Library and Archives Canada
Symbol of the Government of Canada

Institutional links

ARCHIVED - About Us

Archived Content

This archived Web page remains online for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. This page will not be altered or updated. Web pages that are archived on the Internet 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 of this page on the Contact Us page.

Response of Library and Archives Canada Management and - Accountability Framework Assessment Round V (2007–2008)

Results and Performance

The Government of Canada wants to ensure that "relevant information on results (internal, service and program) is gathered and used to make departmental decisions, and public reporting is balanced, transparent, and easy to understand."

Based on this component of the MAF, LAC undertakes to maintain the evaluation capacities it needs to obtain the data that are essential to LAC's decisions and contribution, and to carry out professional assessments of institutional policies and programs. LAC places a high value on the thoroughness of its organizational reports. Relying on a PAA ensures that the content of the reports is in line with the institution's activities and is easily understood.

TBS used two performance indicators in assessing this MAF component. The first deals with the quality and use of evaluation, with TBS stating "assessment of the evaluation function remains problematic, owing to the lack of evaluation reports." The second deals with the quality of reporting to Parliament, where TBS recommends setting out LAC's institutional expectations more clearly in the Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP) and the Departmental Performance Report (DPR).

Indicators TBS evaluation
6. Quality and use of evaluationOpportunity for improvement
7. Quality reporting to ParliamentOpportunity for improvement

TBS recommendations:

  • Assessment of the evaluation function remains problematic, owing to the lack of evaluation reports.
  • The greatest importance should be given to the quality of the evaluation now under way, so that the quality of the function may be validated.
  • LAC could improve by clearly reporting program activity expected results in the RPP along with how performance will be judged.
  • LAC could increase the results-focus of the RPP and DPR and ensure that planning and performance information is presented on the basis of the MRRS.
  • By further discussing performance at the program activity level and the progress made towards strategic outcomes, LAC could augment the rigour of its reporting.
  • LAC could further enhance the credibility and balance of the DPR by integrating objective, evidence-based performance information.
  • Finally, LAC could improve by increasing its reporting on lessons learned and corrective actions.

Action plan:

  • LAC has now instituted measures to provide for the quality and use of evaluation:
    • LAC will continue to update its governance structure for the evaluation function.
    • LAC will continue to share a risk-based evaluation plan with TBS.
    • A senior management committee is in place to support, oversee and monitor the evaluation function and management accountabilities arising from evaluations and results-based management accountability frameworks (RMAF).
  • LAC will take the following actions to ensure quality reporting to Parliament:
    • The 2008–2009 RPP and the 2007–2008 DPR were presented on the basis of the MRRS.
    • Linkages between program activity and strategic outcomes level performance were made in the 2008–2009 RPP and the 2007–2008 DPR.
    • LAC will continue to revise and implement its performance measurement framework to include a complete set of performance measures with respect to the MRRS and PAA.
    • Verifiable evidence-based performance information (when available) will be included in LAC's reports.
    • The 2007–2008 DPR template provided to sectors included a lessons learned field; When pertinent, key lessons learned were integrated into the DPR, with more sufficient explanation provided. This good practice will continue.
  • LAC will ensure the quality and efficient use of evaluation:
    • LAC will develop an RMAF for each PAA activity and for two enabling functions (Human Resources and Policy) (March 2009).
    • Based on the RMAFs, LAC will make a list of potential evaluation projects (between three and five) for the next three years (April 2009).
    • From the list of potential evaluation projects, LAC will establish an evaluation plan for next year and have it approved by a LAC Evaluation Committee (May 2009).
  • LAC will ensure that quality reports are provided to Parliament:
    • The 2009–2010 RPP template will make it possible to better reflect expected outcomes through a preliminary analysis of the desired results (Fall 2008).
    • Upcoming DPRs will feature more effective comparisons by drawing more connections between program activities and strategic outcomes.
    • LAC will revise its PAA and adjust the related performance measures to support a fully developed performance reporting framework (2009–2010).

Previous | Table of Contents | Next