Evaluation of the Legislative Reform Initiative - Full Report

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

July 19, 2019

Access to information assessment

This report has been reviewed in consideration of the Access to Information Act and Privacy Acts. The asterisks [***] appear where information has been removed; published information is UNCLASSIFIED.

Table of contents

Acronyms/definitions

ACMT
Administrative Case Management Tool
CHRO
Chief Human Resources Officer
CO
Commanding Officer
ERC
External Review Committee
FTE
Full-Time Equivalents (personnel/staff)
HRMIS
Human Resource Management Information System
ICMP
Informal Conflict Management Program
LRI
Legislative Reform Initiative
OCGA
Office for the Coordination of Grievances and Appeals
OCHC
Office of the Coordination of Harassment Complaints
NCMS
National Conduct Management Section
NHQ
National Headquarters
NPES
National Program Evaluation Services
PRO
Professional Responsibility Officer
PRS
Professional Responsibility Sector
QA
Quality Assurance
RCMP
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
RSB
Recourse Services Branch
TB
Treasury Board

1.0 Executive summary

This report presents the results of the Treasury Board (TB) mandated evaluation of the Legislative Reform Initiative (LRI), conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) National Program Evaluation Services in 2017-18. The evaluation examined the period from November 2014 to December 2017.

On November 28, 2014, significant legislative reform through the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act (Accountability Act) came into force. The Accountability Act modernized the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act (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.

The objective of the evaluation was to examine the extent to which the LRI has modernized human resources management processes in the areas of conduct, the investigation and resolution of harassment complaints, and the handling of grievances and appeals (collectively referred to as 'policy areas' throughout the report). Note that other components of the LRI were not included within the scope of the evaluation, such as public complaints and employment requirements.

The evaluation determined:

  1. The LRI provided decision-makers with more flexibility to address cases related to conduct, harassment, and grievances and appeals.
  2. Policies and processes were established and practices were put in place to ensure consistent application. Furthermore, evidence suggests that policies and processes were consistently applied.
  3. The majority of conduct, harassment, and grievances and appeals cases were completed in a timely manner; however, evidence suggests improvements could be made.
  4. While many service standards were established, not all policy areas collected data to measure progress against each standard.
  5. Policy area personnel were unable to utilize the Administrative Case Management Tool (ACMT) as their sole case management system due to system limitations and lack of consistent data entry.
  6. Data collected was used to inform decision-making, despite data limitations.
  7. Evidence suggests that funds were sufficient for the implementation of the LRI.
  8. The evaluation was unable to determine if funding for the ongoing administration of the LRI was sufficient.

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

  1. Review and improve the approach to the tracking, collection and reporting of data and performance information to support decision-making, including addressing data input and system limitations.
  2. Review processing challenges in each policy area and implement measures to enhance the timeliness of processing files.
  3. Assess resource requirements for the ongoing administration of the conduct, harassment, and grievances and appeals process.

2.0 Introduction

2.1 Purpose of the evaluation

This report presents the results of the TB mandated evaluation of the LRI conducted by the RCMP NPES. The objective of the evaluation was to examine the extent to which the LRI modernized human resources management processes in the areas of conduct, the investigation and resolution of harassment complaints, and the handling of grievances and appeals.

The evaluation commenced in December 2017 and concluded in July 2019 with a presentation to the Performance Measurement and Evaluation Committee. The report received the Commissioner's approval on August 7th, 2019.

2.2 Evaluation scope and context

The LRI evaluation was identified in the 2017-2018 Multi-Year Risk-Based Audit, Evaluation and Data Analytics Plan and was undertaken in line with the TB Policy on Results(2016). In addition to the TB requirement to evaluate the overall initiative, key risk areas identified in the scoping phase, were examined and the most predominant areas informed the scope of the evaluation.

The evaluation examined a three-year period between November 2014 and December 2017 and was national in scope. RCMP National Headquarters (NHQ) in Ottawa, British Columbia (E Division), Ontario (O Division) and Nova Scotia (H Division) employees participated in interviews. These locations were recommended during the consultation phase based on case volume and geographic location.

3.0 Initiative description

3.1 Context

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 to be accountable 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.Footnote 2 The Accountability Act modernized 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.

Under the direction of the PRO and the Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO), the LRI Team was established and tasked with researching, identifying and developing the proposed amendments under the Accountability Act.

Specifically, the PRO had responsibility for amendments designed to:

  • Strengthen the RCMP review and complaints body and implement a framework to handle investigations of serious incidents involving members.
  • 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.

The CHRO had responsibility for amendments designed to:

Provide a mechanism to deem civilian members as employees appointed under the Public Service Employment Act at a time to be determined by the TB.Footnote 3

On November 28, 2014, the Accountability Act, the amended RCMP Act, and supporting Regulations, Commissioner's Standing Orders , policies, processes and procedures came into force.Footnote 4

3.2 Resources

******

3.3 Profiles of programs evaluated

Conduct management

With the Accountability Act, the discipline regime was replaced with a conduct management process for regular and civilian members enabling the majority of conduct matters (90%+) to be handled by the relevant manager (conduct authority)Footnote 5 and the subject member within the Division in the form of a meeting instead of a lengthy, formal three-member discipline board.

The Accountability Act introduced many changes to the conduct process. Notably, it allowed managers greater flexibility when dealing with conduct issues, resolving them at the lowest appropriate level through a meeting process. This was expected to create a more modernized process, which was responsive, timely and effective, while balancing fairness.Footnote 6 The Accountability Act also stated the process was to focus on remedial, corrective and educative solutions rather than a punitive approach; however, when dismissal was appropriate, the conduct authority referred the matter to a conduct board.

The National Conduct Management Section (NCMS), as part of the Professional Responsibility Sector (PRS), was responsible for providing national strategic advice, coordination, research and analysis and recommendations to RCMP NHQ and divisional conduct advisors.Footnote 7 A key feature of the modernized approach was to permit the application of processes and decision-making at the divisional level, with oversight and accountability being delivered by NHQ.

Investigation and resolution of harassment complaints

As part of the reform, a single RCMP-specific process was created to deal with harassment complaints involving members, rather than dual processes dictated by TB policy and Part IV of the RCMP Act, with the intention of making the process more timely and efficient. The objective of the modernized process was to provide a complaints and resolution system that would encourage all personnel to be confident that their harassment complaints would be addressed, with an emphasis on early informal resolution, and restoring workplace and employee relationships, where appropriate.

With the reform, harassment was identified as a contravention of the RCMP Code of Conduct, which permitted the RCMP to align the harassment investigation and resolution process with the conduct process. For example, if the decision-maker determined that harassment occurred under section 2.1 of the Code of Conduct, the decision-maker could impose conduct measures.Footnote 8

To ensure harassment complaints were considered at the highest level of management in a Division, the decision-makers were limited to divisional Commanding Officers (CO). This ensured consistency in application and decision-making for the harassment investigation and resolution process.

Under the PRS, a new national Office for the Coordination of Harassment Complaints (OCHC) was established, which was responsible for providing administrative support and oversight for the investigation and resolution of harassment complaints. The OCHC also operated as the policy centre and played an important role in providing advice and guidance to employees who were responsible for the administration of the process within their Division.Footnote 9

Grievances and appeals

As a result of the amendments under LRI, the grievances and appeals processes were streamlined, reducing approximately 18 processes or sub-processes down to two.Footnote 10 The goal of establishing a streamlined grievances and appeals dispute resolution framework was to address cases in a more efficient, consistent and fair manner.Footnote 11

Under the new process, adjudicators were granted enhanced authorities, allowing them greater discretion over the grievances and appeals process. This included having the opportunity to meet formally and informally with the parties; join cases that were similar; dismiss cases that were frivolous, vexatious or where there had been an abuse in process; and to allow or deny cases when a party did not comply with an adjudicator's direction.Footnote 12 Further, the new grievance process allows parties to resolve disputes informally with assistance of their supervisor or the Informal Conflict Management Program.

Under the PRS, the Office for the Coordination of Grievances and Appeals (OCGA), a central office at NHQ, was responsible for managing the intake and administration of grievances and appeals.

4.0 Evaluation methodology

4.1 Evaluation approach and design

A theory-based approach was used for this evaluation. NPES applied triangulation as an analytical method, where multiple lines of evidence helped corroborate findings. The objective of the evaluation was to assess the extent to which LRI modernized the human resources management process in the areas of conduct, investigation and resolution of harassment complaints, and grievances and appeals (collectively referred to as 'policy areas' throughout the report). Qualitative and quantitative information was utilized to inform findings, to provide recommendations for improvement, and to help inform senior management decision-making.

The following evaluation questions guided the evaluation:

  1. Have the new processes allowed for flexibility in managing cases? Is so, to what extent?
  2. To what extent were policies and processes consistently applied?
  3. Have the new processes addressed cases in a timely manner? If so, to what extent?
  4. To what extent were data tracked, monitored and reported on?
  5. To what extent were funds allocated and were they adequate in supporting the implementation and ongoing administration of the LRI?

4.2 Data sources

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

Document Review. Relevant internal and external documentation such as foundational documents, performance-related reports, program reviews, business plans, operational documentation, policies, and other applicable information were reviewed and analyzed.

Data Analysis. Available financial, administrative, performance measurement and statistical data from the following systems and information sources were reviewed and analyzed:

  • Case management data (conduct, investigation and resolution of harassment complaints, and grievances and appeals) from ACMT and from each policy area's spreadsheets
  • Training data from each policy area's data
  • Financial data from TEAM
  • FTE data from HRMIS

Interviews: A total of 50 interviews were conducted with a sample of key personnel at the senior management, management and working levels to obtain their views on LRI and to validate and supplement information gathered through 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 four processes or the financial information.

Figure 1: Percentage of interviewees

Graph 1 Percentage of interviewees

The report used the below scale when referencing interviewee opinions.

Figure 1. Percentage of interviewees - text version

A pie chart illustrating the geographic location of interviewees.

36% of interviewees were located in National Headquarters (Ottawa).

30% of interviewees were located in British Columbia.

18% of interviewees were located in Ontario.

16% of interviewees were located in Nova Scotia.

Table 2: Descriptive scale
Percent of responses % Description
100 All
80-99 Almost all
60-79 Majority
51-59 More than half
50 Half
40-49 Less than half
20-39 Minority
1-19 Some
0 None

4.3 Methodological limitations and mitigation strategies

The key limitation was the reliability and consistency of performance data in the national case management system, ACMT. ACMT case files were not consistently kept up-to-date, but rather entered when time permitted. In addition, some data could not be extracted from ACMT because it was uploaded as a scanned document. Consequently, the performance data required for the evaluation was not readily available or easily extractable from ACMT for analysis.

Further, both NHQ and the Divisions maintained their own spreadsheet tracking system in order to report regularly. However, certain performance data was not available from these spreadsheets.

In order to mitigate the limitations, the evaluation used samples of ACMT data and triangulated the available performance data obtained through other lines of evidence such as document review and interview analysis. This approach was taken in order to increase the reliability and validity of the findings and to ensure that conclusions and recommendations were based on objective and documented evidence.

5.0 Findings

5.1 Flexibility in design of the process

Finding 1: The LRI provided decision-makers with more flexibility to address cases related to conduct, harassment, and grievances and appeals.

The LRI provided new accountabilities, authorities and responsibilities, which increased the flexibility in the administration and management of processes, with a goal of providing decision-makers with more discretion and facilitating a fairer and less adversarial approach when handling matters.

Conduct

The conduct process was modernized to allow decision-makers the ability to resolve cases at the lowest appropriate level within the Divisions, which included the flexibility to impose conduct measures, reserving dismissal cases for conduct boards.Footnote 13

This resulted in 92% of files being resolved in the Divisions as opposed to 60% pre-LRI, with the majority of cases from 2015 to 2017 dealt with by level II conduct authorities, which is most often at the officer level. This new flexibility allowed managers who are closest to the issue to address matters in a fair, less formal and less adversarial process. This also improved the timeliness of cases, as cases resolved by meeting were concluded approximately twice as quicklyFootnote 14 when compared to a case that involved a formal disciplinary board pre-LRI.

There are three categories of conduct measures. Depending on the seriousness of the case, the measures imposed can be remedial, corrective or serious.Footnote 15 As indicated in the following table, from 2015 to 2017, in the majority of cases conduct authorities imposed remedial and corrective measures indicating that there was a greater emphasis on this approach rather than punitive measures, which was one of the objectives of modernization.

Table 3: Type of measures imposed by year
Measures imposed
2015 2016 2017
Remedial 56% 59% 66%
Corrective 31% 24% 22%
Serious 12% 16% 12%

The number of conduct measures that could be imposed were increased from 11 to 27, providing the decision-maker with a broader, comprehensive list to consider when determining the appropriate conduct measure(s) to impose. For example, under the new process, a line officer had the authority to impose up to 10 days' pay of financial penalty, where previously only a formal conduct board could stipulate this level of discipline.

For cases referred to a conduct board, flexibilities in proceedings were created. For example, boards are comprised of one adjudicator as opposed to threeFootnote 16, reducing the demand on resources.Footnote 17 Over the last three years there were 25 hearings, chaired by one adjudicator (total of 25 resources). When examining the three years before LRI, 146 hearings were held, each with three board members (total of 438 resources). The post-reform process utilized 413 fewer resources over a similar time period. While the evaluation was not able to conclusively determine the associated savings due to a lack of performance data, it is apparent that the changes to the nature and role of conduct boards have led to a decrease in the average duration of each hearing.

In addition, adjudicators were granted the flexibility to decide how hearings unfolded. For example, they had more decision power over the requirement and determination of witnessesFootnote 18, and all information was readily available to the adjudicator in advance,Footnote 19 as opposed to information being submitted to the adjudicator in a court-like proceeding by lawyers and witnesses.

The majority of interviewees (33/41) stated the development of the new conduct measures allowed for more flexibility in managing cases related to misconduct, in terms of better decision-making (22/33), flexibility in the scope and range of measures imposed (20/33), and increased fairness and transparency (9/33).

Harassment

The harassment process was modernized by bringing the requirements of the Code of Conduct and TB approaches into one timely and efficient harassment process, allowing the decision-maker the ability to address harassment complaints through the conduct process, including the flexibility to impose a greater range of conduct measures.Footnote 20 Further, decision-makers had the ability to choose between conducting a limitedFootnote 21 or full investigation and to recommend informal conflict resolution. The evaluation was unable to determine the effectiveness of investigation options and its secondary benefits such as improved timeliness, due to lack of available data.

Modernization of the processes also required a greater emphasis on the Informal Conflict Management Program (ICMP), providing decision-makers with the authority to facilitate and recommend informal conflict resolution. Though on average just 6% of complaints were resolved or partially resolved in ICMP, documentary evidence noted over half of all complainants attempted to resolve the issue prior to initiating a formal complaint. According to the OCHC Quality Assurance (QA) reports for 2015 and 2016, the OCHC informed parties of the availability of informal resolution options 85% and 94% of the time in those respective years. A sample of cases resolved or partially resolved informally revealed they were resolved more quickly than the formal process.Footnote 22 There was also evidence that the OCHC worked with Human Resources to further the informal conflict resolution initiative.

The majority of interviewees (21/35) indicated that enhanced conduct measures available provided flexibility in managing harassment complaints, noting that it allowed the decision-maker a greater range of options.

Grievances and appeals

The grievances and appeals process was modernized to enhance and clarify decision-makers' authorities. For example, adjudicators had the flexibility to determine how cases would proceed, such as the option to meet formally or informally with the parties, permitting the matter to be addressed in a more collaborative manner.Footnote 23 In 2015, there were 16 case conferences while in 2017 there were 73, showing the option was being used approximately 4.5 times more frequently.

Under LRI, only serious matters can be referred to the RCMP External Review Committee (ERC). This gave adjudicators greater discretion in reaching final case decisions, and reduced the number of overall cases to be reviewed at the ERC. In 2015 and 2016, the average processing time for an appeal was reduced by 51 days if the case was not referred to the ERC.Footnote 24

The grievance process built in the flexibility to provide opportunities to resolve the matter informally in the early stages and throughout where appropriate.Footnote 25 ICMP services were available to provide an alternative method of resolving conflicts or disputes between RCMP employees. Also, for grievances, line officers were required to make every effort to informally resolve the grievance and participate at every step of the grievance process. At the beginning of the process, parties were given 30 days to discuss and attempt to resolve the issue. Due to the lack of available data, the evaluation was unable to determine if the increased informal resolution opportunities were effective. However, according to the nine grievances cases that were identified in ACMT as resolved (or partially resolved) informally, the average number of days to conclude the cases was 292 compared to the formal process detailed in (239-376 days).

The majority of interviewees (8/11) indicated that the new grievances and appeals processes allowed for more flexibility in managing cases, noting the informal conflict management program, and having the ability to call case conferences and case meetings as positive changes.

5.2 Establishment of policies and consistency of application

Finding 2: Policies and processes were established and practices were put in place to ensure consistent application. Furthermore, evidence suggests that policies and processes were consistently applied.

The evaluation examined the extent to which policies and processes were established for conduct, harassment, and grievances and appeals.

To support the provisions of the RCMP Act, policy instruments, such as National Guidebooks, file processing maps, and the ACMT User's Guide were developed to provide clarity and direction. For example, instruments such as the Conduct Measures Guide detailed the appropriate range of measures for a variety of the most common types of misconduct and provided the decision-maker with comprehensive factors to consider when determining the appropriate conduct measure(s), with a goal of eliminating a significant level of subjectivity.

Furthermore, the evaluation found that practices were put in place to ensure the consistent application of the policies and processes. National policy centres (NCMS, OCHC, Recourse Services Branch (RSB)) were established to provide support to their respective clientele, and service standards were developed to help ensure consistency in policy applications. In addition to this, other efforts to ensure consistency included:Footnote 26

  • For conduct: cases involving dismissal were referred to the Conduct Authority Representative Directorate, and NCMS reviewed conduct files for quality assurance purposes on a quarterly basis to ensure Divisions were compliant with reporting practices.
  • For harassment: file intake and processing was centralized; established allegations were addressed under the Code of Conduct; the CO was the single decision-maker within each Division to ensure consistent decision-making; and OCHC reviewed harassment files on a yearly basis to ensure reporting practices were compliant with policy.
  • For grievances and appeals: the entire process was centralized within NHQ.

There was evidence of regular communication between the policy areas and the Divisions such as monthly meetings, and feedback following the QA process and during yearly symposiums. For example, a review of data related to the provision of guidance/support showed that between November 2014 and December 2017, NCMS provided guidance to the Divisions 2,257 times.

Training was also provided to at least 6,616 attendees that took part in various training activities such as the Workplace Responsibility Investigator Course, the Conduct Authority on-line course and/or ACMT user training.

Table 4: Training by fiscal year
Type of training Total FY 2014-15 Total FY 2015-16 Total FY 2016-17 Total FY 2017-18
1-Day Conduct Course 883 187 n/a n/a
4-Day LRI Course 697 n/a n/a n/a
Workplace Responsibility Investigator Course - WRIC 102 105 93 90
Conduct Authority Workshop n/a 453 n/a n/a
ACMT User Training 119 32 n/a 22
Conduct Authority Course (online) n/a 529 n/a 2999
Harassment Investigators Course - HIC 38 0 51 122
Harassment Investigators Workshop - HIW n/a 74 20 n/a
Total 1839 1380 164 3233

Interviewees were asked if the processes were applied consistently in their respective process areas. Overall, the majority of interviewees who provided an opinion indicated that practices put in place were consistently applied. Specifically, for:

Conduct

Interviewees (16/21) stated the new conduct process was consistently applied at the national level with over half attributing this accomplishment to NCMS's oversight, governance and/or regular meetings between NCMS and the Divisions.

As for the consistency of application at the divisional level, the majority of interviewees (21/29) stated it was consistently applied, crediting this to internal divisional processes such as regular team discussions as well as the national tools, such as the National Guidebooks and ACMT (8/21).

Harassment

The majority of interviewees (11/15) stated the process was being consistently applied at the national level while about the same percentage of interviewees (17/25) stated the process was being consistently applied at the divisional level, most commonly noting OCHC's centralized intake process as a contributing factor.

Grievances and appeals

All interviewees (7/7) stated the process was being consistently applied at the national level, with over half attributing this to the process being centralized within NHQ.

5.3 Timely processing

Finding 3: The majority of conduct, harassment, and grievances and appeals cases were completed in a timely manner; however, evidence suggests improvements could be made.

Timely resolution of cases related to misconduct, harassment, grievances and appeals was one of the goals of modernization.Footnote 27

For the purpose of the evaluation and in keeping with the RCMP Act, which specifies measures must be imposed within one year from the time of the contravention of the Code of Conduct, 'timely resolution' was defined as the completion of a file within one year.Footnote 28 While the RCMP Act reference does not apply to grievances and appeals, for consistency the evaluation also used the one-year timeframe to measure the timely processing of grievances and appeals cases.

Using ACMT data, it was determined that, on average, cases met the one-year timeframe, as evidenced in the table below.Footnote 29

Figure 2: Number of days to conclude a file by year opened

Figure 2: Number of days to conclude a file by year opened

Source: RCMP Database - ACMT. The data contained within the figure above does not include pre-LRI cases, but 2015 does contain some transition files. Additionally, this data does not include conduct cases that were referred to a board.

Figure 2. Number of days to conclude a file by year opened - text version

A bar graph illustrating the average number of days to conclude a file by complaint type by calendar year.

Conduct files opened in 2015 (starting in Nov 2014) took on average 215 days to conclude, while in 2016 it took on average 201 days and in 2017 it took on average 201 days.

Harassment complaint files opened in 2015 took on average 277 days to conclude, while in 2016 it took on average 283 days and in 2017 it took on average 234 days.

Grievance files (both level I and level II) in 2015 took on average 229 days, while in 2016 it took on average 267 days and in 2017 it took on average 306 days.

Appeal files (both level I and level II) in 2015 took on average 376 days to conclude, while in 2016 it took 338 days and in 2017 it took on average 239 days.

Prior to the new conduct process, discipline boards were initiated for any measure greater than forfeiture of one day of leave. Under the new conduct process, cases are only referred to a board when dismissal is being sought, which has led to the initiation of fewer conduct boards. As a result, more conduct cases were resolved at the divisional level (92%),Footnote 30 which is timelier process than the use of conduct boards.

Since the implementation of LRI, of the 129 conduct cases that were referred to a conduct board, 25 cases (or 1.5% of conduct files) proceeded to a conduct hearing, with four cases resulting in the member's resignation prior to the conclusion of the hearing. The average length of time between the initiation of the conduct file and the conclusion of the conduct hearing was 778 days. It should be noted that, from the date a conduct file is initiated, divisions have a one-year time frame within which to refer the file to a conduct board. For the 25 cases that proceeded to a conduct hearing, it took an average of 449 days from the appointment of the board to the conclusion of the hearing.

A comparison of pre and post-LRI conduct board data related to processing time was not possible due to differences in the scope of the board's mandate since the reforms. The evaluation was unable to disaggregate the more serious conduct cases in order to accurately compare pre and post reforms.

Figure 3: Average number of days to conclude a case at a conduct board

Figure 3: Average number of days to conclude a case at a conduct board

Source: Policy Area Data

Figure 3. Number of days to conclude a case at a conduct board - text version

A bar graph illustrating the average number of days to conclude a case at a Conduct Board.

In 2015 (starting Nov 2014), 2 cases took on average 346.5 days to conclude.

In 2016, 8 cases took on average 748.9 days to conclude.

In 2017, 15 cases took on average 851.9 days to conclude.

When interviewees were asked if the processes were addressing cases in a more timely manner, responses across each of the policy areas differed slightly, noting the following:

Conduct

The majority of interviewees (24/36) commented that the new conduct process (with fewer cases going to a board) addressed cases in a more timely manner, noting that the process was simplified and streamlined (10/24).

Harassment

While harassment cases were being concluded within the one-year timeframe, almost half of the interviewees (15/31) were of the opinion that timeliness could be improved with more resources (e.g., full-time investigators), by incorporating the practice of "screening" complaints that do not meet the definition of harassment (a practice undertaken in the pre-LRI process) and/or the prioritization of complaints, and reduced workloads.

The evaluation was unable to determine if the practice of screening individual allegations prior to the decision-maker's review made the process timelier. It should be noted that the RCMP decided to eliminate this practice from the new harassment complaints process, primarily because it was determined that screening out individual allegations weakened the decision-maker's ability to observe patterns of behaviour, which increased the risk of legitimate harassment cases being dismissed.

Grievances

The majority of interviewees (8/10) stated that the new process addressed cases in a more timely manner. However, when asked, a minority of interviewees (3/10) identified resourcing and capacity as an issue that affected timeliness in the completion of cases.

Finding 4: While many service standards were established, not all policy areas collected data to measure progress against each standard.

Service standards set by the policy areas provided a good indication of whether cases were on track to meet the one-year timeframe and assisted in identifying bottlenecks in the process.

A number of service standards were established for each process, ranging from the number of days to complete an investigation to the number of days to acknowledge receipt of a complaint. These were identified within policies and/or guidebooks.

With a few exceptions, the evaluation was unable to find evidence to suggest the majority of existing service standards were monitored regularly by each policy area. Of the few standards that were monitored, most were not met. For example, in 2016, it was reported that only 45% of harassment cases met the service standard of having the initial decision made within 30 days of receiving the final investigation report.

5.4 Tracking and reporting of data

Finding 5: Policy area personnel were unable to utilize ACMT as their sole case management system due to system limitations and lack of consistent data entry.

ACMT was designed to be the national electronic case management system with complete and reliable information available for record keeping, analyzing and decision-making to support the modernization efforts; however, captured information by divisions was limited and was not consistently updated, and only entered when time permitted. In addition, some data could not be extracted from ACMT because it was uploaded in a format that did not allow for data extraction, such as scanned documents. Also, the evaluation found that certain information was not available due to system constraints (e.g. limited number of data fields).

A heavy reliance on manual verification and the use of spreadsheets allowed staff to track and report on data; however, this caused an excessive demand on resources and limited accountability and oversight from a systems perspective.

Workarounds for ACMT were put in place. For example, for reporting purposes, some policy areas manually opened the files to capture the required information in spreadsheets. To address restricted access, the OCGA manually transferred the ACMT electronic records to a Recourse Appeals and Review Branch's network folder for adjudication. For the PRS monthly file management report, the OCHC reviewed the information in ACMT and captured the monthly updates into a spreadsheet. If there were no monthly updates for a file, the OCHC contacted the Division for a status update. The Divisions also created personalized tracking spreadsheets.

Almost all interviewees (91%) noted that cases were tracked and monitored but not solely by ACMT; spreadsheets were used regularly.

The data within ACMT was monitored through a QA process that included a review of files over a certain period of time to determine if files were complete and to collect performance information. However, the QA process varied across the three policy areas under review. For example, the frequency of QA activities and the criteria of the QA process differed across each policy area. QA processes were in place for conduct and harassment data but not for grievances and appeals data. It was also noted that the QA processes examined files opened either yearly or quarterly; however, since a case takes on average at least six months to conclude, files did not undergo a full QA process from open to close.

Both NCMS and OCHC identified numerous ACMT compliance issues during the QA process. In an effort to resolve these issues, the policy areas modified processes, created guides and regularly communicated with the Divisions; however, ACMT compliance remained a challenge throughout the timeframe under review.

Finding 6: Collected data was used to inform decision-making, despite data limitations.

Because data was limited and not all data was exportable from ACMT, the majority of the information used for decision-making came from a manual search of each electronic file.

Documents suggest that data collected by the policy areas was used to create several internal reports, presentations and the monthly PRS file management report, which informed decision-making and modified PRS processes in an effort to guide continuous improvement and to validate the existing processes.

For example, data was used to present trend information to senior management on the number of conduct, harassment, and grievances and appeals cases following the implementation of LRI. As observed in the table below, since November 2014, overall, the number of cases has increased over the past three years, with the exception of conduct cases.

Table 5: Case volume by year
Complaint type 2015 (Nov 2014) 2016 2017
Total Conduct (includes non-dismissal and dismissal cases 662 471 480
Harassment 152 242 296
Grievances 592 672 1169
Appeals 62 82 161

Note: 319 grievances cases filed in 2017 were related to civilian member pay.

Another example of use of data, as identified in the 2015 and 2016 harassment QA reports, was that the majority of harassment investigations were not being completed within the 90 and 14-day standard. The Divisions' inability to conduct a timely investigation was raised at past national OCHC teleconferences and at the January 2016 Symposium through group discussions. Feedback from Divisional Harassment Advisors identified resourcing of harassment investigators as an ongoing issue in most Divisions, which is a divisional responsibility. OCHC followed through on its commitment to provide training opportunities to increase the number of harassment investigators and this indicator was identified as part of the ongoing QA monitoring processes.

Examples of data being used to inform decision-making, as noted in the PRS Action Plan, include:

  • NCMS undertook an initiative to explore and implement methods for reviewing, prioritizing and tracking high risk conduct files (such as sexual misconduct).
  • OCHC undertook an initiative to explore opportunities to increase the number of harassment complaints that are resolved through informal resolution, modifying the complaint form to capture early resolution data and committed to sharing the trend results with the Informal Conflict Management Program (Human Resources).
  • RSB took on an initiative to develop a practice manual for conduct boards and representatives.

There was also evidence conduct data was used for other processes or initiatives. For example, it was used by Human Resources to help determine a member's eligibility to participate in staffing actions such as a promotion or a lateral transfer and for the National Early Intervention System Program.

5.5 Program funding

Finding 7: Evidence suggests that funds were sufficient for the implementation of the LRI.

*** By 2017-18, according to HRMIS data, 90 of the 108 positions were staffed. ***

The majority of interviewees (12/19) stated that the funds for the implementation of the LRI were sufficient.

Considering the above evidence and the fact that most of the files were concluded within one year, the funding for implementation was considered adequate.

Finding 8: The evaluation was unable to determine if funding for the ongoing administration of the LRI was sufficient.

Evidence related to an assessment of the sufficiency of LRI funding was mixed. Due to a lack of performance information, the evaluation was unable to determine if there were ongoing funding pressures and if so, to what extent.

Although the majority of cases were completed within one year, certain phases within each process appeared to require further examination. For example, the administration of a harassment file (closeout) added significant time to the overall process, taking on average an additional 111 days from the decision date to administratively close the file. Also, as per ACMT, only 16% of harassment investigations were completed within the 90 day service standard from 2015 to 2017.

In addition, the evaluation found that the number of grievances completed in the year they were received had declined since the implementation of LRI. In 2015, 525 of 592 cases were completed, reducing to 183 of 1,169 completed cases in 2017. This rolling backlog may explain why the average time to complete a case increased.

It was also noted the number of cases forecasted, which was used as the basis for ongoing LRI resourcing requirements, was significantly underestimated. ***

When interviewees were asked if the funds for the ongoing administration of LRI were sufficient, the majority (17/28) stated funds were insufficient, highlighting the lack of permanent funding attributed to LRI and the lack of resources and capacity available to do the work based on the increased volume of files.

In terms of funding allocation, interviewees were evenly divided in their opinion on whether they were appropriately (13/26) or inappropriately (13/26) allocated to support LRI activities, noting policy areas did not anticipate the spike in volume at the time of funding allocation. When looking specifically at the responses from interviewees located in the Divisions, the majority of interviewees (12/17) stated funds were inappropriately allocated.

6.0 Conclusions and recommendations

The evaluation found that the LRI provided decision-makers with more flexibility to address cases related to conduct, harassment, and grievances and appeals. It provided new accountabilities, authorities and responsibilities that increased flexibility in the administration and management of processes. The new conduct measures allowed for more flexibility in managing conduct and harassment cases, which provided decision-makers a greater range of options. For grievances and appeals, authorities were enhanced to allow them greater flexibility in matters such as how cases would proceed.

Policies and processes were established and practices were put in place to ensure consistent application of the reforms. Policy instruments were developed and provided clarity and direction. National policy centres were established to provide support, service standards were developed, and training was provided.

The majority of cases related to conduct, harassment, and grievances and appeals were completed in a timely manner. It was determined that on average, cases were completed within a one-year timeframe. However, while service standards were established for each policy area, the evaluation was unable to find evidence that the majority of service standards were monitored regularly by each policy area. Service standards were identified within policies and/or guidebooks, and could potentially provide a good indication of whether cases are on track to be completed in a timely manner at each phase of the process.

Although ACMT was designed to be the national electronic case management system, the policy area personnel were unable to utilize ACMT as their sole case management system, resulting in manual tracking and verification in spreadsheets. This caused excessive demand on resources. Despite the limitations, data that was collected was used to inform decision-making. Documents suggest that data collected by the policy areas was used to create several internal reports and presentations that informed decision-making and modified PRS processes. However, as data was limited and not always exportable from ACMT, the majority of the information used for decision-making came from a manual search of each electronic file.

Finally, the evaluation was unable to determine if the funding for the ongoing administration of the LRI was considered sufficient over the time period under review due to lack of performance information. While the majority of cases were completed within one year, completion times of phases in each process required closer examination once this data is tracked.

Based on the findings of the evaluation, it is recommended that the PRO:

  1. Review and improve the approach to the tracking, collection and reporting of data and performance information to support decision-making, including addressing data input and system limitations.
  2. Review processing challenges in each policy area and implement measures to enhance the timeliness of processing files.
  3. Assess resource requirements for the ongoing administration of the conduct, harassment, and grievances and appeals process.

7.0 Management response and action plan

7.1 Management response

The Directors General in PRS have reviewed the evaluation and acknowledge the eight findings and three recommendations proposed by National Program Evaluation Services. PRS management commits to addressing the three recommendations while recognizing that the timeliness of processing conduct and harassment files is currently directly proportional to the divisional resources assigned to investigation, analysis and report preparation.

7.2 Action plan for NHQ – PRS

Recommendation Planned action Diary date

Recommendation #1

Review and improve the approach to the tracking, collection and reporting of data and performance information to support decision-making, including addressing data input and system limitations.

PRS finalized a formal service agreement with the CIO Sector in 2018 for the provision of ongoing dedicated programmer support to improve usability and address ACMT capability gaps. PRS is tracking referrals, programming responses and service costs to assess ACMT progress and inform viability of the ACMT reporting application (ACMTR).

completed

RSB and RARB will continue to refine data and performance information collection and reporting to ensure that more timely and accurate statistical records are available to better inform decision-making.

December 2019

Recommendation #2

Review processing challenges in each policy area and implement measures to enhance the timeliness of processing files.

WRB will refresh as necessary the QA policy and procedure compliance templates for harassment and conduct. An analysis of the 2019 QA results will be undertaken in 2020 with a view to identifying and implementing responses that may improve compliance and process timeliness.

June 2020

RSB and RARB will assess existing performance standards and measures, scrutinize each process phase of a conduct board, grievance or appeal from intake to final decision, identify reoccurring delays, and implement responses that may improve process timeliness.

June 2020

Recommendation #3

Assess resource requirements for the ongoing administration of the conduct, harassment, and grievances and appeals process.

PRS completed an assessment of resource requirements for the ongoing administration of all functions in the context of the 2018 RCMP Departmental Performance Review. The proposed resource requirements included in the submission reflect both program integrity and modernization components.

completed

End notes

Date modified: