Audit of Values and Ethics

Vetted report
November 2019

Table of contents

1. Acronyms and abbreviations
2. Executive summary
3. Management's response to the audit
4. 1. Background
5. 2. Objective, scope and methodology
   • 2.1 Objective
   • 2.2 Scope
   • 2.3 Methodology
   • 2.4 Statement of conformance
6. 3. Audit findings
   • 3.1 Governance
   • 3.2 Training framework
   • 3.3 Reporting and monitoring
7. 4. Conclusion
8. 5. Recommendations
9. Appendix A – Audit objective and criteria
10. Appendix B – Detailed management action plans

Acronyms and abbreviations

A&P

Administration and Personnel

*

*

AM

Administration Manual

CM

Civilian Member

COI

Conflict of interest

CTP

Cadet Training Program

DMHR

Delegated Manager for Human Resources

E/ODP

Executive Officer Development Program

EMRO

Employee Management Relations Officer

FY

Fiscal Year

HR

Human Resources

HRMIS

Human Resources Management Information System

HRO

Human Resources Officer

MDP

Manager Development Program

NEIS

National Early Intervention System

PEO

Professional Ethics Office

PESP

Professional Ethics Strategic Plan

PRO

Professional Responsibility Officer

PRS

Professional Responsibility Sector

PRU

Professional Responsibility Unit

PSDPA

Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act

PSE

Public Service Employee

PSHR

Public Service Human Resources

RBAEP

Risk-Based Audit and Evaluation Plan

RM

Regular Member

SDP

Supervisor Development Program

SEC

Senior Executive Committee

SMT

Senior Management Team

TPSE

Training Program Support and Evaluation

V&E

Values and Ethics

VECPS

Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector

Executive summary

Guided by its core values of integrity, honesty, professionalism, compassion, respect, and accountability, the RCMP is expected to uphold the highest ethical standards, and to conserve and enhance public confidence.

The RCMP Values and Ethics (V&E) program is a group of related inputs and activities with multiple areas responsible for carrying out its different elements. Under the Professional Responsibility Officer's leadership and situated within the RCMP's Professional Responsibility Sector, the Professional Ethics Office has a lead role in the following key elements of the V&E program: leadership commitment; RCMP core values; Professional Ethics Strategic Plan; alignment of ethical leadership, governance and culture; performance measurement framework; and Professional Ethics Officers.

The objective of the engagement was to determine whether a management control framework for the RCMP V&E program is in place and working as intended.

The audit concludes that overall, a governance structure is in place for the V&E program. This governance structure is supported by a leadership commitment towards V&E and the entrenchment of the RCMP's core values in the RCMP's activities.

Although a training framework for V&E exists, it does not include training for all employees in the RCMP. Mechanisms are not currently in place to measure the effectiveness of V&E training on behavioural outcomes. Accordingly, assessment of the V&E curriculum in the RCMP's Cadet Training Program and development programs should also include the effectiveness of the ethical decision-making model on behavioural outcomes.

While mechanisms exist to report ethical issues, potential conflicts of interest and wrongdoings, monitoring of the V&E program and its related components needs to be strengthened. This will help ensure a cohesive, Force-wide approach to advance the V&E program.

The management response and action plan developed in response to this report demonstrate the commitment from senior management to address the audit findings and recommendations. RCMP Internal Audit will monitor its implementation and undertake a follow-up audit if warranted.

Management's response to the audit

Professional Responsibility Sector

The Professional Responsibility Sector (PRS) agrees with the findings and recommendations of the Audit of Values and Ethics report. The audit highlighted opportunities for improvement within the Values and Ethics (V&E) program, many of which the Professional Ethics Office (PEO) has already begun to address. The audit identifies areas where the PEO can work closer with stakeholders within the RCMP to build and reinforce V&E throughout an employee's career.

V&E training is part of a larger RCMP focus in support of Vision 150, including the commitment to strengthen ethics in RCMP workplaces. The Foundations of Leadership training, which was recently announced, will have a unit on ethics and will be available to all categories of employee through the online training tool AGORA. The PRS will continue to search out other opportunities to support and monitor V&E training and awareness.

While not undertaken in the time period examined in the audit, the PRS had begun to better monitor the timeliness of PSDPA investigations. Moreover, the Treasury Board has expanded the information that departments are required to report annually. Beginning in the 2019-20 fiscal year, the PRS now tracks this metric in a monthly statistical report and dashboard.

In 2018-19, while the audit was being conducted, the PEO implemented new processes to monitor and track Conflict of Interest reporting for all categories of employees, while respecting the delegated authority of divisional Designated Managers of Human Resources. The analysis from the submitted secondary employment forms will provide increased scrutiny of high-risk activities, and will also inform the Professional Responsibility Officer on areas within the Conflict of Interest Directive that need review and updating.

The PRS will develop and implement a detailed management action plan to address the audit recommendations. The plan will include revised policy, governance, tools, training, and guidance, and will be completed for autumn 2019.

Steven Dunn, Chief Superintendent
Acting Professional Responsibility Officer

Human Resources

Human Resources (HR) agrees with the findings and recommendations in the audit report. A commitment to ongoing training and instilling a culture guided by Values and Ethics (V&E) is not only central to Vision 150, but in ensuring the success of the organization and its future outcomes. This culture needs to be continually instilled and V&E training needs to be refreshed throughout an employee's career.

Complementary to other aspects of the V&E program, the National Early Intervention System (NEIS) is an early awareness tool to proactively identify members who may benefit from an intervention to address issues which may be impacting their work-life balance, their health and well-being and/or their performance. NEIS demonstrates the Force's commitment to providing support and guidance to its members to foster member well-being, while preserving a respectful, healthy and safe working environment. HR will develop a detailed management action plan to address the audit recommendation for which it is the lead.

Stephen White, Assistant Commissioner
Acting Chief Human Resources Officer

1. Background

Federal public servants have a fundamental role to play in serving Canadians, their communities and the public interest under the direction of the elected government and in accordance with the law. As professionals whose work is essential to Canada's well-being and the enduring strength of the Canadian democracy, public servants uphold the public trust.^{Footnote 1}

The Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector (VECPS) outlines the values and expected behaviours that guide public servants in all activities related to their professional duties and decision making. By committing to these values and adhering to the expected behaviours, public servants strengthen the ethical culture of the public sector and contribute to public confidence in the integrity of all public institutions.^{Footnote 2}

Additionally, each Federal Government department and agency has the opportunity to develop a code that specifies, defines or clarifies public sector values in ways that support their specific priorities and cultures. Although organizational codes must not lower the expected standards of behaviour found in the VECPS, they allow for a variety of interpretations and applications to suit the business of each organization.

Guided by its core values of integrity, honesty, professionalism, compassion, respect, and accountability, the RCMP is expected to uphold the highest ethical standards, and to conserve and enhance public confidence.

Employees of the RCMP are subject to the RCMP Code of Conduct (for Regular and Civilian Members) and the Public Service Employee Code of Conduct (for Public Service Employees). As a result of the Legislative Reform Initiative and its focus on a new Workplace Responsibility Framework, amendments were made to both Codes of Conduct and the changes came into effect on November 28, 2014. The new RCMP Code of Conduct (2014) for Regular and Civilian Members was developed to support the processes derived from the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act (Accountability Act). The RCMP also updated the Public Service Employee Code of Conduct to ensure that all RCMP employees, regardless of category, are all held to similar expectations relative to professional responsibilities.

The V&E program is a group of related inputs and activities with multiple areas responsible for carrying out its different elements. Under the Professional Responsibility Officer's leadership and situated within the RCMP's Professional Responsibility Sector, the Professional Ethics Office has a lead role in the following key elements of the V&E program: leadership commitment; RCMP core values; Professional Ethics Strategic Plan; alignment of ethical leadership, governance and culture; performance measurement framework; Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA); and Professional Ethics Officers. This audit assessed the different elements of the V&E program through the management control framework pillars of governance, training framework, and reporting and monitoring. This involved assessing structures and processes in place nationally, as well as in the divisions.

In 2016, the Commissioner approved an Audit of Values and Ethics as part of the 2017-2022 Risk-Based Audit and Evaluation Plan (RBAEP).

2. Objective, scope and methodology

2.1 Objective

The objective of the audit was to determine whether a management control framework for the RCMP Values and Ethics program is in place and working as intended.

2.2 Scope

The audit examined activities that contributed to the RCMP Values and Ethics program including an assessment of program initiatives and their impact relating to behavior outcomes, between April 1st, 2017 and March 31st, 2018. The audit included processes in place for Regular Members (RMs), Civilian Members (CMs) and Public Service Employees (PSEs).

2.3 Methodology

Planning for the audit was completed in August 2018. In this phase, the audit team conducted interviews, process walkthrough and examined relevant legislation, policies and procedures. Sources used to develop audit criteri­a include the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector, the RCMP's Conflict of Interest Directive (COI Directive) and other policies and guidelines. The audit objective and criteria are available in Appendix A.

The examination phase, which concluded in November 2018, employed various auditing techniques including interviews, documentation reviews, data analysis and testing of files. Site visits took place at E Division, F Division, Depot, B Division and National Headquarters Division to review files and assess practices. Upon completion of the examination phase, the audit team held exit meetings to validate findings with personnel and debriefed senior management of the relevant findings.

Analysis on founded harassment and conduct cases, training data and National Early Intervention System notifications in FY 2017-18 was conducted to determine the extent to which V&E training was completed and intervention meetings were being held.

Files reviewed consisted of secondary/post-employment and outside activity applications for FY 2017-18 from divisions where the audit team conducted site visits. Files were assessed against the requirements of the RCMP's COI Directive. The sampling methodology included a proportional random sample from each of these divisions based on the total number of applications, type of activity, and employee type (RM, CM, PSE) to ensure a breadth of coverage across divisions and employee type. A targeted sample was also completed to include all applications that were denied in the divisions visited and a selection of applications of similar activity type to test consistency in decision-making within the division and nationally. The table below provides a summary of the number of files tested during the audit.

2.4 Statement of conformance

The audit engagement conforms to the Institute of Internal Auditors' International Professional Practices Framework, and the Treasury Board of Canada Directive on Internal Audit as supported by the results of the quality assurance and improvement program.

3. Audit findings

3.1 Governance

The audit expected to find that there were governance structures, roles and responsibilities, and accountability mechanisms in place to provide oversight and support an integrated approach to values and ethics (V&E) Force-wide.

Leadership Commitment

Within the RCMP, leaders are required to foster an ethical environment. Accordingly, the RCMP's Leadership Model defines leadership within the RCMP as "inspiring and mobilizing others towards professionally and ethically achieving our mission."^{Footnote 3}

All leaders within the RCMP are expected to demonstrate and support the RCMP core values (integrity, honesty, professionalism, compassion, respect and accountability) by taking action, interacting with others, aligning systems and making decisions in a manner that is in keeping with organizational values. They are also expected to inspire and guide others to demonstrate the organization's values.

The audit found that the RCMP's Senior Executive Committee (SEC) and Senior Management Team (SMT) are responsible for the provision of oversight for V&E Force-wide. The Professional Responsibility Officer (PRO) is responsible for briefing SEC/SMT on ongoing V&E initiatives that require SEC approval and SMT endorsement. In FY 2017-18, the PRO presented an update to SEC on the implementation of the D-CAPRA ethical decision-making model. The national Professional Responsibility Sector (PRS) briefs SMT annually regarding trends and statistics related to Conduct, Harassment, Employee Requirements, Grievances and Appeals and Human Rights.

Governance Framework

The governance framework to manage the V&E program includes multiple areas responsible for carrying out the V&E program. Within the RCMP, the PRO is accountable for providing national leadership in instituting and supporting the RCMP's vision for a comprehensive responsibility-based workplace regime that promotes professional, values-based decision-making and behaviour across categories of employees. The PRO is also the Senior Officer responsible for receiving and dealing with disclosures of wrongdoing made by RCMP employees under the PSDPA.

Under the direction of the PRO, the PRS provides direction and leadership in the creation of an integrity regime across all RCMP business lines/divisions and to champion the entrenchment of professional ethics in decision-making and employee behaviour.

Within the PRS, the PEO is responsible for ensuring the RCMP Mission, Vision and Values become ingrained in the daily activities of RCMP employees. The PEO is the policy centre for the COI Directive and PSDPA. The PEO is also responsible for leading the implementation of ethics education, strategies, and plans for the integration of ethical decision making, operations, and administration.

The audit found that the PEO's placement within national PRS allowed accessibility and provision of advice and guidance to divisions and business lines. The divisions and their respective Professional Responsibility Units (PRUs) have been delegated authority to assess and rule on requests related to the COI Directive. Divisional Delegated Managers for Human Resources (DMHRs) are also responsible for performing monitoring activities and providing quarterly reports detailing instances of conflict of interest, resolutions, and trends to the Commanding Officer (CO) for employees in their area of responsibility.^{Footnote 4}

Within Human Resources (HR)'s Occupational Health and Safety Branch, the Organizational Health and Well-being Directorate is the policy centre for the National Early Intervention System (NEIS). NEIS is a non-disciplinary program to proactively identify RMs who may benefit from an early intervention to address issues which may be impacting their work-life balance, their health and well-being and/or their performance. NEIS has been designed for RMs who are interacting with the public as they are at a greater risk of potentially requiring additional supports due to exposure to occupational hazards that can have an impact on both personal and professional life.

Notwithstanding all of the organizational mechanisms in place to carry out the V&E program, it is paramount that RCMP employees are responsible to hold themselves and others accountable for ethical behaviour and actions.

Policies

The policies and directives for the V&E program are intended to provide guidance to all employees Force-wide in carrying out their responsibilities in accordance with the RCMP's core values. The policies and directives are also intended as a mechanism to allow the RCMP policy centres to effectively manage the V&E program.

The audit found that the policies and directives are documented and approved in the RCMP's Administration Manual (AM). They include:

• Code of Conduct for RMs and CMs (AM ch.X)
• Public Service Employee Code of Conduct (AM ch. XII.13)
• Ethics (all categories of employees) (AM ch.XII.12)
• Conflict of Interest Directive (COI Directive) (all categories of employees) (AM ch.XVII.1)
• Internal Procedures for Implementation of the PSDPA (all categories of employees) (AM ch.VIII.9)

Interviews with PEO staff, divisional DMHRs, and divisional PRU representatives demonstrated that staff have a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities related to V&E.

Previously, divisional Public Service Human Resources (PSHR) processed COI applications for PSEs. In 2016-17, the process was changed to direct the divisional PRUs to process COI applications through a common RCMP form for all categories of RCMP employees to assess secondary employment/outside activities. However, the COI Directive was not updated to reflect the current practice. Policies related to the V&E program should be up to date to provide clear and relevant guidance to the organization.

The audit found that through a leadership commitment, an established governance framework, and existence of V&E policies applicable to all categories of employees, a governance structure is in place to support the V&E program.

3.2 Training framework

Training is an important pillar to support V&E and to reinforce the core values of the RCMP, as well as the expected behaviour for employees and leaders. The audit expected that a training framework would be in place to educate RCMP employees on the RCMP core values and ethical decision-making model. The audit team considered the RCMP's Cadet Training Program (CTP), Supervisor Development Program (SDP), Manager Development Program (MDP), and Executive/Officer Development Program (EODP) as part of its assessment.

The audit found that V&E have been included in the training curriculum provided to Cadets and RCMP members over the years. Ethics are currently embedded in the CTP, which is an extensive 26-week basic training course, whose successful completion is required for those seeking to become an RM. It is the first step of the ethical leadership continuum.

As members complete the SDP, MDP and EODP, they receive further ethics education and reinforcement. By offering ethics education throughout an RM's career, the values and ethics of the Force are reinforced and re-validated. The framework for the CTP uses the CAPRA Model, which is a problem solving methodology applied to any operational situation. The CAPRA Model is intended to help define the competencies necessary for effective policing. The acronym CAPRA stands for: C = Clients; A = Acquiring and analyzing information; P = Partnership; R = Response; A = Assessment for continuous improvement.

SEC endorsed the PEO's D-CAPRA ethical decision-making model in 2016 as a cornerstone to support ethical decision making Force wide. The "D" which stands for dilemma, is intended to incorporate ethical decision making for members when faced with any situation a member may encounter. The D-CAPRA model is first introduced during the CTP as a tool to use when dealing with ethical conflicts and is intended to serve as a guide throughout an RM's career.

The audit found that D-CAPRA was piloted in 2016 in the SDP, MDP and EODP as part of an update of the Ethical Leadership curriculum for these programs. It has since been included in all deliveries of the SDP, MDP and EODP. D-CAPRA was also presented to Depot's Training Program Support and Evaluation Branch (TPSE) in 2016. Feedback garnered from Depot resulted in a simplified version of D-CAPRA to assist Cadets to internalize concepts of ethical decision making. Depot integrated D-CAPRA into its CTP on April 1, 2017.

The audit found that interviewees who participated in the CTP, SDP, MDP and EODP in 2017-18 stated that they did not retain the D-CAPRA model. Interviews with course facilitators for the CTP, SDP, and MDP also indicated that participants were not retaining the model as a support for ethical decision making. Although the model was recently introduced, and recognizing that audit analysis was based on interviews, there would be benefit to having evidence-based research and post course assessments to support and assess if the model is an effective guide/tool for members to use when faced with ethical situations. In addition, the V&E training program is not equally accessible to all categories of employees. The CTP is restricted to Cadets and while CMs are eligible for the SDP and MDP, due to changes in 2018 to the promotion policy for RMs, RMs are prioritized for the SDP and MDP. As per the RCMP's Career Management Manual Chapter 4, Section 10, a member who is promoted to Sergeant after March 31, 2018 must successfully complete the MDP before applying for promotion to Staff Sergeant. A member who is promoted to Corporal after March 31, 2019 must successfully complete the SDP before applying for promotion to Sergeant.^{Footnote 5} While the Canada School of Public Service offers online self-paced V&E foundations courses for PSEs, a training program based on the RCMP's core values has not been developed for PSEs working at the RCMP. There is an opportunity to extend consistent V&E training to all categories of employees within the Force to ensure all employees are equipped with ethical decision-making models to support them in addressing situations they encounter.

While the continuous review mechanisms for the CTP, SDP, MDP and EODP exist and provide valuable information to support curriculum changes, the audit found that mechanisms are not in place to assess the effectiveness of ethics training on behaviour outcomes. In the absence of such mechanisms, the audit team conducted an analysis of founded harassment and conduct cases to determine if the members involved in these cases completed ethics training. Data from the RCMP's * and Human Resources Management Information System (HRMIS) were used for this analysis, of which the results are summarized in the tables below.

*

An organization can provide training to its employees to help promote values and ethics. While not the only solution, training can serve as a vehicle to communicate an organization's key messages and expectations related to values and ethics. It is recognized that training is not the only factor influencing employee behaviour. Indeed, although the number of founded cases were low for the size of the RCMP, counting over 29,300 employees, the preceding tables indicate that training alone did not impact behaviour. * While training is a key pillar to promote the V&E program, training alone is not sufficient to reinforce values and behaviour.

The audit found that divisions were undertaking a variety of activities related to V&E. The audit team conducted interviews with COs, Human Resource Officers (HROs), Administration & Personnel (A&P) Officers, Training Officers and Employee Management Relations Officers (EMROs) in B, E, F, Depot and NHQ divisions and the PEO, and supporting documentation was obtained to determine what V&E awareness activities had been implemented for all categories of employees.

All divisional COs messaged the importance of leading by example and living the RCMP core values, and disseminating this to all ranks and categories of employees. In B Division, PRU representatives periodically attend divisional Detachment Commander meetings to present on V&E issues. Divisional Wellness Team Representatives also perform visits throughout the division to promote V&E strategy. In E Division, there are ethics presentations at divisional HR workshops for Detachment Commanders, divisional harassment investigator training and undercover units. In F Division, there is messaging from the divisional Sergeant Major to new F Division members, divisional Respectful Workplace and Peer-to-Peer (P2P) presentations (which include NEIS) made by the divisional P2P Coordinator/NEIS Coordinator. In NHQ Division, no initiatives for FY 2017-18 were identified, however the division launched initiatives related to the Wellness Program and Harassment and Informal Conflict Management Program training in FY 2018-19. At Depot, letters of expectation are provided to all Cadets and Facilitators. The letters of expectation address professional ethics and contain a list of behaviours that Cadets and Facilitators must agree to abide by. Tone from the top regarding appropriate behaviour is provided to Cadets from the CO through a senior troop lecture and all Facilitators are expected to lead by example. Ethics Officers from the PEO attended Division Executive Committee meetings in several divisions including F, Depot, B, H and K, to brief senior management on the COI Directive and PSDPA. It also delivered presentations at the PRS Symposium on COI to representatives from divisional PRUs.

While these activities supplement training and can serve to reinforce the RCMP core values within each division, they are not conducted as part of an integrated Force-wide program. In accordance with the commitment to modernize and reform the RCMP's culture, a strong V&E program is required as a foundation to transform culture and management practices.

As part of the formal three-year continuous review of the CTP conducted by Depot's TPSE Branch, the D-CAPRA model should be formally assessed in 2020. Evidence-based research is needed to make decisions for curriculum changes. The assessment should also include the effectiveness of the ethical decision-making model on behavioural outcomes. Assessments should also consider how to enhance methods to reinforce training. Additionally, V&E training could be considered for all employees in the RCMP.

3.3 Reporting and monitoring

The audit expected that the following elements would be in place to provide information to monitor the V&E program. First, that there be a system and process to allow employees to send ethics-related inquiries and reports of wrongdoing to the PEO. Second, that there be a system and process for divisional PRUs to receive, log, and track applications for secondary/post-employment and outside activities, cases of harassment and conduct. Third, that there be a system and process to proactively identify RCMP members who may be at risk of straying from the RCMP core values. Fourth, that there be processes to assess performance against strategic objectives in the Professional Ethics Strategic Plan (PESP).

Ethics-Related Inquiries and PSDPA

The audit found that in FY 2017-18, the PEO received 228 inquiries through the RCMP's Workplace Reporting System, the PEO's confidential phone line and the PEO's generic Ethics email address. While the PEO is responsible for being the intake for inquiries and triaging them to the appropriate authority, it is not responsible for monitoring their disposition. Accordingly, the audit found that the PEO triaged these inquiries to assess who in the RCMP was the appropriate authority to address them. The inquiries were entered in the * system by date, type of inquiry and the action taken. The outcomes of inquiries that were forwarded to other entities within the RCMP were not formally monitored by the PEO, and the RCMP does not maintain a service standard for inquiries other than those related to the PSDPA.

The PSDPA is intended to address wrongdoings that, because of their scale or nature, have the potential to adversely affect the public's confidence in public servants and public institutions. A PSDPA thrust is to maintain the confidentiality of individuals involved in reporting wrongdoings. Section 44 of the PSDPA prevents disclosure of information related to the reporting of wrongdoings under the PSDPA unless required by law.^{Footnote 6} Due to this requirement, the audit team did not perform detailed testing of specific PSDPA inquiries and disclosures, nor did it review case information in *.

Service standards related to the PSDPA are reflected in the RCMP's Administration Manual, Chapter VIII.9 – Internal Procedures for Implementation of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. They include: written confirmation of receipt of disclosure to employee who brought forward the disclosure within 14 days of receipt of disclosure; subsequent 30-day updates to the subject employee and the disclosure employee; investigations completed within 90 days from issuance of the investigation mandate letter; 30-day requirement for the subject Responsibility Centre to implement corrective measures; status reports from the subject Responsibility Centre to the Commissioner until a corrective measure is implemented.^{Footnote 7} From the PEO's triage process, there were ten PSDPA inquiries in the RCMP in FY 2017-18, and two disclosures received. The PEO identified that there were no PSDPA files that were initiated in FY 2017-18. Details for PSDPA inquiries and disclosure cases are maintained in * and are protected with access restricted to the Officer in Charge PSDPA, the PRO, and key PEO personnel. Key information is also tracked in a spreadsheet by the Officer in Charge PSDPA to track and monitor progress of the cases for key points in the process.

The PSDPA Senior Officer (PRO) is briefed in person and in writing at least monthly on cases and more frequently as required, allowing for regular monitoring. While audit evidence obtained supports that the PRO was briefed monthly on PSDPA matters in FY 2017-18, information captured in the monthly PRS report was limited to the number of: inquiries; active internal disclosure files; files assisting the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (PSIC); and concluded files requiring follow-up. An identified gap was that the monthly report did not include metrics related to the length of open and ongoing disclosure files. This represents a risk area for the Force.

Additional identified risks related to the PSDPA process included that service standards in AM ch.VIII.9 were not being met as the cases are generally complex and may take time to resolve or make a decision. This can result in disclosures received in one fiscal year being carried over into subsequent years. Nine disclosures from FY 2016-17 were carried to FY 2017-18. Further, AM ch.VIII.9 refers to an investigation being completed within 90 days, rather than the length of time for the disclosure file to be resolved. However, investigations can be lengthy due to the reliance on parties outside PRS to carry out the investigation, the investigation's complexity, and the Senior Officer's review of the resulting report. Other than monthly briefings to the Senior Officer on PSDPA files, there are no other formal controls to prevent an investigation from going beyond 90 days. This represents a risk area for the Force.

If a Code of Conduct matter is identified in the course of a PSDPA disclosure, the one year timeframe described in the RCMP Act and in AM ch.XII.1 – Conductto impose conduct measures could result in the Code of Conduct investigation beginning before other aspects of a PSDPA investigation. This means that some parts of a PSDPA investigation could be in abeyance while a Code of Conduct investigation proceeds.

PSDPA investigations led by the RCMP are not subject to external monitoring, but the RCMP is required to meet PSDPA reporting requirements for a disclosure of wrongdoing. The requirements relate to the number of disclosures received, acted upon, and disclosures resulting in findings of wrongdoings and corrective measures implemented, as reflected in the 2017-2018 Annual Report on the PSDPA, from the Treasury Board Secretariat, tabled in Parliament.^{Footnote 8} The RCMP also had to report on the average length of time to complete investigations commenced in FY 2017-18 as a result of disclosures and indicate the reasons if delays were experienced in the investigation process. Since no PSDPA files were initiated in FY 2017-18, the RCMP had nothing to report in this area.

The RCMP had one disclosure that led to a finding of wrongdoing and corrective measures implemented in FY 2017-18. Public access to information concerning the finding of wrongdoing was not provided within the 60 day standard. The time lapse of 105 days between the finding and the provision of public access to information concerning the finding was attributed to the disclosure involving a partner department and transition within RCMP senior leadership.

All RCMP employees can access PSIC and bring forward a disclosure of wrongdoing directly to that entity. In FY 2017-18, the RCMP provided assistance to PSIC in five cases related to PSDPA investigations with allegations involving RCMP employees.

COI Directive

Originally published on April 4, 2013 and amended November 28, 2014, the RCMP's Conflict of Interest Directive (COI Directive) outlines the expectations governing conflict of interest obligations of all categories of employees.^{Footnote 9}

The COI Directive was developed to meet the expectations and requirements of the Treasury Board Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector and to complement the Treasury Board Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment, and both the Code of Conduct - RCMP Regulations, 2014 (Member Code of Conduct) which applies to RMs and CMs, and the Public Service Employee Code of Conduct which applies to PSEs.

The COI Directive, for which the PEO is the policy centre, helps guide all employees to avoid, manage, report, and resolve actual, apparent or potential conflict of interest situations. In accordance with the Directive, the divisional DMHR is responsible to assess and rule on a conflict of interest applications listed in this Directive in all divisions for all categories of employees in the RCMP. The DMHR may consult the PEO as deemed necessary.

A file review was conducted to determine whether the process for secondary/post-employment and outside activities (i.e. volunteering or political activities) conformed to the COI Directive requirements. As part of our file review, the audit expected to find that each file would contain evidence of compliance with key requirements of the COI Directive. These include:

1. Applications forwarded to DMHR for decision
2. Comments from the applicant's Unit Commander regarding the risks/benefits of participation in the activity
3. Consultation with Departmental Security Branch as required
4. Approved applications do not involve prohibited activities
5. Processing applications within 30 days
6. Consultation with PEO as required
7. Inclusion of caveats on approval letters
8. Consultation with PSHR (for PSEs)

The results of the audit file testing for compliance with those requirements are indicated in the table below.

* This resulted in a lack of comments from the Unit Commanders to assist the DMHR in decision-making.

**Security clearance checks on the individuals and businesses identified on the application were not consistently completed. Although DMHR judgement is applied in determining when consultation from the Departmental Security Branch is required, there was no evidence on file to support the judgement.

***These related to activities that could result in the disclosure of confidential police methods, operations, techniques or information but for which the articulated rationales satisfied the relevant DMHR.

****Although the COI Directive does not require divisions to seek PEO guidance on all applications, without involvement the PEO will not be in a position to provide oversight of decisions rendered.

*****Interviews with divisional PSHR representatives identified that they are consulted on an ad hoc basis, only when the DMHR requires further input to render a decision. There is no formal process to ensure that PSHR is informed of PSE COI cases. B Division and F Division developed a practice where they copy the divisional PSHR on approved cases to ensure the sharing of information. Without a formal mechanism in place to share information, PSHR does not have visibility on COI for PSEs.

In addition to the weaknesses identified in the file review and described above, the audit found that a formal monitoring process for COI is not in place to ensure that consistent decisions are made across the Force based on complete information, and that advice is formally provided to the applicant. PEO and divisional PRU representatives expressed concern regarding the consistency in application of policy requirements when reviewing and approving applications for secondary/post-employment and outside activities.

*

In addition, interviews with COs, HROs, A&P Officers, and EMROs indicated that there is a high likelihood of secondary/post-employment being under-reported. The audit team also conducted an analysis of the number of secondary employment/outside activities requested, as reported from divisional PRUS to the PEO in FY 2017-18, in relation to the number of employees across all divisions. With 340 cases reported from divisional PRUs to the PEO, and 29,314 employees across all divisions, the national reporting rate was determined to be 1.2%. Further analysis was carried out to identify whether there was potential under-reporting in divisions based on the average national reporting rate. Results of the analysis indicate that there was potential under-reporting in most divisions except E, G and J divisions.

As per AM Chapter XVII.1 – Conflict of Interest, employees must obtain an authorization from the DMHR before participating in: a remunerated activity for which one receives directly or indirectly a personal benefit; an activity including volunteering, if a conflict of interest exists or could exist; an activity which could directly compete with services offered by the RCMP; the Canadian Forces Reserve Program; any outside employment or activity while off-duty due to injury or illness, or leave without pay.^{Footnote 10} The COI process relies on employees self-identifying and submitting an application for approval for secondary/post-employment and outside activities. The file testing results indicate that when employees did submit an application, supervisors did not carry out the process in accordance with the requirements. However, the DMHR was relying on the supervisor's comments to determine if an activity should be approved.

Although not required by the COI Directive, but encouraged by the PEO, the audit found that advice and guidance from PEO was not consistently sought by divisions. This limited the PEO's ability to provide oversight of the COI Directive. Additionally, while the COI Directive requires the divisions, through the DMHR, to report all conflict of interest cases to the PEO on a quarterly basis, the audit found that reporting of decisions is not consistently carried out by divisions. In FY 2017-18, H Division did not provide reports. Without formal monitoring in place, the PEO must rely on the discretion of the DMHR within each division to provide the quarterly reports.

The PEO's placement within PRS allows accessibility and provision of advice and guidance to divisions and business lines; however, reporting mechanisms between PEO and divisions do not allow for PEO oversight of the COI Directive.

A formal monitoring process for COI is not in place to ensure that consistent decisions are made across the Force based on complete information to support the V&E program. The RCMP would benefit from a formalized and documented mechanism to facilitate collaboration and information sharing to advance V&E Force-wide.

Harassment and Conduct Cases

The audit expected that within PRS, a system and process would exist to log and track harassment and conduct cases. The audit found that a system and process exists to log and track harassment cases, *.

* While this may provide the PRS with information needed to record, track, and report on cases, this increases the risk of encountering issues with data integrity, as there is a lack of input and revision controls.

*

National Early Intervention System (NEIS)

NEIS was launched in January 2016 and was previously the responsibility of PRS. Since its inception, the program was intended to be non-disciplinary and its focus was to proactively identify RMs who may benefit from an early intervention to address issues which may be impacting their work-life balance, their health and well-being and/or their performance.

NEIS was transferred from PRS to HR (Organizational Health and Well-being Directorate) in October 2017 and was included in the RCMP Mental Health Strategy - Action Plan 2017-2019 as an early warning tool to identify RMs who may need additional support. NEIS is non-disciplinary, and its placement within HR is aligned with HR's mandate of ensuring that the RCMP is a modern, motivated, healthy, qualified and productive workforce.^{Footnote 11} The Organizational Health and Well-being Directorate is the policy centre and provides program oversight for NEIS. With the move to HR, the NEIS program is focussed on the identification of an early need to check in with members to ensure they have the support needed.

A Business Intelligence tool is used to mine data sources to help identify possible patterns of behaviour. NEIS uses the following indicators to identify members: conduct allegation; harassment allegation (respondent); hazardous occurrence reports; past due operational skills maintenance training (expired six months or more); police vehicle motor accident; public complaint.

When a member reaches four of the above indicators within a fiscal year, a NEIS notification is generated and issued to the policy centre. The NEIS policy centre is required to task the Divisional NEIS Coordinator, usually situated within divisional PRU for the divisions included in the audit, to contact the member's supervisor to inform them of the notification and check in with the member to determine if a member needs additional support.

With the transfer of NEIS from PRS to HR, we expected that HR would collaborate with PRS on items that may be relevant to the V&E program, while respecting the confidential and non-disciplinary nature of NEIS. This is because NEIS is an early warning mechanism to identify member patterns of behaviour that if left unaddressed could increase risks of more serious incidents. Leveraging NEIS could also identify units where members are experiencing difficulties. Coordination between HR and PRS, and more specifically PEO, on this would provide greater integration on issues that are Force-wide and could be addressed by the V&E program.

In assessing the monitoring between PRS and HR for early warnings signs from NEIS to inform values and ethics, the audit team found weaknesses with NEIS. The June 2018 National Policy Health and Safety Committee Meeting minutes indicated that NEIS received feedback in 2017 indicating that 32% of users felt that the program was not suitable. The NEIS policy centre advised that additional consultation was ongoing with stakeholders to examine alternative solutions to increase NEIS' perceived usefulness.

Although all five divisions included in the audit had assigned the role of Divisional NEIS Coordinator, only four of the five divisions were receiving and acting upon NEIS notifications at the time of the audit site visits. The NHQ Divisional NEIS Coordinator and EMRO stated that they were not receiving notifications and the NEIS dataset indicated that intervention meetings were not held between the supervisors and the five identified members in NHQ Division. This was attributed to staff turnover and has since been addressed.

Although interviews with divisional COs, HROs, A&P Officers and EMROs indicated support for the NEIS programs, *. E Division reported resistance from supervisors who received NEIS notifications for their employees, which could result in meetings not being held. E Division's PRU also reported resource constraints in keeping up with the volume of NEIS notification and timely processing to member supervisors. *

Internal Audit, Evaluation and Review's Data Analytics section's analysis * indicated that across the RCMP, in FY 2017-2018, there were 394 NEIS notifications. * The NEIS Policy (AM ch.II.17) does not explicitly state that an intervention meeting is mandatory; however, the policy does not provide the Unit Commander or supervisor the authority to conclude on notifications without a meeting occurring. Intervention meetings are not a mandatory requirement in all divisions; where supervisor discretion is used to determine whether a meeting is necessary (i.e. supervisor is aware of the issue, identified member is suspended with pay, off-duty sick, etc.).

When an intervention meeting took place, the process took on average 73 days whereas policy requires it within 60 days. Three of the five divisions included in the audit performed statistical analysis on NEIS notifications and provided reports to divisional senior management (E, F, and Depot Division). As NEIS notifications are infrequent in B Division, B Division's Sergeant Major briefs the CO on NEIS as required. At the time of the audit team's site visit, NHQ Division did not report on NEIS to the CO but that has since been addressed.

Statistical analysis on a national level was performed by PRS in 2016. However, further research and analysis was not completed to determine the overall appropriateness of the indicators used and whether the NEIS program was meeting set objectives. HR indicated they will be reporting on the NEIS Program on an annual basis as part of the Health and Wellness Report.

There is little integration of roles between PRS and HR for monitoring of NEIS and V&E Force-wide, although this integration exists in the divisions due to the placement of the Divisional NEIS Coordinator generally within the divisional PRU, reporting to the EMRO or A&PO.

The NEIS program is not working as intended to allow the Force to intervene with the intent of better supporting the member for patterns of behaviour that if left unaddressed could lead to more serious incidents. Given low compliance in holding timely intervention meetings, consideration of the appropriateness of NEIS indicators is warranted.

Professional Ethics Strategic Plan (PESP)

The PESP is a key document to set strategic direction and ensure cohesion for the V&E program, which is dispersed across the Force. The most recent PESP was developed for the years 2013-16 and more recent strategic objectives have not been established.

The PEO informed the audit team that it was performing further research to inform the strategic objectives to determine the direction for the future. The PEO also advised that it was developing a business case to develop a new PESP but at the time of the audit, information was not available to assess the progress towards an updated PESP. Accordingly, interviews with PEO staff confirmed that the PEO did not perform any monitoring activities against objectives during the audit period as current strategic objectives had not been set.

In the absence of an updated PESP, some divisions have pursued V&E objectives to advance their initiatives. In FY 2017-18, three of the five divisions included in the audit (B, E, F) had documented and approved divisional strategic plans (either as an operations strategic plan or divisional Annual Performance Plan) that included V&E related program objectives (such as Harassment Strategies, Wellness Strategies and training/awareness initiatives, NEIS).

These plans identified concrete divisional-specific objectives and initiatives related to V&E (including Office of Primary Interest and timelines for completion). Performance metrics were also assigned to track progress against these objectives. Depot and NHQ Division did not have a formal strategic plan or Annual Performance Plan which included V&E objectives.

While the plans developed in B, E and F divisions were useful to guide their divisional activities for V&E, they were not aligned to a national plan to ensure coordination Force-wide. A national strategic plan to provide direction for Force-wide objectives is needed to ensure a cohesive divisional approach to support the RCMP's overall priorities for the V&E program. Overall, monitoring of the V&E program and its related components needs to be strengthened.

4. Conclusion

The audit concludes that overall, a governance structure is in place for the V&E program. This governance structure is supported by a leadership commitment towards V&E and the entrenchment of the RCMP's core values in the RCMP's activities.

While a training framework for V&E exists, it does not include training for all employees in the RCMP. Mechanisms are not currently in place to measure the effectiveness of V&E training on behavioural outcomes. Accordingly, assessment of the V&E curriculum in the RCMP's CTP and development programs should also include the effectiveness of the ethical decision-making model on behavioural outcomes.

While mechanisms exist to report ethical issues, potential conflicts of interest and wrongdoings, monitoring of the V&E program and its related components needs to be strengthened. This will help ensure a cohesive, Force-wide approach to advance the V&E program.

5. Recommendations

1. The Professional Responsibility Officer should, consistent with efforts to modernize the RCMP, develop and implement a national strategic plan for V&E that addresses key risks, is aligned with the RCMP's overall priorities, and includes divisional objectives to provide a Force-wide integrated approach for V&E.
2. The Professional Responsibility Officer should:
   1. assess the impact of V&E training and awareness initiatives on employee behaviour; and
   2. enhance monitoring and reporting of PSDPA files to ensure greater adherence to timeliness standards in AM ch.VIII.9.
3. The Professional Responsibility Officer should review and update the Conflict of Interest Directive to ensure it reflects the current RCMP operating environment, and identify high risk secondary employment/outside activities that require input from the PEO, while respecting the divisional DMHR's delegated authority for approval.
4. The Chief Human Resources Officer should implement monitoring and reporting processes that support greater sharing of analysis and trends between HR and the PEO related to NEIS.

Appendix A – Audit objective and criteria

Appendix B - Detailed management action plans

Date modified:

2020-02-20