Canada School of Public Service Canada School of Public Service
EKOS Research Associates Inc.
Prepared for the Canada School of Public Service
Supplier’s name: EKOS Research Associates Inc.
June 2018
This public opinion research report presents the results of an online survey conducted by EKOS Research Associates Inc. on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board. The research study was conducted with civil servants across Canada and employees of the Canada School of Public Service between March and May 2018.
Cette publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre : Recherche sur le point de vue de la clientèle de 2018
This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes only. Prior written permission must be obtained from the Canada School of Public Service.
For more information on this report, please contact the Canada School of Public Service at: csps.registrar-registraire.efpc@canada.ca
Catalogue Number: SC103-49/2018E-PDF
International Standard Book Number (ISBN): 978-0-660-27371-6
Related publications (registration number: POR 079-17):
Catalogue Number SC103-49/2018F-PDF (Findings Report, French)
ISBN 978-0-666-27372-3
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the President of the Treasury Board, 2018
The Canada School of Public Service (CSPS) was established in 2004 to provide a broad range of learning opportunities and establish a culture of learning within the public service. To deliver on its mandate, CSPS launched GCcampus, an online learning portal designed to provide a government-wide, integrated approach to sharing learning resources, reducing costs of training for clients and effectively deploying technology to advance federal public servants' continuing education. GCcampus represents a primary point of interaction with CSPS for many of its clients within the public service. In order to ensure that it is effectively marketing its learning opportunities to this population, and, moreover, that these opportunities are responsive to the needs of the public service, CSPS identified the need to conduct research on its brand among the public service.
An online survey (Phase 1) was conducted with 4,632 federal public servants, drawn from a random selection of employees who are indeterminately employed within the federal public service. The Phase 1 results were based on a random selection drawn from a database of 247,540 public servants, representing 94% of the total population of 262,696 public servants. The final sample obtains a +/-1.5 percentage point margin of error, calculated at a 95% confidence interval (i.e., had the entire population of public servants been interviewed, individual survey results among the entire population would be within 1.5 percentage points of the results, 19 times out of 20). The survey was conducted between late March and mid-April, using a questionnaire requiring 24 minutes on average to complete. The response rate for the survey was 13%. A similar survey (Phase 2) was also conducted with 348 individuals considered to be members of internal audiences, including CSPS employees and those working outside CSPS to liaise with departments. This includes Departmental Training Coordinators or Points of Contact (POC) that liaise with CSPS on training programs that benefit public servants in their departments. This attempted census, capturing 36% of the population, was collected online in April, using a 24-minute survey questionnaire.
Given the high degree of coverage of the population of public servants used for the random sample selection, as well as the significant sample size of public servants, we believe that the results of the Phase 1 survey may be extrapolated to the entire population of federal public servants with confidence. The Phase 2 results are based on an attempted census with a response rate reflecting roughly one in three members of the population. We are not aware of any significant response bias, other than a slight over representation of CSPS employees, for which the results were weighted in the analysis. Therefore, we also believe that the results of Phase 2 may be extrapolated to the population of internal audiences with confidence.
Phase 3 consists of 20 focus groups conducted with Phase 1 survey respondents. The purpose of the groups was to provide additional context to the survey results, adding the dimension of personal experience to add context to the quantitative survey findings. The groups were divided between the regions (with 11 groups conducted among participants outside of the National Capital Region (NCR)) and Ottawa (with 9 groups conducted among participants working in the NCR).
Survey results highlight broad awareness of CSPS among federal public servants. In fact, nine in ten (89%) indicated that they had heard something about the organization. Familiarity with the CSPS GCcampus portal is somewhat lower, although three quarters (75%) have heard of it, and about half of public servants understand that GCcampus is the CSPS online platform. As expected, familiarity with CSPS and GCcampus is considerably higher among internal audiences, although not as high for the portal as it is for the School.
Results further suggest that public servants have known about these services for many years and are routinely kept up-to-date. Among those who have heard of CSPS, the majority first heard of the organization more than two years ago. Initial exposure to GCcampus is significantly more recent, with just three in ten having first heard of the service during this time frame. Clear majorities said they have heard, read, or seen something about CSPS or GCcampus within the past year.
During the focus groups, participants also indicated a high level of awareness of both CSPS and GCcampus, but many also said they were not clear on what either CSPS or GCcampus offer them. "Unknown" was among the most common descriptions of both CSPS and GCcampus when Phase 1 survey respondents were asked to describe each with a single word or phrase. Focus group participants often echoed this in remarks that encouraged the School to communicate with them and with their management more clearly and completely about what it is that they have to offer public servants.
Along with the general lack of familiarity with the School, focus group participants were also unclear on the relationship between the "Canada School of Public Service" and "GCcampus." During the Phase 1 survey, respondents were split between those who identify GCcampus as the online portal to CSPS products, and those who said they did not know what the relationship between the two is. During the focus group discussions, it became clear that while many intuited the relationship between the School and GCcampus, it was more a matter of guesswork than knowledge gained as a result of a clearly and consistently communicated brand.
This lack of clarity seems to have also contributed to a misperception about what GCcampus actually is. While many focus group participants understand it to be a portal to CSPS products, many described it as the "online arm" or as consisting only of online offerings, rather than understanding GCcampus as the online portal for all dealings with the School, both online and in-person. By comparison, CSPS is seen as the broader and more encompassing brand, whereas GCcampus is seen as merely an online spin-off.
In terms of a brand that best communicates what the School offers public servants, most focus group participants said that the "Canada School of Public Service" is the clearer, and better-known option. That said, GCcampus remains a viable option as a sub-brand, provided it is presented under a common look and feel, according to some.
Results demonstrate wide-ranging use of the products and services offered, given that eight in ten public servants who have heard of CSPS and GCcampus indicated that they have used them (more than seven in ten of all public servants). For most public servants responding in the Phase 1 survey, services used were courses, workshops or training programs, attended online or in-person, although about one in three read or used information or watched videos available on GCcampus. Two in three of those public servants aware of the website have created a GCcampus account, and four in ten have accessed products and services on the site. Among those who have accessed products and services, half accessed them within the past three months, although one in seven said it was more than two years ago. For eight in ten public service users of the services or products, the primary motivation was that it was required of them. However, more than one in three also said that they found something that was of interest to them, and another 18% had something recommended to them by a colleague.
Three in four public servants attending a course, workshop or training did so online. However, this method is somewhat less popular for events, where just under two in three attended online. Email consistently ranks as the most effective method for reaching public servants with information about CSPS and GCcampus, although colleagues and supervisors were also commonly mentioned. Supervisor referrals appear far more effective in eliciting attendance, as a clear plurality of public servants (43%) cited their supervisor as the medium through which they most recently accessed a CSPS product or service.
During the focus groups, participants often said that the School seems to be moving more of its courses online. For most, this is not seen as a positive direction. The online learning environment was described by many as limited in value and lacking in the person-to-person interactions between students and instructors that aid in learning through shared experiences. Participation in events online – described by participants as "webinars" – are seen as fraught with technical challenges. Even when functioning properly, these are seen by several as a more limited form of participation than in-person. On the other hand, in terms of communicating about CSPS offerings, email was also identified as the most effective means of providing this information, according to many participants. Many did, however, emphasize the need to target email communications to the particular needs of users.
Internal audiences responding in the Phase 2 survey are much more likely to have engaged with CSPS, accessing and using a greater number of products and services, including more than eight in ten who have taken a course, workshop or other training online, and almost as many who have attended in-person. Seven in ten have also used GCcampus material and/or watched a video, and nearly as many have also participated in events, conferences or armchair discussions, either in-person or online.
Public servants responding to the Phase 1 survey who have attended a recent event, conference, or armchair discussion are reasonably satisfied with CSPS/GCcampus events. Most (four in five) rated their experience with the most recent event, conference, or armchair discussion as positive. Three in four feel it was well organized, and nearly as many indicated that it was easy to register for and attend a CSPS/GCcampus event. Two in three expressed significant interest in attending future events, and/or would recommend other events to friends or colleagues. Less positive is the fact that only half of public servants who attended an event, conference, or armchair discussion feel they learned something that they were later able to apply to their work, although one in five said "maybe" or were unsure.
Internal audiences in Phase 2 are considerably more positive. As with public servants, organization is the top-rated aspect of these events, while relevance is rated less positively. In Phase 2, ratings were provided separately for events held in-person and online, with in-person events garnering more positive results, with the exception of relevance for which results are the same.
Similar to attitudes towards events, the majority of public servants in Phase 1 who attended are satisfied with the most recent course, workshop or other training opportunity. Three in four public servants who have attended CSPS/GCcampus training feel that it was well organized. Nearly as many found it easy to register for and attend. Somewhat less positively, roughly two in three believe CSPS/GCcampus training to be very relevant, they would be very interested in attending future courses or workshops, the training provided a lot of useful information, or they would recommend other courses or workshops to friends or colleagues. Less positive input was provided about the instructor of the course or workshop, with only half rating the performance positively, although more than one third were not sure or do not recall. As with events, only just over half of attendees believe they learned something from the training that they were able to later apply to their work.
Internal audiences in Phase 2 are considerably more positive than other public servants with regard to the evaluation of training, and as with events, in-person training garners higher ratings than training delivered online. In-person training rated positively by between eight and nine in ten internal audience members, with welcoming nature and organization at the top of the list, followed by interest in future training, and willingness to recommend the training to others. In the case of in-person training, relevance is not too far down the list. Ease of registration in online training is rated the most positively (78%), while organization and relevance fall somewhere just below. Interest in future online courses and willingness to make a recommendation to others, however, fall considerably below these (67% and 69%, respectively). Lower still, the welcoming nature of an online course is only rated positively by 56%.
Relative to events and training, satisfaction with material is slightly lower. Seven in ten public servants in Phase 1 rated the information or videos found through CSPS or GCcampus positively. Just under seven in ten found the information and/or videos easy to access or well organized. Slightly fewer found that material relevant or that they would be interested in accessing more material in the future. Again reflecting a less positive result, roughly six in ten believe the information or videos provided useful information or that they would recommend the material to friends or colleagues. As with the courses and discussions, just over half of public servants in the survey feel that they were able to later apply the information in print or video to their work, again suggesting only a moderate impact.
Results are marginally higher among internal audiences responding in Phase 2, with three in four agreeing that it was easy to access, well organized, relevant and sparked interest in future material. Seven in ten also said they would recommend the material to others.
Phase 2 respondents also provided their second-hand observations about public servants' perception of the performance of CSPS. Results point to the welcoming environment as the aspect of the School held in highest regard, followed by the relevance and usefulness of the products and services. Ease of access and organization are judged by internal audiences to be the areas in which public servants have the least positive view of the School. These results, however, run counter, to some extent, to the actual feedback provided by public servants in Phase 1.
Most public servants and internal audiences (Phases 1 and 2) who accessed services or products feel the experience with accessing and using products and services offered by CSPS or GCcampus is easy. Only one in three, however, said they have not had any challenges with accessing CSPS or GCcampus services. Challenges experienced related predominantly to slow connection speeds, difficulty obtaining log-on information, or the website freezing or crashing. More than eight in ten did not have any difficulty accessing products or services from CSPS or GCcampus in the official language of their choice.
Phase 3 focus group participants expressed a range of views about the products and services offered by the School, from those who described their experience as extremely valuable, to those who found very little use in courses and events they had participated in from the School. Participants were far more likely to describe their experience with courses and events than they were of materials. A common criticism was that CSPS course offerings lack a central focus and cohesive structure that enables clients to clearly understand the CSPS brand and role it plays in the training arena among public servants (i.e., the space it occupies in terms of training for public servants). Perhaps more importantly, this lack of organizational structure seems to make perusing and finding relevant courses a more daunting task, according to some. Further, the CSPS overall service offering is also seen by some as lacking in clear value in terms of assisting public servants with critical elements of either their current job, or their career progression. These two perceptions are brought together under the overall view among many that CSPS courses are too diffusely targeted to be valuable to people in meeting specific challenges in their day-to-day jobs, or in achieving specifically focused career objectives.
One in four Phase 1 public servants who are aware of CSPS services have contacted CSPS or GCcampus with questions or issues related to a product or service offered, nearly half within the past year. Feedback about the service provided in that contact is reasonably positive. Three in four of those who contacted CSPS or GCcampus for support feel that the person they dealt with was courteous. On the other hand, just under two in three felt that the client support person they dealt with understood their needs. Only half feel that the person they dealt with provided good information or advice, was able to satisfactorily answer the question or problem, was generally knowledgeable, or that the question or problem was solved in a reasonable amount of time.
As might be expected, the incidence of contact among internal audiences (Phase 2) is considerably higher at six in ten. Feedback on the contact is similar, although results for the courteousness of the individual contacted are higher.
Interest in a mobile app is fairly low, with only about one quarter of public servants indicating any likelihood of downloading a CSPS or GCcampus app. Internal audiences are more receptive than other public servants with over half indicating some likelihood of using it. Many less interested in an app indicated either significant barriers with being able to use an app (e.g., limitations of BlackBerrys, no access to a smart phone for work purposes), or a preference for using the website, and/or reserving apps for other, more commonly used purposes.
If an app were available, half would be interested in some of the tested features, including course materials, information about events, courses or other products, or job aids. Responses among internal audiences, however, are considerably less positive. In terms of suggestions provided by public servants and internal audiences for app content or features, the most frequently put forward include tailored suggestions for training and/or events, and notifications about upcoming events, ability to maintain a calendar, and receive last-minute notifications. Another key feature put forward is the ability to build and maintain a personal profile or learning history of courses taken and certificates completed, as well as learning objectives. Finally, features related to language tools and the ability to keep important or frequently needed information (e.g., list of key terms, flashcards) were also put forward.
There is moderately high interest among public servants in hearing more about learning opportunities offered by CSPS or GCcampus, with seven in ten somewhat or very interested, although only one in four indicated a strong interest. When asked about suggestions for products or services that would be of particular interest, central themes related to courses in language training and/or retirement planning. These were followed by suggestions for courses and events to address soft skills (e.g., time management, communications, team dynamics, etiquette) and performance development tools (e.g., software, project management).
Among managers of other public servants, four in five managers agree that continuous learning opportunities result in staff who are more productive and happier with their careers. One third, however, feel that it is difficult to allow staff the time needed for continuous learning while still meeting work objectives. Most see the value in sending staff for continuous learning since they will get the needed training on the job.
Among internal audiences, time constraints are seen as a primary barrier to pursuing further learning, according to eight in ten, and four in ten believe that public servants would prefer to seek learning opportunities outside of the federal government. Another one third feel that many public servants – particularly older ones – simply do not see continuous learning as necessary. One in four also believe that supervisors within their organization are not supportive of continuous learning.
While internal audiences in Phase 2 indicated broad satisfaction with the quality of the information they receive from the School, concerns were flagged in other areas. For example, only six in ten feel they receive enough information from CSPS, and just over half feel that the information is timely.
In terms of the services provided by CSPS, half had used the Departmental Annual Learning Report or the Director's newsletter. Just over four in ten had made use of self-service reports in I-LMS or the POC Forum, and about one in three have used the Operations Dashboard, the RTC plenary sessions, or RTC training.
Among users of these products and services, results are varied. Nine in ten find the RTC's training useful, and eight in ten rated the director's newsletter and RTC plenary sessions as helpful. Only two in three, however, said the same about the self-service reports in I-LMS and the POC Forum. Six in ten found the Departmental Annual Learning Report and the RTC working groups to be of use, and only half feel the operations dashboards are helpful.
Although three in four CSPS employees feel comfortable contributing ideas, only six in ten feel that management is listening. Other employees supporting the School are even less apt to feel comfortable in contributing ideas or that their contribution will be listened to by the School. Highlighting similarly modest results, roughly six in ten CSPS employees and others supporting the School believe that their work is valued by the School, management, and public servants. The same proportion believes that the School is heading in the right direction.
This certification is to be submitted with the final report submitted to the Project Authority.
I hereby certify as Senior Officer of EKOS Research Associates Inc. that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research.
Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate, or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.
Signed by: Will Daley (Vice-President)
The Canada School of Public Service (CSPS) was established in 2004 to provide a broad range of learning opportunities and establish a culture of learning within the public service. Canada's public service consists of approximately 262,696 individuals nationwide working across the federal departments and agencies. In order to ensure that it is effectively marketing its learning opportunities to this population, and, moreover, that these opportunities are responsive to the needs of the public service, CSPS identified the need to conduct research on its brand among the public service.
To deliver on its mandate, CSPS launched GCcampus in 2016. GCcampus is an online learning portal designed to provide a single point of service where public servants can access the full range of products and services offered by CSPS, including interactive and open online resources, videos, courses, seminars and events. The objective of GCcampus is to provide a personalized platform where public servants can find products and services relevant to them and keep track of courses they have completed. GCcampus also offers segmented communities that aggregate content based on the needs of employees, supervisors, managers and executives.
The central question in this research is how the distinct CSPS and GCcampus brands are viewed by public servants and, ultimately, how these brands can be managed in a way that most effectively communicates to target audiences within the public service what CSPS has to offer them.
To this end, the research was designed to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the behaviours and attitudes of the CSPS core clientele. The ultimate strategic objectives for the School include the following:
In order to meet the research objectives, EKOS implemented a methodology consisting of three major phases of research. The three phases include:
Phase 1 research consisting of a survey conducted online among n = 4,632 public servants between March 27 and April 11, 2018, including 4,032 completed in English and 600 completed in French. The sample was developed through the use of three distinct sample sources, including:
An evaluation of the three sources resulted in a database of 242,461 unique records representing 92% of the entire population of public servants (as per 2017 data). From this basis, a sample frame of n = 40,000 unique records were randomly selected and sent invitations to participate in the survey via email. Following the initial invitation, non-responding records were sent two reminder notices during the field window. Based on this, a 13% response rate was achieved (measured using the calculation below).
Sample Frame
40,000
Invalid/Undeliverable records
3,742
Unresolved records (U)
(Sent successfully without response)
30,272
In-scope, non-responding (IS)
1,449
Refused to participate
95
Started, but did not complete
1,354
Completed surveys (C)
4,632
Response Rate = C/(U+IS+C)
13%
The final sample of 4,632 provides a margin of error of 1.5 percentage points calculated at a 95% confidence interval. The margin of error is higher among subgroups within the data. The major subgroups are indicated in Table 1. The sample was weighted on the basis of region, department size and level of service (EX vs. non-EX).
Phase 2 (Survey of Internal Audiences)
Phase 2 represents the perspective and experiences of internal audiences. The survey was an attempted census completed online by 348 individuals (230 CSPS employees and 118 employees of other departments), including 261 completed in English and 87 completed in French. Following thorough testing, the survey was collected between April 5 and 26, taking an average of 24 minutes to complete. The bilingual survey was administered through a first invitation and three follow-up (i.e., reminder) emails to non-respondents.
Of the initial 999 employees in the population from the client-provided list (598 CSPS employees and 401 POCs from other departments), 28 email addresses were returned as undeliverable. From the remaining functional sample of 971, three refused and 54 were started but not completed, along with the 348 completed cases, for a response rate of 35.8%. Since the survey attempted to include all members of the intended population (i.e., was an attempted census), the application of a margin of error to the survey results is not applicable.
The final sample was weighted to restore the proportion of CSPS employees (67% based on the actual number of completed cases) to the population proportion of 60%. No other information was available and, therefore, no other weighting was applied.
Phase 3 (Focus Groups with Public Servants)
In order to better understand public servants' attitudes towards the School, a series of 20 focus groups were conducted between April 24 and May 10 among Phase 1 respondents who agreed to participate in follow-up research. Each focus group lasted between one and a half and two hours. Groups were conducted in-person in professional focus group facilities, with the exception of the group with public servants in the North, which was conducted over a telephone conference call.
Eleven groups were conducted with participants outside of the NCR, while the remaining nine were conducted among participants inside the NCR. Outside of the NCR, groups were conducted in the following locations:
The discussions were conducted in both official languages, with five of the 20 groups conducted in French (including both groups in Montreal, the Moncton group and two of the groups in the NCR).
The nine groups conducted in the NCR were segmented on the basis of specific audience profiles, with four conducted among "less engaged" participants, four among "more engaged" participants and one group among "partners." These segments were defined on the basis of responses to the Phase 1 survey as follows:
A total of 135 participants took part in the groups. While many of the sessions were filled, particularly in the NCR, there was some difficulty in fully recruiting within the regions. In a few locations, assistance was required from within the public service to recruit participants (e.g., Calgary and Francophones in Moncton). The size of individual groups ranged from a low of two participants to a high of 10 participants. Participants were paid an honorarium of $75 in thanks for their time as discussions were held outside of work hours (i.e., evenings).
Detailed findings are presented in the sections that follow. Overall results are presented in the main portion of the narrative and are typically supported by graphic or tabular presentation of results. Only Phase 1 results from the broader public servant population are graphically presented. Where applicable comparisons can be made, they are presented on charts in the right-hand column (in red). Where there are results of Phase 2 internal audiences that do not have a direct comparison with Phase 1 respondents (broader public servants), these results have been presented in tabular format.
Bulleted text is also used to point out any statistically and substantively significant differences between subgroups of respondents. If differences are not noted in the report, it can be assumed that they are either not statistically significantFootnote1 in their variation from the overall result or that the difference was deemed to be substantively too small to be noteworthy. If not specified, readers should assume differences described in any bullets relate to Phase 1 results among public servants. Because of the number of cases collected in Phase 2, only the largest differences have been reported in bullets, and where these exist, "internal audiences" and or "Phase 2" has been bolded to signal to readers that this is a difference found among Phase 2 (internal audience) respondents.
Results for the proportion of respondents in the sample who either said "don't know" or did not provide a response may not be indicated in the graphic representation of the results in all cases, particularly where they are not sizeable (e.g., 10% or less). Results may also not total to 100% due to rounding. In some cases, compound branching logic has implications for lower subsets of respondents. Only the main subset is described in charts, striving for the greatest clarity in communicating the sample base for each survey item. The programmed survey instrument, including complete branching logic, can be found in Appendix A.
The following table presents a profile of the public servants responding to the Phase 1 survey, as well as the Phase 2 respondents representing "internal" audiences (CSPS employees and the community of individuals across the public service who act as liaisons between their departments and the School). This includes demographic characteristics related to age, education, minority/equity group status, and region, as well as their tenure in the public service and whether or not they have employees reporting to them.
| Age | Phase 1 Public Servants |
Phase 2 Internal Audiences |
|---|---|---|
| n= | 4,632 | 348 |
| 18 to 24 years | 3% | 5% |
| 25 to 34 years | 16% | 14% |
| 35 to 44 years | 25% | 29% |
| 45 to 54 years | 31% | 32% |
| 55 to 64 years | 19% | 15% |
| 65 years or older | 2% | 1% |
| I prefer not to say | 4% | 5% |
| Gender | Phase 1 Public Servants |
Phase 2 Internal Audiences |
|---|---|---|
| n= | 4,632 | 348 |
| Male | 45% | 20% |
| Female | 51% | 76% |
| I prefer not to say | 4% | 3% |
| Number of years | Phase 1 Public Servants |
Phase 2 Internal Audiences |
|---|---|---|
| n= | 4,632 | 348 |
| Less than a year | 7% | 6% |
| Between 1 and 2 years | 11% | 6% |
| Between 2 and 3 years | 6% | 2% |
| Between 3 and 5 years | 6% | 2% |
| Between 5 and 10 years | 13% | 16% |
| Between 10 and 20 years | 32% | 43% |
| More than 20 years | 25% | 25% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 1% | 0% |
| Public servants reporting to you | Phase 1 Public Servants |
Phase 2 Internal Audiences |
|---|---|---|
| n= | 4,632 | 348 |
| Yes | 24% | 36% |
| No | 75% | 63% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 1% | 1% |
| Number reporting to you | Phase 1 Public Servants |
Phase 2 Internal Audiences |
|---|---|---|
| n= | 1,408 | 122 |
| 1 to 2 | 22% | 28% |
| 3 to 4 | 26% | 27% |
| 5 to 6 | 21% | 23% |
| 7 to 10 | 32% | 22% |
| Number reporting directly or indirectly | Phase 1 Public Servants |
Phase 2 Internal Audiences |
|---|---|---|
| n= | 1,353 | 114 |
| 1 to 2 | 17% | 26% |
| 3 to 4 | 17% | 17% |
| 5 to 10 | 28% | 26% |
| 11 to 30 | 22% | 19% |
| 31+ | 16% | 13% |
| Education | Phase 1 Public Servants |
Phase 2 Internal Audiences |
|---|---|---|
| n= | 4,632 | 348 |
| A high school diploma or equivalent | 9% | 8% |
| Registered apprenticeship or other trade certificate or diploma | 3% | 3% |
| College, CEGEP, or other non-university certificate or diploma | 20% | 17% |
| University certificate or diploma below bachelor's level | 4% | 6% |
| Bachelor's degree | 35% | 42% |
| Postgraduate degree above bachelor's level | 26% | 20% |
| I prefer not to say | 2% | 4% |
| Equity | Phase 1 Public Servants |
Phase 2 Internal Audiences |
|---|---|---|
| n= | 4,632 | 348 |
| Indigenous person | 4% | 4% |
| Visible minority | 15% | 11% |
| Person with a disability | 6% | 5% |
| None of the above | 69% | 75% |
| I prefer not to say | 8% | 7% |
| Province/Region | Phase 1 Public Servants |
Phase 2 Internal Audiences |
|---|---|---|
| n= | 4,632 | 348 |
| National Capital Region | 41% | 68% |
| British Columbia | 9% | 1% |
| Alberta | 6% | 2% |
| Saskatchewan | 2% | 1% |
| Manitoba | 4% | 2% |
| Ontario | 16% | 11% |
| Quebec | 12% | 12% |
| New Brunswick | 3% | 2% |
| Nova Scotia | 4% | 1% |
| Prince Edward Island | 1% | 1% |
| Newfoundland and Labrador | 2% | 0% |
| Territories | 0% | 0% |
The unweighted Phase 1 sample was very closely aligned with the population based on department size, age and gender. It differed from the population of public servants, however, in a few key respects:
While weighting was applied to align the final sample and results to the population, the potential for a non-response bias exists within public servants in the NCR, as well as public servants below the EX level of service. However, in both cases, the samples are sufficiently high and are aligned closely enough to other population characteristics (i.e., age and gender) to suggest that the potential for such bias to skew the reported results is low and non-systemic.
The Phase 2 sample represents a census-style sample of the populations of study (CSPS employees and the population of Points of Contact (POC), Organizational Learning Coordinators (LC) and Required Training Coordinators (RTC) interfacing between their departments and the School). This means that the entire population was provided with an equal opportunity to respond. The characteristics of the population are largely unknown. For example, we do not have information about the age, gender, region or department size of respondents. Weighting was applied to correct the proportion of CSPS employees to others, but apart from this, we cannot say with certainty that the results reflect the entire population as no comparable effort (such as a census) exists to provide a point of comparison. That said, given the confined nature of the population, the relatively large sample obtained and the equal opportunity of the population to respond, we have no reason to believe the results are not an accurate reflection of the population.
In order to better assess the interaction and relationships between different dimensions explored in the subgroup analysis featured in the bullets, it is helpful to understand the following patterns:
Results reveal broad awareness of CSPS among federal public servants. Respondents were asked, unaided, if they know of an establishment within the Government of Canada that offers common learning to federal public servants. Three quarters (74%) indicate that they are aware of such an organization, a figure that rises to eight in ten (83%) among recent users of CSPS products and services (i.e., within the last two years). Seven percent of respondents said that they may have heard of this organization and very few (3%) indicated that they had not. One in six (16%) are unsure.
| Response | Percentage of total respondents (n = 4,632) |
Percentage of recent users (n = 3,159) |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 74% | 83% |
| Maybe | 7% | 5% |
| No | 3% | 2% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 16% | 10% |
Once again, the results of Phase 1 reveal that the vast majority of public servants are aware of CSPS. Nine in ten respondents (89%) indicated that they had heard something about the organization, compared to 6% who had not. Familiarity with the CSPS GCcampus portal is somewhat lower, although three quarters (75%) have heard of the service, compared to 12% who had not.
| Response | Canada School of Public Service |
GCcampus |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 89% | 75% |
| Maybe | 3% | 8% |
| No | 6% | 12% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 2% | 5% |
Phase 1 results suggest wide-ranging use of the products and services offered by CSPS among those who are aware of it. Fully eight in ten respondents aware of CSPS and/or GCcampus (80%) indicated that they have used these services, while one in ten (11%) have not. Ten percent are uncertain.
| Response | Percentage of respondents (n = 4,195) |
|---|---|
| Yes | 80% |
| No | 11% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 10% |
Phase 1 respondents who are aware of CSPS were asked to identify the sources from which they receive information about CSPS. Email ranks as the most popular medium among public servants, with six in ten (63%) indicating that they had read about the organization in an electronic communiqué. Just under half (46%) had heard about CSPS through a colleague who had used the service, and four in ten (40%) say they were referred by their supervisor. A handful mentioned mandatory training (5%), online research (3%), and past experiences with the organization (3%). One in ten (11%) are uncertain.
| Response | Percentage of respondents (n = 4,195) |
|---|---|
| I received an email about the CSPS | 63% |
| I heard about the CSPS from colleagues who have used its services | 46% |
| I was referred to the CSPS by the person I report to | 40% |
| Mandatory training/training plan, my department/HR, training coordinator/manager | 5% |
| Website/online, own inquiry/research | 3% |
| Previous course taken, knew of them for years | 3% |
| Network/colleagues/friends | 1% |
| Other | 1% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 11% |
According to Phase 1 survey results, the vast majority of public servants who are aware of CSPS have seen or heard something pertaining to CSPS within the last year. Four in ten (38%) have heard something in the past month, while one in five (22%) encountered information about CSPS within the past three months. One in ten have heard something about CSPS between three and six months ago (10%) or between six months and a year ago (8%). Just one in ten (9%) last heard something more than a year ago. One in eight (13%) are uncertain.
| Response | Percentage of respondents (n = 4,195) |
|---|---|
| Within the past month | 38% |
| Within the past 3 months | 22% |
| Between 3 and 6 months ago | 10% |
| Between 6 months and a year ago | 8% |
| Between 1 and 2 years ago | 5% |
| More than 2 years ago | 4% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 13% |
According to Phase 1 respondents, most public servants who are aware of CSPS have known about CSPS for several years. Six in ten public servants (59%) initially heard about CSPS more than two years ago. One in eight (12%) heard of the organization one to two years ago, while 6% estimate the time frame to be between six months and a year. One in ten (10%) first heard of CSPS within the past six months. One in eight (13%) did not provide a response.
| Response | Percentage of respondents (n = 4,195) |
|---|---|
| Within the past month | 5% |
| Within the past 3 months | 2% |
| Between 3 and 6 months ago | 3% |
| Between 6 months and a year ago | 6% |
| Between 1 and 2 years ago | 12% |
| More than 2 years ago | 59% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 13% |
Most public servants in Phase 1 who are aware of CSPS feel they have at least some familiarity with it, although, for most, this familiarity is only modest knowledge. Based on the results of the survey, just one in ten federal public servants (12%) believe they are very familiar with CSPS, while about half (47%) would say they are somewhat familiar. Three in ten (30%) do not believe they are particularly familiar with CSPS and one in ten (10%) are not familiar with it at all.
Naturally, internal audiences in Phase 2, such as CSPS employees and POCs within other departments, are familiar with the organization, with two in three (63%) saying they are very familiar with it and one in three (33%) indicating slightly lesser familiarity. Interestingly, responses are similar among CSPS employees and others responding to the survey.
| Response | Percentage of total respondents (n = 4,195) |
Percentage of total users (n = 3,039) |
Percentage of Phase 2 respondents (n = 348) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Very familiar | 12% | 16% | 63% |
| Somewhat familiar | 47% | 55% | 33% |
| Not very familiar | 30% | 25% | 4% |
| Not at all familiar | 10% | 4% | 0% |
According to Phase 1 survey results, roughly two thirds of public servants who are aware of GCcampus (64%) have created an account, while four in ten (39%) have used services offered through the online portal. Just one in ten (12%) have neither created an account nor accessed these services. One in six (17%) offered no response.
Perhaps not surprisingly, recent users of CSPS services are somewhat more likely to have created a GCcampus account (72%) and accessed products and services via GCcampus (47%).
| Response | Percentage of total respondents (n = 3,792) |
Percentage of recent users (n = 2,916) |
|---|---|---|
| Yes, I have created an account | 64% | 72% |
| Yes, I have used products and services | 39% | 47% |
| No | 12% | 9% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 17% | 12% |
Those Phase 1 respondents who are familiar with GCcampus were asked to identify the sources through which they had read or heard about the service. Half (51%) recall receiving an email about GCcampus. One third cited a referral from a supervisor (34%) or a colleague who had used GCcampus (33%). One in five (22%) are uncertain.
| Response | Percentage of total respondents (n = 3,792) |
|---|---|
| I received an email about GCcampus | 51% |
| I was referred to GCcampus by the person I report to | 34% |
| I heard about GCcampus from colleagues who have used GCcampus products or services | 33% |
| Website/online, own inquiry/research | 2% |
| Previous training/course taken | 1% |
| Other | 1% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 22% |
Among those public servants in Phase 1 who are familiar with GCcampus, most have seen or heard something about the online portal within the last year. Roughly one in five have heard something within the past month (23%) or within the past year (21%). One in ten have heard something about the service between three and six months ago (11%) or between six months and a year ago (9%). Six percent most recently encountered information regarding GCcampus between one and two years ago, while 3% have not heard anything in the past two years. One quarter (26%) did not provide a response.
| Response | Percentage of total respondents (n = 3,792) |
|---|---|
| Within the past month | 23% |
| Within the past 3 months | 21% |
| Between 3 and 6 months ago | 11% |
| Between 6 months and a year ago | 9% |
| Between 1 and 2 years ago | 6% |
| More than 2 years ago | 3% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 26% |
Phase 1 results suggest that, among those public servants who are familiar with GCcampus, most have known about the service for some time. When asked when they had initially heard of the online learning portal, one in ten respondents indicated that they were first made aware in the past six months (11%) or between six months and a year ago (10%). One in five (22%) first heard of the service between one and two years ago, while three in ten (29%) place the time frame at two or more years ago. One quarter (26%) are uncertain.
| Response | Percentage of total respondents (n = 3,792) |
|---|---|
| Within the past month | 3% |
| Within the past 3 months | 3% |
| Between 3 and 6 months ago | 5% |
| Between 6 months and a year ago | 10% |
| Between 1 and 2 years ago | 22% |
| More than 2 years ago | 29% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 26% |
Phase 1 results reveal that most public servants who are aware of GCcampus – while tepid in their self-assessments – feel they are at least vaguely familiar with it. While just 7% would rate their familiarity as high, one third said they are somewhat familiar (35%). An additional one in three said they are not very familiar (33%) and one in five (22%) are not familiar with GCcampus at all.
Recent users of CSPS services within the last two years are slightly more apt to be somewhat familiar with GCcampus (41%), and are somewhat less likely to say they are not at all familiar with it (15%).
Internal audiences (Phase 2) such as CSPS employees and POCs within other departments are again generally familiar with GCcampus, although to a lesser degree than with CSPS. Nearly half (45%) rated themselves as very familiar with it and the same proportion (44%) said they are somewhat familiar with it. CSPS employees, however, were less apt to indicate that they are very familiar with it (39% versus 55% among others responding to the survey).
| Response | Percentage of total respondents (n = 3,792) |
Percentage of recent users (n = 2,916) |
Percentage of Phase 2 respondents (n = 348) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Very familiar | 7% | 9% | 45% |
| Somewhat familiar | 35% | 41% | 44% |
| Not very familiar | 33% | 32% | 9% |
| Not at all familiar | 22% | 15% | 1% |
Results suggest moderate understanding among public servants of the relationship between GCampus and CSPS among those public servants who are aware of them. Just under half of respondents aware of either one (45%) understand that GCcampus is the CSPS online platform through which public servants can access its products and services. A similar proportion (47%), however, are uncertain. A handful incorrectly believe that GCcampus points to CSPS services, but as a separate entity (4%), or that there is no relationship between GCcampus and CSPS (4%).
Almost without exception, internal audiences (Phase 2), CSPS employees and key POCs within the departments have a clear understanding of the relationship between CSPS and GCcampus, with 92% providing the correct response. A handful, however, are unclear on this point.
| Response | Percentage of total respondents (n = 4,375) |
Percentage of Phase 2 respondents (n = 348) |
|---|---|---|
| GCcampus is the online platform where public servants can access products and services offered by CSPS | 45% | 92% |
| GCcampus points to services offered by CSPS, but is a separate entity | 4% | 5% |
| GCcampus has no relationship to CSPS that I'm aware of | 4% | 0% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 47% | 3% |
Internal audiences responding to the Phase 2 survey were asked whether they think that CSPS, GCcampus, or both best communicate what the organization has to offer. Results suggest a split, with 40% suggesting CSPS, and 16% suggesting GCcampus, but 36% suggesting that both be used.
As found among public servants in the Phase 1 survey results, the focus group discussions highlighted a similar variation in understanding. Many participants said that they do not have a clear sense of what the relationship is between CSPS and GCcampus, while others said they are generally familiar with it as the portal through which they could access content from CSPS. Few participants, however, clearly understand GCcampus as the portal through which all of the products and services offered by CSPS may be accessed. More typically, participants see GCcampus as the part of CSPS focused on courses, events and materials offered exclusively online. While some participants had experience logging on to CSPS, few recognize the role it plays as a personalized account centre for all the dealings an individual has with CSPS.
Prompting Phase 1 respondents with a description of the organization did little to boost awareness, indicating that whatever awareness exists is already top of mind. Among those public servants who are not aware of CSPS or GCcampus, just one in ten (10%) recognize CSPS when provided with a description, while one in seven (15%) indicated that they "may" have heard about it. Six in ten (60%) maintained that they have not heard about CSPS. Similarly, just one in ten (10%) have heard of GCcampus, while 13% "may" have heard of it. Roughly two thirds (64%) have not heard of the service.
| Response | Canada School of Public Service | GCcampus |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 10% | 10% |
| Maybe | 15% | 13% |
| No | 60% | 64% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 15% | 13% |
Phase 1 respondents who are aware of either CSPS or GCcampus were asked to identify the specific services offered by CSPS that they have used in the past. Two thirds (66%) indicated that they have participated in courses, workshops, or other training programs online, while just under half (45%) have attended these programs in-person. Three in ten (29%) have read or used information provided on GCcampus, while one quarter (25%) have watched videos using this service. One in six attended events, conferences, or armchair discussions in-person (18%) or have participated in these events online (16%). One in ten (10%) did not respond.
Internal audiences responding in the Phase 2 survey are much more likely to have engaged with CSPS, accessing and using a greater number of products and services. For example, 84% have taken a course, workshop or other training online, and 77% have attended in-person. About seven in ten have used GCcampus material (71%) and/or watched a video (69%). Nearly as many have also participated in events, conferences or armchair discussions, either in-person or online (73% and 63%, respectively).
| Phase 1 Public Servants |
Phase 2 Internal Audiences |
|
|---|---|---|
| n= Aware of CSPS or GCcampus (aided and unaided) | 4,440 | 230Note2 |
| I have participated in courses, workshops or other training programs online | 66% | 84% |
| I have attended courses, workshops or other training programs in-person | 45% | 77% |
| I have read or used information provided on GCcampus | 29% | 71% |
| I have watched videos on GCcampus | 25% | 68% |
| I have attended events, conferences and armchair discussions in-person | 18% | 73% |
| I have participated in events, conferences and armchair discussions online | 16% | 63% |
| I have participated in GCcampus online forum discussions | 2% | 8% |
| Other (specify) | 1% | 5% |
| I have never used any products offered by CSPS and/or GCcampus | 8% | 0% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 10% | 0% |
More than eight in ten of those in Phase 1 who have accessed products or services (85%) report that they have not had any difficulty accessing products or services from CSPS or GCcampus in the official language of their choice, although 10% said that they have experienced this issue.
Results are similar among Phase 2 respondents with 15% indicating difficulty accessing products or services in their own language.
| Response | Percentage of respondents (n = 3,576) |
Percentage of Phase 2 users (n = 229) |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 10% | 15% |
| No | 85% | 82% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 5% | 3% |
Focus group participants also expressed satisfaction with the availability of products and services in both languages from CSPS. A few Francophone participants in the NCR spoke of limited availability of courses offered in French (with more options in Montréal or Québec). Others talked about inadequate translations or courses that were described as "bilingual," but took place primarily in English.
Phase 1 results suggest a broad preference among public servants for accessing CSPS services online. Among those respondents in the survey who have used services offered by CSPS, nine in ten (89%) have accessed them online. Just 6% indicated that they have not used the internet to access these services.
| Response | Percentage of respondents (n = 3,576) |
|---|---|
| Yes | 89% |
| No | 5% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 5% |
It was often noted among focus group participants in both the NCR and in the regions that more and more of the CSPS course offerings are being delivered online. This is consistent with the finding that three in four Phase 1 respondents taking a course said the most recent course they took was online. Overall, few participants said they preferred online courses to those offered in-person. Online courses were often described as a less engaging way to learn than in-person courses which allow person-to-person interactions between students and instructors.
The fact that online courses are available wherever and whenever users find them convenient to access was often described as a double-edged sword. Arguing for the advantages of online, some participants said that online spared them the hassles of travelling and the inconvenience of taking time out of the office. On the other hand, many countered that completing courses at their desks means frequent interruptions with work-related issues that make it more difficult to concentrate on the material than if the course was held in-person. For others, the flexibility of being able to complete the course at a time of their own choosing also allows more room for procrastination, with some pushing it off indefinitely.
Participants distinguished courses that are more appropriate for online delivery and those that are better suited to in-person delivery. Courses that involve the delivery of factual information were often described as more appropriate for an online context. Examples given by participants included technical courses, courses on financial delegation, and courses that are more process-oriented, focus on routine material (such as time management) or are of an introductory nature. On the other hand, courses that depend more on person-to-person interactions or on more subjective topics were described as more valuable when delivered in-person and less valuable in an online context. Some participants explained that it was their impression that online does not allow students to share or ask questions specific to their experience. Courses on conflict resolution, management psychology or diversity in the workplace were described as examples of courses that are less appropriate for online delivery.
A few participants pointed to more interactive forms of distance learning as having the potential to offer better online learning opportunities than what they had typically experienced through online courses offered by CSPS. One participant in Toronto described taking an online course using the online learning platform Moodle. This participant described the course as fostering interpersonal connections with other public servants in a similar way to how a typical in-person course might. He was, however, an exceptional case. Most participants described their experience with online courses from CSPS as offering no person-to-person interactions.
Other participants mentioned webinars as having the potential to replicate an in-person experience, enabling them to have a dialogue with the instructor and other students. However, comments about webinars often recounted technical challenges in connecting that made participating difficult or impossible. Even when the technology did work, some said that in their experience, webinars typically offered them very limited opportunities to provide feedback, ask questions or contribute to the conversation.
While one in three respondents in Phase 1 (35%) who accessed services or products online did not experience any challenges with accessing CSPS or GCcampus services, roughly three in ten noted slow connection speeds (32%), difficulty obtaining log-on information (29%), or the website freezing or crashing (27%). A small proportion elected to describe difficulties with navigating the products or services online in the "other" line (4%), along with technical or interface challenges (3%), or that the status update was not working (2%). Nine percent did not recall the nature of any difficulties.
Results among Phase 2 internal audience respondents highlight slightly more frequent issues with speed connection (50%) and freezing or crashing on the website (48%), which may be reflective of the greater intensity of contact made by this segment relative to other public servants. Another 12% indicated a range of other challenges with no central theme.
| Response | Percentage of respondents (n = 3,172) |
Percentage of Phase 2 users (n = 208) |
|---|---|---|
| Slow connection speeds | 32% | 50% |
| Difficulty obtaining log-on information | 29% | 21% |
| Website freezing or crashing | 27% | 48% |
| Difficulty navigating / hard to find information / cumbersome to use | 4% | - |
| Poorly/inconsistently designed course/interface, technical problems with access | 3% | - |
| Status update not working (completion report, course history) | 2% | - |
| No challenges | 35% | 25% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 9% | 2% |
In general, focus group participants reiterated that accessing CSPS products and services was fairly easy to do. Few participants described encountering any major issues they could not easily resolve. However, many participants did mention experiencing difficulty accessing "the site" (without specifying the name of the site) because they could not recall the username or password. The problem, they said, was the result of a combination of factors: they do not access the site frequently enough to readily recall their information; and the site requires username and password combinations that are very different from their other usernames and passwords, and, therefore, are much more difficult to recall.
While some participants experienced difficulty remembering their password, others described difficulty with the username. Several wondered why such seemingly stringent security is needed to access the site and why access could not be made easier by allowing users more flexibility when creating usernames and passwords, or even by recognizing their credentials as users on a Government of Canada network.
Connectivity was the other major issue described when accessing CSPS products and services, even in urban centres, such as Calgary, where high-speed internet is commonplace. Northern participants, in particular, pointed to slow internet connections as a barrier to participation in some types of courses, and even more so for events, such as webinars. In fact, webinars were singled out as particularly challenging to access, even among those for whom internet connection is not typically an issue.
Apart from the technical challenges of credentials and connectivity, some participants also pointed to difficulties with navigating and searching the website as another barrier to finding specific courses they were searching for, or, more generally, finding out about the options available to them. It is important to note that these impressions were not based on a specific review of the current version of GCcampus and may be based on earlier versions of the portal.
Phase 1 results further suggest that among public servants who have used CSPS services, most do so on an ongoing basis. One quarter of respondents (25%) last accessed CSPS services within the past month and an additional one in four (25%) used them within the past three months. One in seven reported their most recent use at between three and six months ago (15%) or at between six months and a year ago (13%). One in ten said they had last used CSPS services between one and two years ago (10%) or more than two years ago (7%).
| Response | Percentage of respondents (n = 3,576) |
|---|---|
| Within the past month | 25% |
| Within the past 3 months | 25% |
| Between 3 and 6 months ago | 15% |
| Between 6 months and a year ago | 13% |
| Between 1 and 2 years ago | 10% |
| More than 2 years ago | 7% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 5% |
Phase 1 results highlight that public servants who use CSPS services have been doing so for quite some time. Just over half (54%) first accessed CSPS services more than two years ago, while one in five (18%) initially used the services between one and two years ago. One in ten estimate the time frame at between six months and a year ago (8%) or within the past six months (9%).
| Response | Percentage of
respondents (n = 3,576) |
|---|---|
| Within the past month | 2% |
| Within the past 3 months | 3% |
| Between 3 and 6 months ago | 4% |
| Between 6 months and a year ago | 8% |
| Between 1 and 2 years ago | 18% |
| More than 2 years ago | 54% |
| The last occasion was the first | 1% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 10% |
According to Phase 1 survey results, among those public servants who have used CSPS or GCcampus services, three in ten (29%) have done so five or more times in the past two years. One in ten accessed these services three (11%) or four times (8%) during this time frame. One in seven (14%) have availed themselves of these services twice, and one in ten (11%) have used the services only once. One quarter (27%) are unsure.
Phase 2 survey respondents (internal audiences including CSPS employees and POCs in the departments) are strong users of CSPS/GCcampus products and services. They are much more likely to have accessed many different products, with 60% reporting use of five or more different products. Only 11% said that they have only used one or two products themselves.
| Response | Percentage of
respondents (n = 3,576) |
Percentage of Phase 2 users (n = 229) |
|---|---|---|
| Only one | 11% | 3% |
| 2 | 14% | 8% |
| 3 | 11% | 9% |
| 4 | 8% | 12% |
| 5 or more | 29% | 60% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 27% | 9% |
Phase 1 respondents who have used the services offered by CSPS were asked about their motivation. The vast majority (79%) cited requirements from their supervisor or organization as a primary motive for using these services. Four in ten (38%) indicated personal interest. One in five (18%) said they were inspired by recommendations from colleagues, while one in seven (14%) attribute their participation to information they received directly from CSPS. Just 2% cited ongoing learning and career advancement in the "other" line.
While Phase 2 respondents are as likely as other public servants to have been required to use services and products offered by CSPS, half (54%) also said that they were motivated by interest, and another one in three (32%) were following a recommendation from a colleague or information they received directly from CSPS (38%). Another 17% indicated a variety of other reasons with no central theme.
| Response | Percentage of respondents (n = 3,576) |
Percentage of Phase 2 users (n = 229) |
|---|---|---|
| Because it was required of me by a supervisor or my organization | 79% | 77% |
| Because I found something that was of interest to me | 38% | 54% |
| Based on the recommendation of a colleague | 18% | 32% |
| Because of information I received directly from CSPS or GCcampus | 14% | 38% |
| Ongoing learning, language training, career advancement | 2% | - |
| Other (specify) | 1% | 17% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 2% | 2% |
Those Phase 1 respondents who attended an event hosted by CSPS were asked whether this was online or in-person. Based on survey results, six in ten public servants (58%) who have attended an event, conference, or armchair discussion have participated online, while about four in ten (37%) attended in-person.
| Response | Percentage of respondents (n = 1,275) |
|---|---|
| Online | 58% |
| In-person | 37% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 5% |
Public servants in Phase 1 who have participated in an event, conference, or armchair discussion – either in-person or online – were asked to describe the topics that were covered. Responses vary widely and do not centre on any one theme. One in five (19%) said they addressed issues related to workplace wellness and mental health, while slightly fewer (16%) discussed careers and networking in the public service. About one in ten cited topics related to Indigenous affairs (9%), diversity and inclusion (7%), and innovation (7%). One in ten (11%) did not provide a response.
| Phase 1 Public Servants |
|
|---|---|
| n= Participated in an event | 1,224Note3 |
| Workplace wellness and mental health | 19% |
| Careers and networking in the public service | 16% |
| Indigenous affairs | 9% |
| Diversity and inclusion | 7% |
| Innovation | 7% |
| Digital | 5% |
| Official languages | 4% |
| Project management | 4% |
| Results matter | 3% |
| Open government | 3% |
| Leadership/management/executive mentoring | 2% |
| Communication/public engagement | 1% |
| HR/labour relations/hiring/harassment | 1% |
| Pay/compensation/finance/Phoenix system | 1% |
| Other | 6% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 11% |
According to Phase 1 survey results, half of public servants who attended an event, conference, or armchair discussion (53%) feel they learned something that they were later able to apply to their work. Roughly one quarter (28%) feel they possibly learned something to apply to their work, and another one in eight (13%) feel they did not learn anything applicable.
| Response | Percentage of respondents (n = 1,224) |
|---|---|
| Yes | 53% |
| Maybe | 28% |
| No | 13% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 7% |
According to Phase 1 survey results, three in four public servants (75%) who have attended a recent event, conference, or armchair discussion feel it was well organized. Seven in ten indicated that it was easy to register for and attend a CSPS/GCcampus event (72%), that they would be very interested in attending future events (71%), or that they would recommend other events to friends or colleagues (69%). Roughly three in five feel that the event, conference, or armchair discussion was very relevant (64%) or that they felt very welcome (63%). Three in five believe the CSPS/GCcampus event provided a lot of useful information (59%).
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents (n = 1,224) |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 75% |
| Neither (4) | 12% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 8% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 5% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents (n = 1,224) |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 72% |
| Neither (4) | 13% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 11% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 5% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents (n = 1,224) |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 71% |
| Neither (4) | 10% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 12% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 7% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents (n = 1,224) |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 69% |
| Neither (4) | 12% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 11% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 8% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents (n = 1,224) |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 64% |
| Neither (4) | 19% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 12% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 6% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents (n = 1,224) |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 63% |
| Neither (4) | 12% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 8% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 17% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents (n = 1,224) |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 59% |
| Neither (4) | 20% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 15% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 6% |
Compared with public servant assessments in Phase 1, internal audiences in Phase 2 are considerably more positive. In Phase 2, respondents were asked separately about events held in-person and online showing that in-person events are seen more positively, typically 10 points higher, with the exception of relevance for which results are the same. As with public servants in Phase 1, organization is the top-rated aspect of these events, while relevance is rated less positively.
| In-Person Events (% agree) |
Online Events (% agree) |
|
|---|---|---|
| n= Internal audiences who attended an event | 168 | 144 |
| It was well organized | 93% | 83% |
| It was easy to register and attend | 87% | 77% |
| I would be very interested in attending future events | 87% | 78% |
| I would recommend other events to friends or colleagues | 89% | 79% |
| It was very relevant to me | 77% | 79% |
| I felt very welcome | 89% | 74% |
Source: Phase 2 Survey respondents – CSPS employees only |
||
Based on the Phase 1 survey results, most public servants who have attended a recent event, conference or armchair discussion are satisfied with CSPS/GCcampus events, with four in five (78%) rating their experience with the most recent event, conference, or armchair discussion as positive. Only 7% say their experience was negative.
Results are very similar for Phase 2 respondents with 89% providing a positive rating of events, conferences, or discussions attended in-person, and 78% saying the same about online events, conferences or discussions.
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents (n = 1,224) |
Percentage of Phase 2 in-person users (n = 168) |
Percentage of Phase 2 online users (n = 144) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negative (1–3) | 7% | 3% | 5% |
| Neither (4) | 11% | 5% | 10% |
| Positive (5–7) | 78% | 89% | 78% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 4% | 3% | 6% |
Focus group participants most often described their experience with courses when asked about their interactions with CSPS. Many also mentioned participating in events held by CSPS, however, particularly armchair discussions. These were seen as good opportunities to network (if attending in-person) and, also, to hear colleagues discussing current issues confronting public servants and the government broadly. Timing was described as a particular challenge with respect to participating in armchair events, both from the perspective of making time to attend or participate, but also in terms of the timing of events themselves. This was mentioned in the West, where one participant said he often saw events that interest him, but which are scheduled as early as 8:00 am, EST, translating to 5:00 am, PST.
Those Phase 1 respondents who have participated in a training opportunity were asked whether they participated in their most recent session online or in-person. Three quarters (74%) undertook this training online, while one quarter (23%) participated in-person.
| Response | Percentage of
respondents (n = 3,306) |
|---|---|
| Online | 74% |
| In-person | 23% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 3% |
Those Phase 1 respondents who participated in training – either online or in-person – were asked to describe the subject matter covered in these sessions. Again, respondents described a wide array of topics. One in five (19%) covered workplace wellness and mental health. About one in ten, meanwhile, cited issues related to official languages (9%), diversity and inclusion (8%), careers and networking in the public service (7%), project management (6%), and pay systems and compensation (6%). One in eight (12%) did not provide a response.
| Phase 1 Public Servants |
|
|---|---|
| n= Participated in a CSPS/GCcampus course | 3,226Note4 |
| Workplace wellness and mental health | 19% |
| Official languages | 9% |
| Diversity and inclusion | 8% |
| Careers and networking in the public service | 7% |
| Project management | 6% |
| Phoenix, pay system, compensation | 6% |
| Leadership, management or director training | 4% |
| Digital | 4% |
| Indigenous affairs | 3% |
| HR, staffing | 3% |
| Results matter | 2% |
| Security | 2% |
| Financial management, costing | 2% |
| Innovation | 1% |
| Open government | 1% |
| GCDocs | 1% |
| Mandatory/required training | 1% |
| Other | 7% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 12% |
According to Phase 1 survey results, over half of attendees (58%) believe they learned something from the course, workshop or other learning opportunity that they were able to later apply to their work. One quarter (24%) feel the training may have had an impact, and one in eight (12%) feel the training did not have an impact on their work.
| Response | Percentage of
respondents (n = 3,226) |
|---|---|
| Yes | 58% |
| Maybe | 24% |
| No | 12% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 5% |
Similar to attitudes towards events, three in four public servants (Phase 1) who have attended a course, workshop or other training opportunity (76%) feel that it was well organized. Nearly as many (72%) found it easy to register for and attend. Roughly two in three believe CSPS/GCcampus training was very relevant (66%), that they would be very interested in attending future courses or workshops (65%), that the training provided a lot of useful information (64%), or that they would recommend other courses or workshops to friends or colleagues (64%). Six in ten (59%) felt very welcome at their course, workshop or other training opportunity.
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of
respondents (n = 3,226) |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 76% |
| Neither (4) | 11% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 9% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 5% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of
respondents (n = 3,226) |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 74% |
| Neither (4) | 10% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 12% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 4% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of
respondents (n = 3,226) |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 66% |
| Neither (4) | 14% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 16% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 4% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of
respondents (n = 3,226) |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 65% |
| Neither (4) | 12% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 14% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 8% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of
respondents (n = 3,226) |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 64% |
| Neither (4) | 14% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 17% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 4% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of
respondents (n = 3,226) |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 64% |
| Neither (4) | 13% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 15% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 8% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of
respondents (n = 3,226) |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 59% |
| Neither (4) | 11% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 7% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 23% |
Compared with public servant assessments in Phase 1, internal audiences in Phase 2 are considerably more positive. In Phase 2, respondents were asked separately about training they attended in-person and online showing that in-person events are seen much more positively. In-person training was accorded a positive rating by between eight and nine in ten internal audience respondents, with welcoming nature and organization at the top of the list, followed by interest in future training, along with willingness to recommend the training to others. In the case of in-person training, relevance is not too far down the list (rated positively by 81%). Ease of registration is rated the most positively for online training (78%), while organization and relevance fall somewhere just below (73% and 74%, respectively). Interest in future courses and willingness to make a recommendation to others, however, fall considerably below these (67% and 69%, respectively), and the welcoming nature of the online course is not felt in the same way as the in-person course with only 56% providing a positive rating.
| In-Person Training | Online Training | |
|---|---|---|
| n= | 178 | 193 |
| It was well organized | 87% | 73% |
| It was easy to register and attend | 85% | 78% |
| It was very relevant to me | 81% | 74% |
| I would be very interested in attending future events | 84% | 67% |
| I would recommend other courses or workshops to friends or colleagues | 83% | 69% |
| I felt very welcome | 88% | 56% |
Source: Phase 2 Survey respondents – CSPS employees only |
||
Based on the Phase 1 survey results, the majority of attendees are satisfied with the most recent course, workshop or other training opportunity, with three in four (76%), reporting a positive experience. One in ten (10%) rated their experience as negative, and 11% rated it as neither a positive nor a negative experience.
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of total respondents (n = 3,226) |
Percentage of
Phase 2 in-person users (n = 178) |
Percentage of
Phase 2 online users (n = 193) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negative (1–3) | 10% | 4% | 10% |
| Neither (4) | 11% | 4% | 11% |
| Positive (5–7) | 76% | 85% | 75% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 3% | 6% | 4% |
According to Phase 1 results, over half of participants (54%) rated the performance of the instructor of the course or workshop positively. Notably, more than one third (38%) were not sure or do not recall. Very few (3%) rated the instructor's performance as negative and 5% rated the performance neutrally.
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of total respondents (n = 3,226) |
|---|---|
| Negative (1–3) | 3% |
| Neither (4) | 5% |
| Positive (5–7) | 54% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 38% |
When asked about their interactions with CSPS, focus group participants most often described their experience with courses delivered by CSPS. Comments were generally positive. In particular, participants often pointed to how the courses were specifically tailored to the public service as a particular advantage. In a few cases participants mentioned taking courses from third-party suppliers that had an orientation and a focus that did not speak to the practical needs of work in the public service.
To underline the unique value of courses offered by CSPS, participants often contrasted the theoretical learning that new public servants brought with them from their universities with the realities that public servants encounter. CSPS is seen, by some, as providing a more grounded and practical form of training.
Although impressions were largely positive on the whole, participants also often said that the offerings were too general in nature to be of significant use to them.
Participants who have taken in-person courses from CSPS often described the instructors as competent, knowledgeable and very helpful. A particular benefit identified by many is the fact that instructors are typically public servants and, therefore, can offer more practical guidance and advice than instructors coming from outside the public service, who do not have the same understanding of the specific circumstances and challenges of working in the public service.
Those respondents in Phase 1 who watched videos or read information provided by CSPS were asked to describe the subject matter. Again, results reveal a broad array of topics. One in five accessed videos on workplace wellness and mental health (19%). Roughly one in ten mentioned official languages (10%), diversity and inclusion (10%), Indigenous affairs (7%), and careers and networking in the public service (7%). One in four (23%) did not provide a response.
| Phase 1 Public Servants |
|
|---|---|
| n= | 1,567 |
| Workplace wellness and mental health | 19% |
| Official languages | 10% |
| Diversity and inclusion | 10% |
| Indigenous affairs | 7% |
| Careers and networking in the public service | 7% |
| Project management | 4% |
| Digital | 3% |
| Financial, pay, Phoenix, HR | 3% |
| Innovation | 2% |
| Open government | 2% |
| Information management, security, web accessibility, access to information | 2% |
| Leadership, management training, mentoring | 2% |
| Results matter | 1% |
| GCDocs | 1% |
| Took their mandatory training / required training | 1% |
| Other | 3% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 23% |
Just over half of Phase 1 respondents using these materials (51%) feel that they were able to later apply the information in print or video to their work. One in four (27%) feel that they were "maybe" able to apply the material to their work. Fourteen percent are not sure and 9% say they were not able to apply the material.
| Response | Percentage of respondents (n = 1,567) |
|---|---|
| Yes | 51% |
| Maybe | 27% |
| No | 8% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 14% |
Phase 1 respondents who used information and/or videos found through CSPS or GCcampus generally hold moderately positive views. Seven in ten agreed that the information and/or videos were easy to access (69%) and well organized (68%). Slightly fewer found that the material was very relevant (64%) or indicated that they would be very interested in accessing more material in the future (64%). Roughly six in ten believe the information or videos provided a lot of useful information (63%) or that they would recommend the material to friends or colleagues (61%).
Results are marginally higher among Phase 2 CSPS employees and POCs in other departments, with three in four agreeing that it was easy to access (76%), well organized (75%), sparked interest in future material (75%), and relevant (74%). Seven in ten (71%) also said they would recommend the material to others.
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 69% |
| Agree (Phase 2) | 76% |
| Neither (4) | 8% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 10% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 13% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 68% |
| Agree (Phase 2) | 75% |
| Neither (4) | 10% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 7% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 15% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 64% |
| Agree (Phase 2) | 74% |
| Neither (4) | 12% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 11% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 14% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 64% |
| Agree (Phase 2) | 75% |
| Neither (4) | 10% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 11% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 14% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 63% |
| Agree (Phase 2) | - |
| Neither (4) | 13% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 11% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 14% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 61% |
| Agree (Phase 2) | 71% |
| Neither (4) | 12% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 11% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 16% |
Among Phase 1 respondents who had used CSPS/GCcampus material, seven in ten (71%) rated the information or videos found through CSPS or GCcampus as positive. Only 6% rated the material as negative. About one in ten said the material is neither negative nor positive (10%) or are not sure (12%).
Again, results are marginally higher among Phase 2 CSPS employees and POCs in other depart ments who have used this material, with 82% indicating an overall positive rating.
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents (n = 1,572) |
Percentage of Phase 2 users (n = 188) |
|---|---|---|
| Negative (1–3) | 6% | 6% |
| Neither (4) | 10% | 6% |
| Positive (5–7) | 71% | 82% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 12% | 6% |
Few public servants in the focus groups spoke of products other than the courses or armchair discussions. Few – if any – participants, for example, described turning to CSPS or GCcampus as an information resource independent of the information that is provided through the course offerings. A few, however, recognize that CSPS offers more than courses and events. One participant, in particular, recalled watching video blogs on the site.
Another participant suggested that it would be worthwhile having reference materials from courses provided online so that if a particular course provides a chart or slide of useful information it can be downloaded and saved for future reference.
Roughly two thirds of Phase 1 respondents who have used services or products agree with statements related to CSPS and GCcampus overall. Seven in ten feel that CSPS or GCcampus is organized (70%). Two in three feel it contains a lot of useful information (67%), CSPS or GCcampus is very relevant to them or feel that it is easy to access products and services (66%). Similarly, almost two in three are very interested in learning more and/or feel that they would recommend to friends or colleagues (64%), or that CSPS or GCcampus is very welcoming (63%, although nearly 14%, are unsure).
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 70% |
| Agree (Phase 2) | 71% |
| Neither (4) | 14% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 10% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 6% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 67% |
| Agree (Phase 2) | - |
| Neither (4) | 14% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 13% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 6% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 66% |
| Agree (Phase 2) | 85% |
| Neither (4) | 15% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 13% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 6% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 66% |
| Agree (Phase 2) | 63% |
| Neither (4) | 14% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 15% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 5% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 64% |
| Agree (Phase 2) | 76% |
| Neither (4) | 14% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 15% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 8% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 64% |
| Agree (Phase 2) | 80% |
| Neither (4) | 14% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 14% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 8% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 63% |
| Agree (Phase 2) | 73% |
| Neither (4) | 14% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 9% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 14% |
During the Phase 1 survey, respondents were asked to describe CSPS using a single word or phrase. Respondents most often simply described CSPS in plain terms as an organization that offers training to public servants. Among those who provided more descriptive language, the most common words used are listed below (in order of frequency).
These descriptions were also reflected, in various ways, in comments from focus group participants. Participants often described CSPS as a useful or helpful resource, but they also often said that the usefulness of CSPS is limited by the generic nature of the courses offered. Many participants described this as an inherent challenge of CSPS in trying to serve the entire government. Others, however, feel that there are opportunities for CSPS to provide more specific learning opportunities.
Negative comments focused more often on the themes of CSPS not offering enough specific learning opportunities to be useful. Comments about the lack of specificity applied both to the general nature of individual courses, but also to the lack of clear and logical organization or structure in the course offerings as a whole. Many participants said they could not easily see a means of furthering their career or obtaining skills helpful to their specific jobs through the offerings they had seen from CSPS.
Mandatory courses (specifically related to the Phoenix pay system) were often used as prime examples of CSPS courses that many participants do not see as useful, but rather as make-work assignments that have little application to day-to-day work. Whether positively or negatively disposed towards CSPS, few participants described CSPS as innovative in either the delivery or content of its product offerings. It is rather seen as providing "generic" learning opportunities, with limited new or cutting-edge content.
Phase 1 survey respondents were also asked to describe GCcampus using a single word or phrase. As with descriptions of CSPS, respondents most often described GCcampus in prosaic terms as an online school with courses for public servants. Among those who offered more explanatory language to describe GCcampus, the most common terms (in order of prevalence) were as follows:
In both the Phase 1 survey and Phase 3 focus groups, respondents and participants generally had less to say about the portal as a specific entity distinct from CSPS. For many focus group participants, GCcampus is a name they have heard or seen while on the site, but are not clear about what GCcampus does or the precise nature of its relationship with CSPS. Many of those who understand this relationship described it as the online arm of CSPS, offering only online options, with CSPS being oriented towards in-person options.
When focus group participants were asked which brand, CSPS or GCcampus, better described the products and services offered by CSPS, most said that CSPS is more familiar to them, but also that it represents a clearer and more descriptive name. In addition, many said it is their impression that the name "Canada School of Public Service" sounds more serious and credible than "GCcampus," which to them sounds "too informal" or "too fashionable" to be taken seriously. Others also pointed to the similarity between "GCcampus" and other resources, such as "GCconnex" or "GCcollab." This similarity, they feel, would cause CSPS to lose its distinctive identity in a crowded field.
While participants often said they are not clear on the rationale for having two names, only a few said that one or the other name should be discontinued outright. Most are open to the idea of GCcampus existing as a sub-brand within the overall CSPS offering, with the proviso that there is a common look and feel to avoid confusion.
Of those Phase 1 respondents aware of CSPS and/or GCcampus, seven in ten (73%) rate the performance of CSPS positively overall. Just under one in ten rate CSPS negatively (8%). Twelve percent provided a more neutral rating and another 7% are not sure.
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of total respondents (n = 3,576) |
Percentage of Phase 2 users (n = 348) |
|---|---|---|
| Negative (1–3) | 8% | 7% |
| Neither (4) | 12% | 11% |
| Positive (5–7) | 73% | 82% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 7% | 6% |
Phase 2 respondents were asked about public servants' perception of the performance of CSPS. They were asked to do this by estimating the proportion of public servants they believe have a positive assessment about the School. While results are fairly spread out in terms of the proportion of public servants perceived to think positively, the welcoming environment seems to be the aspect of the School held in highest regard (according to Phase 2 respondents as a second-hand estimate of the view point of public servants). This is followed by the relevance and usefulness of the products and services, of which 38% of Phase 2 respondents judged that between 60% and 80% of public servants hold a positive view. Products that are easy to access and well organized are judged by Phase 2 respondents as the areas in which the fewest public servants have a positive view of the School. These results, it should be noted, seem to run counter to the actual results provided by public servants in Phase 1.
| Phase 2 (Internal Audiences) n=348 | 0 to 20% | 21% to 40% | 41% to 60% | 61% to 80% | 81% to 100% | Don't know / Not sure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Providing relevant products and services | 5% | 11% | 25% | 38% | 11% | 10% |
| Providing useful products and services | 3% | 11% | 23% | 38% | 14% | 11% |
| Providing products and services that are easy to access | 5% | 15% | 27% | 29% | 13% | 10% |
| Being well organized | 6% | 13% | 29% | 29% | 12% | 11% |
| Providing a welcoming environment | 4% | 8% | 19% | 32% | 24% | 13% |
| Overall performance | 4% | 13% | 31% | 34% | 9% | 9% |
Source: Phase 2 Survey respondents |
||||||
A common criticism of CSPS, among both positively and negatively disposed participants, is the perception that the course offerings lack a clear and cohesive structure or logical organization that enable one to understand what is offered, and how it may be relevant to any given public servant. For example, some pointed to a lack of substantive categorization of courses, such as would be found in an academic institution (e.g., by program type, and degree or level). For others, they hinted at a preference to see course offerings classified according to entry into the public service, addressing technical aspects of a current job, overarching issues for anyone working in the public service, those intended to assist with career advancement and planning, and those geared to retirement, taking more of a life-cycle approach to categorization. In either case, many discussions highlighted an overall impression among many of a "hodgepodge" of courses, with limited rhyme or reason to the course listing.
Among those respondents in Phase 1 who are not recent users, half (48%) indicated that they had not used any products or services from CSPS or GCcampus recently because there was no requirement to do so. One third (35%) said that they had not seen or found any products or services of interest. One in six indicated that they have not accessed CSPS or GCcampus recently because they are expecting to leave the public service in the near future (17%). A number of respondents volunteered additional reasons for not having used these services. One in seven feel they do not have enough time (14%) to use any products or services. A few had not heard about it recently (8%), do not like online courses (4%), do not have a training budget (4%), or have access issues (2%).
| Response | Percentage of respondents (n = 301) |
|---|---|
| I haven't been required to do so by my supervisor or organization | 48% |
| I haven't seen or found anything of interest to me | 35% |
| I'm retiring or leaving the public service in the near future | 17% |
| Time, too busy | 14% |
| I haven't heard about it from friends or colleagues recently | 8% |
| Do not like online courses, moving away from classroom training | 4% |
| Lack of training budget, expensive courses, limited budget | 4% |
| Access issues | 2% |
| Other | 4% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 7% |
Three in four respondents in Phase 1 who accessed products or services offered by CSPS or GCcampus feel the experience was somewhat (56%) or very (22%) easy. Sixteen percent did not find it easy, with 12% saying it was "not very" and a further 4% saying it was "not easy at all."
Results are very similar among internal audiences (Phase 2).
| Response | Percentage of respondents (n = 3,576) |
Percentage of Phase 2 users (n = 348) |
|---|---|---|
| Very easy | 22% | 27% |
| Somewhat easy | 56% | 58% |
| Not very easy | 12% | 12% |
| Not easy at all | 4% | 2% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 5% | 1% |
Among those public servants in Phase 1 who have accessed CSPS and GCcampus products and services, one in four (25%) have contacted CSPS or GCcampus with questions or issues related to a product or service offered. Seven in ten (69%) have not, and 7% are not sure.
Phase 2 respondents who have accessed CSPS and GCcampus products and services are more than twice as likely as other public servants to have contacted the School or GCcampus, given that 61% reported contact at any point. This is much higher among other internal audiences (84%) than it is among CSPS employees (46%).
| Response | Percentage of respondents (n = 3,576) |
Percentage of Phase 2 users (n = 348) |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 25% | 61% |
| No | 69% | 36% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 7% | 3% |
One in ten (8%) Phase 1 respondents who have contacted CSPS did so within the past month. Just over one in ten have contacted CSPS or GCcampus within the past three months (13%), between three and six months ago (13%), or between six months and one year ago (14%). One quarter of those who have contacted CSPS or GCcampus have made contact either between one and two years ago (25%) or more than two years ago (24%).
Contact is more frequent among Phase 2 CSPS employees who have contacted someone at the School. One in four (26%) have made contact within the past month. Three in ten (30%) made contact a year ago or more, compared with half of other public servants.
| Response | Percentage of respondents (n = 934) |
Percentage of Phase 2 users (n = 106 for CSPS only) |
|---|---|---|
| Within the past month | 8% | 26% |
| Within the past 3 months | 13% | 14% |
| Between 3 and 6 months ago | 13% | 8% |
| Between 6 months and a year ago | 14% | 16% |
| Between 1 and 2 years ago | 25% | 19% |
| More than 2 years ago | 24% | 11% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 4% | 5% |
Three in four of those in Phase 1 who contacted CSPS or GCcampus for support (74%) feel that the person they dealt with was courteous. Just fewer than two in three (62%) indicated that the client support person they dealt with understood their needs. Over half feel that the person they dealt with provided good information or advice (58%), was able to satisfactorily answer the question or problem (58%), was knowledgeable (57%), or that the question or problem was solved in a reasonable amount of time (57%).
Among internal audiences responding to Phase 2, results for the courteousness of the individual contacted are higher (84%). Other results are similar to those found among other public servants in Phase 1, although ratings for obtaining a satisfactory answer and solution are marginally lower (53% and 51%, respectively, said this completely described the outcome).
| Response | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Describes completely | 74% |
| Completely (Phase 2) | 84% |
| Somewhat | 13% |
| Not at all | 5% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 7% |
| Response | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Describes completely | 62% |
| Completely (Phase 2) | 59% |
| Somewhat | 21% |
| Not at all | 10% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 7% |
| Response | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Describes completely | 58% |
| Completely (Phase 2) | 56% |
| Somewhat | 25% |
| Not at all | 10% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 7% |
| Response | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Describes completely | 58% |
| Completely (Phase 2) | 53% |
| Somewhat | 24% |
| Not at all | 14% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 4% |
| Response | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Describes completely | 57% |
| Completely (Phase 2) | 58% |
| Somewhat | 25% |
| Not at all | 9% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 10% |
| Response | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Describes completely | 57% |
| Completely (Phase 2) | 51% |
| Somewhat | 23% |
| Not at all | 16% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 4% |
Half of those in Phase 1 who contacted CSPS or GCcampus (49%) say that their question was answered or their problem was solved within one day. One in five (21%) reported that it took a few days. Few believe that it took a week (5%), a few weeks (4%), less than a month (2%), or longer than one month (3%). One in ten indicated that the question or problem has not been resolved (9%) or do not recall how long it took (8%).
Results among Phase 2 respondents are perhaps marginally less favourable with 39% indicating a one-day turnaround on a response and/or resolution and 28% reporting a two-day turnaround.
| Response | Percentage of respondents (n = 934) |
Percentage of Phase 2 users (n = 205) |
|---|---|---|
| Within one day | 49% | 39% |
| Within a few days | 21% | 28% |
| Within a week | 5% | 8% |
| Within a few weeks | 4% | 5% |
| Within a month | 2% | 0% |
| Longer than 1 month | 3% | 2% |
| My question or problem has not been resolved | 9% | 8% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 8% | 10% |
Half of public servants in Phase 1 who contacted CSPS or GCcampus (52%) initially contacted someone by telephone. Four in ten (42%) made initial contact by email.
Among CSPS employees who have made contact (Phase 2), half as many (28%) have made contact by telephone. One in three have made contact either directly by email (11%) or by emailing the generic box (22%). Another 23% have contacted the Client Contact Centre.
| Response | Percentage of respondents (n = 934) |
Percentage of Phase 2 users (n = 106) |
|---|---|---|
| Telephone | 52% | 28% |
| 43% | 33% | |
| Client Contact Centre (CCC) | N/A | 23% |
| Other | 2% | 16% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 2% | - |
More than half of those in Phase 1 who made contact (55%) indicated that they required no additional contact after their initial contact with CSPS or GCcampus. One in five (20%) had additional contact by email. Another 15% had additional contact by telephone. Four percent had in-person contact and 1% experienced some other form of interaction. Just under one in ten (8%) did not recall.
| Response | Percentage of respondents (n = 904) |
|---|---|
| 20% | |
| Telephone | 15% |
| In-person | 4% |
| Other | 1% |
| None / No additional contact | 55% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 8% |
Phase 1 respondents who accessed products or services at CSPS and/or GCcampus were asked to identify the media through which they had most recently accessed them. According to the results of the survey, half of public servants (51%) were asked to attend by a supervisor. One in four (23%) received an email with information regarding CSPS or GCcampus. One in six sought information directly from the CSPS website (16%) or obtained information through a colleague (15%), while just over one in ten (12%) encountered information through GCcampus. Other sources were cited by fewer respondents and 5% did not provide a response.
| Phase 1 Public Servants |
|
|---|---|
| n= CSPS/GCcampus product and service usersNote5 | 3,463 |
| I was asked to attend by my supervisor | 51% |
| I received an email with information about it from CSPS and/or GCcampus | 23% |
| I saw information about it on the Canada School of Public Service website | 16% |
| I heard about it from a colleague | 15% |
| I saw information about it on GCcampus | 12% |
| Mandatory/required training | 4% |
| I saw information about it on GCpedia and/or GCconnex | 3% |
| My department, HR, management | 2% |
| I saw information about it on social media | 1% |
| Other | 2% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 5% |
Phase 1 respondents were asked to list the media through which they would prefer to be contacted by CSPS regarding its products and services. Based on the results, public servants have a strong preference for email, expressed by 80% in the survey. One in five (21%) would prefer to seek the information themselves via the CSPS website, while one in seven (14%) opted for GCcampus. One in twenty expressed interest in communicating through GCpedia/GCconnex (6%), a mobile application (6%), or social media (5%).
Phase 2 respondents were asked the question in a slightly different way so the comparison of results is not clear cut. However, results indicate that email, the School website, and GCpedia/GCconnex are at the top of the list. A mobile app and social media, as well as intranet are not seen as popular options by comparison.
| Response | Percentage of respondents (n = 4,632) |
Percentage of Phase 2 users (n = 348) |
|---|---|---|
| 80% | 69% | |
| Canada School of Public Service website | 21% | 62% |
| GCcampus | 14% | 59% |
| GCpedia and/or GCconnex | 6% | 42% |
| An application on my mobile device | 6% | 28% |
| Social media | 5% | 36% |
| Department website, newsletter, internal department communications | 1% | - |
| Through department contacts specific to role | 1% | - |
| Do not wish to receive any communications | 1% | - |
| Intranet | - | 32% |
| Other | 1% | 9% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 9% | 3% |
Reflecting the Phase 1 survey findings, focus group participants also commonly pointed to email as the right means of communicating information about CSPS. Few mentioned alternative means of communicating (i.e., social media) as more direct or likely to capture their attention. Many participants said they had received emails from the School in the past, usually with information about upcoming courses or events. Most described these emails as welcome, even if they do not always contain anything of interest to them personally. Some suggested that emails from the School be more targeted to the needs and interests of the individuals receiving them. Many extended this beyond just emails, to the design of the website, pointing to Amazon and Apple as websites that curate recommendations, based on a person's history with the School.
Several participants across all regions said that the emails they received from the School often refer to courses scheduled within a short period of time (a few days, for example). Many suggested that the School provide more advanced notice of courses, enabling public servants to make the necessary plans to participate, including managing work load, and making travel arrangements for in-person courses or events.
Several participants said that while it is important for the School to communicate with them, it is as important – or more important – for the School to communicate its offerings to their managers. This recommendation stemmed from a perception that the School is not well known to managers and, perhaps in part as a result, that training opportunities are often not encouraged, beyond mandatory courses.
Others suggested that the School could be doing more in-person outreach. One participant suggested, for example, that the School has a booth at the annual Public Service Week events. The in-person approach was described as a better approach to address the perceived lack of knowledge about the School and what it does.
According to the Phase 1 survey results, just over one quarter of public servants are likely to use a CSPS or GCcampus app (10% very likely and 18% somewhat likely). The majority say that it is not very likely (23%) or not likely at all (43%) that they would download the app for mobile devices.
Internal audiences captured in Phase 2 are more receptive than other public servants to the idea of a mobile app. Eighteen percent said they would be very likely to use it and another 34% would be somewhat likely to use it. Only 8% said they would not be likely to use it at all, compared with almost half of other public servants.
| Response | Percentage of respondents (n = 4,632) |
Percentage of Phase 2 users (n = 348) |
|---|---|---|
| Very likely | 10% | 18% |
| Somewhat likely | 18% | 34% |
| Not very likely | 23% | 27% |
| Not at all likely | 43% | 8% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 5% | 13% |
Among both public servants responding in Phase 1 and internal audience respondents in Phase 2, those less interested in a mobile app described a lack of access to work devices on which to install and use the app, and reticence of public servants to use their own personal device (and data plan) for work purposes. Another common theme relates to the type of technology available for those who do have a work device (e.g., BlackBerry) which does not accommodate good access (ability to download and operate apps, slow connection speeds, small screen sizes). Lack of comfort among some public servants with technology and use of apps were also pointed out as barriers. Many respondents also said that they do not like apps in general, they are tired of apps taking up space on their devices and screens, and that they would prefer to reserve apps to serve functions that are necessary at least a few times each week, if not daily. A smaller number of respondents focused specifically on participation in training by telephone, through the app, seeing this as a poor method through which to participate. A small number also said that an app is not needed, given that in-person and online method options are available already, and another conduit is not necessary.
Based on Phase 1 survey results, half of public servants would be interested in some features through a mobile app, including course materials (50%), information about events, courses or other products (50%), or job aids (50%). Roughly four in ten would be interested in eBooks (43%), the ability to take online courses through the app (43%), personalized information and updates (43%), or videos (40%). More than one third are interested in case studies (37%), live webcast events (35%), or podcasts (34%). One in five indicate that they are interested in blogs (21%) on the app.
In spite of higher interest more generally among Phase 2 respondents, internal audiences provided more lukewarm responses regarding interest in many of the specific types of material, including study materials (28%), information about events and courses (41%), job aids (37%), eBooks (26%), participating through the app (30%), personalized updates (33%), videos (31%) and case studies (17%).
| Response | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Interested | 50% |
| Interested (Phase 2) | 28% |
| Not interested | 40% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 10% |
| Response | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Interested | 50% |
| Interested (Phase 2) | 41% |
| Not interested | 39% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 10% |
| Response | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Interested | 50% |
| Interested (Phase 2) | 37% |
| Not interested | 40% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 11% |
| Response | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Interested | 43% |
| Interested (Phase 2) | 26% |
| Not interested | 47% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 11% |
| Response | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Interested | 43% |
| Interested (Phase 2) | 30% |
| Not interested | 46% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 11% |
| Response | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Interested | 43% |
| Interested (Phase 2) | 33% |
| Not interested | 46% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 12% |
| Response | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Interested | 40% |
| Interested (Phase 2) | 31% |
| Not interested | 49% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 11% |
| Response | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Interested | 37% |
| Interested (Phase 2) | 17% |
| Not interested | 52% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 12% |
| Response | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Interested | 35% |
| Interested (Phase 2) | 34% |
| Not interested | 54% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 11% |
| Response | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Interested | 34% |
| Interested (Phase 2) | 28% |
| Not interested | 53% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 12% |
| Response | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Interested | 21% |
| Interested (Phase 2) | 12% |
| Not interested | 67% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 12% |
Phase 1 and Phase 2 survey respondents were again asked, following the rating of specific elements of a mobile app, what they would like featured in an app. The most popular suggestions made by respondents in Phase 1 and Phase 2 included: tailored suggestions and notifications about upcoming events; the ability to maintain a calendar; and last-minute notifications such as reminders, last-minute changes, critical information about course/location logistics and so on. Another key theme centred on the ability to maintain a personal profile and learning history, learning objectives, courses taken, and certificates for completed courses or events (including ready access to copies of certificates). Language tools and the ability to keep important or frequently needed information (e.g., list of key terms, flashcards) were also frequently described. A few suggested that the mobile app could ease the registration process.
Focus group participant views about a CSPS/GCcampus mobile app were mixed. Most said they would not be very interested in an app, citing a variety of reasons. Top among these are that many public servants do not have a work-assigned mobile device and would not (or are unwilling) to use their own personal device for this purpose, functionality issues with BlackBerrys (often issued to public servants), and lack of a clear additional need that is not already served through the website. The first and the latter reasons point to the added sentiment among many public servants that they would use the website while in the work environment and an app would more typically be reserved for an "outside of work" environment. Therefore, an app is just not something they would use for work-related training in their "off time," after hours. A smaller number of participants, however, do see an app from the School as worthwhile, saying it could allow them to more conveniently use CSPS services on their own time, particularly during their commute to and from work on public transportation. This use, they said, could be well suited to shorter courses, information or articles, as opposed to the longer, online courses the School offers.
According to Phase 1 survey results, there is interest among public servants in hearing more about learning opportunities offered by CSPS or GCcampus. About one quarter (25%) are very interested (including 28% of recent users) and another half (48%) are somewhat interested (including 50% of recent users). About one in five are not very interested (15%) or not at all interested (8%).
| Response | Percentage of respondents (n = 4,632) |
Percentage of recent users (n = 3,159) |
|---|---|---|
| Very interested | 25% | 28% |
| Somewhat interested | 48% | 50% |
| Not very interested | 15% | 14% |
| Not at all interested | 8% | 6% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 4% | 2% |
Phase 1 and Phase 2 respondents were also asked late in the survey about suggestions of products or services that would be of particular interest. Respondents to Phases 1 and 2 were quite varied in their responses. However, to the extent that there were central themes, they most often pointed to specific types of training. Most often suggested were courses in language training and/or retirement planning. These were followed by suggestions for courses and events to address soft skills (e.g., time management, communications, team dynamics, etiquette) and performance development tools. Also frequently requested were courses related to diversity and inclusion, and courses related to Indigenous issues in particular. There were also some suggestions for more in-person, classroom courses, as well as greater use of methods such as webinar interfaces and short videos.
Among supervisors of other public servants responding in Phase 1, two thirds (67%) agree that they actively look for opportunities to enhance their own skills and training. Over half (54%) say their work responsibilities do not leave enough time to pursue continuous learning opportunities. Just under half agree that to get the most from a learning opportunity, in-person methods are needed rather than online (49%) or that the best way to learn is by doing rather than sitting in a classroom (45%). Over one quarter of managers agree that if continuous learning opportunities are needed, they would prefer to do so at a school or university outside of the Government of Canada (28%). Nearly one in five agree that there are enough learning opportunities available in their organization without going to CSPS or GCcampus (18%) or that they are at a point in their career where they do not perceive a need for continued learning (18%).
Among Phase 2 respondents, time constraints are seen as a primary barrier to pursuing further learning. Indeed, eight in ten (80%) feel that the work responsibilities of public servants leave them with too little time to pursue continuous learning opportunities. Four in ten (38%) believe that public servants would prefer to seek learning opportunities outside of the federal government, while one third (34%) say that many public servants – particularly older ones – simply do not see continuous learning as necessary. One quarter (24%) believe that supervisors within their organization are not supportive of continuous learning, and one in five (18%) believe there are enough learning opportunities without having to go through CSPS or GCcampus.
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 67% |
| Agree (Phase 2) | - |
| Neither (4) | 16% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 14% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 4% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 54% |
| Agree (Phase 2) | 80% |
| Neither (4) | 16% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 26% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 4% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 49% |
| Agree (Phase 2) | - |
| Neither (4) | 17% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 30% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 4% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 45% |
| Agree (Phase 2) | - |
| Neither (4) | 24% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 27% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 4% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 28% |
| Agree (Phase 2) | 38% |
| Neither (4) | 19% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 46% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 7% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 18% |
| Agree (Phase 2) | 18% |
| Neither (4) | 16% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 57% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 9% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 18% |
| Agree (Phase 2) | 24% |
| Neither (4) | 10% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 65% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 6% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 18% |
| Agree (Phase 2) | 34% |
| Neither (4) | 9% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 69% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 3% |
Four in five (81%) supervisors responding in Phase 1 agree that sending reporting staff for continuous learning opportunities results in staff who are more productive and happier with their careers. Only one third (35%) agree that it is difficult to allow staff the time needed for continuous learning while still meeting work objectives. Nine in ten (90%) disagree that they do not see the value in sending staff for continuous learning since they will get the needed training on the job.
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 81% |
| Neither (4) | 9% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 6% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 3% |
| Neither (4) | 5% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 90% |
| Response (on a scale of 1 to 7) |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Agree (5–7) | 3% |
| Neither (4) | 5% |
| Disagree (1–3) | 90% |
Phase 2 respondents who worked outside of CSPS as a Point of Contact, a Required Training Coordinator, or a Learning Coordinator were asked to identify the media through which they ordinarily communicate with CSPS. About one third typically went through a dedicated RTC phone line (36%) or a client email inbox (34%), while a similar proportion turned to a dedicated RTC email inbox (29%) or a client service manager (29%). One in five (22%) directly contacted someone other than a client service manager, while one in seven usually used a client phone line (14%) or a GCconnex group (14%). Just 3% expressed a preference for in-person communication.
| Phase 2 Internal Audiences |
|
|---|---|
| n= | 118 |
| Client Contact Centre: dedicated RTC phone line | 36% |
| Client contact: dedicated RTC email inbox | 29% |
| Client email inbox: csps.clients.efpc@canada.ca | 34% |
| Client phone line | 14% |
| Client Service Manager (CSM) | 29% |
| Directly contacting someone other than the CSM | 22% |
| GCconnex group (RTC Community Network or Learning Transformation Point of Contact Group) | 14% |
| In-person | 3% |
| Other (specify) | 13% |
| Don't know / Not sure | 2% |
These Phase 2 respondents were also presented with a series of statements regarding the information provided by CSPS and asked to rate the extent to which they agree or disagree with each one. Results suggest broad satisfaction with the quality of the information itself, but reveal concerns about how information requests are handled. Three quarters (74%) agree that the information they receive from CSPS is accurate, while slightly fewer (69%) believe the information they receive is clear. Relatively few respondents (13% to 14%) disagree with these statements.
Six in ten (59%) feel they receive enough information from CSPS, although three in ten (28%) feel the information is inadequate. Similarly, 57% agree that the information received from CSPS is timely, while one in five (22%) disagree with this assessment.
| Disagree (1–3) |
Agree (5–7) |
|
|---|---|---|
| n= | 118 | 118 |
| The information I get from the Canada School of Public Service is accurate | 13% | 74% |
| The information I get from the Canada School of Public Service is clear | 14% | 69% |
| I feel I get enough information from the Canada School of Public Service | 28% | 59% |
| The information I get from the Canada School of Public Service is timely | 22% | 57% |
Source: Phase 2 Survey respondents (n=348) |
||
These Phase 2 respondents were further asked to identify the services provided by CSPS that they had used or with which they were familiar. Half had used the Departmental Annual Learning Report (52%, while a further one third – 31% – were aware of the product) or the Director's newsletter (50%, while an additional 23% were aware). Just over four in ten had made use of self-service reports in I-LMS (44% in addition to 31% aware) or the POC Forum (43% plus 27%). Roughly one third had availed themselves of the Operations Dashboard (36% plus 31%), the RTC plenary sessions (36% plus 37%), or RTC training (30% plus 51%). Just one in five (20% plus 38%) had participated in an RTC Working Group.
| Aware, and have used |
Aware, but have not used |
Somewhat aware |
Not aware | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n= | 118 | 118 | 118 | 118 |
| Self-service reports in I-LMS | 44% | 16% | 15% | 21% |
| Operations Dashboard | 36% | 13% | 18% | 29% |
| Departmental Annual Learning Report | 52% | 20% | 15% | 11% |
| Director's newsletter / POC Bulletin | 50% | 11% | 12% | 23% |
| RTC training | 30% | 21% | 20% | 23% |
| RTC plenary sessions | 36% | 20% | 17% | 23% |
| RTC Working Group | 20% | 24% | 14% | 38% |
| POC Forum | 43% | 19% | 8% | 25% |
Source: Phase 2 Survey respondents (n=348) |
||||
Phase 2 respondents who indicated that they have used the products and services offered to them from CSPS were asked to rate each of the services they used in terms of their usefulness. While these results should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample sizes, clear majorities rated each of these services as useful. Nine in ten (91%) say the RTC training is useful, while roughly eight in ten perceive the director's newsletter (80%) or RTC plenary sessions (76%) to be helpful. Two thirds award favourable reviews to the self-service reports in I-LMS (67%) and the POC Forum (65%). Six in ten found the Departmental Annual Learning Report (61%) and the RTC Working Groups (58%) to be of help, while half (50%) offered a similar appraisal of the Operations Dashboard. Relatively few rated any of these services as not useful (4% to 16%).
| Not Useful (1–3) |
Moderately Useful (4) |
Useful (5–7) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-service reports in I-LMS (n=52) | 12% | 21% | 67% |
| Operations Dashboard (n=42) | 17% | 33% | 50% |
| Departmental Annual Learning Report (n=61) | 16% | 18% | 61% |
| Director's newsletter / POC Bulletin (n=59) | 5% | 12% | 80% |
| RTC training (n=35)Footnote * | 6% | 3% | 91% |
| RTC plenary sessions (n=42) | 7% | 14% | 76% |
| RTC Working Group (n=24)Footnote * | 4% | 21% | 58% |
| POC Forum (n=51) | 6% | 25% | 65% |
Phase 2 respondents were subsequently asked to provide some comments to contextualize their assessments of these tools.
Both CSPS and other department employees were asked to react to a series of statements designed to reflect the extent to which they feel that their work is valued, and whether they feel they are able to contribute ideas and innovation and have it considered. Their overall perception about the direction of the School was also captured. Among CSPS employees, more than three in four (77%) feel comfortable enough to contribute ideas. However, only 59% feel that management is listening, although 9% indicated that they do not know one way or the other. Highlighting similarly modest results, roughly six in ten believe that their work is valued by the School, management, and public servants. The same proportion (61%) believes that the School is heading in the right direction.
Outside of CSPS, only 49% feel they can approach the School with new ideas, although one in four said that they do not know, likely never having tried to or thought about making this type of contribution. Further, only 33% feel that the input they provide is or would be listened to, although again, a high proportion (29%) said that they do not know. More positively, seven in ten feel that the work they do is important. Two in three (64%) feel this work is valued by their organization, and 60% feel it is valued by product and service users in their organization. As with CSPS employees, only 62% feel that the School is heading in the right direction.
| CSPS (Agree 5–7) |
Other Departments (Agree 5–7) |
|
|---|---|---|
| n= | 230 | 118 |
| If I have a new idea or approach, I feel comfortable sharing it with my colleagues/CSPS | 77% | 49%Note6 |
| Generally speaking, I think things at the Canada School of Public Service are heading in the right direction | 61% | 62% |
| In general, I feel that the work I do is valued by the School / I feel the work I do is important | 61% | 70% |
| I feel that the work I do is valued by senior management / management in my organization | 59% | 64% |
| I feel that the work I do is valued by the public servants who use the products and services the Canada School of Public Service delivers in my organization | 58% | 60% |
| I feel that management at the Canada School of Public Service listens to my ideas / I feel that CSPS listens to my ideas | 57% | 33%Note7 |
Source: Phase 2 Survey respondents |
||
WINTRO
Web Intro
Thank you for participating in this survey. It should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. This public opinion survey is on training opportunities and/or resources available to public servants. If you need to stop and return to the survey later, you may do so.
As a reminder, your participation in the survey is voluntary (you may stop answering at any time) and confidential. EKOS Research Associates will not share any information that would identify you individually in association with your responses.
If you have any questions about how to answer the survey, please contact Jérémie Blanc at the following address: jblanc@ekos.com
If you feel that you have received this email in error, or have other questions about the survey, please contact Will Daley at the following address: wdaley@ekos.com
INSTRUCTIONS
* Please consider the questions and your answers carefully.
* On each screen, after selecting your answer, click on the "Continue" or "Back" buttons at the bottom of the screen to move forward or backwards in the questionnaire.
* If you leave the survey before completing it, you can return to the survey URL later, and you will be returned to the page where you left off. Your answers up to that point in the survey will be saved.
QREGION
In which of the following regions or provinces do you work?
QAGE
In what year were you born?
QAGE1
As a reminder, please understand that your personal information will remain confidential. May we place you into one of the following age categories?
QGENDER
What is your gender?
QGROUP
Please indicate your occupational group.
(If you are in an acting position, specify the group of the acting position).
QGROUP1
Please indicate your level. If you are in an acting position, specify the level of the acting position (for example, for FI-03, indicate "03").
QLEVEL1
Which of the following best describes how recently you entered management in the public service?
QTENURE
For how many years have you worked as a public servant?
QSUPERVISOR
Do any public servants currently report directly to you?
QSUPERVISOR1
How many public servants report directly to you?
QSUPERVISOR2
How many public servants report to you either directly or indirectly (reporting to someone who reports to you)? If you don't know the precise number, please provide an approximation.
QEDUCATION
Which of the following best reflects the highest level of education you have obtained?
5
QEEQUITY [1,3]
Do any of the following apply to you?
Please choose all that apply.
QA1
To the best of your knowledge is there an organization within the Government of Canada that offers common learning to federal public servants?
QA2
What is the name of this organization?
PREQA3
Before answering this survey, had you ever heard, seen or read anything about either of the following:
QA3A
Canada School of Public Service
QA3B
GCcampus
QB1 [1,3]
Can you please describe what the Canada School of Public Service (CSPS) does?
QB2
Have you ever used any of the products or services offered by the Canada School of Public Service?
QB3 [1,4]
Have you ever heard, seen or read about the Canada School of Public Service (CSPS) from any of the following sources?
Please choose all that apply.
QB4
To the best of your recollection, when was the last time you heard, saw or read anything either about or from the Canada School of Public Service?
QB5
To the best of your recollection, when was the first time you heard, saw or read anything either about or from the Canada School of Public Service?
QB6
How familiar are you with the Canada School of Public Service (CSPS)?
QB7
If you could describe the Canada School of Public Service using a single word or phrase, what would it be?
QC1 [1,3]
Can you describe what GCcampus is?
QC2 [1,2]
Have you ever created an account on GCcampus or used any of the products or services offered on GCcampus?
Please choose all that apply.
QC3 [1,4]
Have you ever heard, seen or read about GCcampus from any of the following sources?
QC4
To the best of your recollection, when was the last time you heard, saw or read anything either about or from GCcampus?
QC5
To the best of your recollection, when was the first time you heard, saw or read anything either about or from GCcampus?
QC6
How familiar are you with GCcampus?
QC7
If you could describe GCcampus using a single word or phrase, what would it be?
QD1
To the best of your knowledge, which of the following best describes the relationship, if any, between GCcampus and the Canada School of Public Service?
QNOTE1
As you may be aware, the Canada School of Public Service (CSPS) was created in 2004 to address the continuous learning needs of Canada's federal public service by offering courses, events, seminars and other products and services.
GCcampus was formally launched in 2016 to serve as the online platform where public servants can go to access products and services offered by CSPS.
PREQD2
Based on this description, do you recall hearing, seeing or reading anything about the following:
QD2A
Canada School of Public Service (CPS)
QD2B
GCcampus
QD3 [1,8]
There are a variety of products offered by the Canada School of Public Service. All of these are available through GCcampus. To the best of your recollection, which of the following products, if any, have you used in the past?
Please choose all that apply.
QD4
Have you ever had difficulty accessing products or services from the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus in the official language of your choice?
QD5
Have you ever accessed a product or service offered by the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus online?
QD6 [1,4]
Have you ever experienced the following challenges when accessing one of these products or services online?
Please choose all that apply.
QE1
To the best of your recollection, how recently did you access any of the products provided by the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus?
I have never used a product offered by CSPS or GCcampus [Remove user from service group]
QE2
When was the first time you used a product offered by either the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus?
QE3
How many different products and services offered by either the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus have you used (or taken part in) in the past 2 years?
QE4 [1,5]
Which of the following best describes what caused you to use the products or services offered by CSPS and/or GCcampus in the past?
Please choose all that apply.
QF1
You indicated that you have attended an event, conference or armchair discussion provided by the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus. Thinking about the most recent occasion, did you attend online or in-person?
QF2
Which of the following topics or purposes, if any, reflects the most recent event, conference or armchair discussion you attended?
QF4
Did you learn anything from the event, conference or armchair discussion you attended that you were later able to apply to your work?
PREQF5
Based on your most recent experience with an event, conference or armchair discussion, please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly disagree and 7 means you strongly agree.
QF5A
It was very relevant to me
QF5B
It provided a lot of useful information
QF5C
It was easy to register and attend
QF5D
It was well organized
QF5E
I felt very welcome to be there
QF5F
I would be very interested in attending future events
QF5G
I would recommend other events to friends or colleagues
QF6
Overall, how would you rate your experience with the most recent event, conference or armchair discussion you attended? Please rate your views on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means "very negative" and 7 means "very positive."
QG1
You indicated that you have participated in a course, workshop or other training opportunity provided by the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus. Thinking of the most recent occasion, did you participate online or in-person?
QG2
Which of the following topics or purposes, if any, reflects the most recent course, workshop or other training opportunity you participated in?
QG4
Did you learn anything from the course, workshop or other learning opportunity that you were later able to apply to your work?
PREQG5
Based on your most recent experience with a course, workshop or other training opportunity, please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly disagree and 7 means you strongly agree.
QG5A
It was very relevant to me
QG5B
It provided a lot of useful information
QG5C
It was easy to register and attend
QG5D
It was well organized
QG5E
I felt very welcome to be there
QG5F
I would be very interested in attending future courses or workshops
QG5G
I would recommend other courses or workshops to friends or colleagues
QG6
Overall, how would you rate your experience with the most recent course, workshop or other training opportunity you participated in? Please rate your view on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means "very negative" and 7 means "very positive."
QG7
Overall, how would you rate the performance of the instructor of the course or workshop that you attended?
QH1
You indicated that you have read information or watched videos provided by the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus. Which, if any, of the following topics best reflect the information or videos you accessed?
QH3
Did you learn anything from the information you read or video you watched that you were later able to apply to your work?
PREQH4
Thinking about the information and/or videos you found through CSPS or GCcampus, please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly disagree and 7 means you strongly agree.
QH4A
The material was very relevant to me
QH4B
It provided a lot of useful information
QH4C
It was easy to access
QH4D
It was well organized
QH4F
I would be very interested in accessing more material in the future
QH4G
I would recommend this material to friends or colleagues
QH5
Overall, how would you rate the information or videos you've found through CSPS or GCcampus? Please rate your views on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means "very negative" and 7 means "very positive."
PREQI1
Thinking about the Canada School of Public Service and GCcampus overall, please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly disagree and 7 means you strongly agree.
NOTE: Your opinion may be based on your own experience, or it could simply be the impression you have based on what you have seen, read or heard about CSPS and/or GCcampus.
QI1A
Very relevant to me
QI1B
Lots of useful information
QI1C
Easy to access products and services
QI1D
Organized
QI1E
Very welcoming
QI1F
Very interested in learning more
QI1G
I would recommend CSPS and/or GCcampus to friends or colleagues
QI2
Overall, how would you rate the performance of the Canada School of Public Service? Please rate your views on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means "very negative" and 7 means "very positive."
QJ1
You indicated that you have used products or services provided by CSPS and/or GCcampus in the past, but the last time you did so was two 2 years ago or longer. Is this correct?
QJ2 [1,5]
Which of the following reasons, if any, describes why you haven't used any products or services from CSPS or GCcampus recently?
Choose all that apply.
QK1
Which of the following best describes your experience with accessing and using products and services offered by the Canada School of Public Service and GCcampus?
QK2
Have you ever contacted the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus with questions or issues related to a product or service they offer?
QK3
When did you last contact someone at the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus?
PREQK4
How well do each of the following statements describe the experience you had when contacting the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus?
QK4A
I was able to get a satisfactory answer to my question or problem
QK4B
My question or problem was solved in a reasonable amount of time
QK4C
The person I dealt with was knowledgeable
QK4D
The person I dealt with provided good information and/or advice
QK4E
The person I dealt with understood my needs
QK4F
The person I dealt with was courteous
QK5
In total, how long did it take to answer your question or solve your problem after initially contacting someone at the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus?
QK6
How did you initially contact someone at the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus with your question or problem?
QK7 [1,4]
After your initial contact, did you interact with anyone at the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus in any other way?
Choose all that apply.
QL0 [1,8]
How did you learn about the product or service you most recently accessed at the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus?
Choose all that apply.
QL1 [1,7]
Which of the following ways, if any, would be best for the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus to reach you with information about their products and services?
Choose all that apply.
QL2
If you saw an app for mobile devices from the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus, how likely do you think you would be to download it?
QL3 [1,3]
Why don't you think you would download an application like this?
PREQL4
How interested would you be in the following features if they were available on a mobile app provided by the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus?
QL4A
Podcasts
QL4B
Videos
QL4C
Information about events, courses and other products
QL4D
Course materials
QL4E
Ability to take online courses through the app
QL4F
Blogs
QL4G
Job aids (downloadable materials)
QL4H
Live webcast events
QL4I
eBooks
QL4J
Case studies
QL4K
Personalized information and updates
QL5 [1,3]
Are there any other features that you would want to include on a mobile app provided by the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus?
QM1
How interested would you say that you are in hearing more about learning opportunities offered by CSPS or GCcampus in the future?
QM2 [1,3]
In your own words, what opportunities would you be most interested in hearing more about from CSPS or GCcampus in the future?
PREQM3
Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements using the scale provided.
QM3A
My work responsibilities don't leave enough time to pursue continuous learning opportunities
QM3B
I'm at a point in my career where I don't see the need for continuous learning opportunities
QM3C
My supervisor and/or organization are not supportive of continuous learning opportunities
QM3D
If I need to pursue continuous learning opportunities, I would prefer to do so at a school or university outside of the Government of Canada
QM3E
To get the most from a learning opportunity, I need to participate in-person, not online
QM3F
I actively look for opportunities to enhance my skills and training
QM3G
There are enough learning opportunities available to me in my organization without going to the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus
QM3H
I feel the best way for me to learn is by doing, not sitting in a classroom
PREQM4
As someone who manages other public servants, please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements.
QM4A
It is difficult to allow the staff I manage the time they need for continuous learning while still meeting our work objectives
QM4B
I don't see the value in sending the staff I manage for continuous learning, since they will get the training they need on the job
QM4C
Sending the staff who report to me for continuous learning opportunities results in staff who are more productive and happier with their careers
QM5 [1,3]
Finally, are there any products or services that you would be particularly interested in seeing from the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus in the future?
QN1
The Canada School of Public Service may wish to include you in follow-up research on some of the topics and issues covered in this survey. Would you be willing to be contacted to take part in this research?
QN2
Could you please provide the best email address and telephone number where we may reach you to participate in this follow-up research?
QN2TEL
Format: 6131112222
Do not include any dashes in the telephone number
No response
QN2EMAIL
COMM [0,1]
Do you have any additional comments?
THNK
<[QN1=1] Thank you! Please note that we may not contact everyone who agrees to participate in the follow-up research.>
Thank you for completing this survey.
WINTRO
Web Intro
Thank you for participating in this survey. It should take approximately 18 minutes to complete. This public opinion survey is on training opportunities and/or resources available to public servants. If you need to stop and return to the survey later, you may do so.
As a reminder, your participation in the survey is voluntary (you may stop answering at any time) and confidential. EKOS Research Associates will not share any information that would identify you individually in association with your responses.
If you have any questions about how to answer the survey, please contact Jérémie Blanc at the following address: jblanc@ekos.com
If you feel that you have received this email in error, or have other questions about the survey, please contact Will Daley at the following address: wdaley@ekos.com
INSTRUCTIONS
* Please consider the questions and your answers carefully.
* On each screen, after selecting your answer, click on the "Continue" or "Back" buttons at the bottom of the screen to move forward or backwards in the questionnaire.
* If you leave the survey before completing it, you can return to the survey URL later, and you will be returned to the page where you left off. Your answers up to that point in the survey will be saved.
PRIVACY NOTICE
Personal information is collected on a voluntary basis pursuant to the Financial Administration Act. As part of its review of the learning services offered to public servants across Canada, the Canada School of Public Service will use anonymous data to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the School products and services in order to provide a basis for later comparison. The information collected is described under the Standard Personal Information Ban Public Communications PSU 914. Your personal information is protected, used and disclosed in accordance with the Privacy Act. Please do not disclose unnecessary confidential information about yourself or other individuals. If you require clarification of this notice, you can contact the Canada School of Public Service's ATIP coordinator at csps.atipaiprp.efpc@canada.ca, at 613-301-3837 or at the following address: 373 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6Z2. If you are not satisfied with the School's response to your privacy concern, you may wish to contact the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
QREGION
In which of the following regions or provinces do you work?
QAGE
In what year were you born?
QAGE1
As a reminder, please understand that your personal information will remain confidential. May we place you into one of the following age categories?
QGENDER
What is your gender?
QORG
I am a ...
QSIZE
What is the size of your organization?
QGROUP
Please indicate your occupational group.
(If you are in an acting position, specify the group of the acting position).
QGROUP1
Please indicate your level. If you are in an acting position, specify the level of the acting position (for example, for FI-03, indicate "03").
QLEVEL1
Which of the following best describes how recently you entered management in the public service?
QTENURE
For how many years have you worked as a public servant?
QSUPERVISOR
Do any public servants currently report directly to you?
QSUPERVISOR1
How many public servants report directly to you?
QSUPERVISOR2
How many public servants report to you either directly or indirectly (reporting to someone who reports to you)? If you don't know the precise number, please provide an approximation.
QEDUCATION
Which of the following best reflects the highest level of education you have obtained?
5
QEEQUITY [1,3]
Do any of the following apply to you?
QA1
How familiar do you consider yourself to be with the Canada School of Public Service (CSPS)?
QA3
If you could describe the Canada School of Public Service using only a single word or phrase, what would it be?
QA4
How familiar do you consider yourself to be with GCcampus?
QA6
If you could describe GCcampus using only a single word or phrase, what would it be?
QA7
To the best of your knowledge, which of the following best describes the relationship, if any, between GCcampus and the Canada School of Public Service?
QA8
Which of the two names, Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus, do you feel best communicates what the Canada School of Public Service has to offer?
QA9 [1,3]
Why do you think this?
QB1NOTE
Unless otherwise indicated, please complete the rest of this questionnaire from the perspective of your role as either a POC, an RTC, or an LC.
QB1
How frequently are you in communication with the Canada School of Public Service?
QB2 [1,9]
Through which of the following ways do you ordinarily communicate with the Canada School of Public Service?
PREQB3
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements when you contact the school?
QB3A
I feel I get enough information from the Canada School of Public Service
QB3B
The information I get from the Canada School of Public Service is clear
QB3C
The information I get from the Canada School of Public Service is timely
QB3D
The information I get from the Canada School of Public Service is accurate
PREQC1
Are you aware of the following products and services available to you from the Canada School of Public Service? Please respond for each one using the scale provided.
QC1A
Self-service reports in I-LMS
QC1B
Operations Dashboard
QC1C
Departmental Annual Learning Report
QC1D
Director's newsletter / POC Bulletin
QC1E
RTCs training
QC1F
RTC plenary sessions
QC1G
RTC Working Group
QC1H
POC Forum
QC2A
You said you have used the Self-service reports in I-LMS in the past. Please indicate whether you found this product or service to be useful or not useful using the scale below.
QC3A [1,3]
Can you briefly explain why you rated the usefulness of the Departmental Annual Learning Report as a <chosen scale number> on the scale? (Reminder: 1 meant not at all useful and 7 meant very useful.)
QC2B
You said you have used the Operations Dashboard in the past. Please indicate whether you found this product or service to be useful or not useful using the scale below.
QC3B [1,3]
Can you briefly explain why you rated the usefulness of the Operations Dashboard as a <chosen scale number> on the scale? (Reminder: 1 meant not at all useful and 7 meant very useful.)
QC2C
You said you have used the Departmental Annual Learning Report in the past. Please indicate whether you found this product or service to be useful or not useful using the scale below.
QC3C [1,3]
Can you briefly explain why you rated the usefulness of the Departmental Annual Learning Report as a <chosen scale number> on the scale? (Reminder: 1 meant not at all useful and 7 meant very useful.)
QC2D
You said you have used the Director's newsletter / POC Bulletin in the past. Please indicate whether you found this product or service to be useful or not useful using the scale below.
QC3D [1,3]
Can you briefly explain why you rated the usefulness of the Director's newsletter / POC Bulletin as a <chosen scale number> on the scale? (Reminder: 1 meant not at all useful and 7 meant very useful.)
QC2E
You said you have used the RTCs training in the past. Please indicate whether you found this product or service to be useful or not useful using the scale below.
QC3E [1,3]
Can you briefly explain why you rated the usefulness of the RTCs training as a <chosen scale number> on the scale? (Reminder: 1 meant not at all useful and 7 meant very useful.)
QC2F
You said you have used the RTC plenary sessions in the past. Please indicate whether you found this product or service to be useful or not useful using the scale below.
QC3F [1,3]
Can you briefly explain why you rated the usefulness of the RTC plenary sessions as a <chosen scale number> on the scale? (Reminder: 1 meant not at all useful and 7 meant very useful.)
QC2G
You said you have used the RTC Working Group in the past. Please indicate whether you found this product or service to be useful or not useful using the scale below.
QC3G [1,3]
Can you briefly explain why you rated the usefulness of the RTC Working Group as a <chosen scale number> on the scale? (Reminder: 1 meant not at all useful and 7 meant very useful.)
QC2H
You said you have used the POC Forum in the past. Please indicate whether you found this product or service to be useful or not useful using the scale below.
QC3H [1,3]
Can you briefly explain why you rated the usefulness of the POC Forum as a <chosen scale number> on the scale? (Reminder: 1 meant not at all useful and 7 meant very useful.)
PREQD1
Thinking about your work at the Canada School of Public Service, please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements.
QD1A
In general, I feel that the work I do is valued by the School
QD1B
In general, I feel that the work I do is valued by senior management
QD1C
I feel that the work I do is valued by the public servants who use the products and services the Canada School of Public Service delivers
QD1D
If I have a new idea or approach, I feel comfortable sharing it with my colleagues
QD1E
I feel that management at the Canada School of Public Service listens to my ideas
QD1G
Generally speaking, I think things at the Canada School of Public Service are heading in the right direction
QD2
If you could use only one word or phrase to describe what it's like to work at the Canada School of Public Service, what would it be?
PREQE1
Thinking about your work at the Canada School of Public Service, please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements.
QE1A
I feel that the work I do is valued by management in my organization
QE1B
I feel that the work I do is valued by the public servants in my organization
QE1C
I feel comfortable bringing ideas for improvement to the people I deal with at the Canada School of Public Service
QE1D
I feel that the Canada School of Public Service listens to my ideas and suggestions
QE1E
I feel the work I do is important
QE1F
Generally speaking, I think things at the Canada School of Public Service are heading in the right direction
QE2
If you could use only one word or phrase to describe what it's like to interact with the Canada School of Public Service, what would it be?
QF1NOTE
As you may be aware, the Canada School of Public Service (CSPS) was created in 2004 to address the continuous learning needs of Canada's federal public service by offering courses, events, seminars and other products and services.
GCcampus was formally launched in 2016 to serve as the online platform where public servants can go to access products and services offered by CSPS.
QF1 [1,8]
There are a variety of products and services offered by the Canada School of Public Service. All of these are available through GCcampus. To the best of your recollection, which of the following products, if any, have you personally used in the past?
Please choose all that apply.
QF2
Have you ever had difficulty accessing or using products or services from the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus in the official language of your choice?
QF4 [1,4]
Have you ever experienced the following challenges when accessing a product or service online?
Please choose all that apply.
QF5
How many different products and services offered by either the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus have you used (or taken part in) in the past 2 years?
QF6 [1,5]
Which of the following best describes why you used the products or services offered by CSPS and/or GCcampus in the past?
Pease choose all that apply.
PREQF7
Based on your most recent experience attending an event, conference or armchair discussion in-person, please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly disagree and 7 means you strongly agree.
QF7A
It was very relevant to me
QF7C
It was easy to register and attend
QF7D
It was well organized
QF7E
I felt very welcome to be there
QF7F
I would be very interested in attending future events
QF7G
I would recommend other events to friends or colleagues
QF8
Overall, how would you rate your experience with the most recent event, conference or armchair discussion you attended in-person? Please rate your views on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means "very negative" and 7 means "very positive."
PREQF9
Based on your most recent experience participating in an event, conference or armchair discussion online, please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly disagree and 7 means you strongly agree.
QF9A
It was very relevant to me
QF9C
It was easy to register and attend
QF9D
It was well organized
QF9E
I felt very welcome to be there
QF9F
I would be very interested in attending future events
QF9G
I would recommend other events to friends or colleagues
QF10
Overall, how would you rate your experience with the most recent online event, conference or armchair discussion you participated in? Please rate your views on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means "very negative" and 7 means "very positive."
PREQF11
Based on your most recent experience attending a course, workshop or other training opportunity in-person, please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly disagree and 7 means you strongly agree.
QF11A
It was very relevant to me
QF11C
It was easy to register and attend
QF11D
It was well organized
QF11E
I felt very welcome to be there
QF11F
I would be very interested in attending future courses or workshops
QF11G
I would recommend other courses or workshops to friends or colleagues
QF12
Overall, how would you rate your experience with the most recent course, workshop or other training opportunity you attended in-person? Please rate your views on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means "very negative" and 7 means "very positive."
PREQF13
Based on your most recent experience participating in a course, workshop or other training opportunity online, please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly disagree and 7 means you strongly agree.
QF13A
It was very relevant to me
QF13C
It was easy to register and attend
QF13D
It was well organized
QF13E
I felt very welcome to be there
QF13F
I would be very interested in attending future courses or workshops
QF13G
I would recommend other courses or workshops to friends or colleagues
QF14
Overall, how would you rate your experience with the most recent course, workshop, or other training opportunity you participated in online? Please rate your views on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means "very negative" and 7 means "very positive."
PREQF15
Thinking about the information and/or videos you found through CSPS or GCcampus, please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly disagree and 7 means you strongly agree.
QF15A
The material was very relevant to me
QF15C
It was easy to access
QF15D
It was well organized
QF15F
I would be very interested in accessing more material in the future
QF15G
I would recommend this material to friends or colleagues
QF16
Overall, how would you rate the material (information, videos, etc.) that you found through CSPS or GCcampus? Please rate your views on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means "very negative" and 7 means "very positive."
PREQG1
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about the Canada School of Public Service and GCcampus overall using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly disagree and 7 means you strongly agree.
Your opinion may be based on your own experience, or it could simply be the impression that you have of the School and GCcampus from what you have seen, read or heard.
QG1A
CSPS and GCcampus are very relevant to public servants
QG1C
It is easy to access products and services from CSPS and GCcampus
QG1D
CSPS and GCcampus are well organized
QG1E
CSPS and GCcampus are very welcoming
QG1F
I am very interested in learning more about CSPS and GCcampus
QG1G
I would recommend CSPS or GCcampus to friends or colleagues
QG2
Overall, how would you rate the performance of the Canada School of Public Service? Please rate your views on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means "very negative" and 7 means "very positive."
QG3
If you were to guess, what percentage of <[CSPS] public servants [POC, POC Delegate, LC, RTC]> public servants in your organization would you say have a positive opinion of the performance of the Canada School of Public Service?
PREQG4
In each of the following respects, what percentage of <[CSPS] public servants [POC, POC Delegate, LC, RTC]> public servants in your organization would you say have a positive opinion of the performance of the Canada School of Public Service?
QG4A
Providing relevant products and services
QG4B
Providing useful products and services
QG4C
Providing products and services that are easy to access
QG4D
Being well organized
QG4E
Providing a welcoming environment
QH1
Which of the following best describes your experience accessing and using products and services offered by the Canada School of Public Service and GCcampus, either for yourself or on behalf of others in your organization?
QH2
Have you ever contacted the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus with questions or issues related to a product or service they offer?
QH3
How did you initially contact someone at the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus?
QH4
When did you last contact someone at the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus with questions or issues related to learning needs?
PREQH5
How well does each of the following statements describe the experience you had when contacting the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus with questions or issues related to learning needs?
QH5A
I was able to get a satisfactory answer to my question or problem
QH5B
My question or problem was solved in a reasonable amount of time
QH5C
The person I dealt with was knowledgeable
QH5D
The person I dealt with provided good information and/or advice
QH5E
The person I dealt with understood my needs
QH5F
The person I dealt with was courteous
QH6
In total, how long did it take to answer your question or solve your problem after initially contacting someone at the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus?
QH8
What is your preferred channel of contact?
QIINOTE
The School would value your opinion on the following section, not specifically from the perspective of your role as either a POC, an RTC, or an LC, but rather as someone who has a unique perspective on the learning needs within your organization.
QII [1,8]
Which of the following ways, if any, would be best for the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus to use in order to reach <[CSPS] public servants [POC, POC Delegate, LC, RTC]> public servants in your organization with information about their products and services?
QI2
If the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus had a mobile app, how likely do you think <[CSPS] public servants [POC, POC Delegate, LC, RTC] public servants in your organization> would be to download it?
QI3 [1,3]
How interested do you think <[CSPS]public servants [POC, POC Delegate, LC, RTC] public servants in your organization> would be in the following features, if they were available on a mobile app provided by the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus?
PREQI4
How interested do you think <[CSPS] public servants [POC, POC Delegate, LC, RTC] public servants in your organization> would be in the following features, if they were available on a mobile app provided by the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus?
QI4A
Podcasts
QI4B
Videos
QI4C
Information about events, courses and other products
QI4D
Course materials
QI4E
Online courses through the app
QI4F
Blogs
QI4G
Job Aids (downloadable materials)
QI4H
Live webcast events
QI4I
eBooks
QI4J
Case studies
QI4K
Personalized information and updates
QI5 [1,3]
Are there any other features that you think <[CSPS] public servants [POC, POC Delegate, LC, RTC] public servants in your organization> would want to be included on a mobile app provided by the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus?
PREQJ2
Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements using the scale provided.
QJ2A
For many public servants, work responsibilities don't leave enough time to pursue continuous learning opportunities
QJ2B
Many public servants, particularly older ones, don't see the need for continuous learning opportunities
QJ2C
Many public servants would prefer to pursue learning opportunities at a school or university outside of the Government of Canada
QJ2D
Within my organization, there are people in supervisory or management roles who are not supportive of continuous learning opportunities
QJ2E
There are enough learning opportunities available in my organization without going to the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus
QJ3 [1,3]
Are there any products or services that you would be particularly interested in seeing from the Canada School of Public Service or GCcampus in the future?
QK1
The Canada School of Public Service may wish to include you in follow-up research on some of the topics and issues covered in this survey. Would you be willing to be contacted to take part in this research?
QK2
Could you please provide the best email address and telephone number where we may reach you to participate in this follow-up research?
QK2TEL
Format: 6131112222
Do not include any dashes in the telephone number
QK2EMAIL
COMM [0,1]
Do you have any additional comments?
THNK
<[QK1 = 1]Thank you! Please note that we may not contact everyone who agrees to participate in the follow-up research.>
Thank you for completing this survey.
Hello/Bonjour [pause... In Quebec Bonjour/Hello]. Would you prefer that I continue in English or French? Préférez-vous continuer en français ou en anglais? [CONTINUE IN LANGUAGE OF PREFERENCE]
My name is ________________ from EKOS Research. We are following up on a survey you recently completed with us that was conducted on behalf of the Canada School of Public Service. You indicated that you would be interested in taking part in some follow-up research we are doing.
Would you be available to participate in a focus group during the evening of [DATE AND TIME AS PER SEGMENTS BELOW]?
Participating in a focus group will require you to express your thoughts and opinions in a group with about 8 to 10 other people. Does this sound like something you would be comfortable participating in?
CONFIDENTIAL/VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION/INCENTIVE
Please note...
Based on this, are you interested in participating in a focus group happening on...
[DATE/TIME/FACILITY/ADDRESS]
Please note that the discussion group will last between 1.5 and 2 hours. Refreshments will be provided at the meeting, and you will be paid $75 for your participation.
Should you have any questions about the groups or if you need to cancel, please contact 1-800-388-287.
We will call you 24 hours before the group meeting as a reminder. What is the best number to reach you? [RECORD TELEPHONE NUMBER]
Introduction (5 minutes)
Training Needs (10 minutes)
Online vs. In-Person (10 minutes)
Positive/ Negative Associations with CSPS and GCcampus (20 minutes)
Competitive Options (10 minutes)
Marketing Communications (10 minutes)
Accessing CSPS Services (10 minutes)
Brand Choice: CSPS vs. GCcampus (15 minutes)
READ STATEMENT: The Canada School of Public Service is designed to provide a range of learning opportunities to public servants that range from courses to events to videos and other materials. GCcampus, launched in 2016, is designed to be the online portal which public servants may register with to access the products and services that the School has to offer.
Conclusion (5 minutes)
Learn, Network, Succeed