# Ombudsman Report on the Recruiting Process - July 19, 2006



## Towards_the_gap (19 Jul 2006)

Surprised it's not been posted yet, but the Ombudsman for the Canadian Forces has released his report on the recruiting process.

Some interesting reading, and very valid recommendations!

http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/reports/special/recruitment/recruit_toc_e.asp




[Edit Title to add date.]


----------



## GAP (19 Jul 2006)

The 18 recommendations made:


Recommendation One
I recommend that:
The Canadian Forces Recruiting Group develop and implement comprehensive service standards explaining exactly what clients can expect from their Recruiting Centres. The standards should include, but not be limited to:
A standard timeframe (48 hours, for instance) in which applicants can expect to receive replies to their inquiries, be they by telephone, written communication or e-mail;
The type and quality of service applicants can expect;
How to contact someone within the recruiting system should applicants have a question; and
Information, in writing, on how applicants can file complaints with someone outside of their local Recruiting Centre. These complaints must then be dealt with in a specified period of time.
Once developed, these standards must be promulgated and communicated to both applicants and recruiters. They should not only appear on the Canadian Forces website, they should be prominently displayed in all Recruiting Centres.

Recommendation Two
I recommend that:
The Chief of Military Personnel provide the Canadian Forces Recruiting Group with the resources required to put in place a Standards Cell, whose responsibility would be to monitor and report on performance measures, and to develop best practices and lessons learned for the benefit of the entire organization.

Recommendation Three
I recommend that:
The Canadian Forces Recruiting Group develop, implement, monitor and report on client service standards for their recruiting ‘call centre’

Recommendation Four
I recommend that:
The lines of responsibility and authority for the military recruiting process be identified and/or clarified and communicated to all implicated organizations in the most effective manner.

Recommendation Five
I recommend that:
Client Service Agreements be developed (where they do not exist) and formalized between the Canadian Forces Recruiting Group and all ‘service providers’. These agreements should establish clear expectations and service standards, including performance measures and indicators, and they should be adhered to in a rigorous way.

Recommendation Six
I recommend that:
The Chief of Military Personnel develop performance measures to monitor the effectiveness of the service agreements, including the communications between groups, and to identify when changes are required.

Recommendation Seven
I recommend that:
The Chief of Military Personnel, the Chief of Reserves and the Canadian Forces Recruiting Group monitor the implementation of these directives rigorously and make adjustments if, and where, necessary to refine them.

Recommendation Eight
I recommend that:
The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces assess the feasibility of extending or expanding the measures taken as part of Operation Connection to reduce and/or eliminate delays in the security screening process.

Recommendation Nine
I recommend that:
All Recruiting Centre staff be provided with an appropriate level of training and information on the Government of Canada Security Policy, the National Defence Personnel Security Screening Program, and all aspects (and components) of the security screening process.

Recommendation Ten
I recommend that:
The Canadian Forces Recruiting Group develop standard procedures for informing applicants of the security screening process, including providing a reasonable assessment as to how long the process will take for each individual applicant

Recommendation Eleven
I recommend that:
The Chief of Military Personnel develop, implement and analyze performance measures to determine the effectiveness of communications and cooperation between the Canadian Forces Recruiting Group and Canadian Forces Health Services and, ultimately, the impact that this arrangement has on the military recruiting system.

Recommendation Twelve
I recommend that:
The Canadian Forces Recruiting Group develop a current information distribution process that ensures that all Recruiting Centre staff have easy access to the latest information regarding the Recruit Allowance Program.

Recommendation Thirteen
I recommend that:
The present policy of awarding a recruit allowance based on the date when an applicant is enrolled be amended to reflect the date when the application is received by a Canadian Forces Recruiting Centre with all supporting documentation.

Recommendation Fourteen
I recommend that:
The present policy include a provision that, should a recruit allowance increase (or be instituted) after a qualified individual has applied to join the Canadian Forces but before that individual is actually enrolled, then the individual should receive the new (higher) allowance.

Recommendation Fifteen
I recommend that:
All offers of a recruit allowance (including relevant terms and conditions) be provided to applicants in writing, and in very clear and easily understood terms.

Recommendation Sixteen
I recommend that:
The Chief of Military Personnel, in consultation with the Chief of Reserves and the other various stakeholders, develop and implement a National Reserve Recruiting Policy. While establishing national goals and procedures, this policy must also recognize the unique requirements of the various Reserve elements.

Recommendation Seventeen
I recommend that:
The Chief of Military Personnel, the Canadian Forces Recruiting Group and the other various stakeholders involved in the Reserve recruiting process develop and implement standard operating procedures, including service level standards, in this area.

Recommendation Eighteen
I recommend that:
That the Canadian Forces Recruiting Group develop a Standard Operating procedure that would allow access to Recruiting Centres outside the normal business working hours. This would allow access to applicants who work full time. Consideration should be given to have recruiting centres open during evenings to coincide with Reserve Units hours, in order to facilitate contacts in processing their candidates.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (19 Jul 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> The 18 recommendations made:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




These were the recommendations most relevant to me. If you read further into the actual .pdf document it also recommends scrapping the requirement for pre-secs for pers who have lived in NATO/AUS/NZ countries. 

But one point of my own to add, it said nothing about foreign born applicants from NATO/AUS/NZ countries, which I think is a shame, as I personally know quite a few people who would seriously consider joining the canadian army at the end of their British Army service. 

Edited to add: cheers GAP for posting the extract


----------



## GAP (19 Jul 2006)

The press didn't lose a minute

Forces losing recruits: Study
By KATHLEEN HARRIS   Wed, July 19, 2006
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/2006/07/19/1691707-sun.html

The Canadian Forces is losing out on some fine personnel catches because of a recruitment process wrapped in red tape, the military watchdog concludes in a special report to be released today. 

National Defence Department ombudsman Yves Cote studied 301 complaints lodged from 2003-05 and found a number of flaws in the recruitment and selection process, including excessive delays in medical and security screening and discrepancies in how bonuses and other incentives are offered to potential recruits. 

While the Forces has managed to meet its recruitment targets, many candidates have dropped out of the process as a result of a glitch or an excessive delay. 

Among his recommendations, Cote is calling for a comprehensive national reserve recruitment policy.


----------



## CougarKing (20 Jul 2006)

Another related article, probably already posted on other threads, reproduced under the...oh never mind- just click on the link!

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/07/19/military-recruiting.html


----------



## Springroll (20 Jul 2006)

Military's recruitment methods slammed 
Forces' lack of responsiveness scaring off many talented people, Ombudsman says 
GLORIA GALLOWAY 

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Television ads attempt to lure young Canadian men and women to join the Forces with promises of action and exciting careers, but Canada's defence ombudsman says the welcome is not always so warm for those who actually try to enlist.

Yves Côté says he is concerned about the number of people who have told his office that they quit the recruitment process, or were about to quit, because of an unsatisfactory experience during recruiting.

"The Canadian Forces must improve the quality and timeliness of the service provided to applicants to ensure that it does not routinely lose the services of talented Canadians interested in a military career," Mr. Côté told a news conference yesterday as he released a report on recruitment problems.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060720.wxmilitary20/BNStory/National/home


----------



## tempest77 (20 Jul 2006)

> Review finds 'incredible' delays for would-be military recruits
> 
> Mike De Souza
> CanWest News Service
> ...


----------



## Remius (20 Jul 2006)

Hmn, 600 complaints over three years for some 75000 applicants.  That's not so bad in my mind.  Always room for improvement though...

A national reserve recruiting policy is an excellent suggestion.  especially in regards to the militia.


----------



## Pieman (20 Jul 2006)

> Hmn, 600 complaints over three years for some 75000 applicants.  That's not so bad in my mind.  Always room for improvement though...


Those are just the people that were ticked off enough to contact the ombudsmen office and complain. I am sure there are plenty more who just walked away. Looking at the number of people who waited 1-3 years to get in you have to wonder how many other good candidates were not willing to wait that long.

I hope they take these recommendations and make the changes needed.


----------



## Remius (20 Jul 2006)

Some of those complaints were probably not legit either.  So it balances itself out.  Even if you double those numbers it isn't that bad.

But as I said.  Always room to improve.


----------



## Pieman (20 Jul 2006)

> Even if you double those numbers it isn't that bad.


The number of complaints is low (in your view) therefore the system is more or less fine. That does not fly with me. Only a certain of percentage of people will resort to complaining when things don't work out. Most people that I spoke to that were having problems don't bother to file a complaint because they feel it will do no good, or filing a complaint will hinder their chance of getting in.

As a person who spent 2+ years getting in, I feel the system needs a pretty big overhaul.  I have also spoken to and interacted online with people who have spent equal, if not more time getting in. On my course the average time to get in was 1 1/2 years (for people in my section) and one fellow spent 4 years trying to get in.

I also know at least three people who came to Army.ca for help who seemed to be excellent candidates (having great education and work experience) who gave up in absolute disgust, or could not wait and started down a different career path. None of them complained because they did not see how it would help, despite my encouragements to do so. 

I am actually one of the 600 who did bother to file a complaint with the Ombudsman. I had a lengthy telephone conversation with the Ombudsman and I outlined various aspects of the system that I thought were hindering. I hope that my input helped, but I also know that complaining did nothing to help my file get processed. 

Plenty of room for improvement.


----------



## Echo9 (20 Jul 2006)

For anyone acquainted with the recruiting system, this is not news.  In fact, there was a SCONDVA report 3 years ago or so that all but called CFRG to the mat for its inadequacies.

Looking at the list, there's some good stuff in there from a procedural/ policy/ management perspective.  However, the key thing needed to improve recruiting is cultural.
1.  Like the USMC, recruiters need to be high performing, charismatic members.  Too often, we adopt the "if he's got the course he can do the job" approach.  Recruiting is effectively sales, and even with training, not everyone can be a good salesman.

2.  There's a risk averse culture that tends to creep in.  One of the biggest reason for delays in the recruiting process is a zero error approach.  This is the mentality that resulted in 100% of applications needing to be med reviewed by one Med O in Borden for a couple of years.  Better to meet the numbers and deal with a few irregular enrollments than fall short (or start careers off with a negative experience)

3.  Success measures are inward facing, instead of customer facing.  The potential problem with many of the recommendations from the ombudsman is that they are very metric driven, and there's a risk that there will simply be a transferrance of focus onto different internal metrics rather than an improvement in the client experience.  I should note that this applies to both sets of clients- the applicants themselves, and the units/ career managers who require the new members.


Oh, and the bigger problem is with training systems and availability of instructors- how big is the PAT Company (Battalion? Brigade?) in Borden these days?


----------



## Remius (21 Jul 2006)

Pieman said:
			
		

> The number of complaints is low (in your view) therefore the system is more or less fine. That does not fly with me. Only a certain of percentage of people will resort to complaining when things don't work out. Most people that I spoke to that were having problems don't bother to file a complaint because they feel it will do no good, or filing a complaint will hinder their chance of getting in.
> 
> As a person who spent 2+ years getting in, I feel the system needs a pretty big overhaul.  I have also spoken to and interacted online with people who have spent equal, if not more time getting in. On my course the average time to get in was 1 1/2 years (for people in my section) and one fellow spent 4 years trying to get in.
> 
> ...



0.8% Complaint rate?  That's not low in your view?  In my view as you put it, it is.  But, it would be better if it was at 0.

I'm not saying that there isn't room for improvement but don't make it sound like 2 years is the standard timeframe to recruit someone.  It may have been that way in your case and your beef with the system is probably legit.  But some of the problems the recruiting system has is outside elements beyond it's immediate control.  security screenings, medical reviews etc.  Some of these issues have been addressed and some will be in the near future.  And a lot of the issues arise from applicants themselves. 

I personnally agree with the recommendations that were made.  And oddly some of the recommendations have been floating around for a number years but never acted on for whatever reasons.


----------



## Springroll (21 Jul 2006)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I'm not saying that there isn't room for improvement but don't make it sound like 2 years is the standard timeframe to recruit someone.  It may have been that way in your case and your beef with the system is probably legit.  But some of the problems the recruiting system has is outside elements beyond it's immediate control.  security screenings, medical reviews etc.  Some of these issues have been addressed and some will be in the near future.  And a lot of the issues arise from applicants themselves.



Are you a serving or past member of the CF? I checked your profile and you don't have anything filled in. 
Because of that, I do not know if you have actually been through the recruiting system or not. 

Most people looking to join do not know that they can issue a complaint with the ombudsman when things are taking an excessive amount of time, things are being forgotten, phone calls not returned, etc.

By the sounds of the ombudsman's report, the types of complaints that have been received by their office have also been posted and discussed on these forums before by others who are frustrated with the way the system is currently running.

I think the recommendations are great, and I hope that they are acted upon so that we will have a smoother running recruiting system in the future.

+1 for Pieman


----------



## Remius (21 Jul 2006)

Springroll:  Ack and rectified.


----------



## GUNS (21 Jul 2006)

I know of one person who has been reading the ARMY.CA and the now, on again/off again, LFRR Discussion Group sites. 

The CF Ombudsman.

Most of what he presented in his report was already discussed between the two forums.

Who said, Big Brother is not listening.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Jul 2006)

Three cheers for the ombudsman, mirroring what army.ca posters have been saying since the 90's!

Glad this report came out, not surprised.

Question is will anything be done.


----------



## GUNS (21 Jul 2006)

Hurry up and wait.


----------



## medic269 (21 Jul 2006)

Another thing to consider is 600 complaints put in is only the people who put the effort in to make a formal complaint.  There's more than likely quite a few people waiting and venting on boards like this, but who don't really wish to put a formal complaint through.  I know I've been toying with the idea for a bit but the chances of me actually putting one though are slim to none.  As frustrated as I am I know the recruiting centre itself is waiting just as much, it's the other end thats making up the "official offer" that's screwing the pooch...


----------



## Berenguei (24 Jul 2006)

Not surprising to see so many complaints. Recruiters working at the same center are often not on the same page. I recall calling the Montreal recruiting center a few months ago, three times on the same day to ask the same question...I got three different answers !

I remember also when I applied to become an infantry officer. I was told the process took three months from application to basic; I applied August 19th 2005...start IAP on August 26th, 2006....more than a year later...no wonder why so many applicants give up in the middle of the process.

I guess that's what happens in a big organization.


----------



## kitrad1 (24 Jul 2006)

I don't know...from the time that the Ombudsman's staff went out, to the time the report was made public, there have been a lot of positive changes made...CT process, OSL selection etc. I'm not trying to defend the system, but I don't think that things are as broken as we think. Sure there are a many complaints, there always will be. However, I think that we need to step back and take a balanced look.
     At the end of the day, I would hope that anyone who has had a problem with their CFRC has and will continue to bring it to their attention. I'd be interested if anyone cares to pm me their observation.
Thanks.


----------

