Downloaded 51 times
Uploaded byNational Productivity Secretariat
Canadian Best Practices in Measuring Efficiency, Effectiveness and Performance of the Public Sector
Governments worldwide are pressured to improve performance in fund management, service delivery, and policy achievement, leading to the adoption of performance measurement and accountability systems. In Canada, this includes robust frameworks for budgeting, management performance, and program effectiveness evaluations aimed at ensuring efficiency and alignment with government priorities. The Canadian government's performance accountability systems and management frameworks have evolved to enhance transparency, citizen engagement, and continuous improvement in public services.
More Related Content
Similar to Canadian Best Practices in Measuring Efficiency, Effectiveness and Performance of the Public Sector
More from National Productivity Secretariat
Canadian Best Practices in Measuring Efficiency, Effectiveness and Performance of the Public Sector
- 1. D. Brian Marson APOInternational Advisor Colombo, June 2015
- 2. •Governments around theworld are under pressure from citizens to demonstrate higher levels of performance in: • the management of government funds, in •the delivery of programs and services, and in • the achievement of stated policy goals. •In this context many governments, including Canada, have introduced performance measurement and accountability systems- both for internal management purposes, and for external reporting purposes.
- 3. The TopTen Canadian Public Management Issues According to an Institute of Public Administration of Canada survey of federal and provincial Deputy Ministers across Canada, their top ten management issues over the next few years are: 1. Recruitment, retention, retirement and succession planning 2. Improved accountability and transparency 3. Performance and results management, measurement and reporting 4. Improving the quality of service delivery, E-service 5. Citizen-centred service, single window, service partnerships 6. Training and leadership development 7. Responding to cost pressures and budget reductions 8. Knowledge transfer and management, and corporate memory 9. Rethinking intergovernmental relationships and fiscal arrangements 10. Employee well-being and employee commitment
- 5. Source: Institute forGovernment: The State of the Service, July 2009 Data sources: Bertelsmann Sustainable Governance Indicators 2009; World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators 2008 International Government Rankings 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 World Bank Government Effectiveness BertelsmannManagement Index Mexico Turkey Italy Poland Greece Hungary Slovakia Portugal Czech Republic South Korea Belgium France Japan Iceland Ireland Norway Denmark Sweden Switzerland Spain United States Germany Luxembourg Austria Canada United Kingdom Australia Netherlands Finland
- 6. Canada is Recognizedas a Leader in Good Public Management 6 Single-Window Service Digital Delivery Measurement of Service and Benchmarking Municipal Service Delivery Training of Service Managers Strong Service Culture
- 8. Canada’s systemof performance measurement, performance management, and performance reporting is perhaps the most comprehensive of the OECD countries: 1. Budgeting: Canada has an advanced results-based budgeting and results reporting system (RPP/DPR) 2. Management Performance: Canada uses its Management Accountability Framework (MAF) to hold heads of departments accountable for performance in ten management results areas. 3. Program Efficiency and Effectiveness: Canada has a comprehensive system of systematic program effectiveness and efficiency evaluation, linked back to the resource allocation process 4. Policy and Program Performance Reporting: Canada has developed a system for reporting back to citizens on economic and social outcomes. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/reports-rapports/cp-rc/2010-2011/cp-rctb-eng.asp
- 9. Annual Departmental Report onPlans and Priorities (RPP) Annual Departmental Performance Report (DPR) Evaluation of Program Results on a Four-Year Cycle Management Accountability Framework- Priority Areas of Improvement Management Accountability Framework- Annual Report Card Annual Performance Management Agreement with Agreed Results Up-Front Review of Proposed New Programs by Treasury Board Year-end Performance Review and Performance Pay BUDGET-BASED PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY INDIVIDUAL MANAGERS’ PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY The Canadian Government`s Results-Based Performance Accountability Systems PLANNED RESULTS ACTUAL RESULTS
- 10. The Governmentof Canada ensures that its program expenditures are efficient, effective, coordinated, and tied to Government priorities through a two level review process: 1. Rigorous up-front reviews by Treasury Board of all new spending programs for efficiency, effectiveness and links to Government priorities; 2. A cyclical Strategic Review of all ongoing government programs over a four year cycle, to ensure efficiency, effectiveness, and relevance of departmental programs to Government objectives and priorities. Each year (linked to the Budget Process), departments must identify 5% of expenditures from the programs under review that could be re-allocated to other Government or departmental priorities. Treasury Board supports the program review processes through both a Program Evaluation Policy, and a Centre of Excellence in Evaluation.
- 11. The Canadian Governmenthas adopted a disciplined approach up-front in the planning stages of new program spending by: 1. Anchoring new spending in the priorities of Government for Canadians, 2. Developing rigorous spending proposals, and 3. Linking new spending with existing spending. This process ensures that the government can make informed decisions on the use of funds, such as ensuring that funding goes to those programs that are high priority for the Canadian Government and produce the intended results.
- 12. The StrategicReview Process: organizations must review 100 per cent of their direct spending and the operating costs of major statutory programs on a four-year cycle to assess how and whether these programs: 1. Are effective and efficient; 2. Meet the Government’s priorities for Canadians; and 3. Are aligned with federal responsibilities. All organizations are required to identify reallocation options totaling 5 per cent of the department budget from their lowest- priority and lowest-performing programs. Reporting on Government Performance to Citizens: The overall Expenditure Management System provides the framework that ensures Canadians have important information to hold the government to account for the management of their tax dollars.
- 14. Management Accountability Framework PS Excellence Framework (Baldrige +) Modern Comptrollership Framework Risk Management Framework StrategicHR Framework TBS Study of High Performing Public Organizations
- 15. The Purpose ofMAF ► Introduced in 2003, MAF is a performance management framework used across the federal government to support management accountability of Department Heads and improve management practices Objectives of MAF ► Clarifies management expectations for Department Heads and identifies areas for improvement ► Provides a comprehensive perspective on government management performance ► Promotes continuous improvement Evolution of MAF ► MAF has evolved over 12 years into TB’s key management oversight instrument, assessing management capacity and performance of all departments and small agencies ► Has a direct impact on Department Heads’ performance commitments and pay ► Now used in resource allocation decisions and to risk-manage departmental submissions to Treasury Board.
- 17. Leadership and StrategicDirection Articulates and embodies the vision, mandate and strategic priorities that guide the organization while supporting Ministers and Parliament in serving the public interest. Results and Accountability Uses performance results to ensure accountability and drive ongoing improvements and efficiencies to policies, programs, and services to Canadians. Public Sector Values Exemplifies the core values of the public sector by having respect for people and democracy, serving with integrity and demonstrating stewardship and excellence. Continuous Learning and Innovation Manages through continuous innovation and transformation, to promote organizational learning and improve performance. Governance and Strategic Management Maintains effective governance that integrates and aligns priorities, plans, accountabilities and risk management to ensure that internal management functions support and enable high performing policies, programs and services.
- 18. People Management Optimizes theworkforce and the work environment to enable high productivity and performance, effective use of human resources and increased employee engagement. Financial and Asset Management Provides an effective financial management function founded on sound internal controls, timely and reliable reporting, and fairness and transparency in the management of assets and acquired services. Information Management Safeguards and manages information and systems as a public trust and a strategic asset that supports effective decision-making and efficient operations to maximize value in the service of Canadians. Management of Policy and Programs Designs and manages policies and programs to ensure value for money in achieving results. Management of Service Delivery Delivers client-centred services while optimizing partnerships and technology to meet the needs of stakeholders
- 19. 1. Values andEthics 2. Managing for Results 3. Governance and Planning 4. Citizen-focussed Service 5. Internal Audit 6. Evaluation 7. Financial Management and Control 8. Management of Security 9. Risk Management 10. People Management 11. Procurement 12. Information Management 13. Information Technology 14. Asset Management 15. Investment Planning and Management of Projects Rating Scale Strong Acceptable Opportunity for Improvement Attention Required Areas of Management TEN AREAS OF PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY
- 20. ► Assessments performedannually by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) and is based on evidence submitted by federal organizations ► All major federal departments and a third of small agencies are assessed on a rotational basis, which represents 55 to 60 organizations each year ► Each organization is assessed against expectations outlined under specific areas of management ► Rigorous assessments are prepared by TBS experts and drafts are discussed with departments and agencies before they are finalized ► Results are used as an input for annual assessments of Deputy Ministers ► Summaries of final assessments are made available to the public Treasury Board supports departments and agencies throughout the MAF process by providing tools, guidance and advice, as well as by promoting the exchange of best practices.
- 21. Values and Ethics Linesof Evidence (LoEs) 1.1 The organisation demonstrates a culture of mutual respect, integrity and professionalism. ◦ For example: Activities leading to the development, implementation, and communication of an organizational code of conduct. 1.2 Leaders demonstrate and promote V&E behaviours. ◦ For example: Senior management develops and implements a comprehensive V&E strategy/plan and communicates it to the organization. 1.3 The organization practices continuous improvement in the area of V&E. ◦ For example: The organization seeks to identify common V&E issues across the public service or other jurisdictions and tailors solutions to its organizational needs. Key Changes from Round VII to Round VIII: Public Service Employee Survey (PSES) results will be used every 3 years; qualitative and process-based measures will be used the 2 years in between.
- 23. MAF Section13. Effectiveness of Information Technology Management- Rating: Strong • 3.1 Leadership: Acceptable: CIO has responsibility and accountability for virtually the full scope of information technology responsibilities. • Web accessibility is partially integrated into the span of control. • Adequate participation in setting government-wide directions for information technology is evident. 13.2 Planning: Strong • Acceptable information technology plan is in place that aligns with the government-wide directions for information and has an integrated planning process. • Organization is making efforts to institutionalize web accessibility into planning and governance processes. 13.3 Value: Strong • Organization has well established processes and performance reporting on progress for all aspects of information technology management (including on Common Look and Feel implementation plans). • Organization has integrated performance measurement tools and metrics including an established costing model for information technology services and a service costing baseline that guide information technology investment decisions • Organization has processes that demonstrate sharing, re-using or leveraging across the government for ideas, best practices, assets and implementations. Commended for their progress and encouraged to share their IT plan and integrated set of processes and practices for planning and progress reporting in order to monitor and oversee the delivery of business value from IT investments. • Governance model for effective management of the organization's web presence (i.e., citizen-facing web content and applications). • Participation in GC-wide working groups and GC-wide collaborative work spaces to improve opportunities for sharing and re-use in order to reduce complexity and duplication, promote alignment and interoperability and optimize service delivery http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2009/nar/nar-eng.asp
- 25. ► Based ona 7-year experience of implementing the MAF, some lessons learned include: Leadership at the top is critical to improve management practices Recognize at the outset that managing with a focus on results requires a culture shift and that progress will take time and sustained focus Performance pay of Department Heads should be linked to management performance Performance management assessments should be constructive and encourage continuous improvement, not be a means to penalize organizations Assessment tools need to be kept evergreen and room needs to be left for good judgment and contextualization ► MAF provides an excellent platform for cooperative sharing of best and leading practices, benefiting all federal departments “Internationally, MAF is considered to be one of the more sophisticated management practices systems.” (Independent Five-year MAF Evaluation, based on OECD study)
- 27. ► MAF ischanging departmental management behaviour - organizations are making concerted efforts to improve their MAF ratings ► Deputy Ministers are using MAF to support their management accountabilities, and to enhance management performance with their executive team ► Measurable progress is being made and the bar is being raised 55% 63% 0% 51% 31% 18% 7% 50.5% 37% 5% 14% 27% 4% 14% 62% 21% 3% 21% 16% 1% 18% 68% 14% 0.5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Attention Required Opportunity for Improvement Acceptable Strong 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
- 28. … and improvementsare being made across most Areas of Management MAF 3-year Rating Comparison by Area of Management (Round VII ratings include carry-over ratings from Round VI; Large Departments & Agencies only; •• Core AoMs) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% %ofLDAsRatedas"Acceptable"or"Strong" 2007 2008 2009
- 29. 1. Building Leadership Excellence Leadership Competencies, Management Training and Leadership Development Building Workforce Excellence ◦ Recruitment & Promotion: Competition and Merit Principle ◦ Accountability: Performance Management Agreements Building Workplace Excellence ◦ Employee Surveys and Employee Engagement Institutional Arrangements ◦ Public Service Commission- Parliamentary Agency ◦ Treasury Board (Chief Human Resource Officer) ◦ Privy Council (Cabinet) Office ◦ Canada School of Public Service Excellent Leadership +Excellent Workforce + Excellent Workplace = Excellent Results
- 32. “Over 201,000public servants in 89 organizations took part in the Public Service Employee Survey (PSES). Employees shared their thoughts on leadership, culture, the workforce, the workplace, and their own personal level of engagement. The participation rate of 72.2% was the highest in our history. The overall results demonstrated that the Public Service of Canada continues to offer a workplace of choice. The results also demonstrate our strong commitment to public service. The majority (89%) of employees are proud of the work they do and 94% are willing to put in the extra effort to get the job done.” -Wayne Wouters, Former Head of the Canadian Canadian Public Service HR Results: The Regular Canadian Government Employee Surveys Show a Dedicated Workforce and a Positive Workplace
- 33. Employee Engagement Score 66out of 100 73 out of 100 Level of Engagement 37% high 51% high 21% low 13% low YEAR ZERO YEAR TWO +10%
- 35. Promoting Continuous Improvementin Citizen and Business Satisfaction with Canadian Government Service … -term trend for 26 services 72 73 67 6464 50 60 70 80 1998 2000 2003 2005 2008 Average service quality rating (0-100) Year 2014 74 Source: ICCS CF5 & CF6 Average Citizen Satisfaction Score – for 21 Government Services
- 36. Results Improvement for theRoyal Canadian Mounted Police Improving Royal Canadian Mounted Police Performance on the “Drivers” 81-84% Overall Citizen Satisfaction The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Surveys over 7,000 Citizens Annually Using the Common Measurements Tool Survey Tool, and Uses the Results to Improve Service
- 39. CANADA’S ANNUAL PERFORMANCEREPORTS -THE FRAMEWORK The purpose of this framework is to map the financial and non-financial contributions of federal organizations receiving appropriations by aligning their program activities to a set of high level outcome areas defined for the government as a whole. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/reports-rapports/cp-rc/2010-2011/cp-rctb-eng.asp
- 41. 1. Measure theright things 2. Establish a few key measures 3. Build management accountability into the performance agreements of every manager 4. Focus on continuous improvement in results, not on the measurement process
- 43. Annual Departmental Report onPlans and Priorities (RPP) Annual Departmental Performance Report (DPR) Evaluation of Program Results on a Four-Year Cycle Management Accountability Framework- Priority Areas of Improvement Management Accountability Framework- Annual Report Card Annual Performance Management Agreement with Agreed Results Up-Front Review of Proposed New Programs by Treasury Board Year-end Performance Review and Performance Pay BUDGET-BASED PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY INDIVIDUAL MANAGERS’ PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY The Canadian Government`s Results-Based Performance Accountability Systems PLANNED RESULTS ACTUAL RESULTS
- 44. Strategic Performance ManagementSystem (Individual) Organizational Outcomes Good Governance and Anti- Corruption Human Development & Poverty Reduction Economic Development Security, Justice, and Peace Climate Change Adaptation Societal Goals/Outcomes Sectoral Goals/Outcomes Financial Stewardship Internal Process Client Satisfaction Leadership, Learning and Growth Major Final Outputs (customer-oriented results) STR/ SER Socio- Economic Report PPARC Priority Program Accountability Report Card MARC- I MFO Accountability Report Card MARC- II Management Accountability Report Card Government of the Philippines Harmonized Results-Based Performance Management System (RBPMS)) To quality for PBB, agencies must meet at least 90% of PPARC and MARC-I, and satisfy MARC-II (good governance conditions)
- 45. 1. THE WHY? ◦What is the purpose of the performance management system: to measure and report performance; to improve management and policy performance, or both? 2. THE WHAT? ◦ Should we measure Management performance, or program and policy performance, or both? What management factors should be measured? ◦ What level is the measurement- at Government level, Departmental level or both? 3. THE HOW? ◦ What measures will be used for determining performance for each factor? Will measures be process measures, results measures, or both? How will results be reported and to whom- President, Congress, Citizens? ……..How? 4. THE WHO? ◦ Which central agency will conduct the reviews and provide oversight? What is the role of departments and what is the role of central agencies? Conclusion- Considerations in Building a Performance Management Framework
- 48. Treasury Board PolicySets Out the Requirements for Departmental Program Evaluation capacity and process: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=15024§ion=text#cha5 6.1 Deputy heads are responsible for establishing a robust, neutral evaluation function in their department and for ensuring that their department adheres to this policy and to its supporting directive and standard. Deputy heads: ◦ 6.1.1 designate a head of evaluation at an appropriate level as the lead for the evaluation function in the department;6.1.2 ensure that the head of evaluation has direct and unencumbered access to the deputy head, as required; ◦ 6.1.3 ensure that a committee of senior departmental officials (referred to as the Departmental Evaluation Committee) is assigned the responsibility for advising the deputy head on all evaluation and evaluation- related activities of the department and is chaired by the deputy head or a senior level designate; supported by the head of evaluation on evaluation matters; and structured with specific roles and responsibilities. ◦ 6.1.4 approve evaluation reports, management responses and action plans in a timely manner; ◦ 6.1.5 use evaluation findings to inform program, policy, resource allocation and reallocation decisions; ◦ 6.1.6 ensure that complete, approved evaluation reports along with management responses and action plans are made easily available to Canadians in a timely manner while ensuring that the sharing of reports respects the Access to Information Act, Privacy Act, and the Government Security Policy; 6.1.7 approve for annual submission to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, a rolling five-year departmental evaluation plan
- 49. Strategic reviewsare done at the same time every year in order to put recommendations forward for consideration as part of the Government of Canada's annual budget planning process. Each organization is required to seek advice from arm's- length external advisors to get a third party perspective on the process and its results. Once organizations have completed a comprehensive review of all of their programs, they are required to identify a total of five per cent of their program spending from their lowest-priority and lowest-performing programs. These funds are proposed for reallocation to higher priorities. Savings achieved through strategic reviews are redirected to budget priorities to better meet Government priorities.
- 50. A more comprehensive(100%) 2012 Strategic Review process required organizations to review all spending from the following perspectives: Operating efficiency—To what extent are results being achieved efficiently? Can this activity be delivered at a lower cost or in a more effective way? Internal services—Are internal services (e.g. human resources management, financial management, communications) as efficient as possible? Can improvements be made to reduce any overlap and duplication? Effectiveness—To what extent is this program, activity or service achieving the expected results for which it was designed? Affordability—Is the program, activity or service a priority, and is it affordable during a period of fiscal restraint? Relevance and need—To what extent is there still a need for this program, activity or service? Federal role—To what extent is this program, activity or service consistent with the federal government’s roles and responsibilities? Organizational role—Would greater efficiencies be achieved if another department or agency, a government service provider, or the private sector delivered the program, activity or service?
- 51. Between 2007–08and 2010–11, over $2.8 billion in ongoing savings were generated from strategic reviews, making these funds available to reduce the government deficit or to allocate to higher-priority programs. 98% of Government expenditures were reviewed over the first 4 years. Guided by experts from outside government, in 2012, organizations were asked to focus on achieving efficiencies in their operations, as well as to refocus business processes and service delivery platforms. As a result, further Strategic Review savings of $5.2 billion were identified, representing 6.9 per cent of an aggregate review base of $75.3 billion.
- 52. The finalresults of the annual Strategic Review are announced in the federal budget of the following year. The results of the Strategic Reviews are published in the annual Budget Documents each year, and are available on-line for the public to examine.
- 53. The TreasuryBoard`s Centre of Excellence for Evaluation provides functional leadership, including guidance in the conduct evaluation practices across the federal government. The CEE website offers information, tools and resources for evaluation professionals in the federal government.