2018 Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey: Perceptions of Federal Public Servants Who Self-Identified as a Member of an Employment Equity Group

Highlights

This report is based on selected results of the first cycle of the Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey, which was conducted over 8 weeks from February to April 2018. It follows a report on the survey results for the overall federal public service published in September 2018 as well as other reports focused on employment equity groups, including the 2018 Anonymized Recruitment Pilot Project and the 2019 Employment Equity Promotion Rate Study.

The objectives of this report are to:

• examine how federal public service employees who belong to one or more of the 4 designated employment equity groups perceive merit, fairness and transparency in the staffing system
• determine whether employees who are members of an employment equity group have different perceptions of merit, fairness and transparency in the staffing system than other employees, and whether perceptions differ by gender
• explore the perceptions of managers who belong to one or more of the 4 designated employment equity groups compared to the perceptions of other managers
• examine how public servants with disabilities perceived testing accommodation measures (changes made to assessments to remove barriers to a fair assessment)
• explore how managers and staffing advisors perceive staffing advice on employment equity considerations and testing accommodation measures

Overall findings suggest:

• employees who self-identified as members of one or more of the 4 employment equity groups generally gave proportionally fewer positive responses on questions of merit, fairness and transparency in staffing activities
• although managers who belong to one or more employment equity groups gave slightly less positive responses, managers overall
• agreed that hires meet performance expectations and are a good fit within their team
• felt little pressure to hire a particular employee
• felt no personal indebtedness toward employees
• although only a small proportion of persons with disabilities requested testing accommodation measures, most of those who did were satisfied with those measures

Introduction

About the survey

The Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey was introduced in 2018 as a public-service-wide survey to be run every 2 years, replacing the Survey of Staffing. The survey targeted employees, hiring managers and staffing advisors to gather their views on a wide range of staffing-related topics, including the New Direction in Staffing, organizational staffing policies and practices, as well as political activities and non-partisanship. A copy of the survey questionnaire is available on Statistics Canada’s website.

Invitations to complete the survey were sent to 214 275 public servants across 74 departments and agencies subject to the Public Service Employment Act. A total of 101 892 employees completed the survey, representing an overall response rate of 47.6%.

The information gathered in the survey will be used to:

• identify current and emerging trends at government-wide and organizational levels
• inform potential improvements to staffing policies and practices
• better target efforts to safeguard non-partisanship within the federal public service

Because the content of this survey is different from its predecessor (the Survey of Staffing), year-over-year comparisons are not always possible.

Background

The Public Service Employment Act states that Canada will continue to benefit from a public service that is representative of Canada’s diversity. Under the Employment Equity Act, the Public Service Commission of Canada must:

• identify and eliminate employment barriers in the appointment system for the 4 designated employment equity groups (women, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities)
• develop positive policies and practices
• provide reasonable accommodation to create a representative public service

In recent decades, the federal public service has made important progress in the representation of the 4 designated employment equity groups, yet gaps persist.

The Public Service Commission’s mandate is to promote and safeguard merit-based appointments and, in collaboration with other stakeholders, to protect the non-partisan nature of the public service. Its mandate also includes promoting and safeguarding a representative public service.

In support of its commitment, the Public Service Commission has undertaken several projects and studies focused on employment equity groups, including the 2018 Anonymized Recruitment Pilot Project and the 2019 Employment Equity Promotion Rate Study.

Objectives of this report

Using findings from the 2018 Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey, this analysis seeks to:

• examine how federal public service employees who belong to one or more of the 4 designated employment equity groups, perceive merit, fairness and transparency in the staffing system
• determine whether employees who are members of an employment equity group have different perceptions of merit, fairness and transparency in the staffing system than other employees, and whether perceptions differ by gender
• explore the perceptions of managers who belong to one or more of the 4 designated employment equity groups compared to the perceptions of other managers
• examine how public servants with disabilities perceived testing accommodation measures (changes made to remove barriers to fair assessment)
• explore perceptions of managers and staffing advisors regarding staffing advice on employment equity considerations and testing accommodation measures

Methodology

For this report, results from the 2018 Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey^{Endnote E1} for the 4 designated employment equity groups have been compared against results for persons in their comparator groups. Comparator groups are the people who do not belong to the particular employment equity group being looked at. The full list of comparator groups is in Appendix 2 of this report. Respondents who are in more than one employment equity group were included in the analysis of each group under consideration.

^{Endnote E2}

Survey results for each group were further split by gender. As a result, this report provides an intersectional analysis by employment equity group and gender.

Perceptions of merit, fairness and transparency

This report analyzes overall perceptions of merit, fairness and transparency in staffing activities in respondents’ work units by examining whether employees feel that:

• staffing activities are carried out in a transparent way
• people hired can do the job
• appointments depend on who you know
• the process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly

The report also explores the extent to which managers feel:

• external pressure to hire a particular employee
• a sense of personal indebtedness to one or more employees
• that appointees meet performance expectations
• that appointees are a good fit for their teams

Perceptions of testing accommodation measures and employment equity considerations

This report also looks into testing accommodation measures and employment equity considerations by analyzing:

• the proportion of employees with disabilities who requested testing accommodation measures, as well as their level of satisfaction with those measures
• staffing advisors’ perceptions of how their advice influences testing accommodation measures and employment equity considerations
• managers’ satisfaction with the advice provided by staffing advisors on testing accommodation measures and employment equity considerations

The results in this report are based on full-time indeterminate and term employees. Also included are managers who are members of the regular Canadian Armed Forces or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and who conduct staffing activities 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.

Perceptions of merit, fairness and transparency

This section first presents a brief overview of:

• the work locations of survey respondents and all public servants under the Public Service Employment Act
• responses to questions on the themes of merit, fairness and transparency

Next, each employment equity group is presented in subsections that:

• outline some of the characteristics of those who indicated they belong to an employment equity group
• elaborate on their responses to questions related to merit, appointments being dependent on who you know, fairness, and transparency
• compare the responses by members of the employment equity group against their comparator groups

Finally, a summary of the responses of members of employment equity groups organized by theme (merit, appointments being dependent on who you know, fairness and transparency) is presented at the end of this section.

The survey themes are explored through questions about appointments to the respondents’ work units. The themes examined in this section are:

• Merit: survey respondents were asked how much they agree with the statement “I believe that we hire people who can do the job”
• respondents who indicated they “somewhat agree” or “strongly agree” with the statement are considered to have given a positive response
• Who you know: survey respondents were asked how much they agree with the statement “Appointments depend on who you know”
• since this a negatively worded question, respondents who indicated they “somewhat disagree” or “strongly disagree” that appointments depend on who you know are considered to have given a positive response
• Fairness: survey respondents were asked how much they agree with the statement “The process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly”
• respondents who indicated they “somewhat agree” or “strongly agree” with the statement are considered to have given a positive response
• Transparency: survey respondents were asked how much they agree with the statement “Staffing activities are carried out in a transparent way”
• respondents who indicated they “somewhat agree” or “strongly agree” with the statement are considered to have given a positive response

Work locations

As shown in Figure 1 below, the distribution of survey respondents’ work locations is similar to the location breakdown of all employees under the Public Service Employment Act^{Endnote E3}.

A majority of employees work in the National Capital Region, although a slightly smaller proportion of respondents work in that region compared to all employees (45.9% vs 46.8%).

When compared to all employees, similar proportions of survey respondents work in the same regions outside of the National Capital Region. Although a slightly smaller proportion of respondents work in the Prairies, Nunavut and Northwest Territories (11.2%) when compared to all employees (11.9%), other regions outside the National Capital Region have a slightly larger proportion of survey respondents working in them. This is most pronounced in Quebec excluding the National Capital Region (10.6% vs 9.7%) and Ontario excluding the National Capital Region (12.4% vs 12%), where proportionally more survey respondents work compared to all employees.

Table 6 in Appendix 3 provides detailed results for all groups by key demographic characteristics.

Responses to questions on the themes of merit, fairness and transparency

Figure 2 below shows the overall positive responses for each of the 4 employment equity groups and for all respondents. Respondents in all groups had a higher positive response rate on questions related to merit than to either fairness or transparency. The question of transparency received the lowest positive response rate overall.

Over half of women (54.8%) and visible minorities (51.9%) gave positive responses about merit in the hiring process. Less than half of Indigenous peoples (45.9%) and persons with disabilities (43.4%) held the same view. When asked if the process of hiring is done fairly, women had the highest positive response rate of any group (46.6%), while persons with disabilities had the lowest positive response rate (34.3%). When asked if staffing practices are transparent, women again had the highest positive response rate (43.9%), and persons with disabilities had the lowest (32.4%).

Note: “All respondents” consists of respondents who indicated their gender was either male or female. Due to their small population, this report excludes those who stated “Other” as their gender or chose not to respond (please refer to Table 5 in Appendix 2).

Women

The analysis of this employment equity group is based on respondents who identified their gender as female in the survey.^{Endnote E5} Respondents were asked if they were male, female or other.^{Endnote E6}

Women accounted for approximately 56.8% of survey respondents, compared to 52.5% of the available Canadian workforce and 52.5% of the public service population.^{Endnote E7} Proportionally more women (46.8%) than men (41.2%) applied to an advertised process in 2017; 49.9% of women who applied were offered a position or placed in a pool, a larger proportion than men (47.7%).

The distribution of women and men by work location is similar. A slightly larger proportion of men work in the National Capital Region (47.1%) than women (46.7%).

Merit

When asked if recent hires can do the job, proportionally more women agreed than men. Among women, 54.8% agreed compared to 53.3% of men, as outlined in Figure 4 below.

Who you know

As shown in Figure 5 below, a larger percentage of women agreed when asked if appointments depend on who you know. Among women, 55.3% agreed that appointments depend on who you know compared to 51.9% of all men.

Fairness

When asked if staffing in their work unit is conducted fairly, a similar percentage of men and women gave positive responses. Figure 6 below shows that 46.6% of women and 46.7% of men agreed that the staffing process is done fairly.

Transparency

A slightly smaller percentage of women than men gave positive responses on the topic of transparency in staffing. Only 43.9% of all women agreed that staffing is carried out transparently, compared to 45.4% of all men, as shown in Figure 7 below.

Indigenous peoples

Survey respondents were asked if they were an Indigenous person (specifically First Nations, Métis or Inuit); the analysis of this employment equity group is based on respondents who answered that they are an Indigenous person.^{Endnote E8}

Indigenous peoples accounted for approximately 4.6% of survey respondents, compared to 3.4% of the available Canadian workforce and 5.2% of the public service population.^{Endnote E9} In terms of gender, 5% of women and 3.9% of men who responded to the survey identified themselves as Indigenous. A slightly smaller share of Indigenous men (42.5%) applied to advertised processes than Indigenous women (47.4%). Of those who applied, however, similar proportions received an offer or were placed in a pool (46.4% for Indigenous men and 47.2% for Indigenous women).

Although 47.1% of all men work in the National Capital Region, only 34.8% of Indigenous men work in the region. A similar pattern is observed for Indigenous women, as 31.1% of Indigenous women work in the National Capital Region, compared to 46.7% of all women.

Merit

When asked if people hired in their work unit can do the job, a smaller percentage of Indigenous men gave positive responses than men who did not identify as Indigenous (42.3% vs. 53.8%). As seen in Figure 9 below, Indigenous women were proportionally more positive than Indigenous men, although they still had a lower positive response rate than women who did not identify as Indigenous (48.2% vs. 55.2%).

Who you know

A larger percentage of Indigenous men than their comparator group agreed that appointments depend on who you know (58.4% vs 51.5%). This is also true of Indigenous women and their comparator, although, as seen in Figure 10, the difference is not as large (60.9% vs 55%).

Fairness

When asked if the process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly, Indigenous men and women also had a lower positive response rate than men and women who did not identify as Indigenous, as shown in Figure 11. While 35.5% of Indigenous men and 37.7% of Indigenous women agreed with the statement, identical proportions of men and women who did not identify as Indigenous agreed (47.2%).

Transparency

As Figure 12 illustrates, a smaller percentage of Indigenous respondents gave positive responses on the topic of transparency than respondents who did not identify as Indigenous. A lower proportion of Indigenous men (34.9%) and Indigenous women (37.4%) believed that staffing was carried out in a transparent way compared to men (45.8%) and women (44.3%) who did not identify as Indigenous.

Members of visible minorities

Survey respondents who did not identify themselves as Indigenous peoples were asked whether they belong to one or more racial or cultural groups.^{Endnote E10} Members of visible minorities are defined as respondents who selected one or more racial or cultural group other than white.

Approximately 15.8% of survey respondents indicated that they were members of visible minorities, compared to 13% of the available Canadian workforce and 14.5% of the public service population.^{Endnote E11} In terms of gender, 14.7% of women and 16.4% of men who responded to the survey identified themselves as members of visible minorities. Over half of visible minority men (52%) and women (57.2%) who responded to the survey applied to an advertised process in 2017, proportionally more than any other employment equity group. Just under half of these applicants received an offer or were placed in a pool (46.1% for both men and women).

A somewhat larger proportion of visible minority men (50.3%) work in the National Capital Region than all men (47.1%). The pattern is similar for visible minority women (48.3%) when compared to all women (46.7%).

Merit

Half (50.7%) of visible minority women agreed that hires can do the job. This proportion is lower than that of women who are not members of visible minorities (55.6%), who had the highest positive response rate of all groups. In contrast, as Figure 14 below shows, an almost identical percentage of visible minority men and men who are not members of visible minorities gave positive responses, with 53.3% and 53.5% in agreement respectively.

Who you know

When asked if appointments depend on who you know, a smaller percentage of visible minority men agreed than men in other employment equity groups. However, as Figure 15 illustrates, 56% of visible minority men agreed appointments depend on who you know, proportionally more than men who are not members of visible minorities (51%). A larger percentage of visible minority women agreed than women who are not members of visible minorities (62% vs 54.1%).

Fairness

As outlined in Figure 16, members of visible minorities had a lower positive response rate than their comparator group regarding fairness of the staffing process within their work unit (44.4% of visible minority men and 41.1% of visible minority women agree that staffing processes are fair compared to 47.4% of men and 47.6% of women who are not members of visible minorities).

Transparency

As shown in Figure 17, a slightly smaller percentage of visible minority men gave positive responses on transparency in staffing than men who are not members of visible minorities (44.4% vs 45.8%). An even smaller percentage of visible minority women agreed that staffing is carried out in a transparent way in comparison to women who are not members of visible minorities (39.2% vs 44.9%).

Visible minority groups

Survey respondents were also asked to indicate if they belonged to one or more racial or cultural groups (see Table 17 for full breakdown). Filipino respondents had the highest positive response rate of all sub-groups regarding merit, fairness and transparency, while Japanese and Korean respondents had the lowest positive response rate. While Black respondents had the second highest positive response rate regarding hiring employees who can do the job, their positive response rate regarding fairness and transparency of staffing processes was one of the lowest.

Persons with disabilities

Survey respondents were asked to indicate whether they are a person with a disability.^{Endnote E12} The analysis of this employment equity group is based on respondents who indicated they have a disability.

Approximately 6.6% of survey respondents identified as being persons with disabilities, compared to 4.4% of the available Canadian workforce and 5.6% of the public service population.^{Endnote E13} By gender, 6.4% of women and 6.7% of men who responded to the survey self-identified as persons with disabilities. Just under half of women (47.7%) with disabilities who responded to the survey had applied to an advertised process in 2017, a slightly larger proportion than men (44.5%). Somewhat less than half of those women (45.5%) who applied were offered a position or placed in a pool, a slightly larger share than men (42.9%).

A slightly smaller proportion of persons with disabilities occupy positions in the National Capital Region compared to all respondents. Among men with disabilities, 45.3% work in the National Capital Region compared to 47.1% of all men. Among women with disabilities, 43.8% work in the National Capital Region compared to 46.7% of all women.

Merit

Men with disabilities had the lowest level of agreement among all groups when asked if people hired in their work unit can do the job. As shown in Figure 19, 41.6% of men with disabilities indicated that hires can do the job, a much lower rate than men who did not identify as a person with a disability (54.2%). Women with disabilities had a slightly higher positive response rate (44.9%), although still notably lower than women who did not identify as a person with a disability (55.5%).

Who you know

Of all groups, women with disabilities agreed at the highest rate that appointments depend on who you know (66.1%). That is much higher than that of women who did not identify as a person with a disability (54.5%). Similarly, as seen in Figure 20, men with disabilities agreed at a higher rate than men who did not identify as a person with a disability (63.8% vs. 51%).

Fairness

Men with disabilities had the lowest positive response rate among all groups when asked about staffing fairness in their work unit; only 32.7% agreed that staffing activities are done fairly. As shown in Figure 21, this is a smaller percentage than men who did not identify as a person with a disability, who had the highest positive response rate (47.8%) of all groups. Women with disabilities also agreed at a lower rate (35.7%) than women who did not identify as a person with a disability (47.4%).

Transparency

Women with disabilities had the lowest positive response rate of all respondents when asked if staffing is carried out in a transparent way, much lower than women who did not identify as a person with a disability (32.2% vs. 44.8%). Men with disabilities also responded proportionally lower (32.7%) than men who did not identify as a person with a disability (46.3%), as seen in Figure 22 below.

Summary

Note: “All respondents” consists of respondents who indicated their gender as either male or female, and excludes those who stated “Other” or chose not to respond.

Merit

While 54.1% of all respondents indicated that people hired in their work unit can do the job, Indigenous peoples and persons with disabilities had a lower positive response rate than other groups. Less than half of Indigenous peoples and persons with disabilities, regardless of gender, agreed with the statement, contrasting with other employment equity groups.

Men with disabilities had the lowest positive response rate (41.6%) among all groups, while women who are not members of visible minorities had the highest positive response rate (55.6%). A majority of men (53.3%) and women (54.8%) agreed that the people hired can do the job.

Who you know

While 53.8% of all respondents, regardless of employment equity status, indicated that appointments in their work unit depend on who you know, a higher proportion of employment equity group members agreed than their respective comparator groups.

Women with disabilities agreed at the highest rate among all groups (66.1%) that appointments depend on who you know. Men who did not identify as a person with a disability (51%) and men who are not members of visible minorities (51%) agreed at the lowest rate of all groups. Altogether, men (51.9%) agreed at a lower rate than women (55.3%).

Fairness

While only 46.6% of all respondents, regardless of employment equity status, indicated that staffing activities in their work unit are conducted fairly, a smaller proportion of employment equity group members share that view. Less than 40% of Indigenous peoples and persons with disabilities agreed that staffing is conducted fairly.

Men with disabilities had the lowest positive response rate of all groups (32.7%) while men without disabilities had the highest (47.8%). An almost identical proportion of men and women gave positive responses (46.7% vs 46.6%).

Transparency

Overall, 44.6% of all respondents indicated that staffing activities within their work unit are carried out in a transparent way. Indigenous peoples (36.4%) and persons with disabilities (32.4%) had lower positive response rates than other groups.

Women with disabilities had the lowest positive response rate of any employee group (32.2%) while men who did not identify as a person with a disability had the highest rate (46.3%). Overall, men had a higher percentage of positive responses than women (45.4% vs 43.9%).

Managers

In general, managers in all groups did not feel pressure to hire a particular employee or feel indebtedness to employees. Managers also generally agreed that hires meet performance expectations and are a good fit for their team. Proportionally, managers belonging to employment equity groups were slightly less positive than their comparators, but the differences were usually minor.

As seen in Table 1 below, managers who belong to an employment equity group felt somewhat more pressure to hire a particular employee than their comparators. Men with disabilities in particular were the only group where more than 20% reported feeling moderate or great pressure, at 21.8%. This is a higher rate than their comparator group; 11.8% of men who do not have a disability reported feeling pressure to hire, the lowest proportion among all groups. Men and women had a proportionally similar response rate overall, as 12.3% of men and 12.9% of women reported feeling pressure to hire a particular employee.

Table 1: Percentage of managers feeling pressure to hire a particular employee ^{Endnote E14}

	Men	Women
Indigenous peoples	16.2%	15.7%
Did not identify as Indigenous	12.2%	12.7%
Members of visible minorities	14.3%	17.2%
Did not identify as members of visible minorities	12.0%	12.3%
Persons with disabilities	21.8%	19.4%
Did not identify as persons with disabilities	11.8%	12.5%
All	12.3%	12.9%

Less than 10% of each manager group felt moderate or great personal indebtedness to one or more employees, as shown in Table 2. Visible minority women reported feeling the most indebted at 9.3%, a higher rate than women who are not members of visible minorities (6.1%). Indigenous women had the lowest percentage of respondents feeling personal indebtedness, at 5.8%, although only marginally lower than their comparator group (6.4%). Again, men and women provided similar responses overall, with an identical proportion of men and women feeling indebted to employees.

Table 2: Percentage of managers feeling personal indebtedness to employees ^{Endnote E15}

	Men	Women
Indigenous peoples	6.9%	5.8%
Did not identify as Indigenous	6.4%	6.4%
Members of visible minorities	8.0%	9.3%
Did not identify as members of visible minorities	6.2%	6.1%
Persons with disabilities	8.3%	6.9%
Did not identify as persons with disabilities	6.3%	6.4%
All	6.4%	6.4%

As Table 3 shows, managers in all employee groups agreed that recent hires meet performance expectations. Indigenous men reported the lowest level of agreement at 87.9%, somewhat lower than men who did not identify as Indigenous (92.4%). Proportionally, men and women gave similar responses, as 92.2% of men and 91.6% of women agreed that recent hires met expectations.

Table 3: Percentage of managers agreeing recent hires meet performance expectations ^{Endnote E16}

	Men	Women
Indigenous peoples	87.9%	89.9%
Did not identify as Indigenous	92.4%	91.7%
Members of visible minorities	92.3%	90.5%
Did not identify as members of visible minorities	92.2%	91.8%
Persons with disabilities	89.2%	89.2%
Did not identify as persons with disabilities	92.4%	91.8%
All	92.2%	91.6%

As outlined in Table 4, managers agreed that recent hires are a good fit within their teams. Indigenous men reported the lowest level of agreement at 87%, lower than men who did not identify as Indigenous (93%). Proportionally, men and women had a similar response rate, as 92.7% of men and 92.1% of women agreed that recent hires are a good fit.

Table 4: Percentage of managers agreeing recent hires are a good fit within their teams ^{Endnote E17}

	Men	Women
Indigenous peoples	87.0%	88.8%
Did not identify as Indigenous	93.0%	92.3%
Members of visible minorities	92.9%	91.7%
Did not identify as members of visible minorities	92.8%	92.3%
Persons with disabilities	90.6%	90.2%
Did not identify as persons with disabilities	92.9%	92.2%
All	92.7%	92.1%

Testing accommodation measures and employment equity considerations

Persons with disabilities

If invited to write a test for a job they applied for, persons with disabilities can request testing accommodation measures. Testing accommodation measures are changes made to the procedures, format or content of an assessment to remove barriers to a fair assessment and allow candidates to fully demonstrate their competency. A team of consultants determines testing accommodation measures on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature and extent of the functional limitations presented by the candidate.

Survey respondents who are persons with disabilities were asked if they requested testing accommodation measures in 2017 and how satisfied they were with those accommodation measures. Most persons with disabilities did not request testing accommodation measures (87.7%). This is consistent with the 2019 Survey on Workplace Accommodations in the Federal Public Service, conducted by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s Office of Public Service Accessibility, which shows that only a very small proportion of disability accommodation requests in the past three years were related to a staffing process. Of those Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey respondents who did make a request, two-thirds (66.1%) indicated they were satisfied to a moderate or great extent with the testing accommodation measures provided.

Managers and staffing advisors

Two-thirds (66.1%) of staffing advisors indicated that managers sought their strategic input on testing accommodation measures for candidates. Of these, 80.7% agreed that their strategic input on testing accommodation measures influenced managers’ staffing actions.

More than half (56.2%) of staffing advisors indicated that managers sought their strategic input on employment equity considerations. Of these, 76.7% agreed that their strategic input on employment equity considerations influenced managers’ staffing actions.

In the survey, managers were asked the extent to which staffing advisors provided them with useful staffing advice. Among those who indicated that staffing advice provided was not useful (16.7%), a very small percentage of managers noted that advice on testing accommodation measures and advice on employment equity considerations was not useful (15.4% and 11.8% respectively).

Conclusion

Based on the results of the 2018 Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey, this report shows that employees who belong to an employment equity group are generally less positive than their comparator groups about merit, fairness and transparency in the staffing system.

Looking at merit, women have a more positive perception than men. Visible minority men’s perceptions of merit are similar to men who are not members of a visible minority. Regarding fairness, employment equity groups had less positive perceptions in general, although women and men held similar views. Finally, all employment equity groups had a less positive perception of transparency in staffing.

Worth noting, the Public Service Commission has undertaken several projects and studies focused on employment equity groups, such as the 2018 Anonymized Recruitment Pilot Project and the Employment Equity Promotion Rate Study. The results of the Employment Equity Promotion Rate Study demonstrated that the career progression of employment equity groups was slower than their respective comparator group. These results might explain, in part, the generally less positive perceptions of merit, fairness and transparency of employees who belong to an employment equity group.

These findings are based on data from the first cycle of the Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey and reflect a snapshot of the public service at the time of data collection. The second cycle of the survey will allow us to monitor changes in perceptions.

The Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey data and interactive tool on Open Government offer additional information for analyzing the survey results. 

Questions or comments regarding this report or the Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey can be sent to cfp.sdip-snps.psc@cfp-psc.gc.ca.

Appendix 1 - Sources of information

Data was taken from the first cycle of the Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey. Because the content of this survey is different from its predecessor (the Survey of Staffing), year-over-year comparisons are not always possible.

Data collection took place over a period of 8 weeks: between February 22 and April 20, 2018. The survey targeted employees, hiring managers and staffing advisors to gather their views on a wide range of staffing-related topics. In particular, questions regarding merit, fairness and transparency were used in this analysis.

Invitations to complete the survey were sent to 214 275 public servants across 74 departments and agencies subject to the Public Service Employment Act. A total of 101 892 employees completed the survey, representing an overall response rate of 47.6%.

The data presented in this report has been weighted to adjust for non-response and for respondents who did not want to share their data with the Public Service Commission. For this reason, the results can be generalized to the federal public service population in departments and agencies that are subject to the Public Service Employment Act.

The survey frame was made up of all employees who were on the October 2017 Public Services and Procurement Canada incumbent file and employee lists provided by in-scope departments and agencies that did not appear in the incumbent file.

The Canadian workforce availability and public service employment equity group representation percentages are provided by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat in their report: Employment Equity in the Public Service of Canada for Fiscal Year 2016 to 2017.

Appendix 2

Comparator groups

7 comparator groups were created for the purposes of this study:

• women who did not identify as an Indigenous person
• women who did not identify as a member of a visible minority
• women who did not identify as a person with a disability

 

• men
• men who did not identify as an Indigenous person
• men who did not identify as a member of a visible minority
• men who did not identify as a person with a disability

“Other gender” category

For the purposes of this report, “all respondents” consists of respondents who indicated their gender is either male or female. Although some respondents stated “other” or chose not to respond to the gender question, this report excludes those respondents because there were so few. This way, individual respondents cannot be identified based on their responses to demographic questions such as work location or employment equity group status.

Table 5: Responses to the “other gender” category

Non-binary

Transgender male/female

Pansexual/pangender

Gender neutral

Cisgender

Gender fluid

Appendix 3 - Tables

Table 6: Respondent profile

	Indigenous peoples				Members of visible minorities				Persons with disabilities				All men		All women		All respondents
	Men		Women		Men		Women		Men		Women
Distribution	1 464	37.0%	2 485	62.8%	6 141	45.7%	7 269	54.1%	2 494	44.0%	3 147	55.5%	37 439	43.0%	49 390	56.8%	87 920	100.0%
Applied to an advertised process in 2017	621	42.5%	1 175	47.4%	3 188	52.0%	4 152	57.2%	1 108	44.5%	1 495	47.7%	15 391	41.2%	23 084	46.8%	38 929	44.4%
Received an offer or placed in a pool from application	288	46.4%	554	47.2%	1 465	46.1%	1 909	46.1%	474	42.9%	683	45.8%	7 325	47.7%	11 491	49.9%	19 011	48.8%
First official language
English	1 102	75.4%	1 843	74.3%	4 789	78.1%	5 785	79.8%	1 972	79.3%	2 433	77.4%	25 761	69.0%	32 753	66.5%	59 299	67.7%
French	359	24.6%	637	25.7%	1 345	21.9%	1 466	20.2%	516	20.7%	709	22.6%	11 600	31.0%	16 509	33.5%	28 280	32.3%
Age
24 years and under	15	1.0%	54	2.2%	203	1.6%	383	2.8%	11	0.4%	29	0.9%	468	1.3%	901	1.8%	1 380	1.6%
25 to 29 years	52	3.6%	127	5.1%	740	6.0%	1 293	9.3%	67	2.7%	105	3.3%	1 892	5.1%	3 310	6.7%	5 241	6.0%
30 to 34 years	124	8.5%	211	8.5%	1 221	9.8%	1 770	12.7%	150	6.0%	184	5.9%	3 446	9.2%	4 916	10.0%	8 447	9.7%
35 to 39 years	190	13.0%	342	13.8%	1 737	14.0%	2 263	16.3%	222	8.9%	346	11.0%	4 857	13.0%	7 151	14.5%	12 123	13.9%
40 to 44 years	225	15.4%	376	15.2%	2 016	16.3%	2 499	18.0%	324	13.0%	484	15.4%	5 638	15.1%	8 106	16.5%	13 865	15.9%
45 to 49 years	269	18.4%	458	18.5%	2 116	17.1%	2 102	15.1%	378	15.2%	564	18.0%	5 878	15.7%	7 804	15.9%	13 818	15.8%
50 to 54 years	276	18.9%	469	18.9%	1 908	15.4%	1 845	13.3%	531	21.4%	624	19.9%	6 591	17.6%	8 248	16.8%	14 986	17.2%
55 to 59 years	203	13.9%	303	12.2%	1 478	11.9%	1 102	7.9%	507	20.4%	508	16.2%	5 378	14.4%	5 937	12.1%	11 402	13.1%
60 years and over	106	7.3%	137	5.5%	979	7.9%	639	4.6%	296	11.9%	297	9.5%	3 204	8.6%	2 838	5.8%	6 099	7.0%
Years in the federal public service
Less than a year	29	2.0%	91	3.7%	236	3.8%	266	3.7%	52	2.1%	65	2.1%	1 165	3.1%	1 623	3.3%	2 806	3.2%
1 year to less than 3 years	87	6.0%	203	8.2%	687	11.2%	933	12.9%	143	5.7%	174	5.5%	3 024	8.1%	4 569	9.3%	7 645	8.7%
3 years to less than 10 years	309	21.1%	548	22.1%	1 893	30.9%	2 219	30.6%	429	17.2%	602	19.2%	8 559	22.9%	11 759	23.9%	20 550	23.4%
10 years to less than 20 years	595	40.7%	1 053	42.5%	2 477	40.4%	2 995	41.3%	971	39.0%	1 386	44.1%	14 496	38.8%	20 317	41.2%	35 247	40.2%
20 years to less than 30 years	302	20.7%	457	18.4%	663	10.8%	684	9.4%	567	22.8%	651	20.7%	6 694	17.9%	8 139	16.5%	15 046	17.2%
30 years or more	140	9.6%	128	5.2%	179	2.9%	152	2.1%	329	13.2%	263	8.4%	3 433	9.2%	2 858	5.8%	6 383	7.3%
Work location
National Capital Region	509	34.8%	772	31.1%	3 083	50.3%	3 509	48.3%	1 129	45.3%	1 378	43.8%	17 594	47.1%	23 026	46.7%	41 063	46.8%
Atlantic	187	12.8%	250	10.1%	191	3.1%	178	2.5%	321	12.9%	365	11.6%	3 891	10.4%	5 314	10.8%	9 304	10.6%
British Columbia Yukon	182	12.5%	253	10.2%	698	11.4%	859	11.8%	239	9.6%	281	8.9%	3 364	9.0%	3 792	7.7%	7 289	8.3%
Ontario (excluding the National Capital Region)	155	10.6%	297	12.0%	998	16.3%	1 337	18.4%	345	13.9%	507	16.1%	4 396	11.8%	6 032	12.2%	10 570	12.0%
Prairies Nunavut Northwest Territories	346	23.7%	795	32.1%	632	10.3%	690	9.5%	313	12.6%	427	13.6%	4 191	11.2%	6 090	12.3%	10 434	11.9%
Quebec (excluding the National Capital Region)	73	5.0%	108	4.4%	491	8.0%	639	8.8%	139	5.6%	176	5.6%	3 693	9.9%	4 785	9.7%	8 545	9.7%
Outside of Canada	9	0.6%	4	0.2%	41	0.7%	51	0.7%	4	0.2%	9	0.3%	265	0.7%	273	0.6%	541	0.6%
Highest level of education
Bachelor’s degree	409	28.0%	688	27.7%	2 335	38.1%	3 240	44.6%	693	27.9%	914	29.1%	12 343	33.0%	16 885	34.2%	29 595	33.7%
College CEGEP non-university certificate/diploma	353	24.2%	729	29.4%	751	12.2%	971	13.4%	573	23.0%	843	26.8%	7 391	19.8%	11 064	22.4%	18 661	21.3%
High school or equivalent	265	18.2%	465	18.8%	265	4.3%	403	5.6%	315	12.7%	445	14.2%	3 894	10.4%	6 603	13.4%	10 573	12.1%
Less than high school diploma or equivalent	22	1.5%	43	1.7%	6	0.1%	11	0.2%	40	1.6%	28	0.9%	223	0.6%	351	0.7%	579	0.7%
Trade certificate/diploma	171	11.7%	142	5.7%	151	2.5%	114	1.6%	247	9.9%	137	4.4%	2 691	7.2%	1 881	3.8%	4 617	5.3%
University: below bachelor's	68	4.7%	166	6.7%	312	5.1%	399	5.5%	142	5.7%	216	6.9%	1 672	4.5%	2 426	4.9%	4 170	4.8%
University: above bachelor's	172	11.8%	247	10.0%	2 315	37.7%	2 121	29.2%	478	19.2%	557	17.7%	9 171	24.5%	10 092	20.5%	19 511	22.2%

 

Table 7: Employees: staffing activities are carried out in a transparent way

Group	Strongly agree		Somewhat agree		Neither agree nor disagree		Somewhat disagree		Strongly disagree		Grand Total		Positive Responses
Indigenous peoples: Men	328	9.5%	875	25.4%	618	18.0%	743	21.6%	875	25.4%	3 440	100%	1 203	34.9%
Not identified as Indigenous: Men	11 629	15.3%	23 142	30.5%	13 683	18.0%	13 673	18.0%	13 713	18.1%	75 842	100%	34 771	45.8%
Indigenous peoples: Women	617	11.2%	1 447	26.2%	993	17.9%	1 169	21.1%	1 305	23.6%	5 531	100%	2 064	37.4%
Not identified as Indigenous: Women	12 337	13.1%	29 364	31.2%	16 040	17.1%	20 062	21.3%	16 213	17.2%	94 018	100%	41 701	44.3%
Members of visible minorities: Men	1 955	15.7%	3 567	28.7%	2 278	18.3%	2 098	16.9%	2 545	20.5%	12 444	100.0%	5 522	44.4%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Men	9 855	15.0%	20 189	30.7%	11 849	18.0%	12 057	18.4%	11 714	17.8%	65 665	100.0%	30 044	45.8%
Members of visible minorities: Women	1 631	11.3%	4 033	27.9%	2 542	17.6%	3 190	22.1%	3 053	21.1%	14 450	100.0%	5 664	39.2%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Women	11 156	13.3%	26 444	31.6%	14 294	17.1%	17 743	21.2%	14 133	16.9%	83 770	100.0%	37 600	44.9%
Persons with disabilities: Men	589	10.8%	1 196	21.9%	923	16.9%	1 187	21.7%	1 576	28.8%	5 471	100%	1 785	32.7%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Men	11 379	15.4%	22 827	30.9%	13 364	18.1%	13 252	18.0%	12 992	17.6%	73 813	100%	34 206	46.3%
Persons with disabilities: Women	585	9.0%	1 508	23.2%	964	14.8%	1 550	23.8%	1 898	29.2%	6 505	100%	2 093	32.2%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Women	12 354	13.3%	29 290	31.5%	16 049	17.3%	19 694	21.2%	15 634	16.8%	93 022	100%	41 644	44.8%
All Men	12 002	15.1%	24 126	30.3%	14 380	18.1%	14 508	18.2%	14 632	18.4%	79 648	100%	36 128	45.4%
All Women	12 995	13.0%	30 924	30.9%	17 103	17.1%	21 323	21.3%	17 598	17.6%	99 942	100%	43 919	43.9%

 

Table 8: Employees: people hired can do the job

Group	Strongly agree		Somewhat agree		Neither agree nor disagree		Somewhat disagree		Strongly disagree		Grand Total		Positive Responses
Indigenous peoples: Men	370	10.5%	1 122	31.8%	463	13.1%	989	28.0%	581	16.5%	3 525	100%	1 492	42.3%
Not identified as Indigenous: Men	13 454	17.2%	28 542	36.6%	12 530	16.1%	14 710	18.9%	8 791	11.3%	78 027	100%	41 996	53.8%
Indigenous peoples: Women	805	14.3%	1 913	33.9%	904	16.0%	1 316	23.3%	709	12.6%	5 647	100%	2 718	48.2%
Not identified as Indigenous: Women	15 724	16.3%	37 520	38.9%	14 286	14.8%	19 275	20.0%	9 737	10.1%	96 542	100%	53 244	55.2%
Members of visible minorities: Men	2 251	17.5%	4 593	35.8%	2 260	17.6%	2 230	17.4%	1 501	11.7%	12 833	100.0%	6 843	53.3%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Men	11 391	16.9%	24 715	36.6%	10 570	15.7%	13 180	19.5%	7 653	11.3%	67 508	100.0%	36 105	53.5%
Members of visible minorities: Women	2 139	14.5%	5 369	36.3%	2 432	16.4%	3 067	20.7%	1 793	12.1%	14 800	100.0%	7 508	50.7%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Women	14 183	16.5%	33 626	39.1%	12 481	14.5%	17 249	20.1%	8 486	9.9%	86 025	100.0%	47 809	55.6%
Persons with disabilities: Men	694	12.3%	1 653	29.3%	842	14.9%	1 337	23.7%	1 110	19.7%	5 636	100%	2 347	41.6%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Men	13 133	17.3%	28 040	36.9%	12 118	16.0%	14 388	18.9%	8 249	10.9%	75 928	100%	41 173	54.2%
Persons with disabilities: Women	788	11.8%	2 203	33.1%	959	14.4%	1 657	24.9%	1 055	15.8%	6 661	100%	2 991	44.9%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Women	15 728	16.5%	37 231	39.0%	14 222	14.9%	18 919	19.8%	9 415	9.9%	95 514	100%	52 959	55.5%
All Men	13 884	16.9%	29 783	36.4%	13 075	16.0%	15 784	19.3%	9 406	11.5%	81 932	100%	43 667	53.3%
All Women	16 582	16.2%	39 599	38.6%	15 239	14.9%	20 667	20.1%	10 507	10.2%	102 594	100%	56 181	54.8%

 

Table 9: Employees: appointments depend on who you know

Group	Strongly agree*		Somewhat agree*		Neither agree nor disagree		Somewhat disagree		Strongly disagree		Grand Total		Positive Responses (*)
Indigenous peoples: Men	860	24.9%	1 157	33.5%	757	21.9%	325	9.4%	356	10.3%	3 454	100%	2 017	58.4%
Not identified as Indigenous: Men	14 400	19.0%	24 591	32.5%	17 412	23.0%	10 217	13.5%	8 994	11.9%	75 613	100%	38 991	51.5%
Indigenous peoples: Women	1 481	26.9%	1 867	34.0%	1 106	20.1%	488	8.9%	557	10.1%	5 499	100%	3 348	60.9%
Not identified as Indigenous: Women	17 544	18.8%	33 789	36.2%	20 985	22.5%	11 311	12.1%	9 836	10.5%	93 464	100%	51 333	55.0%
Members of visible minorities: Men	2 777	22.6%	4 092	33.3%	3 000	24.4%	1 265	10.3%	1 140	9.3%	12 274	100.0%	6 869	56.0%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Men	12 158	18.5%	21 294	32.5%	14 922	22.7%	9 140	13.9%	8 101	12.3%	65 614	100.0%	33 452	51.0%
Members of visible minorities: Women	3 571	25.1%	5 252	36.9%	3 050	21.4%	1 229	8.6%	1 119	7.9%	14 221	100.0%	8 823	62.0%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Women	15 157	18.2%	29 960	35.9%	18 761	22.5%	10 414	12.5%	9 128	10.9%	83 419	100.0%	45 117	54.1%
Persons with disabilities: Men	1 637	29.7%	1 875	34.1%	968	17.6%	501	9.1%	525	9.5%	5 505	100%	3 512	63.8%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Men	13 627	18.5%	23 872	32.5%	17 187	23.4%	10 044	13.7%	8 832	12.0%	73 561	100%	37 499	51.0%
Persons with disabilities: Women	1 977	30.3%	2 335	35.8%	1 210	18.6%	484	7.4%	514	7.9%	6 520	100%	4 312	66.1%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Women	17 047	18.4%	33 328	36.1%	20 868	22.6%	11 306	12.2%	9 875	10.7%	92 423	100%	50 375	54.5%
All Men	15 327	19.3%	25 873	32.6%	18 259	23.0%	10 575	13.3%	9 397	11.8%	79 431	100%	41 200	51.9%
All Women	19 106	19.2%	35 823	36.1%	22 154	22.3%	11 839	11.9%	10 436	10.5%	99 357	100%	54 929	55.3%

* Denotes agreement with the statement ("positive" response to a question with a negative sentiment)

 

Table 10: Employees: the process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly

Group	Strongly agree		Somewhat agree		Neither agree nor disagree		Somewhat disagree		Strongly disagree		Grand Total		Positive Responses
Indigenous peoples: Men	345	10.0%	879	25.5%	723	21.0%	775	22.5%	728	21.1%	3 449	100%	1 224	35.5%
Not identified as Indigenous: Men	11 590	15.2%	24 424	32.0%	16 574	21.7%	12 854	16.9%	10 770	14.1%	76 213	100%	36 014	47.2%
Indigenous peoples: Women	678	12.3%	1 401	25.4%	1 184	21.5%	1 229	22.3%	1 025	18.6%	5 517	100%	2 079	37.7%
Not identified as Indigenous: Women	12 574	13.4%	31 765	33.8%	20 343	21.6%	17 675	18.8%	11 759	12.5%	94 116	100%	44 339	47.2%
Members of visible minorities: Men	1 719	13.8%	3 822	30.6%	2 897	23.2%	2 038	16.3%	2 011	16.1%	12 488	100.0%	5 542	44.4%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Men	10 077	15.3%	21 213	32.1%	14 180	21.5%	11 306	17.1%	9 236	14.0%	66 013	100.0%	31 290	47.4%
Members of visible minorities: Women	1 612	11.2%	4 320	30.0%	3 358	23.3%	2 817	19.5%	2 310	16.0%	14 417	100.0%	5 932	41.1%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Women	11 452	13.7%	28 489	34.0%	17 925	21.4%	15 769	18.8%	10 262	12.2%	83 897	100.0%	29 941	47.6%
Persons with disabilities: Men	560	10.1%	1 247	22.6%	1 121	20.3%	1 233	22.3%	1 368	24.7%	5 529	100%	1 807	32.7%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Men	11 384	15.4%	24 047	32.4%	16 177	21.8%	12 417	16.7%	10 132	13.7%	74 156	100%	35 431	47.8%
Persons with disabilities: Women	593	9.2%	1 719	26.5%	1 240	19.1%	1 429	22.1%	1 498	23.1%	6 480	100%	2 312	35.7%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Women	12 645	13.6%	31 435	33.8%	20 285	21.8%	17 480	18.8%	11 283	12.1%	93 129	100%	44 080	47.4%
All Men	11 989	15.0%	25 418	31.8%	17 378	21.7%	13 689	17.1%	11 562	14.4%	80 036	100%	37 407	46.7%
All Women	13 292	13.3%	33 281	33.3%	21 636	21.6%	18 971	19.0%	12 846	12.8%	100 026	100%	46 573	46.6%

 

Table 11: Managers: felt external pressure to select a particular employee

Group	Not at all		To a minimal extent		To a moderate extent*		To a great extent*		Grand Total		Positive Responses (*)
Indigenous peoples: Men	545	72.4%	85	11.3%	66	8.7%	57	7.5%	752	100%	123	16.2%
Not identified as Indigenous: Men	14 711	76.5%	2 187	11.4%	1 359	7.1%	984	5.1%	19 241	100%	2 343	12.2%
Indigenous peoples: Women	633	73.2%	96	11.1%	76	8.8%	59	6.9%	865	100%	729	15.7%
Not identified as Indigenous: Women	13 966	75.4%	2 210	11.9%	1 365	7.4%	990	5.3%	18 532	100%	2 355	12.7%
Members of visible minorities: Men	1 703	72.9%	298	12.8%	194	8.3%	140	6.0%	2 335	100.0%	135	14.3%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Men	13 358	76.9%	1 935	11.1%	1 201	6.9%	884	5.1%	17 378	100.0%	2 085	12.0%
Members of visible minorities: Women	1 394	68.8%	282	13.9%	183	9.0%	165	8.2%	2 024	100.0%	348	17.2%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Women	12 954	76.0%	1 988	11.7%	1 233	7.2%	862	5.1%	17 037	100.0%	2 094	12.3%
Persons with disabilities: Men	686	66.0%	127	12.2%	101	9.7%	126	12.1%	1 040	100%	227	21.8%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Men	14 598	76.9%	2 141	11.3%	1 329	7.0%	912	4.8%	18 980	100%	2 241	11.8%
Persons with disabilities: Women	642	67.8%	121	12.8%	90	9.5%	94	9.9%	948	100%	184	19.4%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Women	13 967	75.6%	2 189	11.9%	1 364	7.4%	949	5.1%	18 469	100%	2 313	12.5%
All Men	15 356	76.3%	2 281	11.3%	1 433	7.1%	1 047	5.2%	20 117	100%	2 480	12.3%
All Women	14 652	75.2%	2 319	11.9%	1 459	7.5%	1 056	5.4%	19 486	100%	2 515	12.9%

* Denotes agreement with the statement (“positive” response to a question with a negative sentiment)

 

Table 12: Managers: felt a sense of personal indebtedness to one or more employees

Group	Not at all		To a minimal extent		To a moderate extent*		To a great extent*		Grand Total		Positive Responses (*)
Indigenous peoples: Men	640	84.4%	66	8.7%	35	4.6%	18	2.3%	759	100%	53	6.9%
Not identified as Indigenous: Men	15 705	81.1%	2 422	12.5%	966	5.0%	271	1.4%	19 364	100%	1 237	6.4%
Indigenous peoples: Women	702	80.8%	117	13.4%	43	4.9%	8	0.9%	870	100%	51	5.8%
Not identified as Indigenous: Women	15 048	81.1%	2 326	12.5%	888	4.8%	297	1.6%	18 560	100%	1 185	6.4%
Members of visible minorities: Men	1 827	78.7%	310	13.3%	152	6.6%	34	1.4%	2 323	100.0%	186	8.0%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Men	14 299	81.6%	2 136	12.2%	835	4.8%	247	1.4%	17 517	100.0%	1 082	6.2%
Members of visible minorities: Women	1 588	78.9%	239	11.9%	132	6.6%	54	2.7%	2 013	100.0%	186	9.3%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Women	13 897	81.3%	2 154	12.6%	790	4.6%	247	1.4%	17 088	100.0%	1 037	6.1%
Persons with disabilities: Men	825	77.8%	147	13.9%	52	4.9%	36	3.4%	1 060	100%	88	8.3%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Men	15 545	81.4%	2 349	12.3%	946	5.0%	255	1.3%	19 095	100%	1 201	6.3%
Persons with disabilities: Women	773	80.7%	119	12.4%	35	3.6%	32	3.3%	958	100%	67	6.9%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Women	15 009	81.1%	2 313	12.5%	900	4.9%	275	1.5%	18 498	100%	1 175	6.4%
All Men	16 446	81.3%	2 500	12.4%	1 003	5.0%	291	1.4%	20 240	100%	1 294	6.4%
All Women	15 836	81.1%	2 445	12.5%	937	4.8%	307	1.6%	19 526	100%	1 244	6.4%

* Denotes agreement with the statement (“positive” response to a question with a negative sentiment)

 

Table 13: Managers: appointees meet the performance expectations

Group	Strongly agree		Somewhat agree		Neither agree nor disagree		Somewhat disagree		Strongly disagree		Grand Total		Positive Responses
Indigenous peoples: Men	263	56.5%	146	31.4%	19	4.2%	14	2.9%	23	5.0%	465	100%	409	87.9%
Not identified as Indigenous: Men	7 464	64.7%	3 196	27.7%	389	3.4%	239	2.1%	251	2.2%	11 539	100%	10 660	92.4%
Indigenous peoples: Women	331	61.8%	151	28.1%	32	5.9%	12	2.2%	11	2.1%	536	100%	482	89.9%
Not identified as Indigenous: Women	7 692	63.1%	3 491	28.6%	372	3.1%	357	2.9%	278	2.3%	12 191	100%	11 183	91.7%
Members of visible minorities: Men	822	62.1%	400	30.2%	50	3.8%	34	2.6%	18	1.4%	1 325	100.0%	1 223	92.3%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Men	6 764	64.6%	2 893	27.6%	354	3.4%	210	2.0%	257	2.5%	10 478	100.0%	9 657	92.2%
Members of visible minorities: Women	787	61.5%	370	29.0%	53	4.2%	40	3.1%	29	2.2%	1 279	100.0%	1 157	90.5%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Women	7 124	63.6%	3 167	28.3%	332	3.0%	327	2.9%	255	2.3%	11 206	100.0%	10 291	91.8%
Persons with disabilities: Men	367	62.2%	159	27.0%	30	5.1%	22	3.8%	11	1.9%	590	100%	526	89.2%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Men	7 370	64.5%	3 182	27.8%	380	3.3%	227	2.0%	266	2.3%	11 425	100%	10 552	92.4%
Persons with disabilities: Women	371	62.1%	162	27.1%	21	3.5%	21	3.4%	23	3.9%	598	100%	533	89.2%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Women	7 663	63.1%	3 476	28.6%	383	3.2%	351	2.9%	266	2.2%	12 139	100%	11 139	91.8%
All Men	7 760	64.3%	3 358	27.8%	410	3.4%	253	2.1%	279	2.3%	12 060	100%	11 118	92.2%
All Women	8 058	63.0%	3 657	28.6%	406	3.2%	371	2.9%	291	2.3%	12 784	100%	11 716	91.6%

 

Table 14: Managers: persons appointed are a good fit

Group	Strongly agree		Somewhat agree		Neither agree nor disagree		Somewhat disagree		Strongly disagree		Grand Total		Positive Responses
Indigenous peoples: Men	285	61.4%	119	25.6%	26	5.6%	16	3.4%	18	4.0%	465	100%	404	87.0%
Not identified as Indigenous: Men	7 815	68.1%	2 858	24.9%	332	2.9%	222	1.9%	250	2.2%	11 477	100%	10 674	93.0%
Indigenous peoples: Women	338	64.1%	131	24.8%	34	6.5%	16	3.1%	9	1.6%	527	100%	469	88.8%
Not identified as Indigenous: Women	8 042	66.3%	3 152	26.0%	364	3.0%	316	2.6%	255	2.1%	12 129	100%	11 194	92.3%
Members of visible minorities: Men	858	64.2%	384	28.7%	42	3.2%	28	2.1%	24	1.8%	1 337	100.0%	1 242	92.9%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Men	7 091	68.2%	2 559	24.6%	308	3.0%	201	1.9%	244	2.3%	10 404	100.0%	9 650	92.8%
Members of visible minorities: Women	822	64.3%	350	27.4%	48	3.7%	32	2.5%	27	2.1%	1 279	100.0%	1 172	91.7%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Women	7 427	66.7%	2 850	25.6%	330	3.0%	295	2.6%	231	2.1%	11 133	100.0%	10 277	92.3%
Persons with disabilities: Men	369	63.8%	155	26.8%	23	4.0%	18	3.0%	14	2.3%	579	100%	525	90.6%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Men	7 740	68.1%	2 822	24.8%	337	3.0%	218	1.9%	257	2.3%	11 374	100%	10 562	92.9%
Persons with disabilities: Women	363	62.0%	165	28.2%	22	3.8%	16	2.7%	19	3.2%	585	100%	528	90.2%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Women	8 025	66.4%	3 115	25.8%	376	3.1%	319	2.6%	244	2.0%	12 079	100%	11 140	92.2%
All Men	8 135	67.8%	2 989	24.9%	360	3.0%	238	2.0%	272	2.3%	11 994	100%	11 124	92.7%
All Women	8 415	66.2%	3 297	25.9%	400	3.1%	335	2.6%	265	2.1%	12 712	100%	11 712	92.1%

 

Table 15: Percentage of persons with disabilities who requested testing accommodation measures

2018 Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey Results	Yes		No		Grand Total
Persons with disabilities	1 611	12.3%	11 456	87.7%	13 068	100%

 

Table 16: Extent persons with disabilities agreed that they were satisfied with the testing accommodation measures provided

Group	Not at all		To a minimal extent		To a moderate extent		To a great extent		Grand Total		Positive Responses
Persons with disabilities	230	14.3%	315	19.6%	487	30.3%	575	35.8%	1 607	100%	1 062	66.1%

 

Table 17: Merit, fairness and transparency: positive responses by visible minority group*

Group	Merit		Fairness		Transparency		Respondents (unweighted)
All employees	100 633	53.9%	84 584	46.4%	80 593	44.3%	87 920
All members of visible minorities	15 166	50.9%	12 097	41.7%	11 787	40.6%	14 369
South Asian	2 653	48.0%	2 261	41.7%	2 123	39.1%	2 691
Chinese	2 903	52.1%	2 459	45.6%	2 367	43.7%	2 748
Black	3 305	55.3%	2 270	39.1%	2 247	38.5%	2 918
Filipino	734	56.0%	605	46.9%	589	45.9%	617
Latin American	1 281	52.9%	1 029	43.8%	1 031	43.8%	1 153
Arab	1 473	53.8%	1 204	45.1%	1 175	44.5%	1 322
Southeast Asian	673	48.8%	527	40.2%	560	42.4%	663
West Asian	549	50.3%	446	41.3%	430	40.3%	515
Korean	189	43.0%	142	33.2%	137	32.3%	212
Japanese	202	43.5%	167	37.5%	161	35.6%	217
Other	1 206	42.1%	987	35.4%	967	34.7%	1 313

*This table is for general information purposes and includes respondents that did not indicate “male” or “female” as their gender, thus including respondents who were excluded elsewhere in this report. Because of this, these results may differ from those elsewhere in this report. It is also possible that some respondents chose multiple ethnicities. Results for merit, fairness and transparency use weighted responses.