.901	.000***	H1 accepted
Risk Assessment	.313	4.206	.000***	H1 accepted
information and communicationA	.193	1.694	.092*	H1 accepted
information and communication	.281	3.055	.003***	H1 accepted
monitoring	.289	2.621	.010***	H1 accepted

Significant at 10%*, 5%** and 1%***

Table 6. Model 2 (Fraud Detection as Dependent Variable)

Variables	Beta	t-Stats	p Value	Note
Constant	−5.094	−1.213	.227
CONTROL ENVIRONMENT	.548	2.939	.004***	H2 accepted
risk assessment	.201	2.847	.005***	H2 accepted
control activities	.184	1.703	.091*	H2 accepted
information and communication	.200	2.295	.023**	H2 accepted
monitoring	.212	2.023	.045**	H2 accepted

Significance at 10%*, 5%** and 1%***

Table 7. R adjusted square

Variables	R Adjusted Square	%
Enterprises Risk Management—Prevention	.558	56
Enterprises Risk Management—Detection	.423	42