While we acknowledge and appreciate that some vendors may already have processes in place for collecting diversity data, it is essential for all partners involved in the New Surrey Hospital and BC Cancer Center Project to utilize the Nisto platform and its tools for this purpose. This requirement ensures that all data collection, management, and reporting on the diverse opportunities created by the project are harmonized across all vendors, facilitating an "apples to apples" comparison and analysis. Moreover, Nisto is recognized for its stringent protocols in protecting employee identities, setting the industry standard in data privacy and security.

For more information on Nisto's approach to Ethical Identity and Data Analytics, please visit www.nisto.io. This unified approach not only streamlines our processes but also reinforces our commitment to upholding the highest standards of data integrity and confidentiality.

In AMDA, employees independently complete an anonymous diversity survey, which generates a unique alphanumeric code that links to their diverse identity answer set. This code, instead of any personal identification data, is shared with the employer.

The employer combines this code with anonymized payroll data within the AMDA system. If a match is found, the system links the diversity survey response with the corresponding payroll data to generate a comprehensive diversity report. This report gives a clear, anonymous picture of the diversity or indigeneity of industry while maintaining the privacy of individual employees.

AMDA not only respects and protects the privacy of employees, but it also gives them control over their data. At any point, an employee can choose to withdraw their data by sending their unique code to the system, ensuring their survey responses are no longer linked with the payroll data. This mechanism strikes a balance between offering detailed insights to employers and safeguarding employees' rights and identities.

For some context on why Anonymized Matched Diversity Analysis is recommended, we need to look at the two traditional methods of employment identity data capture that don't meet the requirements of the project: Voluntary Self-Identification (VSI) and Anonymous Diversity Surveys (ADS). Each bears its set of advantages and shortcomings, raising critical concerns about efficacy, privacy, and potential biases.

Voluntary Self-Identification provides a detailed glimpse into the workforce's diverse makeup, even possessing the potential to identify Indigenous Community affiliations. However, while its depth is commendable, it falls short in practice. When employees share their direct identity their backgrounds or affiliations, there's an intrinsic vulnerability to the process.

For members of the Indigenous community, sharing such specific and deeply personal affiliations directly can be discomforting, leading to hesitancy in divulging this information. As a result, organizations might not capture an accurate representation of their Indigenous workforce. Beyond the psychological aspects, there's the looming threat of legal implications for companies that handle such sensitive information directly. EIDA demands analysis and aggregation further rubbing sensitive information against the goal of compliance.

Conversely, Anonymous Diversity Surveys (ADS), while safeguarding employee privacy, inherently lack the granularity essential to pinpoint benefits reaching Indigenous people or underrepresented groups through employment. The broad strokes these surveys offer might hint at diversity presence but fail to provide detailed insights into how employment benefits are channeled into specific communities, thereby missing a crucial dimension in understanding the comprehensive benefit to these communities. You cannot use ADS for EIDA.

In both scenarios, employees cannot retract their participation in the diversity survey. This breaches FPIC principles. Furthermore, even if they could retract their participation, it would necessitate a potentially uncomfortable conversation with their employer. AMDA solves this.

Your choice depends on your objectives. Nisto provides and encourages the EIDA Project Compliance Report for a $249 monthly fee, offering an in-depth analysis of your organization's data in the context of the project's overall achievements. Alternatively, the 'Upload Only' option allows you to meet project requirements without any cost, but it does not include monthly reports on your progress towards the EIDA goals.

"Underrepresented Group" from the EIDA means individuals that self-identify as being one or more of the following: women, persons with disabilities, visible minorities, LGBTQ2S+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Two Spirit and additional sexual orientations and gender identities) and youth ages 16 to 24.

Visible minority, as defined by the Employment Equity Act includes "persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour". The visible minority population consists mainly of the following groups: South Asian, Chinese, Black, Filipino, Arab, Latin American, Southeast Asian, West Asian, Korean and Japanese.