Standards for Canadian organizations

2020 Edition

Financial Management (CP-FIN) 2: Financial Risk Assessment

The public authority/agency’s management evaluates financial risks in releation to its financial capacities and the resources needed to provide services.

Interpretation

Review of financial capacities and resources should be part of the authority’s/agency’s long-term planning and annual short-term planning process. Review of financial risk should be part of its annual risk prevention and management assessment.
 
2020 Edition

Currently viewing: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT (CP-FIN)

VIEW THE STANDARDS

Purpose

Public authority/agency viability and positive financial outcomes are achieved through diligent application of sound financial managment practices that accord with applicable requirements. 
1
Full Implementation, Outstanding Performance
A rating of (1) indicates that the agency's practices fully meet the standard and reflect a high level of capacity.  
  • All elements or requirements outlined in the standard are evident in practice, with rare or no exceptions: exceptions do not impact service quality or agency performance. 
2
Substantial Implementation, Good Performance
A rating of (2) indicates that an agency's infrastructure and practices are basically sound but there is room for improvement.
  • The majority of the standards requirements have been met and the basic framework required by the standard has been implemented. 
  • Minor inconsistencies and not yet fully developed practices are noted; however, these do not significantly impact service quality or agency performance.
3

Partial Implementation, Concerning Performance
A rating of (3) indicates that the agency's observed infrastructure and/or practices require significant improvement.  

  • The agency has not implemented the basic framework of the standard but instead has in place only part of this framework.  
  • Omissions or exceptions to the practices outlined in the standard occur regularly, or practices are implemented in a cursory or haphazard manner.  
  • Service quality or agency functioning may be compromised.  
  • Capacity is at a basic level.
4
Unsatisfactory Implementation or Performance
A rating of (4) indicates that implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all.  
  • The agency’s observed administration and management infrastructure and practices are weak or non-existent; or show signs of neglect, stagnation, or deterioration.
Self-Study EvidenceOn-Site EvidenceOn-Site Activities
No Self-Study Evidence
  • Fiscal authority/senior management meeting minutes
  • Long-term or strategic plan
  • Annual risk management review

 

  • Interviews may include:
    1. Fiscal authority
    2. Agency senior management
    3. CFO or equivalent