Alternate Format(s)

Printable Version

Government of Canada Evaluation Plan, 2005-06

September 15, 2005

Lee McCormack,
Executive Director
Results-based Management Directorate
Expenditure Management Sector, TBS

Outline

Presents corporate and departmental evaluation priorities for 2005–06
Communicates these priorities to Canadians, Parliamentarians, departments and central agencies
Offers suggestions and examples showing how to obtain the most value from evaluation functions
For departmental heads of evaluation, it identifies the necessary tools and information to deliver on commitments
Communications strategy to be developed

Demonstrating Value for Money
Program rationale	Continuing need Duplication Changed priorities Program plausibility Unintended impacts
Program effectiveness	Options on levels of program delivery Options for redesign to reduce costs
Program efficiency	Identify savings opportunities
Demonstrating Accountability - Program Design & Evaluation
Governance:	Resources tied to expected results Clear roles and responsibilities Accountabilities consistent with resources
Results Reporting:	Reliable information

Priority #1: A renewed commitment to leadership and capacity building

Partner with universities to develop accreditation program
Develop core learning curriculum and professional standards
Evaluation policy renewal and update 1982 guidance document
Increase the level of understanding and knowledge on the strategic and innovative use of evaluation especially in supporting the decision-making of departmental executives and Parliamentarians

Priority #2: Increase the strategic use of evaluation to support management expenditure

Develop new and innovative evaluation tools, such as the Value For Money Assessment tool
Active central agency role in capturing and analyzing evaluation findings

Priority #3: A continued emphasis on accountability for results:

Develop new set of evaluation standards and their application
Continue rigorous and systematic monitoring of evaluation quality, and health of departmental evaluation infrastructure

Provide evaluation requirements for the yet to be established Transfer Payment Policy
Respond to requirements of TB Policy Suite Renewal (eg: Audit Policy)
Improve quality of information for decision-making
Make better use of evaluation resources
Address demand for different types of information and services

Policy Directions

Policy Implications

Deputy Observations
Evaluation is not equated with evaluation units
Evaluation units under-resourced
Evaluators not viewed as maximizing their value-added – evaluation process has become just that, a process
Evaluation is a policy function
Lack of feedback between evaluation findings and policy/program development
Lack of independence – recommendations considered “porridge”

Deputy Observations

Policy Implications

Evaluators should be involved in program development
Too much contracting out – risks becoming a process, reduces internal capacity, independence
Evaluation should be risk-based, should not have blank requirements for G&Cs
RMAFs, although a good idea, has gone haywire, with consultants doing all the work

Clarify program development role
Ensure proper control over evaluation resources, address internal capacity issues
Move to a risk-based approach
Confirm recent changes with RMAFs in policy guidance

Provide direction without being overly prescriptive by:
- Re-orienting to meet deputy minister and central agency information needs (ie: re-balance vis a vis program managers)
- Increasing quality by strengthening standards, independence & objectivity
- Introducing array of evaluation tools to better meet deputy information needs

Provide guidance on the role, function and position of evaluation: