Evaluation of the Grant to Compensate Members of the RCMP for Injuries Received in the Performance of Their Duties

Final Report: January 2014

This report has been reviewed in consideration of the Access to Information and Privacy Acts. The published information is UNCLASSIFIED.

Table of Contents

Acronyms/Definitions

DPR
Departmental Performance Report
FAA
Financial Administration Act
MAF
Management Accountability Framework
MOU
Memorandum of Understanding
RCMP
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
RPP
Reports on Plans and Priorities
VAC
Veteran Affairs Canada
VRAB
Veterans Review and Appeal Board

Executive Summary

What We Examined:

The evaluation of the Grant to Compensate Members of the RCMP for Injuries Received in the Performance of their Duties was conducted by National Program Evaluation Services between July and October 2013. The objectives of the evaluation were to assess the relevance and performance of the Grant against its stated objective to provide financial and health care assistance to regular and civilian members of the RCMP and their families in the event of illness or death occurring as a consequence of their duties. The evaluation was national in scope and covered $473.6 million in payments to Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) over the five fiscal year period from 2008-09 to 2012-13.

Given that the key role of the RCMP is to administer the transfer of funds to VAC, it was beyond the scope of this evaluation to examine qualifying criteria, processing, adjudication, and administration and management practices at VAC Footnote 1. However the evaluation did examine the Grant related monitoring and oversight activities within the RCMP. The evaluation was calibrated to focus on the relevance and performance of the Grant against its objective.

Why it is important:

The Grant supports the organization's strategic outcome: Incomes are secure for RCMP members and their survivors affected by disability or death. The Grant supports the organization's mandate to protect regular and civilian members and their families in a tangible way in the event they become disabled as a result of carrying out their duties associated with ensuring a safe and secure Canada. Work-related injuries or illness can happen in any workplace however there are inherent risks to providing front line policing that can be mitigated but not removed. In 2012-13, the Grant constituted 79% of all grants and contribution in the RCMP and accounted for $118.4 million. The cost of the Grant and the number of RCMP regular and civilian members and their families receiving a disability pension has been increasing and is forecasted to continue growing. VAC forecast reports predict that over the next 15 years, the number of RCMP regular and civilian members and their families receiving a disability pension is expected to double and reach about 19,000. Accordingly, the Grant's annual expenditures are expected to almost triple and reach $382 million.

What We Found:

  • There is a significant and increasing need for the Grant. The mandate of the Grant is relevant and is aligned with the RCMP and government of Canada priorities.
  • While roles and responsibilities of the RCMP and VAC are articulated in the Memorandum of Understanding, the RCMP internal governance needs to be better defined and communicated.
  • The RCMP would benefit by making better use of disability pension related information and reports produced by VAC. This will enable the RCMP to gain a better understanding of work related injuries, the causes of injuries and implement measures to improve health and safety.
  • A review of various documents, the majority of which were produced by VAC, revealed that adjudication, delivery and payment of disability pensions are conducted by VAC according to policy and established service standards.
  • The Grant is achieving its goal to provide financial and health care assistance to the RCMP regular and civilian members and their families in the event of injuries/illness and/or death occurring while on duty.

Recommendation #1: Roles, authorities and responsibilities of RCMP Human Resources policy centers involved in the administration and management of the Grant need to be articulated and clarified to allow for better internal oversight, meaningful involvement and enhanced opportunities to provide input in development of VAC disability policies and processes that impact RCMP clients.

Recommendation #2: The RCMP must leverage VAC information and complete analysis to develop an understanding of disability data, key causes of disability conditions as well as age and gender effect on work related injuries that cause disability. This type of analysis would inform the organization on how to mitigate the risks associated with work related injuries, contribute to strategic decision making, and improvement of occupational health and safety policies and practices. Understanding and addressing work related injuries specific to the RCMP will ultimately contribute to prevention of work related injuries that cause disabilities.

1 Introduction

This report presents the results of the Evaluation of the Grant to Compensate Members of the RCMP for Injuries Received in the Performance of their Duties. The evaluation was conducted internally by National Program Evaluation Services between July and October 2013. The evaluation was conducted in compliance with the Section 42.1 of the Financial Administration Act that requires that all ongoing programs of grants and contributions are evaluated every five years. The evaluation followed the Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation and the Treasury Board Secretariat's Directive on the Evaluation Function. The evaluation covers $473.6 million in payments to VAC over the five fiscal year period from 2008-09 to 2012-13.

1.1 Background

The Grant to Compensate Members of the RCMP for Injuries Received in the Performance of Their Duties is a quasi-statutory payment program introduced in 1959. The objective of the Grant is to provide financial and health care assistance to regular and civilian members of the RCMP and their families in the event of injuries/illness or death leading to a loss of quality of life. The Grant supports the organization's mandate to protect regular and civilian members in a tangible way in the event they become disabled or lose their lives as a result of carrying out their duties associated with ensuring a safe and secure Canada.

The RCMP is responsible for providing approved health care benefits to current and former regular and civilian members who became entitled to a benefit due to injury or death pursuant to Part II of the RCMP Superannuation Act. Part II of the RCMP Superannuation Act further provides that a regular or civilian member is entitled to a benefit adjudicated in accordance with the Pension Act. Regular and civilian members of the RCMP (and their surviving dependents) apply for a Disability Pension through Veteran Affairs Canada (VAC) in accordance with the Pension Act for any permanent work-related illness, injury or death. Since VAC does not have the legislative authority to provide disability pension to eligible RCMP regular and civilian members, the RCMP pays VAC for the cost of Disability Pension awards to RCMP regular and civilian members and their survivors by way of a Grant.

A serving or former, regular or civilian member of the RCMP may be eligible for Disability Pension benefits from VAC if he/she has or later developed a permanent disability resulting from an injury or disease that:

  • arose out of, was directly connected with, or aggravated by RCMP service; or
  • was attributable to, incurred during, or aggravated by service in a Special Duty Area or Special Duty Operation.

The amount of a Disability Pension, which is determined by VAC, depends on two factors: the degree to which that disability is related to service (entitlement); and the extent of the disability (assessment). Rank or years of service have no impact on the amount received. Additional pension amounts may also be awarded for qualified dependants (e.g. spouse, common-law partner and/or children).

VAC assesses and adjudicates all applications based on the evidence submitted by each individual regular or civilian member and pursuant to the Veterans Health Care Regulations. VAC requests the submission of the following documentation:

  • RCMP Hazard Occurrence Report for every work-related incident including motor vehicle accidents;
  • All medical and psychological reports/assessments;
  • Witnesses records;
  • Proof of contribution to the RCMP Superannuation Act;
  • Job Description/Profile.

As the first step, RCMP applicants can see an intake worker or case manager at a VAC field office. The next step is to speak to a Disability Benefits Officer at VAC. His/her role is to counsel applicants, assist with application preparation, verify service eligibility and dependant status, ensure supporting documents such as a diagnosis is included, register the claim on the tracking system, and submit the application to the Adjudication Unit.

An adjudicator will rule on the pension claim, first for entitlement (is the claimant eligible) and then for assessment (degree of disability). The adjudicator will also rule on any dependant claims, and will communicate the decision and provide reasons. If the claim is successful, a Payment Officer takes over, and starts the process of calculation and payment of the benefit. VAC reports indicate that the favourable rate for all first applications varies from 73% in 2008-09 to 70% in 2012-2013. Footnote 2

If the claim is unsuccessful, there is a multi-level appeal process available, starting with an option to either request a VAC Departmental Review of the decision, or to go directly to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB). At this point, an advocate from the Bureau of Pensions Advocates (BPA) is usually involved to assist with the appeal.

Regular and civilian members have been clients of VAC for the adjudication of disability pensions since 1948 and responsibilities have continued to shift toward VAC. In December 2002, VAC assumed full responsibility for adjudication, calculation of benefits, and providing disability pensions to all qualified RCMP applicants. Footnote 3 VAC provides disability pension to four types of clients:

  • veterans of the Second World War and the Korean War;
  • civilians who served in close support of the Armed Forces during wartime;
  • Canadian Forces (CF) members and Veterans; and
  • current or former, regular and civilian members of the RCMP and their survivors.

The expenditures of the Grant also include tax-free monthly assistance to former regular and civilian RCMP members in the form of three types of Special Allowances:

Exceptional Incapacity Allowance. Members may qualify for this allowance if they have a disability benefit of 98% or have a combination of a disability benefit and compensation and have an exceptional incapacity that is a consequence of the conditions for which they received a disability benefit.

Attendance Allowance. Members may qualify for the allowance if they have a disability pension of at least 1%, and need help with daily living tasks.

Clothing Allowance. Members may qualify for this allowance if they are receiving a disability pension for a condition that causes wear and tear on their clothing or require to wear specially made clothing.

Serving or former, regular and civilian RCMP members may be eligible to receive other VAC health service and benefits. Provision of these benefits, is not funded by the Grant and is outside the scope of this evaluation.

Program Profile and Funding

The RCMP pays VAC for the cost of Disability Pension and Special Awards by the way of an Interdepartmental Settlement. Footnote 4 The entire Grant is transferred to VAC for administration, management, and disbursement of funds.

In 2012, VAC provided disability pensions to 10,649 RCMP clients Footnote 5 which constituted 5% of all Disability Pension clients served by VAC. Footnote 6 The number of RCMP clients increased by a third (32%) from 8,087 in 2008-09 to 10,649 in 2012-13. Ninety four percent of disability pension recipients are current and former RCMP regular and civilian members and 6 percent are survivors and dependants (Table 1).

In 2012-13, the Grant constituted 79% of all grants and contribution in the RCMP Footnote 7 and accounted for $118.4 million. The Grant's costs increased by 61% from $73.4 million in 2008-09 to $118.4 million in 2012-13. In 2012-13, 90% ($108 million) of Grant dollars were spent to pay disability pensions to current and former RCMP regular and civilian members, 7% ($6.9 million) were paid for disability pensions to survivors and dependents, and remaining 3% ($3.5 million) were spent for pay for special awards.

Table 1: Disability Pension and Special Awards Expenditures for RCMP Clients

RCMP Clients Receiving Disability Pension
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Former or still serving RCMP regular and civilian members 7,620 8,283 8,958 9,518 9,964
Survivors 467 507 563 625 685
Total RCMP Clients Receiving Disability Pension 8,087 8,790 9,521 10,143 10,649
Disability Pension & Special Awards Expenditures
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Former or still serving RCMP regular and civilian members $66,242,486 $75,547,724 $84,327,306 $94,991,057 $107,972,032
Survivors $5,284,339 $5,375,314 $6,572,992 $7,550,215 $6,878,671
RCMP Special Awards Expenditures $1,920,419 $2,066,966 $2,386,248 $2,961,449 $3,554,275
Total adjusted Disability Pensions & Special Awards Expenditures $73,384,516 $83,057,333 $93,286,546 $105,502,722 $118,394,436
Average Cost of Disability Pension
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Former or still serving RCMP regular and civilian members $9,034 $9,217 $9,782 $10,283 $11,084
Survivor $11,756 $11,262 $12,286 $12,711 $10,502

Source: RCMP Disability Pension and Special Awards Clients and Expenditure Forecast. Provided by National Compensation Services. Prepared by Statistics Directorate, Financial Division, VAC. Revised Sept 6, 2013. Data consideration: Dollar amounts might slightly vary from the numbers published in Public Accounts.

Graph 1: Trends in Released and Serving RCMP Clients

Description of graph in tabular format follows.

Graph 1: Trends in Released and Serving RCMP Clients

The following table lists the number of released and serving RCMP clients receiving a disability pension for years 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2012-13.

Trends in Released and Serving RCMP Clients
Year # Released # Serving
2008-2009 5,271 2,359
2010-2011 6,252 2,710
2012-2013 6,965 3,004

Source: Tables on RCMP Disability Pension Clients. Provided by RCMP Liaison to VAC. Prepared by Statistics Directorate, VAC. Aug 5, 2013.

In 2012-13, the majority (70% or 6,965) of RCMP regular and civilian members receiving a disability pension were released (or former) members and 30% or 3,004 individuals were still serving (Graph 1). Since 2008-09, the number of disability pension recipients among the released RCMP regular and civilian members has been growing at a faster rate (32%) compared to currently serving members (27%).

The average age of an RCMP regular or civilian member receiving a disability pension is 59 years of age. Footnote 8 Consistent with the increasing number of former regular and civilian members among pension recipients, the fastest growing segment of new clients are members 60 years of age and older. From 2008 to 2012 there were 2,339 new RCMP regular and civilian members receiving a disability pension, 79% of them were 60 and older (Table 2). The second fastest growing group of new clients is individuals under 39 years of age.

In 2013, females constitute 10% of former or current RCMP regular and civilian members receiving a disability pension. This is a slight increase from 8% in 2008. Among new clients, however, female clients constituted 17% which is closer to the overall proportion of regular female members at 20% Footnote 9 in the Force.

Table 2: Age and Gender of RCMP regular and civilian members in receipt of a Disability Pension

By Age
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 New Clients 2008-12
Clients % Clients % Clients % Clients % Clients % Clients %
<39 426 6% 516 6% 541 6% 600 6% 657 7% 231 10%
40-49 1,264 17% 1,301 16% 1,353 15% 1,411 15% 1,417 14% 153 7%
50-59 2,736 36% 2,823 34% 2,897 32% 2,897 30% 2,835 28% 99 4%
60+ 3,204 42% 3,705 44% 4,171 47% 4,615 48% 5,060 51% 1,856 79%
Total 7,630 100% 8,345 100% 8,962 100% 9,523 100% 9,969 100% 2,339 100%
By Gender
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 New Clients 2008-12
Clients % Clients % Clients % Clients % Clients % Clients %
Female 629 8% 701 8% 808 9% 924 10% 1,017 10% 388 17%
Male 7,001 92% 7,590 92% 8,154 91% 8,599 90% 8,952 90% 1,951 83%
Total 7,630 100% 8,291 100% 8,962 100% 9,523 100% 9,969 100% 2,339 100%

Source: Tables RCMP Disability Pension Clients. Provided by RCMP Liaison Officer to VAC. Prepared by Statistics Directorate, VAC. Aug 5, 2013.

1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation

The evaluation was national in scope and covered the period beginning April 1, 2008 and ending March 31, 2013.

The objectives of the evaluation were to assess:

1) Relevance of the Grant, specifically:

  • A continued need for the Grant;
  • Alignment of the Grant with RCMP strategic objectives and Government of Canada's priorities; and
  • Alignment and clarity of roles and responsibilities as they pertain to the Grant;

2) Performance of the Grant in terms of:

  • Effectiveness - the extent to which the Grant is achieving its stated goal to provide financial and health care assistance to members of the RCMP and their families in the event of injuries/illness and/or death occurring as a consequence of their duties. A review of VAC source documents was completed to assess whether compensation claims and benefits are provided in accordance with the established service standards and whether RCMP clients receiving a disability pension are satisfied with the VAC services received. The evaluation also examined whether there are sound RCMP oversight and reporting mechanisms in place internally to ensure RCMP clients are receiving adequate services.
  • Efficiency and economy - the extent to which the current transfer mechanism supports timely, cost-effective, and efficient transfer of funds to VAC.

1.3 Methodology and Approach

The evaluation followed the Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation and the Treasury Board Secretariat's Directive on the Evaluation Function. Multiple lines of evidence were used to assess the relevance and performance of the Grant, and develop findings and recommendations:

Document Review: internal and external documentation was reviewed to gather contextual information about the Grant and to inform evaluation questions. The evaluation relied on the secondary research and documentation obtained from VAC. Document review included Departmental Performance Reports, Reports on Plans and Priorities, performance reports produced by VAC, VAC statistical reports, operational documentation, evaluations, reviews and other applicable information.

Analysis of Administrative and Performance Data: available financial, administrative, and performance data from both RCMP and VAC were analyzed to profile RCMP clients and inform the evaluation about the Grant's relevance and performance. VAC Client Survey reports were reviewed to profile opinions and satisfaction of RCMP clients regarding VAC services.

Key Informant Interviews: Seven interviews were conducted to validate and supplement information gathered through lines of evidence indicated above. The interviews were conducted with representatives of all program areas involved with the Grant, including:

  • National Compensation Services (n=2)
  • Occupational Health and Safety (SST) (n=1)
  • RCMP Liaison Officer with VAC (n=1)
  • Corporate Accounting (n=1)
  • Financial management (n=2)

1.4 Considerations and Limitations

Given that the key role of the RCMP is to administer the transfer of funds to VAC, it was beyond the scope of this evaluation to examine qualifying criteria, processing, adjudication, and administration and management practices at VAC. The evaluation was calibrated to focus on the relevance and performance of the Grant against its objective.

The evaluation relied on the secondary research and documentation obtained from VAC. The RCMP could not validate the integrity and quality of data provided.

2 Findings

2.1 Relevance

Finding 1: There is an increasing need for the Grant to compensate regular and civilian members of the RCMP and their survivors for injuries received in the performance of their duties. The RCMP is not making sufficient use of VAC information to support decision making and address work related injuries.

All lines of evidence suggest an increasing need for the Grant to compensate RCMP regular and civilian members for injuries. Program documentation demonstrated that over the last five years, the number of RCMP clients in receipt of disability pension has increased by a third while the cost of the Grant increased by 61% from $73.4 million to $118.4 million. The increase in the cost and client base of the Grant is mainly due to new entrants and, to a lesser extent, indexation of benefits. Footnote 10

The average annual cost of a disability pension for an RCMP regular/civilian member has increased from $9,034 in 2008-2009 to $11,084 in 2012-2013. The annual average cost of a disability pension for a survivor has been fluctuating and decreased to $10,502 in 2012-13.

Since 2008, three top conditions for which RCMP male clients qualified to receive a disability pension have been 1) Tinnitus, 2) Hearing Loss, and 3) Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Footnote 11 Top disability conditions for female clients are notably different and more likely to pertain to occupational stress injuries 1) Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, 2) Depressive Disorders; and 3) Lumbar Disc Disease. It is important to note that disability conditions are based on VAC definitions. The Human Resources sector uses the terms "occupational stress injury" and "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" interchangeably.

All program representatives interviewed agreed that there is an ongoing need for the Grant. Reasons cited included legislative obligations of the RCMP to compensate their regular members for injuries as well as the importance of ensuring that there is financial security for members who became disabled as a result of their duties.

VAC forecasts and actuarial reports suggest that the number of RCMP regular and civilian members and their survivors receiving a disability pension will continue growing. VAC predicts that if the current intake of new claims and qualifying parameters remain constant, in 15 years the number of RCMP clients receiving a disability pension will double and reach about 19,000 (Graph 2). This is close to the number of currently serving RCMP regular members. Within 15 years, the Grant's annual expenditures are expected to almost triple and reach $382 million (Graph 3).

Graph 2: 15 Year Forecast of Grant Clients

Description of graph in tabular format follows.

Graph 2: 15 Year Forecast of Grant Clients

The following table describes the forecasted increase in the number of Grant clients from 2013-14 to 2027-28.

15 Year Forecast of Grant Clients
Years Number of Disability Pension Clients and Survivors
2013-14 11,344
2027-28 19,053

Graph 3: 15 Year Forecast of Grant Expenditures

Description of graph in tabular format follows:

Graph 3: 15 Year Forecast of Grant Expenditures

The following table describes the forecasted increase in Grant Expenditures from 2013-14 to 2027-28.

15 Year Forecast of Grant Expenditures
Years Disability Pensions and Special Awards in Dollars
2013-14 $130,215,238
2027-28 $381,991,736

Source: RCMP Disability Pension and Special Awards Client and Expenditure Forecast. Provided by National Compensation Services, RCMP. Prepared by Statistics Directorate, Finance Division, VAC. Revised Sept 6, 2013.

The current expenditure trends and increasing number of RCMP clients support the Grant's relevance, however these trends also highlight that there is an immediate need for a comprehensive analysis to understand disability data, key causes of disability conditions as well as age and gender effect on work related injuries that cause disability. The risk of not fully understanding the trends and information is that the organization will miss opportunities to improve the work environment and lower the risks associated with work related injuries. This type of analysis will help better inform the organization on how to mitigate the risks associated with work related injuries, contribute to strategic decision making, and improvement of occupational health and safety policies and practices. Understanding and addressing work related injuries specific to the RCMP will ultimately contribute to prevention of work related injuries that cause disabilities.

Finding 2: The objective of the Grant is consistent with the RCMP and Government of Canada strategic outcomes and legislative authorities.

The objective of the Grant is aligned with the RCMP Strategic Outcome: Incomes are secure for RCMP members and their survivors affected by disability or death and with the Government of Canada Outcome: Income security and employment for Canadians.

The Grant is aligned with legislative and regulatory authorities of the RCMP as per Part II of the RCMP Superannuation Act. Adjudication, calculation and payment of disability pensions for RCMP clients are conducted in accordance with the Pension Act.

All interviewees agreed that it is a legislative responsibility of the RCMP to compensate members for a permanent disability resulting from an injury attributable to service. Three interviewees (3/7) indicated that VAC is best positioned to play the role in the adjudication, administration, payment, and management of disability pensions. With VAC being responsible for all aspects of a disability pension, the RCMP's role was perceived to be limited to receiving and then transferring funds to VAC. Concerns were raised that the RCMP is required to report to Treasury Board for Management Accountability Framework (MAF) requirements on activities that VAC is responsible for. This could be a potential risk to the organization with the RCMP being held accountable for the services provided by VAC.

Remaining interviewees (4/7) stated that there was a continued need for the RCMP's role because the organization has a legislative requirement to provide compensation to members in the event they become disabled as a result of carrying their duties. These interviewees also emphasized the need for the RCMP to remain accountable for the safety of its members and assure that RCMP's unique interests are being considered and addressed by VAC.

Eliminating the role of the RCMP in the Grant poses a risk to the organization. Given the increasing need and escalating cost of the Grant, the RCMP should strengthen its engagement with VAC, reinforce information exchange, and enhance its own reporting and oversight of the Grant.

Finding 3: Roles and responsibilities of the RCMP and VAC with respect to the Grant have been articulated. Internally within the RCMP, the Grant's governance structure needs to be more clearly defined and communicated.

The governance of the Grant and responsibilities of VAC and the RCMP in regard to the transfer and carrying out of functions are defined in a 2002 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). It identifies that the RCMP is responsible for providing approved health care benefits to current and former members of the Force who are eligible for those benefits. It also stipulates that the RCMP transfers to VAC its obligations in relation to adjudication, assessment, payment, and administration of the awards and the health care benefits. The RCMP pays VAC for the cost of a Disability Pension to RCMP members by way of an Interdepartmental Settlement. Footnote 12

A second MOU signed in 2013 between VAC and RCMP, identifies the appointment of the RCMP Liaison Officer to VAC and defines the Officer's duties, financial arrangements, and other aspects of the appointment.

The evaluation team was not able to obtain documents that articulate internal governance and roles and responsibilities of various directorates involved in the Grant. Interviews with program representatives revealed that there are four directorates currently engaged in various aspects of the Grant's financial administration, management, and reporting:

  1. National Compensation Services is responsible for reporting to MAF on performance indicators and receives VAC reports in overpayments and remission orders.
  2. Occupational Health and Safety is responsible for functional supervision of the RCMP Liaison to VAC.
  3. Financial Management is responsible for determining and adjusting the funding needed for the Grant based on the estimates received from VAC and then submitting Supplemental Estimates to request additional funding from the Treasury Board. In addition, Corporate Budgeting is responsible for seeking funding for the Grant from the Treasury Board of Canada.
  4. Corporate Accounting is responsible for entering the Grant into the financial system, assuring that financial transactions between VAC and RCMP are recorded, and that amounts receivable and overpayment are reported in Public Accounts.

It was noted that there was little clarity regarding which policy center (Occupational Health and Safety or National Compensations Services) was responsible for the Grant. In addition, the RCMP Liaison Officer to VAC provides VAC data and information verbally or on an ad hoc basis. Internal roles and responsibilities with respect to the Grant should be articulated.

2.2 Performance - Efficiency and Economy

Finding 4: Adjudication, delivery and payment of disability pensions are conducted by VAC according to policy and established service standards.

In 2011, VAC published service standard commitments, targets, and results to ensure quality and timely delivery of services and decisions. Footnote 13 Analysis of VAC statistical reports demonstrated that applications of the RCMP applicants were processed and payments issued within established service standards.

Over the last two years, a steady 85% of first application decisions for RCMP applicants have been processed within the newly established service standards of 16 weeks (Table 3). This is aligned with and slightly exceeds the published VAC service standard target of 80%. Footnote 14 One interviewee additionally suggested that the processing times will further decrease once the digitalization of health records is complete.

Table 3: First Application Decisions and Payments

First Application decision made:
Number of weeks 2011-12 2012-13
Within the 16 weeks 85% 85%
Within the 20 weeks 92% 88%
Within the 24 weeks 95% 91%
Within the 28 weeks 97% 94%
First Application payments processed, following a favourable decision:
Number of days 2011-12 2012-13
Within 7 days 50% 49%
Within 10 days 84% 82%
Within 14 days 96% 94%

Data source: VAC data extract Aug 2013.

Provided by RCMP Liaison Officer to VAC. Prepared by VAC Service Delivery/Corporate Statistics & VRAB.

Data considerations: Percentages calculated and provided by VAC.

In 2012-13, 94% of RCMP first application payments were processed within 14 days of a favorable decision. The representative of VAC Corporate Statistics identified that VAC is currently seeking to meet its unpublished service standard of processing payments within seven days of a favourable decision. In 2012, half (49%) of RCMP first application payments were completed within one week of a favourable decision.

From the payment compliance point of view, an internal RCMP review conducted by National Compensation Services in 2009 found that VAC records and information were maintained in accordance with laws and regulations, payments were verified and approved in accordance with the FAA, and managers received appropriate operational and administrative information for decision making in a timely manner.

Four interviewees, however, expressed concerns about remission orders received from VAC. A review of remission documents provided by the National Compensation Services revealed that currently there are only 16 pending remission orders dated Jul 2007-Sept 2012. These remissions concern 16 clients and account for $142,994 in overpayments of disability pension. The remissions are of low materiality and constitute only 0.03% of the Grant's expenditures for the same time period. The 2012 VAC Audit of Remissions determined that VAC was compliant with policies, regulations and procedures for the remission of overpayments and identified opportunities to correct systemic issues generating overpayments.

Currently the RCMP receives quarterly VAC reports and annual Actuarial Reports. These reports include disability pension expenditures, the number of RCMP clients, and the forecast of clients and expenditures. To satisfy reporting requirements to MAF, National Compensation Services contacts VAC to obtain the percentage of RCMP clients processed within service standards and the administrative costs of the Grant. National Compensation Services and Corporate Accounting also receive remission reports from VAC. Three interviewees acknowledged these reports. Another two interviewees additionally indicated weekly briefings of the RCMP Liaison Officer to VAC to DG, Occupational Health and Safety.

Finding 5: The Grant is achieving its goal to provide financial and health care assistance to the RCMP members and their survivors in the event of injuries/illness and/or death occurring while on duty.

The opinions of all interviewees (7/7) and the results of the 2010 VAC National Client Survey strongly suggest that the Grant is achieving its goal to provide financial and heath care assistance to RCMP regular and civilian members and their families.

Analysis of administrative data shows that over 70% of first applications decisions for the RCMP applicants are favourable (Table 4). This is consistent with the overall VAC approval rates of first applications that varied between 73% in 2008-09 to 70% in 2012-13. Footnote 15 On average, about 200 RCMP applicants submit additional documentation supporting their first application for the Departmental Review. Since 2011, 85% of these reviews were ruled favourably for the RCMP applicants. The rate of favourable decisions decreases with the higher level of appeal. In 2012, half of VRAB reviews for RCMP applicants were favourable and only 37% of VRAB appeals were ruled favourably.

Table 4: Rate of Favourable Decision for First Applications by RCMP Applicants

Percentage of Favourable decisions for First Applications
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Percentage of favourable decisions 77% 75% 74% 74% 73%
Total number of applications 1232 1344 1730 1380 1403
Stage #1 - Departmental Review Decisions
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Percentage favourable 85% 50% 49% 85% 85%
Total number of departmental reviews 224 255 193 210 200
Stage #2 - VRAB Reviews Footnote *
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Percentage favourable VRAB decisions 71% 62% 56% 61% 52%
Total number of VRAB appeals 354 285 201 230 174
Stage #3 - VRAB Appeals Footnote *
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Percentage favourable decisions 45% 23% 36% 24% 37%
Total number of VRAB appeals 220 94 66 80 52

Data source: Data extract Aug 2013, VAC and Service Delivery/Corporate Statistics and VRAB.

Provided by RCMP Liaison Officer to VAC. Prepared by VAC Service Delivery/Corporate Statistics & VRAB.

Data considerations: One decision may have multiple conditions. Whenever one ruling is favourable the entire decision is considered favourable.

The evaluation also examined the opinions of the RCMP clients. Secondary analysis of the 2010 Client Survey indicates that the vast majority (78%) of RCMP clients surveyed were satisfied with services provided by VAC. Footnote 16 The survey further showed that more than a half of RCMP clients (54%) agreed that they received what they needed and 60% were satisfied with the amount of time it took to get services or to get reimbursed for health care benefits and services.

The results of the same survey also demonstrated that the RCMP clients reported better mental and physical health than other VAC client groups and demonstrated the highest return to work rate of 95%. RCMP clients stood out with higher ratings in their ability to provide for food, shelter, clothing, and heath care.

Finding 6: The current mechanism is timely, cost-effective and efficient way to transfer funds to VAC.

Four interviewees who had knowledge of the transfer mechanism agreed that it supports timely, cost-effective and efficient transfer of funds to VAC. Four interviewees noted that the only alternative to achieve more timely and efficient transfer of funds is a statutory transfer to VAC. However, this would involve time consuming legislative amendments to the Pension Act and the RCMP Superannuation Act. Given that the annual estimated effort to administer the Grant is less than 10% of one full-time employee across all program areas involved in the Grant, Footnote 17 the suggested alternative is not practical.

In terms of cost-effectiveness, the current transfer mechanism is highly economical to the RCMP. VAC operating expenditures constituted 11% of total expenditures over the 2008-09 to 2012-13 time period. Footnote 18 Program documentation indicates that since 2004-2005, the RCMP has been paying the annual fee of $180,000 to compensate for administrative costs of the Grant. In 2012-13 this fee constituted 0.1% of Grant's total expenditures.

3 Conclusion

Relevance

The evaluation found that the mandate of the Grant is relevant and is aligned with the RCMP and government priorities. There is a significant and increasing need for the Grant.

Performance

A review of VAC reports and documents indicate that adjudication, delivery and payment of disability pensions are conducted by VAC according to policy and established service standards. However, the RCMP would benefit by better leveraging disability pension related information and reports produced by VAC. This will enable the RCMP to better understand work related injuries, the causes of injuries and implement measures to improve health and safety.

Overall, the Grant is achieving its goal to provide financial and health care assistance to the RCMP members and their families in the event of injuries/illness and/or death occurring due to injuries while on duty.

4 Management Response and Action Plan

4.1 Management Response

This evaluation report of the Grant to Compensate Members of the RCMP for Injuries Received in the Performance of Their Duties has been reviewed and accepted by senior officials of the responsible program areas to be tabled at the Departmental Evaluation Committees and endorsed, for recommendation, for Deputy Head Approval.

4.2 Management Action Plan

Recommendation 1:

Roles, authorities and responsibilities of RCMP Human Resources policy centers involved in the administration and management of the Grant need to be articulated and clarified to allow for better internal oversight, meaningful involvement and enhanced opportunities to provide input in development of VAC disability policies and processes that impact RCMP clients.

Responsibility: DG, Occupational Health and Safety Branch

Planned Action:

1.1 In collaboration with VAC, compile a complete list of RCMP contacts which service VAC.

Diary Date: March 2014

1.2 Establish a clear and concise business process map to serve both as a reference tool; to promote an optimum and efficient use of HR and to ensure a competent application of the grant.

Diary Date: September 2014

1.3 Communicate final VAC/RCMP disability management business process map to all stakeholders.

Diary Date: September 2014

1.4 Implement annual review.

Diary Date: December 2014

Recommendation 2:

The RCMP must leverage VAC information and complete analysis to develop an understanding of disability data, key causes of disability conditions as well as age and gender effect on work related injuries that cause disability. This type of analysis would inform the organization on how to mitigate the risks associated with work related injuries, contribute to strategic decision making, and improvement of occupational health and safety policies and practices. Understanding and addressing work related injuries specific to the RCMP will ultimately contribute to prevention of work related injuries that cause disabilities.

Responsibility: DG, Occupational Health and Safety Branch

Planned Action:

2.1 Institute an Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Management System approach. Specific to this recommendation, this approach will include:

  • Determine what VAC disability data and other relevant data (hazardous occurrences trends, return to work trends, disability compensation trends, etc.) are required in order to develop an understanding of key causes of disability conditions;
    Diary Date: September 2014
  • Measure the RCMP's OHS performance by analysing this data;
    Diary Date: September 2014
  • Communicate the analysis of the data through an OHS Annual Report. This annual report will include recommendations to improve the prevention of work related injuries; and
    Diary Date: November 2014
  • Based on the approved OHS Annual Report recommendations, establish an OHS Annual Action Plan.
    Diary Date: December 2014

2.2 Determine the current process of notification to Division Health Service Offices when a serving member receives successful adjudication on a disability claim and determine what is required for a consistent national approach for case management and medical limitations.

Diary Date: June 2014

Appendix A: Evaluation Matrix

Table 1: Evaluation Framework for the Grant to Compensate Member for Injuries Received in the Performance of their Duties

1.0 Relevance
Question Indicators Methods/Data Sources
1.1 Is there a continuous need for the Grant? 1.1.1 Trends in number and profile of RCMP applicants and Disability Pension and Special Awards recipients since 2008

Document Review (Program documentation, VAC reports)

Administrative Data Analysis (VAC statistical reports)

1.1.2 Forecast in number of RCMP clients Document Review (Program documentation, VAC reports)
1.1.3 Opinions on the extent to which RCMP clients' needs are being addressed through the Grant Key Informant Interviews (program representatives; VAC representatives)
1.2 Is the objective of the Grant consistent with departmental and government-wide priorities? 1.2.1 Alignment of Grant's objectives with RCMP's strategic outcomes/priorities and Government of Canada priorities Document Review (Departmental RPPs, DPRs, PAA)
1.3 Are the roles and responsibilities of the RCMP, VAC and Government of Canada appropriate and clear? 1.3.1 Alignment of Grant's with RCMP and Government of Canada legislative obligations Document Review (RCMP Superannuation Act; Pension Act; MOUs; DPR, RPP)
1.3.2 Opinions on the clarity of roles and responsibilities for the RCMP, VAC and the federal government in the delivery of the Grant Key Informant Interviews (senior management; program representatives, VAC representatives)
2.0 Performance - Achievement of Grant's Goal
Question Indicators Methods/Data Sources
2.1 Is adjudication, delivery and payments of disability pensions and special allowances to RCMP clients conducted according to policy and within established services standards? 2.1.1 # and % of applications for Disability Pension and Special Awards addressed within service standards since 2008

Document Review (VAC annual reports)

Administrative Data Analysis (VAC statistical reports)

2.1.2 Average first application approval rate for RCMP clients since 2008

Document Review (VAC annual report, program documentation)

Administrative Data Analysis (VAC statistical reports)

2.1.3 Total # of appeals by RCMP clients and % of appeals by RCMP clients processed within service standards since 2008

Administrative Data Analysis (VAC statistical reports)

Key Informant Interviews (VAC representatives)

2.1.4 # and % of disability benefits claims processed within established service standards since 2008

Document Review (VAC annual report, program documentation)

Administrative Data Analysis (VAC statistical reports)

2.1.5 Average time to process a disability claim for RCMP clients since 2008

Document Review (VAC annual report, program documentation)

Administrative Data Analysis (VAC statistical reports)

2.1.6 Evidence of policies and established service standards

Document Review (program documentation, reviews)

Key Informant Interviews (VAC representatives)

2.2 To what extent is the Grant achieving its goal to provide financial and health care assistance to RCMP members and their families in the event of injuries/illness and/ or death occurring as a consequence of their duties? 2.2.1 # and % of compensation benefits paid to RCMP within established service standards since 2008

Document Review (VAC annual report, program documentation)

Administrative Data Analysis (VAC statistical reports)

2.2.2 RCMP client satisfaction with VAC services Secondary analysis of VAC Client Surveys
2.2.3 % of RCMP clients returning to employment, being able to provide to their families and maintain the quality of life Secondary analysis of VAC Client Surveys
2.2.4 Opinions on the extent to which the Grant is achieving its goal to provide financial and health care assistance to RCMP clients Key Informant Interviews (program representatives, Corporate Finances, VAC representatives)
2.3 What are the oversight and reporting mechanisms in place to ensure that RCMP clients are receiving adequate services? 2.3.1 Evidence of oversight mechanisms/procedures (status updates, reports, etc.,)

Key Informant Interviews (senior management; program and VAC representatives)

Document Review (MOUs, program documentation)

3.0 Performance - Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy
Question Indicators Methods/Data Sources
3.1 Does the current transfer mechanism in place support timely, cost effective, and efficient transfer of funds to VAC? 3.1.1 $ amount and % paid by RCMP for administration and management of Disability Pensions and Special Awards (compared to # of clients; compared to overall admin cost reported by VAC)

Document Review (MOU)

Administrative Data Analysis (Financial Data)

Key informant interviews (Corporate Finances)

3.1.2 Evidence and opinions on timeliness, cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the transfer

Key Informant Interviews (Corporate Finances , senior management; VAC representatives)

Document Review (budgetary reports)

3.1.3 Opinions on whether there are ways/alternatives to improve timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency of the transfer Key informant interviews (Corporate Finances, senior management; VAC representatives)

Appendix B - Bibliography

Actuarial Report on the Future Benefits for RCMP Clients of VAC, March 31 2012.

Memorandum of Understanding Between The RCMP and VAC Concerning Administration of Programs for RCMP Clients Entitled to Awards and Heath Care Benefits In Relation To Service Related Disability And Death, Sept 5 2002.

Memorandum of Understanding Between Veterans Affairs Canada And The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Concerning the Assignment of Sergeant Bradford Chugg, May 2013.

RCMP Report on Plans and Priorities 2012-2013

RCMP Departmental Performance Report 2011-12

RCMP Report on Plans and Priorities 2013-2014

Review of the Administration of Program for RCMP Clients Entitled to Awards and Health Care Benefits in Relation to Service Related Disabilities and Death, Program Integrity and Compliance, National Compensation Services, Feb 2009.

VAC Departmental Performance Report 2011-12.

VAC Facts and Figures Book, March 2013.

VAC National Client Survey. July 2010

VAC Report on Plans and Priorities 2012-13

VAC 2012-2013 Service Standards

VAC Audit of Remissions 2012

VAC Audit of Service Standards 2012

VAC Evaluation Disability Pensions and Awards 2010

VAC Evaluation of Disability Pension Program 2004. Volume 1.

VAC Evaluation of Disability Pension Program 2004. Volume 2.

Date modified: