Evaluation of Translation and Interpretation to Parliament Program (2008-605)

Final Report

January 28, 2010

Table of Contents

• MAIN POINTS
• INTRODUCTION
• PROFILE
• FOCUS OF THE EVALUATION
• FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
  • RELEVANCE
    • The Program is aligned with federal government priorities and strategic outcomes
    • Translation and interpretation services are essential for Parliament and Canadians
  • Conclusions with respect to relevance
  • PERFORMANCE
    • Annual demand for translation services is decreasing and within service level agreement specifications
    • Debates had the highest success rate for turnaround times
    • The Program improved its timeliness in delivering House of Commons Committee proceedings
    • Clients viewed the turnaround times on Senate proceedings as satisfactory
    • The Program improved on meeting its deadlines for Parliamentary documents
    • Clients perceived that the Program delivered quality translation services
    • The Program did not have a performance measurement system
    • While the Program operated within its annual budget, unit costs rose
    • The Program was concerned about future capacity
    • No viable alternatives for delivering the Program's services existed
  • Conclusions with respect to performance
• GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
• RECOMMENDATIONS AND MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN
• ABOUT THE EVALUATION
• Appendix A: Main Stakeholders of the Translation and Interpretation to Parliament Program
• Appendix B: Logic Model
• Appendix C: Evaluation Matrix

Please note that under the Access to Information Act a limited amount of text within these documents may not be disclosed, and will be shown as [ * ].

MAIN POINTS

What we examined

i. The Translation and Interpretation to Parliament Program (the Program) is part of the Interpretation and Parliamentary Translation Directorate of the Translation Bureau, a special operating agency within Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC). The Program supports the "Linguistic Management and Services" activity of PWGSC's Program Activity Architecture. It aims to ensure the provision of translation, interpretation and other linguistic services to enable Parliament to function in both official languages.

Why it is important

ii. The Translation Bureau is the sole provider of translation and interpretation services to Canada's Parliament. The Program provides English and French translation and interpretation, closed captioning, and sign language services. It also provides translation and interpretation in other languages as required. Parliament includes the House of Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, as well as Parliamentary administration. Parliamentary sessions and committee meetings are also broadcast on television and web cast on the Internet using the Program's interpretation and close captioning services.

iii. The Constitution Act (1867) designates English and French as the two official languages of Parliament and establishes the requirement that all Parliamentary deliverables and proceedings be accessible in both languages. The House of Commons and the Senate cannot conduct the government's business if proceedings and information presented are not available in both official languages. In addition, both Houses and their committees are required to distribute documents in both official languages. Translation and interpretation services enable the country to have a fully functional bilingual Parliament and allow Canadians to have access to Parliamentarians and Parliamentary proceedings in the official language of their choice.

What we found

iv. All lines of evidence indicated that the Translation and Interpretation to Parliament Program was relevant and continued to be consistent with departmental and government-wide policies and priorities. The Constitution Act (1867), the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Constitution Act of 1982) and the Official Languages Act all support the right for Parliamentarians and Canadians to access Parliamentary information and proceedings in both official languages. The Department of Public Works and Government Services Act and the Translation Bureau Act provided the legislative mandate for the Program. In effect, translation and interpretation services were found to be essential for Parliament to function and for Canadians to participate in the business of Parliament. The Constitution Act mandates that Parliamentary information and proceedings be available in both official languages. It is not mandatory for Parliament to employ the Program as the provider of these services; the Program operates as an optional service to Parliament.

v. In terms of overall performance, clients were satisfied with the quality of the Program's translation and interpretation services. With regard to translation services, the turnaround times specified in the service level agreements were not being consistently met despite a decrease in annual demand over the past three fiscal years. The Program was, however, increasing its ability to meet the deadlines. The Program did not regularly measure its own performance, but relied on feedback from clients to identify any problems.

vi. The Program operated within its budget allotment, though unit costs for services rose. While additional resources were allocated to the Translation Bureau commencing in 2007/08, the increase in resources for 2007/08 and 2008/09 were only confirmed at the end of the fiscal years. The uncertainty of funding lead to an inability for the Program to implement long-term financial planning measures. The Program was concerned about future capacity issues, including internal human resource renewal and recruitment of qualified personnel.

Management Response

vii. The Translation Bureau accepts the evaluation findings and intends to act on the recommendations of the evaluation by implementing their Management Action Plan detailed as follows.

Recommendations and Management Action Plan

Recommendation 1: The CEO Translation Bureau should develop and implement an ongoing performance measurement strategy, in accordance with their agreements with the House of Commons and the Senate, to assess the effectiveness of the Program and to track overall performance.

• Develop and implement an ongoing performance measurement strategy to track the performance of the Program's activities in accordance with the Senate and the House of Commons' requirements. To do so, the Translation Bureau will:
• Management Action Plan 1.1: Conduct an organizational analysis of available performance information and systems
• Management Action Plan 1.2: Identify key performance indicators required to assess the Program's effectiveness and track overall performance
• Management Action Plan 1.3: Present a draft report outlining the performance measurement strategy and its corresponding indicators for approval
• Management Action Plan 1.4: Present monthly reports to senior management on key performance measures using the CEO Dashboard

Recommendation 2: The CEO Translation Bureau should continue to communicate the need for stable and predictable financial resources to meet the levels of service required by the client.

• Develop a strategy to convey the need for stable and predictable financial resources to meet the levels of service required by the House of Commons and the Senate. To do so, the Translation Bureau will:
• Management Action Plan 2.1: Work closely with key departmental authorities to ensure there is a common understanding of the risks and challenges threatening the Program and that such risks and challenges are conveyed to the appropriate authorities outside of the department.
• Management Action Plan 2.2: Will meet with the Treasury Board Secretariat to foster better understanding of the risks and challenges threatening the Program and to identify an on-going source of funding.

Recommendation 3: The CEO Translation Bureau should ensure that mechanisms are in place to address the issues regarding future capacity of the Program.

• Examine all possible mechanisms, including the evaluation of potential alternatives for service delivery, to address the future capacity issues of the Program. To do so, the Translation Bureau will:
• Management Action Plan 3.1: Maintain or implement the following mechanisms to develop a skilled labour force and strengthen the industry's capacity:
  • Development of students through internships and involvement in the University of Ottawa Master Program in Conference Interpretation
  • Promotion of the translation and interpretation professions in secondary schools and colleges to increase enrolment in linguistic programs
  • Implementation of the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013
• Management Action Plan 3.2: Undertake a formal analysis of current technologies in the language sector in order to achieve the highest level of efficiency without compromising quality.

INTRODUCTION

1. This report presents the results of the evaluation of the Translation and Interpretation to Parliament Program. The Audit and Evaluation Committee of Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) approved this evaluation as part of the 2008-2011 Risk-Based Multi-Year Audit and Evaluation Plan.

PROFILE

Background

2. Created in 1934, the Translation Bureau's mission is to support the Government of Canada in its efforts to provide services to and inform Canadians in the official language of their choice. One way it fulfills its mission is by providing translation, interpretation and terminology services to Parliament, and federal departments and agencies, as mandated in the Official Languages Act.

3. The Constitution Act (1867), the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (i.e. the 1982 amendment of the Constitution Act) and the Official Languages Act (1985) provide the legislative framework for designating English and French as the two official languages of Parliament. The Official Languages Act established the requirement that all Parliamentary debates and public committee hearings, along with their published proceedings, be accessible in both languages. Documents include any journal, record, Act of Parliament, treaty or convention. They are to be published or tabled simultaneously in both languages, with both versions being equally authoritative.

4. The Translation Bureau is the sole provider of translation and interpretation services to Canada's Parliament. The program is listed as an optional service under the Common Services Policy. While this means the client is free to obtain services from other providers, the program has a 100% uptake. The Translation and Interpretation to Parliament Program, situated within the Translation Bureau, provides services to Canada's Parliament, i.e. the House of Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, as well as Parliamentary administration. Parliamentary sessions and committee meetings are also broadcast on television and web cast on the Internet using the Program's interpretation and closed captioning services.

Authority

5. The Department of Public Works and Government Services Act provides the basis for the Translation and Interpretation to Parliament Program to provide translation and related services to Government of Canada departments, boards and agencies. More specifically, the Translation Bureau Act states that "The Bureau shall collaborate with and act for […] both Houses of Parliament in all matters relating to the making and revising of translations from one language into another of documents, including correspondence, reports, proceedings, debates, bills and Acts, and to interpretation, sign-language interpretation and terminology". These two Acts support Parliament in fulfilling its official languages obligations.

6. The Translation Bureau Regulations name Parliament as the number one priority client for the Translation Bureau for both translation and interpretation. The translators and interpreters in the Interpretation and Parliamentary Translation Directorate are entirely dedicated to providing services to their Parliamentary clients and are trained and well versed in the environment, the tools and the language of Parliament. They are also integrated with Parliament's secure computer network.

7. In addition to these legislated authorities, the Common Services Policy also applies to the Program. In 1993, the Translation Bureau was established as a Special Operating Agency, changing its status from a mandatory to an optional service provider under the Common Services Policy on or before April 1, 1995. All services provided by the Translation Bureau became optional.

Roles and Responsibilities

8. In providing these services, the Program takes on two roles: stewardship and service delivery.

9. In its stewardship role, the Program ensures the establishment of both professional and quality assurance standards for translation services provided to the government. It also ensures the establishment of terminology and language standards to promote consistency and quality in the government's communication with Canadians.

10. The Program contributes to the establishment of a supply of qualified translators and interpreters in its support of the development of the Canadian language industry through its partnerships with universities for internships and CO-OP work terms. As well, the Program assists the Masters Program in Conference Interpretation at the University of Ottawa. The Program's Parliamentary interpreters are the primary teachers in the Masters Program. In its service delivery role, the Program provides translation, interpretation, sign language and closed captioning services to Parliament. The services of the Program are described in the following sections.

Translation

11. The Program provides translation services in English and French to all Parliamentary entities. The Translation Bureau has agreed to provide translation to the House of Commons based on an annual volume of 38 million words. The agreement was being renegotiated at the time of the evaluation. The Library of Parliament, at the time of the evaluation, was covered implicitly by the House of Commons agreement. However, the Library of Parliament was also considering negotiating its own agreement with the Program.

12. The Translation Bureau also reached an agreement with the Senate in 2005, which outlines the services to be provided by the Program and the expected turnaround times. Even though annual volumes are not specifically identified for the Senate, the agreement recognizes that the Program would need extra resources when demand by Parliament as a whole exceeds 50 million words.

13. The Program also provides legal translation to the Legislative Unit of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel Office for the translation of private members' bills, amendments and rulings.

14. As required by Members of the House of Commons and the Senate, requests for translation services into other languages are coordinated by the Program and forwarded to other units of the Translation Bureau. Translations services into other languages are provided free of charge when in accordance with House of Commons guidelines. Translation requests exceeding those guidelines are rejected. These other languages include, but are not limited to, Inuktitut, Spanish, Russian and German.

Interpretation

15. Whereas translation deals with written documents, interpretation deals exclusively with verbal communication. It can be defined as listening to a message in one language rendering it verbally to another, generally in real time. Interpretation is sometimes referred to as ‘simultaneous translation'. The Translation and Interpretation to Parliament Program is responsible for the provision of Parliamentary interpretation services in both official languages to the House of Commons and the Senate; including debates, committee meetings (local and traveling), Parliamentary conferences and meetings, Cabinet committees, and Caucus meetings. Interpretation services in other languages are provided through the Translation Bureau's Conference Interpretation Service to Parliamentarians when communicating with foreign officials.

16. After the House of Commons and Senate debates and committee meetings are interpreted, they are transcribed in their original language. These transcribed versions, in effect, become documents, which the Program then translates into the other official language. Thus, the number of words to be translated as identified in the agreements includes the transcribed debates and meetings.

17. The Translation Bureau agreed to provide interpretation to the House of Commons based on an annual volume of 19,500 interpretation hours. The Library of Parliament's interpretation requirements are also covered implicitly by this agreement. However, the Library of Parliament rarely, if ever, uses interpretation services. The agreement with the Senate outlines the interpretation services to be provided by the Program, but annual volumes are not specifically identified.

Sign Language/Closed-Captioning

18. The Translation and Interpretation to Parliament Program is responsible for the provision of closed-captioning in English and French as well as interpretation in Quebec sign language during the House of Commons Question Period. The Program is also responsible for the provision of sign language in both official languages for the hearing impaired community.

19. According to both agreements previously mentioned, the Translation Bureau agrees to provide the House of Commons with closed-captioning of Question Period and, if required, of the Throne Speech and the Budget Speech. The agreement with the House of Commons could be revisited should there be a requirement to closed caption selected televised committees. Should there be a requirement to closed caption Senate proceedings, the Bureau and the Senate agreed that the Senate would find the resources required for the closed captioning of the proceeding and that the Bureau would cover the cost.

Clients and Stakeholders

20. The Translation and Interpretation to Parliament Program's clients include both houses of Parliament (the Senate and the House of Commons) and the Library of Parliament. Given its nature, the Program's stakeholders are numerous and varied. The key stakeholders are Parliament and Canadians, who participate in the business of government. These and other stakeholders are listed in Appendix A: Main Stakeholders of the Translation and Interpretation to Parliament Program.

Resources

21. Over the last five years, the Program has received an annual budget of approximately $38M, which includes benefits paid to employees; its expenses have averaged $36M. In 2008, the Program's financing mechanism changed from a revolving fund, in which funds can be carried over from one year to the next, to a special purpose allotment¹. All Program resources were permanently transferred from the fund to the allotment retroactive as of April 1, 2008. In December 2008, an ongoing special purpose allotment was approved for Translation and Interpretation to Parliament. The Program had requested additional resources in response to the tightened turnaround times requested by Parliament. This additional funding will allow the Program to increase its complement of full-time equivalents and to hire additional staff in 2009-10.

Logic Model

22. A logic model is a visual representation that links a Program's activities, outputs and outcomes; provides a systematic and visual method of illustrating the Program theory; and shows the logic of how a Program, policy or initiative is expected to achieve its objectives. It also provides the basis for developing the performance measurement and evaluation strategies, including the evaluation matrix.

23. A logic model of the Program was developed based on a detailed document review, meetings with Program managers and interviews with key stakeholders. It was subsequently validated with Program staff. The logic model is provided in Appendix B: Logic Model.

FOCUS OF THE EVALUATION

24. The objective of this evaluation was to determine the Program's relevance and performance, including cost-effectiveness, in achieving its planned outcomes. The evaluation also explored alternative ways of achieving the expected results.

25. An evaluation matrix, including evaluation issues, questions, indicators and data sources, was developed during the planning phase. More information on the approach and methodologies used to conduct this evaluation can be found in the "About the Evaluation" section at the end of this report.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

26. The findings and conclusions below are based on multiple lines of evidence used during the evaluation, and are presented by evaluation issue (relevance and performance).

RELEVANCE

27. Relevance is the extent to which the Program is aligned with federal government priorities and the departmental strategic outcome. Relevance also examines if providing the services is an appropriate role and responsibility for the federal government and the degree to which the Program addresses a demonstrable and continuing need.

The Program is aligned with federal government priorities and strategic outcomes

28. The Translation and Interpretation to Parliament Program contributed to maintaining the equality of status and privilege of both official languages, a longstanding priority of the Canadian Government. The November 2008 Speech from the Throne underscored the importance of the Program. The Government of Canada wanted to become more effective by streamlining and simplifying the communication between those who govern the country and its inhabitants. Parliament was referenced as "the only forum in which all Canadians, through their elected representatives, have a voice in the governance of the nation". Furthermore, the speech stated that "Today, it is more important than ever to deliver on this promise, and ensure that all Canadians share in the promise of this land, regardless of cultural background, gender, age, disability or official language". By making sure that all Parliamentary proceedings are accessible in English and French, the Program contributed directly to this priority.

29. The Official Languages Act reiterates the legislated requirement that all Parliamentary debates, public committee hearings, published proceedings, and related documents be accessible in English and French. In turn, the Translation Bureau has a legislated mandate through the Translation Bureau Act to collaborate and manage all matters relating to translation, interpretation, sign language and closed-captioning, and terminology services for Parliament.

30. The Translation Bureau Regulations named Parliament as the number one priority client for the Translation Bureau. The translators and interpreters in the Interpretation and Parliamentary Translation Directorate were entirely dedicated to providing services to their Parliamentary clients and were trained and well versed in the environment, the tools and the language of Parliament.

31. As well, the Program was aligned with the PWGSC departmental strategic outcome of high quality, central Programs and services that ensure sound stewardship on behalf of Canadians and meet the Program needs of federal institutions. To help achieve this strategic outcome, the Program contributed to Translation Renewal, which PWGSC identified as one of its operational priorities. The Translation Bureau, including the Program, was developing the capacity to meet growing demand for translation and interpretation services in official, aboriginal and foreign languages. The Program was working with the Senate to provide interpretation in Inuktitut, with the intention of having additional aboriginal languages in the future.
Top of Page

Translation and interpretation services are essential for Parliament and Canadians

32. From a legal perspective, specifically the Constitution Act, Parliament is obligated to communicate to Canadians in both official languages. The House of Commons and the Senate cannot sit and conduct the government's business if there are no interpreters and if the relevant information from the previous sessions is not translated and available in both official languages. In addition, both Houses and their committees cannot distribute documents to the public unless they are available in both official languages.

33. The Constitution Act (1867) grants Parliamentarians the opportunity to participate using the official language of their choice in the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament. As such, it is essential to the functioning of Parliament that Parliamentarians can understand and be understood by their Parliamentary colleagues, regardless of which official language is used to communicate. Further, this Act has ensured that Parliamentarians have access to translated Parliamentary information (i.e. written communication) and interpreted Parliamentary sessions (i.e. oral communication) in the language of their choice.

34. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Constitution Act of 1982) expanded the right to be more inclusive by granting English and French official language status. As well, the Act ensures that the two languages have equal status and privileges in all institutions in Canada's Parliament and government. This provision ensures that all English- and French-speaking Canadians have access to Parliamentary proceedings and information in the official language of their choice. In turn, it provides them with the opportunity to become actively involved in the governing of their country.

35. The Program provides translation and interpretation services so that all Parliamentarians and Canadians have access to translated information and interpreted proceedings of Parliament, in the official language of their choice, as provided by the above noted legislation.

36. Canadians were able to access Parliamentary proceedings and products in both official languages through various media, including print, electronic, web cast and broadcast, because of the Program's translation and interpretation services. The House of Commons web cast services–ParlVU–carried live and on-demand proceedings of the Commons, televised committee meetings, and audio of all House of Commons committee meetings that are open to the public. In addition, sign language was automatically included on the web stream.

37. The Cable Public Affairs Channel (CPAC) broadcasted unedited coverage of the House of Commons and Senate Committee proceedings, as well as Question Period. Parliamentary proceedings were also broadcasted in both official languages on the Parliamentary Television Network (PTN), a closed-circuit television network available in the Parliamentary Precinct. The broadcast feeds were also made available to the members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery for re-use and re-broadcast.

38. The primary focus of both Parliament and the Program was providing Canadians with access to Parliamentary information and documents in the official language of their choice. As mentioned by one stakeholder, providing Parliamentary discourse and documents in both official languages did not guarantee that more Canadians would participate in the democratic process, but at least they would have the access and the opportunity to participate.

Conclusions with respect to relevance

39. The Translation and Interpretation to Parliament Program was aligned with federal government priorities and the departmental strategic outcome. The provision of translation and interpretation services through a federal Program was an appropriate role and responsibility for government. The Program's services were consistent with the federal government's legislated mandate to provide translation and interpretation of Parliamentary information and proceedings. The Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, the Translation Bureau Act and the Translation Bureau Regulations required these services be provided to Parliament. Parliament's obligation to ensure it can function in both official languages was derived from the Official Languages Act, the 1867 and 1982 Constitution Acts.

40. The Program's translation and interpretation services addressed the continued need of making all public Parliamentary proceedings accessible to English- and French-speaking Parliamentarians and Canadians. Parliamentarians were better able to communicate with colleagues, Parliamentary administrations, and Canadians. As a result, they were better able to do their work. In addition, since all Parliamentary discourse and documents are translated into both official languages, Canadians had access to the documents they needed to understand and participate in the business of government.

PERFORMANCE

41. Performance is the extent to which the Program is effective in achieving results and the degree to which it is able to do so in a cost-effective manner. As well, performance can also be measured as the extent to which the Program is achieving its targets or standards. While the services of the Program include translation, interpretation, and closed captioning/sign language, the predominant focus of the performance assessment was on translation services as the Program had the most performance data for this service, which was solely provided by the Program's clients.

Annual demand for translation services is decreasing and within service level agreement specifications

42. The Translation Bureau had partnership agreements with the Senate and the House of Commons that have a certain level of integration such that total annual volume from Parliament was not to exceed 50 million words. In its agreement with the House of Commons, which also covered the Library of Parliament, the Translation Bureau agreed to provide translation based on an annual volume of up to 38 million words within agreed upon turnaround times. In its agreement with the Senate, the Translation Bureau agreed to provide translation services of approximately 12 million words within agreed upon turnaround times. All parties involved recognized that extra resources would be needed should demand from Parliament as a whole exceed 50 million words. A summary of the service level specifications (annual word volume and turnaround times) is presented in Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 1: Service Level Specifications

	Document category	Senate	House of Commons	Library of Parliament
Annual Volume	Annual Words (50 Million)	12 Million Annually	38 Million Annually
Expected Turnaround Times	Debates (Hansard)	Delivery as of 4 am	5 Hours per Document	N/A
	Committee meetings	5 Workdays per Document	Priority 1: 36 hours Priority 2: 96 hours per Document	N/A
	Other Parliamentary documents	Negotiated deadlines

Source: Partnership Agreements with the House of Commons and the Senate

Text description of Exhibit 1 is available on a separate page.

43. Annual demand for translation services varied over the past three fiscal years; however the volumes were always within the agreed upon maximum of 50 million words (Exhibit 2 ). Demand was directly related to the number of days Parliament is in session each year. Parliamentary sessions decreased over the past three fiscal years (218 days in 2006/07, 182 days in 2007/08, and 168 days in 2008/09). When examined on a per sitting day basis, the daily volume for translation services decreased by 10% from 2006/07 to 2008/09. Additionally, average daily volumes of work per employee decreased by 16% from 2006/07 to 2008/09. The Program experienced difficulty in planning on the basis of historical data. This impacted the work of the interpreters who would, in the past, aid in the translation of documents; capacity constraints have limited their ability to contribute to the process. Additionally, turnover within the program has lead to senior level translators being replaced by junior level translators who do not have the experience, and therefore the speed, of their predecessors.

Exhibit 2: Number of words translated

Year	Category	House of Commons	Senate	Library of Parliament	Total
2006-07	Committees	15,465,798	5,993,577		21,459,375
	Debates	7,737,654	1,917,206		9,654,860
	Documents	10,225,291	4,322,488	4,285,593	18,833,372
	Total	33,428,743	12,233,271	4,285,593	49,947,607
2007-08	Committees	12,455,492	5,624,755		18,080,247
	Debates	6,670,854	1,707,623		8,378,477
	Documents	8,617,247	3,849,569	3,758,490	16,225,306
	Total	27,743,593	11,181,947	3,758,490	42,684,030
2008-09	Committees	9,337,460	3,990,605		13,328,065
	Debates	5,448,221	1,284,759		6,732,980
	Documents	7,660,700	3,627,686	3,343,715	14,632,101
	Total	22,446,381	8,903,050	3,343,715	34,693,146

Source: Client Data

Text description of Exhibit 2 is available on a separate page.

Debates had the highest success rate for turnaround times

44. Overall, the Program increased its timeliness in the delivery of translated documents. While some documents had higher success rates than others, clients were generally satisfied with the quality and timeliness of services provided. Each of the categories of work has varying levels of priority. Debates were of the highest priority while committee proceedings and other documents were of relatively lower priority.

45. All oral debates of the House of Commons and the Senate were recorded and commonly known as Hansards. The translation of debates had the highest profile and priority, the shortest turnaround (five hours), and the highest success rate in terms of meeting agreed targets. Hansards had to be posted on the Parliamentary website by 9 a.m. the day following a debate, which meant translation always occurred overnight. Hansards represented approximately 20% of all Parliamentary demand.

46. All clients and Program staff interviewed indicated that the Program was always on time in delivering the translated Hansard, with very rare exceptions that were beyond the Program's control. The success rate for the translation of debates was 100%. Given this success rate, neither the Program nor clients tracked statistics on timeliness. The high success rate is due to the Program's ability to temporary reassign translators from other areas within the Program to complete the translations when demand exceeds capacity.

The Program improved its timeliness in delivering House of Commons Committee proceedings

47. The role of the Translation Bureau with regard to the House of Commons Committees was to translate the oral proceedings of committee meetings. With the exception of in camera, all committee proceedings were published on the Internet in both official languages. The expected turnaround times for the translation of these documents depended on the related priority level (Exhibit 1).

48. Priority 1 documents refer to committee proceedings dealing with questions of privilege or review of bills and reports. The service level agreement with the House of Commons specifies that a maximum of 30% of any week's volume be classified as Priority 1. Priority 2 documents were regular committee proceedings. The House of Commons expected a 100% success rate in achieving Priority 1 deadlines and a 95% success rate for Priority 2 documents. Over the past three years, House of Commons Committee proceedings represented approximately 30%.

49. To publish these proceedings on the Internet, the audio recordings were transcribed, edited, translated and finally published. The Program was only responsible for the translation aspect of the process. In the House of Commons, this process was facilitated by a computer system called Prism, a procedural information and workflow management application. This application helped track, manage and share the documents among everyone involved (transcribers, editors, translators and publishers). The Publications Directorate of the House of Commons collected data on the four steps of the process–through Prism –in order to track and monitor performance².

50. Data for two fiscal years (2007/08 and 2008/09) were collected from the Prism system. The Program improved its performance in 2008/09 with 80% of documents delivered on time; 7% were late by one day and 13% were late by more than one day. In 2007/08, 50% of documents were completed on time; 15% were one day late and 35% were late by more than a day. The overall decrease in the number of documents delivered more than a day late from 35% to 13% was a considerable improvement. This overall improvement could be attributed to the hiring of additional resources and the 19% decrease in the average daily workload per full time employee from the House of Commons Committees from 2007/08 to 2008/09.

51. Despite the delays, clients were relatively satisfied with timeliness of services provided by the Program. Both Program management and its clients acknowledge that missed deadlines were mainly due to length of documents, number of meetings, and an unexpected high number of Priority 1 documents that exceeded the agreed upon 30% volume of weekly work. This level of common agreement indicates that communication between the two groups was open and efficient. The lower service delivery levels in the 2007/08 fiscal year could be attributed to the fact there were higher volumes of words from the House of Commons Committees per sitting day compared to 2008/09 (68,437 compared to 55,580, respectively). That being said, as previously determined, demand in both years was within the agreed upon annual targets.

Clients viewed the turnaround times on Senate proceedings as satisfactory

52. Similar to House of Commons Committees, the role of the Translation Bureau for Senate Committees was to translate the oral proceedings of committee meetings. These documents represented approximately 12% of all Parliamentary demand.

53. The Senate did not use Prism or any similar system to track the timeliness of translation of Senate proceedings. However, interviews with clients demonstrated that clients were relatively satisfied with the turnaround times of the Program. The Publications Directorate, who had begun tracking timeliness on an unofficial basis, viewed the turnaround times on Senate Committee proceedings as "perfectly acceptable." For the first half of the 2009 session of Parliament, the Publications Directorate indicated that the Program averaged a turnaround time of 5.9 workdays from the day the Program received the document (expected is 5 days). As well, any major problems were quickly resolved.

The Program improved on meeting its deadlines for Parliamentary documents

54. Other Parliamentary documents were those produced in written format. They included internal administrative and policy documents; reports and documents to be presented at committee meetings; correspondence; communiqués; and working documents for Parliamentarians. Deadlines for the translation of these documents were negotiated on an individual basis between the client and the Program. These documents represented approximately 40% of the Program's annual workload.

55. The Translation Bureau increased its efficiency in meeting deadlines steadily over the past three years with 90% of deadlines being met in 2008/09 (up from 88% in 2006/07). However, there had also been an increase in the number of deadlines renegotiated, with 10% being renegotiated in 2008/09, up from 8% in the previous two fiscal years. The Program met more of these renegotiated deadlines in 2008/09 (82%) than in 2007/08 (68%) and 2006/07 (78%).

56. Overall, while the Program did not meet 10% of deadlines, the delays quite often only exceed the deadlines by minutes or hours. In 2007/08 and 2008/09, only 1% of documents were delayed by a day or more. It should also be noted that on average for the past three fiscal years, 69% of the time the documents were delivered at least one hour prior to the deadline.

Clients perceived that the Program delivered quality translation services

57. Parliamentary clients indicated they were satisfied with the quality of the services they received from the Translation and Interpretation to Parliament Program. Concerns with respect to quality were dealt with quickly and efficiently as they arose. Clients understand that the quality of translation can vary depending on the size and complexity of the document to be translated and the required turnaround times.

58. Senior officials in the Translation Bureau noted that they received few complaints about the services provided by the Program. As well, CPAC reported they received a minimal number of complaints with respect to interpretation, sign language or closed captioning. Such complaints included the translator's ability to keep up with the speakers and the closed captioning covering the name and title of the person speaking. In 2007/08 there were six complaints regarding the Program's services made to CPAC. In 2008/09, there were only four complaints.

59. According to clients and Program managers, there was excellent communication and cooperation between the two groups. If a client had a concern or issue with the services provided by the Program, the Program was made aware and sought to resolve the issue promptly. The Program also made clients aware of any delays in service and/or issues that arose during the translation or interpretation process.

60. For translation services, contractors (often referred to as freelancers by the Program) handled approximately 35% of the Program's workload. The Program had quality control mechanisms and internal checks in place. Freelancers were pre-approved by the Translation Bureau to ensure that they were capable of meeting the Bureau's standards and held appropriate security clearance.

61. The work of new translators (freelancers and employees, both out of university or new to the Program) was reviewed to ensure they met the Translation Bureau standards before they were sent back to the client. Spot checks on freelancers were done on an ongoing basis, and high profile texts were always reviewed. With the exception of the high profile texts, the Program was not always able to apply quality control mechanisms due to the time constraints imposed by the client.

The Program did not have a formal performance measurement system

62. The Program tracked its workload in terms of the number of words translated. It could produce certain reports manually upon request; however, it did not have a system for regularly reporting on performance in terms of quality of translation and interpretation, or in terms of timeliness of translation. Except for clients using Prism, there was no indication that the House of Commons or the Senate was working with the Program to develop timely performance measurements despite both clients agreeing to do so in their service level agreements with the Translation Bureau.

63. Given the relationship between Parliament and the Program, clients provided immediate feedback if they had a problem with the translation or interpretation services. A key indicator of performance for the Program was the number of complaints made by clients, which were relatively few. There was no formal recording or reporting of these complaints or analysis of trends over time, either by the clients or the Program, although some clients began to track timeliness.

64. As mentioned, one client group did track timeliness of translation using Prism on Parliament's secure network. This client group regularly shared and commented on the timeliness data with the Program. The Program had access to Prism and the underlying data. The Program is aware of the concerns with respect to timeliness and, according to the client, the Program was improving its on-time delivery.

While the Program operated within its annual budget, unit costs rose

65. The Translation and Interpretation to Parliament Program operated within their budget over the past three fiscal years, as presented in Exhibit 3. The budget and actual figures included translation, interpretation, closed captioning and sign language interpretation, as well as overhead. As presented in Exhibit 2, overall demand for translation services decreased over the three-year period, in concert with the corresponding decrease in the number of days that Parliament sat each year. During this period, the Program's actual expenditures were consistently less than the allotted budget, with the Program delivering quality services within satisfactory timeliness.

Exhibit 3: Budget and actual Program dollars

• 2006-07
  • Budget: $37,282,000
  • Actual: $36,549,000
• 2007-08
  • Budget: $38,282,000
  • Actual: $37,305,000
• 2008-09
  • Budget: $38,484,000
  • Actual: $34,316,000

Source: Program Data

66. Despite the decrease in volume over the three-year period, the unit costs of translation services increased. Each year, the cost per word translated increased by approximately 8% (7.5% from 2006/07 to 2007/08 and 8.1% from 2007/08 to 2008/09). Overall, the cost per word translated increase of 18% over the three fiscal years (from 2006/07 to 2008/09). The Program attributed the increase in the costs per word translated to being the result of fixed costs and unpredictable demand.

Exhibit 4: Unit costs for translation

• 2006-07
  • Cost per Word Translated: [ * ]
• 2007-08
  • Cost per Word Translated: [ * ]
• 2008-09
  • Cost per Word Translated: [ * ]

Source: Program Data

The Program was concerned about future capacity

67. According to a funding request from the Program approved in December 2008, the Translation Bureau indicated it was facing shortages of capable and qualified resources to meet the needs of Parliament. The funding request stated that these shortages could have serious consequences for the Translation and Interpretation to Parliament Program's ability to meet the expectations of its clients and its obligations under the Translation Bureau Act and Regulations. As a result, Parliament could be unable to comply with the Official Languages Act.

68. The Program, using in-house resources and freelancers, was generally able to meet client demand. Clients were uniformly concerned that the turnaround of translation services to Parliament could suffer should demand increase or turnaround times be shortened.

69. The Program raised two major concerns regarding the Program's ability to recruit and retain qualified resources. First, approximately 35% of the work was contracted out to the private sector; Program officials claimed that freelance resources were already at capacity and may not be able to meet the future needs of the Program should demand increase.

70. Second, the Program stated it was facing internal human resource renewal issues. Over the next six years, an estimated one third of the Bureau's employees will retire. While many retirees come back to work as freelancers for the Program, they rarely do so on a full-time basis. Furthermore, the training and development time for translators and interpreters post-university graduation was three and four years, respectively. As well, there was an average of only 4-5 graduates per year from the University of Ottawa Masters in Interpretation Program. To maintain the current levels of in-house translators and interpreters, recruitment processes would have to exceed the number of graduates per year from the Masters Program.

71. In support of the departmental strategic outcome and Translation Renewal priorities, the Translation Bureau was committed to help ensure the security of supply of qualified professionals to meet the needs of Parliament and federal institutions. It had developed several strategies to meet these priorities, including recruitment and development of qualified resources and the updating of training facilities. The Program was planning to recruit ten English and French interpreters from Europe.

72. The Program was also exploring new and sophisticated tools, such as machine translation, to help translators and interpreters do their work more efficiently and to help address capacity concerns. The European Parliament and the Switzerland National Assembly used translation memory software to reduce human errors in translation and speed up the production of texts. This translation technology allowed selective reuse of translation memories and references to documentary and terminological databases. The software allowed for increased autonomy on the part of translators, which simplified the training and integration of new translators.

No viable alternatives for delivering the Program's services existed

73. Although the Translation Bureau invoiced its clients from other government departments and agencies on a cost-recovery basis for services provided, the services for Parliament and the terminology Program were funded by Parliamentary appropriation. There were various reasons for this funding model. Services provided to Parliament (including translation and interpretation) had to be well supported, if not integrated with Parliamentary operations, due to the sensitive nature of its customs and operating methods. Also, the demand for services fluctuated widely, so translators and interpreters had to be available 24 hours a day to guarantee that Parliament obtained these services at any time. When demand was low, Program translators and interpreters provided services to other government departments through other directorates within the Translation Bureau.

74. Alternative delivery options do not appear currently viable. The private sector translation industry in Canada is fragmented. The private sector translation industry was already at capacity in terms of meeting the demands from Parliament. The Program stated there were insufficient qualified interpreters and translators from the private sector to do additional contract work. As it stands, the Program indicates it struggled to obtain qualified freelancers. In April 2007, the Program issued 15 requests for proposal to contract the services of freelancers for which no bids were received.

75. No existing viable entities within the private sector would be able to sustain the amount of resources and work required by Parliament, whether contracted directly by Parliament or by the Translation Bureau. Contracting out is also problematic given that the Program's computer system is integrated with Parliament's secure computer network. Finally, Parliamentary stakeholders expressed no interest in contracting out for translation and interpretation services or in relocating the services of the Program to a unit within Parliament.

Conclusions with respect to performance

76. The annual volume of Parliamentary demand was within the specifications outlined in the service level agreements between the Program and the Senate and House of Commons. Relative to the number of days Parliament sat, the volume of words translated decreased over the past three fiscal years.

77. The Program was generally increasing its timeliness in delivering translated documents. Clients were satisfied with the quality of the services provided by the Program and accepted the reality of the deadlines. As well, clients were generally satisfied with turnaround times of translation services even though the Program was not meeting all of its deadlines. The average daily workloads for translation services increased by 2% from 2006/07 to 2007/08 and decreased 12% from 2007/08 to 2008/09. Overall, there was a net decline in average daily workloads of 10% over the period due to difficulties in forecasting demand.

78. The Program did not regularly measure its performance, but relied on feedback from clients to identify any problems. Neither the House of Commons nor the Senate were working with the Program to develop timely performance measurements.

79. The Program operated within its budget, however unit costs (cost per word translated) increased. The fragmented nature and capacity of the translation and interpretation industry in Canada, along with the integrated nature of translation and interpretation services with Parliamentary operations and its secure network, make it difficult to consider a contracting out alternative for these services.

80. The Program has raised concerns regarding future capacity as a predominant issue. Tight turnaround timelines were also raised as a crucial challenge the translation and interpretation services are facing.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

81. Relevance: The translation and interpretation of Parliamentary discourse was appropriate to the federal government, a core federal role and was linked to a government priority. While the Program was not mandated, it addressed a demonstrable need as an optional service with a 100% uptake by clients.

82. Performance: The Translation and Interpretation to Parliament Program provided satisfactory services to its clients and increased its ability to meet the agreed upon turnaround times. The Program raised concerns regarding future capacity and tight timelines.

MANAGEMENT RESPONSE

83. The Translation Bureau accepts the evaluation findings and intends to act on the recommendations of the evaluation by implementing their Management Action Plan detailed as follows.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN

Recommendation 1: The CEO Translation Bureau should develop and implement an ongoing performance measurement strategy, in accordance with their agreements with the House of Commons and the Senate, to assess the effectiveness of the Program and to track overall performance.

• Develop and implement an ongoing performance measurement strategy to track the performance of the Program's activities in accordance with the Senate and the House of Commons' requirements. To do so, the Translation Bureau will:
• Management Action Plan 1.1: Conduct an organizational analysis of available performance information and systems
• Management Action Plan 1.2: Identify key performance indicators required to assess the Program's effectiveness and track overall performance
• Management Action Plan 1.3: Present a draft report outlining the performance measurement strategy and its corresponding indicators for approval
• Management Action Plan 1.4: Present monthly reports to senior management on key performance measures using the CEO Dashboard

Recommendation 2: The CEO Translation Bureau should continue to communicate the need for stable and predictable financial resources to meet the levels of service required by the client.

• Develop a strategy to convey the need for stable and predictable financial resources to meet the levels of service required by the House of Commons and the Senate. To do so, the Translation Bureau will:
• Management Action Plan 2.1: Work closely with key departmental authorities to ensure there is a common understanding of the risks and challenges threatening the Program and that such risks and challenges are conveyed to the appropriate authorities outside of the department.
• Management Action Plan 2.2: Will meet with the Treasury Board Secretariat to foster better understanding of the risks and challenges threatening the Program and to identify an on-going source of funding.

Recommendation 3: The CEO Translation Bureau should ensure that mechanisms are in place to address the issues regarding future capacity of the Program.

• Examine all possible mechanisms, including the evaluation of potential alternatives for service delivery, to address the future capacity issues of the Program. To do so, the Translation Bureau will:
• Management Action Plan 3.1: Maintain or implement the following mechanisms to develop a skilled labour force and strengthen the industry's capacity:
  • Development of students through internships and involvement in the University of Ottawa Master Program in Conference Interpretation
  • Promotion of the translation and interpretation professions in secondary schools and colleges to increase enrolment in linguistic programs
  • Implementation of the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013
• Management Action Plan 3.2: Undertake a formal analysis of current technologies in the language sector in order to achieve the highest level of efficiency without compromising quality.

ABOUT THE EVALUATION

The evaluation examined the Translation and Interpretation Program, delivered by the Interpretation and Parliamentary Translation unit of the Translation Bureau. This evaluation had two objectives:

• To determine the relevance of PWGSC's Translation and Interpretation Program: the continued need for the Program, its alignment with governmental priorities and its consistency with federal roles and responsibilities.
• To determine the performance of PWGSC's Translation and Interpretation Program: the achievement of its expected outcomes and a demonstration of the efficiency and economy of the Program.

Approach

The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Evaluation Standards of the Government of Canada and of the Office of Audit and Evaluation of PWGSC. The evaluation took place between February and November 2009 and was conducted in three phases: planning, examination and reporting. To assess the evaluation issues and questions, the following lines of evidence were used.

Document Review: An initial document review consisted of gaining an understanding of the Program and its context to assist in the planning phase. Over 50 documents were reviewed in this process. Data from these documents were collected in a matrix and subsequently analyzed. A second phase of the document review was conducted to collect and assess Program data (such as financial, performance measurement, other types of data already collected by the Program). The analysis of Program data contributed to assessing the success of the Program.

Literature Review: The literature review focused on contextualizing the Program both nationally and internationally, as well as identifying alternative delivery models through an analysis of other jurisdictions. These jurisdictions included: the Parliament of Scotland, the Parliament of New Zealand, the National Assembly for Wales, the Federal Assembly of Switzerland, the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, as well as the European Union and the United Nations.

Stakeholder Interviews: The evaluation team conducted interviews with key Program staff and clients from the House of Commons, the Senate, and the Library of Parliament (n=14). The qualitative analysis of the interviews provided information about the relevance and performance of the Program from the perspective of Program users. An interview guide was used. Interviews were also conducted with the Association of Translators and Interpreters of Ontario; Canadian Translators, Terminologists and Interpreters Council; and the School of Translation and Interpretation, University of Ottawa (n=3).

Limitations of the Methodology

Document Review: Efforts were made to ensure that all data provided about the Program were reviewed and documented. The Program did not have available data on turnaround times and translated words. Data was obtained from officials within the House of Commons. The integrity of the data could not be verified. In addition, there was little data available on the quality of translation and interpretation services.

Literature Review: The great variety internationally in translation and interpretation services to Parliaments made it difficult to locate systems comparable to the Program. Efforts were made to include relevant material to enable an unbiased and neutral assessment.

Stakeholder Interviews: The sampling technique identified a range of Program clients so that the broadest range of experiences would be documented. A sample of clients identified by the Program was interviewed. No criteria were given to the Program for selecting the sample and it therefore may not have been selected objectively or independently. As such, the results of the interviews are not statistically representative of all Program clients. In addition, these individuals represent their own opinions and experiences within the Program. In addition, no Parliamentarians were interviewed so their experiences with the Program are not documented.

Reporting

We documented our findings in a Director's Draft Report, which was internally cleared through the Office of Audit and Evaluation's quality assessment function. We will provide the Program's Director General with the Director's Draft Report and a request to validate facts and comment on the report. A Chief Audit Executive's Draft Report will be prepared and provided to the Chief Executive Officer, Translation Bureau, for acceptance as the Office of Primary Interest. The Office of Primary Interest will also be requested to respond with a Management Action Plan. The Final Draft Report, including the Management Action Plan, will be presented to PWGSC's Audit and Evaluation Committee for the Deputy Minister's approval in January 2010. The Final Report will be submitted to the Treasury Board Secretariat and posted on the PWGSC website.

Project Team

The evaluation was conducted by employees of the Office of Audit and Evaluation, overseen by the Director of Evaluation and under the overall direction of the Deputy Chief Oversight Officer.

The evaluation was reviewed by the quality assessment function of the Office of Audit and Evaluation.

Appendix A: Main Stakeholders of the Translation and Interpretation to Parliament Program

Service Type	Main Stakeholders
Translation (Parliamentary debates; Parliamentary committees; Parliamentary documents)	House of Commons members and administration Senate members and administration Library of Parliament researchers and administration Readers/reviewers (academics, researchers, journalists) Canadians interested in reading Parliamentary documents Canadians relying on third-party (e.g., academics, researchers and journalists) review of Parliamentary documents
Interpretation	House of Commons members and administration Senate members and administration Press conference journalists and attendees Canadians listening to Parliamentary proceedings (Question Period, Parliamentary committees) and/or reading from third-party writers (including academics, researchers, journalists, general public) Viewers of Cable Public Affairs Channel (CPAC) and television news Viewers of Parliamentary and CPAC webcasts Viewers of ParlVU (House of Commons webcast service) Public gallery visitors Viewers of Parliamentary Television Network (PTN)
Sign Language and Closed Captioning	Viewers of CPAC, television news and special events Viewers of CPAC and Parliamentary websites Viewers of ParlVU, House of Commons webcast services Senate public gallery visitors (closed captioning)

Text description of Appendix A is available on a separate page.

Appendix B: Logic Model

A larger image and text description of Appendix B are available on a separate page. Due to the size of the image, it may not display properly.

Appendix C: Evaluation Matrix

Evaluation Issues and Questions	Indicators	Data Collection Methods and Data Sources
Relevance
1. To what extent is the Translation and Interpretation to Parliament Program appropriate to the federal government and a core federal role, and linked to a government priority?	Documented evidence of legislative, regulatory, policy mandate that is specifically incumbent upon the federal government for the delivery of the Translation and Interpretation to Parliament Program services Expressed support for the Program by central agencies and government senior management Alignment of the Program's objectives and expected results with governmental and departmental policies and priorities as referenced in strategic documents Comparisons with the success of alternative service delivery or outsourcing in other jurisdictions	1) Document Review Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Constitution Act Official Languages Act Translation Bureau Act and Regulations Speech from the Throne and Budget Speech Minister speeches PWGSC Report on Plans and Priorities PWGSC Departmental Performance Report PWGSC Departmental Business Plan Translation Bureau Business Plan Agreements between TIP and Parliament TIP Program documents and policies Translation Bureau website and communication material Treasury Board Submissions Translation Bureau surveys 2) Interviews with Key Stakeholders Translation Bureau senior officials and managers Senior Parliamentary administrative and Library staff 3) Comparative Analysis Examination of translation and interpretation services to other legislatures National comparison analysis:  New Brunswick; International comparison studies: Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Switzerland, New Zealand, European Parliament, Finland, United Nations
2. To what extent does the Program address a demonstrable need and is responsive to its clients and Canadians?	Expressed support for the Program by Parliamentarians and government senior management The number of Canadians who watch CPAC in the official language of their choice and the number of Canadians/hits visiting CPAC website The number of Canadians/hits visiting Parliamentary website Impact of translation/interpretation on Parliamentary work Extent to which legal obligations are met Ability of Canadians to follow and participate in Parliamentary activities	1) Document Review Reports on CPAC viewers and CPAC website visitors Reports on Parliamentary website visitors Reports on distribution of Parliamentary documents 2) Interviews with Key Stakeholders Translation Bureau senior officials and managers Senior Parliamentary administrative and Library staff Webmasters for Parliamentary and CPAC websites CPAC senior managers
Performance
3. To what extent is TIP Program achieving its expected outcomes? Is translation demand met in a timely way? Are translations and interpretation of adequate quality to meet the needs of Parliament?	Meeting Demand Number of times turnaround times are missed Number of complaints by clients based on missing turnaround times Level of satisfaction of selected clients (i.e., administrative and research staff) Quality Number of complaints (both justified and unfounded) by stakeholders, including Canadians, based on quality of work Number of complaints by stakeholders, including Canadians, that lead to corrective action and/or improvement in service Level of satisfaction of selected clients (i.e., administrative and research staff) Number of complaints received by CPAC	1) Document Review Evaluation report written by Translation Bureau Review Translation Bureau survey 2) Interviews of Key Stakeholders Translation Bureau senior officials and managers, primarily TIP Senior Parliamentary administrative and Library staff CPAC senior managers 3) Data Analysis Client satisfaction data Data reports from CPAC (e.g., number of viewers, website hits) Data reports from TIP Data reports from Parliamentary websites (e.g., website hits) Data report from television and radio broadcasters (e.g., number of viewers/listeners) 4) Comparative analysis Comparison with benchmarks in other jurisdictions
4. Is the Program cost-effective in delivering translation and interpretation services and is there a more cost-effective way to do so?	Budget and actual expenditures Number of words translated Availability of competitive private sector capability Desire of Parliament to change current arrangement	Interviews with Key Stakeholders Translation Bureau senior officials and managers Senior Parliamentary administrative and Library staff Data Analysis Financial data Productivity data

¹A special purpose allotment is used to separate a portion of an organization's voted appropriation for a specific initiative or item. Any funds remaining unspent at year-end in a special purpose allotment are not eligible to be carried forward to the next fiscal year without government approval.
²There are two limitations to the Prism data. First, the current Prism configuration cannot produce separate summary reports for Priority 1 and Priority 2 documents, although this information is actually captured by Prism. Extensive Programming would be required to produce separate Priority 1 and Priority 2 reports. The second limitation is that Prism does not have a report module on deadline performance so the House of Commons Parliamentary Publications Directorate has to transcribe the data for each document onto a spreadsheet to produce its reports, which are prepared on a weekly basis.