Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
Grants and Research Program
Value for Money Audit Report
January 24, 2014
Table of Contents
Section
Page
1.0
Executive Summary
3
2.0
Scope
6
3.0
Approach
8
3.1
Approach – KPMG’s Value for Money Audit Approach
9
4.0
Value for Money Audit Opinion
10
5.0
Detailed Observations & Recommendations
12
5.1
Observations – WSIB – 2009-2012
13
5.2
Observations – Transfer to the Ministry of Labour (MoL) – Post 2012
16
5.3
Recommendations – Pre-requisites
20
5.4
Recommendations – WSIB
21
5.5
Recommendations – MoL
24
6.0
Appendices
26
Appendix I
Examples of Notable Program Results
27
Appendix II
The Grants and Research Program Background
30
Appendix III
Value for Money Methodology & Approach
46
Appendix IV
Stakeholder Consultation
50
Jurisdictional & Leading Practice Review
68
Appendix V
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
2
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
3
1.1 Executive Summary
KPMG conducted a value for money audit of the Grants and Research Program (“the Program”) for the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) under its legislative requirement for 2012. The primary purpose of the audit was to
assess the Program’s strategic alignment and delivery of value for money in accordance with the WSIB’s mandate. The scope of the audit included: (1) the assessment of the WSIB’s Grants and Research Program, including the Institute for
Work and Health (IWH), the Research Advisory Council (RAC) Program, the Prevention Grants Program, and the Operations Grants for the period of 2009 to 2012; (2) an opinion on the transfer of several grants to the Ministry of
Labour (MoL) in order to ensure an effective program transition and future operation; (3) an opinion on the establishment of an accountability framework for a WSIB grants program going forward to ensure alignment of the program to
the strategic plan of the WSIB; and (4) recommendations on the WSIB’s Grants and Research Program including, but not limited to, outcome effectiveness, operating efficiency, efficient allocation, use of resources, etc. The value for money
audit was conducted from April to October 2013. Our observations and recommendations are based on Program information and MoL transition activities up to December 31st, 2012, at which time the transition from WSIB to MOL was in
progress. MOL had a new research advisory body and program fully in place in September 2013.
In our opinion, there is significant value in the principle of the WSIB investing in research in order to address short, medium, and longer term areas of inquiry that could have significant impact on the legislative mandate of the WSIB and
health and safety in Ontario. A strategic and disciplined approach to research provides an independent and informed basis for the WSIB to develop and adjust policy in response to changing circumstances. High quality and independent
research provides an effective input into the WSIB’s efforts to ensure that the insurance plan responds to factors such as health and safety and occupational disease trends in the province. Finally, recovery and return-to-work (RTW)
programs should be continuously improved based on up-to-date research and leading practices in order to meet the needs of injured workers and employers in Ontario.
In our opinion, during the period from 2009 to 2012, the Program did exhibit value and produced notable results at the individual research project or grant funded activity level. Examples of notable results are detailed in Appendix I.
However, it is also our opinion, that the Program in place from 2009 to 2012, did not provide value for money from overall strategy and governance perspectives. Our opinion on the strategy and governance elements of the Program is
based on the following key findings:



The Program lacked a comprehensive strategy aligned with the WSIB’s overall objectives which should have articulated short, medium, and longer term research requirements for the insurance plan, RTW and prevention;
The Program did not have a formalized governance and management structure in place to effectively oversee a comprehensive research and grants strategy and achievement of intended results; and
An effective grants and research operational performance management framework focused on improvements to the insurance plan, RTW outcomes and prevention effectiveness was not in place.
During 2012, the responsibility for the prevention related grants and research elements of the Program were transferred to the MoL as a result of Bill 160. As of December 31st, 2012, the transition had not been fully supported by an
effective governance and management structure, a research strategy supporting the overall provincial health and safety strategy, and a performance management framework that monitors and measures related outcomes.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of
KPMG International.
4
1.1 Executive Summary (continued)
The following recommendations have been developed specifically for the WSIB to improve the Grants and Research Program.
1.
Develop a grants and research strategy: The strategy should be aligned with the strategic plan of the WSIB and compared and contrasted with the Health and Safety Strategy of the MoL. Establishing a
select few research priorities will ensure focus and, in turn, promote program effectiveness;
2.
Establish a grants and research governance and management structure within the WSIB: The governance and management structure should be scaled to the size and scope of initiatives funded under the
strategy once it is established. The governance model from a leading practices perspective may include practitioners, academics and knowledgeable practitioners from a variety of sectors, disciplines and
organizations in strategic planning and peer review; and
3.
Develop a research performance management framework: The framework should include decision criteria to support the strategic selection of short, medium, and longer term research priorities for the
WSIB.
The following recommendations have been developed specifically for the MoL to improve the transitioning and maturity of the prevention grants and research funding and activities which the MoL is now responsible
for administering under Bill 160.
1.
Establish a culture that reinforces a holistic and system-wide health and safety and occupational diseases research perspective that builds on and aligns with the Prevention system wide OHS strategy:
Bill 160 does not establish a clear division of grant and research responsibilities between the WSIB and the MoL. Leading practice supports establishing communities of research through virtual
networks, shared data and findings and distributed analytical capabilities. Leading universities and health care organizations have invested heavily in this progressive model;
2.
Formalize the governance and management structure for the prevention grants and research activities which are funded by the WSIB: The prevention grants and research strategy being developed by
the CPO should be informed by an independent advisory body. The role of the advisory body should be to:1) review granting and research funding requests; and 2) ensure that research is outcomes
based and aligned with the health and safety strategy of the province; and
3.
Develop a research performance management framework: The framework should include decision criteria to support the strategic selection of short, medium, and longer term prevention priorities for the
MoL. The framework should also include key performance indicators to measure the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the grants and research towards making workplace improvements..
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of
KPMG International.
5
2.0 SCOPE
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
6
2.1 Scope
KPMG LLP has conducted a value for money audit of the Program at WSIB in accordance with the request for proposal No. 2012-70-KH.
Scope
The scope of the Program value for money audit included:




Evaluating WSIB’s Program, including Institute for Work and Health , Research Advisory Council Program, Prevention Grants Program and Operations Grants program for the period 2009-2012;
Providing recommendations to inform the transfer of several grants to the Ministry of Labour in order to ensure an effective program transition and future operation;
Providing recommendations on the establishment of an accountability framework for a WSIB grant program going forward to ensure alignment of the program to the strategic plan of the WSIB; and
Providing recommendations on the WSIB Program including, but not limited to, outcome effectiveness, operating efficiency, efficient allocation, use of resources, etc.
The 2012 Value for Money Audit included a review of supporting information and stakeholder interviews with the following elements of the Program:





The Research Advisory Council, a multi-stakeholder body that previously oversaw elements of the WSIB Program;
Centres for Research Expertise and the Occupational Cancer Research Centre;
Prevention Grants;
Operations Grants (including the Ontario Federation of Labour and the Medical Champions Program; and
Institute for Work and Health.
The value for money audit was conducted from April to October 2013. Our observations and recommendations are based on Program information and MoL transition activities up to December 31st, 2012.
Note: The Grants and Research Program Background can be found in Appendix II.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
7
3.0 APPROACH
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
8
3.1 Approach – KPMG’s Value for Money Audit Approach
The following approach was taken to evaluate the current state of the Program and to develop recommendations on the future state of the Program for both the WSIB and the MoL. All aspects of the project were guided by the Canadian
Comprehensive Auditing Foundation’s (CCAF) Attributes of Effectiveness.
Project Management.
To support the VFM audit, KPMG developed a Project Management Plan and worked with the WSIB to confirm milestones and key dates. At this stage, a Steering Committee, comprised of persons from the WSIB and the MoL, was set in
place to provide insight, oversight and foresight into the project. The VFM audit was comprised of four phases:
1. Document Review
KPMG reviewed documents pertinent to the Program at WSIB (i.e. Bridging the Gap/Solutions for Workplace Change; Centres of Research Expertise (CRE); Institute for Work & Health;
Prevention Grants; and Operations Grants). This information was used to develop an understanding of the environment in which the Program operates. This phase also included a review of
WSIB policies, practices and corporate documents such as the WSIB’s strategic plan, Business Plan and related policies (i.e. WSIB’s Administrative Policy on Grants);
2. Stakeholder Consultation
KPMG conducted interviews with internal stakeholders (management and staff from WSIB) and external stakeholders (other agencies or groups such as the RAC, IWH, MoL, etc.) of the
Program. KPMG worked with the Project Steering Committee to identify and agree upon those individuals to be interviewed. In advance of the interviews, all interviewees were provided a
preparation guide to focus the discussion. Listings of the internal and external interviewees can be found in Appendix IV;
3. Jurisdictional & Leading
Practice Review
4. Analysis and Reporting
KPMG compared and contrasted the Program performance against leading practices. Information gleaned from the jurisdictional review was designed to highlight ‘lessons learned’ from likeminded or peer organizations which can be applied to Program. These included similar, Provincially-based organizations such as WorkSafe BC and similarly-focused organizations such as
Canadian Institute for Health Information. Other sources of information included review of mandates of granting organizations and reports related to the RAC; and
The culmination of the efforts of Phases 1-3 was the analysis, recommendations, and reporting in Phase 4. Results of this work culminated in the value for money opinion.
Note: KPMG’s Value for Money Methodology & Approach can be found in Appendix III. The Stakeholder Consultation can be found in Appendix IV. The Jurisdictional and Leading Practice Review can be found in Appendix V.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
9
4.0 VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT OPINION
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
10
4.1 Value for Money Audit Opinion
The value for money audit opinion takes into consideration the structure and function of the Program from 2009-2012 when it was the sole responsibility of the WSIB. In addition, the opinion also focuses on the
transitioning of the prevention Program and funding to the MoL in 2012. The value for money audit was conducted from April to October 2013. Our observations and recommendations are based on Program
information and MoL transition activities up to December 31st, 2012.
In our opinion, there is significant value in the principle of the WSIB investing in research in order to address short, medium, and longer term areas of inquiry that could have significant impact on the legislative
mandate of the WSIB and health and safety in Ontario. A strategic and disciplined approach to research provides an independent and informed basis for the WSIB to develop and adjust policy in response to
changing circumstances. High quality and independent research provides an effective input into the WSIB’s efforts to ensure that the insurance plan responds to factors such as health and safety and occupational
disease trends in the province. Finally, recovery and RTW programs should be continuously improved based on up-to-date research and leading practices in order to meet the needs of injured workers and employers
in Ontario.
In our opinion, during the period from 2009 to 2012, the Program did exhibit value and produced notable results at the individual research project or grant funded activity level. Examples of notable results are
detailed in Appendix I.
However, it is also our opinion, that the Program in place from 2009 to 2012, did not provide value for money from overall strategy and governance perspectives. Our opinion on the strategy and governance
elements of the Program is based on the following key findings:

The Program lacked a comprehensive strategy aligned with the WSIB’s overall objectives which should have articulated short, medium, and longer term research requirements for the insurance plan, RTW and
prevention;

The Program did not have a formalized governance and management structure in place to effectively oversee a comprehensive research and grants strategy and achievement of intended results; and

An effective grants and research operational performance management framework focused on improvements to the insurance plan, RTW outcomes and prevention effectiveness was not in place.
During 2012, the responsibility for the prevention related grants and research elements of the Program were transferred to the MoL as a result of Bill 160. As of December 31st, 2012, the transition had not been
fully supported by an effective governance and management structure, a research strategy supporting the overall provincial health and safety strategy, and a performance management framework that monitors and
measures related outcomes.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
11
5.0 Detailed Observations & Recommendations
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
12
5.1 Observations – WSIB – 2009-2012
During the 2009-2012 timeframe, the Program’s strategic alignment with the WSIB’s overall objectives was not clear. There was not an overarching research strategy to define priorities that would have supported
the WSIB’s objectives in terms of managing the insurance plan, RTW and prevention. Similarly, grant funding decisions lacked a strategy to align research operational funding and education and awareness
initiatives with the WSIB’s overall objectives. Duplication of effort across the health and safety system, in terms of prevention education, and awareness funded through grants, existed.
Between 2009 and 2012, the Program functioned as collection of grant support arrangements and research without a defined strategy and governance framework to fully coordinate, integrate and evaluate funding
requests against clearly defined strategic goals. Both in its previous structure (2009-2012) and its current form (post Bill 160 which resulted in the transfer of prevention to the MoL), the Program has not delivered
value for money from a strategic alignment perspective. Despite its notable tactical successes (refer to Appendix I), there is a need for greater alignment with the strategic RTW and insurance objectives of the WSIB.
Specific observations include the following:
Strategy

The lack of strategic alignment between the Program and the WSIB’s overall strategy limited the impact of the Program: A specific strategic plan for research and its importance to the WSIB was not in place.
There were no linkages to the short, medium and longer term needs of the WSIB’s RTW efforts, the insurance plan and the WSIB’s prevention mandate at the time. The absence of a research strategic plan
rendered the Program without:
•
Strategic focus: The selection of Grant recipients/grant proposals was a largely reactive process without top down strategic alignment to the WSIB’s objectives. The research priorities of the WSIB
were being established through primarily a “bottom-up” tactical manner. Many of the initiatives are perceived to be providing value to the broader health and safety community. However, this
perceived value is derived through a fragmented research management approach; and
•
Clearly defined objectives: Research outcomes cannot be assessed against clearly defined objectives. A strong understanding of the impact of the Program from a health and safety outcomes
perspective cannot be accurately determined.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
13
5.1 Observations – WSIB – 2009-2012 (continued)
Governance

An effective Program governance and management structure was not in place: Such a structure would clearly integrate the research requirements of RTW and the insurance plan. A fragmented and
decentralized management structure does not clearly align the Program with the strategic planning and statistical analysis functions of the WSIB. The disbanding of the RAC, as part of Bill 160, created a void
which previously fulfilled the need for independent subject matter expertise and peer review of research proposals.
Performance Management

The Program was tactically managed and relied on a “bottom-up” approach to soliciting and evaluating requests for funding: This tactical management approach is reflected in the lack of alignment between
the WSIB’s strategic plan and the Program's decentralized and “bottom-up” approach to funding requests;

The Program lacked a performance management framework: There were no models or supporting tools in place to monitor results, measure the impacts, or translate lessons learned into the broader research
community and workplaces in a consistent manner. The ability to consistently assess the impact of grant and research funding on the health and safety practices in Ontario workplaces is very difficult to
accomplish under a “bottom up” and fragmented approach to managing the Program;
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
14
5.1 Observations – WSIB – 2009-2012 (continued)
Performance Management (continued)

The Program places a disproportionate emphasis on process and contract compliance: Internal control and contract compliance take precedence over research outcomes, in terms of advancing the body of
health and safety knowledge, and demonstrating applied results in the workplaces of Ontario. Very little documentation on the impact of research exists. However, there are numerous reports and evidence
related to grant and research contract compliance. The intent is not to diminish the importance of internal control and contract compliance. Internal control was generally effective. However, Program
effectiveness, from an outcomes perspective, lacked a solid management and measurement framework; and

The lack of performance management framework limited the WSIB’s ability to monitor and measure outcomes: The impact of the Program cannot be determined in a straightforward manner. In other words,
the extent to which the Program has improved the insurance plan, enhanced RTW, or prevented or reduced the incidence of injury, is unclear. The effectiveness test of the value for money requirement was
not met.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
15
5.2 Observations –Transfer to MoL – Post 2012
In 2011, the Ontario Legislature passed Bill 160, Occupational Health and Safety Statute Law Amendment Act, 2011 to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act,
1997. Bill 160, modified the legislation which previously gave the WSIB purview over the prevention grants and research direction and funding. The amendment required the transfer of the prevention mandate
from the WSIB to the MoL. In April 1, 2012, Bill 160 took effect. As a result , WSIB has transferred, and will continue to transfer, several prevention research and grant initiatives to the MoL. Research and
grants that are part of the transfer include:



Prevention grants;
Research programs previously funded through the RAC, such as Centres for Research Expertise and the Occupational Cancer Research Centre; and
Research programs within the purview of the IWH.
Post 2012, transfer of the prevention grants and research program requires that the MoL take a leading role in governance, strategy, and performance management of the prevention grants and research activities
which are funded by the WSIB.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
16
5.2 Observations –Transfer to MoL – Post 2012 (continued)
Specific observations include the following:
Strategy

Strategic focus challenges persist: The WSIB and the MoL will continue to play key roles in the coordination and funding of system-wide health and safety research. The lack of a strategic research plan at the
WSIB and the transfer of prevention grants and research to the MoL, have further added to the challenges of coordinating the strategic focus of grants and research between the WSIB and the MoL. However,
it is KPMG’s understanding that the MoL is currently developing a prevention grants and research strategy which may address these challenges.
Governance

The MoL was in the midst of a transition and was in the process of formalizing the governance and management structure for the prevention elements of the research activities funded by the WSIB that it
is now responsible for: Under Bill 160,“The Minister shall establish a council to be known as the Prevention Council…” Furthermore, “ The Council shall be composed of such members as the Minister may
appoint, and shall include representatives from each of the following groups: (1) Trade unions and provincial labour organizations, (2) Employers, and (3) Non-unionized workers, the Workplace Safety and
Insurance Board and persons with occupational health and safety expertise.”
Under Bill 160, the Chief Prevention Officer (CPO), is required to develop the health and safety strategy for the province.
It is our observation, that the collective responsibilities of the CPO and the WSIB should be informed through effective research. There should be a protocol in place to formalize sharing of research between
the WSIB and MoL. The Prevention Council can provide advice to the CPO on the accountability and governance framework to fulfill the collaborative exchange of the respective research efforts in the areas
of health and safety for the province.
The disbanding of the RAC eliminated an integral part of the research governance and management structure. The RAC was originally established based on the following vision as per the Task Force Report
1997:“Research will be an important influence on policy and program decisions by the Ministry of Labour, the WCB and health and safety organizations like the Safe Workplace Associations (SWAs). These
organizations will use the results of research to explore new solutions to health, safety and compensation problems, define policy, set standards, and design and deliver elective services and programs.”
However, the RAC’s effectiveness was limited by the lack of an overarching research strategy which was not developed by the WSIB in concert with MoL and the health and safety organizations. However, the
RAC embodied the essential principles of effective research. The principles of independent, credible, and multi-disciplinary assessments of research proposals and oversight of a peer review process are no
longer in place. It is our observation that these principles should be re-established and formalized through the accountability structure established under Bill 160. It is KPMG’s observation that a research
advisory body should be established to support the CPO’s responsibility for the governance and oversight of the research activities which are funded by the WSIB.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
17
5.2 Observations –Transfer to MoL – Post 2012 (continued)
Performance Management

A change management plan to support the transfer of prevention grants and research responsibility was not clearly communicated by the WSIB and the MoL: The research responsibilities of each organization
during the transition were not clearly defined through a change management strategy. As a result, there was no plan in place to:
•
•
•

Ensure effective communication and coordination with the broader health and safety research community once the RAC was disbanded;
Monitor and act upon the needs of the health and safety environment. In other words, no system was set up to govern and monitor research requirements as well as developments in the broader
health and safety research community to ensure that research investments are aimed at addressing risks from both threats and opportunities perspectives; and
Ensure adequate governance, strategic planning, and performance management for research;
The lack of a clearer change management protocol during the transition limited the momentum in terms of defining research governance and management structures and strategies: Perceptions exist that the
transfer of the responsibility for prevention from the WSIB to the MoL meant that the WSIB no longer had a stake in prevention-based grants and research. This may be true from a narrow WSIB
organizational perspective. A progressive view would suggest that the WSIB should continue to play an active partner role in informing the health and safety strategy for the province. In this sense, WSIB has
valuable knowledge, expertise, research and data to support the provincial strategy and the MoL’s complementary prevention research strategy going forward. This progressive view, with clearly defined roles and
responsibilities for the WSIB and the MoL, should have been more clearly articulated prior to the transfer;
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
18
5.2 Observations –Transfer to MoL – Post 2012 (continued)
Performance Management (continued)

The lack of a performance management framework would limit the MoL’s ability to monitor and measure prevention and research outcomes: The impact of the prevention research Program cannot be
determined. In other words, the extent to which the Program has prevented, reduced, or provided predictive insights into injury incidence, health and safety trends, and education and awareness, is unclear; and

A knowledge management and communication plan that supports the dissemination of research and education materials funded by the WSIB and the MoL has not been established: There is a broad array of
stakeholders that are (or can be) impacted by the grant and research funding from both the WSIB and the MoL. There is a leading practice requirement to develop a research and workplace leading practices
knowledge dissemination strategy working in concert with the key stakeholders within Ontario’s health and safety system.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
19
5.3 Recommendations – Pre-requisites
The following pre-requisites are required to further mature the Program at the WSIB and the MoL:
Strategy

WSIB: A strategic plan should be developed for grants and research that will focus the Program’s efforts. The plan will help ensure alignment to the WSIB’s objectives including supporting RTW advances and
effectively managing and adapting the insurance plan to changing workforce conditions, injury profiles, and occupational disease.
Governance

WSIB: During the period 2009-12, the governance and oversight of the Program has been fragmented within the WSIB further compounding the strategic alignment challenge. Clearly defining the accountability
structure for the Program and linking it to the strategic planning and central statistical and data analytics functions of the WSIB will help mitigate governance and strategic alignment risks. This will further
support the WSIB’s current initiative to further advance its evidence-based decision making support capability; and

Ministry of Labour: Governance and management structure, and oversight challenges are further compounded by the transfer of the prevention mandate to the Ministry. However, the WSIB is responsible for
funding prevention grants and research activities as part of its legislated obligations under Bill 160. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Ministry to ensure proper governance, internal control and strategic
alignment of the prevention grants and research activities, to ensure value for money of the funding from the WSIB.
Performance Management

A credible research program must have independent researchers and subject matter experts who can review and recommend funding for research proposals in an objective manner: It is incumbent upon the WSIB
and the MoL to adhere to the principles of independence, peer review and effective research portfolio management as a basis for establishing a leading practice research performance management framework.
Research managed in this manner will be viewed in the boarder health and safety community as independent and credible.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
20
5.4 Recommendations – WSIB
The following recommendations will strengthen the impact of the Program on workplace health and safety. The Board must establish grants and research governance, strategy and performance management structures
and processes to strengthen the Program and ensure its continuous improvement. To affect this change, the Board must make specific strategic and operational investments in research, communications and strategic
partnerships. Recommendations include:
Strategy

Develop a research and grants strategy: The strategy should be aligned with the strategic plan of the WSIB and compared and contrasted with the Provincial Health and Safety Strategy
and its supporting research priorities. The goal should be to achieve consensus from the Board of the Directors of the WSIB and the Minister of Labour that the strategies are indeed complementary and are
working to avoid unnecessary duplication, and are achieving value. An annual planning process should be established to ensure that the needs of the current and longer term provincial health and safety
environment are well understood and used to identify research projects. These key priorities will be the lens to select and fund future research projects and provide grants for education/awareness.
DRAFT RESPONSE
• The WSIB will be reviewing an approach to grants and research.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
21
5.4 Recommendations – WSIB (continued)
Governance

Establish a grants and research governance and management structure within the WSIB. The structure should include the following elements:
•
The governance and management structure may be scaled to the level of investment and scope of research and grants activities once the strategy is established;
•
The governance may include practitioners, academics and knowledgeable subject matter experts from a variety of sectors, disciplines and organizations. Research managed in this manner will be viewed
in the boarder health and safety community as independent and credible; and
•
Responsibility for the WSIB’s grants and research strategy should reside under the strategic planning function of the WSIB. The research component should be positioned as an important instrument
which fully supports the WSIB’s transformative efforts in the area of evidence-based decision making. Tactical responsibility, including the identification of short, medium, and longer term research
requirements for the insurance plan and the RTW program should reside under the statistical analysis function within the WSIB. The responsibility for managing research according to sound methods
and practices should reside with the leadership of this unit who has the core research management competencies . This unit is part of the strategic planning function of the WSIB. Assigning the
tactical research management responsibility to this unit will also help ensure alignment of the research strategy with the WSIB’s strategic objectives.
DRAFT RESPONSE
• Once an approach to grants and research has been developed, an appropriate governance framework will be developed.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
22
5.4 Recommendations – WSIB (continued)
Performance Management

Develop a research performance management framework: The framework should include decision criteria to support the strategic selection of short, medium, and longer term research priorities for the WSIB.
Models and supporting tools should be developed to monitor results, measure impacts and disseminate lessons learned in a consistent manner. The framework should be supported by a research monitoring,
reporting and dissemination protocol which serves the insurance plan and RTW program planning and management requirements. The protocol should also consider broader dissemination of research results
to workplaces and interested stakeholder groups; and

Enhance environmental scanning capability: Understanding and continuously surveying the broader worker compensation, health and safety and RTW research environment is vitally important to establishing
an efficient and effective research program at the WSIB. A progressive research program must be able to continuously scan the environment in which it operates. The WSIB should:
•
Develop a consistent approach to understanding compensation, health and safety and RTW research priorities at national or international leading practice agencies including other provincial and
international worker compensation boards. The WSIB should further its understanding of the work of leading research organizations focused on labour force economics, changing demographics,
public policy, actuarial trends, and RTW strategies (e.g. the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the IWH, Stats Canada, the Brookings Institute and the Canadian
Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, etc). It is imperative that the research work of the WSIB leverage complementary research efforts from other jurisdictions from a learning perspective
and to avoid duplication and overlap in its research efforts; and
•
Take a progressive and proactive leadership stance in promoting effective coordination and sharing of research across compensation boards across Canada.
DRAFT RESPONSE
• Any grants or research program will include a performance measurement framework.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
23
5.5 Recommendations – MoL
The following recommendations will strengthen the transition of the prevention grants and research program to the MoL:
Strategy

Establish a culture that reinforces a holistic and system-wide health and safety and occupational diseases research perspective: Bill 160 does not establish a clear division of grant and research responsibilities
between the WSIB and the MoL. Leading practice supports establishing communities of research through virtual networks, shared data and findings and distributed analytical capabilities. Leading universities and
health care organizations have invested heavily in this progressive model.
Governance

Formalize the governance and management structure for the prevention grants and research activities which are funded by the WSIB: The prevention grants and research strategy being developed by the CPO
should be informed by an independent advisory body. The role of the advisory body should be to:1) review granting and research funding requests; and 2) ensure that research is outcomes based and aligned with
the health and safety strategy of the province. The Prevention Council and the CPO are encouraged to actively share the WSIB’s research strategy to fully inform the health and safety direction for the province
in an ongoing manner. The WSIB, through a representative of its strategic planning function, should be an active member of the research advisory body. This will further reinforce the WSIB’s duty to monitor
trends and outlooks in health and safety in Ontario under Bill 160.
Performance Management

Develop a research performance management framework: The framework should include decision criteria to support the strategic selection of short, medium, and longer term prevention priorities for the MoL.
Models and supporting tools should be developed to monitor results, and measure the impacts or translate lessons learned in a consistent manner. The framework should be supported by a research monitoring
reporting and dissemination protocol, which serves the governance and strategic planning demands of the MoL. The protocol should also consider broader dissemination of research results to interested
stakeholder groups.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
24
5.5 Recommendations – MoL
DRAFT RESPONSE

The Ministry has reviewed the recommendations of the KPMG report.

Oversight of the programs reviewed in this report has been fully transitioned to the Ministry.

As part of the 2012-2013 transition of prevention from the WSIB to the Ministry of Labour, a plan was developed and implemented to maintain the capacity in the Ontario OHS research system while reviewing
options to improve these programs going forward. Research and grants capacity was maintained by instituting new funding agreements with the Institute for Work and Health (IWH) and the Centres of Research
Expertise (CREs). WSIB and the Ministry collaborated on delivering the 2012 “Bridging the Gap” research program with the research proposals being reviewed by the WSIB’s Research Advisory Committee and
providing recommendations to the Ministry. The Ministry established oversight and accountability framework to put in place funding arrangements with the research and grants recipients community. In
addition, the Ministry hosted its first-ever “Research Day” event through which input on the future direction of governance and research was invited from stakeholders, service providers and the research
community.

The transition to the Ministry was essentially complete with the establishment of a new multi-stakeholder Occupational Health and Safety Research Advisory Panel (OHSRAP) in the summer of 2013. OHSRAP
is composed of labour, employer, research and Ministry representatives. OHSRAP is providing oversight of research funding and strategic advice on aligning future research with the soon to be released province
wide integrated occupational health and safety strategy. The Ministry has launched a new Occupational Health and Safety Research Opportunities Program (OHSROP) that will align research with the strategic
priorities and improve value for money by emphasizing effective knowledge exchange and transfer plans through a performance management framework.

The Ministry will continuously seek innovative ways towards the funding and oversight of research aimed to generate continued improvements.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
25
6.0 APPENDICES
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
26
Appendix I
Examples of Notable Program Results
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
27
Appendix I – Examples of Notable Program Results
Examples of notable results for WSIB’s Program include the following:


The Occupational Cancer Research Centre (OCRC): The RAC funded Centres of Research Expertise (CRE) in order to focus research effort on identified research priorities, and to build research capacity in
these areas. A notable example is the OCRC. The centre is a joint venture between Cancer Care Ontario, the WSIB, the Canadian Cancer Society and developed in collaboration with the United Steelworkers’
Union. The focus of this collaborative initiative was to bridge existing gaps in knowledge related to occupational cancers and to translate these findings to improve occupational health/workplace health. For
example, major intervention projects with policy implications focused on estimating the human and economic burden of occupational cancer in Canada include:
•
Human impact (deaths, sickness, and reduced quality of life) and the economic costs specifically associated with exposure to occupational carcinogens, the OCRC will provide evidence on;
•
The importance of workplace exposures as a significant causal factor in many Ontario cancer cases. Most significantly, these estimates will help to focus on priority areas where the greatest; and
•
Number of people will be impacted by intervention efforts.
Operations Grants: These include grants such as the Occupational Disability Response Team (ODRT). The Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL), and the Medical Champions Program, both oversee several
grants and provide program development guidance. As a whole, projects such as the OFL-ODRT, improve the well-being of injured workers, and their working conditions, by being a leading provider of
workplace insurance and disability prevention training and advisory services.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
28
Appendix I – Examples of Notable Program Results (continued)

IWH and the RAC Funding: These initiatives succeeded in bringing together communities of practice focused on health and safety research, with the WSIB playing the role of connector and collaborator. In
this role, the WSIB was able to facilitate or affect change including:
•
The partnership agreements to support the IWH and OCRC.
•
The publication and broad dissemination of research, including:
•
Red Flags, Green Lights, A Guide to Solving Return-to-Work Problems. This publication highlights positive and negative situations of case studies in the RTW , vocational rehabilitation,
health, and claim realm and was developed by the IWH using its own research;
•
The IWH also prepared a series of Issues Briefings summarizing research on topics of interest to policy-makers. Examples include shift work, new workers and the cost of workers’
compensation systems in Canada and the US; and
•
A 2009 research project focused on reducing the risk(s) of slips, trips and falls by postal workers. The intended result of this study was the re-design of footwear for postal workers.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
29
Appendix II
The Grants and Research Program Background
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
30
Appendix II – Program Background
Program Overview
“We administer the province’s no-fault workplace insurance system for Ontario workplaces. The WSIB provides wage loss benefits, medical coverage and help getting back to work for workers injured on the job or
contracting occupational diseases. For employers, we provide no-fault collective liability insurance and access to industry specific health and safety information. We are legislated by the Provincial Government of
Ontario and are responsible for administering the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 (“WSIA”). We are funded by employer premiums, and to a lesser degree, income earned on our investments. The
province does not provide us with any funding. We are a trust agency and are governed by an independent Board of Directors made up of representatives from employers, workers and others.” – WSIB’s 2011
Annual Report:

In 1914, Ontario passed the Workmen's Compensation Act, creating the Workmen's Compensation Board. This compensation board would later be renamed as the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
(WSIB) with the passing of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (“WSIA”) in 1998;

The WSIB acknowledged that access to research-based knowledge was integral to support their efforts to continuously improve the insurance plan and the RTW program. The WSIB forged a strong
international commitment to health and safety research and development in Ontario with the establishment of the Institute for Work & Health in 1990; and

The commitment to research was enhanced with the creation of the WSIB-funded RAC in 1998. Prior to its dissolution by WSIB in 2012, the WSIB RAC was an independent, multi-stakeholder council
designed to oversee initiatives including Solutions for Workplace Change and Bridging the Gap, as well as the Centres of Research Expertise.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
31
Appendix II – Program Background (continued)
Fundamental Principles and Objectives
Up to 2012, it was incumbent upon the WSIB to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Program. Prior to Bill 160 and the transfer of responsibilities to the Mol, the WSIB was responsible for demonstrating specific
Program outcomes and their impact on the insurance plan, RTW and prevention. Therefore, it was and still is incumbent upon the WSIB to anticipate and move in lockstep with demographic change, macro
economics, public policy, health and safety trends, return to work leading practices and other significant risks that it may face in the future. The value for money generated by the Program is, in large part, a
function of the extent to which it was designed and administered in a manner that was aligned with these principles.
The Program was designed based on the Administrative Policy on Grants and the RAC objectives. According to the WSIB’s Administrative Policy on Grants (Nov. 2004), the WSIB can achieve its grants and
research objectives by ensuring the following:

Be in support of investigation, research or training in accordance with subsection 159(5);

Complement, promote or serve at least one of the objectives set out in section 1 of the WSIA;

Be managed in an accountable and financially responsible manner with the WSIB getting value for its money. “Accountable”, in this context, refers to achievement of expected outcomes for which the funds
were intended and approved for. “Value” means achievement of the outcomes in a cost efficient manner;

Be monitored and evaluated to ensure that expected outcomes are pursued and achieved in a timely manner; and

Occur through written agreements made on behalf of the WSIB by individuals who have been delegated sufficient authority to enter into such agreements.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
32
Appendix II – Program Background (continued)
Fundamental Principles and Objectives (continued)
According to the Research Task Force, created in 1997 by the Board of Directors of the WSIB and with the purpose of funding world-class scientific research, the WSIB can achieve its research objectives by ensuring
the following:

There should be a greater focus on the importance of nurturing Ontario’s research capacity;

Development of Ontario’s research capacity should build on existing strengths and capabilities. Over time, Ontario would further develop its own research specialties that would contribute to the international
knowledge base;

Good research could not be conducted in isolation, but required collaboration and networking, both within the province and with other jurisdictions. Ontario’s contribution to the international body of research
was key to participation in such networks; and

The Program should reflect a commitment to quality, credibility, and integrity in the conducting of research.
Research conducted for the purposes of the audit, identified a number of fundamental performance objectives with respect to both the broader workplace insurance plan and the Program. Fundamental system-level
objectives, which are embedded in the purposes of the WSIA, include:

Minimizing the incidence of workplace injuries and illness;

Maximizing RTW and recovery outcomes;

Ensuring the fairness and equity of benefits as defined by the legislation;

Ensuring that system resources are applied through the areas of highest risk in the province;

Ensuring appropriate levels of customer service; and

Ensuring a health and safety governance and management structure which actively engages the following stakeholder groups: WSIB, the wider research community, employers, and workers.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
33
Appendix II – Program Background (continued)
1998-2012
The RAC’s program initiatives were directed at supporting and funding research in relation to: (1) Occupation Disease, Injury, and Health Services; (2) Prevention, Workplace Design, and Intervention; (3) Fair
Compensation, Ontario Worker’s Compensation System, and Policy; (4) Workplace Organization and Management and Economic Analysis; (5) Return-to-Work, Disability Management, and Rehabilitation; and (6)
Research on the Transfer of Scientific Knowledge to the Workplace. Aided by the Research Secretariat, which provided administrative support to the RAC, the RAC funded research initiatives based on the input of
many external stakeholders. The Secretariat organized and synthesized input on research needs and priorities from various stakeholders; developed policy to support the Research Program; coordinated the review of
research proposals; and administered research funds.
The WSIB’s Program Policy Objectives (Nov. 2004) are:

Be in support of investigation, research or training;

Complement, promote or serve at least one of the objectives set out in Section 1 of the WSIA;

Be managed in an accountable and financially responsible manner with the WSIB getting value for its money. “Accountable” in this context refers to achievement of expected outcomes which the funds we
e intended and approved for. “Value” means achievement of the outcomes in a cost efficient manner;

Be monitored and evaluated to ensure that expected outcomes are pursued and achieved in a timely manner; and

Occur through written agreements made on behalf of the WSIB by individuals who have been delegated sufficient authority to enter into such agreements.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
34
Appendix II – Program Background (continued)
Current Reality
WSIB has put forth plans to continuously invest in its processes, people, and technology to support benefit claims. By increasing the amount of adjudicators and focusing on improving business processes, the WSIB
is now able to make a greater impact on the overall health and safety, return to work and insurance needs of workers in Ontario.
Through its revamped Service Delivery Model, initial claim decisions are being made faster, while the focus on early, specialized, evidence-based care to improve recovery, has improved. With earlier and more
focused retraining programs, which have increased the number of workers able to transition to a new occupation, work reintegration is also improving. As a whole, Ontarian workers have access to better health
care when they are injured. WSIB has more than doubled the number of specialty clinics over the last three years. Furthermore, the number of expert physicians available to assist with complex cases has increased
by a factor of six, during the same time period. Initiatives in regards to processes, people, and technology have led to the following outcomes:

In 2011, 91% of all injured workers with lost time injuries were back to work within 12 months of their injury;

Since 2010, the percentage of claims on-benefits at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months has decreased by 2.8%, 10.9%, 20%, and 25.7% respectively. Fewer claims are being locked-in and the percentage of wage
replacement required at the lock-in decision has decreased;

The 2011 annual survey found that close to 80% of employers were very or somewhat satisfied with the service they received for claims or account management, and 7 out of 10 workers were very or
somewhat satisfied with the service they received for claims; and

After years of increases, long term claims duration rates are holding steady. Improved RTW outcomes, means fewer claims are requiring a locked-in loss of earnings award, and for those that do, the
percentage of wage replacement required has also decreased.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
35
Appendix II – Program Background (continued)
Current Reality (continued)
In 2012, the WSIB committed $12.5 M into Bridging the Gap/Solutions for Workplace Change competitions, CREs, the IWH, Prevention Grants, and Operations Grants. This commitment is put forward to address
the need for basic (primary) and applied (secondary) research* (~ $9M or 72% of commitment), Prevention or transfer of knowledge (~ $2M or 15% of commitment), and Operations or Service Costs (~ $1.5M
or13% of commitment). On April 1, 2012, Bill 160 took effect and resulted in the transfer of the prevention and research mandates from the WSIB to the MoL. This legislation modified the purpose of the WSIA,
which previously included the requirement for the WSIB to prevent and reduce the occurrence of workplace injuries and occupational diseases. Bill 160 also required the MoL to:

Appoint a Chief Prevention Officer (CPO);

Promote prevention of workplace injuries & illnesses (previously the responsibility of the WSIB);

Establish training standards and approve training programs that meet specific standards (JHSC certification for example - something the WSIB used to look after); and

Create a Prevention Council – a body consisting of representatives from trade unions, labour organizations, employers, WSIB, non-unionized workers and health & safety experts - to advise the Minister
on the appointment of the Chief Prevention Officer and to advise the CPO on various aspects of health & safety in Ontario (prevention, strategy, funding, special projects, etc.).
The MoL's new responsibility for research also included the transfer of the RAC research program and it’s three main components:



Solutions for Workplace Change research grants competition;
Bridging the Gap research grants competition; and
Centres of Research Expertise.
The transfer also included:

Institute for Work and Health
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
36
Appendix II – Program Background (continued)
Current Reality (continued)
At the time of this audit, several Program initiatives have been transferred, while additional transfers are expected to occur in 2013/2014. WSIB is committed to ensuring that the remaining Program initiatives falling
under its authority are aligned to its strategic direction and are managed in a more efficient and effective manner.
*Note: Generally accepted definitions for primary and secondary research are as follows.
1.
Primary research consists of a collection of original primary data. It is often undertaken after the researcher has gained some insight into the issue by reviewing secondary research or by analyzing previously
collected primary data.
2.
Applied research is a form of systematic inquiry involving the practical application of science. It accesses and uses some part of the research communities' accumulated theories, knowledge, methods, and
techniques, for a specific, often state-, business-, or client-driven purpose.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
37
Appendix II – Program Background (continued)
Risks Facing the WSIB
Effective risk management is integral to a well managed insurance plan. The Program should address root causes and mitigation strategies associated with short term risks that the WSIB currently faces. Equally
important, the Program must anticipate and respond to emerging risks. Finally, the Program should provide a consistent, credible and disciplined approach to addressing medium and longer term risks facing the
insurance plan and the RTW program. The following are examples of risks facing the WSIB which can have a direct impact on the research strategy:

An aging Canadian population;

An increasing number of degenerative diseases;

Technological innovation and its impact on the workplace;

Emerging diseases as a result of changes in immigration patterns;

Changing social attitudes towards traditional retirement and economic factors resulting in workers staying in the work force well beyond the age of 65;

A slowing economic growth which may constrain investment returns for the insurance plan;

Increasing constraints on private insurance benefit plans and public sector pension plans which will continue to make the WSIB’s benefits increasingly attractive;

Perceived under investment in other forms of unemployment insurance , pensions and disability plans with increasing pressure on the WSIB to fill the gap;

A growing public resentment over public sector pension and benefits schemes that are significantly more attractive than defined contribution schemes;
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
38
Appendix II – Program Background (continued)
Risks Facing the WSIB (continued)

Ongoing pressure on the WSIB to pay down its unfunded liability within the current macro economic, provincial budget and fiscal policy environment;

Emerging risks around occupational diseases which may result in significantly greater number of long-term claims for the WSIB;

A deteriorating provincial economic environment which is not attracting investment and creating jobs in lockstep with WSIB’s funding requirements;

Rising challenges for the RTW program from those suffering from socio-physiological disabilities and emerging challenges of injured female workers over the age of 50 re-entering the work force; and

A growing immigrant population leading to a higher number of injuries and fatalities. This same population is associated with higher general health and well being risks such as diabetes, heart disease
and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease which will result in increasing challenges for both the WSIB and the broader health care system in Ontario.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
39
Appendix II – Program Background (continued)
Addressing the Challenges
The passing of Bill 160 led to the disbanding of the RAC which had responsibility for several research project grants such as Solutions for Workplace Change, Bridging the Gap competitions, and research centers.
These initiatives, along with prevention grants, and research initiatives within the purview of the IWH are part of the transfer and will be housed at the MoL under the supervision of the Chief Prevention Officer
(CPO). Currently, the CPO is developing a grants and research program governance model and strategy through a collaborative effort with key stakeholders including: the WSIB, the MoL, the Health and Safety
Associations (HSAs), the labour movement, academia, the IWH and others. In response to the change in legislation, the WSIB is faced with managing challenges and concerns from both internal and external
research and grant recipient stakeholders. The following is a summary of key internal and external stakeholder concerns, divided into two time periods: (1) 2009 to 2012, and (2) Post 2012 Transfer to the MoL.
Concerns identified by Internal Stakeholders include:
2009 to 2012

The Program’s direct influence over WSIB’s enterprise strategy, operations, brand identity, and values: How is research effectively used to support strategy development, operational improvements,
branding and the WSIB value proposition to its key stakeholders? This concern is impacted by the Program’s lack of a governance framework and strategy;

The grants selection and approvals process: This concern is focused on the strategic relationship and communication between WSIB and funded applicants and initiatives;

The extent to which successful applicants yield results that reflect good value for money: This concern focuses on the WSIB’s ability to select, monitor and assess the effectiveness of funding initiatives;
and

The WSIB’s ability to use leading indicators of health and safety performance in the workplace to guide its grants and research strategy: Concerns were directed at the lack of a leading indicators
framework so that research and awareness strategies can be targeted at gaps in Ontario’s workplaces
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
40
Appendix II – Program Background (continued)
Addressing the Challenges (continued)
Concerns identified by Internal Stakeholders include:
Post 2012 Transfer to the MoL

The efficient and effective governance of the Program: Concerns stem from the transfer of the prevention elements of the Program to the MoL;

The ability of the Program to yield impactful prevention outcomes: The transfer of prevention responsibilities to the MoL affects the clarity of expected outcome and accountability of a diverse number
of health and safety stakeholders that are funded under the Program; and

Possible cross-jurisdictional partnership collaboration opportunities and the extent to which these are impacted by the transfer to the MoL: Through partnerships, WSIB and the MoL may improve the
effectiveness of their respective grants and research programs including streamlining governance, insuring that research strategies are complementary, duplication is minimized and results are widely
disseminated.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
41
Appendix II – Program Background (continued)
Addressing the Challenges (continued)
Concerns identified by External Stakeholders include:
2009 to 2012
•
The Program’s ability to be representative of a broad base of health and safety stakeholders: External stakeholders are concerned that some stakeholders may have undue influence over the strategic
direction the program. Consequently, the decisions on funding would be limited to a select few and possibly too narrowly focused from a research perspective;
•
Transparency associated with screening, monitoring and funding of Program initiatives: External stakeholders endorse a merit-based funding scheme associated with a very robust communication strategy;
•
Duplication of efforts: External stakeholders are concerned about duplication of effort with regard to research and transfer of knowledge by WSIB and external groups such as the HSAs and IWH;
•
Lack of a governance and performance management framework: A research governance and performance management framework can address short term and specific needs of WSIB’s management,
medium term research requirements to support service delivery initiatives such as RTW, and long term initiatives such as the impact of an aging workforce on the insurance plan. The Program lacks of an
explicit portfolio strategy to determine the balance point between short, medium, and long term initiatives, and the appropriate level of investment for each
•
Recognizing the linkage between the Program and the Unfunded Liability (UFL): There are concerns about the WSIB’s ability to fully understand the linkage between Program research initiatives and
how these are tied back to the enterprise risk profile which impacts the UFL;
•
Bottom-up approach to funding Program initiatives: Program initiatives have predominately been funded on a “bottom-up” basis as opposed to a rigorous screening, understanding, monitoring, and
assessment of proposals against strategic priorities;
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
42
Appendix II – Program Background (continued)
Addressing the Challenges (continued)
Concerns identified by External Stakeholders include:
2009 to 2012
•
Funding recipient’s alignment to the WSIB’s strategic vision: There is a general concern on the degree of alignment of grant and research funding recipients with the WSIB’s strategic vision. This concern
stems from the Program’s lack of alignment with WSIB strategic vision;
•
Fragmented and under funded development of a comprehensive set of health and safety leading indicators: For well over a decade, key players in the health and safety system in Ontario have faced the
challenge of developing a comprehensive set of leading indicators for occupational health and safety. Concern was expressed that this effort is fragmented, underfunded, and not being undertaken against a
consistent research framework and supporting methodology. The WSIB, the HSAs, the Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety, and other national and provincial organizations are all
grappling with this problem. Such a framework would be instrumental in guiding future research efforts and an effective means to evaluate overall health and safety efforts across the system; and
•
Research funding vs. operational funding for the IWH: Concerns were expressed about the significant amount of operational funding not being fully supported by adequate and dedicated research funding
for the IWH by the WSIB. The Institute’s original vision was to become a world class research center for occupational health and safety. Concern was expressed as to whether this vision could be
completely realized since the research funding of the IWH may not be sufficient. Further concerns were expressed that IWH researchers must actively compete for research funding. This is time
consuming and may detract from their effort to focus on priorities which. historically, should have aligned with the needs of the WSIB and, now, since the passing of Bill 160, with the research priorities
of the MoL. Strategic alignment and funding of IWH and the health and safety strategy of Ontario is important given the level of operational funding and its ability to achieve its original world-class
vision.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
43
Appendix II – Program Background (continued)
Addressing the Challenges (continued)
Concerns identified by External Stakeholders include:
Post 2012 Transfer to the MoL

The effectiveness of the implementation of the Program governance framework post Bill 160: This concern stems from the change in legislation which has further compounded Program governance,
strategy and performance management gaps. The disbanding of the RAC has impacted the long standing relationships, communication, and research management processes traditionally used with the
health and safety research community. Significant challenges include establishing an effective governance and management structure that is inclusive of key stakeholder groups including the WSIB, the
wider research community, employers, and workers;

The strategic alignment of Program initiatives funded by the WSIB with the MoL’s provincial health and safety strategy: Concerns were expressed that significant gaps exist in the governance, strategic
planning and performance management elements of the Program post Bill 160. The WSIB and the MoL should provide assurance that research efforts going forward will be coordinated and well
governed against strategic priorities;

WSIB’s continued role in the deployment of research related to prevention and safety: WSIB has historically been the primary funder for many individuals, organizations, and institutions. With the
change in legislation, external stakeholders seek to understand WSIB’s new role in the Program; and

The resources required to sustain and continuously improve the Program: There is concern about the resources that the WSIB and the MoL will commit to the Program as to ensure its long term
relevancy, sustainability and continuous improvement. Without well defined research strategies by both organizations it is very difficult to determine adequate levels of sustainable funding.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
44
Appendix II – Program Background (continued)
Addressing the Challenges (continued)
Concerns identified by External Stakeholders include:
Post 2012 Transfer to the MoL

Effective transfer of knowledge: There is general concern about the importance placed on translating knowledge and “lessons learned” from research results into workplaces and the broader health and
safety stakeholder community. A new research governance framework at both the WSIB and the MoL should be definitive about knowledge transfer and dissemination; and

Linking research strategy to the overall objectives of the health and safety system in Ontario: This concern centers on the need to have a clear alignment between the objectives of the health and safety
system in Ontario from insurance, RTW and prevention perspectives.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
45
Appendix III
Value for Money Methodology & Approach
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
46
Appendix III – Value for Money Methodology & Approach
KPMG’s value for money methodology is grounded in the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation’s Attributes of Effectiveness. This information is included in Appendix III.

KPMG’s approach involves the independent assessment of whether a program function or activity achieves their stated objectives, is well-managed and delivers services economically, efficiently and effectively.
The approach focuses on the performance achieved by a particular function or activity and concentrates on the relationship between inputs, outputs and outcomes.

Emphasis is placed on strategic alignment, achievement of intended results assessing performance management, including the measures chosen to assess performance and the relationship between benchmarks
and outcomes. Finally, our approach seeks to identify the risks to the achievement of economy, efficiency and effectiveness of a particular function or activity.

Three principles underlie KPMG’s value‐for‐money audit approach:
•
Economy: This principle relates to minimizing the cost of resources used to drive the processes and activities. This assessment takes into account the quality of the goods or services delivered. This
principle also focuses on the soundness of the administration and management of resources and the extent to which such administration and management is consistent with relevant corporate policies
and procedures and legal and/or regulatory requirements and constraints;
•
Efficient: This principle relates to the relationship between the goods and services produced/delivered by WSIB and the resources used to produce them. Efficient organizations produce maximum
outputs from any given set of inputs, without sacrificing the quality of outputs; and
•
Effective: This principle relates to the extent to which WSIB achieves its pre‐determined objectives and compares the actual versus intended outcomes across a variety of areas.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
47
Appendix III – Value for Money Methodology & Approach (continued)
The Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation (CCAF) attributes of effectiveness include:

Clarity of Roles and Responsibilities: Does everyone understand what they are meant to be doing?

Strategic Focus: Do activities (priorities) continue to make sense in terms of the conditions, needs or problems to which they are intended to respond?

Appropriateness of Investment: Are levels of effort and selected methods of pursuing objectives sensible and sufficient?

Environmental Scanning : How well are we anticipating and responding to the needs of our environment?

Values and Ethics: Are our organization’s management and operations guided by a clear set of appropriate values and ethics?

Management of Results - Achievement of Intended Results: How challenging are our established goals, and have they been accomplished?

Financial Results: How well do financial statements appropriately match, account for and value revenues, costs, assets and obligations?

Stakeholder Engagement: Are clients and other key stakeholders satisfied with the organization and its products or services?

Capacity & Economy of Time and Resource: Can we ensure our ongoing capacity to maintain and improve performance?

Risk Management: Have we identified and dealt appropriately with the key risks associated with our policies and goals?

Strategic Partnerships: Do we know whether strategic partners can adequately fulfill our business objectives?

Secondary Impacts: What are the unintended effects of our activities, both positive and negative?

Protection of Assets: How well do we protect against surprise events or losses of key personnel, critical competencies, client information, facilities, equipment, inventories, processes or agreements?

Costs and Productivity: Are the relationships between costs, inputs and outputs favorable? Can we demonstrate impact for our investments?

Monitoring and Management of Results: Do we keep track of our results?
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
48
Appendix III – Value for Money Audit Methodology & Approach (continued)
The following table provides an overview of the approach taken to conduct the value for money audit of the Program:
Phase
Stage
Steps & Activities
Deliverables & Due Date
I: Kick Off


Confirm project scope, timelines and deliverables with WSIB Project Sponsors
Develop map of key stakeholders (internal and external)
 Project timelines and due dates
 Completed April, 2013
II: Internal Stakeholder Engagement




Develop interview guide
Conduct interviews of internal stakeholders
Analysis of interview results; identification of key themes and areas of
opportunity
Review internal documents






Approved stakeholder map
Approved interview guide and introduction letter
Completed internal interviews
Document review
Presentation of interim results & key findings at Steering Committee
Completed, June 2013
III: External Stakeholder Engagement



Develop interview guide
Conduct interviews of external stakeholders
Analysis of interview results and leading practice review





Approved interview guide
Completed external interviews
Leading practice review
Develop report with key findings
Completed, September 2013
I: Program Review

Review internal documents
 Document review
 Develop report with key findings
 Completed, September 2013
II: Evaluation of WSIB’s Grants & Research Processes

Evaluate Research Governance Framework using the CCAF Attributes of
Effectiveness
 Develop report with key findings
 Completed, September 2013
III: Jurisdictional & Leading Practice Review

Conduct leading practice review
 Develop report with key findings
 Completed, September 2013
IV: Value for Money Audit Opinion

Develop final report
 September, 2013
Stakeholder
Interviews
Document Review, Analysis, & Final
Report
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
49
Appendix IV
Stakeholder Consultation
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
50
Appendix IV – Stakeholder Consultation
KPMG developed an approach to stakeholder consultation involving both key internal and external subject matter experts to gain a broad- based and multidisciplinary perspective on the strengths and challenges
facing the Program. A structured interview guide was developed to facilitate discussion with both internal and external stakeholders on a consistent basis. Elements of the guide included:
Stakeholder Interview Guide
The topics noted below were intended to structure the discussion and were addressed during the meeting.
Grant / Research Background Information

Provide a brief overview of your grant / research program, specifically highlighting:
•
•
WSIB funding history (i.e. when did you first receive funding); and
The type of grant / research the funding goes toward.
Please bring an example of your initiative’s results (i.e. research report produced, grant results)
Program Philosophy & Objectives

Provide a brief overview of your perspective on:
•
•
Fundamental goals and objectives of the grants & research process (“Program”) and related performance objectives; and
Overall corporate approach to Program design and delivery.
Program Strengths & Weaknesses

Provide a brief overview of your perspective on:
•
•
Key strengths and weaknesses of the existing Program; and
Key opportunities to improve the Program – e.g., policy or procedural change, information management system improvements, human resources.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
51
Appendix IV – Stakeholder Consultation
KPMG developed an approach to stakeholder consultation with both key internal and external subject matter experts to gain a broad based multidisciplinary perspective on the strengths and challenges facing the
Program:
Internal Stakeholder Engagement
Internal Stakeholders and their roles are listed below:
Name
Area/Department
WSIB
 Marjorie Mercer
 Stephen Nicol
 Donna Bain
 Susanna Zagar
 Eugene Wen
 Don Blue
 Rob Timlin
 Kate Lamb
 Kathleen Therriault
 Tom Bell










MoL
 Brian Lewis
 Peter Diawatan
 Zainab Nur
 Director, Strategy & Integration, Prevention Office
 Business Planning Analyst, Prevention Office
 Business Planning Analyst, Prevention Office
Vice President Occupational Diseases and Specialized Services
Legal Counsel
Vice President, Health Services
Chief Strategy Officer
Chief Statistician
Chief Actuary
Executive Director, Service Delivery Long-Term
Vice President, Policy and Research Consultation Services
Director, Occupational Disease Policy and Research
Vice President, Internal Audit
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
52
Appendix IV – Stakeholder Consultation (continued)
Internal Stakeholder Engagement (continued)
General Impressions

General enthusiasm was expressed by internal stakeholders for the potential of the Program and its impact on the work of the Board;

There was open and candid recognition of the limitations of the Program;

Stakeholders recognized the importance of research to further advance the insurance plan, RTW and prevention objectives;

There was general understanding that not all research will result in “high impact big wins.” In addition to changing leading practices, participants also view “successful projects” as those that have
informed policy and decision-making, those that have had uptake by stakeholder audiences, and those that have brought together like-minded groups of individuals;

The RAC structure was generally regarded as working effectively . However, the transition of prevention grants and research to the MoL has slowed progress related to workplace safety research; and

It was recognized that research across the broader compensation and health and safety could be more strategically aligned and leading indicator focused (i.e. conducting a Canada-wide research and
development initiative focused on health and safety leading indicators. This research and development initiative should be supported by longitudinal research to validate its impact).
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
53
Appendix IV – Stakeholder Consultation (continued)
Internal Stakeholder Engagement (continued)
Strategic Alignment

The process to align the research and grant activities with the Board’s Strategic Directions is fragmented;

Although the Board has a plan to reduce and ultimately eliminate it’s unfunded liability (UFL), the Board would be well-positioned to consider the potential positive impact of a more strategic and
focused research program;

A re-positioning of the Program must be conducted in a highly strategic fashion grounded in first principles which are tied to the WSIB’s strategic objectives. Otherwise, a change in funding levels or redirection of the portfolio may result in strong stakeholder reaction;

There is a disconnect and/or limited strategic alignment of the Program with the Canadian research landscape (e.g. CIHR, NRC, WorkSafe BC, etc.);

Since the transition to the MoL, overall strategic planning or strategic outlook has been lacking; and

There is a sense that the late adoption of a strategic ethos by the MoL may be neutralizing a potential “first mover advantage” which enhances Canadian health and safety research.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
54
Appendix IV – Stakeholder Consultation (continued)
Internal Stakeholder Engagement (continued)
Governance & Oversight

The Program lacked a strategy, governance model, and clear accountability for performance and outcomes at the WSIB;

The Program did not having a singular “home” within the Board. This caused the Program to evolve in a piece meal fashion that did not influence strategic thinking. It was not well integrated into
WSIB’s strategy, operations, and brand identity, and its value is not viewed consistently across the organization;

The legislative obligations to the MoL research program post Bill 160 have growing governance challenges if the research strategy and oversight roles and responsibilities are not clearly articulated and
measured;

Since the transition to the MoL, overall strategic planning and alignment of research efforts has been a work in progress;

The decentralized research accountability structure and the dissolution of the RAC has minimized potential synergies in research projects between WSIB and the MoL. There is a real opportunity to reengage all interested stakeholders in complementary research strategies through the Prevention Council established under Bill 160;

The current research portfolio is very Ontario-focused. Injury prevention reflects a pan-Canadian challenge and therefore the WSIB and the MoL would be well-positioned to leverage existing research
and identify partnership or collaboration opportunities with other like-minded agencies;

The lack of a comprehensive research strategy and the fragmented Program management approach at the WSIB negatively impacts the image of the Board as a strong leader in workplace/safety/injuryrelated research;
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
55
Appendix IV – Stakeholder Consultation (continued)
Internal Stakeholder Engagement (continued)
Governance & Oversight

A simple, streamlined and disciplined governance and management structure and granting framework needs to be set in place to monitor the impact and value of funds provided. The governance and
management structure should be grounded by “first principles” – i.e. the over-arching philosophy for providing funding. These principles are foundational, supported by the stakeholders and would be
used as the litmus test in which to select projects;

The core mandate of getting injured workers back to work should always be top of mind when grants are reviewed – this “lens” or filter can be applied to decisions made regarding funding allocation
and would become the de-facto evaluation criteria against which grants are reviewed and selected/approved. These criterion could include, but would not be limited to:

•
What is the historical lens? What is the current lens? What is the future lens?
•
What are or should be research priorities based on this lens?
•
How does the research proposal “x” stack up against these criterion? How well are research proposals aligned to this lens?
•
How is this communicated to researchers?
•
How are outcomes monitored and measured – and used to inform future research projects?
The allocation of funding is not intrinsically or extrinsically linked to a value proposition. In other words, there is no tool or trigger to indicate how much funding is enough or too much? The program
would benefit from the development of critical success factors that would link funding to outcomes.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
56
Appendix IV – Stakeholder Consultation (continued)
Internal Stakeholder Engagement (continued)
Portfolio Management

A robust research framework is not in place:
•
It is unclear the extent to which Program initiatives are based on “needed” versus “interesting” business cases, i.e. there is little evidence to suggest that a robust environmental scanning
relates to research/knowledge “needs.” In other words, it is difficult to reconcile the “scientific interest” versus “current need” that is served by the Program. There is no effective way to
determine the short, medium and long-term research requirements from the insurance plan, RTW and prevention;
•
Through disciplined research efforts, the WSIB can strengthen the linkage(s) between strategic planning, program design and delivery, and health and safety outcomes;
•
The Program is not part of a continuous feedback loop which includes annual environmental scanning and linking outcomes from Program initiatives in previous years to future research;
and
•
Releasing the data/lessons learned is not done in a coordinated fashion – i.e. the research is not used to effectively bridge science and practice. The WSIB does not fully leverage quality
research outcomes that could impact the insurance scheme in a strategic fashion to enhance its reputation and brand.

Funding for Program initiatives trends towards projects that are longer-term in nature and may not be aligned with leading indicators of “on the shop floor” or in the workplace priorities. This can
reinforce the perception that the applied value of research is limited;

The WSIB would be well served by an evidence-based decision making model and data analytic capabilities which support the selection of research projects aligned with insurance, RTW and sectoral risk
profiles;
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
57
Appendix IV – Stakeholder Consultation (continued)
Internal Stakeholder Engagement (continued)
Portfolio Management

The WSIB has focused on operating funding to the IWH, but has not had an equivalent focus on the strategic research agenda of the Institute and the potential benefits it can bring to the insurance
plan, RTW and prevention in a more focused and dedicated manner. A significant portion of the research funding to IWH is directed at operational sustainment. It is unclear as to the extent to which
this portion of the research funding is fully leveraged through the IWH operational support model (versus a more targeted, commissioned or standing offer arrangement with selected research
organizations throughout Canada). Historically, for the IWH to fully serve the needs of the WSIB, and to fully achieve its objective of being a world class research institute, it may have required a
significant directed and dedicated health and safety research budget provided by the WSIB and other WCBs across Canada and around the world. The role of the Institute in managing the WSIB’s
strategic research plan, historically, should have been better articulated; and

Funding directed at the IWH may not be as efficient and effective as targeted (or strategically focused) contract research. Researchers are also spending time on other projects funded by other
funding/granting agencies. This contributes to delays in completing WSIB projects. In fact, the turn-around time of completion of projects that would have an impact on WSIB’s strategic priorities (e.g.
RTW, impact of an aging workforce, benefits management) ,on the surface, looks inconsistent. This may indicate that the research cycle is not directly linked to the WSIB’s long-term planning cycle
which would naturally raise strategic opportunities related to research. However, contract research is not without its problems. Quality concerns, methodological weaknesses, researcher core
competencies, longitudinal consistency of research teams and independence have all been citied as risks with the contracted research model.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
58
Appendix IV – Stakeholder Consultation (continued)
Internal Stakeholder Engagement (continued)
Portfolio Management

For well over a decade, there has been much discussion and debate over what constitutes leading indicators of health and safety performance in the workplace. Efforts to date to build such a framework
and attain an agreement on the indicators has been fragmented. A targeted well funded strategic research effort in this area would have a major impact on the insurance plan, RTW and prevention. The
downstream impact on the administrative efficiency of these three tenants of workplace safety would be significant;

The current portfolio of Program initiatives is too diverse across a number of stakeholder groups. Demonstration of evidence-based outcomes that are aligned to well-defined and specific RTW
indicators, behaviors and/or outcomes is inconsistent and/or not always evident; and

Research should be linked to leading indicators of health and safety performance (i.e. how well does the funding relate or link to policy or programmatic outcomes? What metrics are or can be used to
measure performance of projects? Are grants funding 3rd party activities be better allocated to internal projects?).
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
59
Appendix IV – Stakeholder Consultation (continued)
Internal Stakeholder Engagement (continued)
Performance and Outcomes Management

The Program’s outcomes are not well monitored by either the WSIB or the MoL. A correlation between the work of the program and improved outcomes (i.e. reduction in incidents and accidents, fewer
claims, etc) cannot easily be drawn;

The WSIB’s movement towards stronger evidence-based decision-making Program must be strongly supported by a well-aligned research portfolio; and


Ongoing monitoring and measuring of outcomes – i.e. the medium and long-term impact of research is not in place. Establishing a robust performance and accountability framework will:
•
Assist with monitoring research outcomes;
•
Serve as a tool to communicate both impact and value for money to stakeholders and potential “blue ribbon” researchers;
•
Provide oversight for managing transfer of 3rd party funds; and
•
Provide ongoing feedback regarding the efficacy of the program; this information could then be further used to select future projects.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
60
Appendix IV – Stakeholder Consultation (continued)
Internal Stakeholder Engagement (continued)
Branding and Reputation

Additionally, the Board is well-positioned to leverage the potential of the Program in strengthening the brand recognition (and value proposition) of the Board, in particular:
•
The role of the Board as a knowledge expert and advancing the body of knowledge in safety and prevention;
•
The role of the Board in shaping leading practices in injury and accident prevention; and
•
Leveraging advancements in leading practices to strengthen relationships with partners/stakeholders/coalitions, etc.
Relationship Management

Stakeholders commented that there is overlap or duplication between projects – the current mechanisms used to identify funding recipients do not take into consideration the potential interdependencies
between agencies and their research interests; and

Current WSIB web pages are out-dated and are not seen as a useful tool in knowledge translation.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
61
Appendix IV – Stakeholder Consultation (continued)
External Stakeholder Engagement
External Stakeholders and their organizations are listed below:
Name





















Paul Demers
Alec Farquhar
Geoff Fernie
Rosa Fiorentino
Colin Grieve
George Gritziotis
Hugh Gunz
Linn Holness
Steve Horwath
Roland Hosein
Lisa McCaskell
Clarence McPherson
Terry Mundell
Cynthia Morton
Cam Mustard
Anthony Pasteris
Terry Sullivan
Clive Thurston
Carmine Tiano
Richard Wells
David Wilson
Organization





















Occupational Cancer Research Centre
Chair’s Labour & Injured Workers’ Advisory Committee
RAC
Chair’s Industrial Manufacturers Advisory Committee
RAC
Chief Prevention Officer, MoL
RAC
Centres for Research Expertise (Occupational Disease)
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety
RAC
RAC
Ontario Federation of Labour
Chair’s General Business Advisory Committee
Deputy Minister, MoL
Institute for Work & Health
Minerva Safety Management Inc.
RAC
Chair’s Construction Industry Advisory Committee (CIAC)
RAC
Centre for Research Expertise (Musculoskeletal Disorders)
Parachute
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
62
Appendix IV – Stakeholder Consultation (continued)
External Stakeholder Engagement
General Impressions

Strong general recognition of the importance of research in prevention and safety – i.e. those interviewed believed that there is a role for the WSIB and the various players to play in the deployment of
research related to prevention and safety;

Respondents feel that that while this type of work is well-suited to be housed at the Board, the fact that it is not a stand-alone program has limited the impact and uptake of the research actually
conducted – truly good research that is translated well requires the voices and efforts of many;

The transfer of responsibility on prevention grants from the Board to the MoL is perceived to be a reactive, largely political, decision. The transfer has slowed the overall momentum of the research; the
fact that the MoL has yet to publish a strategic plan related to research has exacerbated the overall (slow) pace of change;

General sense that the RAC structure, and the community of practice that it created, was effective; it brought together senior like-minded individuals who appreciated the opportunity to dialogue on
similar issues undertook a leadership position related to research in Ontario; and


The role/function of the RAC was well-understood and “losing it” in the transfer of responsibility to the MoL was seen as a loss
While the decision-making and overall thoughtfulness by the RAC was viewed as positive and constructive, the perception is that it embodies a ‘searcher’ mentality. Successful Program initiatives were
not selected on the basis of the strength of their alignment with research governing bodies (e.g. Canadian Institute for Health Information) or with the results of environmental scans that have assessed
the needs of vulnerable workers.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
63
Appendix IV – Stakeholder Consultation (continued)
External Stakeholder Engagement (continued)
Strategic Alignment

Program initiatives do not appear to be a strategic priority for the WSIB – this has limited the resources allocated to the program. Ultimately, this has neutralized the overall impact that the program
may have on the Board’s leadership and brand strength; and

Difficult to see the linkage between research conducted/undertaken as part of the WSIB’s program and workplace change (i.e. on-the-ground outcomes). It is also difficult to see translate the outcomes
associated with Program initiatives and a significant impact on the WSIB’s unfunded liability.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
64
Appendix IV – Stakeholder Consultation (continued)
External Stakeholder Engagement (continued)
Governance & Oversight

Program initiatives – both at the MoL and the Board – are not housed as a singular program . Without an assigned leader well-versed and well-connected to prevention research in Ontario/Canada
represents a weak area for this program. Without focused, intentional and outcomes-based leadership, it will be difficult for the program to have any kind of substantial impact; Absence of strong
Program leadership/presence at WSIB, negatively impacts the facility of the Board to be seen as leaders in workplace/safety/injury-related research;

Decentralized accountability structure and dissolution of the RAC has minimized potential synergy in research projects and between the MoL and WSIB; and

A common leadership/governance structure/framework would foster greater connectivity and communication between the various stakeholders. It would also support and engender a more holistic systems
approach to research in this sector.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
65
Appendix IV – Stakeholder Consultation (continued)
External Stakeholder Engagement (continued)
Knowledge Management/Knowledge Translation

Both knowledge management and knowledge translation have not been areas of core strength for the Board;

The Program as a whole does not embody a deep understanding of the needs of the vulnerable worker or “today’s worker” which is characterized by diversity and ethnicity;

There is no framework to support communicating and translating the key learnings from the Program. An over-arching communication/knowledge translation plan is not in place (or at least, not wellknown or understood by stakeholders); this has limited the uptake and general understanding of the work of the program; and

The RAC structure was generally recognized as “working” and a forum to engage learned leaders on research. However, it did not include “knowledge users.” (e.g. an organization’s Prevention Officer,
Human Performance Manager or actual line worker).
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
66
Appendix IV – Stakeholder Consultation (continued)
External Stakeholder Engagement (continued)
Outcome and Performance Management

An over-arching performance management framework is not in place. As a result, the Board has no mechanism to truly assess the performance of the program. As a whole, a clear understanding of the
true impact of the Program cannot be ascertained.
Strategic Systems Thinking

The various stakeholders (i.e. WSIB, MoL, IWH, etc) would do well to view themselves (as it pertains to research) not as individual contributors or “players” when it comes to research, but as partners
in the design, management and delivery of research in the prevention arena. Currently there is no “system” in place. Rather, the design, management and delivery of research is done by a group of
somewhat disparate stakeholder who come together episodically to provide insight into the selection of initiatives, but who are not supported by an overall strategic plan for research. In addition, these
stakeholders are further “unsupported” by a lack of other planning tools, such as communication plan, knowledge management plan, or plan to monitor and measure performance; and

Exacerbating existing challenges in the sense that the design and delivery of research is a linear process – and that roles and responsibilities for each stakeholder are firm, and independent from one
another. In fact feedback from stakeholders and leading practices suggest that research requires stakeholder alignment around common themes or risks. It also indicates that practice of selecting and
conducting research is a complex and adaptive system. Roles and responsibilities are not firm – they are fluid and require continuous evaluation to be effective.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
67
Appendix V
Jurisdictional & Leading Practice Review
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
68
Appendix V – Jurisdictional & Leading Practice Review
As part of the value for money audit, KPMG conducted a jurisdictional and leading practice review to compare and contrast the WSIB grants and research governance management practices. KPMG selected
comparator groups for review including: the Worker’s Compensation Board, Alberta; the Worker’s Compensation Board, Manitoba, WorkSafe BC; the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH); the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

Our examination and analysis was focused on the review of Operational and Governance Structures, Knowledge Management and Types of Research Undertaken. Table 1, below, illustrates a comparison
between WSIB and its peers across these categories.

KPMG also reviewed the activities and processes used by various research institutes and universities.
Overarching
Overarching
Governing
Administrative
Body (OGB)
Body (OAB)
Use of
Internal
Expertise
in OGB
Use of
Academia
in OGB
Use of
Industry
Basic
Applied
Expertise
Research
Research
Outreach
(Knowledge
in OGB
Transfer)
Internal
Third Party
Research
Research
Purchase
of
Research
Name
WCB - Alberta
WCB - Manitoba
WorkSafeBC
FIOH
CIHR
NIOSH
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
69
Appendix V – Jurisdictional & Leading Practice Review (continued)
Leading Practices
KPMG’s review of Leading Practices suggests that high-performing agencies undertake the following core activities:
1.
View research as a system of interdependent and interdisciplinary stakeholders each with a unique role to play in the successful achievement of outcomes. No “one” agency or stakeholder is the “primary
sponsor” or custodian of research;
2.
Establish an inspiring vision for research (e.g. reducing vulnerability in the workplace, reducing incidence and prevalence of injury);
3.
Set in place an effective governance and management structure to provide adequate insight, oversight and foresight into research;
4.
Develop and validate a 3-5 year research strategic plan consisting of a vision, mission, objectives and measurable outcomes;
5.
Develop and validate a complementary communication/knowledge management plan to share both processes and results as broadly as possible to a wide range of stakeholders including policy makers,
program managers, workplaces, unions and worker representatives, employers and the broader health and safety research and practitioner community;
6.
Rigorously monitor outcomes and adjust practices in order to achieve them;
7.
Align strategic plans with those of similar organizations or leading practice research agencies;
8.
Engage in continuous environmental scanning (formally every year, and ongoing throughout the year) to better understand and act on emerging trends and needs;
9.
Set in place and communicate clear, measurable and achievable criteria for the selection of proposals and/or initiatives;
10.
Engage in a variety of research: basic, applied , third party, etc. to address short, medium and long term areas of inquiry;
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
70
Appendix V – Jurisdictional & Leading Practice Review (continued)
Leading Practices (continued)
11.
Understand that research reflects complex and adaptive systems that require communities of practice amongst stakeholders. These communities engage in environmental scanning, monitoring and
measuring outcomes and identifying novel practices;
12.
Employ the use of peer reviewers to evaluate proposals and outcomes. Subject matter reviewers should have a deep understanding of the respective research areas and objectives detailed in the strategic
plan which they will be responsible for;
13.
Establish advisory committees to provide feedback and insight into current state assessments and strategic planning. Embed knowledge users (e.g. front-line health and safety personnel, educators and
consultants), academics and practitioners into these groups; and
14.
Continuously evaluate both the process (plans, structures, evaluation criteria, performance reporting, etc.) and the outcomes (advancing the body of knowledge and the applied impact in the workplace)
of research.
© 2014 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.
71