Home > Workplace diversity > APSED and EEO data

APSED AND EEO DATA

The provision of some EEO data by APS employees to their agency is voluntary. Therefore, as with any large voluntary data collection, APSED tends to under-represent the number of Indigenous Australians, people with a disability and people from a non-English speaking background (NESB). In addition, EEO data includes ongoing employees only, as data is not routinely collected for non-ongoing employees.

Longitudinal data shows that people are more likely to report their EEO status over time. For example, when the June 2003 APSED dataset was finalised for the State of the Service Report 2002—03, 2879 people had identified as Indigenous Australians. The dataset for the following year, finalised at June 2004, shows that 2938 people included in the 2003 dataset now identified themselves as Indigenous Australians. Some of this change may be due to improved data quality, but is also likely to reflect a decision on the part of some individuals to give their EEO status, where they had chosen not to in the past.

For the first time this year the employee survey asked respondents who identified themselves as being from an EEO group (other than women) whether they had provided their agency with their EEO details (see Table 8.1).

The survey results showed that most employees in each group believe they have informed their agency of their EEO status; 74% of NESB employees, 85% of people with a disability and 89% of Indigenous employees. Relatively few employees (around 10% for each group) reported that they chose not to provide their EEO details, with very few indicating that they had not provided their EEO status for other reasons. NESB employees were more likely than other employees to be unsure whether they had declared their status.

Table 8.1: Employees’ reporting of EEO status to their agency

Source: Employee survey

These results suggest a higher level of reporting by employees of their EEO status than would be expected from the APSED data. It is likely that some of the ‘yes’ response relates to informal reporting, for example verbally informing their supervisor of their EEO status or participating in EEO networks, rather than entering the data into their agency’s HR systems. It is also possible that agencies systems are not as effective as they could be in capturing this information and ensuring that declarations of EEO status to the agency are reported to APSED. The result certainly suggests that employees’ willingness to identify is not the main factor influencing the completeness of APSED data.

The integrity of APSED, and the ability of the Commission to report on workplace diversity in the APS, is fundamentally linked to the quality of data provided by agencies. Agencies also need this data to develop and implement effective WDPs that are based on an understanding of their workforce demographics.

The agency survey asked agencies how they collect workplace diversity data from new employees. The large majority of agencies, 89%, said that they request new employees complete and return a paper form. Fifteen per cent of agencies requested that new employees complete and return an online form, and five per cent (or four agencies)–three small and one medium–said that they did not collect diversity data.

Agencies were also asked how they updated their existing workplace diversity data against individual employee records. The most common response was agencies requesting, but not requiring, all employees to complete a paper form and return it (47%). Online systems were used more often to update than to collect data initially, with 41% of agencies stating that they requested, but did not require, employees to update their details through online systems. Few agencies required, rather than requested, employees to provide data online (2%) or by completing a paper form (7%).

Agencies were also asked how often their agency conducts an agency-wide review of their diversity data in order to update data against individual employee records. Only a minority did this on a regular basis (17% once a year and 2% twice a year). The majority, 64%, conduct such reviews only on an ad-hoc basis. Eleven per cent, including three large agencies, never conduct such reviews of their data.

Improving data quality continues to be a priority of the Commission, and several agencies have implemented strategies to improve and maintain the data they provide for APSED. For example, DIMIA’s WDP makes staff responsible for updating their EEO details with six-monthly prompts to remind staff of this requirement. There is still, however, as indicated by the agency survey results, considerable room for improvement by some agencies.

The Commission continues to focus on improving the quality of APSED data so that its reliability for research, policy development and workforce planning continues to improve. However, the voluntary nature of providing EEO details means that there will always be a proportion of employees for whom data is incomplete. The APSED team is currently developing a statistical model that will take into account this ‘no data’ component. This will allow inclusion of the ‘no data’ component when analysing the representation of EEO groups for future years’ reports.