|
The following is a selective list of major ASD types undertaken by the
federal government. It is not intended to be exhaustive.
Service Agencies
This section includes three types of federal agencies: special
operating agencies (SOA’s), legislated
agencies, and departmental
service organizations.
SOA’s are the most common and flexible federal service agency
option, created by approval of Treasury Board. The creation of a service
agency through legislation is a more onerous process. It is a route chosen
only for significant initiatives, in which legislation is required to
deal with issues particular to the organization. Where a legislated agency
may be inappropriate, SOA’s can be considered.
In certain circumstances, an organization may be created which is not
sufficiently autonomous to be considered for SOA status, but is sufficiently
distinct from the rest of the parent department to justify a special status.
This is called a "departmental service organization".
These three types are briefly outlined below:
(a) SOAS
The SOA concept is designed to achieve a balance between the philosophy
of control (and risk avoidance) and the desire to encourage innovation
and promote initiative. Agencies support a set of values -- including
innovation, enhanced authority at the front line, client-centred operation,
self-regulation, better management of people and accountability for results
-- which will lead to greater efficiency of operation and improved service
quality.
In essence, SOAs give service delivery units increased management flexibility
in return for agreed upon levels of performance and results. SOAs are
not independent legal entities – no legislation is required to establish
an SOA. They remain part of their departmental organization, their employees
continue as public servants and union representation stays intact. They
remain accountable to their home department for results.
However, unlike other departmental units, SOAs operate under a tailor-made,
written understanding with the department. This understanding (consisting
of a "framework agreement" and a business plan) covers the results
and service levels expected, the flexibilities that have been granted
and the resources available to do the job.
The best candidates share a set of common characteristics:
- are primarily concerned with the delivery of services (rather than
internal policy advice);
- operate under a stable policy framework with a clear, ongoing mandate;
- are able to be held independently accountable within the parent department;
- are amenable to the development of clear performance standards;
- represent discrete unit of sufficient size to justify special consideration;
- are staffed by managers and employees who are committed to the SOA
approach; and
- require no significant ongoing ministerial involvement.
It is worthwhile noting that SOAs do not have to collect revenue and/or
operate on a full cost recovery basis. The collection of revenue is not
a necessary condition of SOA status.
There are currently 18 SOAs across 11 departments.
For more information and examples, see the Special Operating Agencies
sections of TBS Policies and Publications and
Related Links and Publications.
(b) LEGISLATED SERVICE AGENCIES / DEPARTMENTAL CORPORATIONS
A service agency is a mission-driven, client-oriented organization established
under constituent legislation to manage the delivery of services within
the federal government. The legislation sets out the framework under which
the agency will operate including its mandate, governance regime, powers
and authorities, and accountability requirements.
Service Agencies tend to have the following common characteristics:
- headed by a chief executive officer with the authority of a deputy
head and reporting directly to the Minister;
- subject to Ministerial direction;
- separate employer under the Public
Service Staff Relations Act (PSSRA); and increased staffing
authority;
- managed on the basis of a corporate business plan;
- focus on performance and accounting for results;
- particular financial and administrative authorities to improve performance
and service delivery, e.g., ability to enter into partnering arrangements,
non-lapsing spending authority, revenue retention and responding authority,
greater freedom in the use of common services.
- Auditor General oversight including capacity to report on the fairness
and reliability of information about an agency’s performance in
its annual reports;
- Subject to the Official
Languages Act, Privacy
Act and Access
to Information Act and Federal
Identity Program requirements.
A key consideration for service agencies is their ability to provide
more responsive and streamlined operations and to partner with the provinces
to provide better services to citizens in an efficient manner.
Examples:
Three service agencies were recently created in Budget ‘96:
For more information and examples, see TBS
Policies and Publications and Related Links
and Publications.
(c) DEPARTMENTAL SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS
These operational units or clusters of units within a department are
specifically organized and responsible for delivering services to the
department’s clients. Like SOAs, they operate within a management
framework approved by the deputy minister and the Treasury Board, but
may represent a larger share of the department’s overall activity
than a typical SOA. No separate legislation is required.
Example:
Currently, there is only one such organization: Meteorological
Service of Canada (MSC) in Environment Canada.
In Environment Canada, there are four business lines, one of those being
the Weather and Environmental Prediction (WEP). There are four Assistant
Deputy Ministers (ADM’s), each responsible for one business line.
The MSC is responsible for the WEP business line.
Environment Canada is also divided in five geographic jurisdictions,
each of which is headed by a Regional Director General who is responsible
for the four Environment Canada business lines in his/her area. Therefore,
both the ADM for MSC and all five RDGs are accountable to the Deputy Minister
of Environment Canada for specific MSC programs.
This arrangement was sufficiently distinct from the management structure
of the SOA model and the traditional departmental model to warrant a new
designation.
For more information, see TBS Policies and Publications
and Related Links and Publications.
For more information relating to service agencies generally,
please see:
TBS Policies and Publications
Related Links and Publications
Contact Us
Partnerships and Collaborative Arrangements
Under the new Policy on ASD, ASD includes bringing together
organizations from across government, between levels of government, or
across sectors through partnerships and collaborative arrangements (e.g., single windows, co-locations,
or clustering of services) to provide more seamless and citizen-centred
services.
Partnering, from the perspective of the public sector, is an arrangement
between a government institution and one or more parties (inside or outside
government) where there is an agreement to work cooperatively to achieve
public policy objectives and where there is:
- delineation of authority and responsibility among partners;
- joint investment of resources (such as time, funding, expertise);
- allocation of risk among partners; and
- mutual or complementary benefits.
Such arrangements can result in innovative, cost-effective and efficient
ways to deliver government programs and services. They can improve how
governments serve specific citizen’s needs by making the right connections
across public and private sector organisations of government and consequently
contribute to achieving results that are meaningful to Canadians.
To be successful and to properly serve the public interest, any partnering
arrangement needs clearly defined objectives, well-defined roles and responsibilities
for each of the parties, effective governance structures, accountability
mechanisms to Parliament and to the public, transparent decision making,
including dispute resolution processes, performance measures, and results
reporting.
For more information relating to partnerships, please see:
TBS Policies and Publications
Related Links and Publications
Contact Us
Employee Takeovers
An employee takeover is a form of contracting-out. It involves a transfer
of work from within the public service to the private sector under contract
with former employees.
ETOs are done when it is not necessary to continue to perform a function
within government, or when the private sector provides the opportunity
to perform the work better or at a lower cost. Employee takeovers provide
employment continuity for staff in their transition out of government
and ensure that those who know the work are available to do it with the
least amount of disruption during restructuring. They also offer the opportunity
to entrepreneurial employees to provide services in a more client-focused
and innovative way while growing a new small business.
ETO initiatives are driven by employees willing to face a new challenge,
whether it is the result of an organizational decision to invite ETO proposals
or an employee’s decision to submit an unsolicited proposal.
Each ETO situation is different. Having a flexible government-wide policy
is necessary to accommodate the needs and opportunities of individual
cases. The Treasury Board established an Employee
Takeover policy in 1996, which is enabling, not mandatory. It makes
it possible for departments to take maximum advantage of ETOs where that
is the preferred way of restructuring an activity.
The government’s experience with ETOs is relatively new. Employee
takeovers have been undertaken in such diverse areas as painting and campground
services in national parks, property management services for parkways
and other public lands and facilities; the development of environmental
standards and approval of products meeting those standards, and operation
of a fish bait program.
For more information relating to employee takeovers, please see:
TBS Policies and Publications
Related Links and Publications
Contact Us
Crown Corporations
Crown Corporations are legally distinct entities wholly owned, either
directly or indirectly, by the Crown and managed by their respective boards
of directors. The enabling legislation for each parent Crown corporation
sets out the corporation’s mandate, powers and objectives. The majority
of parent Crown corporations must have their corporate plans and budgets
approved annually by the government. Each parent Crown corporation reports
to Parliament through the minister responsible for the corporation. These
reports include the corporation’s annual report.
While the option of creating a Crown corporation is within the scope
of the new Policy on ASD, the policy does not apply to existing Crown
corporations.
For more information relating to Crown Corporations, please see:
Crown Corporations
|
