EDMONTON07220 - HR Branch Audit

Human Resources

Branch Audit

April 2, 2008

Office of the City Auditor

EDMONTON07220 - HR Branch Audit

Table of Contents

Summary for City Council

1.Introduction

2.Background

2.1.Organizational Description

2.2.Corporate Human Resources Strategy: A Three-Year Plan

3.Objectives, Methodology and Scope

4.Observations

4.1.Human Resources Branch Cost Effectiveness

4.1.1.Have significant variances occurred within the Branch budget?

4.1.2.Are Branch costs comparable to other organizations?

4.1.3.Are Branch staff ratios comparable to other organizations?

4.1.4.Is the Branch operating in a cost effective manner?

4.2.Staff Recruitment

4.2.1.Is the duration of the recruitment process reasonable?

4.2.2.Are business areas confident in the recruitment process?

4.2.3.Does COE have a fair and open recruitment process?

4.2.4.Is the recruitment process effective, efficient, and economical?

4.3.Retention of Staff

4.3.1.Are the COE turnover rates comparable to others?

4.3.2.What are the potential impacts of turnover on the City?

4.3.3.Are HR clients confident HR strategies will help them retain employees?

4.3.4.Is the Branch effective in its role of helping retain employees?

4.4.Workforce and Succession Planning

4.4.1.What is workforce planning?

4.4.2.What is succession planning?

4.4.3.Is the Branch providing support for workforce planning?

4.4.4.Are business areas satisfied with workforce planning support?

4.4.5.Does the City have up-to-date succession plans?

4.4.6.Are business areas satisfied with succession planning support?

4.4.7.Is the City’s succession planning working?

4.4.8.Are workforce and succession planning activities effective?

5.Conclusions and Recommendations

6.Management’s Response to Recommendations


Office of the City Auditor

EDMONTON07220 - HR Branch Audit

Human Resources
Branch Audit

Summary for City Council

The Human Resources Branch business objective is to develop and implement human resources strategies that will attract, develop and retain a diverse, engaged, productive, and talented workforce.

Our audit objective was to determine if the services provided bythe Branch are effective, efficient, and economical in addressing the human resource needs of the City of Edmonton. Our audit results focusedon the Branch’soverall financial performance and onthree high risk areas: staff recruitment,staff retention, and workforcesuccession planning. The three primary methods we used to gather the evidence were internal research, external research with other cities, and industry benchmark comparisons.

Financial Performance

The 2007 Human Resources Branch budget was $9.6 million. The branch’s budget has grown by $1.2 million (14%) from 2005 to 2007. During that time, actual expenditures have increased by about $1.6 million or 20% because the Branch under-spent its budget by $391,000 in 2005 and over-spent by $35,000 in 2007. This was due to implementing the Employment Outreach service package, implementing the Health Care Spending Account benefit for employees, transferring a safety position from Asset Management and Public Works, salary increases, and program cost increases due to inflation. We reviewed the financial data for the fiscal years 2005, 2006 and 2007 and found no significant program budget variances.

We researched other cities and found that the Human Resources Branch’s cost per City employee in 2007 was $872 per employee (Full and part-time) compared to the average of $968 of the cities surveyed. The industry benchmark data further showed that the Human Resources Branch costs in relation to the City’s total operating costs are at the median level, meaning that 50% of those surveyed have higher cost ratios. The Human Resources Branch staff levels have remained conservative since 2003 (up 3%) while civic administration staffing on the wholehas grown by 16%. The Branch’s staff ratios are comparable to the other municipalities we surveyed. The industry benchmark comparison showed that the Branch is staffed at the 75 percentile level (only 25% of other cities surveyed supported more staff per HR employee). Based on this analysis, we concluded that the Branch is operating in a cost effective manner.

Staff Recruitment

The Human Resources Branch has not achieved its targeted Time-to-Fill rate of 52 days,but at 56 days, it is within reason. We compared the City’s actual Time-to-Fill rate to that of other cities and found that it is near the average. The Branch is moving forward to improve recruitment efficiency by introducing an electronic recruitment system.No external or industry benchmark information forrecruitment costs was available for comparison, so we are unable to determine whether the Branch’s recruitment services are economical. The Branch’s clients indicated varying levels of confidence in its ability to attract qualified candidates, which we believe reflects a very competitive labour market. Our recruitment process review found that the process is fair and open. The Branch has proactively engaged in several recruitment initiatives to support and promote a diverse labour workforce, such as the Employment Outreach program. Based on this analysis we conclude that the Branch has effective and efficient processes in place to recruit new employees.

StaffRetention

The City’s turnover and resignation rates are in line with the other cities we surveyed.These rates are rising and associated cost impacts are increasing. We found that client confidence in the Human Resources Branch’s retention strategies varied. The increase in employee turnover in the past few years and the competitive labour market undoubtedly affect clients’ levels of confidence.We conclude that the Branch is effective in helping the City retain employees; however, opportunities exist to increase effectiveness. To help increase effectiveness in retaining employees:

  1. We recommend that the Human Resources Branch communicate to all employees the benefits and programs offered by the City of Edmonton that define it as an attractive workplace.
  2. We recommend that the Human Resources Branch develop criteria, including timelines, for periodic compensation reviews.
  3. We recommend that the Human Resources Branch determine acceptableturnover thresholds for each job family and monitor the actual turnover rates, taking appropriate action when a rate exceeds the acceptable level. They should also assess these thresholds periodically to ensure they are still appropriate.

Workforce and Succession Planning

The Human Resources Branch has made significant progress in workforce planning and the HR clients indicated a high level of awareness of these activities with overall moderate satisfaction ratings. We also believe the Branch’s efforts have moved the City towards best practice in succession planning. Although not all business units have formal succession plans, the Branch is very aware of the need for such plans and is successfully moving the succession planning process forward. We believe it will take several years to culturally ingrain succession planning as an ongoing business planning practice. We conclude that the Human Resources Branch is effective in supporting workforce and succession planning activities. We believe that the Branch must continue to focus on these efforts in order to further ingrain succession planning within the City.

4. We recommend that Human Resources Branchcontinue to implement the succession planning strategy and regularly monitor and report on progress on a corporate basis.

Office of the City AuditorPage 1

EDMONTON07220 - HR Branch Audit

Human Resources
Branch Audit

1.Introduction

Our2008 AnnualWork Plan, as approved by City Council, included an audit of the Human Resources Branch. The Human Resources Branch business objective is to develop and implement human resources strategies that will attract, develop and retain a diverse, engaged, productive, and talented workforce.

2.Background

2.1.Organizational Description

The Human Resources Branch is one of eight branches within the Corporate Services Department. The Branch was most recently restructured in April 2007. The restructuring focused on:

  • Creation of dedicated recruitment services teams accountable for the recruitment and retention of specific job families,
  • Emphasis on scanning for external best practices and evaluating the City’s policies and processes against these benchmarks,
  • Implementation of the Corporate Human Resources Strategy,
  • Alignment with the City’s Shared Service business model,
  • Adoption of the new ‘science’ of human resources,
  • An enhanced labour relations function, and
  • Increased strategic support for Client Departments and the organization.

The new structure organized the Branch into seven business areas. The following is a brief description of the function of each unit:

  • Recruitmentserves the City with a focus on attraction and selection of a diverse, skilled and engaged workforce.
  • Payroll, Benefits and Pension provides payroll, benefits and pension administration for all City employees and also provides some service (payroll & benefits) to Edmonton Police Service and the Edmonton Public Library.
  • Compensationserves the City with a focus on administering, designing and implementing compensation programs.
  • Labour Relationsis responsible for working with managers and union representatives to anticipate emergent labour issues, identify appropriate solutions, and negotiate and provide advice and interpretation of collective bargaining agreements.
  • Strategy Supportdesigns andmanages strategies, programs and processes to facilitate organizational development, provides human resource solutions to corporate and client departments, and researches and analyzes human resources data to provide accurate workforce data and performance measures.
  • Strategic Advisorsare responsible for forming strategic partnerships with client departments to enhance human resource service delivery, organizational performance, and workforce planning.
  • Employee Safety & Wellnessis responsible to develop and support programs focused on ensuring legislative compliance and on enhancing employee health and safety, management of disability related programs (including STD, LTD, WCB), and improving employee health.

2.2. Corporate Human Resources Strategy: A Three-Year Plan

The Human Resources Branch released the Corporate Human Resources Strategy: AThree-Year Plan (the Strategy) in January 2007. The strategy is aimed at addressing the increasingly challenging business and labour environment in which the City of Edmonton operates.

There are three focus areas within the Corporate Human Resources Strategy:

  • “Leadership”focus area is aimed at providing strong performance leadership today and in the future.
  • “Talent” focus area is aimed at attracting, developing, and retaining a diverse, productive, and engaged workforce.
  • “Performance”focus area is aimed at enhanced performance at the individual, team, and organizational level.

Identified within the Strategy are tactical plans and performance measures for each of these three focus areas. The Branch will use the performance measures to report on the success of the plans for each area.

3.Objectives, Methodology andScope

Audit Objectives:The primary objective of this branch audit was to determine if the services provided by the Human Resources Branch are effective, efficient, and economical in addressing the human resource needs of the City of Edmonton. This primary objective was further refined into the detailedobjectives described below.

  1. Branch Cost Effectiveness - To determine whetherthe Human Resources Branch is providing value for the budget allocated.
  2. Recruitment of Staff -To determine whetherthe Human Resources Branchhas effective, efficient and economical processes in place to recruit new employees.
  3. Retention of Staff - To determine whetherthe Human Resources Branch is effective in its role of helping the City retain employees.
  4. Workforce and Succession Planning -To determine if the Human Resources Branch is effective in supporting workforce and succession planning activities.

Methodology: We performed our audit in accordance with the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing.

The OCA developed audit programs for each of the detailed audit objectives described above. The audit programs identified the audit steps necessary to gather sufficient evidence to address each audit objective. We used three main methods to gather the evidence:

Internal Research

  • Conducted an internal survey of HR clients
  • Interviewed HR management
  • Analyzed financial and performance results
  • Reviewed the Branch’s recruitment process and performed tests to confirm consistency

Industry Benchmark Comparison

  • Researched industry associations
  • Calculated industry metrics for benchmark comparison

External Research

  • Conducted external interviews with other municipalities
  • Analyzed and compared external research to internal data

Audit Scope: The audit scope was based on our overall risk assessment of the Human Resources Branch and defines which areas of the Branch operations that weincluded in the audit.Figure 1 illustrates the areas of the Human Resources Branch that are “in scope” (part of the audit) and “out of scope” (excluded from the audit).

Figure 1: Human Resources Branch Audit Scope

4.Observations

4.1.Human Resources Branch Cost Effectiveness

4.1.1.Have significant variances occurred within the Branch budget?

Significant program variances have not occurred. As shown in Table 1, Human Resources Branch budget variances for 2005 and 2006 were under budget by 4.7% and 4.1% respectively. In 2007 the Branch overspent its budget by 0.4%.

We conducted a detailed analysis of the Branch’s budget and expenditures in order to understand these variances.We met with management to discuss all annual variances greater than 10% and with a minimum value of $10,000.Branch management explained that the under-expenditure in the 2005 budget was primarily due to several unfilled positions within the Human Resources Branch. In 2006,those positions were largely filled and the 2006 variance is attributable to under-expenditures in contracting, consulting, and professional services.The 2007 expenditures reflect the cost of implementing the first year of the three-year Corporate HR Strategy.

Table 1 shows that the net Branch budget increased by $1.2 million or 14% from 2005 to 2007. The increase from 2006 to 2007 accounted for $1.0 million of the overall two-year budget increase. That increase was due to implementingthe Employment Outreach service package, implementing the Health Care Spending Account benefit for employees, transferring a safety position from Asset Management and Public Works, salary increases, and program cost increases due to inflation.

Table 1:Human Resources Branch Program Variance for Years 2005-2007

2005 / 2006 / 2007
Net Budget ($000’s) / 8,370 / 8,521 / 9,563
Actual Expenditure ($000’s) / 7,979 / 8,169 / 9,598
(Over)/Under Variance ($000’s) / 391 / 352 / (35)
Net Budget (Over)/Under Variance / 4.7% / 4.1% / (0.4%)

Because the Branch under-spent its budget by $391,000 in 2005 and over-spent by $35,000 in 2007, actual expenditures increased by about $1.6 million or 20% between 2005 and 2007.

Overall, program budget variances have not been significant during the period from 2005 to 2007. We are satisfied with management’s explanations of the individual variances we identified.

4.1.2.Are Branch costs comparable to other organizations?

Based on our external research and comparison to industry standards we believe the City’sHuman Resources Branch costs are comparable to those of other organizations.

Figure2 shows the net budgeted expenditures of four western Canadian cities from 2005 to 2007. All four cities surveyed experienced growth in net expenditures during this period. Edmonton’s net budgeted expenditures for human resources are near the mid-range of these cities surveyed.

The cities shown all spend varying amounts on human resources which is dependant on the number of employees they support, and also their scope of activities. For example the City of Surreyhuman resourcescosts do not include payroll costs which account for about 20% of Edmonton’s total human resources costs.

Figure 2: Comparison of HR Spending in Western Canadian Cities

Table 2 is an analysis of the average net human resources cost per employee for these same cities. These unit costs include each city’s total human resources net budgeted expenditures divided by the total number of employees supported by their equivalent of our Human Resources Branch.

The City’s average human resources cost for 2007 was $872 per employee (Full and part-time) which is below the average ($968) of the cities surveyed. Overall we believe that Edmonton’s average human resources cost per employee is comparable to the cities within this survey group.

Table 2: Average Human Resources Cost per Employee for 2007

Municipality / Edmonton / Calgary / Surrey / Vancouver / Average
Net human resourcesexpenditures / number of full-time & part-time employees supported / $872 / $1,234 / $607 / $1,159 / $968

Industry benchmarking reports present survey results in a consistent and comparable manner. The Human Resources Branch is a participating member of the Saratoga Research Group,[1] which provides benchmark data for human resource related activities in North America and Europe.

Table 3shows the 2006 Saratoga Research Group results on human resources costs relative to total organization operating costs. The Saratogabenchmarking results show that the City human resources cost ratio (0.53%) is at the median, meaning that 50% of the survey group have a lower ratio and 50% have a higher ratio.

Table 3: Industry Benchmark Comparison

2006 Saratoga Research Results
Human Resources Costs to Organization Operating Costs (%)
Percentile / 10th / 25th / Median / 75th / 90th
Annual results / 0.20% / 0.26% / 0.51% / 1.42% / 3.00%

Human Resources Branch 2006 Results(0.53%)

4.1.3.AreBranch staff ratios comparable to other organizations?

Based on our survey of other cities and industry benchmark comparison we conclude that the City of Edmonton Human Resources Branch staff ratio is comparable to other municipalities.

Figure 3illustrates the growth in City staff members who are directly supported by the Human Resources Branch. From 2003 to 2007, the number of full time equivalentpositions in the City increased by 1,188 or 16%. These figures include positions in civic programs, municipal operations, and utility operations. These figures do not include positions in Edmonton Police Services, Edmonton Public Library, orEdmonton Economic Development Corporation, which provide their own human resource services.

The number of Human Resources Branchpositions declined from 2003 to 2006. In 2007, the Branch added 9 positions, which are associated with the Branch restructuring and implementation of the Corporate Human Resources Strategy. The net growth of the Branch from 2003 to 2007 is 4 positions or 3%.

Figure3: Comparative Growth in COE and HR staff

(Full Time Equivalent Positions)