Follow-up of the Public Service Commission’s 2009 Audit of CBSA Human Resources Staffing

March 2012

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................... 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 6

1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 6

1.2 RISK ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................... 6

1.3 AUDIT OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE ............................................................................... 7

1.4 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 7

1.5 AUDIT CRITERIA ......................................................................................................... 8

1.6 STATEMENT OF ASSURANCE .................................................................................. 8

2.0 AUDIT OPINION ....................................................................................... 8

3.0 FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION PLANS ........ 8

3.1 STAFFING STRATEGIES ............................................................................................ 8

3.2 OVERSIGHT AND MONITORING ............................................................................. 9

3.3 CAPACITY TO DELIVER .......................................................................................... 13

APPENDIX A: AUDIT CRITERIA – Public Service Commission October 2009 Audit Report Recommendations ...................................................................... 17

APPENDIX B: LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................ 18

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) was created in December 2003 and is part of the Public

Safety Portfolio. It is responsible for providing integrated border services that support national security

and public safety priorities, and facilitate the free flow of persons and goods. As of July 1, 2011, the

Agency employed 15,939 people, and in fiscal 2010-2011, carried out over 12,000 staffing transactions

(including acting appointments, deployments, student bridging, etc.).

When the Agency was created in 2003, it incorporated resources from the Canada Revenue Agency,

Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Consequently, the

CBSA became subject to the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA) and was obliged to implement its

requirements.

Through the Human Resources Branch (HRB), the Agency ensures that its human resources (HR)

management policies, programs and processes align with Government of Canada human resources

management policies, practices and initiatives, and with the CBSA's Business Plans, Annual Plans and

Reports to Parliament.

In 2009, the Public Service Commission (PSC) carried out an audit of HR staffing for the period of

January 1, 2006 through March 31, 2009. The audit objective was to ensure that the CBSA had

appropriate frameworks, systems and practices for managing its appointment activities. The audit

included six recommendations (see Appendix A), and a requirement for a follow-up audit to assess the

Agency’s compliance with the legislation and policies governing the making of appointments. In

response to the PSC’s audit report, the CBSA developed a Management Action Plan to address that

report’s recommendations.

The Agency launched the Staffing Accountability Improvement Strategy (SAIS) in April 2011. The

Strategy is a “collection of related initiatives designed to support both managers and HR practitioners in

delivering staffing excellence.” The Strategy includes initiatives such as a new sub-delegation

framework, a new staffing policy suite, a new guide for managers on staffing, and new tools and

reference guides to aid managers in the staffing process.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS FOLLOW-UP AUDIT

This follow-up audit is significant because it provides assurance to senior managers and the PSC on

progress the Agency has made in response to the six recommendations in the Commission’s October

2009 audit, and the Management Action Plan developed in response to that audit.

AUDIT OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE

The objective of this follow-up audit was to determine whether or not the Agency has adequately

addressed the six recommendations in the PSC’s October 2009 audit report, and appropriately

implemented the Management Action Plan that it developed to respond to these recommendations.

3

The scope of this follow-up audit included testing the implementation of the Management Action Plan.

The period covered by this audit was October 2010 to December 2011.

AUDIT OPINION

The Canada Border Services Agency has adequately addressed the six audit recommendations made by

the Public Service Commission in its October 2009 audit report. However, some opportunities for

improvement still exist.

This translates into a minor risk1 exposure for the Agency.

KEY FINDINGS

We found that the Agency has fully or substantially2 addressed four of the six recommendations in the

PSC’s 2009 audit of staffing. These recommendations relate to: implementing the CBSA’s action plan

resulting from its 2008-2009 appointment file review; identifying training requirements for managers

with sub-delegated staffing authority; clarifying the respective roles of Integrated Branch Business

Services (IBBS) and HRB staff with regard to staffing activities; and validating staffing specialists’

knowledge.

For the remaining two recommendations, we found that the Agency has partially3 addressed the

recommendations. They relate to: conducting human resources planning and carrying out monitoring

and oversight activities.

More specifically:

We found that the Human Resources Branch has recently introduced major improvements with

regard to the enterprise human resources planning function. Since April 1, 2011, the HRB has

been implementing an annual planning cycle, including the preparation of specific tactical

staffing plans by all branches and regions in the summer of 2011, and the preparation of a

corporate integrated business and HR plan in the fall of 2011. It is too early to determine the

effectiveness of this new process, but we do encourage the HRB to continue with its

implementation.

Our review of the 2010-2011 Monitoring Framework indicated that it was clear and

comprehensive, and that it met PSC requirements. We also noted that most of the monitoring

activities planned for 2010-2011 had been carried out as intended, with the exception of

reporting monitoring results to senior management, which was inconsistent over that fiscal year.

1 Minor Risk – A weakness in the design and/or operation of a non-key process control. Ability to achieve process objectives

is unlikely to be impacted. Corrective action is suggested to ensure controls are cost-effective. 2 Substantially – ‘being largely but not wholly that which is specified’ Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substantial 3 Partially - ‘of or relating to a part rather than a whole: not general or total’ Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/partial

4

We found considerable improvement with regard to the monitoring process for 2011-2012,

including the use of a revised monitoring checklist and mid-year reporting to senior

management.

We noted certain weaknesses in the current monitoring practices that need to be addressed, such

as: the need to document and better communicate the methodology relating to the monitoring

process; the need to implement a quality assurance review process for consistency in application;

and the need for corporate, as opposed to regional/branch selection of the files to be monitored.

We found that the Agency has significantly improved its mechanisms for providing sub-

delegated managers and HR advisors with the tools and training they need to carry out their

staffing responsibilities. Under the current Staffing Accountability Improvement Strategy, CBSA

managers who had sub-delegated staffing authority prior to April 2011 have been advised that

they must complete a staffing refresher course and submit a certification request form to

maintain their staffing sub-delegation authorities. However, we noted that the Agency has not set

a deadline for them to do so. This poses the risk that there may be appointments made by some

managers who have not officially received sub-delegated staffing authority and may therefore

not be technically authorized to do so.

Although various steps had been taken to help clarify the roles and responsibilities of the IBBS

and the HRB regarding staffing and to improve client service, we found that managers are still

experiencing some degree of role confusion with regard to the conduct of business practices.

This can lead to delays in staffing processes.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The audit has made recommendations on:

1. addressing various weaknesses in monitoring practices;

2. establishing a deadline for ensuring that managers obtain the required training and certification

prior to exercising sub-delegated staffing authority, and monitoring progress; and

3. examining the structure and functions of the IBBS units with a view to determining the most

efficient and effective way of providing staffing services to Agency stakeholders.

STATEMENT OF ASSURANCE

This audit engagement was planned and conducted in accordance with the Internal Auditing Standards

for the Government of Canada.

5

MANAGEMENT RESPONSE

Management agrees that the findings of the Audit as presented are accurate, fair, and present a balanced

view of the progress that has been made implementing the PSC Entity Audit recommendations from

2009. Of note, the Staffing Accountability Improvement Strategy, which is now well underway, was

launched in April 2011 to fast-track the remaining initiatives required to respond to the original audit

recommendations, and specifically targeted improvements in staffing planning and file documentation

for 2011-12. These targeted improvements were implemented and were in accordance with 2011-12

objectives and the intent of the PSC recommendations. Further, these efforts have laid a solid foundation

for a repeatable, annual planning cycle and ongoing improvements in the CBSA staffing monitoring

function. Within this context, management agrees that more work is required to adopt a more rigorous

approach to the staffing monitoring function that includes mechanisms for more consistent and regular

reporting to senior management.

6

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) was created in December 2003 and is part of the Public

Safety Portfolio. It is responsible for providing integrated border services that support national security

and public safety priorities, and facilitate the free flow of persons and goods. As of July 1, 2011 the

Agency employed more than 15,939 people, and in fiscal 2010-2011, it made over 12,000 staffing

transactions (including acting appointments, deployments, student bridging, etc.).

When the Agency was created in 2003, it incorporated resources from the Canada Revenue Agency,

Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Consequently, the

CBSA became subject to the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA) and was obliged to implement its

requirements.

Through the Human Resources Branch (HRB), the Agency ensures that its human resources (HR)

management policies, programs and processes align with Government of Canada human resources

management policies, practices and initiatives, and with the CBSA's Business Plans, Annual Plans and

Reports to Parliament.

In 2009, the Public Service Commission (PSC) carried out an audit of HR staffing for the period of

January 1, 2006 through March 31, 2009. The audit objective was to ensure that the CBSA had

appropriate frameworks, systems and practices for managing its appointment activities. The audit

included six recommendations (see Appendix A), and a requirement for a follow-up audit to assess the

Agency’s compliance with the legislation and policies governing the making of appointments. In

response to the PSC’s audit report, the CBSA developed a Management Action Plan to address that

report’s recommendations.

The Agency launched the Staffing Accountability Improvement Strategy (SAIS) in April 2011. It is a

“collection of related initiatives designed to support both managers and HR practitioners in delivering

staffing excellence.”4 The Staffing Strategy includes initiatives such as a new sub-delegation framework,

a new staffing policy suite, a new guide for managers on staffing, and new tools and reference guides to

aid managers in the staffing process.

The CBSA Audit Committee approved the Audit of Human Resources Staffing as part of the Three-

Year Risk-Based Audit Plan for Fiscal Years 2010-2013.

1.2 RISK ASSESSMENT

The preliminary risk assessment that we carried out for this follow-up audit to the PSC audit identified

the following high-risk areas:

4 Source: CBSA Intranet, Frequently Asked Questions About SAIS, Question 1

7

Implementation of Management Action Plan: If the Agency has not substantially implemented

the Management Action Plan that it developed in response to the six recommendations made by

the PSC in October 2009, there is a risk that previously identified weaknesses could persist. The

Agency could be non-compliant with applicable legislation and policies, which could result in

potential implications for staffing delegation.

Compliance of Appointment Files: If CBSA appointments do not comply with relevant

legislative and policy requirements, there is a risk that merit will not be met and that the other

appointment values will not be respected. This could also pose a risk to the Agency maintaining

its staffing delegation.

The current follow-up audit addressed the first risk identified above, while a subsequent compliance

audit will address the second risk.

1.3 AUDIT OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE

The objective of this follow-up audit was to determine whether or not the Agency had adequately

addressed the six recommendations in the PSC’s October 2009 audit report, and appropriately

implemented the Management Action Plan that it developed to respond to these recommendations.

The scope of this follow-up audit included testing the implementation of the Management Action Plan.

The period covered by this audit was October 2010 to December 2011.

1.4 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The follow-up audit was conducted in accordance with the Internal Auditing Standards for the

Government of Canada. The examination phase used the following approach:

reviewing policies, procedures, guidelines and reports;

interviewing HRB representatives responsible for the monitoring function and analyzing

supporting documentation related to the implementation of the Monitoring Framework;

reviewing a sample of appointment files which the HRB had monitored to determine the

effectiveness of the monitoring efforts;

analyzing the Agency’s responses to the PSC’s 2009 staffing audit and assessing whether the

Management Action Plan had been implemented within the regions and branches, and whether

the Plan had addressed the recommendations;

obtaining supporting documentation to test the implementation of the action plan items;

interviewing sub-delegated managers and HR advisors in Headquarters and the regions to obtain

their perspectives on staffing activities within the Agency; and

8

interviewing personnel in the Integrated Branch Business Services (IBBS) units to obtain

information on roles and responsibilities with respect to staffing actions.

1.5 AUDIT CRITERIA

We based our criteria directly on the six recommendations flowing from the PSC’s audit of HR staffing

for the period of January 1, 2006 through March 31, 2009. Please see Appendix A for these

recommendations.

1.6 STATEMENT OF ASSURANCE

This audit engagement was planned and conducted in accordance with the Internal Auditing Standards

for the Government of Canada.

2.0 AUDIT OPINION

The Canada Border Services Agency has adequately addressed the six audit recommendations made by

the Public Service Commission in its October 2009 audit report. However, some opportunities for

improvement still exist.

This translates into a minor risk5 exposure for the Agency.

3.0 FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION PLANS

3.1 STAFFING STRATEGIES

Audit Criterion: PSC Audit Recommendation 1 - The CBSA should “ensure that its integrated HR

plans provide direction to managers and HR professionals on how to make decisions concerning their

staffing activities, by:

- outlining staffing priorities that are strategically linked to organizational risks and business plans;

- providing staffing strategies to guide decisions on when and how to staff positions based on the PSEA; and

- providing measurable expected results for staffing.”

Conclusion: This criterion was partially met. Our follow-up audit indicated that the Agency has made

some progress in addressing this recommendation.

The Agency developed its first three-year Human Resources Management Plan (HRMP) for fiscal years

2009-2012 and posted it on the intranet site (Atlas) in June 2010. All of the regions and branches

5 Minor Risk – A weakness in the design and/or operation of a non-key process control. Ability to achieve process objectives

is unlikely to be impacted. Corrective action is suggested to ensure controls are cost-effective.

9

prepared HR plans for 2009-2010. An Agency-wide Workforce Analysis was prepared in February

2011. As well, a mid-term review of the HRMP was discussed at the Directors General Forum in

February 2011.

However, we found a number of deficiencies with regard to the HRMP. For example, we found no

evidence that the HRMP had been updated annually, as originally stated in the plan. We also noted that

the HRMP did not specify measurable expected results for staffing. Interviews with sub-delegated

managers confirmed that guidance in the HRMP was at too high a level to be of practical use to them in

making staffing decisions. They also indicated that some of the major problems posed to them in doing

planning were frequent Agency reorganizations and requests to complete HR plans prior to knowing

what the forthcoming budget would be.

More recent documents indicated that the Human Resources Branch has made changes to the HR

planning process in the Agency that, once implemented, will significantly improve the process.

Guidance and tools were provided to all the regions and branches so that, during June and July of 2011,

each of them was able to develop Tactical Staffing Plans for fiscal 2011-2012. These plans included

information such as the types of staffing planned and the timing for these staffing actions, official

language and employment equity considerations, financial and accommodation issues, etc.

In the fall of 2011, the regions and branches prepared Integrated Business Plans for 2012-2015 that

included business objectives and priorities, HR strategies and priorities, an environmental scan, a gap

analysis and a requirement to monitor and measure progress and performance. These plans are intended

to be used to develop Agency-wide HR strategies, such as maximizing the use of collective staffing to

fill similar positions within the CBSA.

Recognizing that the first iteration of the planning cycle has not yet been completed, we support the

HRB’s intention to continue with this cycle of conducting planning for specific tactical staffing in the

spring of each year, and developing the Agency’s corporate HR/business plan each fall. For the purpose

of this audit, we concluded that the PSC’s first recommendation on HR planning has been partially

addressed. However, the recommendation still needs to be fully addressed through completion of the

first cycle of the new HR planning process at the end of this fiscal year. Progress will be tracked by the

Internal Audit and Program Evaluation Directorate of the CBSA through the regular follow-up process.

3.2 OVERSIGHT AND MONITORING

Audit Criterion: PSC Audit Recommendation 2 - The CBSA should “ensure that its Resourcing

Monitoring Framework is fully implemented. This will assist the Agency in assessing its staffing

management practices, performance and controls, and making adjustments, as required, to achieve the

Agency’s HR objectives.”

Conclusion: This criterion was partially met. Our follow-up audit indicated that the Agency has

implemented a monitoring framework; however, we noted some weaknesses with respect to monitoring

practices and therefore concluded that the full intent of the recommendation has not yet been achieved.

10

Monitoring Framework and Plan

To ensure that staffing is managed effectively and in compliance with legislative requirements, deputy

heads are required to establish a governance and monitoring framework. Since the PSC’s 2009 audit, the

CBSA developed a Resourcing Monitoring Framework to provide “the Agency with a management tool

to effectively monitor its staffing activities in accordance with the Staffing Management Accountability

Framework indicators and to assist management in achieving their operational goals through an effective

and efficient staffing regime.”6 Although the Monitoring Framework was developed in 2010-2011, it is

intended to provide guidance on monitoring at the CBSA over the next few years.

Our review of the 2010-2011 Monitoring Framework indicated that it was clear and comprehensive, and

met PSC requirements. Upon examining the monitoring activities that were carried out over 2010-2011,

we concluded that the Agency had fully implemented its Monitoring Framework.

Monitoring Plans at the CBSA are developed each year. The 2010-2011 Monitoring Plan described the

monitoring activities that were to be performed during that fiscal year and how the results were to be

reported. We found that the Monitoring Plan was clear, comprehensive and appropriate. It covered all of

the PSC monitoring requirements and focused on high-risk appointments. We found that most of the

planned monitoring activities had been carried out and that quarterly reports had been sent to the regions

and branches that were monitored. However, reporting of monitoring results consistently to senior

management did not occur as planned.

Our review of the 2011-2012 monitoring practices and reporting showed considerable improvement.

Monthly reports had been shared with the regions and branches, and a mid-year update had been

provided to the Human Resources Standing Committee, as outlined in the 2011-2012 Monitoring Plan.

It would be an advisable practice to periodically table monitoring results at Executive Committee

meetings, which are chaired by the CBSA President, potentially through the Agency’s Performance

Reports. This is important as the President is ultimately accountable for all staffing and appointment-

related decisions in the Agency.

Effectiveness of Monitoring

An effective monitoring program should be carried out by qualified staff. We found that all of the

monitoring team members had the knowledge, skills, experience and competence necessary to perform

monitoring activities. A strong monitoring program is also one that is independent of management. We

concluded that all of the monitoring officers performed their work in an objective and unbiased manner.

However, we noted the following weaknesses with regard to monitoring practices:

No methodology for completing the monitoring checklist or carrying out the file review had been

developed. This lack of methodology led to inconsistencies in how the checklist was used and

uncertainty about what monitoring officers should specifically be looking for during the review.

6 Source: CBSA Monitoring Framework 2010-2011

11

The current monitoring regime relies on the regions and branches to select the appointment files

to be reviewed. This poses the risk that the regions and branches might select files which they

feel will receive positive monitoring results. To the extent to which this is the case, the value of

the monitoring function is significantly reduced.

We noted that, although the regions and branches had been instructed to send only medium- and

high-risk files for monitoring, they had provided some low-risk files and these were monitored.

HR management has stated that low-risk files are no longer being monitored.

During the period under audit, there was no documented quality assurance review of the files that

were monitored. A quality assurance review is important as it ensures that monitoring is being

carried out in accordance with intent, that the feedback provided to HR advisors is appropriate,

and that all monitoring officers have followed a consistent methodology.

Under the current system, a sample of job advertisements and notifications of proposed

appointments are being monitored. We found that the monitoring team was not keeping records

of which ones had been reviewed, except for those requiring corrective action. Therefore, it was

difficult to determine if an advertisement or a notification that was flawed had never been

reviewed, or had been, but the flaws had gone unnoticed.

To further test the effectiveness of monitoring in the CBSA, we reviewed a sample of files that the

monitoring team had recently monitored. If the monitoring exercise covered all the required elements of

the PSC Compliance Audit Program, and the monitoring team reached the same conclusions as did the

internal audit team as to whether or not the files complied with relevant requirements, then we would

determine that the monitoring done was sufficiently effective to be reliable.

We first reviewed a sample of files monitored over the period of October 2010 to March 2011 and found

that the monitoring team’s results were not always consistent with ours. We therefore concluded that we

could not fully rely on the effectiveness of the monitoring done during that time period.

We then reviewed a sample of files monitored over the period of June to September 2011 and noted

improvements with regard to the following matters:

A new monitoring checklist had been developed and used for monitoring, as of April 2011, that

was more comprehensive than the former checklist and more in line with the PSC’s compliance

requirements.

Documentation was available in every file, indicating what corrective action the monitoring team

recommended, and what action the region or branch concerned had taken. Prior to this fiscal

year, files had not included this information.

There were more consistent conclusions between the monitoring team’s results and the audit

team’s results than in the previous sample.

Despite the improvements observed in the second sample reviewed, the weaknesses in the monitoring

practices noted above (related to methodology, the procedures for selecting files for review, the lack of

12

quality assurance review, and the lack of documentation for staffing notifications and posters reviewed)

still need to be addressed to ensure that the monitoring activities are effective.

Given our findings, we will not rely on the monitoring conducted by the HRB in our compliance audit of

staffing activities, starting in January 2012.

RECOMMENDATION 1:

The Vice-President of the Human Resources Branch should address the weaknesses noted with

regard to its monitoring practices to ensure that monitoring activities are fully effective in

addressing staffing issues and limiting the Agency’s exposure to staffing-related risk.

MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN COMPLETION DATE

Improve documentation of monitoring activities completed. April 2012

Strengthen sampling methodology, including selection of high-

risk files by Corporate Resourcing. April 2012

Develop and implement the quality assurance process of the

files monitored. June 2012

Strengthen monitoring criteria and methodology, and complete

the development of tools to ensure the monitoring officers

follow a consistent monitoring approach.

September 2012

Audit Criterion: PSC Audit Recommendation 3 - The CBSA should “provide the PSC with the

Agency’s action plan resulting from its appointment file review (conducted in the fourth quarter of

fiscal 2008-2009). This action plan should describe the actions to be taken, including corrective

measures, accountabilities, timelines and how progress of implementation of the action plan will be

monitored.”

Conclusion: This criterion was met.

The original scope of the PSC Audit of the CBSA included a review of appointment files. However,

during the audit, the PSC noted that the CBSA was completing an internal file review during the fourth

quarter of 2008-2009, where various deficiencies in appointments and appointment-related decisions

were noted. As a result, the PSC decided that a review of appointment files would be more appropriate

13

as part of a follow-up audit. The deferral of the appointment file review resulted in the third

recommendation in the Commission’s October 2009 audit report, as noted above.

We found that each region, in response, had developed an action plan to address the internal file review

recommendations and had later provided an update on the progress that they had made in implementing

the plan. Each regional action plan specified accountabilities and timelines, and included comprehensive

and appropriate corrective measures to address the issues found during the appointment file review.

Both the plans and the progress updates, as reported by the regions, were submitted to the PSC. Further

progress in implementing the regional action plans is measured through the Agency’s monitoring

process.

3.3 CAPACITY TO DELIVER

Audit Criterion: PSC Audit Recommendation 4 - The CBSA should “establish an evaluation process

to help identify training requirements for sub-delegated managers to ensure that those who are sub-

delegated are and remain competent to exercise their appointment and appointment-related authorities.”

Conclusion: This audit criterion was substantially met. Our follow-up audit indicated that the Agency

has made substantial progress in addressing this recommendation.

The Agency has significantly improved its mechanisms for providing sub-delegated managers and HR

advisors with the tools they need to carry out their staffing responsibilities. Over 2009-2010 and 2011-

2012, the Human Resources Branch issued a series of staffing policies, guides and bulletins that are

available on the intranet site (Atlas). We found these tools to be comprehensive, accurate and

appropriate for the users’ needs.

As part of its Staffing Accountability Improvement Strategy (SAIS), in April of 2011, the CBSA

implemented a new Staffing Sub-Delegation Framework, including an updated instrument and policy.

We found the new sub-delegation instrument and policy to be complete and up to date.

New sub-delegation training, developed over 2010-2011, comprises an online portion and a workshop

portion. We found the training program to be thorough in providing information to prepare managers for

their role in conducting sub-delegated staffing. The Agency is also implementing mandatory refresher

training that sub-delegated managers will be required to take every two years.

Considerable improvements were made with respect to sub-delegation training. CBSA managers who

had sub-delegated staffing authority prior to April 2011 have been advised that they must complete the

refresher course and submit a certification request form to obtain their staffing sub-delegation authorities

under the SAIS. However, we noted that the Agency has not set a deadline for them to do so. In our

appointment file review, we were unable to find evidence that all of the managers who had signed letters

of offer had a letter or a certificate signed by the President granting them official staffing sub-delegation.

This is important as the letters of offer are the formal contractual documents for making appointments,

and so would be considered null and void if not signed by a sub-delegated manager. This poses the risk

14

that managers who have not officially received sub-delegated staffing authority may be making

appointments that they are not technically authorized to make.

RECOMMENDATION 2:

The Vice-President of the Human Resources Branch should set a target date for managers to

receive the required training and obtain the signed certificate from the President, in adherence

with the current CBSA policy and the PSC’s Appointment Delegation and Accountability

Instrument. The Vice-President of the Human Resources Branch should monitor the completion

of training and the obtaining of certification.

MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN COMPLETION DATE

Confirm the sub-delegated managers who require written

verification of their authorities by the President. February 2012

Establish a deadline for completion of sub-delegation staffing

training (i.e. online refresher course) by sub-delegated

managers.

August 2012

Confirm those sub-delegated managers have received

certification by the President. October 2012

Audit Criterion: PSC Audit Recommendation 5 - The Agency should “clarify roles and

responsibilities for appointment and appointment-related activities between Branch Management

Service, now Integrated Branch Business Services (IBBS), units and HRB to help ensure that sub-

delegated managers have timely access to appropriate HR advice.”

Conclusion: This criterion was substantially met. Our follow-up audit indicated that the Agency has

substantially addressed this recommendation, as roles and responsibilities between the IBBS units and

the HRB have been clarified and are understood by both IBBS and HRB staff; however, confusion still

exists on the part of hiring managers.

We found that the HRB had taken various steps to help clarify the roles and responsibilities regarding

staffing and to improve client service. These steps included realignment of the Branch; signing an

agreement with the Comptrollership Branch regarding the roles of HRB and IBBS staff; and developing

revised service standards, policies, guides and bulletins.

Interviews with HR advisors and IBBS staff indicated that both parties clearly understood their

respective roles and responsibilities with regard to staffing activities—i.e., HR advisors provide staffing

15

advice and assistance to hiring managers, while IBBS staff provides administrative staffing services,

such as sending staffing forms to be completed by managers.

However, we noted that managers are still experiencing some degree of role confusion with regard to the

conduct of business processes for staffing. Each branch at CBSA Headquarters has its own Integrated

Branch Business Services unit that provides the branch with various administrative services. The fact

that each IBBS unit operates independently from the other IBBS units, combined with the fact that

managers have to deal with both the HRB and the IBBS in conducting staffing, contributes to confusion

on the part of hiring managers, as well as delays in the staffing process.

We acknowledge the initiative taken by some of the IBBS units in producing guides for their clients on

staffing documentation requirements. However, due to the independence of the various units, these

guides are not shared with the other units. This lack of communication among the units leads to

inefficiencies in terms of duplication of work. Moreover, we found that some of the IBBS guides that we

looked at contained outdated and incorrect staffing information. This poses a risk that managers could be

misinformed about the documentation they need to prepare for a staffing action.

We therefore determined that measures should be taken to reduce the confusion that exists on the part of

hiring managers with regard to provision of staffing services, and to increase the efficiency and

effectiveness of staffing processes.

RECOMMENDATION 3:

The Vice-President of the Human Resources Branch should examine the current structure and

functions of the Integrated Branch Business Services units with regard to the role they play in

staffing processes, in order to determine the most efficient and effective way of providing staffing

services to stakeholders across the Agency.

MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN COMPLETION DATE

Review the structure and functions of the IBBS units with

regard to the staffing process and report to senior management

on changes required to improve efficiency and effectiveness of

providing staffing services.

September 2012

Audit Criterion: PSC Audit Recommendation 6 - The CBSA should “require successful completion

of the Appointment Framework Knowledge Test (AFKT) within the Personnel Administration

Development and Apprenticeship Program to support sub-delegated managers having access to an HR

specialist whose expertise in the Appointment Framework has been validated by the PSC.”

Conclusion: This criterion was met.

16

The PSC developed the AFKT to validate staffing specialists’ knowledge of the Public Service

Employment Act and the PSC Appointment Framework. The test is important to ensure that staffing

specialists have the required knowledge to be able to provide sound staffing advice to hiring managers.

We reviewed the CBSA Personnel Administration Development and Apprenticeship Program and found

that it now includes successful completion of the AFKT as a mandatory requirement for PE-03s to

graduate from the program in the staffing stream.

It is not mandatory that all HR advisors who provide staffing services pass the AFKT, but the PSC does

expect organizations to have enough HR advisors who have passed the test to ensure that hiring

managers have access to sufficient staffing advice and assistance. The CBSA’s 2010-2011 Departmental

Staffing Accountability Report that was submitted to the PSC indicated that 81% of the HR advisors in

the Agency who provided staffing advice had passed the AFKT.

17

APPENDIX A: AUDIT CRITERIA – Public Service Commission October 2009

Audit Report Recommendations

The PSC made the following recommendations in its October 2009 audit of staffing.

Recommendation 1: Ensure that its integrated HR plans provide direction to managers and HR

professionals on how to make decisions concerning their staffing activities, by:

Outlining staffing priorities that are strategically linked to organizational risks and business

plans;

Providing staffing strategies to guide decisions on when and how to staff positions based on the

PSEA; and

Providing measurable expected results for staffing.

Recommendation 2: Ensure that its Resourcing Monitoring Framework is fully implemented. This will

assist the Agency in assessing its staffing management practices, performance and controls, and making

adjustments, as required, to achieve the Agency’s HR objectives.

Recommendation 3: Provide the PSC with the Agency’s action plan resulting from its appointment file

review. This action plan should describe the actions to be taken including corrective measures,

accountabilities, timelines and how progress of implementation of the action plan will be monitored.

Recommendation 4: Establish an evaluation process to help identify training requirements for sub-

delegated managers to ensure that those who are sub-delegated are and remain competent to exercise

their appointment and appointment-related authorities.

Recommendation 5: Clarify roles and responsibilities for appointment and appointment-related

activities between Branch Management Services units and HR Branch to help ensure that sub-delegated

managers have timely access to appropriate HR advice.

Recommendation 6: Require successful completion of the Appointment Framework Knowledge Test

within the Personnel Administration Development and Apprenticeship Program to support sub-delegated

managers having access to an HR specialist whose expertise in the Appointment Framework has been

validated by the PSC.

18

APPENDIX B: LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACRONYMS DESCRIPTIONS

AFKT Appointment Framework Knowledge Test

CBSA Canada Border Services Agency

HR Human Resources

HRB Human Resources Branch

HRMP Human Resources Management Plan

IBBS Integrated Branch Business Services

PSEA Public Service Employment Act

PSC Public Service Commission or “the Commission”

SAIS Staffing Accountability Improvement Strategy