ARCHIVED - MAF Assessment: Canadian Heritage - 2008

1.1 Leadership: Strong

• Regarding Values and Ethics Leadership, the organization is maintaining its Round V (2007-08) assessment of Strong. It has submitted a Management Assertion to CPSA that no significant changes have occurred within the organization to affect this rating.

1.2 Infrastructure: Strong

• Regarding Values and Ethics Plans, the organization is maintaining its Round V (2007-08) assessment of Strong. It has submitted a Management Assertion to CPSA that no significant changes have occurred within the organization to affect this rating.
• Regarding Values and Ethics Risk Assessment and Mitigation, the organization is maintaining its Round V (2007-08) assessment of Strong. It has submitted a Management Assertion to CPSA that no significant changes have occurred within the organization to affect this rating.

1.3 Culture: Strong

• Regarding the Current State of Organizational Values and Ethics, the organization is maintaining its Round V (2007-08) assessment of Strong. It has submitted a Management Assertion to CPSA that no significant changes have occurred within the organization to affect this rating.

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: Strong

• All elements of the Program Activity Architecture are in alignment with the Strategic Outcome(s).

2.3 Quality:

• 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: Canadian Heritage introduced a Corporate Human Resources Management Plan for the Department. Branches produced a business plan that addressed resource allocation and risk management.

3.2 Governance Structure: The organization's governance structure was aligned to the PAA.  Adequate management oversight of program activities and underlying programs was evident.

4.1 Leadership of Priority Initiatives: Strong

• Senior management engages participants with regards to the initiative, and participants are satisfied with engagement efforts.
• The organization has established a highly effective management structure for its initiative, including clear roles and responsibilities, outcomes and an engagement strategy.
• The organization shows strength in leadership of its priority interdepartmental initiative.

4.2 Participation in Priority Initiatives: Acceptable

• Senior management is engaged in all the initiatives.
• An internal management structure has been established to manage the organization’s participation in priority initiatives.
• The organization's commitments are clear and are consistent with its role.

4.3 Portfolio Coordination: Acceptable

• Substantial attention is paid to the responsibility for portfolio affairs.
• The Department’s portfolio coordination is effective.
• Adequate attention paid to developing coherent policy or program approaches across portfolio.

TBS has assessed Canadian Heritage with regards to its leadership of the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympics (Strong), 400th Anniversary of Québec (Strong) and Official Languages Roadmap (Acceptable) initiatives, as well as its participation in the Public Service Renewal (Acceptable) and Web of Rules (Strong) initiatives.

5.1 Supporting Information: Demonstrated a capacity to produce accurate and reliable TB submissions. Level of detail remains uneven.

5.2 Analysis: Improved processes but consistency and stronger results have yet to be seen.

5.3 Consultations: Solid capacity to manage timelines. Communicated openly with TBS.

5.4 Quality Control: Improving.

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 a management response and an action plan detailing implementation strategies, timelines and management accountabilities.
• 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.

6.2 Neutrality: Strong

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

6.3 Coverage: Strong

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

• More than 80% of RMAFs are implemented. Program managers are required to commit to implementation timelines for RMAFs and other performance measurement system. Management action is taken on non-delivery.
• Active, documented, systematic and regular tracking of management action plans arising from evaluation recommendations is in place.
• 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

• RPP and DPR present a clear PAA (with crosswalks as necessary).
• Some performance is reported against plans and expected results from the RPP.

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: Opportunity for Improvement

• DPR is not balanced – a few negative aspects of performance may be reported but insufficient explanation is provided.
• Reports adequately present the strategic context and operating environment information including challenges, risks, opportunities and capacities.

8.1 Canadian Heritage managed change on an ongoing but ad-hoc basis.

8.2 Canadian Heritage regularly communicated with both management and employees.

8.3 The results of the department’s change management efforts were mixed. Canadian Heritage demonstrated a strong capacity for learning opportunities.

9.1 Engagement: Acceptable

• Accountability for key risks is assigned to senior management and performance is assessed.
• 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

• The organization’s Risk Management approach is regularly communicated to staff and stakeholders.
• 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.

9.3 Integration: Acceptable

• Risk information and Risk Management principles are adequately captured in senior management reporting.
• Operational level risks are prioritized into key risks.
• 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 inconsistent course corrections based on Risk Management performance and new information.

9.4 Continuous Improvement: Acceptable

• Key risk information was adequately gathered from internal sources of the organization for preparing the CRP.
• The organization adequately builds on past experience, better practice, and adjusts to fit any changes in management structures, priorities or strategic direction.
• It is not evident that corporate risks are linked to the organization’s strategic outcomes.
• Some relevant external sources are consulted during the development of the organization’s CRP.
• The CRP provides a reliable assessment of the quality of risk information used.
• The organization has implemented some recommendations provided during its last MAF assessment.

Canadian Heritage (PCH) should be commended on moving towards an integration of its risk identification, assessment and mitigation processes – which take form through its Corporate Risk Profile – with its business and organizational planning cycles. Over the past year PCH has also been moving forward on its risk management of Grants and Contributions, piloting a new tool to improve its management performance in this area.

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 demonstrates the necessary linguistic capacity to provide personal and central services and supervision in both official languages.
• Organization is representative of all four employment equity designated groups.
• Promotions among employment equity groups are greater than or equal to 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: 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: 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.
• Necessary linguistic capacity is in place as is shown by the vast majority of incumbents of bilingual positions who meet the language requirements of their position.
• Progress against the previous year's performance on recruitment, promotion and separation for employment equity groups is less than the organization's average for all employees.
• Promotions among employment equity groups are greater than or equal to representation.
• Work instruments, electronic systems and communications with employees are always or nearly always available in both official languages.

11.3 Sustainable: Acceptable

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

11.4 Adaptable: Strong

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

12.1 Governance: Acceptable

• IM requirements are somewhat integrated as a part of the approval, development, implementation, evaluation, and reporting of departmental policies, programs, services, or projects.
• Responsibilities are identified for IM policy development and implementation consistent with the GC IM Strategy and policy instruments.
• Some participation is evident in GC-wide approaches and initiatives related to developing, implementing, sharing and leveraging IM policies and practices.

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.

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: Acceptable

• A significant number of institution-specific Classes of Records do not meet Treasury Board Secretariat requirements.

13.1 Leadership: Strong

• The senior official has responsibility and accountability for the full scope of information technology responsibilities and ensures that information technology supports organizational outcomes.
• Organization actively participates and demonstrates leadership in setting government-wide directions for information technology.

13.2 Planning: Strong

• A comprehensive information technology plan is in place and it aligns with the government-wide directions for information technology and with departmental business needs.
• Information technology management position is held by a highly engaged senior official designated within the corporate governance structure and related planning processes.

13.3 Value: Acceptable

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

14.2 Real Property Management: Acceptable

• All elements of a real property management framework are implemented.
• Certification of information in the DFRP is received and accepted.
• Comprehensive internal policies are documented and disseminated.
• Experience and best practices are shared internally and government-wide.

14.3 Materiel Management: Acceptable

• Governance structures, approval processes and authority limits are documented and disseminated.
• Some elements of a materiel management framework are evident.
• Experience and best practices are shared internally and government-wide.

15.1 Governance and Oversight: Opportunity for Improvement

• Business cases support some project proposals, but are not required for all 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 are no formal or established processes for approving projects and approval decisions are not consistently 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: 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.

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 of project monitoring and reporting activities or of a project review mechanism.
• There is no evidence that lessons learned are used to improve project management governance and oversight.
• 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: 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).
• Organization prepares an annual procurement plan.

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.
• 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 deficiencies that are of serious concerns.
• 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 deficiencies that are of serious concern.
• 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.

17.2 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 low proportion of FIs or management team members in the financial management organization have current, approved learning plans.
• A reasonable amount of training is provided for 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.
• 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.
• There is a position (or positions) established in the financial management organization that is dedicated to community management and development.
• There is no meaningful 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: Acceptable

• All concerns identified in the audit readiness assessment are addressed in a detailed action plan.
• Several known financial internal control weaknesses remain unremedied.
• 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 comprehensive discussion and analysis.
• The internal financial reporting package is presented to senior management less than one month after period end.
• The internal financial reporting package is presented to senior management six to seven 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 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, its financial management capacity improved from and OFI to an Acceptable.

18.1 Internal Audit governance: Strong

• 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 ahead of schedule.
• Chief Audit Executive reports solely and exclusively to the Deputy Head.
• An independent Departmental Audit Committee is in place.
• There is a Departmental Audit Committee Charter in line with the 2006 Policy on Internal Audit.
• There is an approved Departmental Audit Committee Annual Plan for fiscal year 2008-2009.
• The Departmental Audit Committee has met at least four times over the past twelve months.
• There is a written statement indicating that a Departmental Audit Committee Annual Report will be produced for fiscal year 2008-2009 and future years.

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 an untimely manner.
• Annual Risk-Based Audit Plan methodology is, for the most part, evident and applied.
• There is evidence of preparation to provide for holistic assurance.
• There is limited identification of post-engagement follow-up activities.
• 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 reasonably timely manner.
• Approved assurance products are made accessible to the public in a reasonably timely manner.
• Post-engagement follow-up process is well documented, and recommendations are followed up using a risk-based approach.
• The department or agency provides limited notification to the Treasury Board Secretariat on the posting of reports.

18.3 Administration of the Internal Audit Function: Acceptable

• Recruitment and external resourcing activities are guided by a documented Human Resources Plan.
• 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 maintain the resource levels identified in 2007.
• Planned FTEs dedicated to internal audit have grown comparatively to 2007-2008. They exceed the resource level identified in the planned internal audit function’s budget for 2008-2009.

18.4 Internal Audit Performance: Acceptable

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

The Chief Audit Executive reports solely and exclusively to the Deputy Head. The Departmental Audit Committee is in place, and has met four times within the past year and there is a DAC Annual Plan.

19.1 Departmental Security Program: Acceptable

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

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

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

19.3 Business Continuity Planning (BCP): Attention Required

• Organization does not have measures in place to provide for the continuity of critical business operations and services.
• Several deficiencies in meeting key BCP program requirements.
• Business Continuity Planning (BCP) program governance has not been fully established.
• Business Impact Analysis (BIA) has not been completed to identify and prioritize the organization's critical services and assets.
• Significant deficiencies in establishing business continuity plans and arrangements.
• Significant deficiencies in establishing a maintenance cycle 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 are fully documented and communicated priorities and goals for service at the institutional level; these priorities and goals are set by senior management based on the systematic use of comprehensive performance evidence.
• There is a well-established committee at the institutional level, composed of senior management accountable for service, which has a fully 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 systematic and frequent monitoring of progress by senior management towards the achievement of the institution-wide goals for service, with timely course correction if necessary.

20.2 Public/client views: Acceptable

• Few tools used to obtain views from clients.
• Little evidence of incorporating feedback in the implementation of its services, programs, policies and initiatives.
• Strong evidence of making consultation results available to the public.
• 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.