Management Practices Audit of the Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships Sector

Impact of DRAP Measures and Requirements

Although the number of Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) directly affected by DRAP was less than reductions experienced elsewhere in the Department, the Sector was subject to FTE reductions resulting from the Department’s response to DRAP. Certain administrative positions were lost in ESDPP which, among other things, resulted in a consolidation of administrative staff. This consolidation precipitated the introduction of new practices to ensure consistency and streamlining of administrative responsibilities.

Also, in the fall of 2012, DRAP resulted in a new model for Sector Business Support Units. This new model was intended to reduce overlap and duplication while ensuring a more consistent and coherent approach to providing business management services across the Department. As a result, the Sector’s Business Support Unit transitioned to the new Business Management Unit (BMU) model. The BMU is responsible for the financial, human resource planning and reporting, IM/IT, security and accommodations support functions performed within the Sector. Since its introduction, efforts have been taken to delineate and clarify the BMU’s precise roles and responsibilities in a manner that provides efficient support of the Sector’s operational mandate.

Program and Legislative Reform

ESDPP is currently responsible for two of the Department’s priorities in major program reform, Income Assistance (managed by SPPB) and Kindergarten to Grade 12 education (managed by EB). In addition, other reforms within SPPB are already underway in FNCFS and FVP.

Income Assistance Program Reform

This reform will create a major programmatic shift from funding passive assistance to building capacity for Active Measures and linking recipients to training and eventually employment. Doing so will create an enhanced service delivery, strengthened program management, mandatory active measures and strengthened partnerships.

Education Program and Legislative Reform (Kindergarten to Grade 12)

This reform is part of the process to deliver on a major Government/Departmental commitment. The First Nation Education Act requires policy development, consultations, legislative drafting, development of regulation and national implementation. As such, there is a need for ongoing national policy and monitoring capacity as well as re-structured operational capacity and skill-sets.

5.1.1 Integrated Human Resources Planning

To ensure that a Sector optimizes use of its human capital to support the achievement of its goals, it is important that human resource planning be aligned with, and support, the Sector’s strategic and business plans. To help ensure this alignment, there is an expectation for a formal and effectively communicated Human Resources Plan which addresses current and future human capital-related requirements and risks. As such, the HR Plan should include specific analysis and information related to a variety of significant risks including those related to succession planning and the training and development of management and employees.

As indicated in the Background section of this report, ESDPP is addressing the ongoing implications of legislative and program reform in both Income Assistance and Kindergarten to Grade 12 Education areas. Further, there have been implications related to DRAP and employee turnover which have impacted both the HR Planning environment as well as the nature of HR Planning risks faced by the Sector. For example, interviews with management indicated a view that overall workloads have increased at many positions and the need to be flexible in assuming responsibilities was unavoidable. Within this context, the audit revealed a variety of strategies and tactics to promote ongoing alignment of human resources in a manner that best meets program requirements while functioning within specific financial constraints. Among the strategies is the promotion of flexible learning teams that are intended to address workload priorities and maximize access to key skill sets across the Sector. In addition, the audit revealed a strong practice whereby, in an effort to promote employee morale and support staff retention objectives, Senior Management actively considers employee interests when allocating personnel to specific projects and tasks.

While the audit revealed evidence of the Sector’s HR planning activities relative to a variety of HR-related risks, the results of these activities were not consolidated and documented within an approved Sector HR Plan for 2012-13 to 2014-15. It was noted that this Sector HR Plan had not yet been finalized as a result of DRAP-related delays in the Departmental HR planning cycle. In light of delays in the Departmental HR planning cycle and changes in the Sector’s HR risks since the last cycle, Sector Management had developed a series of presentations and plans which provide details on the Sector’s response to various HR-related risks. These documents demonstrate Sector Management’s consideration of current and future resource (human and financial) and competency needs; however, they were not integrated into the draft Sector HR Plan. Notwithstanding input from Sector personnel suggesting certain challenges in leveraging the HR Planning template provided by the Department as a fully integrated plan, the planning documents used by the Sector did not demonstrate a comprehensive assessment of, and response to, succession planning and training and development risks.

Without a clearly documented understanding of, and plan to address, succession and training and development in both the near and longer-term, it is difficult for management to ensure business continuity in the event of departures or spikes in attrition, or to help ensure the competency profile of employees continues to align with the Sector’s business and strategic objectives.

5.2.1 Risk Management Approach

The Sector delivers an important and sensitive mandate in an environment that is both dynamic and complex. In this environment, there is a critical need to demonstrate effective risk management which contributes to good governance and demonstrates accountability. As a complex undertaking, there is an expectation that the Sector has a practical and integrated approach to actively identify and monitor its key risks such that they are assessed in a timely and reliable manner. As appropriate, the Sector must also develop and implement mitigation plans that are both effective and cost-efficient. Having a documented approach to risk management enables management to better identify, articulate and understand the potential risks to achieving the Sector’s objectives and to determine the exposure to these risks given controls and/or mitigation activities.

The approach to risk management is expected to include a variety of important components including: rigorous risk assessment and monitoring practices and tools that link to the Sector’s business and strategic objectives, robust risk communication that is meaningful and timely, clear accountability for risk management, and effective senior-level oversight. The focus of this audit was on risk management at the Sector level; other risk management activities conducted by the Sector (e.g. monitoring risks to program delivery at the Regional level) were not part of the scope of this audit.

The audit identified evidence of both formal and informal risk management activities which were embedded within the Sector’s management practices. These included regular discussions related to risks and risk mitigations at management meetings, development of Branch-level risk profiles, and explicit consideration of risks and mitigations within the Sector Business Plan. Moreover, the Sector had participated in, and contributed to, Departmental risk management exercises which included activities related to risk identification, assessment and mitigation as well as training and information sessions designed to inform management and staff on risk management practices and expectations. Notwithstanding these activities, the audit identified that there was no formal and comprehensive approach to risk management within the Sector. As described in more detail below, this weakness has contributed to a number of gaps relative to the expected business practices in the Sector including the lack of a Sector risk profile, weaknesses in risk communication and a lack of integration between Sector and Departmental risk management practices.

While draft Branch Risk Profiles have been developed, ESDPP does not have a Sector risk profile in place. A Sector risk profile would capture, evaluate and address Sector-level risks, and otherwise bridge the gap between Branch risks and Departmental risks. In the absence of a Sector risk profile, it is very difficult to effectively implement formal and ongoing processes and a governance structure for identifying, assessing and monitoring risks and corresponding mitigation actions for the Sector’s risks. The lack of a Sector risk profile also creates a challenge in linking Sector risks to Departmental risks as documented in the Corporate Risk Profile. Without such a linkage, it is particularly challenging to demonstrate, understand and contextualize how Sector-level risks and risk mitigations contribute to, and align with, Departmental risk management objectives.

Developing a Sector risk profile is an important governance and management oversight practice which should be undertaken. Such a profile should be based on a documented approach that utilizes standardized templates and rating criteria, and be supported by a formal risk assessment, the development of mitigating action plans and a robust monitoring process. The results of the periodic risk assessments can be used by management to inform ongoing budget and resource allocation decisions by focusing resources and attention on areas of higher risk.

The audit also revealed that risk-related communications with management (below the level of Director) were not effective in ensuring awareness of risk developments and risk context at a Sector or Departmental level. Without this engagement, it is difficult for middle management to effectively consider the context of their risk management responsibilities and to otherwise operationalize risk tools and guidance in a meaningful way.

Weaknesses in risk communication have also contributed to a lack of integration between Departmental and Sector risk management activities. Specifically, the audit identified that Departmental risk management activities and outputs were not being effectively considered or otherwise leveraged as the Sector engaged in its operational risk management activities. For example, Departmental risk tools and templates were generally not being applied at the operational level. It is important that risk management approaches and activities within the Sector are linked to Departmental practices to help ensure consistency across the Department and to effectively leverage corporate resources and expertise in support of Sector risk management objectives.

5.3.1 Accountability

It is important that a clear and effective organizational structure with delegated signing authorities, responsibilities and accountabilities is established, documented, up-to-date and widely communicated.

There is a formal and up-to-date Sector Organization Chart. A variety of other documents, communications and business practices were also identified as supporting clarity of authority, responsibility and accountabilities. These included formal delegation instruments (for both HR and financial authorities), job descriptions and an Administration Manual which outlines HR and Finance responsibilities within the Business Management Unit (BMU). Regular meetings, e-mails and the employee performance management process were also found to be effective at supporting the clarity and alignment of authorities and responsibilities. The audit reviewed documentation from a sample of DG/Director meetings and identified that responsibilities and accountabilities were routinely discussed. Finally, it was noted that the Sector had taken specific steps to address new and shifting accountabilities as a result of DRAP measures. These included the clear establishment and communication of the roles and responsibilities of the new BMU and the introduction of processes to confirm, standardize and streamline administrative functions across the Sector.

5.4.1 Management and Oversight Bodies

In order to ensure that appropriate governance arrangements are in place, the Sector should have effective management and oversight bodies that meet regularly and have clearly defined, communicated and understood authorities, responsibilities and accountabilities. The focus of this audit was on the identification of the key management and oversight bodies within the Sector and the way in which they interact and communicate as a determination of their effectiveness.

The audit identified that the Sector leverages a variety of regularly scheduled meetings involving defined groups of managers up to and including the ADM. While not set up as formal committees or teams, these groups were found to engage in activities related to management and/or oversight responsibilities. These meetings occur with regularity and at frequencies which reflect an appropriate level of focus on issues and decisions facing the Sector.

Through a review of relevant documentation and interviews with management, the audit revealed that the management groups formed within the Sector do not have formal mandates or Terms of Reference. Consequently, the roles, responsibilities, authorities and purpose of the management groups were not clearly defined. Further, agendas, minutes and/or records of decision were generally not, or inconsistently, maintained.

While there are a number of formal Departmental bodies, including the Strategic Policy and Operations Committees, which support decision making at the Program level with the Sector, in the absence of a formally documented governance structure within the Sector, whereby the roles and responsibilities of relevant decision-making bodies at the working level are clearly defined, it is not evident that appropriate management and oversight bodies were established and functioning effectively.

5.5.1 Internal Communications

Open and effective channels for internal communications and feedback are important in ensuring that decisions are effectively implemented and that accurate, open and honest feedback is received. It is also important that internal communications and feedback mechanisms provide timely and relevant information to management and staff.

Based on discussions with management and staff, the audit noted that a variety of internal communications venues and channels exist in order to foster open and effective communication and feedback across the organization. The audit also noted that internal communication channels are adequate in ensuring that timely and relevant information is communicated across the organization (e.g. upwards, downwards, and horizontally). The audit observations indicated that considerable improvement has occurred in Management Practices around Internal Communications over the last six to twelve months (i.e. since the Control Self-Assessment indicated internal communication as an area of higher risk). There were a number of developments and new practices introduced over this period which appear to have contributed to this improvement. These include the introduction of all-staff meetings, and the consolidation of all Sector personnel into a single office location. Internal communication would be further improved through the implementation of actions in response to recommendation #3.