ARCHIVED - MAF Assessment: Library and Archives Canada - 2008

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.
• Risks in regard to possible breaches in public service values and ethics are regularly assessed, documented and followed up with mitigation plans and action by management.

1.3 Culture: Acceptable

• Organization has a good understanding of the current state of public service values and ethics as evidenced by qualitative or quantitative information.

2.3 Quality:

• An incomplete or inadequate performance measurement framework has been developed.
• Expected results are not clear and distinct, and are not appropriate to their respective program descriptions.
• The performance indicators are not clear and cannot be used for data collection to provide reliable insight into program effectiveness.

3.1 Business Plan: Opportunity for Improvement

• While progress is being made, the corporate business plan does not adequately integrate human resources, IM/IT, communications or other key corporate plans.

3.2 Governance Structure: Acceptable

• Adequate management oversight of the organization's program activities and underlying programs is evident.
• Organization's corporate governance structure is generally aligned to the organization's PAA.
• Senior corporate management structure or subordinate governance structure (e.g., committees) meet regularly.

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.
• There is an opportunity for the organization to improve its contribution to Public Service Renewal.

TBS has assessed Library and Archives of Canada with regard to its participation in the Public Service Renewal (Opportunity for Improvement) and Web of Rules (Strong) initiatives.

5.1 Supporting Information: Attention Required

• Business cases lack sufficient information, they are not comprehensive.
• Funding information is not aligned with project authorities.
• Inaccuracies in information relative to TBS financial data.
• Level of detail is not sufficient, e.g., no explanation for level of resources requested, i.e., why the amount requested is the correct amount.
• Little or no capacity to assemble accurate and reliable supporting information for TB submissions.
• Policy and budget authorities are not identified.
• Responses to TBS comments are incomplete.
• There is little or no capacity to respond to TBS feedback.

5.4 Quality control: Attention Required

• No apparent quality control process exists.

TB submissions and follow-up reports show no systematic consideration of the essential points, There is little attention to the accuracy, thoroughness and quality of the information and analysis presented. As a consequence, submissions require protracted exchanges with TBS and decisions require conditions.

6.1 Quality: Opportunity for Improvement

• All evaluations submitted to TBS include a management response and an action plan detailing implementation strategies, timelines and management accountabilities.
• Evaluations submitted to TBS sometimes but not consistently address questions of program relevance, success and effectiveness.
• Evaluations submitted to TBS usually present findings, conclusions and recommendations that are supported by the evidence found in the evaluation report.
• Large majority of evaluations submitted to TBS rarely include analysis of the limitations of the methodology and data sources used.
• The majority of evaluations submitted to TBS consistently employ appropriate methodologies to gather data and inform the analysis.
• The majority of evaluations submitted to TBS use multiple lines of evidence. Evaluations reflect the diversity and perspectives of multiple program stakeholders.

6.2 Neutrality: Acceptable

• All resources dedicated to evaluations are directed by the Head of Evaluation.
• Evaluation function resourcing is not commensurate with the organizational evaluation plan.
• 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.

6.3 Coverage: Opportunity for Improvement

• A one-year plan has been developed and shared with TBS. The plan has information on evaluations planned, completed and carried over and include links to the organization's PAA. As well, the organization has committed to developing a multi-year risk-based plan.
• 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%.
• The organization has shown no evidence of moving toward full evaluation coverage of their program base over a set cycle (e.g. over a five-year cycle).

6.4 Usage: Opportunity for Improvement

• Active, systematic and regular tracking of management action plans arising from evaluation recommendations is in place.
• Less than 40% of RMAFs are implemented.
• 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 sometimes brought for consideration in TB submissions, Memorandum to Cabinet, RPPs, DPRs and Strategic Reviews.

7.1 MRRS Basis: Acceptable

• Good links between performance and plans are present.
• Linkages between resources and results are adequately demonstrated in the reports.

7.2 Credible information: Opportunity for Improvement

• DPR is not sufficiently based on the PAA, i.e. performance is not reported consistently by Program Activity (PA) or at the PA level.
• The DPR occasionally provides independently verifiable evidence-based performance information.

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.

As no organizational plan was provided, LAC demonstrates limited capacity to plan and manage organizational change.

It is evident that LAC has undergone significant and ongoing organizational change since 2004-2005 but no evidence related to assessment or results was provided.

9.1 Engagement: Acceptable

• Accountability for key risks does not appear to be 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: Acceptable

• Risk Management guidance and tools that enable the organization's risk management approach are 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 adequately builds on past experience, better practice, and adjusts to fit any changes in management structures, priorities or strategic direction.
• The organization has implemented most recommendations provided during its last MAF assessment.

LAC deserves recognition for the progressive implementation of its risk management framework and integration of its risk management practices at the strategic, operational and project levels.

LAC has also moved ahead with development of practical risk management manuals, including a general risk management manual for managers, and one covering specifically the risks associated with the loan of documents for exhibits.

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 exceeds standards of timeliness in payments to employees.
• 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: Acceptable

• Organization demonstrates the necessary linguistic capacity to provide personal and central services and supervision in both official languages.
• Organization is under-representative in one or more of the 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.
• Work instruments, electronic systems and communications with employees are always or nearly always available in both official languages.

10.3 Healthy and safe:

• Employees feel recognized for positive performance.
• Evidence indicates that the organization has in place a well-managed program to protect employee's occupational health and safety.

11.1 Productive: Opportunity for Improvement

• An insufficient number of employees indicate their organization supports their career development and learning needs.

11.2 Principled: Acceptable

• Communications with and services to the public in both official languages are always or nearly always available.
• Employees consider that they always or nearly always can communicate in the official language of their choice within their organization and work instruments, electronic systems and communications in both official languages are always or nearly always 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.
• Promotions among employment equity groups are less than representation for at least one group.

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: Acceptable

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

12.1 Governance: Acceptable

• IM requirements are somewhat 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).
• Participation is evident in GC-wide approaches and initiatives related to developing, implementing, sharing, and leveraging IM policies and practices.
• Responsibilities are identified for IM policy development and implementation consistent with the GC IM Strategy and policy instruments.

12.2 Strategy: Acceptable

• A current and active IM strategy identifies support to business priorities and operations, information needs and accountabilities, IM policy considerations and is partially integrated 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.
• The new GC IM Policy Instruments are cited in evidence (Policy on Information Management, Directive on IM Roles and Responsibilities).

12.3 Privacy Act: Acceptable

• Most of the organization's collections of personal information are described in registered Personal Information Banks and/or Classes of Personal Information in accordance with the requirements of 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.
• A significant number of the organization's functions, programs, activities and related information holdings have not been appropriately identified or described in its 2008 Chapter of Info Source: Sources of Federal Government Information. This information is a requirement of the Access to Information Act to facilitate public access to federal government information.

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: Opportunity for Improvement

• Organization is making efforts to appropriately use and plan for further use of 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.
• There is no evidence of systematic investment planning.

14.3 Materiel Management: Acceptable

• All elements of a materiel management framework are evident.
• Comprehensive internal policies are documented and disseminated.
• Governance structures, approval processes and authority limits are documented and disseminated.
• Reliable and sufficiently integrated information systems are in place.
• All indicators of materiel performance are monitored and performance measurement is ongoing.
• Experience and best practices are shared internally and government-wide.

14.2 Real Property Management: This Line of Evidence is unrated because the organization is not currently a custodian of real property.

Work on the custody transfer of all LAC-occupied special purpose facilities from PWGSC to LAC has begun. The target date for PWGSC and LAC management board approval of the implementation plan is September 2009.

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: Acceptable

• Adequate processes/procedures exist to ensure that planned projects have the required resources to achieve expected outcomes.
• 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 no evidence of project managers creating staffing plans and authorization for necessary resources is not secured before project execution.
• There is no evidence that the organization has failed to meet TB conditions regarding projects.
• While project management related training is made available by the organization for employees, there are no processes to ensure that employees with project management responsibilities are encouraged to complete relevant training and the number of qualified project managers is unknown.

15.3 Effective Management of Project Results: Acceptable

• 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: Strong

• Clear and continually updated links between procurement activities and the organization-wide program plans, priorities and long-term investments are evident.
• Effective, accountable and integrated procurement management processes and controls have been established and incorporated in the organization's business cycle. (e.g., contract review mechanisms, documented decision making or proper use of delegated authorities).

16.2 Meeting Operational Requirements: Strong

• Consistent procurement training and certification programs exist.
• Continuous links to human resources planning are in place (e.g., succession planning and recruitment strategies for procurement staff).
• Efficient, effective and integrated procurement information systems and processes are evident.
• Procurement processes that contribute to cost savings and value for money are fully utilized.
• Results and reviews are being used to continuously adjust and improve current procurement management activities and future procurement plans.

17.1 Authorities and Policies: Attention Required

• Audit report results show evidence of deficiencies that are of serious concerns.
• Departmental procedures, tools, training and support for those individuals delegated with Section 34 authority show evidence of deficiencies that are of serious concern.
• Departmental processes for classification of moneys, internal controls for receiving and recording money and depositing money show evidence of good 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 serious 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: Acceptable

• Few Central Financial Management Reporting System (CFMRS) coding errors.
• Ninety to 96% (Grade A) of Public Accounts reporting plates submitted on time.

17.3 Management Capacity: Acceptable

• A reasonable amount of training is provided for the financial management organization.
• All, or almost all, FIs and management team members in the financial management organization have current, approved learning plans.
• 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.
• There is a position (or positions) established in the financial management organization that is dedicated to community management and development.

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 less than 15 calendar days after period end.
• The internal financial reporting package is presented to senior management ten or more times per year.
• The process for reviewing information before it is presented to senior management to ensure no material errors or omissions is weak.
• The scope of the internal financial reporting package is comprehensive.

There is a lack of internal audits reports on matters of financial management. Procedures and support for individuals delegated with section 34 show evidence of deficiencies that are of serious concern.

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 serious concern.

18.1 Internal Audit governance: Opportunity for Improvement

• There is an approved Internal Audit Charter in line with the 2006 Policy on Internal Audit.
• The Implementation Plan covers all of the required policy elements.
• Ongoing monitoring of, and progress in implementing, key elements of the plan are on track with planned timelines.
• An independent Departmental Audit Committee has either recently been established or is scheduled to be in place and is on track with planned timelines.
• There is a Departmental Audit Committee Charter in line with the 2006 Policy on Internal Audit.

18.2 Internal Audit Professional Practices: Attention Required

• Insufficient evidence of Deputy Head approval of Annual Risk-Based Audit Plan.
• Annual Risk-Based Audit Plan methodology is somewhat evident and applied.
• All post-engagement follow-up activities are clearly identified.
• There is very little or no information of the planned use of all audit function resources.
• Vast majority of planned work is on audit assurance versus other types of activities.
• No identification of continuity with previous year's work.
• Very low completion rate or no assurance products (number of assurance audit reports) against 2007-2008 Risk-Based Audit Plan.
• Internal Quality Assurance and Improvement Program has not been documented.
• Post-engagement follow-up process is not documented and very few or no recommendations are followed up using a risk-based approach.

18.3 Administration of the Internal Audit Function: Opportunity for Improvement

• Planned FTEs dedicated to internal audit fall well below the resource level identified in the planned internal audit function's budget for 2008-2009.
• Investment in Certified Internal Auditor certification, learning and training exceeds 10% of FTE salaries.
• 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 fall well below the resource level identified in 2007.
• Some elements of a comprehensive Human Resources Plan have been documented, and evidence of recruitment and external resourcing activity exists.

18.4 Internal Audit Performance: Acceptable

• Limited periodic reporting on the follow-up of Management Action Plans.

LAC has prepared and submitted an Implementation Plan for the Policy on Internal Audit with the majority of items targeted for completion in the winter of 2008-2009 or later; however, there is no evidence of approval. LAC has made positive steps towards the creation of its DAC.

19.1 Departmental Security Program: Strong

• Organization's security program is fully developed and sustainable, and comprises all key policy elements.
• Organization demonstrates leadership and contributes to the government-wide security program.
• Organization's security strategy is completely aligned and integrated with its corporate priorities and business plan.

19.2 Management of IT Security (MITS): Acceptable

• Organization has achieved the three priority objectives that form the foundation for Management of Information Technology Security (MITS) and complies with most MITS requirements.
• No significant deficiencies in meeting key MITS requirements.

19.3 Business Continuity Planning (BCP):

• Organization has conducted a Business Impact Analysis (BIA) and has determined that it does not provide critical services to the public and private sectors.

Note: The assessment methodology for Line of Evidence 19.3 will be revised for MAF Round VII.  Please refer to the assessment for details.

20.1 Management Engagement – Service and CLF: Opportunity for Improvement

• The institution may have committees or sub-committees which consider and/or make decisions about service. Such committees or sub-committees may not be composed of senior management accountable for services. The institution, however, does not have a committee which is responsible for making decisions about and overseeing service at the institutional level.
• There are limited 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 are priorities and goals for service, but not always at the institutional level; these limited priorities and goals are set by senior management based on the use of limited performance evidence.
• There has been no monitoring or no steps to set up monitoring of progress towards the achievement of goals by senior management.
• There is little monitoring by senior management to ensure that the requirements of CLF 2.0 are being met institution-wide; there is limited information on which to make decisions and course correction.

20.2 Public/client views: Strong

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

20.3 Official Languages: Strong

• Analysis of the Annual Review on OL shows the institution is fully meeting its obligations.
• No complaint or minimal number of founded complaints exits.
• The institution has the necessary linguistic capacity to serve the public in both OL.