Ces conference presentation 2013 final_june 2013


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ces conference presentation 2013 final_june 2013

  1. 1. Regulations: To Evaluate or Notto Evaluate?Catherine DymondStacey PrieurJune 10, 2013
  2. 2. • International Context• Domestic Context• CIC Regulatory Context• CIC Challenges• Recent Policy Change• So Now What?2Introduction and Overview
  3. 3. • New question in the international regulatory community:how do we evaluate regulations?• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD): intergovernmental organization that develops bestpractices for member states• Canada chaired OECD’s Regulatory Policy Committee in 2012– Canada was key thought leader, and seen by many as pavingthe way in practice, on the subject of how to monitor theperformance of regulations and how they should be evaluated3International Context
  4. 4. • In 2012, the OECD’s Council on Regulatory Policy andGovernance adopted 12 key recommendations, whichincluded recommendation #5:“Conduct systematic programme reviews of the stock ofsignificant regulation against clearly defined policy goals,including consideration of costs and benefits, to ensure thatregulations remain up to date, cost justified, cost effectiveand consistent, and deliver the intended policy objectives.”(emphasis added)4International Context
  5. 5. • Between 1975 and 1999, the Government of Canadaenacted approximately 25,000 regulations• Deregulation and regulatory quality became a policy goal inCanada in the 1980s• Government of Canada Regulatory Policy 1992, 1995, 1999– Focus on smaller, simpler, more efficient/effective regulation– Some mention of monitoring impacts by TBS and departments• Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation (2007)– Focus on maximizing net benefits to society and exploringalternatives to regulation, through cost-benefit analysis– Performance Measurement and Evaluation Plan (PMEP)required for high impact regulations5Domestic Context
  6. 6. 6PMS versus PMEPPerformance Measurement Strategy Performance Measurement andEvaluation PlanPolicy /DirectiveTBS Policy on Evaluation;Directive on the Evaluation FunctionCabinet Directive on StreamliningRegulationPolicy Authority Centre of Expertise for Evaluation (CEE),TBSCentre of Regulatory Expertise (CORE),TBSPurpose Ensure credible and reliable performanceinformation is available to monitor andassess results of programsEnsure that regulatory activities meetinitial policy objectives and areaccordingly renewed on an ongoing basisRequirement All programs, including transfer paymentprograms, have a PMSWhen the proposal is triaged as “high”impactEvaluationresponsibilityHeads of Evaluation responsible for"reviewing and providing advice on PMSs”Heads of Evaluation “must review thePMEP”Components • Program Profile• Logic Model• Performance Measurement StrategyFramework• Evaluation Strategy• Overview of Regulatory Proposal• Logic Model• Performance Measurement StrategyFramework• Evaluation Strategy
  7. 7. • CIC is governed by two key Acts and 14 Regulations– Immigration and Refugee Protection Act– Citizenship Act• Ways in which CIC uses regulation– Change conditions (e.g., for applying, appealing)– Legal enabler (e.g., to provide authority)– Change behaviour (e.g., to deter)7CIC Regulatory Context
  8. 8. • 6 PMEPs completed to-date– Visa Requirements for Mexican Nationals: changed theconditions under which individuals could enter Canada– Biometrics: provided legal authority to collect fingerprints ontemporary residents– Refugee Reform “Designated Countries of Origin”: Changedprocessing rules for individuals from typically non-refugeeproducing countries to deter them from claiming asylum inCanada• 1 PMEP was underway8CIC involvement in PMEPs
  9. 9. • Nature of CIC regulations– How do you monitor performance of a legal authority?– How do you separate the impact of the regulations from alarger program or initiative?• Duplication of effort (PMS versus PMEP)– Why the need for 2 documents? Who does the reporting?– Drains resources in program areas and with stakeholders• Policy Gap between CDSR and Evaluation Policy (2009)– CDSR points to Evaluation Policy– Evaluation Policy does not provide details for how to evaluateregulations9CIC Challenges in Meeting the CDSR
  10. 10. • According to CORE, it has received just over 30 PMEPs fromseven different departments• Evaluation divisions have not always been involved in thedevelopment of the PMEP– Why has Evaluation not been involved?10Other Departmental Involvement in PMEPs
  11. 11. • Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management (2012)– Focus on the life-cycle approach to regulatory management– No mention of a PMEP requirement• Identify the intended results, ensure that monitoring and reportingactivities are effective, integrate performance measures, collectperformance information (s. 44)– TBS still required a PMEP for a high-impact regulatoryproposal• Recent decision by TBS no longer requires a PMEP for highimpact proposals– Unclear specific rationale for change in policy direction11Most Recent Policy Context
  12. 12. 1. Do we need to have a specific focus on performancemeasurement and evaluation for regulations?2. If yes, how do we do this and how do we add the most value?– Measurement (PMS, PMEP, RIAS, DPR)– Evaluation (What does the evaluation focus on? How do youincorporate it into existing evaluation?)3. If no, what is the risk of not doing it?4. What kind of support /direction do we need from TBS (guidance,policy instruction, etc.)?12So Now What – As Evaluators do We Care?