ARCHIVED - MAF Assessment: Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs - 2008

1.1 Leadership: Acceptable

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

1.2 Infrastructure: Opportunity for Improvement

• Follow-up action by management to mitigate risks with regard to values and ethics is sporadic.
• Information on vulnerable and at-risk areas of the organization in regard to public service values and ethics is assessed by management in an ad hoc manner.
• 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: Opportunity for Improvement

• Organization has a limited understanding of the current state of public service values and ethics as a result of informal and non-validated information.

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.
• The Strategic Outcome(s) is at a reasonable level given the nature and resources of the organization but this must be confirmed by appropriate indicators.

2.2 Measurability: Opportunity for Improvement

• A partial inventory of programs has been developed but many listed programs do not meet the definition of a program.
• A Program Activity Architecture has been developed with major issues to be resolved.

2.3 Quality:

• The organization has developed a weak performance measurement framework.

3.1 Business Plan: Strong

• Human resources, IM/IT, communications and other key corporate plans are well integrated and communicated internally.
• Sector priorities, accountabilities, business plans and resource allocations are fully aligned.

3.2 Governance Structure: Strong

• Organization's corporate governance structure is fully aligned to the organization's PAA.
• Management oversight of the organization's program activities is clearly evident.
• Senior management sets priorities for and is briefed regularly on the work of the supporting governance structure.
• Recordkeeping is complete and timely. It clearly outlines accountabilities for follow-up action.

4.2 Participation in Priority Initiatives: Opportunity for Improvement

• Senior management has made some efforts to engage employees with regards to Public Service Renewal.
• There is an opportunity for the organization to improve its contribution to Public Service Renewal.

TBS has assessed the OFJA with regards to its participation in Public Service Renewal - Opportunity for Improvement.

5.1 Supporting Information: Strong

• Detail is robust.
• Explanation for the level of resources requested is fulsome.
• Funding aligns perfectly with project authorities.
• Organization has established a capacity to assemble usually accurate, reliable and complete supporting information in TB submissions.
• Policy and budget authorities are always identified.
• Response to TBS comments is excellent.
• Supporting information in TB submissions is always very accurate, reliable and complete.
• The organization is highly responsive to TBS feedback.

5.3 Consultations: Strong

• Organization is always, or virtually always, able to avoid lateness by predicting and planning for uncontrollable factors.

5.4 Quality control: Strong

• All important information is always included in the first draft.
• Description of resource requirements is clear.
• Submissions always have SFO or Head of Evaluation sign offs when appropriate.
• TBS feedback is always fully addressed.
• Very good writing and translation standard has been demonstrated.

6.1 Quality:

• GIVEN THE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITED RESOURCES OF SMALL ORGANIZATIONS, SMALL ORGANIZATIONS WERE NOT ASSESSED FOR MAF ROUND VI IN THE AREA OF QUALITY AND USE OF EVALUATION (AOM 6). SMALL ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD CONSULT THE NEW TREASURY BOARD POLICY ON EVALUATION (2009) FOR EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS IN 2009-10 AND FUTURE YEARS.

7.2 Credible information: Attention Required

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

7.3 Context: Attention Required

• DPR is not balanced – the positive performance reported is not well- substantiated and few negative aspects of performance are reported.
• DPR rarely uses comparisons or comparisons could be used more effectively.

8.1 Change plan: Acceptable

• Organizational change plan exists and is consistent with the scope of change identified.
• The organization has the capacity to evaluate whether or not change is required.

8.2 Engagement: Acceptable

• Change management related training programs are available to some components of the organizations.
• Individual and organization-wide change-related training programs are available.

8.3 Assessment: Acceptable

• Change plans and strategies are priorities across the organization.
• Results are apparent.

9.1 Engagement: Acceptable

• Senior management reviews the organization’s Risk Management approach within the current three-year planning cycle.
• The organization has a common risk assessment approach but it has not been approved by senior management.
• 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 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 do not appear to be 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 inconsistently 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 consistently linked to the organization’s strategic outcomes.
• 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.

This assessment period the office developed a formal CRP, an important step in creating a common corporate-level understanding of the key risks and challenges faced by the organization in delivering its mandate. Also, senior management continued take advantage of the organization's size and engaged in frequent formal and informal discussions about corporate risk issues.

10.1 Fair: Strong

• Classification program is at low to medium risk and an effective classification monitoring program is in place.
• 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.
• 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 equal or less than 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: Acceptable

• Evidence shows that the organization has an inadequately managed program to protect employees' occupational health and safety.
• The majority of employees feel recognized for positive performance.

11.1 Productive: Acceptable

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

11.2 Principled: Acceptable

• Adequate linguistic capacity is generally in place as shown by the majority of incumbents of bilingual positions who meet the language requirements of their position.
• Communications with and services to the public in both official languages are generally available.
• Employees consider that they generally can communicate in the official language of their choice within their organization and work instruments, electronic systems and communications in both official languages are generally available.
• 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: Opportunity for Improvement

• Evidence indicates some human resources planning integrated with business planning exists.
• Support by means of governance/organizational infrastructure is not always present.

11.4 Adaptable: Acceptable

• A sufficient 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).
• Some responsibilities are identified for IM policy development/ implementation.
• Some participation is evident in GC-wide approaches and initiatives related to developing, implementing, sharing and leveraging IM policies and practices.

12.2 Strategy: Attention Required

• Organization has no IM strategy or the existing strategy is outdated, inactive, and there are no existing plans to update.
• No plan to implement the strategy exists, or it is not resourced and funded.
• Negligible IM awareness activities are underway to help staff and executives understand their IM roles, responsibilities and accountabilities.
• No evidence of the new GC IM Policy Instruments (Policy on Information Management, Directive on IM Roles and Responsibilities).

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: 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 is developing service costing, asset management, performance measurement and reporting to ensure value delivery.

14.1 Investment Planning: Acceptable

• The organization’s investment planning process does not consider investments over multiple years.

14.3 Materiel Management: Acceptable

• Some elements of a materiel management framework are evident.
• Reliable and sufficiently integrated information systems are in place.

14.1 Investment Planning: Planned investments are documented in annual budget plans.

15.1 Governance and Oversight: Acceptable

• Business cases are not required and there is no evidence that they are used to support project proposals.
• 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 approval limits.

15.2 Effective Management of Project Resources: Opportunity for Improvement

• Little or no project management related training is available to employees.
• The organization’s funding models, which do not generate cost estimates at the work package level or consider historical and/or industry benchmarks, are not complete and project funds are not fully committed.
• There are no processes or procedures which ensure that planned projects have the required resources to achieve project outcomes.
• 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.
• There is no evidence that lessons learned are used to improve project management governance and oversight.
• There is no evidence that project milestones, deliverables and outcomes are documented.

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

• Informed decision making and oversight exist.
• 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.

17.1 Authorities and Policies: Acceptable

• 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 good financial management practices.
• 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 good 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.

17.2 Public Accounts Reporting: Strong

• Few Central Financial Management Reporting System (CFMRS) coding errors.
• Greater than 97% (Grade A) of Public Accounts plates completed on time.

17.3 Management Capacity: Acceptable

• A significant 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.

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 not accompanied by a 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 established.
• 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.

While the organization received an overall rating of acceptable, the internal financial reporting package is not accompanied by a discussion and analysis and the scope of its internal financial reporting package is limited.

The Office of the Commissioner of Federal and Judicial Affairs has elected to use the Small Department and Agency Audit Committee. The CFJA Management Committee will request an audit be performed if it feels there is a need for additional coverage based on the organization’s risk assessment.

19.1 Departmental Security Program: Opportunity for Improvement

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

19.2 Management of IT Security (MITS): Attention Required

• Organization has not achieved the three priority objectives that form the foundation for Management of Information Technology Security (MITS).
• Several deficiencies in meeting key MITS requirements.
• (Priority Objective #1) Information Technology security fundamentals have not been put in place, including appropriate people, processes and strategies, an effective Information Technology security organization, and a risk management program.

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: Acceptable

• There are 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 generally documented and communicated priorities and goals for service at the institutional level; these priorities and goals are generally set by senior management based on the use of 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 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.
• There is monitoring of progress by senior management towards the achievement of the institution-wide goals for service, with course correction if necessary.

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.