In the villages of the Pipikoro area, Sigi Regency, development had long been understood as a matter of physical infrastructure: roads, concrete pathways, agricultural access, production facilities. The needs of vulnerable groups — including persons with disabilities — rarely made it into planning priorities. Their data may have been recorded, but only as administrative figures, not yet as a basis for policy change.
That situation has been slowly changing since mentoring through the ESTUNGKARA program began. In the villages of Banasu and Peana, the approach taken did not immediately focus on physical solutions, but began by opening space for dialogue. Participatory data collection in five villages was the first step: looking more closely at who the residents with disabilities were, what their conditions were like, and what they actually needed. In Desa Banasu, 19 persons with disabilities were identified out of approximately 300 residents — data that then became the starting point for deeper conversations at the village level.
Discussions took place with village heads, the Village Consultative Body (BPD), customary institutions, and women’s and children’s forums — not always in formal settings, but also through small meetings that allowed for more candid reflection. From this process emerged a simple but fundamental question: why was the village so focused on development that was far away, while the nearest residents facing real barriers had yet to become a priority?
From these repeated dialogues, village governments began to see persons with disabilities not merely as part of a dataset, but as members of the customary community with equal rights and dignity. This awareness grew gradually, supported by capacity-building on GEDSI — gender equality, disability, and social inclusion — through an approach adapted to the local context, including the use of religious references familiar to the local community.
From Dialogue to Decision: Disability Issues Enter Village Development Planning
The shift in perspective became tangible when disability issues were brought into the Village Development Planning Consultations (Musrenbangdes). In 2024, in Desa Banasu, facilitators were specifically requested to present GEDSI material at the Musrenbangdes. For the first time, the needs of persons with disabilities were discussed as part of the village’s development priorities — not merely as a side issue on the margins of the forum. From that forum came an important decision: the village allocated funds for the procurement of wheelchairs and hearing aids. “The village no longer sees small numbers as a reason to ignore, but rather as a basis for giving greater attention.”
The experience of a prospective wheelchair recipient passing away before the aid could be delivered became an important lesson. The incident underscored that slow policy can mean a lost opportunity to fulfill citizens’ rights. Since then, persons with disabilities have begun to be more actively involved in the drafting of village work plans (RKPDes) and village deliberations. Participation spaces that were previously narrow began to open up, and the power dynamics in decision-making gradually shifted.
In Desa Peana, a village regulation on inclusion was drafted to provide a stronger legal foundation. The women’s forum, strengthened since 2023, began attending village deliberations with structured notes and proposals — no longer merely as a supplementary presence, but as actors presenting arguments and influencing decisions. In some cases, persons with disabilities were even involved in the teams drafting village planning documents: a shift from a compassion-based approach toward a rights-based one.
One concrete example was visible in the reconstruction of the Salvation Army Corps Peana Church in early 2026. From the design stage, the building already incorporated accessibility considerations: ramps for wheelchair users and the elderly, and a dedicated space for mothers with infants. This was not merely a matter of building design, but a reflection that the principles of inclusion had begun to be embedded as a systematic consideration.
The impact of changes at the village level then rippled up to the regency. The Sigi Regency Government issued Regent’s Regulation Number 5 of 2024 on the Implementation of Respect, Protection, and Fulfillment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities — drafted participatorily with the involvement of disability organizations and various regional government units. A number of regional offices that had initially viewed disability issues as an administrative obligation began expressing readiness to allocate dedicated budgets. Participatory data collection in assisted villages also became a reference for the Social Affairs Office and the Population and Civil Registration Office to improve their information systems for vulnerable groups.
Change was also visible in everyday life. Terms that referred to physical conditions began to be dropped — persons with disabilities are now called by their names. This small change reflects a deeper shift in social norms.
The experiences in Peana and Banasu show that systemic change does not have to begin with sweeping policy. It can grow from consistent small discussions, from the courage to question old habits, and from efforts to open space for voices that have long gone unheard. Through consistent mentoring and shared capacity-building, KEMITRAAN, KARSA Institute, and the INKLUSI Secretariat helped drive this change in a more systematic direction. Inclusive village development, ultimately, is not only about programs and budgets — it is about perspective: who is considered important, who is listened to, and who is given space to help determine the shared future.
