ARCHIVED - MAF Assessment: Public Health Agency of Canada - 2008

1.1 Leadership: Acceptable

• Executive leadership regularly communicates and encourages ongoing dialogue on public service values and ethics among employees.

1.2 Infrastructure: Acceptable

• Organization has a plan that includes a strategy championed by senior management with medium-term activities to raise awareness of the importance of public service values and ethics.

1.3 Culture: Acceptable

• Public service values and ethics are generally understood.

2.1 PAA Consistency: Opportunity for Improvement

• The Strategic Outcome(s) is/are not at an appropriate level given the nature and resources of the organization.
• The area of departmental influence is not evident and/or the Strategic Outcome(s) do not fully align with the organization’s mandate.

2.2 Measurability: Acceptable

• Most elements of the Program Activity Architecture are in alignment with the Strategic Outcome(s).
• An adequate Program Activity Architecture has been developed with some issues to be resolved.

2.3 Quality:

• An incomplete or inadequate performance measurement framework has been developed.

3.1 Business Plan: Acceptable

• Corporate business plan generally aligns resources and accountabilities to priorities.
• Corporate business plan generally integrates human resources, IM/IT, communications or other key corporate plans.

3.2 Governance Structure: Acceptable

• Senior corporate management structure (e.g., committees) interacts with and provides oversight to the supporting governance structure.

2008-2009 saw the development of (draft) corporate, operational business and integrated human resources plans to assess progress and align accountabilities relating to broader commitments identified in PHAC's RPP and five-year operational plan.

4.2 Participation in Priority Initiatives: Acceptable

• The organization contributes effectively to priority interdepartmental initiatives.
• The organization's commitments are clear and are consistent with its role.

TBS has assessed the Public Health Agency of Canada with regard to its participation in the Public Service Renewal (Acceptable) and Web of Rules (Acceptable) initiatives.

5.1 Supporting Information: Acceptable

• Organization has established a capacity to assemble usually accurate, reliable and complete supporting information in TB submissions.
• Organization has the capacity to respond effectively to most TBS feedback.

5.2 Analysis: Acceptable

• Established capacity for appropriate responses to TBS comments is acceptable.

5.3 Consultations: Strong

• Established capacity to initiate consultations with TBS with sufficient lead time is evident.

5.4 Quality control: Acceptable

• Generally rigorous and effective quality control process is in place and is usually followed for TB submissions.

Consultations with TBS and other central agencies are proactive and initiated in a timely fashion. PHAC responses to supplemental questions are generally provided quickly and with sufficient detail. The performance of PHAC's Strategic Review Task Team is particularly noteworthy, with its efforts and responsiveness very much appreciated by TBS.

6.1 Quality: Acceptable

• All evaluations submitted to TBS employ appropriate methodologies to gather data and inform the analysis.
• All evaluations submitted to TBS include a management response and an action plan detailing implementation strategies, timelines and management accountabilities.
• All evaluations submitted to TBS use multiple lines of evidence. Evaluations reflect the diversity and perspectives of multiple program stakeholders. Non-stakeholder perspective is also included.
• Evaluations submitted to TBS usually present findings, conclusions and recommendations that are supported by the evidence found in the evaluation report.
• The majority of evaluations submitted to TBS consistently address questions of program relevance, success and effectiveness.
• The majority of evaluations submitted to TBS include analysis of the limitations of the methodology and data sources used.

6.2 Neutrality: Strong

• Evaluation function resourcing is commensurate with the organizational evaluation plan and support monitoring and oversight demands.
• Head of Evaluation has explicit authority to submit evaluation reports directly to the Deputy Head and has direct and regular access to the deputy head.
• Senior management committee is in place to support, oversee and monitor the evaluation function and management accountabilities arising from evaluations and evaluation related products. The committee is chaired by the deputy head or senior level designate. The committee meets regularly during the year and is attended by designated committee members.
• The majority of resources dedicated to evaluations are directed by the Head of Evaluation.

6.3 Coverage: Acceptable

• Option 1: The organization is working according to its evaluation plan and has shown evidence of moving towards full evaluation coverage of its program base (e.g. over a five year cycle). Current annual evaluation coverage is between 10-15% of total direct program expenditures.
• The organization has shared its multi-year, risk-based evaluation plan with TBS. The evaluation plan has information on evaluations planned, completed and carried over. It also includes links to the organization's PAA. As well, there is evidence to indicate that the organization has calibrated its evaluation efforts and/or approaches according to program context.
• The organization has shown evidence of moving towards full coverage of all ongoing programs of grants and contributions over a five year cycle as per 42.1 of the FAA. Current annual evaluation coverage of G&Cs is more than 15%.

6.4 Usage: Acceptable

• More than 80% of RMAFs are implemented. Program managers are required to commit to implementation timelines for RMAFs and other performance measurement system. Management action is taken on non-delivery.
• Active, systematic and regular tracking of management action plans arising from evaluation recommendations is in place.
• Evaluation commitments, plans and requirements are delivered on time or extensions are due to circumstances beyond the department's control. Organization usually requests extension from TBS.
• Majority of evaluations submitted to TBS incorporate data from a performance measurement system to support the evaluation. Submitted evaluations sometimes cite data availability and/or quality as constraints.
• The results of evaluations are usually brought for consideration in TB submissions, Memorandum to Cabinet, RPPs, DPR and Strategic Reviews.

7.1 MRRS Basis: Strong

• Strong links between performance and plans are present. The DPR consistently discuses any changes in plans and how they affected performance.

7.2 Credible information: Acceptable

• DPR consistently provides independently verifiable evidence-based performance information.
• DPR is based on the PAA, i.e. performance is usually reported by Program Activity (PA) at the PA level.
• DPR reflects extensive inclusion of findings from audit and evaluation which increase results-focus and credibility.

7.3 Context: Acceptable

• DPR is generally balanced – the report presents both positive and negative aspects of performance and substantiation or explanation is generally provided.

8.1 Change plan: Acceptable

• The organization has the capacity to evaluate whether or not change is required.

8.2 Engagement: Acceptable

• Employees are engaged in the strategy development phase.

8.3 Assessment: Acceptable

• Change plans and strategies are included in Performance Management Agreements of Senior Executives.

This past year, PHAC developed its Integrated HR plan, a companion to its five-year Strategic Plan, which together serve to articulate direction for the agency and its staff.  Implementation of the Integrated HR Plan is supported by the identification of "change agents" and organizational changes in the area of HR management.

9.1 Engagement: Acceptable

• Accountability for key risks is assigned to senior management.
• Senior management encourages effective Risk Management and a risk-smart culture.
• Senior management ensures that the organization’s Risk Management approach is tailored to the specific needs of the organization.
• Senior management has reviewed/approved the Corporate Risk Profile within the past year.
• Senior management reviews the organization’s Risk Management approach within the current three-year planning cycle.
• The organization has a common risk assessment approach and it has been approved by senior management.

9.2 Implementation: Opportunity for Improvement

• Risk Management guidance and tools that enable the organization’s risk management approach are inconsistently made available to staff.
• The Corporate Risk Profile is systematically (horizontally and vertically) implemented into most operational levels across the organization.
• The organization’s Risk Management approach is inconsistently communicated to staff and stakeholders.

9.3 Integration: Acceptable

• Operational level risks are prioritized into key risks.
• Risk information and Risk Management principles are adequately captured in senior management reporting.
• Risk information and Risk Management principles influence planning and resource allocation decisions.
• Risk information is adequately consulted for senior management decision-making.
• The organization makes adequate course corrections based on Risk Management performance and new information.

9.4 Continuous Improvement: Acceptable

• Corporate risks are consistently linked to the organization’s strategic outcomes.
• Key risk information was adequately gathered from internal sources of the organization for preparing the CRP.
• Some relevant external sources are consulted during the development of the organization’s CRP.
• The CRP provides a reliable assessment of the quality of risk information used.
• The organization has implemented most recommendations provided during its last MAF assessment.
• The organization inconsistently builds on past experience, better practice, and adjusts to fit any changes in management structures, priorities or strategic direction.

The Public Health Agency of Canada is working towards the development of a more holistic agency-wide risk management approach. Evidence of this includes the establishment of a Risk Management Committee and the development of a draft Integrated Risk Management Framework scheduled to be approved in the fall of 2009.

10.1 Fair: Acceptable

• Organization is undertaking action to improve the classification program in accordance with its level of risk.
• Evidence shows that labour relations matters are consistently and appropriately managed/addressed.
• Evidence shows that the organization is in compliance with Labour Relations and Compensation Operations direction (terms and condition of employment, collective agreements and/or applicable legislation).

10.2 Enabling: Opportunity for Improvement

• Organization demonstrates the necessary linguistic capacity to provide personal and central services and supervision in both official languages.
• Organization is representative of all four employment equity designated groups.
• Promotions among employment equity groups are equal or less than previous year's performance.
• Separations among employment equity groups are less than or equal to previous year's performance.
• Some deficiencies in the availability of work instruments, electronic systems and communications with employees in both official languages exist.

10.3 Healthy and safe: Opportunity for Improvement

• Employees feel recognized for positive performance.
• Evidence indicates that the organization fails to put in place a managed program to protect employees' occupational health and safety.

11.1 Productive: Acceptable

• A sufficient number of employees indicate their organization supports their career development and learning needs.

11.2 Principled: Opportunity for Improvement

• Employees consider that they can not regularly communicate in the official language of their choice within their organization and work instruments, electronic systems and communications in both official languages are not consistently available.
• Necessary linguistic capacity is in place as is shown by the vast majority of incumbents of bilingual positions who meet the language requirements of their position.
• Progress against the previous year's performance on recruitment, promotion and separation for employment equity groups is less than the organization's average for all employees.
• Promotions among employment equity groups are less than representation for at least one group.
• Some deficiencies in communications with and services to the public in both official languages.

11.3 Sustainable: Acceptable

• Evidence indicates human resources planning integrated with business planning is generally in place and governance/organizational infrastructure generally exists to support it.

11.4 Adaptable: Strong

• A significant number of employees indicate their organization encourages continuous learning, improvement and innovation.

12.1 Governance: Acceptable

• IM requirements are integrated as a part of the approval, development, implementation, evaluation, and reporting of departmental policies, programs, services, or projects.
• IM is represented in the corporate-wide governance structure and/or in the corporate-wide governance or approval committee(s).
• Responsibilities are identified for IM policy development and implementation consistent with the GC IM Strategy and policy instruments.

12.2 Strategy: Acceptable

• The IM strategy is in development but it is not clear how it supports departmental business priorities and operations nor how it integrates with other corporate strategies, plans, and planning cycles.
• An IM strategy implementation plan, including some timelines and resources, is underway and some achievements to date are identified.
• IM awareness activities are underway in the department to help staff and executives understand their IM roles, responsibilities and accountabilities.

12.3 Privacy Act: Opportunity for Improvement

• Organization submitted an Annual Report to Parliament but did not address all of the mandatory reporting requirements.
• Significant collections of personal information under the control of the organization have not been appropriately identified or described in accordance with the Privacy Act.

12.4 Access to Information Act: Opportunity for Improvement

• A significant number of institution-specific Classes of Records do not meet Treasury Board Secretariat requirements.
• Although the organization has made several improvements to its 2008 Chapter of Info Source: Sources of Federal Government Information, revisions are still necessary to meet all Treasury Board Secretariat requirements.

13.1 Leadership: Acceptable

• Senior official for information technology has responsibility and accountability for virtually the full scope of information technology responsibilities.
• Some participation in setting government-wide directions for information technology is evident.

13.2 Planning: Acceptable

• Acceptable information technology plan is in place that aligns with the government-wide directions for information technology and departmental business needs.
• Organization has aligned corporate and information technology governance structures and has an integrated planning process.

13.3 Value: Acceptable

• Organization effectively analyzes, plans for, and appropriately uses information technology shared services.
• Organization devotes adequate management attention to service costing, asset management, performance measurement and reporting to ensure value delivery.

14.1 Investment Planning: Opportunity for Improvement

• The organization does not have a current investment planning document.
• The organization’s investment planning document has not been approved by the proper authority.
• The organization’s investment planning documents do not cover all asset classes.

14.2 Real Property Management: Acceptable

• Some elements of a real property management framework have been implemented.

14.3 Materiel Management: Acceptable

• All elements of a materiel management framework are evident.
• Some indicators of materiel performance are monitored.

15.1 Governance and Oversight: Acceptable

• Business cases, which define expected outcomes, are required to support proposals for major projects.
• Project governance and oversight mechanisms are limited and there are inconsistent links between approved projects and the strategic plans and priorities of the organization.
• There is no evidence that the organization has exceeded Treasury Board project approval limits, or failed to notify TB/TBS when it did.

15.2 Effective Management of Project Resources: Opportunity for Improvement

• Little or no project management related training is available to employees.
• The funding models used for projects support the achievement of expected project outcomes and cost estimates are generated at the work package level and consider historical data and/or industry benchmarks.
• There is evidence of some processes and procedures which support resource management. However, these are largely informal and do not extend across the organization.
• There is no evidence of project managers creating staffing plans and authorization for necessary resources is not secured before project execution.

15.3 Effective Management of Project Results: Opportunity for Improvement

• There is no evidence of formal processes or procedures which ensure that project managers and project oversight mechanisms have access to relevant project monitoring information.
• While lessons learned are used to improve project management governance and oversight in some instances, there is no formal or organization-wide mechanism which supports continuous improvement.
• While there is evidence of project monitoring and reporting activities, there is no evidence that these activities are ongoing or that the information is used to support corrective action.
• While there is evidence that project milestones, deliverables and outcomes are documented for some projects, it is not a requirement across the organization.

16.1 Governance and Oversight: Opportunity for Improvement

• Effective and accountable procurement management processes and controls are in place (e.g., contract review mechanisms, documented decision making, guidance documents, appropriate delegation instruments or proper use of delegated authorities).
• Some procurement planning.

16.2 Meeting Operational Requirements: Acceptable

• Informed decision making and oversight exist.
• Some qualified procurement human resources exist.
• Some informed decision making and oversight exists.

17.1 Authorities and Policies: Acceptable

• Audit report results show evidence of deficiencies that are of some concern.
• Departmental procedures, tools, training and support for those individuals delegated with Section 34 authority show evidence of good financial management practices.
• Departmental processes for classification of moneys, internal controls for receiving and recording money and depositing money show evidence of solid financial management practices.
• Departmental processes for informing those delegated with Section 33 authority of their responsibilities and dealing with requests for payments that are problematic show evidence of deficiencies that are of some concern.
• Departmental processes to provide individuals delegated Section 33 authority with the information necessary to assess and approve transactions and to assess the adequacy of Section 34 account verification show evidence of good financial management practices.
• The reporting of external user fee information shows only a few omissions in relation to reporting guidelines.

17.2 Public Accounts Reporting: Opportunity for Improvement

• Eighty to 89% (grade B) of Public Accounts reporting plates submitted on time.
• Few Central Financial Management Reporting System (CFMRS) coding errors.

17.3 Management Capacity: Acceptable

• A low proportion of FIs or management team members in the financial management organization have current, approved learning plans.
• A significant amount of training is provided for the financial management organization.
• Few processes in support of a sound succession plan for key positions are in place.
• Positions, the duties of which are being performed by an individual indeterminately appointed to that position, comprise a reasonable proportion of the positions on the management team of the financial management organization.
• Positions, the duties of which are being performed by an individual indeterminately appointed to that position, comprise all, or almost all, of the FI segment of the financial management organization.

17.4 Financial Statements: Acceptable

• "There is evidence of some work undertaken to assess and/or monitor and/or improve internal control over financial reporting."
• The Financial Statements are compliant with Treasury Board Accounting Standard 1.2 – Departmental and Agency Financial Statements and reporting deadlines were met.

17.5 Internal Reporting: Acceptable

• The internal financial reporting package is accompanied by a weak discussion and analysis.
• The internal financial reporting package is presented to senior management eight to nine times per year.
• The internal financial reporting package is presented to senior management less than 15 calendar days after period end.
• The process for reviewing information before it is presented to senior management to ensure no material errors or omissions is established.
• The scope of the internal financial reporting package is comprehensive.

17.6 Other Initiatives: Acceptable

• Evidence of some initial measures taken towards implementing the Guide to Costing.

While the agency maintained an overall rating of Acceptable, the quality, timeliness and accuracy of the trial balance and Public Accounts plates submitted for purposes of government-wide reporting show some areas requiring improvement.

18.1 Internal Audit governance: Strong

• There is an approved Internal Audit Charter in line with the 2006 Policy on Internal Audit.
• Chief Audit Executive reports solely and exclusively to the Deputy Head.
• An independent Departmental Audit Committee is in place.
• There is an approved Departmental Audit Committee Charter in line with the 2006 Policy on Internal Audit.
• There is an approved Departmental Audit Committee Annual Plan for fiscal year 2008-2009.
• The Departmental Audit Committee has met at least four times over the past twelve months.
• The Departmental Audit Committee Annual Report for 2007-2008 has been submitted to the Deputy Head and the Office of the Comptroller General.

18.2 Internal Audit Professional Practices: Opportunity for Improvement

• The Annual Risk-Based Audit Plan was received by the Office of the Comptroller General late in the fiscal year or was never received.
• Annual Risk-Based Audit Plan methodology is somewhat evident and applied.
• Most post-engagement follow-up activities are identified.
• There is partial information on the planned use of all audit function resources.
• Planned work does not focus on audit assurance versus other types of activities.
• Continuity of previous years work is not clearly identified, or there is limited identification of status and rationale.
• Approved assurance products are consistent with policy and internal audit standards requirements.
• High completion rate of assurance products (number of assurance audit reports) against 2007-2008 Risk-Based Audit Plan.
• Internal Quality Assurance and Improvement Program is well documented and in place.
• Assurance products (reports) are produced in a reasonably timely manner.
• Approved assurance products are made accessible to the public in a reasonably timely manner.
• Post-engagement follow-up process is well documented, and recommendations are followed up using a risk-based approach.
• The department or agency provides limited notification to the Treasury Board Secretariat on the posting of reports.

18.3 Administration of the Internal Audit Function: Opportunity for Improvement

• No evidence of a recruitment action plan or an external resourcing strategy exists, and there is no evidence of activity in the two areas.
• Insufficient investment has been allocated to Certified Internal Auditor certification, learning and training.
• Planned spending, * was given to the Office of the Comptroller General. When comparing current spending of 2008-2009 with planned financial resources of 2007-2008, resource levels identified exceeds the resource level identified in 2007.
• Planned FTEs dedicated to internal audit have been maintained comparatively to 2007-2008. They meet the resource level identified in the planned internal audit function’s budget for 2008-2009.

18.4 Internal Audit Performance: Acceptable

• A Chief Audit Executive Annual Report for 2007-2008 was presented to the Departmental Audit Committee and the Deputy Head and submitted to the Office of the Comptroller General.
• Limited periodic reporting on the follow-up of Management Action Plans.

The agency has a 100 per cent completion rate of internal audit engagements.

19.1 Departmental Security Program: Acceptable

• Organization has in place a fully developed security program that comprises key policy elements and is administered by an appointed Departmental Security Officer (DSO) who is positioned to provide strategic advice and guidance to senior management.
• No significant deficiencies in meeting key policy requirements for the departmental security program.

19.2 Management of IT Security (MITS): Opportunity for Improvement

• Organization has achieved the three priority objectives that form the foundation for Management of Information Technology Security (MITS), but does not fully comply with MITS requirements.
• Some deficiencies in meeting key MITS requirements.

19.3 Business Continuity Planning (BCP): Opportunity for Improvement

• Organization has partially developed measures to provide for the continuity of critical business operations and services.
• Several deficiencies in meeting key BCP program requirements.
• Business Continuity Planning (BCP) program governance has been established.
• Business Impact Analysis (BIA) has been partially completed to identify and prioritize the organization's critical services and assets.
• Significant deficiencies in establishing business continuity plans and arrangements.
• Maintenance cycle has been partially put in place to review, test and audit business continuity plans.

20.1 Management Engagement – Service and CLF: Attention Required

• Senior management has set priorities and goals in an ad hoc or informal fashion or not at the institutional-level.
• There are no expectations set by senior management for an institutional focus on meeting the needs of clients, specifically with respect to service standards and client satisfaction measurement.
• There has been no monitoring or no steps to set up monitoring of progress towards the achievement of goals by senior management.
• There is monitoring by senior management to ensure that the requirements of CLF 2.0 are being met institution-wide; this information is generally used to make timely and proactive decisions and course correction.
• There is no committee which makes decisions about service.

20.2 Public/client views: Acceptable

• Few tools used to obtain views from clients.
• Little evidence of making consultation results available to the public.
• Strong evidence of incorporating feedback in the implementation of its services, programs, policies or initiatives.
• There are plans to obtain views from clients.
• There is a clearly identified target clientele for public consultations.

20.3 Official Languages: Opportunity for Improvement

• Analysis of the Annual Review on OL shows the institution is generally able to meet its obligations.
• Audits reveal numerous shortcomings in active offer and service delivery in both OL.
• No complaint or minimal number of founded complaints exits.
• The institution does not always have the resources to serve the public in both OL.