Participatory appraisal
Figure 5 : Institution-Perception Map Silanga.
Practical Action
Maisha
Bora (9)
AMREF (11)
Church (3)
MSF (7)
Health
Institutions
(14)
You,
Household
or
individual
KISUG (1)
KISEP (2)
USK (4)
SYG (12)
Care Kenya (5)
Practical Action (6)
Government
(10)
Well-wishers
Chief (8)
Community
Policing
Key:
= Strong relationship
= Medium relationship
= Weak relationship
= Small importance
= Medium importance
= High importance
Arrow indicates direction of relationship
Distance f rom centre indicates degree of accessibility
Numbering indicates ranking in order of importance, (1) = most important
Overlapping indicates inf luential relationship
ZUM (13)
The results of the institutional mapping exercise broadly groups the institutions into three groups
in order of priority to the residents;
Group 1 – KISUG, KISEP, Church, USK, Care Kenya, Practical Action
Group 2 – SYG, MSF, Chief, AMREF, Health institutions
Group 3 – ZUM, Maisha Bora, Community policing, Well-wishers, Government
It is clear that the community in Silanga are impacted by a large number of institutions. As
Kibera is well known to be a slum with extreme poverty in Africa, many international agencies
concentrate their activities to helping the population there. It is obvious to see in Kibera the vast
number of organisations, NGOs and CBOs active within the community.
8