1.Cull Breeding Swine Program (CBSP)- findings further to a 3rd party evaluation:

“The performance of the Program was strong.”

“The evaluation concluded that the Program achieved economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in its performance. The Program was appropriately structured and delivered to achieve its objectives. The plan and processes to guide the application, review, and disbursement of funds were efficient and effective, and no pervasive issues or delays were found. Both the IT system and communication were aligned with the Program’s needs. The application of the guidelines and scoring system in assessing proposals for Program funding was consistent. While some concerns were raised about inadequate eligibility periods and deadlines, both recipients and non-recipients were satisfied with the overall Program management.”

“Other Program stakeholders indicated that their needs were also satisfied. This includes the coordinator of the national cull who felt that timeliness of the cull was a key objective and that this objective was met. The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies was satisfied with how the cull was conducted, especially in licensed slaughterhouses where CFIA representatives were present. Food Banks Canada was also satisfied with the support they received from the Canadian Pork Council and the provincial pork associations to distribute some of the meat through the food banks system. Overall, the Canadian Pork Council indicated satisfaction with the objectives of the Program and felt that the Program was administered fairly and in a timely manner.”

“Ninety-four percent of claims submitted to the Program resulted in Program completion and subsequent payment of funds…”

“The Program is appropriate within a federal government context and responsive to the needs of Canadians as it was designed to address dramatic changes in the industry by providing hog producers compensation to offset losses as they exited the industry. The program had participation in all provinces and was administered in both official languages.”

“Although there was a short timeline to develop and implement the Program, time was allotted to plan the creation and execution of the Program in order to attain the objectives set out in the Funding Agreement. More specifically, industry experts were consulted throughout the Program design process to ensure that desired results would be achieved. In addition, a Program administrator (Welch LLP) with the necessary skills and experience to administer the Program was contracted and the corresponding roles and responsibilities were defined.”

“Facing a limited timeframe to reach the Program’s objectives, the Program administrator managed to expedite the application process while ensuring its effectiveness by simplifying the application and reminding participants of upcoming deadlines. The ‘first come, first serve policy’ simplified the application assessment process as did the fact that applicants only had to submit one application to be considered for the three funding tranches. In addition, notifications sent to producers relating to their eligibility for funding, and reminders sent to participants regarding deadlines for completing their culls and for providing outstanding information, helped to prevent delays in the processing of applications.”

“The oversight committee was able to acknowledge the need for a few modifications to the Program in order to accommodate the needs of applicants and adapt aspects of the Program while ensuring the attainment of the Program’s objectives. The Program administrator was able to effectively implement these modifications…”

“In order to properly report on the Program’s performance, a few initiatives were put in place. An oversight committee was established to monitor the development and delivery of the Program. Tracking tools were also created in order to determine if Program requirements and objectives were met, such as the specified timelines established for each stage of the Program. Key informants agreed that the Program administrator was able to prepare and provide reports in a timely manner, which further validates the effectiveness of management and administrative systems.”

“The implementation and administrative costs of the Program were found to be well aligned with the financial plan. In fact, administrative costs were lower than projected. Program administrators put in place controls, which included bank account reconciliation and an audit strategy, to ensure that Program funds were distributed and used according to the Program’s objectives.”

2. Hog Farm Transition Program (HFTP):

Comments from the program under development audit conducted by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Office of Audit and Evaluation:

“…based on the results of our audit work, the governance, risk management and control frameworks established for the HFTP are adequate to provide a reasonable expectation that funds will be used for their intended purpose and that planned outcomes will be achieved.”
“The service provider selected by the CPC (i.e. Welch) was assessed as the mostcompetent, qualified and a reasonable-cost provider and best able to implement the program quickly. This was based on the successful and cost effective delivery of a similar program with the same end recipients and similar delivery and verification processes. The selected service provider was able to provide initial program information to producers within three weeks and commence the tendering process within two months of the program’s announcement.”

Findings further to a 3rd party evaluation:

“The performance of the Program was strong.”
“The evaluation found that the performance of the Program was strong; appropriately structured and delivered to meet its objectives as defined in the Contribution Agreement.”
“The speed of the Program launch was a notable strength. The application of the Program was consistent and the Animal Unit Equivalent (AUE) concept was a strong Program feature. Both recipients and non-recipients were satisfied with the overall Program management.”
“The participants felt that the Program effectively facilitated producers’ exit from the industry, especially those producers whose farms held older barns, producers that were retiring and smaller producers.”
“As an indication of performance the evaluation looked at alignment between the Program structure and the HFTP Contribution Agreement, finding that specific requirements of the Agreement, such as fairness, due diligence and monitoring, are all directly reflected in the Program business plans and design. Key mechanisms of alignment also included the Program Management Committee, reliance on legal advisory services and the ability of Welch to leverage its experience administering the CBSP.”

“The HFTP was a priority for both federal funders and the hog producer community making it a main focus for the CPC to develop the Program and start distributing funds as soon as possible. Building on Welch’s experience with the CBSP and the existing project management infrastructure, the Management Committee was able to get the Program running within two months of the announcement, ensuring the funds were distributed to hog producers quickly.”

“Other important measures of Program performance include alignment between planned and actual implementation timelines and administrative costs. While the first tender was delayed because of the high uptake of the Program and the volume of calls from producers, this had minimal impact on the timely delivery of the Program. Expenditures were aligned with plans as actual administrative costs for year one and year two fell within the budgets for each year.”

“The majority of producers when asked their opinion on the effectiveness and efficiency of the Program registration, bid and fund disbursement process felt that the registration and bid processes were timely.”

“An important aspect of performance is the degree to which the information technology capability and functionality of the Program aligns to the needs of the Program. The evaluation found that Welch effectively leveraged the IT experience gained through administering the CBSP, including the use of an Access database to support Program delivery and automated reporting to the Management Committee.”

“All informants thought that Welch did a good job of administering the Program and in providing information to support Management Committee activity. It was noted that when new information requirements surfaced administrators were able to adapt and respond effectively.”

“The degree of clarity around registration review and bid acceptance criteria and guidelines is another indicator of Program performance. The evaluation found that Program administrators produced very clear and plainly written registration and bidding criteria and guidelines and that appropriate efforts were made throughout the Program to improve messaging and communication. All informants and a majority of producers felt the registration and bid process was fair and consistent.”

“Hotline call and message management has been an administrative priority from October 8, 2009 onward. All HFTP administration staff interacting with producers had access to phones and direct extensions were provided to producers once initial contact was established by staff and lag time to return voicemail messages was maintained at 24-48 hours in the vast majority of cases.”

“As a final indicator of Program performance the evaluation considered the degree to which Program applicants were satisfied with the overall Program management. The majority of both successful and unsuccessful producers groups were satisfied that the Program was managed well. Opinions toward the Program’s management were consistently positive and overall, CPC heard very little negative feedback from producers on the management of the Program.”

“The project plan and process put in place to guide the disbursement of Program funds was efficient and effective with no material delays in timing or divergence from financial plans.”

Findings further to a Recipient Compliance Audit:
“Welch had established and maintained adequate internal controls, a good accounting system and procedures needed to implement the funding agreement.”
“The signed budget included in the Business Plan, was submitted in accordance with the timeframes and content specified in the funding agreement.”

“The audit revealed that funds provided under the Contribution Agreement were used for the purposes described in the Contribution Agreement and for the intended program outcomes. In addition, these files are well documented and indexed.”

“The reporting system is well established, maintained, and documented. Welch created a database in MS Access where various pertinent reports are stored. However, the Business Plan was filed late according to the requirements of the CA. However, the delay was pre-approved by AAFC.”

“Welch has established and maintained processes, procedures and systems for applying, soliciting and approving contributions and for monitoring the performance of the ultimate recipient.”

“We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian Generally Accepted Auditing Standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain reasonable assurance whether the Recipient complied with the criteria established by the provisions of the agreement referred to above.”