Audit of International Humanitarian Assistance

Global Affairs Canada
Office of the Chief Audit Executive

Tabling Date
June 2019

Acronyms and Symbols

ADM

Assistant Deputy Minister

APP

Authorized Programming Process

CAP

Consolidated Appeal Process

EIP

Environmental Integration Process

FIAP

Feminist International Assistance Policy

FRET

Fiduciary Risk Evaluation Tool

GE

Gender Equality

GAC

Global Affairs Canada

ICRC

International Committee of the Red Cross

IHA

International Humanitarian Assistance

MAP

Management Action Plan

MHD

International Humanitarian Assistance Bureau

MSR

Management Summary Report

NGO

Non-Governmental Organization

OAG

Office of the Auditor General

TBS

Treasury Board Secretariat

UN

United Nations

Executive Summary

In accordance with Global Affairs Canada’s approved 2018-2019 Risk-based Audit Plan, the Office of the Chief Audit Executive conducted an audit of International Humanitarian Assistance. The objective of the audit was to determine whether processes and controls are in place for the effective delivery of humanitarian assistance and whether the recommendations of the 2014 Office of the Auditor General (OAG) audit, Responding to the Onset of International Humanitarian Crises, have been fully addressed. Only recommendations under the responsibility of the International Humanitarian Assistance Bureau were included in the audit.

Canada’s international humanitarian assistance aims to help save lives, maintain the dignity of those affected, and alleviate human suffering resulting from conflict situations, acute food insecurity and natural disasters in developing countries by providing appropriate, timely and effective assistance and by strengthening the established international humanitarian response system. Alongside other international humanitarian donors, Canada funds humanitarian partners to provide food, water, health, sanitation and shelter to crisis-affected populations. This funding constitutes an important obligation and commitment of the Government of Canada towards the international community in general and vulnerable people in developing countries in particular.

Why it is important

Global Affairs Canada is the Government of Canada’s operational lead for providing international humanitarian assistance in response to complex and sudden onset humanitarian situations in developing countries. In the event of catastrophic natural disasters abroad, Global Affairs Canada coordinates the whole-of-government response. Over the last three fiscal years (2015-2018), the departmental humanitarian assistance program provided more than $2.2 billion in humanitarian assistance support through United Nations (UN) partners, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

Considering the complex nature of humanitarian assistance, the materiality of funds involved and the importance of ensuring effective and timely relief for affected populations, it is critical that proper controls and effective management processes are in place to ensure sound management of the international humanitarian assistance program.

What was examined

The objective of this audit was to determine whether processes and controls are in place for the effective delivery of humanitarian assistance and whether the recommendations of the 2014 OAG audit, Responding to the Onset of International Humanitarian Crises, have been fully addressed.

This audit focused on the operating procedures, processes and controls in place for the management and delivery of the departmental international humanitarian assistance program. The audit covered the period of 2016-17 to 2018-19. The audit also followed up on the 2014 Office of the Auditor General’s recommendations under the responsibility of the International Humanitarian Assistance Bureau (MHD).

What was found

The audit concluded that processes and controls are in place to ensure effective delivery of the international humanitarian assistance program. However, some weaknesses were noted in the areas of risk management, consistent use of departmental process, and training, tools, and guidance. The audit also concluded that the International Humanitarian Assistance Bureau has put in place measures to implement the 2014 Office of Auditor General’s recommendations that were under the responsibility of the International Humanitarian Assistance Bureau.

Recommendations

Based on the findings above, the audit team recommended the following:

1. The ADM of Global Issues and Development should seek from the Director General of International Assistance Operations (DPD) a tailored reporting solution for international humanitarian assistance projects that also meets key departmental reporting requirements.
2. The ADM of Global Issues and Development should develop a training strategy for international humanitarian assistance program officers to ensure that the program maintains sufficient HR capacity for its delivery.
3. The ADM of Global Issues and Development should ensure that tools and guidance for international assistance programming are complete and up-to-date and that key project documentation is retained.
4. The ADM of Global Issues and Development should ensure that a formal risk management strategy is implemented for international humanitarian assistance at the program-level.
5. The ADM of Global Issues and Development should put in place a process to periodically renew NGO Institutional Profiles.

Statement of Conformance

1. Background

The Audit of International Humanitarian Assistance (IHA) was selected as part of Global Affairs Canada’s (GAC) 2018-19 to 2019-20 Risk-based Audit Plan, which was recommended by the Departmental Audit Committee and approved by the Deputy Minister on April 30, 2018. The objective of this audit was to determine whether processes and controls are in place for the effective delivery of humanitarian assistance and whether the recommendations of the 2014 OAG audit, Responding to the Onset of International Humanitarian Crises, have been fully addressed.

International Context

According to the United Nations (UN), humanitarian needs arising from natural disasters, acute food insecurity, health emergencies and armed conflicts have steadily risen over the past few years. The UN estimates that, in 2018, 134 million people around the world were in need of assistance, requiring US $25.4 billion. While global humanitarian assistance funding has also increased, humanitarian needs consistently exceed resources.

Since 1991, the UN Secretary-General has been mandated to take a leadership role in the coordination of humanitarian action to ensure a coherent response to emergencies. Following an assessment of international humanitarian situations, the UN issues appeal documents that present a snapshot of situations, response priorities, proposed activities, projects and associated funding requests of participating aid organizations. Before the beginning of each calendar year, the UN launches a Consolidated Appeal Process (CAP), whereby humanitarian organizations plan, coordinate, fund, implement and monitor their response to disasters and emergencies, in consultation with the affected States^{Footnote 1} . A Flash Appeal is issued whenever a crisis breaks occurs throughout the year. Government donors, such as Canada, review the appeal documents and decide whether to make voluntary contributions to selected aid organizations, operations and projects. The Government of Canada also responds to appeals of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent (ICRC) Movement.

Government of Canada

Canada’s international humanitarian assistance aims to save lives and alleviate human suffering resulting from conflicts and natural disasters in developing countries by providing appropriate, timely and effective assistance and by strengthening the established international humanitarian response system. Canada’s humanitarian action is guided by the humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, independence and neutrality. These principles emphasize the importance of saving human lives and alleviating suffering, and acting solely on the basis of need, without discrimination between or within affected populations. In June 2017, the Government of Canada released its first Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP). This policy promotes principled, timely, needs-based humanitarian assistance that better addresses the particular needs and potential of women and girls.

The Government of Canada responds to humanitarian crises by funding experienced partners and by deploying relief supplies and technical experts. Humanitarian assistance is funded through transfer payments (i.e. grants and contributions) from the International Assistance Envelope and is reported to Parliament as Official Development Assistance. According to the 2017-2018 Report to Parliament on the Government of Canada’s Official Development Assistance, Canada’s investment of $852 million in humanitarian assistance helped to save or improve the lives of over 91 million people in 64 countries and responded to 22 natural disasters.

Notably, Canada has earmarked $840 million over three years (2016-2019) to provide humanitarian assistance for the most vulnerable people affected by the ongoing conflicts in Syria and Iraq, as part of its Middle East engagement strategy. This funding helps provide support for urgent health and emergency education services, water, shelter, food, and protection – including from sexual and gender-based violence.

Departmental Context

GAC is the Government of Canada’s operational lead for providing IHA in response to complex and sudden onset humanitarian situations in developing countries. In the event of catastrophic natural disasters abroad, GAC coordinates the whole-of-government response. Within the Department, the IHA Bureau (MHD) is responsible for humanitarian policy, assistance and response functions. MHD consists of three divisions:

• Humanitarian Organizations and Food Assistance: Manages policy relations and maintains relationships with partners to which the Department provides long-term institutional grants.
• IHA Operations: Responsible for programming Canada’s support to international humanitarian responses. The division is geographically organized into two groups: (1) Sub-Saharan Africa; and (2) Middle East, Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe (Ukraine).
• Natural Disaster Humanitarian Response: Responsible for humanitarian coordination and response functions when natural disasters occur abroad.

In 2017-18, MHD disbursed over $822 million in humanitarian assistance support through UN partners, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the ICRC. As shown in Table 1, the Department’s humanitarian assistance disbursements have steadily increased over the past three years.

MHD has mechanisms in place that allow funds to be rapidly available for humanitarian responders in urgent situations. Notably, MHD has numerous draw-down funds, including the Emergency Disaster Assistance Fund, the Canadian Humanitarian Assistance Fund, and core support to the Canadian Foodgrains Bank. Draw-down funds are pooled funding mechanisms to which MHD has already allocated funding, which can be quickly released when a crisis occurs and pre-established criteria are met.

In addition to MHD, GAC has a West Bank and Gaza Development Program which helps meet the humanitarian needs of vulnerable Palestinians with a special focus on food security and support to livelihoods.

2014 OAG Recommendations

In 2014, the OAG tabled an audit on Responding to the Onset of International Humanitarian Crises, which focused on the federal government’s response to the onset of humanitarian crises ranging from sudden natural disasters to rapid increases in humanitarian needs during complex or prolonged crises. The audit covered the period from April 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013. The audit recommended that the Department (then Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada):

• Document how the dollar amounts of its humanitarian funding allocations are determined;
• Monitor and assess its timeliness in responding to the onset of crises to identify opportunities for improving its response time; and
• Assess the results of the humanitarian assistance projects it funds in a manner that is useful for managing operations.

The OAG report included a fourth recommendation addressed to the Department and under the responsibility of the Middle East program, which was marked as completed in 2015 and is outside of the scope of this audit.

2. Observations and Recommendations

Audit results are derived from an examination of documentation, interviews conducted and file reviews. The audit team reviewed key documentation including relevant policies and guidance. The team conducted 22 interviews with employees involved in humanitarian assistance programming and reviewed a sample of 32 project files. Based on this work, observations and recommendations were developed regarding: the implementation of OAG recommendations; departmental policies, procedures, and guidelines; human resources capacity and information management; and risk management.

2.1 Implementation of OAG Recommendations

Documentation of Funding Allocations

The 2014 OAG report recommended that the Department document how the dollar amounts of its humanitarian funding allocations are determined, including key calculations and rationale. In response, the management action plan (MAP) stipulated that the Department will systematically document the rationale for how proposed funding envelopes are determined as well as the rationale for why partners’ proposals were selected. The audit performed a walkthrough of the process used by MHD to allocate funding in response to the Consolidated Appeal Process. Based on this work, the audit found that MHD has a documented process, guidance and tools to calculate country allocations and all funding decisions were documented. 

Once the CAP is launched, MHD calculates the country funding allocation with an internal tool, using a variety of inputs. Specifically, calculations are performed based on the following four equally weighted criteria: 

1. The total funding provided to the country or region in previous years;
2. A Conflict Intensity Indicator; 
3. An Uprooted People Indicator; and
4. A Food Insecurity Indicator, technically known as the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification.

Once funding has been allocated at the country-level, program officers assess NGO proposals and recommend projects for approval. Project recommendations are informed by a variety of sources, including consultations with geographic programs at HQ and in the field. Project recommendations are documented using a formal template, which requires program officers to provide a rationale for their recommendations. Funding recommendations of multilateral organizations are also documented using different factors such as their presence and experience in the field, the type of activities to be implemented and the amount of the specific country appeal. 

These tools allow MHD to calculate country funding allocations and to document the rationale why each partner was selected to receive funding to deliver humanitarian assistance. This helps MHD ensure that the organizations selected are best positioned to address the needs identified and reach the most vulnerable population and alleviate suffering.

Monitoring and Assessment of Timeliness

The 2014 OAG report recommended that the Department monitor and assess its timeliness in responding to the onset of crises to identify opportunities for improving its response time. In its MAP, the Department indicated that it would establish a monitoring mechanism to measure and assess the timeliness of its responses to the onset of humanitarian crises, including both slow and rapid onset.

The audit found that MHD did not implement the management action plan as originally developed.  Instead, the audit found that MHD put in place numerous mechanisms to help ensure timely response to the onset of crises. More specifically, the annual CAP process is well-structured, with key dates identified, which makes approval timelines predictable and ensures disbursements are done early in the year. MHD has also increased the use of multi-year programming and draw-down funds.

Assessment of Project Results

The 2014 OAG report recommended that the Department should assess the results of the humanitarian assistance projects it funds in a manner that is useful for managing operations. The Department’s MAP indicated that:

• It will eliminate the existing backlog of incomplete project Management Summary Reports (MSR) and thereafter, within a year of receiving final project reports, complete the MSRs; and,
• As part of its November/December review of annual humanitarian appeals, it will develop a funding recommendation template that integrates an analysis of lessons learned as well as any available relevant results.

The audit expected that MHD would have taken all measures to fully implement the MAP. While MHD has made progress in reducing the number of incomplete MSRs, the audit found that there was still a backlog. The MSR is used to capture results achieved by funded projects. The audit team also found that MSRs are not always completed within a year of receiving final project reports (discussed further in Section 2.2).

While the MSRs are not always completed in a timely manner, MHD collects and assesses the results of the humanitarian assistance projects it funds through other means. Expected results and reporting requirements are outlined in the agreements for each project. Partners are expected to provide annual and/or final performance reports, depending on the duration of the project. Interviews with MHD management and program staff indicated that monitoring is also conducted through field visits, when possible. During these field visits, the program officers meet with beneficiaries and other donors to discuss partners’ performance. Field visits are considered as critical because MHD does not have dedicated officers in Canadian missions abroad. The field monitoring visits are then documented in Mission Monitoring Reports.

In addition, interim results are collected from NGO partners to inform the CAP decision-making process. These interim reports include an overview of results achieved at that stage of the project, which are shared among MHD staff and are used to feed partner performance discussions. These discussions are used by program officers to assess NGOs’ proposals and support their funding recommendations, which are documented in a funding recommendation template.

While there remains a backlog of incomplete MSRs, MHD has put in place a process to assess the results of the humanitarian assistance projects it funds in a manner that is useful for managing operations.

2.2 Departmental Policies, Procedures and Guidelines

The audit team expected that departmental policies, procedures and guidelines would effectively support the delivery of the IHA program. The audit team examined departmental policies, procedures, guidelines and tools applicable to IHA programming, including the FIAP and the Authorized Programming Process (APP), and found that they generally support the IHA program mandate and delivery. Where more tailored support was required, IHA has addressed these gaps with its own practices, guidelines, and tools. However, in some cases, the audit team found that departmental tools were not used or found on file.  

Interviews with MHD indicated that the FIAP supports and reinforces the mandate of the humanitarian assistance program. It also communicates to partners the Government of Canada’s commitment to integrate gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls at the heart of its humanitarian assistance. MHD has drafted a sub-policy to the FIAP, entitled the Gender-Responsive Humanitarian Action Policy (which was undergoing approval at the time of the audit) aimed at providing more detailed guidance to officers.

At the operational level, the program is supported by the APP, the Department’s standardized process for international assistance project management. The APP identifies key requirements from the initiation to the implementation of a project, such as the completion of the Fiduciary Risk Evaluation Tool, the Gender Equality Assessment, the Environmental Integration Process, and Management Summary Report.

The Fiduciary Risk Evaluation Tool (FRET) is a risk management tool designed to provide a consistent and systematic approach to evaluate, mitigate, monitor and manage fiduciary risk for the Department’s development assistance investments. This tool is used to assess the fiduciary risk of the humanitarian partner organization. For each project, MHD is required to complete a simplified version of the FRET (adapted to the humanitarian context) only covering the assessment of risks related to the organization as related to financial, governance and corruption aspects. This simplified process is sufficient and effective to determine the level of fiduciary risk of the project, identify the appropriate mitigation measures and support the selection of the financial instrument. Based on a sample of projects reviewed, the audit team found that the FRET was completed for all projects.

As part of the APP, a Gender Equality (GE) Assessment form must be completed for all international assistance projects. The GE form is required to ensure that gender equality is considered in all international assistance initiatives, in line with departmental policies. Given the particular nature of humanitarian assistance, an abridged GE form is completed for all humanitarian assistance initiatives. This simplified form was found to be more tailored to the nature of humanitarian assistance programming, while also meeting policy requirements. The audit team found that the GE form was not always on file.

e Environmental Integration Process (EIP) Form is required as part of the APP, to ensure the integration of environmental sustainability considerations into GAC’s international assistance initiatives. The EIP Form documents the Department’s compliance with environmental policy and legal requirements for international development assistance. While the EIP is geared more towards international development assistance, the tool is very flexible. Depending on the sector, context and scale of the initiative, program officers are only required to complete applicable sections of the form. The audit team found that the EIP form was generally completed as required.

The departmental process also requires the completion of a management summary report (MSR), which allows programs to capture and report on project results. While departmental processes require the MSR to be completed on an annual basis, the audit team noted that MHD completes the MSR at the end of a project, regardless of its duration. The audit team reviewed a list of all MHD projects in the past four years and found that MSRs were not completed for 39 projects at least a year after they had ended for which more than $300 million was disbursed. Further, based on the sample of projects reviewed, the audit team found that the MSR was not always on file.

Recommendation 1:

The ADM of Global Issues and Development should seek from the Director General of International Assistance Operations (DPD) a tailored reporting solution for international humanitarian assistance projects that also meets key departmental reporting requirements.

2.3 Human Resources Capacity - Planning, Training and Tools

The audit team expected that the IHA program would have the human resources capacity to deliver results. More specifically, it was expected that the program would maintain sufficient knowledge and experience to deliver results and that program staff would be provided with the training and tools in support of their program delivery roles and responsibilities. The audit team examined human resources (HR) planning documentation, guidelines, tools, and training documentation. Based on interviews and document review, the audit team found that MHD currently has the HR capacity in place to deliver the program. However, MHD does not have an HR strategy in place. In addition, some areas of improvements were noted for tools and information management.

Human Resources Planning

Global Affairs Canada has a staff rotation and mobility system in place, which allows the Department to assign employees to various positions within Canada and around the world. This system was created to support the periodic movement of staff, to contribute to their professional development and to meet the operational needs of a foreign service. The majority of positions within MHD have been mobile since 2015. At the time of the audit, 36 out of 39 program management and officer positions were mobile. Positions are staffed for three-year terms and, as a result, one third of MHD’s workforce changes every fall. Interviews indicated that this increased turnover has contributed to a loss of subject matter expertise and institutional memory. Although interviews indicated that knowledge and expertise is currently adequate, management expressed concerns with regards to the loss of humanitarian expertise in the near future as more experienced officers rotate out of the division.

Given this situation, the audit team expected that MHD would have an HR strategy in place, clearly identifying the knowledge, experience and expertise that are needed to ensure that the program maintains sufficient capacity for its delivery. Interviews indicated that while HR challenges are regularly discussed at management-level meetings, management had not formally defined its HR needs or developed a strategy to address its HR challenges.

Training and Tools

The Departmental staff mobility process occurs shortly before the annual CAP in the fall, which is MHD’s busiest time of year. As such, it is particularly important that new staff receive the necessary training and tools to fulfill their duties within a short timeframe.

The audit team found that there is no formal training specific to humanitarian assistance programming offered by the Canada School for the Public Service or the Canadian Foreign Service Institute. To fill this gap, MHD management organizes weekly internal training sessions every fall, covering a variety of topics including MHD’s relationship with other GAC divisions, IHA programming mechanisms, key multilateral partners, natural disaster response, and the Consolidated Appeal Process. PowerPoint presentations for these training sessions are accessible to MHD staff through the corporate repository. Interviews with program staff indicated that most of the learning is done on the job, often through informal exchanges with more experienced colleagues. The audit team also noted that management has not developed a formal training plan for new staff. Interviews indicated that there is a need to identify key training needs and to develop a training plan for humanitarian officers.

In addition, the audit team found that MHD has developed a variety of tools and guidance documents to help program officers do their work as related to project management, communications with partners, and information management. The audit team found that tools related to the Consolidated Appeal Process and draw-down funds are well documented. Interviews indicated that officers generally have the necessary guidance and tools to support their work, however, some gaps exist and guidance documentation is currently being improved. Indeed, through a review of documentation, the audit team found that some guidance documents were outdated or were still in draft format. Given the mobile nature of MHD’s programming staff, it is important that tools and guidance documentation is complete, up-to-date, and readily available to support the discharge of their responsibilities.

MHD provides guidance to program officers on information management, which indicates which documents need to be retained in a project file. Proper information management helps ensure an effective transfer of project information. While reviewing a sample of 32 project files, the audit team noted that some key documentation was missing from project files. Notably, the audit team was unable to find some signed agreements, GE forms, Section 34 approvals, MSRs, and communications with partners. Proper information management helps facilitate continuity of projects, particularly in the context of a mobile workforce.

Recommendation 2:

The ADM of Global Issues and Development should develop a training strategy for international humanitarian assistance program officers to ensure that the program maintains sufficient HR capacity for its delivery.

Recommendation 3:

The ADM of Global Issues and Development should ensure that tools and guidance for international assistance programming are complete and up-to-date and that key project documentation is retained.

2.4 Risk Management

The audit team expected that mechanisms would be in place to systematically identify, assess, mitigate, and monitor risks to the achievement of the IHA program’s objectives. The audit team conducted interviews with MHD staff, reviewed policies and guidelines on risk management and program risk documentation. The audit found that MHD did not have in place a formal risk management process, although interviews indicated that risk management is regularly discussed by management. The audit team also found that project-level risks are generally well-managed, although some gaps were noted.

Risk management is a critical pillar of modern management. The Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) Guide to Integrated Risk requires performing an ongoing assessment of risks at every level and in every sector of the organization, and to continually monitor, review and improve their specific risk management approach and processes to ensure their effectiveness. An effective risk management process supports decision-making, priority-setting, resource allocation, program delivery, and appropriate risk response. It also communicates accountability, roles, and responsibilities for organization risk management.  

Given the complex nature and materiality of the MHD program, it is critical that management establish a formal risk management strategy to identify risks to the achievement of its programming objectives and determine appropriate risk mitigation measures. At the program level, MHD has completed the Risk Management Framework as part of the Performance Information Profile, as required by the Treasury Board Policy on Results. However, the audit team found that this framework was still a draft at the time of the audit. Furthermore, senior management indicated that while risks are regularly discussed, they do not apply a formal risk management process, which consists of identifying, assessing, mitigating, monitoring, reviewing and reporting the risks faced by the program.

Formalizing a risk management process would be particularly beneficial to IHA management given the mobile nature of the management team.

The audit found that risk management is well performed at the project level notably with the FRET and the project risk profile. In addition, as part of MHD’s risk management process, NGO partners must meet ten minimum requirements prior to being considered for humanitarian assistance funding. This helps ensure that MHD only funds trusted partners. These ten minimum requirements are assessed and captured in the partner’s Institutional Profile, which must be renewed when requested by MHD. Based on a review of a sample of projects, the audit team found that all NGO partners have a completed Institutional Profile. However, the audit team noted that, based on information provided (a master tracking table), not all Institutional Profiles were up-to-date in accordance with the indicated deadlines.  Furthermore, program management could not indicate if Institutional Profiles were renewed after a specified period of time and if an internal direction existed to this effect. Periodic renewals of Institutional Profiles would help mitigate the risk of funding partners that may no longer meet the requirements for IHA funding and could be a good practice wherever these Profiles are used within the department.

Recommendation 4:

The ADM of Global Issues and Development should ensure that a formal risk management strategy is implemented for international humanitarian assistance at the program level.

Recommendation 5:

The ADM of Global Issues and Development should put in place a process to periodically renew NGO Institutional Profiles.

3. Conclusion

The audit concluded that processes and controls are in place to ensure effective delivery of the international humanitarian assistance program. However, some weaknesses were noted in the areas of risk management, consistent use of departmental process, and training, tools and guidance. The audit also concluded that the International Humanitarian Assistance Bureau has put measures in place to implement the 2014 Office of Auditor General’s recommendations that were under the responsibility of the International Humanitarian Assistance Bureau.

Appendix A: About the Audit

Objective

The audit objective is to determine whether processes and controls are in place for the effective delivery of humanitarian assistance and whether the recommendations of the 2014 OAG audit, Responding to the Onset of International Humanitarian Crises, have been fully addressed.

Scope

This audit will examine the operating procedures, processes, and controls in place for the management and delivery of the IHA program. The audit will cover the period of 2016-17 to 2018-19. The audit will also follow-up on the 2014 OAG audit’s recommendations that were addressed to GAC.

Criteria

• 1. Recommendations from the 2014 OAG audit have been fully implemented.
  • 1.1 The Department documents how the dollar amounts of its humanitarian funding allocations are determined, including key calculations and rationale.
  • 1.2 The Department monitors and assesses its timeliness in responding to the onset of crises to identify opportunities for improving its response time.
  • 1.3 The Department assesses the results of the humanitarian assistance projects it funds in a manner that is useful for managing operations.
• 2. Mechanisms are in place to systematically identify, assess, mitigate, and monitor risks to the achievement of the IHA program’s objectives.
• 3. Departmental policies, procedures, and guidelines effectively support the delivery of the IHA program.
• 4. The IHA program has human resources capacity to deliver results.
  • 4.1 The IHA program maintains sufficient knowledge and experience to deliver results.
  • 4.2 The IHA program staff are provided with the training and tools in support of their program delivery roles and responsibilities.

Approach and Methodology

To ensure the audit objective can be achieved and concluded, the following methods will be used to gather audit evidence:

• Review relevant policies, directives, and guidelines;
• Review and analyze documentation, including financial and non-financial information;
• Perform walk-throughs of key controls and processes;
• Review a sample of project files;
• Interview key departmental personnel; and
• Other audit tests as deemed necessary.

Appendix B: Management Action Plan