Evaluation of the Employment Requirements for RCMP Members

National Program Evaluation Services Internal Audit, Evaluation and Review Royal Canadian Mounted Police

June 2020

Table of contents

1. Acronyms and abbreviations
2. Executive summary
• Introduction
• Program Profile
• What we examined
• What we found
3. Introduction
   • Purpose of the Evaluation
   • Evaluation Scope and Context
4. Evaluation Methodology
   • Evaluation Approach
   • Data Sources
   • Limitations
5. Program Description
   • Context
   • Profile of Process Evaluated
   • Resources
6. Findings
   • Alignment with priorities
   • Policies and Procedures
   • Effectiveness
   • Efficiency
7. Conclusions and Recommendations
8. Management Response and Action Plan
   • Management Response
   • Action Plan
9. End Notes

Acronyms and abbreviations

AM

Administration Manual

AD&D

Administrative Discharge and Demotion

CSO

Commissioner's Standing Orders

DG WRB

Director General Workplace Responsibility Branch

ER

Employment Requirements

HR

Human Resources

LRI

Legislative Reform Initiative

NHQ

National Headquarters

NPES

National Program Evaluation Services

OCGA

Office for the Coordination of Grievances and Appeals

PM

Probationary Member discharge

PRO

Professional Responsibility Officer

RCMP

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

SPA

Stoppage of Pay and Allowances

TB

Treasury Board

Executive summary

Introduction

This report presents the results of the Evaluation of the Employment Requirements for RCMP Members conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) National Program Evaluation Services (NPES).

Program profile

The Employment Requirements (ER) process was implemented in November 2014, as part of a broader set of legislative reforms stemming from the Enhancing the RCMP Accountability Act.

The Accountability Act introduced amendments to HR management for RCMP members (regular and civilian), creating an ER process consisting of three elements:

• Administrative Discharge and Demotion (AD&D) for reasons of unsuitability or other than a contravention of the Code of Conduct;
• Stoppage of pay and allowances (SPA); and
• Probationary Member discharge (PM).

The purpose of the ER process was to provide a mechanism for the RCMP to take administrative action (i.e., discharge, demotion, or stoppage of pay) against members (regular and civilian) for reasons other than conduct. Examples include:

• Disability;
• Performance;
• Absent from duty without official authorization; and
• Loss of a basic requirement (e.g., driver's licence, security clearance, authorization to possess firearms, not being subject to a court order restricting entry).

ER processes are conducted at the divisional level with oversight and support provided by the Director General Workplace Responsibility Branch (DG WRB) and the ER Policy Centre at National Headquarters (NHQ). There are 19 employees across the RCMP dedicated to the ER process, and many others who play a role in the ER process as part of their duties.

What we examined

The objective of the evaluation was to provide a neutral, timely and evidence-based assessment of the relevance and performance of the ER process from November 28, 2014 to December 31, 2018. The following evaluation questions were examined:

• Are the changes to the ER process aligned with the priorities of the RCMP?
• To what extent are effective policies and procedures in place to support the ER process?
• To what extent have the changes to the ER process provided the RCMP with an effective mechanism for taking administrative action?
• To what extent is the ER process operating efficiently given current resources?

What we found

1. The ER process is aligned with the priorities of the RCMP to enhance accountability and modernize HR management processes.
2. Roles and responsibilities relating to the ER process were clear to NHQ employees but less so to divisional employees.
3. Policies and procedures were established for the ER process, but they may be applied inconsistently across the RCMP.
4. While there are oversight and support mechanisms in place, a number of challenges were identified.
5. The ER process is an effective mechanism for taking administrative action.
6. The ER process has addressed cases in a timely manner, given the complexities and nature of the process.
7. While an in-depth efficiency assessment was not possible due to the lack of granularity of financial information, evidence suggests that the ER process has resulted in some efficiencies.

Based on the findings of the evaluation, it is recommended that the Professional Responsibility Officer:

1. Review and update ER policy to address gaps and improve consistency in the implementation of the ER process.
2. In consultation with the divisions, determine and implement the required support to divisions with regard to training, communication, and information sharing.

Introduction

Purpose of the evaluation

This report presents the results of the evaluation of the Employment Requirements (ER) for regular and civilian members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), which was conducted by the RCMP National Program Evaluation Service (NPES). The objective of the evaluation was to provide a neutral, timely and evidence-based assessment of the relevance and performance of the ER process from November 28, 2014 to December 31, 2018.

The evaluation commenced in January 2019 and concluded in May 2020 with a presentation to the RCMP's Performance Measurement and Evaluation Committee. The report was approved by the RCMP Commissioner on June 4, 2020.

Evaluation scope and context

In 2019, NPES finalized an evaluation of the Legislative Reform Initiative (LRI) to examine the extent to which the LRI modernized human resources (HR) management processes in the areas of conduct, the investigation and resolution of harassment complaints, and the handling of grievances and appeals. The ER process was not included in the scope of the LRI evaluation, but it was determined that a separate evaluation with a focus on ER was warranted, as the process had been significantly amended by the LRI.

The evaluation examined a four-year period from November 28, 2014 to December 31, 2018, and was national in scope. NPES interviewed key stakeholders at RCMP National Headquarters (NHQ) in Ottawa, as well as in British Columbia (E Division), Alberta (K Division), Saskatchewan (F Division), Ontario (O Division), Quebec (C Division), and Nova Scotia (H Division). These divisions represented the locations of the majority of ER processes and provided for a representative sample of divisions across Canada.

Evaluation methodology

Evaluation approach

A theory-based approach was used for this evaluation. NPES applied triangulation as an analytical method, where multiple lines of evidence helped corroborate findings. Qualitative and quantitative information was utilized to inform findings, provide recommendations for improvement, and help inform senior management decision-making.
The following evaluation questions guided the evaluation:

• Are the changes to the ER process aligned with the priorities of the RCMP?
• To what extent are effective policies and procedures in place to support the ER process?
• To what extent have the changes to the ER process provided the RCMP with an effective mechanism for taking administrative action?
• To what extent is the ER process operating efficiently given current resources?

Data sources

The following lines of evidence were used to inform the findings and recommendations:

1. Document Review: Internal and external documentation such as foundational documents, annual reports, business cases, policies, procedures, and other applicable information were reviewed.
2. Data Analysis: Administrative and performance data provided by the ER Policy Centre at NHQ were analyzed.
3. Interviews: A total of 37 interviews were conducted with RCMP employees, 30 across six divisions and seven at NHQ. The interviewees consisted of key stakeholders at various stages in the ER process to obtain their opinions on the process and to validate other lines of evidence. The number of interviewees who provided opinions varied for each question depending on their knowledge and expertise, as not all interviewees were familiar with all aspects of the ER process.

Limitations

The ER process is relatively new and there is a relatively low number of ER cases per year; therefore, there was limited performance data available to the evaluation. To mitigate the associated risk, the evaluation triangulated the available data with other lines of evidence, such as interviews and document review.

Also, financial information unique to the ER process is not tracked consistently across the RCMP, making it difficult to assess the efficiency of the ER process. In response, the evaluation conducted interviews with key stakeholders and subject matter experts, and consulted performance data in order to assess efficiency to the extent possible.

Program description

Context

As of 2014, the RCMP Act had not been significantly amended in almost 25 years. Policing requirements, both administrative and operational, evolved over this time and greater demands were placed on policing organizations regarding accountability for the effective stewardship of their financial and human resources.^{Footnote 1}

The Accountability Act, which received Royal Assent on June 19, 2013, introduced significant reforms to the RCMP Act with the objectives of enhancing the RCMP's responsibility to the Canadian public, and ensuring a safe, healthy and respectful workplace for employees.^{Footnote 2}

As a result of the Accountability Act, the RCMP's Professional Responsibility Officer (PRO) assumed responsibility for amendments designed to modernize discipline, grievance and human resource management processes for members, with a view to preventing, addressing and correcting performance and conduct issues in a timely and fair manner.

On November 28, 2014, the Accountability Act, the amended RCMP Act, and supporting Regulations, Commissioner's Standing Orders (CSO), policies, processes and procedures came into force.^{Footnote 3}

Profile of process evaluated

The Accountability Act amended several HR management processes in the RCMP, including the administrative discharge process. Key documents indicate that the administrative discharge process was historically viewed as long and cumbersome.^{Footnote 4} The amendments introduced two important changes to HR management that led to the development of the current ER process:

1. The RCMP Commissioner, in contrast to deputy heads and other senior police administrators, lacked the authority to make fundamental HR decisions to effectively manage the organization. The amendments to the Act addressed this shortcoming by providing the Commissioner with the authority to discharge or demote members for unsatisfactory performance, for reasons other than a contravention of the Code of Conduct, or for the economy and efficiency of the RCMP.^{Footnote 5}

2. The Act also enabled the Commissioner to delegate the majority of authorities relating to ER to Commanding Officers and senior managers in the RCMP. This permitted the application of processes and decision-making at the divisional level, with oversight and accountability being provided by the Director General Workplace Responsibility Branch (DG WRB) and ER Policy Centre at NHQ, in an effort to improve effectiveness and efficiency.^{Footnote 6}

The ER process consists of three elements:

1. Administrative Discharge and Demotion (AD&D) for reasons of unsuitability or other than a contravention of the Code of Conduct.
   • The RCMP Act provides authorities to the Commissioner to discharge or demote members under certain circumstances:
     • The revocation of a person's appointment under section 9.2 of the RCMP Act;
     • Unsatisfactory performance; and
     • Reasons other than a contravention of any provision of the Code of Conduct.
2. Stoppage of Pay and Allowances (SPA)
   • The RCMP Act provides the authority to stop a member's pay and allowances in a situation where a member loses a basic requirement, is absent from duty without authorization, or has left an assigned duty without authorization.
3. Probationary Member discharge (PM)
   • The RCMP provides probationary members the time, opportunity and assistance to demonstrate that they possess the suitability to continue to serve as a member following the completion of his/her probationary period. If a probationary member fails to demonstrate suitability, the member may be discharged at any time during his/her probationary period with 14 days' notice, or with payment in lieu of notice.

Resources

Four full time equivalents were allocated to the ER Policy Centre at NHQ when the legislative reforms were implemented. There were no other specific financial commitments made to ER under the reforms. Additional funding for ER was included under the larger program of Employment Relations.

In addition to the four positions at NHQ dedicated to ER, there are another 15 employees in dedicated ER units at the divisional level. In those divisions without dedicated ER personnel, employees administer the ER process as part of their overall duties. Divisions with dedicated ER units, shown in Figure 1, accounted for 82% of all ER processes over the four-year period (2015-2018).

Since implementation, ER expenditures have not been tracked separately at the divisional level or NHQ; rather, expenditures have been aggregated with other expenditure categories. It is also noteworthy that some divisions do not have any dedicated ER personnel, and all divisions have employees who perform ER roles as a part of their duties. Therefore determining ER expenditures at the divisional level is difficult. NHQ has tracked only the salaries of dedicated ER personnel, as shown in Table 2.

Findings

Alignment with priorities

The ER process directly supports the objective of the RCMP to modernize HR management to enhance the RCMP's accountability to the public and modernize HR processes to ensure a safe, healthy and respectful workplace for employees as outlined in the Enhancing RCMP Accountability Act.^{Footnote 8} The ER reforms introduced in accordance with the Accountability Act were intended to address deficiencies in managing HR issues and enhance the effectiveness and timeliness of the ER process.^{Footnote 9}

Additionally, the ER process was aligned with the RCMP's vision and values statements, in place during the evaluation period, related to integrity, professionalism, and accountability, as well as its commitment to communities and employees through effective and efficient use of resources, and to employees of the RCMP to implement fair and equitable systems to address consistently poor performers and discipline and discharge.

Policies and procedures

Foundational documents clearly define the roles and responsibilities for the ER process. For example, the RCMP Act outlines the authorities of the Commissioner to make rules governing the ER process, while the Commissioner's Standing Orders – Employment Requirements (CSO - ER) describe the Commissioner's authority to delegate power to Decision Makers and designate Recommending Authorities, for whom roles and responsibilities are also defined. The Administration Manual (AM) 27.2-4 elaborates on the roles and responsibilities of Decision Makers and Recommending Authorities, and establishes the roles and responsibilities of Members and Commanders in the ER process. The National Guidebook – Employment Requirements details the procedural responsibilities of the above-mentioned individuals and includes the role of the DG WRB in the ER process. However, one notable absence from the policies is the role of the ER advisors in the RCMP divisions. ER advisors in the divisions play a critical role in supporting Commanders, Recommending Authorities and Decision Makers throughout the ER process, but there is no clear description of their roles and responsibilities.

Many interviewees believed the roles and responsibilities of those involved in the ER process were understood, including all interviewees at NHQ. That said, some divisional employees expressed concerns over the extent to which detachment commanders and managers understand their roles in the ER process, particularly their responsibilities to provide sufficient documentation to the Recommending Authority to support the initiation of an ER process. Interview data indicates the lack of understanding may be due to inexperience. Of the small sample of Commanders interviewed, half stated they understood their specific role and responsibilities in the ER process, but all had limited experience.

Program documentation shows that policies and procedures for the ER process are well established. The CSO – ER and AM Chapter 27 are the policies that govern the ER process, and outline what procedures are necessary to engage the ER process and who is responsible. AM Chapter 27.2-4 identifies the procedures for SPA, AD&D, and PM. The AM also includes templates for specific items in the ER process. In addition, the ER Unit at NHQ has developed a National Guidebook and process maps to further clarify the procedures for the ER process.

Although many interviewees, including all at NHQ, indicated that effective policies and procedures were in place to administer the ER process, there were some opposing views in the RCMP divisions. For example, some divisional interviewees reported that consultations with DG WRB and input from Health Services were not effective, as information was not being received in a timely manner.

Both the National Guidebook – Employment Requirements and the ER process maps were designed to ensure consistency of application of the ER process across the RCMP.^{Footnote 10} File Quality Assurance exercises for 2015, 2016, and 2017, compiled by the ER Policy Centre, found that in general there was a high degree of compliance with the ER policies and procedures and that templates are being used.^{Footnote 11}

One notable inconsistency of the ER process is that some divisions consult with the DG WRB for PM files while others do not. The requirement for the recommending authority to consult with the DG WRB represents a built-in central review function for each AD&D process, which supports a consistent application of the policies. This consultation is not required for SPA processes, and there is a difference of opinion on the requirement to consult DG WRB for PM processes. The policy for PM (AM – ch. 27.4) does not contain the explicit direction that DG WRB must be consulted, as is contained in the policy for AD&D (AM – ch 27.3). As a result, some divisions are consulting the DG WRB for PM cases, while others are not. The ER Policy Centre at NHQ is of the opinion that this was an oversight in the policy and DG WRB should be consulted on all PM processes, noting that 66% of the PM files reviewed by DG WRB in 2018 required amendments before proceeding with discharge.^{Footnote 12}

Most divisional interviewees responded that the ER process is being applied consistently within their division, however only a few agreed the same could be said across the RCMP. Most either felt the process is not being applied consistently or were unsure, and pointed to a lack of information sharing from the ER Policy Centre relating to cases from other divisions. In addition, a lack of training for employees involved in conducting ER processes was identified as an impediment to consistency.

Half of interviewees at NHQ believed ER processes were applied consistently across the RCMP, while the other half disagreed or were unsure, and indicated that high staff turnover was a barrier to consistency.

Program documentation shows that oversight and support are primarily the responsibility of the DG WRB and the ER Policy Centre at NHQ. The ER procedures include a mandatory consultation with the DG WRB at NHQ at the recommendation to discharge stage. This is the main engagement of oversight into the ER process. Additionally, there are other oversights built into the process as recommendations pass through ER advisors, Recommending Authorities and Decision Makers before decisions are rendered.

Interviewees identified similar oversight mechanisms to those outlined above and many felt there is sufficient oversight of the ER process. However, most divisional interviewees were not satisfied with the support they receive from NHQ. Many mentioned the fact that the ER Policy Centre is reactive only, and does not share information with the divisions or provide much needed training. With respect to information sharing, the ER Policy Centre pointed out that decisions are considered privileged information between the parties in the appeal and thus cannot be shared. However, the ER Policy Centre is working with the Office for the Coordination of Grievances and Appeals (OCGA) to establish a written agreement that would allow vetted ER appeals decisions to be distributed to the divisions.

Some interviewees stated they felt the advice provided during consultation with DG WRB is not always useful, for example the advice was seen as irrelevant or inconsistent. However, program reviews do not support this view. For example, the 2018 File Quality Assurance Report for AD&D stated, "the DG WRB recommended critical amendments on 35% of the files, and these amendments were implemented by the divisions in 100% of the files."^{Footnote 13} The same year critical amendments were suggested for 66% of PM files and implemented in 80%.^{Footnote 14}

Another issue identified by interviewees was that the DG WRB rarely meets the 10-day service standard for providing advice at the consultation stage. In fact, the 2018 File Quality Assurance Report states the target was met for only 30% of AD&D cases and 11% of PM cases, noting the delays were due to "staff turnover, higher complexity of cases, and increased thoroughness of review."^{Footnote 15} Subsequently, ER Policy Centre staff have determined the 10-day turnaround is unreasonable and recommend updating the policy to remove the 10-day standard.^{Footnote 16}

Lastly, some interviewees indicated the ER process lacks support from a legal perspective and that this expertise would be beneficial to strengthen cases against potential future appeal. The evaluation was informed that the PRO is currently working towards establishing an agreement with the RCMP's Legal Services Unit to provide support to Decision Makers in the ER process.

Effectiveness

The current ER process, resulting from the changes to the RCMP Act and other policy documents, is a more effective tool for taking administrative action than the previous process. Prior to the current ER process, the number of discharges was quite low. There were only two discharges for reasons other than conduct or disability under the former RCMP Act Part V from 2007/08 to 2014/15.^{Footnote 17} In the following four years (under the ER process), significantly more members were held accountable for not meeting the employment requirements of the RCMP, including 11 discharges and seven resignations resulting from the AD&D process (for reasons other than disability), and 16 discharges and 16 resignations under the PM process. As shown in Chart 1, there were 76 AD&D, 39 PM, and 20 SPA (which did not exist under the previous regime) initiated over the four-year period.

In general, the number of ER processes in each division is reflective of the size of the division, as shown in Chart 2.

Most interviewees believed the ER process to be effective. Interviewees made specific mention of the SPA as an effective tool, and particularly the notice to stop pay, as a factor to motivate employees to comply with employment requirements. In addition, the PM process was seen as a useful tool to deal with probationary members deemed unsuitable for the RCMP before they become full members and discharge becomes more difficult.

Interviewees identified several examples of effectiveness of the ER process, particularly when compared against the processes that existed before the ER process was instituted, including:

• The ER process is concluding cases through administrative action, with either discharge or return to work as the outcome. Prior to the ER process, cases could drag on for years or in some cases were not addressed at all.
• Decisions can only be appealed at the end of the ER process once members are already discharged and/or no longer being paid. Under the previous appeals process, appeals could be made at various stages, which caused delays.
• The RCMP is more accountable to the public regarding resource expenditures, and to members by having a rigorous and structured process in place.

Interviewees also highlighted a potential barrier to the effectiveness of the ER process related to the importance of the role of Commanders to properly undertake performance management activities. It was noted that it is essential for detachment commanders or those responsible for documenting performance-related issues to ensure all relevant information is available to the Recommending Authority in order for the ER process to proceed.

Interviewees were divided as to whether the ER process is a motivating factor for members to ensure compliance with employment requirements. Many that believed it is not a motivating factor attributed this to members' lack of awareness about ER, and pointed out that the vast majority of members will never encounter an ER process, as either Commander or as a subject.

Efficiency

There are no defined targets for how long an ER process should take. Cases can vary in type, complexity and outcome, and the level of cooperation from the member can impact timelines. For example, across the time period under review, the longest case took 785 days, while other cases took less than 10 days.

In general, the average time per ER process is decreasing. As shown in Chart 3, the average length of time it takes for SPA and AD&D decreased from 2015 to 2018, while PM processes have increased slightly over the same period.

Interviewees acknowledged that the nature of the ER process is time consuming, and that it is important to be thorough and complete all procedural steps in order for the process to be fair to the subject member, and for the RCMP to be accountable for the decision. Most felt the ER process is addressing cases in a timely manner, but were unable to make an objective comparison, as they had no experience with the previous process. Anecdotally, it was believed that the ER process is concluding cases much more quickly.

The evaluation was unable to conduct an in-depth efficiency assessment due to the lack of granularity of financial data, as ER Operations & Maintenance budgets are rolled up into larger programs such as Employee Relations. Although most interviewees believed the ER process to be efficient given limited dedicated resources, many divisional interviewees thought their division did not have adequate resources to conduct the ER process.

Interviewees identified a few areas where greater efficiency could be achieved, such as increased information sharing by the ER Policy Centre, more timely input from Health Services, and a less time-consuming appeal process.

The stated intention of the ER process is for the RCMP to make every effort to retain its members, however in cases where retention is not possible, most interviewees thought the ER process leads to a more efficient use of RCMP resources. For example:

• Salary is not paid when a member is absent without authorization and an SPA is actioned;
• Appeals can only take place after a decision is rendered, and members are not paid during the appeal process. Under the previous system, an appeal could stay the decision and a member would continue to collect salary during the appeal;
• Long-term savings are realized by discharging unsuitable probationary members before they become full members; and
• When members who cannot perform their duties are discharged they are replaced by another member which, along with the secondary effect of increasing morale of other members, increases the effectiveness of the RCMP.

Conclusions and recommendations

The evaluation found that the ER process aligns with the strategic priorities of the RCMP to modernize HR management practices and enhance accountability. The ER process is also aligned to the RCMP's vision and values statements.

Roles and responsibilities for the ER process are clearly defined in policy and procedural documentation. Divisional employees are less confident than NHQ employees that the roles and responsibilities of the ER process are understood, particularly whether Commanders completely understand their role in the process.

While policies and procedures are established for the ER process, it is possible they are not applied consistently across the RCMP. Potential obstacles to consistency include a lack of information sharing, a lack of training, and high staff turnover.

There is sufficient oversight of the ER process, but the support provided to divisions could be improved. Divisional ER units believe increased information sharing and more timely responses from NHQ are necessary. Additionally, increased support from a legal perspective would be beneficial to the ER process and strengthen cases against potential litigation.

The evaluation found that the ER process is an effective mechanism for taking administrative action. The ER process is bringing cases to conclusion; members either return to work or are discharged, whereas in the past cases could take years to complete or in some instances not be dealt with at all.

The ER process is addressing cases in a timely manner and the average length of time per ER process is decreasing. The ER process is time-consuming by nature and it is necessary to follow procedure in order to ensure fairness and accountability.

Although an in-depth efficiency assessment was not possible due to a lack of granularity of financial information, evidence suggests that the ER process has resulted in some efficiencies. Improvements to information sharing, the timeliness of input from Health Services, and the appeal process could further enhance efficiency. The ER process leads to a more efficient use of RCMP resources by returning members to work and discharging members when necessary.

Based on the findings of the evaluation, it is recommended that the Professional Responsibility Officer:

1. Review and update ER policy to address gaps and improve consistency in the implementation of the ER process.
2. In consultation with the divisions, determine and implement the required support to divisions with regard to training, communication, and information sharing.

Management response and action plan

Management response

Professional Responsibility Sector senior managers accept the findings and recommendations set out in the Evaluation of the Employment Requirements for RCMP Members completed by NPES.

Action plan

Date modified:

2020-10-06