2023 Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey: Thematic Report on the Results for Employment Equity Groups and Equity-Seeking Groups

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Employment Equity Groups
• Equity-Seeking Groups
• Conclusion
• Appendix
  • Appendix A: Methodology
  • Appendix B: Methodology to identify persons with disabilities
  • Appendix C: Respondent profile
  • Appendix D: Results by subgroup

Introduction

About the survey

The Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC) is responsible for promoting and safeguarding a merit-based, representative and non-partisan federal public service that serves all Canadians.

As part of the PSC’s mandate and responsibilities for safeguarding a merit-based, representative and non-partisan public service that serves all Canadians, the Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey (SNPS) 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, and 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 (PSEA), new questions were added on biases and barriers that disadvantage persons belonging to equity-seeking groups in staffing processes as well as demographic questions to evaluate the perceptions of equity-seeking groups.

This report provides a summary of the survey’s key results for the designated employment equity groups as well as for equity-seeking groups across federal public service departments and agencies that rely on the Commission’s authority to make appointments as set out in the Public Service Employment Act. This includes members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have civilian (i.e. public servant) direct reports employed under the act and regular members, civilian members and special constables of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police hired under the RCMP Act who have public service employee direct reports that are employed under the PSEA. Results for the subgroups of employment equity groups and equity-seeking groups are also summarized where a sufficient number of responses was obtained.

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 related to the content of this report, don’t hesitate to contact us by email at: cfp.sdip-snps.psc@cfp-psc.gc.ca.

An overview of the 2023 Staffing and Non-Partisanship 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.

Employment Equity Groups

This section presents a summary of responses to questions on the themes of merit, fairness, and transparency in the staffing process for the designated employment equity groups (women, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities). For a breakdown of the respondent profile by employment equity group, please refer to Table 36 in Appendix C.

Women

Merit

In general, women had more positive perceptions on questions related to merit when compared with men and with employees who identify as another gender. Among women, 86% agreed that people hired in their organization can do the job compared with 83% of men and 76% of employees who identify as another gender. Further, 85% of women agreed that advertised job requirements reflect those of the position to be filled compared with 82% of men and 69% of employees who identify as another gender.

Fairness

Women and men were similar in agreeing that the process for selecting a person for a position is done fairly (78% for women versus 77% for men). However, 64% of employees identifying as another gender agreed with this statement.

Transparency

Women and men had identical views on transparency in the staffing process with 71% agreeing that staffing activities are carried out in a transparent way and 73% saying that their managers kept them informed of staffing decisions involving their work unit. However, 62% of employees identifying as another gender agreed that staffing activities are carried out in a transparent manner while 64% said that their manager keeps them informed of staffing decisions involving their work unit.

Indigenous peoples

Merit

Indigenous employees had less positive perceptions compared to non-Indigenous employees on questions related to merit in the staffing process. Among Indigenous employees, 80% agreed that people hired in their organization can do the job (versus 84% for non-Indigenous employees). Meanwhile, 77% of Indigenous employees agreed that advertised job requirements reflect those of the position to be filled (versus 83% for non-Indigenous employees).

Perceptions of merit for Indigenous subgroups were similar to each other. Métis and First Nations employees were the most likely to believe that we hire people who can do the job (both 80%) (see Appendix D, Table 51). Inuit employees were the least likely to believe that we hire people who can do the job (77%) (see Appendix D, Table 51). First Nations employees were the most likely to believe that the advertised job requirements reflect those of the position to be filled (78%) (see Appendix D, Table 3)

Fairness

Indigenous employees were less likely than non-Indigenous employees to say that the process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly. Slightly more than 2 thirds (69%) of Indigenous employees agreed with the statement compared with 77% of non-Indigenous employees.

Perceptions of fairness in the staffing system were similar across Indigenous subgroups (within 1% of each other) (see Appendix D, Table 55)

Transparency

Similar to results on merit and fairness, employees who identified as Indigenous had less positive views than non-Indigenous employees on questions related to transparency in the staffing process. Less than 2 thirds (64%) of Indigenous employees agreed that staffing activities are carried out in a transparent way (versus 71% of non-Indigenous employees). Meanwhile, 2 thirds (66%) of Indigenous employees said that their manager keeps them informed of staffing decisions involving their work unit compared with 73% of non-Indigenous employees.

Perceptions of transparency in the staffing system were similar among Indigenous subgroups for all questions regarding transparency (within 2% for all questions). Employees who identified as Inuit were the least likely to agree that staffing activities are carried out in a transparent way (63%) (see Appendix D, Table 57).

Persons with disabilities

Merit

Employees with disabilities had slightly less positive perceptions than employees without disabilities on questions related to merit. Among employees with disabilities, 81% agreed that people hired in their work unit could do the job (versus 85% of employees without disabilities). Nearly 4 out of 5 (79%) employees with disabilities said that advertised job requirements reflect those of the position to be filled compared with 85% of employees without disabilities. Among employees with disabilities, results varied by type of disability. For example: employees with flexibility or dexterity disabilities, and employees with intellectual disabilities had the least positive perceptions of merit in the staffing process (see Table 65 in Appendix D).

Fairness

Employees with disabilities were less likely than employees without disabilities to agree that the process for selecting a person for a position is done fairly (71% versus 79% for employees without disabilities). Among employees with disabilities, employees with intellectual disabilities were the least likely to agree that the process for selecting a person for a position is done fairly (see Table 65 in Appendix D).

Transparency

Similar to results on merit and fairness, employees with disabilities had less positive views than employees without disabilities on questions related to transparency in the staffing process. Less than 2 thirds (64%) of employees with disabilities agreed that staffing activities are carried out in a transparent way (versus 73% of employees without disabilities). Furthermore, 68% of employees with disabilities said that their manager kept them informed of staffing decisions involving their work unit compared with 74% of employees without disabilities. Among employees with disabilities, results varied by type of disability. As with questions related to merit, employees with flexibility or dexterity disabilities, and employees with intellectual disabilities had the least positive perceptions of transparency in the staffing process (see Table 65 in Appendix D).

Assessment accommodation requests

The following section presents the views of persons with disabilities on assessment accommodation measures^{Footnote 2}.

An assessment accommodation is a change made to an assessment procedure, format or content. It is designed to remove barriers to a fair assessment and allow candidates to fully demonstrate how they meet the qualifications required for the position. Assessment accommodation can be classified into 5 broad categories:

• testing environment
• test format
• response format
• scheduling/timing
• other

It is important to note that although most assessment accommodations are made on the basis of disability, accommodations may be requested for any need relating to one of the 13 prohibited grounds for discrimination set out in the Canadian Human Rights Act. For more information, please consult the Government of Canada’s basics of assessment accommodation web page.

The 2023 survey asked respondents if they required accommodations as part of a staffing process or second language evaluation. Those who indicated they required accommodations were asked if they requested them. Those who requested accommodations were asked if they received the accommodations. Those who received accommodations were then asked to what extent they were satisfied with the accommodation they received. Finally, respondents were asked to indicate the types of accommodations they received.

The survey results show that 9% of persons with disabilities indicated they required assessment accommodations compared with 3% of employees without disabilities. Among persons with disabilities who required assessment accommodations, 56% actually requested the accommodations they required compared with 22% of employees without disabilities. Among persons with disabilities who requested accommodations, 78% received the accommodations requested compared with 60% of employees without disabilities. Among persons with disabilities who were provided with the accommodations they requested, 82% were satisfied with the accommodations compared with 90% of employees without disabilities who were provided accommodations.

Respondents who were provided with accommodation measures were asked to specify the types of accommodation measures they received. Among employees who were provided with assessment accommodation measures, 68% of employees with disabilities mentioned that they were given extra time to complete an assessment as the measure they received (compared with 39% of employees without disabilities). This is the most common type of accommodation provided. For additional results on the types of accommodation measures provided, see Table 11.

Members of visible minorities

Merit

Employees who identified as members of visible minorities had less positive perceptions than employees who did not identify as members of visible minorities on questions related to merit in the staffing process. Among members of visible minorities, 82% agreed that people hired in their work unit can do the job (versus 85% of employees who are not members of visible minorities). Approximately 4 out of 5 members of visible minorities said that advertised job requirements reflect those of the position to be filled (81% versus 84% employees who are not members of visible minorities).

Perceptions of merit varied among visible minority subgroups. Employees who identified as Latin American and employees who identified as Black were the most likely to believe that people hired within their work unit could do the job (85% and 87% respectively) (see Appendix D, Table 50). Employees who identified as Black and employees who identified as Chinese were the most likely to believe that advertised job requirements reflect those of the position to be filled (83% for both) (see Appendix D, Table 52). Employees who identified as Japanese had the least positive perceptions regarding merit in the staffing process.

Fairness

Members of visible minorities were less likely than employees who are not members of visible minorities to have positive perceptions of fairness in the staffing process. Less than 3 quarters (73%) of members of visible minorities agreed that the process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly compared with 78% of employees who are not members of visible minorities.

The perceptions of fairness varied among the visible minority subgroups. Employees who identified as Filipino and employees who identified as Chinese were the most likely to believe that the process of selecting someone for a position was done fairly (both 79%) (see Appendix D, Table 54). Employees who identified as West Asian had the least positive perceptions of fairness in the staffing process.

Transparency

Similar to results on merit and fairness, employees who identified as members of visible minorities had less positive views than employees who are not members of visible minorities on questions related to transparency in the staffing process. Approximately 2 thirds (67%) of members of visible minorities agreed that staffing activities are carried out in a transparent way compared with 71% of employees who are not members of visible minorities. In addition, 70% of members of visible minorities said that their manager keeps them informed of staffing decisions involving their work unit (versus 73% of employees who are not members of visible minorities).

Perceptions of transparency in the staffing system differed between visible minority subgroups. Employees who identified as Latin American and employees who identified as Filipino were the most likely to believe that staffing activities are carried out in a transparent way (72% and 71% respectively) (see Appendix D, Table 56). Employees who identified as Japanese were the least likely to believe that staffing activities are carried out in a transparent way (57%) (see Appendix D, Table 56). Meanwhile, employees who identified as Chinese and employees who identified as Filipino were the most likely to believe that their manager keeps them informed of staffing decisions involving their work unit (74% and 73% respectively) (see Appendix D, Table 58). Employees who identified as West Asian and employees who identified as Japanese were the least likely to believe that their manager keeps them informed of staffing decisions involving their work unit (63% and 64% respectively) (see Appendix D, Table 58).

Equity-Seeking Groups

The previous section explored the perceptions of the 4 designated employment equity groups and sub-groups. While these groups and sub-groups may also be considered equity-seeking groups within the meaning of the PSEA, the following section will present results for the equity-seeking groups for which data is now available for the first time.

This section presents a summary of the responses as well as results on the themes of merit, fairness, transparency, and biases and barriers that disadvantage members of equity-seeking groups in the staffing process. For results on biases and barriers that disadvantage designated employment equity groups, please refer to the 2023 Staffing and Non-Partisanship Report on the Results for the Federal Public Service. For a breakdown of the respondent profile by equity-seeking group, please refer to Tables 38-41 in Appendix C.

Employees who identify as 2SLGBTQIA+

The 2023 SNPS asked respondents if they identify as 2SLGTQIA+. More specifically, respondents were able to identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Two-Spirit, Intersex, Asexual, or another identity, or they could choose not to specify. The 2023 SNPS found that approximately 10% of federal public servants identify as 2SLGBTQIA+.  For a breakdown of the respondent profile by 2SLGBTQIA+ identity, please refer to Table 38 in Appendix C.

Merit

In general, employees who identified as 2SLGBTQIA+ had similar perceptions to employees who did not identify as 2SLGBTQIA+ on questions related to merit.

Among employees who identified as 2SLGBTQIA+, 84% agreed that their work unit hired people who can do the job (identical to employees who are not 2SLGBTQIA+). Meanwhile, 81% of 2SLGBTQIA+ employees said that advertised job requirements reflect those of the position to be filled (versus 84% for employees who are not 2SLGBTQIA+).

Fairness

Employees who identified as 2SLGBTQIA+ had identical perceptions to employees who are not 2SLGBTQIA+on fairness in the staffing process, with 77% agreeing that the process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly.

Transparency

Employees who identify as 2SLGBTQIA+ were less likely than employees who are not 2SLGBTQIA+to say that staffing activities are carried out in a transparent way (67% versus 71% for employees who are not 2SLGBTQIA+). However, they were almost as likely to say that their manager keeps them informed of staffing decisions involving their work unit (72% vs 73% for employees who are not 2SLGBTQIA+).

Biases and barriers in staffing processes

Table 18 below shows that 51% of employees who identify as 2SLGBTQIA+ agreed that, within their organization, assessment methods used in staffing processes reduce or eliminate biases and barriers that disadvantage persons belonging to equity-seeking groups (compared with 56% for employees who are not 2SLGBTQIA+).

Among employees who participated in an advertised staffing process between September 16, 2022 and September 15, 2023^{Footnote 3}, 22% of 2SLGBTQIA+ employees indicated that they had experienced biases and barriers in the staffing process that disadvantaged them, a higher proportion than employees who are not 2SLGBTQIA+ (17%).

Religious communities

The 2023 SNPS asked respondents if they identify with a religion. The different religious communities in the survey are Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Traditional (North American Indigenous) spirituality, and other religions and spiritual traditions. Among public servants, 55% identify as members of a religious community. For a breakdown of the respondent profile by religion, please refer to Table 39 in Appendix C. For additional results on questions related to merit, fairness, and transparency by religion, please refer to Tables 60 through 64 in Appendix D.

Merit

In general, employees who identified as members of religious communities had similar perceptions as employees who are not members of religious communities on questions related to merit.

Among employees who identified as members of religious communities, 84% agreed that people hired within their work unit can do the job (versus 85% of employees who are not members of religious communities). Further, 84% agreed that advertised job requirements reflect those of the position to be filled (identical to employees who are not members of religious communities).

Fairness

Employees who identified as members of a religious community had slightly less positive perceptions than employees who are not members of religious communities on fairness in the staffing process. Over 3 quarters of members of religious communities agreed that the process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly (77% versus 79% for employees who are not members of religious communities).

Transparency

Members of a religious community were equally likely as employees who are not members of religious communities to believe that staffing activities are carried out in a transparent way (71%). However, they were slightly less likely than employees who are not members of religious communities to say that their manager keeps them informed of staffing decisions involving their work unit (72% versus 74% for employees who are not members of religious communities).

Biases and barriers in staffing processes

Among members of religious communities, 57% agreed that, within their organization, assessment methods used in staffing processes reduce or eliminate biases and barriers that disadvantage persons belonging to equity-seeking groups. This perception is slightly higher compared to employees who are not members of religious communities (54%).

Among employees who participated in an advertised staffing process between September 16, 2022 and September 15, 2023, 19% of employees who are members of a religious community indicated that they had experienced biases and barriers in the staffing process that disadvantaged them compared with 15% employees who are not members of religious communities.

Employees who identified with Hinduism, Sikhism, and Traditional (North American Indigenous Spirituality) were the most likely to report experiencing biases and barriers in a staffing process. For additional results by religion, please refer to Table 25.

Marital status

The 2023 SNPS asked respondents to declare their marital status. Respondents could indicate that they were married, living common-law, separated but still legally married, divorced, widowed, or single, never married. For a breakdown of the respondent profile by marital status, please refer to Table 40 in Appendix C.

Merit

Respondents who were married, living common-law or single had the most positive perceptions on questions related to merit in the staffing process. As shown in Table 26, 86% of single employees and those living common-law, and 84% of married employees agreed that their work unit hired people who can do the job (versus 80% of divorced and separated employees and 81% of widowed employees). Furthermore, 84% of single, married, and employees living common-law agreed that advertised job requirements reflect those of the position to be filled (versus 80% of separated employees and 81% of divorced and widowed employees).

Fairness

Perceptions of fairness in the staffing process are most positive for employees who are living common-law, married or single. Among employees living common-law, 79% agreed that the process for selecting a person for a position is done fairly while 78% of single or married employees agreed with the statement. Employees who were widowed (73%), separated (71%) or divorced (71%) had the least positive perceptions on this question.

Transparency

As with questions on merit and fairness, respondents who were married, living common-law or single had the most positive perceptions on questions related to transparency. Widowed employees had slightly less positive perceptions while divorced and separated employees had the least positive perceptions on the questions related to transparency.

As shown in Table 28 below, 72% of employees living common-law and 71% of married or single employees believed that staffing activities are carried out in a transparent way (versus 65%, 67% and 70% of separated, divorced and widowed employees respectively). Furthermore, 74% of single and living common-law employees, and 73% of married employees agreed that their manager keeps them informed of staffing decisions involving their work unit (versus 68% of separated and divorced employees and 72% of widowed employees).

Biases and barriers in staffing processes

Table 29 below shows that 58% of employees living common-law agreed that, within their organization, assessment methods used in staffing processes reduce or eliminate biases and barriers that disadvantage persons belonging to equity-seeking groups. This proportion is slightly lower for married or single employees (55% for both) and the lowest for divorced (53%), separated or widowed employees (52% for both).

Among employees who participated in an advertised staffing process between September 16, 2022 and September 15, 2023, 20% of divorced employees and 19% of married or separated employees indicated that they had experienced biases and barriers in the staffing process that disadvantaged them (see Table 30). This number is slightly lower for single employees (16%) and the lowest for employees living common-law or widowed employees (15% for both).

Family status

A new question related to family status was introduced in the 2023 SNPS. Respondents were asked if they had dependants residing in their household and to enter the number of dependants in the affirmative. For a breakdown of the respondent profile by family status, please refer to Table 41 in Appendix C.

Merit

Overall, perceptions of merit in the staffing process for employees with dependants are similar to those of employees without dependants. As seen in Table 31 below, 85% of employees, with or without dependants, agreed that people hired in their organization can do the job. Furthermore, 84% of employees with dependants agreed that advertised job requirements reflect those of the position to be filled (versus 83% of employees without dependants).

Fairness

The perception of fairness in the staffing process is similar for employees with dependants compared with that of employees without dependants. Over 3 quarters (77%) of employees with dependants agreed that the process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly (versus 78% of employees without dependants).

Transparency

As shown in Table 33, perceptions of transparency in the staffing process are identical for employees with dependants and for employees without dependants.

Biases and barriers in staffing processes

Table 34 below shows that 56% of employees with dependants agreed that assessment methods used in staffing processes in their organization reduce or eliminate biases and barriers that disadvantage persons belonging to equity-seeking groups. This proportion is similar for employees without dependants (55%).

Results by number of dependants are also similar to each other (see Appendix D, Table 48).

Among employees who participated in an advertised staffing process between September 16, 2022 and September 15, 2023, 19% of employees with dependants reported having faced biases or barriers in the staffing process. This perception is slightly higher compared to employees without dependants (16%).

Results by number of dependants show that the proportion of employees reporting having faced biases or barriers in the staffing process increases as the number of dependants increases, reaching 26% for employees with 4 or more dependants (see Appendix D, Table 49).

Conclusion

The 2023 SNPS shed light on the perceptions of the staffing system for members of employment equity groups and certain equity-seeking groups.

The survey results show that:

• Members of visible minorities, Indigenous peoples, and persons with disabilities had less positive perceptions on merit, fairness, and transparency in the staffing process.
• Employees who identified as another gender had the least positive perceptions of any demographic group on merit, fairness, and transparency in the staffing process.
• Among members of visible minorities:
• Employees who identified as Black had the most positive perceptions of merit in the staffing process while employees who identified as West Asian and employees who identified as Japanese had the least positive perceptions.
• Employees who identified as Chinese and employees who identified as Filipino had the most positive perceptions of fairness in the staffing process while employees who identified as South Asian and employees who identified as West Asian had the least positive perceptions.
• Employees who identified as Latin American were the most likely to agree that staffing activities are carried out in a transparent way while employees who identified as Chinese and employees who identified as Filipino were the most likely to say that their manager keeps them informed of staffing decisions involving their work unit.
• Employees who identified as Japanese and employees who identified as West Asian employees had the least positive perceptions of transparency in the staffing process.
• Employees with disabilities were 3 times more likely than employees without disabilities to require assessment accommodations and were less satisfied with the accommodations they received.
• Employees with dependants were more likely than employees without dependants to say that they faced biases and barriers in a staffing process.
• 2SLGBTQIA+ employees were more likely than employees who did not identify as 2SLGBTQIA+ to say that they faced biases and barriers in a staffing process.
• Among members of religious communities, employees who identified with Hinduism, Sikhism, and Traditional (North American Indigenous Spirituality) were the most likely to report facing biases and barriers in a staffing process.

The survey findings should be used to guide departments and agencies in identifying barriers and gaps and in developing measures to address them.

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

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.

Survey results are based on all full-time indeterminate and term employees of federal departments and agencies that rely on the Commission’s authority to make appointments as set out in the Public Service Employment Act as well as members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have civilian (i.e. public servant) direct reports employed under the act and regular members, civilian members and special constables of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police hired under the RCMP Act who have public service employee direct reports that are employed under the PSEA. 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)

The 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: 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 (DSQ). Please refer to 2021 Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey - Perceptions of Federal Public Servants with Disabilities for details.

In 2023, respondents were asked to self-identify to which employment equity group they identified to. To collect these data, questions aligned with the Treasury Board Secretariat’s (TBS) self-identification form were included in the questionnaire.

Appendix C: Respondent profile

Note: Results are rounded to the nearest integer. Therefore, for groups that account for less than 0.5% of respondents, the proportion is rounded to 0%.

Note: some respondents indicated having dependants but did not provide the number. These respondents are excluded from this table (about 1%).

Note: Results are rounded to the nearest integer. Therefore, for groups that account for less than 0.5% of respondents, the proportion is rounded to 0%.

Note: Results are rounded to the nearest integer. Therefore, for groups that account for less than 0.5% of respondents, the proportion is rounded to 0%.

Appendix D: Results by subgroup