learn$ave Project: Final ReportThe recruitment conducted by local delivery agencieswas through a variety of means but initially relied heavilyon referrals from other agencies, brochures, posters<strong>and</strong> local government employment service offices. Afterseveral months into the recruitment period, the marketingapproaches were exp<strong>and</strong>ed, with HRSDC’s agreement,to emphasize print <strong>and</strong> electronic mass media, publicposters <strong>and</strong> advertising on public transit. A more detaileddiscussion of the recruitment experience in learn$aveis available as part of the implementation discussion inChapter 4.The initial marketing messages directed interestedpeople to call the local project office. During an initialtelephone conversation (or more rarely an in-personinquiry), local project staff members provided additionalbasic information about learn$ave <strong>and</strong> generally reviewedeligibility criteria as a preliminary screening assessment.If the person appeared likely to be eligible <strong>and</strong> was stillinterested, she or he was invited to an application session,held in different locations throughout the community. Inthe smaller sites, this process was often compressed <strong>and</strong>participants may have applied to the project individuallyrather than waiting for a group application session.In the experimental sites, application sessions includeda st<strong>and</strong>ard slide presentation with information about thelearn$ave project — including the IDA program parameters<strong>and</strong> the r<strong>and</strong>om assignment process. 9 Following theinformation presentation, interested persons were givenan application package, including an informed consentform. The application form requested information to establisheligibility on each of the program criteria outlinedearlier in this chapter. Most information was self-<strong>report</strong>edalthough applicants were required to provide proof ofpersonal <strong>and</strong> spousal income for the current <strong>and</strong> previousyear <strong>and</strong> project staff had discretion to request additionalinformation or clarification as needed.Once the application form was complete <strong>and</strong> allsupporting documents were supplied, the site officeconducted a final eligibility check. If the participant wasdeemed eligible for learn$ave in an experimental site, thecompleted application form was forwarded to POLLARA(the firm conducting the baseline <strong>and</strong> follow-up surveys),which entered the information contained on the form intoa database <strong>and</strong> contacted the applicant for the baselinesurvey interview. No baseline surveys were conductedwith participants outside of the experimental groups.9 An example of the kind of information shared with prospective applicants can be found in theelectronic version of an information package developed by SEDI <strong>and</strong> available on-line at theorganization’s website (www.sedi.org ).Figure 2.1 Overview of Program IntakeInformation for interested personsPersons likely to be eligible invitedto apply individually or in group sessionsOrientation for newlearn$ave-plus <strong>and</strong>non-experimentalparticipantsAccess to account,matching credits,financialmanagementtraining, enhancedcase managementOutreachNew participants r<strong>and</strong>omly assignedby SRDC (experimental sites only)learn$ave-plus grouplearn$ave-only groupOrientation for newlearn$ave-onlyparticipantsAccess to account<strong>and</strong> matchingcreditsControlgroupOnce the enrolee completed the baseline interview, theparticipant’s record was forwarded to SRDC for r<strong>and</strong>omassignment. If the enrolee was assigned to one of the twoprogram groups, the project office contacted the personfor an orientation session. This session gave the participantfurther details about the savings rules <strong>and</strong> opening alearn$ave account.While recruitment was slow in most sites, the finalproject sample size was reached. The final sample ofparticipants were, across the entire project, nearly5,000 low-income, working-age adults with few liquidor housing assets who were not currently full-timestudents but who were willing to save to invest in theirown further learning. A fuller description of participantcharacteristics is presented in Chapter 4.16 | Chapter 2 <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Research</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Demonstration</strong> <strong>Corp</strong>oration
learn$ave Project: Final ReportParticipation of income assistance recipientsAlthough U.S. IDA programs had shown that welfarerecipients could <strong>and</strong> would save in matched savingsaccounts, there was some concern that income assistance(IA) recipients might have incomes so low that it wouldpreclude savings or lead to increased risk of hardship ifthey did participate. Furthermore, HRSDC officials wereclear from the outset that they viewed learn$ave as a testof a tool with the potential to fill a need for the workingpoor. In response to direction from HRSDC, the number ofparticipants on provincial IA was capped at not more than25 per cent of participants at the non-experimental site. 10In the experimental sites, all participants, including IAparticipants, had to have comparable treatments acrossthe three sites as the original desire was to be able topool all participants’ results for analysis. In the earlystages of learn$ave, therefore, SEDI with local deliveryagencies consulted with provincial welfare authoritiesregarding the treatment of savings in learn$ave accountsunder provincial welfare asset tests. All provinces <strong>and</strong>territories in Canada maintain regulations regarding theamount <strong>and</strong> kinds of assets that clients applying for IAor receiving IA can hold (for a more detailed discussion,see Robson, 2008). In BC <strong>and</strong> Nova Scotia, provincialauthorities confirmed that current regulations <strong>and</strong>/orministerial authority to issue exemptions would ensurethat participant savings, as well as matched credits, wouldnot be included in asset tests applied to new or ongoingIA cases. In Ontario, the exemption applied only to thematched credits while participants’ own savings wereconsidered to be part of the liquid assets scrutinizedunder the Ontario Works (OW) or Ontario DisabilitySupport Program (ODSP) rules. A similar decision wasmade by New Brunswick welfare authorities. As a resultof different treatment of learn$ave match funds by IAofficials across the experimental sites, IA participants hadto be excluded from the experimental sample <strong>and</strong> insteadformed a small non-experimental group at each of thesesites.In practice, OW <strong>and</strong> ODSP participants in Toronto, aswell as such participants in the non-experimental sitesGrey-Bruce <strong>and</strong> Kitchener-Waterloo <strong>and</strong> IA participantsin Fredericton, all had to monitor their personal savingsto ensure they would not exceed provincial asset limits.If these participants reached the provincial limit <strong>and</strong>were eligible to cash out, participants were encouragedto do so <strong>and</strong> to restart their savings if time allowed. In all10 An exception was made in Winnipeg given that the local agency anticipated <strong>and</strong> did recruitsignificantly lower income participants than in other sites, many more of whom weredependant on IA at the time they applied. Note as well that this limit was exceeded inGrey-Bruce because the 25 per cent limit of 150 was reached before realization that the 150per cent target would not be attained.other provinces (BC, Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec <strong>and</strong> NovaScotia) regulation changes or ministerial exemptionsensured that learn$ave accounts were excluded fromprovincial welfare asset tests. In the wake of learn$ave,however, many provinces have introduced exemptions intheir welfare regulations to enable IA participants to takepart in IDA programs.Cash-out processAll credits originally had to be “cashed out” or used bymonth 48 following project enrolment. However, forsituations where, for education stream participants, theend of the cash-out period did not coincide with the startof a school term, a six-month grace period was added.This enabled participants to use their credits up to month54 provided they could demonstrate at month 48 theprogram for which they wanted to use credits would startwithin the next six months.Well before participants become eligible to claim theirmatched credits (by having saved at least $10 net in12 months since opening their account), local deliveryagencies offered them detailed written information onthe process as well as all of the necessary forms. Lateron in the project, experimental sites began sharing thisinformation <strong>and</strong> forms with participants as early as theorientation session (held shortly after a participant hadenrolled).Based on their experience with the earliest learn$aveparticipants who cashed out <strong>and</strong> in an attempt to makethe cash-out process smoother for both participants <strong>and</strong>staff, the experimental sites held “cash-out orientationsessions” for participants in mid-2003. Given the smallernumbers of participants in other sites, project staffwere able to respond to cash out requests, questions orconcerns individually. Where numbers were sufficientin the experimental site, the local project staff invitedparticipants to a group session before they becomeeligible for cashing out. These sessions reiterated theeligible uses of the funds <strong>and</strong> described the process,timelines <strong>and</strong> documents for cashing out. However, thesesessions were not well attended — only a limited numberof participants in Toronto <strong>and</strong> Vancouver <strong>and</strong> a fewsecondary sites attended.When participants decided to withdraw matchedcredits, they submitted the completed request formsalong with the necessary documentation to the site office.The office verified the forms to ensure eligibility <strong>and</strong> completeness<strong>and</strong> forwarded the information to SEDI. SEDIthen produced the cheques <strong>and</strong> sent them to the projectoffice by courier within one week after they received therequests. The credits were paid out by cheque to eligible<strong>Social</strong> <strong>Research</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Demonstration</strong> <strong>Corp</strong>oration Chapter 2 | 17