A Timeline of Government Performance Reporting Initiatives

1981

The government committed itself to provide Parliament with improved and expanded information in the Estimates. In particular Part III of the Estimates was designed to provide information to Parliament on departmental spending intentions and about performance and results produced by expenditures previously authorized.


1983

The government agreed to include summaries of program evaluations in Part III.


1995

The government revised the Expenditure Management System. As part of this initiative, it launched the Improved Reporting to Parliament Project, which split Part III of the Estimates into two documents:

• Report on Plans and Priorities—tabled in the spring, it sets targets and the general direction;

• Performance Report—tabled in the fall, it indicates the results achieved against those planned.

Six departments piloted the new approach.

The President of the Treasury Board tabled the first government-wide report describing progress made by implementing results-based management in federal departments and agencies. The report is part of the fall performance package and is tabled in Parliament with the departmental performance reports.


1996

Sixteen departments piloted the Improved Reporting to Parliament Project. The Treasury Board President tabled their performance reports in the House of Commons.


1997

On 24 April 1997, the House of Commons passed a motion dividing what was known as the Part III of the Estimates document for each department or agency into two documents, a Report on Plans & Priorities and a Departmental Performance Report. It also required all departments and agencies to table these reports on a pilot basis.


1998

Most departments and agencies submitted reports on plans and priorities and performance reports.


2000

The Treasury Board Secretariat published Results for Canadians, which emphasized the importance of ensuring timely and accurate reporting to Parliament.


2001

The Treasury Board Secretariat introduced the Results-Based Management Lexicon. This lexicon provided new, standardized terminology for results management and reporting.

The Treasury Board Secretariat published its renewed guidance to departments for the preparation of performance reports and introduced six principles for effective reporting.


2004

The Treasury Board Secretariat replaced the Planning, Reporting, and Accountability Structure Policy with the Management, Resources and Results Structure (MRRS) Policy, effective 1 April 2005.

The policy requires that departments have clearly defined and measurable strategic outcomes, an articulated Program Activity Architecture (an inventory of all the programs and activities undertaken by a department or agency that are depicted in their logical relationship to each other and to the strategic outcomes to which they contribute), and a description of the current governance structure.

The Treasury Board Secretariat published an integrated Guide for the Preparation of the 2005-2006 Part III of the Estimates: Reports on Plans and Priorities and Departmental Performance Reports. The goal of the integrated guidelines was to reinforce the complementary features of the two documents and their parallel reporting requirements.

Source: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/oag-bvg_e_14013.html

OAG Audit Criteria for Performance Information

The Office of the Auditor General (OAG) assesses a number of annual reports every year.

Here are the criteria it uses to do so:

Fairness Criterion

Relevant

The performance information reports in context, tangible, and important accomplishments against objectives and costs.

• Program context includes


• the mandate, strategic outcomes and objectives, which are linked to government priorities


• program structures


• key horizontal initiatives and partners used to deliver the results, and


• a discussion of the external environment and the key risks faced


• A description of intended users


• Reported results are focused on outcomes with related program activity types and outputs identified. (Results Chain)


• New initatives for improving outcomes are described


• The measures used to support the results chain are valid and complete


• The public performance report should link financial and non-financial information to show how resources and strategies influence results, including relating costs to outputs and outcomes. Where possible, cost information includes both direct costs and allocated indirect costs of programs and services to present 'full cost' data.

Meaningful

The performance information describes expectations and provides benchmarks against which performance is compared.

• Expectations are set out which are


• clear, concrete, and measurable, identifying the amount and direction of the change, the target groups, and timeframes,


• focused on outcomes with relevant activities and outputs identified, and


• consistent with the strategic outcomes.


• Comparisons are provided between reported accomplishments (actuals) and the expected performance with a realistic interpretation of the gap between the two


• Comparisons are provided with relevant benchmarks, such as similar activities, programs or organizations, or trends over time, and their significant explained.


• Key lessons learned about past performance and any resulting actions are discussed.

Attributable

The performance information demonstrates why the program made a difference.

• The contribution that has been made by the program to the reported results is demonstrated, including evidence regarding attribution, where available (such as evaluations).


• The contribution of key partners and other external factors is discussed.

Balanced

A representative and clear picture of performance is presented, which does not mislead the reader.

• The explanation of variances would include both positive and negative aspects of performance, as well as major challenges identified for programs and services, in order to provide a complete picture of performance


• Significant unintended impacts are reported


• There is coverage of all key objectives and only performance information that is significant to the organization is reported.


• There are no distortions of information through presentation, or through omission of information or context.


• The emphasis on information presented is proportional to its importance and materiality.

Reliability Criterion

Reliable

The performance information adequately reflects the facts

• Valid and consistent/comparable measures of performance are used.


• Performance information is based on data that can be readily replicated to produce similar results.


• The data that supports the performance measures are complete


• The basis for confidence in the reliability of the information (including third party data) being reported is disclosed, including
  
  • methods of data collection
  
  
  • explanations for any limitations
  
  
  • sources of information are reported

source: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/oag-bvg_e_10217.html