Full report. - Social Research and Demonstration Corp

learn$ave Project: Final Reporttraining is not trivial, it is typically lower than the cost ofacquiring a physical asset like a home. Many learn$aveparticipants would likely have acquired the educationregardless of learn$ave and these participants are seento have enjoyed a windfall gain by using the learn$aveincentive to subsidize an expenditure they would otherwisehave been willing to bear alone. To discount thesewindfall effects, therefore, cost-effectiveness calculationswere based on incremental impacts as measured bydifferences in outcomes between the program and controlgroup participants. Compared to other studies of IDAs,this study is the first true measure of IDA cost-effectivenessbecause it considers the incremental outcomes.Other studies of IDAs, such as Schreiner (2005), are moreproperly studies of the cost-efficiency of IDAs becausethey have not taken into consideration the performanceof the control group and therefore have not discountedwindfall gains.Three main types of delivery costs were consideredin this analysis: the administrative costs of programactivities, the cost of the earned matched credits cashedout by participants, and general operation costs. Sincethe intensity of different program activities varied overthe life the project and staff time was allocated accordingto need (e.g., more staff would be needed at the start forrecruitment and intake and later when credits were beingcashed out), the cost-economy of an activity at a particularpoint in the learn$ave project may not reflect the truecost-economy of running an ongoing program for whichrecruitment and cash-out, for example, would be neededover the lifespan of the program. Separate cost analyses 1were conducted for both the experimental site offices andalso for SEDI to estimate the contribution of the differenttypes of project partners to the overall results of theproject. SEDI was responsible for the overall coordinationof delivery across the community organizations andfinancial institutions at the sites, while the communityorganizations were responsible for delivery at each of thesites. A working hypothesis was that these two separatetypes of activity may have very different cost profiles thatwould be concealed in an overall estimate for the projectalone.At the three experimental sites, SRDC conducted atime/cost study at three points in the life of the project(August 2003, June 2004, and November 2007). Datawas collected on staff time spent in the previous monthon various types of project activities. The information,alongside information on site labour costs, was usedto measure the proportion of human resources used ineach program delivery activity and to disaggregate grosslabour costs according to activity. The unit cost of each1 The details are in two internal research notes: Hui (2008a) and Hui (2008b).activity was then calculated using the time/cost studydata as well as records from the Participant ManagementInformation System. Based on the timing and scale ofoperation, the figures from the site that would be mostrepresentative of the unit costs of program activities in anongoing program were chosen. 2SEDI provided similar information on its humanresources allocation and the gross operation costs ofprogram activities in each fiscal year. Activity intensitiesof all sites calculated from records from the PMIS wereused to estimate the unit costs of activities in each fiscalyear. 3Program delivery: Cost-economy and cost-efficiencyAs preliminary steps in estimating cost-effectiveness oflearn$ave outcomes, estimates of cost-economy and costefficiencyin regard to learn$ave delivery were generatedand these are presented first.Note that cost results are presented as present valuecosts. A present value cost takes into account the fact thata dollar in the future is worth proportionally less thana dollar today because of the time value of money. Theaverage cost per program group member of each item inthe tables is the product of (1) the unit cost and (2) theaverage number of units of activity provided per programgroup member over the project period. These averagecosts are further multiplied by a discount factor to obtainthe present value per group member cost as of the start ofthe program. 4Note as well that individual cost items are presented bya common unit, program group member, for comparisonpurposes. However, this is not how the costs wereoriginally incurred nor how they would be in an IDAprogram in the future. Therefore, for future programplanning purposes, costs are presented in Table I inAppendix I according to their “natural” unit: if the costis more or less fixed regardless of activity intensity, thenit is presented per program group member; if the cost2 There were also variations in how the program was delivered at different sites. For example,financial management training was delivered mainly in large classes at Vancouver and thiscontributed to a more cost-economical/efficient operation, compared to other mixed deliveryapproaches. Since it is assumed that future implementation will adopt the best practice, theunit cost of financial management training was estimated based on Vancouver’s figures.3 The financial cost incurred and the human resources devoted to each activity by SEDI wereonly aggregate figures across all program sites, including the non-experimental sites.4 Each discount factor is based o a social discount rate (5 per cent per annum) and the timingof the activities. For example, as enrolment happened only at the beginning of the project,its discount factor is 1. Matched withdrawal orientation happened later in the project whenthe participants prepared to use their earned matched credits, and the discount factor is thuslower at 0.9. The even lower discount factor of 0.85 for account closure reflects that closurestook place at the end of the program.Social Research and Demonstration Corporation Chapter 8 | 93