ARCHIVED - MAF Assessment: Department of Justice 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.
• 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.

2.1 PAA Consistency: Acceptable

• The Strategic Outcome(s) reflects the departmental area of influence and is/are adequately aligned with the organization’s mandate.

2.2 Measurability: Acceptable

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

2.3 Quality:

• The performance indicators are not clear and cannot be used for data collection to provide reliable insight into program effectiveness.
• Expected results are not clear and distinct, and are not appropriate to their respective program descriptions.
• Outputs are not clearly identified as products/services and are seldom aligned with their expected results.

3.1 Business Plan: Strong

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

3.2 Governance Structure: Strong

• Management oversight of the organization's program activities is clearly evident.
• Organization's corporate governance structure is fully aligned to the organization's PAA.
• Recordkeeping is generally complete and current (minutes of meetings and records of discussion, decision, and follow-up).
• 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.

4.2 Participation in Priority Initiatives: Opportunity for Improvement

• The organization’s commitments are somewhat clear.
• The organization contributes effectively to Public Service Renewal.

4.3 Portfolio Coordination: Acceptable

• The Department’s portfolio coordination is effective.

Justice Canada has been assessed on its participation in Web of Rules - Opportunity for Improvement, and Public Service Renewal - Acceptable, and on its portfolio coordination efforts.

5.1 Supporting Information: Strong

• Adequate information is submitted for business cases.
• Policy and budget authorities are usually 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.

5.2 Analysis: Strong

• Appropriate and complete links to MRRS, strategic objectives, etc., are evident.
• Business cases may have comprehensive information and demonstrate good analysis.
• Generally, the correct policy authorities are used.
• Sustained capacity for appropriate performance measurement or evaluation analysis is quite evident.
• Sustained capacity for appropriate responses to TBS comments is demonstrated.
• Sustained capacity to analyze value for money, effectiveness and efficiency is strong.

5.3 Consultations: Acceptable

• Established capacity to initiate consultations with TBS with sufficient lead time is evident.
• Organization is always, or virtually always, able to avoid lateness by predicting and planning for uncontrollable factors.
• Submissions are usually on time (six weeks before TB meetings).

5.4 Quality control: Strong

• A highly rigorous and effective quality control process is followed for all TB submissions.
• All important information is usually included in the first draft.
• Clarity and consistency of language are good.
• 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: Strong

• All evaluations submitted to TBS employ appropriate methodologies to gather data and inform the analysis.
• All evaluations submitted to TBS include analysis of the limitations of the methodology and data sources used. Evaluations also include mitigation strategies to address the limitations.
• All evaluations submitted to TBS present findings, conclusions and recommendations that are supported by the evidence found in the evaluation report. The report also discusses the degree of validity and reliability of the evidence.
• 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.
• The large majority of evaluations submitted to TBS consistently address relevance, success, and effectiveness. They also address cost-effectiveness.
• The majority of evaluations submitted to TBS include a management response and an action plan detailing timelines and management accountabilities.

6.2 Neutrality: Acceptable

• Evaluation function resourcing is commensurate with the organizational evaluation plan.
• 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: Strong

• 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. Year to year percent coverage indicates organization is on track to achieve 100% coverage.
• 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 evaluation coverage of its program base (e.g. over a five-year cycle). Current annual coverage is over 15% of direct program expenditures. The organization has a demonstrated track record of completing planned evaluations.

6.4 Usage: Strong

• 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, documented, 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 rarely 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 almost always brought for consideration in TB submissions, Memorandum to Cabinet, RPPs, DPR and Strategic Reviews.

7.1 MRRS Basis: Opportunity for Improvement

• Some performance is reported against plans and expected results from the RPP.
• Some linkages between resources and results are made in the reports.

7.3 Context: Acceptable

• Comparisons are generally effectively and consistently used in the DPR.
• DPR is not balanced – a few negative aspects of performance may be reported but insufficient explanation is provided.

8.1 Change plan: Acceptable

• An organizational change plan exists, but it is only focused on some areas of the organization.
• 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.

9.1 Engagement: Acceptable

• Senior management encourages effective Risk Management and a risk-smart culture.
• Senior management has reviewed/approved the Corporate Risk Profile within the past year.
• Senior management has not reviewed 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.
• Senior management somewhat ensures that the organization’s Risk Management approach is tailored to the specific needs of the organization.
• Accountability for key risks is assigned to 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 regularly communicated to staff and stakeholders.

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 inconsistently prioritized into key risks.
• Risk information and Risk Management principles are adequately captured in senior management reporting.
• The organization makes inconsistent 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.
• The organization has implemented most recommendations provided during its last MAF assessment.
• 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.
• 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.

DOJ showed sustained effort and commitment to developing an integrated risk management framework and CRP for the department this MAF Round.  Also, following the formative evaluation report on the Legal Risk Management Initiative, DOJ developed a broad action plan responding to the report’s recommendations.  It’s expected that these efforts will bring greater focus and coordination to government-wide LRM practices.

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: Strong

• Organization is representative of all 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 less than or equal to previous year's performance.

10.3 Healthy and safe: Opportunity for Improvement

• Employees feel recognized for positive performance.
• Evidence shows that the organization has an inadequately 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: Strong

• Organization is representative of all four employment equity designated groups.
• Progress against the previous year's performance on recruitment, promotion and separation for employment equity groups exceed 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: Acceptable

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

12.1 Governance: Strong

• IM requirements are fully integrated as a part of the approval, development, implementation, evaluation, and reporting of departmental policies, programs, services, and projects and mechanism are in place to continuously evaluate and modify the requirements.
• IM is fully represented in the corporate-wide governance structure and in the corporate-wide governance or approval committee(s).
• Extensive participation is evident in GC-wide approaches and initiatives related to developing, implementing, sharing, and leveraging IM policies and practices.

12.2 Strategy: Strong

• An approved and resourced IM strategy identifies support to business priorities and operations, information needs and accountabilities, IM policy considerations and is integrated with corporate strategies, plans, and planning cycles.
• An IM strategy implementation plan, including timelines and resources, is underway and achievements are evident. Mechanisms are in place to continuously evaluate and modify the plan.
• An IM awareness campaign or strategy is underway and all staff and executives are informed of their IM roles, responsibilities and accountabilities, and most have attended awareness / training sessions.

12.3 Privacy Act: Opportunity for Improvement

• Some 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: Strong

• Senior official for information technology has responsibility and accountability for virtually the full scope of information technology responsibilities.
• Organization actively participates and demonstrates leadership in setting government-wide directions for information technology.

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: Acceptable

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

14.3 Materiel Management: Acceptable

• Some elements of a materiel management framework are evident.
• Governance structures, approval processes and authority limits are documented and disseminated.
• Reliable and sufficiently integrated information systems are in place.

15.1 Governance and Oversight: Opportunity for Improvement

• There is no evidence of project governance or oversight mechanisms.
• There is no evidence that the organization has exceeded Treasury Board approval limits.

15.2 Effective Management of Project Resources: Opportunity for Improvement

• 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.
• 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: 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 project milestones, deliverables and outcomes are documented.
• 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.

DOJ has outlined the presence of a project management process including organization-wide project governance and results-focused oversight. However evidence has not been provided.

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.
• Mandatory training underway.
• Qualified procurement human resources exist.
• Some staff enrolled in the Professional Development and Certification program.
• Timely and accurate procurement financial and non-financial reports have been submitted.

17.1 Authorities and Policies: Acceptable

• Audit report results show evidence of solid financial management practices.
• 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 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 solid financial management practices.
• 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 meets or nearly meets the requirements of the reporting guidelines.

17.2 Public Accounts Reporting: Strong

• Few Central Financial Management Reporting System (CFMRS) coding errors.
• Ninety to 96% (Grade A) of Public Accounts reporting plates submitted on time.
• No errors found during the course of the OAG Public Accounts audit.

17.3 Management Capacity: Acceptable

• A reasonable amount of training is provided for the financial management organization.
• A reasonable proportion of 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 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 a very low proportion of the FI segment of the financial management organization.
• Some processes in support of a sound succession plan for key positions are in place.
• There is a position (or positions) established in the financial management organization that is dedicated to community management and development.
• There is an acceptable functional relationship between the CFO/SFO and FI positions that exist outside the financial management organization. *This row is only applicable where the department or agency indicates there are FI positions outside the financial management organization.

17.4 Financial Statements: Strong

• All concerns identified in the audit readiness assessment are addressed in a detailed action plan.
• Most significant known financial internal control weaknesses are remedied.
• 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 good 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 one month after period end.
• The process for reviewing information before it is presented to senior management to ensure no material errors or omissions is well 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 department maintained its overall rating of Acceptable, the rating for its compliance with financial legislative authorities and policies decreased while significant improvements were made in the quality, timeliness and accuracy of reporting for the Public Accounts as well as in the strength of its financial management capacity.

18.1 Internal Audit governance: Acceptable

• 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.
• Chief Audit Executive reports solely and exclusively to the Deputy Head.
• 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 an approved Departmental Audit Committee Charter in line with the 2006 Policy on Internal Audit.

18.2 Internal Audit Professional Practices: Acceptable

• The Risk-Based Audit Plan was approved by the Deputy Head and sent to the Office of the Comptroller General in a very timely manner.
• Annual Risk-Based Audit Plan methodology is evident and applied.
• There is evidence of preparation to provide for holistic assurance.
• All post-engagement follow-up activities are clearly identified.
• There is complete and comprehensive identification of planned use of all audit function resources.
• Vast majority of planned work is 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.
• Reasonable 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 somewhat timely manner.
• Approved assurance products are made accessible to the public in a somewhat 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.
• The department or agency provides notification to the Treasury Board Secretariat on issues of importance on an ad hoc basis or is aware of this requirement.

18.3 Administration of the Internal Audit Function: Strong

• Some elements of a comprehensive Human Resources Plan have been documented, and evidence of recruitment and external resourcing activity exists.
• 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 identified exceeds the resource level identified in 2007.
• Planned FTEs dedicated to internal audit have dropped when compared to the resource level identified in the planned internal audit function’s budget for 2008-2009.

18.4 Internal Audit Performance: Strong

• A comprehensive 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.
• Extensive periodic reporting on the follow-up of Management Action Plans is evident.

DOJ has maintained ongoing momentum towards the achievement of the fundamental requirements of the 2006 Policy on Internal Audit. Progress has been made in Internal Audit Governance, Professional Practices and Reporting on Audit Results.

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): Strong

• Organization fully complies with Management of Information Technology Security (MITS) requirements.
• Organization demonstrates leadership and contributes to the government-wide Information Technology security program.

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.
• Some deficiencies in meeting key BCP program requirements.
• Business Continuity Planning (BCP) program governance has been established.
• Business Impact Analysis (BIA) has been completed to identify and prioritize the organization's critical services and assets.
• Establishment of business continuity plans and arrangements is in progress.
• Maintenance cycle has been put in place to review, test and audit business continuity plans.

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 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 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 monitoring of progress by senior management towards the achievement of the institution-wide goals for service, with course correction if necessary.

20.2 Public/client views: Acceptable

• Evidence of incorporating feedback in the implementation of its services, programs, policies or initiatives.
• Evidence of making consultation results available to the public.
• Few tools 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.