Canadian Planning Equity, Diversity & Inclusion Update

In November 2021, the Canadian Institute of Planners published an insight report from a membership survey evaluating the state of equity, diversity & inclusion in the profession across Canada. The survey was sent to about 7,658 members with 1,701 responses to the survey (22.2% response rate). While it’s good that this study has been conducted, primarily as a baseline so that we can see whether structural changes towards a more diverse workforce are working, it does feel like we don’t know anything new compared to what we’ve already known.

Here are the key findings from the survey insights (bolding is mine):

Key Insight 1: The Profession Lacks Diversity in Certain Dimensions. When compared to the national demographics of Canada, the profession lacks diversity in terms of race, Indigenous identity, disability and immigration status.

Key Insight 2: The Membership Reported an Average Overall Score. The overall score for feelings of inclusion (70) within the planning profession in Canada is within average. On average, organizations score between 60 and 80.

Key Insight 3: Certain Marginalized Groups Scored Low on the Inclusion Index. Although the membership reported an average overall score, Indigenous Peoples, immigrants, people with disabilities, people with diverse sexuality, people of colour and gender non-binary people scored severe gaps on the Inclusion Index.

Key Insight 4: Age and Seniority Impact Feelings of Inclusion. Younger generations reported lower levels of inclusion, and people in more senior positions reported higher levels of inclusion.

Key Insight 5: There is Less Racial Diversity in Higher Seniority Levels. The more senior the membership is, the less racial diversity exists: only 5.6% of members who indicated they are at the executive or principal levels are people of colour compared to 45.2% at the junior and entry level of organizations.

Key Insight 6: Representation of Women Drops Significantly at the Executive Level. As seniority increases, the number of women decreases. Only 34% of members who indicated they are at the executive levels in their organizations or are the principals of their organizations are women. At all other levels, women are overrepresented and men make up less than 45% of each group.

Key Insight 7: Racial Diversity Increases in Younger Generations. The rate of racial diversity is higher in younger generations: only 7% of Baby Boomer planners are people of colour compared to 40% of generation Z (born after 1994) planners.

Key Insight 8: More Than Half of Planners Indicated They Work with Marginalized Communities. More than 57% of planners indicated they work with marginalized communities; communities that experience discrimination and exclusion because of unequal power relationships across economic, political, social, and cultural dimensions.

Key Insight 9: Members Felt Their PTIAs are More Accessible and Provide Relevant Communications but Scored CIP Higher on the EDI Commitment. Members perceived accessing leadership positions in their planning institutes as more fair compared to CIP’s Board. They also scored their planning institutes slightly higher on how relevant their communications are to the planners and the work they do. However, CIP scored higher on planners’ perception of the commitment to EDI.

Confirming What We Already Know

I wrote two years ago in response to the 2019 CIP Compensation Survey that reported wage gaps likely reflected the fact that executive positions in planning are overwhelmingly held by a group of people who do not reflect the demographics of Canada or the demographics of the communities with which planners work. This study confirms that. As quoted above, at more senior levels of planning, planners tend to be:

• White. “Only 5.6% of members who indicated they are at the executive or principal levels are people of colour compared to 45.2% at the junior and entry level of organizations.”

• Male. “Only 34% of members who indicated they are at the executive levels in their organizations or are the principals of their organizations are women. At all other levels, women are overrepresented and men make up less than 45% of each group.”

• I wrote in 2019 that “there is a larger issue of who feels represented, supported, and successful in the Canadian planning profession.” Surprise, surprise, the Insights Report reads, “Indigenous Peoples, immigrants, people with disabilities, people with diverse sexuality, people of colour and gender non-binary people scored severe gaps on the Inclusion Index” (i.e. do not feel belonging, fairness, support, psychological safety, and leadership commitment).

The insights about age and number of years of experience in the planning profession suggest survivorship bias in the study results. Norms are set by planning ‘olders’, and the folks who align with those normative values and practices stick with the profession (because they are rewarded for aligning with those normative values and practices). This is why the results show that planners with 20+ years experience feel a strong level of inclusion in the profession. As I’ve been saying for years, CIP and the PTIAs need to understand why people leave planning to avoid survivorship bias in these kinds of studies. Plus, look at the level of dissatisfaction with planners with fewer than 10 years of experience. We’re at high risk of losing a lot of good people.

Unpacking and Addressing Root Causes

So, there are structural reasons why racialized planners and women (the survey findings did not address intersecting identities) are both leaving the profession and not moving into senior positions. As I wrote two years ago, here are just some ideas about why such a small segment of Canada’s population has access to senior planning positions:

• Discriminatory hiring practices. I still suspect that people meeting specific demographic characteristics get streamed into more and less desirable types of planning due to hiring biases, assumptions, and socially-constructed empathy for people of shared demographic characteristics (i.e. white males hiring other white males who feel like younger versions of themselves). Disrupting this requires: 1) senior leadership to hire people who quite likely make them feel uncomfortable, 2) senior leadership to do the personal work to understand why the hire feels uncomfortable and get over it so they can treat everyone equitably, and 3) organizational development work to ensure new hires/promotions are fully welcomed, supported, and set up to thrive in the workplace.
• Preferential formal and informal mentorship opportunities. I tell all my mentees that planning is a job that relies on learning via apprenticeship. To progress in a career, you need someone who will trust you with and guide you through increasing levels of independent work on increasingly diverse projects. Planners who don’t have access to someone to apprentice under won’t have the same opportunities to take on more senior roles, and they won’t have people to champion them into those more senior roles. CIP and PIBC are currently reviewing professional competencies. Being able to mentor another planner should a required competency, and if someone is not able to mentor a colleague effectively then perhaps they shouldn’t be a planner. Disrupting the competency gap requires: 1) CIP and PIBC to require that each planner mentor another planner in a formal capacity (maybe randomly assigned?), and 2) offer an easy way for a mentee (no questions asked?) to switch to another mentor, recognizing that not everyone is going to be a good match and some matches will be harmful.
• Lack of adequate management training and support. I’ve been privy to a number of situations over the last 5 years or so where femme and/or racialized planners have considered exiting the profession wholesale due to being poorly onboarded, managed, and mentored, and set-up to fail through poor communication and unrealistic/unclear expectations. When planners lack training and support on how to be effective managers, their direct reports suffer from being thrown under the bus, micromanaged, shut-out from projects and meetings, and other activities by the insecure manager that create a hostile workplace. Inexperienced and poorly supported managers can do a lot of harm in the workplace, and there is a role for CIP and the PTIAs to provide management training specifically for planners, with additional supports for managing diverse teams. Leaving this up to individual employers to address is bad for the profession as a whole.
• Lack of federal supports for family care responsibilities. I heard on the radio today that as of January 2021, more than 200,000 women have left the workforce in Canada. Broader cultural and structural patterns put family care responsibility largely on women’s shoulders. Affordable, quality, and available childcare will help. And, so would other forms of family care because many of us have parents and other family members who need support and care. As I wrote in 2019, CIP has a role to advocate for adequate family care in its role as a national advocacy organization. Employers also have a responsibility here when setting out sick days and benefits packages.

There are a lot more reflections from survey respondents in CIP’s insights report as well. So, be sure to check it out. It’s too bad that CIP didn’t publish all of the qualitative data from the survey, as I’m sure there were many nuggets of wisdom written in.