JAMAICA INFORMAL BUILDING SECTOR STUDY

September 2018
Produced by Michael Collins, Director of Education, Build ChangeThis activity was supported by the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) throughthe Japan-World Bank Program for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Management in Developing Countries.
This report was produced by the NGO Build Change in coordination with the World Bank andGovernment of Jamaica. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do notnecessarily reflect the views of The World Bank Group, its Board of Executive Directors, or thegovernments they represent.
The World Bank Group does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The
boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not
imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank Group concerning the legal status of any territoryor the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

Abstract
The Disaster Vulnerability Reduction Project is a World Bank financed initiative with the development
objective of enhancing Jamaica’s resilience to disaster and climate risk. The operation supports theGovernment of Jamaica in implementing a program that promotes climate and disaster risk managementin the wider context of sustainable development. A strategic priority of the project is to support buildingcode implementation with a focus on delivering training programs to a wide range of building professionals,
including the staff of building authorities and private sector practitioners through specialized academic
institutions.
The following analysis was commissioned by the World Bank to provide further perspective on the scale,dynamics and motivations of the “informal” construction sector, characterized by low-income households,
unlicensed practitioners and unpermitted work often resulting in houses vulnerable to disaster. The
analysis was completed by Build Change, a nonprofit social enterprise with extensive training and building
inspection experience in informal contexts in multiple countries. It is based on results from 240 structured
interviews with households and practitioners from the informal sector, conversations with a number of
institutional and private sector collaborators and past Build Change experience.

iTable of Contents
1

ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................................. iii

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 1

3

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 3

4

APPROACH ............................................................................................................................................... 55

SURVEY FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................. 6

6

DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................................ 13

7

PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 16

8

LINK TO MATERIALS ............................................................................................................................ 24

APPENDIX 1: PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS ON CONSTRUCTION QUALITY .................................... 25
APPENDIX 2: FACTORS THAT DEFINE BUILDING COMPLEXITY ............................................................ 31
APPENDIX 3: ABOUT BUILD CHANGE ......................................................................................................... 32ii

1 Acronyms
BSJ
CCS
CRDC
HAJ
HEART NTA
ICC
IMAJ
IRC
JIA
JIE
JIP
JIQS
JNBC
JSIF
KSAMC
LAMP
LSAJ
NEPA
NGO
NHT
SDC
U-TechBureau of Standards Jamaica
HEART College of Construction Services
Construction Resource Development Center
Housing Agency of Jamaica
Human Employment and Resource Training Trust, National Training Agency
International Code Council
Incorporated Master Builders Association of Jamaica
International Residential CodeJamaican Institute of Architects
Jamaica Institution of Engineers
The Jamaican Institute of Planners
The Jamaican Institute of Quantity Surveyors
Jamaican National Building CodeJamaica Social Investment Fund
Kingston and St. Andrew Municipal Corporation
Land Administration and Management
Land Surveyors Association of Jamaica
National Environment & Planning Agency
Non-Governmental Organization
National Housing TrustSocial Development Commission
University of Technologyiii

2 Executive Summary
The “Building Act” is a legislative framework in Jamaica issued with the objective of reducing sub-standardpractices that result in the construction of unsafe buildings. It officializes the adoption of a new nationalbuilding code, designates Municipal Corporations as responsible for inspecting and certifying construction
works, and mandates the creation of a Building Practitioners Board to develop and oversee training andlicensing of tradesmen and women, henceforth “practitioners”, who currently operate without a license.
The Bureau of Standards Jamaica (BSJ), supported by professional bodies and in partnership with theInternational Code Council ICC, has begun the process of developing an improved Jamaican National
Building Code (JNBC). The Ministry of Local Government and Community Development (MLGCD) has
already completed 14 draft regulations that will be used to oversee local authority permitting and inspection
activities. The development of a final draft regulation for licensing practitioners is underway, but questions
remain regarding the best way to engage, support, certify and create demand for newly licensed
practitioners, especially since many work in low-income neighborhoods where people are traditionally
unwilling or unable to invest in the “formal” (legal) process of house construction.
In May 2018, with the aim of learning more about household-practitioner interactions and the informal
construction sector in general, Build Change surveyed 240 low-income households and building
practitioners in 6 geographically disperse low-income neighborhoods. Surveys were complimented withconstruction site visits and extended interviews were held with a number of homeowners, practitioners andinstitutional collaborators.
Summary of survey findings:
Some results align closely with low-income neighborhoods in other countries with medium to high levels
of informal construction. Basic services exist but are usually not adequate. Many households don’t own theland they live on. Bank mortgages and loans are not widely used. Many low-income people don’t purchasehomes, they build or commission their own. Construction activity is gradual and is frequently unpermitted.
Construction quality is low. Household members participate in construction but outsource most work to
local practitioners. These are commissioned on a project basis, usually without a written agreement.
Homeowners are responsible for purchasing most of the construction materials.
Other findings are more exclusive to the Jamaican context. Most buildings in the neighborhoods surveyed
are a hybrid between partially reinforced block masonry and confined masonry. They generally have twostories or less. Many are smaller than 100m2. Parish to Parish and District to District migration appears
common (one parish contains multiple districts). It includes rural families coming to the city, but alsourban families leaving dense “downtown” areas in search of more space and cheaper living conditions.
Government relocation programs have also contributed to this. Land tenure is desirable but not necessary
for households to feel ownership over their home. Households invest in their homes but mostly not for
speculative purposes. In fact, speculation is largely considered privilege of neighborhoods with more sociopolitical stability. Hurricanes are perceived as the most likely hazard, but few people take mitigation
measures.

1With regard to practitioners, surveys show most are not formally qualified, but many are skilled in masonry,
carpentry and steel work. Most are self-employed or work in small teams. Female workforce participation
is low overall, but higher than that seen in other countries with similar contexts. Their participation is
generally limited to unskilled tasks. Practitioners are frequently able to find work but often need tosupplement their income with other activities. Some practitioners also work for formal companies, thoughusually not in a salaried position. Households are in principle willing to pay more for a licensed practitioner,
but this is largely due to the perception that qualified practitioners are more reliable (and end up costingless) than any potential increase in home safety. Practitioners place similar value on the license, and mostare prepared to pay for obtaining one. Practitioners stress the need for a practical and flexible approach tolicensing. They are interested in any opportunity to develop new skills, most are technologically adept.
Nearly all prefer learning through doing.
Summary of recommendations:
Survey results suggest that carefully considered institutional training and licensing initiatives could in factincrease compliance and improve construction quality in low-income communities. Initiatives would needto take into account the very strong relation between financial, technological and social parts of theconstruction equation, ideally addressing all three. Specific recommendations include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

8.

Increasing household access to financing and/or construction subsidies, so existing household
funds can be better leveraged, and construction quality can be more tightly controlled.
Developing simplified construction guidelines, so homeowners and practitioners are more easily
able to interpret new building code requirements.
Creating a competency-based qualification, so experienced practitioners are able to maximize
their existing skills and the licensing process can be streamlined.
Maximize the use of resources from existing training courses, so new systems can be rapidly
integrated and understood and opportunities for further training can be provided.
Building a network of training providers, so training opportunities are available throughout the
Island and future demand can be more easily met.
Raising awareness through targeted communication campaigns, so households are more aware of
the need to build safely and have the information they need to take positive next steps.
Exploring the use of construction resource centers, so households and practitioners can moreeasily access the financial, technological and social assistance they need, while private companies
and institutional bodies are able to continue refining their support.
Leveraging technology to engage with a wider audience, so information becomes more accessible
to more people at a much lower cost. This could include, among other things, the development of amobile “app”, messaging system or online platform.

While some of these actions may require an initial level of effort, undertaking them could significantly
contribute towards the institutional learning process, something that, along with implementation of the
Building Act, is key in creating long term demand and consistent supply of safe construction practices.

2

3 Introduction
In most of the professional world, recent graduates and trade apprentices progressively build their skills
under close supervision from an experienced and qualified mentor. Graduates and apprentices take on
more responsibility as and when they are deemed ready, usually not before going through a rigorous training
and assessment process. This is especially true in professions where other people’s lives may be at stake.
In few places in Jamaica is that responsibility taken more seriously than in the Jamaica Institution ofEngineers (JIE) and the Jamaican Institute of Architects (JIA), two high-level professional bodies whose
members frequently lead large private and public building and infrastructure projects.
While JIE and JIA regulations are enshrined into law, other professional bodies and associations in Jamaicashare an equal sense of responsibility. The Jamaican Institute of Quantity Surveyors (JIQS), The Jamaican
Institute of Planners (JIP), the Incorporated Master Builders Association of Jamaica (IMAJ) and The Land
Surveyors Association of Jamaica (LSAJ) among others, all include public safety and the responsible
development of their profession as part of their mission or value statements. There is a good reason for this.
Without a mutual acknowledgement of the importance of each profession there could be no clear divisionof responsibilities and everyone would suffer as a consequence.
But there is a large swath of the construction industry in Jamaica that operates outside these formalboundaries. Many undergraduate engineers, architects, drafts-people and other lower qualified people
operate with little accountability, and many “informal” building practitioners take on building projects
without any formal qualification at all.
In many low-income neighborhoods, word of mouth and personal recommendations are the de facto“licenses”. Work is often unpermitted, houses are designed on the back of an envelope, and contracts
between households and practitioners are sealed with a nod. Even in traditionally formal circles, such aslarge commercial and public properties, there are often elements that skirt the strictest application of thelaw.
There’s a price to pay, especially in low-income neighborhoods. While many informal practitioners havesignificant skill and should be commended for successfully working in environments where many others
would fail, the lack of accountability coupled with piecemeal construction processes often leads to houses
that are vulnerable to collapse in natural events such as hurricanes and earthquakes. Since informal
construction is widespread, any future event could lead to large loss of life and have significant and long
lasting economic impact on the country.
The recently passed Building Act (Parliamentary law establishing a modern legislative framework forconstruction, including the adoption of a new National Building Code and enhanced enforcement
measures) goes a long way in tackling some of these concerns, and orders the establishment of a Building
Practitioners Board capable of developing training and certification programs for the progressive upskilling and “formalization” of building practitioners.

3But much is still unknown, and some have expressed doubt that enforcement and training alone can put astop to these informal, illegal and unsafe construction practices. After all, many of the challenges are as
much to do with socioeconomic factors as they are with household disaster risk awareness and practitioner
qualifications. In simpler, perhaps more provocative terms: If regulation has not been respected until now,
is more regulation really the solution to the problem?
And who exactly are these informal practitioners anyway? What is the scale and size of the informal
construction sector? What are practitioner’s main motivations and priorities? What role do homeowners
and tenants play in designing and building their houses, and even more importantly, what else could be done
to ensure future houses are built safely?
This report aims to shed further light on these questions by outlining and discussing findings from a recent
survey of 240 households and practitioners based and/or working in low-income neighborhoods. The
report also includes feedback from preliminary conversations with key institutional collaborators, many of
who will directly participate in future training and enforcement initiatives. This is done with the intentionof sharing latest ideas and advancements, highlighting common ground and underlining remaining
concerns about future implementation of activities related to the Building Act.

4

4 Approach
The analyses consisted of two main activities, an informal construction sector survey including site visits
and one-on-one interviews, and a round of institutional collaborator discussions.
The neighborhoods selected to form part of the survey were chosen with guidance from the Social
Development Commission (SDC) of MLGCD. They were considered to appropriately represent the wider,
low-income, urban, peri-urban and rural contexts of Jamaica. Geographical spread, construction activity
and the personal safety of surveyors were also defining factors. The six Neighborhoods selected were:••

In Kingston and St. Andrew: Bower Bank, Seaview Gardens, Bedward Gardens and low-income
areas in Sandy Park and Red Hills
In St. Thomas: Low-income areas in Mt. George, Yallahs

Households were selected based on a “systematic random sample”. One out of every 10 houses were visited
starting at a point selected at random. The most senior household representative was surveyed.
Practitioners were selected based on a “purposive sample”, in other words the survey team stopped at every
active construction site they saw and interviewed the most senior person there. This was done because
there was no feasible way of establishing beforehand how many construction sites the surveyors would
come across in any given neighborhood.
Data collection tools (2 surveys) were developed by Build Change with additional guidance from SDC and
the World Bank. They were completed by paid, experienced surveyors with oversight from Build Change.
Some questions were single answer, and some were multiple choice. People weren’t required to answer
questions they considered to be sensitive. The survey tools used can be found via link at the end of thisreport.
Institutional collaborators were identified through the Building Act or because they formed part of theGovernment of Jamaica’s (GOJ) Disaster Vulnerability Reduction Project (DVRP). Other collaborators
were engaged through recommendations from these. Some collaborators could not be reached or were notavailable for discussion. Collaborator feedback has been incorporated in the Introduction, Discussion andRecommendations sections of this report, while survey results are listed primarily in the Findings sectionof this report.

55 Survey Findings
Survey findings have been compiled and organized into themes. Each theme heading is an interpretive
summary of those findings. Themes are cross-referenced and expounded upon further in the Discussion
and Recommendations sections of the report. Main findings include:

5.1

District migration was, and continues to be, common place
•
•
•
•

5.2

Nearly 70% of household respondents (59% of which were women) were between the ages of 30 and
65.
82% of practitioners surveyed (2.5% of which were women) were between the ages of 30-65.
Most respondents were born in the same parish they are now living (61%), but most (60%) have
moved to their present home from another district.
The slim majority (53%) of practitioners were not born in the same district they’re currently
working in, but the majority (65%) were born in the same parish. Bedward Gardens stands in stark
contrast, as 90% of practitioners were born in another district and 70% were born in another parish.

Land security is desirable but not necessary for households to feel ownershipover their home
•

•
•
•
•

•

56% of households consider themselves owners of the land they’ve built on. 18% claim to lease theirland while 2% rent. 24% of respondents lived on land they didn’t own for free. This was particularly
the case in Sandy Park and Bower Bank, where land owned by a single family was inhabited by manyextended family members, each with their own house.
Of the 56% of households who claim to own the land, 37% claim to possess land title documents.
The vast majority of remaining households (87%) show interest in obtaining a formal land title.
89% of households claim to own the building they live in. 4% lease, 2% rent and 5% live for free.
Interestingly, of the 53 households who don’t own land, 75% claim ownership over the building.
This is perhaps the clearest indication of the distinction people make between land and homeownership.
Most households (60%) who don’t own the land say they’re able to make modifications to the housewithout the land-owner’s permission.

5.3 Hurricanes are perceived as the most likely hazard, but few people takemitigation measures.
••More than half of the respondents (56%) claim to have lived in houses that have been affected byhurricane winds. (17%) have been affected by floods and 12% by mudslide or landslide. 11% claim tohave been affected by earthquakes. 6% have been impacted by fire. Very few houses (3%) have been
impacted by vandalism (house damage caused by people).
Most respondents (40%) perceive hurricanes as posing the highest risk to their homes. 18% believe
fire is the more likely, while 17% believe earthquakes pose the most risk. Floods follow at 12%,
capture or government repossession at 7% and landslides or mudslides at 4%.

6

•

•

•
•
•

•
•

•
•

The perception of hurricane risk increases significantly with age. Less than a third (31%) of people
aged 15 to 29 consider hurricanes the event most likely to damage their home. This increases to 47%
for people 65 years and older. This is likely due to the fact that many older people have seen thedamage caused by hurricanes in the past.
Interestingly, this is opposite for earthquakes and floods. 25% of younger people see earthquakes
and as the highest risk and 31% see flooding as the highest risk. This drops to 16% and 5%
respectively for people over 65.
The risk of fire is viewed as most significant (23%) by people between the ages of 30 and 65.
Households do not consider vandalism a risk (2%). It’s believed the strong hierarchical structure in
low-income neighborhoods provides a significant measure of control over such activities.
50% households surveyed claim to be aware of the official hazard status of the land they live on.
However, it is unclear how, since 85% are unable to say where this information can be found. It’s
possible the status of the land is common knowledge within the community, so this information islearned from friends or other family members.
Less than 10% of households are insured against these hazards. Of those who are, most are National
Housing Trust (NHT) mortgage recipients for who insurance is included.
The majority of homeowners have not taken any measures to protect their house against thesehazards. The most common mitigation measures undertaken (by 49% of respondents) are for
hurricanes, although these mostly consist of simple measures such as battening down windows
when past hurricanes have approached. Other Hurricane mitigation measures include theinstallation of hurricane straps and/or the addition of a concrete slab roof. Less than 15% haveactively undertaken measures for earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, vandalism, fire or flood.
Similarly, only a small number of households (26%) plan on taking future mitigation measures for
hurricanes, and less than 10% for any of the other hazards listed.
40% of respondents say that lack of money is the main reason for not adopting disaster mitigation
measures. Only 10% say they don’t know of any measures they could take.

5.4 Households invest in their house but likely not for speculative purposes•••

96% of households who claim to own their home report to have built it instead of purchasing it.
Over half of the households interviewed (55%) plan to expand their house either vertically or
horizontally in the future.
81% of households believe they would be able to sell their house for more money if it were perceived
as disaster resistant. However, respondents who were asked more about this didn’t consider it
reason to speculate. According to these, speculation would only be possible if the security situation(mostly related to gang activities) improved enough to create a stable real estate market. Thisappears to be confirmed by the very small number of people who’ve purchased a home in theseareas. It could be taken as an indication of how households view other people’s perception ofdisaster risk and could perhaps help convince people that investing in structural improvements
need not be a sunken cost. Understandably, the large majority of households (79%) agreed that
demonstrable hurricane resistance is what would add most value to their house.

7

5.5

Bank mortgages and loans are not widely used••

87% of Households who consider themselves homeowners report to have become so withoutobtaining a formal mortgage or loan. Households were generally unwilling to discuss these andother sources of financing.
The most common source of formal mortgages cited is the NHT.

5.6 Most buildings are a mix of partially-reinforced block-masonry and confined
masonry.
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

5.7

93% of surveys were held in households that were used entirely for residential purposes. 6%
doubled as commercial properties and 1% were exclusively for commercial use.
99% of households were either one or two stories. 69% were single story. 68% of households were
single family (not attached to other buildings).
95% of households were less than 300m2 in size. Nearly half of all households (47%) were less than
100m2.
74% were made out of reinforced or partially-reinforced block masonry. Many also included tie
columns and bond beams common to confined masonry construction. 22% were timber. The
remaining percentage were brick, stone, and zinc (CGI) sheeting.
60% of households surveyed had a verandah.
57% of households had a concrete slab roof, the rest were zinc (CGI).
A significant percentage of houses (46%) were reported as occupying the whole lot.

Basic services exist but may not be adequate•••

91% of households report to have a flushing toilet, although over half (49%) are reportedly notlinked to the public sewage system.
All households have electricity. 89% of households report to have been responsible for organizing
their own electrical and water supplies.
70% of households use a public water supply, although less than half (44%) have access to it directly
inside their dwelling. 30% of households rely on other sources such as wells, rainwater catchment
and Rapid Response (Government led program aimed at alleviating water shortages).

5.8 Construction activity is frequently unpermitted•••

While 47% of households claim to understand the process of construction permitting, nearly aquarter (24%) of households report they don’t know what a building permit is. 34% of households
state they know about permitting but are unaware of the documents they would need. Interestingly,
the percentage of non-responders for the 3 questions in this section was over 30%. This issignificantly higher than any other question in the survey and likely indicates that permitting (orlack of) is a very sensitive and potentially dangerous issue for households to discuss.
Half of all practitioners reported being familiar with the permitting process. 82% believe thatknowing about the permitting process makes them, or would make them, more employable.
Of the 71 people who employed someone to build a new house, 16 (22%) say they have asked anengineer or architect to do inspection or design work. Based on informal conversations with

8

•
•

•
•

•
•

households this number is believed to also include draftsmen and engineering or architectural
undergraduates who may not registered professionals.
29% of practitioners report to have contracted the services of an engineer or architect.
65% of households that report to have built their own house indirectly state they didn’t use
construction drawings. This could in theory be considered a proxy definition for current levels of
informality in the neighborhoods surveyed.
A slim majority of households (58%) report they would be willing to pay more for a builder who
knew how to apply for a building permit.
89% of households that have employed practitioners to build, expand, improve, retrofit or repair
their house consider themselves satisfied with the work performed. For those people unsatisfied,
it was construction quality that was identified as the main issue.
Less than half of surveyed practitioners (43%) reported having any construction drawings on-site.
34% of practitioners reported the site being visited by the Parish council.

5.9 Households participate in construction but outsource most work to trusted
practitioners
•
•
•
•
•

61% of households used a local practitioner, 21% built the house themselves and 16% received
unpaid help from family or friends. Only 2% hired a formal company.
On most occasions (77% of the time) the homeowner or tenant was not working on-site. Only on
11% of sites was the homeowner also the person leading the work.
98% of households who built their house claim to have participated in the design process.
The large majority of homeowners (94%) who’ve hired a practitioner to do construction report tohave overseen their activities. 44% report to have done so constantly.
93% of households report they’re able to source a practitioner they trust. 53% report not having had
an issue with employing practitioners from outside the neighborhood.

5.10 Most practitioners are formally unqualified but are skilled in masonry,
carpentry and steel work
•

•

•
•
•

53% of practitioners report to have attended secondary school (generally interpreted as referring
to lower secondary education between grades 7 and 9 (ages 11-13). Based on the age group, it’s likely
many left school before or directly after the Common Entrance Examination, a legacy examination
system abolished by the Ministry of Education in 1998. 15% of practitioners have attended The
Human Employment and Resource Training Trust, National Training Agency (HEART NTA). 8%
have attended university. 14% attended primary only and 5% have no schooling at all.
Only 17% of all practitioners interviewed had a certificate of any kind. Less than 10% described
themselves as building professionals (which in the community frequently refers to engineering or
architectural undergraduates).
69% of practitioners have been working in construction for over 10 years.
78% learned their trade on-site, combining self-learning and mentorship from more experienced
people.
The majority of practitioners are able to undertake practical masonry (67%), carpentry (59%) andsteel detailing (53%) work.
9

•
•

•

Less practitioners are able to perform more specialist tasks such as tiling (39%), electric andplumbing (31%), and plastering (23%).
Even less consider themselves able to undertake “tertiary” type activities such as quantity
surveying (15%) and production of construction documents (2%). In fact, only 17% report
themselves able to undertake contracting services, despite the fact that, based on extensive
observation, that is what many do (also, 65% of respondents report they are currently being
employed on a contract basis directly by a homeowner). It’s likely practitioners consider
contracting services to be defined by the activities of owners of larger formal construction firms.
78% of practitioners generally report no difficulty finding workers with the skills they need. Of
those who do find difficulty, production of construction documents is the most sought-after skill(28%). This is followed by steel-work (17%), and masonry, electric and plumbing services (11%).
The high percentage of those reporting no difficulty combined with the 2% of practitioners who
consider themselves able to produce documents strongly suggests document production isn’t
common in these circles.

5.11 Most agreements between households and practitioners are informal•••

A clear majority of practitioners surveyed (65%) report having a working agreement directly withthe household head. 13% report being hired by a building contractor or firm, while 7% report being
hired by an engineer or architect.
Only 23% of all practitioners surveyed report to have a written contract.
On 91% of the sites surveyed, it was the homeowner who purchased the material. This is similar to
low-income communities in other countries where informal construction practices are common.
Only 13% of practitioners report to ever be involved in material procurement.

5.12 Most practitioners are self-employed or work in small teams
•
•

•

•

•
•

90% of practitioners are hired on a project-by-project basis.
The large majority of practitioners (between 70% and 80%) report their main place of activity to beresidential buildings under 300m2. Most of these (61%) are houses with a maximum of 2 stories.
New construction accounts for 76% of all activity, followed by repair (15%), expansion (4%), andretrofitting or home improvement (4%).
Of the construction sites visited by surveyors, 77% were residences under 300m2 and 12% wereresidences over 300m2. The remainder were commercial or storage buildings. The vast majority(82%) were 1 or 2 stories. Over half (52%) were new construction.
“Informal” construction enterprises are generally small. The majority of practitioners (53%)
worked with between 1 and 5 employees. 20% worked with between 5 and 10 employees. Practicallyall (94%) have less than 40 employees.
A large majority of sites (76%) visited by surveyors had less than 3 skilled people actively working
on them.
Most sites (53%) had less that 3 unskilled people working on them. 28% had none.

105.13 Female workforce participation is low and is generally limited to unskilled
tasks
•
•
•

40 out of 120 practitioners surveyed (33%) report to have hired women to work on construction
sites in the past. The main activities undertaken by women are manual labor and painting.
A much lower percentage (2.5%) of practitioner respondents were women.
Nearly all practitioners (93%) state a willingness to employ women if they are able to demonstrate
the required skills.

5.14 Practitioners are able to find work but often need to supplement their income
with other activities
•

•
•

•

Most practitioners (56%) report margins above 20% on a good job. 33% report margins over 40%.
Only 26% report margins of 20% or less. Given the informal context and practitioner’s small scale
and minimal overheads it’s likely margins correspond with profits in most cases.
Practitioners are regularly employed. 77% are able to work every week and practically all (96%) areable to work every month.
However, nearly half of all practitioners (45%) claim they need to earn income from other activities.
These are wide ranging. Some examples given include security, hairdressing, mechanics, taxi
driving, agriculture and animal husbandry.
32% of practitioners don’t have a bank account. This perhaps could be considered to be a proxy
indicator of practitioners’ level of integration within the “formal” sector.

5.15 Households are in principle willing to pay more for a licensed practitioner
•

•
•

•
•

A clear majority of households (67%) report they would be willing to pay more for a practitioner
with a formal certificate or license. However, multiple conversations with both practitioners andhouseholds confirms that personal recommendation and trust would likely continue to play a largepart in selecting a builder.
35% of households report to be aware of the existence of the JNBC. Of those, 80% say they would be
prepared to pay more for a builder who could meet those standards.
More than 50% of households) report they would be prepared to pay more for practitioners that
could build houses resistant to natural hazards. 81% of households would be prepared to pay more
for a practitioner who could ensure their house would be hurricane resistant.
A larger percentage of practitioners (57%) report to be aware of the existence of the JNBC. Of those,
82% believe meeting those standards would make them more employable.
90% of practitioners surveyed believe that a printed certificate would make them more employable.
86% also believe it would enable them to get paid more.

5.16 Practitioners are interested in developing new skills and largely preferlearning through doing•

Practitioners were most interested in further developing existing carpentry, masonry and steel
detailing skills. These are also considered to be the jobs that are most well-paid. Electric andplumbing skills were also cited, but less so.

11

•
•
•

Nearly all practitioners (97%) believed additional skills in these areas would provide new
employment opportunities.
A clear majority of practitioners (66%) report they’re prepared to pay for training. Only 6% reportthey would not pay for training. 28% were unwilling to answer the question at this point.
Of the practitioners who are prepared to pay for training:
o
o
o
o
o

•
•

•

8% would be prepared to pay over 100,000 JMD (approx. 773 USD)
21% would be prepared to pay up to 100,000 JMD(approx. 773 USD)
31% would be prepared to pay up to 50,000 JMD (approx. 386 USD)
47% would be prepared to pay up to 25,000 JMD (approx. 193 USD)
100% would be prepared to pay up to 12,500 JMD(approx. 96 USD)

The large majority of practitioners would prefer practical training, either on-site (54%) or in a
dedicated training center (38%).
Travel distance is not considered a major problem, as 79% of practitioners report they’re willing totravel more than 2 hours for training purposes. However, over 80% use public transport only, apotential limitation to training in some locations.
Weekends in the morning are generally considered to be the best time for training (43%).

5.17 Most practitioners are technologically adept•••

Nearly all practitioners (98%) have a mobile phone. 82% send and receive SMSs and 50% use
WhatsApp. 76% use the internet on their phone, 75% use “apps” and 65% watch YouTube videos on
their phone. Most practitioners with a mobile phone use Facebook (55%). Instagram and twitter areused but to a lesser extent (27% and 12%). 31% don’t use social media at all.
Nearly half of practitioners (48%) have access to a computer. 49% use email (phone or computer).
Half of all practitioners that use the internet do it for professional purposes (48%), and a smaller
percentage (28%) for academic or self-study purposes.

12

6 Discussion
Survey results, observations made during the multiple field visits and conversations with households andpractitioners confirm assumptions that most low-income families in these neighborhoods don’t have themeans to undertake significant construction work at any given time. Very few households have access tofinancing so many build or expand their house gradually or “little-by-little” (the common term used in
Jamaica). Some projects take months, even years. In best case scenarios houses are expanded one or two
rooms at a time. It’s common for foundations and floor slabs lay open for extended periods and even single
walls are sometimes built progressively, as and when the family can afford them.
Despite the progressive nature of construction, completion is still prioritized over construction quality.
Many households appear unable to afford the services of a registered architect or engineer and a large
amount of faith is placed on local practitioners, many of whom are skilled but are unqualified. On rareoccasions do households have enough expertise to evaluate the quality of the practitioner’s work beyond
the final finishing (plaster, paint, doors and windows). As such, bad construction practices generally gounnoticed and unchallenged. Perhaps unsurprisingly, significant construction quality issues were detectedduring the visits. (Please see Appendix 1 for a photo-based preliminary report on construction quality).
During interviews, very few people saw permitting and inspection as a way to protect their investment andkeep their family safe. Many consider applying for a permit does little more than increase construction costand invite unwanted government scrutiny. The need for signed and sealed construction documents was a
deal-breaker for a number of households interviewed. The time it takes to get a permit was also deemed anissue, although local authorities say processing time has been drastically reduced in past years.
While, there’s little doubt that an increase in building enforcement in these neighborhoods will help reduce
the level of unpermitted and unsafe work, it’s reasonable to assume this will be a gradual and long-term
process. Survey results suggest that even with a qualified inspection and permitting team a number offinancial, technological and awareness barriers may remain:
Financial
Without access to appropriate financing, savings or financial incentives many households will likely
continue to build progressively, informally and unsafely. Initiatives to reduce the length and cost of thepermitting process would likely be welcomed by those already planning to apply but may have a limited
effect on those who don’t. Government plans to develop a library of pre-approved house designs means
families would only need to submit a site and foundation plan to get their permit. Furthermore, site andfoundation plans wouldn’t need to be signed by any professional unless they fall into an area ofcomplexity (more on this in sub-section 6.3). Even so, the piecemeal nature of construction in theinformal sector could present important challenges to the pre-approved design philosophy because very
few people build whole houses. Furthermore, permitting only represents a small percentage of the costof construction. Simplifying the permit process may help raise awareness and reduce some costs but thefinancial capability of a family to source enough materials and labor to build their house or expand a floor
all at one time will remain a key factor.

13

Closely tied to finance is the issue of land security, which in many advanced economies is one of the mostfrequent forms of mortgage collateral. Despite spreading their financial commitment, many families
appear to accept the risk of building on lands they don’t formally own and there’s a well-established(albeit informal) form of leasehold. Nonetheless, families who don’t own land generally agree thatformal tenure would significantly increase their feeling of security. Measures to further facilitate land
tenure may increase homeowner’s appetite to invest in their property. Either that or building inspection
systems may need to be modified to cater for short bursts of construction activity interspersed withextended periods of none.
Technological
Preliminary observations suggest that many houses could have been made significantly stronger withrelatively small improvements to construction practice. Informal conversations indicate many
practitioners don’t fully understand how buildings and their elements react to the forces felt in natural
events such as earthquakes and hurricanes. Practitioners often forfeit important elements while using
other materials in excess. Without more accessible guidelines and recommendations practitioners willcontinue facing challenges in delivering safe construction at the best possible price. Household heads
likely face similar challenges. If more households had the tools to do a cost-benefit analyses of the work,
the use of hurricane straps for example (which in reality represents a very small part of the constructioncost) may be much more common. As of now, many homeowners prefer to invest more money in“earthquake” bars (steel reinforcement placed along block wall joints) even when, due to badconnections and lack of covering concrete, they end up serving little purpose.
To further complicate the issue, many practitioners build on top of, or contiguous to, existing structures,and often have to complete another builder’s work. Without clear guidelines for housing expansion,these connections often become the building’s weakest spots. Even when one practitioner does a goodjob it is only as good as what it’s built on.
While the challenge of improving construction practices is significant, the challenge of mitigating
existing risk may be even greater. Already, there are many structures that will likely not fully withstandthe effects of a future hurricane or earthquake, and until full enforcement measures are put in place, that
number may continue to expand. While some Jamaica specific resources on disaster preparedness andstrengthening already exist, these may not meet the minimum life-safety performance levels outlined in
the code, and it could be that more comprehensive seismic and hurricane housing retrofit guidelines
need to be developed.
On a positive note, the skills and experience many practitioners appear to have indicate that, with theappropriate commitment, the right resources and the right training environment, practitioners canbecome licensed in disaster-resistant construction and retrofit techniques within a relatively shortperiod of time. Based on Build Change experience in similar contexts, specific retrofit recommendations
could be developed using existing construction materials and with only small improvements inconstruction practice.

14

SocialThe publishing of the Building Act and well-publicized accounts of revisions to the code provide a great
opportunity to more widely share construction related information and ensure households and builders
are more informed about safe construction practices. Survey results infer a distinct need to raise
disaster-risk awareness and help people become more familiar with the benefits of the inspection andpermitting process. However, awareness alone seldom leads to change, and large amounts of money canbe invested in campaigns without much impact. Adding in financial and technological elements to anyawareness campaign may offer the best chance yet of increasing permitting and the wider adoption ofdisaster resistant construction practices.
That said, this should only be attempted when a deep understanding of the informal sector and its
priorities is obtained. The current analyses surveyed 240 people over a wide geographical area. It
provides a small window into the informal sector but should not be considered a polished policy-making
tool. Testing out different initiatives, holding focus groups, conducting further surveys and generally
engaging with homeowners and practitioners on a more regular basis could help institutional
collaborators more deeply understand the dynamics governing the informal construction sector,
leading to more effective disaster-risk reduction programs and a long-term increase in code compliance.
Overall, survey results and observations appear to confirm what many may already know. Low-income
neighborhoods are becoming increasingly more vulnerable and there’s a need to act upon this issue withspeed if a major disaster is to be avoided in the future. Jamaica may not yet be in the position of othercountries in Latin America and the Caribbean, where informal construction in low-income areas is sodense, so built up and so unsafe that the problem is rapidly becoming intractable. Nonetheless,improvements to the Building Code, the publishing of the Building Act and the ongoing willingness to invest
in, and learn more about the sector could not be timelier, as measures taken now will likely save lives andgreatly reduce the economic impact of future events for homeowners, the government and the country atlarge.

15

7 Preliminary Recommendations
The following recommendations are based on Build Change experience, survey results and initial
discussions with collaborators listed in the Building Act, as well as others operating more widely in theconstruction sector. They aim to target both the supply and demand side of the household/building
practitioner equation. They are provided with the best possible intentions and are meant largely as acompliment to planned government programs or initiatives that may already be underway. Please note thatrecommendations don’t address the generally agreed upon need to support and build inspection capacity
at a local authority level. A parallel World Bank commissioned study is underway, which will include its own
set of recommendations specifically on this topic.

7.1

Increasing access to financing and/or construction subsidies

Survey results indicate that few low-income houses have used an NHT, HAJ or private mortgage to build
their house, despite the fact The National Housing Trust (NHT) has a “build-on-your-own-land” mortgage
type which could potentially be well-suited to some of the neighborhoods visited. Unsecured home
improvement loans offered by NHT and other entities such as Co-operative Credit Unions are also largely
unused. It’s likely some low-income families don’t meet NHT contribution thresholds, others may not
qualify for mortgages or loans because they don’t have a registered land title (only 37% of the households
interviewed during this study claimed to have land title documents).
Although easier access to loans does not guarantee a significant increase in their use, further Government
measures to facilitate formal land ownership may help increase demand for NHT or HAJ build-to-own
mortgages overall. A potential benefit of investing in the expansion of NHT and HAJ mortgages specificallyis that certain elements of inspection are included as part of the package, so some inspection costs could
potentially be passed back to the homeowner and the burden on local authorities may be somewhat
reduced.
Alternatively (or in addition), it may be feasible for NHT and other lending institutions to further reduce
registered title requirements for certain mortgages. For example, according to the National Environment& Planning Agency (NEPA)’s Building Application Guide there are a number of simple ways households canprove land tenure other than a certified copy of registered title. This includes a copy of a will, a copy of asales agreement or a copy of a deed of gift/conveyance. In fact, if you’re not the owner of the land you canstill apply for a building permit by presenting a letter of authorization from the owner, stamped and signed
by a justice of the peace or a public notary. The Land Administration and Management Programme (LAMP)
is often able to facilitate the process even more. Conceivably, a government protected, NHT issued loanthat incorporated both land security and house construction, expansion, or strengthening funds would bewell received and may encourage a transition from informality, especially if it included funds for paying
property taxes in arrears.
The Government may otherwise consider increasing the level of construction subsidies available toindividual low-income homeowners. Small construction or retrofit subsidies would still requirehouseholds to invest, but this incentive could be used to ensure homeowners follow the permitting andinspection process more closely, which could in turn mean a closer control of all construction activities.

16

Whether access to finance is fully subsidized (issued directly by the Government), partially subsidized (inconjunction with or helping to guarantee a private-sector mortgage or loan) or unsubsidized, financing
should always include a measure of technical assistance and should be disbursed in tranches that areconditional on construction quality, not on level of completion. Conditional tranche disbursement:•••

Maintains leverage on builders and homeowners (including the proper use of their own funds)
Maximizes the effectiveness of the quality control activities
Minimizes the risk of loss or mismanagement of subsidy

Providing funds in installments, contingent upon compliance with standards, is one of the best ways toincrease quality and leverage construction or retrofit funding to promote change in construction practices.

7.2

Developing simplified construction guidelines

JNBC code provisions are written mostly for professionals. The survey confirms that many practitioner
educational levels are low, so it may be optimistic to expect all practitioners will be trained enough in future
to use the code as a source document. The Bureau of Standards and other supporting institutions may
choose to simplify messages so that provisions can be better understood by those who are asked to adopt
them. A number of collaborators have talked about developing new “comic-book” style guidelines, andfondly remember similar materials developed in the past. These materials:
•

•

•
•
•
•

Contain simple graphics and photos that help guide those who find it more difficult to abstract orconceptualize. Abstraction and conceptualization can be particularly difficult for those with nosecondary education.
Strip down the content to the bear minimum, outlining a series of “key messages” or main points.
This removes unnecessary distractions and helps reinforce the most important things. Special
cases and exceptions can be highlighted separately in high visibility boxes, which helps reinforce
them too.
Use language that’s simple and non-technical, even conversational. Cultural components areincluded to help people feel like the material truly does apply to their situation.
Use commonly known units of measurement consistently throughout.
Clearly separate the different sections and sub sections and have simple numbering.
Include an index or table of contents so people can quickly search through the content.

In essence, simplified guidelines outline the step by step process of building a fully functional non-complex
house in the simplest possible way. If done carefully, these guidelines can greatly facilitate the developmentof other training, awareness and inspection material, such as:
•
•
•
•
•

Safe construction posters, flyers and advertising campaigns
Training hand-outs
Self-assessment forms
Skills assessment/ qualification criteria
Building inspection checklists
17

In fact, the more similar the content is for each of these, the more likely it is the household head, thepractitioner and the building inspector will be able to productively work together. Importantly, theseguidelines can also be used to create a draft outline of the minimum competencies required to become aqualified building practitioner, which will likely be the first task of the Building Practitioners Board.
There is an opportunity to start compiling existing material and reviewing advance copies of the code andapplication documents to better prepare for the creation of these guidelines. A list of existing training andoutreach materials sourced or consulted during the analysis is also available via link at the end of this report.

7.3

Creating a competency-based qualification

The Building Act states licensed building practitioners can only be responsible for “small building work”.
This is understood to be the design and construction, repair or expansion of “non-complex” buildings. Noncomplex buildings are less than 3,000 square feet and don’t fall into 15 areas of complexity outlined in theupcoming code (for reference these areas or “factors” are included in Appendix 2). Consequently, theminimum criteria for becoming a licensed building practitioner can be summarized as:1) The ability to determine whether a building or building project is non-complex
2) The ability to ensure any work follows JNBC code provisions for non-complex buildings
The 1st criterion is likely relatively easy to meet by most current practitioners. Provisions are fairly simple,
and the necessary building evaluations generally don’t require a high level of technical capacity. This
criterion should be met by all practitioners, independently of their background or trade of choice.
Preliminary time estimates for training practitioners in the first criterion go from 1 hour (for those with atertiary technical education) to 1 day (for those with practical experience but no qualification).
The 2nd criterion is more challenging to meet given the extensive content of the code, but also because thebuilding practitioner designation applies to any qualified person who’s not a JIE or JIA registered engineer
or architect. This currently includes people with completely different educational backgrounds, including
but not limited to:•••

Tertiary training but no professional training, e.g., BSE’s in Construction Technology (a nonaccredited engineering program).
Tertiary, high schools or community colleges, with a certificate course, for example City and Guilds
or HEART NTA.
Tradesmen/women and contractors with on-site learning experience but no formal qualification or
certificate.

Given the variety of technical expertise and skill of the people expected to apply, it may be useful for the
Building Practitioner’s Board to consider a “competency-based” qualification for building practitioners.
This allows practitioners to use their existing skills to earn “credit” towards their qualification. If a person
is already competent in a particular area (for example, reading a plan) they are given the opportunity toquickly demonstrate it, allowing them to rapidly move on to other areas they may find more difficult. Thisis different from the somewhat traditional “time-based” approach, where students have to attend classes
18

for a certain length of time independently of how much they already know. This approach encourages
mastery of individual tasks, enabling students to focus on developing each skill to their full potential. It
affords a flexibility that many low-income students or working practitioners may appreciate. Competencybased qualifications are also well known for breaking coursework into very small, independent and easy tofollow “chunks” or modules. This delivers a lot of clarity and can be a very effective motivational tool, as
well as the basis for a self-learning aide.
Competency-based education is enjoying great success in vocational training schools around the world andis widely thought to be the most effective and cost-efficient way of validating existing skills and building
new ones. HEART NTA College of Construction services (CCS) has recently implemented a “Prior
Learner” construction course partially based on the competency-based approach which has cut the time ittakes for practitioners to earn a HEART Level 3 qualification almost in half. Competency-based assessment
and training can happen in a variety of formats and locations, including dedicated assessment and training
centers or on construction sites. This system equally benefits young people with no previous experience.
Overall, competency-based education can be considered the ultimate “structuration” of traditional trade
apprentice mechanisms, a concept that is generally well understood in the informal sector.

7.4

Maximize the use of resources from existing training courses

The Building Practitioner’s Board, with support from the Training Consortium and HEART NTA could use
existing training and qualifications systems as a baseline to greatly simplify the building practitioner
qualification and licensing process, in terms of content but also administration, in a way very similar to how
the JNBC benefits from being based on the International Residential Code (IRC). Qualifications that could
be considered or content taken from include but are not limited to:1) HEART NTA’s Level 3 Qualification in “General Construction”. Composite qualification including
practical skills from the masonry, carpentry and steel detailing trades. This could feasibly be
expanded to include practical elements of other trades (basic elements of plumbing)2) HEART NTA Level 4 Qualification in “Construction Management”. Could be used as a basis for thedevelopment of more trade specific qualifications.
3) HEART NTA “job certificates”. Issued for a narrower set of activities such as Painting or Plastering.
4) Elements from other short courses or diplomas in Construction Technology.
The National Council on Technical and Vocational Education and Training (NCTVET) has Guidelines for
Customized competency-based certification that could be especially useful when considering thedevelopment of this qualification. A link to these guidelines is provided at the end of this report, as is an
outline of the HEART CCS General Construction curriculum (Levels 1-4) and a sample list of competency
statements used by Build Change in similar contexts.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
1) KEEP IT RELEVANT. Since the building code is being revised, existing systems should be crossreferenced with new elements or changes to the code. This may be easier to do once the simplified
guidelines have been complete. As with the guidelines, any competencies beyond the scope ofdesign and construction of non-complex buildings could be removed. A minimum standard andgrade could be set for becoming a licensed building practitioner (similar to HEART Level 3, which19means a person is able to independently undertake the work and has a certain ability to supervise
others) while learning opportunities outside of the licensing system could continue to exist skill
levels 1 and 2, and 4.
2) KEEP IT SIMPLE. The training and licensing of existing practitioners in low-income
neighborhoods is considered especially important since they are thought to be responsible for ahigh percentage of unpermitted small building work in the country. The level of competency
required from a practitioner will depend ultimately on the requirements of the code. However, it’s
important to recognize that if qualifications are far beyond low-income practitioner’s present
ability, cost too much or require too much time, the opportunity to engage with them productively
may be lost.
3) KEEP IT FLEXIBLE. In addition to creating a competency-based system, the qualification may
benefit from being broken down into different areas of expertise related to specific trades,
primarily: Construction (masonry, steel detailing and rough carpentry), plumbing and electricity.
This would enable practitioners to become licensed in both single and multiple trades as per their
desire. Some collaborators suggest this approach could take the form of a “Job Card” that building
inspectors could rapidly check to verify whether practitioners are qualified to do the work they are
doing. The back of the card could contain a section validating the particular trade or skill thepractitioner is qualified in.
4) KEEP IT LIGHT. Qualification procedures should try and minimize costs by using existing
resources and infrastructure as much as possible. Construction sites may an ideal venue fortraining and assessment in this regard, and the value of practicing or demonstrating your skill onreal life scenarios cannot be overlooked. This is also the place where practitioners would prefer tobe taught by far. There must of course be balance between savings in materials and the cost oftransporting trainers or assessors to any given location. HEART CCS has some experience
providing on-site training and assessment for a number of construction companies and may be in
the position to provide more recommendations and lessons learned in this particular area.

7.5

Building a network of training providers

A number of organizations in Jamaica already have experience training apprentices and practitioners in safe
construction. These include government departments such as the Jamaican Social Investment Fund
(JSIF), NGO’s such as CRDC, and of course HEART College of Construction Services (HEART CCS), whoalready delivers general construction and construction management courses for companies, local
authorities and NGO’s. An increasing number of tertiary academic institutions and professional bodies
have also shown interested in delivering this kind of training. The Jamaican University of Technology (UTech) in Partnership with the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica is already in the process of delivering shortsummer training courses for youths (particularly women) in the basics of construction. Many institutions
see practitioner training as a chance to have an impact on the community while engaging with a newaudience and bringing in new business. At the present time, regulations largely consider HEART NTA, andparticularly HEART CCS as the main provider of future practitioner training. However, HEART NTA
capacity in construction training (in all accredited training centers across the island) is currently limited to
between 800 and 1,200 apprentices a year, including a small number of Prior Learners. While there arepreliminary plans to double capacity within a year, it is still unlikely it will meet current demand. Both
MLGCD and HEART CCS have expressed interest in expanding the network of training providers. From thepractitioner perspective these efforts would likely be well received. It could significantly reduce waiting and20

travel time and may be of special interest if there are opportunities for further academic progress after
certification.
A further angle that could perhaps be considered is the increased use of building inspectors as trainers. The
inspection process itself is a great forum for training, given it always occurs in real life scenarios and training
materials (and participants) are readily available. Many building inspectors have intimate knowledge of
construction and are generally good communicators. Some inspectors already report spending as muchtime educating the population about the permitting process as they do inspecting work. In many ways,
building inspectors would make the perfect trainers. However, this would be a significant additionalburden, especially if current levels of enforcement are to be increased. A more realistic approach may be toconsider expanding the role of inspectors, but only with regards to skills assessment and licensing, nottraining. At a minimum, inspectors should be well versed on building practitioner qualification
requirements and be able to give guidance regarding training and certification opportunities.
Alternatively, building inspectors could be permanently accompanied by an experienced trainer. Build
Change has used this model with great success in the past. The inspector (usually an engineer) is able to deal
with the higher-level design and compliance related issues on-site, while the trainer (usually a local builder)
is able to assist practitioners in the practical application of the techniques required. The combination ofthese skills can lead to a very strong team. The inspector (who sometimes lack practical skill) is empowered
because he or she can rely on the practical expertise of the trainer, and the trainer
is empowered because he or she can fall back on the technical expertise of the engineer.

7.6

Raising awareness through targeted communication campaigns

As previously noted, awareness alone is rarely enough to create change in construction practice, even in therichest nations. Future television or radio campaigns could potentially place more focus on the positive
economic benefits of applying for a permit, hiring a licensed practitioner and investing in safe construction.
Sample themes include:oooo“How saving here costs you there”“Think you’re saving for the future? Think again”“What your builder didn’t tell you”
“Be smart, invest in yourself”

There are also certain benefits to “formality” that could be further highlighted in future communications
campaigns for households as well as practitioners. For example, how having a written contract with apractitioner can protect your investment and save you time.
While a number of messages and forums can be set up to discuss building a new home, it is equally importantto tackle the financial, technological and awareness barriers currently limiting retrofitting (strengtheningof a house to better resist natural events such as earthquakes and Hurricanes).

7.7 Exploring the use of construction resource centers
An additional layer of technical and administrative support could help reduce the burden on building
inspectors and could potentially increase levels of building permitting. This could take the form of a21

“technical resource center”, a physical space where households and practitioners can go with engineeringand architectural queries and questions related to permitting, licensing and/or construction. These centerswould differ from Local Authorities because they would also be prepared to provide information regarding
training, construction or home improvement financing, land tenure and other construction relatedresources. The center could have basic information about government housing and mortgage services fromthe National Housing Trust (NHT) and Housing Agency of Jamaica (HAJ). It could also have informationon the process of securing land tenure and details on the Land Administration and Management
Programme (LAMP). It could have contact details for engineers, architects, quantity surveyors, planners
and land surveyors. It could also be a venue for engaging with practitioners interested in the licensing
process and promote the roster of licensed practitioners.
In effect, a construction resource center would be a “one stop shop” for all construction needs. It would be
strategically placed and accessible on foot, preferable in the center of the targeted community. It would besignificantly reinforced with resources from government institutions, but the center may benefit from notbeing, or not appearing to be government run. The main objective being to create a “safe space” where
informal households and practitioners can anonymously request information without fear of persecution.
Services provided should perhaps, at least initially, be free. Any local moratoriums on permit fees or licenses
may help drive up initial demand.
Successes of the center could be measured in permits issued, houses made safe and lessons learned, andmay inform a wider construction resource center strategy that could complement the roll-out of new
enforcement strategies related to the Building Act.
Construction resource centers are increasingly being used by governments and agencies to manage
reconstruction activities after disasters, most recently in some Caribbean islands affected by Hurricanes
Maria and Irma. Build Change is currently using them very effectively in Nepal to cater for homeowners
rebuilding after the 2015 earthquake.
A construction resource center could provide the ideal venue for learning more about household andpractitioner priorities. It would help to see what other questions and misconceptions households andpractitioners may have, which could be used to develop more relevant public awareness campaigns and safe
construction initiatives. In particular, household’s financial limitations and preferences could further be
explored.

7.8

Leveraging technology to engage with a wider audience

The use of technologies in Jamaica, in particular mobile technology, is expanding. Data from The Statistical
Institute of Jamaica (STATIN) indicates that in 2016 over 80% of people used a mobile phone and 46% used
the internet. At the time, just over a quarter of internet access was through mobile phones. Survey numberssuggest that in 2018, the adoption of mobile technologies is even higher. Practically all practitioners
surveyed had a mobile phone and over three quarters used it to connect to the internet. Many Builders use“apps”, although mostly for social media and communication (WhatsApp). It is likely Technology could be
increasingly leveraged to raise awareness, simplify the training and certification process and facilitatebuilding enforcement. MLGCD could explore the development of apps or platforms that would provide
households and practitioners with:

22

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Quick access to a library of preapproved designs and bills of quantity
Searchable construction guidelines
Retrofit recommendations and disaster preparedness information (incorporating or tying tocontent from the Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management (ODPEM)
A roster of licensed practitioners (similar to one currently used by the National Contracts
Commission)
Information on eligibility criteria for mortgages or government construction subsidies (content
can be directly sourced from lenders)Names and telephone numbers of inspectors and key departments in each locality
A toll-free number for technical consultations
A messenger feature for chatting and exchanging photos directly with an engineer/technical adviser
General feed of Government awareness messaging
Information on safety measures while constructing.

23

8 Link to Materials
Survey tools and data, samples of national, international and Build Change training and outreach materials,
NCTVET competency-based customized qualification guidelines, a curriculum outline of HEART Levels 14, a template list of competencies frequently used by Build Change and further documents complimentary
to this report are available to download for a limited time through the following link:
https://tinyurl.com/Building-Practitioner-and-Info

For any comments or questions about this report, or to learn more about Build Change please feel free tocontact the author at michael@buildchange.org

24

Appendix 1: Preliminary Observations on
Construction Quality
There’s a belief in institutional circles that Jamaica has a tendency to over-design its buildings. This isthought to be mostly in reference to earthquake forces and the lack of damage in recent earthquake events.
The earthquake event that flattened Kingston at the beginning of the last century may now be consideredirrelevant due to modern day improvements in construction practice. But the limited enforcement andconstruction quality issues observed during this survey strongly suggests low income neighborhoods have
only partially adopted these practices. After the Haiti earthquake in 2010, it was the partial adoption ofconfined masonry construction practices that contributed significantly to the damage. For example, similar
to Jamaica, many households in Haiti consider concrete slab roofs to be an effective solution for hurricane
force winds. They also provide the base for the house’s future second floor. However, when concrete slabs
are not well connected to the walls, it’s the inertia of the heavy slab that often leads to house collapse.
Tragically in Haiti, there were also many cases of slabs from one house collapsing on top of another. Whilethe density in Haiti is not presently comparable to Jamaica, it is reasonable to assume that a similar event
would lead to similar consequences. This is in fact, the main raison d’etre of the Government of Jamaica’s
Disaster Vulnerability Reduction Project (DVRP), as well as this study.
The following photos were taken during visits to the neighborhoods surveyed. They convey basic
observations on housing configuration and quality. A full engineering assessment was not performed.

Photos 1 and 2: These two photographs are a good example of how many low-income houses in Jamaica
are progressively expanded. They show three houses (the blue house appears in both photos). The green
house in the left photo has been left largely untouched since it was purchased from NHT years ago. The
blue house next to it was originally the same size (they were a duplex) but has since been expanded
outwards significantly. The grey house next to the blue house forms part of the next duplex along and was
originally set as far back as the green house. It has now been expanded to the lot line, a practice that’s notlegally allowed.

25

Photos 3 and 4: Here is an even more extreme case of expansion. The two-story grey house in the left
photo is an expansion of a unit that formed a duplex with the blue house to its right. The grey house isnearly six times its original size. Changes have been made over a number of years. The photo on the rightshows some internal parts of the original house.

Photos 4 and 5: These photos show a conversion to a slab roof. The practitioner (left) proudly showed
the team around. In the photo on the right you can clearly see the addition of a ring beam. You can also
see the addition of columns in places where there were previously none. Adding columns like this seems
quite common when houses are expanded. Corners and intersections are often cut out and a column
added as a retrofit measure. Despite correctly calling them “stiffeners”, most practitioners interviewed
believed their main role was to better support the slab rather than help to confine the wall.

26

Photos 5 and 6: Here are two more examples of single-story houses being expanded upwards in an
increasingly complex way.

(2)
(3)
(1)

(2)

Photo 7: It’s common to find unconfined corners(1) in many houses. Masonry is generally
reinforced with vertical steel bars every other block
cell, but these are usually not properly filled,
negating many if not all of the benefits. It’s also
common to see a window lintel directly under the
ring beam (known as “belt” beam in Jamaica). They
can be poured separately or together. The additionof the lintel in this case may not bring great benefit.
The steel and concrete could perhaps have beenused in more important locations.

(1)

Photo 8: In this example, corner stiffeners are large(1) while other parts of the house go unreinforced.
It’s likely there are too many openings in thecentral front wall. The single block piers beside thedoor (2) would likely fall out of plane during anearthquake and the thin tie beam would be
unsupported (3). Once this wall is compromised,
so is the rest of the house.

27

Photo 9: Blockwork quality varies significantly Photo 10: This second story is extremely
from site to site. Here is an example of block that vulnerable. Not only do the upper walls not alignhasn’t been interlocked.
with the bottom walls but construction isextremely irregular and there are very few shear
walls. The wall on the right of the building could
collapse in high winds if not laterally supportedsoon.

Photos 11 and 12: Zinc roofs were a mix of single slope, double slope and hipped frame. As seen in the
picture, houses with single slopes were often very flat. Few if any galvanized hurricane straps were seen
although they are reported to be more common now. Rafters are either directly placed on walls or nailed
to a wooden top plate attached to the belt beam. The top plate is attached with J-bolts or rebar left overfrom the vertical reinforcement.

28

Photo 13: Less than 20% of the construction sites
visited mixed their concrete mechanically. In thisphoto, concreted is being well compacted but is toowet. Aggregate will sink to the bottom severely
affecting the final strength. There were noobserved instances of concrete being cured.

Photo 14: This photo shows the common result ofbad concrete compaction. From another angle italso shows the tip of what is called locally an“earthquake” bar. These are horizontal
reinforcement bars running along the bond of
every 4 courses of block. These are tied to thevertical bars and inserted into the stiffeners.

Photos 15 and 16: The photos above show the way concrete is most frequently mixed. Dosage is usually
by rule of thumb, but the ratio of cement is generally fair. Mixing is irregular at best. Dry concrete is often
reincorporated into the mix. Mixes are usually too wet.

29

Photos 17 and 18: There were generally few complaints about the quality of materials from either
households or practitioners. Aggregates are available in a variety of qualities and prices, from unwashedriver sourced material to crushed washed material. Sand and aggregate quality on site was generally
appropriate. Nominal steel sizes and grading is likely sufficient for one and two-story residences. Blocks
are generally of varying quality. In informal settings it is most common for households to buy materials,
not the practitioner. The practitioner does however provide guidance on the quantity of materials
needed.

30

Appendix 2: Factors that define Building Complexity
COMPLEX BUILDING SERVICES
Buildings with services that are technically complex and require Registered Building Professionals with therequisite skills to properly undertake the design. Technical services that shall cause a building to be acomplex service building requiring engineering attention are as follows:i.
Buildings having 3-phase electrical mains or single-phase system in excess of 70 Amps mains
breaker.
ii.
Buildings with central air-conditioning, heating or heating/cooling systems.
iii.
Plumbing systems requiring hot and cold-water piping and have a minimum of 12 plumbing units.
iv.
Sewage systems requiring secondary and tertiary treatment
COMPLEX BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES:
Buildings with structures that are technically complex and require Registered Building professionals withthe requisite skills to properly undertake the design. Technical complexities that shall cause a building to
be a complex structure and require engineering are as follows:i.
Differences in configuration (shape) from the traditional (square or almost square) type buildings.
ii.
Complex structures such as cantilevers, spiral staircases, storeys in excess of two.
iii.
Where sections of exterior shear panels or reinforced frame are not in one plane vertically from thefoundation to the uppermost storey in which they are required.
iv.
Where shear panel or reinforced frame members are not oriented in mutually perpendicular
directions.
v.
Where sections of the shear panel or reinforced frame on any one storey above grade areconstructed of dissimilar bracing systems.
vi.
Where a section of a floor or roof is not laterally supported by a shear panel or reinforced frame on
all edges.
vii.
Where an opening in a floor or roof exceeds the lesser of 3.60 m² or 50% of the smaller dimensionof the slab.
viii.
Where portions of a suspended floor are vertically offset.
ix.
Buildings on virgin slopes greater than one vertical to three horizontalx.
Buildings in expansive soil or land slippage areas.
xi.
Retaining walls of any height that supports a surcharge or retaining walls of height 1,200 mm (4’ –0”) and above measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall that are not supportinga surcharge.

31

Appendix 3: About Build Change
Build Change is an international non-profit social enterprise founded in 2004 with the mission of greatly
reducing deaths, injuries and economic losses caused by housing and school collapse in earthquakes andhurricanes in emerging nations. Its team of 180 dedicated staff designs disaster-resistant buildings, trains
people to build them, facilitates access to capital for safe reconstruction and retrofitting and works withgovernments to enforce building standards and develop systems that promote development andprogressively reduce disaster risk.
Build Change works in both post-disaster and mitigation contexts and currently has programs in Indonesia,
Haiti, Philippines, Colombia, Guatemala and Nepal. Build Change has also worked in China, and Bhutan. To
date, Build Change has trained over 23,000 people in disaster-resistant design and construction who in turnhave built over 50,000 safer buildings. In the process, Build Change has created more than 11,000 jobs.
We pride ourselves on:•

A proven engineering and capacity building excellence in assessment, design, construction andretrofitting of low-rise buildings in challenging post-disaster and vulnerable environments.

•

Being a global leader in the relief/ development world of permanent housing reconstruction after
earthquakes and hurricanes, winner of numerous awards, and author of three USAID primers.

•

Using a model that overcomes the barriers to development: money, technology, and people, using
innovative models to leverage financing and other incentives for safe construction.

•

A history of empowering women, as managers, engineers, and stewards of the safe construction of
their home.

•

An organizational approach based on transparency and cooperation; often working at the nexus ofgovernment, private sector, NGO, donor, and end user communities.

•

Being a champion of local capacity building and job creation, recognizing these are keys tosustainable development in emerging markets.

•

A record of delivering successful high impact, low cost per impact programs in partnership withinstitutional donors and other public, private, and NGO partners.

•

Forward-looking approach to technology innovation, implementing tablet-based methods formonitoring and collecting data, limiting opportunities for corruption and error during
construction.

Build Change specializes in reducing disaster risk for low-rise informal houses, settlements and schools inareas prone to natural hazards. Frequent services and activities include:

32

Reconnaissance Reporting, Building Damage Assessments and Housing Sub-Sector Studies. Build
Change has written and contributed to a number post-disaster reconnaissance reports and housing subsector studies. A selection of authored and co-authored reports is available here:(https://tinyurl.com/y32e9s9g)
1.

Risk and Mitigation Viability Studies. Build Change completes risk and mitigation studies forhousing and schools that are frequently used to estimate the potential economic and lifesaving impact
of strengthening measures. For example, we were recently contracted by the World Bank to provide
expert advice on home retrofitting alternatives to mitigate earthquake risk in Indonesia andGuatemala.

2. Structural Evaluation of Low-Rise Housing Settlements and Schools. Build Change evaluates the
structural, seismic and wind safety of houses and schools for private, government and NGO clients.
Evaluations include non-structural components, such as water and sanitation, egress, and lighting andventilation. In Haiti alone, we’ve structurally evaluated over 1,500 informal houses and are working
with Ministere de l'Education Nationale et de la Formation Professionnelle (MENFP) to assess thevulnerability of and determine appropriate mitigation measures for existing school building stock.
3. Site Hazard Assessment and Mitigation Recommendations. Safe housing is not only about
structure. Build Change performs frequent site hazard assessments, usually as the first step in wider
disaster risk mitigation programs. As part of a recent partnership with Global Communities in Haiti weconducted a geotechnical study, provided recommendations for relocation of vulnerable families anddesigned and supervised the construction of over half a kilometer of retaining walls.
4. Existing Building Structural Rehabilitation and Retrofit Design. Build Change develops tailored
retrofit designs and helps supervise retrofit work in both formal and informal settings. Where
technically feasible, Build Change offers prescriptive and type design solutions that are easily
implementable at scale. We’ve developed retrofit designs for six very different country contexts. In
Nepal, our retrofit type design has been adopted by the National Reconstruction Authority and can help
strengthen the majority of the 400,000 rural stone and mud mortar houses estimated to be at risk.
5. Advice on Policy, Legal, and Regulatory Frameworks. Build Change supports governments andNGO partners in the development of technically sound and economically fair post-disaster andmitigation policy with emphasis on the use of home-owner driven processes. Our policy and advocacy
work includes being asked by the Mexican Secretariat of Urban Development (SEDATU) to provide
Homeowner Driven Expert Advice to the Government after the September 2017 Mexico earthquake.
6. Building Code Revision and Guideline Development. Build Change is often consulted andfrequently contributes to the development of new government guidelines. We create easy to follow,
prescriptive training and reference material for officials, engineers, practitioners and homeowners.
Our seismic evaluation and retrofit manuals have been adopted by the governments of Colombia, Haiti
and the Seismic Engineering Association of Guatemala. The Colombian retrofit manual is available
here: https://tinyurl.com/y4k4o6g7 (Spanish). A visual guide to the execution of retrofit work in Haiti is33

available here: https://tinyurl.com/y6yk2atd (English). A safe construction guideline for non-technicalpersons in Indonesia is available here: https://tinyurl.com/y6hsqsx8 (English), a simple guidebook for
low-literacy builders in Haiti is available here: https://tinyurl.com/y5ad876w (Creole).
7. New Construction Design and Design Review. Build Change develops its own designs and has
performed numerous design reviews for government and NGO partners. Designs consider the local
economy, local practices, materials and cultural preferences. Past designs include reinforced concrete
frame and reinforced and unreinforced timber and masonry construction. One of our most recent
timber frame designs is being used by Badan Penanggulangan Bencana Daerah (BPBD, Provincial
Disaster Management Agency) for reconstruction after the 2016 Pidie Jaya Earthquake in Indonesia.
8. Construction/Retrofit Program Delivery. Build Change has supervised thousands of construction
sites as technical and program lead for large and small reconstruction and mitigation programs. We
provide daily, weekly and remote oversight as needed, and work directly with homeowners,
practitioners, and partner agency field staff. We help ensure subsidies or loan amounts are only
disbursed when quality standards are met. Some of Build Change’s experience in this domain has beencollected in the form of 3 Primers developed for USAID and available here:• Building Back Housing in Post-Disaster Situations (https://tinyurl.com/y3rsp8bb)• Seismic Retrofit of Housing in Post-Disaster Situations (https://tinyurl.com/y6n7e67z)• Site and Retaining Wall Hazard Mitigation in Post-Disaster Situations(https://tinyurl.com/y3rsp8bb)
9. Training and Accreditation. Build Change uses a competency-based model to build the engineeringand risk reduction capacity of engineers, government officials, NGO staff, homeowners, builders andmaterial suppliers. We recently partnered with l'Institut National de la Formation Professionnelle(INFP) and Centre de Compétence en Reconstruction (CCR) to develop Haiti’s first national
qualification in disaster-resistant construction. In Haiti, we’ve trained over 3,500 builders and block
factory employees. We also run REZO, a rewards and accreditation program for informal builders andmaterial suppliers. In Bogotá, Colombia, we’ve recently trained government engineers who we’re now
partnering with to retrofit 50 pilot homes. This initiative will be replicated in Medellin with the
Resilience Office and the Administrative Department of Disaster Risk Management (Departamento
Administrativo de Gestíon del Riesgo de Desastres, DAGRD), as a first step in the city’s new resiliencestrategy.
10. Quality Control and Product Testing. Build Change develops simple quality control guidelines andchecklists that can be used by technical and non-technical parties during all phases of construction.
We’ve developed simple solutions for product testing, including mechanized impact, compression andtension testing. In Indonesia, we’ve developed a brick testing machine made from a wooden frame, ascale and a car jack. Rural brick making cooperatives can now reliably test bricks at no expense and caneasily maintain and repair the machine when needed. Build Change retains advanced testing machineryand partnerships where needed.
11. Innovative Use of Technology. Build Change uses drones and 360o cameras to map and performbuilding assessments in disaster affected areas or otherwise vulnerable communities. We use Revit to34

develop 3D retrofit self-checking models, and a combination of images and Revit to create virtual reality
and augmented reality experiences. We also use mobile applications to help develop a quick and directline of communication with communities. In Nepal, Build Change’s mobile app, “Surakshit Ghar” or“Safe House,” has been developed to assist in safe reconstruction after the 2015 Nepal earthquake, andprovides homeowners, builders, and government officials with access to an offline library ofreconstruction resources, including house designs, bills of quantity, disaster-resistantrecommendations, construction checklists and even an engineering hotline.
Please view Build Change’s full Statement of Qualifications (2015) here: https://tinyurl.com/y6a6wnjh . For
more information about Build Change please visit www.buildchange.org

35

As part of the Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction (GFDRR), the Building Regulation for
Resilience Program develops and promotes activities to increase regulatory capacity to promotea healthier, safer and more sustainable built environment. By leveraging good practice in building
regulation as part of a strategy to reduce both chronic risk and disaster risk, it sets low andmiddle-income countries on the path to effective reform and long-term resilience.
The GFDRR is a global partnership that helps developing countries better understand and reduce
their vulnerabilities to natural hazards and adapt to climate change. Working with over 400 local,
national, regional, and international partners, GFDRR provides grant financing, technicalassistance, training and knowledge sharing activities to mainstream disaster and climate risk
management in policies and strategies. Managed by the World Bank, GFDRR is supported by 34
countries and 9 international organizations.