Summary of the Evaluation to Support Canadian Coast Guard Force Generation

The Evaluation to Support Canadian Coast Guard Force Generation has a two-page graphic summary of the information presented below, which is available in pdf format.

About the Evaluation

The evaluation was conducted April to December 2018 to support the Canadian Coast Guard’s (CCG’s) Force Generation Project. Evidence was gathered through nine focus groups, a mapping of personnel development activities, 32 interviews, a document review, and administrative data analysis.

The Canadian Coast Guard’s Force Generation Project

The Force Generation Project was initiated in response to an expansion of the CCG’s core programs. The objective of the Project is to build a coordinated approach within the CCG that supports the recruitment, retention, career development, and wellness of CCG personnel.

Key Findings

1. CREWING FACTOR METHODOLOGY

What are the key factors that the CCG needs to include in the methodology for calculating its crewing factor?

The CCG needs to develop a new crewing factor to address the gaps and limitations of the current calculation, including a demand analysis to improve the understanding of vessel workload and a supply analysis to determine how much on-cycle time personnel require for leave and training.


The CCG currently calculates the number of seagoing personnel required (N) based on the number of positions (P) in the crewing profiles for vessels and a crewing factor of 2.5, which was established in 1995. The current crewing factor overestimates the availability of an employee, thus underestimates the number of personnel required.

  • A workload analysis for vessels has never previously been conducted.
  • The supply analysis does not account for enough relief for training and leave.
  • The differences across seagoing units have never been analysed.
  • Crewing has largely been based on availability of funding and personnel.

The new crewing factor methodology for the CCG should include four key elements.

2. GAPS IN CERTIFICATES OF COMPETENCY

What are the current gaps in certification for CCG fleet personnel? Are there feasible options to address certification/training gaps and related impacts?

There are gaps for some certificates of competency, due to personnel shortages and challenges upgrading certificates.

Increasing the role of the CCG College and modernizing training approaches were identified as ways in which the availability of, and access to, training can be improved.

Current shortages in certificates of competency include:

  • Master Near Coastal
  • Chief Mate Near Coastal
  • First Class Engineers (anticipated due to retirement)
  • Second Class Engineer
  • Third Class Engineer

Expanding the role of the College was identified as a key solution to improve availability of, and accessibility to, training, including:

  • Developing online / distance courses
  • Having instructors travel to regions
  • Improving coordination to identify training needs
  • Implementing a ship’s crew officer training program
  • Developing formal partnerships with marine institutions

Key Challenges Upgrading Certificates Of Competency

Management of training and sea time

Career progression is largely left up to the individual, as there a few formal supports available.


Availability of, and access to, training

There is a lack of instructors, there are limited marine institutions in the west, there are limited courses available in French.


Personnel shortages

There is a lack of relief personnel to allow personnel to take training during their on-cycle time.


Individual circumstances

Personnel are required to invest their own time and money, which can have an impact on work-life balance.

3. PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT GOVERNANCE

What areas within the CCG currently have mandates and/or responsibilities for workforce-related issues, including recruitment and retention, training and development, diversity and inclusion, and wellness?

The responsibility for personnel development is divided within the CCG and there is no focal point for many activities; many occur at the directorate level and are done ad hoc, as opportunities arise, or as time allows.

There is limited coordination and information sharing with respect to personnel development activities; roles and responsibilities for these activities are not clear.


  • A number of committees exist within the CCG governance structure; however, none were identified as having the overall responsibility for any aspects of personnel development.
  • Responsibility for personnel development activities is divided amongst directorates; there is no clear focal point for these activities.
  • Roles and responsibilities for personnel development activities are not clear, including in particular, those of Integrated Business Management Services and the Force Generation Project.

Better coordination is needed for:

  • Recruitment;
  • Operational training; and
  • Career management.

Recommendations

  1. The CCG should develop an updated crewing factor using the methodology established through the evaluation.
  2. The CCG should improve the quality and reliability of certification and training data to ensure that nationally consistent data are available for decision-making.
  3. The CCG should modernize its training approaches (e.g., online or distance courses, delivery of courses by instructors in the regions, formal partnerships with marine institutions across the country) to expand access to training opportunities for CCG personnel.
  4. The CCG should clarify the governance structure for personnel development activities, particularly with respect to recruitment, operational training, and career development; and ensure that the national and regional accountabilities, mandates, and roles and responsibilities for these activities are clearly defined and communicated.

For the full evaluation, visit the DFO Evaluation website: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ae-ve/evaluations-eng.htm