Full report. - Social Research and Demonstration Corp

learn$ave Project: Final ReportScreening for eligibilityThe learn$ave project was not unique in struggling withthe tradeoffs between administrative efficiency andaccuracy in targeting or in finding an approach to meanstestingthat was fair but responsive. Within the contextof asset-building programs more generally, particularlywhen these are delivered by smaller community-basedorganizations, the issues encountered in the selectionof participants for learn$ave were similar to those longassociated with other social policy programs such associal assistance and other means-tested programs (U.S.Government Accountability Office, 2005).The interviews with site staff identified a number ofpractitioner concerns with the implementation of thelearn$ave selection criteria.• Checking income: Staff reported that they spent aconsiderable amount of time obtaining complete incomedocumentation from applicants to the project. While thedocuments required to prove current and past years’income (income tax T4 slips) were viewed as necessary toverify eligibility through a reliable source, the documentswere not always easy for participants to provide, eitherbecause they had not retained a copy or had not fileda tax return. Site offices frequently had to follow up onmissing documents and remind applicants to provide themissing information. This approach to administering anincome-test is in contrast with other savings instrumentssuch as RESPs where income tax data can be used todetermine eligibility for benefits.• Checking other criteria: Outside of income, othereligibility criteria were generally verified only throughinformation reported by applicants. While project staffreserved the option to request additional informationand even documentation, it would have been difficultto offer reasonable proof of many of the other criteria(for example proving that one is not in school). Sitestaff reported that they felt applicants were generallyforthcoming about declaring assets, educationalparticipation or other unmet criteria that might haverendered them ineligible. It is also worth noting thatlearn$ave was not unique in relying on self-reportedinformation. For example, provincial income assistanceand student loans programs generally rely on selfreportedinformation on assets.• Liquid asset criterion: The exemption of chequing accountbalances in the liquid asset test may have created thepotential for applicants to shift funds into chequingaccounts to avoid rejection due to the asset limit. Thisexemption was implemented to minimize situations inwhich applicants could have been rejected because ofa temporary lump sum of income (such as depositing apay cheque on the day before applying). Indeed, evidencefrom the baseline survey suggests that as a result of thisloophole a small proportion of enrolees with high bankaccount balances were accepted into learn$ave: 9.8 percent of the respondents to the baseline survey indicatedthat they had a total minimum balance of more than$5,000 in all their bank accounts, including chequingaccounts, when they entered learn$ave (Kingwell et al.,2005).• Debts not considered: Debts were not considered as partof the eligibility criteria for learn$ave. This may havemeant that some high-asset individuals with low or evennegative net worth (all assets minus all debts) wereexcluded from the eligible population. According to sitestaff, participants with low net worth may have benefitedsignificantly from the project, perhaps improving theirability to manage or repay debt in the short-term andgaining access to financial savings for education whichthey would not otherwise have been able to access.Again, it is worth noting, by comparison, that debt is notnecessarily considered in needs- and means-testing forincome assistance or student loans.Lessons learnedThe program model was attractive only to a small portionof the eligible population. The incentive in learn$ave maynot turn the tide for adults who were not already inclinedto invest in their own education and who were willingto save towards it. The take-up might be increased byeither adjusting the criteria that distinguish the eligiblepopulation, or perhaps by reconsidering the programmodel itself.But perhaps the single greatest lesson from the implementationresearch on targeting and screening is thatsimplicity is essential. Self-reported information on manyof the eligibility criteria appears to have been reasonablein most cases but the income assessment alone wasa time-consuming endeavour for applicants and staffalike. If eligibility could be tied to some other existingincome-tested benefit, such as the Working Income TaxBenefit or similar provincial income supplements, theremay be important administrative efficiency gains withoutsacrificing accuracy in targeting the program. The themeof simplifying the enrolment process is discussed again inChapter 8 as a way of reducing the cost of delivery.Financial management trainingParticipants in the learn$ave-plus group were expectedto attend 15 hours of financial management trainingprior to making matched withdrawals (cashing outearned credits). Table 4.3 reveals that about 91 per centSocial Research and Demonstration Corporation Chapter 4 | 37