Restorative Engagement Program: Recommendations on How to Achieve a Successful Program

About this report

Based on the analysis of written submissions, our collective expertise and experience, and in collaboration with the interdepartmental working group, this report provides recommendations for a potential REP framework within the federal public service and also includes suggestions on the design and implementation of a successful REP.

Acknowledgments

The panel of experts would like to thank all the participants in the engagement process who provided valuable insights and suggestions for designing an REP for the federal public service.

The panel dramatically appreciates the contribution of all key parties - networks, bargaining agents and department leaders - in this initial initiative stage.

We would also like to thank the Litigation Risk Management and Compliance unit and the interdepartmental advisory working group for their ongoing support. Their assistance helped us conclude this engagement process and this recommendation report.

Objective

The objective of this report is to provide concrete recommendations for the successful implementation of an REP within the federal context. To outline key considerations for a successful REP program concerning governance, structure and design, desired outcomes and the risks and challenges associated with not implementing an REP in the federal public service.

Overview of the Phase 1 engagement process

Phase 1 of the engagement process comprised input received through written submissions from stakeholder networks and organizations, and verbal engagements with the Interdepartmental Advisory Working Group. The methodology was designed in collaboration among the panel of experts, the Interdepartmental Advisory Working Group and the Treasury Board of Canada. This approach was selected to balance the need to gather specific information, the desire to engage as many stakeholders as possible, and practical constraints.

Seventy-seven networks and organizations shared their input through written submissions, representing 44% of those invited. Participants were asked to provide their input via an online form hosted on SimpleSurvey from October 31 to December 8, 2023. The form included primarily open-ended questions asking for stakeholders to communicate their priorities regarding an REP: desired outcomes, structure and design governance, risks, and challenges.

To supplement written submissions, each Interdepartmental Advisory Working Group member was invited to participate in one of six discussions facilitated by the panel of experts. These discussions covered the same questions asked in the written submission form.

The following table shows the response rate by stakeholder groups.

Governance recommendations: where it should be housed

Creation of a centralized structure responsible for finalizing the development and implementation of the REP. Based on the main findings and conclusions, we strongly recommend the creation and establishment of a new centralized structure specifically dedicated to the development and management of the REP within the federal public service. No current structure within the federal public service has met with the support of the various groups to implement the REP.  On the contrary, they supported the creation of a new structure. A centralized REP structure will promote the standardization of procedures and consistent application of norms and principles across departments and agencies while ensuring a systemic approach to changes in laws, practices, and procedures to prevent and respond to WHBRDV conduct issues. In addition, it will facilitate the sharing of expertise and resources and enable more effective management of reported WHBRDV cases. It will also ensure more equitable dissemination of information and processes and greater accessibility to the REP. It has also been demonstrated that a centralized REP structure will facilitate the collection, analysis, and use of data to identify trends, evaluate the effectiveness of implemented measures, and adapt the REP according to the results obtained and the real needs of public servants. Finally, in addition to reducing costs and facilitating the REP’s operational efficiency, a centralized structure will guarantee transparency and fair treatment of WHBRDV situations in the federal public service. This structure could take the form of a Special Operating Agency reporting directly to Parliament. However, it will need to be developed with a framework law to guarantee its sustainability.

Structure and design recommendations: what it should look like

Desired outcomes recommendations: what does success look like

Proceeding with Phase II engagement process involving equity-seeking groups, employees, managers, and senior-level officials across the public service is strongly recommended to affirm and refine desired outcomes (qualitative and quantitative measures) and develop a comprehensive evaluative framework consistent with restorative principles (see Appendix A: restorative principles).

Four key areas emerged that require feedback for further refinement: from the perspective of a person experiencing harm, witnesses, the person or department responsible, and cultural change from a systems perspective.

From the perspective of a person experiencing harm, REP services are easily accessible, user-friendly, voluntary, timely, confidential and tailored to meet their unique needs as described in the following:

• safety: attend to their psychological, emotional, physical, cultural, spiritual and/or financial concerns
• reprisal: not subject to reprisals, such as stigma and other harming behaviours
• empowerment: the ability to make decisions about the type of support and resolution services that are accommodating, adaptable and flexible
• voice: have a voice, feel heard and share their lived experience
• validation: an acknowledgment that the injury or hardship suffered was unfair and underserved, for example, receiving a personal and/or an official apology
• restitution: compensation for loss or damages
• consequences: the person or department responsible receives appropriate consequences
• fair process: a procedurally fair (omni partial) resolution process, get emotional closure and move forward feeling the issue is resolved
• prevention: contribute toward meaningful, observable positive changes to address root issues and prevent similar kinds of harm from recurring
• recovery: heal and recover from the emotional injury or trauma to restore well-being
• dignity: self-esteem and self-confidence restored through reconciliation
• workplace restoration: a pathway for restoring levels of trust and a healthy workplace environment

Witnesses have many of the same needs as above. Two examples, from their perspective, are as follows:

• validation: receive assurance and acknowledgment that the injury or hardship suffered by the employee harmed and the impact on them as a witness was unfair and underserved
• prevention: influence concrete actions to address culture or systemic change and prevent recurrence so they or other public servants aren’t subject to the same type of harm

From the perspective of the person or department responsible, REP services are easily accessible, user-friendly, voluntary, timely, confidential and tailored to meet their unique needs, including but not limited to the following:

• fair process: a procedurally fair (omni partial) resolution process
• an opportunity to make it right, such as expressing genuine remorse and apologizing for their actions, benefiting themselves and other involved parties, for example, to promote healing and reconciliation
• learning and growth: gain a better understanding of the lived experience, barriers and impacts for personal, professional development and organizational learning
• timely resolution: a swift and timely process for resolution so the issue and stress levels don’t escalate, affecting things such as mental health, job performance, or workplace safety
• a way to put the incident behind them: the ability to make significant and appropriate amends, gain emotional closure, and move forward, feeling the relationship is repaired and the issue is resolved
• address root issues: be supported when ready to share extenuating circumstances to reach a common understanding of the root issues to make concrete changes, and access support on an individual and/or systems level to prevent recurrence
• reprisal: not subject to reprisals, such as stigma or other forms of harm
• institutional trust: restore reputation, levels of trust, faith in the system (federal public service).
• workplace culture: create a safer, more caring, connected workplace environment

For the desired cultural change, several qualitative and quantitative measures surfaced in the initial consultation process, providing substantive preliminary insight into system-wide mechanisms pertaining to inclusion, diversity, equity and accessibility, as follows:

• workplace restoration: restorative culture audits to measure levels of engagement, empathy and trust characterized by the following examples:
  • public servants feel valued and engaged in authentic conversations by openly and honestly sharing their feelings and ideas to positively influence norms, behaviours and practices
  • different abilities (ways of knowing and working) are valued and accommodated
  • empowered to take calculated risks for innovation, develop expertise, and hone skills for desired career advancement
  • confidence and skills to engage in difficult conversations in climates of mutual respect
  • Indigenous culture, language, values, and belief systems are respected

Shift from adversarial approaches to collaboration: recourse mechanisms to prevent the need for litigation, such as anti-Indigenous and anti-Black class action lawsuits, to address issues such as career stagnation, stigmatization, cultural safety, work-related stress leave, and absenteeism; also, to address reverse discrimination experiences by the 2SLGBTQIA+ communities and Jewish, Muslim, Indigenous, and Black public servants.

Employment equity and accessibility: increase in the visibility and accessibility of marginalized public servants and those with multiple marginalized identities working at all levels within the federal public service, including Indigenous persons, visible minorities, the 2SLGBTQIA+ communities and persons with disabilities. 

Management accountability: restorative leadership (inclusive, diverse, equitable and accessible) performance competencies are embedded in the performance management process for across-the-board impact, such as:

• equity groups: target measures in the different occupational categories, equitable access to onboarding, talent management, sponsorship, and mentoring
• institutional trust: managerial positions awarded based on inclusivity, diversity, equity and accessible experience and restorative leadership demonstrated competencies

Streamlined services: provision of an REP policy instrument to ensure consistency and accessibility across the federal public service. Leverage and enhance what currently exists, prevent overlap, fill gaps, and make corrections for large-scale system improvements (for example, legislation, policies, training, support services), and ensure accountability through robust reporting and quality improvement measures.

In conclusion, a system-wide, comprehensive REP Evaluation Framework must be developed as a first step and properly resourced to allow a range of inclusive, diverse, equitable and accessible engagement mechanisms at all levels within the federal public service. Reliance on top-down imposed change, although important, falls short of building and maintaining relational accountability frameworks needed for workplace restoration.

What’s unique about restorative engagement is it infuses positive energy and instills voluntary commitment by forging meaningful connections to foster the transformative cultural change needed to address WHBRDV.

“Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.” – Albert Einstein

Potential Risks If the REP Is Not Designed or Implemented

Recommendation 1: We must address detrimental workplace cultures, dismantle systemic barriers, and effectively address harassment and discrimination. Failing to do so not only diminishes the dignity of public servants and hinders the public service’s ability to represent Canadian society accurately but also imposes significant financial burdens through settlement payouts. Furthermore, the recruitment of top talent is compromised in an environment tainted by these barriers, which include biases in hiring and promotion and policies that prevent equal access or fair treatment for all public servants.

Recommendation 2: The federal public service workplaces are at risk to provide a safe and supportive environment for public servants. The consequences of unsafe environments extend beyond emotional and health-related costs, including increased sick leave and persistent or chronic physical injuries for the victims of WHVRDV.

Recommendation 3: We must address and rectify injustice and unfairness within any workplace that allows WHBRDV to persist unchecked or that violates the fundamental principles of human rights and the core values and ethics of government service. We must actively combat these harmful acts and reduce their prevalence.

Recommendation 4: For the REP to achieve effectiveness, it must tackle fundamental issues such as power imbalances, biases and bigotry, which recent return-to-occupancy mandates within the public service have exacerbated. Moreover, the REP should contain an enforcement component that empowers federal public service organizations to take necessary actions.

Recommendation 5: All professionals involved in leading and managing the REP (for examples, trainers, coaches, restorative practitioners, therapists) must be trauma-informed. Without this, serious-life threatening mistakes may be made.

Recommendation 6: There is the risk of having an REP that does not have binding authority to direct structural changes. If the REP is unable to recommend binding changes to heads of departments and agencies to eliminate the harm experienced by individuals and to address the root causes, it will be ineffective.

Therefore, the REP should also have policy authority to influence and direct structural changes while remaining rooted in the principles of equity, diversity, inclusion and accessibility. Without this authority, the REP will only duplicate efforts currently undertaken and led by employee networks and other resolution mechanisms within the public service without impactful outcomes.

Key findings

We found that:

• The development of a centralized and independent REP within a unique entity should be implemented. The REP should also be established as an independent entity separate from existing programs and resolution mechanisms and be an “arm’s length” stand-alone from the federal organization so individuals do not have to go through human resources for access.
• The REP should possess the necessary authority to issue binding recommendations aimed at fostering systemic and cultural transformation, with requisite incorporation into legislation to substantiate and reinforce the authority vested.
• All equity-seeking groups have shown the need to be consulted, included and integrated at each level of the development of the REP, referring to the “nothing about us without us” principle.
• There is fear of reprisals and breach of confidentiality while using the REP. Therefore, measures should be taken to avoid any reprisal and breach of confidentiality.
• To be effective, the REP should align with other inclusion, diversity, equity and accessibility initiatives, including education, culturally sensitive support, and contributions to safe workplace culture. Continuous improvement remains crucial, informed by disaggregated employee satisfaction surveys and diverse stakeholder feedback.
• To be inclusive, the REP should consider the unique needs of a diverse workforce that acknowledges and addresses potential biases or barriers. The REP must also seek input from all equity-deserving groups to be culturally appropriate and flexible. In addition, the REP should incorporate anti-racism principles and have a clear and universally definition of anti-racism within the federal public service.
• The REP should not be another option, but it should promote a new way of relating to one another in the workplace with clients and stakeholders.

This is a strong desire:

• To have an REP that is led by an organization that is independent of central agencies and that offers services that address and meets the needs of all public service employees. To also have an REP that is transparent and accountable.
• To have senior leaders and trauma-informed specialists representing all diverse groups to be part in the development of an effective REP.

Several potential barriers were defined throughout the consultations, including the mistrust of equity-seeking groups in senior management and in the mechanisms already in place to effectively resolve WHBRDV issues and ensure inclusivity, diversity, equity and accessibility in the workplace:

• Also, the lack of an independent structure to address WHBRDV raised the fear of reprisals and retaliation for those experiencing it in the workplace.
• The lack of funding is also another potential barrier that should be overcome to have an effective REP in place.

Finally, participants have identified a need for the REP to foster effective restorative programs that meet the needs of all federal public servants and that address in a safe and inclusive manner the WHBRDV that is presently being experienced in the workplace by public servants.

Considerations for Online and In-person Focus Groups

Phase II Engagement Process is best served by expanding the Interdepartmental Advisory Working Group responsibilities to inform specific aspects of the focus group process to include a cross-section of federal public service at all levels, from front-line employees to senior leadership to design and attend focus group sessions, review gathered data, and provide valuable insights to contribute to the design and implementation of an REP and inform a comprehensive evaluative framework.

Organize focus groups to provide feedback about the operational aspects concerning REP implementation within the Federal Public Service. Focus groups provide a platform for in-depth discussions, allowing participants to share personal experiences, insights, and perspectives. Measures will be taken to ensure participants feel safe to openly share and are not subject to reprisals.

Those who prefer not to participate in focus groups to have the opportunity to answer a questionnaire or access other platforms to share their personal experiences, insights, and perspectives.

Equally important is listening to the voices of senior leadership regarding their perspectives on the challenges they are facing and how an REP can support and enhance inclusivity, diversity, equity and accessibility in the workplace.

Focus Group Logistics

• Number and Size of Focus Groups: Consider small groups with a range of 8 to 12 participants. For town halls or more extensive sessions, opting for a larger size of up to 200 participants to accommodate the broader format and engagement levels to be considered. To facilitate the involvement of the participants, the town halls will address specific themes.
• Timeframe: Customized agenda and timeframe for each type of focus group, ensuring sufficient time for in-depth discussions and meaningful contributions to be developed. Ensure that this phase is carried out within a reasonable timeframe, to give the different groups enough time to participate fully express themselves and be heard.
• Registration and Participant Selection: Define a process for registration and participant selection, ensuring diversity, inclusivity and representation.
• Materials preparation: Prepare and circulate relevant materials in advance to facilitate informed engagement.
• Facilitator preparation: Ensure that focus group facilitators are sufficiently trained, prepare them in advance for the different situations that may arise, and make sure engagement does not contribute to the re-traumatization of those affected by harm, violence, bullying, harassment and discrimination in the federal public service.
• Post-session support: Establish mechanisms for participants to access post-session support to address potential conflicts or repercussions.

Follow-up activities

Consider post-focus group activities to support continued learning and engagement for ongoing development of REP.

Timeline, reporting, and continuous improvement

The engagement process should unfold over a specified timeline, allowing for thorough data collection, analysis, and integration of feedback into the program design and evaluative framework.

Reporting

Compile insights and recommendations into a comprehensive report outlining key findings, common themes, and specific recommendations for refining the REP's detailed program design, implementation, and evaluation (outcome measures).

Key focus areas

• Learning and development: Solicit input on incorporating and defining the components of mandatory training and effective learning strategies that empower participants for ongoing personal and professional development.
• Trauma-informed practices: How to ensure trauma-informed approaches in program design, seeking input on addressing and processing past harms.
• Cultural responsiveness: Ensure program design respects and integrates diverse perspectives, making it culturally responsive and inclusive.
• Positive interpersonal relationships: Engage participants in providing the skills and tools to create a public service with constructive working relationships built on respect, safety and an inclusive and diverse space that contributes to the development of each employee.
• Accountability and responsibility: Urges individuals involved in bullying, harm, violence, and discrimination to not only acknowledge their actions and the resulting consequences (accountability) but also actively engage in finding solutions and repairing the harm caused (responsibility). By fostering ownership, understanding impact, and actively participating in solutions, this will promote healing, restore relationships, and facilitate constructive resolutions.
• Well-being, safety and support: Gather feedback on supportive and therapeutic elements, ensuring safety, and the well-being for participants by providing adequate supports.
• Concrete systemic changes: Engage participants in discussions on how the REP can contribute to tangible, long-lasting systemic changes for a public service free of harassment, discrimination, racism, and violence.

Engagement principles

• Direct engagement: Ensure the direct engagement of individuals and communities affected by the issues, placing their perspectives at the core of consultation and program development.
• Collaboration: Emphasize collaboration between government entities, leadership, stakeholders, community representatives and panel members, creating synergies that enrich understanding and enhance program development.
• Inclusivity: Value the insights and lived experiences of individuals.
• Representativity: Ensure the engagement of all groups affected by harassment, bullying, discrimination, racism, and violence, as well as people in leadership positions, to gather a broad perspective and identify the real needs of different groups.
• Action-oriented: Maintain a strong focus on action and change, translating consultation findings and stakeholder inputs into impactful programmatic actions.

Role of the authority responsibility for the Phase II engagement process

Develop data to inform an REP: The finality of this phase is to collect data as a foundation for the REP to address specific issues and meet the actual needs of federal public servants. To validate employee experience and ensure the effectiveness and relevance of the program in creating a more inclusive and supportive workplace environment. This includes:

• Data collection: Gathering information on employee experiences, concerns, and perspectives regarding harm, violence, harassment, and discrimination within the workplace.
• Data analysis: Reviewing and analyzing collected data to identify patterns, root causes, and areas needing attention or improvement and develop an REP rooted in the real needs of people affected by harm, violence, and discrimination within the federal public service.
• Informed program development: Integrating the insights gleaned from the collected data into the design and implementation of the REP. This involves tailoring interventions and care, communication strategies, conflict resolution methods, accountability, and responsibility, measuring outcomes, implication of employees’ network and senior management based on the identified needs and concerns.
• Determine Ongoing Engagement Mechanisms for accountability and collective learning.

Develop measures to assess the outcomes of the designed REP. Establish methodologies, strategies, and measures to assess outcomes and allow continued progress to include:

• Establish clear objectives: Develop specific, measurable goals for the REP. These objectives should align with the program's purpose and desired outcomes.
• Select relevant metrics: Determine the metrics and indicators that best evaluate the outcomes and the success of the program. To receive feedback from Phase I and further refinement and development such as improved relationships, reduced harm, violence, discrimination, harassment, and bullying in the federal public service, increased employee satisfaction, and so on.
• Data collection: Suggest ways and means to gather data throughout the program implementation phase using various methods such as surveys, interviews, focus groups, or feedback mechanisms. Collect both quantitative (statistics on the number of people who use the program, rate of satisfaction, data on reduced harm, discrimination, harassment, violence, and bullying in the federal public service) and qualitative (narratives, testimonials) data to provide a comprehensive view of the progress.
• Analysis and evaluation: Proposes ways to analyze the collected data to assess how well the program met its objectives. Compare the data against the established metrics and benchmarks to evaluate the program’s impact at different stages of its implementation.
• Identify strengths and weaknesses: Propose ways to reinforce identified strengths and correct areas that need improvement or adjustment in the program based on the assessment.
• Report and communicate findings: Propose clear ways to compile the assessment results into a comprehensive report and communicate the findings to stakeholders, including program participants, management, and relevant teams.
• Iterative improvement: Propose ways to use the assessment outcomes to make informed decisions for program improvements or modifications and implement changes based on the assessment findings to enhance the effectiveness of future restorative engagement initiatives.
• Continuous monitoring: Proposes mechanisms for ongoing monitoring and evaluation to continuously track the program's progress and make adjustments as needed.

By following these steps, the federal public service can effectively assess the outcomes of the developed REP and make informed decisions to enhance impact and effectiveness.