This page has been archived.
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.
Throughout the study, we observed that certain elements described in the Framework have been adopted within TBS. We found that certain practices are more effective than others as TBS monitoring tools. We also observed that policy areas generally understood the level of risk, a fundamental component of the Framework. However there is an inconsistent application of the monitoring elements throughout TBS.
After completing our interviews with the representatives of the TBS policy centres and departments, we summarized our understanding of the effective monitoring practices, areas for consideration, level of risk, and constraints to monitoring for each of the policies in the sample. We met again with the TBS policy centre representatives to confirm our understanding, to present the Framework and to discuss it in relation to the policy.
Next we completed an analysis by assessing the effectiveness of each of the Framework elements for each of the 13 policies in the sample that were identified as medium to high risk. We combined the assessments of effectiveness for these individual policies and generated a relative effectiveness rating for each of the Framework elements. The overall rating of effectiveness for any element is influenced by the number of policies in which the element is present and by the assessed effectiveness of the element in each of the policies.
We have illustrated the results of this analysis in the bar chart in Figure 4. Each bar represents one of the leading practices defined previously in the report by Framework element and is measured against our assessment of a low, medium or high effectiveness rating.
There are a number of elements of the Framework that appear to be effectively used by TBS. For example, as illustrated by the bar chart in Figure 4, "Working Groups and Committees" and "Advice to Departments" have been assessed as effective practices. There are some other elements in the Framework, such as "Intelligence Gathering" and "Integration with Key TBS Financial Processes", which we consider less important for TBS to address than others. We will not discuss the elements in these two groups further in the report; however, summary observations, including TBS effective practices, are presented in a table in Section 4.2.10.
We observed that some of the other elements included in the Framework, such as "Committed Funding" are not consistently applied and provide opportunities for improvement. We consider other elements of the Framework, such as "Key Performance Indicators" to be very important and require special attention. In the next section, we set out our observations and discuss our recommendations for improvement for the eight Framework elements that fall into these two groups.
The Framework has defined nineteen elements for effective policy monitoring. We have identified nine of these elements with areas for improvement, including eight that were selected from the chart in Figure 4, plus level of risk. The nine elements are:
These are described in the following sections. Recommendations are included in the areas for consideration.
Observation
There is an absence of systematic and formalized ranking and monitoring of the level of risk associated with the policies.
Historically the number of policies has continued to grow in number without any significant elimination or consolidation of less relevant or outdated policies. As a result, TBS has directed each of its business lines to review the number and content of policies and improve upon their effectiveness.
Areas for Consideration
Risk management is a one of the four levels of focus in the Framework for Policy Monitoring. This is consistent with the TBS Management Accountability Framework and modern management practices.
We recommend that TBS establish a standard set of criteria for evaluating risks associated with each policy area. Criteria would include the impact on departments and departmental risk areas. Additional steps for consideration include:
Observation
Generally the policy objectives and monitoring requirements supporting the TBS policies we studied are broad statements without clarity of outcomes or success criteria. New policies being developed are focusing attention on improved clarity around outcomes, key performance indicators and roles and responsibilities. For example, the policy on Continuous Learning adopted a different policy format from traditional TBS policies by presenting departmental commitments, expectations, timeframes and providing a detailed description of roles and responsibilities.
Areas for Consideration
As part of TBS' policy renewal effort, we suggest creating improved policy objectives and outcomes that reflect the following:
Observation
The establishment and monitoring of key performance indicators that support policy outcomes was the most significant gap from the sample of policies studied. Improvements in data and information capture infrastructure and tracking of performance indicators has been an area of increased focus for TBS policies under development (e.g., Employment Equity uses performance indicators to measure performance).
Areas for Consideration
We recommend that TBS continue with the establishment of key performance indicators (KPIs) as a key requirement for policy development and monitoring. Steps for consideration include:
Observation
A common issue raised by TBS interviewees was that limited resources adversely impacts TBS' ability to conduct policy monitoring and reporting. Furthermore, TBS has faced staff retention issues and its ability to attract top talent in policy areas has been a challenge.
In the case of most policies studied, A-Base funding provides resources to the policy centres within TBS. Although we did not study the level of resources assigned by policy, it is apparent that the amount of resources and consequently the approach for monitoring varies considerably within TBS. In some cases the variation in monitoring can be explained by the level of risk associated with the policy. However, in others, the relationship between risk and resources was not apparent.
In the case of two policy areas (Modern Controllership - Integrated Risk Management and Federal Contaminated Sites Accelerated Action Plan- Contaminated Sites Management Policy) implementation is supported by project funding.
Areas for Consideration
We recommend that TBS assign resources to monitoring activities by adopting the following strategies:
Observation
TBS continues to evaluate its reporting requirements with departments through various initiatives including the Management Accountability Framework.
Reporting tends to be statistical with limited follow-up by TBS. Reporting practices varied considerably within the sample of policies studied. These include the following:
Qualitative analysis was minimal and was generally attributed to lack of TBS resources.
Areas for Consideration
We recommend adoption of additional ways to enhance monitoring and reporting including the following:
Observation
Our study identified a number of effective practices for policy implementation which include the following:
Areas for Consideration
In addition to the effective TBS implementation tools referred to above, we recommend TBS consider more consistent adoption of the following practices to assist in monitoring policy implementation:
Observation
From the policies studied, we observed several practices demonstrating executive leadership from TBS and key stakeholder departments that supported policy direction, development, and monitoring. The Clerk of the Privy Council also provides leadership in some areas in terms of establishing government-wide management priorities. The leading practices we observed include:
Areas for Consideration
For high-risk policy areas, we recommend that TBS develop an escalation protocol and procedures within TBS and with departments to report performance exceptions to TBS executives. This will require establishment of ongoing reporting and analysis of policy outcome gaps.
Observation
The study revealed that TBS is challenged by resource constraints impacting active follow-up and monitoring of policy outcomes and performance. Follow-up and reporting does not appear to be consistent and systematic.
Areas for Consideration
We recommend that consideration be given to improve the mechanisms for information sharing within TBS and to convert information into actionable items for correction including:
Observation
A majority of the policies studied make reference to reliance on the conduct of departmental internal audits as the key, and in many cases, sole identified monitoring mechanism. However, these specific responsibilities are not consistent with the role of internal audit. The Policy on Internal Audit affirms the function of internal audit as a provider of assurance services to departmental management. Audit engagements are structured to the specific needs of the organization, as determined through risk assessments and consultation with senior management. While internal audits provide assurance that the appropriate monitoring and control frameworks are in place, they should not be considered the primary mechanism for monitoring and reporting on individual policies. Internal audit plans are department focused and therefore do not provide consistent coverage across the government.
Evaluations are distinct from audits. While audit provides assurance services, evaluation is a management tool that has two main purposes:
There are nine policies in the study sample with a specific requirement for departmental internal audits or evaluations of the policy. However, Contracting, Transfer Payments and Government Security Policy are the only policies where we found that internal audits or evaluations are being completed.
We observed that information from departmental audits is not easily shared and disseminated in a meaningful way within TBS. Internal audit reports are circulated across TBS, and are reviewed independently in many areas, but there does not appear to be a centralized approach to assessing the impact of the information contained the audit reports.
Area for Consideration
We recommend that the requirement for internal audits of compliance of specific policies be discontinued as a generic policy requirement since it does not reflect the way in which internal auditing is planned and conducted. The risk-based audit approach undertaken by TBS and departments does not align with the specific policy monitoring required for TBS and departments. Internal audit should be viewed as a provider of assurance over and above the other monitoring and reporting mechanisms adopted for policies. If appropriate, the policy could refer to the role of internal audit by making reference to the Policy on Internal Audit.
We also recommend that consideration be given to identify emerging risks and share audit results including:
In developing the Framework, a number of effective TBS monitoring activities from select policies were identified and are included as key elements. These are briefly listed in the table below.
Element of Framework |
TBS Policies |
TBS Effective Practice |
Existing Legislation External Bodies |
Employment Equity Official Language Access to Information |
|
Effective Working Groups/Committees |
Federal Contaminated Sites Management Policy Integrated Risk Management (IRM) Official Languages |
|
Integration with Key TBS Financial Processes |
Contaminated Sites Management Policy Privacy Impact Assessment |
|
Executive Level Reporting |
Employment Equity Official Language Access to Information |
|
Communications |
Integrated Risk Management |
|
Intelligence gathering |
Various |
|
Knowledge Sharing Tools |
Privacy Impact Assessment Integrated Risk Management Contracting |
|
Advice to departments |
Government Security Policy |
|
Strong Relationships with departments |
Contaminated Sites Management Policy Integrated Risk Management |
|
The senior management of Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) acknowledges the necessity of having effective policy monitoring practices in place at TBS and generally agrees with the recommendations stemming from this review, which aim to improve these practices at TBS.
Leading practices in policy monitoring activities at TBS were identified and presented in a Policy Monitoring Framework ("the Framework") as a tool for TBS to achieve a systematic approach to defining policy monitoring and reporting for policies that are developed in the future. It was suggested that adoption of the Framework would lead to improved policy monitoring.
We agree to take steps towards adopting the critical elements of the proposed Policy Monitoring Framework ("the Framework") outlined in the report including, as a priority, four of the nine recommended areas of focus plus one additional area:
On the issue of risk, we agree with the general proposals for evaluating the risks associated with each policy area, including the needs for periodic risk assessments to determine appropriate policy monitoring levels, and for ensuring the alignment of necessary capacity (resources and skills) to accomplish policy monitoring. Specific attention will be paid to the way in which high-risk policies are monitored, and how structured monitoring can be built in to the policy framework.
In the context of the present TBS Executive review of strategic business re-engineering initiatives (of which the TB Management Policy Review is one), we will review the internal distribution of resources to support the necessary monitoring of high-risk policies, and recommend necessary incremental investments or resource reallocations to that end. These decisions will be made during this fiscal year.
As recommended by the Review of Policy Monitoring, and consistent with the principles of the current TB Management Policy Review, we will continue to consider and implement improvements in the areas of:
In general, we will ensure that policy monitoring is conducted in a way consistent with the new approach to strategic oversight and risk assessment being adopted by TBS – including through related assessments of departmental and government-wide management and expenditure performance, based on the Management Accountability Framework. We will address the identified requirements for policy monitoring during the course of the TB Management Policy Review, whose main timelines for implementation are as follows:
General Remarks
The recommendations made in the review are meant to provide guidance to the TB Management Policy Review, as it proceeds to streamline TB policies and reporting requirements. Through the work of the TB Management Policy Review, a coherent and consistent approach to these recommendations will be taken across the policy suite.
The TB Management Policy Review will examine ways in which policy monitoring and reporting requirements can be better linked to the Management Accountability Framework and the Expenditure Management Information System. This will help to ensure better knowledge capacity, better knowledge transfer and less redundancy in the reporting of results.
The review suggests that "the requirement for internal audits of compliance of specific policies be discontinued as a general policy requirement since it does not reflect the way in which internal auditing is planned and conducted." Recognizing that risk-based audit planning practices are accepted across government, we appreciate the argument for discontinuing general policy requirements for internal audits of compliance within policies. We will look at possibilities for discontinuing the audit requirements articulated in specific policies, on a policy-by-policy basis. However, existing requirements will not be discontinued outright until other options for providing similar oversight capacity are identified and in place. Until then, the requirement for internal audits of compliance with specific policies will remain.
We would suggest that specific audit requirements within policy instruments should be contemplated for circumstances of generalized risk related to the policy, and in consultation with TBS internal audit policy experts. In the context of broader reviews (e.g. to strengthen compliance and sanctions related to the Financial Administration Act), we are presently exploring the range of mechanisms for ensuring effective compliance with policy and legislation. The resulting recommendations will influence how we address audit requirements in the TB policy suite.