Home > Workplace diversity > Evaluation

EVALUATION OF WRITTEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY PROGRAMS

During 2004 the Commission carried out an evaluation of APS agencies’ written workplace diversity programs. The evaluation looked at how effectively the statutory requirements for WDPs have been incorporated into APS agencies’ written programs, with some requirements assessed for all agency WDPs and others assessed for a sample of programs. The evaluation methodology is set out in Appendix 3.

The conclusion of the evaluation was that most agencies have taken substantial and positive steps toward meeting the requirements for WDPs. The evaluation also reinforced the importance of written programs. It found, through cross-referencing to employee survey results, that WDPs assessed as being of a higher quality are associated with:

• higher levels of employee agreement that their agency supports the employment of, or provides the same opportunities for, each of the four EEO groups
• higher levels of satisfaction with flexible work practices.

FaCS, for example, achieved consistently high results across all of the requirements for WDPs, and had significantly better than the APS average 2004 employee survey results for its commitment to three of the four EEO groups, and for employee satisfaction with flexible work practices.

Similarly, the agency that was assessed as having the poorest quality WDP, received employee survey results in relation to diversity and flexible work practices that were generally significantly below the APS average.

More specific conclusions and highlights from the evaluation are set out below.

Most WDPs demonstrate a commitment to workplace diversity and recognised the link between diversity and agency performance. Most agencies have adopted a broad and inclusive definition of diversity.

The broad approach taken to workplace diversity may, in some cases, be at the expense of more specific initiatives to remove employment disadvantage for the specified EEO groups, with some agencies not including measures for all four groups. While it is acknowledged that each agency may choose to focus on particular EEO groups, it is reasonable to expect that all four EEO groups would be included in agencies’ WDPs. Of the 24 agencies in the sample for the evaluation, only 12 included measures for all four EEO groups.

Six agencies included measures for three of the EEO groups, one agency included measures for two EEO groups and three agencies included measures for one EEO group. Two agencies included only generic measures for EEO groups. The EEO group most likely to be included was people with a disability (in 21 WDPs), and the groups least likely to be included were Indigenous Australians and NESB people (16 WDPs).

While most agencies included some performance indicators in their WDP, the quality of those indicators varied considerably. Some were difficult to measure, some were not measures of effectiveness, and some were not closely related to the strategies of the WDP or linked to targets.

The performance indicators in DIMIA's WDP are clearly articulated, measurable and are measures of effectiveness.

The WDPs of some agencies do not appear to be based on a good understanding of the demographics of the agency’s workforce. Other agencies do demonstrate a detailed demographic knowledge of their workforce, an essential requirement in developing an effective WDP. The National Museum of Australia’s WDP, for example, includes an overview of the Museum’s diversity status, including the areas where it is doing well, and the areas it needs to work on, such as cultural and linguistic background, disability, and socio-economic background.

Almost all of the agencies required to, do have a current WDP in place. However, agencies have not been routinely forwarding their programs to the Commission as required and there is some indication that they have not always been reviewed as often as required under the Directions. Agencies will be asked to forward their WDP to the Commission as a regular component of future State of the Service agency surveys, and agencies without an up-to-date WDP in place will be named in future reports.