Community Institution Safety and Compliance Programme
Community-service facilities used for after-school learning, welfare and youth activity have unaddressed safety, accessibility and regulatory-compliance problems, and unclear tenure
Programme Logic
Problem
Community-service facilities used for after-school learning, welfare and youth activity have unaddressed safety, accessibility and regulatory-compliance problems, and unclear tenure
Structural Cause
Facilities largely built and maintained by community subscription without access to public safety-capital programmes, many on land with unresolved tenure
Intervention
Safety, accessibility and compliance audit conducted jointly with state authorities and trustees; matched-funding grants for safety-critical works; advisory support on compliance and tenure documentation for referral to state authorities
Who & How
Target Group
Community-service facilities serving high-need localities
Eligibility
Facilities providing documented non-religious community services (after-school learning, welfare, youth or elderly programmes); participation is voluntary and requires state authority and trustee consent
Deliverables
Outputs
Audit of participating facilities completed; prioritised safety works list published; safety-critical works completed with matched funding; tenure documentation compiled for state referral
Outcomes
Community facilities meet safety and accessibility standards and can lawfully continue their community-service functions
Key Performance Indicators
Community facility safety compliance
Number of participating community-service facilities meeting defined safety and accessibility standards
Costing (Central Scenario)
Where these figures come from
Why this figure?· RM 44.4m over 6 yearsProvisional
- Method
- Facility model: (facilities audited x audit cost) + (priority facilities x matched safety works) + compliance advisory
- Key inputs
- RM 12,000 — Audit RM12k per facility; matched safety works averaging RM120k for approximately 400 priority facilities, federal share 50%; compliance advisory RM6m over six years
- Population
- Approximately 1,200 community-service facilities in high-need localities (provisional planning figure) (Voluntary participation with state and trustee consent)
- Benchmark
- Audit: 1,200 x RM12k = RM14.400m. Safety works: 400 priority facilities x RM120k x 50% federal share = RM24.000m (states/trustees fund the other 50%). Compliance advisory: RM6.000m over six years. Total RM44.400m. CORRECTED: the earlier RM68.400m charged the Federal Government 100% of the works while the assumption text stated a 50% matched contribution.
- Funding split
- existing 0.10 = local-authority safety inspection capacity already funded; reallocated 0.35 = MITRA community-institution grants; new 0.55 = the federal 50% share of matched safety works plus audit. ASSUMPTION, and the weakest in the portfolio because no comparable federal programme exists (VAL-13).
- Source
- Internal estimate — no external source cited.
- Status
- Planning assumption pending validation· pending validation (VAL-13)
- Note
- Audit: 1,200 x RM12k = RM14.400m. Safety works: 400 priority facilities x RM120k x 50% federal share = RM24.000m (states/trustees fund the other 50%). Compliance advisory: RM6.000m over six years. Total RM44.400m. CORRECTED: the earlier RM68.400m charged the Federal Government 100% of the works whil
Delivery & Accountability
Lead Ministry
Ministry of National Unity (delivered through the Department of National Unity and National Integration, JPNIN)
Accounting Officer
Secretary-General Ministry of National Unity
Supporting Agencies
State governments and local authorities; Public Works Department; Hindu Sangam Malaysia and other trustee bodies; Fire and Rescue Department
Mandate Basis
Community cohesion and community-institution support are within the Department's mandate
Risks & Safeguards
constitutional
Federal programmes encroach on state jurisdiction over land, local government and non-Islamic religious institutions
Safeguard
Participation by state consent only, facility by facility and project by project; federal funding confined to safety, accessibility and community-service functions; land tenure findings documented for referral to state authorities rather than determined federally; a standing item at the National Land Council or an equivalent federal-state forum
leakage
Grants and subsidies are diverted, repeating the governance failures that have damaged confidence in community programmes
Safeguard
Payments made to institutions and verified accounts rather than in cash where possible; published recipient lists for all grants above a threshold; annual Auditor-General audit tabled in Parliament; open competitive procurement; immediate referral of irregularities to the MACC; the delivery secretariat holds no programme funds
procurement
Capital works under PRG-03 and PRG-04 are let without competitive tender or to related parties
Safeguard
All works follow standard Treasury procurement instructions with no exemption sought; award lists published; the prioritised remediation schedule is published in advance so departures from audited priority order are visible
fiscal
RM246.456m of the portfolio is classed development expenditure (PRG-03, PRG-04, PRG-12). In Malaysian practice development expenditure is appropriated through the Malaysia Plan rolling-plan process administered by the Ministry of Economy, not by a Cabinet decision plus annual supply. A six-year plan commencing 2026 straddles two Malaysia Plans
Safeguard
The Ministry of Economy must be engaged as a co-lead on the development-expenditure component and the requirement entered into the applicable rolling plan; the fiscal framework decision (D5) is explicitly framed as approval in principle only; the Public Finance and Fiscal Responsibility Act 2023 compliance position must be established before any formal submission