open Secondary menu

Engagement from Elections Canada HeadquartersReport on the Survey of Election Administrators: Selected Engagement Activities and Products in the 43rd General Election

In regional meetings following the 42nd GE, EAs provided feedback on how ECHQ could improve engagement and communication with them.

In the survey, EAs were asked to rate (from 1 to 5) how far EC had come in fulfilling certain outcomes for the 43rd GE based on the feedback from the 42nd GE. Figure 1 presents the distribution of responses along with the average score for each outcome.

  • For most outcomes, a majority of EAs indicated that EC was performing above or well above expectations (a score of 4 or 5 out of 5).
  • EAs gave the highest ratings (average score of 4.0) to outcomes related to the quality of the relationship among ROs, FLOs and ECHQ, defining the role of the FLO and the strength of the Field Governance Framework.
  • EAs, on average, said that EC was meeting expectations in terms of providing ROs with meaningful review of their budgets (3.2) and on the efficiency and effectiveness of field support functions (3.2).
  • The single outcome where EC fell below expectations was in regards to having simplified training, processes, forms and procedures for poll workers (an average score of 2.5).

Figure 1: Measures of ECHQ engagement

Figure 1: Measures of ECHQ engagement

Q. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means well below expectations and 5 means well above expectations, where would you say EC is in relation to fulfilling the following outcomes? Base: all respondents; n=326. Source: Survey of EAs 2020

Description of "Figure 1: Measures of ECHQ engagement"

This horizontal bar chart shows the scores respondents gave for how well ECHQ met expectations regarding fulfilling various outcomes. The scores are on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means well below expectations and 5 means well above expectations. The breakdown is as follows:

  • The relationship among ROs, FLOs and ECHQ is based on trust, accountability and flexibility.
    • Average score: 4.0
    • 1: Less than 1 percent
    • 2: 3 percent
    • 3: 15 percent
    • 4: 55 percent
    • 5: 24 percent
  • The role of the FLOs is clearly defined and understood.
    • Average score: 4.0
    • 1: Less than 1 percent
    • 2: 7 percent
    • 3: 16 percent
    • 4: 43 percent
    • 5: 32 percent
  • ECHQ keeps ROs and FLOs informed, engaged and able to contribute throughout the course of different projects and initiatives.
    • Average score: 4.0
    • 1: Less than 1 percent
    • 2: 4 percent
    • 3: 17 percent
    • 4: 49 percent
    • 5: 29 percent
  • The Field Governance Framework is clear and provides for a strong relationship between ROs, FLOs and ECHQ.
    • Average score: 3.9
    • 1: Less than 1 percent
    • 2: 3 percent
    • 3: 23 percent
    • 4: 49 percent
    • 5: 21 percent
  • ECHQ collaborates with EAs when making improvements to tools and technology for the field.
    • Average score: 3.5
    • 1: 4 percent
    • 2: 9 percent
    • 3: 31 percent
    • 4: 44 percent
    • 5: 9 percent
  • ROs have meaningful review over their own budgets.
    • Average score: 3.2
    • 1: 9 percent
    • 2: 16 percent
    • 3: 29 percent
    • 4: 36 percent
    • 5: 10 percent
  • Field support functions, including those from the Field Support Network, provide efficient and effective support to the field.
    • Average score: 3.2
    • 1: 5 percent
    • 2: 16 percent
    • 3: 38 percent
    • 4: 35 percent
    • 5: 5 percent
  • Training, processes, forms and procedures for poll workers have been simplified.
    • Average score: 2.5
    • 1: 17 percent
    • 2: 33 percent
    • 3: 35 percent
    • 4: 12 percent
    • 5: 1 percent

On average, FLOs gave lower scores than ROs on the following outcomes:

  • Whether ROs have meaningful review over their own budgets (an average score of 2.6 among FLOs compared to 3.3. among ROs).
  • Whether field support functions provide efficient and effective support (2.6 among FLOs compared to 3.2 among ROs).