Common menu bar links
ARCHIVED - Audit of the Staffing Management Accountability Framework
This page has been archived.
Archived Content
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.
Internal Audit Report
May 2008
Table of Contents
- Executive Summary
- Introduction
- Findings, Recommendations and Management Action Plans
- Appendix A - Mandatory Measures of the Staffing Management Accountability Framework (SMAF)
- Appendix B - Lines of Enquiry and Audit Criteria
- Appendix C - Acronyms
Executive Summary
Background
The Audit Committee approved the Audit of Human Resources (HR) Planning on June 21, 2006, as part of the Canada Border Services Agency's (CBSA) Risk-Based Multi-Year Audit Plan. This, in part, addresses the People Management component of the Management Accountability Framework (MAF). During the planning phase of the audit, it was determined that HR planning was in the early stages of development at the Agency and a review of the CBSA's accountability framework under the Staffing Management Accountability Framework (SMAF) would be beneficial for the Agency.
In November 2003, the Government of Canada enacted the Public Service Modernization Act (PSMA) to promote an integrated approach to HR management that would allow both flexibility and accountability in HR practices in federal organizations. Subsequently, the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), a component of the PSMA, was introduced on December 31, 2005, to ensure that HR planning, including broader staffing processes, was aligned with overall business plans and priorities of federal organizations.
To ensure that staffing is planned and conducted properly, the SMAF was put in place by the Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC). The SMAF identifies the indicators and measures issued by the PSC that all delegated organizations, including the CBSA, are required to demonstrate when carrying out their staffing authorities. The SMAF is broken down into five elements — governance, planning, policy, communication and control — and each of these elements has associated mandatory measures. There are 32 measures in total, of which nine were required to be in place by December 31, 2005, when the PSEA came into force. Non-compliance could result in additional conditions or limitations being imposed on departments/agencies. Alternatively, partial or complete withdrawal of delegated authorities pertaining to staffing may also be undertaken by the PSC. The remainder of the mandatory measures did not have a required implementation date at the time of the audit.
Objective and Scope
The objective of the audit was to provide assurance to senior management that the Agency is taking the necessary steps to ensure compliance with the PSEA. The audit consisted of a high-level assessment of the status of the SMAF implementation at the CBSA as of November 2007.
The scope of the audit included an assessment of all five elements of the SMAF that have been put in place to address the PSC's mandatory requirements under the PSEA. To acquire a perspective on the progress made, the audit assessed the status of two regional offices and two branches at Headquarters. The audit scope did not include a review of any staffing files or specific appointments.Audit Opinion
The Agency has made progress toward addressing the five elements of the SMAF; however, the CBSA has not implemented all the necessary steps to comply with the mandatory "control element" of the SMAF.
Key Audit Findings
The CBSA has implemented a governance infrastructure that supports the management of staffing actions and it has established policies that support the new PSEA. A communications strategy was developed to ensure that staff has access to timely staffing information, strategies and decisions. However, interviews at certain branches and regional offices indicated the insufficient number of HR specialists has affected the provision of timely HR services. The President of the CBSA has approved a PE (Personnel Administration) development and apprenticeship program. In terms of planning, integrated HR plans are still under development at certain CBSA branches and regions. Furthermore, staffing management practices, controls and results are not actively monitored.
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
In November 2003, the Government of Canada enacted the Public Service Modernization Act (PSMA). The legislation provides a broad framework for human resources (HR) modernization across the federal government. It encompasses several other pieces of legislation that have been revised or created to modernize staffing, foster collaborative labour relations, clarify managerial roles, strengthen accountability and provide employees at all levels with access to continual learning opportunities.
The Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), a component of the PSMA, came into force on December 31, 2005. With the implementation of the PSEA, federal organizations are obligated to focus on HR planning, which ensures that their staffing and staffing processes are aligned with their business plans and priorities. In addition, organizations are required to confirm that their integrated HR and business planning is the basis for appointment decisions. The PSEA gives deputy heads delegated authority for all staffing activity in their organization except for priority entitlements.[ 1 ] Departments and agencies are expected to respect both the core values of merit and non-partisanship, as well as the guiding staffing values of access, transparency, fairness and representativeness. The Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC) only delegates those authorities that do not compromise its independence as an agency accountable to Parliament (section 15 of the PSEA).
To ensure that staffing is being conducted correctly, the Staffing Management Accountability Framework (SMAF) describes the PSC's expectations for deputy heads. It identifies the indicators that the PSC will assess to determine whether a federal organization is carrying out its staffing authorities correctly. Deputy heads are required to demonstrate that they meet the mandatory indicators set out by the SMAF, which are applicable to all delegated organizations including the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). The PSC requires the CBSA to implement its own SMAF in line with the requirements of the PSEA.
The SMAF sets out key areas for a well-managed appointment system by making the staffing process more flexible and efficient. The SMAF strenghtens accountability by clarifying roles and responsibilities of the PSC, deputy heads and staffing sub-delegates, and states clear reporting requirements that allow for HR planning and managing and for mitigating risk. The SMAF is broken down into five elements — governance, planning, policy, communication and control — and each of these elements has associated mandatory measures. There are 32 measures in total, of which nine were required to be in place by December 31, 2005 (refer to Appendix A for details). This date coincides with the implementation of the PSEA and when staffing delegation was assumed by the CBSA. The PSC expects the remaining measures to be implemented over time and it has set no specific timelines or deadlines at this time.
The SMAF requires deputy heads to review how they manage their staffing systems and to make adjustments, as required. In addition, they are required to establish their monitoring and reporting strategies. The SMAF may also be used by both the PSC and the Agency as a guide in developing criteria for conducting staffing audits.
The CBSA is required to report annually to the PSC on the progress of the SMAF by means of the Departmental Staffing Accountability Report (DSAR). In response to the 2006–2007 DSAR, the PSC stated that the CBSA must implement an approach to compare actual staffing actions against the HR plan, collect and maintain its own staffing data rather than sharing a system with the service provider, and put in place specific strategies for monitoring staffing.
In the last five years, no prior audits have been conducted by the Agency or its legacy department on the SMAF or on other related HR activities. At the time of this audit, the PSC was conducting a staffing audit of the Executive (EX) appointment process at the CBSA, and the results have yet to be reported.
1.2 Risk Assessment
A preliminary risk assessment of the SMAF at the CBSA was carried out during the planning of the audit to identify the possible areas and levels of risks. The key areas identified during the risk-assessment process were the following:
- whether a structure was in place for sub-delegated managers and HR specialists to exercise their responsibilities and accountabilities for HR planning and staffing;
- whether the CBSA had an HR plan that was integrated with the business plan to enable the Agency to identify its current and future resource needs; and
- whether complete and accurate information and data was used for HR planning and staffing strategies.
Other risk areas included the staffing monitoring framework based on the SMAF, policy development and the review processes to address issues in the appointment process.
1.3 Audit Objective and Scope
The objective of the audit was to provide assurance to senior management that the Agency is taking the necessary steps to ensure compliance with the PSEA. The audit consisted of a high-level assessment of the status of the SMAF implementation at the CBSA as of November 2007.
The scope of the audit included an assessment of all five elements of the SMAF that have been put in place to address the PSC's mandatory requirements under the PSEA. To acquire a perspective on the progress made, the audit assessed the status of two regional offices and two branches at Headquarters. The audit scope did not include a review of any staffing files or specific appointments.
1.4 Audit Approach and Methodology
This audit engagement was conducted in accordance with the Internal Auditing Standards for the Government of Canada.
The planning phase consisted of initial interviews and consultations with the auditee and central agency officers, and the review of information, documents and reports. This phase resulted in the development of an audit program and associated tools to complete this audit.
The examination phase included interviews and visits with key stakeholders at two regional offices — Atlantic and Windsor–St. Clair — and at two branches at Headquarters — Human Resources and Enforcement. This phase also included analyses of documents and reports provided to assess mandatory measures related to the SMAF (refer to Appendix A).
The goal was to ascertain the stage of progress made at the CBSA since December 31, 2005, on the key mandatory measures required by the PSC for the implementation of the SMAF.
The examination phase specifically addressed whether the CBSA has undertaken the following:
- implemented an infrastructure that would support the management of staffing and the delivery of results for the Agency;
- established a process that identifies its current and future staffing needs;
- established policies that support the PSEA;
- put a communications strategy in place that ensures transparency, clarity and ready access to staffing information for all its staff; and
- substantiated that staffing management practices, controls and results are actively monitored, and whether the staffing is done internally or by an external service provider.
The lines of enquiry and audit criteria are provided in Appendix B. The audit assessed all nine mandatory measures and the progress made on seven other measures.
2. Findings, Recommendations and Management Action Plans
The Agency has implemented a governance infrastructure that supports the management of staffing actions and it has established policies that support the new PSEA. A communications strategy was developed to ensure that staff has access to timely staffing information, strategies and decisions. However, interviews at certain branches and regional offices indicated that the insufficient number of HR specialists has affected the provision of timely HR services. In terms of planning, integrated HR plans are still under development at certain CBSA branches and regions. Furthermore, staffing management practices, controls and results are not actively monitored.
The results of the audit are summarized below using a four-stage progress scale in order to provide management with an objective status assessment of the five key elements.
| Stage of development | Fully implemented [ 2 ] | Fundamentals in place [ 3 ] | In process [ 4 ] | Start-up phase [ 5 ] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Communication |
X |
|
|
|
Governance |
|
X |
|
|
Policy |
|
X |
|
|
Planning |
|
|
X |
|
Control |
|
|
|
X |
2.1 Governance
Indicators of good governance under the SMAF require that the roles and responsibilities in staffing are clearly defined and communicated through a sub-delegation structure throughout the organization, and that the organization is adequately resourced to deliver on its staffing priorities. Furthermore, organizations are required to implement practices that ensure continual learning in staffing and to have a structure in place that facilitates collaboration with stakeholders, including bargaining agents. This is a mandatory element of the SMAF.
The audit noted that the Agency has implemented a governance framework that is conducive to the effective management of staffing. Delegated managers have received the staffing sub-delegation and the roles and responsibilities are communicated through training to sub-delegated managers before they receive their sub-delegation privileges. The values-based training is also a prerequisite for staffing sub-delegation. The written staffing sub-delegation is found in the Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument (ADAI), which further illustrates specific roles and responsibilities of sub-delegates. The ADAI and associated information, including the sub-delegation structure is available to staff and stakeholders on the CBSA's intranet for information and consultation, as needed.
The audit found that staffing sub-delegates have access to HR specialists who have passed the Appointment Framework Knowledge Test (AFKT) [ 6 ] and whose expertise has been validated by the PSC. However, interviews indicated that access to HR specialists is not sufficient and affected the provision of timely HR services. Capacity and turnover issues relating to staffing experts continue to remain a challenge for the Agency. This is caused by the significant demand for HR specialists and the tight labour market in this specialized field. Furthermore, the ratio of HR specialists to the number of sub-delegates has not been set or standardized by the CBSA. In addition, the CBSA has recently implemented, with the approval of the CBSA President, a PE (Personnel Administration) development and apprenticeship program.
The audit confirmed that governance mechanisms at the senior management level are in place, including a National Labour-Management Consultation Committee chaired by the President of the CBSA that includes the participation of CBSA senior management and various union representatives. This mechanism serves as a forum for consultation between the Agency and bargaining agent representatives, where information is exchanged and views and advice on national workplace issues is obtained. These meetings allow union representatives to be informed and involved in the process by having an opportunity to voice their comments or concerns on issues such as staffing actions when appropriate. The minutes of the meetings are also available on-line to stakeholders. Similarly, regional committee meetings take place and staffing issues are discussed with appropriate regional stakeholder representatives.
Recommendation:
1. The Human Resources Branch should address the capacity and high turnover issues of HR specialists within the Agency by developing, implementing and reporting on recruitment and retention program for HR specialists.
| Management Action Plan | Completion Date |
|---|---|
| The PE development and apprenticeship program will be fully implemented. | June 2008 |
| Develop questionnaires and conduct exit interviews with departing PEs. | June 2008 |
| Develop action plan based on results of exit interviews. | September 2008 |
| Develop service standards for HR services. | September 2008 |
| Regularize staffing (secondments, acting appointments) for PEs. | December 2008 |
| Make better use of student employment and bridging. | Ongoing |
2.2 Planning
The planning element of the SMAF is in process and is not a mandatory element at the time of the audit. The Agency has given clear direction and has set priorities that enable values-based staffing. Individual HR plans that are integrated with business plans and staffing reports were done in some branches and regions.
While the planning element is not required to be in place by December 31, 2005, the audit provided a status on the element given its importance as a priority for the public service. The 2007–2008 Public Service Renewal Action Plan developed by the Deputy Minister Committee on Public Service Renewal specifically highlighted HR planning as a priority item for the 2007–2008 fiscal year.
The planning element of the SMAF covers aspects such as having a clear direction and priorities as determined by senior management and identifying current and future HR staffing needs of the organization. The identified needs must be consistent with HR planning and business needs of the Agency.
Senior management has provided clear direction and has set priorities that enable values-based staffing through a corporate integrated HR plan developed for the period 2006–2008. However, the degree to which regions and branches have completed their HR plans and integrated them to business needs varied across the Agency. A review of HR plans submitted to the Human Resources Branch noted that five regions and three branches have approved HR plans that were aligned with their business priorities as derived from an environmental scanning process (conducted as part of the business and HR planning process) or as discussed in an HR planning workshop by the corporate HR planning team. Interviews confirmed that branches and regions without HR plans are either in the process of completing one or scheduled for an HR planning workshop.
Of the sites visited for the audit, the Atlantic and Windsor–St. Clair regions and the Human Resources Branch had HR plans linked to business priorities. Without a formalized HR plan, appointment decisions may be made without full consideration of the overall strategic HR needs of the organization and may not fully address identified HR gaps. The lack of formal HR plans also may make it more difficult to ensure staffing decisions respect public service appointment values (merit, representativeness, non-partisanship, access, fairness and transparency).
Furthermore, the audit noted that not all branches and regions have consolidated staffing strategies or have analyzed variances between HR staffing strategies and staffing actions. There is a risk that positions may not be staffed in a timely manner or not linked to the Agency's overall HR requirements, whereas in other cases, positions may be staffed due to incomplete information. In addition, measures to address and take corrective actions on staffing gaps may not be undertaken in a timely manner. As a result, the lack of detailed staffing forecasts and related staffing strategies/plans could lead to delays in filling vacancies, which in turn could affect the organization's ability to achieve its business goals.
Recommendations:
2. The Human Resources Branch should provide the necessary tools and training to all regions and branches to help in the development of integrated HR plans and establish a timetable to complete initial branch HR plans.
| Management Action Plan | Completion Date |
|---|---|
| Continue to update current tools and develop new ones and continue to train managers and HR consultants. | December 2008 and ongoing |
| New mandatory, rigorous HR planning process will be implemented. | December 2008 |
3. The Human Resources Branch should regularly analyze staffing variances and report explanations between planned staffing strategies to actual staffing actions.
| Management Action Plan | Completion Date |
|---|---|
| Comparisons will be made from previous year plans to actions. | March 2009 |
| An integrated approach to HR planning linked to operational needs and financial requirements will continue to be developed and implemented. | August 2008 |
2.3 Communication
The communication element of the SMAF is fully implemented. All CBSA stakeholders are appropriately informed on the changes to the appointment processes, strategies and decisions.
The SMAF measures on communication stipulate that the Agency ensure that staffing information, including staffing strategies and decisions, are available to all staff in a timely manner. This is a mandatory element of the SMAF.
The Agency uses various types of communications mechanisms to keep sub-delegated managers, employees and bargaining agent representatives informed about the nature of the changes to the appointment process and the impact for the CBSA. For example, the President of the CBSA provided information on HR modernization at the Agency on January 17, 2005, and on the new PSEA on December 30, 2005. A fairly detailed internal appointment process was also communicated to all staff via the CBSA's intranet. The audit noted that the information is appropriate and available in a timely manner.
Staff was informed in June 2006 on the Human Resources Branch's Strategic Business Plan that outlined the priorities and plans for the Agency. Furthermore, the Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP) for 2006–2007 and for 2007–2008 also illustrate the Agency's HR vision, which is available to all employees.
In addition, staffing policies and public service staffing advertisements and notifications are accessible to employees from the Government of Canada Web site as well as from the CBSA's Web site. Decisions rendered by the Public Service Staffing Tribunal dealing with complaints related to internal appointments, layoffs, revocation of internal appointments and appointments made or proposed as a result of the implementation of corrective action are available on the CBSA's intranet.
CBSA employees can access to the Human Resources Branch's intranet section where they can find the most frequently asked questions and answers about the new appointment process. In addition, training sessions were provided to HR staff and sub-delegated managers to review in detail the changes to the appointment process and the impacts of the PSEA for the Agency.
2.4 Policy
Fundamentally, the policy element of the SMAF has been implemented. The CBSA has established policies that support the new PSEA.
The policy element of the SMAF covers aspects such as the implementation and maintenance of policies for the appointment process as well as appointment decisions, while respecting the PSEA and the PSC's policy and delegation requirements. This is a mandatory element of the SMAF.
The audit found that the Agency has implemented the required staffing policies under the PSC. These policies include the following: Appointment Process, Area of Selection, Corrective Action and Revocation, Advertising in the Appointment Process, Assessment, Choice of Appointment Process, Acting Appointments, Deployment non-EX, Informal Discussion, Notification, Selection and Appointment, and Internal Appointment Process.
The audit confirmed that the CBSA policies respected the requirements of PSEA, the Public Service Employment Regulations, the Employment Equity Act and the Official Languages Policy Framework. All the aforementioned Agency staffing policies are also available as reference to employees on the CBSA's intranet.
As well, the audit noted that the staffing polices were being reviewed regularly and that changes to existing policies were being drafted, based on consultations that were undertaken. Updated policies replaced the existing policies suite and were available on the CBSA's intranet.
Staffing files were not reviewed as part of the scope of the audit. Therefore, a fully implemented rating cannot be provided as the audit did not confirm whether appointment processes and decisions were in compliance with the statutory, organizational and PSC policy requirements. Interviews with HR management indicated that a checklist is being used by HR specialists to "self-monitor" to ensure completeness of the process and the required documentation on the staffing files. The PSC's report on the Agency's DSAR states that appointment decisions are progressing.2.5 Control
The control element at the CBSA is not in compliance with the requirements of the SMAF, as enunciated under the PSEA. Currently, there is no formal staffing monitoring framework in place or evidence that staffing performance deficiencies are corrected in a timely fashion; however, a draft framework has been developed. High-quality and timely HR information is not available to support staffing strategies and decisions.
The control element of the SMAF examines such aspects as the availability of high-quality and timely HR information to support staffing strategies and decisions, as well as ensuring that the reporting requirements with the PSC are met. In addition, there is a requirement to ensure that staffing monitoring on staffing process is done on an ongoing basis and identified staffing performance deficiencies are corrected in a timely manner. This is a mandatory element of the SMAF.
The Corporate Administrative System (CAS) is used for all of the Agency's HR information and data requirements. The audit determined that CAS does not have the capability of providing complete or reliable HR information required to support staffing strategies and to make informed decisions. While CAS can provide high-level statistical information (e.g. number of employees, geographical location), it cannot provide the detailed or sub-set information on specific staffing actions that is required for HR and planning purposes. The difficulty is with the current design and limitations of the present system, whereby essential HR information components are missing that support necessary HR needs of the Agency. Incomplete or unreliable HR information in the CAS cannot support staffing strategies and decisions to sustain operational requirements, or identify current or future needs of the CBSA. Interviews indicated that management cannot be assured that staffing information is accurately maintained and available when required for decision making and therefore they have developed spreadsheets/databases to capture the information. This has increased the risk of incorrect or inconsistent data due to manual input.
In addition, a monitoring framework is required under the PSEA. At the time of the audit, the Human Resources Branch had drafted a resource monitoring framework to meet the Agency's staffing needs. Interviews with HR staff indicated that a checklist is being used by HR specialists to "self-monitor" to ensure completeness of the process and the required documentation on the staffing files. The Agency has also implemented certain controls for staffing actions such as HR specialist recommendations and a required vice-president sign-off for non-advertised staffing processes. However, there was no evidence of any formalized monitoring taking place to prevent staffing process deficiencies and to ensure that deficiencies are corrected in a timely fashion.
The CBSA completed the DSAR for the 2006–2007 fiscal year, thereby complying with the reporting requirements under this SMAF element. The assessment of the DSAR by the PSC stated that the CBSA's professional development program for the Personnel Administration (PE) classification is a noteworthy practice, and it applauded the Agency's "resourcing strategy toolkit," a tool to identify current and future HR needs. The PSC also stated that the Agency must implement an approach to compare actual staffing actions against the HR plan, collect and maintain its own staffing data rather than sharing a system with the Canada Revenue Agency, and put in place specific strategies for monitoring staffing. The Agency is now preparing for the 2007–2008 DSAR, which is due on March 31, and will address last year's deficiencies identified in the DSAR and identify the progress that has been made by the Agency.
Recommendations:
4. The Human Resources Branch, in collaboration with the Innovation, Science and Technology Branch, should identify and define staffing information needs and continue working toward a system solution that will meet the Agency's HR data requirements.
| Management Action Plan | Completion Date |
|---|---|
Continue to work with the CAS sustainability project to identify business requirements, processes and controls in order to move toward a system solution that will enable the Agency to properly track the HR data. |
June 2008 |
5. The Human Resources Branch should establish a continual and timely process to validate and correct HR information at the Agency.
| Management Action Plan | Completion Date |
|---|---|
Working group established to work toward finding solutions to the data integrity issue. |
December 2008 |
| Process mapping are currently being developed in all areas of HR in order to identify gaps, correct them and create efficiencies. | December 2008 |
| Training linked to the business will be developed to assist end users and at the same time address the data integrity issue. | June 2009 |
6. The Human Resources Branch should implement the resource monitoring framework to monitor staffing actions.
| Management Action Plan | Completion Date |
|---|---|
A monitoring framework has been developed and will be implemented. |
June 2008 |
| A monitoring plan has been developed and will be implemented. | June 2008 |
| Monitoring of activities to begin shortly. | June 2008 |
Appendix A - Mandatory Measures of the Staffing Management Accountability Framework (SMAF)
| SMAF Element | Indicator | Mandatory Measure | Included in the scope of the audit | Pre-PSEA Measure [ 7 ] | Post-PSEA Measure [ 8 ] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GOV-1 | Roles and responsibilities in staffing are clearly defined through a sub-delegation structure or pattern communicated throughout the organization. | 1. Written sub-delegation instrument which defines sub-delegated roles and responsibilities is accessible to sub-delegated managers. | Yes | X | |
| 2. Mechanisms used to inform stakeholders of sub-delegated authorities (e.g. HR advisors, employee representatives, non-delegated managers, etc.). | Yes | X | |||
| 3. Rationale for level of sub-delegation. | Yes | X | |||
| 4. Written organizational SMAF including indicators and measures is in place. | No | X | |||
| GOV-2 | The organization is resourced to deliver on its staffing priorities. | 5. Sub-delegated managers have access to human resources (HR) specialist whose expertise has been validated by PSC. | Yes | X | |
| GOV-3 | The organization has implemented practices that ensure continual learning in staffing. | 6. Sub-delegated managers receive values-based training for the new staffing regime. | Yes | X | |
| GOV-4 | A structure and/or mechanisms are in place to facilitate decision-making by senior management on staffing issues, and enable the collaboration of all stakeholders, including bargaining agents. | 7. Senior committee infrastructure exists to support HR decision-making. | Yes | X | |
| 8. Organization uses mechanisms for ongoing consultation with stakeholders (e.g. employees and their representatives, managers). | Yes | X | |||
| PLN-1 | Senior management gives clear direction and sets priorities that enable values-based staffing. | 9. Documentation of organizational strategic objectives and priorities for staffing that includes employment equity objectives. | No | X | |
| 10. Strategic objectives for staffing consider the values of transparency, fairness and access in staffing. | No | X | |||
| PLN-2 | HR planning, integrated with business planning, enables the organization to identify its current and future HR needs. | 11. HR planning process based on current and future business needs is in place. | Yes | X | |
| 12. Staffing strategies/initiatives based on current and future business needs are in place. | No | X | |||
| 13. Employment equity (EE) action plans are integrated with staffing strategies. | No | X | |||
| PLN-3 | Staffing is consistent with HR planning; while variances can be explained. | 14. Extent to which actual staffing actions correspond to planned staffing strategies. | No | X | |
| 15. Documented rationale that explains variances with the plan. | No | X | |||
| POL-1 | Departments have implemented and maintain policies that help the delegated organization address significant issues in its appointment processes. | 16. A policy development and review process in place to address significant issues in their appointment processes. | Yes | X | |
| POL-2 | Departmental policies respect the new PSEA, the PSC's policy and delegation requirements, the core appointment values, and other statutes. | 17. Organization has established mandatory policies/criteria:
|
Yes | X | |
| 18. The PSC is satisfied, based on its review, that organizational policies respect statutory and other requirements. | No | X | |||
| POL-3 | Appointment processes and decisions respect statutory as well as departmental and PSC policy requirements. | 19. Organizations are expected to be able to demonstrate, whether through audit or future PSC reporting requirements (e.g. possible future measures), that they are respecting all aspects of the PSC Appointment Policy. | No | X | X |
| 20. Through central information systems, the PSC will monitor organizations' results to ascertain their ongoing compliance with the requirements of the PSC Appointment Policy. At this time, the PSC is interested in the following: | |||||
|
No | X | |||
|
No | X | |||
| COM-1 | Stakeholders have access to timely staffing information, including information about staffing strategies and decisions. | 21. Organization informs managers, employees and employee representatives of organization's strategic staffing objectives. | Yes | X | |
| 22. Organization communicates organizational appointment policy to managers, employees and employee representatives. | No | X | |||
| 23. Employees have easy and timely access to information on employment opportunities and recourse avenues. | No | X | |||
| CTL-1 | Quality and timely HR information is available to support staffing strategies and decisions. | 24. Staffing information is available within the organization for strategic planning purposes. | Yes | X | |
| 25. Staffing information is available within the organization to address key risk areas and to meet reporting requirements. | No | X | |||
| 26. Appointment decisions are fully documented and accessible in accordance with the Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument and the PSC Appointment Policy. | No | X | |||
| 27. Organizational practices ensure reliability of the information in the HR system. | No | X | |||
| CTL-2 | Staffing monitoring is done on an ongoing basis. | 28. Organization monitors, at a minimum, its
|
Yes | X | |
| Other current SMAF monitoring requirements: | |||||
|
X | ||||
|
X | ||||
|
X | ||||
| 29. Organizational monitoring processes or practices are in place to identify staffing trends, results and performance issues, to determine whether their organization meets the PSC's policy requirements and the expectations of the SMAF, and to systematically identify, manage and mitigate appointment risks. | No | X | |||
CTL-3 |
Identified staffing performance deficiencies are corrected in a timely fashion. |
30. Corrective actions are taken in timely fashion to resolve deficiencies or issues identified though active monitoring. | Yes | X | |
CTL-4 |
Delegated organizations comply with the PSC's reporting requirements. |
31. The Departmental Staffing Accountability Report allows the PSC to assess the organization's performance against the SMAF measures | Yes | X | |
| 32. Signed attestation by deputy head regarding reliability of the information in the report and non-partisanship in staffing. | Yes | X |
Appendix B - Lines of Enquiry and Audit Criteria
The mandatory measures of the Staffing Management Accountability Framework (SMAF), derived from the Public Service Commission of Canada's (PSC) requirements, were used to develop the following lines of enquiry and audit criteria for the audit of the SMAF.
| Lines of Enquiry | Audit Criteria |
|---|---|
Governance |
|
Planning |
|
Policy |
|
Communication |
|
Control |
|
Appendix C -Acronyms
- ADAI
- Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument
- CAS
- Corporate Administrative System
- CBSA
- Canada Border Services Agency
- DSAR
- Departmental Staffing Accountability Report
- EX
- Executive (classification standard)
- HR
- human resources
- MAF
- Management Accountability Framework
- PE
- Personnel Administration (classification standard)
- PSC
- Public Service Commission of Canada
- PSEA
- Public Service Employment Act
- PSEP
- Public Service and Emergency Preparedness (now Public Safety Canada)
- PSHRMAC
- Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada (now called Canada Public Service Agency)
- PSMA
- Public Service Modernization Act
- RPP
- Report on Plans and Priorities
- SMAF
- Staffing Management Accountability Framework
Notes
- A priority entitlement is the right to be to appointed before others and by a non-advertised appointment process. There are four types of statutory priorities under the PSEA and they are ranked in the following order: surplus, leave of absence, ministers' staff and layoff. There are also regulatory priorities under the Public Service Employment Regulations (PSER) and they are ranked in no particular order: surplus, reinstatement, spousal relocation, employees who become disabled, staff from the Office of the Secreatary to the Governor General and leave from the Canadian Forces or the RCMP for medical reasons. The statutory priorities rank higher than the regulatory priorities. [Return to text]
- Fully implemented: all criteria have substantially been met; the SMAF element is fully implemented. [Return to text]
- Fundamentals in place: most significant criteria have been met but some improvements are required. [Return to text]
- In process: many criteria have not been met but progress is being made; actively and demonstrably moving toward implementation of the SMAF element. [Return to text]
- Start-up phase: most criteria have not been met; starting to implement the SMAF element. [Return to text]
- The AFKT assesses HR specialist knowledge of all components of the appointment framework (policy, delegation and accountability) and the legislative framework. [Return to text]
- The mandatory measures that were essential for the coming into force of the new Public Service Employment Act (PSEA) and had to be implemented by December 31, 2005. Note: COM-1 and POL-3 count as one measure. [Return to text]
- The mandatory measures to be implemented under the PSEA beyond December 31, 2005. [Return to text]
