Skip to Content


Registration Practices Assessment Report
ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO LAND SURVEYORS
2016–2017 Assessment Cycle (Cycle 3)



AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

This report is provided by the OFC to the regulatory body assessed. The OFC will post the full report on its website. In the interest of transparency and accountability, the OFC encourages regulatory bodies to provide the report to its staff, council members, the public, and other interested parties.



Introduction

Assessment is one of the Fairness Commissioner's mandated roles under the Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act, 2006 (FARPACTA) and the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 (RHPA) – collectively known as fair access legislation.

Assessment Cycle

One of the primary ways the OFC holds regulators accountable for continuous improvement is through the assessment of registration practices using a three-year assessment cycle.

Assessment cycles alternate between full assessments and targeted assessments:

  • Full assessments address all specific and general duties described in the fair-access legislation.
  • Targeted assessments focus on the areas where the OFC made recommendations in the previous full assessment.

Focus of this Assessment and Report

The 2016-2017 assessment is a full assessment.

The OFC’s detailed report captures the results of the full assessment. However, practices related to provision of information are excluded for regulators who have previously been assessed. For those regulators, these practices have been removed from the report[1].The assessment summary provides the following key information from the detailed report:

  • duties that were assessed
  • an overview of assessment outcomes for specific duty practices
  • an overview of comments related to the general duty
  • commendable practices
  • recommendations

Top



Assessment Summary


Specific Duties

Specific duties assessed

The regulator has been assessed in all of the specific duties. However, practices related to provision of information were excluded from the assessment and have been removed from the report.

Comments

The regulatory body has demonstrated all of the practices in the following specific-duty areas:

  • Timely Decisions, Responses and Reasons
  • Internal Reviews and Appeals
  • Access to Records

General Duty

Assessment method

The regulator selected one of the following three methods for the assessment of the general duty:

a. OFC practice-based assessment (following the practices in the Assessment Guide) Checked
b. Regulator practice-based self-assessment (following the practices in the Assessment Guide) Unchecked
c. Regulator systems-based self-assessment (in which it explains systemically and holistically how it meets the general duty) Unchecked

Principles assessed

The regulator has been assessed on all of the general duty principles: transparency, objectivity, impartiality and fairness.

Comments

The OFC found that since the last assessment, the Association of Ontario Land Surveyors (AOLS) has implemented measures to achieve more transparent, objective, impartial and fair practices. The OFC has identified four commendable practices and made several suggestions for further improvement.

Commendable Practices

A commendable practice is a program, activity or strategy that goes beyond the minimum standards set by the OFC assessment guides, considering the regulatory body's resources and profession-specific context. Commendable practices may or may not have potential for transferability to another regulatory body.

The regulatory body is demonstrating commendable practices in the following areas:

Specific Duty

Assessment of Qualifications

  1. Providing contact information for specific individuals at educational institutions to contact for advice, in evaluation results letters to applicants who are assigned courses.

General Duty

Transparency

  1. Providing updates from the AOLS Council, Committees, and Task Forces through online webinars.

Fairness

  1. Making the articling information session available remotely online.
  2. Moving the statutes examination to an online format available on-demand.
  3. Enabling applicants undergoing assessment to view a preliminary version of their evaluations before they are submitted to the Academic and Experience Requirements Committee (AERC), thus providing applicants with an opportunity to provide clarification and further information.

Recommendations

The regulator can improve in the following areas:

Specific Duty

Assessment of Qualifications

  1. Once the AERC Policy manual is approved, develop a schedule for updating it periodically and a process to ensure that updated copies are provided to assessors and AERC members.
  2. Develop guidelines for completing interviews as part of the assessment process.
  3. Develop guidelines for articling surveyors for completing assessments of an applicant’s progress and making determinations of when assignments are required.
  4. Develop and record qualification standards for assessors, to ensure that they will be available should additional assessors be necessary in the future.
  5. In guidelines for staff, assessors and AERC members, include content that:
    1. identifies characteristics of bias, potential sources of bias, and/or circumstances that may compromise impartial assessment decisions
    2. provides instructions on what staff and committee members should do if they identify situations of bias
    3. explicitly prohibits discrimination

Training

  1. Provide staff, assessors and committee members with training that covers:
    1. anti-discrimination
    2. cultural diversity
    3. objective decision-making and what it means in the context of the registration process
    4. impartial decision-making and what it means in the context of the registration process
  2. Once a training plan has been developed for staff, assessors and committee members, establish timelines for the training to be completed as well as a process to verify that the timelines have been met.

Assessment History

In the 2013-2014 assessment, the OFC identified 20 recommendations for AOLS. Ten of those recommendations have been carried forward into this report:

  1. Develop written guidelines to help assessors complete an academic evaluation and make recommendations about gaps. These guidelines should ensure a consistent approach to considering experience and knowledge obtained outside a formal academic program.
  2. Develop written guidelines to help members of the AERC to make consistent and objective decisions about applications for reductions in the length of articling.
  3. Develop a work plan and timeline for reviewing the new suite of assessment methods for objectivity, validity and reliability.
  4. Assess learning needs in the context of recent changes to the AOLS’s assessment methodology, and develop a training plan for everyone involved in assessing qualifications and making registration decisions.

On the AOLS website:

  1. Identify steps in the registration process that an internationally educated applicant could take before arriving in Canada.
  2. Describe third-party fees that internationally educated applicants may incur, such as fees for translation and academic evaluation.
  3. Provide guidance to applicants about how to prepare for the competency interview that is part of the academic evaluation process.
  4. Explain why references are required. Describe the criteria used to assess "good character."
  5. Clarify that applicants can apply for their term of articles to be reduced or waived. Describe the conditions that must be met for a full waiver of articles.
  6. Provide information about how to appeal a decision to deny registration.

These recommendations are not counted towards the total number of recommendations for this assessment cycle.

Top



Detailed Report[2]


Specific Duty

In this section, a check mark indicates, within that area of the specific duty, whether a regulator demonstrated the practice, partially demonstrated the practice, did not demonstrate the practices or if the practice is not applicable in certain situation. Recommendations are made for partially demonstrated and non-demonstrated areas.

2. Specific Duty — Timely Decisions, Responses and Reasons

FARPACTA, s. 8 and s. 9 (1)
RHPA, Schedule 2, s.20 (1)

*Only applies to regulatory bodies governed by FARPACTA

1. If a regulator rejects an application, it gives written reasons to the applicant. [Fairness, Transparency]

Assessment Outcome

Demonstrated

2. The regulator makes registration decisions, and gives written decisions and reasons to applicants, without undue delay*. [Fairness]

Assessment Outcome

Demonstrated

3. The regulator responds to applicants’ inquiries or requests without undue delay*. [Fairness]

Assessment Outcome

Demonstrated

4. The regulator provides internal reviews of decisions, or appeals from decisions, without undue delay*. [Fairness]

Assessment Outcome

Demonstrated

5. The regulator makes decisions about internal reviews and appeals, and gives written decisions and reasons to applicants, without undue delay*. [Fairness]

Assessment Outcome

Demonstrated

3. Specific Duty — Internal Review or Appeal

FARPACTA, s. 7, s. 9 (2-3, 5)
RHPA, Schedule 2, s. 15, s. 17, s. 19, s. 22.3

*Only applies to regulatory bodies governed by FARPACTA

1. The regulator provides applicants with an internal review of, or appeal from, registration decisions. [Fairness]

Assessment Outcome

Demonstrated

2. The regulator implements rules and procedures that prevent anyone who acted as a decision-maker in a registration decision from acting as a decision-maker in an internal review or appeal of that same registration decision. [Impartiality]

Assessment Outcome

Demonstrated

4. The regulator provides information on its website about any limits or conditions on an internal review or appeal*. [Transparency]

Assessment Outcome

Demonstrated

Suggestions for continuous improvement

It would be helpful to provide a link to the appeal policy through “Join AOLS”/“Become an Ontario Land Surveyor” sections of the AOLS website, to make it easier for applicants to find.

6. Specific Duty — Assessment of Qualifications

FARPACTA, s. 10 (2)
RHPA, Schedule 2, s. 22.4(2)

*Only applies to regulatory bodies that develop and administer their own exams.

2. The regulator communicates the results of qualifications assessment to each applicant in writing. [Transparency]

Assessment Outcome

Demonstrated

Commendable Practice

Providing contact information for specific individuals at educational institutions to contact for advice, in evaluation results letters to applicants who are assigned courses.

3. The regulator gives its assessors access to assessment criteria, policies and procedures. [Transparency]

Assessment Outcome

Partially Demonstrated

Recommendations

The OFC understands that the AOLS is in the process of developing an Academic and Experience Requirements Committee (AERC) policy manual. The OFC supports this work, as it is necessary to ensure that the assessment criteria, policies and procedures are recorded, up-to-date, and available to assessors and other decision-makers.

  • Once the AERC Policy manual is approved, develop a schedule for updating it periodically and a process to ensure that updated copies are provided to assessors and AERC members.

4. The regulator shows that its tests and exams measure what they intend to measure*. [Objectivity]

Assessment Outcome

Partially Demonstrated

Suggestions for continuous improvement

The OFC was looking for evidence that the AOLS includes psychometric scrutiny in the development of tests and exams, showing the assessment methods to be valid. While the AOLS maintains statistics on the results of the professional examination and uses success rates on individual questions to calibrate the difficulty of the exam, it is important to have a psychometric review to confirm that the exam measures what it intends to measure.

During the 2013-2014 assessment, a recommendation to review the AOLS’s new suite of assessment methods (including the changes to examinations) for “objectivity, validity and reliability” was made, and has not yet been completed. This review should be applied to all of the AOLS’ examinations to ensure that they measure what they intend to measure. The OFC suggests that, if possible, the AOLS engage a psychometrician to conduct a review of the AOLS examinations to confirm validity.

5. The regulator states its assessment criteria in ways that enable assessors to interpret them consistently. [Objectivity]

Assessment Outcome

Partially Demonstrated

Suggestions for continuous improvement

The AOLS states that AERC members meet four times per year and continually monitor their requirements to ensure they remain current. The OFC suggests that the AOLS also:

  • Develop and implement a plan to review its assessment criteria for clarity

6. The regulator ensures that the information about educational programs that is used to develop or update assessment criteria is kept current and accurate. [Objectivity]

Assessment Outcome

Demonstrated

7. The regulator links its assessment methods to the requirements/standards for entry to the profession or trade. [Objectivity]

Assessment Outcome

Demonstrated

8. The regulator requires that assessors consistently apply qualifications assessment criteria, policies and procedures to all applicants. [Objectivity]

Assessment Outcome

Partially Demonstrated

Suggestions for continuous improvement

The OFC recognizes that the AOLS currently uses only one assessor who is familiar with the assessment process. However, it is important to have recorded guidelines to ensure consistency, transparency and succession planning.

Two recommendations were made in this area during the 2013-2014 assessment, which are still in progress. The OFC understands that the AOLS is currently working on a policy related to the requirements for granting reductions in the articling period, but it has not yet been approved.

Two additional recommendations have been identified below.

Recommendations

  • Develop guidelines for completing interviews as part of the assessment process.
  • Develop guidelines for articling surveyors for completing assessments of an applicant’s progress and making determinations of when assignments are required.

The recommendations made during 2013-2014 are worded as follows:

  • Develop written guidelines to help assessors complete an academic evaluation and make recommendations about gaps. These guidelines should ensure a consistent approach to considering experience and knowledge obtained outside a formal academic program.
  • Develop written guidelines to help members of the Academic and Experience Requirements Committee make consistent and objective decisions about applications for reductions in the length of articling.

9. The regulator uses only qualified assessors to conduct the assessments. [Objectivity]

Assessment Outcome

Partially Demonstrated

Recommendations

As noted above in section 6.8, the AOLS currently uses only assessor, who is experienced with the process. The OFC recommends that the AOLS:

  • Develop and record qualification standards for assessors, to ensure that they will be available should additional assessors be necessary in the future.

10. The regulator monitors the consistency and accuracy of decisions, and takes corrective actions as necessary, to safeguard the objectivity of its assessment decisions. [Objectivity]

Assessment Outcome

Demonstrated

Suggestions for continuous improvement

As part of the registration process, the assessment process needs to be monitored to ensure consistency and accuracy. The OFC suggests that the AOLS consider more formal periodic reviews to monitor the consistency of the assessment process, such as scrutinizing a sampling of completed assessments for accuracy and consistency.

11. The regulator prohibits discrimination and informs assessors about the need to avoid bias in the assessment. [Impartiality]

Assessment Outcome

Not Demonstrated

OFC Comments

When assessing this practice, the OFC was looking for evidence that the AOLS takes the following actions:

  1. identifies and documents characteristics or types of bias (other than conflict of interest), and/or sources of bias, and/or circumstances that may compromise impartial assessment decisions;
  2. informs assessors about these characteristics or types of bias, and/or sources of bias, and/or circumstances that may compromise impartial assessment decisions;
  3. informs assessors about what to do if they identify situations of bias;
  4. prohibits discrimination in the assessment of qualifications.

The AOLS does not currently have formal guidelines in this area; a recommendation has been identified below.

Recommendations

In guidelines for staff, assessors and AERC members, include content that:

  1. identifies characteristics of bias, potential sources of bias, and/or circumstances that may compromise impartial assessment decisions
  2. provides instructions on what staff and committee members should do if they identify situations of bias
  3. explicitly prohibits discrimination

12. The regulator implements procedures to safeguard the impartiality of its assessment methods and procedures. [Impartiality]

Assessment Outcome

Partially Demonstrated

OFC Comments

Please see the recommendation identified in Specific Duty 6, Practice 11.

13. The regulator gives applicants an opportunity to appeal the results of a qualifications assessment or to have the results reviewed. [Fairness]

Assessment Outcome

Demonstrated

14. The regulator assesses qualifications, communicates results to applicants, and provides written reasons for unsuccessful applicants, without undue delay. [Fairness]

Assessment Outcome

Demonstrated

15. Regulators that rely on third-party assessments establish policies and procedures to hold third-party assessors accountable for ensuring that assessments are transparent, objective, impartial and fair. [Transparency, Objectivity, Impartiality, Fairness]

Assessment Outcome

Demonstrated

7. Specific Duty — Training

FARPACTA, s. 11.
RHPA, Schedule 2, s. 22.4(3)

1. The regulator provides training for staff and volunteers who assess qualifications or make registration, internal review or appeal decisions. [Objectivity, Impartiality, Fairness]

Assessment Outcome

Partially Demonstrated

OFC Comments

The OFC was looking for evidence that indicates that staff members, assessors, and other individuals involved in the assessment process receive training in the following:

  • how to assess qualifications and make registration decisions
  • how to make internal review or appeal decisions
  • how to apply special consideration in the assessment of applications.

The AOLS indicates that there are always experienced individuals involved in the assessment process. The OFC recognizes this, but notes that it is important for a formal or informal training plan to be in place regardless of the experience level of staff, assessors and committee members, both for refresher training and due to the evolving nature of the regulatory landscape.

One of the recommendations made in this area during the 2013-2014 assessment is still in progress; see “Recommendation” section below. The OFC recommends that the development of a training plan for everyone involved in assessing qualifications and making registration decisions be carried out as soon as possible.

Recommendations

The recommendation made during 2013-2014 is worded as follows:

  • Assess learning needs in the context of recent changes to the AOLS’s assessment methodology, and develop a training plan for everyone involved in assessing qualifications and making registration decisions.

2. The regulator addresses topics of objectivity and impartiality in the training it provides to assessors and decision-makers. [Objectivity, Impartiality]

Assessment Outcome

Not Demonstrated

Recommendations

The OFC was looking for evidence that the AOLS provides training to assessors and decision-makers that addresses the following topics:

  • anti-discrimination
  • cultural diversity
  • the objectives of the fair access law
  • objective decision-making and what it means in the context of the registration process
  • impartial decision-making and what it means in the context of the registration process

If training on any of these topics is planned for near future, please provide approximate dates for when this training is scheduled.

The OFC recommends that the AOLS:

  • Provide staff, assessors and committee members with training that covers:
    1. anti-discrimination
    2. cultural diversity
    3. objective decision-making and what it means in the context of the registration process
    4. impartial decision-making and what it means in the context of the registration process

The OFC notes that it has previously provided a presentation to the AERC on the fair access legislation, and that learning modules regarding the fair access law are now available through the OFC website. The learning modules can be used for training purposes.

3. The regulator identifies when new and incumbent staff and volunteers require training and provides the training accordingly. [Objectivity, Impartiality, Fairness]

Assessment Outcome

Partially Demonstrated

Recommendations

The AOLS has stated that new staff members are always monitored when they are involved with applicants. See OFC Comments for practice 7.1 regarding the development of a training plan for staff, assessors and committee members.

The OFC suggests:

  • Once a training plan has been developed for staff, assessors and committee members, establish timelines for the training to be completed as well as a process to verify that the timelines have been met.

8. Specific Duty — Access to Records

FARPACTA, s. 12
RHPA, Schedule 2, s. 16

1. The regulator provides each applicant with access to his or her application records. [Fairness]

Assessment Outcome

Demonstrated

3. If there is a fee for making records available, the regulator review the fee to ensure that it does not exceed the amount of reasonable cost recovery. [Fairness]

Assessment Outcome

Demonstrated

General Duty

FARPACTA, Part II, s.6
RHPA, Schedule 2, S.22.2

Transparency

  • Maintaining openness
  • Providing access to, monitoring, and updating registration information
  • Communicating clearly with applicants about their status
Assessment Outcome

OFC Comments:

Since the 2013 assessment, the AOLS has taken steps to enhance transparency, including providing additional information on registration policies through its website. The OFC encourages the AOLS to continue this positive direction.

Openness:

The AOLS takes measures to enable interested stakeholders, including the public and applicants, to understand how the registration process operates. For example:

  • On its website, the AOLS provides information about staff involvement with the AERC, information about the Registration Committee and its role, and specific information about staff accountabilities
  • The AOLS publishes the full transcript of its Annual Meeting in its Annual Report
  • The AOLS distributes a biweekly electronic newsletter as well as a quarterly magazine, both available through its website
  • The AOLS conducts surveys of members and applicants and publishes the results on the AOLS website
  • Since the 2013 assessment, the AOLS has developed and posted several additional registration policies on the AOLS website, including policies regarding good character, registration appeals and access to records

An example of these actions is included in the Commendable Practices section below, and one Suggestion for Continuous Improvement has been highlighted.

Access:

The AOLS takes measures to ensure that applicants are provided with information at the time and in the way needed to take actions appropriate to their individual circumstances. The AOLS:

  • Provides applicants with written confirmation of all decisions following AERC meetings, including information and advice regarding next steps
  • Is able to provide applicants with individualized support through ‘case managers’

Clarity:

  • The AOLS has processes to communicate with applicants throughout the registration process. The AOLS ensures that the AERC reviews and makes periodic improvements to decision letters to ensure that decisions are clearly communicated to applicants.

Suggestion for Continuous Improvement

The OFC suggests that the AOLS:

  • Develop a plan to seek feedback from applicants and members about their registration process experience, at regular intervals.

Commendable Practices

The OFC identified the following commendable practice:

  1. Providing updates from the AOLS Council, Committees, and Task Forces through online webinars

Objectivity

  • Designing criteria and procedures that are reliable and valid
  • Monitoring and following up threats to validity and reliability
Assessment Outcome

OFC Comments:

The AOLS uses a variety of methods to achieve objectivity in its certification process. Areas for further improvement are identified below.

Reliability:

To achieve reliability in certification decisions, the AOLS:

  • Provides its file reviewers with measurable units to assess registration criteria, with the exception of good character
    • The AOLS has taken a positive step in developing a good character policy and adding it to the AOLS website. However, the policy does not provide sufficient guidance on how AOLS would evaluate a good character issue. The OFC can share examples of criteria/policies developed by other regulators. One of the recommendations made during the 2013-2014 assessment cycle addresses this; it is listed under “Recommendation” below.
  • Refers to precedent cases as needed during evaluations.

The OFC supports the AOLS’ current work in developing a policy manual for the AERC; this will be an important step in ensuring reliability (see comments under Practice 6.3). The OFC encourages the AOLS to continue to take steps to ensure that all registration policies are written, reviewed an updated as needed.

Validity:

The AOLS takes acceptable steps to achieve validity in certification decisions. For example, the AOLS:

  • Has a process for staff to review application documents before they are provided to the assessor
  • Requires its assessor to use standard forms/tools

The presence of additional guidelines for staff/decision makers would assist in ensuring the validity of the AOLS’ registration decision-making.

Recommendation

The recommendation made during 2013-2014 is worded as follows:

  • Explain why references are required. Describe the criteria used to assess "good character."

Impartiality

  • Identifying bias, monitoring, and taking corrective action
  • Implementing strategies
Assessment Outcome

OFC Comments:

The AOLS has implemented measures to achieve impartial registration decisions; however, the OFC has identified that additional steps are recommended. See further information below.

Identification of Bias:

It appears that the AOLS does not currently provide information to assessors/decision makers regarding characteristics or types of bias, and/or sources of bias, and/or circumstances that may compromise the impartiality of its registration decisions. The OFC has identified one recommendation in this area, but as the AOLS’s processes related to assessment of qualifications are closely intertwined with processes related to making registration decisions, this suggestion has been included in Specific Duty 6, Practice 11.

Strategies:

The AOLS’ Council and Registration Committee completed a one-day seminar in Administrative Law in 2015, which included discussion of bias. While the AOLS indicates that bias has not been an issue, the OFC would recommend the implementation of additional measures to avoid bias. As the AOLS’s processes related to assessment of qualifications are closely intertwined with processes related to making registration decisions, please see the comments and recommendation identified in Specific Duty 6, Practice 11.

Recommendations

See Specific Duty 6, Practice 11.

Fairness

  • Ensuring substantive fairness
  • Ensuring procedural fairness
  • Ensuring relational fairness
Assessment Outcome

OFC Comments:

Since the last assessment, the AOLS has taken further measures to promote fairness.

Substantive Fairness

The AOLS takes the following measures to promote substantive fairness:

  • Reviews registration requirements during the quarterly AERC meetings to ensure they remain current and necessary to the practice of professional surveying
  • Offers an Introduction to Canadian common law course to help fill competency gaps for applicants from non-common law jurisdictions
  • Reviews its fees and sets them at an amount appropriate for cost recovery purposes

The AOLS offers the option of a portfolio-based competency assessment, but reports that applicants have found the process to be cumbersome, and it has thus far not been possible for applicants to take relevant portions of courses to fill competency gaps, as had originally been intended. However, the competency-based portfolio approach remains an alternative option.

Procedural Fairness

The AOLS has taken the following measures to promote procedural fairness:

  • Articling applications are now accepted for each of the quarterly AERC meetings, rather than only twice a year
  • Taking steps to enable applicants to have their qualifications assessed remotely, including making the articling information session and statutes examination available remotely online
  • Enabling applicants undergoing assessment to view a preliminary version of their evaluations before they are submitted to the AERC, thus providing applicants with an opportunity to provide clarification and further information

Relational Fairness

  • Since the last assessment, the AOLS has developed and posted on their website a new accessibility policy which describes its case-by-case approach to accommodations, noting that it will consult individuals with disabilities on how best to accommodate their needs.
  • The AOLS indicates that it considers other sources of relevant information and uses its interview process when an applicant cannot get the required documentation for reasons beyond his or her control. Applicants would benefit from being able to learn about this process through the AOLS website; the OFC has identified a suggestion for continuous improvement to this effect below.
  • The AOLS considers both Canadian and international experience for applications to reduce the articling period.

Commendable Practices

  • Making the articling information session available remotely online
  • Moving the statutes examination to an online format available on-demand
  • Enabling applicants undergoing assessment to view a preliminary version of their evaluations before they are submitted to the AERC, thus providing applicants with an opportunity to provide clarification and further information.

Suggestions for Continuous Improvement

  • Develop guidelines, a policy, or a similar document to inform applicants about the AOLS’ processes for considering and providing accommodations in cases where an applicant indicates that he or she cannot get the required documentation for reasons beyond his or her control.
  • Develop and carry out a plan to review the AOLS’ registration practices for alignment with best practices.

Top



Background


Assessment Methods

Assessments are based on the Registration Practices Assessment Guide: For Regulated Professions and Health Regulatory Colleges. The guide presents registration practices relating to the specific duties and general duty in the fair access legislation.

A regulatory body's practices can be measured against the FARPACTA’s specific duties in a straightforward way. However, the general duty is broad, and the principles it mentions (transparency, objectivity, impartiality and fairness) are not defined in the legislation.

As a result, the specific-duty and general-duty obligations are assessed differently (see the Strategy for Continuous Improvement of Registration Practices).

Specific Duties

The OFC can clearly determine whether a regulatory body demonstrates the specific-duty practices in the assessment guide. Therefore, for each specific-duty practice, the OFC provides one of the following assessment outcomes:

  • Demonstrated – all required elements of the practice are present or addressed
  • Partially Demonstrated – some but not all required elements are present or addressed
  • Not Demonstrated – none of the required elements are present or addressed
  • Not Applicable – this practice does not apply to the AOLS’s registration practices

General Duty

Because there are many ways that a regulatory body can demonstrate that its practices, overall, are meeting the principles of the general duty, the OFC makes assessment comments for the general duty, rather than identifying assessment outcomes. For the same reason, assessment comments are made by principle, rather than by practice.

For information about the OFC's interpretations of the general-duty principles and the practices that the OFC uses as a guideline for assessment, see the OFC's website.

Commendable Practices and Recommendations

Where applicable, the OFC identifies commendable practices or recommendations for improvement related to the specific duties and general duty.

Sources

Assessment outcomes, comments, and commendable practices and recommendations are based on information provided by the regulatory body. The OFC relies on the accuracy of this information to produce the assessment report. The OFC compiles registration information from sources such as the following:

  • Fair Registration Practices Reports, audits, Entry-to-Practice Review Reports, annual meetings
  • the regulatory body's:
    • website
    • policies, procedures, guidelines and related documentation templates for communication with applicants
    • regulations and bylaws
    • internal auditing and reporting mechanisms
    • third-party agreements and related monitoring or reporting documentation
    • qualifications assessments and related documentation
  • targeted questions/requests for evidence that the regulatory body demonstrates a practice or principle

For more information about the assessment cycle, assessment process, and legislative obligations, see the Strategy for Continuous Improvement of Registration Practices.

Top



References

  1. ^ These include: all practices from Information for Applicants, practice 3 from Internal Review and Appeals, practice 1 from Information on Appeal Rights, practice 1 from Documentation of Qualifications, practice 1 from Assessment of Qualifications, practice 2 from Access to Records, and practices 4-11 from Transparency of the Registration Practices Assessment Guide.
  2. ^ Please note: Suggestions for continuous improvement appear only in the detailed report. Suggestions for improvement are not intended to be recommendations for action to demonstrate a practice, but are made solely to provide suggestions for areas that a regulatory body may consider improving in the future.

Top