Using Performance Information for Management and Budgeting - Canada’s Experience Lee McCormack, Executive Director Results-based Management OECD Presentation, May 3, 2006
Download ReportTranscript Using Performance Information for Management and Budgeting - Canada’s Experience Lee McCormack, Executive Director Results-based Management OECD Presentation, May 3, 2006
Using Performance Information for Management and Budgeting - Canada’s Experience Lee McCormack, Executive Director Results-based Management OECD Presentation, May 3, 2006 Overview The Canadian context Problems, priorities and implementation challenges Lessons learned 2 The Canadian context 3 Canada is a big country with relatively few people and a highly decentralized government • • 32 million citizens in 5 ½ time zones Decentralized federation with 10 provinces and 3 territories • Provinces are equal to the federal government and have real power • Hundreds of federal-provincial agreements and federal programming is weighted towards transfer payments • Over 90 departments and agencies in the federal government – 46 Crown corporations – 172 000 public servants • Eight consecutive federal surpluses • New Conservative minority government 4 The majority of federal expenditures are transfer payments… • Total net expenditures in 2004-05 were $172.8 B, of which 56% ($96.8B) were transfer payments (including major transfers & grants and contributions) Total Net Expenditures: $172.8 B Public Debt Charges 17% Grants and Contributions: $22.5B Municipalities and Local Govts 3% Other Program Expenses 27% Persons 19% Non-Profit Organizations 33% Industry 13% Grants and Contributions 13% Major Transfers to Persons (EI, OAS, GIS and spouse's allowance) 22% Transfer payments Major Transfers to other levels of Government (CHST, Fiscal arrangements, etc) 22% International Organizations and Foreign Countries 16% Provinces and Territories 16% 5 The federal expenditure management system is also decentralized Element Responsibility Developing an annual Budget and a multi-year fiscal framework Department of Finance Establishing annual departmental reference levels Treasury Board Secretariat and departments – approved by Treasury Board New policy or program approval phase Privy Council Office supporting Cabinet Allocating and reallocating to ensure alignment with priorities and aggregate expenditure control Departments routinely – plus three central agencies in special cases Seek Parliamentary approval of spending plans Treasury Board Secretariat Reporting to Parliament on spending plans, actual expenditures, and results achieved Treasury Board Secretariat and Departments 6 The Finance department sets the Fiscal Framework and manages the annual budget process Budget Speech Budget Bill Main Estimates Final Decisions on Budget February Cabinet Review of Priorities Focus on the “increment” No formal mechanism requiring incorporation of performance information into Budget process Jan-Feb Aug-Sept Not many targets Cabinet Review of Budget Strategy Dec-Jan Release of Budget Consultation Papers (Fall Update) Budget Consultation Process Oct-Dec October 7 Treasury Board Secretariat monitors the ongoing “A-Base” and seeks Parliamentary supply Main Estimates A-Base Perspective Input to Budget Interim Supply Supplementary Estimates and Supply Bill February Jan-Feb Pressure Management Dept Baseline Funding Oct-Jan Substantial planning and performance information given to Parliament Much performance information available, especially on G and C programs Feb-Mar Reports on Plans and Priorities Full Supply Bill March-June Room to develop more systematic cyclical review Supplementary Estimates and Supply Bill Nov-Dec Departmental Performance Reports, Canada’s Performance and Public Accounts Aug-Nov A-Base Perspective Input to New Policy Proposals Aug-Nov 8 Canada has a relatively mature performance measurement and reporting infrastructure • All major departments and agencies – Have internal audit and evaluation units – Publish their audits and evaluations – Produce and explain to Parliament upon request their reports on plans and priorities and departmental performance reports – Are developing outcome frameworks that are consistently based across government • Treasury Board Secretariat – Reviews program and management performance, focusing primarily on G and C programs – Has a strong policy centre for results based management – Produces an annual performance report – Canada’s Performance – Assesses management performance across government, including results-based management capacity • Office of the Auditor General – Produces performance audits of departments and agencies 9 Although there is long results management history … Management, Resources and Results Structures – regaining detailed program level knowledge Today’s Agenda Possible Federal Accountability Act 2006 – cyclical evaluation of all transfer payment programs Improved Reporting to Parliament – moving to whole of government planning and reporting Management Accountability Framework – assessing management performance across government Canada’s Performance – linking programs to societal performance Results for Canadians – results-based management as a stated priority of government 2000 Transfer Payment Policy – performance frameworks and evaluations reviewed by TBS Modern Comptrollership – investment in management practices and controls Program Review – dealing with a large deficit through major expenditure cuts Mid 90s Departmental Reporting to Parliament – moving to results-based plans and reports on performance Planning Reporting and Accountability Structures – unsuccessful try at linking resources to results Early to Mid 80s First Program Evaluation Policy – government-wide implementation … some real challenges remain 10 Problems, priorities and implementation challenges 11 Our agenda focuses on four main problems that are limiting us from getting performance information into our budget and management processes • • To regain our detailed whole-of-government understanding of the ongoing program base we are implementing the Management, Resources and Results Structure (MRRS) Agenda To have better ongoing measurement, periodic evaluation and use of performance information we are renewing the evaluation function • MRRS • Evaluation • To help Parliamentarians fulfil their role of holding the Government to account we are transforming the existing reporting regime through the • IRPP Improved Reporting to Parliament Project (IRPP) • MAF • To ensure the right management incentives are in place we are implementing the Management Accountability Framework (MAF) 12 MRRS How do you regain a detailed understanding of the program base? • Evaluation IRPP MAF To manage its programs, the government needs to know: – – – – What they are How they align to intended outcomes What they cost What results they achieve • This should support more informed decisions on value for money, program effectiveness and possible ways of improving • Treasury Board approved the Management, Resources and Results Structure policy (MRRS) to remedy this situation • The policy is mandatory for appropriated organizations and entering the second year of implementation 13 MRRS The approach requires consistent, structured information for every department and agency Program Activity Architecture (PAA) Evaluation IRPP MAF + Financial and non financial information Program Activity Architecture Department or Agency M Planned and Actual Results Departmental Strategic Outcome D D-1 D-2 D-3 Program Activity Planned & Actual Financial information Required for all elements and all levels of the PAA Sub – Program Activity Sub - Sub – Program Activity D-4 Governance Required for the highest or “program activity” level Sub - Sub – Sub – Program Activity Recoding of departmental information systems will be necessary Central Expenditure Management Information System (under development) 14 MRRS Evaluation MRRS is the basis for planning, resource allocation and reporting across the government More logical & consistent basis for interaction DEPARTMENTS Management Tool Improve program performance Better alignment of resources & priorities Easier reallocation More evidence based reporting Budget Office Function Informed decisions and investment choices based on priorities and value for money Budget Plan Finance Privy Council Office IRPP MAF Common basis for planning & reporting inside & outside PARLIAMENT MRRS Reporting Tool Stronger accountability on spending and results 15 MRRS Evaluation Implementation faces four main challenges • IRPP MAF Cultural – Some departments have had difficulty in adopting a performance measurement culture – Many tend to identify too many measures and actually measure too few – Transparency leads to accountability and that can be scary – Estimate it will take 3 – 5 years to establish a government wide performance measurement framework • Institutional – Departments are managed in vertical, organizational silos and some are having difficulty converting to logic based program structures – Over the last 2 years 30% of departments have made changes to the basic program activity architecture – not unexpected – Performance measurement capacity – demographic concerns – 3-5 years to stabilize to long term and enduring structures 16 MRRS Evaluation Implementation faces four main challenges • IRPP MAF Definitional What is a program? How do you measure the effectiveness of corporate services? How do you treat overheads consistently? What is the lexicon of program descriptions? (dozens of other questions) • Technical – Developing a system capable of collecting, sorting and linking information – Making sure it talks to other systems – annual budget, public accounts and others – Recoding of departmental systems is a large job – pilot projects 17 MRRS The Federal Accountability Act, if passed, will increase scrutiny of program performance … Evaluation IRPP MAF • Auditor General to inquire into the use of funds by third parties under any funding agreement with the federal department • Parliamentary Budget Office to provide analysis to Parliament about the nation’s finances and trends in the national economy • Departments to evaluate, at least once every five years, the relevance and effectiveness of its grants and contributions programs … and this will put a strain on evaluation capacity 18 MRRS There are some real challenges for the evaluation function Evaluation IRPP MAF • Quality, timeliness and strategic focus issues make it difficult to use evaluation to support decision-making: – often focused on small programs and not strategic – can take too long to complete and are difficult to understand – can be self serving when funded by program managers • Government wide capacity issues have made it difficult to deliver – Lack of trained evaluators – No consistent competencies for those who lead the evaluation function – Definition of the evaluation “product” hasn’t changed much in 20 years 19 MRRS Step #1 is to renew our policy so that evaluation is… • Better recognized as a core function of public management • Embedded in the decision-making process • Linked to budgeting and expenditure management • A neutral and independent function, aligned to government management priorities • Timely in its production of a quality product Evaluation IRPP MAF 20 MRRS Evaluation Step #2 is to zone in on implementation • • IRPP MAF • Make sure the function is properly resourced Build capacity by re-establishing training and recruitment programs and partnering with universities on certification Ensure objectivity – evaluators fund evaluations, period • Redefine the “product” to promote relevance and better coverage: – – – – • • Strategic policy evaluation Impact evaluation Value-for-money assessments Implementation evaluation Treasury Board Secretariat to assess quality and set out clear competencies for Heads of evaluation and evaluators Introduce a Government wide evaluation plan 21 MRRS Canadian evaluators are ready for change but they will face real implementation challenges Evaluation IRPP MAF • Demographic - High turnover rates will need to be met with targeted whole of government recruitment • Workload – Will be difficult to manage without a realistic plan • Skills – Will take time to rebuild training programs and partner with universities • Jurisdictional – Continually reinforcing the distinction between internal audit and evaluation • Relevance – Good quality, timely products need to be used to inform allocation and reallocation decisions 22 MRRS Parliamentarians want better public performance reporting, ideally … Evaluation IRPP MAF • Simpler, more integrated information • More context and analysis (trends, graphs, including reporting on horizontal issues) • High level overviews with the ability to drill-down to more detail • Clearer logic between planning and performance reporting documents • More balanced reporting • Better links between programs, resources and results • More clarity between parliamentary reports and estimates votes 23 MRRS Whole of Government planning and reporting is part of the solution … Evaluation IRPP MAF Government could better communicate its overall “strategic plan” This “strategic plan” could be akin to a whole of Government Report on Plans and Priorities: – Outlining plans and priorities for the coming fiscal year – Linking planned results to planned expenditures – Electronic, in every parliamentary office Logically, a fall whole of Government performance report could present the results and actual spending vis-à-vis such a Plan … but this solution depends on a stable, whole of Government framework 24 MRRS This framework has been tested in Canada’s Performance over the past few years Evaluation IRPP MAF 25 MRRS This agenda depends on better management overall: the Management Accountability Framework Evaluation IRPP MAF Public Service Values By their actions departmental leaders continually reinforce the importance of PS Values and Ethics in the delivery of results to Canadians (e.g.: democratic, professional, ethical and people values). Governance & Strategic Direction The essential conditions – internal coherence, corporate discipline and alignment to outcomes -- are in place for providing effective strategic direction, support to the Minister and Parliament, and the delivery of results. Policy and Programs People Citizen Focused Service Departmental research and analytic capacity is developed and sustained to assure high quality policy options, program design and advice to Ministers. The department has the people, work environment and focus on building capacity and leadership to assure its success and a confident future for the Public Service of Canada. Risk Management Stewardship Accountability The executive team clearly defines the corporate context and practices for managing organizational and strategic risks proactively. The departmental control regime (assets, money, people, services, etc.) is integrated and effective, and its underlying principles are clear to all staff. Accountabilities for results are clearly assigned and consistent with resources, and delegations are appropriate to capabilities. Services are citizen-centred, policies and programs are developed from the ‘outside in’, and partnerships are encouraged and effectively managed. Results and Performance Relevant information on results (internal, service & program) is gathered and used to make departmental decisions, and public reporting is balanced, transparent, and easy to understand. Learning, Innovation and Change Management The department manages through continuous innovation and transformation, promotes organizational learning, values corporate knowledge, and learns from its performance. 26 MRRS The Management Accountability Framework is results based and demands attention Evaluation IRPP MAF • All departments are assessed against a set of indicators including the quality of Management, Resources and Results Structures, program evaluation and reports to Parliament • Discussions with senior officials identify management improvement priorities • Treasury Board Secretariat feeds this input into performance appraisals for the most senior officials • So far, so good but there are some implementation issues: – Process takes time – Resource intensive – Debates on ratings with departments 27 Lessons Learned 28 There are several lessons learned from recent Canadian experience • • • • • • • • There is no end point on results based management – persistence over many years is required and you never get it “right” You need central leadership to build capacity – someone with authority must set the game plan, make and enforce policies and invest A detailed understanding of the program base is essential – it is very easy to lose and not easy to get back Everybody knows about cultural barriers but don’t underestimate the challenges with systems You need a common whole of government planning and reporting framework if you want to do real strategic planning and reporting There is no substitute for evaluation but you need to give it some backbone and support Parliamentarians and the external auditor demand better public performance information and this is good There is no managing for results without sound management practices period – you need clear expectations and annual assessment 29 Useful resources • Government of Canada - http://canada.gc.ca/main_e.html • Treasury Board Secretariat - http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/index_e.asp • Finance (Budget) - http://www.fin.gc.ca/fin-eng.html • Reports on Plans and Priorities (2005-06) - http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/estpre/20052006/deptlist_e.asp • Departmental Performance Reports (2004-05) - http://www.tbssct.gc.ca/rma/dpr1/04-05/0405dpr-rmr_e.asp • Canada’s Performance - http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/report/govrev/05/cp-rc_e.asp • Results-Based Management (MRRS, Evaluation, Improved Reporting to Parliament) http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rma/rbm-gar_e.asp • Management Accountability Framework - http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/mafcrg/index_e.asp • EMIS - http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/emis-sigd/index_e.asp 30 31