Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

Gender-based Analysis Plus implementation survey results

Skip to description of infographic

Infographic
Infographic descriptive text

GBA Plus Implementation Survey Results Highlights

The results of the second annual Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) Implementation Survey shed light on the state of GBA Plus implementation across 49 departments and agencies in the Government of Canada in 2016-2017.

Capacity

Most organizations report having key elements of GBA Plus capacity in place, including:

[Graphic]

  • 86% of organizations have a GBA Plus Champion or other senior management lead.
  • 80% of organizations have discussions of GBA Plus at senior management committees.
  • 69% of organizations have GBA Plus tools and resources to assist employees.
  • 69% of organizations have a GBA Plus responsibility centre.

Significant progress has been made in the past year in almost every element of GBA Plus capacity.

Results from the 30 organizations that responded in 2016 and 2017 surveys.

[Graphic]

  • 100% of organizations in 2017 had a GBA Plus Champion or other senior management lead compared to 80% of organizations in 2016.
  • 90% of organizations in 2017 had GBA Plus tools and resources to assist employees compared to 80% of organizations in 2016.
  • 87% of organizations in 2017 had a formal GBA Plus policy or statement compared to 83% of organizations in 2016.
  • 87% of organizations in 2017 had a GBA Plus responsibility centre compared to 77% of organizations in 2016.
  • 70% of organizations in 2017 had an intra-departmental network or working group compared to 57% of organizations in 2016.
  • 70% of organizations in both 2017 and 2016 had resources to support GBA Plus training for employees.
  • 67% of organizations in 2017 had a departmental GBA Plus action plan compared to 40% of organizations in 2016.

There has been an increase in the number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) dedicated to supporting GBA Plus in organizations.

Results from the 30 organizations that responded in 2016 and 2017 surveys.

[Graphic]

  • In 2016, 10% of organizations had more than 5 FTEs dedicated to GBA Plus; 70% of organizations had between 1 and 5 FTEs dedicated to GBA Plus; and 20% of organizations had no FTEs dedicated to supporting GBA Plus.
  • In 2017, 45% of organizations had more than 5 FTWs dedicated to GBA Plus and 55% of organizations had between 1 and 5 FTEs dedicated to GBA Plus.

Training

[Graphic]

Almost ¾ of organizations reported using the SWC GBA Plus course as mandatory or recommended training for policy analysts.

Mandatory GBA Plus training has become more common.

Results from the 30 organizations that responded in 2016 and 2017 surveys.

[Graphic]

Percentage of organizations with mandatory GBA Plus training:

  • In 2016, 47% organizations had mandatory GBA Plus training.
  • In 2017, 57% organizations had mandatory GBA Plus training.

The SWC online GBA Plus course makes up the majority of GBA Plus training across all functional areas listed in the survey. Only three of the functional areas are shown.

Only three of the functional areas are shown.

[Graphic]

  • For policy groups, organizations reported that the SWC introduction to GBA Plus course made up 73% of GBA Plus training; other GBA Plus training made up 8%; and 19% of organizations indicated no GBA Plus training or not applicable.
  • For research groups, organizations reported that the SWC introduction to GBA Plus course made up 54% of GBA Plus training; other GBA Plus training made up 8%; and 38% of organizations indicated no GBA Plus training or not applicable.
  • For procurement groups, organizations reported that the SWC introduction to GBA Plus course made up 43% of GBA Plus training; other GBA Plus training made up 4%; and 53% of organizations indicated no GBA Plus training or not applicable.

81% of organizations indicate that GBA Plus training is taken by those in policy.

Application

GBA Plus is generally applied to the core four phases of the policy cycle (analysis, option development, decision making and implementation), but less frequently to the problem definition and evaluation phases.

[Graphic]

Frequency GBA Plus is often/always/sometimes applied in the Policy Cycle.

  1. 63% of organizations indicated they often/always/sometimes applied GBA Plus in the problem definition phase;
  2. 78% of organizations indicated they often/always/sometimes applied in the analysis and research phase;
  3. 78% of organizations indicated they often/always/sometimes applied in the option development phase;
  4. 79% of organizations indicated they often/always/sometimes applied in the decision making phase;
  5. 80% of organizations indicated they often/always/sometimes applied in the policy/program implementation phase;
  6. 73% of organizations indicated they often/always/sometimes applied in the policy/program evaluation phase.

Majority of organizations report that Memorandum to Cabinets (MC) and Treasury Board (TB) submissions include GBA Plus. Beyond MCs/TB submissions and legislation, GBA Plus is less integrated in other activities.

[Graphic]

  • 97% of organizations reported they often/always integrated GBA Plus in Memoranda to Cabinet, and 3% of organizations reported they sometimes integrated GBA Plus in Memoranda to Cabinet
  • 91% of organizations reported they often/always integrated GBA Plus in TB submissions, 5% of organizations reported they sometimes integrated GBA Plus in TB submissions, and 4% of organizations reported they rarely or never integrated GBA Plus in TB submissions
  • 76% of organizations reported they often/always integrated GBA Plus in legislation, 10% of organizations reported they sometimes integrated GBA Plus in legislation, and 14% of organizations reported they rarely or never integrated GBA Plus in legislation
  • 48% of organizations reported they often/always integrated GBA Plus in regulations, 19% of organizations reported they sometimes integrated GBA Plus in regulations, and 32% of organizations reported they rarely or never integrated GBA Plus in regulations
  • 30% of organizations reported they often/always integrated GBA Plus in DRF and DPR, 37% of organizations reported they sometimes integrated GBA Plus in DRF and DPR, and 33% of organizations reported they rarely or never integrated GBA Plus in DRF and DPR
  • 27% of organizations reported they often/always integrated GBA Plus in training design and development, 32% of organizations reported they sometimes integrated GBA Plus in training design and development and 41% of organizations reported they rarely or never integrated GBA Plus in training design and development
  • 18% of organizations reported they often/always, 13% of organizations reported they sometimes and 69% of organizations reported they rarely or never integrated in procurement

Data collection

More organizations appear to be collecting gender-disaggregated data and producing internal or public research reports that include gender and diversity perspectives.

[Graphic]

  • 83% of organizations in 2017 collected gender-disaggregated data compared to 77% in 2016.

Challenges

  • Less than half of departments and agencies had a GBA Plus action plan and most identified a lack of internal mechanisms as a barrier to GBA Plus implementation.
  • Most GBA Plus training continues to be non-mandatory and focused on policy analysis.
  • GBA Plus is still less integrated in some phases of the policy cycle.
  • Departments and agencies report that access to gender-disaggregated data is still a significant barrier.
  • Less than half of departments and agencies tracked GBA Plus in MCs and TB submissions or other documents; 40% report that no tracking of GBA Plus implementation or its impacts was in place.

To ensure that action is taken to address each of these gaps and challenges, the survey results will inform an updated 2016-2020 GBA Plus Action Plan, and will guide SWC’s work in the coming year with members of the Interdepartmental GBA Plus Committee. The survey’s results were also included in SWC’s report to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women (FEWO) and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (PACP) in March 2018.

Alternate version

PDF, 547 kB

Report a problem on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, please contact us.

Date modified: