Analysis of Director Military Family Services

PFP Objectives

• To help families of CF members manage the stresses associated with the unique characteristics of the military lifestyle.
• To enhance the quality of life in CF communities by supporting personal, family and community development.
• To foster the active and meaningful participation of CF families—and in particular, civilian spouses of CF members—in the development, delivery and evaluation of military family services.
• To contribute to the operational effectiveness of the CF by strengthening CF families and communities.

Methodology

• Delivery of mandated services, including community integration, parenting support, family separation and reunion support, prevention/support/intervention, personal development, and child/youth development.
• DMFS Participant Survey, QSPRs (to be implemented in FY 2010/11), and community needs assessments (CNA).

Performance Measures

• C/MFRCs must show that they are providing mandated services through their Funding Application and Service Delivery Agreement (SDA).
• Participants of the programs/services provided by C/MFRCs rate these services for value through a Participant Survey and give feedback during site visits.
• Compliance with the MOU and other policies is monitored through the DMFS-commissioned compliance inspections, which also provide recommendations.
• The MOU states that the BOD at C/MFRCs must consist of 51 percent military spouses.

Risk Assessment

• Funding Applications are assessed against the PFP for measurable criteria and go through a three-stage process for funding approval, prior to creation of the SDA.
• Participant Surveys and site visit feedback are used to generate new or improved programs, policies, and priorities.
• DMFS-commissioned compliance inspections are being conducted. Report recommendations are acted upon. Measures are in place if C/MFRCs do not comply with the MOU or other policies.

Capabilities Report on Deficiencies

The Capabilities Report on Deficiencies of the MFSP was written by DMFS in response to Chief Military Personnel Strategic Initiating Directive—02/09 Enhancement of CF Military Family Support Capability. The report’s purpose was to provide recommendations for the resolution of identified deficiencies in the military family support capability.

DMFS used a variety of data collection methods to classify the existing capabilities of the MFSP, to note deficiencies and to create enhancement initiatives. This is another demonstration of the proactive measures and responsiveness of DMFS that were observed during this assessment.

Accountability Process

The MFRC accountability framework of DMFS relies upon the MOUs, SLAs and PFP.

The MOU has the greatest impact on the accountability framework as it is explicit in terms of the accountability arrangement. The MOU articulates expectations, roles and responsibilities of all players; specifies funding levels; discusses financial arrangements and oversight; and articulates consequences of failure to comply. The CMFRCs (those centres outside of Canada) have SLAs which perform the same role. The PFP incorporates both the SLA and the MOU and provides a guide for the operations of C/MFRCs, including the mandatory categories of services that every C/MFRC must provide. The PFP amplifies the direction provided by the MOU, provides guidance (even more so than actual policy), and is more focused on the delivery of service. Through these documents, the C/MFRCs then create a plan for programs and services that they wish to offer, which is submitted to DMFS through a funding application. This plan is then reviewed by DMFS, which gives its approval, in whole or in part, and allocates funding to the C/MFRC based on eight factors.^[2]

Having received their funding allocation, C/MFRCs then create an SDA, which states the programs and services they will provide given the constraints of their budget. This SDA is once again reviewed by DMFS, which gives approval or returns it to the C/MFRC for revisions and re-submittal. Once the SDA is approved, the C/MFRC can then begin to provide its services. The C/MFRCs record their own financial transactions in a central system, and every quarter they provide Quarterly Expenditure Reports (QER) to DMFS. These reports are reviewed by DMFS in order to look for discrepancies or other issues.

Monitoring Mechanisms

In addition to using the QERs as a monitoring mechanism to ensure C/MFRCs do not over- or under-spend their allocated budgets, DMFS has several other monitoring mechanisms:

• DMFS Site Visits. The introduction this year of community site visits^[3], an expansion to the formal site visits, involves Field Operations Managers conducting community conversations, which are dialogues with families in the community. Such conversations raise issues and concerns beyond the MFSP, and are not restricted to families already using the MFRC programs/services.
• Compliance Inspections. DMFS-commissioned compliance inspections are conducted approximately every three years.
• Financial Audit. A financial audit conducted by an independent, licensed public accountant. DMFS receives the financial audit report from each MFRC once per year within one month of when it is issued by the chosen accounting professional.
• QSPRs. These are based on the service policy accountability framework and will be in place starting in FY 2010/11 to complement QERs.
• C/MFRC-Conducted Evaluations. These ensure that programs and services are achieving the desired results.
• DMFS Participant Survey. C/MFRCs are given direction to implement the survey at the direction of DMFS. This survey assesses achievement of key mandated service objectives against prescribed, measurable, and published indicators of success (i.e., questions explicitly reflect elements of the accountability frameworks outlined for each service component, in the PFP^[4]). This performance measurement was key in the survey's design, and also makes this instrument much more robust from an accountability perspective than merely an effort to gauge users' satisfaction with their C/MFRC. Additionally, this survey:
  • Will be extended to include a survey for CF members who do not use the C/MFRCs, in order to increase their participation.
  • Will have aggregate results fed into DMFS priorities for national program and policy development, and more recently, supported the work on the current enhancement initiatives (e.g., emergency child care). MFRCs use their individual results to compare with the national aggregate to determine where they should focus to improve, and DMFS uses the information during site visits to either acknowledge where MFRCs are comparatively strong or weak.
  • Will be used in conjunction with information for funding review (along with CNA results, QSPRs, etc.), thereby ensuring accountability is maintained.
• C/MFRC-Conducted CNAs. These ensure that the right programs are being delivered to the right communities.

Control Risks

• Risk that Funding Applications are “rubber-stamped” (i.e., same amounts automatically approved for each centre).
  • Mitigated. DMFS uses eight parameters to assess C/MFRCs with regard to funding and it has developed a variance-based funding allocation model. The funding applications also go through a three-level review.
• Risk that inspection recommendations are being ignored.
  • Mitigated. There is evidence that the DMFS-commissioned inspection reports are being acted upon. For example, one centre was put on notice for its numerous violations of the MOU. It has now been dissolved and will be operated under the NPP framework similar to the CMFRCs. (The MFRC will no longer be an independent, not-for-profit organization with its own BOD, registered with the province or territory, but will become an organization under the local chain of command (COC), with non‑public fund employees.)
• Risk that information gathered through the MFSP Participant Survey is not used.
  • Mitigated. Results were sent to an independent survey specialist company to collate and analyze. Reports for C/MFRCs and aggregate results are then generated. This information is subsequently fed into DMFS priorities for national program and policy development and, more recently, to the work on the current enhancement initiatives (e.g., emergency child care). MFRCs use their individual results to compare with the national aggregate to determine where they should focus to improve, and DMFS uses the information during site visits to ascertain where MFRCs are either comparatively strong or weak. DMFS has also indicated that, in order to “close the accountability feedback loop,” it has started using the information gathered for funding review; its new approach for funding encourages use of the data in funding applications (along with CNA results, QSPRs, etc.).
• Risk of insufficient funds for the annual DMFS site visits. Last fiscal year there was a departmental travel restriction imposed and many of the scheduled annual DMFS site visits were postponed until the last fiscal quarter. The rigorous review of so many centres concentrated during a compressed time period was not optimal, and generated unrealistic timelines for completion.
  • A plan is being considered to schedule the site visits every other year—except the high-risk centres or those with problems.

Annex A presents a flowchart displaying the accountability process.

Criteria

• Appropriate monitoring and reporting tools and procedures are in place to provide senior management with timely, accurate, and relevant information for decision-making purposes; and
• Roles and responsibilities are clear, communicated, understood, and adequate to provide effective oversight.

Criteria

• Identifiable risks are recognized, understood, quantified and appropriately managed;
• Risks are quantified and risk impact thresholds have been established; and
• Appropriate risk response strategies have been developed.

Criteria

• Existing policies, procedures, SLAs and MOUs are adequate and up to date.

Criteria

• The funding cycle is conducted in accordance with the applicable policies/procedures; and
• The compliance inspections are sufficient in content to meet the mandate, are completed as often as required, and identified issues are followed up to ensure correction.

Criteria

• Determine that services provided are of value to the military family members.