This study was undertaken as part of a broader effort to assess the performance of the federal public service staffing system with respect to representativeness.
Previous Public Service Commission (PSC) studies on employment equity promotion rates include:
in 2000, Canadian Heritage and the PSC explored 12 years of mobility data to assess promotion rates of employment equity groups
in 2015, an unpublished study explored promotion rates of employment equity groups by gender using 22 years of data
Recent activities
Anonymized Recruitment Pilot Project (2017)
Audit on Employment Equity Representation in Recruitment (ongoing)
Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey on the perceptions of employment equity groups regarding staffing in the federal public service (2018)
Objectives of the current study
Compare employment equity promotion rates to their counterparts.
Establish whether progress can be determined by leveraging a more extensive longitudinal database (27 years).
Overview of the methodology
The study analyzed administrative data containing information from April 1, 1991, to March 31, 2018, on promotions and employment equity status.
The model controlled for the following variables:
age
first official language
bilingual status
salaries (as a proxy for seniority)
periods of leave without pay
occupational categories
work location - National Capital Region
A survival analysis model was used to estimate the time between promotions for employment equity groups and their counterparts.
Main findings of the study
Women have a higher promotion rate than men.
There is no appreciable difference between the promotion rates of members of visible minorities relative to people who are not members of visible minorities.
Indigenous people have a lower promotion rate than people who are not Indigenous.
Persons with disabilities have a lower promotion rate than people without disabilities
Higher promotion rate in the Administrative Support and Administrative and Foreign Service categories
Lower promotion rate in the Scientific and Professional and Technical categories
Members of visible minorities
Similar to or higher promotion rates
Indigenous people
Lower promotion rates in the Administrative Support, Admin and Foreign Service and Scientific and Professional categories
Persons with disabilities
Lower promotion rates in the Administrative Support and Scientific and Professional categories but higher in the Operational category
Employment equity promotion rates by occupational category
* and ** stand for significance at 5% and 1% level respectively.
Women
Visible minorities
Indigenous people
Persons with disabilities
Administrative Support
+11.5%**
+6.2%**
-11.6%**
-20.3%**
Administrative and Foreign Service
+10.0%**
-2.2%*
-6.7%**
-3.3%
Operational
+2.2%
+0.5%
-0.6%
+28.0%**
Scientific and Professional
-5.7%**
-0.3%
-13.3%**
-13.9%**
Technical
-10.6%**
+7.0%*
+1.1%
-2.0%
Executive and feeder groups
Promotions within the EX group:
With the exception of women, all other employment equity groups display promotion rates that are more than 10% lower than those of their respective counterparts.
Promotions from EX minus 1 to the EX or EX equivalent groups:
Employment equity groups have similar promotion rates from the EX minus 1 group, except Indigenous people.
Promotions from EX minus 1 to the EX group:
Visible minorities have a lower rate of promotion compared to people who are not members of visible minorities.
All other employment equity groups have higher rates of promotion than their counterparts.
* and ** stand for significance at 5% and 1% level respectively.
Promotions within the EX group
Promotions from the EX minus 1 level to the EX group and EX-equivalent
Promotions from the EX minus 1 level solely to the EX group
Women
-2.7%
-3.6%
+15.6%**
Visible minorities
-15.6%**
-0.5%
-25.7%**
Indigenous
-11.3%
-10.6%
+3.5%
Persons with disabilities
-17.7%
+5.5%
+2.4%
Progress over time
Change in promotion rates between 1991-2005 and 2005-2018 (new hires only)
The promotion rates for women improved across these 2 eras
Although the gap has narrowed, promotion rates for Indigenous people and for persons with disabilities remain lower than those of their counterparts across both periods
Promotion rates of employment equity groups
** stand for significance at 1% level.
1991-2005
2005-2018
Women
-5.0%**
+1.2%
Visible minorities
-0.9%
-1.6%
Indigenous
-8.2%**
-5.9%**
Persons with disabilities
-10.2%**
-6.4%**
Other findings
Intersectionality:
Visible minority status and gender: While women tend to have a higher promotion rate when compared to men, within the visible minority group women and men have similar promotion rates.
Other interactions of interest:
Geographic location: In the National Capital Region (NCR), women tend to have higher promotion rates compared to men, while the opposite tends to be the case for those in jobs located outside the NCR.
Age: Overall, promotion rates decrease with age, both for employment equity groups and for those who are not members of employment equity groups. However, this effect is less pronounced for women, Indigenous people and persons with disabilities.
Application rates of employment equity groups
In the table below, we explore applicant representation rates by employment equity group. These rates are then compared to the representation of employment equity groups in the general population and their share of promotions.
Members of visible minorities Their representation among applicants is considerably larger than their share in both the general population and promotions.
Indigenous employees and employees with disabilities They have a lower share of applicants than their representation in the general population. However their promotion rates are comparable to their representation as applicants.
Representation of employment equity groups (2017-18)
Women
Visible minorities
Indigenous
Persons with disabilities
Population
54.1%
15.4%
5.3%
5.4%
Applicants
60.7%
21.8%
4.0%
4.0%
Promotions
59.2%
17.1%
5.0%
4.0%
Moving forward
In response to these findings, we recommend that, in consultation with stakeholders and employment equity community members:
Recommendation 1: further research be conducted to better understand underlying barriers that contribute to lower promotion rates for some employment equity groups
for example, the upcoming Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey (Spring 2020) should be leveraged to gain insight into employment equity group views on barriers to career progression
Recommendation 2: work be undertaken to break down employment equity category data by sub-groups to allow for a more comprehensive and accurate identification of barriers that are unique to individual sub-groups, including
their intersectionality
Recommendation 3: further outreach be provided to federal departments and agencies in order to increase awareness of the range of policy, service and program options aimed at supporting a diverse workplace
Recommendation 4: public service-wide approaches to career progression be explored including broadening access to existing successful programs and services such as the Aboriginal Leadership Development Initiative and the Accommodation
and Adaptive Computer Technology Program at Shared Services Canada
Recommendation 5: concerted efforts across central agencies be undertaken to explore how we can learn from the Aboriginal Leadership Development Initiative and extend similarly targeted services and development opportunities
to all employment equity groups, including development programs and career support services that are specifically designed with, and for, employment equity groups
