ARCHIVED - MAF Assessment: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency - 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

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

2.1 PAA Consistency: Acceptable

• The Strategic Outcome statement(s) can be understood within and outside the department as a benefit to Canadians, however its/their clarity should be improved.

2.2 Measurability: Acceptable

• An adequate Program Activity Architecture has been developed with some issues to be resolved.

2.3 Quality:

• Most outputs are clearly identified as products/services and are usually aligned with their expected results.
• Targets are adequately stated and are adequately linked to their performance indicators.
• The performance indicators are not clear and cannot be used for data collection to provide reliable insight into program effectiveness.

3.2 Governance Structure: Acceptable

• Organization's corporate governance structure is generally aligned to the organization's PAA.
• Recordkeeping is complete and timely. It clearly outlines accountabilities for follow-up action.
• Resource reallocation is generally proactive when or where required.
• Senior corporate management structure (e.g., committees) interacts with and provides oversight to the supporting governance structure.
• Senior corporate management structure or subordinate governance structure (e.g., committees) meet regularly.
• Corporate planning process generally aligns resources and accountabilities to priorities.
• Sector or branch business planning processes are generally aligned with the corporate planning process.

4.2 Participation in Priority Initiatives: Acceptable

• The organization contributes effectively to Public Service Renewal.

TBS has assessed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency as Acceptable with regard to its participation in Public Service Renewal.

6.1 Quality: Opportunity for Improvement

• Evaluations submitted to TBS discuss in a cursory way the limitations of the methodology and data sources used.
• Evaluations submitted to TBS sometimes but not consistently address questions of program relevance, success and effectiveness.
• Evaluations submitted to TBS sometimes include a management response and an action plan. Action plans are usually limited in scope.
• The majority of evaluations submitted to TBS consistently employ appropriate methodologies to gather data and inform the analysis.

6.2 Neutrality: Acceptable

• Evaluation function resourcing is commensurate with the organizational evaluation plan.
• Some resources dedicated to evaluations are directed by the Head of Evaluation, some resources are directed by the program base.

6.3 Coverage: Opportunity for Improvement

• 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

• The results of evaluations are rarely brought for consideration in TB submissions, Memorandum to Cabinet, RPPs, DPRs and Strategic Reviews.

This is the first time that the CEAA is being rate for AoM 6 (Evaluation). CEAA maintains an evaluation function, with a corporate unit that produces one to two evaluations per year. CEAA's evaluation function has some of the features that are desirable in a robust evaluation function. At the same time, there are areas for improvement that would help enhance evaluation quality, neutrality, coverage and utilization.

7.1 MRRS Basis: Acceptable

• Good links between performance and plans are present.
• Some linkages between resources and results are made in the reports.

7.2 Credible information: Opportunity for Improvement

• DPR rarely provides independently verifiable evidence-based performance information.
• Informative financial tables are included and explained with text, as necessary.
• Linkages between PA and Strategic Outcome (SO) level performance are generally made in the DPR.
• Little or no information on the validity and credibility of data used is provided.

7.3 Context: Opportunity for Improvement

• DPR is not balanced - a few negative aspects of performance may be reported but insufficient explanation is provided.
• DPR uses some comparisons, but they are not effective.
• Reports adequately present the strategic context and operating environment information including challenges, risks, opportunities and capacities.
• There is insufficient discussion of lessons learned.

8.1 Change plan: Strong

• Comprehensive organizational change plan exists and matches the scope of change that has been identified.
• Established and robust capacity is in place to evaluate whether or not change is required.

8.2 Engagement: Strong

• A learning culture exists within the organization.
• Comprehensive change management related training programs are available throughout the organization.
• Employees and stakeholders are actively engaged at all phases and are committed to advancing strategies and initiatives.

8.3 Assessment: Opportunity for Improvement

• Assessment plans exist but are limited in scope and detail.
• Change plans and strategies are priorities only for those responsible for delivery.
• Results are not apparent.
• The organization does not effectively assess change plans.

9.1 Engagement: Acceptable

• Senior management reviews the organization's Risk Management approach on a regular basis - scanning the environment to anticipate changes. This takes place often during the three-year planning cycle.
• The organization has a common risk assessment approach and it has been approved by senior management.
• Senior management somewhat 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 encourages effective Risk Management and a risk-smart culture.
• Accountability for key risks is assigned to senior management.

9.2 Implementation: Opportunity for Improvement

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

9.3 Integration: Acceptable

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

9.4 Continuous Improvement : Acceptable

• Most relevant external sources are consulted during the development of the organization's CRP.
• Key risk information was adequately gathered from internal sources of the organization for preparing the CRP.
• Corporate risks are inconsistently linked to the organization's strategic outcomes.
• The CRP provides an inconsistent 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.

Senior management has begun to take a more active role in encouraging and practising risk management in the organization. The agency's OPS Committee meets bi-weekly where risk management appears to be one of the topics required for discussion. Also, senior management accountability for risks or risk areas have been identified and assigned.

10.1 Fair: Acceptable

• Organization is undertaking action to improve the classification program in accordance with its level of risk.

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.
• Organization progress remains unchanged from the previous year in representation, recruitment, promotions and separations of the four employment equity groups.
• Promotions among employment equity groups are greater than or equal to previous year's performance.
• Separations among employment equity groups are equal or greater than 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: 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: Strong

• A significant 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.
• Organization is under-represented in one or more of the four employment equity designated groups.
• 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.

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: Opportunity for Improvement

• 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 somewhat represented in the corporate-wide governance or approval committee(s).
• Responsibilities for IM policy development/implementation not identified.

12.2 Strategy: Opportunity for Improvement

• Organization has no IM strategy or the existing strategy is outdated, inactive, and there are no existing plans to update.
• A plan to implement the strategy is in development but it lacks timelines or resource estimates.
• Minimal IM awareness activities are underway to help staff and executives understand their IM roles, responsibilities and accountabilities.

12.3 Privacy Act: Attention Required

• Organization has no institution-specific descriptions of personal information under its control as required by the Privacy Act.
• Organization submitted an Annual Report to Parliament but did not address all of the mandatory reporting requirements.

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.
• Organization submitted an Annual Report to Parliament but did not address all of the mandatory reporting requirements.

13.1 Leadership: Acceptable

• The senior official has responsibility and accountability for the full scope of information technology responsibilities and ensures that information technology supports organizational outcomes.
• Adequate participation in setting government-wide directions for information technology is evident.

13.2 Planning: Attention Required

• No evidence of information technology plan exists.
• No efforts have been made to align corporate and information technology governance structures and planning processes.

13.3 Value: Attention Required

• No evidence exists of analysis and planning for the appropriate use of information technology shared services.
• No evidence exists of service costing, asset management, performance measurement and reporting.

14.1 Investment Planning: Acceptable

• The organization has a current long-term investment planning document that has been approved by the proper authority.
• The investment planning process integrates investments decisions across all asset classes.

14.3 Materiel Management: Acceptable

• All elements of a materiel management framework are evident.
• Governance structures, approval processes and authority limits are documented and disseminated.
• Comprehensive internal policies are documented and disseminated.
• Reliable and sufficiently integrated information systems are in place.
• 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.
• There is evidence of formal project governance and oversight mechanisms and that approved projects are generally linked with the strategic plans and priorities of the organization through established organization-wide procedures. Approval and corrective action decisions are documented.
• 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.
• 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

• The organization requires that outcomes are clearly defined for projects in business case documentation and most projects are subject to a review.
• The organization requires that project milestones, deliverables and outcomes are documented for major projects.
• There is evidence that the organization monitors project performance and uses this information to support corrective action.
• 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.

16.1 Governance and Oversight: Acceptable

• Clear links have been established between procurement activities and the organization-wide program plans, priorities and long-term investments.
• 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).

16.2 Meeting Operational Requirements: Acceptable

• Clear links to human resources planning are established (e.g., succession planning and recruitment strategies for procurement staff).
• Consistent procurement training is evident.
• Efficient and integrated procurement information systems and processes are in place.
• Informed decision making and oversight exist.
• Mandatory training underway.
• Procurement processes that contribute to cost savings and value for money are in use.
• Qualified procurement human resources exist.
• Results and reviews are used to continuously adjust current procurement management activities and future procurement plans.
• Timely and accurate procurement financial and non-financial reports have been submitted.

17.1 Authorities and Policies : Acceptable

• Departmental procedures, tools, training and support for those individuals delegated with Section 34 authority show evidence of solid 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 solid financial management practices.
• Departmental processes to provide individuals delegated Section 33 authority with the information necessary to assess and approve specific transactions and to assess the adequacy of Section 34 account verification show evidence of solid financial management practices.
• The reporting of external user fee information shows some omissions in relation to reporting guidelines.

17.3 Management Capacity: Strong

• 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.
• 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.
• Positions, the duties of which are being performed by an individual indeterminately appointed to that position, comprise all, or almost all, of the positions on the management team of the financial management organization.
• Some processes in support of a sound succession plan for key positions are in place.

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: Opportunity for Improvement

• 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 weak.
• The scope of the internal financial reporting package is limited.

17.6 Other Initiatives: Acceptable

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

The process for reviewing information before it is presented to the SFO/CFO to ensure no material errors or omissions is weak. The scope of the internal financial reporting package is limited. The internal financial reporting package is accompanied by a weak discussion and analysis.

The agency has a Corporate Risk Profile and a Risk-Based Audit Plan.

19.1 Departmental Security Program: Opportunity for Improvement

• Organization has a partially developed security program that contains some of the required policy elements.
• Several deficiencies in meeting key policy requirements for the departmental security program.

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

• 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 is a committee at the institutional level, composed of senior management accountable for service, which has a documented and communicated responsibility for making decisions about the overall management of service.
• There is limited monitoring of progress by senior management towards the achievement of the goals for service, making course correction difficult.
• 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.

20.2 Public/client views: Strong

• Evidence of incorporating feedback in the implementation of its services, programs, policies or initiatives.
• Evidence of making consultation results available to the public.
• Many strong tools are used to obtain views from clients.
• There are plans to obtain views from clients.
• 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.