Part Five:

Evaluation, Feedback And Impact Of Programmes And Activities: The Case of Social Infrastructures, Amenities And Facilities

Our last commentary focuses on an evaluation of training and quality initiatives that are currently being carried out within the State Civil Service, with a view to remind ourselves of the impact the initiatives have especially in terms of value adding and in improving the output and productivity of the individuals and their organizations. By and large, we discuss and express the need to look at the non-quantifiable or non-measurable effect and impact of the programmes and initiatives. More significantly, we want to ask if our efforts focus on ‘doing the right things’ or only on ‘doing things right’. Obviously, these are two different issues because we may be working hard on a job or task but can possibly be doing a non-productive work. In this commentary, we shall focus on social infrastructures, amenities and facilities that have been implemented, provided and put in place.

From a development perspective, the provision and implementation of social infrastructures, facilities and amenities like sport complexes, recreational halls, Dewan Suarah or Dewan Masyarakat and other appurtenances constitute an important and critical aspect of our development effort. The aims have been to ensure that we accord a balance between both the economic and social dimension of our development. The fact that all the physical infrastructures are already in place also speaks volumes of our ability, capability and capacity to plan, implement and address societal needs. When economic projects like land development schemes, roads, ports, airports or industrial estates are implemented, it is quite easy to comprehend the tangible and measurable benefits or derived benefits associated with them, in terms of increase income, employment opportunities or factories being constructed. When social infrastructural projects like Dewan Suarah or Dewan Masyarakat, sports complexes are implemented and utilized, or when cultural activities and awareness campaigns are organised, the benefits are often intangible or non-quantifiable. Yet, we all appreciate that society needs them for various purposes. We need to look beyond the normal measurement of number of patrons and users or whether the distribution of these facilities around the various parts of the State has led to equitable emplacement, and thus enable a wide spectrum of the population having access to similar facilities.

At the outset, we want to state first on what we mean by the social dimension of development projects – and more so of social infrastructures, amenities and facilities. Although it is often axiomatic to distinguish projects to fit within an economic or social category, all development activities invariably have social characteristics. As the final beneficiaries are the people who may reside in an area or region, the provision of such facilities means we are addressing their communal or social needs. Development projects implemented then must express social objectives, which require social mechanisms to achieve the objectives. Upon implementation, the projects will generate social impact or social consequences.

An ODA publication (A Guide to Social Analysis for Projects in Developing Countries) has provided a very clear definition of development from a social perspective as …. ‘the attainment of sustainable improvements in economic growth and the quality of life that increases the range of choices open to all, achieved by people’s own efforts in the private sector or through voluntary activity, supported by government …’ It places value and emphasis on the ability of individuals, households and communities to participate in their society and its economy. It wants to ensure that people – their capacities, values and needs – are put at the centre of the development process.

Taking the cue from this definition of social analysis and coming back to our topic on the case of social infrastructures, amenities and facilities in the State, evaluating their usefulness and impact would mean that it is imperative that we look beyond the mere provision and implementation of these physical projects per se.

As an example, sport complexes or football fields are constructed or provided not just for athletic trainings, sports meets or the game of football. It can be used for a gathering such as celebrations like Hari Kebangsaan, family day and so on. But it should not be monopolized for only a particular sport. For the larger public, they may want to know whether these facilities are readily available or not, to enable them to follow a healthy lifestyle. It is therefore important that we recognise that the various Divisional and District sport complexes that have been built, are provided for the purpose of promoting sports, healthy lifestyle, wellness, fitness and all that. For a fit and healthy population can in turn impact on the productivity of our workforce. On this count, we can ask further whether the facilities that we have provided have been utilized to the fullest. If not, why not, and how can we best ensure that the other members of the public also participate in the various games utilizing such facilities.

The civic centres and the community halls are the other examples of social infrastructures that have been provided to enable us to organise and promote the various social and cultural activities, and to be used by the public. At present, we do hear of the queues in bookings, and if the large number of bookings and functions held in these venues are indicators of participation, then one objective at least has been answered – being able to ensure that the facilities are well utilized by the public. From an evaluation point of view, however, we also need to ask whether we are only looking at the numbers only. Do we look beyond and ask, what happen to the users who will become mature or elderly citizens 10 or 15 years later after they have regularly used the facilities or even otherwise? Have they become better citizens, urbane, principled, civic-minded, having public values at heart and become role models?

Then there are the other activities which will invariably be carried out with budgetary implications. Very often we execute activities because they had been done in the past and thus become an annual affair, or because there are already budgetary provisions for them. We should always ask and examine our objectives, and evaluate our modes of doing things as well. Take the case of the awareness programmes on the problems of drug abuse or getting citizens to be involved in town cleaning campaigns. Very often we read reports about awareness campaign programmes – such as the dangers of drug abuse – and therefore some agencies would organize campaigns (which incurs costs) to reduce its incidence or occurrence. We can still ask ourselves whether the programmes we implement and activities carried out are the most effective ways of addressing the problem or are there other better ways? Are programmes, when well attended, suggesting success and generating awareness? Or are the numbers merely resulting more due to people’s curiousity? If the problems still persist and we still continue with the same programme or activity, does this not suggest that we need to look at new ways and better approaches? In order to know or be able to answer all these questions, a study or evaluation of our programmes needs to be done regularly. Officers involved need to be able to ask these questions and internalise them within their organizational set up. In essence, we are questioning about the efficacy of the programmes or activities?

Then there are also activities that are undertaken by agencies which at times are competing or criss-crossing another turf, although efforts are now in place to rationalize and co-ordinate their execution. No doubt teamwork is nurtured and the spirit of togetherness is done. However, it can also beg the question of the necessity for particular agencies to focus on their core activities where they do them best, or where they have been established to do a good job, to do the right thing, and to do them well. Merely doing things right but deviating from the core tasks can mean ineffective, inefficient and non-optimal use of resources. Better still is to continually search for new and better ways and approaches in addressing the problems, issues and challenges at hand.

Good use of the social infrastructures, amenities and facilities by society would have greatly facilitated our effort to promote the development of our people – whether physically or mentally. This commentary would also point out that we can only lay claim to be developed or fully developed when our people are creative, innovative and adding values to their existing work. This requires thinking, critiqueing and continually assessing and evaluating our work. To be a developed person, progressive community and society means we are able to contribute our thoughts and ideas– abstract or otherwise – through our writings, books, invention, innovation, scripts and so on. We can also contribute as sportsmen and sportswomen when we can display our skills and talents as a result of hard work, dedication, discipline and practice. We can contribute as developed beings in the manner that artists and artisans portray their skills, which very often are developed and horned via the facilities that are provided. Indeed, it would make a lot of sense if we now look back and appreciate the social infrastructures, amenities and facilities that have been provided and ask how we have used them, and whether we have done enough evaluation to assess the impact that these facilities have made. It is worth recalling what one of the past U.S. Presidents once said: “And so …. fellow citizens, ask not what the country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country”. I would take one interpretation here to reflect what and how we can contribute to society, community and country through our thoughts i.e. value adding our thoughts over and above other progressive thoughts.

In conclusion, we want to stress that evaluation is an important assignment or task which agencies must give attention. It wants us to assess the ‘value or worth’ of our efforts – and to ensure that we learn lessons from the past, and to do things better in the future. For social projects, social infrastructures, amenities and facilities, it means that managers and project implementors ask whether we have done the right things and not just doing them right. It can further mean looking for better ways and for new purposes. Ultimately, it is hoped that we have also been able to address the human development objective.

WBD

Editor-in-Chief

Part VI of this commentary

on another topic will follow