2010–13 Strategic Plan

Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada

Revised: March 28, 2011

Introduction

This document outlines the strategic direction of the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada (the Office) for the next three years. It endeavours to guide us in answering the critical and difficult questions: “What is our added value to the public service and how can we measure it?” After three years since its creation, the Office has a clear understanding of the challenges of implementing a new legislation, including the establishment of a new organization, and is ready to proceed to the next proactive stage by formulating future plans. The strategic plan will define the Office’s operating landscape, where we will be positioned in three years and the key-result areas that will make this possible. The plan is intended to be a flexible and adaptable tool to guide us towards our goals in an ever-changing environment. It builds on the successes and lessons learned by the organization since its creation and most importantly, leverages the high degree of competency and professionalism of its employees.

Vision

The Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada is a trusted place to disclose wrongdoing, to protect disclosers from reprisal and to take appropriate action that will ultimately enhance confidence in the integrity of public servants and public institutions.

Mission

The Office provides a confidential, independent and effective response to:

• disclosures of wrongdoing in the federal public sector from public servants or members of the public; and
• complaints of reprisal from public servants and former public servants.

Guiding Principles

The Office’s work is guided by the following principles:

• Accessibility – We are approachable, our processes are transparent and we are forthcoming about our results
• Independence – We make our decisions impartially and independently
• Timeliness – We are efficient and we act in a timely manner
• Action-orientation – We pursue disclosures of wrongdoing and reprisal complaints diligently and take appropriate action whenever possible
• Confidentiality – We protect the confidentiality of the identity of disclosers and of information disclosed to the extent possible under the law

Values

The Office operates under a set of values that defines who we are and how we interact with our clients and stakeholders:

• Integrity in our actions and processes
• Respect for our clients and our employees
• Fairness in our procedures and our decisions
• Professionalism in the manner we conduct ourselves and our work

Strategic Context

The Office is an independent Agent of Parliament created in 2007 under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA or the Act). It is a micro-organization composed of approximately 25 employees serving over 400,000 public servants. The Office is one element of a larger public sector integrity landscape that includes the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), which is responsible for promoting ethical practices and disseminating knowledge about the Act, as well as each Department and Agency, which are accountable for establishing their own internal disclosure mechanisms.

The Office’s environment is a complex one that reflects its sensitive mandate. The work requires a high degree of care as the cases can directly impact the lives and reputations of individuals and organizations. While everyone in the public sector is in favour of integrity, there remains an undercurrent of apprehension and skepticism at the very mention of disclosure of wrongdoing. The PSDPA challenges a current culture of silence and, in some areas, has provoked a “not in my backyard” reaction to the possibility of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing. There is also a cultural misconception that whistleblowers are disgruntled or poor performing employees. The Act is broad, granting considerable powers to the Office, which are exercised judiciously and responsibly. The Office continues to evolve the ways in which it implements its mandate as cases come in and as precedents are established. 

Disclosing wrongdoing is, by its very nature, difficult, even with the protection offered by the Act. This can be explained by a number of factors, including:

• Perception of personal risks (loss of job, damage to reputation and career, impact on personal relationships, fear the process will be protracted and costly);
• Lack of confidence that a meaningful change or resolution will occur as a result of coming forward;
• Influence of organizational cultures that do not encourage openness and disclosures;
• Support structures that are not fully tested; and
• Confusion as to where to go to make a disclosure due to the number of parties involved in implementing the Act and the number of other organizations with similar or potentially overlapping mandates.

The Act is relatively new and an independent review of the legislation, its administration and operation, to be called by the Treasury Board Secretariat, will be conducted after the 2011-12 fiscal year. It will be essential for the Office to be ready to support this five-year review with relevant performance information, including recommendations for legislative amendments and operational/policy reform.

A report on the former Public Sector Integrity Commissioner by the Office of the Auditor General was tabled in Parliament on December 9, 2010. This report has increased the scrutiny of the Office. A resulting third party review of files closed prior to December 20, 2010, has increased operational workloads and will likely continue to do so as the results of the review lead to some remedial actions.

Standardizing documentation and formalizing processes will become increasingly important to address work volumes and to assure key stakeholders that the Office is able to provide sound mechanisms for the disclosure of wrongdoing and reprisal complaints.

Environmental Scan

As part of the strategic planning exercise, an environmental scan was conducted to provide context for the process. The table below highlights the key environmental characteristics (see Annex A for additional details).

• OAG report and increased public scrutiny
• Shifting political environment
• Climate of economic restraint
• Changing public service demographics
• Emergence of new social media technology
• Increase in national and international integrity regimes
• Resistance to whistle-blowing
• Shared Agent of Parliament issues 
• Characteristics of enabling legislation
• High turnover of Senior Officers and differences between departments in the implementation of the Act
• Shift to centralization of services
• Challenge of ensuring appropriate human resources
• Rapidly changing technology
• Challenge of developing meaningful performance measures

Key Result Areas

The following are the Key Result Areas towards which the Office has chosen to focus its resources and efforts over the next three years. These areas were selected after a thorough consideration of the environmental scan and the Corporate Risk Profile.

Key Result Area 1: Disclosure and reprisal management function that is efficient, independent and accessible
Objective: Ensure that the operations of the core program are well managed and firmly rooted in the Office’s guiding principles 
Link to Corporate Risks: Information management and security; effectiveness of strategies and processes; awareness and trust
High level activities: 
1.1 Take the necessary actions to address the results of the third party review of all past closed case files
1.2 Review, standardize, document and implement operational processes to ensure efficiency, timeliness and accessibility 
1.3 Develop and implement clear policies
1.4 Develop and implement a new case management system

Key Result Area 2: Engagement of key stakeholders
Objective: Increase awareness of and trust in the Office as a safe vehicle to disclose wrongdoing, to discourage reprisals and to provide a deterrent for wrongdoing
Link to Corporate Risks: Awareness and trust
High level activities:
2.1 Focus communication and relationship-building efforts on key stakeholders:
2.1.1 Public servants through senior officers
2.1.2 Non-governmental organizations and unions through the creation of an Advisory Committee
2.1.3 Chief Executives

Key Result Area 3: Meaningful performance information
Objective: Develop and implement a performance measurement strategy to assess, support and communicate our effectiveness
Link to Corporate Risks: Performance reporting; awareness and trust
High level activities: 
3.1 Develop a performance management framework to ensure that the Office invests its efforts efficiently, demonstrates its value and identifies areas for improvement
3.1.1 Articulate objectives and communicate results
3.1.2 Identify outputs, outcomes and key performance indicators
3.1.3 Develop a strategy to collect, analyze and report data and integrate into ongoing planning functions
3.2 Support the preparation of the five-year review
3.2.1 Document the Office’s observations and experiences in implementing the PSDPA, including recommendations for legislative amendment and operational/policy reform

Key Result Area 4: Increased human resource capacity
Objective: Recruit, develop, engage and retain individuals with the necessary competencies to execute the Office’s strategies and to fulfill its mandate
Link to Corporate Risks: Capacity to meet growth; compliance with authorities
High level activities: 
4.1 Identify and assess the competencies the organization needs to succeed
4.1.1 Conduct a gap assessment and determine how we will acquire the required competencies (staffing, training)
4.1.2 Develop a succession planning strategy (including knowledge transfer)
4.2 Increase the level of employee engagement and provide employees with the necessary support to strengthen the organization
4.2.1 Engage staff in planning and implementing organizational change
4.2.2 Provide all employees with performance agreements and regular feedback
4.2.3 Create learning plans with employees aligned with the new organizational structure 
4.2.4 Assess current resources and provide support to employees to continue to develop and excel
4.2.5 Ensure that we support our HR objectives by providing staff with additional tools, technology and accommodations to be responsive to organizational requirements,
4.3 Develop an internal code of values and ethics and implement an informal conflict management system
 

Annex A: Environmental Scan

• OAG report and increased public scrutiny – The OAG’s December 2010 report on the former Commissioner has lead to increased scrutiny by parliamentarians, the media and non-government organizations.

Impact: The Office must be prepared to demonstrate its effectiveness and improvements by addressing any deficiencies identified in the third party review of past files. The Office must also re-establish trust by providing assurances to parliamentarians, public servants and Canadians, through all appropriate means, including reports and through the media, that it provides an effective and trustworthy mechanism for disclosure of wrongdoing and reprisal complaints. 

• Shifting political environment - Recent elections have produced minority Governments and there is the possibility that this trend may continue. This partisan environment has seen integrity issues used in an adversarial manner. The shifting political environment may also lead to challenges in the development, implementation and stability of policies and programs as well as the accountability regime. Furthermore, Parliament will be presented with a report on the independent review of the Act, its operation and administration, after the 2011-12 fiscal year.

Impact: Basing criticism on integrity issues can lead to public cynicism against the public sector. The Office’s communications strategy must include Parliamentarians and take note of the Government’s priorities. The Office must also be ready to support the independent review and inform Parliament with recommendations regarding operations, legislative amendments and machinery of government considerations which are supported by practical experience, expertise and an established body of knowledge.

• Climate of economic restraint – Recent government-tabled budgets have called for significant public service budget cuts, program reviews and the elimination of many GIC positions. Budget releases over the next few years will likely be consistent in tone. 

Impact: The Office must be able to demonstrate its value and uniqueness. There is also the potential for increased disclosures of wrongdoing or reprisal complaints related to HR issues arising from government wide budget reductions.

• Changing public service demographics - Canada as a whole is becoming more diverse. This is reflected in the public sector where the makeup is becoming more multi-cultural, is more gender-balanced and is aging, with many public servants eligible to retire in the near future.

Impact: The increase in diversity and the wide spectrum of cultures and viewpoints will increase case complexity and require that outreach and engagement efforts be more tailored and targeted. The Office’s intake and investigation functions may also be affected as this trend could increase the complexity and variety of cases and inquiries received. Continuous education on the Act will be required as more public servants retire and are replaced.

• Emergence of new social media technology - The use of social media (such as blogs, Facebook and Twitter) by Canadians, public servants and the government itself is becoming a more prevalent means of communicating and interacting.

Impact: These technologies can blur the division between the professional and private lives of public servants. The Office is also faced with the challenge of determining the most appropriate way to leverage these technologies to communicate and interact with Canadians and public servants.

• Increase in national and international integrity regimes - Media and public interest has precipitated the establishment of integrity regimes at the provincial/municipal levels, as well as in other countries. These regimes vary in terms of legislation, mandate, powers, jurisdiction and organizational structures. 

Impact: This trend provides the opportunity for benchmarking, to share best practices and research, and provides leadership opportunities for the Office. However, the Office must be able to effectively articulate its own unique role within the Canadian federal public sector.

• Resistance to whistle-blowing - Despite the existence of formal mechanisms to facilitate the disclosure of wrongdoing and to protect against and prevent reprisals, there still exists a culture of cynicism and resistance towards the disclosure of wrongdoing within the federal public service.

Impact: The strong influence of organizational culture plays a fundamental role in an individual’s decision to disclose wrongdoing. Cynicism and trepidation are also influenced by an individual’s perception of the confidentiality offered and the experience of other disclosers. This will impact outreach and engagement strategies to promote the reporting of wrongdoing and to build confidence in the Office. 

• Shared Agent of Parliament issues – There has been a recent trend for the Agents to be considered in the same context when certain common issues arise (e.g. GIC appointment processes, accountability, independence, scrutiny of results).

Impact: The Office must have a solid relationship and understanding with the other Agents of Parliament over shared issues. The organization must be prepared to respond to common issues as they arise in the shared Agent of Parliament landscape. 

• Characteristics of enabling legislation – The PSDPA provides for broad powers, but also specific limitations.

Impact: The Office is committed to pursuing disclosures of wrongdoing and reprisal complaints and to taking appropriate action whenever possible. However, the options available to the Office are limited at times by the constraints of the Act. 

• High turnover of Senior Officers and differences between departments in the implementation of the Act - Due to attrition and the culture of frequently changing jobs at senior levels, there has been a high degree of turnover among Senior Officers, resulting in a loss of knowledge and expertise. Also, the implementation of the Senior Officer position has varied across the public sector in terms of training, experience and positioning within the organization.

Impact: This has in part led to a lack of uniformity in the application of the PSDPA and the treatment of disclosures of wrongdoing among organizations. Consequently, there has been an increased need for training and support. This could also increase the Office’s workload if more individuals choose to disclose directly to the Office rather than through their organization’s Senior Officer.

• Shift to centralization of services - There is increased promotion of shared services provided through PWGSC for small departments and agencies. Some uncertainty exists regarding what services will be available and the degree to which this trend will extend to larger organizations.

Impact: This trend has the potential for a complicated and lengthy transition period that may change departmental business processes and practices. 

• Challenge of ensuring appropriate human resources - There are challenges sourcing and retaining individuals with the right mix of skills. With the impending retirement of a significant number of public servants, the labour market for key skilled positions, such as investigators, will likely become even more competitive. Also, by the end of 2011, the Office will have been led by its third Commissioner.

Impact: As much of the Office’s work is case driven, it can be difficult to predict the timing and volume of workloads. The Office endeavours to address files in the order in which they have been received. However, exigent circumstances may require prioritization. To make the best use of limited staff, the Office must determine the correct balance of generalists and specialists, and of indeterminate and casual/contractors (recognizing that the use of contractors is more scalable but, similar to new employees, requires initial investments of time and effort). It will also be important for staff to have a clear and stable organizational direction given the recent changes in leadership.

• Rapidly changing technology - New technologies are emerging that could better help the Office manage its corporate knowledge (i.e. information management), administration, accessibility, case management and performance statistics (i.e. case management system).

Impact: The Office must carefully consider the appropriate technologies for investment in order to ensure that they support its future strategic needs and objectives, including tools to develop and retain corporate knowledge.

• Challenge of developing meaningful performance measures - The nature of the Office’s work is complex and does not lend itself easily to performance measurement. Each case is unique. Performance measurement is further complicated as the mandate is shared with other stakeholders. Some of the results that could be attributable to the Office’s efforts manifest themselves in other organizations, making them difficult to measure. While TBS publishes an annual report on the PSDPA that includes statistics for these organizations, the timing and methodology used for this report and the Office’s Annual Report are not aligned.

Impact: The five-year review, as well as the Annual Reports, requires that the Office present performance data. It is critical that the Office develops meaningful performance information, along with effectively relating key successes and other qualitative information, to demonstrate the relevance of the Office to Parliamentarians and public servants and value for money to the public.