Project Overview

This project analyzes a government program designed to legalize residential buildings that were constructed illegally. The initiative provides property owners with a formal opportunity to apply for legalization, subject to administrative review and regulatory compliance.

The dataset contains information on applications submitted through an official portal, tracking each request through multiple stages of evaluation. These stages include submission, review, approval, rejection, and execution, as well as delays and overdue cases.

The visualizations in this report summarize how applications are processed across institutions, highlighting:

the total number of applications received,

the share of approved and rejected requests,

ongoing and overdue cases, and

differences in outcomes across reviewing institutions.

Overall, the analysis provides insight into the effectiveness and bottlenecks of the legalization process, helping assess how efficiently the policy achieves its goal of integrating informal housing into the legal system.

Figure 1: Total Number of Applications

This figure presents the total number of applications submitted under the government’s housing legalization program. The value of 22,741 requests represents the overall demand for legalization from property owners whose houses were constructed illegally and are now seeking formal recognition.

This indicator is important because it reflects the scale of the policy intervention. A high number of applications suggests that informal housing is widespread and that there is strong public interest in transitioning these properties into the legal system. It also sets the baseline for interpreting all subsequent figures, as approval rates, rejection rates, and delays must be evaluated relative to this total volume.

Figure 2: Processing Documents on the Portal

This pie chart illustrates the initial processing status of submitted applications on the portal. The vast majority of requests (97.3%) have been sent for execution, while only a small share (2.7%) remain unexecuted.

This distribution indicates that the portal and administrative intake system are functioning efficiently at the entry stage. Most applicants are successfully passing the submission phase and entering the formal review process. The small unexecuted share may be due to incomplete documentation, technical issues, or early-stage validation failures.

Figure 3: Overall Result by Objects

This dashboard summarizes the current status of applications that have entered execution, breaking them down into four key categories: sent for execution, under execution, executed, and overdue.

While a large number of applications have already been executed, a notable proportion remain under execution or overdue. The overdue segment highlights potential administrative bottlenecks, such as capacity constraints or complex cases that require additional review. This figure provides a high-level assessment of how effectively the system moves applications from submission to final resolution.

Figure 4: Request Processing Outcomes by Institution

This clustered bar chart compares application outcomes across institutions responsible for reviewing legalization requests. For each institution, the chart shows the number of applications sent for execution, executed, positively reviewed, negatively reviewed, and overdue.

The figure reveals substantial variation in performance across institutions. Some institutions process a high volume of applications with relatively low rejection and overdue rates, while others show higher negative or overdue counts.

In this process, an object advances to the next stage only after receiving a positive review from each of the first 7 institutions. If all 7 institutions approve the object, it is then sent to the 8th institution for further review. However, if even one of the first 7 institutions returns a negative review or keeps the object under execution (not finalized), the object does not proceed to the 8th institution. This sequential rule explains the visible drop in “Sent for Execution” counts after the 7th institution and why later institutions handle a smaller subset of objects.

Figure 5: Objects with Registry Extract Issued vs. Approved for Operation

This figure presents two key milestones in the legalization process:

objects that have received a registry extract, and

objects that have been approved for operation.

The comparison highlights that not all approved applications immediately result in operational approval. This gap suggests the presence of additional administrative or legal steps after approval, such as compliance verification or registration formalities. It emphasizes that legalization is a multi-stage process, not a single administrative decision.

Figure 6: Number of Objects with Negative Review Results by Institution

This horizontal bar chart focuses specifically on negative review outcomes, showing how rejections are distributed across institutions.

A small number of institutions account for a disproportionately large share of rejected applications. This may indicate stricter enforcement, more complex case loads, or higher concentrations of non-compliant buildings in certain regions. Identifying these institutions is important for policymakers aiming to understand whether rejections stem from policy design issues or local implementation challenges.

Figure 7: Resolvable vs. Non-Resolvable Objects

This pie chart categorizes rejected or problematic applications into resolvable and non-resolvable cases. The majority of objects (almost 90%) are classified as resolvable, meaning that issues preventing legalization can potentially be addressed through corrective actions.

This is a crucial policy insight: it suggests that most rejected cases are not fundamentally illegal or incompatible with regulations, but instead suffer from fixable deficiencies, such as missing documents or minor regulatory violations. This opens the door for follow-up interventions rather than permanent exclusion.

Figure 8: Non-Resolvable Objects by Institution

This figure breaks down non-resolvable cases by institution, highlighting where permanently blocked applications are concentrated.

Although non-resolvable cases are relatively few overall, they are not evenly distributed. Certain institutions show a much higher number of such cases, which may indicate structural issues such as zoning conflicts, land ownership problems, or environmental restrictions specific to those regions.

Figure 9: Request Processing Summary by Institution

This table provides a comprehensive overview of application processing outcomes by institution, including execution, approval, rejection, overdue status, and review stages.

Unlike the charts, the table allows for exact numerical comparison, making it easier to identify patterns such as institutions with high overdue counts, high rejection rates, or strong execution performance. It serves as a detailed reference that complements the visual summaries and supports more granular analysis.

In Progress + Unreviewed = Overdue

Positive Review + Negative Review = Executed

Overdue + Execution = Sent for Execution

Request Processing Summary by Institution
Sent for Execution Executed Positive Review Negative Review Overdue In Progress Unreviewed
Institution 1 22,117 19,754 19,381 373 2,363 2,361 2
Institution 2 22,117 18,966 17,908 1,058 3,151 564 2,587
Institution 3 22,116 18,446 15,883 2,563 3,671 3,523 148
Institution 4 22,117 19,184 18,063 1,121 2,933 2,911 22
Institution 5 22,117 18,348 12,323 6,025 1,791 103 3,666
Institution 6 22,117 18,919 15,742 3,177 1,220 2,634 564
Institution 7 22,117 19,955 19,488 467 634 133 2,029
Institution 8 10,713 10,475 10,137 338 238 194 44
Institution 9 10,137 9,615 9,615 0 522 40 482
Institution 10 9,615 8,788 5,475 3,313 827 745 82