WORKFORCE ANALYTICS - FNIHB · Web viewAs of November 2018, FNIHB had a workforce of 2,738, consisting of 80.01% indeterminate employees, 9.4 % term employees, 9.8% casual employees

WORKFORCE ANALYTICS - FNIHB

Contents

FNIHB Workforce: Way Forward....................................................................................................3

Benefits of Workforce Analytics:...................................................................................................3

FNIHB Workforce at a Glance........................................................................................................4

Term and Casual Employees in FNIHB:.......................................................................................................7

FNIHB Demographics by gender and age group:...........................................................................9

Official Languages........................................................................................................................10

Job Classification..........................................................................................................................12

Nurses in FNIHB..................................................................................................................................................13

Staffing Trends.............................................................................................................................14

Employment Equity..................................................................................................................... 15

Women representation:...................................................................................................................................15

Persons with Disabilities representation................................................................................................15

Visible minorities’ representation:.............................................................................................................16

Indigenous Peoples Representation:...........................................................................................16

Indigenous Departures:........................................................................................................17

Post-Secondary Recruitment (PSR) & Student Bridging:.......................................................18

FNIHB’S CURRENT WORKFORCE ENVIRONMENT.........................................................................18

Continuum of Wellness in FNIHB.................................................................................................19

Workplace Wellness:........................................................................................................................................ 19

Talent management in NCR..................................................................................................19

Implementation of 360 evaluation exercise.........................................................................19

Respectful Workplace:..................................................................................................................................... 20

Values and Ethics..................................................................................................................20

PSES Results toward Harassment/Discrimination.................................................................20

Emerging trends................................................................................................................... 20

Indigenous Services Canada | Workforce Analytics Model 1

Leave without Pay (LWOP)............................................................................................................................21

Workplace Mobility:.......................................................................................................................................... 23

FNIHB Employees’ Departure Rate & Exit process data:..................................................................25

Workforce Priorities.....................................................................................................................26

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................... 26

ANNEXES......................................................................................................................................27

Figure 1 – Indeterminate Staffing...............................................................................................................28

Figure 1a – Indeterminate Staff Intake.................................................................................28

Figure 1b –Indeterminate Staff Departures..........................................................................29

Figure 2: FNIHB PSES 2017 Placemat.......................................................................................................30


FNIHB Workforce: Way Forward_____________________________________________________________________________________

This document provides an overview of FNIHB’s workforce demographics as well as the operational environment that has an impact on our current and future workforce. This snapshot in time, focuses on our key Human Resources Management priorities and strategies needed to build a healthy, creative and productive workplace and workforce that is aligned with the Department’s needs. The intent is to produce an annual report to FNIHB’s senior management to share the workforce compilation, provide strategic workforce data and current trends to help inform people management decision making processes and to ensure that FNIHB is current and in touch with its dynamic and ever changing workforce.

Benefits of Workforce Analytics:_____________________________________________________________________________________

Workforce analytics improve the value of our source data, allowing us to create a more complete picture of our workforce, and giving our executive team the critical information necessary to make decisions that drive organizational success.

Simply put, success or failure of our human resources objectives hinges on our workforce’s effectiveness in supporting the organization’s vision and goals. The Branch will gain a competitive edge if using workforce analytics to provide the basis for specific action plans and workforce investments that address gaps or inefficiencies in an organization's talent mix that need to be addressed in order to have better business outcomes.

At the end of the day, workforce analytics lets you analyze data to gain insight so you can make better decisions, take appropriate actions to drive greater organizational success.

Source: Privy Council - Twenty-fifth annual report to prime-minister on public-service renewal


FNIHB Workforce at a Glance____________________________________________________________________________________ FNIHB is comprised of headquarter and regional offices. In HQ there are approximately 550 employees across 5 directorates that report directly to the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister and 2,188 employees across 7 Regional Offices that report directly to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Regional Operations. The Regional Offices are geographically located in Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northern regions. In addition, the Capacity,Infrastructure and Accountabilty Directorate (CIAD), located in the NCR, is also associated with regional operations. Headquarters consists of separate directorates that are based out of the National Capital Region. These directorates are Population Health and Primary Health Care Directorate (PHPCD), Non-Insured Health Benefits (NIHB), Internal Client Services Directorate (ICSD) and Strategic Policy, Planning and Information Directorate (SPPI).

The workforce population trend for FNIHB is a result of many variables including fluctuations between many staffing initatives and departures. Within the past 5 years, there has been notecable decreases and increases that correspond to the number of active staff within FNIHB. 2015-16 in particular, experienced a drop with a reduction of 70 staff. Onwards, staffing numbers have gradually rebounded and there has been an increase of 122 staff from 2014-15 (2,738 in November 2018 in comparision to 2,616 at the beginning of fiscal 2014-15).


Current Context

As of November 2018, FNIHB had a workforce of 2,738, consisting of 80.01% indeterminate employees, 9.4 % term employees, 9.8% casual employees and 0.7% students. At that time, 80% of employees, or 2,188 people, worked in the Regions. The remaining 550 individuals were at Headquarters. (see charts).

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Nov-20182400

2450

2500

2550

2600

2650

2700

2750

2616

2546

2590

2644

2738

FNIHB Full Time Employee Workforce Population

Fiscal Year

# of S

taff

Source: PeopleSoft FY 2014-15-November 1, 2018. Includes indeterminate, term, casual and students

Exclusion of FNIHB Internal Services:

2188

550

287

FNIHB Distribution of Staff

FNIHB Regional OperationsFNIHB HQFNIHB Internal Services

Source: PeopleSoft November 1, 2018. Includes indeterminate, term, casual and students


The total workforce population identified in the above chart is based on FNIHB’s workforce before November 1st, 2018 and excludes the internal services portion (287 employees) of Health Canada that moved over as part of the Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) transfer. This information was excluded to ensure that a consistent lens was applied for historical data comparison.

As of November 2018, indeterminate staff accounts for the majority of the FNIHB workforce and make up 80.1% of FNIHB staff. This is a slight increase of 0.7% from April 2014. Both Term and Casual staffing numbers have fluctuated since 2014 and the number of students in the FNIHB workforce follows a seasonal trend as most students work during summer months with very few working part time during their periods of study.


FNIHB Workforce at a Glance (Continued):

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Nov-20180.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

79.4% 80.2% 79.5% 81.6% 80.1%

10.4% 9.3% 7.9% 7.8% 9.4%

9.9% 10.5% 12.1% 10.1% 9.8%

0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.7%Status Distribution of FNIHB Workforce

Indeterminate Term Casual Student Source: PeopleSoft FY 2014-15-November 1, 2018. Include indeterminate, term, casual, students, active employees and employees currently on Leave without Pay.

Term and Casual Employees in FNIHB:Reliance on casual staffing was highest in Manitoba Region in FY 17-18 (followed by Atlantic, Alberta and Québec) and reliance on Term staffing was also highest in Manitoba (followed by Saskatchewan and Non-Insured Health Benefits). Most areas show a year over year increase in casual hires in FY 17-18 as compared to FY 16-17 and a relative decline in Term appointments in FY 17-18 as compared to one year earlier.

In most cases, reliance on casual staffing went up in FY 15-16 from FY 14-15 while reliance on Term staffing went down.

Term & Casual Staffing (FY 2017-18)Terms Casuals

Directorate/Region # of TermsTerms as a % of

Workforce # of CasualsCasuals as a % of Workforce Total

Alberta 12 3.33% 34 9.44% 360

Atlantic 6 4.29% 17 12.14% 140

Manitoba 83 11.71% 132 18.62% 709

Northern 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 59

Ontario 38 8.96% 24 5.66% 424

Quebec 15 8.88% 14 8.28% 169

Saskatchewan 26 10.79% 13 5.39% 241

ADMO 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 28

CIAD 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 26

ICSD 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 66

NIHB 16 9.58% 8 4.79% 167

PHPCD 0 0.00% 12 7.59% 158

SPPI 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 64

Total: 196 7.51% 254 9.73% 2611*


* Source of data from HC HR Boxi as of July 2018* Total includes indeterminate + term+ casual + student employees




Alberta 21 6.14% 45 13.16% 342Atlantic 14 10.37% 16 11.85% 135Manitoba 63 8.81% 157 21.96% 715Northern 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 50Ontario 37 8.67% 57 13.35% 427Quebec 19 13.10% 0 0.00% 145Saskatchewan 27 11.59% 11 4.72% 233ADMO 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 22CIAD 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 31ICSD 0 0.00% 6 8.70% 69NIHB 13 7.74% 6 3.57% 168PHPCD 0 0.00% 7 4.90% 143SPPI 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 68Total: 194 7.61% 305 11.97% 2548** Total includes indeterminate + term +casual + student employees




Alberta 28 8.12% 50 14.49% 345

Atlantic 21 16.67% 10 7.94% 126

Manitoba 72 10.48% 125 18.20% 687

Northern 6 11.54% 0 0.00% 52

Ontario 56 12.99% 46 10.67% 431

Quebec 14 9.21% 6 3.95% 152

Saskatchewan 27 11.89% 9 3.96% 227

ADMO 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 22

CIAD 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 35

ICSD 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 64

NIHB 8 4.79% 11 6.59% 167

PHPCD 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 114

SPPI 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 74

Total: 232 9.29% 257 10.30% 2496*

* Total includes indeterminate + term + casual + student employees


Directorate/Region# of Terms

Terms as a % of Workforce # of Casuals

Casuals as a % of Workforce Total

Alberta 27 8.04% 36 10.71% 336

Atlantic 29 21.80% 6 4.51% 133

Manitoba 89 13.05% 126 18.48% 682

Northern 6 10.53% 0 0.00% 57

Ontario 61 13.99% 44 10.09% 436


Quebec 11 6.55% 12 7.14% 168

Saskatchewan 38 15.64% 23 9.47% 243

ADMO 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 28

CIAD 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 15

ICSD 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 74

NIHB 0 0.00% 8 5.48% 146

PHPCD 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 118

SPPI 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 84

Total: 261 10.36% 255 10.12% 2520*

* Total includes indeterminate + term + casual + student employees

FNIHB Demographics by gender and age group:____________________________________________________________________________________

From 2014 to November 2018, the gender distribution in FNIHB has remained consistent with no significant noticeable changes. As of November 2018, women make up approximately 77% of FNIHB’s Workforce and men make up 23%.

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 November 20180

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

581

547

556

569

619

2035

1999

2034

2075

2119

FNIHB Number of Employees by Gender

MenWomen

Year

# of

Sta

ff

23%

77%

FNIHB % of Employees by Gender November 2018

Men Women

Source: PeopleSoft FY 2014-15-November 1, 2018. Includes Indeterminate, term, casual, students and employees currently on leave without

pay.

As of November 2018, employee age groups within FNIHB generally follow an even age distribution. 2,585 employees (94.4%) are between the ages of 25 and 65 with only 64 employees (2.3%) that are younger than 25 and 89 employees (3.3%) that are over 65. Currently, the largest age groups are employees with ages between 50-54 and 40-44 with both having 412 staff each.


0-25 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

64

21

1 27

5

37

4 41

2

37

7 41

2

33

9

18

5

89

# of FNIHB Employees by Age Group: November 2018

Age Group

# o

f St

aff

Source: PeopleSoft November 1, 2018. Include indeterminate, term, casual, students, active employees and employees currently on Leave without Pay.

FNIHB Demographics by gender and age group (Continued):

30-34

35-39

45-49

60-64

0-25

65+

40-44

50-54

55-59

25-29

12

34

56

78

91

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

-38-12

-10

7

19

24

25

26

28

53

FNIHB Age Group Growth/Decline from 2014-2018

# Increase/Decrease in Staff from 2014-2018

Ran

kin

g an

d A

ge G

rou

p

Source: PeopleSoft April 2014-November 1, 2018. Include indeterminate, term, casual, students, active employees and employees currently on Leave without Pay.

From April 2014 to November 2018, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of younger aged staff groups as well as a slight increase in older age groups. The fastest growing age group in FNIHB is those aged 25-29 with an increase of 53 staff followed by the age group 55-59 with an increase of 28 staff. The third largest increase is those aged 50-54 with an increase of 26 followed closely by those aged 40-44 with an increase of 26 staff. The aging population trend with FNIHB staff suggests that increases


in the number of retirements are inevitable in the near future as a cluster of staff will soon be eligible to retire.

Official Languages____________________________________________________________________________________ A majority of employees in FNIHB either idenify English and/or French as their first language. As of November 2018, there are 2,388 English (89.1%) and 297 French (10.8%) speaking employees. With the exception of designated bilingual regions, a majority of staff generally use English in the workplace.

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 November 20180

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

21

44

21

82

22

96

23

27

23

88

32

5

29

2

29

4

31

7

29

7

FNIHB Number of Employees by Official Language Preference

EnglishFrench

Year

# o

f S

ta

ff

Source: PeopleSoft FY 2014-15-November 1, 2018- Staff whose first language is not English and/or French are not included in this analysis.

Official Languages (Continued)

From 2014 to 2018, the number of English speaking employees has increased by 244 people (11.38%) (2,388 in 2018 as compared to 2,144 in 2014).

From 2014 to 2018, the number of French speaking employees has decreased by 28 people (8.62%) (297 in 2018 as compared to 325 in 2014).

When comparing populations based on official language groups, the population of English speaking employees has increased by 11.38% since 2014, however, the population for French speaking employees has decreased by 8.62% during the same period. FNIHB continues promotes French & English within the Department by making sure linguistic identification of positions are established objectively and reflects the functions and duties related to the position. The Branch also continues to encourage and maintain a work environment conducive to the effective use of both OL. With the release of the 2017 PSES results in March 2018, the use of Official Languages continues to be an area of strength for the Branch and will build from those positive results.

2017 PSES Question # Question

Positive % Response

23 During meetings, I feel free to use the official languages of my choice. 90

2The material and tools provided for my work, including software and other automated tools, are available in the official language of my choice. 92

33When I communicate with my immediate supervisor, I feel free to use the official language of my choice. 94

51 The training offered by my department or agency is available in the official language of my choice. 91


2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Nov 201884%

86%

88%

90%86

.8%

88.2%

88.6%

88.0%

88.9%

FNIHB % of English Speakers 2014-2018

Year

% of

FNIHB

Wor

kforce

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Nov 201810%

11%

12%

13%

14%

13.2

%

11.8

%

11.4

%

12.0

%

11.1

%

FNIHB % of French Speakers 2014-2018

Year

% of

FNIH

B Wor

kfor

ce

Source: PeopleSoft FY 2014-15-November 1, 2018- Staff whose first language is not English and/or French are not included in this analysis.

French speaking employees are more prominent in FNIHB’s designated bilingual regions. These regions are the National Capital Region, Atlantic region (Province of New Brunswick) and the Quebec region. Of the 297 French speaking employees, 254 (86%) work in these 3 designated bilingual areas. The largest French speaking area is Quebec region where 130 (80%) of the workforce speaks French. Other significant francophone areas include the National Capital Region with 116 (22%) and the Atlantic region with 8 (7%) that speak French.

Official Languages (Continued)

Designated Bilingual Regions

20%

80%

Quebec

93%

7%

Atlantic

78%

22%

NCR

Source: Peoplesoft November 1, 2018 –Percentages are calculated only using populations that itentify as an English and/or French Speaker. Staff whose first language is not English and/or French are not included in this analysis.


English Speakers French Speakers

Job Classification

The top occupied job classifications in FNIHB are the NU, CR, PM, EC, EG, AS, HS, ST, GS, EX, ND, PH, MD, DE and the PC category. NU (nurses) is the largest occupational group in FNIHB and there are currently 677 which make up 24.73% of the total population. The second largest group is the CR (Clerical & Regulatory) category with 561 staff (20.49% of the population) and third is the PM (Program Administration) with 398 (14.54%) staff.

Group Code Occupational GroupNU NursingCR Clerical and RegulatoryPM Programme AdministrationEC Economics and Social Science ServicesEG Engineering and Scientific SupportAS Administrative ServicesHS Hospital ServicesST Secretarial, Stenographic and TypingGS General ServicesEX ExecutiveND Nutrition and DieteticsPH PharmacyMD MedicineDE DentistryPC Physical Sciences

EG

EC

PM

CR

NU5

43

21

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

233

266

398

561

677

Top 5 Job Classifications in FNIHB November 2018

# of Staff

Rank

ing a

nd W

ork

Clas

sifica

tion


Job Classification (Continued):

Aside from the nursing category, there is a large difference in the breakdown of positions between HQ and regional operations. In HQ, the top classification of employees is the EC category (Economics and Social Sciences) with 182 (33% of HQ) staff followed by AS (Administration) with 105 staff (19% of HQ). These two top classifications rank 7th (for EC) and 6th (for AS) when compared to regional operations (see below).

NU

CR

PM

AS

EC

54

32

1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

28

58

86

105

182

Top 5 Job Classifications in Headquarters November 2018

# of Staff

Ran

kin

g an

d W

ork

Cla

ssifi

cati

on



HS

EG

PM

CR

NU5

43

21

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

172

205

312

503

649

Top 5 Classifications in FNIHB Regional Operations November 2018

# of Staff

Ran

kin

g an

d W

ork

Cla

ssifi

cati

on


Nurses in FNIHB_____________________________________________________________________________________Nurses are the largest job classification group in FNIHB. As noted previously, there are 677 nurses as of July 2018 that account for approximatley 24.73% of the FNIHB workforce. This large classification group is in regional operations with only 4.1% located in the National Capital Region. The majority of FNIHB nurses are located in Manitoba (35.3% of FNIHB nurse population) and Ontario (30.1% of FNIHB nurse population). There are also notecable populations of nurses in Alberta (14.3%), Saskatchewan (10.6%), Quebec (3.1%) and the Atlantic (2.4%).

Nurses in FNIHB (Continued):

Atlantic

Quebec

NCR

Saskatchewan

Alberta

Ontario

Manitoba

76

54

32

1

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%

2.4%

3.1%

4.1%

10.6%

14.3%

30.1%

35.3%

FNIHB % Disribution of Nurses

% of Total Nurse Population

Rank

ing

and

Area



Staffing Trends_____________________________________________________________________________________ From April 2014 to April 2018, FNIHB hired 561 new indeterminate employees. During those same fiscal years (2014 to 2018), the mobility statistics show that the Branch was successful in hiring 1,120 new employees, which is higher than the number of departures of 979, over the same period of time. From those total departures, 364 employees resigned from their position and 261 retired during that timeframe. However, the Branch does not have any data on the reason(s) why employees departed (e.g. retirement, deployment) over those same fiscal years as a very low amount of FNIHB employees decided not to complete the voluntary exit questionnaire.

FY 2013/2014 FY 2014/2015 FY 2015/2016 FY 2016/2017 FY 2017/20180

50

100

150

200

250

300

194

186 22

9 270

241

Total new Indeterminates

Year

# of S

taff

FY 2013/2014 FY 2014/2015 FY 2015/2016 FY 2016/2017 FY 2017/2018160

170

180

190

200

210

220

197

182 18

6 201

213

Total Indeterminate Departures

Year

# of S

taff

Source: PeopleSoft 2014-2018. Does not include, term, casual, students and employees currently on Leave without Pay.

Employment Equity_____________________________________________________________________________________

In the early part of fiscal year 2017-18, the Branch delivered its annual report on Diversity and Employment Equity Plan and continued its commitment to provide a work environment that enables and supports the equitable distribution of employment equity designated groups (Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, members of visible minorities and women), at all levels, in the organization.

In addition, FNIHB continues to be committed to fostering a workplace culture that values diversity and promotes an equitable workforce. Since April 2018, FNIHB has met or exceeded all four designated groups and has made significant gains toward increasing the Indigenous Peoples Representation above labour market availability and in compliance with the Aboriginal Peoples Employment Program target of 30% by 2020 (See next section on Indigenous Peoples Representation). Demographic data will continue to be closely monitored as the Branch looks to maintain Departmental standards for representation.

Women representation:


Branch NCR/Regions

Empl

oyee

Po

pula

tion

Popu

latio

n of

W

omen

Repr

esen

tatio

n of

Wom

en

Expe

cted

W

omen

LMA

for

Wom

en

Gap

for

Wom

en

First Nations & Inuit Health National Capital Region 440 322 73.20% 301 68.40% 21Alberta Region 266 201 75.60% 199 75.00% 2Atlantic Region 112 82 73.20% 80 71.10% 2Manitoba Region 418 334 79.90% 337 80.70% -3National Capital Region 29 14 48.30% 18 62.60% -4Northern Region 51 41 80.40% 38 74.70% 3Ontario Region 345 282 81.70% 253 73.20% 29Quebec Region 126 91 72.20% 91 72.20% 0Saskatchewan Region 200 157 78.50% 156 77.90% 1

Grand Total 1,987 1,524 76.70% 1,473 72.87% 51

FNIH Regional Operations

Persons with Disabilities representation:

Branch NCR/Regions

Empl

oyee

Po

pula

tion

PWD

Popu

latio

n

PWD

repr

esen

tatio

n

PWD

Expe

cted

PWD

LMA

PWD

Gap

First Nations & Inuit Health National Capital Region 440 25 5.70% 18 4.10% 7Alberta Region 266 20 7.50% 12 4.50% 8Atlantic Region 112 7 6.30% 5 4.40% 2Manitoba Region 418 11 2.60% 19 4.50% -8National Capital Region 29 3 10.30% 1 3.90% 2Northern Region 51 2 3.90% 2 4.20% 0Ontario Region 345 14 4.10% 15 4.30% -1Quebec Region 126 1 0.80% 5 4.30% -4Saskatchewan Region 200 12 6.00% 9 4.40% 3

Grand Total 1,987 95 4.78% 86 4.29% 9


Visible minorities’ representation (Continued):

Visible minorities’ representation:

Branch NCR/Regions

Empl

oyee

Po

pula

tion

Visib

le M

inor

ity

Popu

latio

n

Visib

le M

inor

ity

Repr

esen

tatio

n

Visib

le M

inor

ity

Expe

cted

Visib

le M

inor

ity

LMA

Visib

le M

inor

ity

Gap

First Nations & Inuit Health National Capital Region 440 71 16% 67 15.20% 4Alberta Region 266 49 18% 36 13.50% 13Atlantic Region 112 8 7% 8 7.10% 0Manitoba Region 418 40 10% 47 11.30% -7National Capital Region 29 6 21% 5 16.10% 1Northern Region 51 1 2% 5 9.60% -4Ontario Region 345 43 12% 45 13.10% -2Quebec Region 126 22 17% 14 10.90% 8Saskatchewan Region 200 23 12% 19 9.60% 4

Grand Total 1,987 263 13% 246 11.82% 17



From 2014 to 2018, the number of visible minorities within FNIHB increased by a total of 120 individuals (from 215 in 2014 to 335 in 2018). The proportion of visible minorities in FNIHB has also increased by 4.8% (from 10.2% in 2014 to 15% in 2018)1.

2014 2015 2016 2017 20180

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

215 22

8 237 26

2

335

FNIHB Visible Minorities in the Workforce

Year

# of V

isibl

e Min

oriti

es

2014 2015 2016 2017 20180%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

10.2

%

11.0

%

11.4

%

12.0

%

15.0

%

FNIHB Representation of Visible Minorities

Year

% of

Visi

ble M

inor

ities

Source: PeopleSoft 2014-2018. Does not include, term, casual, students and employees currently on Leave without Pay.

Indigenous Peoples Representation:

In its third year of existence, FNIHB’s Aboriginal Peoples Employment Program (APEP) continues to increase Indigenous representation within the organization, from 23.6% in 2015 to 25.2% in 2018 which represents 84.1% of the representation goal (30%). It seeks to ensure better distribution across functional categories and classification levels in areas that will have the most positive impact on program delivery and health outcomes of the disadvantaged target client population and to reach its 30% representation goal by 2020.

Indigenous Peoples Representation (Continued):

Please note: All information is based on FNIHB employees. This information was excluded to ensure that a consistent lens was applied across the entire fiscal year and for historical comparison.

Source: APEP at a Glance April 2018

1 Confidentiality measures prevent the release of data pertaining to specific positions and/or specific levels occupied by a member of a visible minority group. For this reason, we can only analyze workforce trends based on staff members who knowingly self-identify as a member of a visible minority group.


In 2016-17 FNIHB’s intake (21.8%) dedicated to Aboriginal Peoples (AP) was maintained and essentially carried through in the 2017-18 fiscal year (21%). In 2017-18, the Aboriginal intake rate (10.9%) was the second highest rate over the past four full fiscal years. While maintaining a high proportion of intake is important, equal importance to permanent staffing should be in place as well. Prior to the creation of ISC, work was started to examine the recruitment model.


Preliminary data points to a discrepancy in the level/proportions of indeterminate employees being brought in when comparing AP to Non AP. This variance coupled with the fact that indeterminate employment is the main driving force behind representation percentages should highlight the importance to continue the recruitment model examination. FNIHB continues to focus on external recruitment as its main source of Aboriginal Peoples. In fact just over 90% of 2017-18 inflow came from the external market.

Indigenous Departures:


Indigenous Peoples Representation (Continued):

Despite the high departure rate in 2017-18 it was outpaced by the intake rate of 10.9%. This was also the case for Non AP but the resulting delta between intake and departures was greater for Non AP hampering the speed at which AP representation climbed.

Post-Secondary Recruitment (PSR) & Student Bridging:

Over the past three fiscal years (2015-16 to 2017-18) FNIHB has consistently seen around ¼ of its Student Bridging/PSR dedicated to Aboriginal Peoples. With renewal as a government priority one may view any bridging or PSR done as term employment as a hindrance to renewal. Increased dedication to term employment in this area will not have the desired impact on representation levels being sought after. In 2017-18, 73% of Bridging/PSR was for term employment as compared to 53% in 2015-16.


In 2017-18, Aboriginal Peoples experienced negative growth with the highest ever percentage (22.8%) of departures and the highest departure rate (10%) over the past 4 fiscal years. An uptake of retirements seems to be driving the increased rate. While the AP percentage of departures has generally been below internal representation, recent negative direction has pushed the % of departures in the last quarter of 2017-18 to be above that of representation (25.8% versus 25.2% respectively).

However, the intake of the FSWEP students hires and Indigenous graduates being recruited and bridged into federal employment have gradually increasing annually over the last 4 fiscal years.

Fiscal Year 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18Student Hires 19 45 66 79Student Type 14 FSWEP & 5 COOP 36 FSWEP & 9 COOP 56 FSWEP & 10 COOP 69 FSWEP & 10 COOPStudent Bridging & PSR 80 74 107 136Employment Type 28 Ind. & 52 Term 35 Ind. & 39 Term 38 Ind. & 69 Term 37 Ind. & 99 Term% Aboriginal 15.0% (12) 25.7 % (19) 24.3% (26) 25.0% (34)

Post-Secondary Recruitment & Student Bridging (to create an environment where the intake of students and graduates leads to future employment.)


FNIHB’S CURRENT WORKFORCE ENVIRONMENT _____________________________________________________________________________________

FNIHB is constantly evolving in response to the transitional period and realities of the new Department as well as external factors impacting the core business and shaping of our organization.

While it is not possible to outline all factors, internal or external, we will however highlight some important drivers, based on the data evidence highlighted in the report, which will continue to shape the Branch’s future.

Labour Force Demographics: The rapid aging of FNIHB’s workforce population combined with the potential recruitment challenges and loss of corporate memory due to increasing mobility and departure rates raises the need for more robust succession planning, strategic people management planning and more targeted employee talent management implementation.

Shortage of Health Care Professionals in Indigenous communities: FNIHB needs to continue working with Indigenous communities to implement the Nursing Retention and Recruitment Strategy to improve the availability of health care professionals in Indigenous communities across the country. Workforce data shows FNIHB continues to face a shortage of nurses willing to work in remote and isolated First Nations communities. Vacancy rates are very high in some regions.

FNIHB’s Current Workforce Environment (Continued):

Societal realities: Younger people are bringing new expectations, values, and technical skills to the workplace. This new reality poses challenges and opportunities to FNIHB’s business of retention.

Continuum of Wellness in FNIHB_____________________________________________________________________________________

FNIHB is committed to providing a safe and healthy work environment for all of its employees. The workplace has a substantial effect on the health of employees. It is clear that the health of a person


directly affects their job satisfaction and their productivity. A healthy workplace benefits the organization and employees alike, and results in:

• Improved productivity• Less absenteeism• Decreased health and safety incidents• Reduced staff turnover• Lower costs related to recruitment, training and orientation• Improved employees’ attitudes toward the branch; higher staff morale• More receptive to workplace change

Workplace Wellness:The Branch is committed to ensuring that all managers/supervisors complete the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) and the Building Blocks of Respect (BBR) mandatory training. Currently, 68% have completed the OHS and 72% the BBR. This remains a requirement as part of the Department’s ability to meet its Occupational Health and Safety obligations.

Talent management in NCR Talent management is an integrated approach to human resources management, focussed on supporting selected high calibre leaders and managers, developing and orienting them to the organization, and creating a workplace in which the participants can reach their potential and use their expertise to contribute to Branch priorities and objectives.

Implementation of 360 evaluation exercise The 360° feedback process started in 2013-14 as a professional development initiative for EX and equivalent groups. FNIHB has implemented four other 360° evaluation exercise for EXs to EX minus 2. Over 5 years, 125 FNIHB employees have completed this process and approximately 30 more participants will complete the exercise by December 2018. This initiative is a very important in the Branch’s pursuit of excellence and its strategic goal to fostering a supportive environment in which employees excel.

Respectful Workplace:

Values and EthicsValues and Ethics are an integral part of FNIHB’s culture. FNIHB is committed to increasing its emphasis on values & ethics in order to continue to foster a positive work environment. The Branch will continue to collaborate with corporate partner to offer harassment prevention and resolution training to staff in 2018-19 and beyond. As it stands, the Branch completion rates for managers/supervisors is at 57%.

PSES Results toward Harassment/Discrimination The employee perception of decreased Departmental support toward a diverse workplace (from both 2014 PSES and 2017 PSEAS) correlates with the fact that harassment and discrimination remain areas requiring focus following the analysis 2017 PSES results. Since employee perception of being treated with respect has increased 6% from 2017 PSEAS results, it can be assumed that the efforts made to improve overall wellness within the Branch has had an impact even if not fully realized as of yet.


This is also consistent with the fact that FNIHB employees still feel reluctant that they can initiate a formal recourse process without fear of reprisal.

Emerging trends

Harassment

BRANCH FNIHB FNIHB FNIHB FNIHB FNIHBPSES PSES PSES PSEAS PSES

YEAR 2008 2011 2014 2017 2017% YES 29% 42% 27% 31% 26%# of Respondents 377 1191 1259 962 1127Approximate # who responded Yes

109 500 340 298 293

Having carefully read the definition of harassment, have you been the victim of harassment on the job in the past two years?

Discrimination

BRANCH FNIHB FNIHB FNIHB FNIHB FNIHBPSES PSES PSES PSEAS PSES

YEAR 2008 2011 2014 2017 2017% YES 19% 21% 9% 17% 13%# of Respondents 377 1189 1256 969 1126Approximate # who responded Yes

72 250 113 165 146

Having carefully read the definition of discrimination, have you been the victim of discrimination on the job in the past two years?

Emerging trends (Continued):

The above table shows that FNIHB is making improvements against Harassment in the workplace (a 1% decline from FNIHB 2014 results and a 5% decline from FNIHB 2017 PSEAS results). While consistent senior management messaging of a zero tolerance policy regarding harassment in the workplace and mandatory Mental Wellness related training (which outlines what constitutes harassment), would have helped to increase employee awareness, a complete change in behaviour might take longer to be realized. Note as well that those individuals who identified as being a victim of harassment (in the past two years) identify 'co-workers' and 'individuals with authority over them' as the group from whom they receive the harassment most often.

The above data shows that FNIHB has been making some strides against Discrimination as well (a 4% decline from FNIHB 2017 PSEAS results); however, we also saw rates go up 4% from FNIHB in 2014.Similar to the information on Harassment, ‘co-workers' and 'individuals with authority over them' remain the groups most often identified from whom they felt discriminated against.


Leave without Pay (LWOP)_____________________________________________________________________________________

Leave without Pay (LWOP) is an important metric when discussing wellness within FNIHB. LWOP accounts for those employees who are on a temporary or extended period of absence for reasons including family leave, illness & disability, other and leave with income averaging. It is imporant to note that higher numbers of LWOP could potentially be indicativeof either positive and/or negative aspects of health within the workforce as it may be used as a means to cope with hardship, illness and stress or for promoting worklife balance for purposes such as family related leave or leave with income averaging.

Source: PeopleSoft April 2014-November 1, 2018. Include indeterminate, term, casual, students, active

employees and employees currently on Leave without Pay.

Leave without Pay (LWOP) (Continued):

43%

28%

29%

Reasons for LWOP in FNIHB as of November 2018

Family leaveIllnes & DisabilityOther

Source: PeopleSoft July 2018. Include indeterminate, term, casual, students, active employees and employees currently on Leave without Pay.

The LWOP total usage fluctuates from year to year, however, it is noticiable that the utilization differs by age group in FNIHB as some age groups have a higer usage rate of LWOP and use more LWOP in proportion to their population ratio while some age groups use less LWOP. In particular, primary age


2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Nov 2018180

190

200

210

220

230

240

235

214

202

215 22

0

FNIHB # of Employees on LWOP

Year

# of S

taff

As of July 2018, the top reasons for taking LWOP is Family leave (43%), Illness and Disability (28%) and other (29%).

From 2014 to 2018, the average number of employees on LWOP is ~217 (# of employees on LWOP/5 years)

Within the last 5 years, 2014 had the highest number of staff on LWOP with 235 employees.

Within the last 5 years, 2016 had the lowest number of staff on LWOP with 202 employees.

groups that over use LWOP in respect to their population percentage are those aged 30-39 (age group 35-39 and 30-34). On average, 42% of employees who used LWOP were aged between 30-39 even though this group only accounts for 26% of the FNIHB workforce. It is unknown why this age group uses more LWOP, however, it is possible that it corrilates to life and/family planning stages that potentially require family leave.

35-39 30-34 40-44 55-59 50-54 45-49 25-29 60-64 65+ 0-251 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

22%

20%

14%

10%

10%

9%

8%

5%

0% 0%

15%

11% 14

%

12% 15

%

15%

7% 7% 3% 2%

Average LWOP Usage in Comparison to Age Group Size (2014-2018)

Average % of Total LWOP Employees Average % of Total Workforce

LWOP Usage Ranking and Age Group

% o

f Wor

kfor

ce

Source: PeopleSoft April 2014-November 1, 2018. This chart is based on the average LWOP utilized by respected age groups from 2014-2018. This is shown in comparison to the average percentage each age group makes up as a total of FNIHBs workforce population. These averages are calculated from various snapshots taken from April of each fiscal year and may have limitations when determining fluctuations that take place within each year.

Leave without Pay (LWOP) (Continued):

Age groups that under utilize or have essentially no utilization of LWOP are generally dominated by those aged 45-54 (age group 45-49 and 50-54). On average, only 19% of employees on LWOP were in this age group yet those aged 45-54 account for 30% of the FNIHB workforce. It could be suggested that less usage of LWOP for this age group stems from more options pertaining to more disposable vacation/sick leave accumulated through senority.

Groups that have esstentially no utilization of LWOP are those aged 65+ and individuals under 25. These age groups account for only 5% of the FNIHB workforce population. There are also limitations regarding information as to why these individuals are taking LWOP as their reason for LWOP is listed as “other” which could therefore account for a variety of workplace wellness factors.

Workplace Mobility:

The total count of FNIHB employee turnovers (i.e. departures) was 195 for both FY 2017-18 and FY 2016-17 with the highest level of departures being linked to “resignation”. Branch mobility statistics show,


however, that during these same fiscal years FNIHB FTE hires count for 241 employees in FY 2017-18 and 270 employees in FY 2016-17 allowing FNIHB to show an overall net replenishment of staffing over departures.

If we take a closer look at the turnover rates by percentage between FY 2016-17 & FY 2017-18: Northern Region had the highest % of its workforce depart in FY 2016-17 at 21%, with SPPI at a

close second at 17%. Both are explained primarily through interdepartmental transfers out.

In FY 2017-18, however, ICSD had the highest turnover rate at 16% which is explained by an equal number of retirements, promotions and lateral moves.

If we look at turnover by count between FY 2016-17 & FY 2017-18: Manitoba Region has the highest count at 45 employees for both FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18,

with Ontario in close 2nd with 41 employees in FY 2016-17 and 37 employees in FY 2017-18. In both cases, the highest proportion of departures was linked to resignations.

Even though the data below doesn’t outline what functional groups and levels make up these departures, one can infer noting that it was the NU-CHN group that comprised the largest group of departures in the overall Branch, in FY 17-18 and FY 16-17, that that same functional group would also comprise the majority of the departures from ON and MB over those years.

When reviewing HQ to Regional departure rates:

Although FNIHB departure rates have remained stable at 9% for both FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18, it is worth noting that HQ departure rates are slightly lower at 8% in comparison to Regional departures at 9% for both FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18.

Workplace Mobility (Continued):FY 2017-2018

Directorate/Region Average population Total Arrivals Total Departures Overall MobilityDepartures as a % of Workforce

Headquarters:ADMO First Nat & Inuit Hlth Br 16 4 1 3 6%ADMO FNIH Regional Operations 3 0 0 0 0%Capacity, Infras & Account 34 1 1 0 3%Internal Client Services 58 5 9 -4 16%Non-Insured Health Benefits 155 22 11 11 7%Population & Public Health 93 5 6 -1 6%Primary Health Care 54 9 6 3 11%Strategic Policy Planning&Info 70 21 5 16 7%Headquarters Total: 483 67 39 28 8%

Regional Operations:FNIH Alberta Region 305 24 36 -12 12%FNIH Atlantic Region 117 11 10 1 9%FNIH Manitoba Region 474 34 45 -11 9%FNIH Northern Region 56 6 4 2 7%FNIH Ontario Region 368 54 37 17 10%FNIH Quebec Region 147 17 11 6 7%FNIH Saskatchewan Region 219 28 13 15 6%


Regional Operations Total: 1686 174 156 18 9%

Grand Total 2170 241 195 46 9%

FY 2016-2017

Directorate/Region Average population Total Arrivals Total Departures Overall MobilityDepartures as a % of Workforce

Headquarters:ADMO First Nat & Inuit Hlth Br 13 1 1 0 8%ADMO FNIH Regional Operations 3 0 0 0 0%Capacity, Infras & Account 34 2 1 1 3%Internal Client Services 58 6 4 2 7%Non-Insured Health Benefits 149 11 11 0 7%Population & Public Health 94 4 6 -2 6%Primary Health Care 54 3 4 -1 7%Strategic Policy Planning&Info 71 12 12 0 17%Headquarters Total: 476 39 39 0 8%

Regional Operations:FNIH Alberta Region 297 56 25 31 8%FNIH Atlantic Region 112 19 8 11 7%FNIH Manitoba Region 492 34 45 -11 9%FNIH Northern Region 53 15 11 4 21%FNIH Ontario Region 352 61 41 20 12%FNIH Quebec Region 137 13 4 9 3%FNIH Saskatchewan Region 211 33 22 11 10%Regional Operations Total: 1654 231 156 75 9%

Grand Total 2132 270 195 75 9%

*Source of data from HC mobility Dashboard as of July 2018*Total Arrivals includes new hires, interdepartmental transfers in, term to indeterminate appointments and inter-branch promotion/demotions. *Total Departures includes inter-branch promotion/demotions, outbound inter-department transfers, resignations and retirements.

FNIHB Employees’ Departure Rate & Exit process data:

# % # % # % # % # % # %FY 2013/2014 2199 9 0.4% 42 1.9% 73 3.3% 64 2.9% 7 0.3% 195 8.9%FY 2014/2015 2068 7 0.3% 33 1.6% 73 3.5% 44 2.1% 17 0.8% 174 8.4%FY 2015/2016 2054 10 0.5% 39 1.9% 70 3.4% 46 2.2% 16 0.8% 181 8.8%FY 2016/2017 2132 9 0.4% 58 2.7% 73 3.4% 49 2.3% 6 0.3% 195 9.1%FY 2017/2018 2170 20 0.9% 34 1.6% 75 3.5% 58 2.7% 8 0.4% 195 9.0%

Departures

Fiscal Year

Aver

age

Popu

latio

n

FNIHB

Late

ral&

Dow

n

Resig

natio

n

Retir

emen

t

Oth

er

Interbranch Transfers Out

Inte

r-de

part

men

t Tr

ansf

ers O

ut

Public Service DeparturesTo

tal B

ranc

h De

part

ures

Source: Corporate Services Branch - Health Canada (April, 2018)


Facts:

Over the last 2 years (2016-17 and 2017-18) approximately 390 FNIHB employees departed the Branch, with no employee exit data officially reported to senior management to:

better understand and monitor FNIHB’s employee mobility and trends; develop targeted recruitment, retention and succession strategies; better understand the views of employees when leaving; improve our forecasting of future resourcing needs in FNIHB; and, Review and assess the workforce climate and workplace well-being.

Workforce Priorities____________________________________________________________________________________Considering all the data outlined in the previous pages, the priorities, expected outcomes, and strategies below represent what the Branch will need to focus attention and efforts moving forward.

PRIORITYBuilding a Workforce for Current and Future Needs

FNIHB is strategically aligned with the organization’s strategic plan which ensures lifelong learning, cultural competencies and supporting Indigenous employees


Expected outcomes

• Sustainable workforce;• Better understanding of workforce gaps against future needs;• Targeted, timely and effective recruitment;• Right mix of employees and inclusive workforce.

Strategies to address priorities

• Engage FNIHB management to further discuss & define current and future needs of desired workforce;• Bolster recruitment initiatives in key occupational group;• Monitor turnover and departure rates in high-mobility groups; and,• Bolster recruitment initiatives in key occupations.

PRIORITYSupport Human Resources Data Analytics Modernization

FNIHB is committed to client services with high quality data standards in order to facilitate business intelligence in people management.Expected outcomes

• Provide value-added research and stat source to senior management for HRM decision making options.• Provide insight and predictive abilities to solve complex business needs.

Strategies to address priorities

• Apply business intelligence tools to extract data and analyse trend.• Review PeopleSoft reporting processes.

CONCLUSION____________________________________________________________________________________ This report focussed on the Branch’s key workforce statistics, issues, priorities, and current strategies in place moving forward. This document will be updated on an annual basis as part of the Branch’s workforce analytics reporting process; taking into account emerging factors in the Department’s business priorities. By raising awareness on workforce issues to a strategic level, FNIHB can better focus its efforts on important issues that are critical to success, and plan its way forward to create a sustainable workforce and also be prepared for current and future challenges.


ANNEXES


Figure 1 – Indeterminate Staffing

Figure 1a – Indeterminate Staff Intake

Prom

otion

Late

ral &

Dow

n

# # # # # # %ADMO First Nat & Inuit Health 16 1 1 0 1 1 4 25.7%ADMO FNIH Regional Operations 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%CIAD 34 0 0 0 0 1 1 2.9%FNIH Alberta Region 305 16 3 4 1 0 24 7.9%FNIH Atlantic Region 117 7 1 3 0 0 11 9.4%FNIH Manitoba Region 474 21 0 13 0 0 34 7.2%FNIH Northern Region 56 4 1 0 0 1 6 10.6%FNIH Ontario Region 368 37 0 14 2 1 54 14.7%FNIH Quebec Region 147 10 2 5 0 0 17 11.5%FNIH Saskatchewan Region 219 13 1 14 0 0 28 12.8%Internal Client Services 58 2 1 0 2 0 5 8.6%Non-Insured Health Benefits 155 7 4 11 0 0 22 14.2%Population & Public Health 93 3 1 1 0 0 5 5.4%Primary Health Care 54 2 1 2 2 2 9 16.6%Strategic Policy Planning & Info 70 10 4 2 4 1 21 30.0%Grand Total 2170 133 20 69 12 7 241 11.1%

FNIHB 2017-18New Indeterminates

New

Hire

s

Inte

r-De

part

men

tal

Tran

sfer

s In

Term

to In

dete

rmin

ate Interbranch

Transfers In

Tota

l Bra

nch

New

In

dete

rmin

ates

Region/DirectorateAv

erag

e Po

pula

tion


Figure 1b –Indeterminate Staff Departures

Prom

otion

Late

ral&

Dow

n

Resi

gnati

on

Retir

emen

t

Oth

er

# # # # # # # %ADMO First Nat & Inuit Health 16 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 12.8%ADMO FNIH Regional Operations 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%CIAD 34 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 8.8%FNIH Alberta Region 305 0 0 5 17 11 3 36 11.8%FNIH Atlantic Region 117 2 2 2 3 3 0 12 10.2%FNIH Manitoba Region 474 1 1 1 27 15 1 46 9.7%FNIH Northern Region 56 1 1 3 0 0 0 5 8.9%FNIH Ontario Region 368 1 3 1 20 12 1 38 10.3%FNIH Quebec Region 147 0 1 3 3 4 0 11 7.5%FNIH Saskatchewan Region 219 0 0 8 2 1 2 13 5.9%Internal Client Services 58 4 4 0 1 4 0 13 22.3%Non-Insured Health Benefits 155 4 1 5 0 5 0 15 9.7%Population & Public Health 93 0 2 3 0 1 0 6 6.5%Primary Health Care 54 0 1 2 0 2 1 6 11.1%Strategic Policy Planning & Info 70 2 3 0 2 0 0 7 10.0%Grand Total 2170 18 20 34 75 58 8 213 9.8%

Public Service Departures

Tota

l Bra

nch

Depa

rtur

es

FNIHB 2017-18

Region/DirectorateAv

erag

e Po

pula

tion

DeparturesInterbranch

Transfers Out

Inte

r-de

part

men

t Tr

ansf

ers O

ut

Please note - this calculation includes outbound Interbranch promotions.


Figure 2: FNIHB PSES 2017 Placemat



Documents

WORKFORCE ANALYTICS - FNIHB · Web viewAs of November 2018, FNIHB had a workforce of 2,738, consisting of 80.01% indeterminate employees, 9.4 % term employees, 9.8% casual employees