Common menu bar
Breadcrumb
Career progression in the federal public service – Temporary versus permanent start-ups
A summary report by the Public Service Commission of Canada
October 2009
Related Documents
Public Service Commission of Canada
300 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0M7
Canada
Information: 613-992-9562
Facsimile: 613-992-9352
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Public Service Commission of Canada, 2009
Table of Contents
- Highlights
- Introduction
- Data and methodology
- Summary of study findings
- Concluding remarks
- Study team
- Appendix: Statistical tables
Highlights
In the study entitled New indeterminate employees: Who are they?, published in 2007, the Public Service Commission reported that a high percentage of first time appointments to the permanent public service were being staffed with individuals who had prior experience as temporary workers, both term and casual. The Commission expressed concern that such a practice did not respect the guiding value of transparency and that it limited access to public service jobs for those unwilling or unable to accept temporary employment as a precondition to being hired permanently. However, it should be noted that the permanent hires from the temporary workforce were required to pass a merit test.
This study compares the career progression of individuals who entered the public service as permanent public servants with those who first entered into a temporary public service job before becoming permanent. As of January 2009, the career progressions of permanent employees who were originally recruited in 62 job groups and levels from 1990 to 2008 were analyzed in relation to their employment tenure upon first appointment. A total of 99 844 permanent employees were originally assigned to 1 012 start-up cohorts,1 one for each group and level and year of initial recruitment. Career progressions by cohort were then compared by tenure at the time of the initial hire, that is, temporary versus permanent.
The study concludes that the career progressions of permanent employees who initially entered the public service as temporary employees are similar to those who first entered as permanent employees.
- For the majority (90.2%) of cohorts, the tenure of initial employment did not affect career progression.
- In only 99 of the 1 012 cohorts (9.8%) did the tenure of initial employment have a statistically significant impact on career progression: 40 cohorts favoured temporary start-ups, while 59 cohorts favoured permanent start-ups.
Introduction
The Public Service Commission’s role in staffing
The Public Service Commission (PSC) is an independent agency reporting to Parliament, mandated to safeguard the integrity of the public service staffing system and the political neutrality of the public service. Under the current Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), the values of merit and non-partisanship are cornerstones for public service appointment processes, ensuring a public service that is representative, able to serve the public with integrity and in the official language of choice.
Background
Temporary (term or casual) employment is limited in duration; permanent (indeterminate) employment is not.2 Permanency in the federal public service is important because it ensures that federal departments and agencies have work forces with the long-term skills and experience they require.
Individuals can enter into the permanent public service either through recruitment programs open to the public or via temporary employment opportunities, referred to as casual and term. Casual employees need not pass a merit test in order to be employed but term employees must. The duration that a casual employee can work in any one organization is limited within a calendar year but a temporary employee’s tenure is only limited by the organizational need. After three years, a term position usually becomes permanent. Once term employees have passed a merit test, they may apply for internal appointment opportunities, the same as their permanent counterparts. Both casual and term employees must pass a merit test before being appointed to the permanent public service.
The PSC conducted a new study to update3 a recent study of new indeterminate employees and estimated that 69% of new indeterminate appointees hired between 2000-2001 and 2008-2009 had prior public service experience either as a casual or a term employee.
The over-reliance on workers with temporary employment tenure as the primary source of permanent recruits is considered a major weakness in the current staffing system. Temporary employees, having gained position-specific experience, may have an undue advantage when a process is launched to fill positions on a permanent basis. This raises concerns with respect to the values of transparency and access upheld by the PSEA.
Data and methodology
The data used in this study are made up of two components: the Job-Based Analytical Information System (JAIS), which contains information that tracks the mobility of employees, including appointments, separations and leaves without pay, since March 1990; and employees’ salaries, including the annual pay figures since March 1990.
JAIS allows the establishment of cohort-based points of entry. A given cohort is made up of all the employees who:
- were recruited in the same calendar year;
- were recruited to a job at the same classification and level; and
- occupied a permanent position in the public service on January 1, 2009.
A total of 99 844 permanent employees were arranged in 1 178 start-up cohorts, one for each of the 62 job groups and levels and year of initial recruitment between 1990 and 2008 (62 x 19 = 1 178).
Once the initial start date and tenure for each career stream were determined, the next step was to map the annual pay figures onto the longitudinal observations contained in the JAIS. The salaries were expressed in 2002 dollars,4 using Statistics Canada’s Consumer Price Index (CPI). The use of salary figures as a proxy for career progression was deemed necessary for converting the data from classification levels (e.g. ES-7, EX-1, PM-6) to annualized salaries, therefore making feasible the comparison between different "career achievements."
An econometric model was used to estimate the earnings of the 2009 permanent work force who started their public service career in one of the 62 job groups and levels. For each one of these jobs, the model had two sets of parameters, as follows:5
First, the expected earnings (in January 2009) that are associated with known explanatory variables:
- Human capital and employee-related factors: age and gender, first official language (English or French) and bilingual status (bilingual or unilingual) at the time of initial appointment; and
- Institutional factors: participation in student programs, geographical region and the department or agency where the initial appointment was made.
Second, cohort membership was assumed to have an impact on the variability of earnings as employees who started between 1990 and 1995, for example, would be expected to have higher earnings than employees who started between 2000 and 2005.
The prime interest in this model was to test the significance of differences in current earnings (2009) within a given cohort that can be associated with the tenure of initial appointment, whether temporary or permanent.
Summary of study findings
Who are the temporary versus permanent start-ups?
On January 1, 2009, there were 99 844 permanent employees who were recruited between April 1990 and December 2008 in one of 62 occupational groups and levels. These figures correspond to 50.5% of the total permanent work force as of January 2009.6 Of this population, 29.4% were recruited on a permanent basis (see Table 2 in the Appendix).
Clerical and Regulatory (CR) jobs account for nearly 40% of the career debuts, with permanent start-up ratios ranging from 3.6% at the CR-2 level to 21.2% at the CR-5 level.7 It is worth noting that 58.7% of the CR start-ups later occupied 242 non-CR permanent jobs in January 2009. This represents the largest cross-classification mobility in the federal public service.
Even when the CR group is excluded from the data, the overall permanent start-up ratio remains low at 39.5%, underscoring the fact that hiring from the temporary workforce continues to be the norm when recruiting to permanent jobs in the federal public service.
For groups with more than 5 000 start-ups, the permanent start-up ratio is above average in the Administrative Service (AS), Computer System Administration (CS), Correctional Services (CX) and Program Administration (PM) groups and well below average for the CR group.
Career differences of temporary and permanent start-ups
In 913 out of the 1 012 statistically comparable cohorts (90.2%), the tenure of initial appointment (temporary or permanent) did not have a significant impact on career progression based on earnings.
In only 99 of the 1 012 statistically comparable cohorts (9.8%) did the initial employment tenure have an impact on career progression: 40 cohorts favoured temporary start-ups, while 59 cohorts favoured permanent ones (see Table 3 in the Appendix).
Temporary members of the start-up cohorts advanced more rapidly than the permanent members of respective cohorts in 40 (or 4%) out of 1 012 cohorts. The total number of start-ups in these 40 cohorts (temporary and permanent) was 3 158, corresponding to 3.1% of the total number of employees in the core data set.
The permanent start-up ratio for these 3 158 employees was 41%, well above the public service average.
Permanent members of the start-up cohorts advanced more rapidly than the temporary members of the respective cohorts in 59 (or 5.8%) out of 1 012 cohorts. The total number of start-ups (temporary and permanent) was 8 864, corresponding to 8.9% of the total number of employees.
The permanent start-up ratio for these 8 864 employees was 8.7%, well below the public service average.
The evidence, based on career achievement alone, supports the idea that temporary employees who make it into the permanent workforce are as equally qualified as those employees who started on a permanent basis.
Other factors associated with career progression
A number of other factors associated with known explanatory variables used to explain career progression were used as control variables (see Table 4 in the Appendix). As they were not the primary target of the analysis, they were neither modelled nor analyzed in as much detail. Consequently, the results that follow should be treated with caution and studied further before a conclusion can be reached.
Student programs
Participation in student programs enhances one’s public service career progression (as measured in dollars paid) by an amount of 2.7%, public service-wide.
Initial hiring organization
Organizational factors help predict one’s career progression and different organizations offer different career opportunities for similar entry-level jobs. Entrance into 62 distinct types of public service jobs, based on classification and level, occurred in 133 departments and agencies.
The career achievements of hires to the AS, the CR, the ES and the PM groups varied, depending on the organization where the original recruitment took place.
National Capital Region versus the regions
Being recruited in the National Capital Region (NCR) resulted in an average salary advantage of 6.2%, compared to being recruited elsewhere. A difference in career progression favouring the NCR was found for 38 of the 61 entry-level jobs.8
Gender and age
At the aggregate level, there was no indication of a gender bias in career progression. This finding held true for the majority (55 out of 62) of the entry-level jobs.
Differences in favour of men were found in the following groups: the Clerical and Regulatory group (CR) at levels CR-2 (11%), CR-3 (8.2%), CR-4 (5.9%), and CR-5 (5.2%); in the Economics, Sociology and Statistics group (ES) at the ES-4 level (8.4%); and, in the Social Science Support group (SI) at the SI-2 level (11.8%).
While the relationship between age and career progression was found to be statistically significant, it has little material impact on salary attainment. Being five years younger increases final salary attainment by 1% for men and 1.5% for women.
Official languages and bilingualism
Career progression for both official language communities was contingent upon an employee’s bilingual status at the time of initial appointment. Employees with English as a first official language made up 69.3% of the start-up entries in the selected classifications, 21.9% of whom were bilingual. Bilingualism was more widespread among employees with French as a first official language, as 84.2% of them were bilingual.9
The permanent start-up ratio for those with English as a first official language was 31.3%, compared with 25.0% for those whose first official language is French. The comparable figures for unilingual employees are 32.5% and 25.7% and for bilingual employees, 26.6% and 24.7% respectively.
| Unilingual | Bilingual | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | 32.5 | 26.6 | 31.3 |
| French | 25.7 | 24.7 | 25.0 |
Public service-wide, the bilingual start-ups (English or French) did 5.1% better than the unilingual (English or French) start-ups. Among bilingual employees, the English start-ups advanced more rapidly than their French counterparts by 3.6%. Among unilingual employees, the English start-ups advanced more rapidly than their French counterparts by 2.3%. The combined effect of first official language and bilingualism on career progression remained statistically significant for 49 out of the 62 groups and levels studied.
Concluding remarks
Evidence shows that the skills and competencies of permanent employees who started as temporary recruits were as equally in demand by the internal labour market, resulting in promotional opportunities equal to those of permanent start-ups.
Study team
A/Vice-President, Audit and Data Services Branch:
Jean Ste-Marie
Director General, Appointment Information and Analysis Directorate:
Jean-François Tardif
Manager, Analysis Division:
Haldun Sarlan
Appendix: Statistical tables
[Return]
| Groups levels | Differences Temporary minus permanent |
Number of cohorts (1990-2008) with career achievememt in 2009 was in favour of | Groups levels | Differences Temporary minus permanent |
Number of cohorts (1990-2008) with career achievememt in 2009 was in favour of | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temporary | Permanent | Temporary | Permanent | ||||
| AS-1 | -0.7% | 3 | 0 | FI-1 | -0.2% | 0 | 0 |
| AS-2 | -0.2% | 2 | 0 | FS-2 | 0.4% | 0 | 0 |
| AS-3 | -0.1% | 1 | 2 | GT-1 | -0.1% | 0 | 0 |
| AS-4 | -0.1% | 0 | 0 | GT-2 | 0.0% | 0 | 0 |
| AS-5 | 0.1% | 1 | 1 | IS-2 | -0.3% | 2 | 1 |
| BI-2 | 0.2% | 0 | 2 | IS-3 | 0.2% | 0 | 0 |
| BI-3 | 0-.1% | 1 | 0 | IS-4 | 0.0% | 0 | 0 |
| CO-1 | 0.1% | 1 | 0 | LA-1 | 0.0% | 1 | 0 |
| CO-2 | 0.0% | 1 | 2 | NUCHN-3 | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| CR-2 | 0.3% | 1 | 4 | NUHOS-3 | 0.0% | 2 | 1 |
| CR-3 | 0.3% | 0 | 6 | PC-1 | -0.3% | 2 | 1 |
| CR-4 | 0.5% | 0 | 8 | PC-2 | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| CR-5 | 0.4% | 1 | 4 | PE-1 | 0.0% | 1 | 0 |
| CS-1 | -0.2% | 0 | 0 | PG-1 | -0.2% | 0 | 0 |
| CS-2 | -0.1% | 2 | 0 | PM-1 | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| CS-3 | -0.2% | 1 | 0 | PM-2 | -0.1% | 0 | 0 |
| CX-1 | -0.1% | 0 | 0 | PM-3 | 0.4% | 2 | 5 |
| CX-2 | -0.1% | 0 | 0 | PM-4 | 0.2% | 1 | 2 |
| EG-1 | 0.1% | 0 | 0 | PM-5 | 0.1% | 0 | 2 |
| EG-2 | 0.3% | 0 | 1 | SERES-1 | 0.0% | 0 | 0 |
| EG-3 | 0.2% | 0 | 2 | SI-1 | 0.3% | 2 | 3 |
| EG-4 | 0.0% | 1 | 1 | SI-2 | 0.4% | 0 | 3 |
| EG-5 | 0.1% | 0 | 0 | SI-3 | 0.5% | 0 | 2 |
| EG-6 | 0.0% | 0 | 0 | STOCE-2 | -0.1% | 1 | 0 |
| ENENG-2 | -0.2% | 0 | 0 | STSCY-2 | -0.1% | 1 | 0 |
| ENENG-3 | 0.0% | 0 | 0 | STSCY-3 | 0.1% | 2 | 3 |
| ENENG-4 | -0.1% | 1 | 0 | TI-6 | 0.0% | 0 | 0 |
| ES-1 | 0.0% | 0 | 0 | TR-1 | -0.4% | 0 | 0 |
| ES-2 | 0.0% | 0 | 0 | WP-3 | -0.1% | 0 | 0 |
| ES-3 | -0.4% | 2 | 0 | WP-4 | -0.3% | 0 | 0 |
| ES-4 | -0.4% | 2 | 0 | ||||
| ES-5 | -0.2% | 2 | 0 | Total | 0.0% | 40 | 59 |
[Return]
| Groups levels | Student program | NCR vs. Regions | Men vs. women | English vs. French | Groups levels | Student program | NCR vs. Regions | Men vs. women | English vs. French | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unilingual | Bilingual | Unilingual | Bilingual | ||||||||
| AS-1 | 3.2 | 3.6 | 4.1 | 0.0 | 1.6 | FI-1 | -0.6 | 4.2 | 3.6 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| AS-2 | 3.2 | 2.9 | 4.7 | 3.6 | 2.5 | FS-2 | 4.4 | 0.0 | 3.7 | 8.5 | 0.5 |
| AS-3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 6.7 | -0.7 | 3.5 | GT-1 | 0.2 | 9.7 | -4.1 | -4.0 | 2.1 |
| AS-4 | 0.4 | 4.3 | 2.4 | 2.8 | 4.1 | GT-2 | -0.1 | 5.4 | -3.9 | -4.2 | -1.7 |
| AS-5 | -2.7 | 1.9 | -6.4 | 1.9 | 4.2 | IS-2 | 0.7 | 2.5 | 5.2 | 1.9 | 3.5 |
| BI-2 | -3.5 | 7.2 | -2.5 | 2.9 | 2.1 | IS-3 | 1.5 | 2.9 | 8.7 | -2.1 | 3.4 |
| BI-3 | -2.6 | 1.9 | 6.8 | 4.8 | 5.9 | IS-4 | -1.7 | 1.7 | 2.3 | -8.5 | 1.0 |
| CO-1 | -1.8 | 3.1 | 5.4 | 3.4 | 2.4 | LA-1 | -0.4 | -2.5 | 5.2 | -1.5 | 1.6 |
| CO-2 | -0.6 | 5.3 | 5.2 | -5.3 | 1.3 | NUCHN-3 | 2.1 | 6.6 | 1.0 | 4.5 | -2.5 |
| CR-2 | 10.1 | 7.2 | 11.0 | 5.6 | 9.0 | NUHOS-3 | 2.5 | 5.3 | -1.3 | 0.5 | 1.9 |
| CR-3 | 10.4 | 6.8 | 8.2 | 4.2 | 5.7 | PC-1 | -3.0 | 3.6 | -3.2 | 5.7 | 1.0 |
| CR-4 | 6.9 | 4.9 | 5.9 | 2.7 | 3.6 | PC-2 | -1.5 | 4.0 | 4.3 | 3.3 | 2.1 |
| CR-5 | 4.6 | 5.9 | 5.2 | 2.0 | 22.7 | PE-1 | -1.8 | 6.0 | 0.8 | 4.0 | 0.1 |
| CS-1 | -0.2 | 5.7 | 1.9 | 5.0 | 3.0 | PG-1 | -2.6 | 7.8 | -8.9 | -1.2 | -0.5 |
| CS-2 | -0.3 | 2.7 | -0.3 | 0.1 | 2.2 | PM-1 | 1.7 | 10.9 | 3.6 | 0.3 | 3.3 |
| CS-3 | -1.4 | 0.3 | 7.8 | 1.3 | 2.7 | PM-2 | 0.9 | 11.2 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 2.6 |
| CX-1 | 0.4 | 7.8 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 1.0 | PM-3 | 1.0 | 5.2 | -1.7 | 1.8 | 1.1 |
| CX-2 | 1.0 | NE * | 6.5 | -0.5 | 10.2 | PM-4 | 0.1 | 8.3 | 5.1 | 2.0 | 2.3 |
| EG-1 | 6.3 | 10.4 | -1.7 | 9.0 | 11.8 | PM-5 | -2.6 | 6.5 | 0.2 | -8.0 | 1.9 |
| EG-2 | 3.2 | 6.6 | 1.4 | 6.5 | 9.5 | SERES-1 | -6.6 | -0.1 | 12.7 | 2.5 | 8.0 |
| EG-3 | 0.8 | 1.7 | 3.7 | 9.6 | 6.5 | SI-1 | 2.8 | 9.0 | 3.1 | 5.8 | 6.0 |
| EG-4 | -1.0 | 0.2 | -1.0 | -0.2 | 5.2 | SI-2 | 0.6 | 2.9 | 11.8 | 1.7 | 1.2 |
| EG-5 | -3.9 | 0.6 | 5.2 | 3.9 | 7.2 | SI-3 | -0.2 | -1.0 | 1.0 | -6.0 | 2.3 |
| EG-6 | 0.4 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 5.0 | STOCE-2 | 6.0 | 9.9 | 78.9 | -2.1 | 2.9 |
| ENENG-2 | 0.4 | 1.5 | -1.1 | 3.1 | -0.2 | STSCY-2 | 6.2 | 12.3 | 19.7 | -1.5 | 5.6 |
| ENENG-3 | -0.6 | 1.7 | -1.5 | 1.4 | 3.4 | STSCY-3 | 4.1 | 8.7 | 9.7 | 5.2 | 3.0 |
| ENENG-4 | -1.4 | 0.9 | -4.1 | -2.4 | 2.3 | TI-6 | 2.8 | 2.1 | 8.7 | -3.1 | -0.3 |
| ES-1 | 0.0 | 5.7 | 14.7 | 15.5 | 5.1 | TR-1 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 2.2 |
| ES-2 | -1.8 | 7.4 | 5.0 | 2.5 | 4.0 | WP-3 | -1.7 | 7.0 | 2.8 | -0.9 | 5.3 |
| ES-3 | -1.0 | 6.2 | 7.0 | -1.2 | 3.1 | WP-4 | -1.7 | 6.5 | 0.3 | -1.2 | -0.6 |
| ES-4 | 0.2 | 1.1 | 8.4 | 1.7 | 4.3 | ||||||
| ES-5 | 0.0 | 3.0 | 1.3 | -2.6 | 2.0 | Total | 2.7 | 6.2 | 0.4 | 2.3 | 3.6 |
*non estimable [Return]
[Return]
Foot Notes
- The concept of a start-up cohort was developed as the basis to compare the career progression of similar employees, depending on the type of job and the length of employment in the public service. For example, all employees who began their public service career in 2005 within the Economics, Sociology and Statistics Groups at the ES-3 level and who occupied a permanent position on January 1, 2009, regardless of their group and level in 2009, would belong to the same cohort. [Return]
- The public service work force consists of people with different employment rights and status. The indeterminate component is considered to be the core work force, the determinate component consists of terms, casuals and students. The contractual component consists of temporary help, service agency staff and consultants. The term "temporary" in this study represents only some of the "contingent" work force, which can also include the contractual component. [Return]
- The Public Service Commission 2008-2009 Annual Report, Chapter 6. [Return]
- Statistics Canada uses 2002 as the base year for the production of its CPI. [Return]
- Based on the study Career progression in the federal public service – Temporary versus permanent start-ups: Technical report, by Haldun Sarlan, Appointment Information and Analysis Directorate, Public Service Commission, August 2009. Copies are available on request. [Return]
- Job-Based Analytical Information System (JAIS). Only groups and levels with more than 300 start-ups were included in the study. [Return]
- The permanent start-up ratio at some point in time (January 1, 2009, in this study) is calculated as a percentage of indeterminate employees who started their public service career with a permanent tenure. [Return]
- Correctional Services (CX-2) cannot be contrasted, since there were no CX-2 start-ups in the NCR. [Return]
- JAIS. [Return]
- The percentage differences, temporary minus permanent, are in favour of the temporary start-ups if the difference is positive and in favour of the permanent start-ups if the difference is negative. The numbers of cohorts that are significant appear in the next two columns. [Return]
- Figures that appear in bold type are statistically significant. [Return]