Evaluation of the Georgia Basin Action Plan

1. Overall, does the program (and its outcomes) make sense in terms of the CESF?

Mission/raison d’être connects with final outcome (CESF)

Demonstration of the program connection with CESF

• Outcome Project Plans, Outcome Project Groups, Governance Board (OPP/OPG/Board)

• CESF
  documentation

• Program performance framework

2. Role of government—Is there a legitimate and necessary role for government in this program area or activity?

Existence of private market failure or need to protect a perceived public good

• Demonstration of mandate to improve environmental quality which is deemed as a public good

• Facilitates inter- and intra-governmental relations (including federal/provincial/First Nations)

• Departmental Performance Reports, Reports on Plans & Priorities (DPR, RPP)

• Program literature

3. Federalism - Is the current role of the federal government appropriate, or is the program a candidate for realignment with the provinces/territories?

How does this activity or program balance the need for coordinated Canada- wide action with the need for flexibility to reflect the diverse needs and circumstances of provinces/territories and regions?

The program is situated at the appropriate level of government without need for realignment

• Demonstration that program is linked to federal government priorities

• Federal government has constitutional jurisdiction

• Demonstration that program is linked to provincial/territorial government priorities

• Provincial government has constitutional jurisdiction

• Territorial government has jurisdiction

• Demonstration of consultation/ consideration of provincial territorial organizations

• Constitution Act,
  1867

• Federal Speech from the Throne; Federal Budget Speech

• Provincial/territorial budget speech

• Provincial/territorial programs

• Consultations with provinces/territories

• Interviews

4. What would be the consequences if the activity or program did not exist?

The program does or does not serve a recognized and needed function

Demonstration of the utility/rationale for program

• OPP/OPG/Board

• RMAF; RBAF; Corporate Risk Profile

• Interviews

5. Public Interest – Does the program area or activity continue to serve the public interest?
Is the program defined
in terms of targeted client groups?

The program is connected with societal/ environmental needs

Reach is analyzed and targeted, and connected to societal/ environmental requirements

• OPP/OPG/Board

• Program literature

• Interviews; surveys

6. Does the planned work clearly contribute to delivering departmental outcomes (OPP, OPG & Board) and Board priorities?

The program is aligned with departmental outcomes and Board priorities

Demonstration of the direct outcome linkages with Board and departmental outcomes

• OPP/OPG/Board, Board priorities

• Program literature

7. Are changes required to ensure alignment with current departmental priorities as well as the CESF? If yes, does the Program (OPP) and its activities address the need for such changes [e.g. mechanisms].

Refer to answers to questions 1 and 6. Program rationale addresses required changes if needed.

Demonstration of the need for change and response in program

• OPP/OPG/Board

• Interviews

8. Do all OPPs within the scope of the OPG need to exist?

There is sound/explicit
rationale for all OPPs with regards to the OPG

Demonstration of the need for suite of OPPs within an OPG; explicit
linkage of each OPP to its
OPG

• OPP/OPG/Board interviews

9. What are the closely connected existing programs and how is
duplication avoided and complementarity achieved (including non-federal government programs)?

Program delivery does not duplicate other programs

Analysis of comparable programs as to duplication and complementarity

• Reports on program design

• Interviews

10. What has happened as a result of the program? Have
any outcomes been achieved as a
result of the program? What have been its environmental impacts?

The program shows results and outcomes

Documentation of outputs, documentation reports program impacts

• Program literature

• Periodic reports on progress

• Stakeholder/partner surveys

11. What are the implications for Canada’s economic growth and competitiveness?

The program may have impacts on Canada’s economic growth and competitiveness

Economic reporting demonstrates links between this environmental program and economic growth and competitiveness specifically the value of natural capital and capital services

• Economic reports; quarterly statistics; Bank of Canada reports; DPR, OPP, OPG, Treasury Board (TB) submission

12. Have there been any unintended results, either positive or negative, that can be attributed to the program? If so,
how were they addressed?

• Unintended outcomes are present that can be attributed to the program

• Actions to address unintended
  impacts are taken

• Presence of  impacts beyond that outlined in expected program design and delivery outcomes

• Management determines actions to be taken given unanticipated results by maximizing the positive and mitigating the negative

• Survey of partners/ stakeholders

• Program management interviews

• Review of program meeting minutes; correspondence

13. Are there better ways of achieving the results? Have alternative programs been examined that might achieve the objectives and intended impacts and effects?

Alternative delivery methods have been analyzed

Demonstration of analysis of various delivery options/opportunities

• Program design reports; case studies

• Program management

14. Efficiency – If the program or
activity continues, how could its efficiency be improved?

Program or activity shows opportunity for efficiency increases

• Demonstration of analysis of cost over time in program delivery

• Demonstration of analysis of cost profile of program

• Cost over time analysis

• Costing details (e.g. salaries, operating costs, etc.)

• Program design literature; documentation

15. Should the program or activity include a cost recovery element? If yes, does it?

Delivery of customized goods/services to the gains of niche audiences. A cost recovery mechanism is present; if applicable.

Demonstration of analysis of reach/outputs. Demonstration of
financial
analysis/reporting on cost recovery

• Program financial reports

• Documentation of cost recovery mechanisms, Program literature, program interviews

16. Value for money – Are Canadians getting value for their tax dollars? Is the program or activity cost- effective?

The program shows value for money by demonstrating its cost-effectiveness

Demonstration of analysis of costs and impacts of program in its design and delivery

• Cost-effectiveness analysis/reporting

• Program financial reports, program literature

17. Affordability – Is the resultant package of programs and activities affordable? If not, what programs or activities would
be abandoned?

The program is financially affordable without the need to abandon
components

Delivery options/opportunities documented; cost of program is benchmarked with comparable programs

• Program design reports

• Case studies

• Interviews

18. Does the program identify clear deliverables and expected results?

Expected results and deliverables are clearly identified

Demonstration of the program’s expected deliverables and results

• OPP/OPG/Board

• Plans; reports; work plans; TB submissions

19. Are the activities and outputs of the program consistent with its mandate
and plausibly linked to the outcomes in terms of clarity and attribution?

• Activities and outputs are linked with mandate and outcomes

• The attribution of outcomes to the program is plausible

• Documentation that describes program and links between mandate, activities, outputs and its outcomes

• Program design documents causality within the logic model

• OPG/OPP/Board

• Documentation of program design

20. Are decision- making processes in place to allow for the highest areas
of importance to be reflected in the allocation of resources (priorities)?

Allocation of resources is based on highest importance and resourced according to priorities

• Selection process for areas of importance are applied

• Criteria that are used to evaluate proposals, as to priorities and commensurately allocate resources are applied

• Documentation - meeting minutes; reports; plans; Corporate Risk Profile

• Interviews

21. How has risk been addressed? Has a risk management strategy been developed? Is it adequate?

Risk is adequately addressed and managed

• Risks are identified with mitigating strategies

• Risk management strategy is present; and is robust

• OPP/OPG/Board

• Risk assessments; RBAF; Corporate Risk Profile

22. Is there a clear and compelling analysis of capacity requirements? Are any proposals for increased capacity well justified?

Program capacity requirements are recognized; requests for program capacity increases are well-justified

• Demonstration of  the program’s capacity is commensurate with its design and delivery

• Demonstration of the analysis of need for increases in the program’s capacity

• OPP/OPG/Board

• Documentation; TB Submission; RMAF

23. Is there a clear link between program design and the CESF pillars (decision-making, information,
science & technology, performance promotion and enforcement, and education and engagement)?

Appropriate strategies are present in program design

Demonstration of application of CESF Pillars to program design is clear and explicit

• OPP/OPG/Board

• CESF Pillar Decks

• Program Management literature

• Minutes from management decision-making meetings

24. Partnership – What activities or programs should or could be transferred in
whole or in part to the private/voluntary sector? Have opportunities for partnerships with communities, voluntary sector
and private sector been considered?

Partnerships have been explicitly and exhaustively explored

• Presence of documentation that stakeholders are involved; engaged; contribute resources where appropriate; jointly plan

• Partnerships have been analyzed and knowingly selected

• OPP/OPG/Board

• Survey stakeholders and partners; file review; reports on program design; interviews

25. How consistent is the program or activity with its own proposed approach (has the program been delivered as designed)?

The program is consistent with and follows its defined approach/ methodology

Program design matches program delivery; any deviations are documented and well-justified

• Reports on program design

• Program management

• TB submission

26. Are Environment Canada management and staff, and partners, supportive of the goals and objectives for this program?

Program staff and delivery partners are aligned, comfortable and supportive of program design and delivery

Demonstration of staff/partner perspectives on design/delivery

• Interviews with staff, partners

27. Is there an established structure that provides for responsive management and logically supports the achievement of goals and objectives?

Program management structures align with program delivery

Management structure operates to support delivery

• Program literature

• Minutes of program management meetings

• Interviews

28. Is there comprehensive monitoring and reporting on performance that allows management and staff to carry out their
responsibilities and demonstrate results?

Performance measurement and reporting monitors program operations

Implemented and operating performance measurement information system

• Performance management information system

• Interviews

29. Who is accountable for the program?
Are the roles and responsibilities of all groups involved clear?  Is there an appropriate accountability framework (e.g. for multi-stakeholder agreements)?

Defined program management structure for program

Roles, responsibilities
and accountability is clear and duly implemented

• Program literature

• Minutes of program management meetings

• Interviews