This section discusses poll workers' satisfaction with the training they received, as well as their perceived level of preparedness to undertake their tasks during the federal election following their training.
More than 8 in 10 poll workers (86%) were somewhat or very satisfied with the training session. Over the last decade, satisfaction with the training remains virtually unchanged: 86% in 2008, 83% in 2011, 84% in 2015, and 83% in 2019.
Q8. How satisfied were you with the training? (Base: n=4,168; all respondents; DK/NR: <0.5%)
This vertical bar chart shows respondents' levels of satisfaction with training. The breakdown is as follows:
Poll workers in Manitoba (21%) were more likely than those in Ontario (13%), Quebec (13%), and the Atlantic region (11%) to be not very or not at all satisfied with the training session.
Information officers (90%) were more likely to be somewhat or very satisfied with the training they received than central poll supervisors (80%), registration officers (85%) and deputy returning officers (84%).
Poll workers who worked on election day at an ordinary poll (87%) or at a mobile poll (85%) were more likely to be satisfied with the training session than officers who worked at an advance poll (79%).
Poll workers between the ages of 16 and 24 (93%) and 75 and older (91%) were more likely to report being satisfied with the training session compared with other age groups (results range from 84% to 86%).
Poll workers not satisfied with the training session (n=566) were asked to identify which aspects of the training they were not satisfied with. Three in ten (31%) said that the quality of training was not satisfactory. Approximately 3 in 10 pointed to the staff/trainer (29%) and to their perception that the training session did not provide enough information (29%). Other aspects of the training with which poll workers were not satisfied included the length of the training session being too short (21%), the clarity of the information (21%), and not having enough practical/hands-on training (19%). The full range of responses is depicted below in Figure 13.
Q9. What aspects of the training were you not satisfied with? [Up to three responses accepted]. (Base: n=577; respondents who were not satisfied with training; DK/NR: 2%)
This horizontal bar chart shows the training aspects that respondents were not satisfied with. The breakdown is as follows:
There are no noteworthy subgroup differences to report.
More than 8 in 10 (85%) poll workers who worked at least one of their scheduled shifts said the training they received prepared them somewhat or very well to undertake their tasks during the last federal election. At 85%, perceived level of preparedness has decreased from the high of 96% reported in 2015 (89% in 2011 and 88% in 2019). Of note, the decline from 2015 to 2021 is particularly acute in the proportion of poll workers who said they were very well prepared to undertake their tasks, which dropped from 63% in 2015 to 39% in 2021.
Poll workers who were absent for all their scheduled shifts were asked how well prepared they felt following their training. Most (85%) said they felt prepared, with 36% saying they were very well prepared. Thirteen percent (13%) said they did not feel prepared to undertake their tasks following training, with 5% among them saying they were not well prepared at all.
Q10a. Generally speaking, how well did the training prepare you to undertake your tasks during the last federal election? (Base: n=4,034; respondents who worked at least one of their scheduled shifts; DK/NR: <0.5%)
Q10b. Generally speaking, how well prepared did you feel after the training? (Base: n=95; respondents who were absent for all of their scheduled shifts)
This horizontal bar chart shows respondents' levels of preparedness following training. The breakdown is as follows:
Among the poll workers who were present for at least one of their scheduled shifts, those in the Atlantic provinces (91%) were more likely to feel somewhat or very prepared than their counterparts in British Columbia (83%), Alberta (83%), Manitoba (79%), Ontario (85%), and Quebec (86%). Information officers were significantly more likely to feel prepared than those working in other positions (91%, compared to 86% of registration officers, 83% of deputy returning officers, and 80% of central poll supervisors). Poll workers who worked on election day at an ordinary poll (87%) were more likely to feel somewhat or very well prepared than officers who worked at an advance poll (80%).
Almost all respondents (98%) said that they received training in their preferred official language. Conversely, only 2% said they did not receive training in their preferred official language.
Q11. Did you receive your training in your preferred official language? (Base: n=4,129; all respondents; DK/NR: <0.5%)
This pie chart shows the respondents' responses as to whether they received training in their preferred official language. The breakdown is as follows:
There are no noteworthy subgroup differences to report.
When asked about the format in which they received their training, most respondents (92%) said they were trained in person in a classroom. Other methods followed in much smaller proportions, as indicated below in Figure 16.
Q12. In what format did you receive your training? [Multiple responses accepted]. (Base: n=4,129; all respondents; DK/NR: 1%)
This horizontal bar chart shows the methods in which respondents received their training. The breakdown is as follows:
Information officers (87%) were less likely to say they received their training in-person in a classroom than central poll supervisors (96%), registration officers (91%), and deputy returning officers (94%).
Poll workers who worked at a mobile poll (96%) were more likely to be trained in-person in a classroom than officers who worked at an advance poll or those who worked on election day at an ordinary poll (92% respectively).