Day 1: Wednesday, December 11, 2013
In the inaugural session, Dr Prajapati Trivedi, Secretary Performance Management, welcomed to the Global Roundtable the Cabinet Secretary to Government of India, Shri Ajit Seth, and around 300 participants from central and state governments, academia, public enterprises, former government officials, and private sector professionals. He highlighted the relevance and need for an in-depth discussion on the topic of the Roundtable, which is of high relevance to all countries. Dr. Trivedi introduced the speakers who had assembled from all over the globe to share their experiences on government performance management (GPM) systems in their countries.
The Cabinet Secretary, Sri Ajit Seth, in his inaugural address welcomed the participants and the speakers to the Global Roundtable and conveyed his best wishes to them for fruitful discussions over the coming two days. He said that today the question is not whether to improve performance of government departments, the real question is how to do it effectively. In this context, he urged international speakers to compare and contrast their approaches to Government Performance Management (GPM) with our approach in India. For it is only through this type interaction we can learn and improve our systems further.
Prof. R. K. Mishra, Director, Institute of Public Enterprise (IPE), thanked the Cabinet Secretary and Secretary Performance Management for their support to the Global Roundtable and he thanked the participants for taking out time from their busy schedules to attend this Roundtable.
As can be seen from the enclosed agenda for the Roundtable, 15 international speakers participated in the Roundtable. Almost all the speakers who made presentations were practitioners or in-charge of government departments involved in the implementation of the program in their respective countries. Their presentations were discussed by 25 discussants, who were either serving or former Secretaries to Government of India and Chief Secretaries.
The speakers from India, Brazil, Kenya, USA and UK presented their respective GPM systems on the first day of the Roundtable. A brief summary of highlights of the presentations follows.
GPM in India
In order to effectively establish performance culture, the Government of India established a Performance Management Division (PMD) in the Cabinet Secretariat in January 2009. The PMD is oversight agency responsible for establishing mechanisms for performance monitoring and performance evaluation in Government departments on a regular basis. Each government agency is responsible for preparation of a Results Framework Document (RFD) highlighting the departmental objectives and priorities for each financial year as well as reporting achievements of the department against pre-specified targets indicated in their RFD at the end of the year.
A High Power Committee (HPC) for Government Performance, chaired by Cabinet Secretary, has been constituted by Government of India to vet the quality of design of Results-Framework Documents as well as the achievements of each Ministry / Department against performance targets laid down. To ensure highest level of objective and professional scrutiny, Cabinet Secretariat is assisted by an independent group of experts called Ad-hoc Task Force (ATF) consisting of distinguished academicians, domain experts, former Secretaries and Chief Secretaries to the Government of India, former Chief Executives of Central Public Sector Enterprises (PSUs) and retired Corporate Heads of reputable private enterprises.
GPM in Brazil
The efforts towards GPM system in Brazil can be traced to the Administrative Reforms initiated by the then Minister for Administrative Reforms, Luiz Carlos Bresser-Pereira, in 1995. High inflation and budgetary deficits were important drivers for this change. The circumstances in which the country was placed and the personality of Bresser Pereira, a well-known economist as well as a Minister and a close confident of President Cardoso, helped push the agenda for New Public Management and administrative reforms from 1995 to 1998 and again from the year 2002, a movement which has now continued. The reforms were patterned on the “managerialism” model developed in the Anglo-Saxon countries in the Thatcher years.
Under the reform process, Brazil took up an Integrated Development Plan (PMDI), comprising a long term plan, a medium term plan and a short term plan by the agencies. PMDI presented the future vision and long term plan for public sector performance. It broadly outlines national targets which are at the core of national transformation and are to be achieved through implementation of various programs and their respective strategic projects and processes. The medium term planning tool is the Multi-Year Government Action Plan (PPAG) specifies products and services to be delivered to society by region, with their respective amounts and values. It matches the strategic goals and core indicators described in the PMDI with Government programs and actions throughout a four-year period. Management Information and Planning System (SIGPLAN) is a computerized management tool provided by the Federal Government to the states to monitor the execution.
In Minas Gerais, the 3rd biggest Brazilian state in terms of population and economy, GPM system evolved in 2003 from a public sector reform agenda known as the “Management Shock.” Aimed to control the fiscal crisis facing the state, the shock therapy combined traditional fiscal adjustment measures like controlling the public expenditure with innovative activities to modernise the underlying administrative structure and introduce a results-based management system. The fundamentals of the GPMS in Minas Gerais are strategy implementation by means of performance agreements, alignment and incentives, strategic human resource management, participative management involving society, rational use of resources and integration of services. Results Agreements (RA) were an important element of the management shock programme designed to ensure the achievement of the desired results through the generation of commitments towards the agreed goals. These are performance contracts, whose primary aim is to align the Government strategy establishment in the Integrated Development Plan (PMDI) and the organizations responsible for its implementation.
GPM system in Minas Gerais (MG) has a two pronged strategy to inject transparency at both the level of society as well as agency. Currently, there are 68 results agreements in force, covering 97% of the state’s agencies. The RA is set annually at two levels. The level one is an agreement between the Governor and 22 groups of secretaries. At this stage, targets and indicators are agreed for: development results (outcomes), priorities, strategic initiatives and quality of expenditure. The Level two agreement is signed between the head of the secretariat and its operating units. It helps in cascading of targets agreed at the first level to all levels in the government. The Level Two Agreement is thus a tool for internal management of each agency, with a view to directing the efforts and resources of each work team, ensuring better quality of services. RA has been able to successfully introduce transparency and accountability in relation to the proposed results and the resources allocated. It has enabled the MG government to implement a results-oriented culture and stimulate performance through productivity awards and variable pay.
GPM in Kenya
Performance contracting system in Kenya was introduced in 2004 to enhance efficiency of public sector organisations. Performance contracts are implemented by all departments, state corporations, public universities, and tertiary institutions. Agencies develop a 5-year strategic plan which is mandatory under the system. The performance contract is a performance agreement between Government and the management of the agency which details out the performance targets, assign appropriate weightages to the criteria proposed to be achieved at the end of each year. The contracts in Kenya have an important feature as they indicate the service delivery standards of the agencies involved which are also assigned appropriate weightages. Evaluation of performance is carried out by external experts who are not public servants. A five-point rating scale is used to rank the performance of agencies under the performance contract. The system is wholly web-based and is administered by external experts from private sector, professional associations and the academia. Government therefore does not evaluate its own performance. Another important feature of the system is that the government takes up customer satisfaction surveys to assess the service delivery levels and satisfaction of people.
The System of Performance Contracting is currently administered by the Performance Contracting Division in the Department of Planning and Devolution, in the Office of the Prime Minister.
GPM in South Africa
In South Africa the performance assessment of government agencies are carried out based on its alignment with the national priorities (outcomes). There is an interesting feature in South Africa where the M&E of front-line service delivery is also done in terms of unannounced visits, presidential hotline, citizen based monitoring, government-wide M&E System and monitoring of local government. The evalaution system makes in mandatory for the departments to submit proposals for intervention to evaluate (policies, programmes, projects) as they have to own the evaluation and implement the findings. Evaluations are made public unless security concerns are there and all evaluation reports in the national system go to Cabinet (which approves the plan) and then to Parliament. If evaluations identifies weaknesses, then there must be an improvement plan which is monitored.
A Steering Committee makes decisions on evaluation not department and external service providers undertake the evaluation reporting to the Steering Committee to ensure independence of the evalaution. While to ensure quality, peer reviewers (normally 2) per evaluation are carried out. Evaluation panel, standards, guidelines and training are done for maintaining the quality standards.
At cutting edge service delivery points monitoring ususally involves unannounced visits to front line services eg. police stations, clinics, home affairs offices, social grant offices, interviewing citizens, front-line staff and management, focus on service standards, queues, attitude of staff, cleanliness of facilities, etc, are assessed. Presidential Hotline is another important feature which recieves almost, 137 000 calls, which are individually followed up. To provide an integrated and holistic picture of performance for each municipality, indicators of management performance- planning, human resources, finances, community engagement, and governance are developed and monitored. Indicators for assessing service delivery performance are also developed to enable strategic leadership of local government sector and inform policy reform initiatives; provide evidence for tailored and coordinated support / intervention measures to specific municipalities; guide national and provincial departments to better support municipalities in identified areas of underperformance.
GPM in USA
In the US, Government Accountability Office was established in 1921 to review the public spending of government. In 2004, the role of GAO enlarged and the function of performance audit along with financial audit was included. In the year 1993, a robust law was enacted entitled- The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) with an objective to improve project management and enhance service delivery efficiency of government departments. The act made it mandatory for all the government agencies to design mechanisms for improved performance by setting goals, measuring results and reporting progress. In 2010, President Obama improvised and renamed the law- Government Performance and Results Modernization Act (GPRMA 2010) which made is mandatory for the agencies to publish their strategic and performance plans and reports on websites. The Act provided scope to adopt latest practices from State, local, international examples into government processes.
The agencies are mandated to prepare Agency Strategic Plans, and Agency Performance Plan and place them on their organsitional website.
The main oversight agency responsible for the review is the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Chief Performance Officer (CPO) appointed by the President leading the review. Goals leaders drive the progress of the goals and review quarterly progress. The performance Improvement Council (PIC) at the OMB is responsible for monitoring and review. Chief Operating Officers (COOs) the deputy head in each agency responsible for improving the management and performance of the agencies. Performance Improvement Officers (PIOs) a senior executive of the agency with a responsibility to advice and assists the head and deputy head of an agency in areas like goal setting, planning and performance measurement.
GPM in UK
The Government of UK laid great emphasis on improving public services since early 1990s. Initially, the performance reviews started with the HM Treasury initiating a Comprehensive Spending Review to set expenditure limits and focuses on government department's spending requirements. Later on the scope expanded and this review was followed by entering into Public service agreements with the government agencies clearly defining the key improvements that the public can expect from these resources.
Public Service Agreements (PSAs) were first introduced in the 1998, which attempted to establish a link between agency spending and standard of public service being offered by the agencies. During the initial years, though the PSAs were not fine-tuned and a generic format was used for all the agencies which were later tailor-made and fine-tuned. PSA details out the aims and objectives of agencies for a three-year period and describes how targets will be achieved and how performances against these targets will be measured. Initially as a part of the comprehensive spending review around 600 performance targets were identified for around 35 Government departments. Later on it was refined in the CSR in 2000 and the number of top level PSAs was reduced to around 160, covering 18 departments. In the 2002 Spending Review reduced the number of PSA targets further from 160 to 130. The number of PSA targets after the 2004 Spending Review came down to 126. So as of today there are around 126 performance targets against which the review is conducted.
The Service Delivery Agreements (SDAs) are made at the departmental/agency levels which have lower level set of targets for the purpose of agency delivery activities and were in synch with the PSAs. In the year 2004, during the Spending review government realized that they had done considerable progress with the PSA framework and reduced the number of PSA targets as they had achieved national standards established. Therefore they wanted to focus on local public service agreements with local authorities to prioritize issues at local levels. At this point SDAs were abolished. The SDAs were replaced by Delivery Plans for each Department/agency. Unlike SDAs, there is no requirement to publish these plans. Local performance standards and local publication of performance indicators and targets replaced national targets.
Day 2: Thursday, December 12, 2013
The speakers from Indonesia, Australia, Canada, Vietnam and Malaysia, Korea presented their respective systems on GPM on the second day. Almost all the speakers who presented at the roundtable were basically practitioners/heads of governments involved in the implementation of the program.
GPM in Indonesia
In the backdrop of the country facing several economic challenges a major initiative was taken by the government to revamp the system. The Government identified several challenges to accelerating development such as prevalence of ethically challenged practices which had spread wide across various sectors like permits, taxes and customs, land, and labor. Delegation and autonomy at the local levels was another major challenge faced by the country. Coordination was a major issue here. The other big challenge was the attitude of the bureaucracy.
Thus the GPM system in Indonesia emanated largely from the existing Governance Deficit. Current Indonesian President converted his electoral campaign promises into vision, mission and charter of his new government. In 2011, UKP4 a strategic delivery unit, was set up under the direct supervision of the President for ensuring delivery of Government’s Developmental Programs. UKP4, located in Vice President’s office would be eyes, ears and extended arms of President. Main duties of UKP4 are to assist President in developing, monitoring and oversight of national programmes and assist him in supervision and control so that all targets are met. Priority duties of this unit were determined by the President. This unit was meant to develop an overall understanding of the challenges that the country faced in implementing a development agenda and develop effective systems for monitoring. The unit has three major responsibilities, which include monitoring government programs; debottlenecking and policy monitoring; and establishing and operating the Bina Graha – the Situation Room.
UKP4’s objectives included:
- Improve capacity and effectiveness of logistic system;
- Improve the effectiveness and acceleration of bureaucracy reform and delivery of public services;
- Improve business and investment climate;
- Improve the performance and accountability of strategic State-Owned Enterprises;
- Other areas to be specified by the President.
As per the scheme of things under UKP4, various Ministries prepare strategic plans for their development programs, based on a set of focused national priorities which include bureaucratic reform and governance; education; health; poverty reduction; food security; infrastructure; investment and business climate; energy; environmental issues and so on.11 major priorities were taken up and later 3more were added involving 45 ministries, 70 programmes, 370 indicators, 155 action plans. Focus was on easily measureable, quantifiable, verifiable indicators. Simplicity, ease of reporting, and attention in media were the norms applied. The UKP4 undertakes monitoring, verification of results and reporting and ensures that these programs run smoothly to achieve their assigned goals. The unit is provided full authority to monitor each Ministry’s implementation of the President’s policies.
UKP4 also monitors to what degree the local government applies the action plan designed by the central government. The results of monitoring activities are reported to the President and Vice President bi-monthly in order to facilitate more accurate decision-making. The Bina Graha Situation Room is designed to acquire reports on national project implementation and facilitate efficient decision making. The entire operation is Geographic Information System-based.
In 2011, UKP4 launched a Web and SMS accessible Public Participation Information System called Lapor, which means “to report” in Indonesia. The purpose of this was to get information from the public on variety of issues that included corrupt practices of local officials, status of projects on the ground, local problems faced by the people etc. The information received is first evaluated for authenticity, relevance etc. and then action taken on it or further information called for. Thus the UKP4’s mandate is limited, but provides useful assistance to President and Ministers.
GPM in South Korea
In the context of South Korea, the monitoring of performance of government agencies is done by National Audit Office (NAO) and this system has been in place since 1961. By the year 2000, monitoring focus has moved from process to output/outcome. Performance budgeting made it mandatory for agencies to develop strategic objectives, performance goals, performance indicators. In 2005, Budgetary Program Assessment (BPA) was initiated wherein 1/3 of major budgetary activities are evaluated every year. This model was based on the PART (Program Assessment Rating Tool) used by the United States. In 2014, Performance Information (PI) Board & BPA was set up to reviews all budgetary activities through PI Board. A National Finance Act was enacted in December, 2006 to provide a legal basis for public financial management reforms.
The GPM system starts with the Prime minister’s Office which draws up a comprehensive framework for the system and monitors the implementation based on the guidelines provided by the Government Policy Evaluation Framework Act”. The Ministry of Strategy and Finance (MoSF) is the oversight agency. The evaluation of managerial performance is taken up for all public entities including state enterprises and quasi-government entities. At the local administration levels, the Ministry of Security and Public Administration & Security (MoSPA) reviews their financial performance. Various line ministries perform their own monitoring and evaluation.
One very interesting feature in Korean government performance management system the monitoring and evaluation of the executive branch is supplemented by the public research institutes and external experts. Although the relevant central ministry provides key inputs into evaluation process, most evaluation activities are conducted by the public research institutes or evaluation committees consisting of experts. Some line ministries have their own evaluation unit, but many of them rely on the public research institutes and experts. The National Audit Office is responsible for taking up traditional audit, performance audit, examination of annual performance report from the central government.
GPM in Malaysia
Performance Management System in Malaysia evolved over the years as a part of the budgetary systems and the desire of the administration to give visibility to the attainment of budgetary objectives. It started with a traditional budgeting system in 1957-1968 wherein priority was given to programming of inputs. In 1969-1989 program performance budgeting system was introduced to meet development challenges. Agencies were directed to identify clearly their missions and objectives of their programs and projects.In 1990-2012, Modified Budgeting System (MBS) was introduced with an emphasis on Empowerment and Accountability and with more focus outcomes of the department.
Results Based Management (RBM) started with the introduction of Program Performance Budgeting System (PPBS) in the 1960s with an attempt to focus on results and objective achievement. An integrated RBM system was developed in the late 1990s which was based on the performance framework that was first introduced in the Malaysian public sector. However, the original performance framework did not take into account full integration between the operating and development budgets as well as the personnel performance management. There was also a marked absence of tight links between budget performance and policy implementation. These were identified as fundamental missing links in the earlier version of the RBM system. This resulted in development of an Integrated Performance Management Framework (IPMF) resembling a strategic performance plan for the public sector entity. The IPMF basically requires top management within the Ministry and Departments to be actively involved in strategic performance planning and active consultation and consensus building with the lower accountability levels. This is in line with the top-down and bottom-up approach in the IRBM system. This strategic performance planning process essentially focuses on citizens / client and their needs/problems analysis and on results at the various stages of implementation such as resource utilisation (inputs), activity completion, output generation, and outcome/impact achievement.
The entire IRBM initiative is coordinated through a national steering committee chaired by the Secretary General of the Ministry of Finance. The Program Agreement is an annual contract between the Ministries and the Treasury’s Budget Division. If the performance of the agency is beyond the acceptable variance range specified in the Program agreement, the Ministry has to prepare an exception report to explain the variance.
The cornerstone of the IRBM is its detailed but practical focus on systematic and structured performance measurement and its linkages with policy-making, resources management, program performance improvement, and other critical success factors in performance management. The IRBM system is made up 2 primary components and 3 complementary components. The two primary components are Results Based Budgeting System (RBB), and Results Based Personnel Performance System (PPS). While the three complementary components are Results Based Management Information System (MIS), Results Based Monitoring& Evaluation Framework (M&E) and E-Government (EG) system.
Under the IRBM, every Ministry is required to carry out evaluation of its program on an annual basis. Malaysia has opted for the Internalised Evaluation Model which they find useful as they regard evaluation as a continuous development process and not just a report card process. The Government in Malaysia does not publish the composite scores but the results are presented to Parliament which can then be assessed by the public. The Performance Budget, Outcome Budgets and Performance agreements and results are all published as a single document.
GPM in Vietnam
The performance management system in Vietnam basically rests on the concept called PAPI (Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index). This is a policy monitoring tool on largest nationwide governance and public administration survey in Viet Nam, based on which monitoring changes in government performance have been carried out. Voice of Vietnamese citizens about governance and public administration experiences is taken into consideration as a part of this survey. Since 2010 more than 32,500 citizens surveyed and in 2012 alone: 13,747 citizens. This survey provides evidence and data to policy makers and a complement to self-assessments and other surveys.
PAPI measures how citizens experience implementation of policies, laws and regulations. PAPI is a barometer of performanceit assesses the effectiveness of policy making, policy implementation by government agencies at the state and central levels as well as policy monitoring in terms of outputs, outcomes delivered to the society. The Inputs include State investments in terms of policies, institutions, finance and human resources. The processes include Operation and implementation processes by state and executive agenciesand the Outputs include Products” and services provided by state and executive agencies to organisations and individuals.
PAPI provides an overview of performance nationwide. The dimensions included are: Participation at local levels, 2: Transparency3: Vertical Accountability4: Control of corruption5: Administrative procedures6: Public service delivery.
GPM in Australia
The Australian system of government performance management evolved in three phases. In 1986-87, government started systematically evaluating all government programs every 3 -5 years. In 1996-2007, a Performance Framework with focus on Outcome & Outputs was developed. Monitoring of Performance Indicators was also initiated providing greater accountability reporting to the parliament. From 2007 till date evidence based evaluation and monitoring framework is in place with focus on outcome and outputs, program budgeting, evaluation and review. The Department of Finance provides guidelines on outcome agreements and performance reporting sector-wise. Reporting is done by various government agencies in terms of submitting annuals reports and portfolio budget statements. Reports are submitted to the parliament and are put out for public viewing.
The current system in practice in Australia is intergovernmental agreement on federal financial relations. This agreement is done between the Common Wealth of Australia and States and Territories, Signed by Prime minister and Heads of state. This agreement implements a new framework for federal financial relations which will provide a robust foundation for collaboration on policy development and service delivery and facilitate the implementation of Intergovernmental Agreement economic and social reforms in areas of national importance. The key objectives are to collaborative working arrangements, including clearly defined roles and responsibilities and fair and sustainable financial arrangements, to facilitate a focus by the Parties on long term policy development and enhanced government service delivery; enhanced public accountability through simpler, standardised and more transparent performance reporting by all jurisdictions, with a focus on the achievement of outcomes, efficient service delivery and timely public reporting; reduced administration and compliance overheads; stronger incentives to implement economic and social reforms; the on-going provision of Goods and Services Tax (GST) payments to the States and Territories equivalent to the revenue received from the GST; and the equalisation of fiscal capacities between States and Territories.
Principles of the Guidelines issued by Federal Government are Primary Responsibility for service delivery, Focus on improving the wellbeing of Australians, Coordinated Federal Action, Accountability, Financial Support, Greater incentive for economic & social reforms. Agreements are various kinds- National Agreements (NAs) focuses on high level public accountability for outcomes. Reform-based National Partnership Agreements (Reform NPs)include intermediate outcomes or output measures that are developed with the same conceptual link between performances measures and the desired outcome and Project NPs which are solely project-based should be limited to milestones, which are defined as the completion of a phase of a project.
GPM in Canada
The performance monitoring system was developed in order to fight deficit and control new spending. In 1995 Program Review was done for entire spending base, late 1990s - budget surpluses lead to new spending without an anchor to discipline. Subsequent deliberations in this regard culminated in the formal implementation of Government Performance Measurement System in 2005.The two basic attributes of the present system are ,1) it is an integrated system 2) has policy - driven approach
The Expenditure Management System was established to support the Government in the identification and implementation of its priorities and spending plans within the fiscal limits established by the Budget. These priorities are then included in the Report on Plans and Priorities, which are tabled in Parliament each year as part of the Main Estimates and progress against which are reported on in Parliament the subsequent year in the Departmental Performance Report. The Reports on Plans and Priorities and Departmental Performance are written in a manner that conforms to the Treasury Board Policy on Management Resources and Results Structure(MRRS), which specifies how to describe programs (and the financial and personnel resources allocated to them), as well as set out end results sought and the indicators of performance used to measure if these results are being achieved. It is comprised of a number of processes, roles, responsibilities and procedures established to support the Government in achieving aaggregate fiscal discipline (i.e. control of overall growth in spending); effective allocation of government resources to areas of highest relevance, performance and priority; and efficient and effective program delivery.
The key features of GPM system includes that all spending must be managed to transparent results/outcomes for clear measures for performance, assessed and evaluated systematically and regularly and demonstrate value for money. , Further, consequences are meted out for poor performance on a couple of levels. First, on the budgetary level, if programs are performing badly, they are evaluated and reported on and they become part of the periodic strategic reviews of programs. Poorly performing programs may be subject to budget cuts or terminations and resources reallocated to high performing, high priority programs. Consequences are also meted at the level of individuals. Ministers are held to account for their performance and that of their programs in Parliament by the opposition and in Cabinet by the Prime Minister and colleagues. Deputy Minister’s performance (and that of the programs for which they are responsible) is also assessed, in part through the annual Management Accountability Framework assessments, and the feedback that is provided to the Committee of Senior Officials, chaired by the Clerk, which recommends their performance pay.
Legal framework was established to support performance measurement and monitoring. The Financial Administration Act was brought in which states that the Government needs Parliament’s authority in order to make payments. The authority is provided through legislation, either specific legislation or an appropriation act. The specific legislation deals with a particular type of payment and contains provisions governing the dollar amount, purposes and time period for the payments. The approval provided is referred to as a Statutory Authority. For example: Major transfer payments to people and other levels of government, such as Employment Insurance and the Canada Health Transfer to provinces. An Appropriation Act provides authority for a fiscal year which is called a Voted Authority. Approximately 2/3 of government spending is authorized under statutory authorities; 1/3 through appropriation acts. Supply is the process by which Government obtains Parliament’s authority through appropriation acts.In approving an appropriation act, Parliament authorizes a particular amount which the Departments may spend. If they spend more than that amount or spend less, in which case the authority to spend lapses.
Further, with regard to the overall audit regime, it eessentially consists three parts to the system: first, the Auditor General, an agent of Parliament (not the executive) audits (both financial audits and performance audits) departmental spending and reports at least twice a year to Parliament (and appears before the Public Accounts Committee) to explain the results of those audits; second, the Comptroller General of Canada (part of the executive) undertakes horizontal audits of government spending on areas deemed to be of high risk as well as (financial) core control audits of small departments and agencies that do not have a strong internal audit capacity. These reports are reviewed by the Government of Canada Audit Committee (based in Treasury Board Secretariat, and made up of non-government members) and made public on the Treasury Board website. And finally the Chief Audit executives in each of the departments and agencies audits the departments own spending in areas deemed by the deputy minister and audit committee to be of high risk. They audits are review by the departments audit committee (made up of non-government members) and are shared with the Comptroller General of Canada. They are also published on the department’s website.