MAF 2017 to 2018 methodology for small departments and agencies

From: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

On this page

Methodology Overview

The annual MAF assessment for small departments and agencies aims to improve oversight and management practices in departments as well as to support the Government of Canada’s strategic direction for management.

Small departments and agencies (SDAs) are included in the MAF assessment process on an annual basis. MAF 2017-18 will be the fourth annual MAF assessment for SDAs since the MAF process was renewed in 2013-14.

Small departments and agencies have a tailored methodology that includes specific indicators drawn from central systems. These areas will be assessed under management performance. Indicators do not duplicate areas included within Core Control Audits.

To support efforts towards implementing the new Policy on Results, there is no assessment for the Results Management Area of Management this year.

Benchmarking and comparability across small departments and agencies

The metrics and reporting format allow for comparison and benchmarking among same size organisations which provides an opportunity to share leading practices among small departments and agencies.

Questionnaire

Financial Management

Resource management

Outcome statement: Governance and oversight over financial management are effective and standardized and efficient financial management practices are in place.

Rationale pertaining to questions below: The effective management of public funds depends on the collection of reliable data and the availability of sound financial information for decision making. The MAF assessment in this area focuses on ensuring the management of public funds is supported by a sound governance structure and effective multi-year planning, budgeting, monitoring and reporting.

Indicators and calculation method (where applicable) Expected result Policy reference Evidence source and document limit Category
  1. Identification and assessment of multi-year financial risks: Does the department or agency proactively identify and assess multi-year financial risks associated with projected salary expenditures?

    • Yes
    • No

    Rationale: The early identification and assessment of multi-year financial risks is critical to determining the long-term financial sustainability of an organization and ensuring that there is sufficient time to respond to and manage any financial risks. The indicator assesses the extent to which an organization proactively identifies and evaluates multi-year financial risks. The MAF results will inform TBS-OCG (monitoring and compliance role).

Departments and agencies should identify and assess financial risks over a multi-year period (rolling three-year) as part of their approach to financial planning and budgeting.

Policy on Financial Mgmt., 4.2.2.3 and 4.2.2.4

Department or agency to respond.

Evidence (1 document): Multi-year financial plan covering 2017-18 fiscal year and onward (e.g., briefing note, presentation, or specific sections within an integrated business plan, that is presented to senior management summarizing multi-year data findings, recommendations, and action plan).

  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance
  1. Identification and assessment of multi-year financial risks: Does the department or agency proactively identify and assess multi-year financial risks associated with budgetary changes (including sunsetting programs)?

    • Yes
    • No
    • N/A

    Rationale: The early identification and assessment of multi-year financial risks is critical to determining the long-term financial sustainability of an organization and ensuring that there is sufficient time to respond to and manage any financial risks. The indicator assesses the extent to which an organization proactively identifies and evaluates multi-year financial risks. The MAF results will inform TBS-OCG (monitoring and compliance role).

Departments and agencies should identify and assess financial risks over a multi-year period (rolling three-year) as part of their approach to financial planning and budgeting.

Policy on Financial Mgmt., 4.2.2.3 and 4.2.2.4

Department or agency to respond.

No evidence required (TBS-OCG will use evidence submitted for Q1 to validate response).

  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance
  1. Identification and assessment of multi-year financial risks: Does the department or agency proactively identify and assess multi-year financial risks associated with revenue fluctuations?

    • Yes
    • No
    • N/A

    Rationale: The early identification and assessment of multi-year financial risks is critical to determining the long-term financial sustainability of an organization and ensuring that there is sufficient time to respond to and manage any financial risks. The indicator assesses the extent to which an organization proactively identifies and evaluates multi-year financial risks. The MAF results will inform TBS-OCG (monitoring and compliance role).

Departments and agencies should identify and assess financial risks over a multi-year period (rolling three-year) as part of their approach to financial planning and budgeting.

Policy on Financial Mgmt., 4.2.2.3 and 4.2.2.4

Department or agency to respond.

No evidence required (TBS-OCG will use evidence submitted for Q1 to validate response).

  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance
  1. Identification and assessment of multi-year financial risks: Does the department or agency proactively identify and assess multi-year financial risks associated with funding pressures?

    • Yes
    • No
    • N/A

    Rationale: The early identification and assessment of multi-year financial risks is critical to determining the long-term financial sustainability of an organization and ensuring that there is sufficient time to respond to and manage any financial risks. The indicator assesses the extent to which an organization proactively identifies and evaluates multi-year financial risks. The MAF results will inform TBS-OCG (monitoring and compliance role).

Departments and agencies should identify and assess financial risks over a multi-year period (rolling three-year) as part of their approach to financial planning and budgeting.

Policy on Financial Mgmt., 4.2.2.3 and 4.2.2.4

Department or agency to respond.

No evidence required (TBS-OCG will use evidence submitted for Q1 to validate response).

  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance
  1. Does the department or agency have a governance structure to take action on findings presented in the multi-year financial plan?

    • Yes
    • No

    Rationale: The indicator assesses whether an organization regularly communicates and integrates financial management elements, specifically multi-year financial risks, within its departmental governance structure. The MAF results will inform TBS-OCG (monitoring and compliance role).

Departments and agencies should have a governance structure to routinely and proactively assess current and multi-year financial risks and funding pressures.

Policy on Financial Mgmt., 4.2.2.4

Department or agency to respond.

Evidence (4 documents) : Records of decision or minutes from routine ADM level governance committee meetings where the multi-year financial plan was discussed.

  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance

Internal control management

Outcome statement: Internal controls over financial management are effective.

Rationale pertaining to questions below: Internal controls refer to a set of measures and activities that provide reasonable assurance of the effectiveness and efficiency of the financial management activities of the departments. The MAF assessment in this area focuses on the importance of ensuring there is ongoing monitoring of the effectiveness of the risk-based system of internal control over financial reporting, ensuring there are controls related to the management of salary expenditures, and assessing the efficiency of key financial management processes (i.e., delegation, timely payments to suppliers, and management of accounts receivable).

Indicators and calculation method (where applicable) Expected result Policy reference Evidence source and document limit Category
  1. How frequently does the department or agency reconcile actual salary expenditures in the financial system against its salary forecasts?

    • Monthly (or more frequently)
    • Quarterly
    • Bi-annually
    • Annually
    • Never

    Rationale: The indicator provides information regarding the process within an organization to ensure salary expenditures are accurate and that any variances are reported on a timely basis (salary control mechanism). The MAF results will inform Deputy Heads (oversight role), TBS-OCG (functional leadership role), and Public Services and Procurement Canada (pay administration role).

Departments and agencies should ensure that salary expenditures are reconciled on a regular basis (at least quarterly).

N/A

Department or agency to respond.

Evidence (4 documents): Document(s) outlining the department or agency process to reconcile actual salary expenditures in the financial system against salary forecasts (e.g., call letters to departmental managers, framework, etc.). Evidence submitted should align with the frequency identified in the response.

  • Management Practice
    • Practice

Transfer payments

Note: Section applies only to departments and agencies with Transfer Payment programs - refer to Annex A for a list of departments and agencies to which this section is applicable.

Outcome statement: Transfer payments are managed in a way that is citizen and recipient focussed.

Rationale pertaining to the questions below: The MAF assessment in this area focuses on ensuring that applicants and recipients are engaged in support of continuous improvement and innovation.

Indicators and calculation method (where applicable) Expected result Policy reference Evidence source and document limit Category
  1. Establishment of service standards for transfer payment programs: Number of transfer payment programs for which service standards were established.

Departments and agencies are expected to establish reasonable and practical service standards for transfer payment programs.

N/A

Department or agency to respond.

No evidence required

(TBS-OCG will use evidence submitted for Q9 to validate response).

  • Descriptive Statistic
  1. Establishment of service standards for transfer payment programs: Total number of transfer payment programs.

Departments and agencies are expected to establish reasonable and practical service standards for transfer payment programs.

N/A

Department or agency to respond.

No evidence required

(TBS-OCG will use evidence submitted for Q9 to validate response).

  • Descriptive Statistic
  1. Establishment of service standards for transfer payment programs: What percentage of the department or agency transfer payment programs has service standards?

    Calculation:

    Number of transfer payment programs for which service standards were established (Q7) divided by the total number of transfer payment programs (Q8).

    Rationale: The indicator provides information on the extent to which, for transfer payment programs, clear expectations have been set for the level of service transfer payment recipients are to receive. The MAF results will inform Deputy Heads (oversight role) and TBS-OCG (monitoring and compliance role).

Departments and agencies are expected to establish reasonable and practical service standards for transfer payment programs.

Policy on Transfer Payments 6.5.9

Department or agency to respond.

Evidence (1 document): Document listing each transfer payment program along with the services standards established for each program.

  • Management Performance
    • Service Standard Measure
  1. Posting of service standards and results on a public website: Number of transfer payment programs with all 2016-17 service standards and results available on a public website.

Departments and agencies should post service standards and results on a public website.

N/A

Department or agency to respond.

No evidence required

(TBS-OCG will use evidence submitted for Q12 to validate response).

  • Descriptive Statistic
  1. Posting of service standards and results on a public website: Total number of transfer payment programs.

Departments and agencies should post service standards and results on a public website.

N/A

Department or agency to respond.

No evidence required

(TBS-OCG will use evidence submitted for Q12 to validate response).

  • Descriptive Statistic
  1. Posting of service standards and results on a public website: What percentage of the department or agency transfer payment programs have ALL 2016-17 service standards and results, for each program, available on a public website?

    Calculation:

    Number of transfer payment programs with all 2016-17 service standards and results available on a public website (Q10) divided by the total number of transfer payment programs (Q11). Note the response to Q12 should be equal to or less than the response to Q9.

    Rationale: This indicator provides information on the extent to which, for transfer payment programs, service standard performance results are available on a public website. The MAF results will inform Deputy Heads (oversight role) and TBS-OCG (monitoring and compliance role).

Departments and agencies should post service standards and results on a public website.

N/A

Department or agency to respond.

Evidence (1 document): Link(s) to website(s) where service standards for transfer payment programs and results are posted.

  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

People Management

Workforce

Outcome statement: A public service that enables new and existing public servants to be in the right place, at the right time, doing the right things.

Talent and performance management, learning and development

Outcome statement: A skilled and agile workforce that has the competencies and flexibility to meet the needs of an evolving public service.

Rationale: A world class public service equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century requires continuous learning, training and professional development for employees and executives. Organization’s commitment to various ways of learning is the foundation of employee development and performance improvement.

Indicators and calculation method (where applicable) Expected result Policy reference Evidence source and document limit Category
  1. Percentage of employees that have documentation setting performance expectations/objectives.

    Rationale: To measure the extent to which departments and agencies meet the requirements of the TBS directive on Performance Management.

    Calculation:

    Number of employees who have documentation setting performance expectations (objectives) ÷ total number of employees × 100%.

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term employees of more than 3 months (non-Executives).

    Employee status: Active employees

    Period: Performance Management cycle 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Organizations should strive to have over 90% of employees with documentation setting performance objectives.

Directive on Performance Management, 6.1.3

Public Service Performance Management Application

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.

  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance
  1. Percentage of executives that have documentation setting performance expectations/objectives.

    Rationale: To measure the extent to which departments and agencies meet the requirements of the Directive on Performance Management Program for Executives.

    Calculation: Number of executives who have documentation setting performance expectations (objectives) ÷ total number of executives × 100%.

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term executives of more than 3 months.

    Employee status: Active executive employees

    Period: Performance Management cycle 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Organizations should strive to have 100% of executives that have documentation setting performance expectations/objectives.

Directive on the Performance Management Program for Executives, Appendix C, s.1

Executive Talent Management System

No evidence is to be submitted for the measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.

  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance
  1. Percentage of employees that have documentation setting learning objectives (learning and development plan).

    Rationale: To measure the extent to which departments and agencies meet the requirements of the TBS directive on Performance Management.

    Calculation of measure:

    Number of employees who have documentation setting learning objectives (learning plan and development plan) ÷ total number of employees × 100%

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term employees of more than 3 months (non-Executives)

    Employee status: Active employees

    Period: 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Organizations should strive to have over 90% of employees with documentation setting learning objectives.

Directive on Performance Management, 6.1.3

Public Service Performance Management Application

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.

  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance
  1. Percentage of executives that have documentation setting learning objectives (learning and development plan).

    Rationale: To measure the extent to which departments and agencies meet the requirements of Directive on the Performance Management Program for Executives

    Calculation: Number of executives who have documentation setting learning objectives ÷ total number of executives  × 100%

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term executives of more than 3 months

    Employee status: Active executive employees

    Period: Performance Management cycle 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Organizations should strive to have 100% of executives that have documentation setting learning objectives (learning and development plan).

Directive on the Performance Management Program for Executives - Appendix B, 2.4

Executive Talent Management System

No evidence is to be submitted for the measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.

  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance
  1. Percentage of employees that had mid-year conversations with their immediate supervisor to review performance.

    Rationale: To measure the extent to which departments and agencies meet the requirements of the TBS directive on Performance Management.

    Calculation of measure:

    Number of employees who had mid-year conversation(s) with their immediate supervisor to review performance ÷ total number of employees × 100%

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term employees of more than 3 months (non-Executives)

    Employee status: Active employees

    Period: 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Organizations should strive to have over 90% of employees that had mid-year conversations with their immediate supervisor to review performance.

Directive on Performance Management, 6.1.3

Public Service Performance Management Application

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.

  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance
  1. Percentage of executives that had mid-year conversations with their immediate supervisor to review performance.

    Rationale: To measure the extent to which departments and agencies meet the requirements of the Directive on the Performance Management Program for Executives.

    Calculation of measure:

    Number of executives who had mid-year conversation(s) with their immediate supervisor to review performance ÷ total number of executives  × 100%

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term executives of more than 3 months

    Employee status: Active executive employees

    Period: 2016-17

    Date of extraction:

Organizations should strive to have 100% of executives that had mid-year conversations with their immediate supervisor to review performance.

Directive on the Performance Management Program for Executives - Appendix C, 2.1

Executive Talent Management System

No evidence is to be submitted for the measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.

  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance
  1. Percentage of employees with a completed annual written performance assessment.

    Rationale: To measure the extent to which departments and agencies meet the requirements of the TBS directive on Performance Management.

    Calculation of measure:

    Number of employees who have completed a written performance assessment ÷ total number of employees × 100%

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term employees of more than 3 months (non-Executives)

    Employee status: Active employees

    Period: 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Organizations should strive to have over 90% of employees with completed annual written performance assessments.

Directive on Performance Management, 6.1.3

Public Service Performance Management Application

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.

  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance
  1. Percentage of executives with a completed annual written performance assessment.

    Rationale: To measure the extent to which departments and agencies meet the requirements of the Directive on the Performance Management Program for Executives.

    Calculation of measure:

    Number of executives who have a completed written performance assessment ÷ total number of executives × 100%

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term executive employees of more than 3 months

    Employee status: Active executive employees

    Period: 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Organizations should strive to have 100% of executives with a completed annual written performance assessment.

Directive on the Performance Management Program for Executives - Appendix C, 2.1

Executive Talent Management System

No evidence is to be submitted for the measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.

  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance
  1. Percentage of employees with a rating of did not meet on their overall performance agreement.

    Rationale: To provide an indication of the distribution of the performance management results in the department.

    Calculation:

    Number of employees with a rating of did not meet divided by the number of employees who participatedFootnote 1 in the performance management process.

    Period: Performance Management cycle 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Baseline year.

Directive on Performance Management

Public Service Performance Management Application

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.

  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator
  1. Percentage of employees with a rating of succeeded minus on their overall performance agreement.

    Rationale: To provide an indication of the distribution of the performance management results in the department.

    Calculation:

    Number of employees with a rating of succeeded minus divided by the number of employees who participatedFootnote 1 in the performance management process.

    Period: Performance Management cycle 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Baseline year.

Directive on Performance Management

Public Service Performance Management Application

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.

  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator
  1. Percentage of employees with a rating of succeeded on their overall performance agreement.

    Rationale: To provide an indication of the distribution of the performance management results in the department.

    Calculation:

    Number of employees with a rating of succeeded divided by the number of employees who participatedFootnote 1 in the performance management process

    Period: Performance Management cycle 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Baseline year.

Directive on Performance Management

Public Service Performance Management Application

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.

  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator
  1. Percentage of employees with a rating of succeeded plus on their overall performance agreement.

    Rationale: To provide an indication of the distribution of the performance management results in the department.

    Calculation:

    Number of employees with a rating of succeeded plus divided by the number of employees who participatedFootnote 1 in the performance management process

    Period: Performance Management cycle 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Baseline year.

Directive on Performance Management

Public Service Performance Management Application

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.

  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator
  1. Percentage of employees with a rating of surpassed on their overall performance agreement.

    Rationale: To provide an indication of the distribution of the performance management results in the department.

    Calculation:

    Number of employees with a rating of surpassed divided by the number of employees who participatedFootnote 1 in the performance management process

    Period: Performance Management cycle 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Baseline year.

Directive on Performance Management

Public Service Performance Management Application

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.

  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

Structure and processes

Outcome statement: A public service with efficient and effective processes, tools, practices and organizational structures.

Indicators and calculation method (where applicable) Expected result Policy reference Evidence source and document limit Category
  1. Does the department or agency publish its executive organizational chart(s) on its website?

    • Yes
    • No

    Rationale: Measure the transparency of executive organizational structure:

    • To ensure that employees have access to information about their organization’s executive structure.
    • To support clear decision-making and accountability.
    • To promote transparency and organizational excellence.
    • Effective and efficient use and management of the public money, property and resources.

    Period: Snapshot as of .

Departments and agencies publish their executive level organizational charts.

TBS Directive on Executive Group Organization and Classification, 5.5

Departmental Ask.

Department to submit one (1) piece of evidence; e.g. link, screenshot of departmental website.

  • Management Practice
    • Practice
  1. The department or agency has executive positions with more than three layers of EX reporting in direct line to DM (occupied and vacant positions).

    • Yes
    • No

    Rationale: Measure the management of executive organizational structures in compliance with policy:

    • To ensure an appropriate number of hierarchical level of executives.
    • To sustain a fair and equitable compensation and classification system across the federal public service.

    Calculation: 

    Number of EX positions located at the fourth hierarchical level below the Deputy Heads/Associate Deputy Heads.

    Period: Snapshot as of .

Departments and agencies are expected to classify executive positions no more than three levels below the Deputy or Associate Deputy level.

TBS Directive on Executive Group Organization and Classification

Executive Group Position Evaluation Plan (Refer to EX Group Definition)

Position Classification Information System

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance
  1. Number of incumbents of EX group positions.

    Rationale: To provide a snapshot of the executive workforce in departments and agencies in support of renewal and succession objectives.

    Calculation: Total number of incumbents of EX group position.

    Period: Snapshot as of

Baseline year

N/A

Incumbent file

No evidence to be submitted for this measure.

  • Descriptive Statistic
  1. Percentage of positions having standardized job descriptions.

    Rationale: Standardized work descriptions assist departments and agencies in reducing the time/effort required to write, classify, and update work descriptions; simplify recruitment, staffing, career development, and learning efforts; facilitate mobility within an occupational group; and ensure sound relativity across the CPA.

    Calculation: Number of positions having standardized work description ÷ total number of positions

    Period: Snapshot as of

Improvement from the previous result (MAF 2016-17)

Departments and agencies should maximize the use of generic and standardized job descriptions as they can assist in reducing the time/effort required to write, classify, and update work descriptions; simplify recruitment, staffing, career development, and learning efforts; facilitate mobility within an occupational group, etc.

Policy on classification: 6.1.2.5, 6.1.2.6

Position Classification Information System

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit data for this measure.

  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator
  1. Percentage of positions with classification decisions greater than five years.

    Rationale: Job descriptions must be reviewed regularly to ensure they continue to appropriately reflect the work performed and reward employees fairly, equitably and appropriately. Such a review allows departments to ensure jobs are accurate and are classified at the appropriate group and level.

    Calculation: Number of positions with a review date greater than five years ÷ total number of positions.

    Period: Snapshot as of

Baseline year

Directive on classification: 6.2.2, Appendix H

Position Classification Information System Plus

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit data for this measure.

  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

Workplace culture

Outcome statement: A public service that embodies a healthy workplace.

Indicators and calculation method (where applicable) Expected result Policy reference Evidence source and document limit Category
  1. In light of recent survey results (Public Service Employee Annual Survey 2017), please indicate your top three priorities identified for action:

    (select three)

    • Diversity
    • Engagement
    • Innovation
    • Mental health & wellbeing
    • Harassment
    • Discrimination

    Period: Ongoing since release of Public Service Employee Annual Survey results ().

Department and agencies are invited to discuss the survey findings with their employees, and to work with them and other stakeholders to come up with and put in place solutions to issues raised in the survey.

N/A

Departmental Ask

Please provide up to three (3) pieces of evidence that demonstrate which priorities your department is focusing on, based on your PSEAS results.

  • Management Practice
    • Practice

Mental health and wellness

Indicators and calculation method (where applicable) Expected result Policy reference Evidence source and document limit Category
  1. Psychological Hazard Analysis, Control and Prevention

    Has the department or agency:

    • Performed a joint psychological hazard analysis and assessment informed by survey results (i.e. the Public Service Annual Employee Survey)?
    • Reviewed existing programs, policies and workplace practices that influence psychological health and safety?
    • Undertaken a prioritization process in relation to identified hazards

    Rationale: To measure the extent to which psychological hazard analysis, prevention and control occur in departments as part of the overall hazard prevention program.

    Period: FY2016-17

Assessment, control and prevention of psychological hazards is part of the overall hazard prevention program outlined in the Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Regulations.

Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Regulation Part XIX

Hazard Prevention Program

Standard for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace Section 4.3.4 Assessment, Control and Prevention

Departmental Ask

One (1) piece of evidence is to be submitted for each selection.

Maximum three (3) pieces of evidence.

  • Policy Compliance
  1. Percentage of employees who indicated in the Public Service Employee Survey “I would describe my workplace as being psychologically healthy”.

    Rationale: The health and wellness of the federal public service and its employees are vital to each organization’s success. As part of the organization-specific objectives of the Federal Public Service Mental Health Strategy, Deputy heads are expected to promote positive mental health and prevent psychological harm due to workplace factors. This measure will gage whether employees perceive that their workplace is psychologically healthy.

    Calculation: Percentage of employees who strongly agree or somewhat agree.

    Period: 2017

Departments and agencies are expected to promote positive mental health and prevent psychological harm due to workplace factors.

Federal Public Service Mental Health Strategy

Public Service Employee Survey

  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator
  1. Average number of certified paid sick days per Full Time Full Year Equivalent.

    Rationale: To measure the usage of sick days and identify average trends to inform decision-making.

    Calculation:

    Certified: (Sum of the number of certified paid sick days taken by employees during the period) ÷ number of Full Time Full Year Equivalent (FTFYE).

    Note: include leave codes 205, 206, 210, 220, only in the calculation of the number of paid sick days.

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term employees (term greater than 3 months).

    Employee status: Active employees

    Period: FY2016-17

Organizations should strive to maintain low sick leave rates.

N/A

Employee Leave Reporting System

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.

  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator
  1. Average number of uncertified paid sick days per Full Time Full Year Equivalent.

    Rationale: To measure the usage of sick days and identify average trends to inform decision-making.

    Calculation:

    Uncertified:  (Sum of the number of uncertified paid sick days taken by employees during the period) ÷ number of Full Time Full Year Equivalent (FTFYE).

    Note: include leave codes 205, 206, 210, 220, only in the calculation of the number of paid sick days.

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term employees (term greater than 3 months)

    Employee status: Active employees

    Period: FY2016-17

Organizations should strive to maintain low sick leave rates.

N/A

Employee Leave Reporting System

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.

  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator
  1. Average number of certified and uncertified (total) paid sick days per Full Time Full Year Equivalent

    Rationale: To measure the usage of sick days and identify average trends to inform decision-making.

    Calculation:

    Total: Sum of the number of certified and uncertified (total) paid sick days taken by employees during the period) ÷ number of Full Time Full Year Equivalent (FTFYE).

    Note: include leave codes 205, 206, 210, 220, only in the calculation of the number of paid sick days.

    The number of FTFYE is calculated as follows:

    The FTFYE (Full-Time-Full-Year-Equivalent) variable converts all employees into units representing a full-time employee working for the whole year. The calculation of the FTFY equivalence is based on a ratio between the assigned work week and the normal work week as per the collective agreement and the amount of time an employee is active over a 12-month period.

    The formula is as follows: Number of periods an employee is active over a given year ÷ 12 months × assigned work week ÷ normal work week

    It is important to note that the number of hours in the assigned and normal work weeks can vary depending on employees. The leave usage per employee is translated from hours to days based on individual assigned work week. This means that the number of hours contained in 1 workday can vary depending on the employee. On average however, the day conversion is close to 7.5 hours.

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term employees (term greater than 3 months)

    Employee status: Active employees

    Period: FY2016-17 of Full Time Full Year Equivalent (FTFYE)

Organizations should strive to maintain low sick leave rates.

N/A

Employee Leave Reporting System

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.

  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator
  1. Average number of days taken to submit the Employer Report of Injury to Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC).

    Rationale: To ensure those ill or injured employees’ claims are processed quickly and properly, and to ensure a safe and timely return to work. It is a measure of the organization’s capacity in disability management.

    Calculation: Sum of the number of days to send in the Employers Report of Injury to ESDC ÷ Number of new claims within the period.

    Period: FY2016-17

Organizations should strive to meet the three day timeline. This demonstrates an appropriate level of capacity in the area of disability management.

Government Employees Compensation Act (GECA)

National Injury Compensation System (NICS)

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

  • Policy Compliance

Diversity and inclusion

Diversity and inclusion

Indicators and calculation method (where applicable) Expected result Policy reference Evidence source and document limit Category
  1. In which ways does your department or agency foster a diverse and inclusive workplace?

    (Select all that apply)

    • Mandate training for employees on diversity and inclusion and/or on cultural awareness
    • Hold department-wide activities such as workshops, information sessions or group discussions
    • Appoint a champion for diversity and inclusion in the workplace
    • Recruitment strategies targeted at  designated employment equity groups
    • Diversity and Inclusion are included in organizational HR strategic plans

    Rationale: To provide an indication of the efforts of departments and agencies to create and sustain a diverse and inclusive workplace.

    Period: FY2016-17

Departments and agencies must take actions to create and sustain a diverse and inclusive workforce.

In all Ministerial mandate letters.

Departmental Ask

Departments or agencies to submit evidence that best exemplify their selection.

One (1) piece of evidence per selection.

Maximum of five (5) pieces of evidence.

  • Management Practice
    • Practice
  1. Percentage of employees who indicated in the Public Service Employee Survey “My department or agency implements activities and practices that support a diverse and inclusive workplace”.

    Rationale: To complement the departmental ask on diversity and inclusion with employees’ perceptions of their workplace.

    Calculation: Percentage of employees who strongly agree or somewhat agree.

    Period: 2017

Departments and agencies must take actions to create and sustain a diverse and inclusive workforce.

In all Ministerial mandate letters.

Public Service Employee Survey

  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

Information Management and Information Technology (IM/IT) Management

IM program/Service enablement

Outcome statement: Information resources are effectively leveraged to support the department’s or agency’s programs and services.

Indicators and Calculation Method (where applicable) Expected Result Policy Reference Evidence Source and Document Limit Category
  1. Does the department or agency have a documented governance structure in place for data management?
    • Yes
    • No

    Rationale: Data management is a growing area of importance in IM and in GC programs more broadly. An established governance structure is a key first step to ensuring that organizations have effective data management process in place.

    Note: This question will not be scored by TBS.

That data will begin to be managed with the level of processes and systems that are in place for information.

Policy on Information Management 5.2

Directive on Open Government, Open Government Implementation Plan – appendix C

If yes, the document that supports this statement (in whatever form – plan, deck, etc.)  will be shared with all departments via GCtools as a ‘best practice’ to support capacity building.

Document Limit: 2

  • Descriptive Statistic
  1. Has the department’s or agency’s data inventory been updated since ?
    • Yes
    • No

    Rationale: Assess compliance with the policy requirements that departments develop and maintain an inventory of data holdings in support of initiatives on accountability, transparency, and informed decision-making.

    Calculation Method: An updated data inventory received by TBS between to .

An up-to-date data inventory describes the scope of data holdings, which enables sound decision-making about data to release (prioritization, privacy considerations, clean-up requirements).

Directive on Open Government  6.3

TBS to Provide Response

Document Limit: 0

  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance
  1. How many datasets has the department or agency released via open.canada.ca?

    Rationale: Provides an overview of the progress of the department or agency in maximizing the release of GC data for Canadians.

    Calculation Method: Total number of datasets posted by a department or agency to open.canada.ca on .

Departments are releasing new content to the open.canada.ca portal on an ongoing basis in support of GC transparency.

Directive on Open Government  6.1

TBS to Provide Response

Document Limit: 0

  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance
  1. Does the department or agency have a schedule for updating datasets published on open.canada.ca?
    • Yes
    • No

    Rationale: Ensuring that departments maximize their contributions to the open.canada.ca portal in support of transparency.

Maintaining and adding to  datasets on open.canada.ca ensures the quality, reliability and timeliness of the content, in support of GC transparency.

Directive on Open Government  6.1

If yes, the document that supports this statement (in whatever form – plan, deck, etc.)  may be shared with all departments via GCtools as a ‘best practice’ to support capacity building.

Document Limit: 1

  • Management Practice
    • Practice
  1. What percentage of departmental datasets available on open.canada.ca have an openness rating of three to five?

    Rationale: Assessing the usability and share-ability of the datasets, based on technical configuration, provides a view into the maturity of departmental data management and potential value for Canadians.

    Calculation Method: Number of departmental datasets rated 3, 4, and 5 divided by total number of departmental datasets as of .

    http://open.canada.ca/en/openness-rating provides a description of the star rating.

    Note: The Open Canada Portal rates the quality (as defined by level of openness) of datasets on a scale of 1 – 5 with 1 being data available in any format up to 5, which is the most open, linkable and reusable.

Departments are more mature in their data management/ configuration capabilities and increase capacity of data usage by others.

Useable and shareable data ensures greater potential value, reuse, and transparency.

Datasets will be more useful.

Directive on Open Government  6.3

TBS to Provide Response

Document Limit: 0

  • Descriptive Statistic

Acronyms

Acronyms Spelled Out
MAF Management Accountability Framework
ADM Assistant Deputy Minister
CFO Chief Financial Officer
FM Financial Management
DCFO Deputy Chief Financial Officer
CPA Chartered Professional Accountant
SEAFAP Senior Executive Advanced Finance and Accounting Program
EX Executive

Annex A: List of MAF-Assessed Organizations with Transfer Payments

Large Departments and Agencies:

  1. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
  2. Canadian Food Inspection Agency
  3. Canadian Heritage
  4. Canadian Space Agency
  5. Correctional Service Canada
  6. Department of Finance Canada
  7. Department of Justice Canada
  8. Employment and Social Development Canada
  9. Environment and Climate Change Canada
  10. Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  11. Global Affairs Canada
  12. Health Canada
  13. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
  14. Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada
  15. Infrastructure Canada
  16. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
  17. National Defence
  18. National Research Council Canada
  19. Natural Resources Canada
  20. Parks Canada
  21. Public Health Agency of Canada
  22. Public Safety Canada
  23. Public Services and Procurement Canada
  24. Royal Canadian Mounted Police
  25. Statistics Canada
  26. Transport Canada
  27. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
  28. Veterans Affairs Canada

Small Departments and Agencies:

  1. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
  2. Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions
  3. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
  4. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  5. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
  6. Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario
  7. Library and Archives Canada
  8. National Energy Board
  9. Science and Engineering Research Canada
  10. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Page details

Date modified: