2023 Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey: Report on the Results for the Federal Public Service
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Overview of the survey
- Merit, fairness and transparency in staffing
- Biases and barriers in staffing processes
- Overall findings
- Results for the 4 employment equity groups
-
Breakdown for each stage of hiring process
- Participation in a staffing process for a promotion
- Managers’ perceptions of staffing advice and support
- Consideration of priority entitlements
- Hiring managers’ perceptions of staffing practices and staffing advice
- Innovative staffing practices or initiatives
- Diversity and inclusion initiatives
- Political activities and non-partisanship
- Conclusion
- Appendix A: Methodology
- Appendix B: Comparator groups for employment equity groups
- Appendix C: Respondent profile
Introduction
About the survey
The Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC) is responsible for promoting and safeguarding a merit-based, representative and non-partisan public service that serves all Canadians.
As part of the PSC’s mandate and responsibilities to oversee the integrity of the federal public service staffing system and ensure non-partisanship, the Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey was introduced in 2018 as a biennial public service-wide survey. The survey targets employees, managers and staffing advisors to gather their views on a wide range of staffing-related topics, including:
- perceptions of merit, fairness and transparency
- organizational staffing policies and practices
- awareness of rights and responsibilities related to political activities and non-partisanship
In 2023, as a result of the changes to the Public Service Employment Act, new questions were added to identify biases and barriers experienced in staffing processes, and to evaluate the perceptions of respondents who identify as members of certain equity-seeking groups.
According to the Employment Equity Act, employment equity aims to achieve equality in the workplace and to correct conditions of disadvantage in employment for the 4 designated employment equity groups: women, Indigenous Peoples Footnote 1, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities.
In 2023, the Public Service Employment Act was amended to strengthen diversity and inclusion and address biases and barriers faced by equity-seeking groups.
Equity-seeking groups refer to groups of persons who are disadvantaged on the basis of one or more prohibited grounds of discrimination within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The 13 prohibited grounds of discrimination are: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability, and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted, or for which a record suspension has been ordered.
This report provides a summary of the survey’s key results for:
- employees of departments and agencies that fall under the Public Service Employment Act
- members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have civilian (that is, public servant) direct reports employed under the Public Service Employment Act
- regular members, civilian members and special constables of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police hired under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act with public service direct reports employed under the Public Service Employment Act
A separate report will present detailed results on the perceptions of employment equity groups and certain equity-seeking groups, based on the new demographics added to the survey (marital status, number of dependents, religion and sexual orientation).
The PSC has also developed interactive data visualization tools that allows users to explore the survey data and generate customized data tables.
If you have any questions about this report, please email us at: cfp.sdip-snps.psc@cfp-psc.gc.ca.
Overview of the survey
The 2023 Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey is an online survey of federal public servants, administered on behalf of the Public Service Commission of Canada by Advanis, a Canadian market and social research firm. The survey was sent to all employees in 77 federal departments and agencies. A total of 84 741 responses were received, for a response rate of 31.7%. The methodological approach is described in Appendix A.
Merit, fairness and transparency in staffing
This section presents a summary of responses to questions on the themes of merit, fairness and transparency in the staffing process. Within each theme, the results presented in the tables include all in-scope respondents.
Merit
Overall, employees’ perceptions of merit in the staffing process are very similar to 2021. As seen in Table 1, 84% of respondents agreed that people hired in their organization can do the job (exactly the same proportion as in 2021). As well, 83% (versus 84% in 2021) agreed that advertised job requirements reflect those of the position to be filled.
| Statements related to merit | 2021 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| We hire people who can do the job | 84% | 84% |
| Advertised job requirements reflect those of the position to be filled | 84% | 83% |
Fairness
The perception of fairness in the staffing process is identical to 2021, with 77% of respondents agreeing that the process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly (see Table 2).
| Statements related to fairness | 2021 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| Process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly | 77% | 77% |
Transparency
As shown in Table 3, perceptions related to transparency in the staffing process are similar to 2021. The survey found that 7 out of 10 employees (70%) agreed that staffing activities are carried out in a transparent way (versus 72% in 2021). As well, nearly 3 quarters (72%) of respondents agreed that their manager keeps them informed of staffing decisions involving their work unit (versus 71% in 2021).
| Statements related to transparency | 2021 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| Staffing activities are carried out in a transparent way | 72% | 70% |
| Manager keeps me informed of staffing decisions involving my work unit | 71% | 72% |
Biases and barriers in staffing processes
In June 2021, the Public Service Employment Act was amended to address systemic barriers for equity-seeking groups in public service staffing processes.
As part of its mandate, the PSC is gathering information on biases and barriers to help departments and agencies implement the changes to the act, so they can establish programs and policies to reduce barriers and encourage more inclusive recruitment practices.
For the purpose of this report, an overview of results with respect to perceived biases and barriers for the 4 designated employment equity groups is included. A detailed analysis for equity-seeking groups will be included in the thematic report that will be available in the coming months.
Overall findings
Overall, 55% of employees indicated that within their department or agency, staffing processes are conducted in a way that reduces or eliminates biases and barriers that disadvantage people belonging to any equity-seeking group, in assessment methods used in staffing processes. A third of respondents (33%) indicated that they did not know, and the remaining 12% answered in the negative.
Among employees who participated in an advertised staffing process between September 16, 2022, and September 15, 2023, 18% indicated that they had experienced biases and barriers in the staffing process that disadvantaged them (see Table 4).
Results for the 4 employment equity groups
In this report, the term “comparator group” for a given employment equity group refers to employees who are not members of that employment equity group.
Members of visible minorities (24% versus 16% for employees who are not members of visible minorities), Indigenous Peoples (22% versus 18% for non-Indigenous Peoples), and persons with disabilities (26% versus 15% for persons without disabilities) were more likely than their respective comparator groups to say that they had experienced biases and barriers in the staffing process that disadvantaged them.
On the other hand, women (16%) were slightly less likely than men (19%) to say that they had experienced biases and barriers in the staffing process that disadvantaged them. People who identified as another gender were the most likely to report facing biases and barriers that put them at a disadvantage in staffing processes (36%).
| Respondent category | Yes | No | Don’t know |
|---|---|---|---|
| All respondents | 18% | 59% | 23% |
| Women | 16% | 61% | 23% |
| Men | 19% | 59% | 21% |
| Another gender | 36% | 35% | 30% |
| Members of visible minorities | 24% | 47% | 29% |
| Not members of visible minorities | 16% | 64% | 20% |
| Indigenous Peoples | 22% | 57% | 21% |
| Non-Indigenous Peoples | 18% | 59% | 23% |
| Persons with disabilities | 26% | 49% | 25% |
| Persons without disabilities | 15% | 64% | 21% |
Breakdown for each stage of hiring process
As seen in Table 5, biases and barriers were mostly reported at the organizational screening stage of the hiring process (37%), followed by interviews (30%), job application (29%) and automatic screening stages (29%). (At the automated screening stage, applications are screened using the Public Service Resourcing System, based on a candidate’s responses to a set of questions or criteria established by the hiring manager.) A smaller proportion of respondents reported experiencing biases and barriers at the reference check stage (7%).
Women
A smaller proportion of women than men said that they had experienced biases and barriers:
- at the job application stage (26% versus 31% for men)
- at the automated screening stage (27% versus 30% for men)
- at the organizational screening stage (33% versus 41% for men)
Members of visible minorities
Members of visible minorities were more likely than employees who are not members of visible minorities to report experiencing biases and barriers in all stages of the hiring process. The widest gaps were seen at the appointment (30% versus 21% for employees who are not members of visible minorities) and at the interview stages (36% versus 28% for employees who are not members of visible minorities).
Indigenous Peoples
Indigenous Peoples were slightly less likely than non-Indigenous Peoples to report experiencing biases and barriers:
- at the job application stage (27% versus 29% for non-Indigenous Peoples)
- at the automated screening stage (26% versus 29% for non-Indigenous Peoples)
- at the organizational screening stage (35% versus 37% for non-Indigenous Peoples)
However, they were more likely to report that they had experienced biases and barriers at the interview stage (34% versus 30% for non-Indigenous Peoples).
Persons with disabilities
Persons with disabilities were more likely than those without disabilities to report experiencing biases and barriers at most stages of the hiring process, with the largest gaps reported at the written exam (22% versus 14% for persons without disabilities) and at the interview stages (34% versus 28% for persons without disabilities).
People who identified as another gender
The other group of respondents who identified facing biases and barriers at the written exam stage are those who identified as another gender (26%). They were also the most likely to report facing biases and barriers at the job application stage (39%).
| Respondent category | Job application stage | Automated screening stage | Organizational screening stage | Written exam stage | Interviews stage | Reference checks stage | Appointments stage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All respondents | 29% | 29% | 37% | 17% | 30% | 7% | 24% |
| Women | 26% | 27% | 33% | 17% | 30% | 7% | 24% |
| Men | 31% | 30% | 41% | 17% | 30% | 7% | 24% |
| Another gender | 39% | 29% | 31% | 26% | 37% | 8% | 17% |
| Members of visible minorities | 30% | 31% | 40% | 19% | 36% | 9% | 30% |
| Not members of visible minorities | 28% | 28% | 35% | 16% | 28% | 6% | 21% |
| Indigenous Peoples | 27% | 26% | 35% | 19% | 34% | 9% | 25% |
| Non-Indigenous Peoples | 29% | 29% | 37% | 17% | 30% | 7% | 24% |
| Persons with disabilities | 32% | 31% | 39% | 22% | 34% | 9% | 23% |
| Persons without disabilities | 27% | 27% | 35% | 14% | 28% | 7% | 25% |
Notes for Table 5:
- Note 1: Respondents were allowed to select multiple answers.
- Note 2: Automated screening is the stage where applications are screened using the Public Service Resourcing System, based on a candidate’s responses to a set of questions or criteria established by the hiring manager.
Participation in a staffing process for a promotion
About a third (31%) of all federal public service employees surveyed participated in an advertised staffing process for a promotion in the past 12 months, an increase compared to 2021 (28%).
Among the remaining 69% of employees (versus 72% in 2021) who did not seek a promotion through an advertised staffing process:
- 43% (versus 39% in 2021) indicated there were no opportunities for a promotion
- 33% (versus 42% in 2021) said that it was because they were satisfied with their current group and level
Fewer employees were concerned that a promotion would affect their work-life balance (14% in 2023 versus 33% of employees wanting to maintain their work-life balance in 2021). One fifth of employees (21% versus 19% in 2021) indicated that the application process is burdensome, while others said that staffing processes take too long to complete (17% versus 15% in 2021). Only 1% (versus 8% in 2021) indicated that they did not participate in a staffing process for a promotion due to circumstances directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic (see Table 6).
| Reasons for not participating in advertised staffing process for promotion | 2021 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| No promotion opportunities were available | 39% | 43% |
| I am satisfied with my current group and level | 42% | 33% |
| Application process is burdensome | 19% | 21% |
| Staffing processes take too long to complete | 15% | 17% |
| I was concerned that this move would affect my work-life balance / I want to maintain my work-life balance (2021) | 33% | 14% |
| I have no interest in moving to a management or executive position | 19% | 11% |
| I was concerned that my pay would be affected by issues with the Phoenix pay system | 15% | 11% |
| I did not meet the language requirements for the positions | 13% | 11% |
| Advertised positions were meant for specific persons | 11% | 11% |
| I have not been at my current group and level for a long time | 21% | 10% |
| I do not believe that staffing processes are fair | 13% | 9% |
| I did not meet the essential qualifications for the positions | 8% | 7% |
| I was concerned that I may not be successful | 6% | 7% |
| I am not geographically mobile | 7% | 6% |
| I was concerned that my current accommodation measures may not be accepted in a new position | 4% | 5% |
| I am retiring shortly | 7% | 4% |
| Circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic | 8% | 1% |
| Other reasons | 14% | 14% |
Note for Table 6: Respondents were allowed to select multiple answers.
Virtual interviews versus in-person interviews
Among employees who participated in a staffing activity that had used virtual assessments, 70% reported that virtual assessments had allowed them to demonstrate their qualifications (versus 82% for virtual interviews in 2021). As well, 75% were satisfied with virtual interviews in comparison to in-person interviews, a decrease compared to 2021 (81%).
Managers’ perceptions of staffing advice and support
Overall, as seen in Table 7, the same share of managers indicated that they understand their organization’s policies with respect to staffing (84% in both 2021 and 2023). However, fewer managers reported that staffing has improved within their organization (45% versus 47% in 2021) and that staffing within their organization has been simplified (29% versus 35% in 2021).
Compared to 2021, a greater proportion of managers believed that the process to staff a position is burdensome (86% versus 82% in 2021) while a smaller share believes that staffing options available within their organization allow them to address their staffing needs as quickly as required (33% versus 38% in 2021).
As well, 52% of managers agreed that staffing options available within their organization provide them with the flexibility to appoint people to meet the needs of their work unit (not asked in 2021).
| Statement about staffing process | 2021 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| Understandable: I understand my organization’s policies with respect to staffing | 84% | 84% |
| Improved: Staffing has improved within my organization (2023) / Staffing has improved within my organization over the past 2 years (2021) | 47% | 45% |
| Simplified: Staffing within my organization has been simplified (2023) / Staffing has been simplified within my organization over the past 2 years (2021) | 35% | 29% |
| Administrative ease: The process to staff a position is burdensome | 82% | 86% |
| Efficiency: Staffing options available within my organization allow me to address my staffing needs as quickly as required | 38% | 33% |
| Flexibility: Staffing options available within my organization provide me with the flexibility to appoint persons to meet the needs of my work unit | n/a | 52% |
Adequate staffing advice (50%) and sufficient staffing support (43%) were the main reasons provided by managers to explain why staffing has been simplified within their organization (not asked in 2021), as shown in Table 8.
| Reason for simplified staffing within organization | 2023 |
|---|---|
| Adequate staffing advice | 50% |
| Sufficient staffing support | 43% |
| Less people involved | 27% |
| Adequate screening tools | 27% |
| Less paperwork | 26% |
| Less approval stages | 24% |
| Fewer candidates to assess | 17% |
| Second language evaluation (SLE) takes less time | 16% |
| The priority clearance process takes less time | 15% |
| Security clearance takes less time | 13% |
| Developing assessment tools takes less time | 12% |
| Other reasons | 11% |
Note for Table 8: Respondents were allowed to select multiple answers.
As shown in Table 9, the main reasons provided by managers as to why staffing within their organization is burdensome were:
- too much paperwork (64%)
- too many approval stages (59%)
- the security clearance process takes too much time (57%)
| Reason why staffing system is burdensome | 2023 |
|---|---|
| Too much paperwork | 64% |
| Too many approval stages | 59% |
| Security clearance process takes too much time | 57% |
| Time to staff requirements | 49% |
| Too many people involved | 44% |
| Not enough staffing support | 41% |
| Developing assessment tools takes too much time | 34% |
| Second language evaluation takes too much time | 32% |
| Inadequate staffing advice | 29% |
| Inadequate screening tools | 20% |
| Too many candidates to assess | 11% |
| Other reasons | 16% |
Notes for Table 9:
- Note 1: Respondents were allowed to select multiple answers.
- Note 2: Data for 2021 was not included due to answer options being modified.
Consideration of priority entitlements
Priority entitlement provides certain qualified people, who meet specific conditions, with an entitlement to be appointed ahead of all other candidates to a position within the public service. Additional information can be found on the information on the priority entitlements page.
Results from the 2023 survey reveal that 80% of staffing advisors believe that managers are open to considering persons with a priority entitlement referred to them when staffing positions. In 2023, 38% of managers were of the view that persons with priority entitlements are a valuable source of qualified candidates, an increase compared to 2021 (34%). However, 29% of managers said that they did not agree that persons with a priority entitlement are a valuable source or qualified candidates, while 33% of managers said they did not know.
Managers who did not agree that persons with a priority entitlement are a valuable source of qualified candidates were asked to give reasons why. The most common perceptions among those managers were that persons with a priority entitlement do not possess the essential qualifications and that persons with a priority entitlement require additional training to get up to speed.
| Statement about persons with priority entitlements | 2021 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| Persons with a priority entitlement are a valuable source of qualified candidates | 34% | 38% |
| Persons with a priority entitlement that are hired meet performance expectations | n/a | 30% |
Hiring managers’ perceptions of staffing practices and staffing advice
Overall, 75% (versus 78% in 2021) of hiring managers were satisfied with the staffing services they have received from their organization (see Table 11).
Most hiring managers (95% versus 96% in 2021) indicated that appointees meet the performance expectations of the positions for which they were hired. A similar proportion (94% versus 95% in 2021) felt comfortable explaining staffing decisions to their employees. In addition, 13% (versus 11% in 2021) felt pressure to select a particular candidate.
Furthermore, 80% of hiring managers agreed that the use of virtual assessments allowed them to evaluate candidates efficiently when conducting staffing processes, which is lower than the level of agreement observed in 2021 (91%) in relation to the use of virtual interviews.
| Statement about staffing practices and advice | 2021 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| The use of virtual assessments allows to evaluate candidates efficiently when conducting staffing processes / The use of virtual interviews allows to evaluate candidates efficiently when conducting staffing processes (2021) | 91% | 80% |
| The appointees meet the performance expectations of the positions for which they were hired | 96% | 95% |
| I felt comfortable explaining staffing decisions to my employees | 95% | 94% |
| I felt pressure to select a particular candidate | 11% | 13% |
| Overall, I am satisfied with the staffing services I have received from my organization | 78% | 75% |
More than 2 thirds (68%) of hiring managers who were not satisfied or satisfied to a minimal extent with the staffing services they received from their organization would like to receive support and advice in finding new approaches to staffing. In addition, 53% of hiring managers would like to receive advice, tools and guidance to support staffing decisions, and 46% would like greater advice and guidance with existing pools of candidates within their organization (see Table 12).
| Statement about receiving more advice and guidance | 2023 |
|---|---|
| Finding new approaches to staffing | 68% |
| Advice, tools and guidance to support staffing decisions | 53% |
| Existing pools of candidates within your organization | 46% |
| Aligning your staffing needs with the priorities of your organization’s Human Resources plan or People Management plan | 35% |
| Establishing the merit criteria | 33% |
| Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC) recruitment programs | 23% |
| Establishing the area of selection | 20% |
| Risk identification and risk mitigation | 18% |
| Employment equity considerations | 14% |
| Legislative and policy interpretations | 14% |
| Accessibility, diversity and/or inclusion | 13% |
| Consideration of persons with a priority entitlement | 11% |
| Assessment accommodation measures | 11% |
| Other areas | 25% |
Innovative staffing practices or initiatives
The 2023 survey included new questions on innovative staffing practices and initiatives. Overall, 13% of employees indicated that their organization has undertaken innovative staffing practices or initiatives. A follow-up open-ended question asked for details on these practices and initiatives. This additional information helped identify 4 themes:
- Diversity and inclusion: A significant proportion of the comments received were related to equity, diversity and inclusion. Respondents mainly mentioned recruitment initiatives for employment equity groups, including targeted processes for these groups. They also commented on the use of specific tools to reduce biases and barriers, such as anonymized recruitment and blind assessments, telephone interviews, interview transcripts (to eliminate potential biases related to accent and appearance), bias checklists, support of an external HR consultant, use of a diverse assessment board, and manager training on unconscious biases.
- Innovative staffing mechanisms and tools: Another important part of the feedback received was related to various staffing mechanisms including greater use of non-advertised processes, pools (including sharing between departments), regional recruitment initiatives and acting opportunities. Respondents also referred to several third-party tools and methods used in the hiring process. These included virtual, pre-recorded, telephone and group interviews as well as character interviews for senior management positions. In addition, respondents pointed out specific innovations related to assessment flexibility, such as offering more time for exams, being able to complete them at home, or using an online platform to hold these exams.
- Career development: Career development was another area where a number of innovations were identified. Respondents’ examples included development programs such as the Talent Bank project, which is an internal staffing tool to identify talent within an organization and create internal opportunities. It was initially launched by Statistics Canada, however similar initiatives from other departments were also reported. Mentoring (for example, Mentorship Plus), talent management programs for certain professional groups or employment equity groups, sponsorship and micro-missions were also perceived as innovative.
- Student hiring: Some respondents also identified a number of student recruitment initiatives as innovative and helpful, such as: university partnerships to recruit students in specific fields, simplified processes for hiring Federal Student Work Experience Program students, school job fairs, virtual fairs, hackathons and student bridging into indeterminate positions.
Diversity and inclusion initiatives
Nearly 3 quarters (72%) of employees agreed that diversity and inclusion initiatives related to staffing within their organization are adequate to support building a diverse and representative workforce (see Table 13).
Members of all employment equity groups were less likely to agree with this statement compared to their respective comparator groups:
- 72% of women agreed, compared to 74% of men
- 63% of members of visible minorities agreed, compared to 75% of people who were not members of visible minorities
- 63% of Indigenous Peoples agreed, compared to 72% of non-Indigenous Peoples
- 65% of persons with disabilities agreed, compared to 74% of persons without disabilities
People identifying as another gender were the least likely to agree with this statement (46%).
| Respondent category | 2023 |
|---|---|
| All respondents | 72% |
| Women | 72% |
| Men | 74% |
| Another gender | 46% |
| Members of visible minorities | 63% |
| Not members of visible minorities | 75% |
| Indigenous Peoples | 63% |
| Non-Indigenous Peoples | 72% |
| Persons with disabilities | 65% |
| Persons without disabilities | 74% |
Political activities and non-partisanship
The PSC provides guidance to employees about their legal rights and responsibilities related to political activities, and it renders decisions on political candidacy, respecting employees’ rights to participate in political activities, while protecting the non-partisan nature of the public service.
Results from the 2023 survey show that employees understand their responsibilities to be politically impartial in carrying out their duties as public servants (90% versus 91% in 2021). Results also show that employees in their work unit carried out their duties as public servants in a politically impartial manner (91% versus 93% in 2021). As well, 91% (same proportion as in 2021) of employees reported being aware that expressing their political views on social media could impact their ability to remain politically impartial or to be perceived as impartial when carrying out their public service duties (see Table 14).
| Statement about non-partisanship | 2021 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| I understand my responsibility to be politically impartial in carrying out my duties as a public servant | 91% | 90% |
| In my work unit, employees carry out duties as public servants in a politically impartial manner | 93% | 91% |
| I am aware that expressing political views on social media may impact my ability to remain politically impartial or to be perceived as impartial | 91% | 91% |
In 2023, 94% of employees (versus 97% in 2021) did not engage in political activities beyond voting. As shown in Table 15 below, more than 3 quarters (77% versus 76% in 2021) were aware of their legal rights and responsibilities for engaging in political activities, and 65% (same proportion as in 2021) were aware of their responsibilities as public servants if they wanted to seek nomination or become a candidate.
| Statement about rights and responsibilities related to political engagement | 2021 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| I am aware of my legal rights and responsibilities for engaging in political activities. | 76% | 77% |
| If I wanted to seek nomination or become a candidate in a federal, provincial, territorial or municipal election, I am aware of my responsibilities as a public servant. | 65% | 65% |
As well, about 7 in 10 (69%) employees indicated that they know enough or they know where to find information regarding engagement in political activities (not asked in 2021) and 67% (versus 69% in 2021) agreed that their organization keeps them informed of their responsibilities to be politically impartial in carrying out their duties (see Table 16 below).
| Statement about management communication | 2021 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| I know enough or I know where to find information regarding engagement in political activities | n/a | 69% |
| My organization keeps me informed of my responsibilities to be politically impartial in carrying out my duties | 69% | 67% |
Conclusion
The 2023 survey shed light on public servants’ perceptions of the staffing system, including their experience of biases and barriers.
The survey results show that:
- perceptions of merit, fairness and transparency are largely similar to levels observed in the 2021 survey, which took place during the COVID-19 pandemic
- public servants who identified as another gender were the most likely to report that they faced biases and barriers that disadvantaged them in staffing processes
- members of visible minorities, Indigenous Peoples and persons with disabilities were more likely than their respective comparator groups to report experiencing biases and barriers
- participation in staffing processes for a promotion is higher than in 2021, but satisfaction with virtual interviews in comparison to in-person interviews is lower in the post-pandemic environment
- perceptions of departmental diversity and inclusion initiatives related to staffing were less positive among members of visible minorities, Indigenous Peoples and persons with disabilities when compared to their respective comparator groups
- as in 2021, only a small proportion of managers view persons with a priority entitlement as a valuable source of qualified candidates
- in 2023, a greater proportion of managers believed that the process to staff a position is burdensome
- in 2023, managers were less likely to say that staffing options available within their organization allow them to address their staffing needs as quickly as required
- employees’ awareness of political impartiality responsibilities remains high
- less than 2 thirds of public servants are aware of their responsibilities when seeking a nomination as, or becoming, a candidate in an election
The survey findings should be used to guide departments and agencies in:
- identifying barriers that disadvantage participants in staffing processes
- identifying gaps in employees’ perceptions of the integrity of the public service staffing system
- developing measures to address these gaps and barriers
The PSC will proactively engage with departments and agencies on their survey results, and offer support as needed to address any gaps. The PSC will continue to support departments and agencies by providing advice and guidance to identify and mitigate biases and barriers in assessments. Results from the survey will also be used to inform future outreach strategies to increase awareness around priority entitlements as well as political activities and non-partisanship.
Future work will look at perceptions of members of employment equity groups and certain equity-seeking groups.
For more information, the 2023 Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey results can be explored using the tools on our data visualization hub, which allow for the visualization of key results from the survey. Comprehensive datasets can be found on the Open Government portal.
Appendix A: Methodology
The overall 2023 survey response rate is 31.7%, and the results are considered representative of the 273 186 federal public servants subject to the Public Service Employment Act.
Survey results are based on:
- all full-time indeterminate and term employees of federal departments and agencies that fall under the Public Service Employment Act
- members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have civilian (public servant) direct reports employed under the act
- regular members, civilian members and special constables of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police hired under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act who have public service employee direct reports employed under the Public Service Employment Act
Part-time and seasonal employees, casuals, students, contractors, Governor-in-Council appointees and ministers’ exempt staff are excluded from this analysis.
The sample for this analysis consists of 84 741 public service employees, including:
- 57 317 non-manager/supervisor employees (68% of respondents)
- 27 274 managers/supervisors (32% of respondents)
- 932 staffing advisors (1% of respondents)
Data collection took place over a period of 9 weeks, between September 20, 2023, and November 17, 2023. For questions about their past experience, respondents were asked to refer to the previous 12 months, from September 16, 2022, to September 15, 2023.
As in the previous cycle of the survey, the 2023 survey frequently uses response categories that ask respondents the extent to which they agree with the question based on a 4-point scale:
- “Not at all”
- “To a minimal extent”
- “To a moderate extent”
- “To a great extent”
In the rare exception where a question is posed negatively, the most positive response would be for those who say “not at all” or “to a minimal extent,” and this is the result included. For simplicity, this report groups these results into 2 categories to highlight the share of respondents responding most affirmatively to a “moderate” or “great extent.”
Appendix B: Comparator groups for employment equity groups
Results for members of visible minorities, Indigenous Peoples and persons with disabilities were compared to results of their respective comparator groups (employees who are not members of those respective employment equity groups). Results for women were compared to results for men and results for people who identified as another gender.
Methodology to identify persons with disabilities
The methodology used to identify persons with disabilities was changed in 2023. For the 2021 cycle, the PSC used Statistics Canada’s disability screening questionnaire. Please refer to 2021 Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey - Perceptions of Federal Public Servants with Disabilities for details.
In 2023, respondents were asked which employment equity group they identified with. To collect these data, questions aligned with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s self-identification form were included in the questionnaire.
Appendix C: Respondent profile
| Employment equity groups | Proportion (unweighted) | Count (unweighted) | Proportion (weighted) | Count (weighted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women | 63% | 51 153 | 57% | 143 704 |
| Visible minorities | 24% | 20 106 | 24% | 62 468 |
| Indigenous Peoples | 5% | 4 294 | 5% | 13 714 |
| Persons with disabilities | 24% | 19 543 | 24% | 60 707 |
| Gender | Proportion (unweighted) | Count (unweighted) | Proportion (weighted) | Count (weighted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women | 63% | 51 153 | 57% | 143 704 |
| Men | 36% | 29 621 | 42% | 107 265 |
| Another gender | 1% | 567 | 1% | 2 064 |
Catalogue Number SC1-11E-PDF
ISSN 2816-3982
This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes only. Written permission must be obtained first from the Public Service Commission of Canada. For more information on this report, please contact: cfp.sdip-snps.psc@cfp-psc.gc.ca.
Public Service Commission of Canada
22 Eddy Street
Gatineau, QC
K1A 0M7
Canada
© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, as represented by the President of the Public Service Commission of Canada, 2024
Page details
- Date modified: