Evaluation of Learning and Development (In-Service Training) across the RCMP (2016-2021)

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

June 2022

On this page

• Acronyms
• Glossary
• Executive summary
  • Summary of findings
  • Recommendations
• Program description
• Evaluation approach
  • Objective and scope
  • Methodology and limitations
• Findings
  • Governance structure
  • Coordination
  • Standardization
  • Prioritization
  • Official Language and Gender Based Analysis Plus
  • Resources
  • Compliance
  • Technology
• Conclusion and recommendations
  • Conclusion
  • Recommendations
• Appendices
  • Appendix A: Management response and action plan
  • Appendix B: Descriptive scale of interview responses
• Footnotes
• Endnotes

Acronyms

C&IP

Contract and Indigenous Policing

CBSA

Canada Border Services Agency

CHRO

Chief Human Resources Officer

CLO

Chief Learning Officer

CM

Civilian member

CPC

Canadian Police College

CSC

Correctional Service Canada

CSPS

Canada School of Public Service

CTS

Course Training Standard

FPTS

Federal Policing Training Services

GBA+

Gender Based Analysis Plus

HRMIS

Human Resources Management Information System

LDD

Learning and Development Directorate

LMS

Learning Management System

LTDM

Learning, Training and Development Manual

NHQ

National Headquarters

NLP

National Leadership Program

NLS

National Learning Services

NMTOC

National Mandatory Training Oversight Sub-Committee

NTTS

National Tactical Training Services

O&M

Operations and Maintenance

PRTC

Pacific Region Training Center

PSE

Public Service Employee

RCMP

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

SPS

Specialized Policing Services

Glossary

Cadet Training Program

is an extensive competency-based basic police officer training program at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Training Academy (Depot) in Regina, Saskatchewan.

Course training standard

is the official document that outlines the standard components of a national instructor-led training course. It is used to support the consistent implementation of RCMP courses and serves as an official legal document.

Field Coaching Program

provides a supervised transition from the training academy to operational policing and prepares newly engaged regular members for the role of policing.

In-service training

includes any learning or development activity offered to employees by the RCMP, excluding cadets.

Learning and development

is the process of enhancing skills, knowledge and competency.

Executive summary

Context

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) learning and development function includes all training across business lines and divisions. The function is divided into three main areas: the Cadet Training Program, Field Coaching Program, and in-service training. Depot Division has primary responsibility for the Cadet Training and Field Coaching programs. The Learning and Development Directorate has a primary responsibility for in-service training, with divisions and business lines also playing significant roles.

Evaluation scope

• The evaluation assessed the governance and efficiency of the in-service training component of the learning and development function across the RCMP.
• It covered a period of five fiscal years from 2016-17 to 2020-21, and focused on the in-service training of regular members, civilian members, and public service employees across all RCMP business lines and divisions.
• The Cadet Training Program, Field Coaching Program, and mandates of institutions such as the Canadian Police College and the Canada School of Public Service were not included in the scope of the evaluation.

Summary of findings

1. The governance of in-service training is not clearly defined and understood.
2. The level of coordination between the Learning and Development Directorate and divisions/business lines could be improved.
3. There are mechanisms in place to standardize in-service training; however, there are limitations to ensuring that course training standards are followed.
4. In-service training activities are not prioritized consistently.
5. The level of consideration for Official Languages and Gender-Based Analysis Plus could be improved.
6. Insufficient infrastructure and human resources, and the limited ability to determine total training costs, are the greatest challenges to in-service training.
7. Resource and technical limitations prevent the measurement of mandatory course compliance more broadly.
8. There is an opportunity to increase the use of technology to enhance the efficiency of in-service training.

Recommendations

1. Examine the governance of in-service training with a view to enhancing national oversight of its design and delivery. This includes updating the Learning, Training and Development Manual to clarify the mandate and priorities of the in-service training component of learning and development, as well as the respective roles and responsibilities of the Chief Learning Officer, Learning and Development Directorate, and divisions and business lines.
2. Ensure appropriate resources and infrastructure, as well as a standard methodology for calculating in-service training costs, are in place to fulfill the organization's in-service training mandate and maximize efficiencies.
3. Continue integrating the use of technology through advancements in a learning management system to fully capitalize on functionality and through improvements in the efficiency of compliance reporting.

Program description

Learning and development is the process of enhancing skills, knowledge and competency.

The learning and development function across the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) consists of all training activities provided to cadets, regular members (RM), civilian members (CM) and public service employees (PSE) across all business lines and divisions to support effective job performance and ensure public and police officer safety. The learning and development function contributes to all of the RCMP's strategic outcomes and has been identified in the RCMP's strategic plan "Vision150 and Beyond".

The learning and development function includes the Cadet Training Program, Field Coaching Program, and in-service training.

In-service training

In-service training, which is the focus of this evaluation, refers to any learning or development activity offered to employees by the RCMP, excluding cadets and training provided externally. ^Endnote1

Roles and responsibilities of in-service training within the RCMP

The Learning and Development Directorate (LDD) has primary responsibility for the in-service training needs of RCMP employees. LDD is divided into three areas, which are described below.

National Learning Services (NLS)

• Develops organizational learning policies, processes, procedures and standards for all RCMP employees
• Designs, develops, maintains and evaluates national in-service training
• Conducts research and prepares reports regarding in-service training
• Owns and manages Agora, the national Learning Management System (LMS), and all e-learning deliveries
• Tracks and reports on national mandatory training and learning activities

National Tactical Training Services (NTTS)

• Develops, coordinates, delivers and evaluates officer safety and tactical training programs
• Develops innovative delivery methodologies, tactics and techniques for RCMP tactical training
• Monitors compliance to CTS at the instructional level for the Officer Safety Program
• Explores and establishes national and international partnerships to advance tactical and officer safety training
• Manages national tactical training centre facilities

National Leadership Programs (NLP)

• Responsible for the National Mentorship Program
• Designs and delivers the following RCMP leadership development programs:
  • Foundations of Leadership
  • Supervisor Development Program
  • Manager Development Program
  • Executive/Officer Development Program

Divisions and business lines deliver training that was designed/developed by LDD-NLS. Divisions also deliver training that was designed/developed at the divisional level.

Divisions

Each RCMP division has a learning and development unit with an Officer in Charge of training, and instructors to deliver the training. Depending on the size of the division, the unit may consist of other positions including program coordinators, instructors and administrative personnel. Different divisions have access to different resources in order to complete training. For example, the Pacific Region Training Center (PRTC) is responsible for delivering training to all employees in E Division. Other divisions use RCMP facilities or rent spaces to complete training.

Federal Policing and other business lines

The majority of business lines receive training from their respective division or National Headquarters (NHQ) based on their particular needs.

Federal Policing has a centralized structure for delivering training to Federal Policing employees. Federal Policing Training Services (FPTS) coordinates with divisions to ensure standardized delivery of federal policing training to employees across the country. FPTS has developed the Federal Policing Training Services Strategic Action Plan, which tracks the progress of federal policing training.

Who is responsible for in-service training?

Commissioner

• Ensures all employees complete Treasury Board mandatory training ^Endnote2
• Determines learning, training and development requirements of members ^Endnote3
• Fixes the terms on which learning, training and development are executed ^Endnote4

Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO)

• Supports the Commissioner in promoting a continuous learning environment within the organization
• Guides the learning and development function, including the administration of the RCMP academy "Depot"

Chief Learning Officer (CLO)

• Provides executive oversight for the development of national policy and strategic direction of the learning mandate
• Ensures investment of learning resources are strategically and operationally aligned
• Ensures training incorporates RCMP values to support employee skills development and ensure a sustainable workforce

Director General, Learning and Development

• Provides guidance and advice on learning innovation
• Approves and delivers national in-service training and learning consistent with the organization's mission, vision and values

Heads of divisions and business lines

• Allocates in-service training budget
• Designs and delivers training
• Prioritizes in-service training delivery including participants
• Ensures adherence to Course Training Standards (CTS)
• Ensures mandatory courses are taken

Evaluation approach

Objective and scope

The objective of the evaluation was to examine the governance and efficiency of the in-service training component of the RCMP's learning and development function for RMs, CMs and PSEs from fiscal years 2016-17 to 2020-21.

The evaluation was identified through consultation with RCMP senior management and was identified in the Risk-Based Audit and Evaluation Plan. There have been various independent reviews, audits and reports of specific learning and development issues. However, there has never been an evaluation of in-service training across the RCMP. This evaluation focuses on in-service training delivered by the RCMP exclusively for RCMP employees, and therefore does not include the mandates of the Canadian Police College (CPC) or Canada School of Public Service (CSPS). The Cadet Training Program, Field Coaching Program, official languages training, mentorship and coaching were also not included within the scope of the evaluation.

The evaluation examined the following questions:

1. To what extent are learning and development activities coordinated across the RCMP?
2. Are resource levels appropriate to support the RCMP's learning and development function (in-service training)?
3. To what extent does the RCMP have an efficient learning and development function (in-service training)?

Methodology and limitations

Data for the evaluation were collected between January 2021 and March 2022 using qualitative and quantitative research methods and analyzed to develop findings and recommendations.

Document review

Documents including federal legislation, RCMP policies, federal government department policies, and RCMP internal documents were reviewed.

Performance and financial data

Performance data from the RCMP's LMS and Human Resources Management Information System (HRMIS), as well as financial data from the Total Expenditure Asset Management System, were gathered and analyzed.

Interviews

37 telephone and video interviews were conducted with RCMP senior management, LDD staff, divisional training managers/ coordinators, NHQ business lines, and other organizations within the public safety portfolio.

Staff survey

221 RCMP course instructors responded to an online survey. Responses were received from all divisions and a number of business lines including LDD (Human Resources), Specialized Policing Services (SPS), Federal Policing, and Contract and Indigenous Policing (C&IP). Approximately 79% of respondents were male and 19% were female. Approximately 31% were full-time instructors while 69% were part-time. Respondents reported working in training areas such as tactical, non-mandatory, leadership and management, emergency response, mandatory non-tactical and other.

Limitations

• The survey was voluntary and launched during the summer months, which may have resulted in a lower response rate.
• The COVID-19 pandemic prevented on-site observations and in-person interviews, which may have provided additional data.
• There was limited historical data and documentation available concerning the impact of the Deficit Reduction Action Plan on the in-service training component of the learning and development function. This information would have provided context and evidence for the evaluation.
• The costs presented in this evaluation are intended to provide an approximation of the RCMP's in-service training costs. The evaluation collected financial data from divisions and business lines related to training. Due to the decentralized nature of in-service training and the complexities of calculating training costs (e.g., identifying training cost centers), costs related to capital expenditures and part-time instructor salaries were not included in the analysis.

Findings

Governance Structure

Aspects of the governance of in-service training are highlighted in various corporate and legislative documents, including the RCMP Act and the RCMP's Learning Training and Development Manual (LTDM). Overall, roles and responsibilities of the Commissioner, CHRO and the Director General, LDD are described in terms of their high-level functional responsibilities.

However, there is no national policy that clearly articulates the following aspects of governance:

Centralized and decentralized components

• Design, development and delivery and how they work together

Priorities

• How in-service training aligns with RCMP strategic priorities
• How to decide what training will be prioritized for design and delivery and how to prioritize participants

Roles and Responsibilities

• Who is responsible for which aspects of in-service training (e.g., National Mandatory Training Oversight Sub-Committee (NMTOC), CLO, regional and divisional staff, NLP, NLS and NTTS)

The organization of in-service training across the RCMP is not clearly defined and understood by employees. Training is designed and delivered both centrally and de-centrally depending on the type of training.

Course design

LDD is responsible for designing RCMP national in-service training. Other divisions and businesses lines also play a role in the design of training.

Course delivery

LDD delivers leadership, online and specialized tactical training. Divisions and business lines are responsible for delivering the national in-service training designed by LDD and training designed within the division. FPTS is responsible for coordinating the delivery of training to federal policing employees within the RCMP.

Interviews with RCMP staff across NHQ and the divisions revealed that the structure of in-service training is not optimal and that roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined or understood.

Challenges included:

• difficulty determining who has authority over various in-service training activities; and,
• limited national oversight to identify what courses are being offered, who is delivering courses and whether CTSs are being followed.

Other organizations

The evaluation examined learning and development policies of other agencies within the public safety portfolio. Key elements of comparison^Footnote1 included:

1. National policy

Other organizations reviewed as part of this evaluation have national policies that outline learning and development objectives, roles and responsibilities, compliance and reporting, available education support (e.g., education leave without pay) and contacts. They also have central documents outlining different types of training, including mandatory and official languages training. In contrast to the policies of the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), for example, the RCMP's LTDM does not clearly outline the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders within the in-service training component of the learning and development function.

2. Centralized design

CBSA and CSC have central design groups for all learning products, including in-service and cadet/recruitment training. This assists in providing designers a holistic approach to design (e.g., designers can identify the impact of new cadet training on in-service training). Within the RCMP, LDD designs the majority of in-service training, but other divisions/business lines within the organization, such as Depot and the PRTC, also design training.

3. Centralized delivery

In contrast to the RCMP, both CBSA and CSC have a centralized delivery approach to in-service training. Training is delivered by local trainers in the regions and all trainers report to the director general of the learning and development unit. This centralized delivery structure provides national oversight and assists with standardization of in-service training delivery.

Coordination

Procedures related to coordination

The RCMP's LTDM outlines the key roles and responsibilities of LDD with respect to course design. The LTDM states that LDD will:

1. assign HRMIS course codes to training designed by LDD that is related to government initiatives, specific operational duties and training that has liability implications;
2. develop, update, approve and distribute CTSs for courses coded in HRMIS; and,
3. issue HRMIS course codes for courses designed by divisions/business lines upon receipt of appropriate documentation (e.g., CTS).

LDD and divisions/business lines must coordinate to ensure that courses coded in HRMIS have up-to-date and approved CTSs, which assists with standardizing course delivery. Divisions and business lines must coordinate with LDD to acquire HRMIS course codes for courses designed/developed by the division or business line in order for employees to receive credit for course completions. Recording course completions assists with calculating compliance rates for mandatory courses.

Coordination activities

LDD undertakes various coordination activities, including co-chairing the NMTOC, a senior-level forum to address gaps in evaluating RCMP training needs. NMTOC meetings are scheduled six times a year and include membership from NHQ, divisions and business lines.

LDD and divisional training coordinators participate in bi-monthly teleconferences to discuss common issues and topics such as changes to CTSs and upcoming training.

LDD also has bi-monthly meetings with C&IP and communicates regularly with other business lines, including Action, Innovation and Modernization, Occupational Health and Safety (Human Resources), Legal Services, Federal Policing, and Specialized Policing Services. These communications are important in order to align priorities and determine training needs.

Divisions communicate with each other when they see fit in order to coordinate training delivery and share knowledge.

Perspectives on coordination efforts

An internal review of a select division revealed there are courses being delivered that do not have HRMIS codes, which suggests these courses were not coordinated through LDD. Additionally, half of divisional interviewees reported designing/developing courses within their respective division. These courses include subjects such as:

1. Managerial/leadership
2. Court testimony
3. Boat instructors
4. Drones
5. Community culture
6. Interview techniques
7. Plain clothes carry

Interviewees reported that they do not always coordinate with LDD when developing courses. Reasons for not coordinating with LDD included:

1. Limited timeline for course development
2. Delivery of a course that does not require a HRMIS code (divisions sometimes label courses "workshops" since they do not have a HRMIS code)
3. Updating or modifying materials while remaining within the parameters of the CTS

When asked about coordination between LDD and divisions/other business lines, many interviewees (63%) noted there was sufficient coordination. The remaining interviewees (37%) felt that coordination could be improved.

Some of the challenges reported by interviewees regarding coordination included:

1. Difficulty for divisions to identify who to contact within LDD if they have questions;
2. Difficulty for divisions to determine the business line responsible for course material when an update is required;
3. When a new mandatory course is launched there is little information shared by LDD to divisional training units in advance, which makes it difficult to field questions from employees;
4. Some divisions are delivering portions of training and not respecting that a course needs to be delivered as a collective and in accordance with the CTS; and,
5. Collaboration between divisions is minimal and often the result of personal connections rather than policy/procedure.

Instructors were asked via survey the extent to which they interact with LDD. Many (67%) indicated that they do not interact. Of those that said they did (33%), most reported that they were satisfied with the "level of support received" (77%) and the overall "communication and coordination" (68%).

Figure 1 - Text version

Two pie charts side by side with a legend in the middle. The pie chart on the left-hand side of the page is split into three pieces and depicts the proportion of survey respondents (training instructors) who reported the extent to which they are satisfied with the level of support received from the RCMP's Learning and Development Directorate.

The largest piece of the pie is teal coloured and has a data label that says 77%. This data label represents the proportion of respondents who reported that they were satisfied with the "level of support received" from the Learning and Development Directorate. The next largest piece of the pie is white and represents 13% of respondents who reported that they were neutral with the "level of support received" from the Learning and Development Directorate. The smallest piece of the pie is royal blue and represents 10% of respondents who reported that they were unsatisfied with the "level of support received" from the Learning and Development Directorate.

The pie chart on the right-hand side of the page is split into four pieces and depicts the proportion of survey respondents (training instructors) who reported the extent to which they are satisfied with their communication and coordination with the RCMP's Learning and Development Directorate.

The largest piece of the pie is teal coloured and represents 68% of respondents who reported that they were satisfied with the "communication and coordination" between themselves and the Learning and Development Directorate. The next largest piece of the pie is royal blue and represents 17% of respondents who reported that they were unsatisfied with the "communication and coordination" between themselves and the Learning and Development Directorate. The next largest piece of the pie is white and represents 14% of respondents who reported that they were neutral with the "communication and coordination" between themselves and the Learning and Development Directorate. The smallest piece of the pie is black and represents 1% of respondents who reported that the question was "not applicable" to them.

Interview respondents suggested the following improvements to coordination:

1. Create a centralized repository for in-service training information (e.g., course calendars, contact lists, course material)
2. Develop a network among stakeholders to share information
3. Create a committee with members from LDD and divisions to discuss current policing issues, and identify national themes and training gaps
4. Ensure consultation occurs between LDD and instructors when updating course material

Standardization

The evaluation examined the extent to which in-service training is standardized across the RCMP. Standardization of training across the organization contributes to public and police officer safety.

To standardize training, the RCMP uses mechanisms such as coordination among stakeholders, creation of CTSs, and monitoring compliance with training standards. Additionally, all national learning materials are centralized in the LMS including materials for instructor-led training.

CTS

The LTDM outlines the requirement to have CTSs for national instructor-led courses. The CTS is an official legal document that outlines the standard components of national instructor-led courses, including target audience, learning objectives, overview of modules, assessment tools and the candidate assessment guide. The CTS is used to support the consistent implementation of national instructor-led courses.

Monitoring compliance with training standards

The LTDM outlines the requirement for CTSs. However, only programs under the purview of NLP and NTTS have a mechanism to ensure CTSs are used in the delivery of training. NLP ensures adherence to CTSs by delivering the leadership courses they design. NTTS increases the standardization of instructor training by training divisional instructors. However, it was noted that while NTTS certifies instructors, divisions are ultimately responsible for ensuring they are delivering training in accordance with CTSs. Therefore, NTTS has limited oversight to ensure CTSs are followed, and limited control over whether instructors stay up-to-date with current course material.

Figure 2 - Text version

A stacked bar graph that depicts the proportion of survey respondents (training instructors) who reported the highest rates of modifying course training standards. The graph is split into five categories along the horizontal axis. The labels for the five categories are: C Division, E Division, D Division, National Headquarters and K Division.

The graph is stacked in three categories along the vertical axis which represent how often respondents reported modifying course training standards. The labels for the three categories are: Always, which is dark blue; Often, which is royal blue; and, Sometimes, which is teal. The vertical axis has 5 data labels: 0%, 20%, 40%, 60% and 80%. The data points for each of the three categories of data that is stacked in the graph are written on each bar as follows:

• C division respondents reported always modifying course training standards 14.3% of the time, often modifying course training standards 14.3% of the time and sometimes modifying course training standards 42.9% of the time.
• E division respondents reported always modifying course training standards 9.8% of the time, often modifying course training standards 24.4% of the time and sometimes modifying course training standards 22% of the time.
• D division respondents reported always modifying course training standards 6.9% of the time, often modifying course training standards 10.3% of the time and sometimes modifying course training standards 29.3% of the time.
• NHQ division respondents reported always modifying course training standards 5.9% of the time, often modifying course training standards 17.6% of the time and sometimes modifying course training standards 23.5% of the time.
• K division respondents reported always modifying course training standards 3.8% of the time, often modifying course training standards 11.5% of the time and sometimes modifying course training standards 30.8% of the time.

Survey respondents reported sometimes (32%), often (15%) or always (5%) modifying CTSs/course materials to meet division/detachment needs. Many survey respondents reported that they modify CTSs/course materials for reasons related to the CTS being outdated or not relevant to their unit, division or detachment.

Prioritization

Identification of priorities

As the primary policy for training, the LTDM does not clearly identify the priorities of the in-service training component of the learning and development function, including how it aligns with RCMP strategic priorities, how to decide what in-service training will be prioritized for design and delivery, and how to prioritize participants. As a result, it is difficult to ensure in-service training is prioritized according to organizational priorities and in a consistent manner.

Other organizations have national policies that identify the priorities of their learning and development functions. Elements of their learning and development priorities that are outlined in national policies include training that is in support of the organization's mandate and strategic priorities, advancement of leaders within the organization, compliance with public service mandatory training, electronic tracking of courses to enable planning and reporting, and sharing of best practices with other organizations.

A possible best practice identified in the review of other agencies within the public safety portfolio is the existence of a centralized governance board that makes decisions on training priorities.

For example, CSC has a centralized body that is responsible for making national training decisions. The CSC Training Governance Board is chaired by the Commissioner of CSC and is responsible for approving the training plan for major employee groups within the organization (e.g., correctional officers, parole officers), implementing new training, and authorizing modifications to training. The board has an organizational perspective and is able to prioritize training in a strategic manner.

Prioritization: Course design

The RCMP's NLS Strategic Plan states that new training design projects are assigned using a project prioritization matrix. As a result of exceeding demand and a shortage of resources, only the projects that focus on training for officer safety, core operational functions, and other high-risk and specialized programs are designed/developed. Additionally, it was noted by interviewees that regular evaluation and maintenance of learning products is seldom a priority due to requirements to address new and pressing priorities. LDD regularly reprioritized tasks to respond to urgent needs.

Prioritization: Course delivery

Divisions and business lines use different methods for prioritizing the types of in-service training that will be delivered, when the training will be delivered and who will participate. For example, some divisions/business lines prioritize training based on whether the course is mandatory or not and others conduct a needs analysis.

Methods for identifying training participants vary between divisions and business lines. Some divisions/business lines prioritize participants based on operational needs while others consider geographic location, years of service and budget.

Official Language and Gender Based Analysis Plus

OL considerations

The LTDM outlines requirements for official language considerations. It states that "[w]here possible, equivalent learning opportunities will be available to employees in both official languages." ^Endnote5

Furthermore, the LTDM states that national CTSs must be available in both official languages and that national instructor-led and online courses are not launched until they are available in both official languages.

Many interviewees reported that training adequately incorporates OL considerations. However, both interview and survey respondents identified challenges with applying OL considerations with regard to in-service training. This included the existence of backlogs in translation of training materials and insufficient course delivery in French. Interview respondents reported that some instructors do not have access to French course material, and some translate material in real time during the training. Even when instructors have access to French course material, training may not be delivered in French due to low demand, resulting in employees waiting for an extended period of time to receive desired training.

A review of internal documents from LDD highlighted challenges with ensuring courses are provided in both official languages. In particular, the NLS Strategic Plan states that until recently online courses have been translated by internal translation services. However, due to an increase in the development of online courses, the RCMP's internal translation unit is not able to meet the demand. Therefore, external translation services are required which are more costly and the responsibility for assuming these costs is unclear (i.e., LDD or client who requested the newly designed training). Until recently, in some cases courses are not being sent for translation due to cost. In 2020, L&D started receiving appropriate funding to translate all training materials.

GBA+

The evaluation found that GBA+ is part of the in-service training component of the RCMP's learning and development function. The LTDM highlights the importance of "identifying unintended barriers… regarding any proposed training" (i.e., during course design).^Endnote6

Most interview respondents reported that GBA+ is considered in course design while a few agreed it was considered in course delivery. These responses align with the LTDM which identifies GBA+ in course design/development but not in delivery.

Some survey respondents agreed that GBA+ is incorporated into training, many were neutral and a few disagreed. Some survey respondents reported that GBA+ is irrelevant in a training environment. Given these responses, there may be a need for greater awareness and incorporation of GBA+ within in-service training.

The evaluation disaggregated survey data based on the gender aspect of GBA+. A survey of instructors highlighted differences in response rates by gender across different training types. In particular, specific training areas such as Emergency Response Team/Underwater Response Team/Officer Safety Program and tactical training, had a low proportion of female respondents given that 19% of survey respondents were female.

A total of 221 RCMP staff responded to the survey, 19% were female, 78.7% were male and 2.3% preferred not to answer. The totals within each type of training may not add up to 100% due to individuals not specifying their gender.

Figure 3 - Text version

A stacked bar graph that depicts the proportion of survey respondents (training instructors) by training they instruct and by gender.

The graph is split into six categories along the horizontal axis. The following six categories represent the type of training the respondents deliver and are labeled as such along the horizontal axis of the graph: Tactical; Mandatory non-Tactical; Developmental; ERT/URT/OSM; Leadership and, Other.

The graph is stacked in two categories which represent gender. The labels for the two categories are: female, which is teal and male which is royal blue. The proportion of male and female instructors are presented by training type in each of the following six categories:

• Tactical 6% female and 92% male
• Mandatory non-tactical 33% female and 62% male
• Developmental 23% female and 75% male
• ERT/URT/OSM 0% female and 92% male
• Leadership 33% female and 67% male
• Other 34% female and 66% male

Resources

The in-service training component of the RCMP's learning and development function requires sufficient human resources, infrastructure, equipment, training, systems and service standards in order to adequately fulfill its mandate. The evaluation found the most common challenges associated with support for in-service training included insufficient infrastructure and human resources, and difficulty accurately determining total costs.

Infrastructure

Divisions are responsible for delivering in-service training to their employees, including provision of training facilities. Access to adequate and appropriate facilities varies by division.

The RCMP's PRTC, located in E Division, provides a diverse training space for various types of training. Other divisions may not have access to similar infrastructure, often using other RCMP spaces (e.g., lunch rooms, offices, garages) or renting spaces (e.g., shooting ranges, hotel rooms, former military barracks, former schools) to complete training

Most interview respondents and some survey respondents reported that the infrastructure in place to support in-service training activities in their division was insufficient. Interviewees reported the following key challenges with respect to infrastructure:

• Use of facilities that may pose health and safety risks to employees (e.g., older buildings that contain mold)
• Lack of availability of shooting ranges
• Lack of availability of facilities that meet a specific need (e.g., carbine training), which may necessitate a modification to the training approach and outcomes

Figure 4 - Text version

The image depicts the proportion of survey respondents (training instructors) who reported that the infrastructure in their division was insufficient.

There are three blue circles side by side that get increasingly lighter in colour from left to right. The first and darkest blue circle has a greater than or equal to sign followed by 50% written in the center of the circle with "L, F, O and National Divisions" written below the circle. This circle identifies that 50% or greater of the respondents from L, F, O and National divisions reported that the infrastructure in their division was insufficient.

The second and medium coloured blue circle has a less than sign followed by 50% written in the center of the circle with "D, K, E, B, H and NHQ" written below the circle. This circle identifies that less than 50% of the respondents from D, K, E, B, H and NHQ divisions reported that the infrastructure in their division was insufficient.

The third and lightest coloured blue circle has a 0% written in the center of the circle with "C, G and J Divisions" written below the circle. This circle identifies that 0% of the respondents from C, G and J divisions reported that the infrastructure in their division was insufficient.

Human resources

The evaluation found that LDD provides high quality service to internal and external clients. Resource constraints were reported by interviewees to impede the directorate's ability to meet the needs of many divisions and business lines due to a large workload and numerous urgent requests.

Most interview respondents and some survey respondents reported that there are insufficient human resources within LDD and divisions to support the in-service training component of the learning and development function. They reported that:

• LDD does not have the resources to fully execute its mandate (e.g., conduct regular course maintenance and support corporate learning initiatives) and must regularly reprioritize tasks to respond to urgent needs. LDD is unable to address all of the design requests with the current complement of staff, meaning that some business lines (e.g., Federal Policing) have provided temporary funding to the directorate for resources to support their business line.
• LDD is also unable to meaningfully evaluate the effectiveness of the full complement of RCMP training, or to be proactive in updating existing courses and designing new courses that respond to the changing needs of the organization.
• A lack of resources within the Agora and multimedia teams impedes the development of courses in a timely manner.
• Some divisions must dedicate all of their training resources to delivering mandatory training and do not have the resources to deliver other types of employee training.

Regular evaluation and maintenance of learning products is seldom a priority, due to requirements to address new and pressing priorities.

Collection and reporting of financial data

RCMP in-service training is decentralized across the organization, with each division/business line being responsible for calculating their training costs. The overall costs associated with in-service training across the organization have not been previously examined or reported. There is no standardized method or oversight mechanism for allocating funds, costing activities or reporting on costs.

This evaluation attempted to estimate the total cost of in-service training by gathering financial data from across the organization. Between April 1, 2019 and March 31, 2020, the RCMP spent an average of $73M on in-service training. These costs include salary and O&M of LDD, divisions and business lines.

This evaluation attempted to estimate most expenditures but likely underestimates the cost of in-service training. Of note, this figure does not include expenditures related to the Cadet Training Program, Field Coaching Program, CPC, external training, part-time instructor salaries, language training, capital expenditures and all travel costs associated with training

Distribution of resources

The evaluation identified potential efficiencies to be considered in terms of distribution of resources from an economies of scale perspective. The design and delivery of in-service training takes place to various degrees across the organization.

As previously noted, LDD is the primary unit within the RCMP that designs in-service training; however, some divisions and business lines also design/develop training. Many interviewees reported duplication of in-service training mechanisms and most of these respondents reported duplication of course design.

The delivery of in-service training activities is decentralized, meaning that all divisions, some business lines, and LDD have employees who deliver training (e.g., Officer in Charge of training, instructors and administrative staff).

Interview and survey respondents made the following suggestions to improve in-service training:

• Decrease the time it takes to update training materials and teaching methods (e.g., review training on a cyclical basis, update courses in real time)
• Improve the process for prioritizing training (e.g., schedule training at the same time every year)
• Increase access to dedicated training facilities
• Increase support to facilitators (e.g., provide continuous training for facilitators to ensure their knowledge remains current)
• Increase collaboration between stakeholders

Compliance

Course compliance requirements

RCMP employees must complete a combination of Treasury Board mandatory training, RCMP mandatory operational training, and divisional or business line specific training based on their role within the organization.

RCMP policy outlines the timelines associated with mandatory and mandatory operational training. For example, timelines for firearms recertification training can be found in the RCMP's Firearms Manual.

Compliance rates for national mandatory training are governed by the NMTOC which is responsible for providing quarterly reports on compliance of mandatory training to the National Integrated Operations Council and the Senior Executive Committee.

Reporting

RCMP senior management regularly receives reports on the compliance rates for select mandatory training including:

• Pistol
• Officer Skills Maintenance (recertification of pistol, first aid/CPR, baton, oleoresin capsicum (pepper spray), carotid, Incident Management Intervention Model)
• Carbine
• Immediate Action Rapid Deployment

However, compliance rates for mandatory training/mandatory operational training (e.g., Hard Body Armour, Initial Critical Response, Disability Management and Accommodations for Supervisors) are not reported to senior management. The current capability of the RCMP's LMS is limited and unable to sufficiently calculate compliance rates, in part due to difficulties linking data from other systems (e.g., HRMIS). Therefore, RCMP senior management is unaware of compliance rates more broadly.

Technology

Through Vision150, the RCMP has committed to "modernizing the RCMP's learning and development function, and transforming the leadership development model..." ^Endnote7

Over the period of review for this evaluation, the in-service training component of the learning and development function has increased the use of technology to support its mandate, primarily through increased online learning.

Survey and interview respondents highlighted several efficiencies that have been gained through online learning, including:

• lower training costs
• more candidate participation
• increased access to presenters/subject matter experts

Figure 5 - Text version

The horizontal bar graph represents the proportion of respondents (training instructors) who are satisfied with technological resources in their division or business line. The vertical axes has the following labels beginning at bottom of the graph: Don't know, Dissatisfied, Neutral, Satisfied. The proportions are expressed as blue bars in ascending order from the bottom of the graph. The following proportions correspond to the level of satisfaction reported by respondents and are written in each blue bar:

• Don't know 2%
• Dissatisfied 19%
• Neutral 30%
• Satisfied 49%

Most survey respondents reported that they were satisfied that technology has been sufficiently incorporated into training. Nevertheless, interview and survey respondents suggested the following improvements: an increase in the use of interactive technologies (e.g., virtual reality, firearms simulators), access to better technological infrastructure (e.g., laptops); and, an increase in the number of courses with an online learning component.

Technological efficiencies: Use of LMS

The RCMP uses SABA as its LMS. Interview respondents reported that SABA has a number of advanced features that have not been implemented by the RCMP, including virtual classrooms/webinars and the ability of the LMS to integrate with HRMIS to calculate course compliance rates. These features would enhance training and increase efficiencies.

Other government departments have increased the use of technology including online course delivery. CBSA provides in-person courses only where a candidate must demonstrate acquisition of a specific skill; all other courses are provided online. CSC has implemented virtual classrooms and is moving towards a central online learning and development hub to host course calendars and facilitate training that allows participation from across the country. CSPS is using a modern LMS that includes advanced training features.

Conclusion and recommendations

Conclusion

The in-service training component of the learning and development function plays an essential role in ensuring the safety and security of all employees and the public through the provision of quality training. While the function has been largely successful in this regard, the evaluation identified risks associated with the consistency and efficiency of the design and delivery of training.

Governance structure

Gaps in identifying clear roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders involved in in-service training present challenges in understanding who is responsible for key aspects of the function. The decentralized delivery of in-service training poses a challenge from an economies of scale perspective, as there is duplication of effort across divisions (e.g., each division has learning and development staff delivering training). This structure also makes it difficult to coordinate, prioritize and standardize course delivery, and consistently apply OL and GBA+ considerations to training.

Human resources and physical infrastructure

LDD designs and develops quality learning products, and clients reported they were satisfied with their interactions with LDD. There is a high demand for LDD service, which is not always provided in a timely manner due to human resource constraints and an immense workload. These resource constraints limit the scope of the work LDD can undertake, including designing new training and maintaining existing courses, which increases the likelihood of divisions and business lines modifying existing training/CTSs or finding alternative training solutions.

In addition, sufficient infrastructure is necessary to ensure that high quality training is accessible to all employees.

Technology

Efficiencies could also be realized from a technological perspective to increase online/virtual course delivery and update the RCMP's LMS.

Recommendations

Based on the findings and conclusions of this evaluation, the following actions are recommended:

• Examine the governance of in-service training with a view to enhancing national oversight of its design and delivery. This includes updating the LTDM to clarify the mandate and priorities of the in-service training component of learning and development, as well as the respective roles and responsibilities of the CLO, LDD, and divisions and business lines.
• Ensure appropriate resources and infrastructure, as well as a standard methodology for calculating in-service training costs, are in place to fulfill the organization's in-service training mandate and maximize efficiencies.
• Continue integrating the use of technology through advancements in a LMS and to fully capitalize on functionality through improvements in the efficiency of compliance reporting.

Appendices

Appendix A: Management Response and Action Plan (MRAP)

Management response

The Learning and Development (L&D) senior management team supports the findings of the evaluation and the implementation of the recommendations proposed by National Program Evaluation Services.

Appendix B: Descriptive scale of interview responses

All

Findings reflect the views and opinions of 100% of interviewees

Most

Findings reflect the views and opinions of at least 75% but less than 100% of interviewees

Many

Findings reflect the views and opinions of at least 51% but less than 75% of interviewees

Half

Findings reflect the views and opinions of 50% of interviewees

Some

Findings reflect the views and opinions of at least 25% but less than 50% of interviewees

A few

Findings reflect the views and opinions of at least two respondents but less than 25% of interviewees

Date modified:

2022-12-23