As both a policy student and a public servant I have seen numerous examples of what is referred to in policy as a “wicked problem”.  A wicked problem is defined by Wong as a “social or cultural problem that’s difficult or impossible to solve—normally because of its complex and interconnected nature” (Wong, 2020). Solutions to wicked problems are often complex and involve multiple sectors, and may at times outline macro challenges with underlying system gaps (Rao, 2019).

My focus as a student and public servant has been applying the client centered approach to develop a strategy to close gaps for clients involving a careful analysis of the systems and structures to ensure these gaps are addressed (Roundtreee and Pomeroy, 2010). 

Research suggests that collaborative networks and strategies are key to resolving complex problems (Agranoff, 2006). In government, effective leaders are able to apply interconnected strategies within Ministries and intersectorally at the Municipal, Provincial, and Federal level. The interconnectedness of the public sector involves problems that cross traditional boundaries which at times require collaborative strategies (Longo, 2019). Being aware of the cross jurisdictional issues as well as strategies to address them is key. Interministerial committees and joint initiatives are both methods public servants utilize to support the common client.

Conklin outlines the steps to true collaboration which includes the need for all members of the team to be a true part of the decision making process.

The first two steps are:

1. Developing a shared understanding of the problem. This step is key as often the “problem” may be defined differently by each sector; next develop a
2. Shared commitment to potential solutions, as well as a clear agreed plan on how to address (Conklin, 2020).

Examples of these system gaps often appear in the areas of homelessness, poverty, addictions, domestic violence, and mental health. All five areas are often supported by different agencies, and responsibility at times falls to specific Ministries.

Looking specifically at homelessness in Saskatchewan, not one specific Ministry is responsible which can result in gaps to clients. One Ministry may have a mandate to support clients at a specific point of time or system specific such as the hospital, correction systems, or financial assistance, however there is not an overall mandate to address these complex issues.

Research has shown clients with multiple factors often face the biggest system gaps and require support to navigate multiple systems.

Policy analysts  play an important role in closing the gaps and addressing societal issues.  Prates describes this role as “effective connection between policy, science and society” (Prates, 2020). O’Leary speaks about the importance of public servants being aware of system gaps and the need to form Intersectoral partnerships (2012) .

Cross sectoral impacts of homelessness are evident requiring a cooperative approach by ministries, various levels of government, along with coordination with the community.  Coordinated strategies involve identification of system gaps and strategizing together to address common issues.  In Saskatchewan some of the main stakeholders in this area are Ministry of Health, Education, Addictions Services, Corrections and Public Safety, and Social Services. Coordination and communication between these stakeholders is key. Awareness of each systems mandate and ability to support shared clients as well as a development of a shared pathway to support is crucial.

When you look specifically at homelessness in Saskatchewan, several municipalities have completed research and developed plans to end homelessness in the last few years. The research outlines the high shelter-income-ratios for households as well as the cost efficiency of providing supports to reduce costs for numerous sectors including health and justice. Saskatoon’s study outlined the need for Interministerial support in order to effectively support clients in homelessness (Reaching Home: Canada’s Homelessness Strategy; Saskatoon Community Plan).

This strategy is transferable across service areas specifically in the human services sector. 

Collaborative strategies that work include a joint understanding of the issues, agreed outcomes, strong communication, as well as a commitment from all parties toward the agreed outputs. Collaboration has proven to reduce silos and bring multiple divisions and agencies together to work on a common goal, often resulting in innovative strategies and increased efficiency.

As a policy analyst champion innovative strategies that step outside of the box to explore alternative new ways to address issues. Ensure stakeholders, and specifically the clients impacted by decisions have a voice in proposed changes. When possible work Interministerially toward positive outcomes for cross divisional clients, applying the approach of “One Team” by reflecting the goals of diversity, inclusion, and reconciliation, which will support positive social impact.  Piloted projects and Interministerial partnership such as HUBs show that coordinated services leads to better outcomes for clients.

Reference List

Agranoff, R. (2006). Inside Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons for Public Managers. Public Administration Review, 66, 56-65. Accessed January 12, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4096570

Cohen, Allan and Bradford, David. 2017. Influence Without Authority. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley  & Sons, Inc.

Conklin, Jeff. October 2005. Dialogue Mapping: Building shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. CogNexus Institute. Accessed January 15, 2021. https://cognexus.org/wpf/wickedproblems.pdf

Coughlan, Paul and Ana Carolina de Almeida Kumlien. October 18, 2018. “Wicked Problems and how to solve them”. The Conversation. Accessed August 2020. https://theconversation.com/wicked-problems-and-how-to-solve-them-100047

Engel, Jim. 2020. JSGS  808 Ethical Leadership Course Material. ““Resilience and Healthy Workplaces  Power Point Presentation”.  March 12, 2020.  

Everyone is Home: A Five- Year Plan to End Chronic and Episodic Homelessness in Regina. Accessed December 2020. http://endhomelessnessregina.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/P2EH-Full-Final-0610.pdf

Government of Canada. 2021. Public Safety Canada: The Hub Model/ Situation Table, Accessed August 16, 2021. Crime Prevention Inventory (publicsafety.gc.ca)

Government of Saskatchewan. 2016. Taking Action on Poverty: The Saskatchewan Poverty Reduction Strategy. Accessed October 2020. https://www.saskatchewan.ca/government/news-and-media/2016/february/24/poverty-reduction-strategy

Graham, John R., Shier, Michael L., and Roger Delaney. 2017. Canadian Social Policy: A New Introduction,   Fifth Edition. Toronto: Pearson

Kouzes, James M. & Posner, Barry Z. 2003. The Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership Article. Pfeiffer, A  Wiley Imprint.

Longo, Justin. 2019. JSGS  807 Statistics of Public Managers Course Material.

Marshall, Jim. 2020. JSGS 838  Financial Management Course Material. “Week 6 and 7 PowerPoint”. UR Courses.

Nilson, C. (2014). Risk-driven collaborative intervention: A preliminary impact assessment of Community Mobilization Prince Albert’s Hub Model. Saskatoon, SK: Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science and Justice Studies, University of Saskatchewan. Available from: http://www.mobilizepa.ca/tools-docs/documents/risk-driven-collaborative-intervention
Notten, Geranda & Laforest, Rachel. 2016. Poverty reduction strategies in Canada: A new way to tackle an old problem? United Nations University.


O’Leary, Rosemary & Gerard, Catherine. 2012.  Collaboration Across Boundaries: Insights and Tips from  Federal Senior Executives. The Maxwell School of Syracuse University


Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General. (2016). Guidance on information sharing in multi-sectoral risk intervention models. https://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/Publications/PSDGuidanceInformationSharingMultisectoralRiskInterventionModels.html


Prates, Ines, January 22, 2020. “How to use evidence in policymaking. Can evidence in policy be the antidote we need for climate change?” Apolitical. Accessed April 2, 2021. https://apolitical.co/en/solution_article/how-to-use-evidence-in- policymaking#:~:text=Why%20is%20evidence%20in%20 policy%20important%3F&text=In%20this%20context%2C%20 there%20is,key%20scientific%20findings%20into%20account

Rao, Saskriti. September 5, 2019. “The Gaps Model of Service Quality: Chapter 3”. Mad About Growth. Accessed January 2021. https://medium.com/madaboutgrowth/the-gaps-model-of-service-quality-chapter-3-30fc290f06b0

Reaching Home: Canada’s Homelessness Strategy; Saskatoon Community Plan 2019-2024. Accessed December 2020.
https://strategicmanagementmusingshome.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/d1e8d-saskatooncommunityplan-2019-2024.pdf

Rocha, Cynthia J., and Alice K Johnson, “Teaching Family Policy through a Policy Practice Framework.” Journal of Social Work Education, 33(3) (1997), 433–444. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed March 10, 2007).

Rountree, M., & Pomeroy, E. (2010). EDITORIAL: Bridging the Gaps among Social Justice, Research, and Practice. Social Work, 55(4), 293-295. Retrieved September 7, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23719696

Wong, Euphemia, December 2020. ‘Can you solve it?” Interaction Design Foundation. Accessed  January 10, 2021. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/wicked-problems-5-steps-to-help-you-tackle-wicked-problems-by-combining-systems-thinking-with-agile-methodology

The University of Regina annually publishes salaries of employees with a total of $100,000 or more.  Click here to see attached Google Sheet (U of R Prof wages). It doesn’t specifically say which positions are professors, Deans, etc., but when you Google a few of them it seems that most are Professors or Deans from different Faculties. As there are 513 listed employees I did not completely research this due to time constraints. There is sparse information in the spreadsheet so I was unable to do a good comparative analysis. It provides data from 2018 and 2019 so we are able to do some limited comparisons. It does clear up that not only to U of R employees have salaries they also receive Administrative/ Research Stipends, and Market Supplements. What are Administrative, Research Stipends and Market Supplements? Are they a way to hide true salaries or a form of bonus? Are these total salaries a fair wage in comparison to other Universities? This blog will explain the data, verify the data, and further analyze what this data tells us. My Data analysis spreadsheet is attached below.

What all is included in this spreadsheet? The first few columns show the first and last names of the people. Next you can see the information salary specific in both 2018 and 2019 separately. The spreadsheet also has columns which show Administrative/ Research Stipends and Market Supplements in each year. This is listed specifically for each individual. The data table also totals up for each individual the Total overall Salary for each year. I was unsure how totals were calculated in this spreadsheet as there were no formulas, so I completed calculations of my own. I used Excel formulas to obtain a sum of all 2018 costs and 2019. I calculated these separately for accuracy adding both directions. There appears to be an error in the calculations for 2019 Total Salary there is a difference in $69,207,212.39 is listed however the total is 69,203,654.39 which is a difference of $3558.00. What explains this discrepancy? Is this the only discrepancy? This is of major concern as it affects a lot of the data.

In studying the differences from year to year of note in 2018 #73 employees reported in one year but not in the other, whereas in 2019 there are only 36 staff with zero income. This shows an increase of 37 staff in 2019 which may account for the increases in salaries spent on employees. This indicated 467 people in 2018 with income over 100,000 and 504 people in 2019 with income over 100,000.  This is an 8% increase in staff. This increased staff number is not definite as it could mean more staff entered the income threshold. Of the 36 staff who not reported in 2019 a large majority appeared to be well below the average wage. Were they newer staff who have since found better paying jobs elsewhere? It would be good to know which employees only just appear in one or the other as they were raising to the $100,000 threshold. I had insufficient data to fully explore this theory.

In Reviewing the U of R 2017- 2021 Collective Agreement in Appendix A and B, it explains the Salaries, Supplements, and Stipends. In addition to regular salaries, Heads of Academic Departments as well as Library Department Heads receive a stipend, they are taxable income, basically a bonus for being a Department Head. This stipend depends on the department and responsibility. Increases are decided similar to Out of Scope Government employees in that Performance reviews are used to determine if increments are approved. This is where student reviews and questionnaires come into consideration. Stipend also refers to amounts paid for specific works, a Sessional course developer received $9,000 to develop a course. Administrative/ Research Stipends includes payments for Travelling, Accounting Professional Fees, and the U of R Trust Fund. Market supplements are used to recruit academic staff members or keep members in the position, it is only to be paid when there is proof that academic pressures in the academic market require such payments. There is a limit on the max of market supplements however there appears to be quite the broad range. Why are these costs kept separately rather than included in the salary? In 2018 these Market Supplements added up to $1,033,715.00 while in 2019 they rose and totaled $1,157,168.60. The salary Range in 2018 when we exclude the 0 category is $100,007.00 to $365,998.00 whereas in 2019 the Range is $101,196.00 to $388,025.00. The Market Supplement also has quite the broad difference ranging in 2018 from $1,644 to $22,784 and in 2019 from $1,673 to $23,184. I calculated these ranges by using Max and Min function formulas. Why is there such a broad range in this area? Are the professors with the highest Market Supplements those with extensive resumes and experience or an area very hard to hire in? We don’t have this data readily available as this spreadsheet doesn’t show what area the staff is from or their role. How many of the staff received this? In 2018 108 received on average $9,782.00 and in 2019 114 Employees received and average of$10,354.00. This was a 12% increase.          

 The Administrative Category is also quite broad and ranges from $2,500 to $27,500 in 2018 and $1,873 to $27,675 in 2019. However this information appears clearer as the Administrative Stipends appear to refer to specific Department Head Stipends. The Collective Agreement clearly outlines the amounts paid out in each of these roles. The biggest jump from year to year was in the Administrative/ Research Stipend as it increased 38%. The average rose from $7,423.00 to $9,059.00.

So with Administrative Stipends, Market Supplements, and Salary do Professors in the University of Regina receive a fair wage. In My Data Analysis Tab I completed numerous calculations I calculated the average income of in 2018 to be $115,921.96, and the average rose to $128,154.92 in 2019. The salaries rose between 2018 and 2019 at a rate of 9%. Calculating the average was also complicated. I calculated 9% increase however another calculation expression is 3%. Why such a big difference and what is the correct one. The difference here is when you explain the average as a mean or median. When using the MEDIAN of total salary which is not sensitive to extreme scores and a better definition of the midpoint, for 2018 and 2019 total Salary with all additions you get $125,169 in 2018 and $129,417 in 2019 which is only a 3% increase.  Using another calculation and not taking market supplements and other additions into consideration you could report the salary alone barely raised from 2018 to 2019 changing from $132,035 to $133,449. This is an only 1% increase if you add in total salaries with market supplement etc. you get the 9%. I calculated the 9% when using the percentage change option =newvalue – old value/old value with the mean being used as the definition of average.  All calculations completed showed an increase in salary in 2018 to 2019 even though some with the salary only additions are at a rate of only 1%.To me the Range is a more interesting data set in this spreadsheet. The MODE calculation was also very interesting as it was $106,571.00 in 2018 and in 2019 $103,385.00. Thereby these two incomes were the two most common total incomes in these timeframes.

The information I would like to know when looking at this data, my “wish list” is what is the specifics of each position? There is a broad range of employees at a University, what is their seniority rate of pay? If a professor, how many classes does he/she teach? What are the size of classes they teach, is there a per student ratio affecting their pay? What are the reasons behind the Market supplements? Another question I had from the data provided do these salaries include all expenses such as travel and S4’s? Depending on the role this may be a large part of the employees’ job thus swelling the salary cost.

When comparing with University of Saskatchewan Salaries are posted once they reach $125,000 or more (U of SASK salaries). It is hard to tell if the spreadsheet provided is comparative as the U of R one provided is not broken down by job. U of Sask reports as 1/3 of their funding is from public funds they are obligated to report the higher earning wages.

Now that we know this information is public is it appropriate should it be there? Is this not violating the professor’s privacy? This is discussed in Privacy and open government. Future Internet, 6 (2). I would think in a small city Regina’s size the listing of their wages may make them targets. Does the public deserve to know? In reviewing other public sector jobs such as Government of Saskatchewan Social Services and Health employees, these wages are also public.  On one hand with the tuition increase it was the question public and students were asking was this a direct increase to the professors? Interesting enough though is that some wages may be excluded as the disclosure could threaten the safety of the individual. Why is it safe for some but not for others as the spreadsheet only shows those with wages over $100,000? If some members can ask their information to be protected then this data is not wholesome and may miss a large portion of employees. Is this then a true picture or is the averages skewed?

I found it interesting that this information and other Public Employees info is so public. Overall Public Wages should be public as public funds help cover these wages. Although this information used to be available only through the library it is now publicly available. This is modernizing the availability of this data and keeps them in line with other Public Employees in Saskatchewan.   Public Employees are accountable to the Public and as such their salaries are public domain. Drawbacks to this data being so open is targeted marketing, as well as legal ramifications should liability issues arise personally for these individuals. Privacy concerns exist when this data is in the wrong hands. I think this need to protect personal privacy is balanced by the rule that exists in Regina for people to request their information to be withdrawn. It would be helpful if there was a way their info is withdrawn but the data remains such as Anonymous subject #1, as should not they still be entitled to release the data? As information was limited prior accessible only through the library this would have highly limited who could obtain the data. Could a balance be sought, online library requiring a sign in an out option?

Overall this data is interesting but it is missing the mark in some areas making the data quite incomplete. I don’t feel this data gives me the full picture of U of R Employees wages and is it doesn’t break down the positions I wasn’t able to do a comparative study to other Universities. Any future releases of this data should include these breakdowns.

• 

• 

https://1drv.ms/x/s!AlyR3GUdG3gKhE8cjFVow8y1Fn3W