KAMPUNG IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT III

Example of:

• Participatory Development

• Scaling-Up of Upgrading

Jakarta, Indonesia

Housing conditions and solutions vary widely from place to place in a large metropolitan area such as Jakarta. This UNDP/World Bank program attempted the difficult task of tailoring upgrading from site to site across a large city. To do so, they used community based organizations (CBOs) as project initiators to encourage an active, innovative, and self-sustained community in which upgrading could take place. This program is considered to be one of the best urban poverty relief programs in the world for several reasons - one being the low level of investment needed per person (US$118 in Jakarta to US$23 in smaller cities), another being its sustainability. Since its inception in 1969, the concept has spread to 800 cities in Indonesia to benefit almost 30 million people and is among the best urban poverty relief programs in the world.

The KIP program has had three phases. The first two concentrated on physical improvements and the third phase added a social/economic dimension to the equation by devoting 12% of the funding to economic development.

• providing urban housing and offering “significant support in alleviating urban poverty” (Surjadi, 1).
• improving coordination among independent agencies linked in KIP’s implementation.

• Social development through job training
• Physical development through housing improvement, road and footpath improvement, water and drainage, public latrines, and health posts (88% of funding)
• Economic development through a small-scale credit scheme and “an arrangement of multipurpose small shops” (Surjadi, 12) (12% of funding).

Upon the declaration of a KIP Unit, the Governor assigns subdistrict chiefs as site managers.

• Site managers are assisted by a team of engineers and technicians from the KIP Unit.
• Site managers are in charge of settling social disputes that arise from the no land or property compensation policy of the KIPs.
• For operations, site managers are responsible to the KIP Unit but administratively they are responsible to the Mayors. This has been a very effective strategy.
• They are also responsible for making weekly reports to the KIP Unit. The reports are then compared with KIP Unit Division of Supervision reports.

These community-based KIP Units are well supported by both the communities and the Housing Agency and therefore they have been able to set up kampung services and generate economic activities. Small-scale enterprises are growing, and parts of the sanitation component, such as public toilets, were built with help from the community.

The KIP Unit merged with the Housing Agency in 1993. While this was good for the KIP employees in that it granted them job advancement opportunities, it has not been so beneficial from the program standpoint. KIP activities tended to slow down due to the multiple responsibilities of the Housing Agency and the low priority KIP was given.

The program recognizes that road and footpath improvement “increases the mobility of the kampung inhabitants both socially and economically.” Subsequently, 88% of the funds go toward the physical development of the kampungs. (Surjadi, 11)

“Improvements in the kampungs prompted residents to invest more in home repairs and in the operation and maintenance of community infrastructure” (IER, 6)

KIP did not encourage displacement. Its rapid and extensive coverage may be the reason for this low level of homeowner turnover.

Monitoring of the CBOs is weak. Housing Agency supervisors have not been supervising and motivating the CBOs as they were meant to do. This is because they lack the training for such a task.

The success of the social development component has been limited because of a lack of funds for job skills training and because the target beneficiaries are mainly employed in the informal sector and therefore have difficulties attending the training sessions.

Participation Tip: Evaluators for the World Bank observed that the urban poor can’t actively participate in a development scheme if they are unable to first fulfill their basic needs to survive.

Cost Recovery Tip: “The community’s ability to pay should be considered in determining the size of the program investment. Confronted with an ever-worsening economic crisis, the community should be helped to improve their own income first, so that they can help finance the development program” (Surjadi, 11).

Coverage Tip: Improvements in one area should not have a negative impact on residents in neighboring areas. This will produce resistance in the general community and also potentially encourage displacement (IER, 6)

Operations Evaluation Department, World Bank. “Enhancing the Quality of Life in Urban Indonesia.” OED Précis. No. 106. URL: http://www.worldbank.org/html/oed/pr106.htm. (March 1996).

http://wwwistp.murdoch.edu.au/asdev/resource/
asdcases/kip/kip.htm#typicalk

World Bank, “Enhancing the Quality of Life in Urban Indonesia: The Legacy of Kampung Improvement Programs,” Impact Evaluation Report no. 14747, Indonesia Urban Projects (Washington D.C.: World Bank, June 29, 1995) URL: http://www.worldbank.org/html/oed/14747.htm