Full report. - Social Research and Demonstration Corp

learn$ave Project: Final Reportcredits paid out to participants, in the $1,900-$2,000range per program participant.Relative cost-economyTo compare learn$ave’s cost-economy, we need one ormore other programs targeted to low-income people. Noother IDA programs in Canada offered a similar scopeand the necessary data to enable such a comparison.Therefore, comparisons were made with a similar U.S. IDAprogram (the American Dream Demonstration (ADD) IDAproject in Tulsa, U.S), with Ontario’s provincial incomeassistance program (Ontario Works), and with the CanadaEducation Savings Program, a national matched educationsavings program for children.Cost-economy for learn$ave was generally lower thanthey were for the ADD IDA project in Tulsa, U.S. First,learn$ave average delivery costs of about $2,000 (expendedover the 2000–2007 period) were comparable to theaverage administration costs for the ADD of U.S.$1,950per participant 9 (expended over the 1998–2003 period)(Schreiner 2005). Second, while about 50 per cent of thefinancial cost of learn$ave was spent on administrationand delivery, this was lower than in the comparableAmerican IDA program in which about 70 per cent of thecost was spent on operations. 10Another point of comparison comes from the provincialOntario Works program that provides means-testedincome assistance to low-income persons in Ontario. Themedian cost to administer Ontario Works in Ontario is$8,852 per case for a 48-month period (Ontario MunicipalBenchmarking Initiative, 2008), 11 suggesting the cost ofdelivering learn$ave (about $2,000) was comparably verylow. However, it should be borne in mind that traditionalincome assistance programs have, of course, a differentobjective from learn$ave’s (i.e., to reduce the effectsof poverty as opposed to encouraging enrolment inadult education) and serve a much more disadvantagedclientele.9 Note that the latter is comprised of the costs of program activities, but excludes extraordinaryrecruitment costs as well as evaluation costs; however, they do not discount costs related tothe “pioneering work” of the ADD as well as to its “extraordinarily ‘high-touch’ service.”10 Note that the match rate of the American Dream Demonstration IDA Project was only 2:1or 1:1, compared to learn$ave’s 3:1 match rate. As a result the proportion of cost spent onmatch funds in ADD would be lower. The 71 per cent figure is computed as the total costof ADD match funds of $377,947 as a percentage of total cost of program ($922,473 inoperations cost + $377,947) (Schreiner, 2005, page 17).11 The median monthly administration cost of social assistance was $237 per case at 2007dollars (or $203 per case in 2002 dollars). The present value of administering a socialassistance case for 48 months was $8,852 at an annual discount rate of 5 per cent. SeeOntario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (2008).A final point of comparison is the national CanadaEducation Savings Program (CESP). Like learn$ave, theCESP aims to boost participation in education by offeringan incentive for savings in a Registered EducationSavings Plan that can only be used for post-secondaryeducation, but, in the case of the CESP, this is primarilyfor a child’s education. Under the CESP, a savings accountcan be opened for any child in Canada and savings will bematched annually with a Canada Education Saving Grant(CESG) at a rate tied to income. Lower-income familiesmay also receive the Canada Learning Bond, a lump-sumpayment intended to kick-start family deposits into theaccount. Based on data obtained from HRSDC, 12 the annualadministrative costs to government for each beneficiary(where one CESG beneficiary may have more than oneeducation savings account) has averaged $12.85 over thepast six fiscal years. The annual administrative costs togovernment relative to each dollar of financial incentivepaid out by government have averaged only $0.06 overthe past six fiscal years. Unlike learn$ave, the CESG relieson financial institutions which provide the accounts tocover the costs of outreach, enrolment, case managementand processing withdrawals. The implementationresearch (see Chapter 4) suggests that the role of thecommunity-based agencies was key to much of theseactivities in learn$ave. The CESG results do not includethese costs borne by financial institutions. While theCESG offers a remarkable low-cost benchmark for thecost-economy of an ongoing matched education savingsprogram and tacking a matching grant program on topof an existing administrative structure, there wouldbe trade-offs in transforming learn$ave into this morestreamlined approach. These are considered again at theend of the chapter.Cost-efficiency of learn$ave outputsThis section turns its attention to the cost-efficiencyestimates for learn$ave, where the focus shifts to thecost per unit of output: active participant, dollar saved,person enrolled in education (lower panel of Table 8.1).The results above suggested a higher cost per participant(lower cost-economy) for the learn$ave-plus programgroup relative the learn$ave-only group. However, lowercost-economy does not necessarily imply lower costefficiencybecause the present value cost per programgroup member does not take activity intensity intoaccount. Some participants did not actively participate inthe program after enrolment (i.e., make deposits of $10in each of 12 months and become eligible to use matchedcredits). In fact, participants in the learn$ave-plus groupwere more likely to be active in using their account(about 84 per cent actively saved in at least 12 months)12 Data were obtained directly from the CESP branch, based on figures reported in annualdepartmental reports for 2003-04 to 2008-09.96 | Chapter 8 Social Research and Demonstration Corporation