March 2011
Recommended for approval to the Deputy Minister by Departmental Audit Committee on
Approved by the Deputy Minister on
Table of contents
- Acronyms used in this Report
- 1.0 Executive Summary
- 2.0 About the Audit
- 3.0 Findings and Recommendations
- 4.0 Overall Conclusion
- Appendix A : Audit Criteria
- Appendix B : Management Action Plan
Comments Received
If the following document is not accessible to you, please contact us to obtain other appropriate formats.
Acronym | Description |
---|---|
CANARIE | Canadian Network for the Advancement of Research, Industry and Education Inc. |
CAS | Comptrollership and Administration Sector |
CCA | Canadian Council of Academies |
CFI | Canada Foundation for Innovation |
CYBF | Canadian Youth Business Foundation |
FA/Ts&Cs | Funding Agreement/Terms and Conditions |
FAA | Financial Administration Act |
iICT | Intelligent Information and Communications Technology |
PSB | Programs and Services Board |
PSD | Programs and Services Directorate |
SBTB | Small Business and Tourism Branch |
SBTMS | Small Business, Tourism and Marketplace Services Sector |
SIS | Science and Innovation Sector |
SITT | Spectrum, Information Technologies and Telecommunications Sector |
TPP/D | Transfer Payments Policy and related Directives |
1.0 Executive Summary
1.1 Introduction
Industry Canada (IC or the Department) provides funding to 18 independent, arm's length organizations through various transfer payment programs. This funding is intended to support:
- Science and innovation
- Spectrum, information technologies and telecommunications; and
- Small business and marketplace services.
Identified herein as "single recipients", the 18 organizations are accountable to the Government of Canada in accordance with the provisions of their funding agreements with Industry Canada. In some cases, the organizations also receive funding from sources outside the federal government (e.g. universities, other levels of government, etc.)
Although the terms and conditions of the funding agreements with Industry Canada vary across recipients, the Department has an overall requirement to monitor recipient operations and performance to ensure compliance with Treasury Board's Policy on Transfer Payments. The Department can use a variety of procedures to carry out its monitoring and oversight role, including informal contact with recipients, attending recipient board meetings, performing evaluations, receiving/reviewing recipient reports, and requesting/conducting value-for-money or other audits.
Seven of the 18 recipient organizations were approved for funding during fiscal 2010/11. The total planned funding was $248 million (2009/10 — $289 million). The three largest organizations account for the vast majority (over 90%) of this funding. For 2010/11, the largest recipients were Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), Genome Canada and the Canadian Network for the Advancement of Research, Industry and Education Inc. (CANARIE).
Three different sectors within Industry Canada are involved in managing the 18 funding agreements, as follows:
- Science and Innovation Sector (SIS)—S&T Policy Advice Directorate, within the SIS Policy Branch, is responsible for monitoring 15 of the 18 funding agreements.
- Spectrum, Information Technologies and Telecommunications Sector (SITT)—The Policy and Strategic Planning Directorate within the Information and Communications Technologies Branch is responsible for monitoring two funding agreements.
- Small Business, Tourism and Marketplace Services Sector (SBTMS)—The Policy and Liaison Directorate, within SBTMS's Small Business and Tourism Branch (SBTB), is responsible for monitoring one funding agreement.
The overall objective of the audit was to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of governance, internal controls and risk management surrounding single recipient funding agreements. The audit criteria are detailed in Appendix A and are organized around the following lines of enquiry:
- Roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for the management of single recipient funding agreements are clearly defined and understood by those charged with governance.
- Agreement development of single recipient funding agreements takes a risk-based approach and the funding agreement includes performance measures focused on value-for-money performance.
- Approach to monitoring of single recipient funding agreements is supported by cost-effective oversight and control systems.
- Administrative requirements on single recipients are proportionate to the level of risk specific to the recipient, the materiality of funding, and the risk profile of applicants and recipients.
- Opportunities for collaboration and coordination of single recipient funding agreements are considered, as appropriate.
The scope of the audit included an assessment of the monitoring and oversight of funding agreements associated with single recipient transfer payments within the above-mentioned responsible sectors. It also included reviewing the monitoring and oversight responsibilities of Comptrollership and Administration Sector, and each program's collaboration with Legal Services, and Programs and Services Directorate.
Detailed testing included reviewing a sample of eight funding agreements, and addressed the fiscal periods 2007/08 through 2010/11.
1.2 Overall Conclusion
This audit indicated that the criteria associated with adequate and effective internal controls, governance and risk management were generally met, although some exceptions were identified.
Recommendations within the main body of this audit report address:
- opportunities to improve documentation standards as a means to better demonstrate compliance with monitoring and oversight requirements, and
- opportunities to leverage intra-departmental collaboration to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency and consistency of the monitoring and oversight of single recipients.
1.3 Main Findings
Governance
Roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for program management were clearly defined in the performance agreements.
Delegated authorities have been clearly assigned and respected.
Clear and effective lines of communication exist between Program Managers and the recipients and within the Department on results of monitoring activities.
Finding 1.0: There is no mechanism in place within Industry Canada to efficiently identify collaboration opportunities relating to administration of transfer payment programs.
Risk Management
An initial risk assessment for single recipients was completed by the sectors and documented as part of the Treasury Board submission process.
Finding 2.0: There is limited evidence to demonstrate the application of a risk-based approach in the development of funding agreement terms and conditions and monitoring strategies.
Internal Controls
The process for developing funding agreements appears to be appropriate and timely.
Amendments made are appropriately justified and authorized with supporting rationale.
Finding 3.0: There is limited evidence that Program Managers have reviewed and assessed performance indicators aimed at measuring cost-effectiveness and achievement of program outcomes.
Funding is paid to recipients in a timely, prudent and efficient manner that supports the achievement of objectives and is in accordance with the Financial Administration Act (FAA) and the Transfer Payments Policy and related Directives (TPP/D).
Adequate support is provided to recipients to ensure they have the tools to help them fulfill their reporting obligations.
Finding 4.0: File documentation does not always demonstrate sufficient monitoring of recipient information and follow-up.
1.4 Recommendations
Governance
Recommendation 1.0: The CFO of Industry Canada should consider opportunities to enhance collaboration within Industry Canada relating to transfer payment administration. For example, the mandate of the Programs and Services Board could be expanded to include a periodic discussion on collaboration such as sharing of best practices.
Risk Management
Recommendation 2.0: The Directors General of Information and Communications Technologies Branch, Small Business and Tourism Branch, and Policy Branch should implement practices to better demonstrate the performance of risk assessments and their linkage to development of both agreement terms and conditions and ongoing monitoring activities.
Internal Controls
Recommendation 3.0: The Program Managers should periodically review performance measurement strategies to ensure performance measures/indicators are valid, reliable, affordable, available, and relevant and include both qualitative and quantitative measures aligned with the funding agreement objectives.
Recommendation 4.0: The Program Managers should develop tools/templates or update existing tools/templates to ensure there is documented evidence of:
- Reviews of performance information (e.g. results of evaluations)
- Conclusions on adequacy and sufficiency of information received
- Potential impacts to a funding agreement as a result of a review; and
- Follow-up action taken (e.g. monitoring a recipient's plan to address the key findings of independent evaluations or audits).
1.5 Statement of Assurance
In my professional judgment as Chief Audit Executive, sufficient and appropriate audit procedures have been conducted and evidence gathered to support the accuracy of the findings provided and contained in this report. The findings are based on a comparison of the conditions, as they existed at the time, against pre-established audit criteria that were agreed to with management. The findings are applicable only to the entities examined and within the scope described herein. This audit was conducted in accordance wit the Internal Auditing Standards for the Government of Canada.
1.6 Audit Opinion
In my opinion, the management of Funding Agreements—Single Recipient Transfer Payments has no material weaknesses related to the governance processes. There are moderate risk exposures related to risk management and internal control processes where improvements are required.
Susan Hart
Chief Audit Executive,
Industry Canada
2.0 About the Audit
2.1 Background
Industry Canada (IC or the Department) has a mandate to help make Canadian industry more productive and competitive in the global economy, thus improving the economic and social well-being of Canadians.
As a complement to this departmental mandate, IC provides funding to 18 independent, arm's length organizations such as foundations, other not-for-profit organizations, etc. through various transfer payment programs. This funding is intended to support:
- Science and innovation
- Spectrum, information technologies and telecommunications; and
- Small business and marketplace services.
These 18 organizations are accountable to the Government of Canada in accordance with the provisions of their funding agreements with Industry Canada. In some cases, the organizations also receive funding from sources outside the federal government (e.g. universities, other levels of government, etc.)
These programs vary in nature and duration, and support a variety of research and related initiatives in areas such as:
- Large-scale genomics and proteomics research
- Leading-edge digital infrastructure supporting Canadian researchers and innovators
- Biotechnology and life sciences
- Independent, science-based, expert assessments (studies) that inform public policy development in Canada
- Major issues affecting our society and our future through research, learning, scholarship and debate; and
- Collaborative research conducted by industry, university and government researchers, promoting the importance of the use of intelligent information and communications technology throughout the Canadian economy.
Funding decisions for transfer payment programs are announced in the annual Budget, which sets out the general parameters and purpose for the funding. IC's role begins with establishing and confirming the details of the required funding arrangement through the Treasury Board (TB) Submission process. Once TB approval has been obtained, IC develops a funding agreement (FA) that outlines the required terms and conditions (Ts&Cs) applicable to each recipient organization.
TB's 2008 Policy on Transfer Payments and related Directives (TPP/D) was developed to help ensure that transfer payment programs are managed with integrity, transparency and accountability in a manner that:
- is sensitive to risks,
- is citizen and recipient-focused, and
- addresses government priorities in achieving results for Canadians.
The Ts&Cs established in the FAs must be in accordance with the TPP/D. This requires extensive collaboration within IC sectors including Legal Services, the Programs and Services Directorate (PSD), Comptrollership and Administration Sector (CAS), and Evaluation; and externally with TB, Finance Canada, and the recipient organization.
Ts&Cs vary across recipients, but there is an overall requirement for IC to be accountable within its mandate for monitoring agreement operations and performance to ensure compliance with the TPP/D. By monitoring recipient adherence to the Ts&Cs in the FAs, the Department ensures that the Minister is able to account for the use of the funds and the results achieved.
IC uses a variety of procedures to monitor the FAs, including informal contact with the recipients, attending recipient board meetings, performing evaluations, receiving annual reports, requesting independent audits, and conducting performance audits or value-for-money audits.
Effective January 2011, three directorates representing three different IC sectors are involved in managing the funding agreements, as follows:
- Science and Innovation Sector (SIS):
S&T Policy Advice Directorate of Policy Branch is responsible for monitoring 15 of the 18 funding agreements, including those of the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), Genome Canada and other arm's length organizations.
Prior to January 2011, the Directorate was responsible for the monitoring and oversight of only one recipient, the Canadian Council of Academies (CCA); the Funding Agreement Directorate of Policy Branch was responsible for the remaining 14 funding agreements. These 14 agreements and the individuals responsible for monitoring and oversight moved to the S&T Policy Advice Directorate of Policy Branch in January 2011.
- Spectrum, Information Technologies and Telecommunications Sector (SITT):
The Policy and Strategic Planning Directorate of SITT is responsible for monitoring two funding agreements, one with the Canadian Network for the Advancement of Research, Industry and Education Inc. (CANARIE), and the other with Precarn Incorporated.
- Small Business, Tourism and Marketplace Services Sector (SBTMS)
The Policy and Liaison Directorate of Small Business and Tourism Branch (SBTB) is responsible for monitoring one funding agreement with the Canadian Youth Business Foundation (CYBF).
2.2 Objective
The overall objective of the audit was to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of risk management (RM), internal controls (IC) and governance (G) surrounding single recipient funding agreements. More specifically, the lines of enquiry for this engagement included the following:
Lines of Enquiry | RM | IC | G |
---|---|---|---|
1. Roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for the management of single recipient funding agreements are clearly defined and understood by those charged with governance. | X | ||
2. Agreement development of single recipient funding agreements takes a risk-based approach and the funding agreement includes performance measures focused on value-for-money performance. | X | X | |
3. Approach to monitoring of single recipient funding agreements is supported by cost-effective oversight and control systems. | X | X | |
4. Administrative requirements on single recipients are proportionate to the level of risk specific to the recipient, the materiality of funding, and the risk profile of applicants and recipients. | X | X | |
5. Opportunities for collaboration and coordination of single recipient funding agreements are considered, as appropriate. | X | X |
2.3 Scope
The audit assessed the monitoring and oversight of funding agreements for single recipient transfer payments at Industry Canada. The sectors, branches and directorates encompassed in the scope of the engagement included:
- SIS, Program Coordination Branch—Funding Agreement Directorate
- SIS, Policy Branch—S&T Policy Advice Directorate
- SITT, Information and Communications Technologies Branch—Policy and Strategic Planning Directorate
- SBTMS, Small Business and Tourism Branch—Policy and Liaison Directorate
- Comptrollership and Administration Sector—Programs and Services Directorate.
Detailed testing included the review of a sample of eight funding agreements from the fiscal periods 2007/08 to 2010/11, as follows:
- SIS: CFI, Genome Canada, Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation, Brain Research Centre, Ivey Centre for Health Innovation and Leadership, and CCA
- SITT: CANARIE; and
- SBTMS: CYBF.
2.4 Methodology
During the planning phase of this audit engagement, the audit team conducted a risk assessment of the governance, internal control and risk management processes surrounding single recipient transfer payments. Evidence was gathered through interviews with key stakeholders (seven in total), document reviews, and walkthroughs. The results were synthesized to identify the areas of higher risk, which informed the development of audit criteria and audit programs to be used during the conduct phase.
During the conduct phase of this audit engagement, the audit team reviewed the files of eight single recipient funding agreements, reviewed key documents relating to monitoring and oversight, and interviewed 13 key individuals including:
- Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) of SIS and the Associate ADMs of SIS and SITT
- Directors General (DGs) of Information and Communications Technologies Branch, Policy Branch, and Small Business and Tourism Branch; and
- Directors, Senior Analysts and Analysts of the relevant branches/directorates.
Five criteria were used to select recipients for assessment during the conduct phase: responsibility; materiality; nature of agreement; complexity of agreement; and continuity of project.
The information gathered through the above procedures was analyzed against the audit criteria contained in Appendix A. The audit criteria selected for this audit were based on the Treasury Board Core Management Controls, in combination with 'risk-based' controls that were specific to grants and contributions Programs and leveraging requirements from Treasury Board's Transfer Payment Policy and Directives (TPP/D). The audit criteria were designed to enable an assessment of key practices, procedures and controls in place within agreements for single recipient transfer payments.
The planning phase of this engagement was from October 2010 to January 2011. Audit fieldwork was conducted in January and February 2011.
3.0 Findings and Recommendations
3.1 Introduction
This section presents detailed findings from the Horizontal Audit of the Management of Funding Agreements—Single Recipient Transfer Payments. Findings are based on the evidence and analysis from both the initial risk assessment and the detailed audit.
In addition to the findings presented below, observations of conditions that were non-systemic and of low materiality and risk have been communicated verbally to management for their consideration.
3.2 Governance
During our testing, we reviewed the performance agreements that are developed on an annual basis for those individuals involved in the oversight and monitoring of single recipient funding agreements. We noted that, overall, roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for program management individuals were clearly defined in the performance agreements. The performance agreements included specific work objectives that were directly linked to the monitoring and oversight of the funding agreements and were appropriate based on the individual's role. Training plans were developed according to performance agreements for program management.
The detailed testing included examining a sample of payments made to recipients to ensure appropriate approval was obtained prior to disbursement of funds (i.e. FAA Section 34 approvals). The signatures authorizing payment to the recipient were assessed against the Financial Signing Authority Specimen Signature Forms to ensure appropriate approval had been obtained. The testing concluded that appropriate delegated authorities had been clearly assigned and respected.
Through interviews and the review of documentation on file, we noted there are clear and effective lines of communication between Program Managers and recipients. Communications with the recipient included ongoing emails to follow up or clarify requirements per the funding agreement, attendance at board meetings and on-site visits at the recipient organization.
Additionally, we noted that effective communication protocols exist within the branches/directorates, including reporting to senior management on the results of monitoring, as evidenced by upward briefings and ongoing communications between those charged with oversight responsibilities.
Finding 1.0 Collaboration for Transfer Payment Programs
Treasury Board's Policy on Transfer Payments specifies that collaboration and coordination should exist within and among departments to harmonize transfer payment programs and standardize their administration, when appropriate.
The development of funding agreements with single recipients requires extensive collaboration within Industry Canada sectors including Legal Services, PSD, CAS and Evaluation. However, no mechanism exists to efficiently identify collaboration opportunities across sectors responsible for monitoring/oversight of single recipient funding agreements. Furthermore, there are opportunities for collaborating on specific topics including, but not limited to:
- Sharing of best practices within the Department for monitoring financial and performance information
- Establishing guidelines and expectations for participation on boards as an ex-officio member
- The development of a funding agreement departmental template to ensure consistency of clauses for the minimum requirements from Treasury Board's Transfer Payments Policy.
Without a departmental information-sharing mechanism, the existing knowledge, tools and resources of the Department may not be leveraged to the extent possible.
Recommendation 1.0
We recommend that the CFO consider opportunities to enhance collaboration within Industry Canada relating to transfer payment administration. For example, the mandate of the Programs and Services Board could be expanded to include a periodic discussion on collaboration such as sharing of best practices.
3.3 Risk Management
During the testing, the Treasury Board submissions were obtained to determine whether risk assessments were conducted as required by the Policy on Transfer Payments. For funding agreements that were developed subsequent to the implementation of the Policy, we noted that an initial risk assessment for single recipients was conducted as part of the Treasury Board submission process.
Finding 2.0 Risk-Based Approach to Agreement Development and Monitoring
The Treasury Board Policy on Transfer Payments requires that a risk-based approach be taken in preparing the terms and conditions of funding agreements, in amending funding agreements, and in monitoring and auditing recipients.
During our review of the sample funding agreements, we noted evidence that risk assessments had been conducted during the Treasury Board submission process; however, there was no clear evidence demonstrating how FA Ts&Cs were tailored, if at all, to effectively address the nature and extent of risks identified in the risk assessments.
Furthermore, our review found little or no evidence that risk assessments had been updated on a periodic basis to better ensure an appropriate risk-based approach to ongoing recipient monitoring.
If management does not link the results of the initial risk assessment to FA Ts&Cs, or link the periodic updates to the risk assessment with ongoing monitoring activities, there is an increased risk that monitoring and oversight of funding agreements will fail to:
- Perform in a manner that is sensitive to risks
- Strike an appropriate balance between control and flexibility; and/or
- Establish the right combination of good management practices and streamlined administration.
Recommendation 2.0
We recommend that the DGs of Information and Communications Technologies Branch, Small Business and Tourism Branch, and Policy Branch implement practices to better demonstrate the performance of risk assessments and their linkage to development of both Ts&Cs and ongoing monitoring activities.
This may include collaboration across all impacted Branches with a view to developing common risk assessment practices for single recipient funding agreements to better ensure consistency within the Department.
3.4 Internal Control
During the audit, we assessed all the funding agreements to ensure the appropriate approvals were obtained in accordance with the delegated authority limits. The timeliness of the process (e.g. time lapse from Treasury Board submission to development of a funding agreement) was also reviewed to identify any significant time delays.
Overall, the process for developing funding agreements appears to be appropriate (e.g. approvals are aligned with delegation of authorities, the appropriate people are involved in preparation, etc.) and timely (i.e. there are no significant time delays noted).
We reviewed amendments to the funding agreements made between 2007 and 2010 to ensure they were appropriately justified and authorized. In our review, we noted that amendments were authorized by the appropriate delegated authority and the rationales provided were appropriate in the circumstances.
Finding 3.0 Assessment of Performance Indicators
To help promote cost-effective achievement of program objectives, the TB Policy on Evaluation requires Program Managers to develop and implement ongoing performance measurement strategies for their programs, and to ensure that credible and reliable performance data are collected to effectively support evaluation.
Single recipient FA Ts&Cs required recipients in most cases to develop their own performance measurement strategies. In a few cases, strategies were developed internally. In either situation, we found little or no evidence to demonstrate that Program Managers had assessed the performance measurement strategies against the requirements outlined in the Policy on Evaluation or against any other applicable requirements or objectives.
If performance measurement strategies are not assessed to ensure the appropriateness of proposed performance data, there is an increased risk that the performance measures/indicators may be inadequate to evaluate cost-effectiveness and achievement of expected results.
Recommendation 3.0
We recommend that the Program Managers periodically review performance measurement strategies to ensure performance measures/indicators are valid, reliable, affordable, available, and relevant and include both qualitative and quantitative measures aligned with the funding agreement objectives.
Through our detailed testing, we noted that appropriate approval was obtained before payments were made to a recipient, in accordance with the FAA (i.e. FAA section 34 approvals). The timing of payments was reviewed to ensure the recipient was paid on a timely basis, only after the funding agreement had been signed. Additionally, evidence indicated that the recipient had met reporting requirements and Ts&Cs of the funding agreement before payment was issued.
Through interviews, we noted that the nature and extent of support provided to recipients varies depending on the experience of the organization receiving funding (e.g. recipients with new funding agreements require more support than recipients with a long standing relationship). In our review of communications between the Department and recipients, we noted that adequate support is provided to recipients to ensure they have the tools to help them fulfill their reporting obligations.
Finding 4.0 File Documentation of Monitoring Activities
Program Managers are required to monitor a recipient's actual performance against planned results and adjust course as needed. During our audit, we noted active monitoring of recipients is being performed. For example, the Sectors use templates to record receipt of required reports and other information from recipients.
However, we also noted that file documentation does not always demonstrate the sufficiency of this monitoring. Specifically, there was little or no documentation to demonstrate that program management had conducted a review of the information received or considered the implications of, and follow-up associated with, any key findings or observations.
Without sufficient documentation, there is a risk that a Sector may not be able to demonstrate the adequacy of the monitoring it performed in discharging its responsibilities.
Recommendation 4.0
We recommend that the Program Managers develop tools/templates or update existing tools/templates to ensure there is documented evidence of:
- Review of performance information (e.g. results of evaluations);
- Conclusions on adequacy and sufficiency of information received;
- Potential impacts to the funding agreement as a result of the review; and
- Follow-up action taken (e.g. monitoring the recipient's plan to address the key findings of independent evaluations or audits).
4.0 Overall Conclusion
This audit indicated that the criteria associated with adequate and effective internal controls, governance and risk management were generally met, although some exceptions were identified. Recommendations within the main body of this audit report address:
- opportunities to improve documentation standards as a means to better demonstrate compliance with monitoring and oversight requirements; and
- opportunities to leverage intra-departmental collaboration to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency and consistency of the monitoring and oversight of single recipients.
Appendix A: Audit Criteria
Audit Criteria | Internal Controls | Risk Management | Governance | Criteria Met or Not Met |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for the management of single recipient funding agreements are clearly defined and understood by those charged with governance. | ||||
1. The oversight body (or bodies) has (have) a clearly communicated mandate that includes roles with respect to governance, risk management, and control. | X | Met | ||
2. Responsibilities and accountabilities for the management of single recipient funding agreements are clearly defined. | X | Met | ||
3. Guidelines for monitoring/oversight have been established and effectively communicated. | X | Met | ||
4. Necessary training, tools, resources and information have been provided to employees responsible for monitoring and oversight to support the discharge of their responsibilities. | X | Met | ||
2. Agreement development of single recipient funding agreements takes a risk-based approach and the funding agreement includes performance measures focused on value-for-money performance. | ||||
1. A risk-based approach to the preparation of terms and conditions of the funding agreements has been taken. | X | Met with Exceptions | ||
2. Funding agreements are appropriately developed and signed by both the Department and the recipient. | X | Met | ||
3. Appropriate terms and conditions are established with the recipient. | X | Met | ||
4. Management has identified appropriate performance measures linked to planned results. | X | Met with Exceptions | ||
3. Approach to monitoring of single recipient funding agreements is supported by cost-effective oversight and control systems. | ||||
1. Responsible sectors monitor the recipient's actual performance against planned results and adjust course as needed. | X | Met | ||
2. A risk-based approach to recipient monitoring and auditing has been developed. | X | Met with Exceptions | ||
3. Responsible sectors monitor compliance with the Policy on Transfer Payments and related Directives. | X | Met | ||
4. Administrative requirements on single recipients are proportionate to the level of risk specific to the recipient, the materiality of funding, and the risk profile of applicants and recipients. | ||||
1. Funding is paid to recipients in a timely, prudent and efficient manner that supports the achievement of objectives and recognizes the risks involved. | X | X | Met | |
2. Amendments made to the funding agreements reflect the level of risk of the recipient. | X | X | Met with Exceptions | |
5. Opportunities for collaboration and coordination of single recipient funding agreements are considered, as appropriate. | ||||
1. Single recipient funding agreements are subject to oversight bodies that are in a position to identify opportunities to collaborate and coordinate. | X | Met with Exceptions | ||
2. Where appropriate, processes for monitoring have been standardized to promote consistency across the Department (e.g. standard checklists, risk assessment tools, reporting tools, file management, etc.) | X | Met | ||
3. Where practical and cost-effective, controls for monitoring compliance with TB Policy have been automated. | X | Met | ||
4. Clear lines of communication with the recipients support effective program administration. | X | Met |
Appendix B: Management Action Plan
Recommendation | Planned Action or Justification for No Action on the Recommendation | Responsible Official | Target Completion Date | Current Status |
---|---|---|---|---|
Recommendation 1.0: We recommend that the CFO consider opportunities to enhance collaboration within Industry Canada relating to transfer payment administration. For example, expanding the mandate of the Programs and Services Board (PSB) to include a periodic discussion on collaboration such as sharing of best practices. | Agreed that the CFO will promote collaboration within IC relating to transfer payment administration. This will be done by sharing best practices through multiple venues and forums including: increased information on the CAS website, through G&C training sessions given by PSD, through governance structures (PSB, CASAC and Management Committee) and increased proactive communications with G&C sectors. This increased activity will be coordinated by the Programs and Services Directorate (PSD). PSB, as the senior departmental committee with oversight over grants and contributions, will receive a new annual summary report on improvements and best practices shared / implemented in the past year. For all new programs launched PSD will proactively offer training sessions and sharing of tools that may be of assistance. Online information will continue to be augmented with tools and information to assist program managers. | Director, Programs and Services Directorate (PSD), Comptrollership and Administration Sector (CAS) | By April 30th, 2011 recent changes to the Policy on Transfer Payments will be posted on the CAS website, along with implications for sectors. Risk assessments will also be posted for at least 2 major programs. PSB will receive a summary report of improvement activity by May 31, 2011. Sharing and increased promotion of activities such as training will be ongoing. | Material developed. Now at approval stage before sending to translation. Risk assessment for Broadband approved and tabled at PSB last Fall. SADI risk assessment at approval stage. NODP risk assessment underway. Information gathered throughout the year. Report to be developed. PSD offers 5 to 10 sessions annually. |
Recommendation 2.0: We recommend that the DG of Information and Communications Technologies Branch, the DG of Small Business and Tourism Branch, and the DG of Policy Branch implement practices to better demonstrate the performance of risk assessments and their linkage to development of both Ts & Cs and ongoing monitoring activities. This may include collaboration across all impacted Branches with a view to developing common risk assessment practices for single-recipient funding agreements to better ensure consistency within the Department. | Involved branches agree with the recommendation. An initial meeting will be setup to compare approaches and discuss best practices. Branches will seek CAS leadership and guidance in the development of common risk assessment practices for single recipient funding agreements to better ensure consistency within the Department; and will collaborate with the identified DGs to implement these practices in future agreements. Current practice of consulting with AEB, CAS, Legal services and recipients in developing the new Funding Agreement (FA) to capture further additional risk factors and their linkage to the development of Terms and Conditions of the FA will continue. Branches will also meet periodically to discuss new developments relating to funding agreements with single funding recipients. | Identified DGs (or delegates) | Initial discussions with identified DGs and CAS to be held by May 2011. Bi-annual meetings to discuss broader issues and monitoring of current Ts&Cs. | |
Recommendation 3.0: We recommend that the Program Managers evidence a periodic review of performance measurement strategies to ensure performance measures/indicators are valid, reliable, affordable, available, and relevant and include both qualitative and quantitative measures aligned with the funding agreement objectives. | Involved branches agree with the recommendation. Performance measurement strategies (PMS) will be reviewed to ensure:
The review will be evidenced and documented. | Program Directors and Managers | Annual reviews to be conducted by the fall 2011. Review new PMS in the context of new funding agreements. | Reviews of the progress and outcomes of funding agreements are usually conducted over the summer which includes an analysis of performance; future reviews will formally incorporate a review of the PMS. |
Recommendation 4.0: We recommend that the Program Managers develop tools/templates or update existing tools/templates to ensure there is documented evidence of:
| Involved branches agree with the recommendation. Program Manager will review and/ or develop in collaboration with CAS a standard template to ensure that there is documented evidence of:
Program Managers will review the existing tools/templates to ensure they provide sufficient documentation as per FA and to confirm tracking and periodic review of the performance, reporting, and follow-up to independent evaluation or audits commissioned by IC. | Program Directors and Managers | Current tools and templates will be updated and/or developed by the fall 2011, and will be shared with the other sector Branches (as per recommendation 1). | Existing tools/templates do not capture yearly review of performance information, though recipient performance information is reviewed when provided in Annual Reports and Corporate Plans on an annual basis. |