Data, Evaluation and Public Reporting
Neither government nor the community can currently verify what has changed, because baselines and disaggregated outturn data do not exist
Programme Logic
Problem
Neither government nor the community can currently verify what has changed, because baselines and disaggregated outturn data do not exist
Structural Cause
Programmes report activity, not outcomes; ethnic disaggregation is inconsistently published
Intervention
A baseline survey in Year 1, a public progress dashboard, a Data Protection Impact Assessment before any household record operates, an independent mid-term evaluation at end-Year 3, a final independent evaluation in Year 6, and annual Auditor-General audit
Who & How
Target Group
Programme monitoring and the public
Eligibility
n/a
Deliverables
Outputs
Baseline survey published; dashboard live; DPIA completed and published; mid-term and final evaluations published; annual audits tabled
Outcomes
Every KPI has a verified baseline and a published outturn series
Key Performance Indicators
Measurement integrity
Proportion of the sixteen KPIs with a published verified baseline and a current published outturn
Costing (Central Scenario)
Where these figures come from
Why this figure?· RM 33.0m over 6 yearsProvisional
- Method
- Evaluation model: baseline survey + dashboard + DPIA + independent evaluations + annual audit and reporting
- Key inputs
- RM 0 — Baseline survey RM6m and dashboard RM8m in Phase 1; DPIA RM1m in Phase 1; mid-term evaluation RM4m in Phase 2; final evaluation RM5m in Phase 3; annual audit and reporting RM1.5m per year
- Population
- Programme monitoring and public reporting (n/a)
- Benchmark
- Phase 1: baseline survey RM6.000m + dashboard RM8.000m + DPIA RM1.000m + annual audit/reporting RM1.500m x 2 = RM18.000m. Phase 2: mid-term evaluation RM4.000m + audit/reporting RM3.000m = RM7.000m. Phase 3: final evaluation RM5.000m + audit/reporting RM3.000m = RM8.000m. Total RM33.000m = 2.10% of the central portfolio, below the 3-5% commonly cited for programmes of this type (benchmark itself uncited - see residual limitation).
- Funding split
- existing 0.10 = National Audit Department capacity already funded; reallocated 0.25 = MITRA monitoring budget; new 0.65 = baseline survey, dashboard, DPIA and independent evaluations. ASSUMPTION pending DOSM agreement (VAL-24).
- Source
- Internal estimate — no external source cited.
- Status
- Planning assumption pending validation· pending validation (VAL-24)
- Note
- Phase 1: baseline survey RM6.000m + dashboard RM8.000m + DPIA RM1.000m + annual audit/reporting RM1.500m x 2 = RM18.000m. Phase 2: mid-term evaluation RM4.000m + audit/reporting RM3.000m = RM7.000m. Phase 3: final evaluation RM5.000m + audit/reporting RM3.000m = RM8.000m. Total RM33.000m = 2.10% of
Delivery & Accountability
Lead Ministry
Prime Minister's Department
Accounting Officer
Chief Secretary to the Government
Supporting Agencies
DOSM; Ministry of Economy; National Audit Department; independent evaluators
Mandate Basis
Programme monitoring and evaluation for a Cabinet-established initiative sit with its secretariat
Risks & Safeguards
reputational
Publishing disaggregated ethnic data on civil service composition, school condition or poverty produces adverse comparison and political friction
Safeguard
Publication is committed to in advance as a condition of the plan, so selective disclosure is not available; data are published in full national context rather than for one community alone; the reporting framework is described as a model extensible to any community