The audit found that, overall, the administrative management of grants and contributions at WD were adequate, however more could be done to strengthen adherence to government policies.  The audit team observed that files were complete in their documentation and that contribution agreements included the components of the Policy on Transfer Payments as required.  Ongoing improvements around management of grants and contributions in the department were proceeding appropriately.

Consideration should be given to following up on the success of completed projects when anticipated results have been achieved.  Although this may be years after project completion, this practice would help to assess the long-term impacts and influence future decision-making and resource allocation.

Management accepts this recommendation.

The department’s policy is to follow up on the success of completed projects to determine if the expected results have been achieved and regional Directors General of Operations and Directors of Policy, Planning and External Relations, will ensure the responsible officers complete this follow-up.  In addition, a new performance measurement module has been introduced in Project Gateway (under the direction of the Headquarters Director of Programs) that will facilitate electronic tracking of project results.  It is expected that this module will have the capacity to automatically notify staff and managers when results reports are due from recipients by January 2008.

Further, a committee consisting of the regional planning directors, working with representatives of the headquarters Programs unit, is working on an enhanced performance measurement strategy for grant and contributions (G&C) projects.  The indicators being developed will consider the long-term impact of WD projects and identify gaps where WD should focus its efforts.  The strategy is the responsibility of the Headquarters Director of Programs and is expected to be implemented by January 2008.

Finally, evaluations of all G&C programs are required every five years in accordance with the Government of Canada evaluation policy.  Long-term impact of projects will also be assessed through the evaluation process.

Ongoing

Contribution agreement management should be strengthened so important dates in the contribution agreement are recognized and acted on consistently.  Key dates include:  project completion date, due date for filing claims against advances and quarterly report filing due dates.  Automation of contribution agreement management could assist officers by producing a report identifying important upcoming dates to the project, thereby facilitating proactive action.  As a means of soliciting further compliance and clarity, contribution agreements should include more details on the project description and more detail around what constitutes an eligible and ineligible cost.

Management accepts the recommendation to implement an automated contribution management system.  It is being implemented by the Project Gateway team under the direction of the Headquarters Director of Programs.  The system will enable tracking of key project dates by officers and regional managers and will provide a dashboard tool for project monitoring and is expected to be operational by January 2008.

With regards to the level of detail to be included in project descriptions and project costs, it is important to retain the flexibility to meet ongoing project needs, without imposing an unnecessary administrative burden on both the recipient and the department.  Striking this balance appropriately is encouraged by the recent independent Blue Ribbon Panel commissioned by the Treasury Board that made recommendations to make the delivery of grant and contribution programs more efficient, while ensuring appropriate accountability.

To ensue that sufficient detail is provided in contribution agreements, management provided due diligence training to project officers in all regions in May 2006 and again in June 2007.  This training included standards for details on projects descriptions and eligible and ineligible costs.  In addition, Project Gateway (under the direction of the Director of Programs) has also been updated to allow for better categorization of details on project costs to be included in the due diligence process and contribution agreements.

Ongoing

As a means of improving transparency and broadening the client base, consideration should be given to developing a request for proposals document for certain initiatives, as was done in Saskatchewan with the Canada Celebrates Saskatchewan sub-program.  It is anticipated that the request for proposals will identify a number of pan-western projects.  To further consistency between the regions and to manage such pan-western projects, communication and information sharing between the regions and Headquarters should be enhanced by appropriate means such as regular meetings, conference calls or informal ad hoc discussions.

Management accepts the recommendation to assess the merit of utilizing a Request for Proposal (RFP) process for new programs or sub-programs, and will document the basis for deciding on a particular delivery model.  For example, an RFP is under consideration for delivery of the Community Economic Development Initiative (CEDI) to address the issues created by the Mountain Pine Beetle infestation in British Columbia and for the establishment of a new Risk Capital Fund.

Communication between regions and Headquarters is managed and shared through a variety of mechanisms such as project specific teams (i.e. Project Gateway, Due Diligence Training, Monitoring and Payments) and through committees that deal with ongoing business such as business planning, trade and investment and innovation, to name a few.  WD will continue to utilize Headquarters and cross regional teams as necessary, in addition to the senior level committees who hold meetings, conference calls and discussions on a regular basis.

To improve the department’s ability to manage multi-regional projects, the Executive Committee has approved a process for management of pan-western projects and this has been implemented.

Complete

Continue refining the project performance measurement process to facilitate accumulating results-based information linked to departmental strategic outcomes.  Clarification of roles and responsibilities around performance measurement should be undertaken and communicated to all staff involved at all stages of the management of contribution agreements.

Management accepts this recommendation. 

Completing the department’s Management Resources and Results Structure (MRRS) to identify performance measures for all WD’s strategic outcomes, activities and sub-activities is a key element of improving WD’s performance measurement and reporting capacity.  Under the direction of the Director General, Corporate Finance and Programs, this is expected to be completed by January 2008.
The department has approved and distributed the “Guide to Project Development and Assessment Responsibilities” that clarifies roles and responsibilities for project management, including performance measurement.  Development and assessment officers are responsible for performance measurement and may be assisted in this process by the monitoring and payments officer throughout the claims process.  This has been reinforced through the due diligence training provided to project officers in all regions in May 2006 and June 2007.  Regional Directors General of Operations and Directors of Policy Planning and External Relations will reinforce these responsibilities with the appropriate staff.  In addition, Project Gateway (under the direction of the Director of Programs) will provide an automated reminder to the responsible officer and regional managers for each project when performance date is due.  This element of Project Gateway is expected to be operational by January 2008.

Ongoing.