Programme approach
A phased sequence so each stage builds the next.
KISRP follows an integrated sequence of steps so that each stage creates the conditions for the next: from community readiness and trusted data, through participatory planning and tenure processes, to infrastructure, housing, and longer-term settlement upgrading.
The outline below is indicative. Timing, emphasis, and legal pathways vary by settlement, county capacity, available financing, and national policy. The constant threads are participation, transparency, and alignment between residents, community structures, county government, and national programme institutions.
KISRP begins by strengthening community organisation and clarifying how residents, community structures, and county teams will work together. Sensitisation and dialogue help align expectations with what the programme can deliver—and what must be handled through other government channels.
This stage also reinforces governance and accountability: transparent communication, documented agreements where appropriate, and grievance or feedback mechanisms so concerns can be raised and tracked. Capacity support may cover facilitation, record-keeping, and inclusion of women, youth, and vulnerable households.
National and county institutional arrangements are aligned so that decisions taken at settlement level can connect to county plans, budgets, and sector agencies without losing community ownership.
A shared evidence base is built through structured enumeration, surveys, and field verification. Information typically covers households, structures, access routes, and service points—always subject to ethical use, data protection, and programme protocols.
GIS mapping and technical drawings translate ground conditions into maps that everyone can discuss: existing layouts, constraints, environmental risks, and options for reorganising space over time.
Settlement diagnostics summarise findings—density, infrastructure gaps, tenure-related issues, and social dynamics—so that later planning and investment choices are grounded in facts rather than assumptions.
Participatory processes produce physical and land-use plans that reflect community priorities and county spatial policy. Scenarios may cover road hierarchies, open space, social facilities, and phasing of change so disruption is managed.
Demarcation, adjudication, and documentation pathways are pursued where the programme and county frameworks allow—always within the law and with clear communication about rights, obligations, and timelines.
Outputs are designed to feed implementable upgrading packages: what can be built first, what requires further legal or technical steps, and how plans stay consistent with infrastructure and housing stages that follow.
Priority works typically address access, drainage, water, sanitation, solid waste, and public lighting—chosen through technical assessment and agreement with communities and counties. Designs aim for durability, maintenance responsibility, and climate-conscious choices where possible.
Coordination with utilities and sector agencies reduces duplication and helps connect informal areas to formal service networks where feasible.
Construction and supervision follow agreed standards; communities are kept informed on progress, safety, and any temporary disruption, so infrastructure gains legitimacy and is easier to maintain after handover.
The programme supports incremental and affordable housing options suited to resident incomes—ranging from improved shelter conditions to structured redevelopment where plans and tenure steps allow. Links to national housing and finance programmes are explored where they add value.
Upgrading is treated as a long-term process: livelihoods, rental markets, and social networks are considered so that physical change does not displace households without viable alternatives.
Learning from pilots is captured to refine methods for other settlements, while monitoring tracks outcomes across tenure security, services, and quality of life.