Members of Employment Equity Groups: Perceptions of Merit and Fairness in Staffing Activities

A statistical study conducted by the Public Service Commission of Canada

March 2014

Highlights

The Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC) committed to conducting a study on employment equity (EE) in the public service with a special emphasis on persons with disabilities. This commitment is reflected in the PSC's 2011-2012 Annual Report. This undertaking falls under the PSC's mandate as per the Public Service Employment Act and the Employment Equity Act.

This study consists of an analysis of perceptions of merit and fairness in staffing activities as measured respectively by the extent to which candidates feel:

  • they were assessed for the actual job requirements related to the position to which they applied; and
  • the staffing activity in which they participated was run in a fair manner.

The results show that EE status has an impact on the perceptions of merit and fairness in staffing activities.

This study is a companion to the study Members of Employment Equity Groups: Chances of Promotion, in which results indicate that EE status has an impact on chances of promotion.

When the changes in perceptions of merit and fairness of EE men and women are compared with those of their respective comparison groups (men or women who have not self-identified as an Aboriginal person, a person with disabilities or a member of a visible minority), the findings indicate that:

With regard to the perceptions of merit:

  • Aboriginal men, men with disabilities and men who are members of visible minorities have less favourable perceptions than their respective comparison groups;
  • Women who are members of visible minorities also have less favourable perceptions than their comparison group;
  • Aboriginal women and women with disabilities have similar perceptions to their respective comparison groups; and
  • Men and women who do not belong to other EE groups have similar perceptions.

With regard to the perceptions of fairness:

  • Men with disabilities and men who are members of visible minorities have less favourable perceptions than their respective comparison groups;
  • Aboriginal men have similar perceptions to their comparison group;
  • Women who are members of visible minorities have less favourable perceptions than their comparison group;
  • Aboriginal women and women with disabilities have similar perceptions to their respective comparison groups; and
  • Men who do not belong to an EE group have less favourable perceptions than women who do not belong to another EE group.

Persons with disabilities are not like the other designated groups. Disabilities can be acquired over the course of a life. Because of this, age is a critical factor in understanding the chances of promotion of persons with disabilities and their perceptions of merit and fairness in staffing activities. Only one quarter of persons with disabilities report their disability within the first two years of public service; the rest report it over the course of their career.

This study suggests that EE status has an impact on perceptions of merit and fairness in staffing activities. The nature of this impact varies depending on the EE group.

The results of the study apply to the reference period covered in the analysis. The PSC cautions against making any generalizations for periods other than that of the study, since these results represent a single snapshot in time. Given the importance of these findings, the PSC is undertaking more detailed work in 2013-2014 to both update the results of the studies and take a deeper look at the career progression of EE groups. This will enable the PSC to determine more precisely whether these results represent a trend.

Introduction

About the Public Service Commission

The mandate of the Public Service Commission (PSC) is to promote and safeguard merit–based appointments and, in collaboration with other stakeholders, to protect the non–partisan nature of the public service. The PSC reports independently on its mandate to Parliament.

Under the delegated staffing system set out in the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), the PSC fulfills its mandate by providing policy guidance and expertise, as well as by conducting effective oversight. In addition, the PSC delivers innovative staffing and assessment services.

Issue

The PSC committed to conducting a study on employment equity (EE) in the public service with a special emphasis on persons with disabilities. This commitment was reflected in the PSC's 2011-2012 Annual Report. This undertaking falls under the PSC's mandate as per the PSEA and the Employment Equity Act (EEA).

The Preamble of the PSEA states that Canada will continue to benefit from a public service that is representative of Canada's diversity. Under the EEA, the PSC, as a co-employer of the public service, must identify and eliminate employment barriers in the appointment system for the four EE designated groups; develop positive policies and practices; and provide reasonable accommodation to create a representative public service.

Objective of the study

The study aims to determine whether there is a significant difference between EE members' perceptions of merit and fairness and those of their respective comparison groups as measured respectively by the extent to which candidates feel:

  • they were assessed for the actual job requirements related to the position to which they applied; and
  • the staffing activity in which they participated was run in a fair manner.

Methodology

The analysis is based on the public service staffing activities between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011. The results of the study apply to the reference period covered in the analysis. The PSC cautions against making any generalizations for periods other than that of the study, since these results represent a single snapshot in time. Given the importance of these findings, the PSC is undertaking more detailed work in 2013-2014 to both update the results of the studies and take a deeper look at the career progression of EE groups. This will enable the PSC to determine more precisely whether these results represent a trend.

The methodology is based on the following comparisons:

  • The perceptions of merit and fairness of Aboriginal men, men with disabilities and men who were members of visible minorities were compared with those of men who did not belong to any EE group;
  • The perceptions of merit and fairness of Aboriginal women, women with disabilities and women who were members of visible minorities were compared with those of women who did not belong to another EE group; and
  • The perceptions of merit and fairness of women who did not belong to another EE groupwere compared with those of menwho did not belong to an EE group.

To clarify analysis, individuals belonging to more than one group were excluded from this analysis, except, of course, for women. Thus, the groups compared are mutually exclusive.

An ordinal logistic regression model was used to test the differences between EE groups' perceptions and those of their respective comparison groups. The information on EE status was gathered from the Survey of Staffing (Cycle 4, 2011, Candidate Component). The respondents' answers to the following two questions in the Survey were analysed:

  • “To what extent do you feel you were assessed for the actual job requirements related to the position?” (question related to merit)
  • “Overall, do you believe that this staffing activity was conducted in a fair manner?” (question related to fairness)

In determining whether there were differences between EE groups and their respective comparison groups, a number of factors, such as years of service, were controlled for — that is, their possible influence was removed so that the effect of belonging to an EE group was properly isolated. The lists of these factors are found in Appendix 2.

The study has limitations inherent to the data and statistical model. First, while the statistical model allows for the determination of whether there is a difference between EE groups and their respective comparison group, it does not explain why these differences exist. Further, the model operates on the assumption that a number of relevant – but unobservable – factors, such as skills, are randomly distributed among EE groups.

Secondly, while the factors analysed from the Survey of Staffing are perceptions and not observed behaviours, the results of the study are nevertheless robust and reliable, given the number of respondents to the Survey.

Independent external review

The study underwent an external peer review. An academic expert in the area of labour economics confirmed the applicability and accuracy of the methodology and findings.

Employment equity group profiles

This section presents a brief overview of the characteristics of the members of EE groups in the public service and provides a context for the analysis of perceptions. Here we present a description of characteristics distinguishing men and women within each group. The results of the logistic regression analysis comparing EE men and women with their respective comparison groups is presented after this section. Table 1 of Appendix 4 provides a comparison across all groups. The analysis is based on data from the Survey of Staffing – Candidate Component (Cycle 4, 2011).

Aboriginal Peoples

A higher proportion of Aboriginal women in the public service have a high school diploma or less (21.1%) or a diploma from a trade school, college or CEGEP (37.5%), than men (13.8% and 28.6% respectively). A greater proportion of  Aboriginal men in the public service have a Bachelor's degree than Aboriginal women (57.7% compared to 41.4%).

Further, Aboriginal women were asked to take written knowledge tests, tests of writing skills and structured interviews and were subject to reference checks more often than Aboriginal men. Aboriginal men engaged in informal discussionsFootnote1 more often than Aboriginal women (41.8% compared to 36.2%).

Members of visible minorities

The proportion of women in the public service who are members of visible minorities and who have a high school diploma or less is 5%, compared to 5.4% for men in the public service who are members of visible minorities. A greater proportion of the women have a trade school, college or CEGEP diploma than men who are members of visible minorities (18.7% and 9.8%, respectively), while men have university diplomas 84.8% percent of the time compared to 76.4% of women who are members of visible minorities.

Further, men who are members of visible minorities were asked to take written knowledge test more often than women from the same group (80.1% compared to 76%). Men and women who are members of visible minorities were also assessed using other tools: test of writing skill (44.7% and 43%); structured interviews (58.7% and 60.2%); and reference checks (68.5% and 69%). The proportion of men who are members of visible minorities and who engaged in informal discussions was 44.1%, compared to 43.1% of women in this EE group.

Persons with disabilities

The proportion of men with disabilities in the public service who have a high school diploma or less is 15.7%, compared to 14.4% for women with disabilities in the public service. A greater proportion of the men have a trade school, college or CEGEP diploma compared to women in the same EE group (29.1% and 24.7%, respectively). Over 60% of women with disabilities have a university diploma, compared to 55.2% of men with disabilities.

Women with disabilities were asked to take a written knowledge test more often than men with disabilities (74.3% compared to 66.3%). Further, women were invited to structured interviews less often than men in the same group (53.6% compared to 67.4%) and were subject to reference checks less often than men with disabilities (68.5% versus 77.3%). The proportion of women and men with disabilities who engaged in informal discussions was 46.8% and 45.4%, respectively.

Women who do not belong to another employment equity group

The proportion of women who do not belong to another EE group in the public service and who have a high school diploma or less is 14.6%, compared to 10.3% for men who do not belong to an EE group in the public service. The percentage of women who have a Bachelor's degree or university diploma is 59.7%, compared to 64.4% of men.

The proportion of women who engaged in an informal discussion is 39.2%, compared to 41.4% of men. Close to three quarters of women (74.5%) were asked to take a written knowledge test, compared to 71.4% of men. Women also mentioned having been invited to a structured interview and subject to reference checks more often than men(67.4% and 77.2%, compared to 64.9% and 73.5%).

Perceptions of merit and fairness in staffing activities

An ordinal logistic regression model was used to estimate the probability that a member of an EE group has a favourable opinion about how a staffing activity was conducted, with regard to merit and fairness.Footnote2

The following questions were considered:

  • “To what extent do you feel you were assessed for the actual job requirements related to the position?” (question related to merit)
  • “Overall, do you feel this staffing activity was conducted in a fair manner?” (question related to fairness)

Respondents must have participated, as a candidate, in a staffing activity between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011. The survey also asks respondents to identify EE groups to which they belong.

The breakdown of responses to these two questions can be found in Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix 4.

In addition to EE status, the analysis takes into account (controls for) the impact of the number of positions to be filled, years in the public service and in the current position, region in which the desired position is located, level of education, length of the staffing activity (as perceived by the candidate), participation in an informal discussion, assessment tools used in the course of the staffing activity, organization and professional (occupational) groups.

The hypothesis tested was that “there are no differences in the perceptions of merit or fairness” among EE groups compared to the respective comparison groups. The statistics are based on odds ratios. An odds ratio of 1.0 indicates with certainty that there is no difference in the perceptions of merit or fairness. An odds ratio below (or above) 1.0 means that the EE group has a less (or more) favourable perception than that of the comparison group. Unless otherwise indicated, the results have a significance level of 1%. For example, if the odd ratio for the EE group is 0.90 on their perception of merit, this means that they are 10% less likely to have favourable perceptions than their comparison group.

The odds ratios are presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2Footnote3. A parameter is deemed significant if the confidence interval excludes the null hypotheses, that is, an odds ratio of 1.0 at a significance level of 1%. The vertical lines represent confidence intervals at a significance level of 1% of these estimators. The confidence interval allows the margin of error for the odds ratio to be evaluated. Thus, it can be said that the perceptions of the EE group and the comparison group are similar if the ratio of 1.0 falls within the confidence interval. That is to say, if the vertical line crosses the horizontal line of “1.0” there is no statistically significant difference between the EE group and its respective comparison group. Therefore the same odds ratio may or may not indicate a difference, depending on the confidence interval. The length of the line — the confidence interval — depends on the size of the sample and the variability in perceptions.

Merit

The results suggest that Aboriginal men, men with disabilities or men who are members of visible minorities have less favourable perceptions of merit than men who do not belong to an EE group. Odds ratios are 0.60 for Aboriginal men, 0.56 for men with disabilities and 0.76 for men who are members of visible minorities.

The perceptions of merit of Aboriginal women and women with disabilities are comparable to those of women who do not belong to another EE group. The odds ratios are 0.91 for Aboriginal women and 0.81 for women with disabilities.

Women who are members of visible minorities have less favourable perceptions of merit than women who do not belong to another EE group with an odds ratio of 0.81.

Perceptions of merit do not differ between women who do not belong to another EE group and men who do not belong to an EE group.

A summary of the results is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1 : Odds ratios and 99% confidence intervals for expressing a favourable opinion on merit

Graph of odds ratios and confidence intervals - merit

Figure 1 long description

Source: Survey of Staffing, 2011

The study also suggests that perceptions of merit of EE members may be influenced by a number of factors, which are controlled for in the model:

  • Candidates eliminated before the conclusion of the staffing activity expressed less favourable perceptions of merit;
  • Assessment tools used during the staffing activities also affected perceptions of merit. Candidates assessed through written knowledge tests, structured interviews or reference checks have more favourable perceptions of merit than those who were not assessed using such tools;
  • Candidates who had to take a test of writing skill have less favourable perceptions of merit than those who did not have to take such a test;
  • The length of the staffing process, as perceived by the candidate, has a negative impact on perceptions. The longer the process, the less favourable the perception;
  • Candidates with three or more years of experience in their current position tended to express less favourable opinions regarding merit;
  • Candidates have less favourable opinions regarding merit when there is more than one position to be filled through the staffing activity; and
  • Perceptions of merit change based on the organization and professional group of the position to be filled.

The following factors have no direct effects on perceptions of merit: region where the position to be filled was located (National Capital Region (NCR) or other regions); length of time the candidate had worked in the public service; level of education; eligibility of the general public to apply for the position (external process); and participation in an informal discussion.

Fairness

The results suggest that men with disabilities and men who are members of visible minorities have less favourable perceptions of fairness than their comparison group. The odds ratios are 0.52 for men with disabilities and 0.56 for men who are members of visible minorities.

For Aboriginal men, their perceptions are similar to those of their comparison group. The odds ratio is 0.85.

Women who are members of visible minorities have less favourable perceptions of fairness than their comparison group. The odds ratio is 0.71.

Perceptions of fairness of Aboriginal women and women with disabilities are similar to those of their comparison groups. The odds ratios are 0.82 and 0.91, respectively.

Women who do not belong to another EE group have more favourable perceptions of fairness than men who do not belong to an EE group.The odds ratio is 1.18.

A summary of the results is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Odds ratios and 99% confidence intervals for expressing a favourable opinion on fairness

Graph on odds rations and confidencee intervals - fairness

Figure 2 long description

Source: Survey of Staffing, 2011

The following factors can also have an effect on the perceptions of fairness of EE members, which are controlled for in the model:

  • While written knowledge tests and tests of writing skill do not have an effect on perceptions of fairness, structured interviews and reference checks have a favourable impact on perceptions of fairness;
  • Candidates express less favourable opinions regarding fairness when they perceive that the length of the staffing process is longer, when they are eliminated before the conclusion of staffing, when they had held their position for at least three years or when the staffing activity was intended to fill multiple positions;
  • Candidates who participate in an informal discussion are less likely to express a favourable opinion about the fairness of the staffing activity; and
  • Perceptions of fairness change according to the organization and professional group of the position to be filled.

The following factors did not have an impact on perceptions of fairness: region where the position to be filled was located (NCR or other regions); length of time the candidate had worked in the public service; level of education; and eligibility of the general public to apply for the position (external process).

Conclusion

This study suggests that EE status has an impact on EE members' perceptions of merit and fairness. However, conclusions cannot be reached on the nature of this impact, since it may vary depending on the EE group. Thus, each EE group must be examined separately. The study is a snapshot of one year so results cannot be generalized beyond this.

The results of this study and those of with its companion study, Members of Employment Equity Groups: Chances of Promotion, the two studies together suggest that perceptions of merit and fairness in staffing activities may not always align with chances of promotion.

The study also underscores the importance of interpreting the impact of EE status in light of factors that may change perceptions of merit or fairness (for example, assessment tools used, number of applications and starting salary in the public service).

Research analysing EE status in relation to individual and socio-economic variables such as  competencies, skills, place of residence and economic and labour market conditions might provide a deeper understanding of the challenges regarding changes in perceptions of merit and fairness.

Study Team

A/Vice-President
Audit and Data Services Branch
Terry Hunt

Director General
Data Services and Analysis Directorate
Terry Hunt

Director
Studies and Survey Division
Catherine Livingstone

Director
Client Services Division
Nathalie Roy

Manager
Haldun Sarlan

Analysts
Dominic Demers
Steve Fecteau

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Sources of information

Data are taken from the Candidate component of the Survey of Staffing. They deal with staffing processes completed between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011.

The survey is limited to PSEA organizations with 350 employees or more. It collects information on appointment processes, staffing strategies, areas of selection and the experience of public servants who applied for positions.

Candidates must have applied to a staffing activity during the reference period, and this activity must have been completed during that same period. Non-civilian employees, Governor in Council appointments, ministers' exempt staff and persons employed under a student employee program were excluded.

Appendix 2 – Methodology

A logistic regression model is used to estimate the effects of belonging to an EE group.Footnote4 The generic formula for this model is:

logit(p) = log(p/1-p)

where p represents the probability of expressing a favourable perception on merit and fairness during the reference periode (binary model).

Explanatory variables x are used to estimate these models:

logit(p) = a = β x

For positive values of β, an increase in x values increases the logit(p). logit(p) increases monotonically in p. Therefore, examining the signs of explanatory variables helps determine the effect of a variable on probability p. As x contains categorical variables (belonging to an EE group), and the goal is to compare an EE group to a comparison group, the following relative odds ratios are used:

((p/(1-p))/(q/(1-q))

Where p represents probability of favourable perceptions of the EE group and q represents the probability of (favourable perception) of the comparison group. The relative odds ratio therefore measures the association that indicates the probability of observing a result in an EE individual compared to an individual in the comparison group.

List of controlled variables for the perceptions model:

Variables:

  • Place of employment (NCR or other region)
  • Service in the public service (10 years or less / more than 10 years)
  • Education level (university degree / no university degree)
  • Conclusion (eliminated /not eliminated)
  • Written knowledge test
  • Test of writing skills
  • Structured interview
  • Reference checks
  • Years in the position (2 years or less / more than 2 years)
  • Number of positions to fill (multiple/single)
  • External process (yes/no)
  • Informal discussion (yes/no)
  • Time to staff (months)
  • Professional group (20 groups)
  • Organization (30 organizations)

Appendix 3 – Glossary

Two comparison groups were created for the purposes of this study:

  • Women who have not self-identified or self-declared themselves as an Aboriginal person, person with a disability and/or member of a visible minority; and
  • Men who have not self-identified or self-declared themselves as an Aboriginal person, person with a disability and/or member of a visible.

For more definitions, please visit the Public Service Commission Glossary.

Appendix 4 – Tables and Figures

Table 1: Summary of data Footnote5
Aboriginal Peoples Members of visible minorities Persons with disabilities Men* Women*
Men Women Men Women Men Women
Representation (%) 1.3 2.8 6.1 7.4 2.5 2.3 35.7** 42.0
Length for appointment (months) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Informal discussion requested (%) 41.8 36.2 44.1 43.1 45.4 46.8 41.4 39.2
Advertised process (%) 91.5 97.7 98.7 95.5 93.7 97.2 94.4 94.3
Process to fill one positions (%) 30.0 38.9 28.7 31.2 29.7 34.0 34.5 34.1
External process (%) 18.5 20.8 17.8 21.4 12.1 16.2 18.7 20.2
Eliminated from staffing process (%) 47.3 48.4 49.4 45.8 47.3 50.0 40.6 36.6
Age (years) 40.0 40.0 40.0 37.0 47.0 44.0 41.0 40.0
Experience in the public service (years) 12.0 12.0 9.0 8.0 15.0 14.0 13.0 11.0
Experience in the position (years) 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0
National Capital Region (%) 41.0 35.6 57.4 55.4 45.9 62.5 51.5 58.7
Breakdown by level of education (%)
High school or less 13.8 21.1 5.4 5.0 15.7 14.4 10.3 14.6
Trade school, college or CEGEP 28.6 37.5 9.8 18.7 29.1 24.7 25.3 25.7
University certificate or diploma,
Bachelor's degree or university degree above Bachelor's level
57.7 41.4 84.8 76.4 55.2 60.9 64.4 59.7
Types of assessment (%)
Written knowledge test 72.3 74.8 80.1 76.0 66.3 74.3 71.4 74.5
Test of writing skill 33.1 43.9 44.7 43.0 48.4 30.4 36.8 37.5
Structured interview 54.1 65.3 58.7 60.2 67.4 53.6 64.9 67.4
Reference check 68.5 75.2 68.5 69.5 77.3 68.5 73.5 77.2

Source: Survey of Staffing (2011), Cycle 4, Candidates

* These are men and women who do not belong to an(other) employment equity group

** Following release of this study, this data was corrected to read 35.7%.

Table 2: Perceptions of merit: “To what extent do you feel you were assessed for the actual job requirements related to the position?”
Answer Aboriginal Peoples Members of visible minorities Persons with disabilities Men* Women*
Men Women Men Women Men Women
Not at all 48 116 235 195 90 66 1 109 884
11.6% 13.0% 11.9% 8.7% 11.4% 9.1% 9.5% 6.1%
To some extent 206 352 864 1 038 413 355 4847 6 222
50.1% 39.4% 43.7% 46.3% 52.2% 48.6% 41.5% 43.2%
To a great extent 157 426 876 1 008 288 310 5 716 7 312
38.3% 47.7% 44.4% 45.0% 36.5% 42.4% 49.0% 50.7%
Total 411 894 1 975 2 240 791 731 11 672 14 418
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: Survey of Staffing – candidates who participated in a staffing activity between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011

* These are men and women who do not belong to an(other) employment equity group

Table 3: Perceptions of fairness: “Overall, do you feel this staffing activity was run in a fair manner?”
  Aboriginal Peoples Members of visible minorities Persons with disabilities Men* Women*
Men Women Men Women Men Women
Not at all 113 152 579 480 244 167 2 253 1 802
23.8% 15.3% 25.6% 17.8% 25.5% 19.7% 16.6% 11.3%
To a small extent 58 182 413 504 225 167 2 162 2 272
12.2% 18.3% 18.3% 18.8% 23.6% 19.8% 16.0% 14.3%
To a moderate extent 91 267 548 791 204 244 3 478 4 560
19.2% 26.8% 24.3% 29.5% 21.3% 28.9% 25.7% 28.7%
To a great extent 213 394 718 912 284 267 5 648 7 280
44.9% 39.6% 31.8% 34.0% 29.6% 31.6% 41.7% 45.6%
Total 475 995 2 258 2 687 957 845 13 541 15 914
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: Survey of Staffing – candidates who participated in a staffing activity between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011

* These are men and women who do not belong to an(other) employment equity group

Figure 3: Difference in perceptions of merit in staffing activities between employment equity designated groups and their comparison groups

July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011

Image of Figure 1: Difference in perceptions of merit in staffing activities between employment equity designated groups and their comparison groups

Figure 3 long description

Source: Survey of Staffing — Candidate Component (Cycle 4, 2011)
(a) Women of EE groups are compared to women who do not belong to another EE group, and men of EE groups are compared to men who do not belong to an EE group.
(b) Women who do not belong to another EE group are compared to men who do not belong to an EE group.

Caution: The results of the study apply to the reference period covered in the analysis. The PSC cautions against making any generalizations for periods other than that of the study, since these results represent a single snapshot in time. Given the importance of these findings, the PSC is undertaking more detailed work in 2013-2014 to both update the results of the studies and take a deeper look at the career progression of EE groups. This will enable the PSC to determine more precisely whether these results represent a trend.

Figure 4: Difference in perceptions of fairness in staffing activities between employment equity designated groups and their comparison groups

July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011

Image of Figure 2: Difference in perceptions of fairness in staffing activities between employment equity designated groups and their comparison groups

Figure 4 long description

Source: Survey of Staffing — Candidate Component (Cycle 4, 2011)
(a) Women of EE groups are compared to women who do not belong to another EE group, and men of EE groups are compared to men who do not belong to an EE group.
(b) Women who do not belong to another EE group are compared to men who do not belong to an EE group.

Caution: The results of the study apply to the reference period covered in the analysis. The PSC cautions against making any generalizations for periods other than that of the study, since these results represent a single snapshot in time. Given the importance of these findings, the PSC is undertaking more detailed work in 2013-2014 to both update the results of the studies and take a deeper look at the career progression of EE groups. This will enable the PSC to determine more precisely whether these results represent a trend.

Footnotes

Footnote 1

The opportunity for a person eliminated from consideration in an internal appointment process to discuss the decision informally before an appointment is made.

Return to footnote1 referrer

Footnote 2

See Appendix 2 for details on the methodology.

Return to footnote2 referrer

Footnote 3

Appendix 4 presents a different view of the difference in perceptions of merit and fairness in staffing activities between employment equity designated groups and their comparison groups.

Return to footnote3 referrer

Footnote 4

For logistic regression models, see Agresti, A. (2002), “Categorical Data Analysis, Second Edition,” New York: John Wiley & Sons. The “Proc Logistic” procedure in the SAS v 9.3 software is used to obtain odds ratios for promotions and favourable perceptions, as well as confidence intervals.

Return to footnote4 referrer

Footnote 5

Responses provided by candidates who participated in a staffing activity between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011.

Return to footnote5 referrer