Departmental Staffing Accountability Report, Overview for the 2003-2004 Cycle

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Departmental Performance Under Current System
   1. Governance
   2. Planning
   3. Policy
   4. Communication
   5. Control
3. Departmental Readiness for new PSEA
   1. Governance
   2. Planning
   3. Policy
   4. Communication
   5. Control
4. Challenges
   1. Lack of HR Capacity and Increased Workload
   2. Training
   3. Delegation for EX positions and sub-delegation
   4. HR Information Systems
   5. Lack of Financial Resources
   6. Adapting for the New PSEA
   Appendix A
   Appendix B

1. Introduction

All Deputy Heads, who have received staffing delegation, are required by the Public Service Commission (PSC) to submit an annual Departmental Staffing and Accountability Report (DSAR). Reports must be submitted in a manner prescribed by the PSC to help the Commission assess staffing information, provide feedback to Deputy Heads and use the information from departments to contribute to reporting on the health of the staffing system to Parliament.

This overview report provides a summary of the DSARs for the 2003-2004 cycle. This is the fourth reporting cycle that has used performance ratings. The ratings are based on a standardized assessment scale.

Seventy-two of the 77 departments and agencies with delegated staffing authority submitted DSARs. The remaining five organizations were not required to report because they were either recently created or they were undergoing a staffing audit by the PSC.

Three organizations reported for the first time during the 2003-2004 period:

1. The Canada Firearms Centre;
2. The Canada Border Services Agency; and
3. The Office of the Commissioner of Federal Judicial Affairs.

This year, departments were asked to report on the five mandatory elements defined in the Staffing Management and Accountability Framework (SMAF). The SMAF was introduced in response to the enhanced requirement for accountability that is built into the new Public Service Employment Act (PSEA). The SMAF sets out the PSC's expectations for a well managed appointment system and provides a series of indicators grouped under the following elements: governance, planning, policy, communication and control (see Appendix A).

Figure 1 highlights the number of reporting organizations by size (as measured by the number of employees).

Figure 1. Number of Organizations by Size

• Very Small - fewer than 50 employees
• Small - 50 to 349 employees
• Medium - 350 to 1999 employees
• Large - 2000 or more employees

Top of Page

2. Departmental performance under current system

Overview

Risk assessment for each of the five SMAF elements was important in determining the level of departmental performance under the current system. These elements can be placed in order according to level of risk as evaluated through staffing performance and management.

More than 20% of departments have at least some area of significant risk. The lowest risk levels in the current system are found for communication and governance. The elements of policy, planning and control however, require more attention.

Appendix B provides a visual summary of overall departmental performance with respect to the current system and readiness for implementation of the new PSEA.

Summary of Performance for each SMAF element

2.1 Governance

Practices

• Almost 60% of departments demonstrated in their reports that they have the strategies and practices that enable them to establish and communicate clear direction and priorities on staffing matters. Most of the remaining departments are working towards this goal.

Sub-delegation

• Currently, 90% of Deputy Heads have sub-delegated some staffing authorities.
• Of those Deputy Heads who have not yet sub-delegated authorities, 88% lead small or very small organizations. All large organizations have some level of sub-delegation.
• Eighty-three percent of organizations have a signed instrument of sub-delegation. This figure climbs to 95% when only large organizations are considered.
• Clarity of definition of roles and responsibilities needs to be improved, this will be addressed in the section on readiness for the new PSEA

Staffing Training

• Staffing training is mandatory, for delegated managers, for three quarters of organizations with sub-delegation.

Infrastructure

• Currently, only half of the departments are adequately organized to facilitate discussions about staffing issues between senior management and stakeholders, (i.e. senior executive committees including HR staff representatives, or union-management consultative meetings).
• The extent of departmental infrastructures to facilitate discussion of staffing issues varies greatly depending on the size of the organization. Medium-sized organizations are particularly at risk since only one third have structures available to facilitate these discussions. Almost all departments/agencies without structures in place have identified structures and processes to be implemented for these purposes.

2.2 Planning

Extent of Human Resource Planning and its uses

In 2003-2004, 36% of the departments had a human resource planning process in place that demonstrated an understanding of the current and future needs of the organization. However, 51% of all organizations have not progressed as far, but have made some effort toward human resource planning. In this environment of limited HR planning, there is a trend towards short-term hiring.

Less than one quarter of all organizations demonstrated that their staffing and/or HR priorities were in alignment with their business and strategic priorities. However, 57% of organizations were in the process of aligning their planning priorities. Only 8% of medium and large organizations had demonstrated this alignment, although most were working in this direction. In contrast, 40% of small and very small organizations together had aligned their staffing/HR priorities with their business and strategic priorities.

Only one quarter of departments demonstrated recognition of the need to compare actual staffing performance against staffing plans, with smaller departments leading larger departments. Approximately 40% of departments demonstrated either that there is no coherence between their staffing plans and staffing activities, or that they do not have a process in place to assess the success of their staffing plans. These findings are spread fairly evenly amongst small, medium and large departments. Three quarters of very small departments however, have demonstrated correlation between their appointment statistics and their staffing plans.

As well, there is evidence that some organizations have formal staffing strategies in place, however, the link was not always evident between these strategies and the HR plans.

2.3 Policy

High Risk Staffing Processes

Over the past few years the PSC has observed a reduction in indeterminate hiring, and an increase in temporary staffing including the use of casuals, terms, and long term acting appointments. This hiring pattern is relevant to the value of fairness, as many of those hired on a temporary basis are later hired on an indeterminate basis. Also, the reliance on a contingent workforce is a deterrent to persons seeking access to indeterminate employment in the public service.

The Commission was able to obtain basic numerical appointment data from the departments. However, when asked to provide information on their use of these processes and on practices implemented to mitigate associated risks, the quality of data obtained from the departments was inconsistent.

Some departments indicated however, that departmental guidelines were in place to help guide decisions in the use of casual employment, the management of acting appointments and the hiring of family members

While departments were usually able to provide data on staffing results (e.g. promotion, lateral move, etc.), data on how these appointments were made (competition, without competition, etc.) was often unavailable. The types of information departments maintained also varied, making data comparison across departments difficult, and resulting in the use of PSC-held data in various areas. A number of departments cited the current freeze on development of human resource information systems as a factor in their ability to address these challenges. Obtaining a clearer picture on departmental management of high risk staffing areas could therefore be aided by the conduct of studies or audits.

Departments were also asked to tell us about their approach to policy review. While only 11% of organizations had completed staffing-related policy reviews by late 2004, 60% of organizations had taken some steps towards becoming ready for such a review. There is still a need for departments to implement policy review mechanisms to ensure that policies are kept current.

2.4 Communication

Over 65% of organizations use a large variety of tools to communicate staffing-related information to stakeholders. The most popular communication tools are Publiservice, intranet, e-mail, information bulletins, bulletin boards and staff meetings. Over 90% of departments and agencies use Publiservice to post employment opportunities. Based on limited reporting, organizations are using the PSC job posting site for recruitment purposes. Over 75% of organizations use intranets to provide their employees with staffing information.

2.5 Control

While 88% organizations have some control mechanisms in place, only approximately 44% of these were given the lowest risk rating. Similarly, 93% of organizations maintain data on staffing processes, but again, data is regularly updated and undergoes quality control in only about 40% of cases. Two thirds of good practices in this regard were found in small organizations and were likely related to manual data maintenance by a very limited number of persons.

Although 88% of departments conduct some staffing-related monitoring, only about 20% monitor thoroughly. Medium-sized departments showed the poorest level of monitoring. In general, monitoring staffing activities to prevent political or bureaucratic patronage from influencing staffing processes remains an ad hoc activity. Only a few organizations have implemented more rigorous systematic monitoring with regular reporting to management.

While 80% of departments practiced risk assessment, less than 20% did so in a staffing context.

While 80% of organizations endeavoured to take corrective measures to improve staffing, 28% indicated that performance information is actually used to manage staffing and make improvements on an ongoing and timely basis.

Top of Page

3. Departmental readiness for the new PSEA

Overview

Comments in this section build on the points already raised to create a picture of the state of readiness for the new PSEA as it was in early 2005.

The list below indicates the number of departments/agencies which had at least one low readiness (at risk) rating by SMAF element:

Summary of Performance for each SMAF element

3.1 Governance

While readiness is progressing well for governance, roles and responsibilities for staffing still need to be clearly defined. Approximately 31% of the 72 reporting departments/agencies reported that roles and responsibilities were clearly defined in their departments in the context of staffing and the new PSEA. Sixty-four percent were in the process of discussing the level to which staffing authorities would be delegated. By late 2004, a few departments had not yet started discussions on this issue.

3.2 Planning

Just over one third of organizations reported they have in place a human resource planning process or plan which demonstrates an understanding of the current and future needs of the organization. However, half of all organizations have not made as much progress, but have made some efforts towards human resource planning. Approximately 12% of organizations have no HR plan or process.

3.3 Policy

Over half of all organizations had not begun policy work aimed at the implementation of the new PSEA. Approximately two thirds of large organizations had a higher level of readiness. Half of the medium-sized organizations had started review and development of policies, while about two thirds of the small and very small organizations had not yet started policy work and were awaiting the finalization of central agency policies to either find partnerships or initiate the development of relevant policies.

Many organizations lack ongoing and systematic policy review processes. Approximately one quarter of organizations have a structured approach in place, 35% have no mechanism in place, and 40% use an adhoc approach for policy review. Some organizations lack the financial and human resources to complete all policy-related work and train managers.

Systems development to integrate the new policy requirements for reporting is also an issue.

Another challenge is readiness for the delegation of the Executive group at the EX-1 to EX-5 levels. The trend for small and very small organizations will be to use the services of either their service provider or the Service organization of the Public Service Commission. Approximately 40% of medium-sized organizations indicated that EX delegation would represent a challenge. Some larger organizations also indicated a lack of resources and expertise in this area.

3.5 Communication

Almost all departments provide information to staff on HR and staffing matters and in particular on job opportunities. Information flows vertically and horizontally to inform all relevant stakeholders. Communication methods include staff meetings, informal conversations, e-mail, internet/intranet, information sessions, focus groups and labour-management consultation committees.

3.5 Control

As noted earlier, there is room for improvement in all areas of control. Areas of greatest weakness include the regularity and comprehensiveness of monitoring, the application of risk management to staffing, and the use of performance information relevant to staffing as a basis for corrective action.

Nearly 60% of departments were either late in reporting their staffing results to the PSC, or their reports were incomplete or contained generalities. Consequently, the PSC was required to conduct follow-up information gathering.

Top of Page

4. Challenges

Overview

The DSARs also provided insight into perceived challenges. The following six challenges were raised most often in the DSARs submitted by departments: lack of HR capacity and increased workload, training, EX delegation and sub-delegation, HR information systems, lack of financial resource, and adapting to the new PSEA.

4.1 Lack of HR Capacity and Increased Workload

(51 references)

This challenge was noted most frequently, and touched on all areas related to staffing, including:

• ability to implement the new PSEA/PSMA;
• training HR staff and managers;
• policy development and implementation;
• HR planning;
• ability to update and maintain data systems; and
• monitoring and reporting with respect to staffing.

4.2 Training

(39 references)

Also noted frequently, training was seen as a challenge in terms of:

• the time and resources necessary for its development and delivery;
• the number of subject areas on which training must be given; and
• the significant number of persons requiring training and their availability.

4.3 Delegation for EX positions and sub-delegation

(28 references)

Ex delegation and sub-delegation were viewed as challenges from various perspectives including:

• lack of adequate time, financial and human resources (in terms of numbers and expertise) for the workload associated with Ex delegation;
• redesigning the instrument of sub-delegation;
• the fact that Ex delegation is happening at the same time as other significant changes impacting staffing; and
• the extent and acceptance of increased delegation.

4.4 HR Information Systems

(27 references)

Challenges regarding HR information systems revolved around:

• recognition of inadequate capacity of data system, and need to collect data for new reporting requirements at a time of uncertainty for the future of HR information systems;
• perceptions of unreliable data;
• various areas of data are being collected manually; and
• financial and human resources needed to optimize or adapt systems, and the current freeze on development of human resource information systems.

4.5 Lack of financial resources

(26 references)

This challenge was seen as having an impact on a number of areas including:

• the complete and effective implementation of the new PSEA including the development, review and implementation of new policies and programs;
• the delegation of EX staffing and external recruitment;
• training;
• the enhancement of HR information systems required for monitoring and accountability; and
• the encouragement of long term acting situations.

4.6 Adapting to the new PSEA

(20 references)

Challenges cited included:

• having adequate time to implement changes associated with the new PSEA, and avoiding confusion between old and new appointment systems;
• having adequate time to sensitize workforce to the cultural changes;
• possible resistance of management, HR staff, bargaining agents and employees due to increased HR-related workload, and failure of previous HR initiatives;
• engaging stakeholders in policy development;
• changing the perception of HR planning; and
• dealing with employees perception of fairness and transparency.

Table of Contents | Appendices