RESULTS OF SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS CONDUCTED BY CONSULTING AND AUDIT CANADA IN JANUARY 2002

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In October 2001, the Commission engaged Consulting and Audit Canada (CAC) to review its employment equity audit program. As part of this review, CAC conducted a mail survey of 177 employers who had either been audited or were under audit in order to obtain their views on their experience with the audit program and its impact on them.

The final evaluation report is not yet complete. However, CAC provided the Commission with the quantitative data of the mail survey, enabling the Commission to prepare this analysis in time for the Parliamentary Committee’s review of the Employment Equity Act. Following are the highlights of major results.

On the provision of information

When asked how their organization had familiarized itself with the requirements for employers under the Act, the overwhelming majority of employers found various sources of information useful. The Commission’s sources were rated at the top and depending on the type of material referenced, between 100% and 89% found it useful. (Question 7, Table 3)

91% of employers are familiar with the CHRC`s Annual Report, and 78% find it useful. (Question 23)

On major audit activities:

When asked how useful and how complex major audit activities were, the overwhelming majority of employers were extremely satisfied. 100% found the compliance reports useful, and 78% did not find them too complex; similarly, 98% found the interim reports useful and 84% did not find them too complex; 93% found the audit questionnnaire useful and 86% not too complex; and 86% found the on-site visit useful while 92% did not find the exercise too complex. (Question 15, Table 6) .

79% of employers felt they had received sufficient information and guidance for conducting the workforce analysis, 68% for the employment systems review and 66% for setting hiring and promotion goals. (Question 9, Table 4)

61% of employers felt that, during the course of an initial audit, the CHRC gave due recognition to special policies and practices which they have in place which they felt would lead to higher representation. (Question 20)

On the impact of audits, and their effectiveness:

81% of employers believe that the actions taken as a result of the audits will lead to increased representation levels, 76% feel these will lead to the elimination of barriers, and 56% feel they will achieve full representation as a result. (Table 7, Questions 18 & 19)

Notwithstanding this result, 55% believe that there are ways in which audits could be more effective in influencing employers to hire greater numbers of designated group members, although one in four did not know the answer. (Question. 21)

In that same vein, 52% of employers believe that the demands of the Act and Regulations are unreasonable, while 56% feel that the demands of the audits are unreasonable. (Table 5, Questions 13 & 14).

60% of employers feel that the enforcement actions under the Act are appropriate, 34% believe that they are too strong and 5% that they are too weak. This suggests that the majority (65%) view the available enforcement actions as appropriate or somewhat on the weak side (Question 17).

On consistency:

57% feel that the information given by CHRC, HRDC and TBS to comply with the legislation is consistent. The reasons why 43% felt the information was inconsistent will need to be carefully examined. (Question 8).

Two-thirds of employers believe that the demands made on their organization to comply are consistent with the legislation. (Question 6)

Only one-third believe that auditors are consistent in their demands, although only four employers had first hand experience of having dealt with different auditors. (Question 10)

58% of employers feel that the audit process could be more flexible (Question 16)

75% believe that the audit process could be streamlined, although one-third did not voice an opinion (Question 22).

On awareness and reasons for non-compliance:

79% of employers surveyed responded that they were not found in compliance at the initial phase (Question 4).

When asked why they were not found in compliance, 100% (63) said they were aware of the Act and Regulations while 79% (49) said they were aware of the implications of the legislation and 82% (51) that they had sufficient incentive to comply. 40% felt they did not have the resources to comply, while one third believed that they were already in compliance. (Question 4)

When asked why they felt initial compliance rates were low, the most common reason cited by 23 employers was that they were not sufficiently aware of exactly what was required, followed by 21 employers who said they did not have sufficient resources. (Question 5).

On resources required to comply:

There were substantial variations on responses to the question related to resources required to fulfill the requirements to comply, and only half (41) employers responded. One third responded spending on average 18 person days, one third 115 days and one-third 533 days. Further analysis is required to link these timeframes to size, complexity or regional distribution of organizations. (Question 11)

Amounts spent tended to vary depending on the size of the organization. Only 27% (33) of employers responded to this question. Quotes ranged from $25,000 for workforces of 250 or less, to $95,000 for workforces over 2,000. (Question 11).

Two-thirds of the 40 employers who responded believed that most resources needed result from the requirements of the Act and Regulations (65% to 100% of all resources) rather than the demands of the audit (0% to 35% of all resources). (Question 12).

CONCLUSION

The most important findings relate to the fact that an overwhelming majority of employers feel that the representation of designated groups will increase as a result of the audit, that barriers will be eliminated, and that the Commission is providing useful information in this regard.

The more negative results are understandable, considering the sensitive nature of the Commission’s mandate and the significant amount of work employers have to do to achieve compliance with legislation which is poorly articulated.

Qualitative information is forthcoming on the issues of consistency, flexibility, audit demands, effectiveness and streamlining. This information will be examined carefully to determine if any suggestions could be implemented, given the requirements of the Act and Regulations.