Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFCS-16-085 - 2nd Quarter Audit Status Report REPORT TO: Audit Committee DATE OF MEETING: June 27, 2016 SUBMITTED BY: Corina Tasker, Internal Auditor, 519-741-2200 ext. 7361 PREPARED BY: Corina Tasker, Internal Auditor, 519-741-2200 ext. 7361 WARD(S) INVOLVED: All DATE OF REPORT: June 20, 2016 REPORT NO.: FCS-16-085 nd SUBJECT: 2 Quarter Audit Status Report ___________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation required. The following information is being provided as an update and assurance on internal audit matters, in accordance with the Audit Committee Terms of Reference. BACKGROUND: The following report provides a summary of the Internal Audit activities completed during the period of December 2015 to June 2016. The chart below shows the audits contained in this report. Division / Topic Scope Community Centres Comprehensive Audit The following items are currently in progress and will be brought forward at a future audit committee meeting: Accounting Comprehensive Audit Legislated Services Follow-up Audit *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. REPORT: Community Centres Comprehensive Audit Completed: May 17, 2016 Audit Objectives: The objective of this review was to examine the services provided, inherent risks, processes, organizational structure, resourcing and culture within the community centres. The review was also intended to identif support of neighbourhoods and community partners beyond the centres, into surrounding neighbourhoods. The review assessed the positive aspects that should continue, as well as possible areas to improve efficiency and effectiveness, mitigate risks and improve the culture of the division with a view towards strengthening the role of our community centres within our neighbourhoods and evolving to meet changing needs. Methodology: Similar to other internal service reviews conducted in other areas of the municipality, this review incorporated the following elements: Internal Stakeholder Consultation 22 staff and management interviews o 21 staff participated in focus groups o 46 staff surveys o 13 focus groups made up of internal stakeholders o 11 Council interviews o Risk Assessment Organizational Structure Review Rental Analysis Literature Review Municipal Benchmarking Research was completed into eight municipalities (Burlington, Calgary, o Cambridge, Guelph, Hamilton, London, Ottawa and Waterloo) to better understand their community centre operations. In addition to the standard elements listed above, extensive external stakeholder consultation was conducted for this review including: 595 citizens completed an online or paper survey. o 15 focus groups or interviews with external partners (e.g. House of o Friendship, Carizon, KPL, YWCA KW, Dwelling Place etc.) 16 focus groups or interviews with neighbourhood associations o 6 focus groups with advisory committees o Findings: Strengths It was clear from the staff and stakeholder input that community centre staff are very passionate about their jobs, dedicated to playing a positive role in their community and that they work hard to provide the best customer service possible. The main strengths of the section is the professional, knowledgeable, and passionate staff who provide excellent customer service to the neighbourhoods they serve. Community centre services and programs are valued by the public and other community partners and are seen to play a vital role in providing a good quality of life within Kitchener. Internal and external stakeholders see our centres as community hubs that are warm, welcoming, inclusive and safe. Issues and Risks The issues and risks identified most often by staff can be grouped into the following broad areas: Service delivery various suggestions were made for different ways to serve our customers and to work more closely with the neighbourhood associations and other community partners; Recruitment challenges with the hiring process and perceptions that it is not fair or transparent in some specific cases or in some centres; Turnover there is a negative impact of frequent staff turnover on morale, workload and efficiency; Organizational structure the current structure does not appear to support the objectives of our community centres and it creates some inefficiencies; Communications there are many opportunities for better sharing of information between staff, management and other stakeholders; Decision making in some centres, staff feel there is a top down approach which hampers productivity, reduces efficiency, decreases morale and slows customer service; The areas for improvement most often noted by stakeholders included: Service Delivery too many rules and procedures; in some centres staff can sometimes focus too much on rules enforcement as opposed to helping community groups figure out how to make something happen; a need to increase programming that meets specific demographic needs such as youth and older adults; Rentals high to encourage greater use by the community; high prices exclude community groups from accessing much needed gathering space; this seems contrary to the overall purpose of the community centres in terms of being accessible and affordable space; Neighbourhood Associations there is a need to re-examine the working relationship between the City and Neighbourhood Associations to address opportunities to improve service delivery (e.g. provide a more comprehensive training and support program for neighbourhood associations and their volunteers); Communications / Marketing need to promote the community centres and their programs much more in order to increase usage and bring people into the centres that are not traditional users; opportunities for better sharing of information / best practices / creative ideas between community centres, neighbourhood associations, community centre staff and other community partners; Relationships / Collaboration in some centres there are opportunities to improve relationships and increase trust between community centre staff and some community stakeholder groups, including neighbourhood associations. Recommendations: There were 74 recommendations made in this audit, excluding the organizational structure changes. These recommendations address the findings above and aim to They provide staff with ideas on how they can be better supported with the tools, resources and responsibilities they need to provide a consistent level of high-quality customer service, across all the centres. A summary of the key recommendations including the organizational structure change is included below. Organizational Structure Changes One objective of this review was to examine the current organizational structure to determine if it was effective in supporting the section in achieving their goals. During the consultation phase staff were asked specifically whether they thought the current organizational structure was effective in helping staff carry out the mandate of the division. There was a lot of input from staff regarding issues with the current structure. In addition, structural challenges were highlighted in the risk assessment exercise. It became immediately apparent that changes to the structure were required in order to strengthen centres services, better support staff and community partners, and foster stronger neighbourhoods across the city. This information was analyzed to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the current structure and recommend changes that would position the section to better support neighbourhoods. All of the changes to the organizational structure that were considered were achievable within existing budgets and approved staffing levels. As part of this analysis the project team prioritized the issues that were identified through the consultations in order to ensure that the most important issues were addressed if budget became a constraining factor. A new organizational structure was recommended and adopted by management. The following is a summary of the changes that were made to the organizational structure that was rolled out to staff in May 2016: To help respond to customer needs and inquiries as quickly as possible, there will now be a consistent staff position at every centre with the authority to make day-to- day operational decisions regarding the centre and its services. There will be clear and consistent roles across all centres related to neighbourhood development, customer service, administration and program support. This will help promote a team approach to customer service while providing the flexibility and authority for staff in each centre to make decisions based on the unique needs of the customers and neighbourhoods they serve. There will now be four part- community partners and neighbourhood initiatives outside of our centres. This Neighbourhood Liaison position will help community groups navigate the rules, procedures and people at City Hall to make it easier for them to do great things in their neighbourhoods. To provide more consistent and timely customer service, and to reduce the amount of time management staff spend in recruiting, onboarding and training new staff there will be fewer part-time positions and more full-time positions in our centres. There will be dedicated project management support within the section, so that centre staff can spend less time in meetings or at City Hall, and more time in their centres serving their customers and the surrounding neighbourhoods. This position will also help move important projects within our centres. Community Centre Mandate For staff to deliver services effectively there needs to be a clearly defined mandate for our community centres. The lack of a formal and clearly articulated mandate has led to some confusion over the purpose of the centres, according to community centre staff. Many staff believe the centres should be providing low or no cost programs and services to the community yet they feel pressured at the corporate and council level to attain increasing revenue targets in order to balance budgets and avoid requests for additional funding. There is some confusion as to whether or not the centres should simply serve as spaces for recreational programming or if they should provide a wider array of programs, services and community supports. Feedback from the review consultation process indicates that all groups (internal and external including council) generally share a variety of common ideas for what the mandate of community centres should be. Key phrases and themes that stakeholders mentioned repeatedly include: Community hub / focal point of the neighbourhood; Community gathering place for affordable events, rentals, drop-in, programs, education, information; To bring members of the community together / motivate them to stay active and social / provide a sense of belonging; Warm, welcoming, inclusive, safe space; Tailored to the needs of the neighbourhoods; An opportunity to nurture / grow neighbourhood leadership; Connection point to city hall / city services. All of these themes support both the corporate and department strategies. It should be noted that in spite of not having a formal mandate, many of our community centres already act as a community hub and focal point for neighbourhoods. They are also seen to be warm, welcoming spaces. Having a formal mandate will make this more deliberate, less confusing and will align all future work with this vision. It is recommended that the Director lead a collaborative process that is open to all community centre staff to define and document a clear, formal mandate for our centres. Once finalized, the Director should communicate the mandate statement to city council, internal and external stakeholders and community centre staff on a regular basis and ensure decisions are being made in support of that mandate. Community Centre Rentals A variety of data was examined in relation to the community centre rental business to determine the effectiveness of this service. It was found that Kitchener is similar to most other cities that were benchmarked against in their desire to provide affordable / subsidized rentals to the community rather than operating on a cost recovery basis. All cities charge non-profit groups less than they charge corporate groups. Kitchener also employs flexibility in negotiating rental rates with non-profit groups in order to encourage more rentals and ensure they are affordable to these groups. This practice should continue. Financial data for the last five years has shown a steady increase in rental revenues, despite a decline in the number of rentals and attendance. This is due to the annual increase in fees and charges as per Council direction. While rental rates are comparable to other cities and venues, some groups still find the rates to be unaffordable. As mentioned above, staff do have the latitude to negotiate rates where necessary for non-profit groups. Utilization and Marketing And as noted above, the rental utilization is on a downward trend and centres in general are not being used to their full capacity. It is desired by many of the stakeholder groups that more work be done to reach the unengaged sectors of the population. It was noted that often citizens do not know the centres exist or what programs and services are offered. Some people assume they are only for recreation and leisure programs and do not know about all of the other services offered. It is recommended that the section work with the Corporate Communications division to develop a flexible communications plan template that can be populated on a regular basis by staff at each individual centre to promote individual centres as community gathering spaces and as places to participate in programming. It will be important to create a template that is flexible enough to meet the wide variety of needs in our different centres. One size will not fit all. It is also recommended that the section allocate more funding for promotions in order to bring new users into the centres that are not already attending and participating in neighbourhood association programs, partnership services or programs offered directly by the city. This will strengthen community connections, take better advantage of our existing centres and increase programming revenue for the neighbourhood associations and the city in some cases. Hours of Operation During a council strategic session, council asked staff to explore the option of having community centres open on weekends, and / or open longer hours during the week. This was an idea that was also raised by several individual members of council during their interviews for this review. Currently most but not all, centres are open on Saturday mornings for neighbourhood association programs but are closed in the afternoon and on Sunday with the exception of rentals. During the consultation phase of this review, some staff and citizens noted a desire to have standardized operating hours across all centres. Currently each centre has varied open and close times during the week depending on what programming is offered. This has frustrated some citizens who show up at a centre expecting it to be open and finding that it is not open until later. A small number of centres are closed over lunch due to lack of staffing. This has frustrated customers who go to the centres at lunch to register or pay for programs or rentals. The financial impacts of three service level improvement options related to expanded hours of operation have been estimated as part of this review including: Opening all centres on Saturday and Sunday from 9am to 5pm; Creating standard operating hours for all centres Monday to Friday (e.g. from 8:15am to 9:30pm); Extending hours before and after the standard operating hours. {;©Ýz-; [;Ý;Œ /š’’Ò“z·ä /Ò­·š7zŒ {·EE š·Œ az“z’Ò’ /;“·©; {·EE /š­·­ /š­· L“-©;­; /š­·­ h¦;“ {·Ò©7ä µ {ғ7är ’ Å Å Å r  ¦’ {·“7©7 š¦;©·z“m wšÒ©­r aš“7ä Å r  Å Å r  ·š C©z7är t t ¦’ 9ã·;“7;7 IšÒ©­ š¦·zš“­«t h¦;“ ·  ’ Å r Å Å r h¦;“ · t ’ Å r Å Å r h¦;“ ·  ’ Å Å Å h¦;“ · t ’ År  Å År  h¦;“ ·  ’ Å r Å Å r /Œš­; · År Å År /Œš­; · Å .5«« Å /Œš­; · Å .5«« Å «bš·; ·w· ·w; ;ã·;“7;7 wšÒ©­ -š­· ;­·z’·;­ ©; ,­;7 š“ Ez©­· ­·“7©7zé;7 š¦;©·z“m wšÒ©­ ›zu;u z· z­ ·w; z“-©;’;“·Œ -š­· ·š ’šÝ; E©š’ ·w; t  ’ š¦;“ · š¦·zš“­ Œz­·;7 š© ·w; -š­· ·š ’šÝ; E©š’ ·w; t ¦’ -Œš­; ·š š“;u ««LE -;“·©;­ ­·ä;7 š¦;“ ғ·zŒ t š© E ·w; -Ò­·š7zŒ ­;©Ýz-; ’š7;Œ ޚҌ7 “;;7 ·š ,; ғ7;©·‰;“ ·š 7;·;©’z“; wšÞ ,;­· ·š ¦©šÝz7; ·wz ޚҌ7 z“-Ò© 77z·zš“Œ -š­·­r Œ·wšÒmw ·w;­; ©; “š· ‰“šÞ“ · ·w rs, it is recommended that the Director consult with the Corporate Leadership team regarding the feasibility of presenting a budget issue paper on this issue as part of a future budget cycle. It will be the operating budget to accommodate any or all of these service level improvements. Neighbourhood Associations -run Neighbourhood Associations to deliver most of the programming within the centres. This is supplemented when needed by City-run programs and programs offered by other partner organizations. This model is not unique as most of the benchmarked cities offered a combination of direct programming and partner program delivery. However, this model does present a number of risks. First, many staff at almost all centres noted that volunteerism is trending downwards. As a result, there is a risk that the neighbourhood association model may not be sustainable as it relies so heavily on volunteers. Trends show that citizens are volunteering less for things that require a longer-term commitment such as sitting on a board like the neighbourhood associations. Instead, they volunteer their time on limited time engagements or events. This leaves a small pool of volunteers with varied skills to run the neighbourhood associations. Second, all neighbourhood associations must sign an affiliation agreement in order to enjoy staff support and have access to community centre space for programming. The agreement is very general in nature and has not been reviewed since 2002. Finally, the facility booking guidelines for non-profit groups gives first right of refusal to room bookings to neighbourhood associations. This has caused some conflict in the past when an external group wants to rent the centre but the neighbourhood association has it booked as a placeholder but then does not actually use the space because the programs ends up not running due to lack of enrollment. The review team does not feel the usage policy is flawed in that it establishes relative priority amongst user groups, gi programs. However, blocking space that is never used is an inefficient use of the centre. A number of recommendations related to neighbourhood association risks and opportunities will be presented to staff in the coming months for implementation with input from the neighbourhood associations to address the findings. Conclusion: Throughout this review there was a lot of very positive feedback. Our professional and caring community centre staff are making a great contribution to the quality of life of our community and to the unique strengths of our individual neighbourhoods. Thanks in large part to our community centre staff, Kitchener is better positioned than most municipalities to help create great neighbourhoods where people feel they belong and feel connected to one another. This is already happening in many places across our city. The recommendations contained within this report are intended to help build upon those great things and strengthen the role our centres play in our neighbourhoods. The recommendations are also intended to address risks that were specifically identified by community centre staff, and to provide better support to all staff in our centres (management and non-management) as they work hard to serve our community. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: Tgh the delivery of core service. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications related to this report. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM advance of the council / committee meeting. CONSULT Staff, council, citizens, neighbourhood associations, advisory committees and partner organizations were consulted as part of this review as noted in the methodology section above. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Dan Chapman, Deputy CAO, Finance and Corporate Services