Diversity in the APS

Diversity in the APS covers gender, language, ethnicity, cultural background, age, sexual orientation, religious belief and family responsibilities. Diversity also refers to the other ways in which people are different, such as educational level, life experience, work experience, socio-economic background, personality and marital status.

Workplace diversity is one of the APS’ greatest strengths. Successful management of diversity means creating an environment that values and uses the contributions of people with different experiences, backgrounds and perspectives. A wide range of different perspectives can add to an agency’s innovation and creativity, and overall productivity. It also ensures the APS better understands the needs of the Australian community.

Under section 18 of the Public Service Act 1999 (the Act), agency heads must establish workplace diversity programs that help give effect to the APS Values (the Values). The Public Service Commissioner’s Directions 1999 provide further details on implementing diversity. According to the Commissioner’s Directions, agency heads must put in place measures to eliminate employment-related disadvantage on the basis of:

• being an Aboriginal or a Torres Strait Islander¹ under the meaning of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975
• physical or mental disability
• race or ethnicity
• gender.²

This chapter examines employment patterns for key diversity groups in the APS, including Indigenous Australians, people with disability, and people from a non-English speaking background.³

The APS continues to address the representation of women, especially at higher classifications. Specific trends in women’s employment are discussed in Chapter 1, and variations in men’s and women’s views are highlighted in other chapters.

Workplace diversity

In this year’s survey, 71% of agencies reported having a workplace diversity program in place, compared to last year’s result of 77%. Twenty-three per cent of agencies were developing a workplace diversity program, while 6% did not have a workplace diversity program in place. Small agencies were less likely to have a program in place (57%) than their medium (80%) and large agency (83%) counterparts.

Of those agencies with a workplace diversity program in place or being developed, close to half (49%) advised they were currently reviewing it, while 10% reported never having reviewed their program.

From the employees’ perspective, 66% of employees agreed that their organisation is committed to creating a diverse workforce (compared to 69% in 2007–08). Just over three-quarters of employees (76%) agreed that their immediate manager works effectively with people from diverse backgrounds.

Trends in representation of EEO groups

Table 2.1 shows proportional representation in the APS for the equal employment opportunity (EEO) groups of Indigenous Australians, people with disability, and people from a non-English speaking background,⁴ for the past 10 years. It should be noted that:

• Representation of Indigenous Australians remained steady at 2.1%. In absolute terms, the number of ongoing Indigenous employees rose slightly—from 3,148 at June 2008 to 3,176 at June 2009. This was the first time since 2005–06 that there was an increase in the number of Indigenous employees.
• For ongoing employees with disability, representation decreased again this year to 4,566 (3.0%) from 4,765 (3.2%) at June 2008.
• The number of people from a non-English speaking background grew from 8,918 to 9,067, but remained steady at 6.0% of all ongoing employees.

Table 2.1: Representation of EEO groups among ongoing employees, 2000 to 2009⁵

	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Note: NESB 1 includes people born overseas whose first language was not English. Source: APSED
Indigenous Australians	2.6	2.6	2.6	2.6	2.5	2.4	2.2	2.2	2.1	2.1
People with disability	4.6	4.3	4.2	4.2	4.1	4.0	3.7	3.4	3.2	3.0
People from NESB 1	5.6	5.6	5.6	5.5	5.5	5.7	6.0	6.0	6.0	6.0

Indigenous employees

The number of Indigenous employees has increased slightly this year. Nevertheless, representation in the Australian community is at 2.3%,⁶ and the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) has set a target of at least 2.6% (by the year 2015) for the broader public sector.⁷

Representation of Indigenous employees varies widely among agencies.⁸ It is highest in those agencies that deliver services predominantly to, or work with, Indigenous communities (see Table 2.2). The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) is the only large agency in this group.

Table 2.2: Agencies with the highest proportion of ongoing Indigenous employees, June 2009

	Total ongoing employees	Indigenous ongoing employees	Indigenous employees (%)
Source: APSED
Aboriginal Hostels Limited	366	308	84.2
Torres Strait Regional Authority	37	24	64.9
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies	43	9	20.9
National Native Title Tribunal	196	19	9.7
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs	3129	291	9.3

Of those agencies with more than 1,000 ongoing employees at June 2009, six had representation of Indigenous employees equal to or above the APS average. They were: FaHCSIA (9.3%), the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR; 5.3%), the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA; 4.2%), Centrelink (3.8%), the Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA; 2.4%) and Medicare (2.2%).

Indigenous employees are concentrated in a small number of agencies. At June 2009, three agencies employed a little over half (50.9%) of all ongoing Indigenous employees. These agencies were Centrelink (1,006 or 31.7%), Aboriginal Hostels Limited (AHL; 308 or 9.7%) and DEEWR (304 or 9.6%).

Twenty-eight agencies reported that none of their ongoing employees were Indigenous.

The largest increases in Indigenous employment during 2008–09 were in Centrelink (50 employees), DEWHA and FaHCSIA (both 13 employees), and Medicare (10 employees). The largest decreases were in DEEWR (32 employees), DoHA (13 employees) and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (12 employees).

In terms of representation within classifications, Table 2.3 shows that growth in Indigenous employment during 2008–09 was at the APS 5–6 and EL classifications; numbers remained steady or fell at all other classifications. For the second consecutive year, the proportion of Indigenous employees at the APS 5–6 and EL classifications rose, from 42.9% at June 2008 to 45.0% at June 2009. For the APS overall, 60.6% of all ongoing employees are in these classifications.

Indigenous representation at the trainee classification remains high—at June 2009, 17.1% of trainees were Indigenous compared with the APS average of 2.1% for all classifications.

Table 2.3: Representation of ongoing Indigenous employees by classification, 1995, 2008 and 2009

	1995			2008			2009
	No.	% of class'n who are Indigenous	% of Indigenous employees	No.	% of class'n who are Indigenous	% of Indigenous employees	No.	% of class'n who are Indigenous	% of Indigenous employees
Source: APSED
APS 1-2	1179	3.9	35.1	354	5.9	11.2	353	6.3	11.1
APS 3-4	1348	3.3	40.2	1346	2.7	42.8	1313	2.7	41.3
APS 5-6	608	1.7	18.1	977	1.9	31.0	1015	2.0	32.0
EL	127	0.6	3.8	374	1.0	11.9	415	1.1	13.1
SES	15	0.8	0.4	16	0.6	0.5	16	0.6	0.5
Trainee	52	15.8	1.5	52	13.1	1.7	42	17.1	1.3
Grad APS	27	3.0	0.8	29	2.4	0.9	22	2.0	0.7
Total	3357	2.6	100.0	3148	2.1	100.0	3176	2.1	100.0

The proportion of Indigenous employees with graduate qualifications is much lower than the APS average—27.5% at June 2009 compared with the APS average of 53.8%.

During 2008–09, Indigenous employees accounted for 3.1% of all ongoing engagements— up from 2.6% the previous year. The proportion was the highest since 2002–03. The number of engagements of Indigenous employees fell to 406, down from 422 the previous year but, in proportional terms, the fall was less than that for overall engagements.

The Indigenous engagement rate has been equal to or higher than overall Indigenous representation within the APS for each of the past 10 years.

During 2008–09, Indigenous employees accounted for 5.0% of all engagements to the main APS entry levels—APS 1 to APS 3 and graduate and other trainee classifications—an increase from 3.7% the previous year, and the highest proportion for over a decade.

Indigenous separations can be looked at in two ways—either as a proportion of Indigenous employees, or as a proportion of total separations. Using the first method, 11.9% of all Indigenous employees separated during 2008–09, a decrease from 14.6% the previous year, and the lowest rate since 2002–03. The comparable separation rate for the APS overall during 2008–09 was significantly lower (7.0%).

Table 2.4 looks at Indigenous separations using the second method described above. As a proportion of all separations, Indigenous separations fell this year, from 3.8% in 2007–08 to 3.6% in 2008–09. Nevertheless, the Indigenous separation rate is still higher than their overall representation of 2.1%. The separation rate for Indigenous employees has been higher than their engagement rate for all but one of the past 10 years, and has been higher than their representation rate every year.

Table 2.4: Indigenous representation in engagements and separations of ongoing employees, 1999–00 to 2008–09

	Year ending June
	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Source: APSED
Engagements	310	431	434	473	319	327	469	570	422	406
% of engagements	2.6	3.1	3.6	3.1	3.4	2.8	2.2	2.9	2.6	3.1
Separations	422	270	286	309	392	444	401	370	459	377
% of separations	3.8	3.4	3.4	4.3	5.4	4.2	4.2	3.5	3.8	3.6
% of ongoing employees	2.6	2.6	2.6	2.6	2.5	2.4	2.2	2.2	2.1	2.1

Indigenous employees continue to have a much shorter length of service before leaving the APS. During 2008–09, 48.8% of Indigenous employees who separated from the APS had fewer than five years of service, compared with 38.6% of non-Indigenous employees.

Attraction and selection

The most important work attributes for attracting Indigenous employees to their current

job are shown in Table 2.5. The top attraction attributes for Indigenous employees were the ability to contribute to making a difference (89%), the agency’s reputation for doing important work (83%) and job security (82%).

Table 2.5: Agency attraction attributes and meeting of expectations for Indigenous and non-Indigenous employees, 2008-09

	Rated important in attracting employee to current job		Expectations met well(a)
Agency attributes	Indigenous employees (%)	Non-Indigenous employees (%)	Indigenous employees (%)	Non-Indigenous employees (%)
Making a difference	89	69	60	58
Important work	83	66(b)	94	76
Job security	82	84	90	79
Development opportunities	78	56	66	51
Good work practices	77	64	88	65
Gaining experience	76	52	68	66
Career opportunities	76	62	54	39
Location	72	67	87	82
Interests match job	70	74	84	68
Remuneration	70	66(b)	78	59
Work on leading edge projects	61	45	75	56
Note: The top five important attributes selected by Indigenous employees and other employees are highlighted. (a) Expectations relate only to those employees who rated the agency attribute as important (b) Rated equal fifth in importance with another attribute. Source: Employee survey

The employee survey also measured how well the expectations of Indigenous employees were met in terms of the attraction attributes. In general, the expectations of Indigenous employees were more likely to be well met than were those of other employees.

In terms of the top five attributes, two-thirds of Indigenous employees reported expectations were well met for developmental/educational opportunities in their agency. However, only 60% of Indigenous employees reported expectations being well met in terms of their most important attribute of making a difference. In addition, only 54% of Indigenous employees reported well met expectations in career opportunities within their agency, although this is a higher result than for non-Indigenous employees (39%).

Agency employment strategies

Twenty-seven per cent of agencies reported having a formal Indigenous Employment Strategy (IES) in place, similar to last year’s result of 29%. A further 18% were developing an IES. Large agencies were more likely to be developing an IES or have one in place (83%) than were medium (50%) or small (21%) agencies.

For those agencies that did not have an IES, 44% advised that their Indigenous employment practices formed part of a workplace diversity plan and one-third indicated they were part of a reconciliation action plan. Twelve per cent of agencies reported that their Indigenous employment practices were part of other documents such as recruitment and diversity policies and programs. One-quarter of agencies advised that their Indigenous employment practices were not part of any other documents.

The proportion of relevant agencies collecting data on the number of Indigenous Australians who applied for positions in their agency increased again this year to 51% (from 46% in 2007–08 and 38% in 2006–07).

Forty-three per cent of agencies reported that exit interviews were not applicable to them during 2008–09. Of those agencies to which they were applicable, 52% conducted exit interviews with Indigenous employees, compared to 60% last year. Similarly, 41% of agencies advised that exit surveys with Indigenous employees were not applicable this year. Of those agencies to which these were applicable, 57% conducted exit surveys, compared to 68% last year.

Overall, close to one-third (30%) of relevant agencies did not conduct exit interviews or exit surveys that allowed identification of Indigenous employees.

Agency recruitment and retention initiatives

Use of specific recruitment and retention initiatives for Indigenous Australians continued to be widespread—many agencies participated in elements of the APS Employment and Capability Strategy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employees.

During 2008–09, the Australian Public Service Commission collaborated with 56 agencies to deliver Pathways to Employment recruitment programs for Indigenous graduate, cadet and entry-level positions. Support programs and services for these recruits were increased to enhance short to medium term retention prospects.

Through the 2009 Indigenous graduate recruitment program, the Commission facilitated recruitment and placement of 30 Indigenous graduates in 18 agencies. The Commission also facilitated recruitment of 29 cadets in 16 agencies.

Through the Indigenous Entry Level Recruitment Program, the Commission facilitated the recruitment of 49 entry-level participants across 15 agencies. Through this program, the Commission coordinated delivery of formal training towards a Certificate IV in Government for Indigenous participants engaged as entry-level recruits.

The majority of agencies (75%) indicated they used measures to recruit and/or retain Indigenous Australians. Small agencies were the least likely to use such measures—45% of small agencies reported not using any recruitment or retention measures for Indigenous Australians.

Table 2.6 shows the measures agencies used to recruit and/or retain Indigenous Australians. The most common were encouraging participation in external Indigenous employees’ networks, such as the Indigenous APS Employees Network (IAPSEN; 59%); encouraging participation in the Commission’s Career Trek suite of learning and development programs for Indigenous employees (52%); providing study options (48%); and participating in the Commission’s Pathways whole of government Indigenous recruitment initiatives for entry-level, cadet and graduate recruits (47%).

Table 2.6: Agency measures used to recruit and/or retain Indigenous Australians, 2008-09

Measures to recruit/retain Indigenous employees	Yes (%)	Being developed (%)	No (%)	Not applicable (no Indigenous employees) (%)
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 as agencies that did not provide a response are not shown in the table. Small differences may also be due to rounding. Source: Agency survey
Special employment measures	24	2	74	-
Identified positions	25	2	73	-
Providing other opportunities for Indigenous employees to gain skills and experience under an agency based Indigenous employment scheme	22	1	77	-
Encourage participation in the Commission’s Career Trek suite of learning and development programs for Indigenous employees	52	1	46	-
Advertising employment opportunities in Indigenous media	37	5	58	-
Participate in the Commission’s Pathways whole of government Indigenous recruitment initiatives for entry level, cadet and graduate recruits	47	3	49	-
Operate an internal agency-based Indigenous employees’ network	27	2	43	27
Encourage participation in external Indigenous employees’ networks such as the Indigenous APS Employees Network (IAPSEN)	59	1	14	26
Provide study options	48	1	21	29
Provide culturally specific training programs for Indigenous employees	19	4	49	27
Provide Indigenous cultural awareness training for all employees	24	17	38	21
Provide targeted leadership development opportunities	18	7	46	28
Provide mentoring and/or coaching to Indigenous employees	37	5	29	28
Provide mobility and/or secondment opportunities into mainstream positions	28	2	39	31
Other recruitment and/or retention strategies	31	9	33	26

This year, the proportions of agencies using special employment measures⁹ for Indigenous employees or providing study options, culturally specific training programs, or targeted leadership development opportunities decreased. However, these may have been offset by use of other measures such as IAPSEN, Indigenous Career Trek, and Pathways to Employment, which were included for the first time in this year’s survey.

In 2008–09, a small proportion of agencies reported using other recruitment and/or retention measures, such as participation in the National Indigenous APS Employees’ Conference, celebration of NAIDOC (National Aboriginal and Islander Day Observance Committee) Week and Reconciliation Action Plans.

Employee satisfaction

Employee satisfaction was measured through the employee survey. Of those employees who identified themselves as Indigenous, 60% agreed that their organisation is committed to creating a diverse workforce. There was no significant difference between this result and that for non-Indigenous employees (66%).

There was little difference between Indigenous employees (77%) and others (76%) in their agreement that their immediate manager works effectively and sensitively with people from diverse backgrounds.

In terms of overall job satisfaction,¹⁰ most Indigenous employees reported moderately high to high levels of job satisfaction (92%). This result was higher than that for non-Indigenous employees (81%).

Employees with disability

The decline in employment of people with disability continued this year, with the proportion of employees now down to 3.0%. In absolute terms, the number of employees with disability fell for the fifth consecutive year. The fall this year represented a decrease of 4.2%, compared with an increase in overall ongoing employee numbers of 1.6%. The decrease in absolute terms (199 ongoing employees) is the largest drop since 2002–03.

The decline can be partly explained by a reduction in the number of positions at APS 1–2 levels, where employees with disability have historically been over-represented. The decline, however, has been evident at all classification levels. Figure 2.1 shows employees with disability as a proportion of all ongoing employees, by classification, for the past 15 years. The proportional representation at APS 1–2 levels remained steady at 5.5% during 2008–09, although the actual number of employees with disability in these classifications fell—from 331 to 308. Representation in the SES rose from 2.6% to 2.7%—an increase from 71 to 76 employees—but fell at all other classifications.

Employees with disability are less likely to have graduate qualifications than other employees—at June 2009, 43.2% of ongoing employees with disability had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with the APS average of 53.8%.¹¹

Agencies with relatively high proportions of employees with disability¹² are the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority (AOTDTA; 10.0%), the CrimTrac Agency (8.8%) and the Commission (8.2%). These are all small agencies, so the number of employees with disability is relatively low. Nineteen agencies reported having no ongoing employees with disability—the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) was the only large agency in this group.

Large agencies with representation rates equal to or above the APS average were FaHCSIA (6.5%), Centrelink (5.0%), DoHA (3.9%), the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM; 3.5%), the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS; 3.4%), DEEWR (3.1%) and the Department of Defence (Defence; 3.0%).

The agencies with the largest decreases in employment of people with disability during 2008–09 were Defence (52 fewer employees with disability), Centrelink (47 employees), the Australian Taxation Office (ATO; 37 employees), DoHA (20 employees) and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA; 15 employees). In the past two years, Centrelink had a net loss of 147 ongoing employees with disability, and Defence had a net loss of 92.

Despite the fall in employment of people with disability, Centrelink continues to have above average representation for this group—5.0% at June 2009, although it fell from 5.5% in 2007 and 5.4% in 2008.

The age profile of employees with disability is somewhat higher than that for the APS overall, with a median age of 47 years at June 2009 compared with the APS average of 42 years. This group also has a much longer length of service than the APS overall with a median of 15 years compared with the APS average of eight years.

Table 2.7 shows engagement and separation rates for people with disability for the past 10 years. The engagement rate fell from 1.5% in 2007–08 to 1.3% in 2008–09—the lowest rate for the past decade. In contrast, the separation rate for people with disability rose, from 3.6% in 2007–08 to 3.9% in 2008–09. For each of the past 10 years, the engagement rate has been lower and the separation rate higher than the overall representation rate for people with disability. This year, employees with disability were again over-represented in retrenchments and age retirements.

Table 2.7: Representation of employees with disability in engagements and separations of ongoing employees, 1999–00 to 2008–09

	Year ending June
	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Engagements	198	213	277	526	243	263	361	277	246	174
% of engagements	1.7	1.5	2.3	3.5	2.6	2.3	1.7	1.4	1.5	1.3
Separations	515	332	359	317	349	441	455	387	439	403
% of separations	4.7	4.2	4.2	4.4	4.8	4.1	4.8	3.7	3.6	3.9
% of ongoing employees	4.6	4.3	4.2	4.2	4.1	4.0	3.7	3.4	3.2	3.0

Attraction and selection

The most important attributes for attracting employees with disability to their current job are shown in Table 2.8. Employees with disability and other employees had the same top five attraction attributes, although in a different order. These included job security, geographical location of the job and the match between their interests/experience and the job or agency.

The employee survey also measured whether the expectations of employees with disability were well met in terms of the attraction attributes. Less than half of employees with disability (49%) indicated that the ability to contribute to making a difference—one of their top attributes—had been well met.

The expectations of employees with disability were also not particularly well met within the areas of future career (20%) and developmental/educational opportunities (29%). In general, the expectations of employees with disability were less likely to be well met than for other employees, with the exception of remuneration package (63% compared to 59% for other employees).

Table 2.8: Agency attraction attributes and meeting of expectations for employees with and without disability, 2008-09

	Rated important in attracting employee to current job		Expectations met well(a)
Agency attributes	Employees with disability (%)	Employees without disability (%)	Employees with disability (%)	Employees without disability (%)
Source: APSED (a) Expectations relate only to employees who rated the agency attribute as important. Note: The top five important attributes selected by employees with disability and other employees are highlighted. Source: Employee survey
Job security	84	84	69	81
Location	76	67	81	83
Interests match job	71	74	63	68
Making a difference	67	69	49	59
Remuneration	66	66	63	59
Good work practices	65	64	62	65
Important work	62	66	66	77
Career opportunities	54	63	20	41
Development opportunities	54	57	29	52
Gaining experience	54	53	50	67
Work on leading edge projects	42	46	46	58

Agency implementation of Management Advisory Committee objectives

The agency survey sought information on strategies agencies used to implement the eight Management Advisory Committee (MAC) objectives for employment of people with disability.¹³

Implementation of these are considered in this report under four key headings: cultural change, access to employment, support, and improving and monitoring performance. This section also includes an outline of agencies’ views on which initiatives have been most helpful in increasing employment of people with disability.

Cultural change

The first MAC objective is to create a culture that values diversity and actively promotes employment of people with disability.

In 2008–09, the proportion of agencies using an initiative specifically targeted at developing a culture that values diversity and actively supports the employment of people with disability declined from 43% in 2007–08 to 36%.

This year, there appeared to be no change in the proportion of agencies using workforce and business plans, workplace diversity programs or recruitment and retention policies that highlight the business case for employing people with disability (31%). There was, however, an increase in the proportion of agencies using mainstream policies and procedures that encourage recruitment and/or retention of people with disability (61% compared with 58% in 2007–08).

This year, agencies had the opportunity to comment on other strategies they were using to create a culture that values diversity and actively promotes employment of people with disability. A small proportion provided further information on meeting this MAC objective. Comments included current drafting of Disability Plans by some agencies, and incorporation of diversity principles into workplace procedures and practices.

Access to employment

The second group of MAC objectives relates to using flexible recruitment strategies, accessible developmental opportunities and special employment measures for people with disability. These MAC objectives and related agency initiatives are detailed in Table 2.9.

Table 2.9: Agency initiatives to improve access to employment for people with disability, 2008-09

Initiatives	Yes (%)	No (%)
Source: Agency survey
Objective two – flexible recruitment strategies that are accessible to applicants with disability
Work with organisations that specialise in placing people with disability in employment	36	64
Advertise vacancies through disability employment and support services/networks	12	88
Ensure any recruitment agencies contracted by your agency encourage and support people with disability	46	54
Accept applications in different formats and give people with disability reasonable time to lodge applications and/or make appropriate adjustments to any direct testing situation	87	13
Have processes in place to ensure that methods of selection do not indirectly discriminate against applicants with disability	91	9
Ensure delegates and selection panels are cognisant of the diverse needs of applicants with disability	84	16
Objective three – Accessible training, cadetship and mentoring opportunities for people with disability
Provide opportunities (such as traineeships or cadetships) for people with disabilities to gain skills and experience under an agency-based employment scheme	11	89
Participate in mentoring programs for students with disability interested in a career in the APS	3	97
Objective four – Special employment measures to employ people with intellectual disability
Use special employment measures limiting employment opportunities only to people with intellectual disability	6	94
Use external organisations to assist in designing appropriate positions and selection criteria and identifying suitable applicants for positions to be filled by people with intellectual disability	8	92

The most common initiatives to improve access to employment for people with disability were ensuring selection methods do not discriminate against applicants with disability (91%), accepting applications in different formats (87%), and ensuring delegates/selection panels are aware of the needs of applicants with disability (84%).

Some change has occurred in the access to employment for people with disability, compared to last year’s results. The proportion of agencies that ensured their contracted recruitment agencies encouraged and supported people with disability increased from 39% in 2007–08 to 46% this year. However, the proportion of agencies that participated in mentoring programs for students with disability interested in a career in the APS decreased from 7% in 2007–08 to 3% this year, and the proportion that used external organisations to help identify suitable applicants for positions to be filled by people with intellectual disability decreased from 11% in 2007–08 to 8% this year.

Small proportions of agencies indicated they provided traineeships or cadetships for people with disability (11% this year),¹⁴ and advertised vacancies through disability employment services/networks, such as Disability Works Australia, the Disability Employment Network and the Australian Employers’ Network on Disability (12%). In addition, a few agencies (6%) used special employment measures for people with intellectual disability.¹⁵

A small proportion of agencies provided comments on other flexible recruitment strategies they used for applicants with disability, in line with the second MAC objective. These included advertising vacancies that encouraged people with disability to apply, and having a web presence that responded to the needs of people with disability.

Under the third MAC objective, a small proportion of agencies commented that they used other accessible training, cadetship and mentoring opportunities for people with disability, such as planning for a Stepping Into … Program,¹⁶ and providing work experience opportunities for students with disability.

Support

MAC objectives promoting support relate to providing accessible and supportive workplaces and reducing risks for managers employing people with disability. These objectives and related agency initiatives are outlined in Table 2.10.

Table 2.10: Agency initiatives to improve support both to employees with disability and managers of employees with disability, 2008-09

Initiatives	Yes (%)	No (%)	Not applicable (%)
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 as agencies that did not provide a response are not shown in the table. Small differences may also be due to rounding. Source: Agency survey
Objective five – Accessible premises, workplaces and supportive work environments for people with disability
Identify the reasonable adjustments required by new employees with disability, before they commence duty	78	4	18
Provide access to adaptive technology or other practical support required by employees with disability	84	1	15
Identify an SES employee to act as a senior-level advocate for employees with disability	26	55	19
Operate an agency network for people with disability	6	71	23
Offer individual workplace agreements to people with disability to provide flexibility to meet individual reasonable adjustment needs	20	54	26
Objective six – Reduced complexity, cost and risk for managers employing people with a disability
Centralised funding for adaptive technology or other forms of practical support	63	36	-
Adaptive technology provided to employees is transferred with them when they move within the agency	79	-	21
A centralised source of information and expertise (such as disability action officers, case managers or ready access to external sources of information) to assist managers and employees with disability	74	8	18
Provide training and/or awareness programs for managers and/or employees on mental illness, depression or related disorders	72	27	-

The initiatives most frequently implemented by agencies to improve support to employees with disability included providing access to adaptive technology (84%) and identifying reasonable adjustments before employees with disability commenced in positions (78%).

The proportions of agencies providing accessible premises, workplaces and supportive work environments for people with disability changed somewhat this year. Agencies were less likely to operate an agency network for people with disability (6% compared to 9% last year). However, agencies were more likely to offer individual workplace agreements to people with disability to give them increased flexibility (20% compared to 16% last year).

A small proportion of agencies provided additional comments on how they were implementing accessible premises, workplaces and supportive work environments for people with disability. These included workplace assessments within the first week of an employee commencing in a position, reviews of building standards and flexible working hours.

Of all the MAC objectives, agencies were most likely to be implementing the sixth objective of reduced complexity, cost and risk for managers employing people with disability. This was also one of the objectives where agencies changed the most during 2008–09.

Compared to last year, agencies were more likely to have implemented centralised funding for adaptive technology (63%, up from 52% last year), transferred adaptive technology with employees’ movements within agencies (79%, up from 76% last year), established a centralised source of information and expertise (74%, up from 72% last year) and introduced training programs on mental illness or related disorders (72%, up from 66% last year).

A small proportion of agencies provided additional comments on improving support for managers. Other initiatives agencies were implementing included appointing a Disability Champion, and conducting disability workforce information sessions for all employees.

Improving and monitoring performance

The seventh MAC objective covers a consistent, conceptual framework for defining disability. The MAC report identified two definitions of disability for use in the APS, and advised agencies to adopt consistent definitions of disability in order to help monitor and improve their performance in managing employees with disability.

This year, 59% of agencies reported they had adopted the first (broader) definition of disability¹⁷ for developing recruitment and retention strategies, up from 53% last year. A similar proportion (58%) of agencies reported having adopted the second (more specific) definition of disability¹⁸ to collect data and statistics from employees, up from 46% last year.

The agency survey also asked agencies whether, under the seventh MAC objective, they actively encourage employees to update their disability status on human resources systems. Agencies use disability status to report on their representation of employees with disability and to follow up on workplace adjustments needed by identified employees with disability. Sixty-two per cent of agencies indicated use of this initiative, compared to 55% last year.

The eighth MAC objective relates to continuous improvement in recruiting and retaining people with disability. Under this objective, agencies were asked to provide details of any other strategies they had adopted this year to support employment of people with disability. A small proportion of agencies listed other strategies.

Agency views on the MAC objectives and other strategies

This year, the agency survey asked agencies to comment on which initiatives they had found most helpful in implementing the eight MAC objectives to increase the employment of people with disability. A small proportion of agencies provided responses. Initiatives they found useful included developing disability action plans, working in collaboration with specialist organisations, appointing key diversity personnel and increasing manager awareness.

The proportion of relevant agencies (43%) that collected data on the number of people with disability who applied for positions in their agency was lower than last year’s result (47%).

This year, agencies were asked whether they monitored and reported progress on initiatives to increase employment of people with disability. Only 18% of agencies advised they monitored and reported their progress in this area.

Agencies were also asked this year whether they monitored and considered the representation of people with disability. A larger proportion (39%) of agencies reported monitoring the representation of people with disability than reported progress on initiatives to increase employment of people with disability.

The proportion of agencies conducting exit interviews with employees with disability who were leaving the agency decreased this year. Thirty-seven per cent of agencies reported that these exit interviews were not applicable to them during 2008–09. Of those agencies to which such exit interviews were applicable, 50% conducted these with employees with disability during 2008–09, down from 59% last year.

In contrast, the proportion of agencies conducting exit surveys with employees with disability increased compared to last year. Thirty-seven per cent of agencies advised that exit surveys with employees with disability were not applicable this year. Of those agencies to which such exit surveys were applicable, 65% conducted these, up from 59% last year.

Overall, 28% of relevant agencies did not conduct either exit interviews or exit surveys that allowed identification of employees with disability.

Employee satisfaction

Of those employees who identified themselves as having a disability, 51% agreed that their organisation is committed to creating a diverse workforce, which was significantly less than for employees without disability (67%).

Employees with disability (66%) were less inclined to believe their immediate manager works effectively and sensitively with people from diverse backgrounds, compared to other employees (76%).

In terms of overall job satisfaction,¹⁹ most employees with disability reported moderately high to high levels of job satisfaction (75%). This result was lower than for employees without disability (82%).

Employees from a non-English speaking background

The proportion of APS employees who identified themselves as being from a non-English speaking background²⁰ remained steady this year at 6.0%.²¹ Representation for this group has been very stable over the past decade and has been unchanged for the past four years.

The largest group of employees from a non-English speaking background were born in South-East Asia (23.8% of those who provided their country of birth), followed by Southern and Central Asia (20.6%), and Southern and Eastern Europe (14.9%). The five most common first languages spoken by ongoing NESB1 employees, beginning with the most common, were Chinese (including Cantonese and Mandarin), Vietnamese, Spanish, Polish and German.

Representation of employees from a non-English speaking background by classification has remained steady this year, except for trainee and graduate APS classifications where representation increased from 3.5% at June 2008 to 5.3% at June 2009.

Employees from a non-English speaking background are much more likely to have graduate qualifications than are other employees—at June 2009, over three-quarters (75.8%) had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with the APS average of 53.8%.²²

Agencies with a high representation of employees from a non-English speaking background included the Royal Australian Mint (27.2% of all ongoing NESB1 employees), the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman (20.0%), the Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal (MRT/RRT; 16.5%) and the National Library of Australia (16.2%). Of those agencies with more than 1,000 ongoing employees, representation was highest in IP Australia (15.2%), the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (DIISR; 12.7%), the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC; 12.4%), Medicare (11.8%) and BoM (11.4%). Agencies with the lowest representation were DEWHA (2.3%), Defence (3.2%), FaHCSIA (3.4%) and the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD; 3.6%).

Attraction and selection

The most important attributes for attracting employees from a non-English speaking background to their current job are shown in Table 2.11. The top attributes for employees from a non-English speaking background included job security (92%), the match between their interests/experience and the job or agency (80%), and the ability to contribute to making a difference (77%).

The employee survey also measured how well met the expectations of employees from a non-English speaking background were in terms of the attraction attributes. Employees from a non-English speaking background were more likely to have expectations well met in the areas of their agency’s reputation for good work practices (69%) and developmental/ educational opportunities within their agency (55%) than for other employees (64% and 50% respectively).

Employees from a non-English speaking background were least likely to rate their expectations for future career opportunities within their agency as well met (36%) when compared with the other work attributes. However, this result was only slightly less than the result for employees who were not from a non-English speaking background (40%).

Table 2.11: Agency attraction attributes and meeting of expectations for employees from and not from a non-English speaking background, 2008-09

	Rated important in attracting employee to current job		Expectations met well(a)
Agency attributes	Employees from a non-English speaking background (%)	Employees not from a non-English speaking background (%)	Employees from a non-English speaking background (%)	Employees not from a non-English speaking background (%)
(a) Expectations relate only to those employees who rated the agency attribute as important Note: The top five important attributes selected by employees from a non-English speaking background and other employees are highlighted. Source: Employee survey
Job security	92	83	75	80
Interests match job	80	73	60	69
Making a difference	77	68	53	59
Good work practices	75	63	69	64
Location	74	67	78	83
Remuneration	73	65	50	60
Important work	71	65	77	76
Career opportunities	68	61	36	40
Development opportunities	62	56	55	50
Gaining experience	64	51	65	66
Work on leading edge projects	52	44	50	58

Employee satisfaction

Of those employees from a non-English speaking background, 67% agreed that their organisation is committed to creating a diverse workforce, similar to that for other employees (65%).

The proportion of employees from a non-English speaking background who felt their immediate manager works effectively and sensitively with people from diverse backgrounds (76%) was similar to that for other employees (75%).

In terms of overall job satisfaction,²³ most employees from a non-English speaking background reported moderately high to high levels of job satisfaction (83%), similar to the result for other employees (81%).

Key chapter findings

Diversity is about recognising and valuing the contribution that different experiences, backgrounds and perspectives can make to generating new ideas and ways of doing things. Workplace diversity continues to be an area of relative strength for the APS, with the majority of employees agreeing that their organisation is committed to a diverse workforce and that their immediate manager works effectively with people from diverse backgrounds.

This year, there was a slight increase in the number of ongoing Indigenous employees within the APS. The numbers grew slightly in the APS 5–6 and EL classifications. This year, Indigenous representation increased as a proportion of all engagements, in particular, in the main APS entry levels; and Indigenous separations decreased for this period, although the separation rate was still higher than representation and engagement rates. Indigenous employees were more likely to have a high level of job satisfaction than other employees.

Most agencies had implemented measures to recruit and/or retain Indigenous Australians. In 2008–09, the Commission collaborated with a number of agencies to deliver Pathways to Employment recruitment programs to enhance short to medium term retention prospects.

The outcomes this year for employees with disability included reduced overall representation, although the proportional representation at APS 1–2 classifications remained steady. The engagement rate decreased while the separation rate increased. Employees with disability were less likely to have a high level of job satisfaction than other employees.

This year, agencies made some changes in their implementation of the MAC objectives for employment of people with disability. Of all the MAC objectives, agencies were most likely to be implementing the objective of reduced complexity, cost and risk for managers employing people with disability.

The National Mental Health and Disability Employment Strategy, released in September 2009, identifies specific responsibilities for the Commission. A steering group on disability has been established to provide input into how the Commission can most effectively target its efforts to help agencies improve employment outcomes for people with disability.

Given the challenges ahead for APS agencies to maintain and build capable workforces, workplace diversity will remain a high priority. The results from the State of the Service surveys presented in this report may provide some useful ideas for agencies on attracting, engaging and retaining key diversity groups.

NEXT » Building workforce capability