Full report. - Social Research and Demonstration Corp

learn$ave Project: Final Reportcompared to the learn$ave-only group (just 80 per centmet the same test of activity). If the program outputis measured by the number of active participants, theaverage present value cost was about $100 lower for thelearn$ave-only group ($4,755 per active participant) thanfor learn$ave-plus group ($4,861). The small increasein active participation for the learn$ave-plus groupexceeded the small increase in cost due to the additionalservices provided.Results for another program output measure, theamount of learn$ave savings accumulated, indicateminimal increases in unit costs due to the services. Theaverage present value of peak learn$ave savings was$925 for learn$ave-only group members and $982 forlearn$ave-plus (as observed in Table 8.1). As a result,the average costs per dollar of participant savings were$4.13 and $4.17, respectively. This means that, while theaddition of the services to the matched savings creditgenerated a somewhat higher delivery cost for thelearn$ave-plus group, the additional services slightlyreduced cost-efficiency, as the increased savings inducedby the services outweighed the additional cost incurredfor them.Compared to studies of the cost-efficiency of the U.S.ADD IDA program, learn$ave was more cost-efficientin encouraging savings. As noted, the total cost perparticipant-dollar-saved was between $4.13 and $4.17,both lower than the ADD cost of $4.56. 13 If only deliverycosts are considered (i.e., excluding the cost of the matchingsavings credits), then learn$ave-plus costs were $2.10per dollar saved (about $2.065 / $982; Table 8.1), comparedto $3.06 for the ADD program (Schreiner, 2005).Although learn$ave compares very favourably, there wereimportant differences, however, between the projectsthat may help to explain some of these differences incost-efficiency. For example, the ADD results are based onan IDA with a much broader range of savings goals, whichmay have affected the costs of the matched withdrawalsprocess. The ADD results are also based on data from anearlier period (1998–2003) than learn$ave with differentinterest rates and it used a lower match rate (just 1:1 or2:1 compared to learn$ave’s 3:1).A third output measure is the number of participantsattending education or training. Because educationenrolment rates were similar to the proportions ofactive participants in each program group, the costs perparticipant-attending education were at a similar level($4,516 for learn$ave-only group members and $4,724 for13 SRDC calculations are based on information from Schreiner (2005). Inflation is not controlledfor, though it would not greatly affect the results because of the short timeframe of theprojects and low inflation present over that period.learn$ave-plus). These figures are 1.5 times the averagecost of an EI Employment Benefits and Support Measure(EBSM) intervention of $2,977 per person per year, 14though it should be noted that EI-supported trainingtends to be short term.Cost-effectivenessCost-efficiency does not necessarily imply costeffectiveness.If most participants would have takeneducation or training in the absence of learn$ave, thenthe project’s cost-effectiveness would be very low.Cost-effectiveness estimates are meaningful only whenthe impacts of the program are statistically significantlypositive. The current discussion is limited to thoselearn$ave impacts that were statistically significantand positive (as discussed in Chapter 7). Note, again,that education impact estimates used here are for allparticipants, whereas those presented in Chapter 7 arefor just education stream participants. Table 8.2 showsthe cost-effectiveness of learn$ave in encouragingparticipation in adult learning. On top of the 79.2 per centof control group members who took education or trainingduring the 54-month duration of the project, the impactswere a 5.5-percentage-point increase for matched creditsalone on the learn$ave-only group and a 7.5-percentagepointincrease for matched the credits and servicescombined for the learn$ave-plus group. This means that,of the 84.7 per cent of the learn$ave-only group who wereinduced into education through the matched credits,93.5 per cent (79 / 84.5) would have done so without thecredits. In other words, for each person who was inducedinto education by the matched credits and would havenot done so without the credits, the government paid forabout 14.5 others who would have gone to school withoutthe credits. This has implications for cost-effectiveness, aswill be discussed below.The results indicate that, based on the per capita costof $3,824 for learn$ave-only, the financial incentive(matched credits) cost the government $70,168 ($3,824 /5.45 per cent) to induce each additional person to acquireeducation and training, which includes the cost of thewindfall gains of those who would have entered educationor training without the learn$ave credits. When the financialincentive is combined with the enhanced services inthe learn$ave-plus group, the cost-effectiveness actuallyimproves to about $55,000 per participant ($54,966 =$4,095 / 7.45 per cent). The difference is due to the largerimpacts in the learn$ave-plus group even though thissame group showed higher costs per participant. For a14 According to the 2007 EI Monitoring and Assessment Report (HRSDC, 2007), totalexpenditures on EBSM interventions was about $2,0867 million in fiscal year 2006/2007and the number of claimants was 618,202. After adjusting for inflation, the average costwas $2,977 per person per year in constant 2002 dollars.Social Research and Demonstration Corporation Chapter 8 | 97