An employer can offer a meaningful retirement contribution and still have questions about how employees use it. Start by separating who can join, who has enrolled and how contributions work under your actual plan rules.
How do we tell whether employees are making use of the plan?
Start with four measures. State the date or reporting period and define each group before comparing results. An enrolled employee is not necessarily contributing, and a contributing employee is not necessarily receiving the full available match.
| Measure | What to record |
|---|---|
| Eligibility | Number of employees eligible under the plan rules, with the date. Keep total headcount separate. |
| Enrolment | Enrolled eligible employees divided by eligible employees on the same date. |
| Employee contribution rate | Employee contributions as a share of eligible pay for a stated period and defined employee group. State whether the figure is a ratio of total contributions to total eligible pay or an average of individual rates, and whether people contributing zero are included. |
| Full-match take-up | Match-eligible employees receiving their full available match divided by all match-eligible employees for the period. If reporting only among enrolled members, label that different denominator. |
If the existing aggregate report supports it, add a fifth measure: contributing employees. Count eligible employees with a positive employee contribution during the period and divide by employees eligible to contribute during that period. State how eligibility changes are handled. Keep employer-only contributions separate.
This count shows how many people contributed; the contribution rate shows contributions relative to pay. Record unavailable figures as unknown. A rate cannot be calculated when its denominator is zero or unavailable. These are suggested reporting definitions, not national targets.
What does a gap tell us?
A lower figure tells you where to ask a question. It does not establish why an employee made a decision. People may face enrolment difficulties, unclear information or limits on what they can afford to save. Check whether the instructions and support are usable before assuming the plan design is the problem.
Look at aggregate information already available through your employer and provider processes. FCAC's workplace financial-wellness planning guidance recommends considering participation information, workforce circumstances and available resources. It does not prescribe the reporting definitions above.
How can we check whether the information is useful?
Participation figures do not show whether employees understand the plan. If the employer chooses to seek voluntary feedback, a short check can ask:
- Do you know where to find your current eligibility and matching rules?
- Do you know how to enrol or change contributions under your arrangement?
- Do you know where to find the appropriate contact for a plan question?
Offer “yes”, “no” and “not sure” for each question. In the information employees receive, distinguish account help from individual investment advice and identify the appropriate route for each.
Record how many people were invited and how many answered each question. Any response percentage uses that question's respondents as its denominator; report nonresponses separately. Respondents may not represent the whole workforce. Self-reported understanding is a starting signal, not a test of financial knowledge.
Use group summaries and avoid identifiable responses or groups small enough to identify a person. Confirm a suitable confidential process before asking for feedback. FCAC's guidance on employee surveys discusses confidentiality and voluntary-response limits. The three questions here are a suggested starting point, not a validated assessment.
Before comparing periods, record dates, the eligible population, definitions, question wording and response coverage. Note changes to rules, pay, workforce, communications and support. Affordability, eligibility and plan design may affect participation independently of understanding. A change after an education session does not prove the session caused it. Age, chosen fund, unchanged defaults or silence do not establish understanding.
How does this affect the employer's budget?
Calculate contributions using the actual matching formula and eligible pay. For a dollar-for-dollar match up to a stated cap, an employee contributing below that cap receives a smaller match. A different matching ratio needs a different calculation.
Compare actual contributions with a budget built for the same period and eligible workforce. A difference can reflect eligibility dates, pay, employee contributions or plan rules. It does not, by itself, measure a service failure or an employee's retirement outcome.
The 50-employee cost example illustrates the budget calculation. It is not a participation benchmark.
What can the employer review next?
Check that employees can find the matching rules, complete enrolment and locate the appropriate help route. Ask the provider what education and account support are included. Individual investment recommendations belong with an appropriately registered professional.
If affordability or the contribution formula is a concern, consider it with your budget and the appropriate plan, payroll and tax specialists. A base employer contribution or a staged design is an option to assess, not a recommendation for every company. Paying contributions to more people can increase actual employer spending.
RiskX helps employers understand group RRSP and DPSP questions, connect with relevant providers and coordinate agreed support. Our current group-retirement service is for employers outside Quebec. The existing-plan review explains the starting conversation.