REVIEW OF INSTITUTE FOR CITIZEN CENTERED SERVICE

Report to the Public Sector Service Delivery Council and the Public Sector Chief Information Officers Council September 2004

1

Decisions to be Made by the Joint Councils

The committee requires the Joint Councils to:

1. Approve creation of a blended organization bringing together the ICCS and Joint Secretariat.

2. Approve the proposed internal organizational structure.

3. Approve funding option for the new organization.

4. Approve organizational model for incorporation.

2

Decisions to be Made by the Joint Councils

If the Joint Councils decide to proceed with incorporation, then the committee requires the Councils to:

5. Approve direction to hire legal counsel in order to prepare papers of incorporation in advance of February meetings; 6. Approve recommendations related to the process of incorporation including the number and shape of the Board of Directors, membership definition, and direction of the constitution and by-laws; 7. Approve implementation plan to include Coordinating Committee as interim Board of Directors to oversee transition, including filing of papers of incorporation after final approval in February.

3

Background (1)

 1998: Citizen Centered Service Network (CCSN) released a series of reports, tools, and recommendations aimed at improving citizen satisfaction with public sector service delivery in Canada, including the establishment of an Institute to sustain and develop its efforts.

  2001: ICCS was established. Two models were considered: a) a legal model; b) an organic model that would grow over time with a working group of seconded staff.

2002: PSCIOC and PSSDC Integrated Strategic Planning Framework recognized the need to strengthen ICCS and ensure sustainable funding.

4

Background (2)

   2003: Joint councils included a review of ICCS as one of its priority work plan projects.

– Review of mandate, performance, organizational options, funding, and future sustainability.

2003/04: Review highlighted the value of the ICCS and recommended establishing it as an independent Not-For-Profit corporation governed by a public-sector Board of Directors made up of Council members.

May 2004: Joint Councils: – agreed that the ICCS provides significant value, and that it must be placed on a sound, sustainable foundation if the investment of the Councils is to be realized and protected.

– asked the review committee to consider the organizational and financial implications of “blending” the ICCS and the Joint Secretariat. 5

Questions the Committee Considered

1.

Do the mandate and client/stakeholders of the ICCS align comfortably with those of the Joint Secretariat? Should the ICCS and Joint Secretariat form a new “blended” organization?

2.

If yes, what organizational structure might the “blended” organization assume? Are there any savings/efficiencies to be realized?

3.

Is there a sustainable financial model that can support the “blended” organization?

4.

What organizational form would the “blended” organization take? Is a Not-For-Profit the right model?

6

ICCS Approved Mandate

The ICCS mandate (below) would require only minor changes to reflect the role of Secretariat :

 To serve as a world-class centre of expertise and a champion for citizen centred service quality throughout the public sector.  To undertake research into citizens' expectations, satisfaction levels, and priorities for public sector service quality improvement.

 To be the custodian of the Common Measurements Tool (CMT) and to provide a CMT data repository and benchmarking service for the public sector.  To act as a repository, disseminator and centre for the further development of innovative and good practices in citizen-centred service delivery.  To act as a platform for cross-jurisdictional initiatives promoting service quality improvement.

 To proactively coordinate the activities of the PSCIOC and PSSDC, liaising with other organizations to ensure the work of the Councils is relevant, well informed, and strategically positioned.

7

ICCS Clients and Stakeholders

Conceptual Model The ICCS serves

:



Community of Leadership

PSSDC & PSCIOC.  

Community of Practice

The Canadian service community (i.e. departments, agencies, municipalities, etc).

Community of Emulation

International public service jurisdictions and private sector enterprises looking to emulate the work of the Canadian public sector. 8

ICCS Clients and Stakeholders

 ICCS, like the Joint Secretariat, most directly serves and supports the work of the Joint Councils.

 Service to the Councils keeps the work of ICCS and Joint Secretariat relevant to the needs of the service community.

 Interaction with the broader service constituencies may grow over time at the direction of the Joint Councils.

9

Decision Point

Approve creation of a blended organization, bringing together the ICCS and Joint Secretariat?

10

Questions

1.

Do the mandate and client/stakeholders of the ICCS align comfortably with those of the Joint Secretariat? Should the ICCS and Joint Secretariat form a new “blended” organization?

2.

If yes, what organizational structure might the “blended” organization assume? Are there any savings/efficiencies to be realized?

3.

Is there a sustainable financial model that can support the “blended” organization?

4.

What organizational form would the “blended” organization take? Is a Not-For-Profit the right model?

11

Resource Requirements 2004/05 and 2005/06

Councils agreed (September 2003) that over 2004/05 and 2005/06, 7.5 FTEs are needed to deliver the core services of both the ICCS and the Joint Secretariat

:

ICCS

 0.5

 1.0

    1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

Secretariat

  1.0 1.0 Executive Director responsible for business development Manager responsible for the repository, conferences and speaking engagements, stakeholder management Manager, Common Measurements Tool Manager, Research Intern, Web Site management Support Staff Executive Director responsible for strategic knitting and leadership Support Staff 12

Blended Organizational Structure

The proposed organizational structure would reduce the required staff by 0.5 FTE by blending the support function and the Executive Director function.

Existing Secretariat Position Board of Directors * Drawn from Councils Blended Position Existing ICCS Position Executive Director Program Manager * CMT Benchmarking Database CMT Standards Board Program Manager * Research Large Projects (e.g. CF) Research Database Program Manager * Knowledge Mgmt Learning Events Community of Practice Program Manager * Secretariat Support Committee Liason Project Support Admin Assistant Communication * Web / Newsletter 13

Decision Point

Approve the proposed internal organizational structure?

14

Questions

1.

Do the mandate and client/stakeholders of the ICCS align comfortably with those of the Joint Secretariat? Should the ICCS and Joint Secretariat form a new “blended” organization?

2.

If yes, what organizational structure might the “blended” organization assume? Are there any savings/efficiencies to be realized?

3.

Is there a sustainable financial model that can support the “blended” organization?

4.

What organizational form would the “blended” organization take? Is a Not-For-Profit the right model?

15

Financial Sustainability

The ICCS and Joint Secretariat have always been supported in large part through in-kind resources such as seconded staff and office space. This has been successful to date, but may not be sustainable. It also leaves the ICCS and Joint Secretariat vulnerable to changes in priorities from the donating jurisdictions.

It is possible for the ICCS to offset some costs through revenue generating activities such as conferences, benchmarking services, and research. The requirement to generate revenue, however, could compete with program activities.

The challenge is to find a sustainable mixture of Council funds, in-kind resources, and revenue.

16

Financial Scenarios

The committee considered 5 scenarios representing various mixtures of Council funds, in-kind resources, and revenue : • • Council Funds

Scenario 1

: 100% financed by Council funds.

Scenario 1A

:Council funds support all activities except for large research projects (e.g. Citizens Fist), which must be self-sustaining through the subscriptions of project participants; • Council Funds + Revenue

Scenario 2

: ICCS offsets some of the Council funds through revenue generation; • • Council Funds + Revenue + In-Kind

Scenario 3

: Council funds are further offset by some in-kind donations, including salaries;

Scenario 3A

: Significant in-kind contributions, including salaries and office space offset Council funds still further (similar to current arrangement).

17

Financial Scenarios

Scenario 1 Scenario 1A Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 3A

Costs

Staffing Operating Program

Total Costs Revenues

In-Kind Program Councils

Total Revenues

570,000 244, 675 442,500

1,257,175

0 0 1,257,175

1,257,175

570,000 244, 675 442,500

1,257,175

0 425,000 832,175

1,257,175

570,000 244, 675 442,500

1,257,175

0 485,000 772,175

1,257,175

570,000 244, 675 442,500

1,257,175

396,000 485,000 376,175

1,257,175

570,000 244, 675 442,500

1,257,175

530,175 485,000 242,000

1,257,175

18

Jurisdictional Examples

The attached spreadsheet details each scenario, highlighting the potential financial implications for each jurisdiction. For example:

New Brunswick

Scenario 1

PSSDC PSCIOC Total

Scenario 1A Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 3A

$10,162 to $12,534 $6,954 to $8,524 $6,501 to $7,958 $4,222 to $5,405 $2,956 to $3,717 12,517 to $14,890 $9,309 to $10,880 $8,856 to $10,314 $6,577 to $7,760 $5,311 to $6,072 $22,679 to $27,424 $16,263 to $19,404 $15,357 to $18,272 $10,799 to $13,165 $8,267 to $9,789 Assumes federal financial contribution of 25% to 40% Assumes federal financial contribution of 0% to 25% 19

Financial Considerations and Decision Point

Scenarios 3 and 3A require stable in-kind resources including staff and office space. Is it realistic to expect this support on an ongoing basis? Is the size of the proposed organization too large for this kind of support?

Note: If Stephen Douglas goes on French training the organization will need an additional resource

Scenarios 2, 3, and 3A require the new organization to begin raising revenues to offset Council funds. Do the Councils want the organization spending part of its time on revenue-generating activities?

Scenarios 1,1A, and 2 represent significant increases in the financial commitments of the Councils. Is this possible, sustainable, and/or desirable? Can all jurisdictions support this kind of financial commitment?

20

Decision Point

Approve funding option for the new organization?

21

Questions

1.

Do the mandate and client/stakeholders of the ICCS align comfortably with those of the Joint Secretariat? Should the ICCS and Joint Secretariat form a new “blended” organization?

2.

If yes, what organizational structure might the “blended” organization assume? Are there any savings/efficiencies to be realized?

3.

Is there a sustainable financial model that can support the “blended” organization?

4.

What organizational form would the “blended” organization take? Is a Not-For-Profit the right model?

22

What is Wrong with the Status Quo?

Both the ICCS and the Joint Secretariat are heavily dependent on “good will and bubble gum.” That is to say, both organizations exist, in large part, due to the dedication of individuals within the Councils, and the in kind resources these individuals can marshal. This dependence leaves the organizations vulnerable to shifting priorities and changing personalities.

Institutionalizing the ICCS and Joint Secretariat is one strategy for mitigating this risk and ensuring that the investment the Councils have made will not be lost.

Other factors, such as the benefits of protecting the Councils’ shared Intellectual Property, should not be under-estimated, but ultimately this exercise is about securing the future of these organizations and the investment they represent.

23

Organizational Options

 A number of possibilities were considered and set aside as impractical or otherwise inappropriate for the ICCS – Special Operating Agency • Not a multi-jurisdictional solution – Crown Corporation • Requires parliamentary approval – MOU with an existing department • Difficult to ensure ongoing support – MOU with a third-party not-for-profit corporation • Lack of governance control – Outsourcing to a private firm • Diminished citizen-centred focus?

24

Organizational Direction

Joint Councils agreed that a not-for-profit corporation was the most appropriate governance model (May 2003 and reaffirmed in September 2003) – Precedent federally and provincially – Consistent with ICCS principles of shared value – Allows for multi-jurisdictional engagement through a Board of Directors – Enables revenues to be reinvested back into inter-jurisdictional projects, including ICCS sustainability – Allows inter-jurisdictional control of intellectual property – Permits membership and participation outside the structure of the Councils should that prove desirable in the future.

25

Governance: Legal Research

 Each jurisdiction was asked to explore how its legal environment would affect the ability to participate in the governance structure of a not-for-profit corporation.  Survey of relevant legislation and regulations suggests some restrictions in certain jurisdictions, but nothing to stop participation: – E.g. Federal Gov’t / Nunavut / NWT cannot be engaged in the procurement or dissolution of the corporation.  Council members were strongly encouraged to consult with legal council in their jurisdiction.

26

Decision Point

Approve organizational model for incorporation?

27

Comparative Research

 Undertook to speak with comparable organizations who had also gone through the process of incorporation: – Commonwealth Association of Public Administration and Management – Canadian Institute of Health Information – National Quality Institute – Institute of Public Administration of Canada 28

Steps to Incorporation



Select name for the corporation

– Requires name search by legal council 

File Application for Incorporation

– Location of Incorporation – Preparation of Constitution and By-Laws – Identification of the first directors 

Organize the Corporation

– First meeting and election of Board 29

Name and Location of the Corporation

Institute for Citizen-Centred Service L’Institut des service axés sur les citoyens

 Is this the right name for the “blended” organization?

 May require special permission to use the term “Institute” in name  Location of Incorporation to be decided in consultation with legal counsel.

30

Constitution



Defines “ Objects ”

–

of the Corporation Concise statement of the ultimate purpose of the corporation

–

Objects should be kept short but broad in nature, yet sufficiently specific so as to avoid ambiguity



Mission and Mandate to be revised to reflect “ blended ” organization

31

By-Laws: Board of Directors

 Board to consist of at least 10 and not more than 18 members – Interviews suggested keeping Board relatively small  Board elected by the Councils as the voting membership  Board members to serve not more than 2 consecutive 3-year terms – First Board elected to staggered terms to ensure continuity.

32

By-Laws: Board of Directors (2)

 Empower three executive positions (President, Vice-President, and Treasurer) – Appoint immediate past-president as ex-officio board member  Explicit by-law to keep Board representative of community of interest – Enable Board to appoint ex-officio (non-voting) board members to balance representation and draw required expertise when needed  Directors to serve without remuneration – Allow for reimbursement of expenses where appropriate 33

By-Laws: Membership

 While current business plan does not contemplate the ICCS supporting a broad membership, the by-laws should be structured to give Board this flexibility.

 Two Classes of membership: – Voting: Public Sector – Non-Voting: Private Sector, Not-for-profit, academic  Within each class of membership there will be both individual and organizational memberships – Opportunity to engage broader communities in both a monetary and contributory sense 34

By-Laws: General Meetings and Executive Director



Annual General Meeting to elect Board of Directors, review business/strategic plans, and other business



Executive Director responsible to the Board

– Secretary to the Board – Administer day-to-day business – Manage accounts according to financial plan – Maintain relations with the membership 35

By-Laws: Other Clauses



Other clauses to be included in the by-laws are typical of all corporations and use standard language:

– Definitions – Indemnity to Directors – Dissolution – Auditors – Books and Records – Intellectual Property 36

Timeline

 September : Joint Council decides on organizational direction  October : Hire independent legal council  November 30 th : Jurisdictional deadline for commitment to financial model. Unless otherwise notified, commitment is assumed by committee.  December : Identify founding Directors  February : Return to Councils for final approvals with Incorporation papers ready  March : File for incorporation (approx. 8 weeks)  May : Licensing of CMT and Citizens First, Transfer of Intellectual Property and Funds from IPAC  June : Founding Directors call first meeting of the corporation 37

Decisions to be Made by the Joint Councils

The committee requires the Joint Councils to:

1. Approve creation of a blended organization bringing together the ICCS and Joint Secretariat.

2. Approve the proposed internal organizational structure.

3. Approve funding option for the new organization.

4. Approve organizational model for incorporation.

38

Decisions to be Made by the Joint Councils

If the Joint Councils decide to proceed with incorporation, then the committee requires the Councils to:

5.

Approve direction to hire legal counsel in order to prepare papers of incorporation in advance of February meetings; 6a. Approve the name of the organization* 6b. Approve, in principle, the direction of the draft constitution, 7.

including mission and mandate of the organization* 6c. Approve, in principle, by-law recommendations:* • Board of Directors • Membership • Role of the Executive Director and AGM Approve implementation plan to include Coordinating Committee as interim Board of Directors to oversee transition, including filing of papers of incorporation after final approval in February.

* Subject to legal advice 39

ICCS Review Committee

Lois Bain

, Ontario

Lori MacMullen,

New Brunswick

Brian Marson

, Treasury Board of Canada

Joan McCalla / Laurie Sweezey,

Ontario

Jocelyne Sauriol

, Quebec

Victor Abele

, Treasury Board of Canada 40

Appendix

41

Review of ICCS The Joint Councils confirmed a review of the ICCS. A working committee was formed and tasked with:



Reviewing the ICCS mandate and performance since its inception and report on findings;



Review funding issues associated with on-going sustainability of the ICCS;



Review organizational options and make recommendations;



Make recommendations to PSCIOC and PSSDC on the future of ICCS as an organization and how to build on going sustainable support

42

Summary of Findings / Decisions (1)

Beginning in May 2003, the ICCS Review Committee reported to the Joint Councils four times, leading to the following conclusions and decisions: • • • •

ICCS has achieved significant results in advancing public-sector service quality; Councils endorsed the ICCS mandate and its continued focus on supporting the work of the Councils; Fulfilling mandate will require additional resources and a level of financial support that may not be sustainable within existing informal model; Councils accepted the 3-year business plan, and committed to funding the ICCS through the end of 05-06, while the ICCS begins to offset resource requirements through revenue-generating activities;

Summary of Findings / Decisions (2)

continued…

• • •

Existing organizational structure will not permit ICCS to retain revenues or control intellectual property; Councils endorsed the committee’s recommendation that a Not For-Profit corporation was best organizational option, balancing issues of sustainability, shared governance, and future growth; Councils asked that the committee return with details about the process of incorporation, including issues of governance, membership, accountability, and any legal limitations.

44

ICCS Performance

ICCS has achieved significant results in: 

Managing Inter-governmental Research

– –

Citizens First 3

;

Taking Care of Business

  

Common Measurements Tool

– Version 2; Benchmarking Database

Gathering, Preserving and Disseminating Knowledge and Innovative Practices

– Web site; learning events; curriculum

Building Capacity

– Collaboration; Focus; Independence; Continuity 45

ICCS Benefits

    

ICCS has achieved significant benefits for its partners, for the broader public sector in Canada, and for the citizens of Canada: The ICCS is unique in the Western democracies, and is being considered for emulation by the UK Cabinet Office; Has reduced the costs of research to the individual jurisdictions, and allowed small jurisdictions to have the benefit of the research; Allows jurisdictions to learn from each other, and not reinvent the wheel; Allows jurisdictions to access expert knowledge in improving service to citizens; Has helped the public sector in Canada to improve citizens satisfaction with public sector service- the only country to do so.

46

ICCS: Contributing to Canada’s Service Improvement Success

Service quality 75

Canada’s Improving Public Sector Service Reputation

Citizens First-3, 2002

53 57 59 47 50 51 47 51 56 1998 2000 2002 50 25 0 Municipal Prov/Terr Federal Copyright ICCS-ISAC 2003 47

The Broader Public Policy Significance of Improving Service

Improved service delivery -- means better approval ratings for government

• •

Citizens who are satisfied with service are three times more likely to approve of government performance Overall Government Performance Rating 6 5 4 3 2

• •

Issues related to service delivery make up almost 40% of the reasons for approving of the government’s performance (CIO, 2000) 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

48 Source: Canada Information Office, 2001

ICCS Business Plan at a Glance

Business Year 2003/04

2003/04

2004/05

2004/05

2005/06

2005/06

Research

Taking Care of Business Citizens First 4 Deputy Survey Taking Care of Business 2

Best Practices CMT Marketing Other Staffing Budget

Conferences (CMT & HRM) Web Site Speaking Events Publications Heintzman Award Conferences Web Site Speaking Events Publications Heintzman Award Conferences Web Site Speaking Events Publications Heintzman Award CMT Registration, Licensing & Certification Development Data Base Growth Benchmarking Development Consultations CMT Registration, Licensing & Certification Operational Data Base Growth Benchmarking Operational Consultations CMT Registration, Licensing & Certification Data Base Growth Benchmarking Consultations Marketing CMT Nationally Business Development Marketing Incorporation Board Secretariat Function Inquiries & Presentations Marketing CMT Internationally Business Development Marketing Board Secretariat Function Inquiries & Presentations Marketing CMT Business Development Marketing Board Secretariat Function Inquiries & Presentations 4 FTEs 5.5 FTEs 5.5 FTEs Full Cost: $515,500 Revenue: $45,000 Requirement after In-Kind Contributions: $(20,700) Full Cost: $682,400 Revenue: $65,000 Requirement after In-Kind Contributions: $118,200 $111,900 Full Cost $622,400 Revenue: $80,000 Requirement after In-Kind Contributions: $103,200